-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Nintendo Ups Profit Forecast
- Thread starter Rhindle
- Start date
PEACE.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
chespace said:
What WE want obviously doesn't equal what I want then because from the GC on (bar the exclusion of online) Nintendo has become my favourite Game maker easily.
Nintendo = Apple.
Exactly, the mass market collectively are fucking retards. Just like the Userbase of Xbox live. Refusing to pander to them = doomed. If they can improve relations with EA though, then EA can take care of that for them!
Nintendo has always made what it wanted.
The problem they faced in recent years is that not being a dominant force in the console arena meant third party support was thin and it made the library for the GameCube in particular thinner than it should be. The fact that Nintendo was unwilling to go out of its way to court big developers like MS did also hurt hem, although later attempts to get some exclusives from Namco and Capcom helped, a little.
Ultimately, in terms of what WE want, it will depend on how well the next Nintendo console does and how agressive Nintendo wants to be when it comes to getting Square, Namco, EA and TakeTwo to make exclusive games for them. They certainly have the resources to make it possible.
The core Nintendo library will always be Zelda, Mario Platformers and Spinoffs, SSMB, Fire Emblem, Famicom Wars, Kirby, Star Fox, Metroid and a few one off games and perhaps 1 or 2 new franchises they will introduce. Anyone expecting a different Nintendo in the next gen is deluding themselves.
The problem they faced in recent years is that not being a dominant force in the console arena meant third party support was thin and it made the library for the GameCube in particular thinner than it should be. The fact that Nintendo was unwilling to go out of its way to court big developers like MS did also hurt hem, although later attempts to get some exclusives from Namco and Capcom helped, a little.
Ultimately, in terms of what WE want, it will depend on how well the next Nintendo console does and how agressive Nintendo wants to be when it comes to getting Square, Namco, EA and TakeTwo to make exclusive games for them. They certainly have the resources to make it possible.
The core Nintendo library will always be Zelda, Mario Platformers and Spinoffs, SSMB, Fire Emblem, Famicom Wars, Kirby, Star Fox, Metroid and a few one off games and perhaps 1 or 2 new franchises they will introduce. Anyone expecting a different Nintendo in the next gen is deluding themselves.
Agent Icebeezy
Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
Deku said:
This is true. This is also what I want from them too. I'm getting an Xbox 360 and PS3, I don't need the same from all 3, I want this to be different.
soundwave05
Member
I don't buy that Nintendo hasn't gone out and courted third party developers.
If you told anyone on this board prior to the GameCube's unveiling that Nintendo would get the entire Resident Evil franchise exclusive, several other original Capcom properties from Mikami and company, renew relations with Squaresoft and bring a Final Fantasy game to the GameCube, partner with Sega-Namco on several collaborations, worked with Konami on a Metal Gear Solid game on the GameCube, EA would specifically put the GameCube logo in their commercials, etc. etc. etc. ... no one would have believed you.
The truth is there's a limit to how much support Nintendo can realistically get with limited userbase. I don't doubt that Nintendo has great relationships now with just about every major third party now.
Snatching a major franchise like Resident Evil away from Sony is a bigger third party coup than anything Microsoft did this past generation (they got ... Grand Theft Auto, a year later and even then the PS2 still got the Double Pak first).
But "being nice" to a company doesn't neccessarily mean they'll support you. These companies have their own bottom line to worry about and have to take into account issues of demographics and user base. If you're a third party why should you risk a lucrative franchise or a big project on a platform which is questionable?
Nintendo isn't the same company in terms of dealing with third parties that they were five or six years ago. For crying out loud, NAMCO is practically working on more games with Nintendo characters than they are with their own characters. Think about how unbelievable such a scenario would have seemed in 2000.
If you told anyone on this board prior to the GameCube's unveiling that Nintendo would get the entire Resident Evil franchise exclusive, several other original Capcom properties from Mikami and company, renew relations with Squaresoft and bring a Final Fantasy game to the GameCube, partner with Sega-Namco on several collaborations, worked with Konami on a Metal Gear Solid game on the GameCube, EA would specifically put the GameCube logo in their commercials, etc. etc. etc. ... no one would have believed you.
The truth is there's a limit to how much support Nintendo can realistically get with limited userbase. I don't doubt that Nintendo has great relationships now with just about every major third party now.
Snatching a major franchise like Resident Evil away from Sony is a bigger third party coup than anything Microsoft did this past generation (they got ... Grand Theft Auto, a year later and even then the PS2 still got the Double Pak first).
But "being nice" to a company doesn't neccessarily mean they'll support you. These companies have their own bottom line to worry about and have to take into account issues of demographics and user base. If you're a third party why should you risk a lucrative franchise or a big project on a platform which is questionable?
Nintendo isn't the same company in terms of dealing with third parties that they were five or six years ago. For crying out loud, NAMCO is practically working on more games with Nintendo characters than they are with their own characters. Think about how unbelievable such a scenario would have seemed in 2000.
GameCube was screwed because it started under Yamauchi and ended with Iwata.
Iwata came onboard after it launched AFTER the mistakes have been made. When he courted Namco, and Capcom in those big announcements, it took both developers another year to deliver the goods. You really need to have these guys on board before launch so they'll have a launch title or two ready for your console. Look at what Namco is doing to the PSP with Ridge Racers. That's the kind of support you want.
Also, regarding Iwata. He did make some gestures and moves that broke away from the traditional Yamauchi stubborness. But I'm not sure if he did that to show a clean break from Yamauchi or if he was truly a different kind of president. If it was the former, he could turn out to be as conservative as his predecessor and make the same mistakes, and if he is truly a different kind of leader, then expect some serious partnership announcements at E3 and in the fall.
Iwata came onboard after it launched AFTER the mistakes have been made. When he courted Namco, and Capcom in those big announcements, it took both developers another year to deliver the goods. You really need to have these guys on board before launch so they'll have a launch title or two ready for your console. Look at what Namco is doing to the PSP with Ridge Racers. That's the kind of support you want.
Also, regarding Iwata. He did make some gestures and moves that broke away from the traditional Yamauchi stubborness. But I'm not sure if he did that to show a clean break from Yamauchi or if he was truly a different kind of president. If it was the former, he could turn out to be as conservative as his predecessor and make the same mistakes, and if he is truly a different kind of leader, then expect some serious partnership announcements at E3 and in the fall.
soundwave05
Member
We really don't know, but certainly the Resident Evil deal was signed during Yamauchi's reign and the Square deal happened because of Yamauchi giving Squaresoft a developer's grant.
I don't know if Iwata really is any more progressive.
The big problem with Nintendo is, even under Iwata, I don't think they're a very "agile" company. They don't respond to the market conditions very well and generally seem to have to fail at something before they figure it out -- I think anyone really with any clue could have told Nintendo that a purple lunchbox design was not a good idea, even in 2000, lol.
I don't know if Iwata really is any more progressive.
The big problem with Nintendo is, even under Iwata, I don't think they're a very "agile" company. They don't respond to the market conditions very well and generally seem to have to fail at something before they figure it out -- I think anyone really with any clue could have told Nintendo that a purple lunchbox design was not a good idea, even in 2000, lol.
soundwave05 said:
No, they have a strong corporate culture which means they do things their way, not what the armchair CEOS at GAF want them to. Some of their decisions are assinine, but others have worked out for them. They are a much smaller company than Sony with less politics and bureacracy, Nintendo could move much faster than Sony if it wants to and this is proven by the coup othey pulled with the DS. Love it or hate it, Nintendo's 6 month marathon for the DS from announcement to launch effectively forced Sony's hand.
soundwave05
Member
Deku said:
Well I think the main problem is Nintendo never really has figured out how to deal with the game audience getting older.
Its really something they've struggled with since 1993 and the Mortal Kombat controversey, and they've never really I think come to a satisfactory bottom line for the issue.
Even within the company there seems to be conflicting views on what they want in this regard ... they'll launch a system with commercials clearly aimed at older consumers (the Cube commercials, the DS MTV spots, etc.) but then the content doesn't really match up with what they're trying to protray in their marketing.
They cut deals with companies like Capcom to get exclusives to draw in older consumers, but then they really don't help Capcom out by providing supporting content and against all rationality give the system a more childish-tinted design.
I think Nintendo really has to decide in that sense which side of the fence they're on.
When it comes to courting older consumers its like they have a Memento-complex, they "reset" their policy every few months (they go from Conker and Joanna Dark at one E3 to Pikmin and Luigi the next, its just bizarre really).
I think the problem is that not only have Nintendo struggled with the aging population, but also their changing status within the industry. Back in the NES days, Nintendo were the industry. Even in the Snes days that was true to a large extent. Nintendo consoles were the most popular because Nintendo made the most popular games.
Of course it all went pear shaped with the N64. Not only did losing Square/Enix/Capcom cost them in Japan, but the lack of 3rd parties truly hurt them. Now fine, that was a disaster waiting to happen, the problem is Nintendo struggled to accept that they were no longer the industry, and that 3rd parties needed to be seen as essential partners. After all, the N64 was still hugely profitable.
Coming into the Gamecube Iwata said:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GB-Advance: There were very few 3rd party developers announced at E3, are they hesitant about working on the GameCube?
Iwata-san: Our platform is primarily intended for our software. First, we have to create a market in which 3rd party software will be profitable. It would be contrary to our philosophy to concentrate on 3rd party software and the number of software titles available in order to sell hardware. However, we're not trying to close to door on developers either. We're working with several strong 3rd parties, and since E3 we've been approached by plenty more.
GB-Advance: Is it disconcerting however, that the software lineup for the Japanese launch is almost exclusively 1st party titles, just like the Nintendo 64?
Iwata-san: If a company like Sega was set loose to develop for the GameCube, they could have games available in no time. Beyond their expertise in 3D game production, Sega as a whole has the capability to develop quality software very quickly. With the Nintendo 64, 3rd party software took awhile because the hardware was difficult to develop for. We've taken that into consideration when designing the GameCube, so we don't feel that's a problem this time. On the other than though, we feel as if we have to create a market through Nintendo's software first in order for the GameCube to succeed. It's like battle, we have to go in and establish our position before calling our allies for reinforcements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Although it is true Nintendo are fairly conservative and stubborn, they also can try new things and learn from their mistakes. With the Gamecube they learned that carts were a mistake. They also tried something new by launching with Luigi's Mansion rather than a Mario Killer app. Of course going disc has worked in increasing 3rd party support hugely. Luigi failed and Nintendo have said this time they'll launch with a Mario/Zelda/Metroid(in other words Mario). They've also finally learned that launching late is a mistake.
I believe they also will have learned that they can no longer sell mass market system on their own. They need 3rd parties and I expect that the Revolution will have support from day one.
Of course it all went pear shaped with the N64. Not only did losing Square/Enix/Capcom cost them in Japan, but the lack of 3rd parties truly hurt them. Now fine, that was a disaster waiting to happen, the problem is Nintendo struggled to accept that they were no longer the industry, and that 3rd parties needed to be seen as essential partners. After all, the N64 was still hugely profitable.
Coming into the Gamecube Iwata said:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GB-Advance: There were very few 3rd party developers announced at E3, are they hesitant about working on the GameCube?
Iwata-san: Our platform is primarily intended for our software. First, we have to create a market in which 3rd party software will be profitable. It would be contrary to our philosophy to concentrate on 3rd party software and the number of software titles available in order to sell hardware. However, we're not trying to close to door on developers either. We're working with several strong 3rd parties, and since E3 we've been approached by plenty more.
GB-Advance: Is it disconcerting however, that the software lineup for the Japanese launch is almost exclusively 1st party titles, just like the Nintendo 64?
Iwata-san: If a company like Sega was set loose to develop for the GameCube, they could have games available in no time. Beyond their expertise in 3D game production, Sega as a whole has the capability to develop quality software very quickly. With the Nintendo 64, 3rd party software took awhile because the hardware was difficult to develop for. We've taken that into consideration when designing the GameCube, so we don't feel that's a problem this time. On the other than though, we feel as if we have to create a market through Nintendo's software first in order for the GameCube to succeed. It's like battle, we have to go in and establish our position before calling our allies for reinforcements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Although it is true Nintendo are fairly conservative and stubborn, they also can try new things and learn from their mistakes. With the Gamecube they learned that carts were a mistake. They also tried something new by launching with Luigi's Mansion rather than a Mario Killer app. Of course going disc has worked in increasing 3rd party support hugely. Luigi failed and Nintendo have said this time they'll launch with a Mario/Zelda/Metroid(in other words Mario). They've also finally learned that launching late is a mistake.
I believe they also will have learned that they can no longer sell mass market system on their own. They need 3rd parties and I expect that the Revolution will have support from day one.
heidern said:
I think I agree with this the most of any of the theories I've read on this thread. (Not saying they all weren't some damn good theories though)... Like someone else pointed out, that much money in reserve gives you freedom, thus Nintendo really does have the freedom to take risks, and thus learn from them. They did that with N64, not launching with a huge IP, etc. etc. etc. While it may seem pretty sad that they can throw money out on doing something with more of a potential to failure, it also gives them the advantage that they can keep going til they get it right... it really is a process of evolution, which is something Nintendo has preached our ears off about. So maybe, in a couple years, Nintendo will come out with the killer system with enough third party support to blow all competition out of the water.
Alright, wishful thinking, but still, Nintendo, financially anyway, has a good thing going for them. Let's just hope they don't keep making mistakes, and instead keep expanding on the formulas they know that work.
The contrast between the sentiments of forum posters and Nintendo's reality is always amusing. Nintendo is going to remain a divisive entity because they shrug off current trends while working to create their own. If everyone accepted this Nintendo would no longer be a controversial topic--all you have left is a company that consistently brings in profit while doing its own thing. I don't see how that can be a horrible position to be in, especially with the fickle tastes of this industry's consumers.
Crankenstein
Banned
ge-man said:
Exactly. Nor is there anything wrong in taking the Sony approach. Looking at the bottom line, both ways work out quite well.
