Support NeoGAF

[soulassssns]

And people talk about the "drought" that is coming for the PS4/XBO lol.

I have a PS4 and there definitely is a drought for me.

 

[Lexxism]

Why is it exactly that Sony can go entire generations bathed in red ink and you wont see the sheer number of alarmist threads like this that Nintendo typically gets in a month on GAF?

After reading this, wow, you were right. It's always Nintendo should be going third party, they are doomed bla bla bla.

 

[Riki]

Nintendo still would need to fill gaps in their release schedule in order to make their projections each year. AAA games take time to develop, and despite the events of recent years, I believe Nintendo is aware of the risk of brand dilution with Mario and company. The only reason we saw so many mainline Marios in the last couple of years is their evergreen philosophy and the need to get those games out early in the console's life.

Nintendo is already making games at maximum capacity, though. Which is why they localize games and hire outside studios. You would see far less of this if they were third party because they would be supporting themselves even more off just software (which would be making less return on investment now that they have to pay for licensing fees and dev kits).
There is no scenario in which Nintendo expands as a third party company. They'll shrink. Just like Sega and Atari.

 

[Gray Fox]

Nintendo is just going to have to ride this one out. Sure, they may lose a lot of money, but what alternative do they have? If they drop the Wii U a year from now, who will buy their new console? This will only lead to trust issues with their die-hard consumers. I don't think Nintendo will try to build a console to compete with the PS4 or Xbox One. When has Nintendo ever done that?

 

[Kouriozan]

Nintendo's gonna Nintendo.
In success or failure, nothing will change, sadly.
I'm looking forward to the next inverstor meeting.

 

[shinobi602]

Why is it exactly that Sony can go entire generations bathed in red ink and you wont see the sheer number of alarmist threads like this that Nintendo typically gets in a month on GAF? You know, chalkboard meme and Amirox meltdown not withstanding. Not that Nintendo is beyond cold hard analysis, but these threads always seem to gravitate towards the same hackneyed talking points about how the only way for Nintendo to move forward is to fire Iwata and scrap a console that's been out for one year, blah blah, blah, blah, blah. It's hard to take anything the OP says seriously after that.

Another question that begs to be asked is why Wii and DS are considered anomalous luck, but when a system doesn't burst out of the gate on fire all the sudden Iwata is completely incompetent and out of touch? Imagine if shareholders were gaffers, particularly after the middling launch of the 3DS. I have my own questions about Nintendo's trajectory, but it's preposterous to write off Iwata's business acumen, which had led to some of the most profitable systems in Nintendo's history. Guess that doesn't matter in an industry with a memory the size of a goldfish. What have you done for me lately, right?

Come on you can't be serious...there's no reason to act like Nintendo is a unique victim here. I was lurking here long before joining. Do you know how much flak Sony was getting during the first couple years of the PS3 here? How about Sony with the Vita? Thing was a damn laughing stock here for most of it's life so far.

Don't even get me started on Microsoft the past year.

All get equally trashed on here, whether deserved or not.

 

[Finalizer]

Interesting that you feel the only thing keeping Nintendo a gameplay centric studio is having their own hardware alongside software, and that the designers, directors, and producers that have been with the company for years, producing the games you assuredly know and love, are so weak willed and insecure about their design and company philosophies that they'd totally collapse and lose their way without the Nintendo hardware safety net.

Pretty sure the guy's been down this whole road before, with Nintendo being the sole arbiter of quality gameplay, and that only being attainable when Nintendo software is matched to Nintendo hardware. The whole song and dance was in the thread where Knack outdid SM3DW in the UK IIRC.

Come on you can't be serious...there's no reason to act like Nintendo is a unique victim here. I was lurking here long before joining. Do you know how much flak Sony was getting during the first couple years of the PS3 here? How about Sony with the Vita? Thing was a damn laughing stock here for most of it's life so far.

Don't even get me started on Microsoft the past year.
All get equally trashed on here, whether deserved or not.

But historical revisionism is so fun~

 

[jrush64]

- Neogaf the place where everyone knows what's best for Nintendo.

-Neogaf the place where they want Nintendo to just be one of the other two. Like that will help.

 

[Fourth Storm]

Nintendo is already making games at maximum capacity, though. Which is why they localize games and hire outside studios. You would see far less of this if they were third party because they would be supporting themselves even more off just software (which would be making less return on investment now that they have to pay for licensing fees and dev kits).
There is no scenario in which Nintendo expands as a third party company. They'll shrink. Just like Sega and Atari.

As has been stated, we simply don't know how it would play out. Without the burden of hardware R&D or having to crank out a NSMB for each platform, they may actually be liberated somewhat and expand/acquire teams. Or not. Bottom line is the situations aren't the same and Nintendo are frequently unpredictable in their actions.

 

[Vlade]

Come on you can't be serious...there's no reason to act like Nintendo is a unique victim here. I was lurking here long before joining. Do you know how much flak Sony was getting during the first couple years of the PS3 here? How about Sony with the Vita? Thing was a damn laughing stock here for most of it's life so far.

Don't even get me started on Microsoft the past year.
All get equally trashed on here, whether deserved or not.

So you're saying the doomsayers are as dignified and correct as they always are?

 

[10k]

You have a much more optimistic outlook on the games industry than I if you think Iwata is likely to be replaced by someone that matches or exceeds the actual appreciation for games that he's shown. Greenlighting games like SMTxFE, TW101, Bayo2, X, etc., along with his history as a developer and even things like Iwata Asks engender a lot of good will from me, personally. If anything, it'd be fair to criticize his software strategy as simultaneously too broad and too niche, but I'll take those sweet, sweet niche offerings over some middle-of-the-road stuff any day. We can get that stuff anywhere else.

I also find the basic premise of this thread to be akin to something like, "if Nintendo exited the console race, who would take their place?" Sure, these companies are all in competition with each other, but not so much so that their every action is a reaction predicated on the actions of a different company. Nintendo will do all they can, which is get the price of the Wii U as low as possible, continue to build its library, and very likely introduce new hardware as early as 2016. It's entirely possible they'll remain profitable until then, or at least healthy enough that they aren't in any real danger. The Wii U was a swing and a miss, but they're still in a position where they can try again next time.

7th day of the new year and we got an early contender for post of the year. Fantastic!

 

[Azure J]

Why is it exactly that Sony can go entire generations bathed in red ink and you wont see the sheer number of alarmist threads like this that Nintendo typically gets in a month on GAF? You know, chalkboard meme and Amirox meltdown not withstanding. Not that Nintendo is beyond cold hard analysis, but these threads always seem to gravitate towards the same hackneyed talking points about how the only way for Nintendo to move forward is to fire Iwata and scrap a console that's been out for one year, blah blah, blah, blah, blah. It's hard to take anything the OP says seriously after that.

Another question that begs to be asked is why Wii and DS are considered anomalous luck, but when a system doesn't burst out of the gate on fire all the sudden Iwata is completely incompetent and out of touch? Imagine if shareholders were gaffers, particularly after the middling launch of the 3DS. I have my own questions about Nintendo's trajectory, but it's preposterous to write off Iwata's business acumen, which had led to some of the most profitable systems in Nintendo's history. Guess that doesn't matter in an industry with a memory the size of a goldfish. What have you done for me lately, right?

I'm starting to wonder when this topic will get its own community thread, because it seems to pop up 10 times a week in various thinly veiled ways. I keep thinking one day I'll click and be welcomed to some brilliant new break down of the state of Nintendo, but the crux of the conversation always seems to revolve around parroting the same wildly reductive arguments. Here's a reminder- Nintendo is already restructuring. It's also apparent that Wii U software took a hit while resources were dedicated to bolstering the 3DS, which is now stabilized. As insular as Nintendo's decisions are in some regards I don't personally believe that they operate in a complete vacuum like a lot of people seem to. Wii U has plenty of untapped potential, and not just in an abstract pie in the sky way, but you can't just right a ship overnight. Development takes time. It remains to be seen what seeds Nintendo has planted, but already there's a few signs of things to come.

For the most part I think it's accepted that 3rd party support is never going to blossom outside of a handful of cool niche games every now and then. If the insane growth of the Wii userbase couldn't get companies to pull their heads out of their asses and produce something better than shit ports and C quality spin-offs there's no reason to suspect they'll leap from their seats to do Wii U exclusives that matter. Imo Nintendo should start money hatting promising young indies. Tell the old guard to fuck off unless they bring the goods, and get fresh talent locked by providing them with an opportunity to grow and flourish on the platform. I also think Nintendo should make sweetheart deals with companies like Capcom and Konami to do comparatively modest retro revivals, retail, not digital. Let the other companies chase after the crowd that's more wowed by ornate presentation than the fundamental joy of interaction. Put the focus on well paced pick up and play experiences and tickle that nostalgia bone with cool franchises that have sat dormant. Differentiate yourself from your competitors arms race. That's what I'd do with the Wii U if it were my choice.

Then there's the obvious. Mario Kart, Smash Bros., and to a lesser extent Tropical Freeze. Nintendo knows what its money makers are, and it's leaning on them heavily during the Wii U's second year. Alone I don't think they'll have all the pull in the world, but as games like that accumulate in the library in concert with more niche stuff like Wonderful 101, Bayonetta, Pikmin, etc. I think more hitherto ambivalent enthusiasts will start seeing Wii U as a viable secondary platform. Sometimes it only takes a few "must-haves", but a library of unique supporting software definitely helps.

Get out of my goddamned head Charles!

Wonderful post. At this point, Nintendo (and all the players) are in it for the long haul. There's going to be a lot of rocks and molotov's flung, but it's for the good of all that Nintendo takes this beating and weathers through it versus going off for any "easy" answer GAF likes to spout off for a short term gain. This is especially if said short term gain comes at the cost of future reliability in the brand name.

Nintendo just needs to buckle down and have a PS3 generation of gathering data, actively addressing and militantly executing improvements to the general user experience and creating or finding talent that like wearing the Nintendo flag so as to create a gaming library unique enough to warrant it being a "BFF" with a PS4/XB1. When this gen ends for them, they need to present a console that shows that they learned and "is competitive" with whatever's out. The steps are in place for some of the latter to happen (see the research groups getting merged and the new goal of finding a hardware architecture for all teams to use versus making custom hardware for both handheld and console devs under Nintendo, everything Dan Adelman has done for the eShop in every territory except Japan and the recent NNID moves) but it still needs to be in a far better place for 2014 and beyond.

 

[Mlatador]

Why is it exactly that Sony can go entire generations bathed in red ink and you wont see the sheer number of alarmist threads like this that Nintendo typically gets in a month on GAF? You know, chalkboard meme and Amirox meltdown not withstanding. Not that Nintendo is beyond cold hard analysis, but these threads always seem to gravitate towards the same hackneyed talking points about how the only way for Nintendo to move forward is to fire Iwata and scrap a console that's been out for one year, blah blah, blah, blah, blah. It's hard to take anything the OP says seriously after that.

Another question that begs to be asked is why Wii and DS are considered anomalous luck, but when a system doesn't burst out of the gate on fire all the sudden Iwata is completely incompetent and out of touch? Imagine if shareholders were gaffers, particularly after the middling launch of the 3DS. I have my own questions about Nintendo's trajectory, but it's preposterous to write off Iwata's business acumen, which had led to some of the most profitable systems in Nintendo's history. Guess that doesn't matter in an industry with a memory the size of a goldfish. What have you done for me lately, right?

I'm starting to wonder when this topic will get its own community thread, because it seems to pop up 10 times a week in various thinly veiled ways. I keep thinking one day I'll click and be welcomed to some brilliant new break down of the state of Nintendo, but the crux of the conversation always seems to revolve around parroting the same wildly reductive arguments. Here's a reminder- Nintendo is already restructuring. It's also apparent that Wii U software took a hit while resources were dedicated to bolstering the 3DS, which is now stabilized. As insular as Nintendo's decisions are in some regards I don't personally believe that they operate in a complete vacuum like a lot of people seem to. Wii U has plenty of untapped potential, and not just in an abstract pie in the sky way, but you can't just right a ship overnight. Development takes time. It remains to be seen what seeds Nintendo has planted, but already there's a few signs of things to come.

For the most part I think it's accepted that 3rd party support is never going to blossom outside of a handful of cool niche games every now and then. If the insane growth of the Wii userbase couldn't get companies to pull their heads out of their asses and produce something better than shit ports and C quality spin-offs there's no reason to suspect they'll leap from their seats to do Wii U exclusives that matter. Imo Nintendo should start money hatting promising young indies. Tell the old guard to fuck off unless they bring the goods, and get fresh talent locked by providing them with an opportunity to grow and flourish on the platform. I also think Nintendo should make sweetheart deals with companies like Capcom and Konami to do comparatively modest retro revivals, retail, not digital. Let the other companies chase after the crowd that's more wowed by ornate presentation than the fundamental joy of interaction. Put the focus on well paced pick up and play experiences and tickle that nostalgia bone with cool franchises that have sat dormant. Differentiate yourself from your competitors arms race. That's what I'd do with the Wii U if it were my choice.

Then there's the obvious. Mario Kart, Smash Bros., and to a lesser extent Tropical Freeze. Nintendo knows what its money makers are, and it's leaning on them heavily during the Wii U's second year. Alone I don't think they'll have all the pull in the world, but as games like that accumulate in the library in concert with more niche stuff like Wonderful 101, Bayonetta, Pikmin, etc. I think more hitherto ambivalent enthusiasts will start seeing Wii U as a viable secondary platform. Sometimes it only takes a few "must-haves", but a library of unique supporting software definitely helps.

Very good post.

To answer you're question: realistically speaking, it seems it all boils down to the distribution of NeoGAF member personal preferences.
Let's say 50% of all members on GAF were avid Sony or MS supporters, 25% PC only supporters and another 25% Nintendo supporters. It would explain the phenomenon of the oh-so-frequent "Nintendoomed" threads, as there would definitely be a strong correlation between such or a similar ratio.

 

[shinobi602]

So you're saying the doomsayers are as dignified and correct as they always are?

I'm saying everyone gets shitted on, here.

 

[jmls1121]

I really don't see the correlation at all in this thread. I don't see how the WiiU's troubles are made worse or better by the early success of the PS4, especially given the fact that most households last gen had more than 1 consolse, people in general spend a lot of money on entertainment nowadays, and Nintendo and Sony have different business goals and serve different markets.

 

[Vibranium]

- Neogaf the place where everyone knows what's best for Nintendo.

-Neogaf the place where they want Nintendo to just be one of the other two. Like that will help.

I want Nintendo to have their own unique console, but with better specs and something that doesn't eat money like the Gamepad. Do I fit into either category?

Not a lot of people want Nintendo to exactly be like the other guys, we want them to improve their policies and software infrastructure so it is more friendly to consumers.

I should add I may get a Wii U at some point and I have a 3DS, so I'm not a blind hater.

 

[Exotoro]

What? There was one like a week ago lol. There were probably a shit ton more during the early days of the PS3. This persecution complex is getting old.

One a week ago? I see about five of these threads a day. Don't pretend it's even on the same level, because it's not.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

Now that the PS4 has outsold the Xbox One. Where does MS go from here?

 

[Riki]

As has been stated, we simply don't know how it would play out. Without the burden of hardware R&D or having to crank out a NSMB for each platform, they may actually be liberated somewhat and expand/acquire teams. Or not. Bottom line is the situations aren't the same and Nintendo are frequently unpredictable in their actions.

We have historical precedence though. Their hardware R&D department wouldn't just be able to switch over to making games. They would be let go. They would lose their revenue gained from hardware sales. They would now have to pay more R&D to learn how to develop for multiple new systems. They would have to pay licensing fees. They would have to pay for dev kits.
Particularly in the first few years, they would contract significantly. And for an already small company, that would be pretty major.
Yes, Nintendo is unpredictable, but if they would make more money and produce more games from going third party, I'm fairly certain they would have already.

And particularly, they would never start picking up or localizing other third party games. We would likely never see Dragon Quest or Monster Hunter again. Platinum would have quite a bit less work, and no Bayonetta 2.
They wouldn't be able to hire out to studios like Namco and Koei for games like Smash and Zelda.
Again, their output just from this would go down. Even if they didn't have to fire a lot of their own staff.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

Very good post.

To answer you're question: realistically speaking, it seems it all boils down to the distribution of NeoGAF member personal preferences.
Let's say 50% of all members on GAF were avid Sony or MS supporters, 25% PC only supporters and another 25% Nintendo supporters. It would explain the phenomenon of the oh-so-frequent "Nintendoomed" threads, as there would definitely be a strong correlation between such or a similar ratio.

Yep.

It's no secret why there's so many "Nintendo is doomed" threads around NeoGAF and your analysis is quite accurate.

 

[Extra Sauce]

Nintendo uses Naughty Dog mugs? Doomed indeed.

 

[jmls1121]

the new iphone outsold the PS4. Where does Sony go from here?

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

I really don't see the correlation at all in this thread. I don't see how the WiiU's troubles are made worse or better by the early success of the PS4, especially given the fact that most households last gen had more than 1 consolse, people in general spend a lot of money on entertainment nowadays, and Nintendo and Sony have different business goals and serve different markets.

Agree until the last part. Let's not kid ourselves.

 

[tassletine]

Firing is mainly an Western solution to this sort of problem, with it's roots in basic revenge. Nintendo won't fire Iwata simply because he hasn't done much wrong. If Nintendo had made poor hardware or software this might be the case but they haven't.

If you look at Nintendo's software catalogue this year it's superb, one of their best years ever, and the WiiU is a great device, which was clearly designed to homoginise their portable and home experiences. Essentially allowing WiiU games to function on the 4DS whenever than will arrive. It's actually a very good long term business plan.

What he misjudged is that it was very difficult to sell the device due to the fact that (I believe) people were burned out by the wii, essentially seeing it as a novelty. Trying to continue the Wiis legacy was his biggest mistake. The design of the machine is totally compromised as it looks too similar to the Wii and feels far too safe and old fashioned. To the point that most people don't even realise it's a different device.

One thing Nintendo absolutely need to address are the superficial aspects of their products. Their reasoning is that to innovate gameplay (which is something they almost always do) they have to keep things recognisible and 'safe'. There is a solid logic to this as too much change throws people off, but Nintendo went too far. They copied Apple. But the crucial difference is that Apple market themselves as high class products and provide yearly updates.
Nintendo are a games company and their machines need to look fun, not safe. Nothing about the WiiU is eye catching. One thing they need to do is fire their advertising agency, especially in America, as their adverts look like Shopping Channel crap. Far too homoginised and safe.

The irony in all this is that the WiiU is actually a very smart and well made machine. The OS, despite it's initial slowness (That still needs a little improvement) is very clean, unique and easy to use (unlike the clusterfuck that is the xbone's) The machine is also the most responsive, lag free console I've ever used, which as far as I'm concerned is a major bonus. Unfortunately most people, especially western audiences don't actually care about gameplay anymore, having got used to laggy, imprecise games like GTA over the years. With a new trend in streaming to consoles, allowing this to continue.

What Nintendo is best at is nailing things right out of the gate, producing new games with great gameplay that hold up over time, and getting hardware to function in tandem with software (Mario 64, Wii sports. etc.) This is something Sony and Microsoft are terrible at -- those companies copy Nintendo but usually take years to produce games that utilise the hardware properly if at all.

My feeling is that Nintendo will be working on some sort of virtual reality device next and it will be here that they will shine -- Simply because the other two have proven themselves time and time again to not really understand how to mesh hardware with software. Nintendo have real courage as far as I'm concerned, they produce quality games and are willing to take risks. It saddens me that people, especially on a forum like this, don't seem to actually care about precise gameplay, but more about spectacle and games that look like films. Nintendo games stand the test of time, they always have. They just need to market it better.

 

[StalkerUKCG]

On a personal level (and some anecdotal friends feel the same way stuff thrown in)

I won't be interested in Nintendo until they start making some new IP's that I care about and a console that isn't inferior to it's competetitors on a hardware level.

Bayonetta 2 is interesting
Pokemon is solid and X and Y look great

I'm not buying 2 consoles to play a game on each. I simply don't give a shit about the rest.

Mario, Not for me
Zelda, See Mario
Smash Bros, Don't Enjoy
Metroid, Never played, Never Wanted to

 

[Fourth Storm]

Yeah, GrotesqueBeauty's post is a good one. Although I have advanced other positions in the past, I find myself agreeing that they should just "stay the course" with Wii U and release a successor no sooner that 2016. Make the system profitable, plant the seeds for better third party support and online infastructure, and just keep on making quality games (hey, once they exhaust the heavy hitters next year, maybe we'll get something surprising again like we did with Punch Out or Sin and Punishment 2). If they only end up selling ~15 million units, so be it.

 

[Extra Sauce]

I feel like this is how Nintendo would reply to this thread:

"Gaf, you asked me if I was in the console business or videogame business.

Neither... I'm in the empire business."

 

[Unknown One]

They can launch a 4 TFlop macine in 2016, it would be easily max out ps4 and xbone games and be next gen at the same time.

I don't know about that. They can, but would they? They released a system a bit more powerful than the PS3/360 after those were released 6 years ago.

 

[kinggroin]

Come on you can't be serious...there's no reason to act like Nintendo is a unique victim here. I was lurking here long before joining. Do you know how much flak Sony was getting during the first couple years of the PS3 here? How about Sony with the Vita? Thing was a damn laughing stock here for most of it's life so far.

Don't even get me started on Microsoft the past year.
All get equally trashed on here, whether deserved or not.

And let's be honest, the Wii U actually gets a LOT of love on these forums, sales jokes not withstanding.


Although I do kinda get what he means by Sony and red-ink, but gamers aren't exactly the best source for conscise market examination, nor should they be.

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

One a week ago? I see about five of these threads a day. Don't pretend it's even on the same level, because it's not.

You probably weren't lurking here during the PS3 heydays.

 

[tengiants]

Why is it exactly that Sony can go entire generations bathed in red ink and you wont see the sheer number of alarmist threads like this that Nintendo typically gets in a month on GAF? You know, chalkboard meme and Amirox meltdown not withstanding. Not that Nintendo is beyond cold hard analysis, but these threads always seem to gravitate towards the same hackneyed talking points about how the only way for Nintendo to move forward is to fire Iwata and scrap a console that's been out for one year, blah blah, blah, blah, blah. It's hard to take anything the OP says seriously after that.

Another question that begs to be asked is why Wii and DS are considered anomalous luck, but when a system doesn't burst out of the gate on fire all the sudden Iwata is completely incompetent and out of touch? Imagine if shareholders were gaffers, particularly after the middling launch of the 3DS. I have my own questions about Nintendo's trajectory, but it's preposterous to write off Iwata's business acumen, which had led to some of the most profitable systems in Nintendo's history. Guess that doesn't matter in an industry with a memory the size of a goldfish. What have you done for me lately, right?

I'm starting to wonder when this topic will get its own community thread, because it seems to pop up 10 times a week in various thinly veiled ways. I keep thinking one day I'll click and be welcomed to some brilliant new break down of the state of Nintendo, but the crux of the conversation always seems to revolve around parroting the same wildly reductive arguments. Here's a reminder- Nintendo is already restructuring. It's also apparent that Wii U software took a hit while resources were dedicated to bolstering the 3DS, which is now stabilized. As insular as Nintendo's decisions are in some regards I don't personally believe that they operate in a complete vacuum like a lot of people seem to. Wii U has plenty of untapped potential, and not just in an abstract pie in the sky way, but you can't just right a ship overnight. Development takes time. It remains to be seen what seeds Nintendo has planted, but already there's a few signs of things to come.

For the most part I think it's accepted that 3rd party support is never going to blossom outside of a handful of cool niche games every now and then. If the insane growth of the Wii userbase couldn't get companies to pull their heads out of their asses and produce something better than shit ports and C quality spin-offs there's no reason to suspect they'll leap from their seats to do Wii U exclusives that matter. Imo Nintendo should start money hatting promising young indies. Tell the old guard to fuck off unless they bring the goods, and get fresh talent locked by providing them with an opportunity to grow and flourish on the platform. I also think Nintendo should make sweetheart deals with companies like Capcom and Konami to do comparatively modest retro revivals, retail, not digital. Let the other companies chase after the crowd that's more wowed by ornate presentation than the fundamental joy of interaction. Put the focus on well paced pick up and play experiences and tickle that nostalgia bone with cool franchises that have sat dormant. Differentiate yourself from your competitors arms race. That's what I'd do with the Wii U if it were my choice.

Then there's the obvious. Mario Kart, Smash Bros., and to a lesser extent Tropical Freeze. Nintendo knows what its money makers are, and it's leaning on them heavily during the Wii U's second year. Alone I don't think they'll have all the pull in the world, but as games like that accumulate in the library in concert with more niche stuff like Wonderful 101, Bayonetta, Pikmin, etc. I think more hitherto ambivalent enthusiasts will start seeing Wii U as a viable secondary platform. Sometimes it only takes a few "must-haves", but a library of unique supporting software definitely helps.

Very well said. Thanks for your meaningful contribution.

 

[meltingparappa]

the new iphone outsold the PS4. Where does Sony go from here?

F2P mobile games.

 

[Oppo]

Why is it exactly that Sony can go entire generations bathed in red ink and you wont see the sheer number of alarmist threads like this that Nintendo typically gets in a month on GAF?

Because Nintendo fans are passionate, and Sony and Microsoft have large elaborate diversifications in their overall businesses beyond games. Whereas it's all Nintendo does.

(Usually this is the part where someone responds using the words "war chest".)

Keep in mind that whenever you start with a "why is it always" sentiment, you are the one clicking on the threads.

 

[Riki]

F2P mobile games.

Sponsored by Coke-Cola. The clean refreshing taste of Coke-Cola.

 

[Mithos]

They can launch a 4 TFlop macine in 2016, it would be easily max out ps4 and xbone games and be next gen at the same time.

They could, but I seriously doubt that will change anything in terms of 3rd party support, it will be 1 game, and when it do not sell 19million copies first day/week/month, no more support.

 

[balgajo]

It's such a silly, obtuse argument to believe that Nintendo's design philosophy would regress as a third party publisher, a position that gives them exactly the same amount of creative freedom as they do today.

I understand your point but I disagree.
Nintendo philosophy consists on making their hardware thinking about the next iteration of their software, so, I think that they would be limited a lot.
A big part of N64 library wouldn't even exist due the lack of power from PSOne (Maybe Ocarina of Time with shaking textures). Games from last gen like Skyward Sword, Wii Sports, Wii fit would not be possible to be achieved if they went third-party.
It would be a great loss for us, gamers.

One of the problems of WiiU IMO, is that they didn't show a killer game that makes this hardware + software integration. Hope that next Zelda wiil be a good showcase for their hardware potential, like Skyward did(a little too late) for Wii Motion Plus.

 

[spyroflame0487]

I kind of want to see the turnaround and then everyone going "oh yeah no, I've been with Nintendo since day 1. Nope, nope Nintendo was never doomed what are you talking about".

I dunno, I mean...we've never seen anything bad ever happen that Nintendo hasn't gotten out of. It's shown that it can turn sinking ships around and ram them so hard into a port that it gushes out gold when it hits. I don't forsee the Wii U to be that different. Eventually, people will come when more games come out. That's what Nintendo need to focus on right now. No firing. No dropping Gamepad. No other asinine suggestions.

Just... games.

I guess as an alternative, they need to showcase what they have now, and why the gamepad/console integration is so important. To be honest, it's one of the coolest pieces of tech I've bought in recent years.

 

[scytherage]

Nintendo as a third party would end up in the same place as Sega now, just releasing Mario games every year, making even less money than they are today.

And relative to their past platforms, Nintendo isn't really failing. It's just that they're not making as much money as the other two consoles and it's messing up people's perception of reality.

 

[Glass Rebel]

Unless some big turnaround happens with the releases of Mario Kart 8, Smash Bros. or some worldwide phenomena like Wii Sports was for the original Wii, the system is done. I have shared my thoughts on certain aspects of Nintendo's future in several threads, so I'll try to be more thorough in this one:

Try to keep losses on Wii U as low as possible for another 2-3 years. Killing the system too early might be highly damaging to the Nintendo brand but then again, so was releasing the Wii U. I honestly don't know what the perfect time to officially kill the Wii U is but since a large part of the public seems to think that it's a Wii accessory anyway, earlier might be better.

Cancel or move every project that won't be guaranteed to make money to 3DS or next-gen. Align budgets and teamsizes accordingly. This isn't the GameCube era anymore. Games released on Wii U cost a lot of money and won't make much in return. Nobody plays sales but potentially great games being wasted on a microscopic audience that doesn't want them make no sense.

Combine the console and handheld lines. Make affordable hardware and iterate more frequently. What I have in mind is a single-screen handheld (dual analog sticks, 4 shoulder buttons) that acts as a baseline with a "supercharged" Vita TV like home console with the same inputs. Every game is cross-platform, console versions support local multiplayer (if available). 4 year generations with $149 hardware tops.

Rethink the Nintendo brand. It won't be easy but this is a longstanding problem with the company and needs to be addressed badly. Nintendo should be as neutral and inclusive as possible and the Wii/DS names both need to be dropped in favour of a refresh. Software also needs to be rethought. They were arguably much better at providing a diverse lineup for multiple demographics during the last generation but they need to go even further than that. Right now, the Wii U is mainly aimed at Nintendo fans, kids and families and offers very little to people outside of these groups. They need to broaden their appeal to include not only dudebros but also females for example.

Restructure the current distribution model. Things have changed since the NES days and Nintendo has been painfully slow to adapt. Not every game needs to be sold at the equivalent of $50 and if they combine console and handheld lines it'd be an easy transition. They also need to fully embrace sales and approach the other console manufacturers.

Strengthen ties to third parties and indies. Easier said than done and I think with most bigger publishers who are focused on either consoles/PC or iOS/Android this might be a lost cause but there's a ton of developers out there who might find a nice place on Nintendo hardware. Their handling of indie relations on Wii U is one of the few good things they're doing and I hope they keep at it and improve further.

Strengthen first party. As I said, third parties might be a lost cause so they need to double down on internal development like Sony did. They are still an incredibly strong developer and having only one platform to develop for would make it much easier for them to avoid droughts but I still think that stronger Western development branches would go a long way in appealing to audiences that are left cold by Nintendo's usual output. Give NoA and NoE more autonomy which will hopefully lead to more talented Western developers being attracted to them and slowly grow two healthy development branches.

Create new IPs, bring back old ones, use the current ones more reasonably. I see why they put Mario into everything and I definitely agree with the belief that new IPs don't automatically mean better games. However, this is also a business and different high-profile IPs make hardware much more attractive. They have a bunch of existing franchises that could sell decently if marketed correctly and would be much more enticing to the people who don't already own the system. It's not easy to launch new franchises but they are one of the best developers in the world. They can handle the pressure. And of course this goes back to the part about diversifying their portfolio and appealing to more audiences.

I'm sure I forgot some things but it's already late here.

 

[havokt]

One a week ago? I see about five of these threads a day. Don't pretend it's even on the same level, because it's not.

Dang man 5 a day you say? Id really appreciate you linking me to five nintendoomed threads started all in 1 day. Ive lurked Gaf long enough to know these doomed threads come in waves. Just deal with all the non sense like all consel warriors and check the hyperbole at the door.

 

[Fourth Storm]

We have historical precedence though. Their hardware R&D department wouldn't just be able to switch over to making games. They would be let go. They would lose their revenue gained from hardware sales. They would now have to pay more R&D to learn how to develop for multiple new systems. They would have to pay licensing fees. They would have to pay for dev kits.
Particularly in the first few years, they would contract significantly. And for an already small company, that would be pretty major.
Yes, Nintendo is unpredictable, but if they would make more money and produce more games from going third party, I'm fairly certain they would have already.

And particularly, they would never start picking up or localizing other third party games. We would likely never see Dragon Quest or Monster Hunter again. Platinum would have quite a bit less work, and no Bayonetta 2.
They wouldn't be able to hire out to studios like Namco and Koei for games like Smash and Zelda.
Again, their output just from this would go down. Even if they didn't have to fire a lot of their own staff.

Well, they're not profiting on home hardware atm, so that's a non-factor. You also realize that plenty of 3rd parties outsource work, like Capcom and Square Enix, right? And Dragon Quest and Monster Hunter were just fine before Nintendo nabbed those exclusives. Do they have to be Nintendo published to be any good? Bayonetta 2 was a one-off deal, and probably won't be repeated.

It's not a guarantee that they would do better, but it's also not a guarantee that they wouldn't thrive. Yes, R&D on any new architecture along w/ the dev kits costs money, but they have the potential of selling to a much wider audience. I don't see how the loss of the hardware division factors in. Either they scale back, and cut costs on personnel or they replace them with more software guys. I hate the thought of cutting jobs and I don't even support the third party idea, but to say that it would automatically make Nintendo's output worse is an unfounded argument. And before it's mentioned, Sega's problems ran far deeper. Maybe if we were talking a completely different Nintendo, where Miyamoto and all the old guard were wiped out, but that will never happen. Maybe Satoru Iwata is not Nintendo. But Miyamoto is.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

Nintendo as a third party would end up in the same place as Sega now, just releasing Mario games every year, making even less money than they are today.

And relative to their past platforms, Nintendo isn't really failing. It's just that they're not making as much money as the other two consoles and it's messing up people's perception of reality.

What?! Give me a break...

 

[Huff]

Why is it exactly that Sony can go entire generations bathed in red ink and you wont see the sheer number of alarmist threads like this that Nintendo typically gets in a month on GAF? You know, chalkboard meme and Amirox meltdown not withstanding. Not that Nintendo is beyond cold hard analysis, but these threads always seem to gravitate towards the same hackneyed talking points about how the only way for Nintendo to move forward is to fire Iwata and scrap a console that's been out for one year, blah blah, blah, blah, blah. It's hard to take anything the OP says seriously after that.

Another question that begs to be asked is why Wii and DS are considered anomalous luck, but when a system doesn't burst out of the gate on fire all the sudden Iwata is completely incompetent and out of touch? Imagine if shareholders were gaffers, particularly after the middling launch of the 3DS. I have my own questions about Nintendo's trajectory, but it's preposterous to write off Iwata's business acumen, which had led to some of the most profitable systems in Nintendo's history. Guess that doesn't matter in an industry with a memory the size of a goldfish. What have you done for me lately, right?

I'm starting to wonder when this topic will get its own community thread, because it seems to pop up 10 times a week in various thinly veiled ways. I keep thinking one day I'll click and be welcomed to some brilliant new break down of the state of Nintendo, but the crux of the conversation always seems to revolve around parroting the same wildly reductive arguments. Here's a reminder- Nintendo is already restructuring. It's also apparent that Wii U software took a hit while resources were dedicated to bolstering the 3DS, which is now stabilized. As insular as Nintendo's decisions are in some regards I don't personally believe that they operate in a complete vacuum like a lot of people seem to. Wii U has plenty of untapped potential, and not just in an abstract pie in the sky way, but you can't just right a ship overnight. Development takes time. It remains to be seen what seeds Nintendo has planted, but already there's a few signs of things to come.

For the most part I think it's accepted that 3rd party support is never going to blossom outside of a handful of cool niche games every now and then. If the insane growth of the Wii userbase couldn't get companies to pull their heads out of their asses and produce something better than shit ports and C quality spin-offs there's no reason to suspect they'll leap from their seats to do Wii U exclusives that matter. Imo Nintendo should start money hatting promising young indies. Tell the old guard to fuck off unless they bring the goods, and get fresh talent locked by providing them with an opportunity to grow and flourish on the platform. I also think Nintendo should make sweetheart deals with companies like Capcom and Konami to do comparatively modest retro revivals, retail, not digital. Let the other companies chase after the crowd that's more wowed by ornate presentation than the fundamental joy of interaction. Put the focus on well paced pick up and play experiences and tickle that nostalgia bone with cool franchises that have sat dormant. Differentiate yourself from your competitors arms race. That's what I'd do with the Wii U if it were my choice.

Then there's the obvious. Mario Kart, Smash Bros., and to a lesser extent Tropical Freeze. Nintendo knows what its money makers are, and it's leaning on them heavily during the Wii U's second year. Alone I don't think they'll have all the pull in the world, but as games like that accumulate in the library in concert with more niche stuff like Wonderful 101, Bayonetta, Pikmin, etc. I think more hitherto ambivalent enthusiasts will start seeing Wii U as a viable secondary platform. Sometimes it only takes a few "must-haves", but a library of unique supporting software definitely helps.

man nintendo fans have the worst persecution complex

 

[Azure J]

Moving to a new post:


Just so we're clear since I see Shinobi commenting on the quoted regarding Nintendo catching flak: I do believe that Nintendo made a bed of nails for itself that it now has to get real cozy in. It's not hard to poke holes in the ship when it already looks like floating swiss cheese at this point. At the same time, everything about this situation is playing out like Sony's PS2 to PS3 transition. Nintendo has an opportunity to come back better than ever but it will require them buckling down and looking the demons they've had on their shoulders since their initial SNES to N64 transition (Where all my video games the third parties at?) as well as jettisoning philosophy that never really needed to be there in the first place (what is this nonsense about "Nintendo isn't good at competing"; why did they strip the west of so much autonomy and developer talent) and becoming much faster at fixing aspects of the user experience that should be all and well by now (everything regarding online and their infrastructure).

I really do believe that Nintendo has it in them to not only weather this but to come back with a new set of fangs and hunger for everything, but at the same time, it's going to be such a long and arduous uphill climb until they reach that position. At the same time, with how reserved and closed they are still even today, it's impossible to call this with any level of certainty since no one knows how they work in these conditions until Iwata speaks and I think that's the reason why you'll see people stick to the boundless pessimism route when discussing them. It's far easier to believe nothing will change enough and stick to that when it looks the same as always to people who aren't wholly invested in the company (output in my case).

 

[Fourth Storm]

I understand your point but I disagree.
Nintendo philosophy consists on making their hardware thinking about the next iteration of their software, so, I think that they would be limited a lot.
A big part of N64 library wouldn't even exist due the lack of power from PSOne (Maybe Ocarina of Time with shaking textures). Games from last gen like Skyward Sword, Wii Sports, Wii fit would not be possible to be achieved if they went third-party.
It would be a great loss for us, gamers.

One of the problems of WiiU IMO, is that they didn't show a killer game that makes this hardware + software integration. Hope that next Zelda wiil be a good showcase for their hardware potential, like Skyward did(a little too late) for Wii Motion Plus.

I beg to differ, when we're talking about a generation that was partially defined by non-standard plastic peripherals.

 

[TheGreatMightyPoo]

Why is it exactly that Sony can go entire generations bathed in red ink and you wont see the sheer number of alarmist threads like this that Nintendo typically gets in a month on GAF? You know, chalkboard meme and Amirox meltdown not withstanding. Not that Nintendo is beyond cold hard analysis, but these threads always seem to gravitate towards the same hackneyed talking points about how the only way for Nintendo to move forward is to fire Iwata and scrap a console that's been out for one year, blah blah, blah, blah, blah. It's hard to take anything the OP says seriously after that.

Another question that begs to be asked is why Wii and DS are considered anomalous luck, but when a system doesn't burst out of the gate on fire all the sudden Iwata is completely incompetent and out of touch? Imagine if shareholders were gaffers, particularly after the middling launch of the 3DS. I have my own questions about Nintendo's trajectory, but it's preposterous to write off Iwata's business acumen, which had led to some of the most profitable systems in Nintendo's history. Guess that doesn't matter in an industry with a memory the size of a goldfish. What have you done for me lately, right?

I'm starting to wonder when this topic will get its own community thread, because it seems to pop up 10 times a week in various thinly veiled ways. I keep thinking one day I'll click and be welcomed to some brilliant new break down of the state of Nintendo, but the crux of the conversation always seems to revolve around parroting the same wildly reductive arguments. Here's a reminder- Nintendo is already restructuring. It's also apparent that Wii U software took a hit while resources were dedicated to bolstering the 3DS, which is now stabilized. As insular as Nintendo's decisions are in some regards I don't personally believe that they operate in a complete vacuum like a lot of people seem to. Wii U has plenty of untapped potential, and not just in an abstract pie in the sky way, but you can't just right a ship overnight. Development takes time. It remains to be seen what seeds Nintendo has planted, but already there's a few signs of things to come.

For the most part I think it's accepted that 3rd party support is never going to blossom outside of a handful of cool niche games every now and then. If the insane growth of the Wii userbase couldn't get companies to pull their heads out of their asses and produce something better than shit ports and C quality spin-offs there's no reason to suspect they'll leap from their seats to do Wii U exclusives that matter. Imo Nintendo should start money hatting promising young indies. Tell the old guard to fuck off unless they bring the goods, and get fresh talent locked by providing them with an opportunity to grow and flourish on the platform. I also think Nintendo should make sweetheart deals with companies like Capcom and Konami to do comparatively modest retro revivals, retail, not digital. Let the other companies chase after the crowd that's more wowed by ornate presentation than the fundamental joy of interaction. Put the focus on well paced pick up and play experiences and tickle that nostalgia bone with cool franchises that have sat dormant. Differentiate yourself from your competitors arms race. That's what I'd do with the Wii U if it were my choice.

Then there's the obvious. Mario Kart, Smash Bros., and to a lesser extent Tropical Freeze. Nintendo knows what its money makers are, and it's leaning on them heavily during the Wii U's second year. Alone I don't think they'll have all the pull in the world, but as games like that accumulate in the library in concert with more niche stuff like Wonderful 101, Bayonetta, Pikmin, etc. I think more hitherto ambivalent enthusiasts will start seeing Wii U as a viable secondary platform. Sometimes it only takes a few "must-haves", but a library of unique supporting software definitely helps.

 

[MercuryLS]

Of course not but if games such as Tomb Raider, MGS V, Watch Dogs, Destiny ect, ect were next gen only the third party stuff would have a much better chance of persuading people to upgrade to the new consoles.

This argument breaks down when 7.2 million people bought PS4s and Xbox One's for mainly enhanced last gen games. People don't care, they know that the next gen systems have the best version of these titles along with exclusives that you won't see other places. I think you're placing way too much importance on exclusives. People just want great content, regardless if it's next-fen exclusive or a cross-gen game. PS4 and Xbox One are smart investments based on previous consoles, so it's an easy sell even if they are currently light on content. People are conditioned to know that Nintendo systems have poor 3rd party support for major titles (stuff that was across PS3/Xbox 360/PC and now PS4/Xbox One/PC), so it's down to PS4 and Xbox One for most people. Buying it now or buying it later doesn't make a huge difference, prices will be the same for a while and the content will get better (strong 1st and 3rd party support) so that's why sales have been so strong for these machines early on and will continue to be in early 2014.You can point to cross gen multi plats all you want, it doesn't matter. The content is there and these machines have a bright future. People will buy in.

 

[SerodD]

People that are saying that if Nintendo kills the Wii U now, then people will never buy their consoles again.

If so, then why has Nintendo managed to kill of the Virtual Boy, Sony killed of one of their Tablets and other manufacturers killing of products without people saying "well i will never buy a product from them anymore!"

I have to admmit, I wouldn't care at all if they launch something by the end of 2015, I would buy it at launch like I did with the Wii U, they really need new and better thought hardware.

I like the Gamepad but it kind got old fast, for me of course.

 

[spyroflame0487]

Also, having the handheld and console together as one thing seems like a bad idea. At this point, having 2 separate divisions is actually a really good idea.

However, I'd like to see more unison between the two (either this gen or whatever home and handheld consoles come next). The Wii U kind of works like a 3DS in a sense, so I think it'd be awesome if I could play my 3DS games on it, or vice versa. Maybe even take stuff like VC games with me. (Since the Save State thing is super helpful in this instance)

 

[AcademicSaucer]

Why is it exactly that Sony can go entire generations bathed in red ink and you wont see the sheer number of alarmist threads like this that Nintendo typically gets in a month on GAF? You know, chalkboard meme and Amirox meltdown not withstanding. Not that Nintendo is beyond cold hard analysis, but these threads always seem to gravitate towards the same hackneyed talking points about how the only way for Nintendo to move forward is to fire Iwata and scrap a console that's been out for one year, blah blah, blah, blah, blah. It's hard to take anything the OP says seriously after that.

Another question that begs to be asked is why Wii and DS are considered anomalous luck, but when a system doesn't burst out of the gate on fire all the sudden Iwata is completely incompetent and out of touch? Imagine if shareholders were gaffers, particularly after the middling launch of the 3DS. I have my own questions about Nintendo's trajectory, but it's preposterous to write off Iwata's business acumen, which had led to some of the most profitable systems in Nintendo's history. Guess that doesn't matter in an industry with a memory the size of a goldfish. What have you done for me lately, right?

I'm starting to wonder when this topic will get its own community thread, because it seems to pop up 10 times a week in various thinly veiled ways. I keep thinking one day I'll click and be welcomed to some brilliant new break down of the state of Nintendo, but the crux of the conversation always seems to revolve around parroting the same wildly reductive arguments. Here's a reminder- Nintendo is already restructuring. It's also apparent that Wii U software took a hit while resources were dedicated to bolstering the 3DS, which is now stabilized. As insular as Nintendo's decisions are in some regards I don't personally believe that they operate in a complete vacuum like a lot of people seem to. Wii U has plenty of untapped potential, and not just in an abstract pie in the sky way, but you can't just right a ship overnight. Development takes time. It remains to be seen what seeds Nintendo has planted, but already there's a few signs of things to come.

For the most part I think it's accepted that 3rd party support is never going to blossom outside of a handful of cool niche games every now and then. If the insane growth of the Wii userbase couldn't get companies to pull their heads out of their asses and produce something better than shit ports and C quality spin-offs there's no reason to suspect they'll leap from their seats to do Wii U exclusives that matter. Imo Nintendo should start money hatting promising young indies. Tell the old guard to fuck off unless they bring the goods, and get fresh talent locked by providing them with an opportunity to grow and flourish on the platform. I also think Nintendo should make sweetheart deals with companies like Capcom and Konami to do comparatively modest retro revivals, retail, not digital. Let the other companies chase after the crowd that's more wowed by ornate presentation than the fundamental joy of interaction. Put the focus on well paced pick up and play experiences and tickle that nostalgia bone with cool franchises that have sat dormant. Differentiate yourself from your competitors arms race. That's what I'd do with the Wii U if it were my choice.

Then there's the obvious. Mario Kart, Smash Bros., and to a lesser extent Tropical Freeze. Nintendo knows what its money makers are, and it's leaning on them heavily during the Wii U's second year. Alone I don't think they'll have all the pull in the world, but as games like that accumulate in the library in concert with more niche stuff like Wonderful 101, Bayonetta, Pikmin, etc. I think more hitherto ambivalent enthusiasts will start seeing Wii U as a viable secondary platform. Sometimes it only takes a few "must-haves", but a library of unique supporting software definitely helps.

neogaf is sony-fanboy town, thats why