I guess the difference is, Nintendo's been in the business for decades and have had the virtue of having rememberable, relevant and loved IP that they can and do have the ability to keep on using them. And it's not like they are all the same. Sunshine to galaxy is, like a galaxy apart in mechanics and controls. I'm sure if sony and MS had such IP they would have also done the same thing and if Nintendo ever sold any of their IP, the two would fight over it and 'milk' them too, no?
They never made games like that before and I doubt they'll ever start.
Apparently, you have to talk very slowly around these parts. It's pretty obvious what I was saying.
I think you have a point, and that some of the opposition to what you're trying to get at is ultimately overly pedantic and nitpicky, however, let's be clear: you've done yourself no favors in the manner in which you've tried to make your case. And by that, there is something to be said for the fact that you overreached in making your case, and as such, it's no surprise that you were called out on it. Yes, I understand that ultimately your point was that there haven't been major investments in brand new IPs from first class teams. That's largely correct. However, your definition of what specifically constitutes a Nintendo first-party offering was rather stupid, and the attempt to cross out titles you didn't care about from the list was just a bad idea.
Basically, I think some of your opposition has been unfair, but you could have avoided a lot of this.
There are downsides though. Limited competition in the marketplace equals complacency between monopolies.
It isn't necessarily good for the consumer.
I think it was obvious that he was referring to big budget, Character driven, gamer-minded, AAA IP that are focused on gathering the very market Nintendo claims to be targeting now. Yeah, I had to do a lot of qualifying there, but it's a valid point. The successors to the Mario/Zelda/Metroid throne; Nintendo needs THOSE kinds of new IP - not more low budget, niche crud that not even THEY put much stock into (as evidenced by the lack of promo and poor and/or delayed localization most of those games listed got).
I'm not using "it's eco-friendly!" as an 'excuse' for anything related to the technical prowess of the WiiU, although you do love talking about how weak it is so much I can see why that's all you can think about it.
You don't think Mario and Zelda have enormous budgets?
Not really. Why would they have?
Not really. Why would they have?
Not really. Why would they have?
But that list does serve to show that Nintendo consistently try and do that, even when they fail to actually do so (Disaster Day Of Crisis, Geist, Excite Truck, Sin & Punishment).
But they also release titles in known 'safe' franchises and genres (Mario, Zelda, Pokemon), as well as expanding their titles in different non-traditional areas (Wii _, Brain Training, Rhythm Heaven, nintendogs).
If 'make AAA character driven core gamer pleasing shit ton selling game' was as easy as the armchair analysts claim, Medal Of Honour: Warfighter would have been the best selling game last holidays, and THQ would be rolling in record profits right now.
Time = Money.
Both Mario and Zelda have very long production cycles. The continuous funding for something years on end gets rather pricey. Twilight Princess to Skyward Sword was a 5 year gap. That's a extraordinarily long time in the game industry to fund something.
Bad examples. Warfighter didn't sell because it was putrid shit and THQ killed itself with Udraw and mismanagement.
They're still cheaply made. The long dev cycles are a part of that cheapness, because there are not many people working on them.
A Zelda game might take 60 people 5 years, or a CoD might take upwards of 500 people 2 years. One is waaaaaaaaaay more expensive to produce than the other.
EDIT:
EA clearly didn't try and make a terrible game that was unanimously hated, and THQ clearly didn't try and badly misjudge how many people were prepared to go out and buy Homefront or Darksiders day one.
Time = Money.
Both Mario and Zelda have very long production cycles. The continuous funding for something years on end gets rather pricey. Twilight Princess to Skyward Sword was a 5 year gap. That's a extraordinarily long time in the game industry to fund something.
EA clearly didn't try and make a terrible game that was unanimously hated, and THQ clearly didn't try and badly misjudge how many people were prepared to go out and buy Homefront or Darksiders day one.
This is absolutely pathetic, whats going on, why, do people think its a Wii accessory, has to be a reason for this.
It's got no games. It costs as much or more than you can buy a comparable 360 or PS3. 360 and PS3 have shitloads of games. It has virtually no third party support. It's had anemic marketing. The future release list for the year is pretty empty. There are new consoles from Sony and MS on the horizon. What is the incentive to buy one before Nintendo's heavy hitters release?
The point is they haven't invested the same amount of money into something to the level of a Zelda or Mario. Not that they needs to invest as much as a COD game...
It is all relative.
I don't know what you're trying to say, but Homefront/Darksiders did decently commercially.
Okay, so if you remove the time factor;
Would Nintendo be better or worse off if they had sunk a $100 million budget into Disaster: Day Of Crisis and gone balls out with recognisable celebrity voice actors and a full licenced sound track, and it still sold what it sold and got the reviews it did?
Or if they'd funded Mad World or No More Heroes, and they'd sold what they sold and got the review that they did?
Because that's not Nintendo, and it will never be Nintendo.
You might think dropping $100 million on a CoD clone is exactly what Nintendo needs to do, but I don't. And they don't.
Even more worrying for Nintendo is what will be the incentive once other next gen consoles come out? The amount of hype for whatever is shown for the Durango/Orbis will be off the charts.
Even more worrying for Nintendo is what will be the incentive once other next gen consoles come out? The amount of hype for whatever is shown for the Durango/Orbis will be off the charts.
Nintendo doesn't have to worry about Orbis/Durango yet. Every console experiences slow start during cross-gen period, unless Sony delivers megatons (aka the Last Guardian) right off the bat then the WiiU will definitely be in deep trouble.
I'd happily concede that he hasn't argued his point perfectly in his thread, but to be fair, this is a disingenuous take on the point he's been trying to articulate to varying levels of success. All he's arguing is that he wants to see something that has the same level of effort that gets put into something like Mario Galaxy put into something brand new.
Nintendo doesn't have to worry about Orbis/Durango yet. Every console experiences slow start during cross-gen period, unless Sony delivers megatons (aka the Last Guardian) right off the bat then the WiiU will definitely be in deep trouble.
I'd happily concede that he hasn't argued his point perfectly in his thread, but to be fair, this is a disingenuous take on the point he's been trying to articulate to varying levels of success. All he's arguing is that he wants to see something that has the same level of effort that gets put into something like Mario Galaxy put into something brand new. I don't personally know if I agree with that, as I know that I would be perfectly happy to buy Mario Galaxy 3 myself, but not whether or not whatever new IP they cook up would be of any interest to me. Still, he's clearly not arguing that they have to make a Call of Duty killer.
The fact that you consider the Last Guardian to be a megaton of any sort should be evidence enough that you are wrong.
I might be wrong, who knows. Look at Ni No Kuni. Who would have thought a game that bombed in Japan would become a huge success in US? You cannot predict market.
I just don't understand why they launched this with next to nothing available software-wise. It was seemingly rushed out the door for whatever reason, games have been delayed and now they seem to be in a panic mode. Did they think it would just fly off the shelves? it all seems so poorly planned, given the head start they got from dumping the Wii.Even more worrying for Nintendo is what will be the incentive once other next gen consoles come out? The amount of hype for whatever is shown for the Durango/Orbis will be off the charts.
I might be wrong, who knows. Look at Ni No Kuni. Who would have thought a game that bombed in Japan would become a huge success in US? You cannot predict market.
I might be wrong, who knows. Look at Ni No Kuni. Who would have thought a game that bombed in Japan would become a huge success in US? You cannot predict market.
34,000 is bad, but when you factor in Nintendoland... it's catastrophic.
Okay, so if you remove the time factor;
Would Nintendo be better or worse off if they had sunk a $100 million budget into Disaster: Day Of Crisis and gone balls out with recognisable celebrity voice actors and a full licenced sound track, and it still sold what it sold and got the reviews it did?
Or if they'd funded Mad World or No More Heroes, and they'd sold what they sold and got the review that they did?
Because that's not Nintendo, and it will never be Nintendo.
You might think dropping $100 million on a CoD clone is exactly what Nintendo needs to do, but I don't. And they don't.
They WOULD however drop $100 million on 20 different games, some for the handheld, some for the console;
some being a more polished iteration of a limited prototype game they have previously released (a Luigis Mansion, or a Kirbys Canvas Course, or a Rhythm Heaven)
some being a surefire long tail seller (a Mario Kart, a NSMBU)
some on some new gameplay concept prototype they want to test out (a Nintendoland, a Wii Music, a Face Raiders)
some on some crazy weird ass thing some designer wanted to do as a vanity project I guess (a Tingles Rupeeland, a Captain Rainbow)
some on building third party partnerships (a Metroid: Other M, a Sonic & Mario at the Olympics)
some on rebooting an old Ip and making it relevant again (a Pilotwings resort, a Kid Icarus)
Nintendo diversify, and when they get a hit, they exploit it.
Because they diversify they are never predictable.
Because they diversify they never only release games that you will definitely like.
They really didn't. They made a lot of revenue. That is not the same thing. At all.
Decent commercially implies high profitability.
Have the NPD charts been released yet or is that an assumption?
I just don't understand why they launched this with next to nothing available software-wise.
This is silly.
If Disaster had a 100mil budget it would have been a completely different game, with bigger and better marketing, and thus a larger audience. It probably would have been much more successful. And it would have done A GREAT DEAL MORE to convince 3rd Parties that there is an audience for hardcore titles than the next iteration of one of Nintendo's proven franchises that only serves to convey to 3rd Parties that only proven Nintendo franchises sell.
Third parties have historically complained about having to compete with nintendo titles at launch, because that's what people pick up when they launch the console and don't give them a chance to make their sales.
Nintendo left a huge gap for third parties to make their sales.
You say that as though you believe Nintendo planned on NSMB and Nintendoland receiving underwhelming sales. NSMB Wii sold 27 millions copies. They clearly thought they were launching with a big hit right out the gate...
Neither of them are a Zelda or a 'real' Mario though, are they?
They might well both go on to be million sellers, but they're still not Nintendo 'big guns'.
Neither of them are a Zelda or a 'real' Mario though, are they?
They might well both go on to be million sellers, but they're still not Nintendo 'big guns'.
NSMB Wii sold 27 millions copies
New Super mario Bros Wii sold more than the four Zelda and 3D mario wii games did combined.
How is that not their "big gun"?
You don't think they have finished titles ready that they are holding back for strategic deployment against PS4 / Xbox720 release dates that they could have instead released at launch for a console announced 2 years ago?