The comment being responded to wasn't only about consoles, in fact the poster even mentioned 3DS.Nowhere, because they're not consoles. Just say "add unrelated things to this graph that are more flattering for Nintendo please" if that's what you want. Nintendo's console business is in bad shape. Their handheld business isn't terrible, but God only knows what the market would look like for a new handheld. As others have mentioned, the world looks nothing like how it did when the 3DS launched.
The comment being responded to wasn't only about consoles, in fact the poster even mentioned 3DS.
Also, NX isn't a console either and yet it's in the graph. Really it seems more like "add an unrelated graph to this response that's more unflattering for Nintendo please".
Nintendo made more than just consoles in the last few decades. And it's not like everything else was even a rousing success either (hello Virtual Boy) but by all means keep excluding relevant data in service to your strawman.The post said the WiiU was their only misstep since the GC. I would argue most of the decisions Nintendo has made in the console space over the last few decades are missteps. Look at the decline in relevance in that graph. It's almost a completely perfect slide into the gutter with the one exception of the Wii.
Third-party publishers are not going to flock to this console; with its atypical specs and design and demographic, it's just too much effort to tailor to.
This is the crazy thing about Nintendo, though...their inability to see and harness the value in those properties is an entirely different problem. First-party versus third-party makes no difference. The value is in the IP. Primarily, the IP helps the platform, not the other way around. But strong IPs can exist on their own, regardless of platform.
Nintendo made more than just consoles in the last few decades. And it's not like everything else was even a rousing success either (hello Virtual Boy) but by all means keep excluding relevant data in service to your strawman.
How is it a strawman to discuss only consoles when I am literally discussing Nintendo's presence in the console space. If I am discussing iPhones and their market success, why would I start talking about macbooks? Does Pokemon Go being popular right now mean the WiiU isn't a complete failure?
NX isn't only a console, so why are you purposely excluding relevant data in a thread about it? Do I need to define what a strawman is for you?How is it a strawman to discuss only consoles when I am literally discussing Nintendo's presence in the console space. If I am discussing iPhones and their market success, why would I start talking about macbooks? Does Pokemon Go being popular right now mean the WiiU isn't a complete failure?
The Wii launched in a world without smartphones, or digital distribution, or streaming video, or... At some point pointing to the Wii as proof positive that Nintendo has their shit together is like the guy at the used car dealership talking about how he was a high school quarterback and prom king.
Yep. In this day and age casuals are already captured by smartphone games. A handheld gaming device, no matter how cheap or innovative, does not make phone calls or offer enough f2p games.
...or, does it?
NX isn't only a console, so why are you purposely excluding relevant data in a thread about it? Do I need to define what a strawman is for you?
One has to remember that the Wii U had no focus.
- They went for the weaker system route like the Wii yet tried to sell it as being on par with the competition and great for AAA ports.
- It was a traditional console (they even called the controller the Gamepad to hark back to the old days) and yet was different.
- They released it with a Wii Sports-like game with Nitnendoland to demonstrate the system, but it requires tutorials for each game (Wii Sports was instantly understandable) and was based on properties appealing to hardcore Nintendo fans rather than casual gamers (one was based on a Japan only property even!). It's other launch title was a New Super Mario Bros game that was coming out only months after the last one (NSMB2 for 3DS).
- They made a big song and dance that it was energy efficient and then didn't even mention that point anywhere in the marketing. Not even the box! Not saying that's something that would sell it, but when it was apparently one of the primary goals when designing the thing you'd think they at least mention it somewhere outside of an Iwata Asks interview.
- TVii lol
[*[Two GamePad support is coming lol
I liked it and enjoyed the games that came out for it, but it was a complete misstep for Nintendo. People call Wii the anomaly because of sales graphs, but honestly, I'd say the Wii U is the real anomaly.
Then why is NX included in that irrelevant "consoles only" graph you're defending? And why bother with the misleading console only arguments anyway when the subject was very clearly Nintendo as a whole?I never said the NX was only a console. I merely said Nintendo has severely mismanaged their console business. Their collapsing console marketshare likely helped push them toward the hybrid route. As the article states, the NX is different in part because it has to be given what they look like in the console space these days.
I won't pretend to have some deep insight into the modern handheld market. We haven't really seen one launch in the age of smartphone saturation.
If there's no platform of their own to push, then there's little need for a AAA branch. And given the bad blood there I don't see a Nintendo/Sony partnership as being that likely. There's just not much real upside for Nintendo there unless Sony starts sinking the sort of unprecedented 3rd party investment that would make even FFVII era Square blush.
The secenario you're floating might work if Nintendo were to try and do their own eShop on open platforms like PC, Mac, Android, etc, but then they'd still be doing AAA to drive their own service and I expect the hardware group would still be around focusing on custom controllers and maybe even other hardware yet.
Then why is NX included in that irrelevant "consoles only" graph you're defending? And why bother with the misleading console only arguments anyway when the subject was very clearly Nintendo as a whole?
This will not improve when they no longer have the incentive to broaden the appeal of their platforms. They will have more reason to place a high priority on bringing the games that sell lots of software units to as many platforms as possible, because making profitable software will be the full extent of their video game business.
That their biggest stated reason for ignoring these franchises is that they feel creatively burned out on them is actually going to get worse when the only metric for these games' business performance is software sales and not whether they give their platform greater prestige. They'll have no creative or financial reason to make them.
They should probably quit making consoles then because they're not really doing amazing in that category.
And lately even their games haven't been amazing. Zelda looks good but that's 1 out of how many this year?
Not just Nintendo but also Sega (SMS, Genesis, Game Gear) and Konami (TG16) have working 3DS emulators for their classic systems. Additionally other platforms lke C64, 2600, Colecovision, MSX or NeoGeo also have official emulators for other devices using ARM.Yeah, I would suspect that if the NX is an ARM based console as suggested, Nintendo already have working engines that at least some of their WiiU titles were built on that can export to ARM, and already have working ARM based emulators for everything up to SNES at least in terms of VC
The best route to graphically shiny Nintendo games delivered in a conventional format is for Nintendo to exit hardware altogether and become a third-party developer, addressing the biggest possible audience. If that is what the world really wants, then NX will fail and that is what it shall have.
They've tried the high power, third party 'friendly' (in that they had full third party support) approach twice, with the NES and SNES, and found success both times.
They then tried to be different and ignore market trends 4 times from the N64 to WiiU and had one success, with an entirely different audience who fucked off before that generation was even over.
Meanwhile, as wage WiiU tanked the PS4 aimed for the traditional enthusiast market and saw huge success, and the XO went full Wii audience aimed multimedia casual device and completely fucked themselves.
So why do Nintendo and it's hardcore defenders keep insisting not competing for the market they're actually in is a good idea? Just the one fluke win of the Wii?
Because this bullshit self deluding, slow marketshare suicide, is infuriating as a lifelong Nintendo fan.
On a more fundamental level, its management doesn't see value in making the same product the others do. They think it would fail by the standards of the market (because it wouldn't take big chunks out of PlayStation and Xbox's businesses) and by their own standards (because it would be boring), and they're quite right.
Perfectly thought and written. I agree.You completely missed what I'm saying, which was that even with a perfectly good reason to make those games - to broaden the appeal of their platforms - they still didn't place a high priority on making those games. The "value of the IP" doesn't matter if the creators don't value the IP.
This will not improve when they no longer have the incentive to broaden the appeal of their platforms. They will have more reason to place a high priority on bringing the games that sell lots of software units to as many platforms as possible, because making profitable software will be the full extent of their video game business.
That their biggest stated reason for ignoring these franchises is that they feel creatively burned out on them is actually going to get worse when the only metric for these games' business performance is software sales and not whether they give their platform greater prestige. They'll have no creative or financial reason to make them.
You're deluding yourself if you think that incentives have nothing to do with results.
Indeed Nintendo is also a software house that doesn't mind Capitain Rainbow sales performance, or The Wonderful 101 sales performance, and dozens alike...Making profitable software is the point of anyone's video game business. Nobody releases a game to lose money.
Why is anyone assuming that they need to release niche, or smaller, or "creative" games to "broaden the appeal of their platforms," or that that is the sole reason why they would consider releasing such games? If you are a software company, why wouldn't you release those kinds of games anyway? What logic says that Nintendo wouldn't release those kinds of games if they didn't own a hardware platform? Are you suggesting that only Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are capable of releasing these sorts of games (because they are the sole owners of the hardware platforms), or that they are taking any less of a risk releasing those sorts of games versus third parties?
What really gives a platform greater prestige? Sales. That's the reality of the current market. The shareholders don't care how much creativity is on Wii U, they want to see numbers.
Maybe I really am completely missing what you're saying. I just don't see why going 3rd party should or would mean that huge swaths of their creative catalog would disappear completely.
They've tried the high power, third party 'friendly' (in that they had full third party support) approach twice, with the NES and SNES, and found success both times.
They then tried to be different and ignore market trends 4 times from the N64 to WiiU and had one success, with an entirely different audience who fucked off before that generation was even over.
Meanwhile, as the WiiU tanked the PS4 aimed for the traditional enthusiast market and saw huge success, and the XO went full Wii audience aimed multimedia casual device and completely fucked themselves.
So why do Nintendo and it's hardcore defenders keep insisting not competing for the market they're actually in is a good idea? Just the one fluke win of the Wii?
Because this bullshit self deluding, slow marketshare suicide, is infuriating as a lifelong Nintendo fan.
They've tried the high power, third party 'friendly' (in that they had full third party support) approach twice, with the NES and SNES, and found success both times.
They've tried the high power, third party 'friendly' (in that they had full third party support) approach twice, with the NES and SNES, and found success both times.
If anyone is hoping for a third party Nintendo I sure hope you like your Marios and Zeldas because they will not release anything else
If anyone is hoping for a third party Nintendo I sure hope you like your Marios and Zeldas because they will not release anything else
They've tried the high power, third party 'friendly' (in that they had full third party support) approach twice, with the NES and SNES, and found success both times.
They then tried to be different and ignore market trends 4 times from the N64 to WiiU and had one success, with an entirely different audience who fucked off before that generation was even over.
Meanwhile, as the WiiU tanked the PS4 aimed for the traditional enthusiast market and saw huge success, and the XO went full Wii audience aimed multimedia casual device and completely fucked themselves.
So why do Nintendo and it's hardcore defenders keep insisting not competing for the market they're actually in is a good idea? Just the one fluke win of the Wii?
Because this bullshit self deluding, slow marketshare suicide, is infuriating as a lifelong Nintendo fan.
If anyone is hoping for a third party Nintendo I sure hope you like your Marios and Zeldas because they will not release anything else
the XO went full Wii audience aimed multimedia casual device and completely fucked themselves.
There is a MASSIVE audience of enthusiast gamers (Maybe 70-100 million)
What really? I think that is way overblown.
If the console market suddenly introduced machines of equal power:
Nintendo
Sony
Microsoft
I don't see how Nintendo would pull the audiences away to make theirs the primary console.
Both Sony and Microsoft have incredibly attractive ecosystems that lie outside of just brute power of the machine. This is incredibly hard to chip away at. Digital catalogues, friends lists, hell even controller preference are enough to sway people to a console, the uphill battle Nintendo would have to face is huge.
With that in mind, you'd end up with Nintendo being a very expensive first party software 2nd console for everyone (because why play third party games on your second console? I certainly didn't when I ran with PC and PS3).
Unique selling point is the only avenue Nintendo have here and it is a valid one.