Support NeoGAF

[Dave Meltzer]

Wii was a sound strategic move. It's everything since then that's been bad.

If Iwata is fired his legacy will be the guy who helped save Nintendo with unique, forward thinking ideas only to fuck it all up with conservative, unimaginative followups.

 

[ikioi]

Nope.

Yes. Nintendo themselves stated that NSMB on Wii U begun development on Wii and was ported.

 

[LizardKing]

It's a pretty optimistic crystal ball, and that's all well and good, but you didn't answer my second question. What happens if that strategy fails?

What if things went that way, Nintendo sold less units, maintained their first place spot with less profit, and then burned out a large amount of their warchest on R&D for the Wii's successor? And still ended up where they are now?

How would the Wii have sold any less if it was an HD console? It sold because of the motion controls not weak power. Also with equal power and all those sales I fail to see how it would have not become the lead platform for devs, gaining more market share and mindshare with gamers than the Wii did. Putting them in the true market leader position this gen

 

[StreetsAhead]

Yes. Nintendo themselves stated that NSMB on Wii U begun development on Wii and was ported.

I know what they said and it's not what you're implying. They begin development on Wii kits (2 iirc) because Wii U kits weren't ready yet. It's not a Wii game that was ported, like Pikmin 3.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

It's a pretty optimistic crystal ball, and that's all well and good, but you didn't answer my second question. What happens if that strategy fails?

What if things went that way, Nintendo sold less units, maintained their first place spot with less profit, and then burned out a large amount of their warchest on R&D for the Wii's successor? And still ended up where they are now?

Depends of the level of failure. I think even if a beefed Wii with HD support didn't managed to make Wii-level numbers, it wouldn't hurt Nintendo so badly because of the profits made from DS and these profits could keep the beefed Wii HD alive for some time. If DS failed, then yes, it would be a very critical situation. But remember, PS3 and 360 struggled in the beginning as well, so it would be a very interesting scenario to see if happened.

 

[IceDoesntHelp]

Correct. I love ass, the controls in SS sucked.

No, they didn't. They worked for me, and I loved them (besides the swimming). I never really had any issues with the controls, and I can't be the only one.

 

[Chie Satonaka]

How would the Wii have sold any less if it was an HD console? It sold because of the motion controls not weak power. Also with equal power and all those sales I fail to see how it would have not become the lead platform for devs, gaining more market share and mindshare with gamers than the Wii did. Putting them in the true market leader position this gen

For one thing, I imagine that it would have been much more expensive than it's original $250 dollar price point. Considering that Nintendo was not selling consoles for a loss at that time, do you think that a $450 dollar Nintendo console would have sold as well as the Wii did originally to both the core and the expanded audience?

But remember, PS3 and 360 struggled in the beginning as well, so it would be a very interesting scenario to see if happened.

Fair enough, but isn't that the position that the WiiU is in now? The controller might not have set the world on fire, and the system will be weaker than it's unreleased competition, but I just don't see power being the thing that's holding the WiiU back, nor do I see it being a lack of third party ports.

It's interesting to me that people would have been willing to give these hypotheticals a wait and see approach, but are calling for Iwata's head four months after a console launch without doing the same now.

 

[royalan]

IMHO Iwata has got to go.

I do not understand how Nintendo managed to screw the Wii U up as badly as they have. They've had years to prepair for the systems launch, as well as the finances and human resources to really come up with something spectacular.

Instead what they've served up is:

A system with a buggy and poor performing OS, complete with system freezes. Years in development right here.

Out of the two games Nintendo have released so far, one is a pack in title, and the other was a port from Wii. Nintendo couldn't even get a serious game out with the system's launch window. Instead we get a port and a pack in title. Awesome. Not just that but the promise of Pikmin coming by March, yeah where's that gone?

Online service that still ties online sales to hardware. Nintendo still cant figure out user account systems. The Nintendo network is also slow as shit. How many people who downloaded Lego Cities were waiting 12+ hours to suck it down.

A system that is at most marginally powerful then the Xbox 360 and PS3. 7 years of tech improvements and the best they could come up with is a system that maybe and with some effort, can exceed 7 year old consoles. Amazing stuff this.

No 3rd party developer really cares about. We've seen it miss game after game, and even devleopers like Ubisoft cancel once exclusive games to go multi platform. Seems no 3rd party gives two shits about the system. Then there's developers refusing to commit to future DLC or patches for the Wii U versions of their games.

Despite the Wii U's hardware being technologically weak, apparently it's quite expensive to make. Nintendo decided it'd be a great idea having IBM build a custom PPC 750 multi core CPU. Yeah totally awesome idea that one, investing millions or more on a 20 year old CPU architecture. Then there's the MCM, or the customised GPU from AMD that if we're lucky is 400 gigaflops. For the money Nintendo have spent on their MCM, CPU, and GPU, they could have got a far more powerful sollution. But instead they cripple their entire console for the stupid idea of low power consumption and because they cant be assed learning a new CPU architecture.

Iwata craps on about how the Wii U is going to have better 3rd party support then the Wii thanks to its more powerful and modern architecture. Bullshit. PS4: 1.8 teraflop GPU, 8GB GDDR5, dedicated HDD, 8 core x86 AMD CPU, yeah like hell the Wii U is going to get any significant downports or multi plats. The Wii U is so far behind the PS4 it's not in the same leauge.

Then there's the questions over how prepared Nintendo are internally for HD development. Not a single game out for Wii U other then a pack in and Wii port. Pikmin delayed. Massive amounts of job adverts running in Japan for everything from OS development, network engineers, to HD game developers. Nintendo only managing one patch in 4 months for the Wii U's OS. List goes on. Seems to me like Nintendo have been caught totally with their pants down and unprepared for the Wii U, and are now in a mad rush to salvage the system.

So much harsh truth in this post I think I just soiled myself.

 

[RedSwirl]

Wii was a sound strategic move. It's everything since then that's been bad.

If Iwata is fired his legacy will be the guy who helped save Nintendo with unique, forward thinking ideas only to fuck it all up with conservative, unimaginative followups.

A conservative, unimaginative followup would've been a "Super Wii" with just beefier hardware (on-par with a PS4 maybe) and a more refined Wii Remote. Arguably that could've been more successful with core gamers.

...unless you're talking about the 3DS. I don't even know if that thing needed to have a new "gimmick" in order to be successful. If Nintendo had just released a "DS2" or "Super DS" with the same software the 3DS has now but without the 3D gimmick, I still would've bought one.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

For one thing, I imagine that it would have been much more expensive than it's original $250 dollar price point. Considering that Nintendo was not selling consoles for a loss at that time, do you think that a $450 dollar Nintendo console would have sold as well as the Wii did originally to both the core and the expanded audience?

At this price tag, hell no. But they could have made a beefed console without the need to price tag it so high. $300/350 would be fine. They could have some losses at beginning but the DS profits could bank it.

Fair enough, but isn't that the position that the WiiU is in now? The controller might not have set the world on fire, and the system will be weaker than it's unreleased competition, but I just don't see power being the thing that's holding the WiiU back, nor do I see it being a lack of third party ports.

It's interesting to me that people would have been willing to give these hypotheticals a wait and see approach, but are calling for Iwata's head four months after a console launch without doing the same now.

But may I remind that Wii U is alone without competition around (next-gen competition) and there's still chance for a recovery. PS4 release doesn't automatically create a defeat-scenario for Wii U if Nintendo manage to bring good games for, get better third-party supoort and, if they can, price drop it when PS4 comes out. A company reestructure by this year might help that too.

 

[RedSwirl]

IMHO Iwata has got to go.

I do not understand how Nintendo managed to screw the Wii U up as badly as they have. They've had years to prepair for the systems launch, as well as the finances and human resources to really come up with something spectacular.

Instead what they've served up is:

A system with a buggy and poor performing OS, complete with system freezes. Years in development right here.

Out of the two games Nintendo have released so far, one is a pack in title, and the other was a port from Wii. Nintendo couldn't even get a serious game out with the system's launch window. Instead we get a port and a pack in title. Awesome. Not just that but the promise of Pikmin coming by March, yeah where's that gone?

Online service that still ties online sales to hardware. Nintendo still cant figure out user account systems. The Nintendo network is also slow as shit. How many people who downloaded Lego Cities were waiting 12+ hours to suck it down.

A system that is at most marginally powerful then the Xbox 360 and PS3. 7 years of tech improvements and the best they could come up with is a system that maybe and with some effort, can exceed 7 year old consoles. Amazing stuff this.

No 3rd party developer really cares about. We've seen it miss game after game, and even devleopers like Ubisoft cancel once exclusive games to go multi platform. Seems no 3rd party gives two shits about the system. Then there's developers refusing to commit to future DLC or patches for the Wii U versions of their games.

Despite the Wii U's hardware being technologically weak, apparently it's quite expensive to make. Nintendo decided it'd be a great idea having IBM build a custom PPC 750 multi core CPU. Yeah totally awesome idea that one, investing millions or more on a 20 year old CPU architecture. Then there's the MCM, or the customised GPU from AMD that if we're lucky is 400 gigaflops. For the money Nintendo have spent on their MCM, CPU, and GPU, they could have got a far more powerful sollution. But instead they cripple their entire console for the stupid idea of low power consumption and because they cant be assed learning a new CPU architecture.

Iwata craps on about how the Wii U is going to have better 3rd party support then the Wii thanks to its more powerful and modern architecture. Bullshit. PS4: 1.8 teraflop GPU, 8GB GDDR5, dedicated HDD, 8 core x86 AMD CPU, yeah like hell the Wii U is going to get any significant downports or multi plats. The Wii U is so far behind the PS4 it's not in the same leauge.

Then there's the questions over how prepared Nintendo are internally for HD development. Not a single game out for Wii U other then a pack in and Wii port. Pikmin delayed. Massive amounts of job adverts running in Japan for everything from OS development, network engineers, to HD game developers. Nintendo only managing one patch in 4 months for the Wii U's OS. List goes on. Seems to me like Nintendo have been caught totally with their pants down and unprepared for the Wii U, and are now in a mad rush to salvage the system.

I'm asking myself if any Japanese head of Nintendo would've done any different from the bolded. Sony's treatment of the PS3 for the most part has been very westernized.

 

[Chie Satonaka]

I'm asking myself if any Japanese head of Nintendo would've done any different from the bolded. Sony's treatment of the PS3 for the most part has been very westernized.

This is a good point, and something that I never considered until you brought it up.

It's pretty clear that the Xbox was catering to a different market. The 360 at least tried to play ball a bit more in Japan, but it just wasn't working out. When I was watching the Sony PS4 event, from the demos to the console archetecture, the entire thing just screamed "western development" to me.

I wonder if that's what people want more than anything else from Nintendo: a more western oriented game development approach?

 

[ikioi]

I know what they said and it's not what you're implying. They begin development on Wii kits (2 iirc) because Wii U kits weren't ready yet. It's not a Wii game that was ported, like Pikmin 3.

Who's fault was it that the Wii U dev kits were not ready?

Oh wait, that'd be Nintendo's too.

Also from what has been discussed here and on other industry forum like Beyond3D, the Wii U dev kit even post launch was half baked. Light on documentation, undocumented features and capabilities, no performance metrics, etc.

Frankly the entire system is a joke. How does a company with billions of dollars in the bank, over two decades in the industry, thousands of staff, and years to plan and develop balls up a product this badly?

The Wii U should have been so much better then what it was. Its online service, opperating system, technical capabilities and performance, marketing, software, it's all medicore at best and garbage at worst. Hell i'd even go so far as to say its entire business model is a joke. What's its selling point? Take away the controller and all i see is a system dependant on Nintendo and second parties for any chance of decent software, and a console with the technical capabilities we all experienced 5+ years ago.

The Wii U will no doubt still have some awesome games. But that doesn't change the fact there's so much wasted potential and years here. If The Wii U represents the best Nintendo could achieve with years of effort, billions of dollars, and thousands of staff, my god they're in big trouble. .

 

[TreasureHunterG]

I wonder if that's what people want more than anything else from Nintendo: a more western oriented game development approach?

They should keep their japanese mentality intact, but give room for western development as well:

- Rebuild their american and european studios disassembled during the Iwata management
- Demand better advertising for both NOA and NOE targeting the western market
- Bring more western second-parties to work with Nintendo's own IPs or brand new IPs targeting this audience
- If Nintendo bother so much about their family-friendly image, they should create a label to publish T and M-Rated games. This would keep their image intact and open space for a bigger, wider audience to get into.

 

[Tenki]

Who's fault was it that the Wii U dev kits were not ready?

Oh wait, that'd be Nintendo's too.

You know dev kits don't appear magically overnight and companies can start developing the launch games even before the dev kits are done, don't you?

 

[KillerTravis]

I just read something about people being Wind Waker fanboys lol. What has happened to this thread?

It's like someone never got over the reveal of the cel shaded art style.

 

[RedSwirl]

They should keep their japanese mentality intact, but give room for western development as well:

- Rebuild their american and european studios disassembled during the Iwata management
- Demand better advertising for both NOA and NOE targeting the western market
- Bring more western second-parties to work with Nintendo's own IPs or brand new IPs targeting this audience
- If Nintendo bother so much about their family-friendly image, they should create a label to publish T and M-Rated games. This would keep their image intact and open space for a bigger, wider audience to get into.

I still think they need to replicate their policies with Japanese publishers in the west. The way Iwata and Miyamoto have acted towards Capcom, Sega, Platinum, Namco, and Tecmo over the last decade has resulted in good software. Like I said earlier, their move with Monster Hunter was a great tactical decision that probably did serious damage to the Vita, at least in the Japanese market.

They need to at least try to establish similar relationships with third parties in the west. I can understand if Iwata doesn't want to buy western studios outright for fear of talent leak, but at least get into bed with them the same way you've done with Platinum. Offer to publish one of their big games, or let them work on one of your IPs. At best, you end up with an F-Zero GX. Then again, at worst you end up with another Metroid Other M.

Also as I mentioned before though, I wonder if it's due to some kind of ignorance Iwata and the rest of NCL have for western games. From the Iwata asks I read, he seems to pay appropriate attention to third party games and even games on other platforms, but only Japanese ones. This made sense up until about 2001 (or 2005). I've seen no indication those guys are even aware games like Gears, COD, and Assassin's Creed exist.

 

[BD1]

About Iwata, there was a post from another topic about what Iwata made for Nintendo and all Iwata's defenders should read it:

I would maintain that if Nintendo had launched a 720p-capable dev-friendly and profitable GameCube 2, before or around the time of the 360's launch, powered up with the immense demand we have seen for waggle, the videogame industry would have been revolutionized (as opposed to being fractured between casual and hardcore), Nintendo would have been the lead console, Microsoft would have nearly fallen off the map, and Sony would have remained an expensive but needless alternative. Nintendo would have won our current generation of consoles, their third party relations would be repaired, and they would be the hands-down favorite to win next gen.

But instead, they made mad bank for a few years, and now they're paying for it.

I am not defending Iwata, the last two years have been a disaster. But the way people just completely dismiss the success of the Wii to somehow justify their criticism of a weak Wii U launch is ridiculous.

Nintendo is a multi billion publicly traded company. Iwata's job is to make the shareholders money. They aren't "paying" for anything because of the Wii. They made more money on a single piece of ancient tech than both their competitors combined and stock piled a reserve of cash that essentially guarantees their survival as a company for longer than most of us will be on this earth.

The Wii hardware strategy argument against Wii U is just as stupid as the blind Iwata defending. Wii U's problems are it's own; Nintendo didn't adapt to the extent they should have.

And this is completely ignoring the fact that the OP's brilliant strategy for Nintendo was that the fucked up by NOT releasing a sequel to their worst performing console ever.

 

[Shion]

Fair enough, but isn't that the position that the WiiU is in now? The controller might not have set the world on fire, and the system will be weaker than it's unreleased competition, but I just don't see power being the thing that's holding the WiiU back, nor do I see it being a lack of third party ports.

It's interesting to me that people would have been willing to give these hypotheticals a wait and see approach, but are calling for Iwata's head four months after a console launch without doing the same now.

Well, the perception that surrounds Wii U is that it's a current gen console with no backlog, incompetent services, no 3rd party support and it's too expensive for what it is.

And even if it had proper 3rd party support no one around here would be interested in next-gen games that look like Xbox 360 games.

So the problem with Wii U isn't just its current state, it's also the fact that its future prospects don't seem so exciting either (at least not to the audience of this forum).

 

[TreasureHunterG]

I am not defending Iwata, the last two years have been a disaster. But the way people just completely dismiss the success of the Wii to somehow justify their criticism of a weak Wii U launch is ridiculous.

Nintendo is a multi billion publicly traded company. Iwata's job is to make the shareholders money. They aren't "paying" for anything because of the Wii. They made more money on a single piece of ancient tech than both their competitors combined and stock piled a reserve of cash that essentially guarantees their survival as a company for longer than most of us will be on this earth.

The Wii hardware strategy argument against Wii U is just as stupid as the blind Iwata defending. Wii U's problems are it's own; Nintendo didn't adapt to the extent they should have.

And this is completely ignoring the fact that the OP's brilliant strategy for Nintendo was that the fucked up by NOT releasing a sequel to their worst performing console ever.

You call yourself not an Iwata defender but this is the trademark argument to defend him.

 

[Dave Meltzer]

A conservative, unimaginative followup would've been a "Super Wii" with just beefier hardware (on-par with a PS4 maybe) and a more refined Wii Remote. Arguably that could've been more successful with core gamers.

...unless you're talking about the 3DS. I don't even know if that thing needed to have a new "gimmick" in order to be successful. If Nintendo had just released a "DS2" or "Super DS" with the same software the 3DS has now but without the 3D gimmick, I still would've bought one.

Wii U is just Wii again, but with a different gimmick. The mentality is still last gen graphics, selling at a (relatively) low price compared to the competition with a controller gimmick you hope can capture casual imagination. Alas, they fucked up with the gimmick. But the plan was just to do the Wii again.

 

[BD1]

You call yourself not a Iwata defender but this is the trademark argument to defend him.

Huh? The point was claiming Nintendo is "paying for it now" b/c of the Wii is just as silly saying Iwata isn't accountable for Wii U because he was so successful with the Wii. Read better.

 

[A Twisty Fluken]

I am not satisfied with my Wii U experience thus far but man, THG is really dragging the argument level of this thread into the gutter.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

What? The point was claiming Nintendo is "paying for it now" b/c of the Wii is just as silly saying Iwata isn't accountable for Wii U because he was so successful with the Wii. Read better.

And they are. Wii's lackluster hardware, lack of third-party support, casual focus and premature death did took a blow on Nintendo's rep as console maker. Wii U's lackluster sales for the release has much to do with damage taken from Wii.

I am not satisfied with my Wii U experience thus far but man, THG is really dragging the argument level of this thread into the gutter.

It was doing fine until you show up.

 

[Chie Satonaka]

Well, the perception that surrounds Wii U is that it's a current gen console with no backlog, incompetent services, no 3rd party support and it's too expensive for what it is.

And even if it had proper 3rd party support no one around here would be interested in next-gen games that look like Xbox 360 games.

So the problem with Wii U isn't just its current state, it's also the fact that its future prospects don't seem so exciting either (at least not to the audience of this forum).

I'm not convinced this is true. I'd like to believe that if 3rd parties were putting out exclusive, quality titles for the WiiU, people would be buying them, because people like video games. Nobody's buying a WiiU for multiplatform ports.

This isn't the case as of yet, but denying yourself new experiences that you can't play on other platforms because it "looks current gen" or it's on Nintendo hardware just seems silly and feeds back into console wars.

The pessimistic side of me is waiting to see W101/Bayonetta 2's sales so I can be proven wrong.

Spoiler

Buy these games, damn it.

 

[ikioi]

Well, the perception that surrounds Wii U is that it's a current gen console with no backlog, incompetent services, no 3rd party support and it's too expensive for what it is.

And even if it had proper 3rd party support no one around here would be interested in next-gen games that look like Xbox 360 games.

So the problem with Wii U isn't just its current state, it's also the fact that its future prospects don't seem so exciting either (at least not to the audience of this forum).

Sums up what i'm trying to say perfectly.

Its only going to get worse once the PS4 and Xbox 720 launch, they'll make this system look even more anchient and cheap then what it does right now.

 

[equippedwithtowel]

Wii U is just Wii again, but with a different gimmick. The mentality is still last gen graphics, selling at a (relatively) low price compared to the competition with a controller gimmick you hope can capture casual imagination. Alas, they fucked up with the gimmick. But the plan was just to do the Wii again.

Arguably the "gimmicks" employed are aimed more directly at the core game then on the wii, whether they find a receptive audience is another matter.
The WiiU seemed more like an attempt to combine the successful elements of the DS with a home console. The blue ocean is Apple land now.

 

[Dave Meltzer]

Arguably the "gimmicks" employed are aimed more directly at the core game then on the wii, whether they find a receptive audience is another matter.
The WiiU seemed more like an attempt to combine the successful elements of the DS with a home console. The blue ocean is Apple land now.

But that's the point. They stopped thinking outside the box and just went with the safest thing they could come up with.

 

[AntMurda]

IMHO Iwata has got to go.

I do not understand how Nintendo managed to screw the Wii U up as badly as they have. They've had years to prepair for the systems launch, as well as the finances and human resources to really come up with something spectacular.

Instead what they've served up is:

A system with a buggy and poor performing OS, complete with system freezes. Years in development right here.

Out of the two games Nintendo have released so far, one is a pack in title, and the other was a port from Wii. Nintendo couldn't even get a serious game out with the system's launch window. Instead we get a port and a pack in title. Awesome. Not just that but the promise of Pikmin coming by March, yeah where's that gone?

Online service that still ties online sales to hardware. Nintendo still cant figure out user account systems. The Nintendo network is also slow as shit. How many people who downloaded Lego Cities were waiting 12+ hours to suck it down.

A system that is at most marginally powerful then the Xbox 360 and PS3. 7 years of tech improvements and the best they could come up with is a system that maybe and with some effort, can exceed 7 year old consoles. Amazing stuff this.

No 3rd party developer really cares about. We've seen it miss game after game, and even devleopers like Ubisoft cancel once exclusive games to go multi platform. Seems no 3rd party gives two shits about the system. Then there's developers refusing to commit to future DLC or patches for the Wii U versions of their games.

Despite the Wii U's hardware being technologically weak, apparently it's quite expensive to make. Nintendo decided it'd be a great idea having IBM build a custom PPC 750 multi core CPU. Yeah totally awesome idea that one, investing millions or more on a 20 year old CPU architecture. Then there's the MCM, or the customised GPU from AMD that if we're lucky is 400 gigaflops. For the money Nintendo have spent on their MCM, CPU, and GPU, they could have got a far more powerful sollution. But instead they cripple their entire console for the stupid idea of low power consumption and because they cant be assed learning a new CPU architecture.

Iwata craps on about how the Wii U is going to have better 3rd party support then the Wii thanks to its more powerful and modern architecture. Bullshit. PS4: 1.8 teraflop GPU, 8GB GDDR5, dedicated HDD, 8 core x86 AMD CPU, yeah like hell the Wii U is going to get any significant downports or multi plats. The Wii U is so far behind the PS4 it's not in the same leauge.

Then there's the questions over how prepared Nintendo are internally for HD development. Not a single game out for Wii U other then a pack in and Wii port. Pikmin delayed. Massive amounts of job adverts running in Japan for everything from OS development, network engineers, to HD game developers. Nintendo only managing one patch in 4 months for the Wii U's OS. List goes on. Seems to me like Nintendo have been caught totally with their pants down and unprepared for the Wii U, and are now in a mad rush to salvage the system.

Well some valid consumer complaints. But the whole "pack in" and "port" thing are hyperbolic and just really not an intelligent argument. Nintendo Land and New Super Mario Bros. U are extremely competent first-party products. The problem is that those two games shouldn't have been the only first-party products at launch, and that the software catalog has been atrocious since the system has been released. Then there is the big elephant in the room regarding the overall short-sighted hardware decisions and the general anti-gamer philosophy of no meta scoring and online. Nintendo is just a stubborn company and sometimes as a fan you just feel punished for being one.

 

[BD1]

And they are. Wii's lackluster hardware, lack of third-party support, casual focus and premature death did took a blow on Nintendo's rep as console maker. Wii U's lackluster sales for the release has much to do with damage taken from Wii.

I blame it more on lack of compelling software, miserable demand generation and poor word of mouth. But that's my opinion.

I also wouldn't blame a console that sold 100 million units for the failures of a completely new console, but you seem pretty sold on the idea that Wii is the cause of all Nintendo's console problems.

 

[royalan]

I am not defending Iwata, the last two years have been a disaster. But the way people just completely dismiss the success of the Wii to somehow justify their criticism of a weak Wii U launch is ridiculous.

Nintendo is a multi billion publicly traded company. Iwata's job is to make the shareholders money. They aren't "paying" for anything because of the Wii. They made more money on a single piece of ancient tech than both their competitors combined and stock piled a reserve of cash that essentially guarantees their survival as a company for longer than most of us will be on this earth.

The Wii hardware strategy argument against Wii U is just as stupid as the blind Iwata defending. Wii U's problems are it's own; Nintendo didn't adapt to the extent they should have.

And this is completely ignoring the fact that the OP's brilliant strategy for Nintendo was that the fucked up by NOT releasing a sequel to their worst performing console ever.

I think that, when that poster said Nintendo chose to make mad bank and are paying for it now, he meant Nintendo chose to make a lot of shortsighted decisions to maximize immediate profitability, at the risk of better positioning themselves within the evolving market and long-term planning.

He has a point. People like to talk about how much cash Nintendo has in the bank, but nobody seems to want to consider how important it is for Nintendo to position their products in a way that they remain competitive. Nintendo can't keep ignoring the realities of the industry because they have money in the bank. They can't keep half-hearting third parties; they can't keep ignoring the importance of hardware parity; they can't keep ignoring the importance of western development; they can't keep ignoring online and burgeoning technologies. If the continue to do that, one day they're going to turn around and find themselves so far removed from the industry that they'll be completely unable to compete.

We're getting a taste of this now. Nintendo's now struggling to come to grips with HD development, a hurdle the rest of the industry got over nearly 7 years ago, because they chose to ignore HD for an entire gen because staying SD and reusing ancient tech was better for the bottom line.

 

[SolarPowered]

Mega hardware? Hardly. What hyperbole.

Have you used the Game Pad? I find it comfortable and having the screen works well in Nintendo Land, Batman, and Zombi U, but I was doubtful until I actually used it. Many of my friends who've played it were suspicious or didn't like it until actually playing with it too.

Cool

I never said no one wanted the pad. No one was asking for off TV gameplay and few seem to want it. Sales would indicate that, but maybe I'm wrong. I should hold off on judging the true value and populariy of the pad until Nintendo releases more big hitters. It's not looking good, though. Anecdotal evidence doesn't change that.

About the "mega hardware". Clearly there is something "mega" about a tablet controller that costs like $150(Nintendo HAS to be marking it up a bit in Japan and for US replacements) on it's own. That is NOT normal in this industry. The hardware is quite the technical marvel in terms of TDP, though. Hopefully Nintendo gets a handle on it with games and the OS.

 

[BD1]

I think that, when that poster said Nintendo chose to make mad bank and are paying for it now, he meant Nintendo chose to make a lot of shortsighted decisions to maximize immediate profitability, at the risk of better positioning themselves within the evolving market and long-term planning.

He has a point. People like to talk about how much cash Nintendo has in the bank, but nobody seems to want to consider how important it is for Nintendo to position their products in a way that they remain competitive. Nintendo can't keep ignoring the realities of the industry because they have money in the bank. They can't keep half-hearting third parties; they can't keep ignoring the importance of hardware parity; they can't keep ignoring the importance of western development; they can't keep ignoring online and burgeoning technologies. If the continue to do that, one day they're going to turn around and find themselves so far removed from the industry that they'll be completely unable to compete.

We're getting a taste of this now. Nintendo's now struggling to come to grips with HD development, a hurdle the rest of the industry got over nearly 7 years ago, because they chose to ignore HD for an entire gen because staying SD and reusing ancient tech was better for the bottom line.

I don't entirely disagree with you, especially about Nintendo's self admitted struggle transitioning to HD development, but I have a few points to make.

1- I would not blame the Wii on Nintendo's struggles transitioning for PS2 era development to "next gen" development. That type of R&D, restructuring and planning could have/should have begun years ago. Iwata's biggest mistake, imo, is that he didn't really begin preparing the company in earnest until it was way to late. The current development struggles could have been avoided, regardless of Wii.

2- You can't dismiss billions of dollars in CASH as a lack of long term planning. That is the best long term plan any company could ask for. It gives them a huge net of security. For argument's sake, if the Wii U never recovers and Iwata is shown the ejector seat, that cash reserve will allow them to make necessary adjustments and change their model under new leadership. As opposed to a manufacturer like Sega, which had to abandon their core business after the Dreamcast.

3- Finally, the Wii sold 100 million units. The GameCube sold 20 million. If you were sitting in the big office in Kyoto, what business model would you go with? It sure as hell wouldn't be the latter. And this ties back to point #2. I am sure Nintendo has every intention of trying to sell 100 million Wii U units, but they're model was so successful, if it doesn't, they can try something else.

Honestly I think for a lot folks on internet message boards, the Wii blame game on Wii U is more about frustrated Nintendo gamers seeing it as an opportunity to finally say "A HA! I knew Wii was a bad idea" some 7 years later.

 

[Starfish Hero]

If the Wii U came out in 2011, the Wii's slow, painful death wouldn't have been an issue at all. The only mistake Nintendo made with the Wii (in terms of business) was that they expected it to compete for a full console gen. Nintendo was right in that consumers weren't ready for HD... in 2006. But by 2010 the 360 and PS3 were picking up steam and Nintendo didn't react. To say the Wii was a failure though is stupid. You can call me an "Iwata defender" all you want, but the Wii is the only reason Nintendo is still in the console market. You can't dispute this; it was an unparalleled success for Nintendo when they were at their weakest. But as I said: the Wii's problem was that it overstayed its welcome.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

If the Wii U came out in 2011, the Wii's slow, painful death wouldn't have been an issue at all. The only mistake Nintendo made with the Wii (in terms of business) was that they expected it to compete for a full console gen. Nintendo was right in that consumers weren't ready for HD... in 2006. But by 2010 the 360 and PS3 were picking up steam and Nintendo didn't react. To say the Wii was a failure though is stupid. You can call me an "Iwata defender" all you want, but the Wii is the only reason Nintendo is still in the console market. You can't dispute this; it was an unparalleled success for Nintendo when they were at their weakest. But as I said: the Wii's problem was that it overstayed its welcome.

I totally agree with you and it's a good point you brought here.

Wii wasn't a failure, but like you said, wasn't a console to compete for a full console gen and by 2011 should have been succeed by Wii U. It's true that Wii is the reason for Nintendo staying on the console market, but I agree with Cheerilee's post when it says if Wii was a 720p-capable dev-friendly machine with motion controls would have revolutionized the industry and Nintendo would be the leader with an iron fist.

 

[IrishNinja]

the bloodlust in this thread is silly, reaching todor levels

But that's the point. They stopped thinking outside the box and just went with the safest thing they could come up with.

i tend to think the "safest" thing wouldve just been wiimotes again, or just a standard controller. for better or worse, that's not what we got, so this statement is kinda wrong

 

[BMOFTW]

I just want to know, where I can find the graphics of the charts, about the profit Nintendo did in the last years to compare with the 100 billion goal. Thanks

 

[Starfish Hero]

I totally agree with you and it's a good point you brought here.

Wii wasn't a failure, but like you said, wasn't a console to compete for a full console gen and by 2011 should have been succeed by Wii U. It's true that Wii is the reason for Nintendo staying on the console market, but I agree with Cheerilee's post when it says if Wii was a 720p-capable dev-friendly machine with motion controls would have revolutionized the industry and Nintendo would be the leader with an iron fist.

Probably, no, likely, but that was a gambit that Nintendo wasn't in a position to make. Having remotely modern tech would have ate up the profit margin, and investors were already unsure that Nintendo was going against the tide with motion controls. The biggest reason Nintendo was able to go through with releasing the Wii was because it was cheap to both make and sell. The low costs and price mitigated the risk of a new control scheme.

I wholeheartedly agree that if Nintendo did what Cheerilee suggested that they would still be on top of the world. But hindsight is 20/20. That option was not on the table.

 

[Cheerilee]

I would have much preferred Wind Waker than Ocarina of Time II. I regret nothing.

Also, fuck anyone who thinks Zelda has ever had a "realistic" art style.

Edit:

And this is completely ignoring the fact that the OP's brilliant strategy for Nintendo was that the fucked up by NOT releasing a sequel to their worst performing console ever.

Yes, because a two-Gamecubes-duct-taped-together-relaunch creates MUCH more distance from a failed console than a new one does...

Huh? The point was claiming Nintendo is "paying for it now" b/c of the Wii is just as silly saying Iwata isn't accountable for Wii U because he was so successful with the Wii. Read better.

In the context of the previous thread where I posted that wall of text, people were talking about Nintendo's damaged relations with western developers, partially derived from the lack of parity with the PS360, and how Reggie would have an uphill battle to win them back.

 

[peanutbutterlatte]

When you get quoted with the terribly aged Spaceworld demo and you're not sure why...

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

When you get quoted with the terribly aged Spaceworld demo and you're not sure why...

I think he is agreeing with you on how it always had a fantasy artsyle regardless.

 

[peanutbutterlatte]

I think he is agreeing with you on how it always had a fantasy artsyle regardless.

Oh! Fair enough. I have trouble reading between the lines. Yeah, even Spaceworld/Ocarina/Twilight Princess aren't "realistic".

 

[Celine]

Honestly I think for a lot folks on internet message boards, the Wii blame game on Wii U is more about frustrated Nintendo gamers seeing it as an opportunity to finally say "A HA! I knew Wii was a bad idea" some 7 years later.

You are not alone in thinking that.

Also the Wii was anything but shortsighted (ie: easy approach to reach some profits in the short period).
I think that many don't remember how big of a gambit was releasing it (but an oddball that can be expected by Nintendo) since 7 years later we know that the system is becoming the second best selling home console ever and is one of the most profitable videogame system ever commercialized.

 

[BGBW]

I'm guessing when people think of Xbox they think of teens screaming down the mic on Xbox LIVE. And shooting and stuff. Kinect with the arm flailing. Really hardcore stuff.

I'm glad you brought up Kinect even though my post made no mention of it.

 

[Dave Meltzer]

i tend to think the "safest" thing wouldve just been wiimotes again, or just a standard controller. for better or worse, that's not what we got, so this statement is kinda wrong

No, because they know they need a hardware gimmick to make up for the lack of hardware power. Doing the exact same thing you did last gen isn't enough. Tactically their stance didn't change,,the problem is their imagination did.

 

[KiNeSiS]

No, because they know they need a hardware gimmick to make up for the lack of hardware power. Doing the exact same thing you did last gen isn't enough. Tactically their stance didn't change,,the problem is their imagination did.

Dave Meltzer with the side saito suplex!

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

About Iwata, there was a post from another topic about what Iwata made for Nintendo and all Iwata's defenders should read it:

Great post! Thank you for sharing. A lot of new information there to remind me that Iwata isn't exactly the "anti-Steve Jobs" I like to think he is. He's capable of making decisions based on personal principles that may stem from ego just as much as the next guy. It's just that on the surface his behavior appears to be very different because he presents himself in a manner that is less aggressive and outspoken than Jobs did.

I wonder what part of this comes down to different personalities and what part is an east vs. west cultural difference?

Wii was a sound strategic move. It's everything since then that's been bad.

Wii could have been a sound strategic move, had the ideas it presented been followed through to completion by Nintendo. As it is, Wii was a brilliant tactical move. Had Nintendo been entirely dedicated to their new approach they wouldn't have made some of the business decisions that they did, and I for one believe the market would have responded more favorably to them in the long run.

The whole point of Wii - at least according to consumer perception which made it an early hit - was a return to the values of the NES era. Among other things this meant simpler, cheaper to develop games, but at the gain of high quality and deep replayability and also a diverse and original lineup. Nintendo should have realized from the start they would need to collaborate much more with 3rd parties in order to fulfill this promise. They needed to make it as easy as possible for developers to get their original concepts on the platform, while still keeping a watchful eye on quality. I guess they assumed the Wii would build-up its own ecosystem similarly to how the DS did, but they should have been much more proactive in making sure this was indeed the case.

edit: The funny thing is this same idea of simpler, cheaper games with original and diverse ideas has gained tremendous momentum this last gen due to digital distribution and indie development, two key areas Nintendo handily ignored with Wii.

For one thing, I imagine that it would have been much more expensive than it's original $250 dollar price point. Considering that Nintendo was not selling consoles for a loss at that time, do you think that a $450 dollar Nintendo console would have sold as well as the Wii did originally to both the core and the expanded audience?

The interesting thing here is that the market was willing to pay a lot more than $250 dollars for what the Wii was perceived as being. The console was literally sold out for two years at that price-point, so $300 would have been completely acceptable, and I believe even $350 would have worked if Nintendo made sure to release the correct software during the system's first two years. By that I mean more Wii Sports and NSMB and Endless Ocean type games and less Metroid Prime and Battalion Wars and 3D Mario during the system's early years.

 

[Turrican3]

For the same reason Iwata's defenders uses revisionism and falacious claims to sustain Wii's direction being totally successful, brought Nintendo billions and "crushed" PS3/360 in a way to hide the fact it suffered a premature death, loose third-party support and became irrelevant in the eyes of the core market

EDIT: sorry, misread "loose", everything else still applies IMHO
To lose something you have to possess it in the first place... third parties simply ignored the Wii, and the few of them who actually cared a little opted for suicide (see RE4 --> Umbrella Chronicles).

I'd argue that Wii's direction (ie: brand new apps for casual audience while keeping core AND trying to expand the latter audience with "bridge" games like NSMB or Mario Kart) was totally successfull indeed: Wii will probably end (or is already) as the second best selling console ever, Nintendo has arguably released some of their finest games during this generation including lots of so-called core games and last but definitely not least, this very same strategy made the Xbox 360 take the lead in the US market.

Out of the two games Nintendo have released so far, one is a pack in title, and the other was a port from Wii.

Very unfair.

The "pack in" game is a fully fledged title that's probably much better than Wii Sport Resort in terms of content and quality/polish (Wii Sport was basically a bit more than a tech-demo in comparison), and NSMBU might have started development on Wii but it hardly qualifies as "a port"

Online service that still ties online sales to hardware. Nintendo still cant figure out user account systems.

Yet they've allowed consumers to transfer their digitally purchased content twice in a row (DS/3DS, Wii/WiiU), which is far more important to me.

A system that is at most marginally powerful then the Xbox 360 and PS3.

As far as I understand there's quite a lot of uncertainty about this.

 

[NickMitch]

Someone should write a book based on this thread.

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Iwata.

 

[SMD]

Basically according to some Iwata gave the games industry AIDS. So this is just going to be a very dull, drawn out thread full of arguing and no real headway.

Peace.