Support NeoGAF

[Fourth Storm]

When is Nintendo irrelevant? For me, a sign that day has come will be when I walk into Walmart or Toys R Us and there isn't a Nintendo section with their IP plastered all over. Hence, a push for NFC and the QOL platform after that. Particularly with QOL, Nintendo have the opportunity to broaden into different retail outlets, such as pharmacies.

 

[LegendofLex]

So quality doesn't determine a game's sales? So Elder Scrolls selling well shows nothing about its quality then until we see the next game's sales making this point useless?

Skyrim continuing to sell well over a pretty long period of time seems to suggest that the reception was not negative, and that the perceptions of quality did not disappear. Phantom Hourglass, meanwhile, had already tapered off by the end of its first holiday.

 

[metalslimer]

When is Nintendo irrelevant? For me, a sign that day has come will be when I walk into Walmart or Toys R Us and there isn't a Nintendo section with their IP plastered all over. Hence, a push for NFC and the QOL platform after that. Particularly with QOL, Nintendo have the opportunity to broaden into different retail outlets, such as pharmacies.

Saying Nintendo is irrelevant is wrong, but saying they are as relevant as ever makes it sound like you started paying attention in 2012.

 

[Tookay]

If the job of Wii Play was to sell controllers, it did that job pretty well, too. (You could fetch a controller without Wii Play for less, and obviously sales for Wii Play did not match those for Wii Sports 1:1.)

But "meeting your mediocre goals" isn't an objective sign of quality on any reasonable basis. Furthermore, your individual rebuttals just miss the point completely. I'd break it down, but I feel like you have no interest in giving it any serious thought.

EDIT: Screw it, I'll break it down. I think it's curious you completely ignored my argument about how silly it is to speak of quality in comparing TLOU (a mature title at the tail end of a generation with apathetic consumers) and its sales versus Wii Play... who benefited from the install base of a hot-selling item that appealed to a massive audience at a time when people were clamoring for additional controllers to add to their collection (and if it cost an extra $10 for a game, so be it). Instead you favored of getting into the minutiae of whether Wii Play came with a "free" controller or was a controller that came with a $10 game, all while ignoring that Wiimotes were hard to come by at that point in time ANYWAY, leaving many to buy Wii Play as an alternative means of a getting a controller in the first place.

Comparing that the sales of the two games and making some objective comment on quality while ignoring every other factor isn't smart.

 

[LegendofLex]

Though I do think it's curious you completely ignored my argument about how Wii Play benefited from the install base of a hot-selling item that appealed to a massive audience, in favor of getting into the minutiae of whether Wii Play came with a "free" controller or was a controller that came with a $10 game (all while ignoring that Wiimotes were hard to come by at that point in time, leaving many to buy Wii Play as an alternative means of a getting a controller instead).

PS4 shows us that "the install base of a hot-selling item that appeals to a massive audience" does not suddenly make 20 million sellers. Moreover, if PS4 came with a game that came with a controller, do you think it would wind up selling nearly 20 million units?

You can talk about "appeal," but why was Wii Play appealing in a way that Hypothetical PS4 Game That Comes With a Controller would almost certainly not be? (But that, as something like GTA shows us, is not unattainable for a game that isn't on Wii?)

 

[Tookay]

PS4 shows us that "the install base of a hot-selling item that appeals to a massive audience" does not suddenly make 20 million sellers. Moreover, if PS4 came with a game that came with a controller, do you think it would wind up selling nearly 20 million units?

Not unless that controller became a system defining feature of said hot-selling item.

I feel like I'm being purposefully trolled here. It's like you're being purposefully obtuse and are arguing to just to argue at this point.

Do I have to qualify everything I say with some ridiculously lengthy thesis on the reasons why Wii Play's and TLOU's sales are not a reflections of their comparative quality, or are you just going to shift the goalposts some more to justify an illogical metric?

 

[LegendofLex]

Not unless that controller became a system defining feature of said hot-selling item.

All you wind up doing there is dragging the hardware's success at doing its job into the equation, not negating the software's success at doing its job. Obviously Wii did a better job at selling controllers than PS4 did. Could there be a reason for this? And should we consider those reasons as having something to do with quality (worth)? I absolutely believe so.

 

[Blearth]

Burning bridges like that sure worked out for Sega.

What's the point of cutting the cord and resorting to a new console if they don't address their biggest issue? (marketing.)

WiiU is an appealing console, but branding and incompetent marketing have hurt it tremendously.

Bull

The Wii U's biggest issue is that it is an underpowered machine with an outdated feature set and extremely weak software support.

 

[Tookay]

All you wind up doing there is dragging the hardware's success at doing its job into the equation, not negating the software's success at doing its job.

You know what, I'm done. I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore.

And to be honest, I'm not sure you do either.

Enjoy your "Transformers is a higher quality film than Schindler's List because of its higher ticket sales mean it was more successful at doing its job" argument.

 

[joecanada]

I guess I'll be the one to say it: I legitimately had way more fun with Tanks in Wii Play than I did at any point in the Last of Us.

Haha but seriously, I didn't buy tlou on ps3, and I did buy skyrim. Is one better than the other? It makes zero difference in the real world, because sales do matter. There are a million great products out there that never see the light of day since the company goes bankrupt or never develops it's potential.
If wiiplay sold a bunch then it was a good idea and that's what matters.
Do you honestly think sony or anyone else would give a crap how good tlou was if it sold 100k? Would it win goty? Probably not. You hope quality games sell but it's pretty obvious if you polled a million kids right now their "best" games would be angry birds and minecraft, not Mario because most of them haven't even played it!!
Quality is subjective but every company has a bottom line.

 

[LegendofLex]

You know what, I'm done. I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore.

I'm arguing that "quality" is basically a synonym for "worth."
That "worth" is directly related to the "price" someone is willing to pay (in other words, the "value").
And that we can only generalize the price people are willing to pay (rather than provide our own subjective perceptions of value) through sales (which are our best indicator of what people actually do vs. what they say).

Sales in particular are most useful when we compare two things that meet similar desires and are released at the same time (direct competitors). However, I think it's still somewhat valid (though less useful) to compare two disparate things, since as I stated before the list of best-selling games is pretty diverse and we've seen 10+ million sellers from all kinds of categories. But, you're right, those cases wouldn't necessarily tell you which is better, just which did a better job at correctly addressing the demands of the audience. (Which is all that I'm arguing, really - though I think that is a pretty strong indicator of quality nonetheless.)

I think we probably also agree that it's very hard to measure the post-purchase valuation of any thing. That's why I also look at long-term trends (tail sales, franchise/genre/platform growth/decline, etc.), which are a better indicator of what people actually like, and why I find the tendency toward front-loaded sales frustrating (since they tell us how people respond to hype more than how they respond to quality).

 

[Game Guru]

This, absolutely this. Nintendo makes absolutely fantastic games, but characters/franchises like Mario, Link, Kirby, etc, simply do not have the appeal that they used to , especially among the younger generations. LOADS of kids got their parents to buy them a 360 last gen just so that they could play Minecraft with their friends. A decade from now, the 5-12 year-olds of today will grow up to have nostalgia (the same kind of nostalgia that many of us have for Mario, Sonic, Nintendo, and Sega) for Minecraft and Angry Birds. Hell, even Pokemon seems to have WAY more appeal with 20-somethings than it does with its target audience, children.

Minecraft's massive success shows that all gamers haven't suddenly all become graphics whores.

Nintendo needs to take a long, hard look at recent games such as Minecraft and make something similar with a dose of "Nintendo Magic". Preferably a new IP, as I feel that their long-standing roster of characters is almost alienating to people who are new to Nintendo. In the meantime, they REALLY need to work out a deal with Mojang to port Minecraft to the Wii U. Nintendo would handle the porting in-house and add awesome GamePad functionality. Instead of buying character skins as DLC like on the 360 version, players could make their own custom skins on the GamePad screen and share them on Miiverse for anyone to use.

Edit: Welp, looks like Ninja Scooter beat me to the punch.

Actually, I'm going to disagree that Angry Birds and Minecraft's massive success is applicable to the potential success Nintendo could have, at least as anything but a third-party publisher. Mainly because Angry Birds and Minecraft are both cheap and on hardware everyone owns already. The retail 360 disc came out June of last year and was $20. It was selling to a fanbase that largely already owned the system. Angry Birds is the same way. It was selling to a fanbase who already owned smartphones and was free with ads or sold for $1. These games sold well to a userbase that already existed and it is the same for Nintendo's core franchises on the Wii. In addition, both games were cheap for their market. However, the Wii was sold on Wii Sports and the Wii U's attempt at making a Wii Sports-like hit with Nintendo Land bombed.

While Nintendo is largely hurt by the loss of their fanbase to other formats, I don't think competing directly with Sony and Microsoft is the answer and we can see this with how the last 2 generations and this current generation is turning out. The combined total of PS2 & OG Xbox sales and the combined total of 360 and PS3 sales are nearly equal when all is said and done. It is possible there that the console market as defined by Sony and MS is stagnant with both consoles basically being seen as interchangeable to the English-speaking market and favoring Sony everywhere else. Assuming that the PlayStation/Xbox market is stagnant, then it means that Sony has basically won dominance of the console market since, as shown by the PS3, the worst they can do is tie with their closest competitor and only sell 20 million less than a company aiming for a completely different audience and, as shown by the PS2, the best they can do is make the best selling video game system ever. It appears that most of the world defaults to Sony for their consoles and without another Wii aiming for another audience, it will stay that way.

 

[Version 3.0]

But... That is precisely what Nintendo wanted out of the Wii U! They wanted it to be the next Wii with the casuals. They wanted it to be popular/trendy with their unproven touch based gaming controller. They wanted to be the McDonald's of the food industry with the Wii U just like the Wii!

I'm sure they did want that, but their design looks more like they were trying to please everyone, and ended up pleasing no one.

 

[LegendofLex]

I'm sure they did want that, but their design looks more like they were trying to please everyone, and ended up pleasing no one.

They made a few wrong assumptions that led to that move, I think:

1) that giving the primary controller the "standard" inputs would appease "hardcore gamers" and developers who hated the Wii Remote (it seemed at first that it might have been sufficient for at least a few PS3/360 developers, but those "hardcore gamers" were not suddenly going to start buying Nintendo if they weren't already, so that sentiment was never going to spread)

2) that adding a touch screen to the primary controller would allow Wii U versions to be sufficiently differentiated/accepted as superior (which I suppose might have been attainable in theory, but was far from well-executed)

3) that compatibility with Wii Remotes/obligatory sequels to Wii games would keep Wii customers interested (was effectively a bare minimum/symbolic effort rather than a full embrace of what made Wii and its popular games successful - look no further than NSMBU)

4) that a tablet-like controller would be able to appeal to players who otherwise would play on a tablet (anyone who knows the smart device market knows that games are incidental purchases, not really hardware sales drivers)

5) that Wii customers would migrate upmarket to "hardcore" titles like those that emerged on N64/GameCube (which should have already been disproven by Wii itself, but whatever)

 

[Lordwindowlicker]

Why does Nintendo even bother with this console?

Because they've already spent a lot getting it out there, AND there are plenty of people who have spent money on the thing and we would be pissed if they just dropped it.

 

[Effer]

Because they've already spent a lot getting it out there, AND there are plenty of people who have spent money on the thing and we would be pissed if they just dropped it.

To some extent their personal pride is on the line, too. The upper management at Nintendo really, REALLY believed in this thing.

 

[Deku Tree]

I bought this system at launch for $350. Do not regret my purchase. Lots of great games that I like to play and that are hard to find elsewhere.

But damn these sales numbers are depressing. I hope Nintendo can figure out what they need to do next to succeed.

 

[Liabe Brave]

I'm arguing that "quality" is basically a synonym for "worth."
That "worth" is directly related to the "price" someone is willing to pay (in other words, the "value").
And that we can only generalize the price people are willing to pay (rather than provide our own subjective perceptions of value) through sales (which are our best indicator of what people actually do vs. what they say).

Your argument is ludicrous. Language is only of utility if an entire community agrees, at least roughly, on usage. Your claim that "price" is identical to "value" violates general semantic agreement in a massive way, and sounds especially clueless in an economic setting (where "price" and "value" are technical terms and emphatically not the same).

But worse still is your insistence that "quality" is a function of "price" (or "value") rather than vice versa. No one talks like this, and for good reason. Think about the implications if it were true: Dutch tulip bulbs in the early 17th century were of immensely higher quality one day than the next; it is literally impossible to "overpay" for something, or to suffer "buyer's remorse"; the quality of corporate art changes based upon how much they spend on marketing; and, not incidentally, Nintendo's franchises on Gamecube and Wii U are among the lowest-quality they've ever made. I guarantee that few people would agree with any of those statements, much less all of them and more.

You're trying to make the tail wag the dog. Quality is a characteristic objects possess. Value and price are (partially) dependent on quality, not the other way around. This is true whether one believes quality is an objective thing or a subjective perception.

 

[Marceles]

- People wouldn't double dip if the Wii U one came first.
- Wii U version might have some sort of Christmas deal or something that would cause it to sell better then than in the summer.

Hopefully they dip at all at this rate

 

[bidoof01]

The company made a huge blunder not expanding their brand with all the billions they made with Wii and DS. Now they must deal with a market that no longer buys their products. This of course all leads back to their CEO.

 

[Version 3.0]

Quality is a characteristic objects possess. Value and price are (partially) dependent on quality, not the other way around. This is true whether one believes quality is an objective thing or a subjective perception.

Yeah, these aren't difficult or ambiguous definitions. Heck, it's almost a simple math equation: quality divided by price equals value.

 

[AzaK]

Bull

The Wii U's biggest issue is that it is an underpowered machine with an outdated feature set and extremely weak software support.

People are still oblivious of this.