If I may be so bold, what is your point? Most of the wealthiest people who have ever lived on this earth have lived in our generation? Does that mean we're still not in a economic whirlpool? Just because there were sparks of brilliance doesn't mean that the platform was an overall success.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Trying to understand Nintendo's approach to the industry
- Thread starter Tathanen
- Start date
If I may be so bold, what is your point? Most of the wealthiest people who have ever lived on this earth have lived in our generation? Does that mean we're still not in a economic whirlpool? Just because there were sparks of brilliance doesn't mean that the platform was an overall success.
How profitable has the Wii and U been for Nintendo?
If they weren't a Japanese company and carrying around nostalgia in the world's hearts' they would be crushed. One day when the world is homogenized and heartless Nintendo will die. Until then they will fill their tiny little corner in our hearts and be supported by their culture.
If they weren't a Japanese company and carrying around nostalgia in the world's hearts' they would be crushed. One day when the world is homogenized and heartless Nintendo will die. Until then they will fill their tiny little corner in our hearts and be supported by their culture.
Tathanen
Get Inside Her!
I think this is a really good insight. It's true, the games Nintendo helps publish are all very "game-ey," very traditional-style, vs the AAA film-style blockbusters we see elsewhere. It's definitely got to be a purposeful decision, to match their overall game design philosophy. And I think it's yet another differentiator--as the rest of the industry is adding more and more A's, Nintendo provides a very "pure" kind of game experience. One that's certainly going to continue to be valid, as these blockbuster games are categorically not the only direction gaming can or should take. It's a good argument for owning one of each type of console, to keep yourself well-rounded.
This, for me, is the biggest mishap on Iwata's part. NoA and NoE should have their own studio setup by now akin to NCL. Made up of many of mid tier devs that went defunct. Some of the IPs from the N64 & Gamecube times should have been and still can be staple diets on the WiiU.
I miss Mid tier devs. ;_;
Great post! I'm curious though: Are there Western developers of any size who you think you would be a good fit for the Nintendo you describe? Why aren't they already working on Nintendo games, and and what could Nintendo do to attract them?
At least we still have Atlus, right? Right??
;__;
Nintendo is all about profits.
So they focus on making profits from their hardware since, oposite from Sony and Microsoft, they basicaly ONLY do gaming related stuff while Sony has the bluray player division to back on.
The problem is that the hardware industry evolves INSANELY fast.... so having good profit margins with a very new hardware is getting each time harder.
SEGA didn't understood this and crashed.
Nintendo will have serious problems in the future because of this since the WiiU was Nintendo's first console to be sold without a profit at launch. I think Playstation 1 was Sony's only console to be sold on profit at launch =P
So without following the others on hardware, Nintendo try to diferentiate thenselfs with out of box things like the gamepad, motion controls, dual screens and glassless 3d.
So in this way people can see that their hardware is worth for SOMETHING.
And because of their glorious first party games, of course, wich have the bonus of being created WITH the console, so usualy the "out of box things" are created FOR those games and not the oposite, wich is the case of every non rare kinect game.
And that creates a HUGE problem for third party, since it is best for third party that your product reaches the biggest amount of household possibles ... and it is 2 console sales vs 1, so usualy changing your product for an OTHER console is something easy to cancel when you are saving expenses.
So they focus on making profits from their hardware since, oposite from Sony and Microsoft, they basicaly ONLY do gaming related stuff while Sony has the bluray player division to back on.
The problem is that the hardware industry evolves INSANELY fast.... so having good profit margins with a very new hardware is getting each time harder.
SEGA didn't understood this and crashed.
Nintendo will have serious problems in the future because of this since the WiiU was Nintendo's first console to be sold without a profit at launch. I think Playstation 1 was Sony's only console to be sold on profit at launch =P
So without following the others on hardware, Nintendo try to diferentiate thenselfs with out of box things like the gamepad, motion controls, dual screens and glassless 3d.
So in this way people can see that their hardware is worth for SOMETHING.
And because of their glorious first party games, of course, wich have the bonus of being created WITH the console, so usualy the "out of box things" are created FOR those games and not the oposite, wich is the case of every non rare kinect game.
And that creates a HUGE problem for third party, since it is best for third party that your product reaches the biggest amount of household possibles ... and it is 2 console sales vs 1, so usualy changing your product for an OTHER console is something easy to cancel when you are saving expenses.
Nintendo had great success with the Wii. Multiple 10+ million selling games. Dozens of 1+ million sellers. A high attach rate. The system was a success in every way outside of Western software support.
SonicMegaDrive
Member
The Wii sold 100 million units. Good for 3rd best selling console all-time, behind the PS1 and PS2. I'd say it was an overall success for Nintendo, and that's an understatement.
Shikamaru Ninja
任天å ã® å¿è
Just pointing out the bold because it is very inaccurate of the publishing model. Grezzo, Good Feel, Genius Sonoriity are not third party publishers nor developers actively developing for third party publishers, they are in fact developing games for the hardware manufacturer. These aren't licensee publishers dealing with any risks at all, they are contracted developers enjoying a safe model as long as they appease their publisher. Same goes Platinum Games for the time being. Every big first party publisher has their staple of small contracted indie developers working on games and that is something completely different from third party publisher relationships.
The negotiatons with Square-Enix (Dragon Quest) and SEGA (Sonic) are actual legit third party relationships. It seems often these deals with actual publishers work because the games "fit Nintendo's userbase" and also includes extras like some type of IP collaboration or Nintendo offering to publish the licensee IP in the more risky regions of the world.
None of this is new though. The practice has been very prominent since the GameCube era when Nintendo and Square-Enix, Nintendo and SEGA, Nintendo and Konami, and Nintendo and Namco had several joint agreements going.
Something I discussed before. During the Nintendo 64 era Nintendo was releasing first-party games from RARE, Left Field, and some other western studios that were selling millions. It is very peculiar that they see their fanbase eat some of these IPs up and then deem them completely unimportant the next couple of generations.
Would you still say that the Wii was a success considering the state that the Wii U is in right now? Don't you think that the Wii made it impossible for the next Nintendo console to do well?
So much misinformation in this thread I wish I could go into...
The 3DS is a perfect case study on Nintendo. It struggled at first. Why? Lack of games. I think we can all agree on that. Then they quickly released Mario 3D Land and Mario Kart 7 (Two 3DS versions of their 20+ million sellers), and did this fix everything? No, but that and the price drop helped for sure. Then we get Kid Icarus, NSMB2, Fire Emblem, Luigis Mansion, Animal Crossing, and more, and all of a sudden 3DS is top dawg and everyone has to have it. It wasn't the big 20mil titles that drove the sales.
You look at the 3DS and you say "It has Mario" isn't enough to sell you. You look at the 3DS and say "Mario, Fire Emblem, Animal Crossing, etc, man I need one of these." And now that you have one, you may as well get Kid Icarus too right? Each quality title adds to a reason to buy the system.
And now how does this apply to 3rd parties? If right now WiiU isn't appealing because all it has is "Mario"...does that appeal go up because it also has Call of Duty? Not really, because you can already play CoD on 360/PS3/PC. Does that appeal go up if it has Bayonetta 2 as an exclusive. Yea it really does.
The 3DS is a perfect case study on Nintendo. It struggled at first. Why? Lack of games. I think we can all agree on that. Then they quickly released Mario 3D Land and Mario Kart 7 (Two 3DS versions of their 20+ million sellers), and did this fix everything? No, but that and the price drop helped for sure. Then we get Kid Icarus, NSMB2, Fire Emblem, Luigis Mansion, Animal Crossing, and more, and all of a sudden 3DS is top dawg and everyone has to have it. It wasn't the big 20mil titles that drove the sales.
You look at the 3DS and you say "It has Mario" isn't enough to sell you. You look at the 3DS and say "Mario, Fire Emblem, Animal Crossing, etc, man I need one of these." And now that you have one, you may as well get Kid Icarus too right? Each quality title adds to a reason to buy the system.
And now how does this apply to 3rd parties? If right now WiiU isn't appealing because all it has is "Mario"...does that appeal go up because it also has Call of Duty? Not really, because you can already play CoD on 360/PS3/PC. Does that appeal go up if it has Bayonetta 2 as an exclusive. Yea it really does.
SonicMegaDrive
Member
No. The Wii U is unsuccessful so far because of price and lack of games.
You're talking about two different consoles.
I don't know. Was the PS2 a success? Was the Genesis/Mega Drive a success?
The fact that a company screws up with a console's successor doesn't retroactively make that console a failure.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
I will say, that I've got a feeling those who hate "gimmicks" are in for a disappointment.
I don't think Nintendo is ever going to give up what a lot of enthusiast gamers call a gimmick. Which generally seems defined as: anything not adhering to the current median of trends and standards. In the present era, these standards are things like: every control device must be a dual shock gamepad. A game console is a generic box that exists only to provide as much silicon power as possible squeezed in with all other considerations being secondary. Games in which the gameplay and basic premise more or less follow the most homogenized conventions in the largest genres aimed at males age 18-35.
Nintendo always has a "gimmick". They made special devices with custom games for the NES and the SNES. The analog stick gamepad of the N64 was a new "gimmick". Basing all games around a single primary stick for movement in 3D. The Gamecube, their least successful game console so far, was the only one that didn't have a gimmick, though they tried to bolt one on with the GBA link system.
Another problem here is that Nintendo seems to have decided keeping much or most of their back catalog alive on their current devices is a pre-requisite. Which means that those "non-gimmicky" classic games are not lost in time, but are right here on current Nintendo hardware. Which gives Nintendo even less of a reason to simply duplicate what they've previously done, with the exception of games which are designed to be very literal sequels, like Link to the Past 2.
I don't think Nintendo is ever going to give up what a lot of enthusiast gamers call a gimmick. Which generally seems defined as: anything not adhering to the current median of trends and standards. In the present era, these standards are things like: every control device must be a dual shock gamepad. A game console is a generic box that exists only to provide as much silicon power as possible squeezed in with all other considerations being secondary. Games in which the gameplay and basic premise more or less follow the most homogenized conventions in the largest genres aimed at males age 18-35.
Nintendo always has a "gimmick". They made special devices with custom games for the NES and the SNES. The analog stick gamepad of the N64 was a new "gimmick". Basing all games around a single primary stick for movement in 3D. The Gamecube, their least successful game console so far, was the only one that didn't have a gimmick, though they tried to bolt one on with the GBA link system.
Another problem here is that Nintendo seems to have decided keeping much or most of their back catalog alive on their current devices is a pre-requisite. Which means that those "non-gimmicky" classic games are not lost in time, but are right here on current Nintendo hardware. Which gives Nintendo even less of a reason to simply duplicate what they've previously done, with the exception of games which are designed to be very literal sequels, like Link to the Past 2.
Tathanen
Get Inside Her!
Well sure, I suppose additional classification was needed for that "small developers" group, since they are indeed not just small, but rather under that Nintendo umbrella. But the point remains, Nintendo is working with a variety of companies here, not just their wholly-owned teams.
DQ and Monster Hunter are certainly more "true" third party games. I think Sonic is there for the "fit" as you described, but DQ and MH I think came not only because of that, but because the Wii and DS were selling so stupefyingly strongly. If Square-Enix knew the Wii U would struggle like this, I wonder if they would have still put DQX on it.
makingmusic476
Member
Is this the Nintendo approach under Iwata?
You've done an excellent job of describing what would appear to be the driving philosophy behind the DS, Wii, 3DS, and Wii U, but I wouldn't say it's particularly applicable to, say, the GameCube.
You've done an excellent job of describing what would appear to be the driving philosophy behind the DS, Wii, 3DS, and Wii U, but I wouldn't say it's particularly applicable to, say, the GameCube.
Are you guys simply judging the Wii as if it existed in a black box? I'm analyzing the situation as it relates to Nintendo's current state of being.
Had Nintendo invested more in areas that matter most (online + performance), perhaps they wouldn't be in the last place this generation. They are behind their competitors in categories which they purposely chose to ignore in the past generation in order to make more profit.
crazy monkey
Banned
Wii was my favorite console of all time. Loved it. Loved the controls. I wish Nintendo made them even better.
good post op.
good post op.
Well what happened to the grandparents and casuals who bought the Wii?
While we can argue what to call the anomaly that had millions of non traditional gamers buy the Wii and the fact that Nintendo is now struggling to make Wii U relevant off those waves of popularity just proves that whatever made Wii a must have was a perfect storm and little more.
This further proves that you just don't know what a "gimmick" is.
Great post.
I think a lot of people just see what Nintendo does and think "that doesn't make any sense." It's never because it doesn't make sense but that Nintendo is run quite differently from the rest of the industry. They don't have perfect strategies but they tend to be immune to many of the industry pitfalls while being vulnerable to others. The net effect is that Nintendo is an irreplaceable figure in the industry both in terms of hardware and software.
I think a lot of people just see what Nintendo does and think "that doesn't make any sense." It's never because it doesn't make sense but that Nintendo is run quite differently from the rest of the industry. They don't have perfect strategies but they tend to be immune to many of the industry pitfalls while being vulnerable to others. The net effect is that Nintendo is an irreplaceable figure in the industry both in terms of hardware and software.
Mysterious
Banned
Wii was my most favourite console of all time. Better than DS, 3DS, N64, GameCube and PS3. They thoroughly innovated, and some of their wackiest choices made sense.
Nintendo is slowly losing me as a loyal consumer with the Wii U. Nothing about the Wii U makes sense to me.
Nintendo is slowly losing me as a loyal consumer with the Wii U. Nothing about the Wii U makes sense to me.
It's still a success. I think any successor that didn't do as well as the Wii did will look like a failure. Currently, Nintendo has failed to deliver compelling software and hook in a wide audience. That's the fault of Nintendo not the Wii's success. The idea of focusing on delivering unique experiences is worthwhile. The Gameboy line succeeded because it provided quality handheld titles before anyone, the DS by offering gameplay no one else would at the time and the same for the original Wii.
The Wii U, and to a lesser extent the 3DS, have had trouble offering games that take advantage of what they offer. The Wii U right now is just a place to get crappy versions of games for the 360/PS3 and a couple of good Nintendo games that are similar to things people played on the Wii, DS or 3DS.
No it doesn't
NotoriousPUG
Member
I really like the opening post, and may just link to this in the future instead of writing it out all the time when debating people. I hope that Nintendo sticks to it's ideals if for no other reason than to provide people with a different option than everyone else.
I agree. However, let's not forget that the lack of compelling software is most likely due to Nintendo's inability to adjust to the larger pipelines that are required for producing HD games. Had they made the jump in the previous generation all of this could have been prevented (for the most part).
Freezie KO
Banned
Nice OP. The only thing I disagree with is your statement that Nintendo fundamentally cannot compete in the powerful hardware space.
I'm not so sure of that narrative of "poor Nintendo can't pony up the money to build a big box." Rather, what you said about their business model is the reason they don't compete like that.
Could they win it? It couldn't get much worse than right now. They're obviously having development problems on the software side. But ignoring those, keep in mind that PS3 and 360 were both deemed successes and they were neck-and-neck. So could Nintendo make a box that sold 80 million with powerful hardware? Maybe. Especially, as you said, it's their software that differentiates them at the end of the day.
So the question then is: Where do they go from here?
Everything you defined in your OP about differentiation seems to stem most from the DS/Wii/3DS/Wii U era. That's the Iwata era. Sure, the Gamecube had some differentiation on the outside and with the Connectivity failure. But the Cube was a competing console, and it failed.
In comes Iwata, and everything's blue ocean. We'll be different here. We'll be different there. Swimming in money. But now, we have not one, but two, consoles that tried to differentiate and collapsed. 3D wasn't a hit, and Nintendo had to save the 3DS by sheer force of software.
Now we come to the Wii U. Again, very unique selling proposition. Again, a failure. And now, they're not even making money on the hardware. So I go back to my question: If Nintendo tried direct competition, could it really be any worse than a console tracking in sub-GameCube numbers?
I don't know. And I don't think Nintendo will stop trying to differentiate itself, but we may see something entirely different than the past. What just failed was "Here's a new handheld - with a unique feature!" and "Here's a new console - with a unique feature!"
Also, they have to keep in mind how fast their software teams can get up to speed. And with recent moves to consolidate their hardware teams under one roof, it only makes sense to me that the "new feature" phase of differentiation may be over. Just as Iwata learned from the GameCube, he'll learn from the 3DS and Wii U.
So what's next? What could consolidate both their hardware teams to create something that doesn't compete directly with the XBox Two and PS5? What could give them a boost in software production, while still maintaining full control over the hardware? It seems to me like the hybrid handheld/console is the way to go.
Tathanen said:
I'm not so sure of that narrative of "poor Nintendo can't pony up the money to build a big box." Rather, what you said about their business model is the reason they don't compete like that.
Could they win it? It couldn't get much worse than right now. They're obviously having development problems on the software side. But ignoring those, keep in mind that PS3 and 360 were both deemed successes and they were neck-and-neck. So could Nintendo make a box that sold 80 million with powerful hardware? Maybe. Especially, as you said, it's their software that differentiates them at the end of the day.
So the question then is: Where do they go from here?
Everything you defined in your OP about differentiation seems to stem most from the DS/Wii/3DS/Wii U era. That's the Iwata era. Sure, the Gamecube had some differentiation on the outside and with the Connectivity failure. But the Cube was a competing console, and it failed.
In comes Iwata, and everything's blue ocean. We'll be different here. We'll be different there. Swimming in money. But now, we have not one, but two, consoles that tried to differentiate and collapsed. 3D wasn't a hit, and Nintendo had to save the 3DS by sheer force of software.
Now we come to the Wii U. Again, very unique selling proposition. Again, a failure. And now, they're not even making money on the hardware. So I go back to my question: If Nintendo tried direct competition, could it really be any worse than a console tracking in sub-GameCube numbers?
I don't know. And I don't think Nintendo will stop trying to differentiate itself, but we may see something entirely different than the past. What just failed was "Here's a new handheld - with a unique feature!" and "Here's a new console - with a unique feature!"
Also, they have to keep in mind how fast their software teams can get up to speed. And with recent moves to consolidate their hardware teams under one roof, it only makes sense to me that the "new feature" phase of differentiation may be over. Just as Iwata learned from the GameCube, he'll learn from the 3DS and Wii U.
So what's next? What could consolidate both their hardware teams to create something that doesn't compete directly with the XBox Two and PS5? What could give them a boost in software production, while still maintaining full control over the hardware? It seems to me like the hybrid handheld/console is the way to go.
I think at the time the shift to HD would have hurt Nintendo more than it is now. The additional cost and time would have them fall far behind the 360 and PS3 in terms of software and they'd fall into an even smaller niche than what the Gamecube had. Also, at the time steering away from HD didn't sound as crazy as it did now, SD CRTs were still commonplace at the time after all.
Nintendo is in a much better place right now int he minds of consumers and financially to be able to risk the time and money HD game production requires. If they had went HD with the Wii there's a good chance they'd be in a worse state than they are now.
I wish they had warmed up to online earlier though.
Care to elaborate?
The ONLY area that matters for a game console is the games. If a game is improved through online then the game should have it, but not every game SHOULD have online, or even multiplayer. As for performance, are you saying that Nintendo games didn't perform great on the Wii, both quality and and sales-wise?
But then whatever console replaced the Wii would have had the same problems. You're basically saying "I wish the Wii had been exactly like the other two HD consoles", completely missing OP's point about Nintendo not directly competing.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Every current standard was once a potential gimmick.
Those motion control gimmicks by the way, are becoming a standard. More and more devices have gyroscopic sensors, and applications and games that make use of them as simply another tool in the kit that gets used in due time and place.
What's a gimmick in the most pejorative sense of the word? Red flame decals on the side of a sports car to make it go faster. Also, that giant Pikachu N64. Yep, that was a gimmick.
But "gimmick" gets thrown around way too often and easily by folks who just don't like something and wish it would go away so they don't have to see it anymore.
SonicMegaDrive
Member
We're judging the Wii on it's own terms. It was wildly successful, end of story.
The Wiiu struggling out of the gate doesn't make the Wii a mistake. The PS3 experiencing the same growing pains doesn't make the PS2 an accident or mistake. 90 million console sold is hardly an accident or a fluke
ArchangelWest
Member
If Nintendo stopped making consoles, then we'd have 2 pretty much identical console experiences instead of choice. There's a reason why most serious gamers are deciding on PS4 and Wii U combo, or XBone and Wii U combo, and relatively few a PS4 and XBone combo.
And therein lies the biggest reason why Nintendo is doing things the way they do them (i.e. Their approach to the industry). Because for all of the changes in gaming brought about by Tablets and phones, there is still a large market for console gaming, and gamers want the choice to have something different along the lines that Nintendo provides, rather than just focusing on realism, and spec'd out machines.
And therein lies the biggest reason why Nintendo is doing things the way they do them (i.e. Their approach to the industry). Because for all of the changes in gaming brought about by Tablets and phones, there is still a large market for console gaming, and gamers want the choice to have something different along the lines that Nintendo provides, rather than just focusing on realism, and spec'd out machines.
Nintendo's recent approach to the industry is an interesting one.
I like to look at it in the way of how swarm intelligence works. Take bees for example, when they want to search for the best food source, they initially search randomly, when one bee (say Activision) spots a good food source, (random "dudebro" hit), the other bee's (EA, Ubisoft, Sony, Microsoft, etc.) tend to follow that bee's trail in order to get to said food source, nevertheless there are other bees (say Nintendo) that keep searching other places because they still can find an even better food source, (random input device hit), than the other bees are on, in which case all those other bees will eventually come to.
Nintendo is in this risky search since '06 for something new to catch on and make the Industry follow them, not the other way around. They seem to want to shape the industry into what they believe is the best for them and the industry, i.e. relatively weak specs, focus on "gimmicks" in favor of alternative gameplay ideas.
I'm not saying they are on the right or wrong path, but we have to admit it has paid important dividends at some point, and it's logical how the Wii U was conceived. It's a long uphill battle for them by the looks of how the new system is selling and I'm intrigued to see if they will keep with this business vision on next next gen.
I like to look at it in the way of how swarm intelligence works. Take bees for example, when they want to search for the best food source, they initially search randomly, when one bee (say Activision) spots a good food source, (random "dudebro" hit), the other bee's (EA, Ubisoft, Sony, Microsoft, etc.) tend to follow that bee's trail in order to get to said food source, nevertheless there are other bees (say Nintendo) that keep searching other places because they still can find an even better food source, (random input device hit), than the other bees are on, in which case all those other bees will eventually come to.
Nintendo is in this risky search since '06 for something new to catch on and make the Industry follow them, not the other way around. They seem to want to shape the industry into what they believe is the best for them and the industry, i.e. relatively weak specs, focus on "gimmicks" in favor of alternative gameplay ideas.
I'm not saying they are on the right or wrong path, but we have to admit it has paid important dividends at some point, and it's logical how the Wii U was conceived. It's a long uphill battle for them by the looks of how the new system is selling and I'm intrigued to see if they will keep with this business vision on next next gen.
How true is this really though?
If you're a gamer, if you're halfway informed about anything in gaming culture, you already know Nintendo exists and are likely in a position to evaluate whether you want to shackle yourself to Nintendo hardware to play Nintendo games.
If you're not a gamer - the tablet/smartphone space, let's say - the prices you expect to pay for software are, or at least seem to me, to be so low as to really prevent Nintendo from actually meaningfully benefiting from reaching you. So while the market reach might become far, far larger, the actual worth of that market reach becomes debatable. In fact, it might poison the well as far as paying for full-priced content on other systems.
I may of course be misinterpreting or extrapolating poorly, please correct me if so.
Y'all act like their approach in the Iwata era is any different than it has ever been.
Sure, their public display of marketing and targeting changes but they've always been special because of Nintendo games. Things have changed as far as what third party games they get, a little (remember stuff like Road Rash? Beavis and Butthead? Aladdin? third party games even back in the SNES days were frequently absent), but Nintendo today is still the Nintendo we have always known, designing systems for the games they want to make and then watching as their innovations become industry standards.
D-pad? Four face buttons and L/R triggers? Analog stick, rumble, analog triggers, touch screens, motion control, IR pointing... it's easy to forget that every one of the things that people used to call Nintendo crazy for are now literally industry standards.
NICE OP, OP
Sure, their public display of marketing and targeting changes but they've always been special because of Nintendo games. Things have changed as far as what third party games they get, a little (remember stuff like Road Rash? Beavis and Butthead? Aladdin? third party games even back in the SNES days were frequently absent), but Nintendo today is still the Nintendo we have always known, designing systems for the games they want to make and then watching as their innovations become industry standards.
D-pad? Four face buttons and L/R triggers? Analog stick, rumble, analog triggers, touch screens, motion control, IR pointing... it's easy to forget that every one of the things that people used to call Nintendo crazy for are now literally industry standards.
NICE OP, OP
First off, I don't think I used the word mistake. That's not a word I'd used to classify something like the Wii. It was far from being a mistake on all fronts.
Secondly, I think we can all agree that the popularity for the Wii is something that surpassed the Gamecube's installed base; there was more to it than that. The non traditional gamers and/or casuals knocked the Wii out of the park.
The fact that a 90 million installed base has left Nintendo's next console floundering proves to me that the Wii was an anomaly.
Duckhuntdog
Member
So go from two revenue streams to one? Yeah, no.
I really don't know. The mid-tier western guys who used to support Nintendo like THQ and Midway are mostly gone now, victims of exactly the kind of gaming business Nintendo seems to be against. Also, most smaller western developers are traditionally very PC-centric, which is a world completely outside of where Nintendo comes from.
Other than that it's mostly indies, many of whom have already been burned on WiiWare (Polytron and Team Meat being two big examples). The most outstanding example of a smaller western developer allying with Nintendo has been WayForward. A smaller example would be Renegade Kid.
SonicMegaDrive
Member
To me it proves that non-traditional gamers and/or casuals are unwilling to spend $350 on a console, especially one without a killer app like a Wii Fit or a Wii Sports to draw them in.
You can say this about every console in history when you focus on a 8 month time stretch of it's existence.
You didn't use the words mistake and fluke but you're certainly implying. To say it was anomaly is something I find rather disingenuous because it takes away from what Nintendo actual did with it to make it a success. Compare that too what they have done with the Wiiu and the differences speak for themselves.
darkistheway
Member
Absolutely.
Very well thought out, well-articulated analysis. Great job!
I am a big fan of Nintendo's style of business. The focus on differentiation and fiscal responsibility is to be commended.
Very well thought out, well-articulated analysis. Great job!
I am a big fan of Nintendo's style of business. The focus on differentiation and fiscal responsibility is to be commended.
Nintendo probably doesn't want to admit it, but their consoles are basically Nintendo delivery machines. I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with that. They are the only video game company even remotely capable of supporting a home console and a handheld simultaneously, single handily.
Nintendo doesn't dislike third parties they don't trust them to move their hardware. Instead they rely on their own titles creating a large install base driven by their own software to attract third parties as oppose to money hats, hardware specs etc. If there is no install base then there's always Nintendo's games. It's actually exciting to see Nintendo diversify it's software lineup a bit by picking up Bayo 2, developing X and having that SMT/FE crossover. It shows Nintendo is more and more capable of supporting a wide range of gamers on their console on their own.
Worst comes to worst and say not a SINGLE third party game was ever made for their console, their own franchises are enough to push a decent number of consoles every generation anyway. I know I'd still buy it.
And Nintendo clearly doesn't mind being a companion console for core gamers. Core gamers tend to own more then one console anyway so Nintendo has positioned themselves to make a lot of people go PS4/WiiU or XBONE/WiiU, but very few people would go PS4/XBONE. The causal gamers are the market Nintendo wants to be the people's top choice, since casuals are less likely to buy multiple consoles. With this two-pronged approach, Nintendo is almost guaranteed to always do at least okay.
This software drought has been unfortunate but the heavy hitters are approaching. Those coupled with a price drop and the WiiU will be fine this holiday and beyond. It won't outsell the Wii, but it will out sell the Gamecube.
Nintendo doesn't dislike third parties they don't trust them to move their hardware. Instead they rely on their own titles creating a large install base driven by their own software to attract third parties as oppose to money hats, hardware specs etc. If there is no install base then there's always Nintendo's games. It's actually exciting to see Nintendo diversify it's software lineup a bit by picking up Bayo 2, developing X and having that SMT/FE crossover. It shows Nintendo is more and more capable of supporting a wide range of gamers on their console on their own.
Worst comes to worst and say not a SINGLE third party game was ever made for their console, their own franchises are enough to push a decent number of consoles every generation anyway. I know I'd still buy it.
And Nintendo clearly doesn't mind being a companion console for core gamers. Core gamers tend to own more then one console anyway so Nintendo has positioned themselves to make a lot of people go PS4/WiiU or XBONE/WiiU, but very few people would go PS4/XBONE. The causal gamers are the market Nintendo wants to be the people's top choice, since casuals are less likely to buy multiple consoles. With this two-pronged approach, Nintendo is almost guaranteed to always do at least okay.
This software drought has been unfortunate but the heavy hitters are approaching. Those coupled with a price drop and the WiiU will be fine this holiday and beyond. It won't outsell the Wii, but it will out sell the Gamecube.
The one thing I love when people say that they would have so much more power and ability on other systems...they wouldn't. They would have to play by Microsoft or Sony's rules.
Having their own systems lets them make the rules. The problem is that a lot of people in the industry don't care for their rules.
Having their own systems lets them make the rules. The problem is that a lot of people in the industry don't care for their rules.
OK, let's use Sony for example since the Wii rivals PS2 in sales.
The PS2 launched at US$299 to PS3's $599. Wii was $250 to $350. Now we know why PS3 had a hard time getting traction, but I'm supposed to believe 80+ million Wii owners out there and the Wii U isn't getting any love because of $100 difference? The Wii U launched with a fitness game and sports games plus you can use Wii games on the Wii U with the same accessories. The transition is effortless! Those millions that thought the Wii was a trendy thing to get left, probably for an iPad.
Similar threads
- Poll