Support NeoGAF

[sfried]

Pay and support all the popular game engines like Unreal Engine 4, Frostbite, and of course Unity which is already supported for Nintendo consoles.

Personally I think this is what they need to focus on. They need to rework their dev kits to be more friendly, have more than proper documentation, and make it relatively painless for developers to get their games running, no matter what the scale.

 

[sörine]

You're being pretty obtuse. Handheld sales do not matter in this conversation. And even if they did, 60 million between the two platforms is not impressive, and the 3DS is losing steam very quickly. Not to mention that the Wii U and 3DS have about 5 years combined on the market and the PS4 and Xbox One are barely over one year. Your comparison is not valid. Also, 3DS + Wii U numbers will probably not surpass PS4 end of life numbers.

I think you've lost sight of what the conversation actually was. It was if Nintendo's brands were still "strong" or not. I'd say that they're pushing 60 million machines off essentially just those brands indicates significant strength and consumer pull yet. You're certainly free to disagree of course but 3DS is unquestionably still valid in this sort of discussion.

Another good indicator are software charts, where Nintendo ends up being within the top 3 publishers in nearly every major market consistently. And this despite their massive hardware declines.

 

[AngryNapkin]

i kind of don't understand what you're trying to say here.



well they made playing cards for eighty years. they jumped into other side businesses in the 60s. then they started making toys around that time and finally got into the arcade business in the 70s, before moving on to video games late in the decade. rest assured, they will probably not move to other platforms where their kind of games already don't do well. they will probably find some other business, like they did in the past.



going after the shrinking and increasingly expensive traditional market seems like a bigger and bigger mistake for everyone if it means things are even staying steady and not consolidating as they likely are.



well that's what designers are supposed to do - find creative solutions to complex problems. i think it's incredibly sad to hold the belief that this is the end of the traditional market. i think there are many many ways for it to expand.

I was basically saying you can't compare various strategies of publishers breaking into a Steam market via digital distribution and Nintendo trying to break into various others at this stage in the game. They are doing it for completely different reasons.

From just the NES on is what I'm talking about with other products in different markets. They are an old company that's been around awhile. I agree I doubt they go third party out of spite but why do you keep assuming Nintendo products wouldn't do well if there were no Nintendo console out?

Assuming the PS4 and One have a combined install base of 150 million by the end of their lives and if Wii U support stopped those would be the only two systems to play those games.

I think they would do very well. Those types of games don't do well on those platforms because they are usually terrible. Nintendo games are golden. I'd think they would sell even better overall since people wouldn't have to buy hardware specifically for Nintendo games any more.

I've said it before but it bears repeating that I have never seen a home where a Nintendo platform was the sole console. Not in at least a decade now. It's anecdotal to be sure but it still has to be said given their sales numbers over the past decade or two.

 

[Moon_frogger]

The real question is "how to attract 3rd party support" and at least part of the answer is make it as simple as possible for multiplatform games to appear on the console. No more under powered hardware. no more Gimmicky control schemes. Give us a real console. I say this as an avid wii U lover. I love that they are different but what they are doing is pushing away 3rd party support.

 

[RedSwirl]

Just remembered I recently wrote a big post on this topic. Might as well repost it here:



That third point is the most important, I think. If they can't get third party support, that downwards trajectory is just going to continue. A first party box simply isn't enough unless they stumble upon something special like they did with the Wii. If successful, you find yourself with the Wiimote, Wii Sports and you win the generation. If you try that and fail, you get the gamepad and Wii U, and sell less than 15 million units when it's all said and done.

Something tells me Nintendo is just going to keep rolling the dice until it comes up with another Mario 64 lightning strike that forcibly steers the whole console industry. That's not going to attract today's western developers though.

In a way Nintendo still hasn't adapted to the western takeover of console gaming (despite the N64 being the western takeover before the western takeover). The Wii success and the quality of Nintendo's software has somewhat insulated it from having to play by the rules of today's western developers, but I wonder how long it can resist. Not only do you have western developers burned on Nintendo in regards to third party relations, you have studios that crossed over from the PC world that have no history with Nintendo at all. BioWare has shipped a total of two games on Nintendo hardware in its history, one being an outsourced Mass Effect 3 port. Bethesda has never developed anything on Nintendo hardware. To my knowledge Epic, Valve, and Obsidian have never developed anything on Nintendo hardware, nor did Irrational. I think id is the only major PC player that has significant history with Nintendo. The others may harbor personal reverence for Nintendo, but have never had any business or development incentive to support its hardware.

If Nintendo even tries it'll be difficult if not impossible to get a plurality of western developers and publishers on board.

 

[Sandfox]

They're not gimmicks if they work well. I don't think the Wii U tablet controller was a gimmick, I just think it was a horrible idea. And while "waggling" is a gimmick, proper motion control is not.

Nintendo's got the brilliance to come up with something unique, but it has to actually be good. Off screen gameplay and 2 screens for a handheld are not the ideas I think they need.

I don't think that's how it works.

The more gimmicks you have the more they cripple their first party devs and the quality of their games, which is their only selling point.

Doesn't that depend on the gimmicks?

I was basically saying you can't compare various strategies of publishers breaking into a Steam market via digital distribution and Nintendo trying to break into various others at this stage in the game. They are doing it for completely different reasons.

From just the NES on is what I'm talking about with other products in different markets. They are an old company that's been around awhile. I agree I doubt they go third party out of spite but why do you keep assuming Nintendo products wouldn't do well if there were no Nintendo console out?

Assuming the PS4 and One have a combined install base of 150 million by the end of their lives and if Wii U support stopped those would be the only two systems to play those games.

I think they would do very well. Those types of games don't do well on those platforms because they are usually terrible. Nintendo games are golden. I'd think they would sell even better overall since people wouldn't have to buy hardware specifically for Nintendo games any more.

I've said it before but it bears repeating that I have never seen a home where a Nintendo platform was the sole console. Not in at least a decade now. It's anecdotal to be sure but it still has to be said given their sales numbers over the past decade or two.

I doubt it given the target audience for those consoles.

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

I don't think that's how it works.

Not following. I don't think the motion controller or the wii-u tablet were gimmicks.

 

[AniHawk]

I was basically saying you can't compare various strategies of publishers breaking into a Steam market via digital distribution and Nintendo trying to break into various others at this stage in the game. They are doing it for completely different reasons.

From just the NES on is what I'm talking about with other products in different markets. They are an old company that's been around awhile. I agree I doubt they go third party out of spite but why do you keep assuming Nintendo products wouldn't do well if there were no Nintendo console out?

Assuming the PS4 and One have a combined install base of 150 million by the end of their lives and if Wii U support stopped those would be the only two systems to play those games.

nah. there's the 3ds too. nintendo's handheld line may have suffered a mighty blow due to mobile, but it makes no sense to move to a much more expensive platform only to risk less on an unproven userbase.

I think they would do very well. Those types of games don't do well on those platforms because they are usually terrible. Nintendo games are golden. I'd think they would sell even better overall since people wouldn't have to buy hardware specifically for Nintendo games any more.

this is fantasy again. it's work to build an audience. the kind of people who would buy nintendo games aren't on sony consoles or microsoft consoles because they decided to purchase sony consoles and microsoft consoles because those consoles have the kinds of games that appeal to them.

I've said it before but it bears repeating that I have never seen a home where a Nintendo platform was the sole console. Not in at least a decade now. It's anecdotal to be sure but it still has to be said given their sales numbers over the past decade or two.

i have never seen a home where a sony or microsoft console is the sole console either, but you're right about anecdotes at least.

 

[Sandfox]

Not following. I don't think the motion controller or the wii-u tablet were gimmicks.

I would say they are gimmicks by definition.

 

[thewhitehawk]

A 'me too' approach would be a disaster in my opinion. Be creative, be fresh, pump out those first party gems.

Before the Wii the last time they were successful and competitive in the home console market was when they had both things. They had competing hardware, third parties on-board, innovative technologies (Mode 7) and a great lineup of first-party games.

The N64, Gamecube and the Wii U are proof that being innovative and having great first-party games alone isn't enough to be competitive. They need to be appealing to a broad audience, not just their fans.

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

I would say they are gimmicks by definition.

Fair enough But gimmick without the stank.

 

[Calamari41]

Does anybody know what Nintendo's marketshare looks like when you consider software sold rather than systems sold? Basically, what's their percent of the market as a publisher?

 

[Mory Dunz]

I would say they are gimmicks by definition.

What is.....the definition of a gimmick?

 

[AngryNapkin]

nah. there's the 3ds too. nintendo's handheld line may have suffered a mighty blow due to mobile, but it makes no sense to move to a much more expensive platform only to risk less on an unproven userbase.

this is fantasy again. it's work to build an audience. the kind of people who would buy nintendo games aren't on sony consoles or microsoft consoles because they decided to purchase sony consoles and microsoft consoles because those consoles have the kinds of games that appeal to them.

i have never seen a home where a sony or microsoft console is the sole console either, but you're right about anecdotes at least.

I don't think it's fantasy, they "might" not buy those other platforms because those games aren't there.

If for whatever reason they released titles on PS4 and there was no Nintendo console those customers aren't just going to say "welp that's it folks, the new Smash, Mario, DK, Kirby, Starfox, and Zelda are not worth buying that console for"

 

[The Artisan]

Yes it did. And that's in an age where it's much cheaper to make a game, easier to port to, and third parties weren't making very few games like they are now (targeted all to the same audience)

I can't recall a substantial amount of 3rd party games 6th gen that were multiplat and not on gamecube. If that was the case they may've been Ps2 exclusive because that was playstation's prime.

They're as proprietary as Wii U discs. Which is to say they're standard mini DVDs made differently than the DVD standard. That isn't what led to the Gamecube's demise. Most games that generation would've fit on a single mini DVD, and almost nothing is insurmountable where there's money to be made. See: XBox 360 multiple disc games. You and many others are ignoring the core issues and just looking at hardware.

if you're saying hardware isn't the core issue(s) it would've been helpful you mentioned what you think they actually are.

 

[AniHawk]

I don't think it's fantasy, they "might" not buy those other platforms because those games aren't there.

If for whatever reason they released titles on PS4 and there was no Nintendo console those customers aren't just going to say "welp that's it folks, the new Smash, Mario, DK, Kirby, Starfox, and Zelda are not worth buying that console for"

nintendo wouldn't release games for ps4 if there was no nintendo console. they'd put all their efforts into their handheld.

 

[Toxi]

They can't and they won't. There's no real gimmick that will measure up to upcoming VR, while they're not going to have a power advantage over the competition. The best they can hope for is targeting the cheapest price.

I've seen the idea of merging the home console with the handheld, but that then runs into the problem of how handhelds are declining.

 

[StevieP]

I can't recall a substantial amount of 3rd party games 6th gen that were multiplat and not on gamecube. If that was the case they may've been Ps2 exclusive because that was playstation's prime.

There were a substantial amount of 3rd party games that were multiplat and not on Gamecube.

if you're saying hardware isn't the core issue(s) it would've been helpful you mentioned what you think they actually are.

Demographics. Image. Return on investment for others. The games they produce as a company not lining up with the games that other western (and eastern west-focused companies like Capcom) are making. The traditional gaming market is stagnating toward a very young-male-focused product, to a continually aging population with very little churn by the looks of it. A few mega expensive mega franchises that target an increasing niche and how to make them spend more and more money with a couple side projects here and there if we're lucky. That's what the big third party publishers are doing. That isn't what Nintendo does. They don't and won't line up any time soon, no matter what kind of hardware power or disc types or online infrastructure they provide (including a paid one, so they can start providing Activision with the cut of it they seek). Before they do any of those things, they have to give up what they do and shift focuses entirely (to producing almost solely young-male-focused games, like the others) and THEN maybe after multiple generations of proving their market and multiple billion dollars of spend and moneyhats will they receive more equal footing when it comes to the current crop of third party publishers. The hardware itself has so little to do with it, it's almost moot to discuss. Where there's guaranteed money to be made, the hardware will be adapted to no matter what it is. See: multiple multi-disc 360 games. COD downports to Wii. PS2, PS3. Etc etc etc.

Things were easier when there was much more console focused production happening, with a ton more companies with a ton more diversity. Now? You're pretty much either mega and young male focused or indie on consoles. And Nintendo has pretty decent indie policies & support. There's very little in between if you're talking strictly console market.

 

[Whiteblade999]

A few things;
-An actual account system. None of this being tied to hardware nonsense.

-Virtual console cross generation support for first party titles. Its an absolute joke that Sony has better 'classics' support between 3 systems when almost all of that is third party.. Nintendo needs to make a base emulator where they can just stick the ROM into it and adjust for each system as needed. I won't pretend to be an expert, but it can't be that hard if fans can do it with no source code.

-Digital day 1 for every single game. They are getting better at this, but its still a long road.

-Make a modular development kit and moneyhat. They need to draw in some big names for exclusives. The most important step in this is actually listening to feedback and not having their heads in the clouds.

-Make a new name. Seriously Nintendo, stop with the bad names. Wii U? What kind of name is that? How about the New 3DS?

-If possible keep compatibility with Wii and Wii U. Sony and Microsoft ditched BC, Nintendo has a chance here to win some major respect points.

-Digital games of the mentioned. Putting every noteworthy title on there would draw a lot of people in.

 

[Shikamaru Ninja]

There are a few things that I believe are crucial to their next home console.

1. Launch with a varied first-party catalog. Nintendo really needs quality,quantity, and variety present at launch. Third parties should be very relevant at launch, but setting the tone of the demographic starts with Nintendo themselves.

2. Offer but don't force gimmick controls on the user. Innovation is great, but I think Nintendo needs to stop forcing users to exclusively embrace gimmick controls. I think the NES was a great example with deluxe systems including a NES controller and a zapper, with Super Mario Bros. and Duck Hunt. Wii Fit alone proves that you can sell standalone peripherals with software independently from the system itself.

3. Virtual Console. The biggest missed opportunity if there ever was one. Here you have countless legacy franchises and hidden gems at your disposal, and Nintendo is slowly trickling "Pinball", "Super Mario Bros.", and "Urban Champion" as notable releases? Seriously, why not use this opportunity to release The Legend of Zelda BS, FIre Emblem 4/5, Earthbound Zero, Marvelous, Detective Club 1/2? It boggles the mind at why they aren't spending minimum translation effort in producing exclusive content for international markets.

4. Stop Being Stubborn. Account systems, trophies/accomplishments, voice chat, are apparently things that a large portion of enthusiasts gamers want or expect. Give it to them.

 

[block tower]

Nintendo imo isnt going to have a successful comeback into the home console market. nothing about Nintendos messaging or marketing is streamlined to the gaming audience at large. Nintendo removed themselves from e3, they will have missed most of the gaming audience for the 8th generation because of the wii u, and their branding isnt considered "mature" to most of the gaming audience .

i just dont see Nintendo making a successful comeback in the near future no matter what the console is. their timing will be off given theyd likely release the next console in a few years which would be when the PS4 and Xbox One are hitting their stride. i dont see the industry taking too much time to stop and notice when the majority of the industry will have been satisfied with PC, PS4, and X1. the Wii U really took Nintendo out of the hone console conversation in regards to the general consumer.

 

[IncognitoPanda]

A 'me too' approach would be a disaster in my opinion. Be creative, be fresh, pump out those first party gems.

This. I think it fits Nintendo to do something a bit different than the competition. Three clone-consoles is a bit too much. Nintendo should be damn sure what they're doing has value, though. Their first party lineup is the main attraction so far. If they can just make a solid UI and some fun features, I think they're good. And better marketing of course.

 

[AngryNapkin]

nintendo wouldn't release games for ps4 if there was no nintendo console. they'd put all their efforts into their handheld.

And I agree, I'm simply debating the statement that Nintendo games wouldn't sell on other platforms if there were no Nintendo console.

That was the original statement yes?

They'd rather burn their company to the ground as opposed to have their IP anywhere else. They probably wouldn't even allow the sell off of IPs if they went bankrupt.

 

[The Artisan]

There were a substantial amount of 3rd party games that were multiplat and not on Gamecube.

again, I cannot think of any. The only one that comes to mind right away are the GTA games and that was because they obviously wouldn't sell on gamecube. Any other 3rd party that wasn't on gamecube, probably wasn't on xbox either, and that's al because of the reigning Ps2. it had numerous 3rd party exclusives.

Demographics. Image. Return on investment for others. The games they produce as a company not lining up with the games that other western (and eastern west-focused companies like Capcom) are making. The traditional gaming market is stagnating toward a very young-male-focused product, to a continually aging population with very little churn by the looks of it. A few mega expensive mega franchises that target an increasing niche and how to make them spend more and more money with a couple side projects here and there if we're lucky. That's what the big third party publishers are doing. That isn't what Nintendo does. They don't and won't line up any time soon, no matter what kind of hardware power or disc types or online infrastructure they provide (including a paid one, so they can start providing Activision with the cut of it they seek). Before they do any of those things, they have to give up what they do and shift focuses entirely (to producing almost solely young-male-focused games, like the others) and THEN maybe after multiple generations of proving their market and multiple billion dollars of spend and moneyhats will they receive more equal footing when it comes to the current crop of third party publishers. The hardware itself has so little to do with it, it's almost moot to discuss. Where there's guaranteed money to be made, the hardware will be adapted to no matter what it is. See: multiple multi-disc 360 games. COD downports to Wii. PS2, PS3. Etc etc etc.

Things were easier when there was much more console focused production happening, with a ton more companies with a ton more diversity. Now? You're pretty much either mega and young male focused or indie on consoles. And Nintendo has pretty decent indie policies & support. There's very little in between if you're talking strictly console market.

Alright, that was very well thought out and thorough. I acknowledge that there were other issues at hand, so perhaps the gamecube couldn't keep up because some things were just out of nintendo's control.

 

[AniHawk]

again, I cannot think of any. The only one that comes to mind right away are the GTA games and that was because they obviously wouldn't sell on gamecube. Any other 3rd party that wasn't on gamecube, probably wasn't on xbox either, and that's al because of the reigning Ps2. it had numerous 3rd party exclusives.

after 2002, things started to drop off rather quickly. sega sports as a whole were done on the gamecube. burnout 3 and revenge, baldur's gate dark alliance ii, 187: ride or die, 25 to life, 50 cent, aeon flux, alter echo, area 51, arctic thunder, arena football, the bard's tale, battlefield 2, black, blitz: the league, bloodrayne 2, broken sword: the sleeping dragon, brothers in arms: road to hill 30, brothers in arms: earned in blood, cold fear, conflict: global terror, conflict: vietnam, darkwatch, dead to rights ii, dynasty warriors 3, dynasty warriors 4, dynasty warriors 5, evil dead: a fistful of boomstick, evil dead: regeneration, fatal frame, fatal frame ii, onimusha, godzilla: save the earth, guilty gear isuka, heroes of the pacific, indiana jones & the emperor's tomb, indigo prophecy, the king of fighters: maximum impact, mafia, marvel vs. capcom 2, max payne, max payne 2, mercenaries, myst iii, psychonauts, psi-ops, return to castle wolfenstein, silent hill 2, silent hill 4, star wars: battlefront, star wars: battlefront ii, and state of emergency, among others, found their way to the xbox and ps2 but not the gamecube.

and if it the system got a multiplatform game, oftentimes it came weeks or months after the ps2/xb versions. third-party on the gamecube was pretty piss-poor. the wii was better. yeah it didn't get all the multiplatform stuff either, but it had its own exclusives and a lot of other games that appealed to a different demographic.

 

[OccamsBlender]

It really is unbelievably easy.

I love reading the circa 2001 lists people still make in topics about why they don't play games on PC and all the difficulties associated. Feels like I'm hearing my grandpa talk about growing up.

The PS360 era ushered in console patches and firmware updates. That felt like the beginning of the end.

I think it helps that PC gamers are more willing to pay for hardware upgrades that enhance their experiences. Like SSDs. Oh man, loading times disappear with these!

Mobile has been pretty good with ease of purchase and DRM. I've heard the Nintendo nightmare grade DRM has gotten saner but all the consoles seem to be behind the times when it comes to ease of enjoying your stuff.

 

[Roshin]

It's possible that they could work their way back and gain some substantial marketshare again, but it would require a great deal of work on their part. I'm not sure they understand this or have the resources to actually do it. First they would need to drop the "we can't compete" attitude and catch up with the rest of the gaming world, and then the real work would begin.

The alternative is to pretend everything is fine, carry on as usual, and slowly fade away. Possibly hope for another Wii miracle.

 

[Goodlife]

Playstation 2: 158 million
Playstation 3: 85+ million

My point is that both Sony and MS don't have a base drop off like Nintendo has seen.

I dunno... that drop was pretty massive

 

[Terrell]

And yet, more people play video games in Japan every day than at any point in history. It's almost like Japan belongs to a global market where people can play games from anywhere. If Japanese companies aren't good enough to compete in the global market, than they don't deserve to exist. If there are fewer jobs, that just mean graduates should find another career path then.

So you basically went from "Japan is fine" to "fuck them, they deserve to die"? This is quintessential moving the goalposts bullshit.

we all lost something when sega's arcadey first-party platforms were dispersed among the wider market and never found a foothold. that kind of consolidation and fanbase gives way to new and different experiences that have the potential to inspire. who knows what the marketplace would look like now with a first-party sega still doing business.

It would look a hell of a lot better, in my opinion. I actually was a Genesis fan "convert" at the end of its lifecycle. And then I owned a Saturn. It was good when I got the import toggle installed in it, though. Fighting game BLISS.

But more to the point you were making, you're absolutely right. Scattering their franchises to the winds did them no favors. The only 2 franchises they have left are ONE PS-only franchise and their only true multi-platform franchise, Sonic. Had they just parked all their content in one place, they would have become a "taste-maker" 3rd party publisher. Now they're just pathetic and it makes me sad.

Still, I think it shows that most will choose whichever system they feel is best rather than just choosing based on brand loyalty/their friend list/e-peen measuring sticks/etc.

The elephant in the room on this discussion is that most people see Microsoft and Sony as interchangeably the same "brand". And both of them desperately want to shake that, to the point where they'll end up engaging in some Highlander "there can be only one" bullshit marketing tactics and underhanded business practices. The fact people want Nintendo to be seen as equally interchangeable, right down to their 1st-party lineup, is absurd.

I can't think of any other brand where the company was so arrogant for decades where they lost market share the entire time pissing on other companies that are there to actually help you.

Without actually changing their business model.

I'd even go so far as to say the Wii ultimately did damage to Nintendo more than those huge profit margins provided. The Wii told Nintendo gimmicks, weak hardware, no online, etc can still be profitable. Unfortunately they never do market research and it gave them a false sense of relevance.

If you think Nintendo hasn't changed its business model over the years, you're not paying enough attention.

And I'd like the stats that show Nintendo never does market research. The problem with market research is the same for every company: you only get answers based on the questions you ask. See: Xbox One at E3 2013.

Sony is already laying the groundwork for a platform agnostic game network with PSNOW. it's very difficult not to see everything going this way in a generation or two. The ps5 is a sure thing but I wouldn't bet on ps6.

Until ISPs get their shit together, PSNow and services like it are a damn pipe dream.

Have games people want to play.

Having E-rated games is nice Nintendo, but your audience grew up long time ago. Average gamer is 31 years old: http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ESA_EF_2014.pdf

If you only make games for kids, then your potential customer base is very limited.

I think you need to remember what the E in that rating actually stands for.
Maybe it's just me, but I take great pride in having a wide range of tastes and not caught up in content suitable exclusively for my age demographic.

Nintendo obviously doesn't make mature,story-driven titles

... I'm sorry, what? I think the Fire Emblem franchise needs a word with you, among others.

2. Online is raw hot garbage - How this company gets away with what they do when their biggest competitors or similar companies do this well is beyond me. Be it the interface or actual games they consistently amaze me in the disappointment department with how their titles are built around this component. Seriously nintendo and most companies need consultants on things not to do with online titles cause this is my biggest peeve with most developers/publishers.

They get away with it by not charging you for it and then claiming they're offering you an actual service instead of what they're really doing, which is holding online multiplayer hostage.

Gameboy: 119 million
GBA: 82 million
DS: 155 million (outlier)
3DS: >60 million

Way to skew the data to make your point. The Gameboy numbers were achieved across 11 years and 2 major hardware revisions, GBA reached 82 million in, what, 6 or 7 with 1 hardware revision? So what's this about how all Nintendo hardware has been on a historical decline since the beginning?

Does anybody know what Nintendo's marketshare looks like when you consider software sold rather than systems sold? Basically, what's their percent of the market as a publisher?

I'd seriously be interested in seeing that data, as well.

 

[RedSwirl]

after 2002, things started to drop off rather quickly. sega sports as a whole were done on the gamecube. burnout 3 and revenge, baldur's gate dark alliance ii, 187: ride or die, 25 to life, 50 cent, aeon flux, alter echo, area 51, arctic thunder, arena football, the bard's tale, battlefield 2, black, blitz: the league, bloodrayne 2, broken sword: the sleeping dragon, brothers in arms: road to hill 30, brothers in arms: earned in blood, cold fear, conflict: global terror, conflict: vietnam, darkwatch, dead to rights ii, dynasty warriors 3, dynasty warriors 4, dynasty warriors 5, evil dead: a fistful of boomstick, evil dead: regeneration, fatal frame, fatal frame ii, onimusha, godzilla: save the earth, guilty gear isuka, heroes of the pacific, indiana jones & the emperor's tomb, indigo prophecy, the king of fighters: maximum impact, mafia, marvel vs. capcom 2, max payne, max payne 2, mercenaries, myst iii, psychonauts, psi-ops, return to castle wolfenstein, silent hill 2, silent hill 4, star wars: battlefront, star wars: battlefront ii, and state of emergency, among others, found their way to the xbox and ps2 but not the gamecube.

and if it the system got a multiplatform game, oftentimes it came weeks or months after the ps2/xb versions. third-party on the gamecube was pretty piss-poor. the wii was better. yeah it didn't get all the multiplatform stuff either, but it had its own exclusives and a lot of other games that appealed to a different demographic.

Really good post. In the later half of that generation some third parties still supported Gamecube with ports, but most western developers dropped it. And Gamecube ports were often the worst ports, or at least the most lazily ported versions. The Tom Clancy games in particular were sloppy as hell on Gamecube. Though, in a few cases the Gamecube version ended up being the most bug-free since it was always the last version worked on.

Nintendo probably looks at the Gamecube as a case of what happens when it imitates everybody else. Miyamoto is quoted as saying he wasn't happy about how Nintendo operated during the Gamecube era. People like to say small discs and the controller ruined the Gamecube but I think those were actually really small factors in the end.

I think the Gamecube's biggest problem is it didn't have anything special about it to attract developers from PS2 or Xbox. Nintendo counted on its easy development environment (compared to the N64 and PS2) doing that, but Xbox turned out to be equally easy for developers. The Xbox had Live and its PC-like development environment to entice developers who hadn't worked on consoles before. PS2 had its obvious install base. The idea that Nintendo should have maintained the N64's North America-centric approach is a valid one, but I wonder how that would have worked up against Microsoft's North America-centric platform. Nintendo certainly wouldn't have built the system to attract PC developers the way the Xbox did. Maybe it would have kept what became Rockstar North, maybe it would have kept Perfect Dark 2.

That era however I think is also a sign of how the console industry can't really support three competitors playing the same game. I think for Nintendo to completely step into Sony and Microsoft's game again, one of them would have to step out, or at least commit a fuck-up beyond PS3 proportions. Even then, Nintendo realizes that whole core gamer market is stagnant. It realized this back around 2004. You can go back and get quotes of Miyamoto and Reggie talking about this and why they tried to expand the audience with the Wii. I'm pretty sure Nintendo no longer wants the core gamer to be its primary target audience anyway. Somebody needs to figure out some magical way to get more people to play traditional game consoles.

 

[Ikael]

- Aim for the ultra-low end of the hardware spectrum. Lower the costs in every way possible, unless it compromises the reliability of the hardware (no faulty consoles here). Price range between 50 and 99 USD

- Create the cheapest development enviroment ever. Distribute tools and development kits for free among developers for free like it's candy. Include it with the console if needed

- Compatibility with the 3DS successor, if not possible, unified development between the two platafforms (everything seems headed towards that direction already)

- Massive, huge retro cathaloge and library

- Snitch all the indies, small and mid-tier developers due to a tailor-made enviroment for them. Let all the other big companies court the AAA crowd and watch them fail along with their bloated production costs and obsolete business models

- Supplement Nintendo's catalogue and not as well-covered genres by funding "dream projects" a la kickstarter. Hell, they could implement a kind of Steam Greenlight-esque service along with the console. This could be a really, really cheap to gain exclusives and a huge way to boost their image among hardcore gamers, being "champions of the marginalized games" (think the Bayonetta sequel situation). Keep in mind that uber-hyped games like Star Citizen cost only 3,5 million USD to fund, which is basically penauts to a company like Nintendo (games like AC: Black Flag costed 100 frigging million USD, just for you to have some perspective)

In short: A platafform 100% designed with small games and developers in mind, with an added touch of fan favourites. In either case, even if they could offer a high end type of console, they have to differenciate from the competition, there's no other option for them.

 

[D.Lo]

The N64, Gamecube and the Wii U are proof that being innovative and having great first-party games alone isn't enough to be competitive. They need to be appealing to a broad audience, not just their fans.

The N64 was totally competitive. It gave the PS1 a run for its money in the US and won a couple of years. It just didn't have the long tail of the PS1, which was the most backloaded selling console in history. It sold 70% of its total in the last half of its life. PS1 had a massive late gen boost (even well after the PS2 was released) with stuff like Tony Hawk 2.

The Gamecube was not very innovative. that was it's problem. It was a PS2 clone without a DVD player, PS1 compatibility, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, and the breakout hit of the gen GTA.

Wii U is the only example here, documented failure for not being innovative enough. It's a too expensive powered-up Wii with a tired 'innovation' which had already been played out (there are already 200 million touch screen Nintendo consoles via the DS/3DS).

 

[Deleted member 752119]

this is fantasy again. it's work to build an audience. the kind of people who would buy nintendo games aren't on sony consoles or microsoft consoles because they decided to purchase sony consoles and microsoft consoles because those consoles have the kinds of games that appeal to them.

I think both the people who think them going third party would increase their sales and those like you who think it would be a complete failure both take it to extremes. The actual result would probably be in the middle. Their biggest games would probably sell the same or a tad better. Their smaller titles would probably suffer and disappear or go download only.

Stuff like Smash, MK, Zelda, Metroid etc. would definitley sell to Sony/MS gamers who would enjoy some of those games but not enough to buy Nintendo hardware since they don't care about platformers and Nintendo's smaller franchises.

At the same time, Nintendo's diehard fans would be buying one of the platforms to play their games since Nintendo hardware is gone in this case. Some fanboys say they'd just quit gaming, but most wouldn't. So they'd still get most of their base buyng games.

In any case, Nintendo can make more money selling hardware at a profit to their niche, and not paying royalties to another company on software, so there's no reason to go third party. They just have to do a better job at putting out hardware with a feature set and lower price to maximize sales to that niche next time. But if that failed, they could do well as a third party. Or a second party of they could partner up with someone else, and perhaps not have to pay royalties etc.

i have never seen a home where a sony or microsoft console is the sole console either, but you're right about anecdotes at least.

I don't have time to google it as I have to run to a meeting, but there have been surveys showing a majority of gaming households only have one console. Obvious examples are PS2 since it sold so much and the DVD player feature was huge, and the Wii last gen since it sold to many previously non-gaming households.

Anecdotally, for me I knew tons of ps2 only people, last gen was mostly 360 only or 360/PS3 among my core gamer friends, with some family members having only Wiis. This gem it's mostly PS4 only among the gamers currently. The family members who had Wiis all have nothing new. I don't know anyone with a Wii U.

 

[KillerMan91]

It will be very hard especially as it seems Nintendo just tries to ride WiiU out and are losing completely all the mindshare they had in home console market before this gen. I mean obviously I can see in short term why nintendo just tries to make some money on WiiU but it could backfire them in future. There is reason why Sony was so willing to throw so much money to keep PS3 relevant. They are now reaping the fruits of that with PS4. They made affordable console with clear target demographic and launched it in the market where they still had mindshare. Here is the result. Next gen home console launch will be toughest launch ever for Nintendo.

 

[MikeyB]

I don't have time to google it as I have to run to a meeting, but there have been surveys showing a majority of gaming households only have one console.

ESA quotes an average of 2 consoles per household with a console in 2014.

 

[Lionel Richie]

The Gamecube was not very innovative. that was it's problem. It was a PS2 clone without a DVD player, PS1 compatibility, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, and the breakout hit of the gen GTA.

What the fuck? It was not a PS2 clone, or do you think the PS3 was a Xbox 360 clone as well?

 

[Oppo]

Did the "50 Unity games" ever show up?

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/nintendo-has-50-unity-games-on-the-way-to-wii-u/1100-6418487/

I don't own a Wii U so I'm not sure what the Wii U indie scene is like firsthand but I havenlt heard/read much, personally?

 

[D.Lo]

What the fuck? It was not a PS2 clone, or do you think the PS3 was a Xbox 360 clone as well?

Yes? They're basically the exact same thing with different branding and 1% different games?

People say 'PS360' as if they are the same platform.

 

[Zombie James]

Yes? They're basically the exact same thing with different branding and 1% different games?

People say 'PS360' as if they are the same platform.

And they're very wrong.

 

[geordiemp]

this is fantasy again. it's work to build an audience. the kind of people who would buy nintendo games aren't on sony consoles or microsoft consoles because they decided to purchase sony consoles and microsoft consoles because those consoles have the kinds of games that appeal to them.



i have never seen a home where a sony or microsoft console is the sole console either, but you're right about anecdotes at least.

How many people bought Wii Mario kart ?

How many people bought WiiU Mario Kart 8 ?

Take one from the other, that is your answer of how many people would maybe buy MK8 if it was say just 50 bucks - its not important enough to them to buy a console, or they would of done.

I am one of them - no I am not port begging, just saying there are many games I would play if they were easy add ons - Ryse, sunset overdrive, I would also put them in same boat, but not enough yet to buy more consoles over our Ps4, 360 and ps3's We have 2 of each and like online coop, so I have to consider a system being worthy of spending £ 600 on (2 consoles)....

 

[StevieP]

And they're very wrong.

Not really. His post was an exaggeration percentage wise, but the PS3 and 360 were incredibly similar.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

I think you've lost sight of what the conversation actually was. It was if Nintendo's brands were still "strong" or not. I'd say that they're pushing 60 million machines off essentially just those brands indicates significant strength and consumer pull yet. You're certainly free to disagree of course but 3DS is unquestionably still valid in this sort of discussion.

Another good indicator are software charts, where Nintendo ends up being within the top 3 publishers in nearly every major market consistently. And this despite their massive hardware declines.

I didn't say Nintendo's brand wasn't strong. There is this perception that all things being equal everyone will gravitate to Nintendo automatically and my point was that in the home console space I don't think there brand carries any more weight than Xbox or Playstation. Are Mario and Zelda big names? Sure. But so are Madden and Call of Duty and Minecraft and GT and Halo. The general home console buying public doesn't put Nintendo on this golden pedestal the way some hardcore fans do. The way some people talk (call it SNES 2, just make it as powerful as ps4) you would think time just stood still in 1994.

 

[Alpha_eX]

They just need to release a next gen console with an online network that isn't prehistoric.

 

[Zombie James]

Not really. His post was an exaggeration percentage wise, but the PS3 and 360 were incredibly similar.

Besides both being boxes that hooked up to TVs that shared some of the same third-party lineup, how were they incredibly similar?

 

[thisisvlad]

Through leveraging upcoming disruptive forces. For example:

- They could be the first-to-market home console that outputs games in 4K

- They could hedge the bet that Oculus Rift will be the de facto standard for VR and build compatibility around it. (As opposed to in-house solutions MS and Sony will use)

Essentially the opportunity is in the inevitable "half-step" between Nintendo's next console and MS and Sony's next offering. This will give Nintendo the ability to structure a product that is more relevant to the modern market; since competitors will be stuck in their hardware lifecycle.

 

[D.Lo]

Besides both being boxes that hooked up to TVs that shared some of the same third-party lineup, how were they incredibly similar?

Are you serious?

Very similar power level. Western-focused development and sales. Marketed and sold to the same demographic. They have the most games in common of any two consoles ever; top games sold on both are exactly the same games (COD, GTA etc). Even many of the exclusives are direct equivalents of each other (Halo/Killzone, Gran Turrismo/Forza). They have controllers that have almost identical functionality such that no adaptation is required to play a game on one or the other.

They are the two most similar major competing consoles to ever exist, with the possible exception of PS4/Xbone.

Apart from the actual technical software (and online) incompatibility with each other and the tiny percentage of games (numerically and sales wise) that are exclusive to each to try and get you to buy one over the other, they are almost the exact same product in a different shaped box. With one non-gaming exception - Blu Ray player.

Compare that to the differences between the Wii and the PS3, the N64 and the PS1, the Mega Drive and the SNES - all an order of magnitude more differentiated from each other than the PS3 is from the 360.

 

[Zombie James]

Are you serious?

Very similar power level. Western-focused development and sales. Marketed and sold to the same demographic. They have the most games in common of any two consoles ever; top games sold on both are exactly the same games (COD, GTA etc). Even many of the exclusives are direct equivalents of each other (Halo/Killzone, Gran Turrismo/Forza). They have controllers that have almost identical functionality such that no adaptation is required to play a game on one or the other.

They are the two most similar major competing consoles to ever exist, with the possible exception of PS4/Xbone.

Apart from the actual technical software (and online) incompatibility with each other and the tiny percentage of games (numerically and sales wise) that are exclusive to each to try and get you to buy one over the other, they are almost the exact same product in a different shaped box. With one non-gaming exception - Blu Ray player.

Compare that to the differences between the Wii and the PS3, the N64 and the PS1, the Mega Drive and the SNES - all an order of magnitude more differentiated from each other than the PS3 is from the 360.

That's a very long-winded way to say "they competed with each other," and I completely disagree with a lot of your points:

Very similar power level.

Vastly different hardware and architectures, which ended up leading to differences in third-party titles.

Western-focused development and sales.

Not exactly sure this is something Sony or Microsoft planned for. Ok, maybe Microsoft did.

Marketed and sold to the same demographic.

I guess that makes the Xbox 360 and PSP incredibly similar to each other, too? A lot of different products sell to the same demographic.

Even many of the exclusives are direct equivalents of each other (Halo/Killzone, Gran Turrismo/Forza).

Killzone and Halo are direct equivalents now? Just because two games share the same genre does not make them equal.

They have controllers that have almost identical functionality such that no adaptation is required to play a game on one or the other.

Different ergonomics, different buttons/sticks/d-pads/triggers, different stick placements.

I'm not saying there aren't similarities - third-party line up being the major one - but the differences far outweigh the similarities, especially if you've used both of them. Once you throw in other hardware-level features (built-in wifi and user-replaceable hard drives on the PS3) and online services (paid Live and free PSN, with Live having more features), the differences become clearer still.

 

[Ushay]

I still can't fathom how they screwed up so badly after the huge success of the Wii, they literally put MS and Sony to shame last gen with hardly any 3rd party support.

For the next console they should bring the power of the device to a level between Xbox < > Playstation, obviously this dependson when they decide to release. Nintendo would be mad to move away from their best audience, but they should try it while trying to attract 3rd party support for a bigger market.

Traditional controls should be retained (controller) but with the older Wii remote in mind. When I see games that support pro controller, wii remote and god knows how many other controllers I just get confused as shit.

I'm really looking for a reason to get a Wii U, but right now SONY has my eye FAR more.

 

[AngryNapkin]

I dunno... that drop was pretty massive

Yes it was, but like I mentioned earlier in the thread they still had/have a 85 million base.

In Nintendos case they are now down to less than 15 million and with the exception of the Wii they have never grown their base.

How low can they go really and still remain profitable/viable? They can't do what most everyone in this thread is suggesting.

Online won't happen, third parties won't happen, powerful x86 hardware won't happen because they lose backwards compatibility, etc.

Their only course of action is to create something truly unique and with a mobile console being rumored they still don't address any of the main concerns and will be relying on the gimmick factor.

 

[Hiko]

People still claiming Nintendo hardware is unique? Yeah, the Wii U is a little different compared to the other two, but for the most part it's basically the same kind of device. It's main differentiator is that it's weak and that it lacks games. But that doesn't mean Nintendo is differentiating. It means they suck.

This isn't the 90's anymore where everyone was making totally custom and wacky stuff in-house. All these consoles are running AMD graphics, store games on large capacity discs, and use the same exact controllers. This isn't the HD twins plus Nintendo. It's the HD triplets with one of them lagging behind.