Support NeoGAF

[Father_Brain]

Would Nintendo be assured of success as a third party? Hell no.

Are they more likely to succeed as a third party than to produce another successful dedicated platform, given their history, core competencies, and the extent to which they've been beaten on both the Sony/MS end and iOS/Android end of the market? I would say yes.

It's sort of the HBO philosophy.

Anyway, I don't think Nintendo cares about competing with Sony and Microsoft. They've been very explicit about, actually. I also don't think they care about going after casuals after the Wii/DS fallout.

At this point, their goal appears to be to build a base of Nintendo fans that will remain loyal for years or decades, and that they can consistently make money off of. They'll look to grow this base slowly over time through partnerships with other media companies -- ie, some kid watches the Zelda Netflix show, decides to buy a Nintendo console.

They'll go for a Steam-like system, eliminating discs in favor of digital games bound to an account playable across a wide range of Nintendo hardware, with backwards compatibility extending basically forever. They'll look to lock you into the Nintendo digital platform this way, as once you've bought X number of games, it becomes hard to leave (the strategy Apple/Google have used with apps/books/etc.). They'll further monetize the Nintendo platform with things like Amiibo.

They'll grow their business with other ventures. The "post-wearables", and all that.

Thing is, even if it remains at its current size, I don't think the base of loyal Nintendo fans is large enough to sustain a company NCL's size.

I agree that QOL is supposed to be the backup plan, but that faces a very difficult road ahead given the volume of competition in the fitness/lifestyle market.

 

[4Tran]

Apple didn't "build" Super Cell and King, they released a product that people 1) wanted to buy irrespective of whether or not there were games for it and 2) wanted to play games on. The market took care of the rest.

Nintendo will never be able to release a product that people want to buy irrespective of whether or not there are games for it.

Yeah, Apple managed to gather an audience, and the mobile game companies took advantage of that. I feel that this is the most important factor in pulling in third party software companies. The Wii U doesn't afford a diverse audience, and so that support dried up.

Well, of course this all depends on personal taste. If all you care about from Nintendo is Mario, Pokemon and Smash, then sure, those games wont be axed, but if you (like me and I would guess, most of their fans on this board), care about stuff like Fire Emblem, Star Fox, Metroid, Kid Icarus, Xenoblade, Last Story and even their franchises that havent seen a game in a decade like F-Zero, then them going thirdparty would be the worst case scenario. Again, take a look at Sega. There would be no good reason for Nintendo to continue to invest in niche-stuff like that if they no longer had a plattform to support - meaning those resources quickly would have been sent somewhere else, and with where the industry is heading right now, that would probably mean mobile f2p shit. On a personal note, I dont really care much about their hardware choices, since the hardware for me is only a device to play their games, meaning I care very little about OS, online and all that other stuff were Nintendo is lacking. So yeah, I heavily disagree with you on that.

The two points I contest are that, first Nintendo would drop their niche games if they no longer made consoles. The reality is that Nintendo will drop their niche games whenever they feel like it regardless of what console they're working on. The second point is that the loss of a number of niche games isn't going to be some huge price to pay. Nintendo is far from being the only developer capable of innovation, and a lot of these niche games are more iterative than innovative to begin with. The only Nintendo games I play are their niche titles, but I still think the trade off is worthwhile.

Does that mean that Nintendo will or should go third party? They're too proud to do so anytime soon. And really, if they can rework their business plans, there's still a small chance that they can regain some market presence. However, to do so successfully they will probably have to sacrifice some of those niche games you like so much and conform more to market standards.

You're forgetting other monetary gains from being a hardware provider though, like 3rd party royalties, profit off hardware, accessories, and other less obvious costs they might incur as a 3rd party (certification fees, digital visibility, etc). It's really not so easy to figure out.

To capitalize on this, Nintendo will still have to reach beyond Nintendo fans. If there were any confidence they could pull this off, then there wouldn't be any talk of them going third party.

 

[GravityMan]

I don't think there is much that Nintendo can do. People need to accept that Nintendo is a niche company that caters to a niche audience. Most folks who buy Nintendo consoles buy them to play first-party games. That has been true for the Wii U, Wii, GameCube and possibly even the N64. Third parties know that, and that is the main reason why most of them stick to putting their games on Sony/Microsoft consoles and the PC. An AAA multiplatform third-party game on a Nintendo console is probably going to sell poorly on that console, even if it's good and does well on other platforms.

If Nintendo chooses a decent name that doesn't confuse the general market, has clear marketing and messaging, has a couple of high-quality games available at launch with more good-quality games available over the next 1-2 years, has a decent network implementation (proper account system, etc.), reasonably powerful hardware, and launches at a reasonable price...then their next console can have a respectable showing in the market, certainly better than the Wii U. But unless Sony or MS royally fuck up themselves, their next consoles will surely be far more popular than Nintendo's next console, no matter how good or powerful it is.

Nintendo's only chance to strike big-time gold with their next console is to be creative and stand out in a way that's appealing to the mass market, like Ninja Scooter mentions below. But that is tough to accomplish, and may even require some luck.

They need to do something outside the box. They nailed it with Wii. They failed miserably with Wii U. They need some kind of unique "hook". It doesn't have to be a hardware gimmick like the Wii-motes were, but they need something that allows them to stand out. Trying to chase what Sony and MS are doing will only lead them to further ruin. This idea that all they have to do is make a console that's as powerful as PS4 and it will magically have tons of third party support and win "core" gamers over is pure fantasy.

 

[Jigorath]

I dont know if merging with a company that is loosing money on almost everything would be a good idea. Maybe if Sony would spin off the Playstation-division, it could work in tandem with Nintendo, but the whole off Sony wouldnt work.

Not even close to true. They didn't even lose money in the last financial quarter. Or are you one of those that thinks Playstation is the most profitable part of Sony?

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Leveraging their mindshare with their portable fanbase is probably their best shot.

They likely aren't going to win with the mass market otherwise.

Consumers like:
-Graphics
-Online gaming
-Third party support
-Lots of app support
-Multitasking

Nintendo does not excel in this. They excel at keeping their franchises relatively fresh and interesting.

 

[Hiko]

It's sort of the HBO philosophy.

Anyway, I don't think Nintendo cares about competing with Sony and Microsoft. They've been very explicit about, actually. I also don't think they care about going after casuals after the Wii/DS fallout.

At this point, their goal appears to be to build a base of Nintendo fans that will remain loyal for years or decades, and that they can consistently make money off of. They'll look to grow this base slowly over time through partnerships with other media companies -- ie, some kid watches the Zelda Netflix show, decides to buy a Nintendo console.

They'll go for a Steam-like system, eliminating discs in favor of digital games bound to an account playable across a wide range of Nintendo hardware, with backwards compatibility extending basically forever. They'll look to lock you into the Nintendo digital platform this way, as once you've bought X number of games, it becomes hard to leave (the strategy Apple/Google have used with apps/books/etc.). They'll further monetize the Nintendo platform with things like Amiibo.

They'll grow their business with other ventures. The "post-wearables", and all that.

Yup. They're trying to grow their business outside of just video games. Going third party isn't conducive to that end.

 

[...Scatter...]

Nintendo shouldn't have to win market share they should focus on being the BEST console for kids and provide unique experiences. They cant/shouldn't compete with MS/Sony straight up.

 

[Ollie Pooch]

I really doubt they'll even hit Wii U levels with a new console, but to me the most glaringly obvious thing about Nintendo is how splintered their library is over their two devices. A single one with the combined library quality of the 3DS/Wii U (as an example) would be incredible, and would patch a lot of the droughts that happen constantly.

Still, I'm sure there's a better solution staring them in the face that they'll completely ignore.

 

[RedSwirl]

They need third party support, but it doesn't have to be the normal players. Obviously if they can magically get EA/Activision/etc. back on board, more power to them, but an alternative is to do what iOS did; build your own third parties from the ground up, in your image. If the major, established players are slow or completely unwilling to build on your platform, then you need to build your own major, established players from scratch. When Take 2, Activision et. al largely ignored the iPhone, iOS basically said "fine, we'll do it without you," and it now has huge publishers like Super Cell and King built from the ground up, focused on their platform. The established publishers have made some moves towards iOS since then, but the market has been driven and grown by grass roots publishers.

So those are Nintendo's options; either figure out how to get the major console publishers back on board, or help foster the growth of new publishers which are more philosophically attuned to Nintendo's ecosystem rather than Sony/MS's. Neither will be easy.

This is a good idea and is likely what Nintendo has been trying to do on some level since the Wii. I would also say today's indies are already more philosophically aligned with how Nintendo designs games. Nintendo just missed a great opportunity to capture them during the Wii and DS years when indies started to explode. If Nintendo had something as big as XBLA during that era we could have seen a fairly big explosion of new third party support for it.

Still, that requires Nintendo to improve how it approaches indies. It missed the boat over the last several years because it couldn't even recognize any developer that didn't have an actual office. I already posted the link to the interview where the Wii U's former indie boss explained how Nintendo's nature holds it back. This also brings us back to the point that Nintendo needs to listen to developers when figuring out its hardware and software platform, whether those developers are big or small.

Another issue is, in order for something like the emergence of mobile publishers to happen for Nintendo, I think it would have to have another lightning strike idea on the same level as the Wii. That's why I think the Wii was such a missed opportunity in that area. Nintendo would have to come up with another extremely successful gimmick or something.

Nope. The industry is just fine with or without Nintendo in it. Companies die off all the time. There would be a sense of loss, of course, but there are still plenty of competitors out there who will take up the slack.

Nintendo fans need Nintendo. That's it.

Oddly, people at Sony actually still believe this industry needs Nintendo, if for no other reason than Nintendo is much better at attracting certain demographics than Sony and Microsoft are. The way Sony probably sees it, Nintendo is at least keeping SOME of the kids away from mobile, kids who might graduate to PlayStation one day.

You're forgetting other monetary gains from being a hardware provider though, like 3rd party royalties, profit off hardware, accessories, and other less obvious costs they might incur as a 3rd party (certification fees, digital visibility, etc). It's really not so easy to figure out.

And really there's no guarantee of doubling/tripling sales on PS4/One (far from it in fact, how have Just Dance, Lego or Skylanders done on those systems?) and no guarantee that Nintendo's premium R&D model could successfully transition to the cut throat f2p iOS/Android markets.

Basically, Nintendo's hardware business kind of subsidizes what it can do with its games. I imagine Nintendo would behave very differently if ALL its revenue came from software sales. For one thing it would have to become a much smaller company than it is today.

I really think having background businesses to subsidize software is the secret behind companies like Blizzard, Valve, and Epic. For the most part those companies are known for putting extra polish and time into their games while also not following industry trends quite as much as EA or Ubisoft. Blizzard could probably afford to spend 12 years making StarCraft 2 or however long it took making Diablo III -- going multiple years without actually releasing games, because of World of Warcraft (well, I guess you can count WoW expansions). Valve puts extra time along with a rare amount of polish and innovation into its few games because Steam keeps sustaining it. Now Team Fortress 2, DOTA 2, and CS:GO are basically whole markets in themselves. Epic could afford to take its time on Gears and any future games because it's basically the Unreal Engine company.

Other companies are trying to get that kind of advantage too. Warface and the CryEngine were supposed to be Crytek's backbone, and it's been said that the engine's disappointing commercial performance has been a main factor in the company's downfall. Square Enix put so much effort into fixing Final Fantasy XIV because it wants that game to be its backbone while it takes its time getting FFXV and Kingdom Hearts III ready. This is also probably why guys like EA and Ubisoft are trying so hard with F2P games, Origin, and UPlay.

When you get a good background business to subsidize your software, you can afford to be a "when it's done" company and make the games that inspire everybody else. I imagine Nintendo wants QOL to be a new front in this endeavor.

 

[Opiate]

Apple didn't "build" Super Cell and King, they released a product that people 1) wanted to buy irrespective of whether or not there were games for it and 2) wanted to play games on. The market took care of the rest.

Nintendo will never be able to release a product that people want to buy irrespective of whether or not there are games for it.

I don't think you understood my point.

 

[RedSwirl]

Apple didn't "build" Super Cell and King, they released a product that people 1) wanted to buy irrespective of whether or not there were games for it and 2) wanted to play games on. The market took care of the rest.

Nintendo will never be able to release a product that people want to buy irrespective of whether or not there are games for it.

Apple didn't "build" those companies but it provided the fertile ground where they grew.

 

[Peltz]

I don't think Nintendo can win back marketshare unless they have another disruptive concept like the Wii or DS that captures the imagination of the general public and gamers alike. Who knows what that could be though...?

 

[HaterIsHating]

It's sort of the HBO philosophy.

Anyway, I don't think Nintendo cares about competing with Sony and Microsoft. They've been very explicit about, actually. I also don't think they care about going after casuals after the Wii/DS fallout.

At this point, their goal appears to be to build a base of Nintendo fans that will remain loyal for years or decades, and that they can consistently make money off of. They'll look to grow this base slowly over time through partnerships with other media companies -- ie, some kid watches the Zelda Netflix show, decides to buy a Nintendo console.

They'll go for a Steam-like system, eliminating discs in favor of digital games bound to an account playable across a wide range of Nintendo hardware, with backwards compatibility extending basically forever. They'll look to lock you into the Nintendo digital platform this way, as once you've bought X number of games, it becomes hard to leave (the strategy Apple/Google have used with apps/books/etc.). They'll further monetize the Nintendo platform with things like Amiibo.

They'll grow their business with other ventures. The "post-wearables", and all that.

This is a very good posting, I agree with pretty much everything you wrote.

Nintendo will neither compete with Sony / Microsoft, nor will they go third party. It's just not the optimal way for them.

Yes, maybe sales numbers won't beat those of Sony / Microsoft, but in the end business is not just about plain sales numbers, as weird as this might sound to some people. There's a lot more to it. I'd like to explain this in detail, but it's gonna take a while until I have more time again, hope this thread will continue.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

All Wii U games can be played with the Gamepad, nothing "complex" about that. Some games you can play with other controllers (Wiimote, Pro Controller, etc.) too.



In the New 3DS threads many people claimed that the most outstanding feature of the New 3DS it is better 3D.

The Gamepad offers new interesting concepts and at least it is very convenient in many games. The Gamepad is not such a step forward as the Wiimote, that offered new and better ways to play for many genres on consoles (like Shooter, Adventure, etc.) but I don't want to miss it in Nintendos next system. Hopefully the Next Handheld will can be used as a Gamepad for the next console.

Nobody wants second-screen gaming on a console. That idea has failed. Continued efforts to try to force an unwanted idea on consumers would be a bad business decision.

 

[PseudoViper]

• New IP
• Some third-party games would certainly help
• And FIX that joke of an online system (can we get some match making options now? Please and thanks!)

 

[block tower]

any predictions on when Nintendo is coming out with a successor to the Wii U? i keep seeing people say itll be around the time Zelda U release, but that seems to soon.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

Nintendo are the only developers who make games by focusing on gameplay. They don't waste time focusing on elements that I can find done better in movies, or books, or even music. They're all about gameplay, and they have a unique, magical substance, that makes me feel like I'm young again, and staring in awe and wonder. That's what gaming is all about, feeling like a child who learned to play with his dick for the first time.

Completely false.

 

[Arc Christelle]

Continue what they're doing. The other two will wither away their goodwill in due time.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

any predictions on when Nintendo is coming out with a successor to the Wii U? i keep seeing people say itll be around the time Zelda U release, but that seems to soon.

I would guess 2016. Zelda is going to be the last big release for the Wii U imo (or at least should be, right now all the Nintendo teams should be preparing for their next gen platforms so they dont repeat the mistakes of the Wii U/3DS).

 

[ksamedi]

They should focus on what they do best, create pick up and play games with deep game mechanics. They should focus their hardware on this aspect of game development and let their developers do the rest. The WiiU has no real target audience while the NES and Wii and DS had a laser like focus on casuals. Once you have sales success you create an ecosystem where core and casual games can co exist and be successful. The Wii was much more successful in selling Call of Duty or Fifa while it was a much more casual oriented console. I have the impression that they want to reach all audiences at the same time these days but that is really difficult. Go for a certain audience first and the rest will join in later on.

 

[thebloo]

Verendus isn't even being subtle anymore and people are still falling for it.

I've seen post like that almost word for word written 100% seriously. So I get why people fall for it.

OT: Third party support. As long as the "main" experiences are not on your console, you'll always be relegated to second system or even third system. And it's getting harder and harder for people to justify a third system.

That's pretty much it. Build a console that makes the big publishers want to put games on it, bring your 1st Party line-up and it's done.

 

[letaint]

Obviously, the majority of gamers don't agree with your assessment of Nintendo's alleged superiority as a developer. Ever asked yourself why?

Ooh ooh I think I have this one. The majority is ruled by the lowest common denominator?

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

Continue what they're doing. The other two will wither away their goodwill in due time.

whats your basis for that, given nintendo has been on a downward slide for 30 years, save for the wii. Sony alone has outsold them 3/4 generations.

 

[block tower]

I would guess 2016. Zelda is going to be the last big release for the Wii U imo (or at least should be, right now all the Nintendo teams should be preparing for their next gen platforms so they dont repeat the mistakes of the Wii U/3DS).

thatd be interesting if the new Nintendo console came out that soon. id be curious what itd be, a "me too" like system that is on par with the PS4 and X1, or if itd be something in the total opposite direction even more so than the Wii and Wii U?

 

[ksamedi]

I've seen post like that almost word for word written 100% seriously. So I get why people fall for it.

OT: Third party support. As long as the "main" experiences are not on your console, you'll always be relegated to second system or even third system. And it's getting harder and harder for people to justify a third system.

That's pretty much it. Build a console that makes the big publishers want to put games on it, bring your 1st Party line-up and it's done.

Except that it isn't that simple to build a console that attracts big publishers, at least if I understand correctly, you mean publishers that publish triple A stuff. Sony and MS are already big players in this area, and Nintendo needs to compete in specs if it wants to attract these publishers. Given that Nintendo make games for every crowd (kids, women, families, core and elderly) and doesnt focus particularly on the core segment, they will never succeed in competing directly with Sony and MS. They certainly are capable of building high spec machines, but it is not a good choice to do so business wise.

 

[FyreWulff]

whats your basis for that, given nintendo has been on a downward slide for 30 years, save for the wii.

As long as you pretend an entire portable console line of theirs doesn't exist, I guess

 

[thebloo]

Except that it isn't that simple to build a console that attracts big publishers, at least if I understand correctly, you mean publishers that publish triple A stuff. Sony and MS are already big players in this area, and Nintendo needs to compete in specs if it wants to attract these publishers. Given that Nintendo make games for every crowd (kids, women, families, core and elderly) and doesnt focus particularly on the core segment, they will never succeed in competing directly with Sony and MS. They certainly are capable of building high spec machines, but it is not a good choice to do so business wise.

And Sony and MS don't make games for everyone?

For me it's pretty simple: if you don't have 3rd Party support from the US and UK/Europe publishers, you basically won't exist in the minds of people, be it core or casuals. Without mindshare there's no marketshare. Sony just made a competitive machine with a great price and is making a profit on it. Why would this be a bad choice for Nintendo?

 

[The_Lump]

Steambox with Nintendo's exclusives. So effectively a special edition Steambox which gets exclusive Ninty content. In return, Nintendo can whack a shit load of emulated legacy titles on "regular" Steam.

Open it up to Android software too. So a triple-booting all-singing all-dancing small-ish form factor console which boots to a Nintendo front end OS but can launch into Steam/Android/et al when needed.

Design wise, I want Gamecube 2.0. Just a matt black cube with the Nintendo & Steam logo embossed on the side.

Spoiler

Launch to coincide with HL3 launch

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

As long as you pretend an entire portable console line of theirs doesn't exist, I guess

but the same trend applies there to. DS was the only handheld to sell more then the one before it, everything else has been sliding down. With an even more crowded portable market, that's not likely to improve ether.

 

[StevieP]

And Sony and MS don't make games for everyone?

For me it's pretty simple: if you don't have 3rd Party support from the US and UK/Europe publishers, you basically won't exist in the minds of people, be it core or casuals. Without mindshare there's no marketshare. Sony just made a competitive machine with a great price and is making a profit on it. Why would this be a bad choice for Nintendo?

Sony and ms make games for predominantly young males, featuring young male power fantasies for the most part. This population is either stagnant or more likely decreasing die to an aging gaming population with no churn (the mobile and pc markets are the ones that are growing and have young blood and alternate demographics churning constantly). Consoles are a tiny portion of the gaming market. Appealing to broader demographics is a good thing. The wii u, however, is not selling to broader demographics and isn't selling to young males much either.

 

[Kill3r7]

And Sony and MS don't make games for everyone?

For me it's pretty simple: if you don't have 3rd Party support from the US and UK/Europe publishers, you basically won't exist in the minds of people, be it core or casuals. Without mindshare there's no marketshare. Sony just made a competitive machine with a great price and is making a profit on it. Why would this be a bad choice for Nintendo?

IMO it would take a miracle for Nintendo to pull off such a transformation. Think about their current online infrastructure and store. Let's not even discuss third party support. They are way behind MS and Sony. It's not as simple as release a modern high end console and third parties will come.

Their way to success will have to rely on something that draws the general public, not the core crowd.

 

[FyreWulff]

but the same trend applies there to. DS was the only handheld to sell more then the one before it, everything else has been sliding down. With an even more crowded portable market, that's not likely to improve ether.

only in crazy world is selling 50 million units of something an indicator of imminent doom.

 

[Final Verdict]

I like gimmicks.
I don't like gimmicks that raise the price of the console by $100.

I think their biggest problem is figuring out who they want to sell to, and then finding a way to attract that crowd.

It seems that they wanted to get some of the moble/tablet market interested in the Wii U, but the problem is that the gamepad, while mobile, can only play Wii U games when in the vicinity of the console itself, not to mention that it has horrible battery life.

If they could have somehow squeezed the entire Wii U console into the size of the gamepad, that probably would have been better to get that crowd on board, but even then I just don't think it would work as they would still need 3rd party support.

I think Nintendo's biggest problem, is that while thier 1st party is great, they don't really have studios that make games for a mature audience, and I think that there are much more gamers interested in more mature games right now than anything else.

I'm not saying they need to get rid of Mario/DK or any of that, but I think they need to open some extra studios to make their portfolio more diverse and attractive to Western gamers if they want more marketshare.

They also need to improve their online network to XBL/PSN standards, even if they have to start charging for it.

But I think that most important of all, they are going to need to nail the HW specifications and architecture of their next console. It needs to not just be capable of competing with PS4/X1, but be significantly more powerful, and have 3rd party games with improved visuals compared to their PS4/X1 counterparts.
It also needs to be very easy to develop for so that it will be less of a burden for 3rd party to support them.

And finally, they need to come out of the gate with a very competitive price, and a catchy name.

Just the thoughts of a loyal Nintendo fan, and Wii U owner.
I have Nintendo to thank for getting me into gaming, and the last thing that I want to see is them die a slow painful death like Sega did.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

only in crazy world is selling 50 million units of something an indicator of imminent doom.

You can't just look at numbers in a vacuum. losing more than 50% of your consumers from one product to the next is a very bad sign.Maybe not "imminent doom" but not something to be proud or optimistic about.

 

[plasmawave]

Get 3rd party support.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Ooh ooh I think I have this one. The majority is ruled by the lowest common denominator?

Whenever I see complaints about catering to the "lowest common denominator" I think of this.

You really think Nintendo is catering to some upper echelon of consumers while everyone else is catering to some pathetic LCD? It's a disservice to see Nintendo's rejection by the marketplace in this light.

 

[Tsokolit]

more BASS for their commercials

 

[sörine]

but the same trend applies there to. DS was the only handheld to sell more then the one before it, everything else has been sliding down. With an even more crowded portable market, that's not likely to improve ether.

This isn't remotely true. Nintendo's handheld sales accelerated from the mid 1990s until the DS peak. Your narrative is hugely off the mark, it's nothing like their console slide.

You can't just look at numbers in a vacuum. losing more than 50% of your consumers from one product to the next is a very bad sign.Maybe not "imminent doom" but not something to be proud or optimistic about.

It's not more than 50% right now although it might end up that way.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

Ooh ooh I think I have this one. The majority is ruled by the lowest common denominator?

There's the snobbery I'm talking about.

 

[Terrell]

And stop relying on gimmicks. I think its fairly clear the remote play and 3D failed to capture the needs of the consumers and developers.

I don't think motion controls as standard will happen again.

Apart from the Wii-U, which is failing miserably, motion controls are nothing today.

And yet people are apparently going crazy for Morpheus, a peripheral that will likely cost another $200 at least for their PS4, that completely relies on motion controls for the experience to be at its potential. Same thing with Hololens.

So... yeah, I'm gonna call bullshit there. If motion control and 3D is a dead gimmick, then Morpheus and Hololens fall square in the same field.

Nintendo still clings to the old japanese business style of, "we will make the product we want and then go find a market for it" that was very successful for decades. They have been way to slow to adapt to a changing market, and the Wii U is evidence of that. I really believe that if they could combine some of their penchant to do different things, along with recognizing and meeting market demands and preferences, they could be a bigger player. Something like that would be a blending a unique and different Nintendo console with features the market expects from a $300 plus machine.

Agreed, it's all about a middle ground. While some people would say "just give the market what it wants and forget everything else", that just creates a different kind of insularity in how Nintendo does business, as doing that means you'd never offer anything new, since the market only asks for what it knows it wants.

There has to be a middle ground, and defining what that middle ground should be isn't always easy.

I'm still not sure what I would lose out from any of this. Nintendo can decide to make or not make anything they have their designs on as is. Look at all of the genres that they no longer play in right now.

Shooters, MMOs and sports are the only ones I can think of. Care to name more?

but the same trend applies there to. DS was the only handheld to sell more then the one before it, everything else has been sliding down. With an even more crowded portable market, that's not likely to improve ether.

No, it's not. GBA sold 81.5 million units with an 8-year lifespan. The original Gameboy line did 118.7 million units with a 14-year lifespan. Both had 3 hardware versions in their lifetime, both were discontinued 2 years after their predecessor hit the market. Let's do the math:

Gameboy - 8.48 million units average sales per year
GBA - 10.19 million units average sales per year

Had GBA not been cut short by the DS, it probably would have outsold the original Gameboy.

So no, the same trend does not apply. 3DS is the first actual shrinkage of their market in the handheld space.

 

[geordiemp]

Nintendo are the only developers who make games by focusing on gameplay. They don't waste time focusing on elements that I can find done better in movies, or books, or even music. They're all about gameplay, and they have a unique, magical substance, that makes me feel like I'm young again, and staring in awe and wonder. That's what gaming is all about, feeling like a child who learned to play with his dick for the first time.

OK that made me laugh. On form.

Its like a twisted speech by Reggie, who always brings up nostalgia as point number 1 in most speeches...

 

[mrklaw]

While it would be disappointing to some if the dedicated handheld market "disappeared", mobile platforms ease a lot of that "serious blow". Capcom and Level 5 would adapt to the end of dedicated handhelds and move to tablets & smartphones instead of throwing their collective hands up and saying, "We're screwed!"

Not that the complete collapse of the dedicated handheld market wouldn't sting, but it's not like there aren't other portable gaming options... nor is it likely that publishers would just walk away from portable gaming entirely. The industry would find a way, much like it would if Nintendo was to go belly up.

Capcom and level 5 would adapt by producing F2P crap like everyone else. The only reason they can bring larger games to iOS at a reasonable cost is because their production costs were already covered on other platforms like 3DS. So they are cheap ports for incremental revenue.

You kill off dedicated handhelds, there won't be any ready made games to port across. And I don't see many companies spending that kind of money to produce big games if they can only sell them for a couple of dollars.

 

[mjontrix]

They're in a bad spot.

Best bet is partner with Occulus or Apple.

Occulus if going for the innovation angle, Apple for the mainstream appeal.

 

[mrklaw]

Apple didn't "build" Super Cell and King, they released a product that people 1) wanted to buy irrespective of whether or not there were games for it and 2) wanted to play games on. The market took care of the rest.

Nintendo will never be able to release a product that people want to buy irrespective of whether or not there are games for it.

Apple didn't build a produce that people wanted irrespective of games. Their sales really took off afte the App Store was launched and apps (and obviously games) started coming out for it. It was a symbiotic thing.

My biggest 'wtf' is why did so many companies produce apps for iPhone and at such relatively good quality,right from the beginning? At the time you had Java apps on other phones which were often shit quality, and shareware on PCs wasn't great either. Was this Apple's tool set that just made things look nice easily? We're there lots of developers sitting on their hands just waiting for this to happen? Still confuses me a bit.

 

[Roberto Larcos]

Verendus isn't even being subtle anymore and people are still falling for it.

So you're saying he's trolling? Making provocative comments purely to invoke a reaction?

 

[AniHawk]

They're in a bad spot.

Best bet is partner with Occulus or Apple.

Occulus if going for the innovation angle, Apple for the mainstream appeal.

occulus is facebook.

 

[KJRS_1993]

I honestly don't think they can.
Nintendo's nostalgic, magical, 'gameplay only unlike the mainstream lowest common denominator knuckle dragger' games didn't get the Wii U to sell decent numbers, and the software lineup was the only card up their sleeve. (that I'm aware of).

I can't think of anything else they could bring to the table to make the WiiU's successor sell.

 

[Rolf NB]

Apple didn't build a produce that people wanted irrespective of games. Their sales really took off afte the App Store was launched and apps (and obviously games) started coming out for it. It was a symbiotic thing.

My biggest 'wtf' is why did so many companies produce apps for iPhone and at such relatively good quality,right from the beginning? At the time you had Java apps on other phones which were often shit quality, and shareware on PCs wasn't great either. Was this Apple's tool set that just made things look nice easily? We're there lots of developers sitting on their hands just waiting for this to happen? Still confuses me a bit.

Apple marketed aggressively to young would-be developers. I.e. uni students. They put the dollar signs in those eyes with ease of self-publishing, quick release and patch cycles and lax cert requirements. Emulation was free. Xcode was free. All you needed was a Mac.

Compare that to all the hoops you had to (and still have to) go through developing for a Nintendo handheld.

 

[AngryNapkin]

And yet people are apparently going crazy for Morpheus, a peripheral that will likely cost another $200 at least for their PS4, that completely relies on motion controls for the experience to be at its potential. Same thing with Hololens.

So... yeah, I'm gonna call bullshit there. If motion control and 3D is a dead gimmick, then Morpheus and Hololens fall square in the same field.

Agreed, it's all about a middle ground. While some people would say "just give the market what it wants and forget everything else", that just creates a different kind of insularity in how Nintendo does business, as doing that means you'd never offer anything new, since the market only asks for what it knows it wants.

There has to be a middle ground, and defining what that middle ground should be isn't always easy.

Shooters, MMOs and sports are the only ones I can think of. Care to name more?

No, it's not. GBA sold 81.5 million units with an 8-year lifespan. The original Gameboy line did 118.7 million units with a 14-year lifespan. Both had 3 hardware versions in their lifetime, both were discontinued 2 years after their predecessor hit the market. Let's do the math:

Gameboy - 8.48 million units average sales per year
GBA - 10.19 million units average sales per year

Had GBA not been cut short by the DS, it probably would have outsold the original Gameboy.

So no, the same trend does not apply. 3DS is the first actual shrinkage of their market in the handheld space.

They still had a lower amount of consoles sold, meaning their base was lower for that product. Every product they have released has shown a base that continues to drop.

Other than Wii/DS being the oddities. I get what your saying, and somewhat agree but the overall amount of people who played GBA is lower than those whole played GB. Considering the mobile market and similar patterns with the home consoles it seems the trend will likely continue in my opinion.

Nintendo has almost given up on making profits on royalties and rely on their own profit margins and now other streams of revenue outside home consoles.

The Zelda series on Netflix is not coincident if you ask me.

 

[Amneisac]

I'd like to see them take a shot at Sony and MS. Make something easily recognizable as Nintendo with Nintendo in the title. Something like Super Nintendo. Then have commercials that just blow up the nostalgia with a 90s style and lots of Mario. Make a traditional console with regular controllers but have a launch lineup with a new 3D Mario. I think focusing on their strengths would be enough to get a huge jump out of the gate and that would keep third parties engaged and then that ball gets rolling.

So basically heavily branded Nintendo console with a retro look and lots of nostalgic marketing. Make a console that can run multiplats so that you'll have third parties. Have a Mario game as a launch title and market the fuck out of it.