Support NeoGAF

[Mario]

I didn't actually really think you wrote the article, but I think someone that has read your post about people cancelling WiiU titles at DICE wrote the article. A lot of what is said in the article can be directly lifted from your post.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=47510424&postcount=1

That did cross my mind when I read it.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Notwithstanding, the veracity of the source, I like how the immediate response by some is to disparage Activision's efforts. Or pretend that this game didn't continue selling long after release; and that the late release is also Activision's fault. Perhaps the problem wasn't the marketing, perhaps it was the market?

---

Also forgive my cynicism, but people 'accidentally' post chartzzz numbers far too often.

 

[sp3000]

This has nothing to do with Nintendo, this has to do with the fans of COD not wanting to accept that the Wii U version is the best and Activision not making that clear.

Also developers need to work with Nintendo to release their games at the right time so it doesn't mess with Nintendo's IPs. No other first party has the same amount of stellar first party titles

The amount of arrogance in this post is pretty hilarious.

 

[AzaK]

Less than 100,000 sales in two and a half months for COD is pretty damn bad. It's a new console launch though, so low numbers are expected. But still.

It sold like shit. There you go.


What a shitty ass excuse and defense. This dudebro shooter sells tonnes on other consoles. Hell it even sold well on the Vita. There´s 0 excuses for COD selling like shit on the WiiU besides people who bought the WiiU don´t want COD.

Bollocks. Core gamers who bought Wii U at launch likely have a 360 or PS3 and CoD is extremely front loaded so people want in on launch day. Not to mention that's where their friends etc are. If Wii U had have been a high end console or was made to use the Wii U's power and look better, with day and date launch with CoD it might have fared better but that's a lot of ifs.

 

[Aquamarine]

I don't think that's the problem. Nintendo can't reasonably compete with Sony and MS because those companies are so much larger than Nintendo; Nintendo cannot get in to a war of the wallet with Sony or Microsoft. Well, maybe present day Sony. Maybe. But Sony still has vastly more revenue streams than Nintendo does.

Keep in mind I'm not talking about moneyhats here; I'm talking about the razor/blade model. Selling cutting edge tech for a loss is something gigantic, international corporate conglomerates like Sony and Microsoft may feel they can afford, but Nintendo is correct that they cannot.

That Razor/Blade model -- focusing on cutting edge tech aimed at 16-35 year old males -- is exactly what the big four publishers want. I think Nintendo would love their support very much; I just don't think Nintendo is in a position to anything about it. I would have gone much more casual with the Wii U before I went even more hardcore. The casual market is very competitive but I can at least feasibly imagine Nintendo capturing the market again; the hardcore market, by contrast, is paved with blood where even the winners eek out tiny profit margins (e.g. Microsoft this generation).

Right. Nintendo seeks to diversify through quirky gimmicks and low-budget titles (relatively speaking). Thanks to a successful IP portfolio and some occasional moneyhats here and there, they've been able to rid the wave of popularity and sell lots of units last gen.

But think about it for a moment: Games like Nintendo Land or NSMB:U are a drop in the bucket budget-wise compared to monoliths like GTA V or Halo 4. There's a reason that Nintendo hasn't released any "hardcore FPS shooters" outside of Metroid---they just can't afford them.

It's very hard to please a 16-35 year old male market when your resources are inherently constricted. There's a myth around here that Nintendo has "wads of cash" they can just willy-nilly invest into AAA-budget titles and loss-leading hardware. But that's just not true. Nintendo's revenue gets re-invested into new, $3 million 3DS titles, or $8 million Wii U titles, or R&D for Wii U hardware, or overhead costs...etc.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

I would have gone much more casual with the Wii U before I went even more hardcore.

Iwata admitted focusing on casuals was a mistake on Wii and they don't intend to repeat it again.

There's a reason that Nintendo hasn't released any "hardcore FPS shooters" outside of Metroid---they just can't afford them.

I hope you have evidence to support this claim. What make you believe Nintendo can't afford to make a FPS shooter?

 

[Shaanyboi]

Iwata admitted focusing on casuals was a mistake on Wii and they don't intend to repeat it again.

It's not so much that he said that that focus was a mistake, but that it was a mistake to assume that the casual consumer was going to evolve their gaming habits and would become consistent reliable customers for Nintendo.

 

[Opiate]

Iwata admitted focusing on casuals was a mistake on Wii and they don't intend to repeat it again.

First, I'd like a source. Second, assuming this is true and not just some statement that will look very different in context; it's looking like he was totally right on that bet, wasn't he?

The "hardcore" market is where smart companies go to die. There's a reason why we haven't seen a serious new entrant for nearly 15 years.

 

[theviolenthero]

I knew this game was in trouble when i posted that it was on sale for $30 w/ free shipping on amazon and nobody gave a damn.

Anyways, i hope Wii U owners go out and buy Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate (demo is available for download NOW).

 

[rockx4]

Right. Nintendo seeks to diversify through quirky gimmicks and low-budget titles (relatively speaking). Thanks to a successful IP portfolio and some occasional moneyhats here and there, they've been able to rid the wave of popularity and sell lots of units last gen.

But think about it for a moment: Games like Nintendo Land or NSMB:U are a drop in the bucket budget-wise compared to monoliths like GTA V or Halo 4. There's a reason that Nintendo hasn't released any "hardcore FPS shooters" outside of Metroid---they just can't afford them.

It's very hard to please a 16-35 year old male market when your resources are inherently constricted. There's a myth around here that Nintendo has "wads of cash" they can just willy-nilly invest into AAA-budget titles and loss-leading hardware. But that's just not true. Nintendo's revenue gets re-invested into new, $3 million 3DS titles, or $8 million Wii U titles, or R&D for Wii U hardware, or overhead costs...etc.

If Nintendo wants to create a market for those games on their console then I think they have to invest in it. It's pretty crazy to expect third party publishers to invest money into a market on Nintendo platforms that Nintendo themselves are making no effort to support.

Anyways, i hope Wii U owners go out and buy Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate (demo is available for download NOW).

I have the game on preorder, but has Nintendo or Capcom even made an effort to market the game? Outside of a few trailers on GAF and a few blogs and sites I haven't really seen much buzz for the game.

 

[fernoca]

I didn't actually really think you wrote the article, but I think someone that has read your post about people cancelling WiiU titles at DICE wrote the article. A lot of what is said in the article can be directly lifted from your post.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=47510424&postcount=1

That was my first thought. Reading the "article" it was like someone read Mario's [I'm still waiting for Gripshift 2] and made an article based on that and rumors/posts from the same thread. Since in the same threas it was like "Well, can't be Zombi U..so it must be an Activision game"; and only Skylanders and Black Ops II fit that bill. Since a new Skylanders was annoucned for the Wii U, developed by the same ones that ported Giants to Wii U, "OMG Black Ops II is the game!!"...or something like that.

That combined by the fact that there's no DLC or announcements, the sketchy patches that needs..new patches.

It should also be noted that, since some use Miiverse communites/followers as barometers/guides to sales:

Assassin's Creed III: 34,205
Black Ops II: 54,732

And ACIII has been recieving DLC, so..maybe the expectations were higher for BOII; maybe there's some truth...who nows.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

First, I'd like a source. Second, it's looking like he was totally right on that bet, wasn't he?

The "hardcore" market is where smart companies go to die.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming...stake-in-abandoning-core-audience-for-casual/

Yes, it was a mistake. Wii had a balance between the core and casual balance until they decided to focus completely on casuals. After that happened, Wii started to loose appeal and third-party support and it's sales dropped. This explains why Wii had a premature death.

If there's a market where you can find death with a bigger chance is the casual, not the core.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

Totally agree, and I think it really has more to do with SONY and Microsoft having won those key demographics long ago, they started by winning over the younger teens by being the "Cool" at the transition of this we had years of Nintendo products being called "Kiddy" because this was the years when things like GTA was taking hold. No one can say that this image has left the minds of many gamers who were once 20 and now 35 and still don't see a Nintendo platforms as a home for them. Nintendo has very little chance in winning them back. We had a major outcry from the Bayonetta 2 stuff mostly because the game seems to not fit the Nintendo demographic.

I really don't want it to change. I would give my left arm for an Animal Crossing Wii U version of this 3DS new leaf. Nintendo can't have it both ways.

Cool? How about functioning account system, or online (Wii)? How about MS and Sony use money hats to get exclusive DLC, which help that version to sell better than the other? Nintendo always build their system for their developers. They never consult third parties about their opinions with regard to building a console. Nintendo does not give a fuck about third parties or else they would have asked them their opinions when Nintendo built the WiiU.

 

[captmcblack]

A late port of a game with less/later DLC and equal/lesser performance than all of the other versions is supposed to be the best version? And on top of that, people were expected to buy the fuck out of it AND because they didn't, it's an indictment on all Nintendo fans?

The nerve of these people.

 

[Shaanyboi]

A late port of a game with less/later DLC and equal/lesser performance than all of the other versions is supposed to be the best version? And on top of that, people were expected to buy the fuck out of it AND because they didn't, it's an indictment on all Nintendo fans?

The nerve of these people.

Assuming it's true. A fact that has not been confirmed... I can't imagine Activision had huge expectations, but whether or not the actual figures met them or not is currently unknown...

 

[Aaron Strife]

If Activision was serious about cultivating a base for Call of Duty they should have put this out:

in 2007 instead of 2009, when it was overshadowed by the release of Modern Warfare 2 (which also never got a Wii version)

Incidentally, it would have been an easy sell thanks to this just being released:

However they should be commended for at least getting out a Wii/Wii U SKU for all their major franchise games. EA canceling a Wii U version of a game? Gasp.

(also - I bought BLOPS 2 on Wii U. You're welcome!)

 

[Freezie KO]

This is really a shame. I bought it, and it's a great version of the game. I just finished playing some Double Weapon XP Weekend. Personally, I'm done with CoD and FPS games in general after pointer controls are abandoned, but I know I'm a tiny minority.

I don't think you can blame Activision or even the person that said this. They greenlit the game, had it ready for launch, and gave it unique features, even supporting the legacy Wiimote controls that the community liked from Wii. Treyarch has kept the CoD community going with patches, and they had been pushing user names and modern friend requests even when Nintendo was stuck in the friend code zone.

It was Nintendo that launched their console a week after Blops 2. Nintendo were the ones that didn't let Activision advertise early or even talk about the game. It's the biggest third-party game going, but Nintendo's attitude has been that if people buy the console, then the Wii U is entitled to get third party support.

Well, not enough people bought the console. And if they did, the biggest game Nintendo pushed was another minigame collection. Nintendo made it very difficult to build an online community due to years of friend codes and an underpowered console. They're just reaping what they've sown.

As for DLC, Activision can't even release the DLC because it'd split the already tiny userbase in two.

I hope Activision continues support because I love CoD with pointer controls, but I worry about the future. I feel bad for Treyarch who did a great job with the game.

 

[Gamer @ Heart]

That was my first thought. Reading the "article" it was like someone read Mario's [I'm still waiting for Gripshift 2] and made an article based on that and rumors/posts from the same thread. Since in the same threas it was like "Well, can't be Zombi U..so it must be an Activision game"; and only Skylanders and Black Ops II fit that bill. Since a new Skylanders was annoucned for the Wii U, developed by the same ones that ported Giants to Wii U, "OMG Black Ops II is the game!!"...or something like that.

That combined by the fact that there's no DLC or announcements, the sketchy patches that needs..new patches.

It should also be noted that, since some use Miiverse communites/followers as barometers/guides to sales:

Assassin's Creed III: 34,205
Black Ops II: 54,732

And ACIII has been recieving DLC, so..maybe the expectations were higher for BOII; maybe there's some truth...who nows.

Anyone who goes into a community and posts is counted so that metric area.my shouldn't be used. Every new community is filled with a thousand posts of "is this game any good?" For the first few days. I only ever posted in a quarter of the communities for wii u games I own.

 

[Hero]

In the OP? No. Why would you think that?

My thoughts and anecdotes on the matter are already well enough documented in the following links

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=513324
http://www.nowgamer.com/features/1808380/interview_mario_wynands_on_why_nextgen_could_fail.html


If Nintendo products consistently crowd out third party product from generation to generation, then it is an issue that Nintendo has to provide leadership on if they want their platforms to be more successful, whether it be around helping third parties raise the quality of their offerings or helping time releases better.

I know your opinion already from the various threads and I'm kind of curious with what you said here. What could Nintendo have done for your company specifically to help with the qualify of the offerings you made on their platforms?

 

[AuthenticM]

I guess the source is untrustworthy seeing as Shinobi was banned ?

 

[VinLAURiA]

Here's how I see it: you want to see how good a game like CoD would do on something like Wii U, release it for just Wii U. No PS3, no 360, no PC. Fact of the matter is that people who want to play something like CoD are probably already gonna be getting it on their 360 or PS3 if they have the option, and people who have just a Wii U are probably not gonna be interested in CoD in the first place. I'm more interested in what would happen if people needed a Wii U to play the game instead of being able to take an alternative, reason being that just getting a game at all is much more of an incentive to get a new console than just getting an upgraded version of a game you'd already have access to. Let's see how many people would consider buying a Wii U worth being able to play the latest CoD at all.

Rayman Legends could've been the perfect example to demonstrate this, but now we'll never know due to Ubisoft giving in and do exactly what would make people not upgrade. Gamers aren't gonna get a Wii U if you keep on porting all the good games to the systems everyone already owns. Systems that - like Windows XP - people have gotten too used to due to their unusually long tenure, and that we need to frigging let die already. But that won't happen, because publishers are always going to fall into the same trap of trying to get your games out on as many platforms as possible to maximize profits even if the lesser platforms are holding the game back.

 

[Zeal]

ugh, they're so fucking arrogant


some Gaffers defending this rotten reasoning in 3 2 1

He's right, Nintendo fans usually are all talk.

 

[leatherhat]

Whether it's hated or not, common sense should tell you that if some name is being ******* out, then that's our signal to you that you probably shouldn't use it as a source. We're not censoring the name for fun or because we're meanies.

It's sort of like people who relay messages to us from banned members. The whole point of being banned is that you cannot post on GAF; posting for them vicariously completely subverts the entire purpose of banning members.

Why is that site banned? I get thats its numbers are inaccurate but I don't get why they can't be used as an estimate when nothing else is available.

 

[hatchx]

It's too bad, I bought BLOPS2 on Wii U and it's great. I always find people to play with online quickly and have a great time.

It's really Nintendo's fault. The Wii U is a piece of shit right now, and one slightly superior COD isn't going to suddenly bring in buyers. The OS is terribly slow, there's a big dry-spell of games with a questionable future library. People know it.

 

[Gamer @ Heart]

Why is that site banned? I get thats its numbers are inaccurate but I don't get why they can't be used as an estimate when nothing else is available.

The creator has been caught in numerous lies o e too many times and using his bullshit to further discussion is not a healthy thing to do.

 

[RoombaDance]

Also forgive my cynicism, but people 'accidentally' post chartzzz numbers far too often.

I knew the source which may not be named was unpopular, just as I know Kotaku is unpopular. I did not know one of them was bannable. But if you don't want to believe, there's not really anything I can do. Also not trying to derail this thread, but given that OP was banned, is there an extended TOS somewhere with a few more membership guidelines? I've read the how to participate and TOS.

Back on topic, the only path forward I see for Nintendo is to heavily promote 3rd party franchises, publish games with non-Nintendo IPs and continue more crossover titles to create an environment where Nintendo fans are interested in other franchises. I believe I've seen TV Tomb Raider ads with only the Xbox360 logo at the end, which implies they were paid for by at least partially by Microsoft. I don't think Nintendo ever does that with games they aren't publishing.

 

[Oni Link 666]

What are you trying to imply here?

That TTT2 was awesome and people didn't buy it and we can forget about that Soul Calibur with Link in it now.

 

[leatherhat]

Bollocks. Core gamers who bought Wii U at launch likely have a 360 or PS3 and CoD is extremely front loaded so people want in on launch day. Not to mention that's where their friends etc are. If Wii U had have been a high end console or was made to use the Wii U's power and look better, with day and date launch with CoD it might have fared better but that's a lot of ifs.

Ehh, I would guess they were die hard nintendo fans who probably didn't own other consoles

 

[freddy]

Why is that site banned? I get thats its numbers are inaccurate but I don't get why they can't be used as an estimate when nothing else is available.

Because they make shit up when nothing else is available. You might as well make up your own bullshit and say it at that point.

Also: http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=18919

 

[Opiate]

http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming...stake-in-abandoning-core-audience-for-casual/

Yes, it was a mistake. Wii had a balance between the core and casual balance until they decided to focus completely on casuals. After that happened, Wii started to loose appeal and third-party support and it's sales dropped. This explains why Wii had a premature death.

Yeah, as suspected that isn't what he is saying.

He's saying 1) They weren't good enough with the casuals to keep them consistently entertained, and 2) They should have also had more focus on "Core" consumers. Not at the expense of their casual focus, mind you.

He is not saying that their interest in casual players was a bad idea, just that they shouldn't have lost that audience to Facebook, iPhone, iPad, etc.

 

[jonno394]

Ehh, I would guess they were die hard nintendo fans who probably didn't own other consoles

Does that gamer exist? Im a die hard Nintendo fan but have owned every other major home console since the master system.....my ps3 got the most use this gen.

cod didn't sell because there was no established online community, and that is they key cod component. why would billy gamer buy the Wii u version when all his friends have the xbox version?

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

I don't think that's the problem. Nintendo can't reasonably compete with Sony and MS because those companies are so much larger than Nintendo; Nintendo cannot get in to a war of the wallet with Sony or Microsoft. Well, maybe present day Sony. Maybe. But Sony still has vastly more revenue streams than Nintendo does.

Keep in mind I'm not talking about moneyhats here: I'm talking about the razor/blade model. Selling cutting edge tech for a loss is something gigantic, international corporate conglomerates like Sony and Microsoft may feel they can afford, but Nintendo is correct that they cannot expect to win such a war when Sony is apparently willing to lose 5 billion dollars on the PS3 and keep on trucking like nothing happened.

That Razor/Blade model -- focusing on cutting edge tech aimed at 16-35 year old males -- is exactly what the big four publishers want. I think Nintendo would love their support very much, I just don't think they're in a position to do anything about it. I would have gone much more casual with the Wii U before I went even more hardcore. The casual market is very competitive but I can at least feasibly imagine Nintendo capturing the market again; the hardcore market, by contrast, is paved with blood where even the winners eek out tiny profit margins (e.g. Microsoft this generation).

I highly disagree with this. Nintendo being a gaming only company and have the money to invest in their consoles and build new studios to cater to 16-35 year audience. Actually i would argue that being a gaming only company should make Nintendo strive for the best console technologically speaking. Especially after Nintendo stood and watch third party games sell millions on PS360. Nintendo has plenty of money but they hoard their money. I mean seriously, what´s stopping Nintendo from opening 4 studios today to cater to that audience? Nothing is stopping them except themselves. They are concerned about their child friendly and casual image that they don´t even bother courting the 15-36 year old audience.

 

[shinra-bansho]

There's a reason that Nintendo hasn't released any "hardcore FPS shooters" outside of Metroid---they just can't afford them.

The idea that Nintendo can't afford to invest $20-30M into an AAA shooter seems like nonsense frankly. Whether it's worth the opportunity cost is another matter - it doesn't necessarily align with their hardware strategy or their brand image.

However, I've said it before - if Nintendo want to engender confidence for third parties to invest in their ecosystem they need to invest themselves in building their 16-35 demographic market more, with titles aimed specifically at them. Because there is no onus on third parties to do so.

 

[Opiate]

I highly disagree with this. Nintendo being a gaming only company and have the money to invest in their consoles and build new studios to cater to 16-35 year audience. Actually i would argue that being a gaming only company should make Nintendo strive for the best console technologically speaking. Especially after Nintendo stood and watch third party games sell millions on PS360. Nintendo has plenty of money but they hoard their money. I mean seriously, what´s stopping Nintendo from opening 4 studios today to cater to that audience? Nothing is stopping them except themselves. They are concerned about their child friendly and casual image that they don´t even bother courting the 15-36 year old audience.

Then you don't understand economics, frankly.

Again, the PS3 was the biggest financial disaster in gaming history; Sony lost 5 billion dollars during this generation just in the gaming division, and it didn't even phase them because the losses could be amortized by other divisions with large revenue streams.

Nintendo could not possibly do that. They would be quickly be Atari'd, they would be Sega'd. Huge corporate international conglomerates like Sony and Microsoft are in a much better position to loss lead because they can take huge up front losses and maintain normal operations in a way that smaller operations cannot. Keep in mind this is not an economic concept specific to gaming; you can see similar strategies play out in a variety of fields and is a well understood economic strategy.

 

[madmackem]

Ehh, I would guess they were die hard nintendo fans who probably didn't own other consoles

Erm i dont think die hard nintendo fans are the cod demographic.

 

[Aquamarine]

I knew the source which may not be named was unpopular, just as I know Kotaku is unpopular. I did not know one of them was bannable. But if you don't want to believe, there's not really anything I can do. Also not trying to derail this thread, but given that OP was banned, is there an extended TOS somewhere with a few more membership guidelines? I've read the how to participate and TOS.

Back on topic, the only path forward I see for Nintendo is to heavily promote 3rd party franchises, publish games with non-Nintendo IPs and continue more crossover titles to create an environment where Nintendo fans are interested in other franchises. I believe I've seen TV Tomb Raider ads with only the Xbox360 logo at the end, which implies they were paid for by at least partially by Microsoft. I don't think Nintendo ever does that with games they aren't publishing.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=427771

 

[madmackem]

Then you don't understand economics, frankly.

Again, the PS3 was the biggest financial disaster in gaming history; Sony lost 5 billion dollars during this generation just in the gaming division, and it didn't even phase them because the losses could be amortized by other divisions with large revenue streams.

Nintendo could not possibly do that. They would be quickly be Atari'd, they would be Sega'd. Huge corporate international conglomerates like Sony and Microsoft are in a much better position to loss lead because they can take huge up front losses and maintain normal operations in a way that smaller operations cannot.

Didnt pachter (yes i know) say something along the lines nintendo could continue on losing money like they are now for many many years given the cash reserves etc.

 

[Deadly Cyclone]

ugh, they're so fucking arrogant


some Gaffers defending this rotten reasoning in 3 2 1

Well, did you buy it? Should they put out games that don't sell? Is that smart business?

 

[kirby_fox]

Sales of a launch system + launching 5 days late = not going to be the main system for this title.

But the game is nonetheless popular with Wii U gamers. BLOPS2 has been on Miiverse plaza thing since launch- on my system at least. And not being a COD fan personally (I wouldn't buy it on another console either Activision) I only knew of them others being million dollar sellers.

I wonder what the Wii version would have sold...

 

[les papillons sexuels]

people dont buy nintendo consoles to play games, they buy it to service nintendo.

 

[InsaneZero]

Didnt pachter (yes i know) say something along the lines nintendo could continue on losing money like they are now for many many years given the cash reserves etc.

Assuming that they stick to their current strategy of relatively cheap hardware production, yes. If Nintendo pursues higher performance hardware that people are pushing them to do in this thread, then all bets are off.

 

[Aquamarine]

Didnt pachter (yes i know) say something along the lines nintendo could continue on losing money like they are now for many many years given the cash reserves etc.

Pachter said Nintendo "can go 20-30 years losing money like they are now before being in trouble."

In the past 9 months, Nintendo made a net income of $159 million. It's stagnant, sure, but it's not at the point where Nintendo could go out of business with those figures.

 

[onipex]

Erm i dont think die hard nintendo fans are the cod demographic.

They were until the Nintendo published FPS games dried up and the people that want those games just play them on other consoles.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

Yeah, as suspected that isn't what he is saying.

He's saying 1) They weren't good enough with the casuals to keep them consistently entertained, and 2) They should have also had more focus on "Core" consumers. Not at the expense of their casual focus, mind you.

He is not saying that their interest in casual players was a bad idea, just that they shouldn't have lost that audience to Facebook, iPhone, iPad, etc.

Uh?

The Wii was able to reach a large number of new consumers who had never played games before by bringing hands-on experiences with its Wii Sports and Wii Fit. However, we could not adequately create the situation that such new consumers played games frequently or for long, consistent periods. As a result we could not sustain a good level of profit

Moreover, regrettably, what we prioritized in order to reach out to the new audience was a bit too far from what we prioritized for those who play games as their hobby. Consequently, we presume some people felt that the Wii was not a game system for them or they were not willing to play with the Wii even though some compelling games had been released.

I can't see how these comments can have another interpretation besides Iwata acknowledging the casual focused direction was a mistake.

Then you don't understand economics, frankly.

Again, the PS3 was the biggest financial disaster in gaming history; Sony lost 5 billion dollars during this generation just in the gaming division, and it didn't even phase them because the losses could be amortized by other divisions with large revenue streams.

Nintendo could not possibly do that. They would be quickly be Atari'd, they would be Sega'd. Huge corporate international conglomerates like Sony and Microsoft are in a much better position to loss lead because they can take huge up front losses and maintain normal operations in a way that smaller operations cannot. Keep in mind this is not an economic concept specific to gaming; you can see similar strategies play out in a variety of fields and is a well understood economic strategy.

I agree with Phoenician_Viking.

You're talking like Nintendo, in order to reach the core audience, necessarily need to release an overpriced and overpowered mess like the PS3 was in the beggining. They can manage to bring an acceptable hardware that can fit the third-party needs and remain competitive. You don't need to bring an overpowered hardware at the beggining which will take a long time to really indicate a major improvement over the previous generation like happened with PS3/360 and suffer major losses like Sony/MS had in the beggining.

 

[Opiate]

Didnt pachter (yes i know) say something along the lines nintendo could continue on losing money like they are now for many many years given the cash reserves etc.

That is precisely because they spend so conservatively. If they started spending like Sony and MS do, that would no longer be the case.

Most of their recent losses can reasonably be attributed to bad forex conditions, which affected them particularly harshly because they invested significantly in the market; their underlying business operations are not in that condition. They aren't, just as an example, loss leading 100-200 dollars on the Wii U, the way the PS3 and 360 were, and the way PS4/720 are expected to be.

 

[Lonely1]

How much did Blops 2 Wii sold? 3-4k online might seem low, but as someone who played all the Wii CoDs, that within the range of the Wii CoDs. It wasn't until MW3 that they broke the 10k, and that's with significant piracy and hacking.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Pachter said Nintendo "can go 20-30 years losing money like they are now before being in trouble."

In the past 9 months, Nintendo made a net income of $159 million. It's stagnant, sure, but it's not at the point where Nintendo could go out of business with those figures.

An accounting "income."

Nintendo could never sustain multibillion dollar losses.

At the same time...

That is precisely because they spend so conservatively. If they started spending like Sony and MS do, that would no longer be the case.

Most of their recent losses can reasonably be attributed to bad forex conditions, which affected them particularly harshly because they invested significantly in the market; their underlying business operations are not in that condition. They aren't, just as an example, loss leading 100-200 dollars on the Wii U, the way the PS3 and 360 were, and the way PS4/720 are expected to be.

I don't think loss-leading on hardware necessarily dictates multibillion dollar losses.

 

[NewFresh]

people dont buy nintendo consoles to play games, they buy it to service nintendo.

This is the most confusing post I've read in a long while. Usually people argue that people only buy Nintendo Hardware for first party software, but I've never seen the assertion that the sole purpose of purchasing is just to give Nintendo cash.

 

[royalan]

Then you don't understand economics, frankly.

Again, the PS3 was the biggest financial disaster in gaming history; Sony lost 5 billion dollars during this generation just in the gaming division, and it didn't even phase them because the losses could be amortized by other divisions with large revenue streams.

Nintendo could not possibly do that. They would be quickly be Atari'd, they would be Sega'd. Huge corporate international conglomerates like Sony and Microsoft are in a much better position to loss lead because they can take huge up front losses and maintain normal operations in a way that smaller operations cannot. Keep in mind this is not an economic concept specific to gaming; you can see similar strategies play out in a variety of fields and is a well understood economic strategy.

Nintendo may not be able to loss lead like Sony and Microsoft, but they damn sure could afford to be more forward-thinking in their investments, and I think that's what people are really saying when it is suggested that Nintendo could afford to compete more.

They don't have to create behemoth machines that bleed money and invest 20 million per title, but that's a fool's game anyway. They could afford to expand and invest in burgeoning technologies and new franchises, though. Things that would put them in a better position to compete and open up new revenue streams in the future.

The decision to not expand their online infrastructure in a major way years ago seemed to be fueled more by a belief that online wasn't all that big a deal than it being truly cost prohibitive, just as an example. A lot of the decisions Nintendo makes these days seem fueled more by their comparatively conservative philosophy than them "just not being able to afford it."

 

[FStop7]

Legitimacy of the article in OP aside, it's not my job to keep Nintendo (or their partners) in business. I'm not obligated to buy anything. This new trend of blaming the customer for not buying stuff that started with DmC is funny.

BLOPS 2 came out for the 360/PS3/PC weeks before the Wii U. I bought it for the 360 because that's where the majority of people I play multiplayer games with are found.

Put your money where your mouth is.

I already own NFS for another platform. I have no interest in Tekken or Injustice on any platform, at least not at retail price. I'll probably buy MonHun.