Support NeoGAF

[Canon]

So many arm-chair analysts here thinking that it's unacceptable for a human being to be a human being.

I guarantee you, your favorite CEO (or celebrity, or hero, or family member, or friend) has failed many times, you're just having a bias against Iwata at this moment in time. You have likely failed more times than Iwata, unless you can prove otherwise.

Failure is not a choice, it's an inevitability. You're going to fail. It's what you do with that fail and the lessons you learn along the way, and the persistence to never give up until you win. If no one was 'allowed' to fail we'd have no risks, we'd have no innovators like Nintendo.

Nintendo's been through this many times. And they're going to continue to persist, and win, and fail. You might not hear about their wins because it doesn't get the publicity, but there's tons and tons.

 

[A_Gorilla]

He's at least right in that the problem with investors is they seem to be thinking a very short-term game, which just isn't what Nintendo does.

I hear Nintendo fans saying this all the time, do they even know what it means? Because if Nintendo did invest in the LONG term they would never have:

*Burned their bridges with 3rd party and even 2nd party developers

*Stuck with cartridges instead of discs

*Ignored the rise of FPS games despite having created the DEFINITIVE FPS game of the 90s (Goldeneye)

*Ignored the rise of western game devlopers and the decline of Japanese devlopers

*Maintained and enforced the family friendly image even as core gamers continued to grow older

*Done nothing as Wii sales went into freefall after 2010

Do you still want to tell me that Nintendo plans in the long term?

 

[ari]

Disney buying Nintendo makes too much fucking sense for it to happen.

 

[A_Gorilla]

So many arm-chair analysts here thinking that it's unacceptable for a human being to be a human being.

I guarantee you, your favorite CEO (or celebrity, or hero, or family member, or friend) has failed many times, you're just having a bias against Iwata at this moment in time. You have likely failed more times than Iwata, unless you can prove otherwise.

Failure is not a choice, it's an inevitability. You're going to fail. It's what you do with that fail and the lessons you learn along the way, and the persistence to never give up until you win. If no one was 'allowed' to fail we'd have no risks, we'd have no innovators like Nintendo.

Nintendo's been through this many times. And they're going to continue to persist, and win, and fail. You might not hear about their wins because it doesn't get the publicity, but there's tons and tons.

Ah yes, the "lets see YOU do better!" argument. Anyone who has to resort to this has already lost the debate.

 

[Canon]

As yes, the "lets see YOU do better!" argument. Anyone who has to resort to this has already lost the debate.

That wasn't my argument at all so please read better. The point is everyone fails because everyone is human, and etc. Re-read the post please.

 

[Monocle]

Ah yes, the "lets see YOU do better!" argument. Anyone who has to resort to this has already lost the debate.

That was like one incidental line in a post that made a totally different point.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

Dude has been fucking up for years and set them up to fail. I don't get his point.

 

[royalan]

So many arm-chair analysts here thinking that it's unacceptable for a human being to be a human being.

I guarantee you, your favorite CEO (or celebrity, or hero, or family member, or friend) has failed many times, you're just having a bias against Iwata at this moment in time. You have likely failed more times than Iwata, unless you can prove otherwise.

Failure is not a choice, it's an inevitability. You're going to fail. It's what you do with that fail and the lessons you learn along the way, and the persistence to never give up until you win. If no one was 'allowed' to fail we'd have no risks, we'd have no innovators like Nintendo.

Nintendo's been through this many times. And they're going to continue to persist, and win, and fail. You might not hear about their wins because it doesn't get the publicity, but there's tons and tons.

From an earlier post:

If, for example, the Wii U was a truly forward thinking piece of tech, and the strategy behind it was one that took into account the realities of where gaming is today and where Nintendo could potentially forge a path going into the future, and in the and it failed for unforeseen circumstances, in this scenario I could understand giving Iwata the A for effort. I think most gamers would be applauding Iwata, not calling for his head, if the source of the Wii U's problems had been him going too big and being too bold with his approach.

Iwata's failing as a CEO because he's insular, he refuses to acknowledge the very industry he's competing in, and he'd rather rely on previous success than blaze new and exciting trails in the industry. And he's absolutely allergic to spending money. That's not the type of failure you greet with "Well, you'll get 'em next time, Tiger!"

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

Do Disney and Nintendo even have any sort of partnership? Like if you go to Disneyland, can you walk around a find a mascot Mario, Kirby, and Link walking around? (sorry, I don't really keep up with these things)

If not... that's a huge fucking oversight for the company that is struggling to stay relevant to children.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

Under Iwata's leadership, Nintendo has been failing for the past 5 years (falling revenue and profitability each year, beginning FY3/2010), suffering losses the past 3 years (operating losses beginning FY3/2012), will have no real possibility of anything more than a token profit in the next 2 years (reduced hardware bases, selling at losses, with reduced potential for software sales and royalties), and will have to come up with a viable successor to the 3DS in an increasingly hostile market within that same period (3DS should be replaced within 12-24 months), while their home console business will be an anchor around their neck for years to come (possible replacement 24-36 months?).

In the meanwhile, Nintendo is going to continue to perform sluggishly, investors will see only nominal dividends, and there's no guarantee that the business will turn around. Iwata is free to fail on his own time, but Nintendo investors have given him more than enough leeway and have been extremely patient. Asking them to continue to be patient with this leadership is frankly a bit absurd. Nintendo's next couple of years are going to be rough with or without the present leadership, but if they stick around, they shape Nintendo's future for the following 5 years, as well. I don't know that they've "earned the right" to continue this present course. The pressure is on, they have to show some promising vision very soon.

 

[maxcriden]

Do Disney and Nintendo even have any sort of partnership? Like if you go to Disneyland, can you walk around a find a mascot Mario, Kirby, and Link walking around? (sorry, I don't really keep up with these things)

If not... that's a huge fucking oversight for the company that is struggling to stay relevant to children.

Not to be rude, but I don't understand what you mean. Disney doesn't own Nintendo. Not just any company can call up Disney and ask them to have mascots of their characters walking around Disneyland. (But no, I have never seen a mascot Mario, Kirby or Link walking around. That would be pretty cool though. I did see a mascot DK as part of a special promotion at the San Diego Zoo, though.)

 

[googleplex]

Theres a huge difference between failing and willfull ignorance. Iwata is guilty of the latter.

 

[Schnozberry]

Earned the right to fail? sure. He failed with the wii u in epic fashion. He also failed with the 3ds, in much less epic fashion.

Has he earned the right to risk the livelihoods of 6,000 people and the future of Nintendo? No.

Iwata has done everything he could to save people's jobs, despite likely having shareholder and board support to axe people.

In fact, I'm not sure what people expect to happen if he's ousted and replaced by a western focused CEO willing to go third party, like so many seem to want. Nintendo would massively contract, likely shrinking by half or more, because they wouldn't have the market cap their hardware business gives them to continue to employ so many people. They'd also lose a good number of their software engineers as well, because they'd be poached by people willing to take advantage of the situation that this chaos would create. Going third party wouldn't mean awesome Mario games from EAD appearing on cutting edge Sony hardware. It would probably mean reorganized teams releasing mediocre games, much like what happened to Sega.

 

[Enjay]

Well, Iwata is defenitely an expert when it comes to creating the Value of Failure (TM). More people should put that on their resume.

Think Jaffe has that on his CV?

David Jaffa doesn't need to, people in the industry are already well aware I'd assume.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

What's with people making the Disney/Nintendo connection? Everyone realises Disney have no interest in the 'core' side of the business don't they? Mario at al would be pushed onto smartphones and Facebook (are Facebook games still a thing?) quicker than you can say 'cash in'. It would be horrible for Nintendo, and for fans of their games.

 

[120v]

in terms of Wii U i think that's probably more R&D's fault than Iwata (even though the buck ultimately stops with the CEO, i know) ... millions of households already have a PS360. why would they think consumers would shell out $300+ for what is essentially another PS360 but with a tablet controller. its a neat idea but nothing like motion controls in 2005.

 

[Revengineer]

I totally agree. I have a Wii U, I had a Wii, I have a 3DS... and I never touch the Wii U, but I'm still looking forward to their next console, and I'll keep the Wii U and play every AAA Nintendo game. Apart from that, I'll probably not get much use out of the Wii U, but it's still a fine investment.

I think Nintendo's next console will be laser focused on leading the way technologically and control-wise. It might be something like Kinect 3.0 + "Wiimote" 2.0, and it might be ridiculous. It may be a controller, who knows, but Nintendo has been on top of things for so long that I doubt they'll come back at some point.

 

[Figboy79]

There is definitely value in failure, so I agree with Jaffe. But then again, I've agreed with a lot of Jaffe's thoughts on the industry. Not all, but he isn't as batshit crazy as so many people make him out to be.

These companies have ups and downs. They fuck up, and if they are smart, they are able to reverse their bad fortune. This isn't he first time Nintendo has made a misstep, but they will no doubt recover given time.

Sony was riding high as well, and they tripped up, and they recovered. Microsoft has done the same. The doom and the gloom and the bullshit is just drama that keeps threads going into the dozens of pages. Companies misread the market all the time, and gamers are some of the most fickle, inconsistent consumers in the market. I'm amazed that companies like Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony even bother, as the people that run those companies must be pulling their hair out in frustration at how the consumers often respond to their attempts to earn our money. I say, "earn," not "take," because nobody is forcing us to spend our money on this product/game, or that product/game. Companies like the big three attempt to read our minds, and produce content that they think will entice us to their brand. Sometimes it works, sometimes it fails.

Nintendo will turn things around, of that I have no doubts. The industry is healthy, despite the doom and gloom. The industry is in a strange, place, to be sure, what with welcoming the new addition of the mobile market boom causing waves, but it will find its footing.

But then again, I'm an optimist. Maybe shit is fucked up. LOL

 

[Beant]

No one has the right to fail as CEO of a publicly traded company. That is utter nonsense. One big failure can and should absolutely mean termination.

Even in this fairy land where CEO's have the right to fail and stockholders don't revolt, Iwata has not just failed once. The WiiU has failed in so many different spectacular ways, it is laughable to say 'ok the WiiU is his one strike, carry on'. Nintendo has a systemic problem and it starts at the top.

 

[gafneo]

Why should he resign just because of one unsuccessful device? What would anyone else do in his shoes? Sony is failing with the Vita. Why is no one resigning over there?

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

Not to be rude, but I don't understand what you mean. Disney doesn't own Nintendo. Not just any company can call up Disney and ask them to have mascots of their characters walking around Disneyland. (But no, I have never seen a mascot Mario, Kirby or Link walking around. That would be pretty cool though. I did see a mascot DK as part of a special promotion at the San Diego Zoo, though.)

Don't worry, you weren't rude. That's why I was asking if they had any special partnership, because I think having a Nintendo themed attraction would help Disney and also keep Nintendo relevant to children. Of course its not as simple as having people showing up in suits without permits, but it kind of seems like a no-brainer move if they want to stay relevant in the US, since Disneyland is essentially mascot heaven.

 

[trinest]

In terms of firing Iwata, there shouldn't be any right to keep him on, or fire him. As in if either happened, there shouldn't be any entitlement that the other option should of been the desired effect. At the end of the day if they aren't showing a solid business strategy which even if it is different to what the shareholders want, they should be able to call for his head, or give him to time to fix the issue.

Ideally he would have one more year after he announces his business plan to fix Nintendo. If he doesn't start the recovery then he should be fired at the end of that year, because it is quite clear that he has done some things in the long run which will hurt Nintendo.

 

[Gxgear]

Iwata's earned a lot of goodwill for sure, but 3DS and WiiU were absolutely complacent moves. He's just lucky that Vita priced itself out of contention in the handheld market.

The question will always be, "What have you done for me lately?" And the answer is: not a whole lot.

 

[Manbig]

I hear Nintendo fans saying this all the time, do they even know what it means? Because if Nintendo did invest in the LONG term they would never have:

*Burned their bridges with 3rd party and even 2nd party developers

*Stuck with cartridges instead of discs

*Ignored the rise of FPS games despite having created the DEFINITIVE FPS game of the 90s (Goldeneye)

*Ignored the rise of western game devlopers and the decline of Japanese devlopers

*Maintained and enforced the family friendly image even as core gamers continued to grow older

*Done nothing as Wii sales went into freefall after 2010

Do you still want to tell me that Nintendo plans in the long term?

Nearly all of this was from a time where Nintendo was a completely different company that was run by a completely different person. Not saying that I think that Nintendo has done a good job planning for the long term, but your examples here pretty much do nothing to deter that opinion.

 

[GD1551]

I hear Nintendo fans saying this all the time, do they even know what it means? Because if Nintendo did invest in the LONG term they would never have:

*Burned their bridges with 3rd party and even 2nd party developers

*Stuck with cartridges instead of discs

*Ignored the rise of FPS games despite having created the DEFINITIVE FPS game of the 90s (Goldeneye)

*Ignored the rise of western game devlopers and the decline of Japanese devlopers

*Maintained and enforced the family friendly image even as core gamers continued to grow older

*Done nothing as Wii sales went into freefall after 2010

Do you still want to tell me that Nintendo plans in the long term?

The Wii U is another example...... how could they possibly think they'd last another long gen with a machine so weak?

 

[GD1551]

Nearly all of this was from a time where Nintendo was a completely different company that was run by a completely different person. Not saying that I think that Nintendo has done a good job planning for the long term, but your examples here pretty much do nothing to deter that opinion.

The person he quoted stated Nintendo as a whole thinks for the long term, he was merely disproving that.

 

[Suikoguy]

I see his point, and would agree... but for one thing.

Nintendo really did nothing new or novel with the WiiU. The risk they took with the Wii was hoping people would prefer motion controls and a lower price over fancy new graphics. It was a gamble that paid off considerably.

The risk they took with the WiiU was including a sub-par tablet with every system. Then, proceeding not to use it for anything. It's like they noticed that Tablets were becoming popular, and said "Wow, we need to include on in our system, it will sell it!". While totally missing the point about tablets. So people were expected to want a console with similar somewhat improved graphics as the outgoing other console choices and want a tablet they can't take with them, and pay upwards of 100 dollars more then the Wii was when it launched.

So no, in Iwata's case, he does not deserve a second chance, as he took no significant risk to try to capture a new audience, he did not try something new or novel, and instead tried to latch on to a new market by including a tablet, and failing spectacularly.

 

[Dr. Kaos]

I'm not a CEO so I won't go into the business side of thing, and we can all agree Nintendo software is amazeballs but here is how I see Nintendo hardware as a gamer. I will ignore refreshes such as the gameboy pocket, GBA micro, DS lite, XL, etc

Nes: good
Snes: good
n64: bad. expensive as hell cartridges instead of CDs.
gamecube: bad. Where is my DVD player, Nintendo? And what's with the inconvenient shape?
wii: bad. It's HD time dammit! Don't give me SD. And the Wiimote was terrible until motion plus, at which point the console was dying.
wiiu: bad. So weak. gamepad is not ergonomic enough.

gameboy: good
GBC: bad. more like gameboy plus. Shouldn't have existed.
Virtual Boy: bad
GBA: good
DS: good
3DS: bad. glass-less 3D sucks because movement fucks everything up. Underpowered(?).

Basically, the last unequivocally good home console was the SNES, which is extremely sad. The gamecube had dignity but DVD was too important at the time not to pick the PS2 over it.

The last good portable was the DS, the 3DS has been screwed by the 3D nonsense and somewhat salvaged by the release of the 2DS.

In conclusion, pretty good track record on portables, subpar track record on home consoles.

 

[Jea Song]

Nintendo should support Wii U but at the same time go 3rd party. Why does going 3rd party mean discontinuing Wii U? Make the games for ps4, Xbox one, and Wii U. Give the ps4 and Xbox one versions better graphics and Wii U tablet stuff.

 

[Manbig]

The person he quoted stated Nintendo as a whole thinks for the long term, he was merely disproving that.

No that doesn't disprove that at all. You don't think that people judge Apple's decision making based on what went on during their eMac and iMac G4 days, do you?


EDIT:

Come again?

-- Let's not invest in online even though all of our competitors, and really the entire world, are. It's not proven now.

-- Let's not invest in HD, even though all of our competitors and potential partners are. It's not proven now.

-- Ok, so we didn't invest in an HD console this go around like the rest of the industry; Luckily it paid off and the Wii is a huge success! However, let's at least get our teams established and trained on HD development, so that way our inevitable transition to HD can be a LOT smoother than what the rest of the industry is going through. On second thought...nah!

-- Maybe we should introduce some new IP geared towards hardcore gamers, and get those audiences established on our platforms so that 3rd parties will have more confidence in their flagship software selling on our platforms. Focusing on new IP for a while might also give our legacy IP time to recharge so we don't risk milking them into obscurity. Pfft, we don't need to do that.

-- Maybe we should look into unified account systems? Tying a customers purchases to an account instead of to the hardware itself, despite being much more logical, might actually encourage people to upgrade when we introduce new hardware. Actually...pfft! Why would we do that?

-- Oh, here's a good idea, guys: Let's LET THE WII DIE about two years before we have a successor ready to replace it. Surely the Wii brand can hold out, right?

One of the biggest misconceptions I see parroted about Nintendo is that they're a forward-thinking company. They are anything BUT forward-thinking. I mean, that's their whole problem right there. When given the opportunity, they have always prioritized immediate, short-term gains over better positioning themselves long-term. The Wii U's failure is the result of all the things they've put off doing this entire time because they weren't viewed as being immediately profitable or too big a risk.

This post does a much better job of that.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

Come again?

-- Let's not invest in online even though all of our competitors, and really the entire world, are. It's not proven now.

-- Let's not invest in HD, even though all of our competitors and potential partners are. It's not proven now.

-- Ok, so we didn't invest in an HD console this go around like the rest of the industry; Luckily it paid off and the Wii is a huge success! However, let's at least get our teams established and trained on HD development, so that way our inevitable transition to HD can be a LOT smoother than what the rest of the industry is going through. On second thought...nah!

-- Maybe we should introduce some new IP geared towards hardcore gamers, and get those audiences established on our platforms so that 3rd parties will have more confidence in their flagship software selling on our platforms. Focusing on new IP for a while might also give our legacy IP time to recharge so we don't risk milking them into obscurity. Pfft, we don't need to do that.

-- Maybe we should look into unified account systems? Tying a customers purchases to an account instead of to the hardware itself, despite being much more logical, might actually encourage people to upgrade when we introduce new hardware. Actually...pfft! Why would we do that?

-- Oh, here's a good idea, guys: Let's LET THE WII DIE about two years before we have a successor ready to replace it. Surely the Wii brand can hold out, right?

One of the biggest misconceptions I see parroted about Nintendo is that they're a forward-thinking company. They are anything BUT forward-thinking. I mean, that's their whole problem right there. When given the opportunity, they have always prioritized immediate, short-term gains over better positioning themselves long-term. The Wii U's failure is the result of all the things they've put off doing this entire time because they weren't viewed as being immediately profitable or too big a risk.

Requoting this...Nice breakdown. I get annoyed by that as well.

 

[Manbig]

EDIT: Meant to edit my old post but made a new post instead. Sorry.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

Why should he resign just because of one unsuccessful device? What would anyone else do in his shoes? Sony is failing with the Vita. Why is no one resigning over there?

The problems at Nintendo are larger than and predate the Wii U. Both of their main lines of business have been slumping for 5 years.

 

[GD1551]

No that doesn't disprove that at all. You don't think that people judge Apple's decision making based on what went on during their eMac and iMac

I think you are missing the point, what he is showing is that at no point in time has nintendo ever made decisions based on the long term. Infact quite the opposite. So this reputation of nintendo going for the long term is baseless.

 

[morikaze]

So many arm-chair analysts here thinking that it's unacceptable for a human being to be a human being.

I guarantee you, your favorite CEO (or celebrity, or hero, or family member, or friend) has failed many times, you're just having a bias against Iwata at this moment in time. You have likely failed more times than Iwata, unless you can prove otherwise.

Failure is not a choice, it's an inevitability. You're going to fail. It's what you do with that fail and the lessons you learn along the way, and the persistence to never give up until you win. If no one was 'allowed' to fail we'd have no risks, we'd have no innovators like Nintendo.

Nintendo's been through this many times. And they're going to continue to persist, and win, and fail. You might not hear about their wins because it doesn't get the publicity, but there's tons and tons.

Wisdom.

 

[Manbig]

I think you are missing the point, what he is showing is that at no point in time has nintendo ever made decisions based on the long term. Infact quite the opposite. So this reputation of nintendo going for the long term is baseless.

You see, that's the problem here. Ever since the post Gamecube era, their decision making has very much been based on long term. That doesn't mean that they were successful on all fronts, but to claim that they weren't even attempting to think towards the future when they made a console that offered a different way to play instead of being just another generic machine with comparable specs, and created games that appealed to a unique market (e.g Wii Sports, Brain Age, Wii Fit), that is simply false. Their thought process here has been anything but not attempting to future proof their place on the market.

When you take big swings to make something unique happen, you'll have a few (or several) big misses.

 

[SturokBGD]

Ah yes, the "lets see YOU do better!" argument. Anyone who has to resort to this has already lost the debate.

What in the mother fuck, he didn't say that at all.



What Canon posted is a very important thing to know and understand about life in general, not just when talking about frickin' video games.

 

[GreggTheGrimReaper]

Well put, Mr. Jaffe!

Nunc est bibendum!

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

Wisdom.

You misspelled tired platitude.

There's "messing up and being human", then there's overseeing one of the single greatest failures a major corporation has ever had. Was Mattrick given slack for his DRM crap because, "he's only human, dude"? no. That's a tired and terrible excuse. (We're not even going to go into the fact that it wasn't even a single failure, but a systemic cascade of several policy failures that culminated in the Wii U's failed launch and existence)

Now, the funny thing is, I actually don't think Iwata should be canned yet, because how he responds in the face of this adversity will actually be quite telling to see, if he still has the cojones to run this company. The shareholders know this as well, and will give him this grace period to right the ship, and clean up his mess. However, if he shows further complacency, he's done for.

But please, never use "he's only human!" to defend a CEO's mistake. That's just awful business sense.

 

[RedSwirl]

Usually what (I think) people mean when they call Nintendo a long-term-thinking company is financially.

Their products are conservative as hell, but in contrast to Sony, Microsoft, and especially SEGA, Nintendo isn't a company that plunges headfirst into the bleeding edge (or what passes for bleeding edge on consoles today). Everyone other than Nintendo loves living in the future whereas Nintendo has always been more hesitant to take those steps, and the results show in financials. Nintendo has only been losing money for the last three years (a serious development admittedly), where Sony and Microsoft's gaming-related financials have been all over the place.

What I'm trying to say is, and this has been repeated in every damn Nintendo thread: Nintendo can't run itself the way Sony and Microsoft are run, and it certainly can't run itself the way many of its investors want it to run. Whatever happens, it's going to have to find its own way to solve its problems.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

What Canon posted is a very important thing to know and understand about life in general, not just when talking about frickin' video games.

That's fine. We all certainly fail, and we suffer the consequences. If any of us are ever so fortunate to be in a leadership position and suffer failure upon failure, we'll be ushered to the door.

It's interesting the dynamic here, and I don't mean to imply it's universal. CEOs are often like coaches in sports. Sports fans tend to call for the coach's head rather quickly. Coaches that have experienced great success are only given but so much benefit of the doubt before calls for even their dismissal become common. Fans take sports seriously, perhaps too seriously. Here, it seems many Nintendo fans would rather fall on their own swords for their "coach" despite years of mediocrity.

For example, Mack Brown was the successful coach of the Texas Longhorns football program. They won the national title in 2005, returned to the championship game following 2009, and yet 4 subsequent seasons of mediocrity ended in him being forced to resign following the 2013 season. Over at Auburn, Gene Chizik led the team to the national title following the 2010 season. In 2012, they went 0-8 in SEC play and Chizik was shown the door. Perhaps the most recent example of a long, long running success was down at Florida State, where Bobby Bowden coached for 34 years, led the team to two national titles and 14 consecutive finishes in the top 5. And yet, years of mediocrity occurred during the 2000s, and he was ultimately forced to retire following the 2009 season.

Under Iwata, Nintendo had banner years from FY3/2007 through FY3/2009. Profits were astronomical. However, since then, net sales, operating income, total hardware and software in both handheld and console have plummeted. How long of a leash does he have?

At any rate, this is mostly just me musing. Interestingly enough (or perhaps just cherry picked?), Florida State and Auburn met two weeks ago for the national championship. Greatness is replaceable.

 

[Night Angel]

So many arm-chair analysts here thinking that it's unacceptable for a human being to be a human being.

I guarantee you, your favorite CEO (or celebrity, or hero, or family member, or friend) has failed many times, you're just having a bias against Iwata at this moment in time. You have likely failed more times than Iwata, unless you can prove otherwise.

Failure is not a choice, it's an inevitability. You're going to fail. It's what you do with that fail and the lessons you learn along the way, and the persistence to never give up until you win. If no one was 'allowed' to fail we'd have no risks, we'd have no innovators like Nintendo.

Nintendo's been through this many times. And they're going to continue to persist, and win, and fail. You might not hear about their wins because it doesn't get the publicity, but there's tons and tons.

I get what you're trying to say here, but it doesn't really apply in this case. Iwata didn't just fail in the making of the Wii-U, though that alone would be entirely forgivable. As you say, failure is bound to happen at some point. Iwata's true, unforgivable failure lies in his response to the problems Nintendo is facing. He refused to accept the reality of the situation and presented unrealistic (to the point of lunacy) expectations for a dog of a product, misleading stakeholders and other interested parties. Instead of trying to right the ship by being more forward thinking, he insisted on everything staying the same and praying that one random game would save the Wii-U.

This echoes his inability to read the market and design an appealing product over the last few years. The fact that he designed a bad product is not the reason he had failed Nintendo and should be fired; his entire outlook on the industry and his personality/attitude are the root cause of his failure, and I don't see that changing. He should fall on his sword and let someone more suited/prepared to compete in today's industry right the ship.

TL;DR: Iwata's failure with the Wii-U is not the issue; it's the lessons he didn't learn, his refusal to accept reality, and his inability to recover and prepare for the future that lead to people clamoring for his stepping-down.

 

[GD1551]

You see, that's the problem here. Ever since the post Gamecube era, their decision making has very much been based on long term. That doesn't mean that they were successful on all fronts, but to claim that they weren't even attempting to think towards the future when they made a console that offered a different way to play instead of being just another generic machine with comparable specs, and created games that appealed to a unique market (e.g Wii Sports, Brain Age, Wii Fit), that is simply false. Their thought process here has been anything but not attempting to future proof their place on the market.

When you take big swings to make something unique happen, you'll have a few (or several) big misses.

Aiming at a complete different market is thinking for the future, but on a lower level of things, i.e console support they clearly did not think about the future. Same with the Wii U, other than the die hard nintendo fans, who were they aiming for with this machine, and what third party support (which they kept saying they will have) were they expecting?

It was clear long ago that the casual audience had moved on, kids are buying the handheld systems and the core obviously don't want it after seeing the specs, the early drought and the stance Nintendo took with the Wii. Developers on the other hand would see it as being too weak for the games they are making and that + the inevitably low sales of the port make them skip making a wii u version altogether.

 

[royalan]

Usually what (I think) people mean when they call Nintendo a long-term-thinking company is financially.

Their products are conservative as hell, but in contrast to Sony, Microsoft, and especially SEGA, Nintendo isn't a company that plunges headfirst into the bleeding edge (or what passes for bleeding edge on consoles today). Everyone other than Nintendo loves living in the future whereas Nintendo has always been more hesitant to take those steps, and the results show in financials. Nintendo has only been losing money for the last three years (a serious development admittedly), where Sony and Microsoft's gaming-related financials have been all over the place.

What I'm trying to say is, and this has been repeated in every damn Nintendo thread: Nintendo can't run itself the way Sony and Microsoft are run, and it certainly can't run itself the way many of its investors want it to run. Whatever happens, it's going to have to find its own way to solve its problems.

I don't think anybody ever advocates Nintendo plunging headfirst into bleeding edge tech (that's usually the strawman people put up to deflect genuine criticisms of how Nintendo runs itself). Everyone knows Nintendo can't run itself like MS and Sony (well, it could, but that would come with its own problems). But that doesn't make Nintendo's alternative much smarter. You're right that Nintendo is forward-thinking financially, but that's because they've pinched pennies by eschewing technologies that would go on to become industry standards and inhibiting their own growth. Nintendo's saved money by basically backing themselves into a corner, and now that Iwata has realized that Nintendo needs to actually compete, he's going to have to acknowledge that they've allowed themselves to fall so far behind in so many areas that it might not be so easily to simply "catch up." Hell, it might not even be possible.

In short: Nintendo saved money, but the way they did had its price, and they're paying that price now. Actually, now that I think about, that doesn't paint them as very forward-thinking financially, does it?

 

[Dueck]

I agree with what Jaffe's saying (if applied generally), but I think the Wii was a cotton ball in a gunshot wound. They could either bleed out or die slowly from gangrene (in the home console market). It drew in a large casual demographic that is unreliable. They were great to pad the bank overnight, but then they were gone. I personally feel Iwata's direction with the Wii traded long-term success for easy money, and that's not the kind of failure you can usually recover from. I hope Nintendo's not done with home consoles, and I'm sure there'll be at least one more, but I think it could be over.

I think the Wii U is great, but it was what Nintendo needed to launch alongside the PS3. Even with a higher cost in 2006, it would've been the cheaper of the two. The PS3 didn't exactly start doing well until 2009 or 2010, and Nintendo may have punched them out had they put a core system on the market to compete with it during those years.

I'm not an expert on this subject, maybe I'm completely insane, but that's just how I look at. I felt the Wii would have this sort of impact on its successor back in 2007, for what it's worth.

 

[royalan]

I get what you're trying to say here, but it doesn't really apply in this case. Iwata didn't just fail in the making of the Wii-U, though that alone would be entirely forgivable. As you say, failure is bound to happen at some point. Iwata's true, unforgivable failure lies in his response to the problems Nintendo is facing. He refused to accept the reality of the situation and presented unrealistic (to the point of lunacy) expectations for a dog of a product, misleading stakeholders and other interested parties. Instead of trying to right the ship by being more forward thinking, he insisted on everything staying the same and praying that one random game would save the Wii-U.

This echoes his inability to read the market and design an appealing product over the last few years. The fact that he designed a bad product is not the reason he had failed Nintendo and should be fired; his entire outlook on the industry and his personality/attitude are the root cause of his failure, and I don't see that changing. He should fall on his sword and let someone more suited/prepared to compete in today's industry right the ship.

TL;DR: Iwata's failure with the Wii-U is not the issue; it's the lessons he didn't learn, his refusal to accept reality, and his inability to recover and prepare for the future that lead to people clamoring for his stepping-down.

This this this. Give this man a medal.

Nobody calling for Iwata's head is looking at the failure of the Wii U in a vacuum. The Wii U isn't an isolated incident. It's a symptom of a much larger problem: Iwata's complete inability to read the market. His demonstrated ignorance of gaming and gaming culture on a global scale. He practically admitted that this week.

When someone demonstrates the level of disconnect from the industry that Iwata has in the last 5 years, you can't focus on the fuck-ups in and of themselves; you have to ask the deeper question: does this person even have the ability to recognize and make the decisions that will right the ship?

Frankly, I've lost faith that Iwata understands the industry well enough to spearhead the sort of changes Nintendo needs to make to become more relevant in this industry. Expecting Iwata to understand gaming as it exists outside Japan and positition Nintendo competitively within that reality is like expecting someone with a broken leg to run against Usain Bolt in the 100m dash.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

That's fine. We all certainly fail, and we suffer the consequences. If any of us are ever so fortunate to be in a leadership position and suffer failure upon failure, we'll be ushered to the door.

It's interesting the dynamic here, and I don't mean to imply it's universal. CEOs are often like coaches in sports. Sports fans tend to call for the coach's head rather quickly. Coaches that have experienced great success are only given but so much benefit of the doubt before calls for even their dismissal become common. Fans take sports seriously, perhaps too seriously. Here, it seems many Nintendo fans would rather fall on their own swords for their "coach" despite years of mediocrity.

For example, Mack Brown was the successful coach of the Texas Longhorns football program. They won the national title in 2005, returned to the championship game following 2009, and yet 4 subsequent seasons of mediocrity ended in him being forced to resign following the 2013 season. Over at Auburn, Gene Chizik led the team to the national title following the 2010 season. In 2012, they went 0-8 in SEC play and Chizik was shown the door. Perhaps the most recent example of a long, long running success was down at Florida State, where Bobby Bowden coached for 34 years, led the team to two national titles and 14 consecutive finishes in the top 5. And yet, years of mediocrity occurred during the 2000s, and he was ultimately forced to retire following the 2009 season.

There are other comparisons that can be made to sports franchises as well. I think that you might find that some of Iwata's most vocal detractors are fans, as well. I'm in that boat. I want them to do well, and their current performance is predictable.

And while the coach example might be good, I think that comparing the GM/Owner to a CEO is much closer. They are the ones making strategic decisions, and can either the lead the company to consistent success or systemic failure. I am, sadly, a Timberwolves fan. We have an ownership/front office that reminds me of the current Nintendo upper management. Good old boys club, no consequences really, and no one is forward thinking at all. Similar to many Nintendo fans, the Wolves fan base is usually able to call out when the moves our FO makes are terrible, and when they are good (they aren't often good). We're usually able to pick out missed opportunities, as well.

The Wolves don't invest in sports analytics. They don't invest in forward thinking management. Thus they are doomed to terrible drafting, which leads to irrelevance, even when they strike gold with great players like Kevin Garnett and Kevin Love. Our owner penny pinches when, if he spent a dime, he would make a thousand bucks back. As fans, we seem the same mistakes happen over and over. Same thing with Nintendo.

 

[Vibranium]

I respect David, and he made a great, thoughtful post. That being said, has he seen some of the posts on GAF detailing how badly Iwata has scuttled Nintendo operations in the West? He focuses Japan mainly when Nintendo should also be expanding their studios and talent in NA, Retro and Next Level (who aren't owned anyways) are amazing but not enough. I like Iwata and am willing to see his new strategies in hope they will work, for the record.

Ugh, they need to give Reggie and co. more freedom to pursue new stuff and aggressively expand. Let's see more kickass sales, and Nintendo IP's coming from here.

 

[Mutanthands]

I respect David, and he made a great, thoughtful post. That being said, has he seen some of the posts on GAF detailing how badly Iwata has scuttled Nintendo operations in the West? He focuses Japan mainly when Nintendo should also be expanding their studios and talent in NA, Retro and Next Level (who aren't owned anyways) are amazing but not enough. I like Iwata and am willing to see his new strategies in hope they will work, for the record.

Ugh, they need to give Reggie and co. more freedom to pursue new stuff and aggressively expand. Let's see more kickass sales, and Nintendo IP's coming from here.

Essentially, Nintendo needs to become a global company, to leverage the strengths of their current business with American and European perspectives. Despite having European and American divisions, said divisions don't seem to have much sway.

Nintendo as it is now is fairly insular. It's possible the current board may not want to become more global, and less "Japanese," for lack of a better word.

I think about the struggles between the American and Japanese divisions of Sega, which through straight up arrogance and willful disregard lead to the near dissolution of the company. Is the current leadership at Nintendo at that level? Or can they transcend the current difficulties and find a middle ground between their traditional way of doing things vs. western influence?

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Come again?

-- Let's not invest in online even though all of our competitors, and really the entire world, are. It's not proven now.

-- Let's not invest in HD, even though all of our competitors and potential partners are. It's not proven now.

-- Ok, so we didn't invest in an HD console this go around like the rest of the industry; Luckily it paid off and the Wii is a huge success! However, let's at least get our teams established and trained on HD development, so that way our inevitable transition to HD can be a LOT smoother than what the rest of the industry is going through. On second thought...nah!

-- Maybe we should introduce some new IP geared towards hardcore gamers, and get those audiences established on our platforms so that 3rd parties will have more confidence in their flagship software selling on our platforms. Focusing on new IP for a while might also give our legacy IP time to recharge so we don't risk milking them into obscurity. Pfft, we don't need to do that.

-- Maybe we should look into unified account systems? Tying a customers purchases to an account instead of to the hardware itself, despite being much more logical, might actually encourage people to upgrade when we introduce new hardware. Actually...pfft! Why would we do that?

-- Oh, here's a good idea, guys: Let's LET THE WII DIE about two years before we have a successor ready to replace it. Surely the Wii brand can hold out, right?

One of the biggest misconceptions I see parroted about Nintendo is that they're a forward-thinking company. They are anything BUT forward-thinking. I mean, that's their whole problem right there. When given the opportunity, they have always prioritized immediate, short-term gains over better positioning themselves long-term. The Wii U's failure is the result of all the things they've put off doing this entire time because they weren't viewed as being immediately profitable or too big a risk.

Nintendo are a forward thinking company, but they can also be very myopic due to their emphasis on being financially conservative.

But being financially conservative in itself is also forward thinking, especially when your competitors are ten to a hundred times bigger than you and can easily bleed you dry if you play by their own rules.

In many cases when Nintendo have failed to adopt a certain trend in gaming, it was because the trend meant much higher development costs, be it due to infrastructure or bigger development teams.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have used their Wii and DS earnings to prepare better for the transition to HD and online gaming, because they should have. But comparing their long term strategies to those of Sony and MS is useless. Those two companies have an interest in making gaming a pervasive, hi-tech, multimedia experience because it benefits their other divisions in the long run. That's the only reason they're willing to lose so much money on it in the short term.

Nintendo's interests are for gaming to be a profitable and sustainable industry independent of other industries, because they are a gaming company first and foremost.