• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

How can Nintendo win back marketshare with their next home console?

Father_Brain

Banned
Jun 7, 2004
22,707
0
0
35
New York, NY
You're not wrong. But they have to try. The bolded are things people expect with their video game consoles in this day and age. Should Nintendo just ignore all of those things forever? Maybe they won't nail everything with their next console, but if they take a big step in the right direction with it, the market will take notice. By the next, next console, who knows?

Look at the PS4. It's selling at a Wii-like pace. They're obviously doing something right. That is the strategy you have to be considering right now if you're Nintendo. You can still innovate while giving the market what they clearly want.

Respectfully, I think you're underestimating just how much time, money, and internal restructuring would be required for Nintendo to make any non-trivial amount of progress on that front. Yes, Sony and MS were able to start from scratch in the past, but they have vastly deeper pockets than NCL does.

There's no easy or painless way forward for Nintendo, and their hardware business is probably fucked no matter what, but I have to think that they're at least marginally less fucked if they take the low-end route and avoid competing directly with Sony/MS.
 

Mithos

Member
Apr 26, 2006
6,245
679
1,565
Sweden
no one is going on nintendos console to play competitive sports or fps games. Nintendo can get these games but its not a make or break like some like to make it out to be.

Well why should anyone, when you can get a better/superior version elsewhere?
 

Calamari41

41 > 38
Jan 6, 2012
16,693
0
620
Respectfully, I think you're underestimating just how much time, money, and internal restructuring would be required for Nintendo to make any non-trivial amount of progress on that front. Yes, Sony and MS were able to start from scratch in the past, but they have vastly deeper pockets than NCL does.

There's no easy or painless way forward for Nintendo, and their hardware business is probably fucked no matter what, but I have to think that they're at least marginally less fucked if they take the low-end route and avoid competing directly with Sony/MS.

What kind of money are we talking about for the online infrastructure part?
 

Turrican3

Member
Jul 27, 2006
1,610
0
1,115
Italy
www.gamers4um.it
Look at the PS4. It's selling at a Wii-like pace. They're obviously doing something right. That is the strategy you have to be considering right now if you're Nintendo. You can still innovate while giving the market what they clearly want.
There's no doubt PS4 is what the market wants right now.
And somehow rightfully so, considering Sony hasn't made any mistakes while Nintendo... well, not so much, especially with WiiU (barring games obviously, they's still top notch more or less).

But innovating... really? I honestly can't see what PS4 is offering in terms of true, significant innovation. Wii(mote) and even DS were totally different beasts from this point of view IMHO.
 

catbrush

Member
Jul 25, 2014
836
0
0
33
Fairfax, VA
What Nintendo needs to do is appeal to children with the right games and a cheaper price point. I am cautiously optimistic that they will succeed.
 
Jun 22, 2012
4,664
88
730
Washington DC
Nintendo needs to understand they can be innovative without gimmicky. They should constrain innovation to achievements in software, but leave the traditional framework of the hardware intact. 3rd party developers want no part of whatever new hardware gimmick Nintendo cooks up, especially since it's exclusively Nintendo's vision and others are asked to subscribe to it. No one's saying Nintendo should stop innovating, keep it specific to games. Level the playing the field for everyone to showcase their new ideas on familiar groundwork.
 

TC McQueen

Member
Nov 9, 2013
5,368
2
380
Nail the foundation of their unified hardware architecture and development tools. The more scalable it is, the more flexibility Nintendo will have when it comes to releasing all kinds of different hardware configurations and form factors, which would help their products reach more market segments. If it were up to me, the lineup of NintendOS gaming devices would consist of at least four pillars at all times; a low cost, entry-level handheld, a low-cost, entry-level console, a high-end handheld and a high-end console, all following a shorter update cycle than the usual 5-6 year hardware generation.

A modern account system and better online features. Pretty self-explanatory.

A truly unified software library. No separate versions, no download codes and not even cross-buy. Every game should be compatible with every NintendOS device that is capable of running it at the lowest settings, and a single purchase should give you access to the game on any compatible Nintendo device. This would not only free up Nintendo's development resources, but also encourage consumers to buy into and remain in the Nintendo ecosystem.

Focus on delivering an attractive product for everyone instead of aiming it specifically at the "hardcore" or "casuals". Contrary to popular belief, the PS1 didn't win the 32-bit generation because of a focus on "mature" content (the PS1 had more kiddy shovelware than the N64 had games), but because it was the first console that successfully marketed itself towards both younger and older audiences. Even the Wii had a pretty good balance between blue ocean software and more traditional stuff during its first two years on the market, which greatly contributed to its early success. Apple doesn't build most of its products with a specific demographic in mind - they simply try to make them desirable to as many people as possible while following an overarching vision and staying within a certain budget.

Ditch the heavy focus on child-friendly content and advertising. Seriously. Most kids over 8 years old want to play what the older siblings and/or adults they look up to are playing. You can probably count the Apple ads aimed at younger audiences on one hand, and yet iDevices and Macbooks are some of the most popular Christmas gifts for children. This does not mean Nintendo needs to shelve Mario and Pokemon or shy away from creating whimsical new IPs, but their first-party lineup needs a better balance between child-friendly content and games with a more mature presentation. Same goes for their advertising.

Beef up their western studios and invest in a handful of high-profile IPs with a mature presentation. This doesn't mean pumping out dozens of mature games every year at the expense of everything else, but they need one or two high-profile mature IPs for variety's sake. The N64 only really needed Goldeneye to stay relevant among an older crowd in NA, even with Sony's advertising machine firing on all cylinders. And for fuck's sake, stop trying to shoehorn cel-shading into Zelda when the market has clearly shown a preference towards a darker, more realistic artstyle.

Make sure the 3DS successor starts out strong and retains its momentum. A well designed and successful platform usually attracts third parties. With a unified software library, any support for a Nintendo handheld would automatically bolster the home console, which in turn makes it a more enticing purchase.

Aggressively court Japanese third parties. Japan shuns consoles in favor of handhelds. The West does the exact opposite. Being able to deploy a piece of software on both form factors in a single development cycle is a very attractive proposition for Japanese developers who want their games to reach the biggest audience possible without gambling on the volatile mobile market. Nintendo should try to use this opportunity to get most of the big name IPs and developers back on board.

Extend an olive branch to western third parties. They likely won't be back in full capacity, but making it easier to port their most popular games over to NintendOS devices wouldn't hurt anyone.
Pretty good post, although I'd argue that Nintendo might be better off going with a Vita/PS TV strategy with its next hardware launch, using a cheaper microconsole to appeal to everyone who wouldn't want to buy a handheld while reusing existing hardware assets to keep production costs low. Depending what components they use for the system, they could get something that outputs 1080p/60fps that costs only a few hundred dollars for the handheld version.
 

disap.ed

Member
May 15, 2005
1,718
29
1,425
A
I think the biggest chance is the outlook to have the same eco system on both handheld and home console. This could bring back 3rd party developers if they have the combined customer numbers of both models to make money off their ports. Still not expecting every multiplatform game there but this could bring at least for example FIFA back.
 

Trevelyan9999

Banned
Feb 8, 2012
1,737
0
0
www.nintengen.com
Nintendo just needs a solid assurance to gamers that if they buy their system, they will be getting games in all ranges of category's, not just the games for all ages that they only make.

Bayonetta 2 and The Devil's Third are a great start, but they need more than that to broaden the audience and they also need hardware that Third Parties can just cut and paste code with the least amount of effort in order to get the Call of Duty and Battlefield ports.
 

Opiate

Member
Dec 4, 2007
22,801
0
0
Saint Louis / New York City
Imru’ al-Qays;151219730 said:
It's not a matter of being difficult. It's impossible for Nintendo to "do what Apple did." Doing so requires releasing a piece of hardware desirable in itself rather than for the games it can play. Nintendo cannot do that.

It doesn't, really; the Wii would have likely been sufficient to help grow and foster major publishers. The Playstation helped foster publishers, for instance. It's not impossible, it's just very difficult.

The alternative is to try and go after EA/Activision/etc., but 1) that's also very hard, and 2) it's way less profitable. Companies aren't very eager to get in to the console business for a reason.
 

orthodoxy1095

Banned
Dec 15, 2013
25,270
0
0
twitter.com
Well why should anyone, when you can get a better/superior version elsewherecan't even buy them on Wii U?
It says something about the abject failure of the Wii U that a game like FIFA 15 is on PS , PS4, Vita, 3DS, Wii, Xbox One, 360, Windows, iOS, Android and Windows Phone. Madden is on PS3, PS4, 360, and Xbox One.

Basically, you can play these games everywhere but the Wii U. Having a gimped game would be problematic enough to compete with the other systems. But when you aren't even offering a game that so many people want to play? Well, of course you're going to be losing.
What Nintendo needs to do is appeal to children with the right games and a cheaper price point. I am cautiously optimistic that they will succeed.
This isn't a bad idea, but how do you appeal to kids over the phenomenon of tablet gaming? How do you appeal to their parents with a video-game centric piece of hardware versus a tablet which can be used for so much?
 
Jun 13, 2014
7,301
3
530
But innovating... really? I honestly can't see what PS4 is offering in terms of true, significant innovation. Wii(mote) and even DS were totally different beasts from this point of view IMHO.

The huge innovation from Sony this generation (and Microsoft went along too) was abandoning idiotic proprietary architecture and going with what is essentially PC in a small box. It has made development LOADS easier. Indie devs can port their steam versions for a tiny fraction of time/effort/cost. Whereas before it required a small team to port a game between PS3, 360, and PC now the same team can develop all three and its literally like 200 extra man-hours to write the code that lets it run on all three.

The dividends will pay off years from now, when PS5/xbox5 are announced they can essentially be even faster PCs, have FULL BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY at no extra cost, and can implement the latest innovations in the PC gaming space like Oculus Rift, 4k gaming, etc with no extra effort. There will also be under the hood API/OS improvements like 100% digital no-moving-parts (SSD) storage, better hardware fault tolerance, parts hot swapping, etc. Barring some quantum leap in hardware, this should be the last generation of consoles (excluding Nintendo) that will not have full backwards compatibility moving forward.

Nintendo meanwhile is off in its own little world, in many ways regressing backwards in all the core areas like operating systems, APIs, CPUs, GPUs, online connectivity, etc.
 

block tower

Member
Oct 14, 2012
6,065
0
0
What Nintendo needs to do is appeal to children with the right games and a cheaper price point. I am cautiously optimistic that they will succeed.

no, this will absolutely doom their next system. theres kids who have been born and raised since the Wii released back in 2006 without ever touching a Nintendo system, and if they have it mightve only have been a Wii. what kids today know is apple and android. trying to get kids and ultimately parents to buy a dedicated console for games that kids today largely have no concept of will fail. kids want minecraft, five nights at freddys, and a despicable me flash game on a phablet; the older kids are already playing CoD, Halo, and GTA. they could give two shits about Toad Treasure Tracker, Kirby, or Mario. nintendo should definitely not attempt at making their next console revolve around children or targeting children as a significant user base. the kids demographic is not coming back to a nintendo home console, not going to happen.
 

Petrae

Member
Nov 19, 2006
6,137
2,904
1,405
49
West Springfield, MA
www.youtube.com
It says something about the abject failure of the Wii U that a game like FIFA 15 is on PS , PS4, Vita, 3DS, Wii, Xbox One, 360, Windows, iOS, Android and Windows Phone. Madden is on PS3, PS4, 360, and Xbox One.

Basically, you can play these games everywhere but the Wii U. Having a gimped game would be problematic enough to compete with the other systems. But when you aren't even offering a game that so many people want to play? Well, of course you're going to be losing.

There's no question that my decision to not buy a WiiU is at least partially a result of the console not having any licensed sports game representation. It makes me have to consider buying a PS4 or XBO first, which means that WiiU is-- at best-- a second choice. Madden, NHL, PGA... I enjoy playing these games very much and WiiU offers NONE.

At least here in the USA, sports games are immensely popular. Madden, FIFA, and NBA 2K make the Top 10 best-sellers list every year... and WiiU doesn't have these. Worse, there's no guarantee that Nintendo's next console will, either. This severely damages Nintendo's chances of regaining console market share; you can't not offer 50% or more (sports games, AssCreed, Call of Duty) of the best-selling games every year for your machine and expect people to buy it en masse.

So, unless Nintendo finds a way to bring back third-party support so its next machine will have these important games on it... it's all but impossible for Nintendo to regain market share-- especially here in the USA.
 

orthodoxy1095

Banned
Dec 15, 2013
25,270
0
0
twitter.com
There's no question that my decision to not buy a WiiU is at least partially a result of the console not having any licensed sports game representation. It makes me have to consider buying a PS4 or XBO first, which means that WiiU is-- at best-- a second choice. Madden, NHL, PGA... I enjoy playing these games very much and WiiU offers NONE.

At least here in the USA, sports games are immensely popular. Madden, FIFA, and NBA 2K make the Top 10 best-sellers list every year... and WiiU doesn't have these. Worse, there's no guarantee that Nintendo's next console will, either. This severely damages Nintendo's chances of regaining console market share; you can't not offer 50% or more (sports games, AssCreed, Call of Duty) of the best-selling games every year for your machine and expect people to buy it en masse.

So, unless Nintendo finds a way to bring back third-party support so its next machine will have these important games on it... it's all but impossible for Nintendo to regain market share-- especially here in the USA.
Interesting to hear someone else say this. I know friends who have had this same thought-process in deciding on their console, so it's interesting to hear it from another source.

What you said is definitely true for the USA. Perhaps I'm stereotyping here, but I'd also have to guess that not having FIFA on your console is also going to severely gimp any progress in Europe. The game sells by the truckload over there, and people love football (soccer), so I imagine that when choosing consoles, they'll have a similar thought-process to how you went about it. Many will take a system with FIFA first, and the Wii U ends up being second-choice...at best.

I have to wonder...does Nintendo really just accept not having market-share in the USA? How can you do that? Would the stockholders put up with that? If you ignore that market of gamers, who do you cater to?
 

DizzyCrow

Member
May 22, 2014
1,576
0
0
São Paulo, Brasil
Pretty good post, although I'd argue that Nintendo might be better off going with a Vita/PS TV strategy with its next hardware launch, using a cheaper microconsole to appeal to everyone who wouldn't want to buy a handheld while reusing existing hardware assets to keep production costs low. Depending what components they use for the system, they could get something that outputs 1080p/60fps that costs only a few hundred dollars for the handheld version.
I agree, if the console is just a beefed up portable the only thing they would add to the games is split screen multiplayer.
 

Turrican3

Member
Jul 27, 2006
1,610
0
1,115
Italy
www.gamers4um.it
The huge innovation from Sony this generation (and Microsoft went along too) was abandoning idiotic proprietary architecture and going with what is essentially PC in a small box.
I can understand the advantages of such a choice; but, innovation in my opinion shouldn't exist in a vacuum: the original Xbox was basically a PC in a small box ~15 years ago already...

Whereas before it required a small team to port a game between PS3, 360, and PC now the same team can develop all three and its literally like 200 extra man-hours to write the code that lets it run on all three.
Isn't that mostly due to using common middleware/engines and so on more than sporting similar CPU/GPU?
As far as I understand the main API is still different, at least between PS4 and XB1, isn't it? Honest question/doubt, I'm definitely not into console development.
 

Father_Brain

Banned
Jun 7, 2004
22,707
0
0
35
New York, NY
What the "do what Sony did with PS4" line overlooks is that Sony could build on three consecutive generations of success in the core market (even despite the obvious PS3 bumps in the road). Nintendo, by contrast, will be coming off three consecutive generations of diminishing relevance in the core market.

Really, the only instance we have of a company successfully breaking into the core console market without having a competitor's massive fuckup to capitalize on is MS with the first Xbox. Suffice it to say, I don't think NCL can replicate that strategy.
 

Petrae

Member
Nov 19, 2006
6,137
2,904
1,405
49
West Springfield, MA
www.youtube.com
Interesting to hear someone else say this. I know friends who have had this same thought-process in deciding on their console, so it's interesting to hear it from another source.

What you said is definitely true for the USA. Perhaps I'm stereotyping here, but I'd also have to guess that not having FIFA on your console is also going to severely gimp any progress in Europe. The game sells by the truckload over there, and people love football (soccer), so I imagine that when choosing consoles, they'll have a similar thought-process to how you went about it. Many will take a system with FIFA first, and the Wii U ends up being second-choice...at best.

I have to wonder...does Nintendo really just accept not having market-share in the USA? How can you do that? Would the stockholders put up with that? If you ignore that market of gamers, who do you cater to?

Neither Nintendo nor its shareholders really have much of a choice when it comes to bringing sports games onto current and future platforms: Either work out financial incentives third-party publishers and assume at least part of the risk or don't pay third-party publishers and continue to exist as a secondary or tertiary hardware platform. Negotiations won't do much now, especially with the major third-party pubs seeing that they really don't need Nintendo to be successful.

I just can't see any likely scenario where third-party support comes back, especially on the licensed sports end of the spectrum. For sports video game fans like myself, Nintendo hardware can never be a first choice and must wait-- if ever-- to be bought until after hardware that supports the genre that I favor is purchased.
 
Feb 24, 2010
5,370
0
0
I can understand the advantages of such a choice; but, innovation in my opinion shouldn't exist in a vacuum: the original Xbox was basically a PC in a small box ~15 years ago already...


Isn't that mostly due to using common middleware/engines and so on more than sporting similar CPU/GPU?
As far as I understand the main API is still different, at least between PS4 and XB1, isn't it? Honest question/doubt, I'm definitely not into console development.

Well you also have to look at what you consider innovation. If you're talking about something just being different, well that's one thing, if you're talking about a company actively making the environment accessible to independent startups, that's another. As it is now, with systems in place like PS+, Sony's been courting indies feverishly, creating a home base for developers so to say. The doors that opens versus just being different aren't really comparable. Creating a relatively powerful box and positioning it in a way to see significant price drops for market saturation are also innovative in other non conventional ways.

Taken as a whole, it's more important how a product or company impacts the market than how "innovative" it is.
 
Feb 24, 2010
5,370
0
0
The NES, GBA, N64, DS and Wii impacted the market quite drastically and permanently. Via hardware innovation.

Absolutely. You won't find me arguing against that. I'm just not so sure I'd narrow down what innovation means. Pretending innovation only involves changing a control method is short sighted.
 

Barry Burton

Member
Aug 4, 2011
4,691
1,892
930
The solution is the same as it's been for the past 20-or-so years: they've got to solve the third party problem.

But the one big hangup here is that Nintendo doesn't see this as a problem, or at least, not that big of a problem. Their first party software lineup is where their bread is buttered.

Since I don't see them adopting a third party-friendly model anytime soon, they'll likely have to keep experimenting with finding new ways to play and hope that it's something that takes off like the DS and Wii did.

Personally, I'm still a believer in a unified platform. If you are going to have a system that is carried almost entirely by your own games, you better put your best lineup out there. Short of winning back all third parties (again, not happening), this is probably their best as well as safest move going forward.
 

NahaNago

Member
Aug 29, 2014
4,587
1,753
600
i still think Nintendo needs to go the cheap route of $200-$250 range on their next console and do their best to woo back the hardcore. Its cheap enough for most folk to say why not and if they can keep up a steady supply of games it should be great as a companion console and then sell a game with the included gimmick hardware to seduce the casual crowd for some family get together fun. And then go a bit higher in cost/a bit better hardware on the next console after they have reeled this new crowd in on the old one.
 

StevieP

Banned
Sep 10, 2006
12,045
0
0
Absolutely. You won't find me arguing against that. I'm just not so sure I'd narrow down what innovation means. Pretending innovation only involves changing a control method is short sighted.

The hardware innovation is what allowed for software innovation, for the most part
 
Feb 24, 2010
5,370
0
0
The hardware innovation is what allowed for software innovation, for the most part

Absolutely. But I'm trying to argue that control changes aren't the only innovation in the market. They allow new idea's sure, but so does more capable hardware. Almost every major player in the industry has innovated it in numerous ways. People just tend to overlook more subtle innovations in favor of the large gestures, which occasionally impact the industry very little surprisingly. The Wii for example was a massive success for Nintendo, but if you were to take a look at the industry today, you'd see very little influence from it.

I dunno, just random musings I suppose.
 

StevieP

Banned
Sep 10, 2006
12,045
0
0
The Wii for example was a massive success for Nintendo, but if you were to take a look at the industry today, you'd see very little influence from it.

Yeah, it's not like motion control is now standard on almost every device that plays games, and plays a massive role in the next big piece of gaming hardware that every manufacturer is toying with (including Facebook).
 
Feb 24, 2010
5,370
0
0
Yeah, it's not like motion control is now standard on almost every device that plays games, and plays a massive role in the next big piece of gaming hardware that every manufacturer is toying with (including Facebook).

If that's what you see, then sure? I hardly see any remanence of Nintendo's Wii in the current market. I see the gyro's barely getting used in the Playstation, the Wii U is focusing more on asymetrical gameplay, the Xbone doesn't utilize motion control for anything other than kinect games (which could be argued stemmed from the playstation eye), and the handhelds are nowhere in the same vein the type of experience the Wii offered.

Today's environment shows little of the popularity Wii Sports, Zelda, and pointer controls in general brought to the industry.

And regarding Virtual reality, that existed before Nintendo brought motion controls to a console. They had kiosks in malls long ago that had helmets and controllable arms in virtual space. Anyone thinking Nintendo and it's extremely limited motion controls brought the virtual reality push is reaching.

Consider the fact that Occulus began work on VR as a seated experience with traditional control methods.

To clarify, I'm not saying the Wii wasn't innovative, I think it definitely was, I just don't think it shaped the industry in ways people give it credit for. The DS did far more in terms of shaping the industry we know today in my opinion.
 

Parhelion69

Member
Feb 18, 2014
477
0
0
La Paz, Bolivia
Great stuff has been said already!

I remember reading an interview to a developer, who said that Nintendo tried hard to gather 3rd party developers, they would go into meetings and present the next gen Nintendo console (which would be the Wii U), one of their focus was very "low noise" which raised this developer eyebrow, since that'd mean underpowered. And that's exactly what happened.

But the worst part, is that the developer tools were a disaster. They were in unusable form at first, and they would constantly patch it. Dev tools were really hard to use, help was slow and insufficient, and that their game flopped hard, so they'd never do a Wii U game again.

So Nintendo has make many mistakes towards developers, and has to correct that. 3rd party is important and also to stay competitive, the console has to be powerful enough so that it's attractive for them (otherwise they'll just develop for the more powerful and dev-friendly consoles, which has happened already...)

edit: here's the article

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-secret-developers-wii-u-the-inside-story
 

Chmpocalypse

Blizzard
May 16, 2014
4,135
0
0
The NES, GBA, N64, DS and Wii impacted the market quite drastically and permanently. Via hardware innovation.

How exactly was the Wii's impact permanent in a positive innovative sense? It was a fad that's now dead, and motion controls are not the default control scheme the way, say, the d-pad ended up being. Genuinely curious about this.
 

StevieP

Banned
Sep 10, 2006
12,045
0
0
And regarding Virtual reality, that existed before Nintendo brought motion controls to a console. They had kiosks in malls long ago that had helmets and controllable arms in virtual space. Anyone thinking Nintendo and it's extremely limited motion controls brought the virtual reality push is reaching.

To clarify, I'm not saying the Wii wasn't innovative, I think it definitely was, I just don't think it shaped the industry in ways people give it credit for. The DS did far more in terms of shaping the industry we know today in my opinion.

VR's going to be made or broken by the immersiveness of the controls. There's a reason why many of them are using Wiimotes bluetoothed into the PC.

But the worst part, is that the developer tools were a disaster. They were in unusable form at first, and they would constantly patch it. Dev tools were really hard to use, help was slow and insufficient, and that their game flopped hard, so they'd never do a Wii U game again.

edit: here's the article

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-secret-developers-wii-u-the-inside-story

Not that it's excusable, but most consoles (well, especially the more esoterically designed Japanese ones) are a complete disaster at launch. Just ask developers about the PS3 tools when that came out. This isn't an uncommon story.

How exactly was the Wii's impact permanent in a positive innovative sense? It was a fad that's now dead, and motion controls are not the default control scheme the way, say, the d-pad ended up being. Genuinely curious about this.

The most popular current gaming device heavily (in fact, almost exclusively) uses a combination of both touch and motion control as its primary control scheme.
 
Feb 24, 2010
5,370
0
0
VR's going to be made or broken by the immersiveness of the controls. There's a reason why many of them are using Wiimotes bluetoothed into the PC.

The most popular current gaming device heavily (in fact, almost exclusively) uses a combination of both touch and motion control as its primary control scheme.

Sure, but again, motion controls and VR aren't something that Nintendo pioneered. The concepts been in place for years. People are approaching VR with Wii-motes, Kinect, infrared dots, move controllers, treadmills, controllers, mice, keyboards etc etc etc. The Wii and it's gesture based / pointer controls have little influence on this in my opinion.

And yes, the most successful gaming device to date uses gyro's for turning, and touch controls. Which are a far cry from Nintendo's interactive sports, sword slashing with shields, aiming guns, throwing grenades, and so on.

What the Wii did for motion is almost non existent. It's not a concept that revolutionized the market (much to my dismay, I love motion controls). Gryo controls are what stuck in the phone market. Gyro and touch obviously lol. Which is why I'd personally give more credit to the DS, over the Wii.
 
May 21, 2014
2,199
0
0
The most popular current gaming device heavily (in fact, almost exclusively) uses a combination of both touch and motion control as its primary control scheme.

No, it almost exclusively uses touch as its primary control scheme. Motion control is about as important to gaming on the iPad as on-screen d-pads are.
 
Feb 24, 2010
5,370
0
0
In a weird sense, I feel like VR will drive motion control adoption rate, as opposed to the opposite. But man is that way off topic lol.
 

Sandfox

Member
Jan 25, 2012
22,624
0
0
I would expect Nintendo to at least have the sports titles, AC and CoD on their next platform.

This isn't a bad idea, but how do you appeal to kids over the phenomenon of tablet gaming? How do you appeal to their parents with a video-game centric piece of hardware versus a tablet which can be used for so much?

If Nintendo were to make the right moves I would expect them to have a larger presence than the average tablet game and families could very well end up owning both, especially if the console was cheap like billymonks said.
 

joeposh

Member
Nov 6, 2005
1,495
1
1,105
Marry the wow factor with simplicity.

By that, I don't mean go for gimmicks and a dumbed down experience. I want to see Nintendo develop an elegant and capable ecosystem of hardware that allows gamers to pick up and play in whatever manner they choose.

One ecosystem of software united across multiple hardware concepts.

A console for the gamers who want a high end graphical experience and top notch controls, and for the casual players who want to have friends and family over to play games like Rock Band or Mario Kart.

A handheld that can stream games from the console in full res, or download to play the same game on the go without as many graphical bells and whistles for a modest upgrade fee (to preserve battery life and keep hardware costs down).

Robust virtual console backlogs at launch, that support the same cross play experience. New partnerships to allow cross buys with third party classics (buy Vice City or FF on your phone/tablet, get it for Nintendo consoles and vice versa) linking them to your NNID.

Steps that allow you simply blend the hardcore elements gamers crave with the simplicity that families and casuals need.

Finally, find a way to foster a sense of connection and community. I feel like both the PS4 and Xbox wiffed on this, but the rise of things like Twitch show that gaming is still an inherently social experience, something that wants to be shared. I'm not sure how exactly to achieve this, but if Nintendo can find a way to get a sense of that in person/live experience into their online architecture, they're going to stand out.
 

orthodoxy1095

Banned
Dec 15, 2013
25,270
0
0
twitter.com
The most popular current gaming device heavily (in fact, almost exclusively) uses a combination of both touch and motion control as its primary control scheme.
Are you trying to talk about phones? Because the primary control scheme of most smartphone games these days in touch-based, not motion-based.
 

Game Guru

Member
Dec 14, 2010
3,263
1
0
Speaking of Nintendo's third party problem, I actually think that is compounded by the fact that for Nintendo to please third-parties of the AAA variety, they'd have to adopt some of the worst practices that console gaming currently has like paying for online multiplayer, and microtransactions and DLC up the wazoo. Third parties make most of their money off of Live/Plus fees, microtransactions and DLC, but Nintendo doesn't do the first and only started experimenting with the latter two.
 

Calamari41

41 > 38
Jan 6, 2012
16,693
0
620
Marry the wow factor with simplicity.

By that, I don't mean go for gimmicks and a dumbed down experience. I want to see Nintendo develop an elegant and capable ecosystem of hardware that allows gamers to pick up and play in whatever manner they choose.

One ecosystem of software united across multiple hardware concepts.

A console for the gamers who want a high end graphical experience and top notch controls, and for the casual players who want to have friends and family over to play games like Rock Band or Mario Kart.

A handheld that can stream games from the console in full res, or download to play the same game on the go without as many graphical bells and whistles for a modest upgrade fee (to preserve battery life and keep hardware costs down).

Robust virtual console backlogs at launch, that support the same cross play experience. New partnerships to allow cross buys with third party classics (buy Vice City or FF on your phone/tablet, get it for Nintendo consoles and vice versa) linking them to your NNID.

Steps that allow you simply blend the hardcore elements gamers crave with the simplicity that families and casuals need.

Finally, find a way to foster a sense of connection and community. I feel like both the PS4 and Xbox wiffed on this, but the rise of things like Twitch show that gaming is still an inherently social experience, something that wants to be shared. I'm not sure how exactly to achieve this, but if Nintendo can find a way to get a sense of that in person/live experience into their online architecture, they're going to stand out.

This 100%.

And you know the true beauty of this setup? Say Nintendo gets the bright idea to release a form factor that allows you to have the power of a home console but with off-tv play, where the controller has a big screen on it. They can release this form factor... And if it bombs and only sells ten million units, well, Nintendo loses money on the idea but they don't harm their game sales at all. They are still selling the same games to the tens of millions of people with the other form factors in their homes. And the ten million who got this tablet console aren't abandoned, since their system can play all of the same games that everyone else's system can.

This setup will potentially allow them to take even more risks than normal since they aren't resetting their user base to zero with each hardware launch.
 

disap.ed

Member
May 15, 2005
1,718
29
1,425
A
^ I am relatively sure that the next handheld will work as Off-TV solution for the next home console. So it will be an optional feature for those who already have the handheld and they can pack in a normal controller for a better price point of the console.
 

MilkyJoe

Member
Jan 29, 2014
11,815
7,838
885


Got to be on par or out-perform the competition. A lot of people only have the room/money/time for one console. If you are left in the rain as far as multiplats go then you are fucked from the start. I enjoy a Mario game, but Star Wars BF is never hitting the Wii U
 

Kysen

Member
Oct 6, 2012
5,397
1
0
Nintendo isn't prepared to spend the money to lure 3rd party devs(grease palms) or spend the huge amount of cash to get their online up to par. They will never be able to compete with Sony/MS as the hardcore market is long gone. Doesn't matter how powerful the box is they put out.
 

sueil

Member
Jun 7, 2012
1,337
0
0
They can't they won't. They made their bed over decades. Nintendo's console business is a festering wound ignored too long.
 

Calamari41

41 > 38
Jan 6, 2012
16,693
0
620
^ I am relatively sure that the next handheld will work as Off-TV solution for the next home console. So it will be an optional feature for those who already have the handheld and they can pack in a normal controller for a better price point of the console.

Oh absolutely, I was just using their most recent catastrophe as an example of how this new way of operating would seriously dampen the impact of something like the Wii U's failure in the market.
 

Steph_E.

Member
May 16, 2012
499
0
0
I own AC 3 (launch day) and 4, Batman Arkham City, Rayman (launch Day), Sonic Racing (Launch Day), and Zombi U all for Wii-U. I did my part.

I bought darksiders 2, and Zombie U at launch. I also bought monster hunter and batman arkham origins. I think we do buy third party titles, there just aren't a lot of us.

In that case, I more than did my part. I have bought retail AC3, ZombiU, Darksiders 2, ME3, Sonic Racing Transformed, Tank Tank Tank, COD BLOP2, and e-shop downloads of Trine2, The Cave, Puddle, Toki Tori, The Cube, and there are still plenty to more I on my list such as AC4, Deus Ex, Arkham, Hyrule Warriors.
 

AstroNut325

Member
Oct 15, 2011
11,558
1
0
San Gabriel Valley, SoCal
Can't speak for everyone or broad audiences. For me it's modern, well spec'ed hardware with a modern feature set and a modern online infrastructure. I'm not saying bleeding edge tech. Only well specc'ed. I won't be buying any console in 2016 or 2017 with less than 2TF single precision performance.
 

thefro

Member
May 14, 2006
17,455
0
0
Nintendo isn't prepared to spend the money to lure 3rd party devs(grease palms) or spend the huge amount of cash to get their online up to par. They will never be able to compete with Sony/MS as the hardcore market is long gone. Doesn't matter how powerful the box is they put out.

1) Make the new system's architecture very similar to PS4, except with more power. Nintendo opens up software "port" houses where they have a whole team of people focusing on porting & optimizing game ports from PS4. This is funded by the license fee for 3rd party game sales. A 3rd party developer can chose to either port the game themselves for a lower license fee or take Nintendo's offer. Goal should be that you can get a game up and running on the new Nintendo system in a day running obviously better than the PS4 version.

2) Partner with Valve for their online system. Easily enable crossplay between Steam games & the new Nintendo console. This would eliminate the userbase issues for 3rd party games.
 

marc^o^

Nintendo's Pro Bono PR Firm
Feb 17, 2005
15,982
26
1,675
45
To win back market shares, Nintendo probably should have an exclusive deal with Apple and release bridge games on iOS, F2P titles that come to a quick end, and that promote the full experience on 3DS/Wii U. It wouldn't hurt to have that kind of massive exposure, for a start.
 

Zombie James

Banned
Dec 28, 2005
46,216
4
0
Nintendo isn't prepared to spend the money to lure 3rd party devs(grease palms) or spend the huge amount of cash to get their online up to par. They will never be able to compete with Sony/MS as the hardcore market is long gone. Doesn't matter how powerful the box is they put out.

So the hardcore market is long gone.
The casual market is long gone.

...what's left? If Nintendo can't or refuses to compete, then the answer to the OP's question is they can't ever win back marketshare.