Support NeoGAF

[TheUnknownForce]

Gamecube had downfalls Microsoft and Sony had no control over.

So saying they would be eaten alive doesn't make sense when it was Nintendo who caused it to fail. Just like how they're causing Wii U to fail harder.

Yes, there are things Nintendo did that made the GameCube the way it was, no doubt, but when you have a system with comparable specs and get shoddy ports at best from developers in the West and only a touch of support in Japan, it makes you want to shy away from direct competition next time around.

This is why they went with the Blue Ocean strategy in the first place. They wanted out of the traditional market because they felt they could not compete directly against the larger corporations (Sony with the pedigree, Microsoft with the cash). Unfortunately they are finding out what happens when you try to innovate with a console and end up with shrugs from the market.

And Nintendo jumping head-first into its own territory resulted in the Wii U.

How long is the fact that the Gamecube existed at one time under completely different market pressures going to be a compelling argument for why they should stick to idiosyncrasies that the market isn't responding to?

In honesty, probably until Nintendo try another GameCube and succeed. With the Wii U I think Nintendo wanted to do something different enough to set itself apart from the current gen systems as well as the upcoming systems, but they miscalculated how poorly third parties and the casual market could respond to it.

The reason they are probably risk-averse to making a GameCube of the next-gen is the extreme costs associated with it and getting minimal return. They could spend hundreds of millions of dollars on R&D to get even close to Microsoft and Sony's technical strengths and still end up being seen as "kiddy" or "casual" or whatever new label has been assigned to them by the core. If they don't differentiate themselves from the others, they'll be seen as a third choice, not THE choice, and that's why they turned to innovate, one way or another.

Whether that is a smart thought-process or not, I think that was partly the reason the Wii U got the way it did.

Look, I own a Wii U.

Nintendo's my favorite developer by a longshot.

But they need to do better than this. They've carved out their own little niche which worked for a time, but the niche is turning into a ghetto.

They do, yes. I think they didn't expect things to get so...apathetic with the system for everyone so quickly. They put everything on 3DS-saving mode, and now that the fruit of that is really coming out (2013's lineup looks intense for it), they have to shift everything to Wii U-saving mode, because apparently NSMBU was their way or saving the Wii U launch. Then when it didn't, they delayed everything to try relaunching it again, only to find third parties not even planning ports of their games to the system.

It's not a pleasant time for Nintendo. I give the Wii U until this time next year to bounce back. Otherwise, hello new console by 2015 holiday and goodbye Iwata.

 

[royalan]

Yes I agree, it's part of the reason I've steered clear of one so far. The criticism is fine, but the amount of outright doom and kill this shit its done is kind of disappointing for a board that is capable of much better discussion.

Sorry if feelings are getting hurt, but I think there's some damn good discussion in this thread. I think most people have laid out their criticisms fairly, and it's not our fault if Nintendo's future with the Wii U looks grim right now. It's just how it is, and there's really no denying it.

I love Nintendo as well, but there can be no excuses made for Iwata's performance as CEO these last few years. I honestly can't think of any industry where a CEO could perform as poorly as him and not be sacked.

 

[Burai]

Why do people even entertain the idea of abandoning the Wii U? Is it something that's seriously considered as being a good idea? How is it dead? It hasn't received ANY of its large Nintendo titles (3D Mario, Zelda, Mario Kart, Smash Bros, etc) so how are people so confused that it's too late to save? What precedent is there?

Oh, and don't say the Dreamcast because Sega was simultaneously going bankrupt and couldn't support the system. Not to mention the sale dropped off after significant amounts of support from Sega and 3rd parties so there really isn't an analogous situation for people to be make such absolute claims based on

The console has no appeal to either developers/publishers or consumers on a fundamental level and its pretty clear now that Nintendo can't support an HD platform by themselves.

Wii U has brought all of Nintendo's weaknesses as a platform holder to the fore. Their inability to foster third party relations whilst at the same time being unable to release any of their own games on time shows how completely out of their depth they are now.

 

[cosmicblizzard]

I love Nintendo as well, but there can be no excuses made for Iwata's performance as CEO these last few years. I honestly can't think of any industry where a CEO could perform as poorly as him and not be sacked.

Wada got away with it for 10 years, and he doesn't have a colossal success like the Wii and DS under his belt.

 

[Darryl]

Why do people even entertain the idea of abandoning the Wii U? Is it something that's seriously considered as being a good idea? How is it dead? It hasn't received ANY of its large Nintendo titles (3D Mario, Zelda, Mario Kart, Smash Bros, etc) so how are people so confused that it's too late to save? What precedent is there?

Oh, and don't say the Dreamcast because Sega was simultaneously going bankrupt and couldn't support the system. Not to mention the sale dropped off after significant amounts of support from Sega and 3rd parties so there really isn't an analogous situation for people to be make such absolute claims based on

the only precedent is the GameCube. it was such an incredible value and consumers turned a blind eye to it because the excitement towards the PS2 was high. despite giving an incredible game experience that was probably near equivalent to the PS2, people would pay double for the PS2 to be a part of the hype.

i firmly do not believe that the other two next-gen consoles will create enough hype that consumers will value the name of the PS4/Xbox brand enough to turn a blind eye to gaming value overall. gaming is not the exciting experience it once was. it is something expected rather than something new. i believe nintendo to be in a very strong position once they get titles out and it'd be ridiculous to even think of abandoning the console.

 

[cosmicblizzard]

I'd just like to feel for once when I play Wii U, it's because it's a good console, and not because it's Iwata's paycheck.

You probably shouldn't be thinking about Iwata or Kutaragi or whoever when you're playing a game. You should be thinking about the game itself. If there's nothing that appeals to you at the moment, just don't play it.

Hopefully by the time games start dropping, people will feel it's a good console, regardless of performance.

 

[JordanN]

Yes, there are things Nintendo did that made the GameCube the way it was, no doubt, but when you have a system with comparable specs and get shoddy ports at best from developers in the West and only a touch of support in Japan, it makes you want to shy away from direct competition next time around.

This is only because things didn't go their way (as a result of their own mishandling).

Nintendo had hopes the Gamecube could sell 50 million units. If that goal was reached, do you think anyone would be against it, despite it receiving more support than any future console after it?

 

[Tookay]

In honesty, probably until Nintendo try another GameCube and succeed. With the Wii U I think Nintendo wanted to do something different enough to set itself apart from the current gen systems as well as the upcoming systems, but they miscalculated how poorly third parties and the casual market could respond to it.

The reason they are probably risk-averse to making a GameCube of the next-gen is the extreme costs associated with it and getting minimal return. They could spend hundreds of millions of dollars on R&D to get even close to Microsoft and Sony's technical strengths and still end up being seen as "kiddy" or "casual" or whatever new label has been assigned to them by the core. If they don't differentiate themselves from the others, they'll be seen as a third choice, not THE choice, and that's why they turned to innovate, one way or another.

Whether that is a smart thought-process or not, I think that was partly the reason the Wii U got the way it did.

I agree with you for the most part. You're right that competing with MS or Sony on features will cost a lot of cash.

But here's the thing: they're spending a huge chunk of money on R&D anyway differentiating their products on "gimmicks" that they market isn't responding to. This has happened with both the 3D on the 3DS and the tablet controller on the Wii U. Consumers aren't putting the value into those capabilities the way Nintendo wanted.

And furthermore they're even violating/violated their own philosophy in making consoles profitable from day 1 by sticking with gimmicks that are increasing the cost of each system they make and losing money on each sale (though I believe that's not an issue with the 3DS anymore).

So they're making underpowered hardware, gimmicks that cost a fortune to research but don't appeal to most consumers (or aren't easily communicable to them), and lose money on each console sold. It's a dead-end strategy.

 

[BlackJace]

Sorry if feelings are getting hurt, but I think there's some damn good discussion in this thread. I think most people have laid out their criticisms fairly, and it's not our fault if Nintendo's future with the Wii U looks grim right now. It's just how it is, and there's really no denying it.

I love Nintendo as well, but there can be no excuses made for Iwata's performance as CEO these last few years. I honestly can't think of any industry where a CEO could perform as poorly as him and not be sacked.

I've already said the criticism is warranted. Outright doom prevents further discussion as well though. Why discuss it any further if you believe the thing has no chance? Yet the same doomsayers are often the first posters with the same drive-bys. We've seen it with the ps3, the 3ds, recently the vita, and now the Wii U.

As for you and shrina and some others I see often, keep doing what you're doing, its what we are here to do after all.

There is no conspiracy to gang up on poor Ninty, but I do think some people revel at any opportunity to harp on something that's clearing failing.

Hope that clears my point up.

 

[JordanN]

You probably shouldn't be thinking about Iwata or Kutaragi or whoever when you're playing a game. You should be thinking about the game itself. If there's nothing that appeals to you at the moment, just don't play it.

Hopefully by the time games start dropping, people will feel it's a good console, regardless of performance.

Here's the thing. I mentioned the Wii U has "bad" things attached to it.

It doesn't matter if the games are there. The damage was already done.

We'll see these things manifest itself in the form of graphics, online, support, price, OS, marketing etc.

 

[Knux-Future]

Does Nintendo even have the cash to directly compete with Sony and Microsoft?

You figure those two have other venues of cashflow.

Nintendo has just games and have to keep 2 systems afloat. They just begun to get the 3DS up and doing thangs.

or maybe that 3ds money will create Wii U games?

It will be interesting to see.

 

[Knux-Future]

Here's the thing. I mentioned the Wii U has "bad" things attached to it.

It doesn't matter if the games are there. The damage was already done.

We'll see these things manifest itself in the form of graphics, online, support, price, OS, marketing etc.

If the games are fun...who gives a shit?

I thought that was the whole point of our hobby to play games that are fun?

That's kinda is what is "saving" the 3DS...fun games. It's what "saved" the PS3...it got games worth playing.

It of course won't solve all the issues...sure but it goes a long way to making it work.

 

[Somnid]

I agree with you for the most part. You're right that competing with MS or Sony on features will cost a lot of cash.

But here's the thing: they're spending a huge chunk of money on R&D anyway differentiating their product on gimmicks that they market isn't responding to. This has happened with both the 3D on the 3DS and the tablet controller on the Wii U. Consumers aren't putting the value into those capabilities the way Nintendo wanted.

And furthermore they're even violating/violated their own philosophy in making consoles profitable from day 1 by sticking with gimmicks that are increasing the cost of each system they make and losing money on each sale (though I believe that's not an issue with the 3DS anymore).

R&D on new things is always a risk, it's not guaranteed to pay off, but you have to ask yourself if it's more important to take risks and maybe find a Wii or just follow the crowd. I don't think option 2 is viable anymore unless you are MS, Apple, Google or Amazon with endless cash. The highest performance parts come from a very small pool of companies and anyone can buy them. They will never win a war of attrition. It's absolutely necessary for them to create differentiated products and spend lots of money to do so. Nobody is capable of pivoting fast enough to put together a low-latency video controller no matter how much cash they have.

I mean this is blaming them for trying, and for taking risks. And this is common in this thread. If Iwata was a model CEO from a business perspective then we'd get yearly sequels of any major Nintendo franchises, they'd be low quality with no chances of delays to improve quality, we'd have DLC up the ass and emphasis on smartphone-styled garbage. All the hot sectors of the market right now. Sure the stockholders would be happy, but would gaming be any better off? Would this model be sustainable?

It's regrettable the things they tried didn't pan out quite as well as Wii. It doesn't mean they were bad ideas, maybe not as great as they thought or just not easy to explain. That sucks, but once you stop taking those risks you become pretty much everyone else who's doing shitty in this industry except you have nothing special about you.

 

[cosmicblizzard]

There is no conspiracy to gang up on poor Ninty, but I do think some people revel at any opportunity to harp on something that's clearing failing.

People get emotionally attached to companies, sometimes to a dangerous degree. Wishing for something to fail or people to lose their jobs is not cool.

 

[TheUnknownForce]

This is only because things didn't go their way (as a result of their own mishandling).

Nintendo had hopes the Gamecube could sell 50 million units. If that goal was reached, do you think anyone would be against it, despite it receiving more support than any future console after it?

If the goal was reached, I don't think that would be seen badly, no. But then you have to consider what the other two sold. If you sell 50 million and you have your lead competitor more than doubling you and a newcomer just about matching yours, there are going to be people against it, internally or otherwise.

I agree with you for the most part. You're right that competing with MS or Sony on features will cost a lot of cash.

But here's the thing: they're spending a huge chunk of money on R&D anyway differentiating their products on "gimmicks" that they market isn't responding to. This has happened with both the 3D on the 3DS and the tablet controller on the Wii U. Consumers aren't putting the value into those capabilities the way Nintendo wanted.

And furthermore they're even violating/violated their own philosophy in making consoles profitable from day 1 by sticking with gimmicks that are increasing the cost of each system they make and losing money on each sale (though I believe that's not an issue with the 3DS anymore).

So they're making underpowered hardware, gimmicks that cost a fortune to research but don't appeal to most consumers (or aren't easily communicable to them), and lose money on each console they sell. It's a dead-end strategy.

I think Nintendo tried to innovate based on the current market and it kinda blew up in their faces...twice. 3D movies are growing? Make a 3D display! People are growing accustomed to Tablets? Make a "Tablet" controller! Unfortunately, one launched after the novelty of 3D movies wore off, and the other didn't do a good job selling the concept well at all.

The 3DS was selling at a profit to start but became a light loss after the price drop and has been profit-making against since the XL launch. The Wii U did go against the grain with the pricing yes. I think they bought into the GamePad a little too much in an attempt to innovate outside of motion controls.

It was a risk to develop the Wii U the way they did, and it has clearly not succeeded thus far. I wouldn't say it is a dead-end strategy, but I certainly would not expect them to do it the same way again.

 

[shinra-bansho]

but I'm not being dismissive of them if that's what you think.

Of course, that didn't seem remotely dismissive of valid points that people bring up.

Also, FYI, I haven't proclaimed "outright doom," but I really can't see a positive outlook. There's still a core Nintendo fanbase that can see the thing sell at least some amount, particularly at a lower price, and I've noted in the past that there's presumably some degree of increased mindshare from the Wii's success. But the latter is grossly overstated.

 

[JordanN]

Does Nintendo even have the cash to directly compete with Sony and Microsoft?

You figure those two have other venues of cashflow.

Nintendo has just games and have to keep 2 systems afloat. They just begun to get the 3DS up and doing thangs.

or maybe that 3ds money will create Wii U games?

It will be interesting to see.

What's the definition of compete and what are the limits?

I think consumers could live if Nintendo doesn't buy the rights to every video game.

Just make a console that isn't from 20 years ago. That shouldn't be too expensive.

Look at how Gaming PC's give options. The high end allows you to do everything whereas the low end still allows you to get in on the experience.

Surely Nintendo can find a balance?

 

[BlackJace]

Of course, that didn't seem remotely dismissive of valid points that people bring up.

He asked why, I listed them. I felt like being silly about it so I threw in the blah blahs and the GDDR5 for half price.

If you took it like that then sorry I suppose.

EDIT: yes, you were one of the ones I thought actually wanted to make arguments behind your opinion, dude.

 

[Knux-Future]

What's the definition of compete and what are the limits?

I think consumers could live if Nintendo doesn't buy the rights to every video game.

Just make a console that isn't from 20 years ago. That shouldn't be too expensive.

Look at how Gaming PC's give options. The high end allows you to do everything whereas the low end still allows you to get in on the experience.

Surely Nintendo can find a balance?

so basically have a system that is almost as good as the ps4 but not quite so that they are the cheaper alternative?

Isn't that kinda what they are doing with the Wii U?

I mean it would be a bit more powerful sure...but how does that solve their problems?

They still would be inferior and not get support..except now they would bleed more money.

It's either match them or do something else. They match them and they don't have the other avenues of cash to keep up...let alone the know-how.

so they chose to do something else...it backfired hard.

and yet the middle ground is no better than either.'

I think many here are asking Nintendo to Sega themselves by attempting to do what others do and throw money to keep up...only to die because they just cannot compete with the big guns due to their set up.

 

[Tookay]

R&D on new things is always a risk, it's not guaranteed to pay off, but you have to ask yourself if it's more important to take risks and maybe find a Wii or just follow the crowd. I don't think option 2 is viable anymore unless you are MS, Apple, Google or Amazon with endless cash. The highest performance parts come from a very small pool of companies and anyone can buy them. They will never win a war of attrition. It's absolutely necessary for them to create differentiated products and spend lots of money to do so. Nobody is capable of pivoting fast enough to put together a low-latency video controller no matter how much cash they have.

I mean this is blaming them for trying, and for taking risks. And this is common in this thread. If Iwata was a model CEO from a business perspective then we'd get yearly sequels of any major Nintendo franchises, they'd be low quality with no chances of delays to improve quality, we'd have DLC up the ass and emphasis on smartphone-styled garbage. All the hot sectors of the market right now. Sure the stockholders would be happy, but would gaming be any better off? Would this model be sustainable?

It's regrettable the things they tried didn't pan out quite as well as Wii. It doesn't mean they were bad ideas, maybe not as great as they thought or just not easy to explain. That sucks, but once you stop taking those risks you become pretty much everyone else who's doing shitty in this industry except you have nothing special about you.

I think it's admirable, but I don't think this was a risk worth staking their console on either.

It's not "blaming them for trying" but realizing that they have to choose their battles better. I agree that they cannot simply copy Sony/MS at what they do best, but that doesn't mean they can ignore them. Consumers expect certain things from their electronic products: unified accounts, online systems, comparable graphics, etc. They have to get closer, just for the sake of attracting some 3rd parties. They're not a big enough company to sustain their systems on their own, especially resource/asset-hogging HD ones.

And I agree they need to differentiate. But that's a point where differentiation becomes alienation and just bad business practice. And that's occurred with them deviating from the kind of power that 3rd parties need and with them designing innovations that few people value for the effort/cost involved.

 

[Burai]

R&D on new things is always a risk, it's not guaranteed to pay off, but you have to ask yourself if it's more important to take risks and maybe find a Wii or just follow the crowd. I don't think option 2 is viable anymore unless you are MS, Apple, Google or Amazon with endless cash. The highest performance parts come from a very small pool of companies and anyone can buy them. They will never win a war of attrition. It's absolutely necessary for them to create differentiated products and spend lots of money to do so. Nobody is capable of pivoting fast enough to put together a low-latency video controller no matter how much cash they have.

I mean this is blaming them for trying, and for taking risks. And this is common in this thread. If Iwata was a model CEO from a business perspective then we'd get yearly sequels of any major Nintendo franchises, they'd be low quality with no chances of delays to improve quality, we'd have DLC up the ass and emphasis on smartphone-styled garbage. All the hot sectors of the market right now. Sure the stockholders would be happy, but would gaming be any better off? Would this model be sustainable?

It's regrettable the things they tried didn't pan out quite as well as Wii. It doesn't mean they were bad ideas, maybe not as great as they thought or just not easy to explain. That sucks, but once you stop taking those risks you become pretty much everyone else who's doing shitty in this industry except you have nothing special about you.

There's risks and there's risks. Wii felt like a calculated risk. Wii U feels careless.

 

[JordanN]

so basically have a system that is almost as good as the ps4 but not quite so that they are the cheaper alternative?

Isn't that kinda what they are doing with the Wii U?

The Wii U is closer to PS3/360 than PS4/720. It's a far cry from being an "alternative" to those systems.

Wii U as far as leaks go, does not even meet DirectX 11 criteria.

A measly $30 GPU does support it.

They still would be inferior and not get support..except now they would bleed more money.

Then you are doing it all wrong. If your console isn't from 20 years ago, you would be getting support and not bleed money.

I think many here are asking Nintendo to Sega themselves by attempting to do what others do and throw money to keep up...only to die because they just cannot compete with the big guns due to their set up.

SEGA's death was only hasten by this. Before that, they never had a chance of winning (see Saturn completely handing the game industry to Sony).

 

[Tookay]

I think many here are asking Nintendo to Sega themselves by attempting to do what others do and throw money to keep up...only to die because they just cannot compete with the big guns due to their set up.

I'd argue that Nintendo's already Sega-ing themselves into irrelevance in the minds of casual and core gamers without even putting up a fight. They're losing out on a generation of young players who have skipped out on Mario entirely, choosing Live and Halo/COD instead. They're losing out on coverage in the enthusiast press over the next AAA game. And they're losing out on positive articles in a flurry of negative mainstream columns.

 

[Knux-Future]

The Wii U is closer to PS3/360 than PS4/720. It's a far cry from being an "alternative" to those systems.


Then you are doing it all wrong. If your console isn't from 20 years ago, you would be getting support and not bleed money.



SEGA's death was only hasten by this. Before that, they never had a chance of winning (see Saturn completely handing the game industry to Sony).

If the Wii U had to be sold at 300-350 to not sell at a loss.....I imagine a slightly more powerfull one would be a tad bit more expensive and regardless...HD development is costly....and it's only going to go up.

and trust me..devs would still snub Nintendo if they released a system that was close but not as good at the Ps4...hell they might do it if it was the same. Or at the very least theyd get shitty ports and the games would tank on the system...what good does that do anyone?

this hypothetical system has the same issues as the Wii U.

I'd argue that Nintendo's already Sega-ing themselves into irrelevance in the minds of casual and core gamers without even putting up a fight. They're losing out on a generation of young players who have skipped out on Mario entirely, choosing Live and Halo/COD instead. They're losing out on coverage in the enthusiast press over the next AAA game. And they're losing out on positive articles in a flurry of negative mainstream columns.

I think you overstate them losing the younger audience...Kids still eat up Mario games and Parents still buy Mario games for their kids...

I do agree with most of the things you have said in this thread.

Let it be known That I too think Nintendo has to change shit up....I just don't think trying to be like the others is the smartest way.

 

[JordanN]

If the Wii U had to be sold at 300-350 to not sell at a loss.....I imagine a slightly more powerfull one would be a tad bit more expensive and regardless...HD development is costly....and it's only going to go up.

and trust me..devs would still snub Nintendo if they released a system that was close but not as good at the Ps4...hell they might do it if it was the same. Or at the very least theyd get shitty ports and the games would tank on the system...what good does that do anyone?

this hypothetical system has the same issues as the Wii U.

Ok, I'd love to continue to this discussion, but it seems the "third parties hate Nintendo" conspiracy card has been drawn. Sorry, I can't take anyone serious if they use it.

 

[Darryl]

I'd argue that Nintendo's already Sega-ing themselves into irrelevance in the minds of casual and core gamers without even putting up a fight. They're losing out on a generation of young players who have skipped out on Mario entirely, choosing Live and Halo/COD instead. They're losing out on coverage in the enthusiast press over the next AAA game. And they're losing out on positive articles in a flurry of negative mainstream columns.

jeez you act like the Wii and DS are a decade old now.

 

[Knux-Future]

Ok, I'd love to continue to this discussion, but it seems the "third parties hate Nintendo" conspiracy card has been drawn.

cause that's what I said.

Your hypothetical console is weaker than the Ps4 but kinda close. 3rd Party games are notroious for tanking on Nintendo consoles for whatever reason. Plus more thank likely they wouldn't be exclusives...

so why would anyone buy it on this WiiU8GigoRamma over a PS4 where it would more than likely look and play better? and thus why would 3rd parties waste their time and resources on a console where their games won't sell as well.

This totally happened to the Gamecube and it was arguably more powerful than the Ps2....Hell this happened to the ps3 for a while because their shit was fucked and hard to develop for.

I'm just saying you are asking them to half-ass it a bit more than they have just so they can get slightly less shit ports.

That doesn't solve much.

 

[DarkPanda]

The Wii U is failing because Nintendo is run by idiots. They've had 3 (three!) generations to learn one simple lesson: he who has the most 3rd party support wins. The N64 failed because it didn't get FFVII and Metal Gear Solid. The Gamecube failed because it didn't get FFX, GTA3, and DMC. The Wii failed to have legs after the first 3 years because the software anyone cared about was on the hd twins. The bottom line is, Nintendo needs 3rd party support to survive yet they do all they can to antagonist the rest of the industry. A console with Nintendo games + every major 3rd party game would clean up and dominate like no other, but Nintendo is too arrogant to play the game and create a console capable of such a feat.

In this respect, Iwata is a failure as a CEO. He has completely failed to make Nintendo's console hardware attractive to 3rd parties, and as such he has doomed them to irrelevance. Nintendo hardware, even during the Wii boom years, was completely ignored by the rest of the industry. Whenever anyone, including 3rd parties, talked about this gen or next gen, they always talked about Sony and MS, never Nintendo. No one ever talked about Nintendo unless they were specifically asked. For years Nintendo has been sidelined by the rest of the industry and Iwata doesn't seem to care. Iwata, for whatever reason, did all he could to isolate Nintendo from the rest of the industry and that has resulted in disaster. What Nintendo needs is a CEO who wants and can create a Nintendo that's relevant in today's market and can get the rest of the industry interested again. Only then will they actually be relevant in the home console market and actually get some respect from everyone else.

 

[royalan]

I think many here are asking Nintendo to Sega themselves by attempting to do what others do and throw money to keep up...only to die because they just cannot compete with the big guns due to their set up.

This is an oversimplification of what killed Sega. It wasn't just about throwing out money to "keep up." By the end Sega was guilty of being financial irresponsible in nearly every aspect of their business.

About the only thing Sega DID get right was realizing that, if they weren't going to get the 3rd Party support, then it was on THEM to keep a diverse lineup of games coming to their systems. The end result was the Dreamcast, which, while a failed console, will probably go down in history as having the best 1st year game lineup in the history of home consoles.

Also, I don't buy the idea that Nintendo "can't" compete. It's a total excuse.

1) Nintendo's not THAT small. They're an international corporation with NO debt and an ENORMOUS amount of pure cash saved up.

2) They have some of the most recognizable brands in the industry.

3) They have some of the best talent in this industry.

4) All big companies were at one point small companies. Not even a decade ago nobody would have thought that Apple would claw its way back into a position to compete with MS. Now, not only have they done just that, but they actually dominate MS in several key markets.

It's all about positioning and making smart decisions. To me, this is Iwata's biggest fuckup. Nintendo had the industry by the fucking balls with the Wii and DS, and instead of capitalizing on it Iwata let all that leverage just slip away. We can sit here and pretend that the mistakes started with the 3DS, but really they started midway through the Wii's life, when it first became apparent that Iwata and co had no idea how to evolve their initial success with the Wii, and just lie the brand die.

 

[Knux-Future]

The Wii U is failing because Nintendo is run by idiots. They've had 3 (three!) generations to learn one simple lesson: he who has the most 3rd party support wins. The N64 failed because it didn't get FFVII and Metal Gear Solid. The Gamecube failed because it didn't get FFX, GTA3, and DMC. The Wii failed to have legs after the first 3 years because the software anyone cared about was on the hd twins. The bottom line is, Nintendo needs 3rd party support to survive yet they do all they can to antagonist the rest of the industry. A console with Nintendo games + every major 3rd party game would clean up and dominate like no other, but Nintendo is too arrogant to play the game and create a console capable of such a feat.

Would it really though?

I think this is where the disconnect is.

I love fucking love to see that (less consoles for me to buy and Nintendo doesn't have to become a husk for it to happen lol) but I wonder if it's that easy.

Would those who think Nintendo are just "kiddy" even buy it? Would the hardcore Nintendo Fanboys buy the non nintendo games (you know the ones..man)?

Like if Nintendo all of a sudden just got their shit together and gave us this mythical console...would there be enough to make it so people would pick it over an XBox or Playstation?

I wonder.

Personally I dont think they have the cash to do so just due to how they are set up but also I don't think that's enough to push them over the others.

Could be wrong of course

This is an oversimplification of what killed Sega. It wasn't just about throwing out money to "keep up." By the end Sega was guilty of being financial irresponsible in nearly every aspect of their business.

About the only thing Sega DID get right was realizing that, if they weren't going to get the 3rd Party support, then it was on THEM to keep a diverse lineup of games coming to their systems. The end result was the Dreamcast, which, while a failed console, will probably go down in history as having the best 1st year game lineup in the history of home consoles.

Also, I don't buy the idea that Nintendo "can't" compete. It's a total excuse.

1) Nintendo's not THAT small. They're an international corporation with NO debt and an ENORMOUS amount of pure cash saved up.

2) They have some of the most recognizable brands in the industry.

3) They have some of the best talent in this industry.

4) All big companies were at one point small companies. Not even a decade ago nobody would have thought that Apple would claw its way back into a position to compete with MS. Now, not only have they done just that, but they actually dominate MS in several key markets.

It's all about positioning and making smart decisions. To me, this is Iwata's biggest fuckup. Nintendo had the industry by the fucking balls with the Wii and DS, and instead of capitalizing on it Iwata let all that leverage just slip away. We can sit here and pretend that the mistakes started with the 3DS, but really they started midway through the Wii's life, when it first became apparent that Iwata and co had no idea how to evolve their initial success with the Wii, and just lie the brand die.

Sony has other avenues to make money (albeit not doing so hot lol). As does Microsoft. Apple made their way back via various different products. Nintendo just has games. Sega just had games. Obviously Sega fucked up a whole lot of other ways. But in the end it was them trying to fight a fight they could win.

So if Nintendo goes the Super HD Ps4 level way. That Cashf would be cut into quick. Those brands would have to get milked even more than people complain of now to keep profits up (can't take as many risks).

I totally get where you are coming from. Nintendo messed up with the end of the Wii and the start of their next two (seriously...next console a 3d Mario better be ready at launch you morons.) and they gotta find a solution...but I don't think they are equipt for the solutions posted in this thread.

That's just me of course.

 

[JordanN]

I'm just saying you are asking them to half-ass it a bit more than they have just so they can get slightly less shit ports.

That doesn't solve much.

Or how about ports in general?

The console clearly isn't built with any futuresight. Hence the 20 year moniker.

and thus why would 3rd parties waste their time and resources on a console where their games won't sell as well.

This seems to be Nintendo's conditioning. If Nintendo cared, they would convince their fanbase to buy games the same way Microsoft got people to buy for Xbox and Xbox 360.

 

[royalan]

Would it really though?

I think this is where the disconnect is.

I love fucking love to see that (less consoles for me to buy and Nintendo doesn't have to become a husk for it to happen lol) but I wonder if it's that easy.

Would those who think Nintendo are just "kiddy" even buy it? Would the hardcore Nintendo Fanboys buy the non nintendo games (you know the ones..man)?

Like if Nintendo all of a sudden just got their shit together and gave us this mythical console...would there be enough to make it so people would pick it over an XBox or Playstation?

I wonder.

Personally I dont think they have the cash to do so just due to how they are set up but also I don't think that's enough to push them over the others.

Could be wrong of course

This isn't a mythical console. It's the SNES.

Granted, the market is such a different monster now than in those days I wouldn't know where to even start, so the comparison isn't fair. Still, this mythical console did, in fact, exist at one point.

 

[Tookay]

jeez you act like the Wii and DS are a decade old now.

They might as well be, considering how much they've blown their momentum from their 2008/09 high-point.

Besides, I'm not sure what you're really arguing here.

I think you overstate them losing the younger audience...Kids still eat up Mario games and Parents still buy Mario games for their kids...

I do agree with most of the things you have said in this thread.

Let it be known That I too think Nintendo has to change shit up....I just don't think trying to be like the others is the smartest way.

I am overstating a bit here. But I don't think they're creating long-term young fans who will stick with them through thick and thin like they did in the 90's.

 

[GoofsterStud]

I really doubt the Wii U is going to be abandoned and even if Nintendo did decide to drop it in favor of something else it would take them a few years to produce it in which they would continue to support the Wii U unless it causes them to lose crazy amounts of money.

It will cause them to lose an incredible amount of money.

Opportunity Cost of creating games for the 3DS.

 

[Shaanyboi]

I feel like there is irony in this. Somewhere.

I understand why you'd say that - Iwata obviously was a developer before.

Thing is, he also seems to lack a level of initiative to sit the fuck down and be like "Okay, we are fixing this now and we're not leaving until we do."



I'd want their new CEO to come in with atleast the same kind of background. That's the thing that helps Nintendo be Nintendo. And that's something that I don't want changed.

 

[Knux-Future]

I'm going to bed.

It has been fun discussing this with yo guys.

The ost fun I have had talking about Nintendo in a long time lol

No one has begun to throw around words like sheep and fanboy and haters and stuff.

I like that.

Bottom line, They gotta do better and I hope they find a smart way to do so.

 

[lwilliams3]

If the Wii U had to be sold at 300-350 to not sell at a loss.....I imagine a slightly more powerfull one would be a tad bit more expensive and regardless...HD development is costly....and it's only going to go up.

and trust me..devs would still snub Nintendo if they released a system that was close but not as good at the Ps4...hell they might do it if it was the same. Or at the very least theyd get shitty ports and the games would tank on the system...what good does that do anyone?

this hypothetical system has the same issues as the Wii U.



I think you overstate them losing the younger audience...Kids still eat up Mario games and Parents still buy Mario games for their kids...

I do agree with most of the things you have said in this thread.

Let it be known That I too think Nintendo has to change shit up....I just don't think trying to be like the others is the smartest way.

Agreed. Nintendo's current issue with the Wii U is that they are having transitional troubles on making more ambitious games for it (look at Pikmin's shifting release dates). Nintendo has to get over that HD-generation development hump that they avoided with the Wii. Iwata probably hoped that transition would not be as painful, but it is more of a problem than they imagined. It looks like Nintendo also decided to side for better quality games than for them to throw out flawed ones, so that will hurt the Wii U in the short run, but may be beneficial later this year if things go well. Once that transition is done, they will be able to release a more stable flow of games for it to "save" the system, like what happened with the 3DS.



To summarize: Nintendo will have to "save" the Wii U. Capcom and Ubisoft will help, but it seems to be up to Nintendo to make the Wii U into a good choice to make games for. Once Wii U attains a bigger userbase, third parties would be more likely to make Wii U ports than they are now (though, that is not saying much, honestly.)

If Nintendo would have competed directly to the PS4/next-xbox, they would probably be in a worse position now (higher development cost, resources, and money).

Or how about ports in general?

The console clearly isn't built with any futuresight. Hence the 20 year moniker.


This seems to be Nintendo's conditioning. If Nintendo cared, they would convince their fanbase to buy games the same way Microsoft got people to buy for Xbox and Xbox 360.

Of course Nintendo cares. Their big games are just not ready, and Iwata understands that rushing them will be counter-productive. We will see what will happen during the second-half of the year.

 

[TKM]

A businessman who understands the importance of cutting edge technology in the game industry, is friendly to ALL third party developers. So not just Japanese, but also North American. He or she would do his or her best to get in contact with all major publishers, willing to sacrifice days of sleep until this objective is met.

There are very few people with those qualifications. I think you've described Mark Cerny. I can't think of anyone else who can combine an understanding of technology with developer relations across Japan, and North America.

 

[Darryl]

They might as well be, considering how much they've blown their momentum from their 2008/09 high-point.

Besides, I'm not sure what you're really arguing here.

i think i'm arguing over when kids played the latest marios. games are played past their release date. nsmb:wii was huge for a lot longer than that, probably till 2011. i think it even got bundled sometime around then as well. since then we've had 3D Land and Kart and a whole bunch of other Mario stuff. 3DS was still big last holiday.

 

[JordanN]

There are very few people with those qualifications. I think you've described Mark Cerny. I can't think of anyone else who can combine an understanding of technology with developer relations across Japan, and North America.

Yeah, it's a real shame the pickings are slim.

That's basically what all console manufactures should be. Less focus on greed, more focus on gaming and developers.

 

[Cheerilee]

Does Nintendo even have the cash to directly compete with Sony and Microsoft?

You figure those two have other venues of cashflow.

Iwata is the only one to blame for Nintendo's lack of diversification. He even had his salvation at his fingertips with the "third pillar" concept, but that turned out to be just a marketing lie.

Yamauchi publicly told Iwata almost ten years ago that he should start up an animation studio, because that was close enough to Nintendo's current talents to get a running start, and because it could be relied upon in the future to improve Nintendo's games, and because it could act as another pillar and add more diversity to Nintendo.

What has Iwata built in those ten years of success and bounty? Nothing. He chose to rely entirely on Nintendo's console and handheld lines, both of which were around long before he was. And yes, the console line, coming off some bad years, had some good years under Iwata. But now they're both looking towards possible ruin.

 

[Onesimos]

If Iwata were to step down what kinda of CEO would you guys like to see?

The answer the question, someone who is not from Nintendo or one of its subsidaries. Had to be an outsider with no previous connections with Nintendo or Satoru Iwata, but has experience in gaming development and an understanding of gaming trends within Japan and in the West.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

The answer the question, someone who is not from Nintendo or one of its subsidaries. Had to be an outsider with no previous connections with Nintendo or Satoru Iwata, but has experience in gaming development and an understanding of gaming trends within Japan and in the West.

"I'm on my way..."

 

[Terrell]

This isn't a mythical console. It's the SNES.

Granted, the market is such a different monster now than in those days I wouldn't know where to even start, so the comparison isn't fair. Still, this mythical console did, in fact, exist at one point.

Wasn't the SNES a big deal before the internet essentially tarred and feathered Nintendo's image?

They could have an SNES again right now and there would still be a substantial amount of people who would buy an alternative in spite of a runaway success.

"Because Nintendo", as GAF likes to put it.

 

[ymmv]

Iwata is the only one to blame for Nintendo's lack of diversification. He even had his salvation at his fingertips with the "third pillar" concept, but that turned out to be just a marketing lie.

Yamauchi publicly told Iwata almost ten years ago that he should start up an animation studio, because that was close enough to Nintendo's current talents to get a running start, and because it could be relied upon in the future to improve Nintendo's games, and because it could act as another pillar and add more diversity to Nintendo.

What has Iwata built in those ten years of success and bounty? Nothing. He chose to rely entirely on Nintendo's console and handheld lines, both of which were around long before he was. And yes, the console line, coming off some bad years, had some good years under Iwata. But now they're both looking towards possible ruin.

A Nintendo animation studio would have been a great idea. Nintendo could have emulated the Disney model and branched out in movies and TV with their core IPs, a theme park, comics, etc. Then expand with new IPs, new genres, not just animation but also live action, etc. It would take years, decades maybe, but hey, it took Disney decades too to become one of the biggest media companies in the world.

 

[Panajev2001a]

The reason they are probably risk-averse to making a GameCube of the next-gen is the extreme costs associated with it and getting minimal return. They could spend hundreds of millions of dollars on R&D to get even close to Microsoft and Sony's technical strengths and still end up being seen as "kiddy" or "casual" or whatever new label has been assigned to them by the core. If they don't differentiate themselves from the others, they'll be seen as a third choice, not THE choice, and that's why they turned to innovate, one way or another.

Whether that is a smart thought-process or not, I think that was partly the reason the Wii U got the way it did.

The problem regarding performance and what they could produce is also related to the focus on a very compact and low power consumption optimized device. They did spend quite a bit of R&D dollars to make it so small, be so power efficient, and to cool it all. Maybe a bigger console would have allowed to accept a higher power consumption and thus higher performing chips.

 

[hellclerk]

Alright, this situation with the WiiU is more complicated than some are making it out to be, and the slow sales are not necessarily related to the poor 3rd party support and vice versa. A large issue with the WiiU is that is lacks a piece of "ethos" software, so to say, what the WiiU lacks is what Brain Training was to the DS and what Wii Sports was to the Wii. Ethos software is the kind of software that reveals the heart of a console, that represents the philosophy behind its inception. For the Playstation, this was Final Fantasy VII and for Xbox, Halo. For this reason, I don't believe the WiiU is entirely doomed and can be revitalized, like how Brain Training (and the DS lite upgrade) .

And I don't believe that Nintendoland is a piece of "ethos" software either. It's far too steeply entrenched in the language of Nintendo franchises past, and the language favors nostalgia over progress. Now, I'm not going to try and predict what kind of software is going to come forward as the "ethos" game. I'm not even sure if it will come out at all, BUT there are ways Nintendo can approach their console and software woes.

1. Drop the Price
Sucks, but it has to happen, at least $50 USD. $300 USD is a great entry price for the premium package. Line up the price drop as close to announcement as possible. Line up the price drop before competing consoles enter the marketplace. Make sure the mainstream media knows all about it. Line up marketing with the price drop. Don't mention it as a "new low price". Get rid of the "basic" package. Whatever the gen 6 consoles cost, they won't be able to match $300+game+controllers and first gen games won't look significantly better than WiiU offerings. Drive the point home.

2. Give up on AAA
Honestly? AAA game productions are laced with politics, design-by-committee, and shittons of pre-conceived notions that are mostly wrong, entirely because they cost so much to make. The kinds of resources required to get companies to give Nintendo shoddy, late ports isn't worth the return. Nintendo is better off focusing on putting their resources into getting ports of up-and-coming "A" or "B" productions, such as CD project (say what you will about quality, but CDPR does not have the same kind of budgets games like Skyrim have, and thus freedom from corporate politics). A and B games were some of the most fantastic offerings on the Wii, from No More Heroes to Muramasa to Little King's Story. These were the kinds of games that drove the PS2, make them drive your console. That's not to say snub studios working on AAA games for Nintendo platforms, but if EA is going to be a dick and block WiiU development, don't stop them. Beat them. Make Mario American Football, and make it BETTER than Madden.

3. Port Unreal Engine 4 to WiiU and Develop Middleware Tools for Distribution
Okay, I know I just said avoid AAA, but UE3 had alot of presence in those desirable A and B releases. Giving studios the power to port to your system easily and with solid support makes releasing software desirable and Epic stupid for not doing their job in the first place. Making UE4 accessible on your console makes ports that much closer.

4. Court those Indies HARD
While the same old shit reigns in the land of AAA, independent studios thrive on bringing novelty and interest. One snazzy indie game won't beat out the competition, but each one will bring new people in and keep the dedicated playing your console. Just look at Steam. Yes, they sell a whole boatload of AAA titles, but indie games get almost a disproportionate amount of spotlight. Unity and web form support is awesome, but now you need to take it a step further. Call them, build relationships, make sure they can use your hardware efficiently. Commission a game from one of the more interesting up-and-comers and feature it on the storefront.

5. Your DDL Storefront is Gaining Popularity. Use it.
There is one incredibly powerful thing in having a full game storefront: Power over the shelf. Retail is a dangerous proposition for most small studios and publishers. If you're not popular, retailers won't stock your product, and that makes for a very difficult time selling to consumers. Nintendo games are largely safe. They tend to sell, so retailers stock them, but what about those A and B games? The more of them there are, the more they're competing for shelf-space. In order to reduce the financial risk, featuring promising games on the full-game storefront and putting them into consumer mindshare would allow non-Nintendo games to flourish where they might not have the mindshare otherwise.

Something to look into would be a sort of "rental" system similar to Steam's free weekends, where select games might be downloadable for a period of time for free or a small fee and would likely bring the storefront more mindshare.

This, of course, all assumes that a piece of "ethos" software will come up sooner than later. I feel that this would be the best way to create an environment for it. The focus on hollywood flash for the price they're asking is frankly unsustainable in the long run, with too many busts over booms. The best way to do this is to work like Nintendo always has: conservatively on the business end, but artistically on the product end. And most importantly, never assume you're going to win out.

 

[Daingurse]

"I'm on my way..."

Haha, I'd honestly be up for this and fuck the haters.

 

[Hiltz]

Alright, this situation with the WiiU is more complicated than some are making it out to be, and the slow sales are not necessarily related to the poor 3rd party support and vice versa. A large issue with the WiiU is that is lacks a piece of "ethos" software, so to say, what the WiiU lacks is what Brain Training was to the DS and what Wii Sports was to the Wii. Ethos software is the kind of software that reveals the heart of a console, that represents the philosophy behind its inception. For the Playstation, this was Final Fantasy VII and for Xbox, Halo. For this reason, I don't believe the WiiU is entirely doomed and can be revitalized, like how Brain Training (and the DS lite upgrade) .

And I don't believe that Nintendoland is a piece of "ethos" software either. It's far too steeply entrenched in the language of Nintendo franchises past, and the language favors nostalgia over progress. Now, I'm not going to try and predict what kind of software is going to come forward as the "ethos" game. I'm not even sure if it will come out at all, BUT there are ways Nintendo can approach their console and software woes.

1. Drop the Price
Sucks, but it has to happen, at least $50 USD. $300 USD is a great entry price for the premium package. Line up the price drop as close to announcement as possible. Line up the price drop before competing consoles enter the marketplace. Make sure the mainstream media knows all about it. Line up marketing with the price drop. Don't mention it as a "new low price". Get rid of the "basic" package. Whatever the gen 6 consoles cost, they won't be able to match $300+game+controllers and first gen games won't look significantly better than WiiU offerings. Drive the point home.

2. Give up on AAA
Honestly? AAA game productions are laced with politics, design-by-committee, and shittons of pre-conceived notions that are mostly wrong, entirely because they cost so much to make. The kinds of resources required to get companies to give Nintendo shoddy, late ports isn't worth the return. Nintendo is better off focusing on putting their resources into getting ports of up-and-coming "A" or "B" productions, such as CD project (say what you will about quality, but CDPR does not have the same kind of budgets games like Skyrim have, and thus freedom from corporate politics). A and B games were some of the most fantastic offerings on the Wii, from No More Heroes to Muramasa to Little King's Story. These were the kinds of games that drove the PS2, make them drive your console. That's not to say snub studios working on AAA games for Nintendo platforms, but if EA is going to be a dick and block WiiU development, don't stop them. Beat them. Make Mario American Football, and make it BETTER than Madden.

3. Port Unreal Engine 4 to WiiU and Develop Middleware Tools for Distribution
Okay, I know I just said avoid AAA, but UE3 had alot of presence in those desirable A and B releases. Giving studios the power to port to your system easily and with solid support makes releasing software desirable and Epic stupid for not doing their job in the first place. Making UE4 accessible on your console makes ports that much closer.

4. Court those Indies HARD
While the same old shit reigns in the land of AAA, independent studios thrive on bringing novelty and interest. One snazzy indie game won't beat out the competition, but each one will bring new people in and keep the dedicated playing your console. Just look at Steam. Yes, they sell a whole boatload of AAA titles, but indie games get almost a disproportionate amount of spotlight. Unity and web form support is awesome, but now you need to take it a step further. Call them, build relationships, make sure they can use your hardware efficiently. Commission a game from one of the more interesting up-and-comers and feature it on the storefront.

5. Your DDL Storefront is Gaining Popularity. Use it.
There is one incredibly powerful thing in having a full game storefront: Power over the shelf. Retail is a dangerous proposition for most small studios and publishers. If you're not popular, retailers won't stock your product, and that makes for a very difficult time selling to consumers. Nintendo games are largely safe. They tend to sell, so retailers stock them, but what about those A and B games? The more of them there are, the more they're competing for shelf-space. In order to reduce the financial risk, featuring promising games on the full-game storefront and putting them into consumer mindshare would allow non-Nintendo games to flourish where they might not have the mindshare otherwise.

Something to look into would be a sort of "rental" system similar to Steam's free weekends, where select games might be downloadable for a period of time for free or a small fee and would likely bring the storefront more mindshare.

This, of course, all assumes that a piece of "ethos" software will come up sooner than later. I feel that this would be the best way to create an environment for it. The focus on hollywood flash for the price they're asking is frankly unsustainable in the long run, with too many busts over booms. The best way to do this is to work like Nintendo always has: conservatively on the business end, but artistically on the product end. And most importantly, never assume you're going to win out.

That's a pretty well thought out post, doomed1. I hope Nintendo is considering at least some of these ideas because it may be a way for Nintendo to have a greater presence in the industry in ways it didn't manage to do with the Wii. The company has continued to generally alienate itself from the hardcore audience and third parties (especially those from the West ) because what they want is not what Nintendo is really passionate about, and it is also something Nintendo has not been willing to compromise on. So Nintendo's attempt to meet them halfway is just not going to cut it.

 

[Refreshment.01]

Why is this thread bumped after every direct? It is literally the same arguments.
Nintendo doesn't do this

Or they should do this!

No 3rd party support

Relying too much on nostalgia

No new ips

Like seriously guys? No new ground at all lol

You just ignore the thread then? Nintendo is also guilty of not traversing new ground, it would be fair from you to complain about that also.

Maybe the Japanese Companies...should try to do what they do best..to the fullest. Not saying go crazy and release Japanese only stuff but over focusing on the West when that isn't their strength is foolish and only leads to Fan outrage and bombas. You can't make something for someone you don't fully understand and probably never will without it coming off a trying too hard.

That's pretty much what people in touch with reality suggests. Let them do what they do best, they just need to make a slight adjustment and that is, not all of their properties should be expanded to include everyone. Stuff like Metroid, Zelda or Fire Emblen should be games designed for gamers and not dumbed down or denaturalized to appeal to more users.

The critic that Nintendo gets and with reason is the failure to stablish solid relationships with 3rd parties to suplement the holes in their catalogue. In the last 2 consoles cycles they couldn't even get a solid substitute for Rare. The impact of that abscence is quite evident specially with the Wii U.

I'd like to see someone with creative developer sensibilities.

What we'll likely get is a 'yes-man' to make investors happy.

Interesting... so you substitute Iwata with... Iwata.

Someone who has been paying attention to the western tech/games market in the last 10 years.

No one at NIntendo then. So we capture talent from MS and Sony?

Terrible, it was a brilliant move from Yamauchi to avoid him.

Wow! So this Howard Lincoln guy actually did stuff? He discovered Rareware?! He made Retro Studios a second party at Nintendo?!

What has Reggie done? This is a legit question. I honestly don't know what he does besides act like a goof.

Don't take too hard with Filsaime there's nothing much he can do as he is just a PR face. Lincol is from a time where NOA had more relevance in the company's management.

There is nothing to save. It's a system for nobody. It has no real hook. No real reason to exist.

Abandon the device is the worst option you could take. Nintendo can still sustain an irrelevant product and make a profit. Like we have witnessed in more than one occation.

Not to mention, while they stuck to their "underpowered" technology philosophy, they violated one of the Wii's virtues in being cheap to produce. The very controller the Wii U's based around is contributing to their loss on every unit sold, to no discernible benefit. The consumer isn't valuing it.

While the Gamecube might have burned them before, it doesn't seem like the continuation of the Wii Strategy Part Deux is doing them any favors on the console-front either. This might have been the right time to - if not exactly match Sony and Microsoft feature for feature - at least make an earnest attempt, but with a Nintendo touch. Instead, we have something that feels totally half-assed and has no room for future-proofing or changing direction.

First person in the forum i've seen that "get's it" so clearly. Well done!