You absolutely can, but you're certainly buying deeply in to the hype machine at that point. I don't think it's a secret that the hype cycle helped foster the current state of the console industry, driven almost entirely by huge AAA blockbuster titles.
-
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.
Iwata tweets about the Digital Event reactions.
- Thread starter BY2K
- Start date
You absolutely can, but you're certainly buying deeply in to the hype machine at that point. I don't think it's a secret that the hype cycle helped foster the current state of the console industry, driven almost entirely by huge AAA blockbuster titles.
And next year when all three aren't shown at E3 or nowhere near release? We will have this exact same thread. We litterally are having this exact same problem with Zelda Wii U. It was announced and given a ton of hype...and people are PISSED that it wasn't shown this E3.
I hope that you understand there won't be a physical release of PS4 for Shenmue because Sony won't be supporting it and Shenmue can't do it without their approuval. I'm trying to say that Sony may co-fund Shenmue but it may not want to take risks for it.
Nintendo instead gone all out for Bayonnetta 2 : advertisement, 100% funding it, provinding physical copies and special editions with the previous game. In the contrary, Shenmue had to make a kickstarter and manage it on its own. It will probably don't get the remaster of the previous titles... Don't getme wrong, I'm really happy for Shenmue but Sony seems to be cautious of how much they will support it.
And last year you were incredibly excited about Zelda Wii U, were you not?
Also, I'd honestly say no Zelda U was less of a problem than the lackluster spinoffs or the bad distribution of content around the presentation.
People wouldn't be pissed if Nintendo actually had something to show. People want to be excited, Nintendo was not exciting. Zelda didn't have to be there but since it wasn't, people expected at least some other exciting news.
I'll be more elaborate so people can understand why this is true. The hype cycle favors several things, including:
1) Games with great graphics. Pretty screenshots and flashy GIFs go a long way in building hype.
2) Games in well known series. New IP can get hype, but it's a lot easier to get hype if you're FFXXXIII or GTAVII or, as we saw in this E3, a remake of an old game in a well known series. It's not because new IPs are bad, they just don't have the familiarity that people crave.
3) Games made by huge publishers who can afford to get the hype cycle started well in advance. Huge publishers can far more easily get positioned in Sony or Microsoft's press conference, get interviews with magazines, and so forth. Hard to build hype when your tiny company has no PR department.
In general, games built on intriguing mechanics with cheap presentation and little marketing muscle may end up being great games, but are far harder to sell hype on. Broadly, safe games with huge production values and big marketing budgets are much easier to build hype around for the reasons stated above.
1) Games with great graphics. Pretty screenshots and flashy GIFs go a long way in building hype.
2) Games in well known series. New IP can get hype, but it's a lot easier to get hype if you're FFXXXIII or GTAVII or, as we saw in this E3, a remake of an old game in a well known series. It's not because new IPs are bad, they just don't have the familiarity that people crave.
3) Games made by huge publishers who can afford to get the hype cycle started well in advance. Huge publishers can far more easily get positioned in Sony or Microsoft's press conference, get interviews with magazines, and so forth. Hard to build hype when your tiny company has no PR department.
In general, games built on intriguing mechanics with cheap presentation and little marketing muscle may end up being great games, but are far harder to sell hype on. Broadly, safe games with huge production values and big marketing budgets are much easier to build hype around for the reasons stated above.
The balls on Reggie, sometimes...
http://gonintendo.com/stories/236353-reggie-iwata-didn-t-apologize-for-e3-big-n-unphased-by-metroid
This almost feels like a repeat of the "core gamers have Animal Crossing: City Folks to look forward to" after E3 2008 .
http://gonintendo.com/stories/236353-reggie-iwata-didn-t-apologize-for-e3-big-n-unphased-by-metroid
This almost feels like a repeat of the "core gamers have Animal Crossing: City Folks to look forward to" after E3 2008 .
I will always give Reggie credit with that he loves his job and will defend his company's decisions always and forever. There are some aspects to Reggie that I would want in an employee if I was a CEO.
For about 5 seconds. I was way more excited about Smash.
Well, Nintendo WAS exciting, just not in the one event where it mattered. And sometimes that happens, sometimes a company can't have anything to show. We've had stuff like this before from every company that participates at E3. Conferences that are a "no show" to certain people. I wasn't mad at the times Sony had jack shit to show and I didn't have this massive fit when they bombed. Nor did I say they "didn't get it" and implied that they needed to go third party.
Bottom line: It was 1 bad E3. So what? The idiotic reaction (not the dissapointment, you know what I mean) is overblown.
TDLink
Member
Bayonetta 2 was completely funded and published by Nintendo. The same is not true of FF7 and Shenmue 3. Both of those games are coming to PC as well (at least) while Bayo was an exclusive only for Nintendo's platform.
I don't think it's realistic to say Nintendo could have "moneyhatted" these games. That shows a complete lack of understanding about how these things happen. Who cares if Sony "won" in the eyes of some people on the Internet? What does it even matter? Sony presented these games at their conference but ultimately they aren't Sony games and they are coming to other platforms. They also aren't coming out any time soon.
Sony has the benefit of third parties still wanting to develop on their platform. Nintendo does not have that benefit outside of development deals or projects they are completely funding, with very few exceptions such as Just Dance and Skylanders.
nintendo already pissed me off enough with "we are releasing a new title in the smash brothers series" and then not releasing it for years. i don't care what the competition does. i don't want nintendo having me look forward to games that aren't going to be out for who knows when. anticipation breeds disappointment.
GameGuru59
Banned
Yeah... to be honest, that's his job, and he's good at it. He'd be a good politician probably too.
To be fair a main Animal Crossing game is a "core" title imo. It's just that obviously there wasn't much else going on at the time, and City Folk as it turns out wasn't one of the better entries in the franchise.
edit: In that link Reggie compared MPFF to Splatoon. Yeah...I know people weren't 100% sold on it when it was announced (it was a new IP after all), but the reaction was far from the hellstorm MPFF is getting.
The kind of person who will stand there in front of a square and argue with you that it is a circle?
I never played Animal Crossing before New Leaf. Wasn't City Folk practically a carbon copy of the DS Animal Crossing game?
CrazedProfessional
Member
I hate this what about the fans bullshit. Nintendo habitually shows games when they are ready to be shown and don't give a single fuck about CGI trailers that put gamers in dreamland.
The waiting game is tough but that's what happens when you buy a niche console. You wait for them to be ready.
The waiting game is tough but that's what happens when you buy a niche console. You wait for them to be ready.
Khaos_Knight
Banned
Everyone else drops nukes at their conferences and Nintendo just has puppets.... lol.
DICKS AHOY
Banned
The puppets were one of the few genuine highlights of their conference and it's a shame they couldn't collaborate with the Jim Henson company on something more positive.
This is something I wish more Nintendo console owners could accept. That they need to have a different set of values when approaching their platforms and their games. It's been said many times by Nintendo that they aren't going for the high specced hardware and games that are cutting edge in presentation, that instead they want to cultivate customers who appreciate their games' mechanics. After all, a chesspiece made of solid gold doesn't change the rules of the game or what the pieces are for or what they represent
I think though that the fact that most Nintendo gamers are on the 3DS shows that they do in fact value the fundamental experience/mechanics, and perhaps cheaper prices, more than flashier presentation, so the negative reactions to the digital event were more about the content being not what those people expected from certain franchises.
TDLink
Member
The best part about Nintendo is they poke fun at themselves and show everyone that they know how to have some fun. They intentionally market themselves as not just being suits (even if they are). I thought the skits last year and the muppet stuff this year were great. That is not the problem the event had.
They did do that, back in January 2013, they are still getting shit for that
We already saw it last year with the announcement of Star Fox.
OMG Star Fox YESS!!! Wii U bought!!!
*looks at gameplay trailer* ....huh? bwahahaha. People expected this epic AAA title from Star Fox, yeah right. I knew this would happen and the very first thing I did was to downplay the announcement when it first leaked, to lower people's expectations. People just never learn. Everything about gamers can be explained with cycles.
They could save them for a later Direct? I'm with you there; it was something great that would have been better had it been a more positive direct. It would've been like the Robot Chicken collaboration from last year, but bigger!
The Muppets need a comeback.
It's funny, but in some weird way, I'm glad that they finally added mobile gaming to their portfolio. Perhaps the audience there will spark something at NCL...
It's funny, but in some weird way, I'm glad that they finally added mobile gaming to their portfolio. Perhaps the audience there will spark something at NCL...
DICKS AHOY
Banned
I don't even like Robot Chicken all that much (too much emphasis on Family Guy-style "remember this thing that existed!?" humor), so having them this year and the muppets last year probably would've made 2014 even better but this year even worse.
perfectchaos007
Member
Yeah the Robot Chicken Digital Event was better than the puppets IMO. I hope Nintendo does a standard Live E3 presentation next year, but if it's pre-recorded, it would be awesome if Rick and Morty could help unveil the NX
timetokill
Banned
The reality is that Sony showed several games nearly a decade ago that still haven't released.
There is no guarantee that FF7 Remake or Shenmue 3 will release. Yes, it will almost certainly happen. But it's not guaranteed, and you have NO idea what they will look like when they do. You have no idea how they will play. You know nothing
Jon Snow
But, of course, that plays directly into the hype machine. The fact that there's nothing lets you fill in the gaps with your imagination, which nothing could ever meet. It's why these teases are often so praised, and the reveals later are often met with cries of disappointment.
I have no problem with Nintendo focusing on tangible games and gameplay. In fact, I find it extremely fucking refreshing. Similarly I'm glad Fallout 4 was revealed in such a manner.
Nintendo's problem is thinking that a franchise itself is enough. People want something very specific from Metroid. They want something very specific from Animal Crossing. Spin-offs are great when you know the "real thing" is coming as well. When that isn't the case, people get upset, as we're seeing now.
To Far Away Times
Member
To be honest, I think that Nintendo doing things their way is part of what makes them so great.
It's not always about efficiency.
DICKS AHOY
Banned
If Rick and Morty could make new Simpsons watchable for the two and a half minutes they cameo'd in it, they can definitely make a Nintendo conference great.
Final Fantasy XV was first shown at E3 2006 and it's still not out yet 9 years later. Who knows when FF7 remake and Shenmue 3 are coming out.
TreasureHunterG
Banned
It was a worthless decision, they lost a lot of money for three years in a row anyway and Wii U ended up the failure it is. If they slashed the price to 250, they could have create a more acceptable situation and probably would be realistic to say it was possible to reach a GCN like scenario. They took their chances when they slashed 3DS's price from 250 to 170 some years before and that was a turn around point. They lost money? Yes, they did. But 3DS managed to turn around when was struggling at first. I don't get why Nintendo didn't try the same with Wii U. Yes, they would bleed money, but would keep some of their market share.
The problem from the way I see it, is that Nintendo had a lot more to prove when it comes to where Wii U is standing.
Once Iwata mentioned NX, it caused many people to start speculating. It raised a lot of questions. Will Wii U be replaced next year already, considering its poor sales? We know software is coming this year, but what about next year? Will Wii U be dropped like Wii was in it's last years? Zelda U is delayed, does that mean it will come for NX as well?
Sure, we knew that there would be no Zelda or NX talk this E3. But they could talk about some of the software(if there are any?) that is coming for Wii U next year. I mean, last year they showed a lot of stuff that is coming this year. That built confidence and excitement for Wii U as a platform. It also meant at the time, that software would not be a problem for another year.
Instead, we are at a point where raised questions are unanswered and we will have a lot more speculation about whether Wii U is dead after 2015. Until or if they do a direct to show that there are some quality titles on its way next year for Wii U, a lot of people who are on the fence, will wait and see what NX will bring next year.
Once Iwata mentioned NX, it caused many people to start speculating. It raised a lot of questions. Will Wii U be replaced next year already, considering its poor sales? We know software is coming this year, but what about next year? Will Wii U be dropped like Wii was in it's last years? Zelda U is delayed, does that mean it will come for NX as well?
Sure, we knew that there would be no Zelda or NX talk this E3. But they could talk about some of the software(if there are any?) that is coming for Wii U next year. I mean, last year they showed a lot of stuff that is coming this year. That built confidence and excitement for Wii U as a platform. It also meant at the time, that software would not be a problem for another year.
Instead, we are at a point where raised questions are unanswered and we will have a lot more speculation about whether Wii U is dead after 2015. Until or if they do a direct to show that there are some quality titles on its way next year for Wii U, a lot of people who are on the fence, will wait and see what NX will bring next year.
Well making 3DS games is definitely much much cheaper (and faster) than making Wii U games. HD games are incredibly expensive and resource heavy, where as 3ds games are less so. So of course it was easier for Nintendo to rally more resources to bridge up the 3DS than the Wii U
Also it helped that third parties were also on board the 3DS, where as Nintendo has pretty much had to shoulder the Wii U software lineup by itself.
Wii U has sold 9 million units. GameCube sold 22 million. N64 sold 33 million.
Wii U was unprofitable at launch. Cutting $100 off the already-too-low price means they could spend one billion dollars just to push the Wii U up to GameCube levels of failure. Two billion would push them up to an N64-level failure. How many billions does Nintendo have, ten? Surely they can part with three or four of them to recapture the glory days of the Super Nintendo (assuming the rest of the world plays along, when even EAD is having trouble justifying the gamepad).
The 3DS was overpriced at launch, because Iwata overestimated the appeal of 3D and got greedy. When he realized the mistake he trimmed the fat off the price and while he was at it he pushed it into an aggressive money-losing position (just to make sure it got the job done). And the goal was to make "the next Nintendo DS". The 3DS was in a better position for a price cut, and had a more-obvious plan to make the money back.
Wii U is much better off accepting it's position as a "niche" console, and defining it's success as "having lots of great games" and "not bankrupting the company".
Otakumegane
Member
I mean lets face is the greatest thing Nintendo got out of the WiiU is the knowledge that people don't need to buy their games and they'll still make money.
Amiibos are the future.
Amiibos are the future.
Oscar Lemaire from Gamekult said yesterday on twitter Nintendo France just told him Mario Kart sold 500 000 copies on a 590 000 userbase. It looks like they still sell games, they just wished their user base was bigger.
Amiibos are the worst thing that happened to Nintendo. They put to much focus on it. In every direct there's some new Amiibo crap and for someone not interested in collecting figurines. Listening to this is a chore. And in terms of games Amiibos do next to nothing. It's a DLC disguised as a figurine offering poor content. From a cool side thing that company does to please collectors and fans it became cash cow. Now they have clear message that they can make tons of money offering absolutely nothing in terms of content. As time goes by it will get worse. More and more stuff will be locked from gamer by the paywall called amiibo. We now see cards with ir chips. What next ? Costumes for amiibos that unlock new skins ? Toy furniture for Animal Crossing with ir chips inside ?
More people should be worried about that stuff and give them clear message that there's a limit how far they can go with this.
ShockingAlberto
Member
We wouldn't be getting more or better games without amiibos.
We'd just be getting a weaker Nintendo.
Judging by E3 direct we aren't getting more and better games. We are getting more amiboo crap with spin-off games that nobody asked for...
Opinionatedfish
Member
I like the Amiibo.
The plural of Amiibo is Amiibo, not Amiibos.
Also, I have started to see Mario Amiibo show up at Goodwill complete in box.
There were three silver Mario Amiibo at Target today. I think we're slowly turning a corner of availability in the United States. I think the reissues will help with this.
Only problem is... I want to display them more prominently but I have a cat that likes to climb. She hasn't shown any care for any of the Amiibo yet when they've been on the table. But who knows....
The plural of Amiibo is Amiibo, not Amiibos.
Also, I have started to see Mario Amiibo show up at Goodwill complete in box.
There were three silver Mario Amiibo at Target today. I think we're slowly turning a corner of availability in the United States. I think the reissues will help with this.
Only problem is... I want to display them more prominently but I have a cat that likes to climb. She hasn't shown any care for any of the Amiibo yet when they've been on the table. But who knows....
AzureTranquility95
Banned
This is the now-accepted consensus. Another one being Sony's conference was better.
I will say, I saw more games in Nintendo's presentation that I actually intend or might consider buying, meanwhile there weren't as many in the Sony conference. Sony was just more hype though.
The Amiibo product line is the smartest thing Nintendo has done in recent years. It's a strong extra revenue stream that keeps their brand alive, especially with a younger population, while encouraging cross-product sales. Iwata is looking at Disney and that's exactly the way to go. Toys, cartoons, series. Product diversification that strengthens their core business of software development.
ShockingAlberto
Member
I'm saying not having amiibos wouldn't be making those games more numerous or better. The thing holding Metroid Prime 4 back isn't that amiibos exist.
This is something I wish more Nintendo console owners could accept. That they need to have a different set of values when approaching their platforms and their games. It's been said many times by Nintendo that they aren't going for the high specced hardware and games that are cutting edge in presentation, that instead they want to cultivate customers who appreciate their games' mechanics. After all, a chesspiece made of solid gold doesn't change the rules of the game or what the pieces are for or what they represent
I wish this myth would die already.
Nintendo has never said this. All they have ever repeatedly said is that chasing higher fidelity can not be the sole differentiating factor when designing new hardware and deep loss leader strategies aren't good for the bottom line. That does not directly equate to Nintendo not caring about higher audio-visual fidelity at all or that they're against high-spec hardware, it's just not their primary concern.
I see this on GAF all the time and it's just absolutely grating.
Market share is a terribly fickle thing, even when you have a lower price point. And given what Nintendo knew it was going up against, I'd imagine that they looked at the Wii U and determined that further losses during their years in the red would not net them enough money to offset it. Market share at the expense of financial stability is sometimes not a great thing, especially with where Nintendo was at the time.
Sony had a huge hit with PlayStation 2, but the expense of manufacturing it ended up with Sony actually making very little money from that entire generation, considering its high user base. And then PS3 cratered all of that money they made in totality, and likely wouldn't have made any of it back. And the whole reason we got such an elongated generation last time is they were finally making money at the end of it that they both desperately needed.
There's a risk-reward issue with loss leader strategies, and if the loss isn't offset by the gains, you can't blame a corporation for thinking twice about it instead of just prepping for the next attempt.
I thought their philosophy was 'use withered tech creatively' or something? Is that a myth?
Dawnbuster
Member
They haven't said that, but they have repeatedly talked about how their design goal since Gamecube has been to make a very small console.
http://iwataasks.nintendo.com/interviews/#/wiiu/console/0/0 (scroll to the bottom of the page)
They've had this design goal of a small console with low power consumption for over a decade.
No matter how efficient their engineers make their boards, with that overriding aim, their systems will always be underpowered from a gaming horsepower perspective. Especially when the Xbox One and PS4 are significantly larger both in power draws and volume (meaning better ventilation and the ability to drive faster hardware).
So while they've never come out and said "we want a weak system" ... they have said that they want a small, efficient and low-power system. Those things go hand in hand.
It's hard for them to have both a tiny footprint and hardware specs that attract third parties to port games to modern Nintendo systems. At least not when both systems launch in the same rough timeline.
The other thing I remember Nintendo saying (but can't find the source anymore) was that they wanted a small system so that "mom" wouldn't object to having it under the TV. Now I can't support that point with a source right now, but if I'm remembering correctly that reveals a pretty antiquated view of the nuclear family and the home economics dynamic.
Why yes, it most certainly is.
Wii was what it was because HOLY SHIT, did the tech jump at the time cost a shit-ton of money that Nintendo didn't have at the time that prototyping started. Sony and Microsoft nearly lost their shirts that generation if they hadn't extended it for an extra few years to finally make some damn money. The tech for something powerful wasn't cost-effective (or power-efficient). Nintendo knew it and threw the dice that a controller would be enough, because given their situation at the end of the GameCube generation, they didn't have much of a choice. And lo and behold...
Wii U was them looking at console design from a "controller first" perspective because it was so successful for them the last go around. I mean, if you're successful with something, you want to try again, right? Selling things to consumers is a lot like gambling, if you're on a "hot streak", you try and make it work again. And they rolled a snake eyes this time. 3DS was the same situation, but faired better after a stumble at the start.
People extrapolating an ideology from these 2 consoles along with some misinterpreted quotes from Nintendo are really just trying to establish a narrative that they wanted to exist before it was actually relevant.
People have been saying Nintendo likes "weak hardware" since the GameCube, back when they actually were on par technologically with their competitors. The myth began just because they didn't release a spec sheet and gamers thought that meant they have something embarrassing to hide. And every word out of Nintendo's mouth about it since has been twisted into Nintendo refusing to consider high-spec hardware.
You forget one of their other major philosophies, though: native backwards compatibility.
PowerPC chipsets were something they were saddled with in the design of the Wii U because it was the only way to reasonably achieve a backwards compatible design with Wii. And coming off of a console generation where you sold 100 million consoles and a shit-ton of games, backwards compatibility was most assuredly a consideration in the design phase.
But at higher capabilities, PowerPC falters at power efficiency, so they made it as low-spec as they could get a PowerPC chip to go with rendering games in 1080p at a reasonable fidelity. It still uses more power than the Wii does by a good country mile.
But at this point, with so few Wii U owners, native compatibility with their old games isn't a consideration they have to make. And other chipset architectures have made HUGE in-roads in the balance of performance vs. power efficiency. Heck, x86 chips aren't the greatest at that, but Intel still does better at this than PowerPC does when you get into the higher performance rates.
Not75Drops
Member
I have a feeling that Federation Force was originally being solely developed by NST (same devs as Hunters) with a different name and then they just decided to collaborate with Next Level and are just mentioning them to try and give the game some positivity (not like it's working for them though). If you look at the E3 page, Next Level aren't listed as the developers.
Based on what is posted here, I'd say "attention" or "a reaction from others".
The sentence he typed might actually be listed as an example under the dictionary entry for "troll".