Support NeoGAF

[Dave Meltzer]

No, it really comes off as an attempt to build on the traditional gamer experience. TVii itself apparently (if we were to believe the creators of it) only came to Nintendo after a Western start-up contacted Nintendo after the consoles introduction at E3 and it was a NoA project.

Nobody wanted it for games. The DS has been around nearly a decade and the number of games that genuinely benefit from having two screens is still minimal and not at all industry affecting. The touch screen is what sold the DS, the dual screens as a mechanic was never worth much of anything.

 

[Scum]

I'm less interested in him "breaking promises" and much more concerned that he doesn't seem to be learning. He seems to be caught off guard every single time third parties don't get on board, as if he was confident that this time they'd truly be getting Bioshock and GTA.

Since at least the middle of the Wii days, they should have been operating under the assumption that those parties will never be coming to their platforms and adjusted accordingly. If they ever came, it could be seen as a bonus. Instead, they seem to be constantly caught flatfooted, sure that this time they've finally created a machine that will attract the Western AAA developers, and when that doesn't happen it leaves gaps that they somehow were not expecting.

Damn you, Opiate! Don't ruin the fun with sense and logic.

 

[javac]

In any case it would be funny to see a new CEO. Maybe he would be better, that could very well be the case and I would be all for that. But I'm guessing hindsight is 50/50 and it would be hilarious to see him or her try and replicate the highs of Nintendo under Iwata.

Also on that subject we always talk about a male CEO but what would you guys feel about in regards to a female CEO?

 

[Erethian]

I'm less interested in him "breaking promises" and much more concerned that he doesn't seem to be learning. He seems to be caught off guard every single time third parties don't get on board, as if he was confident that this time they'd truly be getting Bioshock and GTA.

Since at least the middle of the Wii days, they should have been operating under the assumption that those parties will never be coming to their platforms and adjusted accordingly. Instead they seem to be constantly caught flatfooted, sure that this time they've finally created a machine that will attract the Western AAA developers.

I think they're taking some steps that operate under the realisation major third-party support isn't coming. The collaboration efforts seem like a response to that, as is trying to streamline their use of development resources so they can share more between handheld and console development. It's just happening later than it should have.

 

[MrHicks]

nintendo = shit third party since N64

yet every new generation people go "this time it will be different"
lulz

 

[TreasureHunterG]

What I'm saying is, apart from sales and reviews there is no way you can prove Nintendo games are worse.

Neither you can prove today's Nintendo is better with the arguments you're making. You're conviced that reviews and sales alone are indications of better quality and this is flawed.

 

[clav]

Please understand.

ninty pls

 

[Kai Dracon]

I'm less interested in him "breaking promises" and much more concerned that he doesn't seem to be learning. He seems to be caught off guard every single time third parties don't get on board, as if he was confident that this time they'd truly be getting Bioshock and GTA.

Since at least the middle of the Wii days, they should have been operating under the assumption that those parties will never be coming to their platforms and adjusted accordingly. If they ever came, it could be seen as a bonus. Instead, they seem to be constantly caught flatfooted, sure that this time they've finally created a machine that will attract the Western AAA developers, and when that doesn't happen it leaves gaps that they somehow were not expecting.

I really have to wonder if any of this is coming from Reggie. Is he sending the wrong signals as their man on the ground in North America? Is he making 3rd party interest sound too promising?

I agree that they should have changed their expectations and considered 3rd parties a bonus only. Nintendo needs to figure out how to fully become their own niche, given the shape of the industry today I am honestly not sure what else they can do.

 

[squidyj]

Except for the shit-ton of money they made under his wing. I'm sorry but for us gamers the money Nintendo make might not seem to affect us but it does. It funds games after all and we get amazing stuff like Fire Emblem Awakening.

but.... droughts.

 

[Dave Meltzer]

Excusing your blatant bias you love to shit out. Wii U was too little too late. If Nintendo wanted to capture to iPad crowd, they should have done it earlier. The Wii/DS was doing their schmick quite early in the mainstream appeal line, which is why they catched on.

I like how disliking the direction Nintendo has gone in the last few years isn't an opinion, but a "bias".

Other than that, I don't disagree. If Wii U had came out in 2010, maybe it would have been a concept people could still be slightly excited by.

 

[SolarPowered]

I live on my own in a fairly nice town home, and I have 3. All used fairly often. Lol. But not like I bought them all at once. Bought 1st TV like 8 years ago, just never sold them

That is the case for many people, I think. There are like five TVs in my house and I think one of them is older than me. Now that I think about it this makes a lot of sense. Every house I've ever been to since I was a kid had at LEAST two televisions. Hell, in the Dominican Republic most of my family has two televisions and that is a tiny developing country.

Right now Nintendo is just too Japan focused even if it has been successful for them prior. One thing Nintendo could afford to do is stop trying to reinvent the industry every gen. Yes innovation is great and it does help push things forward but you don't have to every single generation.

They could have easily expanded on the Wii controls without going gamepad crazy and in turn took that 50-60 dollars of BOM and put that directly into CPU/GPU and suddenly found themselves within range of PS4/720.

If only someone had taped this post, turned it on and snuck it under Iwata's pillow every night after the Wii launched. I so would have lined up for that.

In any case it would be funny to see a new CEO. Maybe he would be better, that could very well be the case and I would be all for that. But I'm guessing hindsight is 50/50 and it would be hilarious to see him or her try and replicate the highs of Nintendo under Iwata.

Also on that subject we always talk about a male CEO but what would you guys feel about in regards to a female CEO?

Why should the gender matter? Anyone is cool so long as they give the audience what they want and make some money. How NCL's corporate structure deals with a female CEO... now that is something I'd be interested in.

I really have to wonder if any of this is coming from Reggie. Is he sending the wrong signals as their man on the ground in North America? Is he making 3rd party interest sound too promising?

I agree that they should have changed their expectations and considered 3rd parties a bonus only. Nintendo needs to figure out how to fully become their own niche, given the shape of the industry today I am honestly not sure what else they can do.

Pull a Sony without the 8GB GDDR5 or Gamepad (ie:affordable) to see how third parties react. If they're still quiet then Nintendo can go scorched Erf and abandon them if necessary.

They haven't even tried with Western third parties yet. When they try they have a legitimate argument for going full niche.

 

[MisterHero]

They absolutely were trying to repeat the Wii Remote. They saw the mass market appeal of tablets and thought the could sell people a convergence of gaming and tablet by putting shit like Tvii and whatever in the OS. The entire thing is trying to appeal to the kind of people who buy Kindles and iPads, the problem is its a shit version of them.

They started the touch screen craze with DS. Even in Nintendo's terms, the touch screen is old hat. It's another option for developers and themselves.

Nintendo probably regrets that they can't have multiple tablet pads per console, but the tech is limited right now. The current standard for battery power isn't sufficient for Wii U or the 3DS. If people don't want to use the pad, there are Classic Controllers to use as well. IIRC made it because Activision asked them to.

Nintendo Land was an effort to bring the Wii Sports/Touch Generations audience into their traditional franchises. That was a distinct choice over making another Wii Sports.

 

[Sandfox]

Saying that the Wii and DS was luck is like saying that the PS2 was luck. Iwata is to blame for saying some of those things but its kinda hard for me to say those things were his fault(he can be blamed for the droughts the Wii had late in its life regardless of whether it was caused by Nintendo trying to pump out games for the 3DS or not).

 

[Gummb]

In any case it would be funny to see a new CEO. Maybe he would be better, that could very well be the case and I would be all for that. But I'm guessing hindsight is 50/50 and it would be hilarious to see him or her try and replicate the highs of Nintendo under Iwata.

Also on that subject we always talk about a male CEO but what would you guys feel about in regards to a female CEO?

One would hope there would be no difference in response to a female CEO. However, there definitely would be. Why do you bring it up though?

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

No, it really comes off as an attempt to build on the traditional gamer experience. TVii itself apparently (if we were to believe the creators of it) only came to Nintendo after a Western start-up contacted Nintendo after the consoles introduction at E3 and it was a NoA project.

Nintendo must be extremely ignorant to believe they were doing such a thing. Together with the web of lies repeated by the PR machine that the WiiU was going to get third party support it seems Nintendo never did decide to rely on the traditional gamer experience. Games like sing, Wii Fit and heck even the name WiiU shows they wanted Wii consumers to return. I don't blame them because 9/10 companies would do the same thing as they has so much success but what I do hate is the lying.

The broken promises just make Nintendo's promises even less trustworthy.

 

[Dave Meltzer]

In any case it would be funny to see a new CEO. Maybe he would be better, that could very well be the case and I would be all for that. But I'm guessing hindsight is 50/50 and it would be hilarious to see him or her try and replicate the highs of Nintendo under Iwata.

Also on that subject we always talk about a male CEO but what would you guys feel about in regards to a female CEO?

How could we have an opinion on a potential CEO based purely on their gender? I imagine it would be irrelevant.

 

[javac]

Neither you can prove today's Nintendo is better with the arguments you're making. You're conviced that reviews and sales alone are indications of quality and this is flawed.

Nope your not understanding what I'm saying and it could be my fault but anyways what I'm saying we are both right. Old Nintendo was good and so is the Nintendo of today. You cant say Nintendo's game were better because that is not fact. You cant prove that Nintendos games have dropped in quality. That is your truth but to me I prefer today's Nintendo. Neither of us is wrong.

 

[Gummb]

How could we have an opinion on a potential CEO based purely on their gender? I imagine it would be irrelevant.

It definitely would not be irrelevant. However, it probably is irrelevant to this topic.

So....

 

[JordanN]

Saying that the Wii and DS was luck is like saying that the PS2 was luck. Iwata is to blame for saying some of those things but its kinda hard for me to say those things were his fault(he can be blamed for the droughts the Wii had late in its life regardless of whether it was caused by Nintendo trying to pump out games for the 3DS or not).

PS2 was following an already established model though. Even if you ignore the DVD craze, you still have PS2 catching the eye of third parties.

Even their competitors had their errors coming. Nintendo screwed up with N64 and Xbox was this new console that had to prove itself worthy. Dreamcast was self explanatory.

 

[Darryl]

Nobody wanted it for games. The DS has been around nearly a decade and the number of games that genuinely benefit from having two screens is still minimal and not at all industry affecting. The touch screen is what sold the DS, the dual screens as a mechanic was never worth much of anything.

A good business should find things that you didn't know you wanted. The way you use a second screen on a home console is different than the DS. The screen on the DS is too small and you play it too isolated from other people for anything interesting. Wii U has the power to do more.

 

[Dave Meltzer]

They started the touch screen craze with DS. Even in Nintendo's terms, the touch screen is old hat. It's another option for developers and themselves.

Nintendo probably regrets that they can't have multiple tablet pads per console, but the tech is limited right now. The current standard for battery power isn't sufficient for Wii U or the 3DS. If people don't want to use the pad, there are Classic Controllers to use as well. IIRC made it because Activision asked them to.

Nintendo Land was an effort to bring the Wii Sports/Touch Generations audience into their traditional franchises. That was a distinct choice over making another Wii Sports.

I'm not sure what you're arguing now. My point is the Wii U is designed conceptually to be a unique interface that has mass market appeal, like the Wiimote, and that with Wii U Nintendo were trying to get the same audience they got with Wii.

 

[Tobor]

They started the touch screen craze with DS. Even in Nintendo's terms, the touch screen is old hat. It's another option for developers and themselves.

Nintendo probably regrets that they can't have multiple tablet pads per console, but the tech is limited right now. The current standard for battery power isn't sufficient for Wii U or the 3DS. If people don't want to use the pad, there are Classic Controllers to use as well. IIRC made it because Activision asked them to.

Nintendo Land was an effort to bring the Wii Sports/Touch Generations audience into their traditional franchises. That was a distinct choice over making another Wii Sports.

Reason enough for termination right there.

 

[MisterHero]

Reason enough for termination right there.

Yeah it's too bad Nintendo isn't making actual 1st party games anymore

oh wait you're just being silly

 

[Dave Meltzer]

It definitely would not be irrelevant. However, it probably is irrelevant to this topic.

So....

A female CEO wouldn't have inherent opinions or make decisions based on their gender, so how would it make a difference? You could have a woman who is identical to Iwata and keeps releasing systems with no software and no support. It's not a male trait.

 

[BorkBork]

Damning quotes. Good article.

I really have to wonder if any of this is coming from Reggie. Is he sending the wrong signals as their man on the ground in North America? Is he making 3rd party interest sound too promising?

I agree that they should have changed their expectations and considered 3rd parties a bonus only. Nintendo needs to figure out how to fully become their own niche, given the shape of the industry today I am honestly not sure what else they can do.

I would love to be a fly on the wall at a NoA teleconference.

At this point, I think their differences with major Western third parties are irreconcilable. Recent efforts to open up development to the indie scene and try to nurture some talent is the only path forward I can see to make any sort of difference.

 

[Dave Meltzer]

A good business should find things that you didn't know you wanted. The way you use a second screen on a home console is different than the DS. The screen on the DS is too small and you play it too isolated from other people for anything interesting. Wii U has the power to do more.

Local multiplayer is the only real use for a second screen, so if they were interested in releasing a device that genuinely offered new gameplay experiences maybe they shouldn't have picked a concept that's so limited in scope.

 

[javac]

Why should the gender matter? Anyone is cool so long as they give the audience what they want and make some money. How NCL's corporate structure deals with a female CEO... now that is something I'd be interested in.

How could we have an opinion on a potential CEO based purely on their gender? I imagine it would be irrelevant.

One would hope there would be no difference in response to a female CEO. However, there definitely would be. Why do you bring it up though?

Yeah obviously its irrelevant. I guess I find it funny how when we talk about a 'Iwata replacement' its always assumed it would be a guy. A female CEO would be cool no? Performance wise it wouldn't make a difference since gender is irrelevant but I guess its a rarity is all. Cammie was the closest we had at Nintendo I think. Don't act like I'm being negative or something

 

[web01]

He's one of the worst things to happen to Nintendo.

For core gamers I agree, but the Wii did make a truckload of cash.

That said Nintendo's biggest mistake was thinking the casual audience would stick around and betting huge on another gimmick (Wiiu controller tablet) to become a mass hit. They also ignored features the hardcore wanted badly like up scaling Wii games, decent online, a proper account system and much more. They should not be in a position where even 360/PS3 is more attractive to the average consumer than a newly released console.

Its really like they had no plan at all except hoping for the Wii u controller pad gimmick to successful drive sales.

 

[Opiate]

I really have to wonder if any of this is coming from Reggie. Is he sending the wrong signals as their man on the ground in North America? Is he making 3rd party interest sound too promising?

I agree that they should have changed their expectations and considered 3rd parties a bonus only. Nintendo needs to figure out how to fully become their own niche, given the shape of the industry today I am honestly not sure what else they can do.

Keep in mind that I'm not saying third parties as a concept should be considered off the table, just the guys who are currently at the top of the publisher pile. Other platforms that find themselves in Nintendo's position where they are largely ignored by the major publishers -- as Facebook and browser gaming in general did -- have grown their own third parties from the ground up, sometimes creating major publishers like Zynga in the process (not that I like Zynga, mind you, but their popularity cannot be ignored).

If Nintendo had given up on EA/Take 2/etc. before now, growing first party support faster is only one method to solve the problem. They could also foster the growth of new third parties on their platforms and grow new publishers on their turf, as happened for Facebook and iOS, too (Gameloft, Rovio, others all started small and have grown rapidly as iOS focused publishers). Instead, Nintendo was so concerned with getting GTA and Battlefield on board that they've largely missed that boat, too.

They should have been growing their first party more rapidly than they have. They should have been fostering the little guys, some of whom might be big guys by now if Nintendo had focused on creating a friendly environment for them. Instead, they're stuck where they are now because they continue to hope that EA and Take 2 will repent their sins and come to Nintendo's platforms, and they never do. And Nintendo seems constantly surprised by it.

 

[JordanN]

nintendo = shit third party since N64

yet every new generation people go "this time it will be different"
lulz

Gamecube was getting better though. It was the Wii that wiped it all out sadly.

 

[roddur]

only if nintendo released a powerful hardware, that would've solved everything. we wouldn't see articles like this, people wouldn't put iwata on the chopping block.

 

[Calamari41]

Neither you can prove today's Nintendo is better with the arguments you're making. You're conviced that reviews and sales alone are indications of better quality and this is flawed.

I'd like to settle this little dispute, can you "prove" to me that old Nintendo is better?

 

[Tobor]

Yeah it's too bad Nintendo isn't making actual 1st party games anymore

oh wait you're just being silly

No, I'm serious. As soon as they realized they had no killer app for the Gamepad, it should have been cancelled. A straight forward Wii 2 with better motion controls would have sold better than the Wii U.

 

[?oe?oe]

I like how disliking the direction Nintendo has gone in the last few years isn't an opinion, but a "bias".

Other than that, I don't disagree. If Wii U had came out in 2010, maybe it would have been a concept people could still be slightly excited by.

You can have an opinion, but it's the attitude and agenda behind it. A biased opinion is a real thing y'know. I'm sure many can agree you have an aggressive attitude towards the subject, but it really isn't necessary when discussing, and honestly, makes you look like a tool, especially when you can never be wrong. (unless Iwata farted in you cereal, then I would understand).

But keep fighting the good fight.

 

[Scum]

Keep in mind that I'm not saying third parties as a concept should be considered off the table, just the guys who are currently at the top of the publisher pile. Other platforms that find themselves in Nintendo's position, largely ignored by the major publishers -- like Facebook and browser gaming in general -- have grown their own third parties from the ground up, sometimes creating major publishers like Zynga in the process (not that I like Zynga, mind you, but their popularity cannot be ignored).

If Nintendo had given up on EA/Take 2/etc. before now, growing first party support is only one way to solve their problem. They could also foster the growth of new third parties on their platforms and grow new publishers in house, as happened for Facebook and iOS, too (Gameloft, Rovio, others). Instead, Nintendo was so concerned with getting GTA and Battlefield on board that they've largely missed that boat, too.

They should have been growing their first party more rapidly than they have. They should have been fostering the little guys, some of whom might be big guys by now if Nintendo had focused on creating a friendly environment for them. Instead, they're stuck where they are now because they continue to hope that EA and Take 2 will repent their sins and come to Nintendo's platforms, and they never do.

Maybe Iwata should have done this kind of thing...

• Sweet talk more Indie devs for goodies on the eShop.
• Moneyhat some "top tier" third party IPs like Metal Gear Rising.
• Chase after "small-to-mid tier" development studios or set them up internally, esp. at NoE & NoA, for those 1990-2000 era IPs [e.g. Star Fox, Rogue Squadron, XtremeG, F-Zero, Wave Race, etc] that have gone missing for many years.
• Collaborations with independent and "mid tier" studios like Platinum and say, Atlus & Level 5.

...about 7+ years ago.

 

[nhlducks35]

They started the touch screen craze with DS. Even in Nintendo's terms, the touch screen is old hat. It's another option for developers and themselves.

Nintendo probably regrets that they can't have multiple tablet pads per console, but the tech is limited right now. The current standard for battery power isn't sufficient for Wii U or the 3DS. If people don't want to use the pad, there are Classic Controllers to use as well. IIRC made it because Activision asked them to.

Nintendo Land was an effort to bring the Wii Sports/Touch Generations audience into their traditional franchises. That was a distinct choice over making another Wii Sports.

Yeah, because Nintendo skimps out on the battery for money reasons

 

[Dave Meltzer]

You can have an opinion, but it's the attitude and agenda behind it. A biased opinion is a real thing y'know. I'm sure many can agree you have an aggressive attitude towards the subject, but it really isn't necessary when discussing, and honestly, makes you look like a tool, especially when you can never be wrong. (unless Iwata farted in you cereal, then I would understand).

But keep fighting the good fight.

I'm not right or wrong.

 

[Kai Dracon]

Keep in mind that I'm not saying third parties as a concept should be considered off the table, just the guys who are currently at the top of the publisher pile. Other platforms that find themselves in Nintendo's position, largely ignored by the major publishers -- like Facebook and browser gaming in general -- have grown their own third parties from the ground up, sometimes creating major publishers like Zynga in the process (not that I like Zynga, mind you, but their popularity cannot be ignored).

If Nintendo had given up on EA/Take 2/etc. before now, growing first party support is only one way to solve their problem. They could also foster the growth of new third parties on their platforms and grow new publishers in house, as happened for Facebook and iOS, too (Gameloft, Rovio, others). Instead, Nintendo was so concerned with getting GTA and Battlefield on board that they've largely missed that boat, too.

They should have been growing their first party more rapidly than they have. They should have been fostering the little guys, some of whom might be big guys by now if Nintendo had focused on creating a friendly environment for them. Instead, they're stuck where they are now because they continue to hope that EA and Take 2 will repent their sins and come to Nintendo's platforms, and they never do.

Okay, I see what you are getting at. I could agree with this actually and see this as a likely straight up mistake in judgement their top officers (not just Iwata) could have made / did make.

Though this view seems poetic (?) in light of their GDC information on their new web development kit and such. Almost like some thought was going in this direction, albeit too late.

 

[RedSwirl]

This article encapsulates something I've sensed about Iwata for years: He seems to know exactly what the problem is and what his obstacles are. He just hasn't been able to actually tackle those problems for some reason.

The basic problem I see is that Nintendo don't have the capacity to provide as much content as is needed on their own, and they haven't had the relationships with third parties since the SNES days to fill in the gaps (and this situation gets worse as more competition enters the market, it used to just be Sega, then Sony, nowadays it's smartphones and Facebook gaming etc). Simply firing Iwata will solve exactly neither of these problems. No CEO can magic high quality product out of thin air, and this has been a problem since long before he was around.

This is essentially their whole problem.

Before him, Nintendo games were better and Nintendo consoles weren't restricted only for Nintendo's own games like it became under his wing. I don't care how much money Nintendo have if their games and consoles can't no longer satisfy me the way they did before. I would praise the hell out of Nintendo's profits if I was a shareholder, but I'm not, I'm a gamer and speaking as gamer I can't no longer defend what it turned out under Iwata.

Nintendo consoles became restricted to only Nintendo games because the N64 happened. The N64 happened due to third parties rushing to Sony in order to escape Yamauchi's draconian publisher relation policies. That damage was done probably long before Iwata had major influence at Nintendo. Iwata's task over the last decade has been to fix that problem, but he didn't create it.

I'm less interested in him "breaking promises" and much more concerned that he doesn't seem to be learning. He seems to be caught off guard every single time third parties don't get on board, as if he was confident that this time they'd truly be getting Bioshock and GTA.

Since at least the middle of the Wii days, they should have been operating under the assumption that those parties will never be coming to their platforms and adjusted accordingly. If they ever came, it could be seen as a bonus. Instead, they seem to be constantly caught flatfooted, sure that this time they've finally created a machine that will attract the Western AAA developers, and when that doesn't happen it leaves gaps that they somehow were not expecting.

This is what we've been discussing in other threads. I'm about ready to say that Nintendo should give up on most of those big western third parties for several reasons.

Chiefly, their philosophies just don't line up. What they are interested in is different than what Nintendo is interested in when they make games. On the flip side, a lot of indies are probably more like Nintendo than anyone else in terms of development philosophies. iOS and Android didn't need the likes of EA, Activision, or Take-Two in order to succeed. If Nintendo could actually make a really successful platform again and make it as easy as possible for smaller developers to jump on, maybe some new hit makers could grow on their platform.

Also, yes it sucks that Nintendo lost a lot of their western studios, but even with them and with the Lincoln strategies, could they really have competed against the likes of Bethesda, BioWare, Rockstar, Activision, Bungie, and Epic for the hearts and minds of western gamers? Could a Perfect Dark 2 really have competed against Halo? Could other prospective future games from Rare, Left Field, or Factor 5 have competed against the likes of GTA III or Oblivion? Could they have really competed with Microsoft for the hearts of all those western developers who came down from the PC space? I don't think so. At best they'd be where Sony is now -- with a bunch of satisfactory western franchises, but nothing on the level of Microsoft's support.

After the N64 happened, there was no beating Sony in the Japanese market until they fucked up with the PS3's launch. Since 2001, there's been no beating Microsoft in the US and UK. In that sense, I think it was right that Nintendo essentially gave up trying to compete directly with Sony and Microsoft, but it seems like Nintendo is still trying to directly compete with them for the hearts of third party developers.

 

[The Technomancer]

Wait, people think the problem is with Nintendo's first party software? I mean, I can get problems with the third party issues, but on the Wii, DS, and 3DS so far Nintendo has had lots of first party content and its been some of their best. Seriously, I'm pretty sure they're making more games then Microsoft, and I think they might be making more then Sony

 

[web_slinger_62]

Reviews and sales =/= Reception. If you judge by this criteria, then GTA IV and MGS4 are among the best games of all time.

This is a flawed argument.

I haven't played MGS4 but GTAIV is one of the best games of all time, if you've played it to completion, it is amazing on all levels

 

[Mashing]

Opiate, that makes a lot of sense and they may be doing some of that now with the bending over backwards for indies on the Wii U.

@Technomancer, I think they are saying that they have to have increased 1st party output becuase they do not get the 3rd party support Sony and Microsoft do the take up teh slack and fill int he droughts. I'm pretty sure if you remove all 3rd party games from release lists and compared it to Nintendo's, it more than likely looks similar. Microsoft's should be higher IMO, because they do not have to support a handheld.

 

[Sandfox]

PS2 was following an already established model though. Even if you ignore the DVD craze, you still have PS2 catching the eye of third parties.

Even their competitors had their errors coming. Nintendo screwed up with N64 and Xbox was this new console that had to prove itself worthy. Dreamcast was self explanatory.

I was moreso talking about DS when talking about the PS2(there are better comparison for the Wii) but its not luck either way.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

Nope your not understanding what I'm saying and it could be my fault but anyways what I'm saying we are both right. Old Nintendo was good and so is the Nintendo of today. You cant say Nintendo's game were better because that is not fact. You cant prove that Nintendos games have dropped in quality. That is your truth but to me I prefer today's Nintendo. Neither of us is wrong.

Sorry, my friend, but you DID say it today's Nintendo is better because of better sales and reviews (which is debatable). I'll quote you to make that clear:

If you look at reviews and sales everything points to Nintendo games being better now. If sales aren't a good enough metric for you and reviews are too skewed for ya that I don't know how you would measure how good a game or a systems library is.

You can disagree with me and say today's Nintendo is better. It's your opinion and I respect that. But I wholy disagree with the logic of your argument. Sales and reviews aren't accurate arguments to prove something has better quality over another.

Nintendo consoles became restricted to only Nintendo games because the N64 happened. The N64 happened due to third parties rushing to Sony in order to escape Yamauchi's draconian publisher relation policies. That damage was done probably long before Iwata had major influence at Nintendo. Iwata's task over the last decade has been to fix that problem, but he didn't create it.

Disagree. Even during Yamauchi, Nintendo still had strong western support. They lost japanese support, but in the west N64 had strong support. After Iwata came out, western support for Nintendo took a nosedive ever since. He managed to amend the relations with japanese developers but killed western in exchange.

 

[Chie Satonaka]

Wait, people think the problem is with Nintendo's first party software? I mean, I can get problems with the third party issues, but on the Wii, DS, and 3DS so far Nintendo has had lots of first party content and its been some of their best. Seriously, I'm pretty sure they're making more games then Microsoft, and I think they might be making more then Sony

You beat me to it, but yeah. This is the strangest thing I've heard so far in terms of Nintendo's current problems in the marketplace.

 

[javac]

Wait, people think the problem is with Nintendo's first party software? I mean, I can get problems with the third party issues, but on the Wii, DS, and 3DS so far Nintendo has had lots of first party content and its been some of their best. Seriously, I'm pretty sure they're making more games then Microsoft, and I think they might be making more then Sony

Nah man back in my days Nintendo games were amazing.

Spoiler

 

[OmahaG8]

FTA

Wii U doesn’t know if it wants to work with the industry or reinvent the industry.

Shit Wii U, get it together.

 

[Gummb]

A female CEO wouldn't have inherent opinions or make decisions based on their gender, so how would it make a difference? You could have a woman who is identical to Iwata and keeps releasing systems with no software and no support. It's not a male trait.

Any individual can have any variance of opinion or method of choice, so we agree here. However, the response to said hypothetical female CEO would assuredly be different anywhere from how employees interact with her versus a male, how the public talks about her, what images are adorned to her (i.e. GAF images and gifs), how investors read her statements, how they respond to her addresses.

For example, read any commentary about Yahoo President Marissa Mayer and her baby and you can see how gender becomes very important in a society that traditionally has male CEOs. Unfortunately, the visibility of being a female and a CEO will often result in a dominant discourse surrounding her "femininity."

It is often speculated that a female CEO affects the company's investments and is thus negative. I think that's just stupid, but I have no proof.

Actually, another great example would be Cammie when she worked for Nintendo. The horrible things said about her were often manifestations of her being a female presenting material to a dominantly male audience.

 

[Scum]

This article encapsulates something I've sensed about Iwata for years: He seems to know exactly what the problem is and what his obstacles are. He just hasn't been able to actually tackle those problems for some reason.



....

Like Opiate stated earlier, Iwata might not have learned anything from his previous mistake. But I actually think he has and knows what must be done. He's just appalling 'late to the party'.

 

[Opiate]

Wait, people think the problem is with Nintendo's first party software? I mean, I can get problems with the third party issues, but on the Wii, DS, and 3DS so far Nintendo has had lots of first party content and its been some of their best. Seriously, I'm pretty sure they're making more games then Microsoft, and I think they might be making more then Sony

But that may not itself be sufficient. If you have a system with all the third party software in the world, perhaps you don't need first party support. Perhaps first party support is even counter productive in that instance, causing a crowding out effect of sorts.

But if you're in Nintendo's position, simply making more software than MS and maybe-perhaps-but-we're-not-sure more software than Sony just isn't good enough. They need to be growing their first party presence to compensate for the lack of third party presence if those third parties show a persistent resistance to releasing on your systems.

They actually have been growing their first party staff, but I don't think it's fast enough. I think they should have grown faster and I think they should have been supporting indies more than they have. The problem is that there are droughts, I assume you wouldn't contest that. What would your proposed solution to that problem be? Becayse pretty clearly Nintendo's constant attempts to get EA/Take 2/Epic/etc. back on board just aren't working.