Support NeoGAF

[Doctor Avatar]

The strategy there was very calculated and deliberate.

The strategy was. The success wasn't.

After the WiiU, nobody can claim they knew what they were doing. They didn't even understand why the Wii was successful.

 

[Petrae]

I wonder how people reconcile the fact that, outside of the Wii, Nintendo consoles have progressively sold fewer and fewer units.

Sure people will point to their bank balance, built up during the Wii/DS lightning in a bottle days, but that can only sustain them so long.

The trend has been downward ever since the NES, with the one sole outlier of a console being the Wii. Same with handhelds and the DS.

The people that say Nintendo will eventually fade into obscurity aren't crazy, the data suggests this to be the case. They got lucky with the Wii/DS fad, which probably put off their eventual demise by about 10 years, but it didn't change their fate. It didn't change the downward trend, which went back into full force with the WiiU.

Indeed. The Wii was the only bonafide success over the last four console generations-- and, even then, Wii sales tailed off in the second half of Gen7 and the 360 wound up overtaking Wii late. It's possible that the Switch will sell decently, but it's also possible that it falls on its face. Price point and games will be important factors, not to mention that many consumers have already bought consoles and may not wish to drop $250-$300 on yet another machine... especially after Nintendo's colossal WiiU disaster in which games were few and far between.

In the console race, Nintendo is an underdog. I'm not convinced that the Switch is going to be a slam dunk, as many in this thread seem to be declaring a foregone conclusion. Plus, with PS4 Pro coming into its own and with Scorpio on the horizon, early Gen8 adopters looking for a new console to play on may be just as driven to replace their "old" boxes with newer Gen8.5 hardware as opposed to dropping money on a Gen9 machine that can barely compete under the hood with its Gen8/8.5 counterparts.

Even if the Switch tanks and falls well behind PS4 Pro and Scorpio, I think Nintendo adapts and survives.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

Where were these "Nintendo is doomed guys" when Windows 8 and Surface RT proved to be massive and costly misteps for Microsoft or when Sony had to sell their laptop division and their movie studio got hacked. Those are way more damning than the Wii U.

 

[Doctor Avatar]

The trouble with that argument is it also applies to Sony. Apart from the PS2 (which doesn't count because everyone bought because cheap DVD player hype), every console has sold less than the previous one.

Not really. 100 million, 150 million, 90 million, looking to be 100 million+. There is no clear downward trajectory there.

Hardly the downward trajectory of Nintendo:

60 million, 40 million, 20 million, 100 million, 10 million.

 

[Zabka]

Normally I'd say an article like this is ridiculous but what sort of madmen think 3 foot controller cables make any sense? Dang fool madmen that's what.

 

[ScientificPizza]

The strategy was. The success wasn't.

this makes no sense

 

[Twiforce]

The strategy was. The success wasn't.

After the WiiU, nobody can claim they knew what they were doing. They didn't even understand why the Wii was successful.

By this logic, after the PS3 launch nobody at Sony could claim they knew what they were doing with the PS2.

 

[RibMan]

My two favorite quotes from the article:

For Nintendo to succeed on iOS is also to admit that its expensive hardware business might be inessential.

No wonder the company is looking back to the 1980s for relief as much as its fans.

Overall, excellent article from Ian Bogost and The Atlantic. It's refreshing to see a well-written article about Nintendo that points out their past successes, current failures, and future uncertainty. I think it's fair to say that over the years, Nintendo's ignorance of reality has hurt them, and that their current initiatives -- the biggest one being their shift into other platforms -- is an attempt to correct years of their management doing this.

It's been said before, but Nintendo is Disney without the business literacy. What makes Disney work is an ability to look at their past for inspiration for their present and future. Disney doesn't rely on one property (e.g. Mickey Mouse) to attract new fans and hit their targets; they look at what made that whistling mouse successful -- the charm, the family-friendliness, the supporting characters -- and then they proceed to create entirely new incredible experiences such as Frozen, Moana, and Zootopia. Nintendo fails at following the Disney model: rather than look at their past, they choose to live in it to create their present and future. So their present and future are always outdated. This has led to a perception forming around their product and company: they're now perceived as a company that can't deliver modern technology, and even worse, their product is now perceived as a secondary purchase. There's a fascinating thread asking why the Switch needs to be powerful.A lot of views and arguments in that thread are indicative of the current perception problems that Nintendo product faces. If you have the time, I encourage you to read through the thread.

While Nintendo might seem incapable of functioning in the modern videogame market, I firmly believe that they can make a comeback through a series of well-calculated moves. I don't know if the Switch will be the solution to their woes, but their other moves are starting to add up. Keeping their IP relevant by going third-party is one of the moves, and according to the latest numbers (i.e. 40 million downloads of Mario on iOS), they're going to go into the Switch January event with a lot of attention. That kind of momentum is valuable, and hopefully, Nintendo will be able to translate it into interest and sales for the Switch. A lot of what The Atlantic touched on -- Nintendo's conservatism, mining their nostalgia, tone-deafness to reality -- will need to be reversed by the Switch. Whereas the Wii U didn't have the weight of the company resting on it, the Switch is going to be the thing that either makes Nintendo hardware relevant again or forces the company to prioritize software publishing on other platforms over making and supporting new hardware.

 

[DAREALGUMMY]

Man, that's another big thing. I had to read that section so many times over because I had no idea what point the author was trying to make.

Is it supposed to be saying that Clfify B made Gears because of how he matured since playing Blaster Master, and Nintendo didn't? Even though Blaster Master isn't their game? How does his dad being dead relate to that? Huh?

 

[Mr Swine]

Isn't MS Xbox family on a downward trajectory?

 

[joecanada]

Nintendo is Doomed threads again.... even before the release of the Switch... That January conference have the Nintendoom troops nervous... They are hitting hard this week.

Except nintendoomed is just the preemptive cry of the Nintendo fans now to silence any discussion whatsoever around Nintendos actual financial state or sales or business in any way. it happens in every Nintendo thread in droves and it's in here as usual.

but you already knew that.

 

[Doctor Avatar]

this makes no sense

What makes no sense is to argue that the Wii was anything other than a fad. That Nintendo purposefully orchestrated its success, and therefore have any chance of repeating it.

The WiiU was them trying to repeat it, because they also believed (like you) that they were behind the success of the Wii. You're both wrong, and it's why the WiiU was such a failure.

 

[Easy_D]

Lets look at the facts straight from Nintendo themselves

Worldwide: https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/sales/hard_soft/

Regional: https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/library/historical_data/pdf/consolidated_sales_e1609.pdf

Handhelds and mobile dominate Japan, the home console market has been dying there for a while so to say "well 3ds outsold ps2 in Japan everything must be fine" is a niave approach to take in my opinion.

Ask yourself this: if the market isn't shrinking then why would Nintendo put their IPs on a competitors device? And yes, smartphones compete with their dedicated handhelds.

All I see here is the Wii U selling like dogshit. Did the market shrink during the GBA years and suddenly explode during the DS years? Trends come and go, but just looking at Nintendo sales data won't give the full picture. We'll see how the Switch does I s'pose.

 

[mjp2417]

The trouble with that argument is it also applies to Sony. Apart from the PS2 (which doesn't count because everyone bought because cheap DVD player hype), every console has sold less than the previous one.

PS4 is obviously going to sell more than PS3 ultimately. The PS3 is the lone outlier in Sony's trajectory and even then it still sold 80-90 million despite a disastrous launch. And no, the PS2 did not sell well simply because it was a DVD player.

 

[Bamboo 竹]

You're being satirical right?

That's a LOT of assumptions, dude. :lol

Nintendo isn't dying. Yes the Wii U was a disaster by every conceivable measure but amiibo and mobile games from them were cultural phenomenons. Take Pokémon Go for example: I live in a major midwestern city and after release the streets were flooded with people wandering around glued to their phones. Pokestops turned into social gathering places where complete strangers bonded over shared nostalgia. Every single bar in the city had some variation of Pokémon themed shots and some started offering up chargers for Go players draining their battery life.

As Joe pointed out I was being satirical, sorry if it didn't look like that but now reading the level of comments of some members I see why you guys thought I was talking seriously.

TBH I think we should wait the Switch Launch and its first 2 years of sales, the opening of the Universal Studios areas in Japan at the time of the Olympics and the release of all planned mobile games and their sales after 2 years beforehand saying if Nintendo attemps to survive are sad or not.

We are not time jumpers, people.

 

[Lionel Richie]

not sure if serious.

Many, MANY things are "video game hardware." Smartphones are videogame hardware. Tablets are video game hardware. PCs are videogame hardware. Laptops are video game hardware. Hell, you could probably play videogames on a texas instruments scientific calculator if you were so inclined.

What makes a market comes down to serving common needs and the demographics of the buyer. There is little to no crossover between the market buying PS4's, and the ones buying the 3DS. They're barely in competition at all, and aren't subject to the same competitive forces. When the handheld gaming market is getting taken to the cleaners due to competition from phones while consoles and PCs largely ignore them- that's your first clue that they aren't serving the same audience.

YOU are not sure I'm being sure? Handhelds are devices you use only to play video games. Like consoles. They have a lot more in common in consoles than with phones and tablets or what the fuck ever. You know why? Because both are devices you use only to play video games.

It makes more sense to consider hardware that exclusively does one thing as different branches of a same market than to consider them completely separately.

The Wii is a last gen console. launched 10 years ago. This is long enough for me. And the decline of that system happened around 2011, which is oh...about 5 or 6 years. enough time for a new generation.

That fanbase is gone. It's gone for Nintendo with the Wii, it's gone for Microsoft with Kinect. There is no "Wii2" that will ever approach the numbers of the original.

Both these things are your opinion. And that's fine. But again, I'll take actual historical precendent over your opinion. If something happened, it might always happen again unless it's subject to a strong rejection that both Nintendo and Microsoft are not.

Historical precedent says Nintendo loses market share in console land one generation after another like clockwork- Wii aside. So what does that likely say for their prospects going forward? Historical precedent backs my argument more than it does yours.

Few things in life annoy me more than The Chart. The sample is small and it's cherry picked to ignore the handheld market because it doesn't count for whatever flimsy reason people like you use to ignore it.

You're confusing handheld revenue with console revenue. Again, different markets.

They're not different markets. They're slightly different segments in a same market. They're both hardware that exclusively play video games. They're much closer than handhelds are to phones or whatever the fuck else. You know why? Because I use my Vita or my 3DS to play games. I don't use them to make a call, because I can't. They're gaming devices. Consoles are gaming devices as well.

If you want to use this logic, then Sony isn't winning dick because they lost to PC on every generation.

Nintendo's HUGE PROFITS come from dominating the highly profitable handheld sector while they struggled for marketshare in the console sector. where do you think Nintendo would have been during the Gamecube or WiiU years without the GBA, DS, or 3DS? If you have any answer other than "out of business" it's wrong.

Now that the handheld sector is under serious threat from tablets and phones, those "HUGE PROFITS" are no longer possible- and since Nintendo has no idea what to do in the console space, they're looking desperately for something that will allow them to stay viable if and when the dedicated handheld market goes bust. Sustainability isn't about what you did ten years ago, it's where your business will be ten years from now.

Sony doesn't have that problem. the PS4 is bringing in a lot of money (and the PS5 likely will as well when that's out in a few years) but even if it collapsed tomorrow- they're already building the infrastructure that allows "Playstation" to play on any device with a network connection. You can already play PS games on a smart TV with no other hardware. In terms of "who's sustainable" between the two it's Sony by quite a bit.

Fair enough. I don't agree with you, I think the many years Nintendo had making more money than Sony with video games count more than a monumental fuck up they had this generation. But this is just my opinion and you backed up yours so I can't refute it. We will have to agree to disagree, and if the Switch does poorly I'll concede you were right.

 

[Doctor Avatar]

By this logic, after the PS3 launch nobody at Sony could claim they knew what they were doing with the PS2.

One data point is not enough to draw such conclusions - I am drawing my conclusions from the 20 year history of Nintendo consoles and their sales. Picking one single data point and claiming "aha, Sony are the same" is silly.

 

[oti]

Decisive?

No

If they can't use this momentum gained by their mobile offerings in 2017 into the Switch launch the market will question Nintendo's ability to do business.

I expect some form of Mario media announcement in 2017 (TV or movie), more mobile moves, maybe more YouTube moves and of course the games themselves.

Not decisive as in "Nintendo will survive or not". But rather in "Nintendo has learned their lesson or not".

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

Except nintendoomed is just the preemptive cry of the Nintendo fans now to silence any discussion whatsoever around Nintendos actual financial state or sales or business in any way. it happens in every Nintendo thread in droves and it's in here as usual.

but you already knew that.

Isn't it kind of weird though we only pay attention to Nintendo stock and not Sony's and Microsoft's. Hell Sony's stock went down when the PS4 was announced. There is value in talking about financial stuff but most of the time nobody knows what they're talking about and it only seems like a reason to sensationalize Nintendo being doomed and not the other way around.

 

[SomTervo]

I had no idea sphincters could write.

Laughed at the bus stop into a crowd of people

 

[Charamiwa]

Overall, excellent article from Ian Bogost and The Atlantic. It's refreshing to see a well-written article about Nintendo that points out their past successes, current failures, and future uncertainty. I think it's fair to say that over the years, Nintendo's ignorance of reality has hurt them, and that their current initiatives -- the biggest one being their shift into other platforms -- is an attempt to correct years of their management doing this.

It's been said before, but Nintendo is Disney without the business literacy. What makes Disney work is an ability to look at their past for inspiration for their present and future. Disney doesn't rely on one property (e.g. Mickey Mouse) to attract new fans and hit their targets; they look at what made that whistling mouse successful -- the charm, the family-friendliness, the supporting characters -- and then they proceed to create entirely new incredible experiences such as Frozen, Moana, and Zootopia. Nintendo fails at following the Disney model: rather than look at their past, they choose to live in it to create their present and future. So their present and future are always outdated. This has led to a perception forming around their product and company: they're now perceived as a company that can't deliver modern technology, and even worse, their product is now perceived as a secondary purchase. There's a fascinating thread asking why the Switch needs to be powerful.A lot of views and arguments in that thread are indicative of the current perception problems that Nintendo product faces. If you have the time, I encourage you to read through the thread.

While Nintendo might seem incapable of functioning in the modern videogame market, I firmly believe that they can make a comeback through a series of well-calculated moves. I don't know if the Switch will be the solution to their woes, but their other moves are starting to add up. Keeping their IP relevant by going third-party is one of the moves, and according to the latest numbers (i.e. 40 million downloads of Mario on iOS), they're going to go into the Switch January event with a lot of attention. That kind of momentum is valuable, and hopefully, Nintendo will be able to translate it into interest and sales for the Switch. A lot of what The Atlantic touched on -- Nintendo's conservatism, mining their nostalgia, tone-deafness to reality -- will need to be reversed by the Switch. Whereas the Wii U didn't have the weight of the company resting on it, the Switch is going to be the thing that either makes Nintendo hardware relevant again or forces the company to prioritize software publishing on other platforms over making and supporting new hardware.

See you're saying this is an excellent article but your post is far more thoughtful than whatever he wrote. I also think it's good to acknowledge Nintendo shortcomings, but the way he framed it without much perspective or nuance while ignoring every steps Nintendo made this year that could hint at a rebound doesn't sit well with me at all. I think you wrote something much better than he did, while including every nuance he purposely avoided, so it's weird to see you praise it lol

 

[7roject28]

I cannot wait to buy the Wii U 2.

Wii U and Mii 2

 

[ScientificPizza]

What makes no sense is to argue that the Wii was anything other than a fad. That Nintendo purposefully orchestrated its success, and therefore have any chance of repeating it.

The WiiU was them trying to repeat it, because they also believed (like you) that they were behind the success of the Wii. You're both wrong, and it's why the WiiU was such a failure.

Who is arguing that the Wii wasn't a fad? You seem to be implying that fads can't be intentionally created. And if you're not, then I have no idea what kind of point you're making.

If Nintendo wasn't behind the success of the Wii, then who was? Trying to frame that success as anything other than Nintendo's is nonsensical and petty.

What's the biggest thing on the Wii that got people playing, that made it a success? Wii Sports. Nintendo knew what they were doing.

A failure does not negate all of their past success.

 

[clevbrowns94]

I wonder how people reconcile the fact that, outside of the Wii, Nintendo consoles have progressively sold fewer and fewer units.

Sure people will point to their bank balance, built up during the Wii/DS lightning in a bottle days, but that can only sustain them so long.

The trend has been downward ever since the NES, with the one sole outlier of a console being the Wii. Same with handhelds and the DS.

The people that say Nintendo will eventually fade into obscurity aren't crazy, the data suggests this to be the case. They got lucky with the Wii/DS fad, which probably put off their eventual demise by about 10 years, but it didn't change their fate. It didn't change the downward trend, which went back into full force with the WiiU.

You can't base your argument on the long term success of Nintendo on one, single, outlier data point (the Wii) while ignoring every other data point.

And what about the fact that the Switch is very likely to reverse that trend? I mean, it would take some effort for it to be unable to surpass the Wii U. So, assuming it does easily outsell the Wii U, is it another anomaly like people call the Wii?

I don't think we can derive much from trends in sales other than to say Nintendo has been hit or miss with home consoles. They haven't had one unsuccessful handheld console (excluding the strange Virtual Boy, not really a handheld anyway). The same can be said of Sony if you switch consoles and handhelds. But Nintendo certainly has the potential for home console success. Look at the hype around the NES Classic. Probably the biggest factor for them is getting the price right. The Wii U was overpriced (one of its many problems) and they suffered for it.

ETA: BTW, the Wii wasn't an outlier for Nintendo. NES and SNES both won their generation by a considerable margin (with a dropoff for the SNES thanks to the success of the Genesis in some markets). 61 million sales for a home console in the 80's was amazing. Basically, they had three successful home consoles, and three unsuccessful consoles.

 

[Jubenhimer]

Ah yes, it's Nintendoom time again, time to sing the doom song.

But in all seriousness, Nintendo seems to be getting back on it's feet with the Switch and such. And while there are some misfires (undershipping NES Classic and Mario Run price) they're not enough to slow the company down, and they seem to want to be back on top. Hopefully their strategy works.

 

[Exterminieren]

What makes no sense is to argue that the Wii was anything other than a fad. That Nintendo purposefully orchestrated its success, and therefore have any chance of repeating it.

The WiiU was them trying to repeat it, because they also believed (like you) that they were behind the success of the Wii. You're both wrong, and it's why the WiiU was such a failure.

The Wii U was in absolutely no way a logical follow-up from the Wii, though. It featured a more complicated, exclusionary control scheme in an attempt to lure back the hardcore crowd, and fundamentally failed to cater adequately for either group.

The Wii U wasn't an extension of the Wii strategy, it was a pivot away from it, and the confused identity of the system is largely down to that conflict.

 

[mantidor]

Except nintendoomed is just the preemptive cry of the Nintendo fans now to silence any discussion whatsoever around Nintendos actual financial state or sales or business in any way. it happens in every Nintendo thread in droves and it's in here as usual.

but you already knew that.

but did you read the article? they barely talk about financials or business except for that "Nintendo's shares dropped that one time" that is even overused in the "Nintendo is doomed" blackboard meme that goes around.

The part about CliffyB was specially embarrassing, like what the hell that has to do with anything lol

Nintendo had the two biggest releases on mobile ever, their next console was received positively, but they are "struggling"? again, because their shares "dropped that one time"?

 

[RibMan]

See you're saying this is an excellent article but your post is far more thoughtful than whatever he wrote. I also think it's good to acknowledge Nintendo shortcomings, but the way he framed it without much perspective or nuance while ignoring every steps Nintendo made this year that could hint at a rebound doesn't sit well with me at all. I think you wrote something much better than he did, while including every nuance he purposely avoided, so it's weird to see you praise it lol

I think his article is much more thoughtful than my post: he chose different words to express the same point. Plus. you can be a little more candid in a forum post than in a magazine/digizine/whatever they call them these days.

 

[Weskerlover]

A struggle? Yes. A sad struggle? No.

 

[IvorB]

A very interesting and well thought out piece and pretty much spot on. Doubt it's what many Nintendo fans want to hear though.

 

[JABEE]

I don't understand how people have the perception Nintendo isn't struggling.

Business is about expectation and growth.

Nintendo was/is a company that owned the mindspace of children for 25 years.

The value of their brand declines every time some kid decides to play or consume other entertainment. There are other, more inexpensive options on the market now.

The question isn't whether Nintendo can survive as a much smaller company, but whether Nintendo can maintain or grow its relevancy. The Nintendo brand and characters are only as valuable as they are relevant.

Nintendo is unequivocally worse off than they were 10 years ago. What we view as successes for Nintendo are in the context of someone that already sees Nintendo as a less relevant/popular company.

It's happening to all traditional game makers, but I feel they have at least been more proactive in pricing strategy and digital.

Nintendo spent a good 5-7 years pretending the iPhone and the internet didn't happen. This gap is costing them more than Nintendo anticipated. The 3DS launched without a unified account system.

These are now major things in every entertainment space. They aren't an ancillary, less important business versus physical retail. They are your business and source of income going forward. Nintendo is playing catch-up in a battle they were years late for.

 

[mantidor]

I think his article is much more thoughtful than my post: he chose different words to express the same point. Plus. you can be a little more candid in a forum post than in a magazine/digizine/whatever they call them these days.

How can this article be thoughtful about Nintendo's current strategy when it absolutely ignores the Switch?

 

[obeast]

That may very well be (I didn't have a chance to read it yet). But I'll say that it gets off to a very bad/trollish start by characterizing this as a "sad struggle". If the article really is of the quality you say it is, this is a stupid title for the piece. Even just removing "sad" would probably be fine, though the idea that they're "struggling to survive" at all (sadly or happily) is pretty much bs.

That's a bad, needlessly inflammatory choice of words, but you should keep in mind that journalists rarely get to choose their own headlines. Typically, they're chosen by editorial staff with a much larger interest in getting clicks (often "angry clicks") than in matching the tone or content of a piece.

I'm also slightly troubled by all the accusations of "bias" I see in this thread. It's an easy way dismiss an opinion you find unpleasant, but consider how weird it seems to an outsider (I consider myself something of an "outsider" on this topic because I haven't owned a console or handheld gaming device in, like, 20 years). The author appears to be a college professor / game designer in his 30s or maybe even 40s. What are the odds that he's driven by some weird animus against a particular gaming company rather than the facts as he perceives them?

That said, I don't find this particular piece particularly compelling, in part because it just seems a bit scattered (what was that 3-4 paragraph digression about "CliffyB," and why was it it not cut? Is it about financial or artistic failures, or both? Etc.).

 

[CrispyBoar]

There are always negative shit to say about Nintendo, but yet they give other companies like Sony a pass.

 

[IvorB]

As expected the article has got some people really riled up ha ha.

I don't understand how people have the perception Nintendo isn't struggling.

Yeah folks must have some serious blinders on to think Nintendo is in heathy position.

 

[AmyS]

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/12/super-marios-sorrow/511187/

That picture reminded me of this, circa 1997.

(and this had nothing at all to do with Xbox, or Microsoft)

 

[LordOcidax]

There are always negative shit to say about Nintendo, but yet they give other companies like Sony a pass.

Because Nintendo is doomed... No matter what... Thats why the Wii U sucks and the Vita no no.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

These analyses always make me laugh because I bought the US equivalent of their stock at under $13 a piece. It was almost triple for a while. I'll "settle" for it being more than double.

Listen, Nintendo is only starting to re-enter the zeitgeist. The most important thing SMR and Switch can do is to get people talking about the brands, including Mario. If you have a high profile, there are always ways to monetize.

This is the investment and infrastructure phase. Expecting an immediate jump in profit is not realistic.

 

[Delio]

There are always negative shit to say about Nintendo, but yet they give other companies like Sony a pass.

I just figure they have a mindset of Nintendo being a ticking timebomb and are waiting for them to explode. While Sony and Ms are just kind of safe. Well Sony more so.

 

[JABEE]

Imagine if Disney stopped making new characters or investing in different properties.

Think about how relevant Mickey Mouse cartoons are compared to Frozen and the Avengers.

Now think about how Nintendo created IP have evolved. This is completely removing any non-product related questions about Nintendo's output.

80s to 90s - Mario
90s to 00s - Pokemon
00s to 10s - ???

 

[zelas]

So outside of their successes they're failures? You can't just remove a large chunk of their recent history to make your point.

Nothing about Nintendo is sad, struggling, and they aren't merely trying to survive. This article paints Nintendo in a dire situation which they're not in. It dismisses their recents successes as accidents that they just fell in to which is painfully condescending.

He did not call everything outside of the wii a failure. He's pointing the the multi-generational trend of declining console sales. If that trend keeps up, explain how it will continue to be nothing to worry about.

 

[mjp2417]

Because Nintendo is doomed... No matter what... Thats why the Wii U sucks and the Vita no no.

Is there really a large contingent in the press that is arguing that the Vita, and Sony's handheld division more broadly, isn't doomed? Can you post some links to recent articles?

 

[LordOcidax]

These analyses always make me laugh because I bought the US equivalent of their stock at under $13 a piece. It was almost triple for a while. I'll "settle" for it being more than double.

Listen, Nintendo is only starting to re-enter the zeitgeist. The most important thing SMR and Switch can do is to get people talking about the brands, including Mario. If you have a high profile, there are always ways to monetize.

This is the investment and infrastructure phase. Expecting an immediate jump in profit is not realistic.

Shhhhh... you are ruining the fun for others...

 

[entremet]

Imagine if Disney stopped making new characters or investing in different properties.

Think about how relevant Mickey Mouse cartoons are compared to Frozen and the Avengers.

Now think about how Nintendo created IP have evolved. This is completely removing any non-product related questions about Nintendo's output.

80s to 90s - Mario
90s to 00s - Pokemon
00s to 10s - ???

To be fair, they do create new characters. The issue is that the big hitters are still more legacy characters.

Miis were their last big original character that hit the mainstream.

 

[NinjaCoachZ]

Imagine if Disney stopped making new characters or investing in different properties.

Think about how relevant Mickey Mouse cartoons are compared to Frozen and the Avengers.

Now think about how Nintendo created IP have evolved. This is completely removing any non-product related questions about Nintendo's output.

80s to 90s - Mario
90s to 00s - Pokemon
00s to 10s - ???

Animal Crossing? Splatoon? That's the two biggest ones of the 2000s and 2010s.

 

[Acorn]

I see the sarcastic 'Nintendo is doomed' are out in the force. The article title is click bait shite but a lot of the body of the article is good.

 

[BatDan]

Imagine if Disney stopped making new characters or investing in different properties.

Think about how relevant Mickey Mouse cartoons are compared to Frozen and the Avengers.

Now think about how Nintendo created IP have evolved. This is completely removing any non-product related questions about Nintendo's output.

80s to 90s - Mario
90s to 00s - Pokemon
00s to 10s - ???

I was wondering how long it would take until we got to the "Nintendo doesn't make new IPs" argument.

Ready to move the goal posts?

 

[JABEE]

Animal Crossing? Splatoon? That's the two biggest ones of the 2000s and 2010s.

Are either of those two IPs relevant to mainstream audiences like Pokemon and Mario/Donkey Kong?

I am not moving the goal posts either. The deterioration of their business model is still the biggest reason I find for their decline, but these other factors are also something to look at.

It's hard for a company to continue to create/co-create children's phenomenons.

 

[johnny956]

Animal Crossing? Splatoon? That's the two biggest ones of the 2000s and 2010s.

Did either of those expand their userbase or brand like Disney does with it's new characters?

edit: beaten

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Are either of those two IPs relevant to mainstream audiences like Pokemon and Mario/Donkey Kong?

This is almost as bad as how Lucasfilm is cursed with being stuck associated with Star Wars and Indiana Jones.