Support NeoGAF

[StevieP]

Apologies, 15.9 (DVD-18).

Pretty well nobody was using them then. Hell I don't think there are many examples of them being used more than a decade later. There were very few dvd9s then as well. They both cost a ton to print. Fact of the matter is that 1.5gb (single layer) was not a real limitation if third parties cared to put their content on the console. Just like there are 360 games using multiple discs where it is warranted and where they think there's money.

The entire premise of your point revolves around demographics as perceived by publishers. Not space on a disc. Cartridges had that as a point of contention. Mini DVDs did not for the most part. Games that required it shipped on multiple discs back then as well.

 

[WillyFive]

I'm not sure the Nintendo 64 and GameCube belong together by any means. 33 million (n64) versus 22 million (gcn) may arguably not seem incredibly different, but the Nintendo 64 sold extremely well in North America, and more important Nintendo sold a ton of first-party software throughout a broad catalog of different intellectual properties.

The problem is the calling of the N64 and the GCN as "failure consoles". There were actual failed consoles during the run of those two, and neither of them were among them.

 

[Father_Brain]

It comes from the observation that third-party family-friendly retail titles sell best on Nintendo platforms. Why do you think Nintendo got three exclusive Sonic games and Lego City Undercover, as well as nearly having a lock on Rayman Legends and even then Rayman Legends sold best on Wii U? These third-parties would not just decide to be Nintendo exclusive with a game for no reason. As others have said, Sony and MS consoles appeal generally to 18-34 year old men which is why the biggest games on both platforms appeal to 18-34 year old men. Everyone else generally plays on PC, on Mobile, or on Nintendo platforms.

Yes, and consequently it's not guaranteed that Nintendo would be able to build an audience for Mario et al. on those consoles. And while mobile devices are much more popular with casual/family audiences, it's far from certain that Nintendo would be able to get away with selling Mario et al. at premium price points on those platforms, or alternately to make the shift away from premium software price points and to games-as-a-service.

So I'm not convinced Nintendo can succeed as a third party, nor do I know exactly what a third-party Nintendo would look like. I'm just thoroughly unconvinced that staying in the hardware business is the smarter decision in the current market, and if they're going to have to rip the Band-Aid off eventually, better they start doing it now than after they've already blown tons of cash on QOL and the NintendOS platform.

Obviously, NCL is not doing that, so I guess we'll see how that works out for them. Maybe I'll end up eating crow, who knows.

 

[nssdigitalchumps]

Pretty well nobody was using them then. Hell I don't think there are many examples of them being used more than a decade later. There were very few dvd9s then as well. They both cost a ton to print. Fact of the matter is that 1.5gb (single layer) was not a real limitation if third parties cared to put their content on the console. Just like there are 360 games using multiple discs where it is warranted and where they think there's money.

The entire premise of your point revolves around demographics as perceived by publishers. Not space on a disc. Cartridges had that as a point of contention. Mini DVDs did not for the most part. Games that required it shipped on multiple discs back then as well.

Not sure I agree with your point of view, or your assessment of mine, but oh well. Agree to disagree sort of thing.

 

[AmyS]

Edit: Sorry, you pointed that out already.

NeoGAF, yep.

 

[Disaster Nebraska]

I vote and hope Nintendo goes third party (imagine Nintendo games on spec wise current gen hardware).

This seems to be the big driving point as to why Nintendo games would be "better" if only, if ONLY, the games were available on better hardware. However, reality paints a different picture:

1) The "weak" hardware of the DS and Wii were intentional. Back in 2005, Iwata identified that the development curve as getting too expensive, would leave Nintendo in the dust, and therefore Nintendo needed to differentiate in a manner other than raw pixelcount/polygons/etc

2) When Nintendo went HD, they hit the largest brick wall the company has ever faced. Nearly every Wii U title has received delays due to the move to HD, and Nintendo has mentioned on numerous occasions that the shift to HD caught them off guard and they weren't prepared for it. Mind you, they're working on hardware that is roughly equivalent to PS3/360...create 8-9 years ago.

With that being the case, how would you expect Nintendo to make even better-looking games on more-powerful hardware while at the same time taking away their profit from selling cheap, reliable, off-the-shelf hardware at a profit?

 

[MisterGrey3000]

DVDs would have helped GC's chances quite a bit.

Would it have magically fixed the mismatched software ecosystem so the third party games wouldn't sell like crap?
Would it have fixed the confusing branding and marketing that tried to be family friendly while also trying really hard to appeal to teen boys/young men?
Would it have rendered Nintendo's dubious atheistic design choices mute?
Would just having standard a 21st century standard DVD format really have solved every one of the NGC's problems?

So, you're telling me that all of the Nintendo fans wouldn't buy a PS4/XBO if all of a sudden the next Zelda game was coming out on those consoles if the Wii U is discontinued and no has no upcoming successor?

What's the point of being on two consoles when you're gonna split your fan base while also selling the same amount of units that you're selling on your currently flopping console?

Plus, i can bet you that a lot... A LOT of guys would buy Nintendo software on our PS4's/XBO's and that's without talking about Virtual Console games.

I have actual evidence ("Nintendo-like" software bombing on PS3/360 for almost 5 years) that says that teen boys/young men probably wouldn't give a rats ass about any Nintendo game coming to their platform.
Is your evidence anything other than a gut feeling?

I'm not sure the Nintendo 64 and GameCube belong together by any means. 33 million (n64) versus 22 million (gcn) may arguably not seem incredibly different, but the Nintendo 64 sold extremely well in North America, and more important Nintendo sold a ton of first-party software throughout a broad catalog of different intellectual properties.

It's quite clear that the N64 was a more successful console when all is said, and done; it's definitely no where near being an astronomical failure in the same sense that the NGC is.
However, I think it's rather easy to argue that the two consoles weren't as successful as Nintendo would have liked for them to be (Especially the NGC)
The N64's drop off from the SNES was pretty big, it failed to gain back any ground that the SNES lost in the Americas, and it also wasn't any match (as a stop-gap) for the new-comer console (the machine everyone was writing off) that went on to kick it's ass in every territory (including the americas)
It's seriously hard for me to consider the console anything but a failure in the long run.

 

[bachikarn]

I never understand Nintendo never really pushed for a big FPS game in the N64 -> GCN transition. Maybe they should have delayed Perfect Dark to GCN? They basically had the FPS market with N64 and Goldeneye, but gave up on it right before it got super big.

 

[nssdigitalchumps]

Would it have magically fixed the mismatched software ecosystem so the third party games wouldn't sell like crap?
Would it have fixed the confusing branding and marketing that tried to be family friendly while also trying really hard to appeal to teen boys/young men?
Would it have rendered Nintendo's dubious atheistic design choices mute?
Would just having standard a 21st century standard DVD format really have solved every one of the NGC's problems?

Probably would have affected design (the DVD standard discs are bigger, duh), it probably would have pulled it out of that younger demographic perception, though Nintendo is still struggling with that (has been since the Lieberman senate meeting about violent video games).

One bit of tech can change your demo in a heartbeat, see the Wii for examples (hint, motion controls -- so an older demographic can play bowling and exercise while playing a video game -- in theory, of course).

 

[Shikamaru Ninja]

I never understand Nintendo never really pushed for a big FPS game in the N64 -> GCN transition. Maybe they should have delayed Perfect Dark to GCN? They basically had the FPS market with N64 and Goldeneye, but gave up on it right before it got super big.

They misread the market and thought Metroid Prime and Geist would fill that void.

 

[MisterGrey3000]

Probably would have affected design (the DVD standard discs are bigger, duh)

So...in this alternate universe of your's we would have just ended up with a larger yet still unsuccessful GameCube?

They misread the market and thought Metroid Prime and Geist would fill that void.

I don't know if they misread the market in that instance.
It seems more likely that they were struggling with the idea of who they wanted to target (unlike MS and Sony), and it really bit them in their butts when all was said and done.
I mean, you can't just flip a switch and become the Xbox360 over night; I don't think it would have ever been possible for Nintendo to have a healthy young western male market the size of MS's (seeing as they don't have roots in the PC-dev community, and it's very hard to completely change the kind of content you produce without sacrificing important parts of your business)
The Wii was always the right direction to go in, and it really should have been the N64's successor.

 

[Anth0ny]

Nintendo OWNED the console shooter market with Goldeneye and Perfect Dark.

Then they completely threw it away with the Gamecube.

The N64 proved that the FPS-gamer demographic is happy playing on a Nintendo console. Nintendo just has to provide the best experience and the best games (talking about shooters here), which is something they haven't even tried to do since the N64.

 

[Cheerilee]

The problem is the calling of the N64 and the GCN as "failure consoles". There were actual failed consoles during the run of those two, and neither of them were among them.

Iwata described the GameCube as being "far below" the standard for failure, and said that "better than GameCube" still meant "quit the industry because you're fucking done".

It's not clear if N64 was a failure by Iwata's standards.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

I feel like this all equates to witch hunting, mostly. I will never understand people seemingly thinking Iwata is the single thing that makes the decisions at Nintendo, and on-top of that, I actually think gaming needs more figures like Iwata, in terms of community I can't think of anyone who has introduced so many interesting aspects to community like Iwata has, in Iwata Asks, his frequent hosting of Nintendo Direct, and the like.

I had to glance at this thread of course, I usually avoid these discussions since I dislike the 'everyone's right and wrong' discussions these turn into, where people seem convinced to a stupid degree that things need to change or people say things need to stay the same, when probably what they suggest, the answer is likely somewhere in the middle.

hes the ceo

the CEO!!!

 

[metalslimer]

Nintendo OWNED the console shooter market with Goldeneye and Perfect Dark.

Then they completely threw it away with the Gamecube.

The N64 proved that the FPS-gamer demographic is happy playing on a Nintendo console. Nintendo just has to provide the best experience and the best games (talking about shooters here), which is something they haven't even tried to do since the N64.

With the advent of PSN and XBL it will be extremely difficult for Nintendo to ever get a large FPS userbase on their systems again.

 

[Anth0ny]

With the advent of PSN and XBL it will be extremely difficult for Nintendo to ever get a large FPS userbase on their systems again.

It seems like a pretty large number of people had no problem jumping from XBL on 360 to PSN on PS4.

I agree that it's going to be tough since XBL and PSN are already well established, but if Nintendo manages to provide a better experience than the competition, and sells it properly, I have no doubt people would make the transition to Nintendo.

It's a lot to ask for, though. It doesn't help that Iwata doesn't seem capable, or interested, from what I've seen.

 

[jeremy1456]

If Nintendo started making mobile games every other developer would lose immense profits.

Remember, the 'reason' many developers don't make games for Nintendo platforms is because they can't compete with Nintendo. The app store would become a barren wasteland.

Spoiler

Joke post if you can't already tell.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Iwata described the GameCube as being "far below" the standard for failure, and said that "better than GameCube" still meant "quit the industry because you're fucking done".

It's not clear if N64 was a failure by Iwata's standards.

Yea but what does Nintendo know?

 

[Aquamarine]

The problem is the calling of the N64 and the GCN as "failure consoles". There were actual failed consoles during the run of those two, and neither of them were among them.

 

[Mysterious]

Nintendo 64 outsold PlayStation in Canada.

That is not even remotely the same case anymore.

 

[Log4Girlz]

People keep posting this quote. Why? Gamecube was obviously not a failure. Who cares what Nintendo thinks? Why would their opinion matter?

 

[_Clash_]

The sad thing is that both extremes are wrong. Both hardware centric and going third party are not the best options for Nintendo. What Nintendo needs is to invest in a unified account and software delivery platform that can be accessed through their hardware and does interface with mobile and computers.

I think this is where Nintendo are going

 

[Celine]

I'm not sure the Nintendo 64 and GameCube belong together by any means. 33 million (n64) versus 22 million (gcn) may arguably not seem incredibly different, but the Nintendo 64 sold extremely well in North America, and more important Nintendo sold a ton of first-party software throughout a broad catalog of different intellectual properties.

Indeed what many don't realize when judging the N64 is that , while hardware sales declined in Europe and especially Japan (and were more or less equal in US) compared to SNES and overall number of game was severely lower, first-party software (but also third-party) on average saw strong sales.

 

[samar11]

No one is saying that Microsoft as a company is going anywhere, but whether or not they have a long term future in the console making business is a different matter.

For the record, I'm not saying they don't have a future in the console business, I just don't know what makes people think that Microsoft clearly has nothing to worry about for their future console business and that Nintendo clearly has no future in the console business.



...and so is Nintendo? I'm not quite sure I understand your point.

We all know that the Wii U is a significant financial failure, but Nintendo is still worth more than Sony as a company (18 billion vs 17 billion at last check), and I don't see why people are dismissing Nintendo's chances of being successful in the next generation. If Nintendo takes a lesson from this generation and decides going forward that they need their console to be as powerful as what Sony and Microsoft offer in the future, they could give third party developers every reason not to ignore their next console, and having all the third party games that Sony and Microsoft get to go along with their first party software seems to me like a combination that could have some success.

Sony's market cap is 19.10B and Nintendo's is 15.58B. Nintendo's cap has been dropping ever since their last 2 earnings report.

 

[Mysterious]

We all know that the Wii U is a significant financial failure, but Nintendo is still worth more than Sony as a company (18 billion vs 17 billion at last check)

Guess your last check was quite a while ago.

As of today:
SNE Market Capitalization $19.10B
NTDOY Market Capitalization $12.95B

Source: Yahoo! Finance

 

[samar11]

Guess your last check was quite a while ago.

As of today:
SNE Market Capitalization $19.10B
NTDOY Market Capitalization $12.95B

Source: Yahoo! Finance

Google say's their 15.58B :/

https://www.google.com/finance?q=OTCMKTS:NTDOY&ei=2aXgU-iEAcGKiAKxkYHwBg

 

[Entryhazard]

I hope nintendo won't surrender to the smartphone cancer that is killing dedicated gaming

 

[Mysterious]

Google say's their 15.58B :/

https://www.google.com/finance?q=OTCMKTS:NTDOY&ei=2aXgU-iEAcGKiAKxkYHwBg

Well MSN Money, CNN Money, YCharts, and Yahoo! Finance point to around the same market cap value.

 

[Shion]

How is it not? With the gamecube they spent their money on the Capcom Five, Crystal Chronicles, exclusive Metal Gear, and games like Eternal Darkness, Metroid Prime, and even trying to make Pokemon look more mature with Colosseum.

The GameCube was most definitely not positioned as a product for the core audience. Anyone who wasn't too young at the time should remember this very well. The GC was positioned, first and foremost, as a console for kids and families. That was Nintendo's message (and the main reason why the console became a victim of horrible market perception), during a time where the videogame audience, including Nintendo's own fanbase, was getting older than ever.

Nintendo's core games where getting outsourced at the time because EAD was too busy with shifting their creative efforts towards casual games, like Animal Crossing and Pikmin, gimmicks, like Bongos, turning their biggest core series into a game with toddlers, and underplaying the importance of graphics (certainly not something that the core audience wants to hear). Nintendo did fund a few core games for the GameCube, but this doesn't change anything (they did that for the Wii too). Having some core games on your console is one thing, communicating the message, building your ecosystem and positioning your product around them is another. The GameCube was most definitely not positioned as a go-to platform for core games.

With the Wii U its pretty easy to see that what that they were trying to target core gamers early on.

Wii U was a product designed to cater to the Wii audience with core gamers being a far afterthought. The specs, the super basic online infrastructure, the tablet controller, the aesthetics of the OS, the marketing, even the look of its game cases, all scream what the target audience is.

Hell, almost 2 years after its release, there hasn't been a single 1st party game that isn't targeted towards casuals, kids and families. Nintendo themselves have admitted so.

Are you kidding me?
Have you seen the branding/marketing and software for the N64/NGC? (the two failure consoles)
Nintendo was definitely attempting to focus on getting teen boys/young men to buy their consoles in those two pre-Wii/DS eras and it worked out incredibly badly for them.
It's no coincidence that they were super successful when they started following the philosophies/principles behind the NES/Game Boy-line and putting the majority of their resources behind serving families/casual-gamers (people who actually like platformers, Kart Racers, and arcadey sports games)

No I'm not "kidding you".

The N64 didn't fail because it wasn't marketed as a toy for little kids and families. It failed because of NCL's incompetence, arrogance and a series of ridiculous mistakes they made at the time. It also performed very well in the west (much better than the family focused GC and Wii U did) PRECISELY because of big releases that didn't only target little kids and families. It was in Japan that it bombed hard because NCL was a mess. They lost 3rd parties and Japanese gamers were too busy with playing tons of awesome games from Squaresoft, Capcom, Konami, Namco and Enix on non-Nintendo consoles.

 

[a.wd]

If Nintendo go mobile I will probably quit the current gaming market. When fun and innovative experiences get locked behind a microtransaction wall and the main point of gaming becomes either grinding or trying to work out what creative ways they have of fleecing your wallet one dollar at a time I will literally just say "back log it is then".

I'm not saying this is practical, but it is what it is.

 

[Aquamarine]

Guess your last check was quite a while ago.

As of today:
SNE Market Capitalization $19.10B
NTDOY Market Capitalization $12.95B

Source: Yahoo! Finance

6758 (Sony) Market Cap: 1.93 trillion JPY

7974 (Nintendo) Market Cap: 1.33 trillion JPY

 

[Mysterious]

6758 (Sony) Market Cap: 1.93 trillion JPY

7974 (Nintendo) Market Cap: 1.33 trillion JPY

So close enough

1330000000000 Japanese Yen equals 12965052800.0000 US Dollar

 

[Chû Totoro]

I was happy with the way Nintendo tried to make effort regarding 3DS and Wii U this E3.
I was thrilled to see that they kept the Nintendo difference intact while watching the tree house videos with developers interview or real gameplay videos with no superficial things.

I am sad to see that the "market" and some shareholders may change Nintendo for ever.
It can be better, it can be worse. It's just that I don't see the absolute need of some business orientations some people are asking.

If Nintendo changes too drastically I may quit modern gaming too and stay with a huge backlog for a few years before focusing on something else.

 

[Celine]

It's quite clear that the N64 was a more successful console when all is said, and done; it's definitely no where near being an astronomical failure in the same sense that the NGC is.
However, I think it's rather easy to argue that the two consoles weren't as successful as Nintendo would have liked for them to be (Especially the NGC)
The N64's drop off from the SNES was pretty big, it failed to gain back any ground that the SNES lost in the Americas, and it also wasn't any match (as a stop-gap) for the new-comer console (the machine everyone was writing off) that went on to kick it's ass in every territory (including the americas)
It's seriously hard for me to consider the console anything but a failure in the long run.

I agree with you that N64 and (more so) GC were disappointments for Nintendo.
The point Shikamaru was trying to make was the following though:

Note: Of course GC and GBA sales data are NOT complete/definitive since they lasted after the end of 2003.

As you can see in the graph the N64 actually saw a jump in first-party software big sellers compared to SNES (despite the marked difference in install base).

 

[Chaos17]

http://nintendoeverything.com/report-details-supposed-turmoil-within-nintendo-management/



Comments? First time I have heard of Yamauchi’s first son, anyone knows what he has been doing that makes him Nintendo president candidate?

That stupid site again which posted an old interviewn of Aounoma about Zelda Wii U by saying "looks it's new info!!!!!!!".
Ban this site from GAF, please!
Because it likes to makes sily gossips.

 

[Cheerilee]

How is it not? With the gamecube they spent their money on the Capcom Five, Crystal Chronicles, exclusive Metal Gear, and games like Eternal Darkness, Metroid Prime, and even trying to make Pokemon look more mature with Colosseum.

With the Wii U its pretty easy to see that what that they were trying to target core gamers early on.

Those aren't really good examples of Nintendo "spending money" to reach out to the 18-34 demographic.

The Capcom Five came about because Shinji Mikami was upset with Sony and the PS2, and when he visited Microsoft he talked to the wrong person and couldn't get a good answer about the philosophy of the system. When Mikami saw that the horse he picked was failing, he assigned his entire production studio to making games for it, and didn't even get any Nintendo money for doing that (resulting in games like Viewtiful Joe getting ported). Then he was demoted for making bad business decisions.

Crystal Chronicles came from a Yamauchi (not Nintendo) moneyhat, after Yamauchi's enemies within Square had fallen. And even then, he couldn't buy a "real" Final Fantasy.

Silicon Knights was a western developer, picked up by NOA for the N64, but Eternal Darkness was delayed to the GameCube.

Metal Gear was a problem because Hideo Kojima was ignoring Nintendo at best, and mocking them at worst. Nintendo bought a Metal Gear by putting Silicon Knights at Kojima's disposal, but it hardly seems like a major investment in that demographic. And then Silicon Knights was dumped by Nintendo because (according to Dyack) Iwata was no longer interested in funding large-scale games.

Retro Studios was picked up on the promise that it would be the second coming of Iguana, the western developer that NOA had very good ties with due to Turok on the N64. After a meltdown, Nintendo bought them out for a song and cleaned house, focusing them on the one thing they were good at, first person shooters.

Most of GameCube's "mature audience effort" was just trickle-down from NOA's push with the N64.

 

[The_Endgamer]

Iwata has been great for Nintendo's gaming culture but not so great with his business strategies. Admittedly he brought a lot of goodwill coming off the back of the Wii and DS businesses into this gen but none of that has resulted in gaining more traction, instead it has hindered the gains he made.

I don't know much about the business management structure regarding people or anything like that within Nintendo at the moment but thinking of how ruthless they were in the 90s with their innovation and stranglehold on the market really is a stark contrast to today.

Nintendo's games are great and their studios churn out some quality innovations in gameplay but their business is scrappy and their basic infrastructure is hindering their opportunities for future platform enhancing ie. not great hardware, lack of coherent online infrastructure. Basic things that don't seem to be addressed at all.

 

[Sandfox]

The GameCube was most definitely not positioned as a product for the core audience. Anyone who wasn't too young at the time should remember this very well. The GC was positioned, first and foremost, as a console for kids and families. That was Nintendo's message (and the main reason why the console became a victim of horrible market perception), during a time where the videogame audience, including Nintendo's own fanbase, was getting older than ever.

Nintendo's core games where getting outsourced at the time because EAD was too busy with shifting their creative efforts towards casual games, like Animal Crossing and Pikmin, gimmicks, like Bongos, turning their biggest core series into a game with toddlers, and underplaying the importance of graphics (certainly not something that the core audience wants to hear). Nintendo did fund a few core games for the GameCube, but this doesn't change anything (they did that for the Wii too). Having some core games on your console is one thing, communicating the message, building your ecosystem and positioning your product around them is another. The GameCube was most definitely not positioned as a go-to platform for core games.


Wii U was a product designed to cater to the Wii audience with core gamers being a far afterthought. The specs, the super basic online infrastructure, the tablet controller, the aesthetics of the OS, the marketing, even the look of its game cases, all scream what the target audience is.

Hell, almost 2 years after its release, there hasn't been a single 1st party game that isn't targeted towards casuals, kids and families. Nintendo themselves have admitted so.


No I'm not "kidding you".

As much as you don't like to hear it, the N64 didn't fail because it wasn't marketed as a toy for little kids and families. It failed because of NCL's incompetence, arrogance and a series of ridiculous mistakes they made at the time. It also performed very well in the west (much better than the family focused GC and Wii U) PRECISELY because of big releases that didn't only target little kids and families. It was in Japan that it bombed hard because NCL was a mess. They lost 3rd parties and Japanese gamers were too busy with playing tons of awesome games from Squaresoft, Capcom, Konami, Namco and Enix on non-Nintendo consoles.

Pretty much every Gamecube commercial I've seen seems to be targeted at teens and young adults, including Donkey Konga, which you seem to think was made for toddlers. You say that the gamecube was pushed towards families and kids, but to me it looks like they were spending a large part of the generation trying to increase the number of core games they were putting out, and trying to convince people that the gamecube wasn't "kiddy" through mature ads, while continuing to release their usual games that appealed to families. I kinda misspoke in my post and meant to say that Nintendo was putting a lot of work into trying to bring over the 18-34 audience to their consoles.

With the Wii U there was the whole EA partnership thing hat was clearly targeted at core gamers, paying for mature content like Bayonetta, and the big deal they were making about games like ME3, CoD, AC3 and Batman. With the Wii U it seems like they tried to appeal to both audiences at the same time with half-assed attempts when they should've committed to one or the other. I don't agree with the notion that core gamers were a "far afterthought".

In my original post, I was referring to a low priced device that would just try to target families with the type of first and third party games that seem to appeal to them today, while making little to no attempt to get the kind of games that appeal to the PlayStation demographic. I don't exactly consider that the same as the Gamecube and Wii U.

 

[Fourth Storm]

Nintendo OWNED the console shooter market with Goldeneye and Perfect Dark.

Then they completely threw it away with the Gamecube.

The N64 proved that the FPS-gamer demographic is happy playing on a Nintendo console. Nintendo just has to provide the best experience and the best games (talking about shooters here), which is something they haven't even tried to do since the N64.

The N64 was a very long time ago. Those kids/teens grew up with Nintendo consoles. We now have a generation of FPS gamers who have never seen Nintendo providing that type of experience.

Referring back to pre-Wii Nintendo is almost irrelevant at this point. The landscape is different, and I'm not convinced there's room for a third superpower providing the same experience as the other two.

 

[Diddy Kong]

I do wonder how a new Nintendo Goldeneye would do. Every time the Wii/ Wii U/ 3DS is mentioned being able to play classic games, the first game most of my friends ask about is Goldeneye.

 

[Morfeo]

If Nintendo go mobile I will probably quit the current gaming market. When fun and innovative experiences get locked behind a microtransaction wall and the main point of gaming becomes either grinding or trying to work out what creative ways they have of fleecing your wallet one dollar at a time I will literally just say "back log it is then".

I'm not saying this is practical, but it is what it is.

Yep. It will just make me even more of a retro-game collector than I already am. Mobile has nothing for me, and even the PS4 and Bone gets very few interesting releases in my opinion. It will probably be indies on PC, and try to discover hidden gems on the Genesis/Famicom for me going forward then.

 

[Jimmyfenix]

I do wonder how a new Nintendo Goldeneye would do. Every time the Wii/ Wii U/ 3DS is mentioned being able to play classic games, the first game most of my friends ask about is Goldeneye.

I am sure it would do better than the COD releases on Wii U.

 

[Morfeo]

With the advent of PSN and XBL it will be extremely difficult for Nintendo to ever get a large FPS userbase on their systems again.

Impossible. The dream that there can be a thriving community for shooters on Nintendo-plattforms again needs to go. If Nintendo have any future in hardware, it is not by competing with MSony for the dudebros/shooterfans, but by doubling down on what made them succesfull with the Wii/DS. I am not sure this audience will ever come back, but it is imo their only real choice and well worth another try imo.

 

[nssdigitalchumps]

So...in this alternate universe of your's we would have just ended up with a larger yet still unsuccessful GameCube?

Who knows, but the point you seem to be ignoring is that they would have had a better chance had they gone with a standard tech.

But keep running around like a dog chasing its tail and creating generalized statements like 'Marketing and branding!' blah-blah-blah. Nintendo knew what it was before it made the SNES/N64/GC, as did everyone else. The power behind the product and when said product is released during a tech time period does in fact affect perception of the tech. DVDs were a hot commodity during the time period of the GC's release and people expected that luxury thanks to the PS2 release.

Regardless, we'll never fully see what might have come out of this.

Well, if you count this then we might (it was far more expensive than it should be and I don't believe it was sold in the states):

 

[Rezae]

Pretty much every Gamecube commercial I've seen seems to be targeted at teens and young adults, including Donkey Konga, which you seem to think was made for toddlers. You say that the gamecube was pushed towards families and kids, but to me it looks like they were spending a large part of the generation trying to increase the number of core games they were putting out, and trying to convince people that the gamecube wasn't "kiddy" through mature ads, while continuing to release their usual games that appealed to families. I kinda misspoke in my post and meant to say that Nintendo was putting a lot of work into trying to bring over the 18-34 audience to their consoles.

Eh.. I gotta agree with Shion on this one. I was in my early 20s when the Cube came out and although I bought one and played most of the big titles, I didn't think for a second that this thing wasn't a kid/family-focused system, from the design of the system itself to most of the 1st party titles on it. Animal Crossing, Mario Sunshine, "Cel-da" (that was a hoot when that was announced!).. I'll also never get over that "Clean/dirty" Mario Sunshine commercial. I can look back at the Cube with a lot of respect these days, but they sure as hell weren't focused on core gamers back then (not that they were focused on "toddlers" either). Any attempts they made were secondary compared to the overall theme they were pushing.

 

[metalslimer]

Eh.. I gotta agree with Shion on this one. I was in my early 20s when the Cube came out and although I bought one and played most of the big titles, I didn't think for a second that this thing wasn't a kid/family-focused system, from the design of the system itself to most of the 1st party titles on it. Animal Crossing, Mario Sunshine, "Cel-da" (that was a hoot when that was announced!).. I'll also never get over that "Clean/dirty" Mario Sunshine commercial. I can look back at the Cube with a lot of respect these days, but they sure as hell weren't focused on core gamers back then (not that they were focused on "toddlers" either). Any attempts they made were secondary compared to the overall theme they were pushing.

It sure is funny how these definitions have changed. I think what you mean is that the teenager market was not their primary goal.

 

[Anth0ny]

Impossible. The dream that there can be a thriving community for shooters on Nintendo-plattforms again needs to go. If Nintendo have any future in hardware, it is not by competing with MSony for the dudebros/shooterfans, but by doubling down on what made them succesfull with the Wii/DS. I am not sure this audience will ever come back, but it is imo their only real choice and well worth another try imo.

Double down on the audience that is gone from console gaming forever (thanks to mobile games) or chase after the shooter audience who is clearly dedicated to console gaming?

Wii U is chasing the former more than the latter, and look how that's turning out. Meanwhile, PS4 is totally focused on the latter, and they are kicking ass.

There is no reason why Nintendo can't haven't their own PS4. They just have to want it.

 

[Father_Brain]

Double down on the audience that is gone from console gaming forever (thanks to mobile games) or chase after the shooter audience who is clearly dedicated to console gaming?

Wii U is chasing the former more than the latter, and look how that's turning out. Meanwhile, PS4 is totally focused on the latter, and they are kicking ass.

There is no reason why Nintendo can't haven't their own PS4. They just have to want it.

Because they're so far behind in every respect that matters to the PS4/XB1 core audience - third-party relations, online infrastructure, brand perception, Western first-party development - that I don't see how they can launch a competitive offering in time for even a 2017 launch. This is a gap that would take multiple generations and massive spending on Nintendo's part to close, and I don't think Nintendo can afford to play that long a game in the current market.

 

[TheGreatMightyPoo]

Double down on the audience that is gone from console gaming forever (thanks to mobile games) or chase after the shooter audience who is clearly dedicated to console gaming?

Wii U is chasing the former more than the latter, and look how that's turning out. Meanwhile, PS4 is totally focused on the latter, and they are kicking ass.

There is no reason why Nintendo can't haven't their own PS4. They just have to want it.

So you want them to be contrived and disgenuine???

 

[sometimes i game]

They need fresh leadership. Hope this is true. Already cool to see how the new MS CEO is aiming to change things up over there.