• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

What would happen to Nintendo if the NX flops like Wii U?

VGdrumCovers said:
Disagree on two points:

Shrinking fanbase - I think the reaction to Breath of The Wild showed that Nintendo's fanbase is far from shrinking. If anything, it's constantly growing. 3DS sales are helping that. The current kids growing up playing on the 3DS will probably slide over to the NX.

Also depends what you mean by relevant. In terms of tech and marketing, I agree. Nintendo has jumped into the digital marketplace way too late, and they could have done a lot more over the years of the Wii and Wii U.

Software wise, I don't think their games have ever been relevant - with the exception of the new Zelda.

Nintendo thrive on innovation, and going against the norms is more appealing to them, I believe. If Nintendo wanted to stay relevant, they would be competing with Microsoft and Sony.
Click to expand...

What?

Look at Mario. Look at Pokémon. The two best selling video game franchises of all time. Are you serious right now?
 
VGdrumCovers said:
Disagree on two points:

Shrinking fanbase - I think the reaction to Breath of The Wild showed that Nintendo's fanbase is far from shrinking. If anything, it's constantly growing. 3DS sales are helping that. The current kids growing up playing on the 3DS will probably slide over to the NX.

Also depends what you mean by relevant. In terms of tech and marketing, I agree. Nintendo has jumped into the digital marketplace way too late, and they could have done a lot more over the years of the Wii and Wii U.

Software wise, I don't think their games have ever been relevant - with the exception of the new Zelda.

Nintendo thrive on innovation, and going against the norms is more appealing to them, I believe. If Nintendo wanted to stay relevant, they would be competing with Microsoft and Sony.
Click to expand...

Could you tell us your estimate of Zelda:BotW LTD sales for reference?
 
JoeM86 said:
What?

Look at Mario. Look at Pokémon. The two best selling video game franchises of all time. Are you serious right now?
Click to expand...

I'm looking at relevance in a different way. I realise what I said probably sounds insane - I'm not denying the importance or social significance of Pokemon or Mario at all.

I'm talking about how they don't conform to the current gameplay norms of the time. In that sense, they're not relevant in terms of gameplay.
 
VGdrumCovers said:
I'm looking at relevance in a different way. I realise what I said probably sounds insane - I'm not denying the importance or social significance of Pokemon or Mario at all.

I'm talking about how they don't conform to the current gameplay norms of the time. In that sense, they're not relevant in terms of gameplay.
Click to expand...

If there's one thing Nintendo games have always been relevant in, it's gameplay. So much so that it sometimes comes at the expense of other things people might want (story, visuals, etc). I honestly don't know how you came to this conclusion.

Games to this day are still ripping gameplay mechanics that the Mario and Zelda series introduced to the world.
 
Valen said:
If there's one thing Nintendo games have always been relevant in, it's gameplay. So much so that it sometimes comes at the expense of other things people might want (story, visuals, etc). I honestly don't know how you came to this conclusion.

Games to this day are still ripping gameplay mechanics that the Mario and Zelda series introduced to the world.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm looking at this in a whole different way so just disregard what I said.

Get what you're saying, but nowadays we've got a turn-based RPG and a solid platformer series when most developers wouldn't dare to touch either genre?
 
VGdrumCovers said:
Disagree on two points:

Shrinking fanbase - I think the reaction to Breath of The Wild showed that Nintendo's fanbase is far from shrinking. If anything, it's constantly growing. 3DS sales are helping that. The current kids growing up playing on the 3DS will probably slide over to the NX.

Also depends what you mean by relevant. In terms of tech and marketing, I agree. Nintendo has jumped into the digital marketplace way too late, and they could have done a lot more over the years of the Wii and Wii U.

Software wise, I don't think their games have ever been relevant - with the exception of the new Zelda.

Nintendo thrive on innovation, and going against the norms is more appealing to them, I believe. If Nintendo wanted to stay relevant, they would be competing with Microsoft and Sony.
Click to expand...

You're right. The reactions to a game are clear enough evidence to outweigh actual data of severe hardware decline and notable software decline in both handheld and home console sectors.
 
Until nx reveal how on earth can anybody say this?

Just wait till then , plus if it ends being one of the best nintendo machines I hope all the nay Sayers eat lots of Crowe!

Nintendo has always innovated and that won't ever stop. Can only get better now fresh blood are at the helm of development.

BBTC
 
Nintendo is more than just video games. They'll continue to develop other business models using their branding in toys, movies/cartoons, theme park presence, and even health care applications.

I'm not sure what would happen if the NX bombed but I suspect they would have major partnerships with other companies on the next machine, off-loading some of the risk of going it alone and increasing software and media output. So if another Japanese company had content and manufacturing capability (like Sony), I would presume Nintendo would form a symbiotic relationship with that company ensuring that both companies would have exclusivity of content to that device.l and still creating unique hardware.
 
VGdrumCovers said:
Disagree on two points:

Shrinking fanbase - I think the reaction to Breath of The Wild showed that Nintendo's fanbase is far from shrinking. If anything, it's constantly growing. 3DS sales are helping that. The current kids growing up playing on the 3DS will probably slide over to the NX.

Also depends what you mean by relevant. In terms of tech and marketing, I agree. Nintendo has jumped into the digital marketplace way too late, and they could have done a lot more over the years of the Wii and Wii U.

Software wise, I don't think their games have ever been relevant - with the exception of the new Zelda.

Nintendo thrive on innovation, and going against the norms is more appealing to them, I believe. If Nintendo wanted to stay relevant, they would be competing with Microsoft and Sony.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, back in reality...

...look at sales numbers. Any sales numbers. Buzz is not sales.
 
Fitts said:
So you're saying that Zelda has garnered a ton of buzz and Nintendo could capitalize on it by releasing the game on successful platforms with large install bases?

Huh... interesting.
Click to expand...
Constantly repeating a delusional and highly market-damaging wish is a sure way to make it happen!

Oh wait, i got it now, you mean mobile phones and tablets with that "successful platforms with large install bases". Yeah, that's true, that could be a huge success, and i'll see that happen once Nintendo leaves the console space, someday when i'm no longer on this world.
 
silva1991 said:
Hopefully make games for MS and Sony.
Click to expand...

It'll never happen. If Nintendo can't make their own console platform work, why would they go to other shrinking console platforms? If Nintendo abandons hardware it's more likely Nintendo goes heavy on mobile with maybe some PC ports.
 
They get bought by Disney and become their only in house game development studio. They not only continue to make games for their own IP, but also Disney IP. Planning also begins for Phase 1-3 animated movie franchise.
 
Oddish1 said:
It'll never happen. If Nintendo can't make their own console platform work, why would they go to other shrinking console platforms? If Nintendo abandons hardware it's more likely Nintendo goes heavy on mobile with maybe some PC ports.
Click to expand...

im agreeing that this is a dumb idea however you gonna wait more then "never" if you think Nintendo of all people gonna release their games on a open plattform lol
 
StAidan said:
The reason some posters are acting like this is because they (the posters, I mean) really have no idea why the Wii was successful, why the Wii U was a failure, or how Nintendo's design philosophies/approaches affected the outcome of the two consoles and how those philosophies are completely and totally different. I mean, come on, some of these people seriously believe one or more of the following:

(1) ... that the Wii audience jumped ship to mobile games and would never return to a new gaming console aimed at said audience.
(2) ... that the Wii U's problem was that it cost too much or wasn't powerful enough.
(3) ... that going third-party would be in Nintendo's best interest.
(4) ... that "statistical" performance figures on Nintendo's historical consoles are a clear indicator of future performance.

These are sincerely held beliefs that the simple application of logic can't easily dispel, because they are rooted in a long history of confirmation bias, a tunnel vision that only sees Nintendo in the light of the business strategies employed by Microsoft and Sony, and continued exposure to the headlines generated by an overeager Wedbush Securities employee.

If you were to reconstruct the NES-through-Wii U narrative from scratch based on the statements of Nintendo's own executives over the past 12 years -- without all the aforementioned baggage -- it would be obvious that Nintendo has addressed and invalidated each of those beliefs by any reasonable measure.

But when you're (for example) a gamer who's torn between exclusives across two or more consoles and who wants to be discerning with your gaming expenditures, it's all too easy to ignore all that and just assume Nintendo could be successful (and satisfied) with a third-party future. Those aren't Nintendo's values, and I *suspect* that Nintendo believes very strongly that abandoning its first-party roots would actually prevent it from building the gaming experiences that it wants to create.
Click to expand...

It's odd (though hardly suprising) to see people praising this post, because it perfectly embodies the exact mentality - starting from a predetermined conclusion about Nintendo's future and working backwards, facts and logic be damned - that it attempts to criticize.

I mean, putting the word "statistical" in scare quotes and dismissing the notion that historical market performance of Nintendo platforms has any bearing on NX? Asserting that Nintendo has solved all its cultural and structural weaknesses without offering a single piece of evidence to support it? I could go on, but it's not really worth it.
 
Father_Brain said:
It's odd (though hardly suprising) to see people praising this post, because it perfectly embodies the exact mentality - starting from a predetermined conclusion about Nintendo's future and working backwards, facts and logic be damned - that it attempts to criticize.

I mean, putting the word "statistical" in scare quotes and dismissing the notion that historical market performance of Nintendo platforms has any bearing on NX? Asserting that Nintendo has solved all its cultural and structural weaknesses without offering a single piece of evidence to support it? I could go on, but it's not really worth it.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned in my original post, it's actually pretty difficult to have this conversation, because we're talking past each other here -- i.e., in spite of the fact that you've replied to me, we're not having the same conversation.

I don't disagree that, in the absence of other information, it's easier to predict a company's future performance by taking its past performance into account. However, it's not an indicator of future performance -- because that would imply that the more one succeeds, the more one will continue to succeed in the future. As anyone can agree, there are no console makers for which this is true.

Anyway, Nintendo's past performance is not the only information we have available to us, so to base a prediction on its historically declining hardware sales alone is to misrepresent the situation as it exists today. Nintendo launched an unprecedented era of transparency in 2004, outlining (before the hardware was even released) very specific development philosophies that led to the shocking success of the DS and the Wii.

When you look at the following monumental flop of the Wii U, you can trace its certain doom backward -- not to the declining sales of the SNES, N64, and GameCube, but backward to Nintendo's own statements about the Wii U leading up to (and including) its E3 reveal. Its failure was telegraphed ahead of time because Nintendo was publicly stating its intention to abandon everything that had made the Wii successful.

Lastly, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was claiming all of Nintendo's weaknesses are solved. We don't actually know a danged thing about the NX, and we won't know whether Nintendo truly understands its Gen 7 and 8 consoles until they give us more information about Gen 9. But there is reason to be optimistic when you take into account that (1) Nintendo has returned to the old conversation about not competing in the red ocean, and (2) games like Splatoon and Zelda BotW have demonstrated that Nintendo realizes a change in direction is necessary to achieve an expansion beyond the audience they have now. (Miyamoto's hint last week about the future of Mario should be included in this.)
 
VGdrumCovers said:
Disagree on two points:

Shrinking fanbase - I think the reaction to Breath of The Wild showed that Nintendo's fanbase is far from shrinking. If anything, it's constantly growing. 3DS sales are helping that. The current kids growing up playing on the 3DS will probably slide over to the NX.
Click to expand...

Fanbases and userbases are completely different. There is a larger contingency of people with affinity to certain Nintendo products, than the ones actively buying the products."Everyone loves Nintendo", they sure as hell can get excited about a new Zelda or Metroid, but it doesn't mean they will buy the hardware/software.
 
Hope they go Third Party and sell tens of millions of their beloved franchises on other consoles, PCs and mobile platforms.
 
Psycho_Mantis said:
You're right. The reactions to a game are clear enough evidence to outweigh actual data of severe hardware decline and notable software decline in both handheld and home console sectors.
Click to expand...

The reactions to this game are a pretty stark departure from the reactions to any other Zelda game - possibly even any other Nintendo game - revealed in the last 10 years.

There's no way to predict right now whether this will also mean a departure from the trend of lower software and hardware sales, but it's already looking like a positive change.
 
Kaiken said:
Hope they go Third Party and sell tens of millions of their beloved franchises on other consoles, PCs and mobile platforms.
Click to expand...
News: They sell mobile games as 1st Party. ;)

No need to go Third Party for this.



Furthermore:

6a00d8341c630a53ef0120a8b7438c970b-600wi
Click to expand...

Their games have to sell at least 10% better to make up for the royalty free (from the get go, without other stuff).

Doesn't sound that much though, a 1.000.000 - seller has to sell 1.100.000 according to this.



But the most important part is this: potential

Every game has to make up for: hardware income + royalty income + accessory income + (royalty fees)



Granted, a company like Electronic Arts generated almost as much revenue as Nintendo in the last fiscal year (EA: 4.4 billion $ / Nintendo: 4.8 billion $). But this is Nintendo in its worst shape since long time.


And Electronic Arts is quite comparable in terms of brands.



Therefore, I see no reason for Nintendo to go 3rd Party and it makes no sense to boot.


The only reason that people bring up is the unrealistic imagination that their games are going to sell >30.000.000 with every entry. Dream on.
 
StAidan said:
As I mentioned in my original post, it's actually pretty difficult to have this conversation, because we're talking past each other here -- i.e., in spite of the fact that you've replied to me, we're not having the same conversation.

I don't disagree that, in the absence of other information, it's easier to predict a company's future performance by taking its past performance into account. However, it's not an indicator of future performance -- because that would imply that the more one succeeds, the more one will continue to succeed in the future. As anyone can agree, there are no console makers for which this is true.

Anyway, Nintendo's past performance is not the only information we have available to us, so to base a prediction on its historically declining hardware sales alone is to misrepresent the situation as it exists today. Nintendo launched an unprecedented era of transparency in 2004, outlining (before the hardware was even released) very specific development philosophies that led to the shocking success of the DS and the Wii.

When you look at the following monumental flop of the Wii U, you can trace its certain doom backward -- not to the declining sales of the SNES, N64, and GameCube, but backward to Nintendo's own statements about the Wii U leading up to (and including) its E3 reveal. Its failure was telegraphed ahead of time because Nintendo was publicly stating its intention to abandon everything that had made the Wii successful.

Lastly, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was claiming all of Nintendo's weaknesses are solved. We don't actually know a danged thing about the NX, and we won't know whether Nintendo truly understands its Gen 7 and 8 consoles until they give us more information about Gen 9. But there is reason to be optimistic when you take into account that (1) Nintendo has returned to the old conversation about not competing in the red ocean, and (2) games like Splatoon and Zelda BotW have demonstrated that Nintendo realizes a change in direction is necessary to achieve an expansion beyond the audience they have now. (Miyamoto's hint last week about the future of Mario should be included in this.)
Click to expand...

You are literally asserting that vague, forward-looking statements from Nintendo execs - statements which they have a long, long history of failing to follow through on, and which are far too vague to infer anything more specific from than the general idea of unifying their handheld and console ecosystems - are more pertinent than actual, quantifiable data on how current and past gaming platforms have sold. If that's not confirmation bias, I dunno what is.

Shikamaru Ninja said:
Fanbases and userbases are completely different. There is a larger contingency of people with affinity to certain Nintendo products, than the ones actively buying the products."Everyone loves Nintendo", they sure as hell can get excited about a new Zelda or Metroid, but it doesn't mean they will buy the hardware/software.
Click to expand...

This is an oft-elided distinction, yup.

The audience that likes Nintendo IP in one form or another may be stable or even growing, but is that really true of the portion of that audience willing to pay $200-300 for hardware *and* $40-60 for software?
 
Father_Brain said:
You are literally asserting that vague, forward-looking statements from Nintendo execs - statements which they have a long, long history of failing to follow through on, and which are far too vague to infer anything more specific from than the general idea of unifying their handheld and console ecosystems - are more pertinent than actual, quantifiable data on how current and past gaming platforms have sold. If that's not confirmation bias, I dunno what is.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like I said, different conversations. I have no idea why you're even bringing that up, it has nothing to do with anything and it demonstrates that you really don't understand Nintendo's business at all, nor do you care to understand it.
 
Father_Brain said:
You are literally asserting that vague, forward-looking statements from Nintendo execs - statements which they have a long, long history of failing to follow through on, and which are far too vague to infer anything more specific from than the general idea of unifying their handheld and console ecosystems - are more pertinent than actual, quantifiable data on how current and past gaming platforms have sold. If that's not confirmation bias, I dunno what is.
Click to expand...

Their statements about their business strategy are usually a pretty good predictor of what the results will be.

The problem is that you can't take their statements about the results they expect at face value. You have to look at whether the strategy they're planning is sound and consistent and whether there's actually an opportunity for them to execute that strategy.

If you followed their business strategy for DS and Wii, it was easy to see that they would succeed. They had correctly identified many problems facing the upcoming HD consoles (cost of development, price to consumers, low HD display adoption, overshooting of consumer needs, focus on niche market rather than general) and correctly prescribed and prepared solutions (lower specs, lower cost, no HD display support, emphasis on games for non-gamers and casual players in addition to core titles).

For 3DS and Wii U, this kind of strategy didn't exist. They hadn't identified any problems (the problem people have with 3D is 3D, not 3D glasses; problems were actually introduced by the GamePad's touch screen), their consoles were overshooting the needs of consumers and less accessible to consumers (3DS and Wii U borrowed some elements from the form factors of DS and Wii but could only be described as more complex), and their software strategy was pretty much to go balls-deep on the kinds of games that weren't huge hits with their expanded audience even on Wii. (NSMB, Wii Sports, and Wii Fit got token sequels, and despite what Nintendo says about Nintendo Land even the fact that it used Nintendo IP meant it would never replicate the job Wii Sports did at bringing in new players.)

There's no way to predict whether their strategy with NX will be successful yet because we haven't seen the execution. But we can at least infer that the way they're articulating their business strategy shows a lot of promise and acumen compared to the 3DS and Wii U generation, where they seemed to decide that their success with DS and Wii meant they could now shove all their vanity ideas down consumers' throats, all that good thinking that led to those platforms' success be damned.
 
StAidan said:
Yeah, like I said, different conversations. I have no idea why you're even bringing that up, it has nothing to do with anything and it demonstrates that you really don't understand Nintendo's business at all, nor do you care to understand it.
Click to expand...

I don't know how that reaction follows from what I said, given that pretty much everyone here who pays attention to Nintendo's statements on future hardware agrees that the bolded is the general concept of NX, but suit yourself.
 
AfroDust said:
I for one actually hope they'd be acquired by Disney, since everything they touch turns to gold nowadays.
Click to expand...

There was a rumor about this some time ago, either that or my imagination. Either way, I could see that being one amazing partnership given the TLC Disney gives their properties nowadays. If only...
 
LegendofLex said:
Their statements about their business strategy are usually a pretty good predictor of what the results will be.

The problem is that you can't take their statements about the results they expect at face value. You have to look at whether the strategy they're planning is sound and consistent and whether there's actually an opportunity for them to execute that strategy.

If you followed their business strategy for DS and Wii, it was easy to see that they would succeed. They had correctly identified many problems facing the upcoming HD consoles (cost of development, price to consumers, low HD display adoption, overshooting of consumer needs, focus on niche market rather than general) and correctly prescribed and prepared solutions (lower specs, lower cost, no HD display support, emphasis on games for non-gamers and casual players in addition to core titles).
Click to expand...

I disagree that this is the reason they succeeded. X360 and PS3 ended up selling well so those reasons were not entirely true. Nintendo succeeded because they successfully found a new market and targeted the casuals that bought a PS2.
 
LegendofLex said:
Their statements about their business strategy are usually a pretty good predictor of what the results will be.

The problem is that you can't take their statements about the results they expect at face value. You have to look at whether the strategy they're planning is sound and consistent.

If you followed their business strategy for DS and Wii, it was easy to see that they would succeed. They had correctly identified many problems facing the upcoming HD consoles (cost of development, price to consumers, low HD display adoption, overshooting of consumer needs, focus on niche market rather than general) and correctly prescribed and prepared solutions (lower specs, lower cost, no HD display support, emphasis on games for non-gamers and casual players in addition to core titles).

For 3DS and Wii U, this kind of strategy didn't exist. They hadn't identified any problems (the problem people have with 3D is 3D, not 3D glasses; problems were actually introduced by the GamePad's touch screen), their consoles were overshooting the needs of consumers and less accessible to consumers (3DS and Wii U borrowed some elements from the form factors of DS and Wii but could only be described as more complex), and their software strategy was pretty much to go balls-deep on the kinds of games that weren't huge hits with their expanded audience even on Wii. (NSMB, Wii Sports, and Wii Fit got token sequels, and despite what Nintendo says about Nintendo Land even the fact that it used Nintendo IP meant it would never replicate the job Wii Sports did at bringing in new players.)

There's no way to predict whether their strategy with NX will be successful yet because we haven't seen the execution. But we can at least infer that the way they're articulating their business strategy shows a lot of promise and acumen compared to the 3DS and Wii U generation, where they seemed to decide that their success with DS and Wii meant they could now shove all their vanity ideas down consumers' throats, all that good thinking that led to those platforms' success be damned.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I expect NX to be a much better thought-out (set of) platform(s) than Wii U or 3DS.

But if the primary reason why their current platforms have bombed or underperformed is a structural shift in the market, rather than anything specific to that hardware, that's not going to get them very far.
 
Father_Brain said:
I don't know how that reaction follows from what I said, given that pretty much everyone here who pays attention to Nintendo's statements on future hardware agrees that the bolded is the general concept of NX, but suit yourself.
Click to expand...

LegendofLex's post above explains things pretty clearly, but regardless, Nintendo's unified architecture efforts are a technical decision aimed at simplifying their own lives as related to software development. While end users might ultimately benefit from that decision indirectly, it has no bearing on the overall business strategy for bringing in customers and increasing the user base of the NX hardware.
 
bachikarn said:
I disagree that this is the reason they succeeded. X360 and PS3 ended up selling well so those reasons were not entirely true.
Click to expand...

They ended up selling best once they'd stayed on the market past the usual expiration date for a generation, once Nintendo had started ramping down to prepare for 3DS and once most of their big problems (price, low HDTV adoption, etc.) were gone.

By then they'd already lost enough money that they never had a chance of making a net profit. And even after losing all that money and staying on the market for so long and releasing a ton of different reasons for people to upgrade to a new model, they still barely managed to outsell the PS2 + OG Xbox.

Xbox 360 and PS3 were not successes.

Father_Brain said:
But if the primary reason why their current platforms have bombed or underperformed is a structural shift in the market, rather than anything specific to that hardware, that's not going to get them very far.
Click to expand...

It's not going to get them to Wii-like levels, but it's at least going to mean they have more than the niche they captured with 3DS and Wii U in mind.

It's a far cry from what happened with both GameCube and Wii U, where most signals indicated that they were doubling down on the N64 audience and hardcore audience from GameCube/Wii, respectively.

And the direction they're taking with the one NX game we know about (Zelda) is also a far cry from doubling down on the bad decisions they've been making with software (especially Zelda) over the last couple generations.
 
VGdrumCovers said:
Disagree on two points:

Shrinking fanbase - I think the reaction to Breath of The Wild showed that Nintendo's fanbase is far from shrinking. If anything, it's constantly growing. 3DS sales are helping that. The current kids growing up playing on the 3DS will probably slide over to the NX.

Also depends what you mean by relevant. In terms of tech and marketing, I agree. Nintendo has jumped into the digital marketplace way too late, and they could have done a lot more over the years of the Wii and Wii U.

Software wise, I don't think their games have ever been relevant - with the exception of the new Zelda.

Nintendo thrive on innovation, and going against the norms is more appealing to them, I believe. If Nintendo wanted to stay relevant, they would be competing with Microsoft and Sony.
Click to expand...
Based on what evidence?
VGdrumCovers said:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...a_as_the_most_talked_about_game_during_E3.php

Is this evidence of a shrinking Nintendo fan base?
Click to expand...
Thats not evidence of a shrinking fanbase, but it's certainly not evidence of a growing or stabilized fanbase either.
 
Burdmayn said:
There was a rumor about this some time ago, either that or my imagination. Either way, I could see that being one amazing partnership given the TLC Disney gives their properties nowadays. If only...
Click to expand...

If Disney bought Nintendo they'd probably fire everyone in the company and then license the Mario and Zelda IPs to EA.

I guess that'd be better than Apple buying them. But only by a bit.
 
I hope Nintendo does well. My favorite gaming
company since I was small.

I don't want them living in a cardboard box.
 
family_guy said:
They get bought by Disney and become their only in house game development studio. They not only continue to make games for their own IP, but also Disney IP. Planning also begins for Phase 1-3 animated movie franchise.
Click to expand...

That's the worst goddamn thing to ask for considering how quick Disney is to bail on videogames at the drop of a hat.
 
NOLA_Gaffer said:
That's the worst goddamn thing to ask for considering how quick Disney is to bail on videogames at the drop of a hat.
Click to expand...
Disney actually having a talented, dedicated videogame wing would be an interesting proposition though. They'd probably farm out all their properties there though which would be less time for Nintendo to work on their own stuff.
 
Valen said:
If Disney bought Nintendo they'd probably fire everyone in the company and then license the Mario and Zelda IPs to EA.

I guess that'd be better than Apple buying them. But only by a bit.
Click to expand...

Consoles aside, I think Nintendo's IP are more than valuable enough to give them bargaining power. I could see them selling certain IP rights to Disney while keeping control of game development. Imagine Disney/Pixar Studios having the ability to make Mario movies... *drools*
 
StAidan said:
The reason some posters are acting like this is because they (the posters, I mean) really have no idea why the Wii was successful, why the Wii U was a failure, or how Nintendo's design philosophies/approaches affected the outcome of the two consoles and how those philosophies are completely and totally different. I mean, come on, some of these people seriously believe one or more of the following:

(1) ... that the Wii audience jumped ship to mobile games and would never return to a new gaming console aimed at said audience.
(2) ... that the Wii U's problem was that it cost too much or wasn't powerful enough.
(3) ... that going third-party would be in Nintendo's best interest.
(4) ... that "statistical" performance figures on Nintendo's historical consoles are a clear indicator of future performance.

These are sincerely held beliefs that the simple application of logic can't easily dispel, because they are rooted in a long history of confirmation bias, a tunnel vision that only sees Nintendo in the light of the business strategies employed by Microsoft and Sony, and continued exposure to the headlines generated by an overeager Wedbush Securities employee.

If you were to reconstruct the NES-through-Wii U narrative from scratch based on the statements of Nintendo's own executives over the past 12 years -- without all the aforementioned baggage -- it would be obvious that Nintendo has addressed and invalidated each of those beliefs by any reasonable measure.

But when you're (for example) a gamer who's torn between exclusives across two or more consoles and who wants to be discerning with your gaming expenditures, it's all too easy to ignore all that and just assume Nintendo could be successful (and satisfied) with a third-party future. Those aren't Nintendo's values, and I *suspect* that Nintendo believes very strongly that abandoning its first-party roots would actually prevent it from building the gaming experiences that it wants to create.
Click to expand...

Should be sticky'd in every Nintendoomed/'We're sooooo close to Zelda on PS4 now you guys' thread.
 
Nintendo has tons of cash so they would probably just try again but I don't think NX will do too bad this time.

Nintendo is clearly not going for an all powerful console from the sound of it, so its likely going to be on the cheaper side and its launching with a Zelda game so thats a big deal.

While Wii U had great games eventually, Nintendo took far too long to get the big games out on Wii U, so if Nintendo get the price right and the games out faster, NX should do much better than Wii U.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

What would a video game crash even look like today?
42
602
simpatico replied
  • Poll
What Final Fantasy Game Would You Like To See A "Compilation" Or Expanded?
2
91
979
Darkmakaimura replied
What if the WII U was successful?
2
53
2K
Alan Wake replied
PS6 Portable - what would you like to see?
2 3 4 5
204
3K
memoryman3 replied
What improvements would you like to see in Resident Evil: Code Veronica Remake?
2
55
865
MiguelItUp replied
Top Bottom