You kid, but that's basically what happened in my house - there's 5 Wii consoles in the building but we only remember buying 2 of them. The others just kind of... accrued. Like we'd just come home from shopping and 'hey, is that another Wii? When? Where? Why? Ah well just put it in the kitchen I can play some Xenoblade while I'm making Spaghetti'.WeepingAngels said:
Could someone please explain to me what the hell is wrong with Nintendo?
- Thread starter Fonejackerjon
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Good post. It's true that for all the fans who defend Nintendo, Nintendo doesn't give a fuck about it's fans. I accepted that Nintendo didn't expect the Wii to take off and that why there were supply issues but they have done that over and over again since the Wii and now I think they do it because they don't want to take a risk and manufacture too many. I remember the Wii U being sold out everywhere right after launch too. I have a bad taste in my mouth about how they dropped the Wii U and how they don't want to give current Mario Kart 8 owners a discount on the Switch port and also how they won't patch the battle mode for Wii U version. Nintendo used to be known for quality hardware (Nintendium) but I guess that's all changed now too.Wrex Brogan said:
Heh. I guess if a strategy can work when they started out it can still work now eh?Yoshi178 said:
Yeah, I think I agree there. As someone who never buys anything at launch, I really couldn't care less what a console has at launch. Of course, the longer it continues to have nothing interesting the longer I'll wait to buy it. Anyway we all should really put that subject behind us in this thread. It seems to be a problems all consoles are dealing with, as you pointed out.Cold Shiny said:
I'll try and give my 2 cents here that no one cares about because it's page 3 or 4 at this time and I ain't gona quote nobody (so many gramatical errors right there!!)
1) The Switch is underpowered compared to home consoles yes, as a handheld though? real powerhouse!
I think this is were they did wrong, but they sort of had to market it as a homeconsole you can carry with you due to the 3DS.
But you should really see it as a handheld, which you can play on your TV with an adapter.
Worst line-up... well this is a matter of taste? Zelda the only AAA game in the lineup yes, so in that sense it is kind of weak, but they have given reasons like "releasing throughout the year" and the WiiU had liike 36 launchtitles or something and that console died out in 2 years or so and didn't want that to happen again. For me, Zelda and a few indie titles was enough to buy it, for some it wasn't. Doesn't really matter what the reasons are, some like it, some don't and some just don't care I guess.
2) For this one there are loads of rumours going around and I hava no idea what the truth is. From it always planned to be a limited console, they use the NES mini factories to produce more Switches to the fact that they use old parts from the Wii to make them and they have now used everything they had. All sound plausible to me.
3) Yeah this one is a bit weird innit?
The game should've been 10euros as it is an old game and has been at that price on other consoles for some while.
4) Deliberately understock the Switch?
This sounds just weird to me, I think they just didn't guess it would sell so much? I mean pretty quickly after all the pre-orderes and such could be made they had to start thinking about doubling production. Why would they even do that? They'd lose money on such a move wouldn't they? I just think they thought that it wouldn't sell as much as it did at launch, and thought that when more games had come out and it was time for Xmas that would be the main sellingtime for the Switch... I can not find one good reason why to deliberately produce too little of a product.
To end this up.
Am I a Nintendo fanboy? Yes...
but
There are problems with the Switch. I just think everyone is blowing it out of proportions. And I think that when the next PS and Xbox are released, people are going to whine about those consoles as much as they do Nintendo. Because people are never happy and everyones favorite thing always has to be best one on the market. But the fact that there are different companies competing is a good thing, that pushes everyone forward and try to outwit the competition which gives the consumers more goodies to play with
1) The Switch is underpowered compared to home consoles yes, as a handheld though? real powerhouse!
I think this is were they did wrong, but they sort of had to market it as a homeconsole you can carry with you due to the 3DS.
But you should really see it as a handheld, which you can play on your TV with an adapter.
Worst line-up... well this is a matter of taste? Zelda the only AAA game in the lineup yes, so in that sense it is kind of weak, but they have given reasons like "releasing throughout the year" and the WiiU had liike 36 launchtitles or something and that console died out in 2 years or so and didn't want that to happen again. For me, Zelda and a few indie titles was enough to buy it, for some it wasn't. Doesn't really matter what the reasons are, some like it, some don't and some just don't care I guess.
2) For this one there are loads of rumours going around and I hava no idea what the truth is. From it always planned to be a limited console, they use the NES mini factories to produce more Switches to the fact that they use old parts from the Wii to make them and they have now used everything they had. All sound plausible to me.
3) Yeah this one is a bit weird innit?
The game should've been 10euros as it is an old game and has been at that price on other consoles for some while.
4) Deliberately understock the Switch?
This sounds just weird to me, I think they just didn't guess it would sell so much? I mean pretty quickly after all the pre-orderes and such could be made they had to start thinking about doubling production. Why would they even do that? They'd lose money on such a move wouldn't they? I just think they thought that it wouldn't sell as much as it did at launch, and thought that when more games had come out and it was time for Xmas that would be the main sellingtime for the Switch... I can not find one good reason why to deliberately produce too little of a product.
To end this up.
Am I a Nintendo fanboy? Yes...
but
There are problems with the Switch. I just think everyone is blowing it out of proportions. And I think that when the next PS and Xbox are released, people are going to whine about those consoles as much as they do Nintendo. Because people are never happy and everyones favorite thing always has to be best one on the market. But the fact that there are different companies competing is a good thing, that pushes everyone forward and try to outwit the competition which gives the consumers more goodies to play with
It's so funny how many people bought a new console for a non exclusive game. You didn't need a Switch to play Zelda and I'll bet you didn't need one to play those indie games either. Try to imagine the impact on N64 sales if Super Mario 64 could be played just as well on the SNES.Guffe said:
They used this excuse for the Wii too. Failing to do market research is the same as deliberately underproducing. Same thing happened with the NES Mini and Amiibos, seeing a pattern yet? Nintendo plays it safe but that doesn't mean they get to pretend to be surprised everytime this happens.
1. Not everyone owns a Wii U. There are plenty of people who look to the future to help determine what to buy. Sure, BotW can be played on the Wii U, but what if someone is also interested in Splatoon 2, or Xenoblade 2, or Super Mario Odysseus, or Fire Emblem Warriors. I mean, if Zelda is literally the only game you care about then the Switch is a dumb purchase, but if you want to play Zelda now, and you know full well you're going to buy other games later, then it really isn't a bad call in my opinion.WeepingAngels said:
Not to mention the fact that the portability factor of the switch is a selling point for some. The Wii U simply can't do that. Being able to take Zelda on the go is not something to be overlooked, even if it is a feature that you personally may not use.
2. Actually, Nintendo deliberately went conservative with the Switch because of the Wii U, which had the wind taken out of its sails pretty quick. Their March release (generally a pretty mediocre month for games) and having planned for 2 million units in March meant they were testing the waters on this one. Notice how quickly they changed their production after launch.
When you have a product that is widely considered a flop like the Wii U was, as a business you tend to play things a bit more conservatively for the follow up product. Come holiday season 2017 we will get a better picture of the Switch, what it is all about, and what it is likely to do in the market.
Let me stop you there, if they wanted Splatoon or Xenoblade (the sequels won't be that different) why don't they own a Wii U?Randomosity said:
I do use that feature, on my 3DS and I would use it on the Switch too if I had one but most people don't and if they don't use it, it's dishonest for them to use portability as a justification for buying Switch.
Maybe they should have done some market research instead of waiting to see if interest was there. Same thing with the NES Mini, they acted like they had no idea people wanted it, do they not even open their internet browsers? They made a choice to go conservative and that's on them.
Someone could have easily only played Chronicles on the Wii, or even the 3DS. Not to mention not everyone who buys a sequel is someone who played the first one. That is relatively common. It is one of the reasons why sequels tend to sell more units than the original. A bit of anecdotal evidence, but I've never played Assassin's Creed, but I bought and played Assassin's Creed 2. How many people who bought Fall Out 3 or Skyrim, but never played Morrowind, Oblivion, or Fall Out 1 and 2?WeepingAngels said:
As for the portability, I said some people, as in not everyone. There are countless reasons people could have bought a Switch. Some like the portability factor. Other people just plainly like being early adopters of new tech, some people enjoy Nintendo games and know full well they are gonna buy all the first party exclusives anyway. What people ultimately choose to spend their discretionary income on is up to them. Whether or not the Switch is a good purchase is ultimately down to the consumer.
There really is no right answer here. Market Research is not some kind of magic bullet. Plenty of products have flopped even when Market Research was on their side. The simple fact is that Nintendo would prefer to have a conservative production run and sell out, rather than over-producing and having units sitting on a shelf. 2 million units sold in the first month is record breaking for Nintendo, so I can't really blame them on this one. I mean, outselling the Wii (launch sales) in not exactly what I'd consider to be reasonable expectations.
I see a few other people have also answered you, didn't read through those before answering so I hope I am not saying the same things other people have talked about you with already, would feel bad if all you're getting are echoes and no proper discussionWeepingAngels said:
Well on the first one it is true that I could have Zelda on the WiiU, but I also found the titles they have announced for the future to be enough to warrant a purchase at the start (Xenoblade2, Fire Emblem, ShinMegamiTensei the first ones to pop into my mind, I might get the new Mario and then I will most likely get Splatoon2 and maybe MK8Deluxe). That and the portability factor (see my point on me thinking the Switch is actually a handheld and not a homeconsole)
On the production amount I agree that they maybe should actually produce more due to what you said, which is that it has happened before on several products in the near past. But I know next to nothing about big corporations and how they calculate possible sales etc. so I don't think I am the correct person to discuss these things with.
But you could look at it from the point of view that making 10 million of them and only selling 5 would be worse than making 2mil and selling all of them? I mean if they would've done the 10mil amount and only sold half, then everyone would be saying stuff like "they are so full of themselves" and "did they actually think they would sell so many of such a crappy console" etc. So from their perspective I can understand the "make an amount of consoles which we think will be around the amount we will sell, look at those figures to see how much we need to make for the next shipment or holidayseason". Because Nintendo is a company which is out to make a profit, and that way of working makes sure they don't make a big loss at least, even if it for the consumers might feel a bit dickish that some can't get their hands on the product immediately if they, like it happened now, make too few and don't meet demand on the first shipment.
I try to look at things from several perspectives, which is why coming to a thread like this and looking at how different people view things is a good thing in my opinion. Not only does it open my (maybe) narrow view, but hopefully this same thinking and thoughts go out to companies which leads to better products and businessmodels in the future.
Only in the game industry do consumers spend lots of time thinking and talking about corporate profits. As for buying the Switch based on what is coming, imagine how many Wii U owners bought a Wii U for Zelda U. You should never buy a console for promised titles, especially third party one but even first party ones aren't reliable.Guffe said:I see a few other people have also answered you, didn't read through those before answering so I hope I am not saying the same things other people have talked about you with already, would feel bad if all you're getting are echoes and no proper discussionWeepingAngels said:
Well on the first one it is true that I could have Zelda on the WiiU, but I also found the titles they have announced for the future to be enough to warrant a purchase at the start (Xenoblade2, Fire Emblem, ShinMegamiTensei the first ones to pop into my mind, I might get the new Mario and then I will most likely get Splatoon2 and maybe MK8Deluxe). That and the portability factor (see my point on me thinking the Switch is actually a handheld and not a homeconsole)
On the production amount I agree that they maybe should actually produce more due to what you said, which is that it has happened before on several products in the near past. But I know next to nothing about big corporations and how they calculate possible sales etc. so I don't think I am the correct person to discuss these things with.
But you could look at it from the point of view that making 10 million of them and only selling 5 would be worse than making 2mil and selling all of them? I mean if they would've done the 10mil amount and only sold half, then everyone would be saying stuff like "they are so full of themselves" and "did they actually think they would sell so many of such a crappy console" etc. So from their perspective I can understand the "make an amount of consoles which we think will be around the amount we will sell, look at those figures to see how much we need to make for the next shipment or holidayseason". Because Nintendo is a company which is out to make a profit, and that way of working makes sure they don't make a big loss at least, even if it for the consumers might feel a bit dickish that some can't get their hands on the product immediately if they, like it happened now, make too few and don't meet demand on the first shipment.
I try to look at things from several perspectives, which is why coming to a thread like this and looking at how different people view things is a good thing in my opinion. Not only does it open my (maybe) narrow view, but hopefully this same thinking and thoughts go out to companies which leads to better products and businessmodels in the future.
WeepingAngels said:Guffe said:Yeah that's true, but they promised they would be coming within a year (I think...)WeepingAngels said:
No but you're actually very right on that point. No matter how many promises they make, what we have now is what we get, and the rest is actually not 100% sure until it actually is released.
I just hope they keep their promises, because I got a Switch and I want the games they told me are in the making. I just basically hope that the Switch's lifetime will be longer than my WiiUs which lasted for about 2 years and then there was only like 1 game a year I was interested in after that
Guffe said:WeepingAngels said:I think you will have no trouble getting Mario Odyssey. I can't find the article but I remember reading, just a couple of weeks ago on Neogaf that Miyamoto didn't even want to release a Wii U version for Zelda. Luckily he didn't get his way.Guffe said:Yeah that's true, but they promised they would be coming within a year (I think...)WeepingAngels said:
No but you're actually very right on that point. No matter how many promises they make, what we have now is what we get, and the rest is actually not 100% sure until it actually is released.
I just hope they keep their promises, because I got a Switch and I want the games they told me are in the making. I just basically hope that the Switch's lifetime will be longer than my WiiUs which lasted for about 2 years and then there was only like 1 game a year I was interested in after that
WeepingAngels said:Guffe said:Really?WeepingAngels said:I think you will have no trouble getting Mario Odyssey. I can't find the article but I remember reading, just a couple of weeks ago on Neogaf that Miyamoto didn't even want to release a Wii U version for Zelda. Luckily he didn't get his way.Guffe said:Yeah that's true, but they promised they would be coming within a year (I think...)WeepingAngels said:
No but you're actually very right on that point. No matter how many promises they make, what we have now is what we get, and the rest is actually not 100% sure until it actually is released.
I just hope they keep their promises, because I got a Switch and I want the games they told me are in the making. I just basically hope that the Switch's lifetime will be longer than my WiiUs which lasted for about 2 years and then there was only like 1 game a year I was interested in after that
That would've been a real screw you for every Wiiu owner not releasing it on both consoles :O
Luckily they did, sure not doing it would've increased sales for the Switch a little, but the negative feedback would've greatly outshone that!
Nintendo is just doing what they are always doing - being shitheads that have no idea what the customers want.
Them not being Microsoft and Sony is a good thing. Them being WORSE than Microsoft and Sony is not a good thing.Saelune said:
Yep, nintendo holds games hostage to force you into buying inferior hardware, so fuck them.Saelune said:
Too bad it doesnt invalidate the game being shit though?Cold Shiny said:
Well Nintendo has always been this way its just people are actually paying attention.
Nintendo is a company which is considered a very conservative or a 'light risk' company. They will never develop a product that will compete with Sony or Microsoft because the profit does not out way the cost in development. Remember if a console does not do well you lose a lot of money not just the normal loss from sales. Because of this strategy Nintendo was "golden" in the Japanese stock market for many years for its profits, WiiU was what hurt them. People have also mistook the N64 as a power house when it was no where compared in development cost as Ps2 or the Xbox. The N64 was created because it was a old tech which Nintendo already knew, it cost little to develop, and was cheap, nothing new was created per-say with the system.
1. The Switch no doubt was developed not to compete with another system. The materials that it was made from might as well fall in line with Nintendo's normal bottom line. What you considered a overpriced unit is incorrect, Nintendo has licensing fees for some of the electronics it uses, those are what cost so much. Also remember the company is trying to recover losses from the horrible WiiU product line which hurt the company,(stock market confidence.)
2. Nintendo seems has adopted a "high demand" market plan. What that means, is they will make a few products sell them at a mid to high profit. Then wait and see demand,eventually making limited additions creating a culture which the consumer will rush out and buy the next thing because people will believe Nintendo will pull it.
3. I don't own a Switch , but if Street Fighter does cost that amount on the Switch , you barking at the wrong company. Nintendo might push the price up but Capcom pushed it higher. This might be due to Capcom feeling not to confident with the Switch and maximizing profit just in case.
4. Again Nintendo is using a high demand market plan, meaning they can keep the price up longer for switch in the long term. Thus proving the unit is profitable for stock holders.
Nintendo more then once has described themselves as a "Toy company"
Nintendo is a company which is considered a very conservative or a 'light risk' company. They will never develop a product that will compete with Sony or Microsoft because the profit does not out way the cost in development. Remember if a console does not do well you lose a lot of money not just the normal loss from sales. Because of this strategy Nintendo was "golden" in the Japanese stock market for many years for its profits, WiiU was what hurt them. People have also mistook the N64 as a power house when it was no where compared in development cost as Ps2 or the Xbox. The N64 was created because it was a old tech which Nintendo already knew, it cost little to develop, and was cheap, nothing new was created per-say with the system.
1. The Switch no doubt was developed not to compete with another system. The materials that it was made from might as well fall in line with Nintendo's normal bottom line. What you considered a overpriced unit is incorrect, Nintendo has licensing fees for some of the electronics it uses, those are what cost so much. Also remember the company is trying to recover losses from the horrible WiiU product line which hurt the company,(stock market confidence.)
2. Nintendo seems has adopted a "high demand" market plan. What that means, is they will make a few products sell them at a mid to high profit. Then wait and see demand,eventually making limited additions creating a culture which the consumer will rush out and buy the next thing because people will believe Nintendo will pull it.
3. I don't own a Switch , but if Street Fighter does cost that amount on the Switch , you barking at the wrong company. Nintendo might push the price up but Capcom pushed it higher. This might be due to Capcom feeling not to confident with the Switch and maximizing profit just in case.
4. Again Nintendo is using a high demand market plan, meaning they can keep the price up longer for switch in the long term. Thus proving the unit is profitable for stock holders.
Nintendo more then once has described themselves as a "Toy company"
Some thoughts on that Mini NES fiasco...
You're a company. You make a product. You put it on sale. People buy it, love it and will pay twice as much for it. They want more. Even if you intended it as just a novelty, what's the harm in making more of it now that you know it's going to sell? The Wii U bombed, fair enough. But you just tested another thing and it sells like hotcakes. 1) Why aren't you making more of that and 2) Since when are consumers "rude" for asking more of what they want?
You're a company. You make a product. You put it on sale. People buy it, love it and will pay twice as much for it. They want more. Even if you intended it as just a novelty, what's the harm in making more of it now that you know it's going to sell? The Wii U bombed, fair enough. But you just tested another thing and it sells like hotcakes. 1) Why aren't you making more of that and 2) Since when are consumers "rude" for asking more of what they want?