Could someone please explain to me what the hell is wrong with Nintendo?

[Guffe]

For me, Zelda and a few indie titles was enough to buy it, for some it wasn't.

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.

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.

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.

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 discussion

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]

For me, Zelda and a few indie titles was enough to buy it, for some it wasn't.

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.

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.

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.

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 discussion

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]

snip

4) snap

my loooong snip

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.

Yeah that's true, but they promised they would be coming within a year (I think...)
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]

snip

4) snap

my loooong snip

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.

Yeah that's true, but they promised they would be coming within a year (I think...)
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

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.

 

[Silvanus]

Who did what by accident?

Yes.

More fool me for engaging, I suppose.

 

[Guffe]

snip

4) snap

my loooong snip

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.

Yeah that's true, but they promised they would be coming within a year (I think...)
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

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.

Really?
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!

 

[Strazdas]

Nintendo is just doing what they are always doing - being shitheads that have no idea what the customers want.

They arent. You (and many others) just think that because Nintendo dont act like Sony and Microsoft, they must be failing...

Them not being Microsoft and Sony is a good thing.

Them not being Microsoft and Sony is a good thing. Them being WORSE than Microsoft and Sony is not a good thing.

But Nintendo games? Only on Nintendo...outside of these mobile games that just make you want to play the real versions.

Yep, nintendo holds games hostage to force you into buying inferior hardware, so fuck them.

Breath of the Wild's critical and commercial success invalidates every argument against the Switch's existence.

Too bad it doesnt invalidate the game being shit though?

 

[RobertEHouse]

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"

 

[Saelune]

Nintendo is just doing what they are always doing - being shitheads that have no idea what the customers want.

They arent. You (and many others) just think that because Nintendo dont act like Sony and Microsoft, they must be failing...

Them not being Microsoft and Sony is a good thing.

Them not being Microsoft and Sony is a good thing. Them being WORSE than Microsoft and Sony is not a good thing.

But Nintendo games? Only on Nintendo...outside of these mobile games that just make you want to play the real versions.

Yep, nintendo holds games hostage to force you into buying inferior hardware, so fuck them.

Breath of the Wild's critical and commercial success invalidates every argument against the Switch's existence.

Too bad it doesnt invalidate the game being shit though?

Microsoft and Sony suck.

And holding games hostage? They made the games themselves. If anyone is holding games hostage, it is Sony and Microsoft.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

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?

 

[CritialGaming]

1) They release a underpowered overpriced console with the worst launch line up ever only one single games worth playing.
2) They discontinue the insanely popular NES classic for no reason.
3) Charge ?35 for ultra street fighter which was ?9 on xbox 360 several years ago.
4) Deliberately under stock their product the Switch.

1. Most launch line-ups are mediocre at best. They released the Switch early to get the first sales within the fiscal year which resets in April I believe. The Switch's game line-up wont be an issue unless all that 3rd party support that Nintendo bragged about doesn't show up, which I don't believe it will.

2. Because a business lives and breaths off scalpers making more money than the company does. Obviously.

3. Nintendo over prices everything always. Nintendo branded things never have price drops, Zelda will be 60 bucks forever (new).

4. Understocking items is what Nintendo does. Amiibo's, NES classics, probably the SNES classic, they thrive on a market of "false" scarcity to ensure everything they make gets sold out. The Switch makes at least a little sense, because the Wii U didn't sell well, and they didn't want to over produce a product without seeing just how much it would sell. Once the Switch starts returning to store shelves, you probably will stop having problems finding them and they will be everywhere.

Ultimately Nintendo is one of the weirdest companies in the gaming industry. Nothing they do makes business sense, and yet it works for them. I've read and spoken with other big name developers and publishers and they don't even pay attention to what Nintendo does anymore. Everyone used to follow suit with them when the SNES, N64 were the BIG consoles. Then they just started going completely off the rails. Companies tried to follow them after the Wii became huge, but realized the the Wii might have been a very high selling console, but nobody actually played their Wii.

The attachment rate of the Wii was shit because motion controls are stupid. I forgot where I read it, but I read somewhere that 90% of Wii owners never bought any game outside of what came with the system. So while a lot of people had Wii's, not many people actually played games on them.

Which continued into the Wii U's lifespan. Developers didn't make games for the Wii U, because their games didn't sell on the Wii and developing for the Wii U was a pain in the ass. So that's why the Wii U struggled and really only lived on 1st party games which also didn't work for the system.

Now we have the Switch and it seems that development is easier for the console because it's a standardized system, but time will tell.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

juvenile hype train.

Juvenile Hype Train: Proper Noun. Definition: anything short of total evisceration regardless of severity, context, or reality.

We don't know if Switch will keep this momentum because the truth is that the lineup isn't all that great and it may be that those who bought one already are most of the people who ever will. How many new people will buy it for Mario or do those people already have one? Third party support has been teased so often on Nintendo consoles that we can't be sure until the games actually release. You know you'll get your promised first party games though, right? Even if they are pushed to the next console as well.

1) You are stating the obvious. 2) That's not the point. Here's the thing that you don't get: you are not helping. Period. You are not solving any issues, you are not giving any meaningful insight, you're just complaining on a message board about stuff that has next to no impact on you.Because that's the entire crux that this decade-long obsession against Nintendo has hinged on. It's a behavior that was tiresome years ago and is not somehow magically going to become meaningful now.

 

[WeepingAngels]

juvenile hype train.

Juvenile Hype Train: Proper Noun. Definition: anything short of total evisceration regardless of severity, context, or reality.

We don't know if Switch will keep this momentum because the truth is that the lineup isn't all that great and it may be that those who bought one already are most of the people who ever will. How many new people will buy it for Mario or do those people already have one? Third party support has been teased so often on Nintendo consoles that we can't be sure until the games actually release. You know you'll get your promised first party games though, right? Even if they are pushed to the next console as well.

1) You are stating the obvious. 2) That's not the point. Here's the thing that you don't get: you are not helping. Period. You are not solving any issues, you are not giving any meaningful insight, you're just complaining on a message board about stuff that has next to no impact on you.Because that's the entire crux that this decade-long obsession against Nintendo has hinged on. It's a behavior that was tiresome years ago and is not somehow magically going to become meaningful now.

Your post is meaningless and unhelpful. It didn't have to be this way, you could have atleast expanded on the bolded. It's like when someone posts a thread and title says: 'In 15 US States it is illegal to eat and drive' and then in the body of their post they fail to mention the most important thing, the list of the 15 fuckin' states and someone has to ask for that list. Likewise, I must ask, what is the point in your opinion?

 

[CritialGaming]

Microsoft and Sony suck.

And holding games hostage? They made the games themselves. If anyone is holding games hostage, it is Sony and Microsoft.

This statement doesn't make sense, what are you talking about here?

 

[Saelune]

Microsoft and Sony suck.

And holding games hostage? They made the games themselves. If anyone is holding games hostage, it is Sony and Microsoft.

This statement doesn't make sense, what are you talking about here?

What are we defining as "holding a game hostage"? If it is exclusivity instead of letting it be on other systems, atleast Nintendo is a developer. Microsoft and (though a lesser extent) Sony are not too into developing their own games. Dark Souls isnt Sony exclusive, but Bloodborne is? So is Nioh,even though Tecmo Koei doesnt belong to Sony.

And Microsoft should really let Fable go. I miss it.

 

[CritialGaming]

Microsoft and Sony suck.

And holding games hostage? They made the games themselves. If anyone is holding games hostage, it is Sony and Microsoft.

This statement doesn't make sense, what are you talking about here?

What are we defining as "holding a game hostage"? If it is exclusivity instead of letting it be on other systems, atleast Nintendo is a developer. Microsoft and (though a lesser extent) Sony are not too into developing their own games. Dark Souls isnt Sony exclusive, but Bloodborne is? So is Nioh,even though Tecmo Koei doesnt belong to Sony.

And Microsoft should really let Fable go. I miss it.

But Microsoft and Sony own their own development studios. God of War for example was developed by Sony Santa Monica. Bungie was owned by Microsoft until Activision bought them five or six years ago.

While MS and Sony, may not develop their own games. They do finance other studios to make games for their systems exclusively. That's how it works. And Developers like this arrangement, because it yields a much better product more of the time. When they don't have to transmute code to work of other opperating systems it eases development.

Nintendo is guilty of this as well, they are have exclusive rights you Bayonetta 2 on their shitty Wii U system that nobody owns.

 

[Saelune]

Microsoft and Sony suck.

And holding games hostage? They made the games themselves. If anyone is holding games hostage, it is Sony and Microsoft.

This statement doesn't make sense, what are you talking about here?

What are we defining as "holding a game hostage"? If it is exclusivity instead of letting it be on other systems, atleast Nintendo is a developer. Microsoft and (though a lesser extent) Sony are not too into developing their own games. Dark Souls isnt Sony exclusive, but Bloodborne is? So is Nioh,even though Tecmo Koei doesnt belong to Sony.

And Microsoft should really let Fable go. I miss it.

But Microsoft and Sony own their own development studios. God of War for example was developed by Sony Santa Monica. Bungie was owned by Microsoft until Activision bought them five or six years ago.

While MS and Sony, may not develop their own games. They do finance other studios to make games for their systems exclusively. That's how it works. And Developers like this arrangement, because it yields a much better product more of the time. When they don't have to transmute code to work of other opperating systems it eases development.

Nintendo is guilty of this as well, they are have exclusive rights you Bayonetta 2 on their shitty Wii U system that nobody owns.

But Nintendo themselves made most of their famous IPs, like Mario and Zelda.

Microsoft and Sony rely far more on owning developers, not being developers.

And also...Bayonetta 2? Yeah, how dare Nintendo let them make a sequel that would not exist if not for Nintendo stepping in.

Anyone who is mad it is on Wii U only, it is SEGA they should be angry at, not Nintendo.

 

[CritialGaming]

Microsoft and Sony suck.

And holding games hostage? They made the games themselves. If anyone is holding games hostage, it is Sony and Microsoft.

This statement doesn't make sense, what are you talking about here?

What are we defining as "holding a game hostage"? If it is exclusivity instead of letting it be on other systems, atleast Nintendo is a developer. Microsoft and (though a lesser extent) Sony are not too into developing their own games. Dark Souls isnt Sony exclusive, but Bloodborne is? So is Nioh,even though Tecmo Koei doesnt belong to Sony.

And Microsoft should really let Fable go. I miss it.

But Microsoft and Sony own their own development studios. God of War for example was developed by Sony Santa Monica. Bungie was owned by Microsoft until Activision bought them five or six years ago.

While MS and Sony, may not develop their own games. They do finance other studios to make games for their systems exclusively. That's how it works. And Developers like this arrangement, because it yields a much better product more of the time. When they don't have to transmute code to work of other opperating systems it eases development.

Nintendo is guilty of this as well, they are have exclusive rights you Bayonetta 2 on their shitty Wii U system that nobody owns.

But Nintendo themselves made most of their famous IPs, like Mario and Zelda.

Microsoft and Sony rely far more on owning developers, not being developers.

And also...Bayonetta 2? Yeah, how dare Nintendo let them make a sequel that would not exist if not for Nintendo stepping in.

Anyone who is mad it is on Wii U only, it is SEGA they should be angry at, not Nintendo.

Wait a minute? So it's okay for Nintendo to pay to have Bayonetta, but not okay for Sony to pay to have Bloodborne made? Or Uncharted? Microsoft should pay to have Gears or Halo then right?

You're saying exclusivity is only okay for Nintendo because Nintendo develops. Except Nintendo doesn't directly develop, they own a bunch of studios that develop for them.

The following are developers owned by Nintendo:
Monolith Soft: (2 branches), this is the company making Xenoblade, and Super smash Bros.
ND Cube: They make the mario Party games
Retro Studios: Donkey kong, Metroid
1-Up Studios: Mother 3
Creature Inc: POKEMON!

So explain to me again why it is okay for Nintendo to do this, but not Microsoft and Sony?

 

[Saelune]

Microsoft and Sony suck.

And holding games hostage? They made the games themselves. If anyone is holding games hostage, it is Sony and Microsoft.

This statement doesn't make sense, what are you talking about here?

What are we defining as "holding a game hostage"? If it is exclusivity instead of letting it be on other systems, atleast Nintendo is a developer. Microsoft and (though a lesser extent) Sony are not too into developing their own games. Dark Souls isnt Sony exclusive, but Bloodborne is? So is Nioh,even though Tecmo Koei doesnt belong to Sony.

And Microsoft should really let Fable go. I miss it.

But Microsoft and Sony own their own development studios. God of War for example was developed by Sony Santa Monica. Bungie was owned by Microsoft until Activision bought them five or six years ago.

While MS and Sony, may not develop their own games. They do finance other studios to make games for their systems exclusively. That's how it works. And Developers like this arrangement, because it yields a much better product more of the time. When they don't have to transmute code to work of other opperating systems it eases development.

Nintendo is guilty of this as well, they are have exclusive rights you Bayonetta 2 on their shitty Wii U system that nobody owns.

But Nintendo themselves made most of their famous IPs, like Mario and Zelda.

Microsoft and Sony rely far more on owning developers, not being developers.

And also...Bayonetta 2? Yeah, how dare Nintendo let them make a sequel that would not exist if not for Nintendo stepping in.

Anyone who is mad it is on Wii U only, it is SEGA they should be angry at, not Nintendo.

Wait a minute? So it's okay for Nintendo to pay to have Bayonetta, but not okay for Sony to pay to have Bloodborne made? Or Uncharted? Microsoft should pay to have Gears or Halo then right?

You're saying exclusivity is only okay for Nintendo because Nintendo develops. Except Nintendo doesn't directly develop, they own a bunch of studios that develop for them.

The following are developers owned by Nintendo:
Monolith Soft: (2 branches), this is the company making Xenoblade, and Super smash Bros.
ND Cube: They make the mario Party games
Retro Studios: Donkey kong, Metroid
1-Up Studios: Mother 3
Creature Inc: POKEMON!

So explain to me again why it is okay for Nintendo to do this, but not Microsoft and Sony?

I really doubt FromSoft is in dire straits to make more Souls games.

Im sure plenty of other publishers would have put out for FromSoft. But only Nintendo was willing to give Platinum the needed money.

And I am not the one critical of exclusives, but if we are going to criticize exclusives for existing, Nintendo isnt my first target. Maybe you should be arguign with Strazdas?