Give Nintnendo a chance!

[Rack]

You speak sense. I'm so tired of people dissing Nintendo, without whom we wouldn't even have an industry to be talking about. They have franchises spanning over 30 years, quality and integrity and minus them releasing the WiiU a little early they have so many things in the handheld market they can afford to wait for the holidays and the rest of their releases for next year.

It's not even that.
It just seems that when criticizing Nintendo it's like they get blasted with a flamethrower while the other companies that do things to an even worse extent get a slap on the wrist and a little nagging in the ears.
Like they have much more tolerance to AAA devs for wasting people's money and time on shit games, buggy games, broken games, expensive DLC, and online passes and by next generation all is forgiven, while Nintendo has to "win back their respect" because they didn't release another Metroid game after the shit fest that was Other M.

That's because Nintendo spend that respect and more on forcing people to buy a console that is nothing more than a license to play their games on inferior hardware. If Rocksteady only released their games on a box they sold that did nothing else and was one generation behind the other systems technologically you can bet I'd hold them to higher standards in terms of quality of release schedule.

I wonder if you complain just as much about Microsoft forcing you to buy a Xbox 360 to play Gears of War or Halo?What about Sony forcing you to buy a PS3 to play Killzone,Uncharted,and many other IPs that are exclusively on that console?

Why does Nintendo get all the flak for making people buy their consoles to play their games when the other two do it just as much?

Because Nintendo opted out of giving you anything for your money when you buy one of their consoles. If I buy a PS4 I can play Sony's first party games but I can also play all the major third party releases for the next 8 years or so and I can expect those games to look and play better because of the improved technology in the PS4. If I buy a WiiU I can play games Nintendo have financed, maybe one or two games from other publishers and that's it.

 

[Dragonbums]

You speak sense. I'm so tired of people dissing Nintendo, without whom we wouldn't even have an industry to be talking about. They have franchises spanning over 30 years, quality and integrity and minus them releasing the WiiU a little early they have so many things in the handheld market they can afford to wait for the holidays and the rest of their releases for next year.

It's not even that.
It just seems that when criticizing Nintendo it's like they get blasted with a flamethrower while the other companies that do things to an even worse extent get a slap on the wrist and a little nagging in the ears.
Like they have much more tolerance to AAA devs for wasting people's money and time on shit games, buggy games, broken games, expensive DLC, and online passes and by next generation all is forgiven, while Nintendo has to "win back their respect" because they didn't release another Metroid game after the shit fest that was Other M.

That's because Nintendo spend that respect and more on forcing people to buy a console that is nothing more than a license to play their games on inferior hardware. If Rocksteady only released their games on a box they sold that did nothing else and was one generation behind the other systems technologically you can bet I'd hold them to higher standards in terms of quality of release schedule.

I wonder if you complain just as much about Microsoft forcing you to buy a Xbox 360 to play Gears of War or Halo?What about Sony forcing you to buy a PS3 to play Killzone,Uncharted,and many other IPs that are exclusively on that console?

Why does Nintendo get all the flak for making people buy their consoles to play their games when the other two do it just as much?

Because Nintendo opted out of giving you anything for your money when you buy one of their consoles. If I buy a PS4 I can play Sony's first party games but I can also play all the major third party releases for the next 8 years or so and I can expect those games to look and play better because of the improved technology in the PS4. If I buy a WiiU I can play games Nintendo have financed, maybe one or two games from other publishers and that's it.

So you don't like their title line up. Fine.
However who's fault do you think it is that Nintendo doesn't have third party support? We all saw how all but Ubisoft, Sega,and Platnium ditched them on the WiiU?
So why is it Nintendo's fault that they don't have third party support?
Your aren't wasting your money for buying a WiiU, because when you buy a Nintendo console, since the fucking N64 era you already knew what you were going to get.
At least I can play my Nintendo games knowing that they won't try to coerce me at every turn to buy a $10.00 map pack, or an overpriced suit design.
As for playing better? Nintendo games are always top quality. The one glitch I can think of in a Nintendo game from the Wii games off the top of my head is Mario falling through snow in the ending credits. Note not the gameplay, but the credits. That's it.
You buy a Nintendo console for Nintendo games. You know that. The consumer knows that. Everyone knows that. If in this day and age people are still getting pissed at this notion than sorry for you, just don't buy their products.
Some people buy the Xbox soley for Halo and a couple of exclusives and that's it. Heck. Some people are going to get the PS4 purely for FF and KH3. Yeah. Two fucking games for a console that costs $400.00 everyone has no problem with that.

 

[Dragonbums]

That's because Nintendo spend that respect and more on forcing people to buy a console that is nothing more than a license to play their games on inferior hardware. If Rocksteady only released their games on a box they sold that did nothing else and was one generation behind the other systems technologically you can bet I'd hold them to higher standards in terms of quality of release schedule.

I'm sorry, but they aren't forcing you to do anything, and they certainly aren't giving you a license for their products. Last time I checked, Nintendos products didn't need a game code or an online check-up to validate it's authenticity.
Inferior hardware- who fucking cares aside from graphic hogs? Most Nintendo games are rated with pretty high scores. Because last time I checked people wanted to play good quality games. Some of the games with the most realistic graphics ended up being the ones that were complete shit. Because visuals came before gameplay.

That's why you have clowns like Cliffy B. Telling you that it's your fault they didn't break even because your obsession with "superior hardware" justifies them spending 10 million dollars to produce shit games that fail if they can't even break 5 million

They always release quality games, and you all know that. That's why you are the ones that are demanding them to go multi platform because you can't stand the fact that a company that makes "inferior" hardware always manages to work around those limitations and make some pretty stunning games.

In fact, in countless interviews Iwata has even said that they develop the hardware to match the goals of their software and vice versa. It's symbiotic for them.
And honestly some of the best third party games are on the Wii are the ones that get that, and see what they can do with the tools at hand. Wonderful 101 I bet you will get stunning reviews. So will X. Because those developers actually care about their games.
Most other devs, the ones that do fuck all but whine about not being able to make a large crowd of people due to limitations (like...who really gives a shit.) are the ones that give you shitty sequels, buggy gameplay, and only sit on their asses waiting for the next tech to come out before they even start making new games.

 

[Dragonbums]

1) No, really, it is there money. They don't have Billions in Stocks for Shareholders to hold, they literally have Billions of dollars in the bank under their name.

2) If it's so gimmicky, why do the XBone and PS4 have Tablet support?

3) If this were the case, then the Wii, DS and 3DS wouldn't be successful, but they are, and they wouldn't have changed the face of gaming, but they did. 3D Mario wouldn't sell over 5 Million Copies, but they do (Super Mario 3D Land, the current 3D Mario title, currently has 8 Million in sales, something most games can't ever reach). And you wouldn't be on this thread if they didn't matter, but you clearly think they matter enough to yell at.

Errr ... Money in the bank aka "retained earning" IS shareholder money. It all is.

Haven't heard about Tablet support for either console. It won't be popular. The default "dual-shock" style controller will still be the bread and butter for just about every game.

Oh, the "Wii did great argument" again. Well so did iPods. The point is, sure it sold well, but as a platform it was irrelevant - all publishers could bother to put on it was cheaply made shovelware - hence irrelevant to just about everyone except Nintendo.

Cool. I guess I mean the money I have is also belongs to somebody else under the fallacy of it being my money with my title of ownership on it.
If this money really belonged to shareholders then explain to me why they haven't just pulled out that money from their banks...maybe it's because it's actually Nintendo's money.
Shareholders haves stocks. They don't don't have anything on Nintendo's money bank.

 

[roushutsu]

I fully intend on getting a Wii U, I've just been waiting for some games that I want to come out for it. Now it looks like a bunch of them are on the way. If I'm going to put a lot of money down on a console, I'm going to want to play with it right away, not have it collect dust as I wait for some games. I think a lot of people feel the same way, so we're just being patient.

 

[deadish]

1) No, really, it is there money. They don't have Billions in Stocks for Shareholders to hold, they literally have Billions of dollars in the bank under their name.

2) If it's so gimmicky, why do the XBone and PS4 have Tablet support?

3) If this were the case, then the Wii, DS and 3DS wouldn't be successful, but they are, and they wouldn't have changed the face of gaming, but they did. 3D Mario wouldn't sell over 5 Million Copies, but they do (Super Mario 3D Land, the current 3D Mario title, currently has 8 Million in sales, something most games can't ever reach). And you wouldn't be on this thread if they didn't matter, but you clearly think they matter enough to yell at.

Errr ... Money in the bank aka "retained earning" IS shareholder money. It all is.

Haven't heard about Tablet support for either console. It won't be popular. The default "dual-shock" style controller will still be the bread and butter for just about every game.

Oh, the "Wii did great argument" again. Well so did iPods. The point is, sure it sold well, but as a platform it was irrelevant - all publishers could bother to put on it was cheaply made shovelware - hence irrelevant to just about everyone except Nintendo.

Cool. I guess I mean the money I have is also belongs to somebody else under the fallacy of it being my money with my title of ownership on it.
If this money really belonged to shareholders then explain to me why they haven't just pulled out that money from their banks...maybe it's because it's actually Nintendo's money.
Shareholders haves stocks. They don't don't have anything on Nintendo's money bank.

Shareholders OWN Nintendo. That's what it means to own shares in a company.

All assets of a company (including cash on hand) is either debt (bank loans, bonds, etc. ) or equity (shares). Anything that isn't debt is equity, ergo, shareholders'. A company doesn't really own any money per se. A company is a machine to make money for its shareholders. Shareholders that are concern about returns on their investments.

I'm quite sure Nintendo's management is under a lot of pressure, from shareholders (who can fire them), to turn their home console business around - hence their out reach to 3rd party developers. No point in wasting money making and pushing hardware that few are buying. Shareholders are probably not happy about the "waste" - they are not investing in a charity.

 

[EvilRoy]

I don't understand why people keep making these topics. It's like walking into a firing range with a target painted on your butt, bending over to pick a clover and acting surprised when someone shoots you in the ass.

I mean, seriously. What response could you have possibly expected? "Oh you're right all this time I haven't been really seeing Nintendo's perspective, I should go out right now and drop 250$ on a console and wait patiently for games to come out for it. Despite being a faceless corporation that exists for the single purpose of making money, I forgot how much a multi-billion dollar multinational company cares about me as an individual."

I know that I am in no way entitled to having Nintendo games on third party platforms or what have you, but Nintendo is not entitled to my money or a "chance". They have to earn that, and they have yet to impress me.

 

[aba1]

I used to be a huge Nintendo fan, but they left me out in the cold for years when the Wii came. Now they have to prove to me they still have what it takes to be the great business I relied on for quality titles.

So far it's looking pretty good since the Wii U is such a big step up from the Wii. I thought they'd never get out of that hole. Now they just have to show they're not releasing another Brawl and Other M and I'm set on getting one.

Ya I am in the exact same boat here.

 

[Lightknight]

I've given Nintendo 30 years of chances. Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Kirby, and the like get tiresome after over a decade of practically non-existent 3rd party development. The gamecube kicked off that crap. Nintendo is practically just one publishing/developing company that forces gamers to buy their proprietary system. At some point I either got tired of playing as the same characters altogether or just grew out of them. Probably the former.

If I'm going to buy a console, it'd better have 3rd party support at the bare minimum. The fact that most everyone doesn't even bother to mention Nintendo anymore in the AAA strata is more telling than anything else. The WiiU is already set up for another generation of being too much weaker than the competition to get the really great titles.

One day, maybe I'll be able to buy their software on other systems. That's when I'll give them a chance again.

 

[Kuurion]

1) No, really, it is there money. They don't have Billions in Stocks for Shareholders to hold, they literally have Billions of dollars in the bank under their name.

2) If it's so gimmicky, why do the XBone and PS4 have Tablet support?

3) If this were the case, then the Wii, DS and 3DS wouldn't be successful, but they are, and they wouldn't have changed the face of gaming, but they did. 3D Mario wouldn't sell over 5 Million Copies, but they do (Super Mario 3D Land, the current 3D Mario title, currently has 8 Million in sales, something most games can't ever reach). And you wouldn't be on this thread if they didn't matter, but you clearly think they matter enough to yell at.

Errr ... Money in the bank aka "retained earning" IS shareholder money. It all is.

Haven't heard about Tablet support for either console. It won't be popular. The default "dual-shock" style controller will still be the bread and butter for just about every game.

Oh, the "Wii did great argument" again. Well so did iPods. The point is, sure it sold well, but as a platform it was irrelevant - all publishers could bother to put on it was cheaply made shovelware - hence irrelevant to just about everyone except Nintendo.

Cool. I guess I mean the money I have is also belongs to somebody else under the fallacy of it being my money with my title of ownership on it.
If this money really belonged to shareholders then explain to me why they haven't just pulled out that money from their banks...maybe it's because it's actually Nintendo's money.
Shareholders haves stocks. They don't don't have anything on Nintendo's money bank.

Shareholders OWN Nintendo. That's what it means to own shares in a company.

All assets of a company (including cash on hand) is either debt (bank loans, bonds, etc. ) or equity (shares). Anything that isn't debt is equity, ergo, shareholders'. A company doesn't really own any money per se. A company is a machine to make money for its shareholders. Shareholders that are concern about returns on their investments.

I'm quite sure Nintendo's management is under a lot of pressure, from shareholders (who can fire them), to turn their home console business around - hence their out reach to 3rd party developers. No point in wasting money making and pushing hardware that few are buying. Shareholders are probably not happy about the "waste" - they are not investing in a charity.

Dude, your ignorance is showing.

First off, the way corporations work in American is that they are LEGALLY personal entities, people. That entitles the CORPORATION to a bank account and to its own pile of cash. That's not stuff that the shareholders own, that is literally money under Nintendo's name, as a person, in the bank, that no shareholder can touch. Shareholders don't OWN Nintendo, last I checked Nintendo wasn't a publicly traded company. Shareholders can't FIRE Nintendo employees, like any other business they would be run by a small group of people.

Secondly, Nintendo is in Japan, which puts them to a different set of legal and cultural (and probably some business) rulings anyway!

Third, you are ignoring the many-times cited facts that Nintendo is DOMINATING and has been since basically ever. Them falling back a bit due to the competition of Microsoft and Sony does not automatically throw them in the shitter and have "shareholders" (who have no say at Nintendo) biting their heels. Nintendo has more money saved up than Microsoft's console department and ALL of Sony put together, and their track record is beyond consistent, AND their handheld still owns the market. Again, Nintendo's Japanese, they don't have the same single-minded mentality for chasing quarterly profits that American companies do, they thing long-term. Which means that their "shareholders", even if they did hold power to "fire them", (whatever that means, you gonna fire Shigeru Miyamoto? You really think that would go over well with the public image?) would understand that as well.

Again, Nintendo DID reach out to third party developers. 3rd parties complain that they can't compete with Nintendo titles (kind of shows just how much everybody WANTS those third titles, hm?) so Nintendo gave them a window and they blew it. Now Nintendo's coming back to fill the void, because they don't NEED third party titles to stay afloat. That's been literally the whole point the defenders have been making this entire time.

If I'm going to buy a console, it'd better have 3rd party support at the bare minimum. The fact that most everyone doesn't even bother to mention Nintendo anymore in the AAA strata is more telling than anything else. The WiiU is already set up for another generation of being too much weaker than the competition to get the really great titles.

One day, maybe I'll be able to buy their software on other systems. That's when I'll give them a chance again.

I'm gonna stop you right htere and point out that the fact that Nintendo isn't mentioned among AAA gaming is not a BAD THING. AAA gaming is a swirling shitstorm right now and soon it'll all flush itself out. And Nintendo will still be standing, because they didn't bend to the bad practices the AAA industry is doing. "AAA titles" at this point are a warning sign to me and a growing amount of people. Tells you what kind of budget and developer was making it and thus what kind of shanking you can probably expect.

Nintendo will never, EVER sell its software to other systems. At the rate things are going, it'll actually be the other way around.

 

[Dragonbums]

I've given Nintendo 30 years of chances. Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Kirby, and the like get tiresome after over a decade of practically non-existent 3rd party development. The gamecube kicked off that crap. Nintendo is practically just one publishing/developing company that forces gamers to buy their proprietary system. At some point I either got tired of playing as the same characters altogether or just grew out of them. Probably the former.

If I'm going to buy a console, it'd better have 3rd party support at the bare minimum. The fact that most everyone doesn't even bother to mention Nintendo anymore in the AAA strata is more telling than anything else. The WiiU is already set up for another generation of being too much weaker than the competition to get the really great titles.

One day, maybe I'll be able to buy their software on other systems. That's when I'll give them a chance again.

But at the same time as we've seen last generation third party developers have been treating their consumers like crap and potential thieves for years by introducing backhanded techniques like DRM, Online anything requirements, ridiculous DLC blaming us for their failed sales, saying trading/piracy/second hand sales is the problem, and giving us buggy/short games for $60.00 and calling us entitled when we know it's a pretty shitty deal for a 4 hour long game or for something that has the character clipping through the ground.

Also if you already own a PC, chances are you already have a nice dose of third party installments at an even better quality(I mean depending on your specs anyway0 than what the PS4 and Xbone have to offer.
However at the same time have you asked yourself why exactly third party devs ditch Nintendo every time? Considering how EA left them because they wouldn't let them put the trash that is Origin on their online systems, do you perhaps think that perhaps it's a whole lot more than "inferior hardware" that keeps them away? Especially now when something like the Xbone allows publishers to restrict used games, second hand trading, and the likes, along with the fact that Sony saying they will do the same, but at a much slower pace.

However it's your money and you are free to do as you please.
I'm just tired of people agree with third party developers for not going with Nintendo, and yet in that same breath complain on the forums how those very same third party developers are ruining gaming for them with their shitty business tactics on their system of choice whether it be Sony or Microsoft.

 

[deadish]

Dude, your ignorance is showing.

First off, the way corporations work in American is that they are LEGALLY personal entities, people. That entitles the CORPORATION to a bank account and to its own pile of cash. That's not stuff that the shareholders own, that is literally money under Nintendo's name, as a person, in the bank, that no shareholder can touch. Shareholders don't OWN Nintendo, last I checked Nintendo wasn't a publicly traded company. Shareholders can't FIRE Nintendo employees, like any other business they would be run by a small group of people.

Secondly, Nintendo is in Japan, which puts them to a different set of legal and cultural (and probably some business) rulings anyway!

Third, you are ignoring the many-times cited facts that Nintendo is DOMINATING and has been since basically ever. Them falling back a bit due to the competition of Microsoft and Sony does not automatically throw them in the shitter and have "shareholders" (who have no say at Nintendo) biting their heels. Nintendo has more money saved up than Microsoft's console department and ALL of Sony put together, and their track record is beyond consistent, AND their handheld still owns the market. Again, Nintendo's Japanese, they don't have the same single-minded mentality for chasing quarterly profits that American companies do, they thing long-term. Which means that their "shareholders", even if they did hold power to "fire them", (whatever that means, you gonna fire Shigeru Miyamoto? You really think that would go over well with the public image?) would understand that as well.

Again, Nintendo DID reach out to third party developers. 3rd parties complain that they can't compete with Nintendo titles (kind of shows just how much everybody WANTS those third titles, hm?) so Nintendo gave them a window and they blew it. Now Nintendo's coming back to fill the void, because they don't NEED third party titles to stay afloat. That's been literally the whole point the defenders have been making this entire time.

http://www.nintendo.com/corp/faq.jsp#stock

Check again.

Yes, it's under Nintendo's name, but it's still indirectly shareholder's money - shareholders gave it to them to generate more. Shareholders have to be kept happy or they will via the board of directors force a replacement of management - at least sell off their shares; the remaining shareholders will not be happy with decline in the value of their shares, I assure you. Shareholders expect their money to grow, a management that wastes money won't last every long.

Japanese or American. At the end of the day, money is what you use to pay your employees, to pay your utility bills, to feed your family and buy a roof over your head. Welcome to the Real World.

"Dominating" LOL. They haven't been relevant to the rest of the industry since the SNES. I wouldn't call that dominating. The PS2 was the best selling console ever, selling over 150 million units, with a library of 3800+ games and 1.5+ billion titles sold. Now that's dominating.

 

[Negatempest]

Yeah, cause Nintendo doesn't utilize their own anti-consumer practices... Nintendo doesn't force me to buy games over and over again if I want them on a new console or handheld that supports them. No Nintendo doesn't do that.

I cant buy a digital PS1 game and play it on every current Sony console, and even one last gen one, and only have purchase ONE copy. Nope, but on Nintendo, I CAN buy a Virtual Console game on the 3DS and also play it on the Wii and Wii U without buying another copy...


Yes, that was bad sarcasm, but my point is, Nintendo is not a SAINT when it comes to consumer practices either.

When the heck did I say they are, but what Nintendo does is annoying to consumers, but hell if your going to convince me it's anywhere near the same **** that the 3rd party developers pull. Do you want me to name the lovelies the 3rd party developers like to pull? Fine.
-Online Pass
-Season Pass
-Buggy games that require day 1 patches
-Day One DLC
-On Disk DLC
-Micro-transactions
-Overblown budgets where they blame the consumers for their 4 millions sales is considered a failure.
-Constant internet connection to play single player games or modes. (Uplay anyone, Sim City, Diablo, Starcraft 2?)

I'm not saying the games are terrible, they freakin are great games. I just don't like the baggage that comes with just trying to play a single game anymore. It's pointless stress.

I am not here to convince you to buy a Wii-U instead. I am hear to point out that I am really starting to hate the 3rd parties for their BS business practices and am losing my trust in them. Sony themselves are doing great, 1st party wise, but they gave 3rd parties alot of control the last generation and I don't expect that to change now this generation.

1. If I was speaking directly to you I would have quoted you Mr Sensitive

2. Arguing which anti-consumer practices are worse, is stupid. They all suck, and my point was that Nintendo isn't innocent by any means.

Of course you were not directing it to me. You made a point about Nintendo in general and I made a point about Nintendo in general. (Though I will say it may of been a little too much). But it is Nintendo that gets the most flack for it, because...reasons? The worst Nintendo has done to the consumers was the gimmicky controls and bad internet play. But those alone get Nintendo flack from all the game journalists than the BS business practices that others do. It's more like people are saying bad things about Nintendo because it's cool and hip and popping fresh.

The complaints I can understand is the lack of games, gimmicky controls, and lack of 3rd party support. Under-powered hardware is a terrible reason to dislike a console. If the games are great on that console, on a good budget no less, than why do I wanna support Sony or Microsoft so that way the 3rd parties can blame me, the consumer, for when their games don't sell more than 5+ million copies? All I here is that it's the consumers fault that games don't sell well when it comes to the 3rd party.

 

[Kuurion]

Yes, it's under Nintendo's name, but it's still indirectly shareholder's money - shareholders gave it to them to generate more. Shareholders have to be kept happy or they will via the board of directors force a replacement of management - at least sell off their shares; the remaining shareholders will not be happy with decline in the value of their shares, I assure you. Shareholders expect their money to grow, a management that wastes money won't last every long.

Japanese or American. At the end of the day, money is what you use to pay your employees, to pay your utility bills, to feed your family and buy a roof over your head. Welcome to the Real World.

"Dominating" LOL. They haven't been relevant to the rest of the industry since the SNES. I wouldn't call that dominating. The PS2 was the best selling console ever, selling over 150 million units, with a library of 3800+ games and 1.5 billion titles sold. Now that's dominating.

In essence, they just aren't very important to the industry at large.

EDIT: Responded before your edit to the stock links. Fine, I'll cede the stock point. Doesn't change the core of my arguments, I made them saying how shareholders would be happy with nintendo regardless.

And you've just proven yourself not worth listening to.

Learn your history. Nintendo's been around for more than 100 years and has been making these advances mostly off its own profits, not shareholder investment. Shareholders would expect their money to grow, yes, and Nintendo's been delivering on that regardless. One year of less-than-projected-profit does not undo a company that strong.

Not relevant since the SNES? Okay, I guess you're completely discounting the N64, which even outside of fanboy standards is objectively one of the best consoles (in terms of game library) EVER MADE. PS2 was great, probably better, but the N64 came first. Different eras. Also ignoring the Wii and its precedent for motion controls, which both companies then tried to copy, and Microsoft is now making a mandatory part of their future.

So yeah. You keep telling yourself nobody cares about Nintendo. I'll keep laughing as they keep making more moneyt and people keep trying to copy them and say it's new ideas.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I think that's because Nintendo releases quality games that appeal to everyone.Think about it how many of the Nintendo haters wish they will go under so they could play Zelda,Mario, and Nintendo's other IPs on a console of their choice?

Or it could be the far more likely scenario where the gamers respect Nintendo for what they do and openly accept that Nintendo makes quality games. They don't, however, want to be handcuffed into buying a separate piece of hardware that they see no other use for except to play the twice yearly good Nintendo games when everything else they enjoy playing is on other pieces of hardware.

So what exactly is the problem?Nintendo's IPs can only be played on their consoles just like Halo and Gears of War can only be played on Microsoft's consoles.If you don't like their consoles fine but I've seen fanboys outright demand that Nintendo release their IPs for other consoles, because they were either too lazy or too caught up in their Xbox/Playstation worship to buy a Nintendo console.

To those people I'll say if they want to play Nintendo's games then buy whatever console the game is on.

I'm not saying that the difference is in the overall scenario, I'm saying that the difference is in the numbers. Nintendo's very specific niche of titles are something that would nicely supplement the more consistent and diverse libraries already in place on the other systems. A gamer who already has a 360 or PS3 (or, of course, PC) has access to a large number of games that they want to play, mixed between exclusive and non. It's just that last percentage, let's say 10% to have a number to play with, that they feel Nintendo would be able to offer to the experience they're already happy with. Most people are not going to go out and buy an eztra specific console just so they can cover that remaining 10%, and most people aren't going to buy a console when they feel it only will cover 10% of their gaming desires. That's why they would like to see Nintendo's games on their hardware of choice. It's not because they have any hatred for Nintendo or any desire to see them go down in flames.

 

[Risingblade]

That game by monolith will pretty much be the sole reason I get a wii u

 

[deadish]

EDIT: Responded before your edit to the stock links. Fine, I'll cede the stock point. Doesn't change the core of my arguments, I made them saying how shareholders would be happy with nintendo regardless.

And you've just proven yourself not worth listening to.

Learn your history. Nintendo's been around for more than 100 years and has been making these advances mostly off its own profits, not shareholder investment. Shareholders would expect their money to grow, yes, and Nintendo's been delivering on that regardless. One year of less-than-projected-profit does not undo a company that strong.

Not relevant since the SNES? Okay, I guess you're completely discounting the N64, which even outside of fanboy standards is objectively one of the best consoles (in terms of game library) EVER MADE. PS2 was great, probably better, but the N64 came first. Different eras. Also ignoring the Wii and its precedent for motion controls, which both companies then tried to copy, and Microsoft is now making a mandatory part of their future.

So yeah. You keep telling yourself nobody cares about Nintendo. I'll keep laughing as they keep making more moneyt and people keep trying to copy them and say it's new ideas.

OK. Just got to agree to disagree I suppose.

100 year or whatever isn't important. The point is NOW, they are running on stockholder money. Profit is stockholder money too BTW, since shares by definition confer ownership - ownership of the company and it's assets. Nintendo is not some "special flower", they have to play by the same rules as Sony and MS.

The PS1 own that generation with Sega a distance 2nd. Nintendo's holier-than-thou insistence on carts bite them hard in the ass. 3rd parties bailed like rats on a sinking ship.

Motion controls ... have you seen the backlash against MS's stubborn pushing of it's "motion control". Sony has more or less put the Move on to life support and ignored it this gen.

 

[Dragonbums]

I'm not saying that the difference is in the overall scenario, I'm saying that the difference is in the numbers. Nintendo's very specific niche of titles are something that would nicely supplement the more consistent and diverse libraries already in place on the other systems. A gamer who already has a 360 or PS3 (or, of course, PC) has access to a large number of games that they want to play, mixed between exclusive and non. It's just that last percentage, let's say 10% to have a number to play with, that they feel Nintendo would be able to offer to the experience they're already happy with. Most people are not going to go out and buy an eztra specific console just so they can cover that remaining 10%, and most people aren't going to buy a console when they feel it only will cover 10% of their gaming desires. That's why they would like to see Nintendo's games on their hardware of choice. It's not because they have any hatred for Nintendo or any desire to see them go down in flames.

However once again, Nintendo has no obligation to supply the majority of the gaming community with genres that everyone else seems to ignore.
Nintendo and a very few select studios still produce a good amount of platformers and adventure games. That isn't their fault. They have been simply making the games they have been for years.
If a so many people buy their consoles for that alone then they aren't going to find any reason to go multi platform (not that it would be a very smart decision business wide anyway.)

There are plenty of studios within the Sony and Microsoft library that used to do platformers and adventure games. Now they don't anymore. There are plenty of studios whose games would better benefit a genre that doesn't revolve around shooters however they do shooters anyway.
If all you have from Microsoft are Shooters, and if all you have from Sony is shooters with the occasional JRPGs, then demand for an increase in other genres (that have nothing to do with shooters)
Because the bottom line is your money is their indicator. If a platformer comes on to those consoles and nobody buys it, then it's kind of your fault, and further emphasizes to those devs why they don't see genres other than shooters as a profitable venture.

 

[Rack]

You speak sense. I'm so tired of people dissing Nintendo, without whom we wouldn't even have an industry to be talking about. They have franchises spanning over 30 years, quality and integrity and minus them releasing the WiiU a little early they have so many things in the handheld market they can afford to wait for the holidays and the rest of their releases for next year.

It's not even that.
It just seems that when criticizing Nintendo it's like they get blasted with a flamethrower while the other companies that do things to an even worse extent get a slap on the wrist and a little nagging in the ears.
Like they have much more tolerance to AAA devs for wasting people's money and time on shit games, buggy games, broken games, expensive DLC, and online passes and by next generation all is forgiven, while Nintendo has to "win back their respect" because they didn't release another Metroid game after the shit fest that was Other M.

That's because Nintendo spend that respect and more on forcing people to buy a console that is nothing more than a license to play their games on inferior hardware. If Rocksteady only released their games on a box they sold that did nothing else and was one generation behind the other systems technologically you can bet I'd hold them to higher standards in terms of quality of release schedule.

I wonder if you complain just as much about Microsoft forcing you to buy a Xbox 360 to play Gears of War or Halo?What about Sony forcing you to buy a PS3 to play Killzone,Uncharted,and many other IPs that are exclusively on that console?

Why does Nintendo get all the flak for making people buy their consoles to play their games when the other two do it just as much?

Because Nintendo opted out of giving you anything for your money when you buy one of their consoles. If I buy a PS4 I can play Sony's first party games but I can also play all the major third party releases for the next 8 years or so and I can expect those games to look and play better because of the improved technology in the PS4. If I buy a WiiU I can play games Nintendo have financed, maybe one or two games from other publishers and that's it.

So you don't like their title line up. Fine.
However who's fault do you think it is that Nintendo doesn't have third party support? We all saw how all but Ubisoft, Sega,and Platnium ditched them on the WiiU?
So why is it Nintendo's fault that they don't have third party support?
Your aren't wasting your money for buying a WiiU, because when you buy a Nintendo console, since the fucking N64 era you already knew what you were going to get.
At least I can play my Nintendo games knowing that they won't try to coerce me at every turn to buy a $10.00 map pack, or an overpriced suit design.
As for playing better? Nintendo games are always top quality. The one glitch I can think of in a Nintendo game from the Wii games off the top of my head is Mario falling through snow in the ending credits. Note not the gameplay, but the credits. That's it.
You buy a Nintendo console for Nintendo games. You know that. The consumer knows that. Everyone knows that. If in this day and age people are still getting pissed at this notion than sorry for you, just don't buy their products.
Some people buy the Xbox soley for Halo and a couple of exclusives and that's it. Heck. Some people are going to get the PS4 purely for FF and KH3. Yeah. Two fucking games for a console that costs $400.00 everyone has no problem with that.

I'm not sure we're in the same discussion here. You buy a Nintendo console to play Nintendo's games. End of. You know it I know it. If you're any kind of gamer that's going to be an additional console. That's why they're held to a higher standard, because you need to buy additional kit to play them and that additional kit serves no other purpose, nor offers any other advantage. Bioware don't require you to buy additional hardware, Sony and MS make sure you have a huge selection of third party games available. With Nintendo you're paying extra for the privilege. How can you not hold them to a higher standard after that.

As a side point it's Nintendo's fault the WiiU has little third party support. It really couldn't be anyone elses, there's no question about it at all. If they release a console it's their job to make sure it is well supplied with games, if they cheap on the hardware to the point it isn't economical for third parties to release games for it then that's absolutely purely 100% their fault.

 

[nathan-dts]

I gave them a chance for the past few generations. They've been a disappointment that I'm just hopeful will die soon.