Nintendo Shares Tumble Following Wii U Reveal

[Eclectic Dreck]

(1) Well you DO NOT KNOW what your are talking about if you don't think God of War HD Collection is not a significant improvement.

Shaders, polygon counts, particle effects engines and a whole host of other things remain unchanged. It looks better but I would never mistake the HD remake of God of War for a proper PS3 game.

Especially in combination with anti-aliasing which may not be inferred but it is heavily implied that HD includes Anti-aliasing

It doesn't imply that at all. High Definition refers to resolution alone. Other things might be associated with it (we expect a modern "HD" game to include high polygon counts, excellent lighting engines etc) but these are not assured by saying it is HD. Quake could run at absurd resolution for example but that doesn't keep it from looking like garbage in this day and age.

You can deny it all you want. Anything that convinces you that considerable Wii line-up can't be counted as a value-added for Wii U's launch line-up. This is analogous to the PS2's PS1 backwards compatibility, only far greater added value as it is a "HD Enhancer" of those old Wii games.

I'm not denying that at all. What I am doing is asserting that, of everything they have presented, they have not made a case why I (a core gamer) nor any of the millions of casual gamers, should upgrade. I've already played those games they're remaking. I am entirely certain they will not be significantly improved by the addition of more pixels. I already own two consoles that play HD games and the WiiU has yet to demonstrate a reason why I ought to choose to play a multiplatform title on it. My concern, in short, is that Nintendo has done a bad job of telling me (or anyone) why we ought to buy this console.

Of course, they also have six months to convince me otherwise. I'm not shitting on the console.

(2) They have demonstrated uses. Look at their E3 conference again but stop constantly thinking of rationalisations and smears against every good idea they present. Take a positive approach.

And precisely none of those uses are significant as far as I'm concerned.

(3) You ignore how a portable console gaming experience of CoD is not the same nor even continuous with home console experience. And not everyone can afford a powerful gaming laptop. You are really squirming to find any possible excuse for why every great idea for Wii U is usesless even contradicting yourself. You know there are plenty of good uses.

If you're going to argue that the WiiU is now "portable" because it comes with a screen in it's controller, I would simply point to the fact that I have a small high resolution monitor that I carry with my 360 and PS3 if I go on a trip for that very reason. The value add you cite is predicated on the notion that I don't have another screen at my destination, and that point is, itself, an incredible stretch in my country.

(4) There is plenty of evidence if you want to see it rather than constantly rationalising away every benefit it offers.
Just CONSIDER that the Wii U might have a chance and stop obsessing over how it is late to the party. And you ARE obsessing, you've written a 2000 word essay on this.

I have considered that it has a chance. I have said it has a chance. Bad timing doesn't doom the system but it doesn't help. Rather than reiterate my previous arguments just reference them and pretend I wrote it here.

(5) Wii games do have a good attach rate, that means wii owners actually buy games, sooner or later a significant proportion are going to want higher fidelity or at least higher resolution. Also how many of those 360 and PS3 gamers use those consoles because they are the best, with Wii U they are no longer the best. Again, Wii U doesn't have to sell 100 million units in 12 months, it just has to sell at a couple million and steadily grow.

The titles that have sold well on the Wii are those that come directly from Nintendo with one or two sneaking in from third parties. They obviously don't need to sell 100 million units; the Wii didn't even manage that in its run to date. But when their direct competition is fielding (combined) 109 million units, (a near even split with a slight edge to the Xbox) not having comparable numbers ensures that few exclusives will come from third parties and there will be few companies willing to field a game with the WiiU as the flagship. All this means is the WiiU will get lots of ports to games I can already play and the odds of there being some significant difference that make the WiiU version superior are slim.

(6) No, but you kept saying that WiiU will end up like Dreamcast. And Dreamcast only failed - failed as in ceased production only 2 years after launch - because Sega collapsed. Nintendo will NOT LET THIS FAIL! Just like Sony did not allow PS3 to fail to spite all its difficulties. Remember in 2006 everyone said PS3 was the next Dreamcast. Hell, in 2002 people said Xbox was the next Dreamcast.

Neither the PS3 nor the Xbox even loosely fit the mold. By contrast, Nintendo is facing record low profits, a lackluster launch of their latest platform, they are predicting a lean 12 months and they're launching a new console that the world at large said "meh" to all while trying to break into a market they have ignored for six years with a console only marginally more powerful backed by a history of having terrible online functionality. That's a lot of strikes against Nintendo in this equation. Not damning by any stretch but enough to worry an investor as demonstrate by the fact that the stock tumbled.

(7) I object to your blatant smears on this forum, that I have seen from many others all over the place, that seem to be with the intention of shaking confidence in the Wii U to try to make it fail or at least much harder for Nintendo. This is not wait and see; more sew panic and hope for the worst.

I am not smearing the console. If you want to interpret my assessment as trash talk that is your prerogative. My intention was simply to demonstrate why cautious investors are jumping ship from Nintendo. I have said repeatedly that my position is based on current information. They have six months to convince the world we want a WiiU. They've got a strong lineup of games coming for the 3DS that may well turn the system around. But in the first case I literally have nothing to go on but what they've announced and in the latter my enthusiasm is dampened by the overwhelming success of the iOS and (to a lesser extent) Andriod platforms.

That is a blatant contradiction.

No, it is not. I still never said it was exclusively a Nintendo thing. I then went on to point out that Nintendo had a history of being especially bad at this sort of thing in recent memory. The only way I could contradict myself is if I went on from my first point to assert that neither Sony or Microsoft had a history of having shitty launch titles but then I'd also be lying.

(9) So what? Are you saying "Better never than late"?

Nope. What I am saying is that Nintendo needs to come out of the gate swinging the unstoppable cudgels of Mario, Zelda and Metroid. They need at least one if they want to open strong; with all three coupled with a reasonable price point (less than 300 USD is what I'd consider reasonable) they could easily sell as many WiiU's as they could make. But right now all we saw of Zelda was a tech demo, Mario is nowhere to be found and no one talked about Metroid. Of course, that could easily be explained by the fact that Nintendo generally reveals such things at their own Trade Show roughly in time with TGS.

The reason I say this is because nintendo is facing the prospect of competing direct with PS3 and 360, something they have thus far avoided like the plague. That the nailed the technology is admirable but they need to get lots of consoles into homes if they want the platform to be taken seriously. And when you consider how close we may be to the end of a generation, that doesn't leave them a lot of time to make up ground in a race they conceded a generation ago.

Nintendo has actually responded to their critics in the industry of the Wii not being powerful enough, this is a GOOD thing!

It is. My concern is that they responded to the critics much too late.

And stop looking at this in terms of generations and cycles, that is meaningless now, disrupted so much by the underpowered Wii and PS2's ongoing huge sales.

The start of the new Console cycle will more or less be based on how well the WiiU does. If it isn't a smashing success, this generation will last longer. If it rapidly gains market share, both Sony and Microsoft will start thinking very hard about rolling out the next big thing.

Nintendo have said their strategy is too appeal to both the Hardcore AND the causal, bringing them together. This has huge potential that you may not want to admit too.

They got casual people to buy a Nintendo Wii but they largely failed at getting them to buy games. In doing so they largely alienated the "hardcore".

Denialism is easy, all you have to do is ignore every positive and focus endlessly on the negative.

Actually, all it takes is looking at Nintedo's history over the last decade and noting the various things I've pointed out at length. The funny thing about "denialism" or its presumed evil twin optimism is that neither route offers a reasonable lens with which to predict the future. My interpretations are based on historical precedent, media reactions, investor reactions, and my (admittedly pessimistic) gut instincts. Does that mean I'm right? Not at all. I could be entirely wrong. The 3DS could go on to sell twice as many units as the DS did across all iterations and the WiiU might be a resounding success. And if they did that, I would be well and truly surprised because I have not seen anything anywhere that indicates either is likely to happen.

Also, absolutely zero certainty that the next Playstation or Xbox are in development, not even rumours.

The next new thing is always in development. That's what R&D budgets go for. They might not be working seriously right now but if they start really losing ground to the WiiU the idea of increasing that R&D budget suddenly doesn't look so stupid.

Microsoft have said the 360 has a lifecycle till 2015 and they dropped Xbox the instant 360 was around. All likelihood nothing from Microsoft till 2015, or 2014 earliest.

That is largely because of the perceived (and thus far uncapitalized) success of the Kinect. If they can't get people to buy software for the device, that time table can certainly be moved. Microsoft isn't going to sit around reinforcing failure for three or four years.

Sony also cannot do the same with PS3, as PS3 did to PS2, i.e. leave the established console running while a better platform takes the lead. PS3 is still working its expenses off and a new expensive venture would sabotage PS3's efforts if it is taken from the lead.

Admittedly, Sony is the one in the worst position in all of this thanks to enormous losses they've taken (even without considering recent calamities). In spite of that, they are competing directly with Nintendo with a comparably priced handheld that, if media hype is to be believed, is basically a portable PS3. And on that front, were I to buy yet another handheld, I would certainly opt for the PlayStation interpretation if only because novelty headache induction doesn't sound like something I need to spend hundreds of dollars on.

 

[Treblaine]

*snip*

You said no significant difference, now you say doesn't make a PS2 game look like a PS3 game. You can have significant difference without looking like a "generation ahead".

Doesn't escape the fact that Mario Galaxy is a really good looking game that is held back by its low resolution and aliasing. Dolphin emulation has shown what a significant difference upping the resolution and AA makes.

They actually have 18 months to reveal everything for a likely November 2012 release, and they have already revealed an extraordinary amount.

I'm not arguing Wii U is a portable system, YOU ARE! I talk about convenience within the house and such as in bed you say "hugh, I could just use a PSP". I didn't know there even was a small-portable HD-screen that is at a good price and you can use while reclining in bed. I have looked. Care to share with me the name and more importantly the price tag. It will be interesting how much money you'd spend on that but be so aghast at spending on a Wii U

Third party neglected Wii for its low power hardware. Sorted now. NEXT ISSUE!

You are very right that neither PS3 or Xbox fit the mould of them being the next Dreamcast... but still PEOPLE SAID THEY WERE! Just like you are saying about WiiU even though it doesn't fit that mould.

"my enthusiasm is dampened by the overwhelming success of the iOS and (to a lesser extent) Andriod platforms."

iOS may be everywhere, it may have games on it, but it is not a main competitor as games are so low priority on those systems. No one who is interested in pokemon black/white or Peace Walker or Uncharted PSV is going to enticed away by Angry Birds! The games on iOS are just distractions for people who don't want a game they want a simple distraction, more like a toy than an actual game.

You did contradict yourself and you're clearly afraid of that as in reply you deleted your own quote.
1st claim: Nintendo doesn't have relatively poor launch games
2nd claim: Many launches without any of those titles people like me get excited

That IS a contradiction. Stop squirming. You are trying to have your cake and eat it, slander Nintendo then say you didn't.

Directly competing with PS3 and 360? GOOD! To any capitalist this is good, willing competition is a sign of strength and confidence, and will drive them to better themselves.

"My concern is that they responded to the critics much too late."

What do you expect them to do? Invent time travel? Sooner rather than later, even 6 years is better than 7 or 8 years late.

There are actually a crap-load of hardcore exclusives for the Wii, probably more worthwhile and unique exclusives than Xbox 360. (I do not include PC+360 releases as Xbox exclusives).

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

You said no significant difference, now you say doesn't make a PS2 game look like a PS3 game. You can have significant difference without looking like a "generation ahead".

And that is not a contradiction. My point is very simple: increasing the resolution is only a small and relatively insignificant part of making a game look better.
]

Doesn't escape the fact that Mario Galaxy is a really good looking game that is held back by its low resolution and aliasing. Dolphin emulation has shown what a significant difference upping the resolution and AA makes.

And neither of those problems makes the game "bad" to look at nor will the game be markedly improved by the addition of AA and higher resolution.

They actually have 18 months to reveal everything for a likely November 2012 release, and they have already revealed an extraordinary amount.

That is a good point. I was confusing the Vita release date with the WiiU.

I'm not arguing Wii U is a portable system, YOU ARE

Nope. Not even slightly. You said it could be carried around easily and I countered that I already had solutions to that problem.

I talk about convenience within the house and such as in bed you say "hugh, I could just use a PSP". I didn't know there even was a small-portable HD-screen that is at a good price and you can use while reclining in bed. I have looked. Care to share with me the name and more importantly the price tag. It will be interesting how much money you'd spend on that but be so aghast at spending on a Wii U

I'm not aghast at spending the money on a WiiU. I am not balking at a price. I don't even know what it will cost. What I am doing is saying that they have not made a case as to why I ought to buy it.

Third party neglected Wii for its low power hardware. Sorted now. NEXT ISSUE!

And incredibly low sales of virtually every title for the platform. That isn't Nintendo's fault so much as it was a problem with the audience however.

You are very right that neither PS3 or Xbox fit the mould of them being the next Dreamcast... but still PEOPLE SAID THEY WERE! Just like you are saying about WiiU even though it doesn't fit that mould.

I'm not saying it perfectly fits the mold. I directly pointed to the similarities that existed and then pointed to the ones that did not.

iOS may be everywhere, it may have games on it, but it is not a main competitor as games are so low priority on those systems. No one who is interested in pokemon black/white or Peace Walker or Uncharted PSV is going to enticed away by Angry Birds! The games on iOS are just distractions for people who don't want a game they want a simple distraction, more like a toy than an actual game.

And yet the platform generates tens of millions of dollars in single game sales. It is in the hands of more than 70 million users right now. It costs next to nothing to develop for. Yes most of what's there is rubbish or shovelware or good for little more than a diversion, but it also has plenty of honest to god fully featured games that are worth playing. That the games also cost dramatically less on the platform is an enormous advantage, especially when dealing with the market that includes the key Pokemon demographic.

You did contradict yourself and you're clearly afraid of that as in reply you deleted your own quote.
1st claim: Nintendo doesn't have relatively poor launch games
2nd claim: Many launches without any of those titles people like me get excited

My sincerest apologies. I forgot the word only. Add that word in there and you have my position which I clarified. You're arguing semantics at this point. You're also ignoring my point.

That IS a contradiction. Stop squirming. You are trying to have your cake and eat it, slander Nintendo then say you didn't.

I am not squirming in the slightest. My argument has been incredibly consistent.

Directly competing with PS3 and 360? GOOD! To any capitalist this is good, willing competition is a sign of strength and confidence, and will drive them to better themselves.

I'm not talking about market strength but the viability of a single platform. I will not widen the scope of the arugment to include points of economic theory that do not pertain to the issue at hand which is (and has always been) my interpretation of why Nintendo's stock price fell with the announcement of the WiiU.

What do you expect them to do? Invent time travel? Sooner rather than later, even 6 years is better than 7 or 8 years late.

Again you ignore my point. By waiting for six years they are now going to face two competitors on ground the ceeded a decade ago. They're going to do it with marginally more powerful hardware and a history of abysmal online services. By waiting until now, they have ensured a brutal uphill climb for market share.

My entire argument is based upon the point that, because of a wide variety of circumstances, Nintendo is going to have a hell of a time gaining significant market share. Most of the points you argue (that it isn't exactly like the Dreamcast for example) try and sidestep this and yet you have never really addressed this main point of my argument. Yes, information might come out in the future that makes me think better of the WiiU's chances, but right now none of that is available. What we have right now is a controller people are lukewarm on, the promise of HD ports of old games, a few tech demos and ports of games we already play. Couple that with the difficulty even Nintendo had getting a significant portion of their Wii audience to buy software regularly and, from where I stand with what I know right now it looks grim.

There are actually a crap-load of hardcore exclusives for the Wii, probably more worthwhile and unique exclusives than Xbox 360. (I do not include PC+360 releases as Xbox exclusives).

Sure there are lots of Wii exclusives. But how many of those not made by nintendo sold well? Because I can think of 2 franchises (Just Dance and that EA exercise rubbish).

But to bring this whole thing full circle, let me restate my argument in brief:

The Nintendo stock price tumbled because:
Record Low Profits
Under performance of the 3DS according to Nintendo
A lackluster media response to the WiiU that investors likely feel will translate to low sales.

Now, you could easily point out everyone thought Nintendo was doomed with the DS or Wii and I would have to concede the point. Nintendo has often managed to turn the game around and they certainly have time to play with. But, because of their grand strategy, they have ensured they are going to wade into this fight from a position of enormous weakness.

 

[NoeL]

You can deny it all you want. Anything that convinces you that considerable Wii line-up can't be counted as a value-added for Wii U's launch line-up. This is analogous to the PS2's PS1 backwards compatibility, only far greater added value as it is a "HD Enhancer" of those old Wii games.

The Wii U won't display Wii games in HD - this is coming straight from Reggie. Wii games were designed to be displayed in SD and so it's significantly more difficult than just turning up the resolution to make them HD. They'll almost certainly release HD ports of Wii titles like they did porting Wiimote-compatible GC games, but the Wii U will NOT be a "HD Enhancer" for Wii discs.

 

[NoeL]

And incredibly low sales of virtually every title for the platform.

Part of the problem would be how ridiculously easy it is to hack the Wii. If it weren't for the Homebrew Channel those sales would be higher (though probably only marginally). God I love the Homebrew Channel...

 

[Treblaine]

You can deny it all you want. Anything that convinces you that considerable Wii line-up can't be counted as a value-added for Wii U's launch line-up. This is analogous to the PS2's PS1 backwards compatibility, only far greater added value as it is a "HD Enhancer" of those old Wii games.

The Wii U won't display Wii games in HD - this is coming straight from Reggie. Wii games were designed to be displayed in SD and so it's significantly more difficult than just turning up the resolution to make them HD. They'll almost certainly release HD ports of Wii titles like they did porting Wiimote-compatible GC games, but the Wii U will NOT be a "HD Enhancer" for Wii discs.

Damn.

You got a source with a quote on that? Because this Dolphin Emulator tech is just such a potential it should be a shame to miss this opportunity.

If they do do HD-Remakes they better release a lot of them fast around release date and not be like PS3 waiting half a decade to get round to it.

 

[Treblaine]

(1) And incredibly low sales of virtually every title for the platform. That isn't Nintendo's fault so much as it was a problem with the audience however...
...Sure there are lots of Wii exclusives. But how many of those not made by nintendo sold well? Because I can think of 2 franchises (Just Dance and that EA exercise rubbish).

(2) And yet the platform (iOS) generates tens of millions of dollars in single game sales. It is in the hands of more than 70 million users right now. It costs next to nothing to develop for. Yes most of what's there is rubbish or shovelware or good for little more than a diversion, but it also has plenty of honest to god fully featured games that are worth playing. That the games also cost dramatically less on the platform is an enormous advantage, especially when dealing with the market that includes the key Pokemon demographic.


(3) I'm not talking about market strength but the viability of a single platform. I will not widen the scope of the arugment to include points of economic theory that do not pertain to the issue at hand which is (and has always been) my interpretation of why Nintendo's stock price fell with the announcement of the WiiU.


(4) Now, you could easily point out everyone thought Nintendo was doomed with the DS or Wii and I would have to concede the point. Nintendo has often managed to turn the game around...

(1) Plenty of good third party Wii exclusives:
-Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles
-Resident Evil: Darkside Chronicles
-Ghost Squad (it IS good, best rail shooter since classic Time Crisis)
-House of the Dead: overkill
-Sin & Punishment 2 (only published by Nintendo)
-MadWorld
-Dead Space: extraction

Wii games have sold extremely well without even looking at bundled games:
-Mario Kart = 27 million
-Mario Bros Wii = 21 million
-Mario Galaxy = 9.4 million
-Super Paper Mario = 3 million
-Super smash Bros = 10.4 million
-Twilight Princess = 5.9 million

For reference:
Gears of War = 5.9 million
Halo 3 = 11.2 million
Fable 2 = 4 million

(2) But the iOS platforms are not bought for games. They are bought for their other features.

It's acting like people with laptops playing farmville is somehow a threat to Xbox Live. Many more people used facebook and play farmville and other shitty flash games simply for the convenience that it is available for next to nothing where they came for something else. With facebook they came for socialising and played a dumb game. With iPhone/iPod Touch they came for music, phoning and internet browsing, they only play any games there because they are available and only a few are making even a couple million.

Remember what Dr Evil's Number 2 says: "a million dollars is not a lot of money theses days"

Also 70 million iOS devices, half of them have such comparatively low power they are useless for games. iPhone 3G has less than HALF the CPU speed of an iPhone 4 and pitiful GPU. Early iPod Touch devices are even worse and not to mention how the sole touchscreen interface limits games so extraordinarily.

These are not gaming devices. They SUUUUUCK at 3D controls, ane when they try to render 3D the battery is gone in literally half an hour. Now you aren't just down a games console, you are down a phone. There is still a huge market for DEDICATED portable gaming consoles.

(3) Huh. You're happy to widen the scope all over the place to handhelds, Dreamcast, iPhone.
I guess I must have a point if you don't want to talk about it.
Nintendo's stock prices fall now, 18 months before release, because they can't take the heat. They bought stock in a company that was predictable and avoided direct competition.

This is a bold move for Nintendo to try to win both the Core and Casual audience, and this is a necessary move after Xbox and Nintendo have moved to try to take the casual audience with Kinect and Move.

This stock fall is all the conservative investors getting out of the game, over the next 18 months Nintendo are going to show the full capability of the platform and how it can appeal to both core and casual. I think they can do it, they mastered the causal market like no one else could, it is easier to come back to the core. Kinect and Move have shown how hard it is to branch out from core to casual.

I suppose my point is you do not need Nintendo to explicitly spell it out to you, the potential of this is evident to anyone with a bit of imagination combined with common sense.

(4) Nintendo don't "turn the game around". They say what they are going to do, people assume they are lying, Nintendo actually DO what they always planned to do and succeed in it. The pundits all dissed the Wii because it was not the conservative and predictable console, and they refused to listen to Nintendo when they said they were trying to disrupt the market and appeal to the mainstream more.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

(1) Plenty of good third party Wii exclusives:
-Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles
-Resident Evil: Darkside Chronicles
-Ghost Squad (it IS good, best rail shooter since classic Time Crisis)
-House of the Dead: overkill
-Sin & Punishment 2 (only published by Nintendo)
-MadWorld
-Dead Space: extraction

And each of those games sold poorly.

Wii games have sold extremely well without even looking at bundled games:
-Mario Kart = 27 million
-Mario Bros Wii = 21 million
-Mario Galaxy = 9.4 million
-Super Paper Mario = 3 million
-Super smash Bros = 10.4 million
-Twilight Princess = 5.9 million

And those are first party titles. I'm not sure why you posted this because I never claimed the Wii lacked good games; I said they suffered from low third party sales.

(2) But the iOS platforms are not bought for games. They are bought for their other features.

In spite of this the platform still moves millions of games a month. Hell, Angry Birds alone has sold 100 million units.

It's acting like people with laptops playing farmville is somehow a threat to Xbox Live.

No, it really isn't. The iOS on the other hand is directly competing for pocket space and more and more people are coming to the conclusion that they don't need to carry a dedicated device.

Remember what Dr Evil's Number 2 says: "a million dollars is not a lot of money theses days"

But tens of millions is.

Also 70 million iOS devices, half of them have such comparatively low power they are useless for games.

Unless you count the thousands of games made for the older iOS devices.

iPhone 3G has less than HALF the CPU speed of an iPhone 4 and pitiful GPU.

And yet I use a 3GS to play LOTS of games.

Early iPod Touch devices are even worse and not to mention how the sole touchscreen interface limits games so extraordinarily.

And yet I have friends with dozens of games on their Touches.

These are not gaming devices.

You're right. They're phones that can do something besides make phone calls. They can also watch movies, play games, browse the internet, check e-mail and so forth. That the device is not the best solution for any of these jobs (save the phone part) is irrelevant for most. You must understand that a huge portion of the DS audience is the casual gamer.

They SUUUUUCK at 3D controls,

Which is why the best games on the platform embrace the fact that it is a touch interface with tilt. Just as the best games on the Wii embraced the notion of motion.

ane when they try to render 3D the battery is gone in literally half an hour.

That's funny given I've played 3d titles on my 3GS for several hours on end. The battery life isn't stellar but it's several times longer than what you cite under the worst case scenario.

[Now you aren't just down a games console, you are down a phone. There is still a huge market for DEDICATED portable gaming consoles.

A market that is rapidly shrinking in the face of advancing technology in phones.

(3) Huh. You're happy to widen the scope all over the place to handhelds, Dreamcast, iPhone.
I guess I must have a point if you don't want to talk about it.

The handheld part is a key part of my argument. The dreamcast offers a similar historical scenario. This does not represent widening of scope it is called supporting my thesis.

Nintendo's stock prices fall now, 18 months before release, because they can't take the heat. They bought stock in a company that was predictable and avoided direct competition.

And because of record low profits, lackluster 3DS sales and underwhelming reception of the WiiU announcement.

This is a bold move for Nintendo to try to win both the Core and Casual audience, and this is a necessary move after Xbox and Nintendo have moved to try to take the casual audience with Kinect and Move.

Yes, it is bold. So is slapping a lion in the face.

This stock fall is all the conservative investors getting out of the game, over the next 18 months Nintendo are going to show the full capability of the platform and how it can appeal to both core and casual. I think they can do it, they mastered the causal market like no one else could, it is easier to come back to the core. Kinect and Move have shown how hard it is to branch out from core to casual.

We keep coming back to this. Unless you can present magical evidence that alters my assessment we really ought to drop it. I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me without substantial information that simply isn't out there to show me. Time will tell if this very steep hill is something Nintendo can climb.

I suppose my point is you do not need Nintendo to explicitly spell it out to you, the potential of this is evident to anyone with a bit of imagination combined with common sense.

Just as the obstacles in their path are obvious to anyone with a bit of imagination and common sense. What you seem to be doing is ignoring the current reality of the situation based on the assumption that they will turn it around. That's entirely fine with me. I am not calling for the doom of Nintendo nor am I quite ready to dance on that grave. I am simply assessing the situation using information available. You are doing the same thing. My assessment is simply more conservative than yours.

(4) Nintendo don't "turn the game around". They say what they are going to do, people assume they are lying, Nintendo actually DO what they always planned to do and succeed in it.

What on earth do you think "turn it around" means?

The pundits all dissed the Wii because it was not the conservative and predictable console, and they refused to listen to Nintendo when they said they were trying to disrupt the market and appeal to the mainstream more.

And, ultimately, the conservative pundits were largely correct. The console failed to appeal to the core audience and while it made significant inroads in the casual market they largely failed to sell games that didn't have that Nintendo brand stuck to it. Simply put, the Wii sold fewer games per console than either the PS3 or the 360 by a significant margin.

Was the Wii a success? Sure: it made money for Nintendo. But that success did not translate into software sales for anyone except Nintendo. The only people who made significant profits consistently on the Wii were Nintendo.

 

[Treblaine]

And each of those games sold poorly.

And those are first party titles. I'm not sure why you posted this because I never claimed the Wii lacked good games; I said they suffered from low third party sales.

In spite of this the platform still moves millions of games a month. Hell, Angry Birds alone has sold 100 million units.

No, it really isn't. The iOS on the other hand is directly competing for pocket space and more and more people are coming to the conclusion that they don't need to carry a dedicated device.

Unless you count the thousands of games made for the older iOS devices.

You must understand that a huge portion of the DS audience is the casual gamer.

"They SUUUUUCK at 3D controls"
Which is why the best games on the platform embrace the fact that it is a touch interface with tilt. Just as the best games on the Wii embraced the notion of motion.

That's funny given I've played 3d titles on my 3GS for several hours on end. The battery life isn't stellar but it's several times longer than what you cite under the worst case scenario.

And because of record low profits, lackluster 3DS sales and underwhelming reception of the WiiU announcement.

Was the Wii a success? Sure: it made money for Nintendo. But that success did not translate into software sales for anyone except Nintendo. The only people who made significant profits consistently on the Wii were Nintendo.

Your squirming double-talk has reached a ridiculous level, You tell bare faced lies about you said and what you meant. I don't even know if you realise what you are doing, how you claim "i didn't actually say that" WHEN YOU DID! You keep squirming to change the subject away from every point I make and throw back nonsense conjecture in return:

Wii has an attach rate of 8.6 Wii games per Wii console, PS3 has 8.2 PS3 games per PS3 console. You have written a whole bloody essay on a fundamentally flawed assumption.

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/news/26143

http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/index_e.html

.

I downloaded Epic Citadel. Its controls were worse than even PSP, the framerate was shit and it literally was completely discharged from 100% in 30 minutes. You are trying to have your cake and eat it: cite the battery life from iPhone 3D games using PS1 era graphics, while riding on implication of Epic Citadel graphics competitive with modern devices.

People who settle for Angry Birds on Smart-phones/MP3 players were not in the market for 3DS games anyway. People who buy the DS/3DS are casual gamers but at least they are GAMERS! People who play angry birds are more than casual, they are so basic they don't qualify as more than toys.

Angry Birds and all versions may have sold 100 million, but at only 99 cents! 30 cents of which go to Apple. A console game has to only sell 2.3 million units to make as much, which is how much Capcom made with the Resident Evil Chronicles games on Wii!

These smartphones/devices is not some great panacea for developers who are going to flock from the real gaming handhelds. iOS games are shit and sold at the prices shit should be sold at. All you are focusing on is the sales figures as if all else is equal when all else IS NOT EQUAL. The controls are so diabolical, I cannot comprehend how you think tilt controls are a good enough solution. Nintendo has a huge advantage as unlike Apple and all the imitators Nintendo know the necessity of buttons and real controls.

The good games on android/iOS do not sell and they don't even work without draining your battery.

To put 3DS's shortcomings down to iOS is out of order. It was a March launch with rumours of NGP all over the place, of course it isn't selling like crazy, people just have unreasonably high expectations after Apple i-device mania.

.


You keep using this word "Record low profits" when that is hugely misleading, Profits have merely not risen as they had the past 5 years of EXTRAORDINARY growth in profit. This is not some record breaking fall, this shows that there is some limit to success. Still, Nintendo had a $1.3 billion dollar profit in the same period Sony AGAIN posted a whopping multi-million dollar loss. Also in this time Microsoft has fallen so much and steadily.

How can you call 1.3 BILLION DOLLARS OF PROFIT a "record low". It just shows a monumental lack of perspective, or at the very least a conceited attempt to smear Nintendo with misleading language. This is scaremongering, this is what leads to people valuing Nintendo stock as low as when they were making huge losses.

"The only people who made significant profits consistently on the Wii were Nintendo."

This is AGAIN the circular logic you keep using. You imply it is something inherent of Nintendo when the THird Party developers have always said the reason for their poor support was they cannot work with this lower power hardware. Now that the hardware will be powerful enough you still want to impose that property on Wii U when that wasn't even the original point.

You point was "Wii owners simply don't buy games (in significant numbers" I have demonstrated that they DO, they buy games, there is an 8.6 game-per-console attach rate. They are a base to build on for success of Wii U when they want to move on up to HD games.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Wii has an attach rate of 8.6 Wii games per Wii console, PS3 has 8.2 PS3 games per PS3 console. You have written a whole bloody essay on a fundamentally flawed assumption.

I'd like a source on the statistic as the most recent attach rate info I could find was a year ago and anything more recent than that failed to include various regions (e.g. the PS3 attach rate in Europe or the 360's rate in the US to date). If I am indeed wrong on this point then I will happily accept the news.

As an unrelated note (that has no bearing on this), I'd actually really like to see detailed statistics in this regard because I'm curious about the percentage of the Wii attach rate is Nintendo or what part of 360 is Activision etc. If you are aware of such a source (and I spent a fair amount of time looking), I'd be grateful.

I downloaded Epic Citadel. Its controls were worse than even PSP, the framerate was shit and it literally was completely discharged from 100% in 30 minutes. You are trying to have your cake and eat it: cite the battery life from iPhone 3D games using PS1 era graphics, while riding on implication of Epic Citadel graphics competitive with modern devices.

I had no problems with controls or framerate when playing Infinity Blade, a game using that Engine , (versus a tech demo) on my 3GS. What's more, from a full charge my phone battery only reached around 40% after a full hour of play (the longest I've needed to amuse myself with the game thus far).

People who settle for Angry Birds on Smart-phones/MP3 players were not in the market for 3DS games anyway.

When a device sells 140+ million units, you have to understand that a significant portion of that market is not a "gamer" per your use of the word below. Much of the success of the DS was from people who were not "gamers", that very market that the Smartphone threatens most directly.

People who buy the DS/3DS are casual gamers but at least they are GAMERS! People who play angry birds are more than casual, they are so basic they don't qualify as more than toys.

Some of the people are certainly core gamers, or at least will likely grow into one eventually. Many of them however are the sort who do play games like Angry Birds or Farmville and are utterly satisfied. Why would those people purchase a single use device and pay upwards of 40 USD for games when they can be perfectly happy with games that cost less than five on a device that they carry for a host of reasons?

Angry Birds and all versions may have sold 100 million, but at only 99 cents! 30 cents of which go to Apple.

Development cost was somewhere north of 140 thousand USD. The return on investment was somewhere in the neighborhood of 450:1. The platform is incredibly low risk and high reward. Even Infintity Blade, the closest to a AAA game the iOS platform has really seen has achieved a return of 20:1.

A console game has to only sell 2.3 million units to make as much, which is how much Capcom made with the Resident Evil Chronicles games on Wii!

Considering the much higher development cost (which I am sadly not privy to), I suspect the number for "making a profit" is dramatically increased, especially when you consider that a traditional game in a store purchase means that the console manufacturer takes a significant cut, disc pressing and packaging takes another, as does distribution and finally the store that sells it. Making a profit return that even approaches Angry Birds (or Infinity Blade for that matter) is all but impossible and only the most resounding successes come anywhere close. What's more, there are success stories like Angry Birds all the time on the iOS platform.

These smartphones/devices is not some great panacea for developers who are going to flock from the real gaming handhelds.

And yet it managed to attract people like Epic, Atlas, Square, Id, EA, Ubisoft and so forth.

iOS games are shit and sold at the prices shit should be sold at.

Sure most of them are. Some of them are not. In much the same way that most of the Wii catalog is shovelware you might say.

All you are focusing on is the sales figures as if all else is equal when all else IS NOT EQUAL.

I'm focusing on sales figures because sales drive development. I could also focus on the minimal barrier to entry and low risk of the iOS platform that makes it perfect for indie development and professional experimentation. Or I could point to the enormous slump in DS sales over the last year while smartphone penetration continues to climb to ubiquity.

The controls are so diabolical, I cannot comprehend how you think tilt controls are a good enough solution.

It's pretty simple. When a developer makes a game and embraces the control limitations, the result is no longer diabolical.

Nintendo has a huge advantage as unlike Apple and all the imitators Nintendo know the necessity of buttons and real controls.

We're just going to ignore the Wii then?

The good games on android/iOS do not sell and they don't even work without draining your battery.

The 3DS gets around four hours. My laptop gets that doing fun things as well. If I want to push it (and reduce performance) it gets around six. And I have the option of swapping to a backup battery there. Hell, my DS never seemed to run out of battery to the point that I don't know how long the damn thing lasts. At least as long as an intercontinental flight.

To put 3DS's shortcomings down to iOS is out of order.

I'm not putting down it's shortcomings. What I am doing is pointing to the reasons why the Smartphone is a threat to the device. More than once I've outright said it wasn't as good. My point has ever been it is simply "good enough" for a surprising number.

It was a March launch with rumours of NGP all over the place, of course it isn't selling like crazy, people just have unreasonably high expectations after Apple i-device mania.

People including Nintendo for example?

You keep using this word "Record low profits" when that is hugely misleading, Profits have merely not risen as they had the past 5 years of EXTRAORDINARY growth in profit.

Nintendo profits are down 66%. It's stock price has <a href=http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=NTDOY.PK+Interactive#chart2:symbol=ntdoy.pk;range=5y;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined> fallen to less than half its five year peak.

Still, Nintendo had a $1.3 billion dollar profit in the same period Sony AGAIN posted a whopping multi-million dollar loss.

Yes, things are difficult for Sony and their stock did indeed fall by a similar margin. When you consider this was helped along by enormous losses (versus the enormous drop in profit) along with high profile hacks and a complete shutdown of several revenue generating sources, it makes the Nintendo plunge all the more interesting doesn't it? Nintendo has been trending down in stock price for years now and the only significant upswings in their price have coincided with the launch of new DS platforms.

Also in this time Microsoft has fallen so much and steadily.

Microsoft recently posted profits <a href=http://www.geekwire.com/2011/microsoft-profits-top-expectations-xbox-office-trump-pc-slump expectations. Their <a href=http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?symbol=msft&CP=0&PT=9>stock is down with respect to their five year high but by a much smaller margin.

How can you call 1.3 BILLION DOLLARS OF PROFIT a "record low".

Because it is down 66% maybe? Because it was a sudden and precipitous drop?

It just shows a monumental lack of perspective, or at the very least a conceited attempt to smear Nintendo with misleading language.

No, assuming that 1.3 billion dollars is a lot of money shows a lack of perspective. To put that in perspective, World of Warcraft generates more revenue that that per year. Call of Duty has, for the last two titles, broken a Billion dollars in sales (with a smaller fraction of that being profit on the game).

This is scaremongering, this is what leads to people valuing Nintendo stock as low as when they were making huge losses.

That loss in stock price has been happening for years.

This is AGAIN the circular logic you keep using.

No, actually it isn't.

You imply it is something inherent of Nintendo when the THird Party developers have always said the reason for their poor support was they cannot work with this lower power hardware.

My point here was entirely that 3rd parties failed to consistently make any significant profit. I was not implying Nintendo had some magic ability to generate revenue with the device by merely pointing out that they were the only ones who manged to do so regularly.

Now that the hardware will be powerful enough you still want to impose that property on Wii U when that wasn't even the original point.

Let me give you this in bullet points, carefully pulled from my previous posts. You can accept or refute them if you wish. Several of them are based on cold hard fact, others are entirely conjecture

Thesis: the Nintendo stock Price dropped for reasonable and rational reasons
1) The WiiU is launching from a position of weakness (See below)
2) the 3DS is fighting an uphill battle against Smartphones, the DS, and the looming threat of the new Sony Handheld (See below)
3) Nintendo Profits have dropped 66%
4) The 3DS is performing below Nintendo's expectation
5) This drop continues the years long trend of Nintendo Stock dropping in price

Thesis: the ports won't matter in a significant way
Supporting Points:
1) The people who would play such games generally already own a PS3 or 360 or gaming PC (or some combination thereof)
2) The people who play such games online are already invested in their platform of choice with friends, achievements, trophies etc.
3) Software drives hardware sales
4) With an assured gap of 50 million units at launch, most 3rd party development will continue to focus on the PS3 and 360 platforms as their flagships

Thesis: The Power of the WiiU is likely a fools gambit
Supporting Points:
1) Nintendo is the only company with a vested interest in the success of the platform. They will therefore do their best to maximize the used potential of the platform.
2) Without significant market penetration of the device, major developers are not going to be in any rush to expend resources to do the same as Nintendo.
3) The people who initially bought the Wii in massive quantities clearly did not care about the power of the platform.

Thesis: The 3DS has an uphill climb ahead of it
Supporting points:
1) Smartphone penetration is near ubiquitous.
2) The platforms are low barrier to entry, low risk and offer the potential of incredibly high return all of which are attractive for developers
3) The incredibly low cost of playing games on the platform is attractive to a significant portion of the gaming population
4) The new Sony Device will launch in the holiday season at a similar price point with features that directly appeal to the core gamer.
5) The success of the DS will continue to undermine the 3DS for the foreseeable future. Lacking any significant killer app ensures that few will (or indeed have) made the jump to the new version when the old version is bargain priced and has an enormous library of games that can be had on the cheap. (This was kind of a cheat as it was your point simply expanded)

 

[Chibz]

Thesis: The 3DS has an uphill climb ahead of it
Supporting points:
1) Smartphone penetration is near ubiquitous.
2) The platforms are low barrier to entry, low risk and offer the potential of incredibly high return all of which are attractive for developers
3) The incredibly low cost of playing games on the platform is attractive to a significant portion of the gaming population
4) The new Sony Device will launch in the holiday season at a similar price point with features that directly appeal to the core gamer.
5) The success of the DS will continue to undermine the 3DS for the foreseeable future. Lacking any significant killer app ensures that few will (or indeed have) made the jump to the new version when the old version is bargain priced and has an enormous library of games that can be had on the cheap. (This was kind of a cheat as it was your point simply expanded)

1. Really? I'm looking at the sales numbers of various models of smart phone. It's really less than impressive.
2. Most app store apps make a very questionable profit. And although the wii might have more games of questionable quality (not synonymous with shovelware, by the way) riddle me this: How many fart apps are available on the app store? The lack of quality control is reminiscent of a certain console by Atari...
3. Yes. Most app store games are low cost, this is true. But they tend to be games you play for a very, very short time and then never play again. You get what you pay for...
4 & 5: Think of it this way. Nintendo is (easing) the 3DS into the market. It's really just another model of DS, and isn't competing with the DSi any more than the DSi should be considered to have competed with the DS lite, or DS. Lack of a "killer app"? Seriously, the system is still young. Give it time. Kid Icarus Uprising and Ocarina of Time 3D are coming out, there are other games just around the corner too. Give. It. Time.

Did you criticize the PS1 for its rather lackluster list of launch titles? They were mostly bad. Best was Rayman. However, if you did... Joke's on you. The PS1 completely DOMINATED the N64 in sales.

 

[NoeL]

Damn.

You got a source with a quote on that?

Google it. You'll find dozens.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

1. Really? I'm looking at the sales numbers of various models of smart phone. It's really less than impressive.

Really? More than 200 iOS devices is lackluster? More than 100 million Android devices is lackluster?

2. Most app store apps make a very questionable profit. And although the wii might have more games of questionable quality (not synonymous with shovelware, by the way) riddle me this: How many fart apps are available on the app store? The lack of quality control is reminiscent of a certain console by Atari...

Yes, you have hit upon the very complaint voiced by most who confront the smartphone craze. Many people see a bubble waiting to burst. While this eventuality might come to pass, the incredibly low cost of getting a game certainly helps mitigate the danger. And, yes, for every success story on the iOS marketplace there are untold hundreds of failures. The thing is, the platform is incredibly low risk but the potential for reward is high.

3. Yes. Most app store games are low cost, this is true. But they tend to be games you play for a very, very short time and then never play again. You get what you pay for...

I really don't think you want to try and argue the price to play time card considering a great many games can be had for one dollar (or even free). The latter offers infinite enjoyable play time per dollar while the former can easily offer hours per dollar. By contrast, the games I played the most in the last year (Bad Company 2, Dragon Age Origins, Mass Effect 2) managed perhaps one dollar per hour.

4 & 5: Think of it this way. Nintendo is (easing) the 3DS into the market.

They device has underperformed according to Nintendo (a link to one of many articles supporting this point is in the post). This isn't part of the strategy; Nintendo thought the device would do better than it is.

It's really just another model of DS, and isn't competing with the DSi any more than the DSi should be considered to have competed with the DS lite, or DS.

Which I mentioned in the appropriate segment just below the one you quoted. Nintendo is unfortunately competing with themselves for market and mind share.

Lack of a "killer app"? Seriously, the system is still young.

Software drives hardware sales. The devices needs that game that makes people want to go out and buy it. I'm not saying it won't come to pass; I am saying that it has not as of yet.

Give. It. Time.

Really they need to get these titles out as soon as possible. The less they have to compete with the Vita for mindshare the better.

Did you criticize the PS1 for its rather lackluster list of launch titles? They were mostly bad. Best was Rayman. However, if you did... Joke's on you. The PS1 completely DOMINATED the N64 in sales.

Yes it did. And the PS2 soundly beat the Xbox and Gamecube and now Sony is sitting in third place in a three way race. Nintendo is entering a game late with lackluster software at launch and facing stiff competition on multiple fronts. Now is not the time for a "wait and see" conservative strategy. Now is the time to give the effort everything they have.

Now, for the record, since it might seem from my post history in this thread that I am somehow hoping for a Nintendo failure, let me say that such a message was never my intended aim. My message was intended to be simply that Nintendo has ensured an uphill battle on both their fronts (handheld and console) thanks to poor timing and overall strategic management. I do believe that this can be overcome if proper care is taken but I do not for a moment believe that their success is assured. f There is plenty of room for catastrophic error in the next 36 months that may well determine the fate of the Nintendo brand as a platform. My aim was simply to illustrate the problems Nintendo faces. It was never to shout from the hilltops as a harbinger of the demise of the oldest competitor still in the game.

 

[Chibz]

LAGANN IMPACT!

Another big flaw in your reasoning is that the vita will be a genuine threat to the 3ds/ds.The PSP failed MISERABLY to be a threat to the DS. The vita is just a more powerful PSP with a second analog stick. Way to design, Sony. Way to design.

It isn't even directly backward compatible with PSP games (Due to no UMD). So if you bought UMD's you'll be SOL. THIS is directly competing with yourself, in a very negative way. "Do I really want to update to a Vita, knowing that many of my games will be incompatible with it?"

This also means that the Vita needs to gain a foothold based on its launch titles. The 3DS, being compatible with all DS titles, already has many, MANY games you can play on it with promises of fun games later.

Sony is gonna fuck up hard here.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Another big flaw in your reasoning is that the vita will be a genuine threat to the 3ds/ds.The PSP failed MISERABLY to be a threat to the DS. The vita is just a more powerful PSP with a second analog stick. Way to design, Sony. Way to design.

First, I would like to say that I do not understand what you mean with your truncated version of my post.

With respect to this exact thing however, consider the following. The 3DS is trading upon two technical marvels: that it offers glasses free 3D (a feature that remains a gimmick thus far) and that it offers many mechanisms of control. The former has yet to have a demonstrated use that makes it worthwhile beyond the gee wiz factor while the latter has the benefit of demonstrated strength from other platforms.

What the Vita offers is power and visual fidelity. Both are more immediately useful to a developer as they already know how to make shiny graphics. What's more, this power offers the reasonable option of providing a mobile continuation of games you might play on a console.

Thus while the market in general has yet to hop on board with 3D in general, the Vita is trying to offer the console experience on the road and it's doing it with a relatively radical control scheme to boot. Thus while the 3DS is trading primarily in a single unique feature, the Vita approaches the problem in much the same way as the PSP: as the uncompromising powerhouse. Until there is a game that demonstrates the value of 3D graphics, pure power seems to be the safer bet. I can play any number of throwaway shovelware titles elsewhere but where can I get Uncharted on the go?

It isn't even directly backward compatible with PSP games (Due to no UMD). So if you bought UMD's you'll be SOL.

I never claimed Sony's strategy was brilliant but rather that they represented a direct and looming competitor.

THIS is directly competing with yourself, in a very negative way. "Do I really want to update to a Vita, knowing that many of my games will be incompatible with it?"

Honestly, a similar complaint exists for the 3DS. Not only can it not play Advance games but there is no simple process for transferring licenses between the DSi and 3Ds! This problem more or less falls in line with Nintendo's storied history of piss-poor online infrastructure.

This also means that the Vita needs to gain a foothold based on its launch titles

The urgency of this point is mitigated by the thus far underwhelming sales of the 3DS.

The 3DS, being compatible with all DS titles, already has many, MANY games you can play on it with promises of fun games later.

Those same titles can be enjoyed by anyone with a DS right now. Considering a DS can be had for less than 100 USD is certainly doing no favors to the 3DS. Upgrades generally occur en masse because there is some new title (or titles) that cannot be enjoyed elsewhere. Currently, there simply is not such a title on the market.

Sony is gonna fuck up hard here.

The ultimate success or failure of Sony is not terribly relevant to my point. Sony is going to gain some portion of the market. Sony is a direct competitor in the handheld space. Nintendo needs to gain ground while they can before they have to fight for those same handheld dollars currently being contested by iOS, the DS, the DSi, the Android and the PSP.

 

[Treblaine]

The latter offers infinite enjoyable play time per dollar

Yeah, just like Ball-in-the-cup, it has INFINITE amount of fun. See you flip the ball into the cup then drop it out again, and you can keep doing this FOREVER!

(/sarc)

Seriously, iOS games market is a bubble filled with crap games that are effectively no more than virtual ball-in-the-cup. It emulates the type of toys that you keep toddlers entertained with.
No one can get into this market, sure Angry Bird spent only 140k, but it doesn't matter how much or little any one else spends, no one else can match their success. The market is far smaller than it appears, there is only room for a few devs making just a couple million dollars.
Compared to console where loads make hundreds of billions, and a few making billions of dollars per game.

And the PS2 soundly beat the Xbox and Gamecube and now Sony is sitting in third place in a three way race. Nintendo is entering a game late with lackluster software at launch and facing stiff competition on multiple fronts. Now is not the time for a "wait and see" conservative strategy. Now is the time to give the effort everything they have.

I wouldn't put TOO much emphasis on software. PS2 didn't get any decent quantity of good software till around 2005, yet it sold like hot-cakes.

While PS2 had pretty much only Devi May Cry by the end of 2002 (MGS2 was too silly, and would come to Xbox within a year anyway), Gamecube had:
-Super Mario Sunshine
-Eternal Darkness
-Resident Evil (the stellar remake)
-Star Fox Adventures
-Super Smash Bros. Melee
-Star Wars: Rogue Squadron II

PS2 sold well even with Dreamcast's head start because it had billions of dollars in the bank, made great use of backwards-compatibility, and had added media-appeal with a built in DVD movie player.

If software drives sales why didn't Gamecube outsell PS2? Or at least sell as-well.

Interestingly this time PS3 has far more quality exclusives than Xbox 360 yet it struggles to keep pace.

Who says they won't give everything they have? I mean have you seen the Zelda tech demo? Oh GLORY! We've got 18 months here, and there is room for 3 horses in this race.

One thing that has occurred to me about your argument "Third party won't support a console with such a small share" well it isn't going to form a large share - people won't buy if - there aren't games for it.

Your logic means no new console would EVER get made because of a paradox that both games and console has to be there before the other.

In reality what happens is:
-Many Developers make games for new system, anticipating many people will buy the console
-Many People will buy the console, anticipating Many Developers make games for new system

The only problem is people like YOU in the middle saying that neither side will do this, or what they do will not be worth it! Your chicken-little predictions come across less as advice for Nintendo to try hard (of course they are going to put in 110%) and more that the advice they shouldn't even be trying.

On the topic of profits. Nintendo recorded a less profit... at the time they are developing TWO new consoles. Wow, does no one think that might be because of development cost, investing in a new iteration of more capable hardware? Its just galling that so many people can knock a company for investing in the future, trying to make things better.

Do you just think Nintendo should coast on DS and Wii until their sales slowly peter off to nothing? That they should only try new hardware after Sony/MS have made a move?

Nope, you like so many assume "hmm, less profits in just one year must mean they are failing. I'm not saying they are doomed, just that they will with huge likelihood exactly like a company that did completely implode; sega. In other words SELL SELL SELL! Get off this sinking ship before the sky falls!"

 

[Chibz]

Honestly, a similar complaint exists for the 3DS. Not only can it not play Advance games but there is no simple process for transferring licenses between the DSi and 3Ds! This problem more or less falls in line with Nintendo's storied history of piss-poor online infrastructure.

First of all, the DS line hasn't had Gameboy Advance support in 3 models. If this is a genuine gripe of someone considering upgrading, they're very much late to the party to complain about it.

I've looked into transferring your licenses over. It looks pretty simple. One sec. I'll edit this post in a few minutes.

Spoiler

1. On 3DS: 3DS settings->Other Settings->System Transfer->Select "Transfer from DSi". Agree to agreement. "Receive from DSi"
2. On DSi: Connect to DSi shop->Proceed to downloads->Free->DSiware transfer tool. Download it.
3. DSi Menu->DSiware transfer tool.
4. Wait patiently for it to check to ensure the transfer can be done (?). Agree to agreement. Click transfer->Send from this system.
5. Confirm the transfer. Go through process of choosing what you want to transfer, or just do everything.

I just transferred a Game & Watch game on dsiware over. It's very simple, especially since you need no outside assistance (like transferring 360 arcade & GoD games). I am now moving everything over now that I know it works. It said I can't move the dsiware transfer tool. Fancy that.

Just adding that the pikmin animation for transferring (on my 3DS) is adorable and... in 3D. Way to be awesome, Nintendo. Way to be awesome.

Also, I'm not even going to touch upon smart phones because I don't see how they're a genuine threat to core gaming until they evolve past offering the same depth of experience as the atari 2600.

 

[Treblaine]

The other problem is that when the PS4 and Xbox 720 come out

Wii managed very well with outdated tech,

And the thing is if Sony/MS suddenly move to hardware many times more powerful that PS3/360 they will be much more expensive than Wii U and the added hardware, the take advantage of that you'd have such huge development budgets that you'd need to sell so many millions of copies just to break even.

No, the next-gen of PS/Xbox has a big problem bridging this gap, and they will need some sort of bridging games that take advantage of the hardware yet don't costs 100 million to make.

What may even happen is Sony/MS develop ready-made engines for their hardware to sell to developers/publishers - at a loss - just to entice them over. They will have to work MUCH closer with all developers, even third party, to get games that take advantage of the tech.

Wii U doesn't fit in the "generations" thing and I think like Wii it will operate in a safe zone, more powerful than PS3/360 yet not demanding much higher development costs.

By the time the next "generation" comes around Wii U may have the advantage, that many developers may fin the best of both worlds and on top of that, a foot in the door of market share, just like 360 did in 2005 getting in a year before everyone else. For example the Xbox 360 IS weaker than PS3 but it is easier to develop for and always had that groundswell.

And with all likelihood we won't see anything new from Sony or MS for QUITE a while. Microsoft have plenty more to milk out of Xbox 360 and they don't want to divide their attention. Sony CANNOT AFFORD to leave PS3, they must keep supporting it as their number one flagship product for a long time to come, way past 2012, probably right up to 2016.