Pachter: Nintendo Should "Consider Getting Out of the Wii U Business"

[Hazy992]

If Nintendo follow this 'advice' then Nintendo would be dead as a hardware developer. Who in their right mind could trust a brand after that? Dropping a console after just a couple of years, going third party then going back to making hardware? How could you guarantee they wouldn't just do that again. This would only serve to piss people off.

Michael Pachter has said some really stupid shit, but this is far and away one of the dumbest things he's ever said.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

And this explains why people who have intelligence don't listen to Patcher.

I listen to Pachter because he has more knowledge of the business side of the gaming industry than the regular Joe gaming "journalists". You seem to forget that Pachter is just putting out suggestions on how to maximize revenue. And he's not wrong. Ditching the Wii U is probably the best decision Nintendo could make since they screwed it up so hard already (calling it the Wii U was a big no-no).

Just more horsepower? Does anybody really think that would be enough?

Yes, that would be enough (see: fanboy wars about CoD's native resolution on Xbox One compared to PS4). The Wii U's CPU is so significantly under-powered that it's excruciatingly time-consuming to develop for ( http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-secret-developers-wii-u-the-inside-story ). If it costs a fuck-ton to develop for the Wii U and the product is comparatively shit to other platforms' versions, then why would third-party's develop for it? And why would you buy a Wii U if there's no software? Nintendo sure as hell isn't supporting it enough, and they most likely won't be able to catch up. Unless they have the most ground-breaking Zelda game ever that's worth buying a $300 machine to play, the Wii U is going to be a money-sink for Nintendo.

So basically you agree and think Pachter's idea of Ditching the Wii U is a good thing?.

I'll let that sink in your brain for a while until you realise just how wrong that can be towards customers, go ahead I dare you to go to everyone down your street (hell the rest of the planet if you've got the balls) and tell everyone how it's not pointless to buy a Wii U and that you shouldn't because you think it's the better idea.

No, no it's really not at all, you're telling customers directly that the money they have spent on such a console is now worthless and that support must be dropped and their consoles devalued, that's not what a customer would ever want to hear.

Do you understand what a customer does want?, do you understand how they take it when you elt them know the money they just spend on was all for nothing?, do many customers love getting that shoved in their face based upon "good ideas", I'd say not.

yes the man think he can maximise profits but he's been going about it wrong this entire time, if you think he's better and more intelligent than the average joe then I don't know what you're on but lay off it.

Other people on here have already suggested good and decent sound ideas that can aid Nintendo without having to fuck over their existing customers, you do not fuck over the current existing base of customers, sorry but you just don't, it never ends well.

Also "more horsepower"?, really is this what everything in the videogame industry is to properly amount to?, are we still on the hype kool aid or something from 2010?.

 

[vagabondwillsmile]

So everyone is allowed to have exclusives and hold content hostage except Nintendo? Though I don't like the idea of exclusives, there are far greater evils in this industry. Nintendo IP's being proprietary, to me, insures that Nintendo's style of game-making won't be altered to the whims of Sony and Microsoft. It would be naive to even humor the notion that they would let Nintendo develop without interjecting and neck-craning. I don't want to see a brown and grey, hard-core Pokemon with epic choir tracks. Just no.

That said, Nintendo has themselves (or at least their marketing team) to blame. I like the Wii U. Never having had a Wii, the backwards compatibility is nice for a lot of stuff I missed out on. I dig some of the new titles too, and am excited for some upcoming releases. But I have never seen a Wii U add. Not ever. Microsoft has ESPN and sporting events locked up and Sony's "It's Such a Perfect Day" spot has been visible and effective for a while now. But the Wii U is absolutely nowhere to be seen. Granted I don't watch much TV; and I don't think I'm a typical entertainment consumer, but this lack of exposure has got to have hurt Nintendo badly. There are lots of people that still don't realize the Wii U is a thing, and not a peripheral for the Wii. The Wii's marketing was aggressive, clever, memorable, and generally well received. Why the same effort was not made to inform and attract the public in the case of the Wii U, I can't even imagine.

Heads in their marketing department need to roll.

They also made a miscalculation in coming out a year in advance of their competitors. It was a risk, hoping for a large install base, that didn't pay off. I can't really fault them, as hindsight is 20/20. But, in so doing, they failed to adequately court the third party developers and now face a fierce uphill battle if they wish to win a modicum of support. They additionally face the stigma of their machine, though plenty capable, being underpowered.

But this idea of dropping current hardware support would be suicidal. The install base would lose faith in the brand. And the brand would have its strings pulled by the other platforms to make games for as wide an audience as possible (as those platforms see it), thus diminishing their brand identity. With the software being pulled away, I don't think the 3ds as a device would be able to survive the market shift, and that would be it (I shudder to even contemplate it, as much as I adore the 3ds).

As it is, the 3ds is successful, and I think headway is there to make for the Wii U, though it will likely be immensely difficult. And despite current hardware troubles - especially considering that Nintendo has faced and survived hardware troubles in the past - I see only disadvantages in abandoning their machine only year into it's life-cycle and multiplating their IP's.

Finally, what Pachter is doing is not making a prediction, but rather a suggestion. A daft suggestion that, if followed, would destroy any positive repute in the brand, and run Nintendo into the ground.

 

[Lightknight]

No, Pachter. That's not what they need to do.

Six steps to save the Wii U:

• 
  [li]More games - They're making progress on this front, but the I think the turning point will be Mario Kart 8.[/li]
  [li]Better marketing - I recently saw an ad on TV that explained that the Wii U isn't just an add-on. They should've been doing this type of ad all along, and they should've been advertising a lot more.[/li]
  [li]Better bundles - For now New Super Mario Bros. is okay (Nintendo Land was always a bad choice), but before holiday 2014 season, they need to start bundling Super Smash Bros or Mario Kart 8.[/li]
  [li]Stop selling the Wii - This is contributing to consumer confusion. Introducing a new model of Wii (the Wii Mini) after launching the Wii U was a colossal mistake. Continuing to sell either version of the Wii is a bigger one. Both the Wii and the Wii Mini need to be ditched ASAP in order for the Wii U to ever gain any real traction.[/li]
  [li]Stop ignoring franchises - We want a new Star Fox game that builds on the foundation set by the first two (think Assault, but actually make a complete game this time). We want a new F-Zero game at all. A new Puzzle League game would be nice, if it can find a big enough audience (maybe rebranded as a Luigi game?). A new Wars game would be a fantastic fit for the Wii U's gamepad.[/li]
  [li]VIRTUAL CONSOLE - Seriously, they've got a huge backlog of games, a fair few people who would be quite willing to re-purchase them, and very little cost in rereleasing them compared to new games. When the Wii was young, I used to get excited to see what new Virtual Console games would come out every week. It was a fantastic hype builder, and helped keep people's minds where you wanted them. It got regular features on quite a few gaming news sites (read: free advertising).[/li]

The Wii U doesn't have to die. It can be made profitable. But Nintendo really needs to look at why it's failing and fix those problems before that can possibly happen. If something isn't working, the solution isn't do the same thing but more of it. Once Nintendo gets that figured out, I think the Wii U perform do acceptably.

P.S. Thanks

Dropping the gamepad and the price with it could also significantly aid them. It's a $140 peripheral that has proven wildly unused and uneeded for the vast majority of games. Getting rid of it could reduce the price by $100 and make porting to the WiiU even simpler. It could also help return the game to an "elder-friendly" state where the WiiMote is so easy to use for them compared to a small screen tablet.

But now that the other console genies are out of the bottle I don't know how much price will matter. Like when the gamecube was the most powerful system of the generation and still sold for $99 after dismal sales.

 

[bluegate]

So everyone is allowed to have exclusives and hold content hostage except Nintendo? Though I don't like the idea of exclusives, there are far greater evils in this industry. Nintendo IP's being proprietary, to me, insures that Nintendo's style of game-making won't be altered to the whims of Sony and Microsoft. It would be naive to even humor the notion that they would let Nintendo develop without interjecting and neck-craning. I don't want to see a brown and grey, hard-core Pokemon with epic choir tracks. Just no.

I think you are mixing up Publishers and Platforms here. I don't see any reason or way that Sony or Microsoft would meddle with Nintendo, were they to want to release a colorful Mario title on their console. They would only stand to benefit from even more diversity on their platform. By the way, the brown and grey Ni no Kuni rolls by to say hello.

They also made a miscalculation in coming out a year in advance of their competitors. It was a risk, hoping for a large install base, that didn't pay off. I can't really fault them, as hindsight is 20/20. But, in so doing, they failed to adequately court the third party developers and now face a fierce uphill battle if they wish to win a modicum of support. They additionally face the stigma of their machine, though plenty capable, being underpowered.

When would you have had them release their console, if I might ask? Having a full year without any next-gen competition is a smart thing to do, that is, if the product you release has games for it and isn't just a marginal improvement over your competitors last gen products.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

Who the hell would buy a Nintendo console in the future if the drop Wii U support in under 2 years.

Abandoning all those who did get a Wii you would kill a lot of confidence in future products not to mention alienate their most loyal customers all for an uncertain return on a later console at a point where sony and microsoft would already have a firm domination of the market. Yeah kinda silly. Still maybe design an attachment that lets the WiiU play more standard games to make porting easier or something? Just pushing ahead at this point doesn't seem like the best strategy either.

well thats not an option I can see as it looks to me like there are no expansion slots for upgrades.
I'm guessing better development kits and incentives for third parties is going to be the only way

 

[IamLEAM1983]

This!

Nintendo needs to realize that it no longer is the proprietary powerhouse that can afford to sit on in-house development. It no longer is the appealing and vaguely cutesy-poo entertainment provider that's fueled entirely by whimsy and vaguely Osamu Tezuka-like design tenets. Gamers are much, much older than they used to be, and my generation isn't in a hurry to replenish the market with new Mariokateers.

As much as Mario games do ramp up their challenge fairly quickly, the initial impression typically veers closer to mind-numbing ease, and the fact is that constantly iterating on the same lore eventually gets tiresome. I'd love it if Ninty worked on a decent storytelling department and stopped considering its titles as "Mario Formula, Iteration Number 32" and "Zelda Formula, Iteration Number 44".

What they really need is to find a way to make us care again. As-is, we just don't.

 

[FalloutJack]

What, after they opened China? There's a ton of game-happy Chinese citizens to make money off of.

 

[Trishbot]

If Patcher had his way, Nintendo would've gotten out of the hardware business after the failure of the Virtual Boy.

Even if the Wii U is a complete, unmitigated disaster, Nintendo has more swings at bat than just one mishap. Never count them out, especially with the 3DS dominating like it has.

 

[J Tyran]

A few multiplatform Nintendo games could be quite good actually, they would naturally sell well with the fans and introduce new fans to their long standing franchises. Nintendo do make quality software, if more people saw that they might be more willing to get a Nintendo platform. It would be even better if they could rebuild bridges with the third parties and make a console with competitive resources again, doesn't have to be the most powerfull just powerful enough and with no oddball controllers or poor media choices like those rubbish Gamecube disks.

They could keep their core games for their own consoles and just release some spins offs, a Mario platformer etc.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

A few multiplatform Nintendo games could be quite good actually, they would naturally sell well with the fans and introduce new fans to their long standing franchises.

It might introduce people to Nintendo games, but we all know how Gamers act, and let's not kid ourselves, they act almost like spoiled children (And some of them actually do). Here's how the scenario above would play out:

"Wow, this game called 'Mario' is fantastic! When's the next one coming out? In a few years? Awesome! I knew it was a good idea to get the PS4. Wait, what's that? The next Mario's not going to be on the PS4? It's only going to be on a Nintendo System?"

Fallowed by:

a) "Oh well, then screw it. I didn't need it anyways."

or

b) "What the hell? That's an outrage! I demand they put Mario back here right now! Nintendo is a bunch of Greedy Ass hats! How dare they take my beloved Mario away!"

Let's not kid ourselves, this is how most of us would act (This is how a lot of people acted when Bayonetta moved to WiiU exclusivity).

 

[bluegate]

A few multiplatform Nintendo games could be quite good actually, they would naturally sell well with the fans and introduce new fans to their long standing franchises.

It might introduce people to Nintendo games, but we all know how Gamers act, and let's not kid ourselves, they act almost like spoiled children (And some of them actually do). Here's how the scenario above would play out:

"Wow, this game called 'Mario' is fantastic! When's the next one coming out? In a few years? Awesome! I knew it was a good idea to get the PS4. Wait, what's that? The next Mario's not going to be on the PS4? It's only going to be on a Nintendo System?"

Fallowed by:

a) "Oh well, then screw it. I didn't need it anyways."

or

b) "What the hell? That's an outrage! I demand they put Mario back here right now! Nintendo is a bunch of Greedy Ass hats! How dare they take my beloved Mario away!"

Let's not kid ourselves, this is how most of us would act (This is how a lot of people acted when Bayonetta moved to WiiU exclusivity).

Use worst-case assumptions to dismiss an idea with potential, there's a winning strategy.

On a more serious note; if properly executed then something like this could work without much trouble, it's all a matter of treating your consumers with a bit of respect and decency. For example, there is no reason why they couldn't keep releasing games on third party hardware, why assume a a twisted 'bait and switch' ( might not be the proper name for it ) situation where they would release one multi-plat game to hook people and then only release sequels on their own piece of hardware?

 

[J Tyran]

A few multiplatform Nintendo games could be quite good actually, they would naturally sell well with the fans and introduce new fans to their long standing franchises.

It might introduce people to Nintendo games, but we all know how Gamers act, and let's not kid ourselves, they act almost like spoiled children (And some of them actually do). Here's how the scenario above would play out:

"Wow, this game called 'Mario' is fantastic! When's the next one coming out? In a few years? Awesome! I knew it was a good idea to get the PS4. Wait, what's that? The next Mario's not going to be on the PS4? It's only going to be on a Nintendo System?"

Fallowed by:

a) "Oh well, then screw it. I didn't need it anyways."

or

b) "What the hell? That's an outrage! I demand they put Mario back here right now! Nintendo is a bunch of Greedy Ass hats! How dare they take my beloved Mario away!"

Let's not kid ourselves, this is how most of us would act (This is how a lot of people acted when Bayonetta moved to WiiU exclusivity).

True, there is that. That is the reason Nintendo would have to get their shit together with their consoles though, if they could catch all the third party multiplatform games people wouldn't mind choosing a Nintendo console over the others.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

Use worst-case assumptions to dismiss an idea with potential, there's a winning strategy.

That's what Ubisoft, EA, Activision, Warner Bros., and Bethesda all do with Nintendo (And in Ubisofts Case, themselves). Seems to work for them, doesn't it?

 

[vagabondwillsmile]

So everyone is allowed to have exclusives and hold content hostage except Nintendo? Though I don't like the idea of exclusives, there are far greater evils in this industry. Nintendo IP's being proprietary, to me, insures that Nintendo's style of game-making won't be altered to the whims of Sony and Microsoft. It would be naive to even humor the notion that they would let Nintendo develop without interjecting and neck-craning. I don't want to see a brown and grey, hard-core Pokemon with epic choir tracks. Just no.

I think you are mixing up Publishers and Platforms here. I don't see any reason or way that Sony or Microsoft would meddle with Nintendo, were they to want to release a colorful Mario title on their console. They would only stand to benefit from even more diversity on their platform. By the way, the brown and grey Ni no Kuni rolls by to say hello.

They also made a miscalculation in coming out a year in advance of their competitors. It was a risk, hoping for a large install base, that didn't pay off. I can't really fault them, as hindsight is 20/20. But, in so doing, they failed to adequately court the third party developers and now face a fierce uphill battle if they wish to win a modicum of support. They additionally face the stigma of their machine, though plenty capable, being underpowered.

When would you have had them release their console, if I might ask? Having a full year without any next-gen competition is a smart thing to do, that is, if the product you release has games for it and isn't just a marginal improvement over your competitors last gen products.

Fair points all around. Perhaps I was a bit harsh. Platform makers can also develop and publish, true. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo, all were all three hats. And Nintendo does currently publish games from its 1st party IP's, so perhaps that practice would continue if they were to go multiplat. But if they were to enter into an agreement where they would have to release self-publishing, I can't help but wonder what all could go wrong. Nintendo is publishing the Bayonetta sequel for example, but they have left Platinum Games pretty much to their own devices, from what I understand. Othertime it doesn't work that way, and the publisher has a lot say. But as you pointed out, if Mario works like it is, why mess with it too much. And yes Ni no Kuni was good stuff - all the platforms have fun colorful games (I liked Enslaved a lot). Perhaps I just see this industry as being very cut-throat (even Nintendo has had its own history of being cut-throat), and with more than enough poor decision-making to go around. So I just cringe at the thought of the possibility of Nintendo going multiplat, not self-publishing, and some-else pulling the strings.

Perhaps I am wrong in this, but I can't help but feel that way.

And I can't say when I would have had them release the console. That's why I said I can't fault them for releasing when they did. As you correctly pointed out "having a full year without any next-gen competition is a smart thing to do". I completely agree. But they didn't advantage of that opportunity in many ways (particularly with marketing and informing the consumer). The risk they took, calculated and intelligent though it may have been, didn't pan out as well as it could have, or even as well as it should have.

I still can't see any good coming from doing as Pachter suggest. I would fear ending up in the same situation as Sega some time ago - releasing so many systems in such a short period of time. By the time the Dreamcast rolled out, customer faith in the brand had been severely damaged (and it's a shame because the Dreamcast was great for the time, and some the games are still fun).

Again, good points - thank you.

 

[bluegate]

Use worst-case assumptions to dismiss an idea with potential, there's a winning strategy.

That's what Ubisoft, EA, Activision, Warner Bros., and Bethesda all do with Nintendo (And in Ubisofts Case, themselves). Seems to work for them, doesn't it?

Their actions do not justify yours .

Mind elaborating a what those companies are doing exactly, just some examples will suffice, as I'm not quite sure how to respond to this at the moment?

 

[Mr.Mattress]

Their actions do not justify yours .

Mind elaborating a what those companies are doing exactly, just some examples will suffice, as I'm not quite sure how to respond to this at the moment?

True, true, they do not justify my Actions XD I was just saying that in this industry, a lot of people use Worst-Case Assumptions.

Let's look at Ubisoft; Low WiiU Sales where the reason why Rayman Legend went Multiplatform and caused the Delay of the WiiU Version [http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2013/06/20/rayman-legends-delay/], which didn't matter because the game didn't sell well anywhere (Although the WiiU Had the best selling Version). Or how about the fact that they Consider Beyond Good and Evil a Mistake [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/129370-Ubisoft-Considers-Beyond-Good-Evil-a-Mistake], and because of it they have no plans on making a Sequel for it?

Both of those use "Worst-Case Assumption": For all they know, a BG&E2 would sell amazingly, and perhaps Rayman Legends, when it was suppose to Launch originally in February, would have sold amazingly well. But no, the Worst-Case was Assumed, and we are where we are now.

Want me to keep going? I can find more examples of "Worst-Case Assumption".

 

[MrHide-Patten]

I think it would be a bad idea to go multiplatform and then go back to being exclusive in a few years.

Worked out for Dead Rising (I think).

Personally I wouldn't complain, having access to their good games whilst not having to invest in a console I'll hardly use. I'm through buying a new game boy to buy the latest Pokemon, money doesn't grow on trees... unless it's paper money?