Question About Nintendo

[VG_Addict]

People have been forseeing Ninetendo's doom for years.....yet it has'nt happened yet.Nintendo has over a billion dollars in their bank account and could raid several game devs if they wanted to.Fancy hardware does'nt make a good game and a great game dev can work inside and around the limitations that a average console imposes on them,which is probaly the reason some games refuse to make anything for the Wii U because they don't want to put as much effort in developing games for the system when the PS4 and XBONE makes it easier for them,

Like I said in the post you just quoted of me. Nintendo has something like $50 billion in cash (technically yes, "over a billion", but realistically much more than your statement indicates which wouldn't be that much in reality, but 50b is). They have the ability to ride out quite a few storms.

So my point certainly isn't tha they're going to die away. My comment is that unless they create a legitimate console that can cater to a wider demographic's needs then consumers would be better off with them going third party and they may actually make more money as a 3rd party developer in the interim.

I also agree that fancy hardware doesn't make a good game. But a shitty console can prevent good games from being ported to them and a shitty console can also make obstacles large enough to prevent even fantastic developers from easily side stepping the issues. Point and case, Sony purposefully made the ps3 difficult to develop for. They made developers split up their assets into various categories and if any of the categories got too bloated the system would crash. The problem is, games like Skyrim have a bloating issue (that's why Skyrim on the ps3 crashed for the first four months after an hour of play) and games like Rage sometimes have particularly large assets (Rage had a huge texture asset that loaded all at once for some reason).

Again, we lose nothing by being able to play Nintendo games on more capable machines. But the WiiU robs us of being able to play major 3rd party games. Yes, Nintendo's best interest would likely to be to cling to having their own consoles. No, that doesn't mean it's best for us. Shame on them for making such an underpowered machine. They had to have known that the XBO and PS4 were aiming higher. Or maybe they didn't do any research about their competition and just put out whatever they wanted to.

"It's not best for us to have Nintendo's IPs on their consoles"? Entitled much? Nintendo is a business, of course they're going to do what's best for them as a company.

 

[Artaneius]

It all boils down to saving money for the consumer. If Nintendo put their games for other consoles, then people wouldn't have to buy another console just to play a couple games. Not to mention the Wii was only successful because the mobile market wasn't really a thing at that point. Motion sensing allowed non-gamers to play. Nintendo has slowly been going losing its popularity since the N64. Nintendo is just too slow to adapt to change. Reminds me how the baby boomers get mad about losing their jobs but don't want to do anything in order to keep them. If your not willing to learn new skills you no longer become relevant.

 

[VG_Addict]

Frankly, the day Nintendo broke their agreement with Sony and prompted Sony's entrance into the market was the day they spelled their doom.

What? So, prompting Sony to enter the console race, where they lost $6 BILLION last gen, spelled Nintendo's doom? A Sony exec even said the PS4 isn't allowed to be a failure.

 

[Supernova1138]

Frankly, the day Nintendo broke their agreement with Sony and prompted Sony's entrance into the market was the day they spelled their doom.

What? So, prompting Sony to enter the console race, where they lost $6 BILLION last gen, spelled Nintendo's doom? A Sony exec even said the PS4 isn't allowed to be a failure.

And Sony absolutely crushed Nintendo between 1996 and 2006 in terms of home consoles with Nintendo only leading in the handheld market. Sony screwing up royally with the PS3 isn't exactly relevant to this discussion. Sony has also had all sorts of other problems aside from the PS3 eg. the HD TV market hitting the saturation point, motion picture flops, etc. It's possible that Sony could collapse in on itself because of all these issues, but it isn't exactly a win for Nintendo as they still have a console with a small install base, that no third parties want to develop for. Nintendo simply cannot churn out enough games to support a console all by themselves. At best, Nintendo might pick up more third party support from a Sony collapse if they released a new system that was more competitive technically with Xbone and PC.

 

[Roxas1359]

snip

Don't forget that Sony's biggest revenue comes from the insurance sector they have as well. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they were to drop out of the HDTV race though since Samsung is trouncing them a lot, and I could see them possibly dropping the movie sector depending on how well the Ratchet and Clank movie does. The Playstation sector is actually one of Sony's remaining profitable areas, and with the investment that it's CEO has put into it I don't think they'll be dropping that soon. Even then things are possible to turn around.
The difference between Nintendo and Sony on the Stock market is that Nintendo only has to factor in it's gaming sector for the stocks, while Sony has a lot more which is why even though the PS4 is rising really well it won't be able to keep the entire company afloat. I'm sure changes will be made soon on that front.

 

[VG_Addict]

So, do most of you think Nintendo SHOULD go third party?

I don't think it'd be in Nintendo's best interest, yet. But I don't have a God's eye view on their market position and their strategy going forward. They have a huge stockpile of money and if they pump that into developing a console that can actually compete with the big boys then they can have Nintendo + full 3rd party support and a comparative cost.

Nintendo is frustrating, because they could EASILY make a console that could go toe to toe with the competition, and MK8 and Smash Bros would be amazing with good online.

As things are right now, maintaining the console isn't all that beneficial to them.

Are you saying Nintendo should drop the Wii U?

 

[Lightknight]

"It's not best for us to have Nintendo's IPs on their consoles"? Entitled much? Nintendo is a business, of course they're going to do what's best for them as a company.

Ok? I have clearly and eloquently explained why it is better for Nintendo as a business to pursue their own console market if they are capable of producing one that can compete in the overall market. My hope is that the WiiU's dismal performance has blackened their eye enough to help them learn from their mistake. They leaned heavily on the WiiMote last generation under the premise that they aren't competing with Sony or Microsoft. That ended up to be true. But both Sony and Microsoft adapted and created their own viable option. Hell, every playstation 4 controller is a Sony Move controller and the Kinect can be amazing if Microsoft can keep themselves from over-reaching with it. Where the WiiMote was an explosion of innovation that set it apart, the WiiU is directly competing with them now and that's a problem when the console itself comes up so wanting in addition to the lack of software support.

I am explaining that unless Nintendo creates a console that is worth having, it is not in OUR best interest to have Nintendo software tethered to their console. I made no other presumptions other than that statement. Sorry if you somehow translated that into me saying that we deserve or are entitled to it somehow. That'd be silly.

What? So, prompting Sony to enter the console race, where they lost $6 BILLION last gen, spelled Nintendo's doom?

Sony didn't fail in the previous generation because of anything Nintendo did. Sony defeated itself and then Microsoft gained significant ground by just being the next best thing and not screwing up so blatantly from the gate. Sony failed with a $600 opening price point. As for $6 billion. I've seen rumors on this but not numbers. Do you happen to have the article link handy? I'm not questioning you as I've heard it before but I can't find it anywhere on the internet and I do actually like facts and the articles I'm seeing have different values. I see ones saying 5, I see ones saying 4. It looks like the 5B estimate has the most information behind it. Anyways, moving on.

Do you have any idea how close Nintendo was to the brink before the Wii? The N64 was meant to be a disk-based device that Nintendo had collaborated on with Sony. Instead, Nintendo publicly embarrassed Sony and breached contract with Sony at a conference, announcing plans to partner with another company despite Sony haven't already done most of the leg work. Then, Sony had this device they'd already worked on and no way to make a return on their R&D without using it. So the ps1 was born. The N64, despite being revered today as one of the greats, lost huge swaths of market share. The SNES had sold nearly 50 million units which was huge for the time. But suddenly the ps1 shows up and sells more than 102 million units (just a bit more than the Wii for a console made in the 90's) in the 5th generation and the N64 which "everyone" seems to remember, only sold 33 million. Successful, yes, but in a downward trend. The PS1 literally took away almost 40% of Nintendo's previous market share, 80% of Sega's, and found more untapped customers. The 6th generation saw the ps2 come in at 154 million units (the most a console has ever sold) which solidified Sega's death as a console maker and dropped Gamecube's numbers to 22 million. Even the Xbox showed up and managed to grab more than Nintendo then with 25 million. Even more embarrassingly here for the gamecube, which people don't often seem to know about the tiny purple box, is that it was more powerful than the competition and cheaper.

So what was different with the Wii? Just the WiiMote. It was an innovation that people were waiting for. The existing Nintendo IPs did not save them. It was the WiiMote. It also probably helped that Microsoft and Sony went Nutso with their pricing and jumped to $400 and $600 respectively when the Wii hit $250.

So, now that the big innovation isn't there, why do you think that their same ol' lineup is going to protect them going forward if they don't step up the motivation to buy a console. I can't even play DVDs on the WiiU. Bluray players at least justify around $100 of the cost of the other consoles by itself.

Nintendo is going to have to reinvent itself. That's something I believe it CAN do and that I believe its $50 Billion dollars in stockpiled cash will allow it to do. But allowing Sony into the market like it did absolutely dealt them a fatal blow. That they survived it was nothing short of miraculous. Like a patient shot in the brain who not only relearns to talk but actually functions perfectly well.

And Sony absolutely crushed Nintendo between 1996 and 2006 in terms of home consoles with Nintendo only leading in the handheld market. Sony screwing up royally with the PS3 isn't exactly relevant to this discussion. Sony has also had all sorts of other problems aside from the PS3 eg. the HD TV market hitting the saturation point, motion picture flops, etc. It's possible that Sony could collapse in on itself because of all these issues, but it isn't exactly a win for Nintendo as they still have a console with a small install base, that no third parties want to develop for. Nintendo simply cannot churn out enough games to support a console all by themselves. At best, Nintendo might pick up more third party support from a Sony collapse if they released a new system that was more competitive technically with Xbone and PC.

Sony really wouldn't collapse in on itself as far as I can tell. They have $151 billion in assets and their financial unit alone accounts for around half of their income which would explain why their financials would look particularly shitty over the past five years, especially when their brand is a more expensive brand which is a luxury when more affordable comparable models existed during a market downturn. But I wouldn't buy a Sony HD TV. Why would I when there are completely legitimate TVs that work just as well (as far as I can tell) at hundreds or even thousands cheaper than Sonys? I'm interested to see how they adjust going forward though. I wonder how they posted $458 million in net income over the last fiscal year.

 

[Lightknight]

Nintendo is frustrating, because they could EASILY make a console that could go toe to toe with the competition, and MK8 and Smash Bros would be amazing with good online.

Well, I don't know if any company would have an "easy" time making a competitive console. Especially when Sony's forte is specifically hardware and Microsoft has deep ties in x86 infrastructure and hardware companies. But yes, I believe Nintendo has the ability to make a console that is at least in the same competitive sphere as the others. See, you don't have to be neck and neck to get 3rd party support. You just need to be close enough in power and easy to port to. Unfortunately, the WiiU is the last console not to go x86 which makes porting more difficult and it's much closer to the 7th generation tech than its 8th generation peers. Sad but true.

As things are right now, maintaining the console isn't all that beneficial to them.

Are you saying Nintendo should drop the Wii U?

I'm not entirely sure. I'd need a better view of what they have planned. As of right now they're losing a LOT of money per console and the software sales are dismal. It's pure loss to them. If they have plans to turn things around that I just haven't thought of then they should try those at least. I would personally drop the gamepad which is $140 of the hardware cost and could potentially drop the price by $100 (would have to be replaced with another controller like the wiiU pro). It just isn't seen as worth a purchase at its performance level even at $100 cheaper than the ps4 which is the most powerful system by far from what I've read.

If more software and cheaper price points don't save it, they will have to stop selling it. They can't just eat hundreds of dollars per unit with no hope of profit. They're currently on track to sell less than the dreamcast in the same amount of time. As the generation progresses, the power disparity will only increase between the WiiU and its counterparts. They may benefit more from a mid-generation relaunch but then they only have 3 good years.

Honestly, they're in a really tough spot. It's possible that opening up some Nintendo IPs to other units could give them a huge boost of software sales and encourage new fans. But the software would have to be old enough not to cannibalism their current lineup (e.g. if someone could get all the Wii games on their ps4/xbo, why would they buy a WiiU if they hadn't played any of the Wii games?). I mean, Mario Kart 7 vs MK 8? Huge difference besides the graphics? Likely not.

Worst case scenario, they have a really blistering 8th generation and try to reenter the race come the 9th generation. The best case scenario is if they figure out any way to turn things around even a little in the meantime.

 

[VG_Addict]

Sorry, I guess I misinterpreted what you said.

Like I said earlier, Microsoft STILL hasn't made a profit on the XBOX division. There's even talk of them selling the XBOX division.

I could see Nintendo next gen being like Sony this gen and fixing all their mistakes.

 

[Roxas1359]

Like I said earlier, Microsoft STILL hasn't made a profit on the XBOX division. There's even talk of them selling the XBOX division.

The main thing about this though, is that's it's analysts saying to sell the Xbox branch. They've been saying that since the Xbox line started, hell they told Sony to sell the PlayStation division as well, just like analysts call out Nintendo. Now the Xbox brand hasn't been profitable, but at times with how Microsoft is not just a gaming company they often times take the hit since they would rely on other industries of theirs to make the return. The same goes for Sony. Nintendo can't do that because Nintendo only has games, they lose that then they're done. If Playstation were on it's own like Nintendo, I wouldn't be surprised if they did some tactics similar to how Nintendo does.

Really the big talk now is that the new CEO wants to "sell" the division off. Thing though is that would generate a ton of bad PR at this point given how many Xbox Ones are actually out on the market now and it would create a lot of animosity. Really it depends on what the new CEO decides to do, and while the candidates will say they will sell it, that does not guarantee that they will. Mainly because the CEO choice for Microsoft right now is being chosen by investors, and like a political election, you lie through your teeth so that you're the one chosen for the position.

 

[VG_Addict]

What about the fact that ever Nintendo console after the NES has sold less and less units? Is that worrying?

 

[Roxas1359]

What about the fact that ever Nintendo console after the NES has sold less and less units? Is that worrying?

That was because when they first started, they basically had a monopoly over the industry in general. That continued until the Genesis came out and directly competed with them, then they were down to about a little over half the market share. Then SEGA shot themselves royally in the foot with the Saturn after the whole SEGA CD and 32x and pretty much lost all their market share. Problem was, Sony had then entered the race out of the fact that Nintendo had disrespected them, Nintendo's image in Japan greatly decreased after E3 1991 because of that stunt, and that's when they lost more shares. It also didn't help that Nintendo made some very dumb decisions with the N64 that cost them a lot. By the time the GameCube was out the damage was done greatly. But also remember that Yamauchi was still in charge of Nintendo most of that time and was very very stubborn when it came to altering tactics. With Iwata, while he shares some of Yamauchi's traits, he is more willing to change strategies and change plans around than Yamauchi would.

Hell the fact that Indie titles are allowed on the Wii U should signify that, because Yamauchi would turn away any game he thought wouldn't sell on the market, even if it were planned out well. The fact that Nintendo is having a place for the Indie games is a good sign. They've got a long way to go, but they can change more now since Iwata is in charge.
I mean hell, the Wii was pretty much Miyamoto and Iwata's console since Yamauchi had retired from the BoD in 2005, and that helped turn the trend around. But the problem is that you can't rely on the same group you relied on in the past all the time since the gaming business in general is very fickle. Simply put, the crowd that mainly bought the Wii is no longer there. Nintendo can change, but it seems like it'll be a slow process.

 

[VG_Addict]

Well, from what you guys have told me, there's no need for Nintendo home consoles, anymore.

 

[Kyr Knightbane]

So, do most of you think Nintendo SHOULD go third party?

I don't think it'd be in Nintendo's best interest, yet. But I don't have a God's eye view on their market position and their strategy going forward. They have a huge stockpile of money and if they pump that into developing a console that can actually compete with the big boys then they can have Nintendo + full 3rd party support and a comparative cost.

Nintendo is frustrating, because they could EASILY make a console that could go toe to toe with the competition, and MK8 and Smash Bros would be amazing with good online.

As things are right now, maintaining the console isn't all that beneficial to them.

Are you saying Nintendo should drop the Wii U?

Yes. I think Nintendo should drop the Wii U. 100%. Their last 2 consoles (Minus the Gamecube) Have been gimicky and stupid. They gave birth to other gimmicky and stupid things like the Kinect and the Playstation Move. Gamers don't want to stand up and play games, or hold massive fuck-off controllers with 'innovative' touch screens. The last think i want to do when I play a video game is stand up.

Nintendo should go whole hog and focus on their Handhelds which have been doing extremely well. I think they could also do extremely well by creating a retro based console and allowing their entire catalog to be digitally acquired and played with a 'universal' controller. That allows for button mapping of course. Nintendo really don't grasp that quirky off the wall concepts really don't sell that great outside Japan.

Sony and Microsoft are also making huge mis-steps with their newest consoles, but thats not the topic of this thread/discussion.

So in short, or TLR as people say now

Nintendo should scrap the Wii U and focus on their handhelds + The Nostalgia factor.

 

[VG_Addict]

So, do most of you think Nintendo SHOULD go third party?

I don't think it'd be in Nintendo's best interest, yet. But I don't have a God's eye view on their market position and their strategy going forward. They have a huge stockpile of money and if they pump that into developing a console that can actually compete with the big boys then they can have Nintendo + full 3rd party support and a comparative cost.

Nintendo is frustrating, because they could EASILY make a console that could go toe to toe with the competition, and MK8 and Smash Bros would be amazing with good online.

As things are right now, maintaining the console isn't all that beneficial to them.

Are you saying Nintendo should drop the Wii U?

Yes. I think Nintendo should drop the Wii U. 100%. Their last 2 consoles (Minus the Gamecube) Have been gimicky and stupid. They gave birth to other gimmicky and stupid things like the Kinect and the Playstation Move. Gamers don't want to stand up and play games, or hold massive fuck-off controllers with 'innovative' touch screens. The last think i want to do when I play a video game is stand up.

Nintendo should go whole hog and focus on their Handhelds which have been doing extremely well. I think they could also do extremely well by creating a retro based console and allowing their entire catalog to be digitally acquired and played with a 'universal' controller. That allows for button mapping of course. Nintendo really don't grasp that quirky off the wall concepts really don't sell that great outside Japan.

Sony and Microsoft are also making huge mis-steps with their newest consoles, but thats not the topic of this thread/discussion.

So in short, or TLR as people say now

Nintendo should scrap the Wii U and focus on their handhelds + The Nostalgia factor.

Except dropping the Wii U, especially this early in its life, is a terrible business decision. It would piss off the 5 million people who own it, AND the few devs putting games on it.

 

[ccggenius12]

I find it odd that no one's questioned why having less powerful graphics is a bad thing. I feel like a while back Jim or Yahtzee harped on how better graphics were killing creativity. Being on the bleeding edge is expensive, and it takes time for developers to get used to a new graphics engine. The huge pile of dirt brown shooters is a direct result of games not innovating because their budget demands they be successful, and that model is what's been proven to be successful. I don't have any figures, but I'm sure it costs less to make a game with WiiU graphics than to make something for the PS4. The only stumbling block is that the systems have different architecture, so it's non-transferable.
So I think Nintendo's problem is cyclical, they don't have 3rd parties making games because they don't see the profit in it(Of course, I hear Nintendo seems to take a bigger cut than competitors, so that may have a bit to do with it.), and no one is buying the consoles because the games aren't there. No games->no consoles->no games. I honestly wonder, if instead of pushing a new console, one of the big 3 had kept the old gen, would the reduced development costs have brought developers? I'm sure there are ton's of people that only stop buying games for last gen because they stop making them. I would not be surprised to see people buying new PS2 games if the console were still well supported.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

I find it odd that no one's questioned why having less powerful graphics is a bad thing. I feel like a while back Jim or Yahtzee harped on how better graphics were killing creativity. Being on the bleeding edge is expensive, and it takes time for developers to get used to a new graphics engine. The huge pile of dirt brown shooters is a direct result of games not innovating because their budget demands they be successful, and that model is what's been proven to be successful. I don't have any figures, but I'm sure it costs less to make a game with WiiU graphics than to make something for the PS4. The only stumbling block is that the systems have different architecture, so it's non-transferable.
So I think Nintendo's problem is cyclical, they don't have 3rd parties making games because they don't see the profit in it(Of course, I hear Nintendo seems to take a bigger cut than competitors, so that may have a bit to do with it.), and no one is buying the consoles because the games aren't there. No games->no consoles->no games. I honestly wonder, if instead of pushing a new console, one of the big 3 had kept the old gen, would the reduced development costs have brought developers? I'm sure there are ton's of people that only stop buying games for last gen because they stop making them. I would not be surprised to see people buying new PS2 games if the console were still well supported.

Thing is, from what I understand the Wii U conversion process is relatively painless. I've never understood why devs are so obsessed with power when the fact of the matter is that power never trumping craftsmanship should be common knowledge. Seriously, if power is so important then PCs should have killed consoles in their cribs after '83. That's what I'm really trying to figure out with this: the logic. Why are devs so obsessed with power, when power has never guaranteed ease of use or sales? Why are gamers so obsessed with wanting to propagate a narrative where Nintendo is on the brink of collapse when in fact they're by far the most stable company in gaming? Why do people pretend that the mass market has never existed in gaming up until now? There's a ton more, but what I'm trying to do is find the logic behind this Nintendo bashing. So far I've found no argument that can't be dismantled with a simple counterpoint. Just what IS it about Nintendo that garners such rabid ire from people?

 

[Lightknight]

Sorry, I guess I misinterpreted what you said.

Like I said earlier, Microsoft STILL hasn't made a profit on the XBOX division. There's even talk of them selling the XBOX division.

I could see Nintendo next gen being like Sony this gen and fixing all their mistakes.

You know, it's interesting but I've batted around the idea that Nintendo has the means and motivation to buy Microsoft's division if it went up for sale... that'd be interesting, wouldn't it?

Microsoft, in my opinion, is in the worst long-term spot of the three (Nintendo clearly being in the worst short-term position). They've managed to come up with a handful of big selling software but have really slowed down with new IPs since then. They coasted out the generation by riding on Sony's initial failures and recently PS3's have outsold 360's despite Microsoft having a year headstart on them. This generation it looks like not only have they been the ones to make even worse mistakes than Sony did, but Sony is actively trying to outpace them in every way besides just coasting out the generation. Microsoft could have been gaining market share on their own product for the 360, selling more units and pumping out more software (they do have the largest game development arm of all three consoles) and this generation could have been a profit for them. But I think Microsoft has a habbit of coasting when they get to the top and are slow to realise when they're in danger. Good business is not relenting. It's getting to the top and then doing everything you can to continue to put more distance between you and the competition.

They do have more money than Nintendo, but you're right about Microsoft being willing to sell the division. So the gaming division does not have the money. The notion that this is the start of the 8th generation and Microsoft execs are talking about selling the unit is the number one reason I'm not buying an XBO. There's a lot of other reasons, such as me not trusting them with my future game library, or because of their attempt to force so many things on customers just because they believe it's the future whether we like it or not, but that's number one.

But Microsoft's position is bad for Microsoft. Their console is still worth buying for consumers. It still has full 3rd party support (so far) and will likely continue to have it because it is x86 and therefore easy to port to. Even if it sells as poorly as the WiiU, x86 is just a hop skip and jump away from being ported to from other x86 environments. Nothing like porting between ps3 and 360 was last gen (though the 360 was close to x86 then too). It does have some decent media features and even has a bluray this time around. Even if you don't want it, it does come with a pretty nice piece of motion capture technology and seeing what hackers/modders have done with the original Kinnect, there's reason to be excited with what the future of this may bring but as I said before, I'm not going to get excited for things that aren't apparent yet. I can't justify the $500 price point. But others seem to be doing just fine at that.

Really the big talk now is that the new CEO wants to "sell" the division off. Thing though is that would generate a ton of bad PR at this point given how many Xbox Ones are actually out on the market now and it would create a lot of animosity. Really it depends on what the new CEO decides to do, and while the candidates will say they will sell it, that does not guarantee that they will. Mainly because the CEO choice for Microsoft right now is being chosen by investors, and like a political election, you lie through your teeth so that you're the one chosen for the position.

Let's keep in mind that selling off the division doesn't mean that the XBO would necessarily come to any harm. Someone with the means to buy it and the belief that they can turn it around would be the purchaser. If such a person doesn't exist then the division won't sell. The worst case scenario would actually be closing the division and then selling off the individual assets. But just like THQ's death didn't see the end of those IPs, so would most of Microsoft's IPs likely still live on.

Well, from what you guys have told me, there's no need for Nintendo home consoles, anymore.

There's no need for Nintendo consoles in the recent forms. The thing that made the Wii worth it was the controller, not even the console itself. The console itself was a big negative as it was so underpowered that it barely got any good ports. But the WiiMote was such a fun diversion from the typical game playing hardware that it was quickly forgotten.

Nintendo needs to make a console that is at least in the same ballpark as the others. If they can achieve that, then there's no reason for it NOT to exist. But yes, right now there's no reason for the WiiU to be puttering around. It's just a Nintendo box.

Yes. I think Nintendo should drop the Wii U. 100%. Their last 2 consoles (Minus the Gamecube) Have been gimicky and stupid. They gave birth to other gimmicky and stupid things like the Kinect and the Playstation Move.

What is it to you if gimmicky controllers exist for those that want them? Most games pretend like those options don't even exist and you generally have to buy specific games just to play them. That doesn't impact our Halos or Last of US games. Regular games that include any such features are optional, like Dead Rising's ability to get zombies' attention by shouting. It's a cool little feature if you want it and you'll never use it if you don't. Getting mad at this is like getting mad that playgrounds exist even though you don't use them anymore.

Gamers don't want to stand up and play games, or hold massive fuck-off controllers with 'innovative' touch screens. The last think i want to do when I play a video game is stand up.

I don't think you're in the position to speak for gamers. While I want motion controls to stay the hell out of my regular games, I do occasionally enjoy the ol' Fruit Ninja on Kinect or Wii Sports (I even guiltily enjoyed Red Steel despite it being a terrible game, just because I got to swing the controller like a sword). Gimmicky or not, it was the right move for Nintendo. It does serious/hardcore gamers no harm for them to exist.

Nintendo should go whole hog and focus on their Handhelds which have been doing extremely well. I think they could also do extremely well by creating a retro based console and allowing their entire catalog to be digitally acquired and played with a 'universal' controller. That allows for button mapping of course. Nintendo really don't grasp that quirky off the wall concepts really don't sell that great outside Japan.

The Wii has sold over 100 million consoles. 45 million of that was in the US and only 12.8 million was in Japan. The problem with the WiiU isn't quirkiness, it's that every other console adapted to the success of the WiiMote and created something of their own. So WiiU's "gimmick" isn't a gimmick when everyone else is doing something similar too. Nintendo tried to be more quirky with gamepad but ended up giving us a non-option $140 peripheral that doesn't contribute much to gaming.

 

[Lightknight]

I find it odd that no one's questioned why having less powerful graphics is a bad thing. I feel like a while back Jim or Yahtzee harped on how better graphics were killing creativity. Being on the bleeding edge is expensive, and it takes time for developers to get used to a new graphics engine. The huge pile of dirt brown shooters is a direct result of games not innovating because their budget demands they be successful, and that model is what's been proven to be successful. I don't have any figures, but I'm sure it costs less to make a game with WiiU graphics than to make something for the PS4. The only stumbling block is that the systems have different architecture, so it's non-transferable.
So I think Nintendo's problem is cyclical, they don't have 3rd parties making games because they don't see the profit in it(Of course, I hear Nintendo seems to take a bigger cut than competitors, so that may have a bit to do with it.), and no one is buying the consoles because the games aren't there. No games->no consoles->no games. I honestly wonder, if instead of pushing a new console, one of the big 3 had kept the old gen, would the reduced development costs have brought developers? I'm sure there are ton's of people that only stop buying games for last gen because they stop making them. I would not be surprised to see people buying new PS2 games if the console were still well supported.

Thing is, from what I understand the Wii U conversion process is relatively painless. I've never understood why devs are so obsessed with power when the fact of the matter is that power never trumping craftsmanship should be common knowledge. Seriously, if power is so important then PCs should have killed consoles in their cribs after '83. That's what I'm really trying to figure out with this: the logic. Why are devs so obsessed with power, when power has never guaranteed ease of use or sales? Why are gamers so obsessed with wanting to propagate a narrative where Nintendo is on the brink of collapse when in fact they're by far the most stable company in gaming? Why do people pretend that the mass market has never existed in gaming up until now? There's a ton more, but what I'm trying to do is find the logic behind this Nintendo bashing. So far I've found no argument that can't be dismantled with a simple counterpoint. Just what IS it about Nintendo that garners such rabid ire from people?

Avatar = The highest grossing movie of all time by about $600 million over second place which was Titanic which was also impressive for its time but have you ever really sat down and watched the acting in it? It's physically painful to pay attention to Jack's lines and Roses comments. Thank goodness Leonardo turned out to be a better actor than that. The Shawshank Redemption which frequently tops movie charts as the best movie of all time (and is one of my favorites) had a budget of $25 million and just barely squeeked out $28 million at the box office because of a dismal reception. It isn't even in the top 550 top grossing films. That picked up since then in DVD releases but damn, that's perspective for you. Forest Gump, the other movie that usually tops that list is the 65th highest grossing movie of all time, respectable but just under the first Hunger Games. Look at the list sometime. The highest grossing movies aren't the best acted or scripted ones. They're typically the ones that depict another world or time impressively.

Quality may not rely on graphics, but profit often does. Do you think Jurassic Park would have been the 13th highest grossing film of all time if the dinosaurs had been rendered poorly and unrealistically? Sure, they combined computer animation with animatronics, but the point remains.

Graphics, whether we like it or not, sell games. When I'm playing a game and see a stunningly beautiful scene I don't think "Ugh, I wish it was less polished." I just shut up and enjoy it. People do like graphics even if we all take the hipster route publicly of complaining about new and cutting edge things. Avatar managed to create a realistic world that people saw and wanted to experience. It didn't matter that it was dances with wolves in space (and emulating a good story isn't a bad idea).

The thing about a powerful console is that it is CAPABLE of handling more demanding games. The Last of Us was a demanding game for the 7th generation and its equivalent would not be playable on the WiiU at the end of the 8th generation. Consoles are just supposed to be platforms. A glorified shelf that is capable of holding and displaying things. Weaker is not better. Weaker just means it can't hold as much.