Question About Nintendo

[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.