Question About Nintendo

[VG_Addict]

I also think people who act like Nintendo makes the exact same game over and over are ignorant. You can't say Ocarina plays like Twilight Princess.

Except you can. I love Nintendo to death, Zelda even more, but you can't deny they're always re-using the same concept and the same gameplay style for each of their games, with a few tweaks and changes every now and then.

Most official Mario games will always include collecting stars or whatnot from different sets of levels, all official Zelda games have Link traveling through dungeons collecting trinkets and gadgets, and Pokémon games will always be about beating the gym leaders and catching them all.

That said, I enjoy the formulas they go for, but the complaints about the lack of variety in Nintendo games is nonetheless a legit complaint.

What about people complaining that they need to revive old franchises, when they revived Kid Icarus and Punch-Out?

Also, Sunshine and Galaxy are distinct from each other.

Well, that's just two franchises of many that they made in their early days. I myself am a little annoyed that they make so few Kirby games, and that they don't seem to be really focusing on the Metroid franchise that much anymore. (Speaking from a promotion and mascot view.)

And while Sunshine and Galaxy are different in some ways, the basic setpieces are still lingering around.

Um, they ARE making a new Kirby game for the 3DS. They talked about it in a recent Direct. Unless you mean so few in comparison to Mario and Zelda.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I would guess that Nintendo prefers things to be in-house in their development process, which is why most of their games blend well with their consoles gimmicks/quirks. That being said, having them go third-party would be nice, I'd love to have a backlog of games on PC without running different emulators and play certain games without having to use the motion controls (though I'm not 100% against it at times). Its a duality as I wonder if the games' quality will suffer for them having to conform to other consoles or porting it to PC.
I can't honestly say I'd be pissed if they did go third party, I'd just hope they retain the quality I enjoy out of them. Of course I have different standards for games than some people do, and I don't harshly judge everything that comes out game-wise but take it on its own merit or flaws... Like I may be one of the few that enjoyed the first Medal of Honor reboot (multiplayer not singleplayer). So I may be a rare type. Hope no one decides to trap me in a pokeball.

 

[Hazy992]

Because some people don't want to have to buy a console just so they can play Nintendo games.

You buy a Sony or a Microsoft console and you get their exclusive games on top of all the third party support, but you simply don't get that on Nintendo.Their third party support has been spotty at best since the N64 days, so for a lot of people it doesn't look like a very good deal.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

Um, they ARE making a new Kirby game for the 3DS. They talked about it in a recent Direct. Unless you mean so few in comparison to Mario and Zelda.

Still, my point stands that Kirby has had very few big promoted titles during it's run, the last decade or so has been pretty sub-par for that series while the flagship franchises get churned out and promoted to no end. Which is probably why so many are complaining about the lack of variety in Nintendo when they for the most part are only focused on their two main things, which is Zelda and Mario.

 

[Roxas1359]

I also think people who act like Nintendo makes the exact same game over and over are ignorant. You can't say Ocarina plays like Twilight Princess.

Except you can. I love Nintendo to death, Zelda even more, but you can't deny they're always re-using the same concept and the same gameplay style for each of their games, with a few tweaks and changes every now and then.

Most official Mario games will always include collecting stars or whatnot from different sets of levels, all official Zelda games have Link traveling through dungeons collecting trinkets and gadgets, and Pokémon games will always be about beating the gym leaders and catching them all.

That said, I enjoy the formulas they go for, but the complaints about the lack of variety in Nintendo games is nonetheless a legit complaint.

What about people complaining that they need to revive old franchises, when they revived Kid Icarus and Punch-Out?

Also, Sunshine and Galaxy are distinct from each other.

Well, that's just two franchises of many that they made in their early days. I myself am a little annoyed that they make so few Kirby games, and that they don't seem to be really focusing on the Metroid franchise that much anymore. (Speaking from a promotion and mascot view.)

And while Sunshine and Galaxy are different in some ways, the basic setpieces are still lingering around.

Um, they ARE making a new Kirby game for the 3DS. They talked about it in a recent Direct. Unless you mean so few in comparison to Mario and Zelda.

He is referring to so few in comparison actually, which is true there aren't many Kirby games when get get right down to it. Hell, Epic Yarn wasn't supposed to be a Kirby game, it was a new IP, but then Miyamoto slapped Kirby on it and it became a Kirby game. Poor Prince Fluff. Similar thing happened to Star Fox Adventures, wasn't supposed to be a Star Fox game but Miyamoto noted how the main character looked like Star Fox and suddenly it was a Star Fox game.

 

[VG_Addict]

And while Sunshine and Galaxy are different in some ways, the basic setpieces are still lingering around.

Sunshine and Galaxy have different mechanics. Sunshine has FLUDD, while Galaxy has the gravity mechanic.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

And while Sunshine and Galaxy are different in some ways, the basic setpieces are still lingering around.

Sunshine and Galaxy have different mechanics. Sunshine has FLUDD, while Galaxy has the gravity mechanic.

You're missing the point. They may have some unique mechanics, but what gets people bored is the fact that you still travel to different worlds/areas, collect all the stars there, then travel to the next world/area and collect stars there. Rinse and repeat until the princess is saved. The formula of how the game progresses is virtually identical. When you're sticking to the same formula for around 15 years, you can't fault people for complaining.

 

[MysticSlayer]

People don't like console exclusivity, simple as that. People may start tolerating Nintendo keeping their titles exclusive if their consoles actually gave decent third-party support, but as of right now, you're left with just buying the console for Nintendo games and not much else. If you want to play all the other games people want, then you need to go with a completely different console. Sure, some people can deal with that (me being one of them), but not everyone can.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

I also think people who act like Nintendo makes the exact same game over and over are ignorant. You can't say Ocarina plays like Twilight Princess.

That's kinda a bad example, as Twilight Princess was modeled to play like Ocarina of Time, and gameplay wise is extremely similar. Heck the Arbitor's Grounds even does the same thing Ocarina of Time did when it came to getting 4 Poes to get an elevator to the boss of the dungeon. Gameplay wise, it's very similar to OoT when you're regular Link, but storywise it's different. Better examples would be Wind Waker being said as playing the same as Ocarina of Time, or using Skyward Sword as an example.
This is coming from a person who loves a Twilight Princess and has played all the Zelda games.

Twilight Princess is distinct in art style.

This is pretty much saying Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages are vastly different because they have different stories... ignoring the fact that they have the same graphics, same controls, same game structure and same mechanics (apart form the main seasons/ages gimmick...) In fact... you could even expand that to all the 2.5D Zelda games?

 

[Something Amyss]

Nintendo posted a $6 million profit last quarter.

Which wasn't in hardware.

The last posted earning report from Nintendo lists the mitigating factors as hardware despite improved software sales, which the report describes as the more profitable endeavour. Sorry, you're wrong.

Also, lackthenack pointed out the value of making 6 million in profits, but I wanted to further drive this home: According to Nintendo's fiscal reports, that's .3% net income ratio. Not. Good.

Ask him. I'll go looking, though, but you should Google your own stuff.

You can google "Nintendo Quarterly Report" and get their financial site on the first or second hit. I forget their address, but it's a nintendo.co.jp site.

At best, the fiscal report indicates they may be making some money on the 3DS now (improved profitability is the term used, but that can be used as a positive way of spinning taking less of a loss), but they're taking a bath on the Wii U hardware and most of their money is coming from software sales.

Which, considering he's aware of the profit reports, he probably should have known about before he asserted that they made most of their money on hardware. The burden should have been on him to demonstrate this, but I was feeling generous. Plus, there's no way for him to actually prove it, as Nintendo's own info contradicts it.

Nintendo is one of the few companies that seem to get more of a pass than the others. It's most likely entirely due to its place in video gaming history and just how invested older gamers are in their memories of earlier console generations.

It doesn't hurt that it falls under "stuff I like." Everyone's got a blind spot, be it the Cod player or the Nintendo fan. It's okay when it's "stuff I like" and bad when it's "stuff I don't like."

Honestly, I'm somewhat in the middle. I don't need every new Mario game because they blend together a bit. However, given a couple games away from the franchise, I start to jones for them. I'll buy new Pokémon games, even though they're "more of the same" and I know they are. And I just got the latest Zelda for 3DS.

In fact... you could even expand that to all the 2.5D Zelda games?

And it's true. I mean, I'll always adore top-down Zelda games, but they're fairly copy-and-paste[footnote]I just barely got the new one in the mail. I haven't played it, so I don't know it's the same. It could be different, but I'm betting that it's more or less the same as other Zelda games, plus z few "3D" puzzles that aren't really 3D because of the 2DS.[/footnote]. But who cares if you enjoy yourself.

Still, other people aren't going to dig that. And it's fine.

 

[VG_Addict]

All of Nintendo's consoles, home or handheld, have been profitable for them. I expect the 3DS and Wii U to be profitable eventually.

 

[WeepingAngels]

Why do people say that they won't buy Nintendo consoles for the games, yet want Nintendo to put their games on consoles of their choice? They can't want the games too badly if they're willing to buy a more expensive console (Sony and Microsoft's consoles generally cost more) just to get games they want instead of paying less for the console that has said games. What these people don't realize is that most of Nintendo's profits come from their hardware. If they went third party, Nintendo would lose most of their money.

I dislike the idea of Nintendo going third party and also wish people would stop suggesting it. Having said that, what a terrible way to present this case, even I can shoot it down.

- While Sony and Microsoft have more expensive consoles, people object to buying a Nintendo console IN ADDITION to those. Did you really not see this before now?
- Most of Nintendo's profits come from software license fees or from software itself. They don't make a fortune on hardware anymore, if they ever did.

 

[VG_Addict]

Why do people say that they won't buy Nintendo consoles for the games, yet want Nintendo to put their games on consoles of their choice? They can't want the games too badly if they're willing to buy a more expensive console (Sony and Microsoft's consoles generally cost more) just to get games they want instead of paying less for the console that has said games. What these people don't realize is that most of Nintendo's profits come from their hardware. If they went third party, Nintendo would lose most of their money.

I dislike the idea of Nintendo going third party and also wish people would stop suggesting it. Having said that, what a terrible way to present this case, even I can shoot it down.

- While Sony and Microsoft have more expensive consoles, people object to buying a Nintendo console IN ADDITION to those. Did you really not see this before now?
- Most of Nintendo's profits come from software license fees or from software itself. They don't make a fortune on hardware anymore, if they ever did.

Nintendo has always made a profit on hardware. I would think that would be common knowledge.

 

[Roxas1359]

Nintendo has always made a profit on hardware. I would think that would be common knowledge.

I don't wanna be that guy, but this little person would like a word with you.
Not only that, but Nintendo's first ever console sold at a loss and didn't profit for them. Gameboy Micro profited only because it was sold way higher than it's manufacturing costs, but didn't meet Nintendo's target sales they wanted.

They started making profits off their consoles after the Color TV because they started selling them for more than they cost to produce, and at times might use some of the cheapest alternatives. The Micro, when disassembled was tracked to only costing about $44 for the parts, and the most expensive part was the screen itself, but it was sold for $100. GameCube launched at $199, yet they never hit a loss, and that's because it was rumored to only cost $20-$50 to produce (I call bull on that and say more around the $100 range). The Wii cost less than $100 to produce at it's launch, but they sold it for $250 at launch.
This strategy is basically the same thing that Apple does with it's iPods and Mac devices, only Apple is more outrageous with their prices when compared to the manufacturing costs.

 

[WeepingAngels]

Why do people say that they won't buy Nintendo consoles for the games, yet want Nintendo to put their games on consoles of their choice? They can't want the games too badly if they're willing to buy a more expensive console (Sony and Microsoft's consoles generally cost more) just to get games they want instead of paying less for the console that has said games. What these people don't realize is that most of Nintendo's profits come from their hardware. If they went third party, Nintendo would lose most of their money.

I dislike the idea of Nintendo going third party and also wish people would stop suggesting it. Having said that, what a terrible way to present this case, even I can shoot it down.

- While Sony and Microsoft have more expensive consoles, people object to buying a Nintendo console IN ADDITION to those. Did you really not see this before now?
- Most of Nintendo's profits come from software license fees or from software itself. They don't make a fortune on hardware anymore, if they ever did.

Nintendo has always made a profit on hardware. I would think that would be common knowledge.

Most of their money doesn't come from hardware.

 

[lacktheknack]

Why do people say that they won't buy Nintendo consoles for the games, yet want Nintendo to put their games on consoles of their choice? They can't want the games too badly if they're willing to buy a more expensive console (Sony and Microsoft's consoles generally cost more) just to get games they want instead of paying less for the console that has said games. What these people don't realize is that most of Nintendo's profits come from their hardware. If they went third party, Nintendo would lose most of their money.

I dislike the idea of Nintendo going third party and also wish people would stop suggesting it. Having said that, what a terrible way to present this case, even I can shoot it down.

- While Sony and Microsoft have more expensive consoles, people object to buying a Nintendo console IN ADDITION to those. Did you really not see this before now?
- Most of Nintendo's profits come from software license fees or from software itself. They don't make a fortune on hardware anymore, if they ever did.

Nintendo has always made a profit on hardware. I would think that would be common knowledge.

It's not though, because some of us can Google.

Yeah, they're old articles, but since you boldly used the word "always", they still prove you wrong.

You're approaching this whole Nintendo Defence thing all wrong. You're supposed to present us things that we can't disprove with a ten-second web search. Say what you want about the existing Nintendo Defence Force on this site, at least they do THAT much.

 

[VG_Addict]

Why do people say that they won't buy Nintendo consoles for the games, yet want Nintendo to put their games on consoles of their choice? They can't want the games too badly if they're willing to buy a more expensive console (Sony and Microsoft's consoles generally cost more) just to get games they want instead of paying less for the console that has said games. What these people don't realize is that most of Nintendo's profits come from their hardware. If they went third party, Nintendo would lose most of their money.

I dislike the idea of Nintendo going third party and also wish people would stop suggesting it. Having said that, what a terrible way to present this case, even I can shoot it down.

- While Sony and Microsoft have more expensive consoles, people object to buying a Nintendo console IN ADDITION to those. Did you really not see this before now?
- Most of Nintendo's profits come from software license fees or from software itself. They don't make a fortune on hardware anymore, if they ever did.

Nintendo has always made a profit on hardware. I would think that would be common knowledge.

Most of their money doesn't come from hardware.

Do you have a source?

 

[VG_Addict]

Why do people say that they won't buy Nintendo consoles for the games, yet want Nintendo to put their games on consoles of their choice? They can't want the games too badly if they're willing to buy a more expensive console (Sony and Microsoft's consoles generally cost more) just to get games they want instead of paying less for the console that has said games. What these people don't realize is that most of Nintendo's profits come from their hardware. If they went third party, Nintendo would lose most of their money.

I dislike the idea of Nintendo going third party and also wish people would stop suggesting it. Having said that, what a terrible way to present this case, even I can shoot it down.

- While Sony and Microsoft have more expensive consoles, people object to buying a Nintendo console IN ADDITION to those. Did you really not see this before now?
- Most of Nintendo's profits come from software license fees or from software itself. They don't make a fortune on hardware anymore, if they ever did.

Nintendo has always made a profit on hardware. I would think that would be common knowledge.

It's not though, because some of us can Google.

Yeah, they're old articles, but since you boldly used the word "always", they still prove you wrong.

You're approaching this whole Nintendo Defence thing all wrong. You're supposed to present us things that we can't disprove with a ten-second web search. Say what you want about the existing Nintendo Defence Force on this site, at least they do THAT much.

Fine. Nintendo has ALMOST always made a profit on their hardware. They made a profit on the NES, the SNES, the N64, the Gamecube, and the Wii.

 

[WeepingAngels]

Why do people say that they won't buy Nintendo consoles for the games, yet want Nintendo to put their games on consoles of their choice? They can't want the games too badly if they're willing to buy a more expensive console (Sony and Microsoft's consoles generally cost more) just to get games they want instead of paying less for the console that has said games. What these people don't realize is that most of Nintendo's profits come from their hardware. If they went third party, Nintendo would lose most of their money.

I dislike the idea of Nintendo going third party and also wish people would stop suggesting it. Having said that, what a terrible way to present this case, even I can shoot it down.

- While Sony and Microsoft have more expensive consoles, people object to buying a Nintendo console IN ADDITION to those. Did you really not see this before now?
- Most of Nintendo's profits come from software license fees or from software itself. They don't make a fortune on hardware anymore, if they ever did.

Nintendo has always made a profit on hardware. I would think that would be common knowledge.

Most of their money doesn't come from hardware.

Do you have a source?

No, do you?

Let me just tell you this. The Wii U was being sold at a loss at launch, it broke even after one game purchase (probably a $60 game). Now the Wii U has seen a price drop so if it is making a profit, isn't much of one.

The 3DS launched at $250, don't know if it was being sold at a loss but it got a huge price drop within it's first 6 months. Pretty sure that it was selling at a loss for awhile after that and it may still be.

 

[Roxas1359]

No, do you?

Let me just tell you this. The Wii U was being sold at a loss at launch, it broke even after one game purchase (probably a $60 game). Now the Wii U has seen a price drop so if it is making a profit, isn't much of one.

The 3DS launched at $250, don't know if it was being sold at a loss but it got a huge price drop within it's first 6 months. Pretty sure that it was selling at a loss for awhile after that and it may still be.

The actual costs of the parts for the Wii U is $228 for the whole thing (GamePad being around $79.25 and the console being $148.35), however it does not include the costs of assembly, packaging, and shipping. This explains why they were so hesitant to cut the price. The 3DS on the other hand costs $100.71 for the parts, with $2.54 for assembly. But Nintendo launched the 3DS at a price of $250 and no one was buying them, resulting in them having to lower the prices a load of times to where they are now, which is a reasonable one, and only then did they start to profit off the 3DS since now people were actually buying them, although it took a year for it to do so.