I'm going to say Nintendo needs to do something radical like they did with the Wii. While so many complain that the only reason the Wii sold was it was "cheap" or "gimmicky" I tend to look at it as the console that gave the finger to the whole game industry model. Nintendo did it's best when it was snubbing hardcore gamers. Kids and grandparents enjoying Wii Sports and New Super Mario Bros. and hardcore gamers not being able to grasp why regular folks were content to play with a console that had no DVD player, no HD and focused on games that were actually trying to be games rather than interactive movies like Heavy Rain and crap. It was so enjoyable. But the moment they felt they needed to appease the hardcore fanbase that spend the previous gen complaining about how the Gamecube was a purple lunchbox console for kids, was when things went bad for them. The WiiU was trying to be a hardcore console with HD and "Hardcore" games like Pikmin 3 and Wonderful 101 which we claimed we wanted (Pikmin sequel and a new IP) but nope.
I enjoyed watching fanboys rage that stuf like Brain Age and Wii Fit sold more than Halo or GTAIV. Hardcore gamers didn't like having to accept that the universe didn't revolve around them.
My advice for Nintendo, ditch the hardcore gamers. They're never satisfied with anything.
Bingo. The sooner Nintendo realizes this truth, the better things will end up. Nintendo needs to get make to making its console gaming experience inclusive again, which the Wii excelled at. I'm not even entirely sure that Nintendo's next system has to be "radical," but at its core, it has to have that same "fun for everyone" message and approach that the Wii U has sorely abandoned for the sake of being a more "core" product. As much as some want to believe is the case, video games isn't something that the masses don't want and can't appreciate. Like books, movies, and TV, there is room for everyone without the need to shun those who don't look at the experience the exact same way.
As usual, everything you've said makes perfect sense to me, and I couldn't help but want to echo your sentiment. Nintendo simply has to get back to its fundamentals and rediscover what it does best next go-around. It's certainly NOT selling itself to the self-proclaimed "hardcore," either.@Grieverr said:@kbaily said:My advice for Nintendo, ditch the hardcore gamers. They're never satisfied with anything.
That's certainly true, and Nintendo can ditch the hardcore all they want, but they need to build a console that attracts third party developers. Even the N64 and Gamecube had strong 3rd party stuff (even if in very low quantities). Nintendo cannot do it on their own.
At this point, nothing guarantees strong third party support for Nintendo consoles in the sense that most people see it, but Nintendo's best bet is to have a system that people actually want with games they actually want to buy. This is where I've always seen the Wii as a major step forward in regards to better third party support, since it was a platform where some publishers could actually say their games sold well on the system when they actually made them for the system's audience. Sure, some of those games may have been the likes of "Carnival Games" and "Just Dance" with a few Sonic games inbetween, but it still made the console more viable than its predecessors, and it certainly is in a lot better shape than the Wii U is in right now. Not to mention that the Wii got plenty of respectable support from smaller publishers/developers that didn't see HD game development as a good idea at the time.
Better third party support doesn't necessarily mean going after all of the "AAA" games that publishers like EA and Activision shoves down everyone's throats every year. I actually believe that Nintendo could gain sufficient third party support if it takes an approach similar to the "middle-class" approach that has been often touted in politics in recent years. Instead of fighting for multiplats, use the time and energy to encourage and entice small and mid-level developers with good ideas to develop key games for the system and its strengths. Much like how Nintendo can cultivate an audience through the mass market, they could also cultivate a strong and unique offering of software in an unconventional way. A large, diverse userbase with a strong selection of games that can't be experienced elsewhere is really the way to go, and I think Nintendo is still the one company most capable of making that happen, combined with its own key properties.
I would say there is.
What we're seeing with the two next gen consoles is that when it comes to third party games people are flocking to the one who delivers 1080p and a solid 30-60 fps.
Horsepower by itself sells games.
There has to be horsepower all around though. You need games to be technically proficient but you also need the online infrastructure to have horsepower too.
If Nintendo had a console that could do Battlefield 4 with 60+ players on a map and Nintendo paid for a special perk for the ones who played on their console people would go and buy it.
Big companies don't hate Nintendo, they'll gladly sell to anyone who makes them money. The thing is that having to scale back games or cut pieces out costs a developer money and why waste the time?
Horsepower builds a base.
Come now, Jayson. Since when has horsepower alone been enough to be that big of a factor? It certainly hasn't been the case the past couple of decades, as it seems like the most powerful console never wins out in the end, and in the case of the previous HD consoles, had to pay a heavy price out of the gate to get to where they eventually were. Is it even worth it at the end of the day? That's a question that can be heavily debated if we factor in all of the history and trends.
That said, I've no doubt that most major publishers would like to see their games succeed on all platforms, including Nintendo's, if possible. However, the idea that those who have made their gaming experiences at home on other systems would instantly jump ship if Nintendo had a top-of-the-line console is not one I'm convinced of, especially when at the end of the day, they would still more than likely have that experience well intact with their system(s) of choice. Furthermore, what does it actually say about the one year stint the Wii U had as the most powerful console on the market when it still only caused publishers to pull support and cut features in games, outside of the obvious fact that nothing was selling on the system?
Definitely, no one wants to have deal with the hurdles that come with weaker hardware, but I don't even think that's the issue here. If the Wii U had been successful in cultivating that audience where the AAA games could thrive, the attitude towards the system would be drastically better as we speak. However, what we've seen is that despite having the hardware closer to that which people have been demanding from Nintendo for years, things have only gotten worse for the health of those games on Nintendo systems. It's as if no one cares to acknowledge the obvious and come to the conclusion that maybe most of these games just don't work as well with Nintendo's audience, and if that's the case, the hardware isn't really going to make a huge difference on anyone's bottom line, except maybe Nintendo's.
Nah, I get what you're saying. It's just that I don't find Nintendo's audience for AAA multiplats to be sufficient at all. Heck, I'll take it a step further and say I don't think the market for most AAA games is that big on Nintendo systems, period, whether they be exclusive or multiplatform, on consoles or portables. This is the whole reason why I questioned your remark to begin with. For a group of consumers who claim to want something, there continues to be more evidence to the contrary and even more excuses afterwards.
Could Nintendo jump through a few more hoops to reach out to third party publishers? Of course they could, but it doesn't guarantee that audience in and off itself. The fact that Nintendo has tried and failed in the past to do this, most specifically, with the GameCube, is why I think past systems is and will always be relevant when it comes to this discussion. After all, it's not as if third party publishers are ignoring the past each and every time one of their key games manages to sell below even already lower expectations on Nintendo consoles these days. It'll be important until something comes along to turn the trend on its head and have a meaningful, long-term run of its own. If that "something" actually exists, much like a number of unconventionally-made that became popular on the DS and Wii, they will come and find an audience, regardless of how powerful Nintendo's console is at the time.
Amazingly, the onus is always put on Nintendo is the situation to correct the matter, but they're really the middleman trying to figure out why two groups almost never see eye-to-eye. Both Nintendo fans and third party publishers know what they're getting into by now, and yet, they also refuse to learn from their mistakes and point fingers elsewhere. I've had no problem in recent years in challenging Nintendo when I felt it was necessary, but this isn't one of those times for me. It's just as important for third party publishers to understand who they're actually trying to sell their games to, and for fans to understand where they truly stand.
Funny thing is that I actually anticipated this would happen before the other next-gen systems even became a factor, and to me, this has proven that all of the talk about the Wii U becoming a better balance of first and third party offerings had no chance from the start, despite what was supposed to have been in the system's favor compared to past consoles. I think I've said enough for now, so maybe I'll see you guys again in another 5 years or so. :P
Hmm.. Fun topic. :P
Mario: Super Mario Bros. 3 (favorite game of all-time, so yeah... :P)
Pokemon: A toss-up between Sapphire and Yellow versions... I'll say Sapphire, because of the new mechanics and the Hoenn region being my favorite in the series.
Kirby: Return to Dreamland. Not only did it do just about everything right Kirby-related, it was able to show just how deep the series can be when it wants to.
Zelda: Wind Waker, easily. The series really hasn't felt quite the same since that game (although Skyward Sword has its moments).
Metroid: Either Prime 3 or Zero Mission. IMO, Metroid's best when it doesn't compromise activity for the sake of "exploration" or "isolation."
Mario Kart: It's MK Wii without question, but when I'm at it, I'm giving a shout-out to Super Circuit. That game never gets any love...
Animal Crossing: The GCN game at this point because of how fresh the gameplay was at the time, but I've yet to play New Leaf to see how the series reinvents itself in ways...
Fire Emblem: A close one between the GBA title (7) and Path of Radiance at this point. Much like with AC, I haven't had the chance to play the 3DS installment at this point, though.
Super Smash Bros.: Brawl
I'll leave at this for now. Can't really come up with any more series that I've played enough/care enough to mention.
Nobody wants to buy cruddy last gen ports of blockbuster games. IF, Nintendo had a powerful console to ride out the generation, and then stopped being inward looking and start to look outside the box by building up more of a hardcore fanbase, YES people would buy multiplats. The reason games don't sell on Nintendo consoles is Nintendo's fault, and they could rectify that.
Will they? Hell no but they could.
They could make an effort to get across how much multiplat support means to them, and show that they mean that by asking what developers want (ala Ps4), and after a while games would start to sell great on their consoles. It's all about effort, and Nintendo does the minimum. Nintendo consoles are built by Nintendo, for Nintendo and if anyone else wanted to come along for the ride, they could. Nobody wants to though, for good reason.
There is just a huge disconnect between Nintendo and 3rd party's and that is the root of the problem.
If their consoles went from being Nintendo's platform to a platform designed for everyone INCLUDING Nintendo games, all would be well.
Y'know, I could almost buy that argument IF we were just referring to the Wii U, but when it comes to the state of third party support on Nintendo consoles, we're not. This is the same song and dance that has been played for at least three consoles now, and its origin probably stems from at least a gen or two before it. At this point, the talk about the how and why third party titles continue do poorly on Nintendo consoles has become so cheap, it's pretty much being given away to anyone willing to take it. I'm just not one of those people, though.
That's not to say you don't bring up any valid points with your reply, though. I would agree that Nintendo consoles are built with Nintendo's best interests in mind at that particular time. I also think there is a major disconnect when it comes to Nintendo platforms, including the portable ones to a degree... but it's more to do with the interests of Nintendo's audience and the games most third party publishers (especially western publishers) typically provide than Nintendo's hardware policies. If you wanted to see how third party games can survive on Nintendo systems, just take a look at the games that have actually proven to be successful in recent years? Guess what, they're anything but the kind of games that have been released thus far on the Wii U, only to bomb.
Frankly, there's next to no evidence to back up your claim that a more powerful system is the solution, not to mention it totally disregards any potential shortcomings that could come with Nintendo releasing a $400+ system just to try to prove your theory. I'm not going to say if Nintendo has truly made any efforts to reach out third party publishers or not, as I'm not behind those closed doors. I just assess things based on what I can see, and in this case, that's a history of third party franchises outside of a very specific group of games struggling to find a sufficient group of Nintendo players to appeal to, regardless of the relative strength of hardware involved.
Until there's concrete evidence to suggest otherwise, I'm inclined to believe what YearoftheSnake5 said and see this group of people you speak of as a small, albeit very vocal, minority. Normally, I'd say "we'll see," but at this point, I've seen the ending to this story so many times already, I don't think it's worth making suspense over again. lol
@Chozofication said:People WANT to buy multiplats on Nintendo consoles, but they can't.
They do?!? That's not the impression I've picked up over the first year of the Wii U's life, and apparently, the same goes for most third party publishers. Just exactly who are these people, and are they large enough of an audience to make your statement meaningful enough? Frankly, this is something I still strongly doubt about moving forward.
All the horsepower and focus on western-made projects in the world don't mean a thing if your fanbase has time and time again proven that they're simply not that interested in the games that are supposed to come from them. This is precisely why the subject about the Wii U being the so-called big turnaround from third party games quickly turned to dust the moment most of the system's third party launch titles bombed, resulting into everyone second-guessing supporting the system. At this point, no one can say with certainly that top-of-the-line specs will resolve the matter at this anymore than "HD" and "standardized controls" were supposed to be the solution coming from the Wii. It's honestly just a grasping for straws, hoping that a resolution will somehow materialize.
Either these "people" you speak of are going to have really step up to the plate and prove their worth at some point, or third party publishers, both eastern and western, need to change their approach on Nintendo consoles to adapt to the audience, likely with Nintendo's help. I'm not even sure this can be accomplished with the Wii U in its entirety, but there need to be concrete signs of an improvement before Nintendo even thinks about what or how powerful their next console will be in order to cater to a certain group of consumers or developers. Since the Wii U isn't going anywhere for the next few years, there needs to be some takeaway of what Nintendo should do moving forward from its existence.
@MirkoS77 said:@kbaily said:
Well there's a lot of reasons, we haven't seen a new installment. One, the last one on the GC didn't sell that well and in the business of games, companies don't want to make things unless they turn a profit. Supposedly that's the same story with Starfox right now.
This is true, but I don't lay the fault at the consumer's feet in this case. Nintendo fails to aggressively market and push their product hard, and this is a HUGE issue that has plagued them lately over the past few years. This is why their conservatism is killing them, and one reason I think Iwata needs to be replaced: they want all this gain without having to spend any money. Nintendo has all these golden IPs, yet they don't make them because they "don't sell".
F-zero, Starfox, Metroid (all brilliant series) don't sell not because they're badly made games or because there's no gamer interest, it's simply because Nintendo mismanages them before and after they're put to market. I'm 100% convinced that if those IPs can't make any money, then none can. I believe if they were in the hands of Sony or MS they could easily make a decent profit. Advertising and being very aggressive with a product is just as vital as producing it, if not more so, and Nintendo needs to learn this. I always mention Apple as a comparison.....they truly understand and utilize the power of advertising.
This post isn't addressed at you btw, just a general observation from what you said.
While I wouldn't blame consumers for a product not selling in most cases, I also don't think it's strictly a marketing issue, either. The fact of the matter is that games, much like any other product, have ceilings relating to the amount of people they can appeal to, and those ceilings are not all equal. I think Nintendo has an understanding that not all of its IPs are as safe to use as the likes of Mario and Pokemon, and handles those IPs accordingly. Still, that doesn't mean that Nintendo can't and won't take chances here and there. If that was the case, we certainly wouldn't have seen IPs like Sin & Punishment, Punch-Out, or Kid Icarus make returns in the past years. Nevertheless, I don't think it's unreasonable for Nintendo or anyone else to exercise some caution, especially with franchises that have clearly struggled in the past decade or so.
In the case of F-Zero, not only did GX struggle to sell on GameCube, but the GBA game GP Legend did even worse... and that game had an anime series to accompany its release as well. While that doesn't mean that Nintendo still couldn't have done a poor job handling the series, I think it's much easier to say that the series isn't becoming Nintendo's next super-hit in our lifetime. The notion that if F-Zero, Starfox, and Metroid can't generate revenue, none can is pretty farfetched, especially since when you consider that producing the kind of game that fans would expect would also be significantly more expensive now than they were during the GCN/Wii days. And no matter how hard Nintendo pushes the games, we can all be certain that they wouldn't reach the type of commercial success that Nintendo's top games typically do, assuming that they have what would be considered "success" at all.
There's a reason why we see the games that we most often do in today's video game world, and while Nintendo's offerings may appeal to a different crowd in general cases, their approach isn't that unorthodox compared to the rest of the industry when it comes to using its brands. And yes, while Nintendo has done a sad job of keeping some consumers interested in their products in recent years, it alone still doesn't explain the huge gap in commercial success between series like Mario, which actually grew during the DS/Wii era and something like Metroid, which has struggled to stay a relevant franchise since its revival.
Anyways, just my two cents on what was looking like an interesting discussion. :P
@Madmangamer364: the thing is, Iwata some already stated before that he always takes the blame when something wrong happens, Nintendo isnt like Sony and Microsoft, if something bad hapoened, they'll state it and apologize for it. you guys act like this never happened before.
Being apologetic is fine and dandy, but we're talking about an actions-orientated situation here that only gets worse each time Iwata or anyone else at Nintendo has to address something that has gone seemingly horribly wrong in recent years. You're right... this has happened before... and that's a major part of the problem. Granted, I suspect most here are only consumers, like myself, but I don't think you'll find very many stockholders who want to keep hearing the same song, "Oops! I did it again!" when it comes to not meeting expectations and constantly having to admit that. That's not really how successful companies operate, and sooner or later, someone's going to want to see a significant change.
With that in mind, I get where you're coming from. What we're discussing isn't exactly hot of the presses. lol Still, as we approach what seems to be a most crucial moment for the Wii U and maybe even Nintendo as a whole, it's still more than relevant to bring this up and what it could possibly mean moving forward. Again, I like Iwata, and I find it a shame that what happened with the GameCube, Wii U, and a significant part of the 3DS' life has sandwiched and maybe even overshadowed what was accomplished with the DS and Wii just a few years ago. That being said, this is a "what have you done for me lately" kind of thing we're talking about, and I can't say that I've found much reason for myself or anyone else to be optimistic in more recent years about Nintendo's direction.
You make a good point but pushing the blame just to say Iwata is a bad person for the position is pushing it
I don't think anyone is trying to make Iwata seems like a bad person. Heck, if anything, he's gotten a number of passes because he truly seems like a good guy. Facts are facts, and the most important fact here is that the Wii U has grossly underperformed at every conceivable level. As the leader, Iwata is going to inherit the lion's share of the blame for that, regardless of what kind of person he is or seems to be. That's the burden that comes with being in charge of something, especially when you are as visible as he has become in recent years.
We're gonna have to wait and see what'll happen
Who knows, maybe they will make that target, itll be a miracle but we'll be damned if it happened, Super Mario 3D World has been throwing people's guards off at every turn so who knows, it might be enough
We can stop playing the "wait and see" game now. At the point, all anyone is doing is setting themselves up for more disappointment. There's next to zero demand for the Wii U, period, and this is after the price drops, bundles, and selection of games that were supposed to give the console new life by now. Whatever momentum those actions were supposed to gain have already been lost. Sure, the holiday season (with Super Mario 3D World's help) with boost hardware sales, but even they will end up being well below expectations if what we're seeing is of any indication at all.
I like the hope and all, but it really only takes a short glance at any Wii U-related sales data to see what has become of the system in a very short amount of time, and the more recent the data, the more telling it becomes. Not even Mario, which the system has already seen to begin with, can make such a drastic difference to the system's fortunes. All Nintendo can really do is save face and try to learn from its mistakes, and it remains to be seen if anything is being learned at all during the entirety of the situation.
Iwata definitely threw himself into a hole. If he revises the number significantly now, investors are going to freak right now. If he doesn't revise it and WiiU fails to meet that number at the end of the fiscal year, investors are going to freak then.
His strategy is to hold off the freakout for as long as possible and hope with everything he has that the holiday and early 2014 titles will push console sales to somewhere near the estimate.
Standing by the estimate wasn't his mistake; making too high of an estimate in the first place was. But at that point, WiiU had sold several million from the launch surge, and no one knew just how far those numbers would drop off. It was an honest mistake that anyone in his position could have made.
I agree with everything except the last two sentences. It's one thing to make a miscalculation in terms of how well your product will sell, but it's a very different thing to make such a high miscalculation with too little backing it up. Even if Iwata didn't suspect that the Wii U would reach the level of futility that it found itself in for most of the year, his projections should have at least accounted for an instance where a bad (not worse) case scenario was possible. Nintendo was just fresh off a 3DS launch that also started extremely slowly and the Wii U's launch, while having some success, didn't set the world on fire. What exactly did Iwata see or didn't see that would make his projection so off target?
Also, this would be bad enough on its own merit, but this isn't the first time Iwata has been so far off in terms of the predicting how well his company's systems will sell. Wasn't it about 10 years ago when he predicted that the GameCube would sell 50 million consoles? It's this feeling of deja vu with just about everything the Wii U has done in its first year that lines up to that console that at some point has to raise concern with investors, retailers, and even consumers, assuming that it isn't doing that as we speak. And frankly, there's very little reason to believe that the end result will be very different this time around, which means that Iwata has to do something that manages to inspire a change in approach if he hopes to remain in a respectable standing as a CEO.
I hate to say this, as I actually like Iwata's personality and demeanor, but his judgements outside the prime years of the DS and Wii have been on very shaky ground. Once the Wii U misses its more recent sales projection by likely a very significant margin, I think there are going to be those invested in the company who will want to see a few heads roll. After all, if the Wii U's still coming up well short after all of its best cards being used within the first year and a half or so, what will there be left to convince the system's future is bright? I think it's only natural that at some point, people are going to demand something drastic to happen, and Iwata's position is probably the quickest thing to address in that regard.
I almost think that maybe Iwata should lower his number just to give himself a chance of looking good by being closer to the mark. As things stand now, the situation makes him look almost borderline insane, which doesn't look well especially for someone in charge.
As usual, kbaily, you've brought up a strong discussion. Here's my take on the Sonic series in general nowadays, though. In fact, what I'm about to say is a disagreement of sorts to something you brought up. I honestly don't think Sega has actually figured out how to make 3D Sonic work, even though the series has seemed to have some solid 3D outings. Instead, what I think Sonic Team has learned over the years are ways to mask many of the trouble areas that Sonic's gameplay faces in a 3D world.
Don't get me wrong, as Sonic Generations is indeed a solid effort, and from what I've heard, as is Colors (maybe I'll get around to playing that game one day...). That being said, I thought it was pretty clear that when the game slowed down in the modern stages in Generations and you have to actually navigate in a 360-degree fashion, the Sonic experience is really no more refined than it was during the Dreamcast days. When moving laterally, Sonic still feels as stiff and clunky as a rock, and combine that when trying to move with any sense of speed, and I think that's where the series still suffers.
What Sega managed to do with Generations was put the game in situations where Sonic wasn't forced to move around in an open area for very long and giving him tools, like the drift and sidestep, that made it easier for him to go left and right what going at full speed. With this in mind, it doesn't really surprise me if Lost World is making some people feel down on the experience, as it tries to bring more open areas when more recent Sonic games have struggled handling them. And honestly, until (or IF) Sonic Team is able to fix the fundamental puzzle of making sure Sonic can truly move right in 3D, I think the series will only be able to do so much with 3D gameplay.
As far as Sonic's image is concerned and whatnot, I don't think there's any point in trying to discuss it, really. Sonic has always tried to sell as a very "hip" character, and the evolution of his design has pretty much been with that philosophy in mind over the years. And yes, unfortunately, that has led to some "Shadow the Hedgehogs" and a few other mistakes along the way. Still, I think it has nothing to do with what platform Sonic has been on. If anything, the series being on Nintendo platforms have kept the series from going too far off the grid, if games like Sonic '06 are and indication.
I think Sonic Team is trying with the series, no question, but I also think that the series' inconsistency is a result of not being able to master 3D platforming in the way Mario did 17 years ago. I think the series has had to experiment more to compensate for the fact that Sonic's trademark speed doesn't seem to mesh very well with the more methodical and precision-based 3D platforming experience. I'm not even sure it can be helped at this point, but I think the trial-and-error approach with games like Lost World gives Sonic Team a stronger idea of what can be established each time.
Not yet, although I've been strongly considering getting one in recent days. Still, I think the price is a bit too high, especially given that there aren't a ton of games that scream "play me," even at this point. I'm kinda hoping that I can come across a Black Friday deal where I can get the system at a more appealing price and start from there.
I would have definitely picked up a 2DS if it wasn't for the fact that I can't stand the design of the thing. Would definitely live without the 3D to get the system at a cheaper price, but why Nintendo designed the system in the way they did is beyond my understanding...
I think it has more to do with defending against the homophobic nature that can come with the word more than actually discriminating against those who may indeed be homosexual. The reality is that this is a subject that is still a touchy one for many people for a variety of reasons, even though we live in a society that is becoming more accepting of homosexuality. Some people simply aren't comfortable with what the word "gay" means, and even worse, there are still who casually use the word as an insult to other people or situations.
This is merely a "play it safe" move by Nintendo to make sure its community can be enjoyed by all people. I don't think it has much to do with promoting one sexual orientation over another at all, but merely making sure no one is offended in the process of the word's use. Furthermore, since the vast majority of video game characters are either straight or show no sexual preference at all, it really doesn't make a lot of sense to bring that up in a video game community much, if at all.