Support NeoGAF

[Terrell]

Nintendo has had since e3 2011 to announce third party software. They haven't. And they are right now so desperate they are announcing Mario and Zelda games that are literally just concepts or years away, just to drum up some kind of hype. But, yes, they're clearly holding all those third party games close to their chest.

How do you know that's true?

 

[Manmademan]

So you're imagining that Nintendo has announced everything it has coming for the entire year, on top of predicting changes in hardware sales from content that hasn't even released. And on top of that, we're making the assumption that their competitors won't hit similar or worse hurdles that will change the landscape entirely from what you think will happen.

Does that sound like an incredibly solid foundation to make long-term claims on to you? When it's all based on assumptive thinking?

projections are made on known and announced information, not hypothetical information we WISH was true. This is how literally every analyst following any industry works. you have this backwards.

just as I'm sure nintendo has things they have not announced that could change things, it's a certainty that microsoft and sony do as well, but since we don't have that info, we're not using it. In fact, valuing a stock and trading on non public information is called "insider trading" and is highly illegal.

the second nintendo announces that every wiiU comes with a puppy to turn around sales, I'll be happy to revise my opnion.

 

[Sandfox]

Nintendo has had since e3 2011 to announce third party software. They haven't. And they are right now so desperate they are announcing Mario and Zelda games that are literally just concepts or years away, just to drum up some kind of hype. But, yes, they're clearly holding all those third party games close to their chest.

When did this happen?

 

[Mpl90]

When did this happen?

He's probably referring to the January Direct when Nintendo "promised" a brand new Zelda for the platform...while announcing Wind Waker HD coming for this year. And both Mario titles will be at E3, and one of them will certainly be out this year.

 

[H_Prestige]

How do you know that's true?

The last Direct where they said they would provide a screenshot of Smash at e3 and how they started brainstorming the new Zelda.

 

[Sandfox]

He's probably referring to the January Direct when Nintendo "promised" a brand new Zelda for the platform...while announcing Wind Waker HD coming for this year. And both Mario titles will be at E3, and one of them will certainly be out this year.

Those games clearly aren't just concepts(expect Zelda which we already knew is coming but even then hasn't been announced yet.

Did I dream up the last Direct where they said they would provide a screenshot of Smash at e3 and how they started brainstorming the new Zelda?

Smash Bros was already announced a while back.

 

[CrunchyB]

Between '03 and '04 Nintendo sold:

GBA: ( 13.21 - 38.19 ) - (10.06+23.75 ) = 17.59
Software: (47.00 + 136.80 ) - ( 29.88 + 79.02 ) = 74.9

Gamecube: ( 3.46 + 11.12 ) - ( 2.47 + 7.08 ) = 5.03
Software: (18.90 + 88.98) - ( 10.39 + 50.11 ) = 47.38

and they made a healthy profit that year. Handheld sales were better, but it's not like the Gamecube did absolutely nothing.

http://www.nintendo.com/corp/annual_report.jsp

Like I said before, Nintendo isn't in real trouble until Mario, Zelda, etc. starting bombing. Only then should they worry.

 

[Aquamarine]

If it's operating profit then it should be directly from each company's financials.

This is where I'm a little skeptical. I initially thought it was operating income...
Your chart said, for FY 2011, that Nintendo's "operating income" was "$946,000,000."

But look here: http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/finance/2012_04.html

According to Nintendo, their operating income for FY 2011 was ¥171 billion, or $2.09 billion at the time ($1.79 billion according to current exchange rates).
How on earth does that add up?

That's why I asked the methodology behind the chart----because if it's just company operating income, it isn't accurate.

 

[Toski]

i don't think this is a great interpretation.

nintendo's first party is high quality, but all of it tends to have the same sort of feel and design. Even for their sports (mario tennis, strikers) and racing (mario kart) games, they re-use their mascot characters, giving everything basically the same appeal. These games sell systems, but they are very much unlike the games that third parties tend to make. even their fighters (smash brothers) are cutesy mascot games. over time, fans of nintendo consoles tend to get locked into the nintendo ecosystem (if you like mario, mario is prone to show up in spinoff titles...as is donkey kong, link, etc) and nintendo preferred this, as they make more money from selling their own titles.

Since nintendo rarely branches outside of their comfort zone in terms of game design (metroid is the only series that really comes to mind here), nintendo fans simply keep buying the games that are similar to the high quality games they're used to, and are less open to branching out and trying third party efforts.

Sony's design philosophy is a lot different- they tend to make series that are similar to what the rest of the market is doing in terms of gameplay and design, so it's not that big of a jump for someone who likes uncharted to check out tomb raider. (and vice versa...uncharted was clearly inspired by tomb raider) Looking at sony's output across the PS1, PS2, and PS3, they've had their fingers in just about every genre you can think of- JRPGs, stealth games, party games, music games, FPS games, adventure games, fighters, etc.

nintendo has done a bad job at this- tending to ignore market trends and concentrating on the games they're comfortable with, market demand be damned. It's a false assertion that nintendo's games are somehow SO MUCH BETTER than third party efforts that Tekken Tag and Call of Duty can't possibly compete with mario kart. Gran Turismo has been of staggeringly high quality since the PS1, and yet sony fans will still check out other racing games. Halo is a 500 pound gorilla on the Xbox, yet other shooters still sell.


the issue is that for several generations nintendo has said to consumers "we don't make those kinds of games, if you want them, look elsewhere." and now that gamers have done this and they're down to the core that ONLY cares about Mario etc, they're in a bad position.

This is why third parties (mostly Western) don't like Nintendo currently, Nintendo doesn't create & refine the types of games (and gamers) that will help third parties sell on Nintendo home consoles. Part of the reason CoD is so successful on the 360 is because of Halo, not in spite of it.

If Nintendo wants western third party support, they're gonna have to internally develop the games which will attract third parties, not slap Mario & friends on genres Nintendo is familiar with.

 

[Manmademan]

This is why third parties (mostly Western) don't like Nintendo currently, Nintendo doesn't create & refine the types of games (and gamers) that will help third parties sell on Nintendo home consoles. Part of the reason CoD is so successful on the 360 is because of Halo, not in spite of it.

If Nintendo wants western third party support, they're gonna have to internally develop the games which will attract third parties, not slap Mario & friends on genres Nintendo is familiar with.

This is exactly my point, very well said.

 

[ascii42]

I believe that EA is contractually obligated to make Madden for every viable platform as part of their deal with the NFL. There will probably be Madden Ouya and Madden Shield at some point in the near future.

FIFA has that arrangement, but I don't think the NFL does.

 

[sangreal]

I believe that EA is contractually obligated to make Madden for every viable platform as part of their deal with the NFL. There will probably be Madden Ouya and Madden Shield at some point in the near future.

They dont even make it for PC anymore

 

[mentalfloss]

According to Nintendo, their operating income for FY 2011 was ¥171 billion, or $2.09 billion at the time ($1.79 billion according to current exchange rates).
How on earth does that add up?

The chart is prorated for the calendar year and Nintendo's fiscal year starts in March.

This is why third parties (mostly Western) don't like Nintendo currently, Nintendo doesn't create & refine the types of games (and gamers) that will help third parties sell on Nintendo home consoles. Part of the reason CoD is so successful on the 360 is because of Halo, not in spite of it.

If Nintendo wants western third party support, they're gonna have to internally develop the games which will attract third parties, not slap Mario & friends on genres Nintendo is familiar with.

I agree with this.

Microsoft and Sony for example - have their own simulation based racing games and gritty fps games. These are genres that really target a certain type of gamer that is more inclined to support third party efforts.

 

[CouldBeWorse]

It's not the entire story, but there is a lot of truth in what you two are saying and it would be an interesting case study in an alternate universe to see what would happen if Nintendo had a top tier FPS, top tier 3PS, top tier sim racer, and comparable hardware.

However, the argument falls apart a bit when you look at other popular genres that aren't well-represented by MS/Sony first party like open world adventures, RPGs, and sports.

It's very chicken and the egg. And self-fulfilling prophecies.

 

[Aquamarine]

The chart is prorated for the calendar year and Nintendo's fiscal year starts in March.

Oh okay. That's what I wanted to know, thanks.

 

[Manmademan]

The chart is prorated for the calendar year and Nintendo's fiscal year starts in March.



I agree with this.

Microsoft and Sony for example - have their own simulation based racing games and gritty fps games. These are genres that really target a certain type of gamer that is more inclined to support third party efforts.

they're also more inclined to experiment as well. Sony takes risks and supports some pretty strange IP- Demon's Souls, Heavy Rain, Ape escape, Beyond: Two Souls, Journey, Frequency and Amplitude, Vib Ribbon, Little Big Planet, Buzz!, Singstar, The Original Eyetoy...they're really all over the place trying to see what will stick.

what this does is take the "risk" out of the equation for third parties looking to launch a franchise. If Killzone or Uncharted sells big numbers, it's probably ok for Ubisoft or EA to launch something similar, as that audience is a known quantity.

Even microsoft spent quite a bit of money with the Xbox trying to court JP gamers to see what was viable, and led to some really interesting IP like the original steel battalion with that massive controller. Nintendo has never really done this.

 

[Toski]

It's not the entire story, but there is a lot of truth in what you two are saying and it would be an interesting case study in an alternate universe to see what would happen if Nintendo had a top tier FPS, top tier 3PS, top tier sim racer, and comparable hardware.

However, the argument falls apart a bit when you look at other popular genres that aren't well-represented by MS/Sony first party like open world adventures, RPGs, and sports.

It's very chicken and the egg. And self-fulfilling prophecies.

Microsoft was making sports games, but to get EA on board they had to drop them. Nintendo doesn't need "top tier fps", they just need to internally make one. After Nintendo lost Rare, Silicon Knights, Factor 5 & whoever else, they lost most of the ability to appeal to the western core gamer.

I think Nintendo can compete on the same turf with Sony and MS in the western core gamer demo, just that their business philosophy & conservatism holds them back. I have no idea how Nintendo can turn the Wii U into a moderate success, because it doesn't seem to be built to reach that mark.

 

[Father_Brain]

This is why third parties (mostly Western) don't like Nintendo currently, Nintendo doesn't create & refine the types of games (and gamers) that will help third parties sell on Nintendo home consoles. Part of the reason CoD is so successful on the 360 is because of Halo, not in spite of it.

If Nintendo wants western third party support, they're gonna have to internally develop the games which will attract third parties, not slap Mario & friends on genres Nintendo is familiar with.

A thousand times this. When ZombiU (which may be great for what it is, but is a slow-paced, permadeath survival horror game and thus inherently niche) is the only exclusive content you're offering with any substantive appeal to the COD/AC demographic, you can't expect that audience to flock to your platform, nor can you reasonably expect third parties to believe that you're particularly serious about bringing that audience to your platform as a goal.

 

[mentalfloss]

Oh okay. That's what I wanted to know, thanks.

Still good that you asked though.

I saw the figures a while ago and just assumed they were correct.


I think it's going to take a few more months before we can say with any degree of certainty, whether or not there is a clear trend here. While I think GAF is right to have a critical eye on Nintendo, I feel most are way too lenient on Microsoft and Sony's financial situation.

There are enough considerations that should cause people to be a bit less bullish on upcoming next gen consoles:

1.) Console prices will undoubtedly be high, even if to some reasonable extent
2.) Dimishing returns will have a significant effect on the perceived value of those machines
3.) The cost of game development will be significantly higher
4.) Third party support won't be the boon it once was - just look at EA slashing projected titles from 85 to 15

 

[Snowden's Secret]

Do you also deny the existence of the zillions of news stories and reviews that refer to the gamepad as a tablet-style controller? Maybe you have much more stringent criteria for what tablets look like than the rest of us, but the topic at hand is what the average consumer sees, and what the see is something tablet-like.

So Wii U is also a Wii peripheral, because there were articles referencing it as such? Perception is reality? Nothing is true and everything is permitted?

 

[Manmademan]

Microsoft was making sports games, but to get EA on board they had to drop them. Nintendo doesn't need "top tier fps", they just need to internally make one. After Nintendo lost Rare, Silicon Knights, Factor 5 & whoever else, they lost most of the ability to appeal to the western core gamer.

I think Nintendo can compete on the same turf with Sony and MS in the western core gamer demo, just that their business philosophy & conservatism holds them back. I have no idea how Nintendo can turn the Wii U into a moderate success, because it doesn't seem to be built to reach that mark.

well, they're supposedly sitting on a mountain of cash, so buying up studios like they're going out of style, and/or shelling out for exclusive or available IP would be a great start.

I agree with you, Rare was probably the best thing they had going for the N64. no one thought console shooters were even viable until Goldeneye exploded out of nowhere.

Imagine if nintendo had bought THQ when it was on fire sale. They might be in a better position now.

 

[pieatorium]

It's not the entire story, but there is a lot of truth in what you two are saying and it would be an interesting case study in an alternate universe to see what would happen if Nintendo had a top tier FPS, top tier 3PS, top tier sim racer, and comparable hardware.

However, the argument falls apart a bit when you look at other popular genres that aren't well-represented by MS/Sony first party like open world adventures, RPGs, and sports.

It's very chicken and the egg. And self-fulfilling prophecies.

MS has Fable for rpg, Sony has Infamous for open world. Sports is an interesting one but they both previously had full stables of sports titles which has slimmed down now but Sony still has baseball as well as everbody's golf/tennis.

 

[Sandfox]

well, they're supposedly sitting on a mountain of cash, so buying up studios like they're going out of style, and/or shelling out for exclusive or available IP would be a great start.

I agree with you, Rare was probably the best thing they had going for the N64. no one thought console shooters were even viable until Goldeneye exploded out of nowhere.

Imagine if nintendo had bought THQ when it was on fire sale. They might be in a better position now.

They tried the FPS thing again with Metroid Prime but now they need something new. Nintendo wouldn't buy THQ because that would be a big investment for little return.

 

[Manmademan]

Still good that you asked though.

I saw the figures a while ago and just assumed they were correct.


I think it's going to take a few more months before we can say with any degree of certainty, whether or not there is a clear trend here. While I think GAF is right to have a critical eye on Nintendo, I feel most are way too lenient on Microsoft and Sony's financial situation.

There are enough considerations that should cause people to be a bit less bullish on upcoming next gen consoles:

1.) Console prices will undoubtedly be high, even if to some reasonable extent
2.) Dimishing returns will have a significant effect on the perceived value of those machines
3.) The cost of game development will be significantly higher
4.) Third party support won't be the boon it once was - just look at EA slashing projected titles from 85 to 15

1.) disagree with you here, console prices will be much lower than you expect. Imagine if the PS3 had launched with an off the shelf processor instead of the cell, had a commodity drive instead of blu-ray, and no BC hardware. that thing would have been $399, not $599. And surprise! no need to imagine, this is exactly what the PS4 is. On top of that, microsoft is said to be experimenting with a subsidized model- I believe this is already happening with the 360 in some areas.

2.) not really, because the current generation has been going on for 7 years- the longest in history, IIRC. (maybe generation 2 was longer?). Diminishing returns is definitely a thing, but developers are conservatively putting the power of next gen at 10x that of the current. From what we've seen of sony's tech demos, it's impressive enough for even casuals to take notice- not to mention kinect like speech and gesture controls being standard in everything as a draw.

3.) this actually isn't true. EA puts the cost at about an additional 10% year over year. nowhere near the price spike from non HD gen to the HD gen. part of the reason for this is that assets for many games have been rendered in much higher detail than current consoles can handle for many years, and will easily scale to next gen platforms. Gran Turismo is on record as being a series that has been "future proofing" for this for years now with their premium models.

4.) not sure what your point is here- next gen consoles will have lower install numbers out of the gate, so there will be a lot of competition for only a few gamers until the install base ramps up. in addition, gamer money will be eaten up by buying new hardware this year, not so much new software.

They tried the FPS thing again with Metroid Prime but now they need something new. Nintendo wouldn't buy THQ because that would be a big investment for little return.

well, maybe not ALL of THQ, but they did have some decent properties. Imagine if nintendo suddenly had Darksiders, Homefront, Saints Row, Warhammer, Red Faction, South Park, and Metro as WiiU exclusives. That's a ton of fairly valuable IP that could actually attract attention. edit: A quick google search showed that THQ had *long term* liabilities of only $250 million, and nintendo has 10.5 billion in cash sitting in the bank. They could most certainly have afforded to buy out THQ or at least put in a competitive bid for it's properties. Why they didn't is a mystery.

 

[Mudron]

If publishers are still mad about that they really need to get it over it. it was 30 years ago so I really doubt they still have hatred over Nintendo because of it.

It's not that publishers are still pissed at Nintendo for how they were treated 30 years ago, it's just that Nintendo's draconian relationship with publishers during the 80's kickstarted a series of events (beginning with the exodus of publishers to the Genesis, and late the PS1) that forever poisoned the well for robust third-party development for Nintendo hardware.

 

[Sandfox]

well, maybe not ALL of THQ, but they did have some decent properties. Imagine if nintendo suddenly had Darksiders, Homefront, Saints Row, Warhammer, Red Faction, South Park, and Metro as WiiU exclusives. That's a ton of fairly valuable IP that could actually attract attention.

They would still have to outbid other companies to get ips with ok(if that) sales potential and they would probably have to open more studios on top of that to make those games.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

so from your point of view, someone who already owns an Xbox360, with vastly superior online capability and far more active community re: COD, would consider paying $350 to buy a WiiU to play the next call of duty on...why?

I'm trying to figure out your reasoning here, because it's nonsensical. will people buy the wiiU for mario? sure, but there are not a lot of these. will they pay $350 to play the same games their existing consoles will play with no improvements and worse online? no.

From my viewpoint is from other possible viewpoints. As someone who owns a 360 if I wasnt getting a 720/ps4 I would have bought cod on one of those consoles. Ive been having a 360 for years and got a Wii U launch day does that mean I automatically buy things only for Wii U? No. I bought sonic racing and BO2 on 360 this year. Even though I had a Wii U. As Wii U still hasnt sold much it means its still not in alot of houses. This fall/Holiday I can see how the average consumer will be like oh I can play mario kart and a COD and asscreed IV on this one console. I dont see why this is so hard to understand.

What do you mean with "Launch" lineup? You mean launch window, games that are released in the upcoming months after the release day? Every system have those, and we also get confirmation on which games that are available at day 1.

As in launch lineup Im talking about the lackluster quality of games that every system had at launch except Dreamcast. Consoles seem to generally have bad games at launch. Which I why some people wait awhile. Wii U will have an incredible list of games by that time.

 

[metalslimer]

They would still have to outbid other companies to get ips with ok(if that) sales potential and they would probably have to open more studios on top of that to make those games.

Well its better than relying on Mario to save the day everytime because eventually people do tire of mascots.

 

[Tyrax]

How much longer do you think I should wait for a wiiu price drop?

not really any system seller games right now, but I'd like to be prepared if one comes along

 

[Snowden's Secret]

How much longer do you think I should wait for a wiiu price drop?

not really any system seller games right now, but I'd like to be prepared if one comes along

Nintendo will wait until Sony and Microsoft announce their next-gen pricing at the earliest, so July is the very earliest I'd see a price drop.

 

[CouldBeWorse]

Well its better than relying on Mario to save the day everytime because eventually people do tire of mascots.

Yep, people have really gotten tired of Disney mascots, haven't they?

A great mascot like Mario only gets more popular over time. New kids are born every day and a certain portion of grown ups will still always feel the nostalgia. It's Nintendo's most unique advantage in the industry. They have more great characters than everyone else combined.

 

[metalslimer]

Yep, people have really gotten tired of Disney mascots, haven't they?

A great mascot like Mario only gets more popular over time. New kids are born every day and a certain portion of grown ups will still always feel the nostalgia. It's Nintendo's most unique advantage in the industry. They have more great characters than everyone else combined.

Actually Disney would be screwed if they had the reliance on Mickey that Nintendo has with Mario.

 

[Pie and Beans]

How much longer do you think I should wait for a wiiu price drop?

not really any system seller games right now, but I'd like to be prepared if one comes along

Could be at any point when they deem things have gotten "too bad" from now (or after the financial year cut-off to be precise I guess). Or retailers start trying to get rid of stock.

 

[Darryl]

Well its better than relying on Mario to save the day everytime because eventually people do tire of mascots.

i dunno, people seem awful obsessed with them. mickey mouse exists only as an icon at this point and holy shit, you see how much money he can bring in. i didn't even realize it until last time i went to disney world. the only people at risk of tiring on nintendo franchises are the people who force themselves to be around them so often and weren't really fans to begin with, like forum posters, game journalists, or game retailers.

 

[eighty(one)]

Everyone wants Nintendo to go third party confirmed.

Nope.

I'd have liked them to actually have added (or) given WiiU beefier specs.

2 GB RAM is a shame.

I don't expect superb specs from their handhelds, but for whatever reason, I do from their home consoles. The Wii was their only really underpowered (home) system - and now, they've continued that trend.

The company that brought industry innovation to game design with the N64 (in some ways Wii), delivered a product w/ WiiU, that might have seemed more relevant in 2010.

It feels years late, and half baked.

It's just not appealing, and I'm a core Nintendo guy. I want the innovation - but I also want the tech. Next gen consoles, should feel like future boxes, not boxes of today or from yesterday.

I'm also wanting Nintendo to reach deeper into their vast portfolio and give Metroid, FZero, Wave Race and others the spotlight. Give them the attention and marketing dollars, to which they give Mario or Pokemon.

Those series' languish in sales and popularity because Nintendo (compared to Nintendo's more iterative Zelda and Mario), because they've allowed them to. They don't advertise them so they don't sell, they don't sell so they don't advertise them, they don't develop them, because they don't sell....So, they dish out what keeps selling because...

:0(

There has always been Nintendo bias since the N64. There's no denying that.

There is no bias.

The vast majority of third party games flop on Nintendo home console. Third parties often they compete with Nintendo, on a Nintendo platform. Nintendo games are often times, the best in the industry. The problem is exactly that.

Nintendo fans, are so accustomed to fantastic games from Nintendo - that they hold third party games to Nintendo standards. Rather than just buy a game that looks fun, they snub the third party games because well...it's not a Nintendo branded series or has Nintendo's impeccable polish.

The Nintendo base has brought about the rubbish state of affairs, and its been like this for 4 generations now.

I haven't bought any of the 3rd parties on the Wii U simply because why should I?
If companies are going to do quick ports with no attempts to either optimize their engines so that they can run well, add new graphical upgrades that leverage the newer GPU, or even play-style upgrades that take advantage of Nintendo's unique input devices, and on top of that charge me $60 for the pleasure of playing their low-priority, low-effort products, why should I fork over my money?

Case in point ^

Couldn't even throw ZombiU and Ubisoft a bone?

i don't think this is a great interpretation.

nintendo's first party is high quality, but all of it tends to have the same sort of feel and design. Even for their sports (mario tennis, strikers) and racing (mario kart) games, they re-use their mascot characters, giving everything basically the same appeal. These games sell systems, but they are very much unlike the games that third parties tend to make. even their fighters (smash brothers) are cutesy mascot games. over time, fans of nintendo consoles tend to get locked into the nintendo ecosystem (if you like mario, mario is prone to show up in spinoff titles...as is donkey kong, link, etc) and nintendo preferred this, as they make more money from selling their own titles.

Since nintendo rarely branches outside of their comfort zone in terms of game design (metroid is the only series that really comes to mind here), nintendo fans simply keep buying the games that are similar to the high quality games they're used to, and are less open to branching out and trying third party efforts.

Sony's design philosophy is a lot different- they tend to make series that are similar to what the rest of the market is doing in terms of gameplay and design, so it's not that big of a jump for someone who likes uncharted to check out tomb raider. (and vice versa...uncharted was clearly inspired by tomb raider) Looking at sony's output across the PS1, PS2, and PS3, they've had their fingers in just about every genre you can think of- JRPGs, stealth games, party games, music games, FPS games, adventure games, fighters, etc.

nintendo has done a bad job at this- tending to ignore market trends and concentrating on the games they're comfortable with, market demand be damned. It's a false assertion that nintendo's games are somehow SO MUCH BETTER than third party efforts that Tekken Tag and Call of Duty can't possibly compete with mario kart. Gran Turismo has been of staggeringly high quality since the PS1, and yet sony fans will still check out other racing games. Halo is a 500 pound gorilla on the Xbox, yet other shooters still sell.


the issue is that for several generations nintendo has said to consumers "we don't make those kinds of games, if you want them, look elsewhere." and now that gamers have done this and they're down to the core that ONLY cares about Mario etc, they're in a bad position.

^ best post of the past few pages! Cheers!

 

[Terrell]

The last Direct where they said they would provide a screenshot of Smash at e3 and how they started brainstorming the new Zelda.

Yeah, you're imagining that everything they announced is purely in concept phase. All they said is "this is what's in development" and gave no details as to how far along things are with the exception of Zelda, and honestly, no one is shocked that we're gonna be waiting longer for that.

The vast majority of third party games flop on Nintendo home console. Third parties often they compete with Nintendo, on a Nintendo platform. Nintendo games are often times, the best in the industry. The problem is exactly that.

Nintendo fans, are so accustomed to fantastic games from Nintendo - that they hold third party games to Nintendo standards. Rather than just buy a game that looks fun, they snub the third party games because well...it's not a Nintendo branded series or has Nintendo's impeccable polish.

The Nintendo base has brought about the rubbish state of affairs, and its been like this for 4 generations now.

I'm sorry, hold the phone... so you're telling me that gamers shouldn't demand great content for their $60?

 

[Sandfox]

Well its better than relying on Mario to save the day everytime because eventually people do tire of mascots.

IMO its better to rely on Mario's name than THQ's IPs.

 

[metalslimer]

IMO its better to rely on Mario's name than THQ's IPs.

Of course

 

[CouldBeWorse]

IMO its better to rely on Mario's name than THQ's IPs.

Those are the only two options???

 

[shinra-bansho]

"Wait for Mario, then the system will sell." would work a lot better without New Super Mario Bros U.

 

[airmangataosenai]

The way I see opportunity costs with Nintendo and the point where sticking with their own hardware would stop making sense for them: Call of Duty sells 18 million+cross-platform this generation, I'd say that their upper echelon titles such as Mario Kart have just as much if not more sales potential than this. If they're stuck on hardware with just 15 million or fewer users then it stops being worth it for them.

 

[Sandfox]

Those are the only two options???

They could create their own new IPs(which they are probably doing) but even then they would still rely on Mario since people know what they are getting with Mario regardless of what type of game it is or where they live.

The way I see opportunity costs with Nintendo and the point where sticking with their own hardware would stop making sense for them: Call of Duty sells 18 million+cross-platform this generation, I'd say that their upper echelon titles such as Mario Kart have just as much if not more sales potential than this. If they're stuck on hardware with just 15 million or fewer users then it stops being worth it for them.

Even with a small audience they would probably make a good profit on the game and if they were to move to other hardware who's to say that Mario Kart would still sell?

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

"Wait for Mario, then the system will sell." would work a lot better without New Super Mario Bros U.

Well I would say wait for a better software category overall.Dont be so superficial.

 

[TheNatural]

"Wait for Mario, then the system will sell." would work a lot better without New Super Mario Bros U.

Wow. Truth bombs. Not to mention the 3D Marios have been crappy sales wise compared to the 2D ones.

 

[Sandfox]

"Wait for Mario, then the system will sell." would work a lot better without New Super Mario Bros U.

I don't think anyone is expecting that to happen. It'll take multiple games including Mario.

Wow. Truth bombs. Not to mention the 3D Marios have been crappy sales wise compared to the 2D ones.

I think a 3D Mario will attract a different audience which could be a good step for the Wii U.

 

[Raoh]

This is why third parties (mostly Western) don't like Nintendo currently, Nintendo doesn't create & refine the types of games (and gamers) that will help third parties sell on Nintendo home consoles. Part of the reason CoD is so successful on the 360 is because of Halo, not in spite of it.

If Nintendo wants western third party support, they're gonna have to internally develop the games which will attract third parties, not slap Mario & friends on genres Nintendo is familiar with.

That is an interesting point I never considered. Makes sense.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Well I would say wait for a better software category overall.Dont be so superficial.

The premise that I've been reading over the last few pages has been that Nintendo's franchises and brands, the strongest of which being Mario, are sufficient to carry the platform to "success."

A premise that I don't really think is true.

And a premise that the sales of NSMBU (a sequel to a game that sold 28M on the Wii and was its 5th best selling game) and the corresponding hardware sales would belie.

At this stage, it's not beyond the pall to say that the Wii's success led to NSMBWii's success rather than vice versa; a proposition put forward (and often summarily dismissed) prior to the launch of the Wii U.

I don't think anyone is expecting that to happen. It'll take multiple games including Mario.

Nintendo expected it to happen.

I just don't see the logic. I'm not saying that more Mario games, or simply more software in general, doesn't make the system more attractive, sure. But I really don't see how people are uninterested in the platform with one Mario game, but when there's three Mario games, well, that's when we'll see gangbuster sales.

It doesn't really change that there are fundamental flaws in the conception and positioning of the product that everyone seems to want to ignore.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

The premise that I've been reading over the last few pages has been that Nintendo's franchises and brands, the strongest of which being Mario, are sufficient to carry the platform to "success."

A premise that I don't really think is true.

And a premise that the sales of NSMBU (a sequel to a game that sold 28M on the Wii and was its 5th best selling game) and the corresponding hardware sales would belie.

At this stage, it's not beyond the pall to say that the Wii's success led to NSMBWii's success rather than vice versa; a proposition put forward (and often summarily dismissed) prior to the launch of the Wii U.

Do you really think NSMBWii was this mass console seller? I would say Mario kart and NSMBWii thrived on the Wii because of the install base that Wii sports put on for every software that was made for the system. Thats why the Wii had so much damn shovelware, all those damn consoles out? Someone is going to buy it. You just dont make imagine babyz to take advantage of hardware innovation.

 

[Sandfox]

Nintendo expected it to happen.

I just don't see the logic. I'm not saying that more Mario games, or simply more software in general, doesn't make the system more attractive, sure. But I really don't see how people are uninterested in the platform with one Mario game, but when there's three Mario games, well, that's when we'll see gangbuster sales.

It doesn't really change that there are fundamental flaws in the conception and positioning of the product that everyone seems to want to ignore.

If Nintendo thought that just Mario could sell Wii U they wouldn't have tried with Nintendo Land or any of the other games they tried to have out earlier.

The three Mario games in question(NSMBU, 3D Mario, and Mario Kart) are very different from each other and aren't necessarily played by the same people. Nobody should be expecting gangbuster sales but there are quite a few people who are tired of the NSMB series but loved the Galaxy games and are waiting for the next 3D Mario before picking up a Wii U and there are Mario Kart fans thinking the same thing.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Do you really think NSMBWii was this mass console seller?

No, but others seemed to. And apparently Nintendo do. Or rather did.

I would say Mario kart and NSMBWii thrived on the Wii because of the install base that Wii sports put on for every software that was made for the system.

Umm... that's what I said. That was the proposition put forward, that's oft dismissed.

If one agrees with this premise, then I don't see why one would expect the system to take-off and/or these games to cause a massive turnaround. Or that Nintendo can sustain the system through their first-party output alone much beyond the limited appeal of the GameCube - which actually probably had better prospects of third party support.

I would hazard to say the 66K people buying the system now are the same people who would be buying the system had it Mario Kart U instead of NSMBU are the same people who would be buying it had it Super Mario Universe. The core Nintendo fanbase.

How much beyond that fanbase the system manages to attract would presumably depend on how much mindshare they managed to build during the Wii years and how much they manage to transition that audience.

If Nintendo thought that just Mario could sell Wii U they wouldn't have tried with Nintendo Land or any of the other games they tried to have out earlier.

Nintendo Land was the Wii U's equivalent of Wii Sports. The only problem is that the USP of the Wii U isn't simple or compelling.

The three Mario games in question(NSMBU, 3D Mario, and Mario Kart) are very different from each other and aren't necessarily played by the same people. Nobody should be expecting gangbuster sales but there are quite a few people who are tired of the NSMB series but loved the Galaxy games and are waiting for the next 3D Mario before picking up a Wii U and there are Mario Kart fans thinking the same thing.

See above proposition.