Topic: What Bubble?

[NWR_pap64]

Not to mention that 360 and PS3 titles cost 60 dollars. So it would be funny if cheaper Wii titles make more money than full priced titles.

I think Brawl and Wii Fit were pretty expensive to make. Brawl has a TON of talent involved, including licensing fees for Konami and Sega. Wii Fit has the balance board, which might cost a pretty penny to manufacture.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Not to mention that 360 and PS3 titles cost 60 dollars. So it would be funny if cheaper Wii titles make more money than full priced titles.

I think Brawl and Wii Fit were pretty expensive to make. Brawl has a TON of talent involved, including licensing fees for Konami and Sega. Wii Fit has the balance board, which might cost a pretty penny to manufacture.

It is too bad you can't get that information unlike movies where budgets are pretty easy to find!

[KDR_11k]

Have you ever played Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Jr. or Mario Bros?  The scope of Super Mario Bros compared to those games is HUGE.

And have you played Last Ninja or Elite?

[Arbok]

This is what I want the future to be.  Not the Wii ____ series.  It shows that Nintendo still has the talent if they choose to...

Nintendo still has talent, period. Galaxy, Brawl, Mario Kart, Metroid, Zelda... I have been a pretty sated gamer versus what the Gamecube gave me and what I liked there.

Reality is, though, that Nintendo has little reason to keep pushing these franchises out now at their old rates. The longer they wait, the more sales they will probably get on the next iteration and the less chance they have of a franchise becoming saturated. Furthermore, it allows them to ensure that each new release is a quality title, as there is no reason to jeopardize a franchise with a sub par release. This means more time spent on titles, but also allows them the chance to test the water with older franchises like Punch Out and Sin & Punishment... stuff that they never did on the Gamecube, outside of Pikmin, as they were pressured to keep sales up with the key franchises due to lagging performance of the console.

At least in theory... I'm sure there will still be a couple of titles, like Wario: Master of Disguise, where they pass development to another studio who botch it... yet they release it anyway.

I see Nintendo's direction to have the effect where games like Bioshock are not developed because the market doesn't want them.

If that's the case, then the market never did. This isn't the case, as sales show, but Nintendo didn't force people to go crazy about the Wii _ series... they did that on their own and now Nintendo has a huge market to cater to. To complain that they have been successful doing that is silly. You should be angry at consumers if anything for the ones who now demand that type of software, not Nintendo for doing what a company does: meet the demand of consumers. To suggest that they leave money on the table is fairly silly, in truth.

[Ian Sane]

Nintendo didn't force people to go crazy about the Wii _ series... they did that on their own and now Nintendo has a huge market to cater to. To complain that they have been successful doing that is silly. You should be angry at consumers if anything for the ones who now demand that type of software, not Nintendo for doing what a company does: meet the demand of consumers.

Well I think Nintendo is somewhat at fault for specifically targetting that segment of the market in the first place.  It isn't like the public was demanding non-games and Nintendo is just following the trend.  And it isn't like Nintendo released a game specifically for the old market and, whoa, all these non-gamers liked it so they decided to continue giving the public what they wanted.  Nintendo introduced the whole thing.  They specifically seeked that market out and I think that makes them responsible.  Hell they get credit for it so how are they not "at fault"?

And for years Nintendo actually DIDN'T specifically give the public what they wanted.  Remember when mature games were all the rage and Nintendo refused to cater to that market?  The money was there but they never chased it.  Now I think Nintendo should have made more of an effort to balance their lineup better with "mature" and "family friendly" games as an 'M' rating didn't have to mean exploitive violence and sexual content as Nintendo themselves had demonstrated with games like Perfect Dark and Eternal Darkness.  But Nintendo never really made a serious effort to target that very large group.  At the time many Nintendo fans praised them for not compromising their games for money.  I think Nintendo was overly conservative about that but if I suggested that I got "do you want to see Mario killing hookers" reactions.  Of course those same people who acted as if all mature games had to be exploitive like GTA went bonkers over Resident Evil 4 but that's another topic.

The point is a few years ago it was unpopular around here to suggest that Nintendo release more mature games and less cutesy games to balance out their lineup, overcome a negative image they had been branded with, and thus make a serious effort to win back the gamers they lost to the competition over the years.  This was often seen as Nintendo compromising their integrity for financial gain.  I never thought it was but a lot of people saw it that way.  Now they're catering specifically to a large segment of the mainstream market and have made games specifically for that audience.  Yet very few people on these forums consider THAT to be compromising their integrity for financial gain.  But I don't see why making mature games would have been bad while making non-games is okay?  If making mature games is being a sell out why wouldn't making non-games be the same thing?  At least making a mature game would just be a different theme and setting but without any compromise to gameplay.  With non-games the gameplay itself is affected.

The only difference is see is that Nintendo didn't do the mature thing but did do the non-gamer one.  This current strategy isn't some hypothetical situation being suggested by a forumer, it's real and Nintendo really did it.  Suggesting the mature focus was counter-culture to what Nintendo was doing but supporting the non-gamer focus is following along with Nintendo.  One makes you a rebel, one makes you a fan.  What Nintendo does is always good, what Nintendo chooses not to do is always bad.

[Kairon]

Now they're catering specifically to a large segment of the mainstream market and have made games specifically for that audience.  Yet very few people on these forums consider THAT to be compromising their integrity for financial gain.  But I don't see why making mature games would have been bad while making non-games is okay?

Your answer lies earlier in your post.

It isn't like the public was demanding non-games and Nintendo is just following the trend.
...
Nintendo introduced the whole thing.

It's not considered compromising your integrity if you've always been on that path to begin with. Nintendo has ALWAYS targeted the 5-95 gamer. From the Power Pad's World Class Track Meet to Mario Paint to their consistent erring on the side of family-friendly-caution, you're right in saying that "supporting the non-gamer focus is following along with Nintendo." Nintendo's had that focus for ages.

Now, there's obviously many angles to being a Nintendo fan. But I do think that anyone who has interest in Nintendo beyond what they see on store shelves has to see that historical background, connection and theme. No matter your stance today, I think you'd have to acknowledge that the Wii reaches back to the NES era for a lot of its values. Heck, even the Miis got their start on the famicom disk drive.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Wait Nintendo is FOLLOWING the trend? Thought everyone was following Nintendo's trend. Come on Ian, you can do better than that. What Nintendo do is accepted as being daring and yes smart. Heck when you have professors talking about Nintendo with the Wii, you know they did something more than "follow a trend".

[Deguello]

Another thing I think Ian misses either by accident or cynically on purpose is that all of Nintendo's core games like Mario Galaxy and Zelda and even Metroid have all outperformed their previous iterations meaning that, while Nintendo has a lot of incentive to making "Wii ___ Games" they have just as much to make what has made them famous and those that "their fans have supported and put them where they are today." (And still put them, going by these figures.)  And because of lower-budget (not Low or shoestring budget) games like Wii Sports and Wii Fit and such, Nintendo will have enough spare dough to make all those artistic and whatnot games.  Again, rising tide, all boats.  Same as DS.

[Kairon]

This is an epic argument though that will never end. Nintendo fans have been debating the essence of Nintendo since, well, the N64 days at least.

[GoldenPhoenix]

This is an epic argument though that will never end. Nintendo fans have been debating the essence of Nintendo since, well, the N64 days at least.

Especially when it is with Ian.

[NWR_pap64]

This is an epic argument though that will never end. Nintendo fans have been debating the essence of Nintendo since, well, the N64 days at least.

Funny you mentioned the N64.

Sean Malstrom once mentioned that perhaps the reason gamers are criticizing the Wii is because these are young gamers who grew up with the N64 and GC, missing the NES and SNES entirely.

If you look back at the N64 he might have a point. Many of its best titles were innovative entries in their core franchises (Mario and Zelda). Since the N64 barely had any noteworthy third party titles they kept their games coming while second parties like Rare supplied the system with new IPs that were graphically impressive.

The GC focused even more on its core fanbase and franchises, with the innovation aimed solely at them (like GBA/GC connectivity, e-Reader cards and such).

So when they see Nintendo placing its attention upon a new audience they cry foul because Nintendo catered heavily to their fanbase the last two generations and focused its innovation on them and their franchises. Hell, even a game like Wii Fit wouldn't exist during said days. It would have been deemed too risky for them.

Meanwhile, the NES and SNES catered to a wide audience. The NES in particular was sold to an audience that was burned before by gaming, and did so by creating new IPs that were easy to learn but hard to master.

Why do you think so many people remember Mario with fondness? Because it was an innovative new franchise that anyone could play.

See the relations between the NES and Wii? They both came at a crucial time in gaming and did so by providing an experience no one else dared to follow.

If you go back EVEN FURTHER you'll learn that gaming was advertised as a family/children's activity, A HIGHLY TECHNOLOGICAL TOY.

Chris Buffa of Game Daily once said that hardcore gamers were the ones that moved the industry to where it is today. He couldn't be farther from the truth.

True, hardcore games did help establish some elements. But if you look past Sony and Microsoft you'll see that there once was an Atari that gave birth and killed gaming while Nintendo picked up the pieces and ran away with it, and they did so thanks to the help of families who were impressed by the technology.

[KDR_11k]

Ian, your perception of what people want is skewed by what you read on the internet. Noone posted on the internet (well, the parts of it that you read) about how he wanted simpler games for everyone so you assume noone wanted them. What people say and what people do are two different things, especially when the vast majority doesn't say anything. What people did was playing tons of flash based browser games. Actions speak louder than words so Nintendo figured they wanted something similarily simple to get into but with lasting appeal and it turns out Nintendo guessed right.

The internet cried for more "mature" games but did the market actually want more of those or was there more of a market for something that doesn't focus so much on the 12-24 year olds? Well, we could dig up sales numbers from the time but that's too much work for me . It does seem to me like most of Nintendo's "for everyone" games sold to a large part of the "mature" market as well while a "mature" game would have trouble selling outside its dedicated market. Looks to me like Nintendo has a monopoly on everyone outside the 12-24 year old male demographic and a significant share even inside that bracket.

Also "the market" sounds so impersonal, it sounds like an evil machinery with no humanity, the market is made up of people though, people with their own desires and expectations. What "the market" wants is what the people in it want. Sometimes they don't know they want it before they see it so simply asking them is the wrong approach. Making what people say they want ends up with the Xbox (including the old controller).

[Kairon]

I...liked the big old XBox controller... I don't see why everyone gave it so much flack. I hate the smaller S controller which is what the current 360 controller's based on...

[King of Twitch]

Only thing I can think of is that it ripped off the DCast's controller

[Kairon]

Only thing I can think of is that it ripped off the DCast's controller

Yeah, I realized the same thing. I like the DC's controller too, except it didn't mold to my hands quite as well as I would've liked.