Topic: Steven Kent: "Nintendo is like a wonderful old friend who has a drinking problem."

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane The question I have is "who cares?"  A unique control experience is not what you buy a console for.  You buy it for unique GAME experiences which can be done regardless of what changes are made to a controller.

Jigga-what?

I haven't had a "unique game experience" on a home console for...this entire f*cking generation.

Seriously, there isn't a game I played which I didn't distinctly think, "Yeah, I've done this before." Even alleged innovative titles like Pikmin and Katmarci-whatever just borrow concepts from older games and rehash them (neither of which I thought resulted in truly enjoyable game experiences).

The only thing NEW I've played has been on the DS, and that's because I'm not just pressing buttons to make a character jump or shoot anymore. Right now, the Wii is basically my last hope for gaming because I've done this sh*t before. Sometimes more of the same is alright, but that makes for a sparse gaming diet, only buying the titles of that genre which TRULY shine (like Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow if I want a solid platformer).

And I'm not alone: I have friends who all owned Genesis/SNES/PS1 back in the day and now they haven't bought consoles for a generation or two. I believe Nintendo when they say that the gaming market it shrinking because I see this trend in my friends and even myself.

If not for the DS, gaming sales would have been in a HUGE decline this past year. It was the DS alone which gave gaming an increase in growth from previous years. I don't think it's a coincidence that the only console with a unique and innovative control scheme is the ONLY one to be growing in the market.

Your skepticism is unwarranted in this case. People who have played the Wii with the new controller, after a brief adjustment period, all say that the controller feels absolutely natural to use and makes more sense than a regular analogue. That, and I'd wager that going back to a regular analogue will feel clunky and awkward once you've enjoyed the freedom of simply pointing at your targets and using gestures to influence the game world instead of pushing buttons.

This guy wrote an editorial on Nintendo about two years too late, before the DS, before the Wii, before Iwata's Nintendo really came into its own.

I'm less worried about Nintendo now than I've EVER been and anyone with the most basic observational skills will see the same picture.

[odifiend]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"We may not know the true potential of Wii's graphics capabilities. I'm no graphics whore, but it does seem like Nintendo undercut their technology. So Nintendo plays the graphics games, loses to graphically inferior PS2, then decides that gamers don't want graphics. Lesson learned? Not quite. The lesson here is that people don't want impressive graphics only. Passing on high-def is one thing, making Wii supposedly 'twice as powerful as Gamecube' is an extreme alternative."

I agree completely and think this is a great example of Nintendo learning the wrong lesson.  The PS2 having inferior graphics was a coincedence.  At the time the PS2 was released Sony was trying to be on the cutting edge graphically and were only behind because their console launched a year earlier.  They succeeded despite it because the hardware was still reasonably comparible and they had good third party support and some really popular exclusives.  Nintendo acts like the weak graphics somehow contributed to the PS2's success.  Nintendo comes to really nutty conclusions.  When they revealed the whole non-gamer plan they somehow connected it to the Cube's low sales.  "Boy that Gamecube didn't too well.  I figure it must be because our games were too intimidating to non-gamers."

"I want to ask the simple question, how will Microsoft and Sony be able to continue to create engaging software that creates unique control mechanics with controllers that have been the standard for close to 8 years now. Everything that is being done on the Xbox 360 controller has been done before, and there is no unique control experience."

The question I have is "who cares?"  A unique control experience is not what you buy a console for.  You buy it for unique GAME experiences which can be done regardless of what changes are made to a controller.  When playing SNES did you ever think "boy I sure enjoy these shoulder buttons!  This was the reason I bought this console!"?  Probably not.  In fact Super Mario World didn't even use them in a significant way but it was still a great game and had some new ideas not featured in the NES Marios.  The PS2 had pretty much the exact same controller as the PS1 but it still had unique game experiences.

Now had Nintendo merely added new ideas to the existing controller like they had done in the past then there would be less doubt.  But Nintendo told us that our old controllers were broken, something that no one thinks except Nintendo and some of their fans who only think that because Nintendo told them so.  They're not just adding new stuff they're proposing a new standard.  That sort of idea makes people defensive.  Who is Nintendo, the market loser who is ridiculously out-of-touch and tries to grab every last penny from us, to tell us that a 20 year old proven controller design needs to be replaced?  Plus with the Wii the controller is really the ONLY new feature.  Online was what Nintendo SHOULD have done last gen.  I like their setup but they're just playing catch-up.  The hardware itself isn't upped much so the controller is everything.

So if the controller sucks then the entire Wii is a waste of time and money.  I thought the Cube's clicky shoulder buttons weren't all that cool when I first heard about them and I was right in the end.  But I was still excited about the Cube because the extra hardware boost would allow for new ideas and would improve on old ideas.  And though it was a little infrequent it happened, even though the clicky buttons were a dud.  The N64 without the analog stick and the SNES without shoulder buttons still offered new possibilities.  Wii games that don't use the remote probably could have been done on the Cube provided the online capabilities had been used.  So there is more pressure on the controller alone to perform and thus more skepticism about whether it will or not.

Regarding Player's Choice titles remember that when Nintendo first released Player's Choice titles on the Cube some titles were $30 while ALL PS2 or Xbox discount titles were $20.  That's the sort of greedy Nintendo stuff we're talking about.  There was no reason to charge a higher price than the competition.  Nintendo was just dicking us around because they thought they could.  Sony was the market leader and could have probably gotten away with charging $30 but didn't while Nintendo was in last place and couldn't get away with pissing off consumers for no reason but did anyway.  That's Nintendo in a nutshell.  "We have no leverage but we're going to act like we do anyway."

Ian, which game was more fun, Super Mario Bros. or Super Mario Bros. 2?  SMB 3 or SMW?  Blank or blankity blank from same genre as blank?  Now why was the fun game more fun?  There are no right answers but it is doubtful it has anything to do with graphics.  It seems to me that is the lesson Nintendo is taking away.  I hate when people say this, but in this case I really do think Nintendo knows its cyclic market better than you do.  As for the technology, I never found the GCN to be lacking when a developer put in the time.  The controller is one indirect way that Nintendo has likely increased 3rd party quality.

Since I'm at work, I'm going to just touch on somethings that caught my eye on the rest of your post.

Sony and MS won't be able to create engaging software because Nintendo is no longer there to copy.  Not to overtoot the Big N's horn, but they are damn good at what they do and are the source for a lot of the new ideas that come into the industry.

Ian, you are missing the point.  The controller automatically is lending itself to new Game experiences.  You almost have to have no talent to not create something promising provided you had the time and the resources.  Though their are still great games out there, a lot of it is the same old game with slight enhancements.  I thought that is why everyone is so critical of Madden?
What Nintendo controller has every sucked?
Look at the PS3 controller- even if you could have the 'standard' and motion sensing, the standard limits what can be done with motion sensing.  The standard has been explored.
Nintendo is the Godfather of gaming and that is why they are changing the game.

[Ian Sane]

"The only thing NEW I've played has been on the DS, and that's because I'm not just pressing buttons to make a character jump or shoot anymore."

To me this sounds like someone complaining that movies are stale because all you do is watch them and music is stale because all you do is listen to it.  To me it isn't that I'm pressing buttons to do things.  To me that is gaming.  It's what the buttons do and the reality the game creates that matters.  That is the experience and that can be unique.  Metroid had a jump button and a shoot button like every other game made at the time.  But how it was done is what created the unique experience.  So games like Pikmin and Metroid Prime are unique to me.  I'm doing things I wasn't doing before or I'm doing things I have done before with a different twist that keeps it fresh.  A remote doesn't necessarily change things.  The same game I've played before with movement instead of buttons isn't fresh or different if the content behind it is the same.  A controller is just a tool.  The content is everything.

[Ian Sane]

"Now why was the fun game more fun? There are no right answers but it is doubtful it has anything to do with graphics."

Hardware improvements create more than just prettier graphics.  The SNES wasn't just a prettier Nintendo.  It could do scaling and rotating and all sorts of other effects that affected gameplay and that could not be done on the NES.  Miyamoto has stated that he wanted Mario to ride a dinosaur on the NES but couldn't do it because the hardware wasn't good enough.  That right there is a new feature in Super Mario World that was impossible on the NES.  Mode 7 games like F-Zero and Super Mario Kart were impossible.  And then the N64 takes it a step further.  How could you do 3D like THAT on the SNES hardware?  On the Cube could 100 Pikmin be on screen on the N64 without the framerate going to hell?  No.

One game I would love would be something like the Massive program used for the battles in the Lord of the Rings movies.  They had thousands of individual AI having a battle with each other.  Imagine that sort of idea used in a game.  You're in a huge battle and all around you members of your army and the enemy are duking it out.  You're just part of something bigger.  The feeling of a war has never truly been achieved and it won't without better hardware.  A game where the AI on your side isn't a liability isn't possible without better hardware.  This game isn't possible on the Wii regardless of what controller is used.  Now it probably isn't possible on the PS3 or Xbox 360 either but the point is that as hardware improves new ideas can be achieved and capping the hardware is going to prevent that.

[IceCold]

Couch, I think Player's Choice will still be there, and we'll still get the deals regardless of whether Nintendo is the market leader or not.. When a game is released, and its sales are stagnant for a while after the initial release, it just makes good business sense to have a pricecut to stimulate more sales. For example, it's better to sell 10 copies at $30 rather than 4 copies at $60. ALSO, bargain games are always a selling point to late adopters (and definitely casual/nongamers in this case), and Nintendo wants to ensure that 2 or 3 years after launch, there's a good range of games for that type of customer. It would ensure that consoles keep getting sold at a constant rate. And FINALLY, more games equals a better software tie-in ratio. It may be somewhat artificial since they were sold at a lower price, but developers always look at the tie-in ratio when they decide whether to support a console or not. Regarding why they didn't have Player's Choice for earlier consoles, I'll chalk it up to the Yamauchi era..

Quote
So if the controller sucks then the entire Wii is a waste of time and money. I thought the Cube's clicky shoulder buttons weren't all that cool when I first heard about them and I was right in the end. But I was still excited about the Cube because the extra hardware boost would allow for new ideas and would improve on old ideas.

The Cube hardware boost did allow for new ideas. Pikmin could never be done on the N64. However, Nintendo's right; hardware just doesn't matter as much now. The only thing that a hardware boost can really improve upon now is the graphics. Sure, you may bring up physics and AI, but the Wii can do those just fine. Honestly, there won't be much of a difference at all in those categories. Then you may bring up the number of characters on screen; didn't you say once that you wouldn't be satisfied with consoles until they had enough power to simulate Lord of the Rings type battles in realtime? I've said this before; that wouldn't improve the game in any way.. With that number of characters, the camera would have to be very wide, and the game would be reduced to a useless hack 'n slash. The Wii's hardware is more than capable of handling all these things compared to the other consoles - the only thing which you'll be able to tell a difference is in the graphics department. The gap isn't even that big, especially on a normal TV, like most of us have. Super Mario Galaxy on 480p for you lucky ones will be breathtaking, and that's all I could ask for.

And I loved the digital click  

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane The same game I've played before with movement instead of buttons isn't fresh or different if the content behind it is the same.  A controller is just a tool.  The content is everything.

The controller is your link to the world you observe inside that screen. It is the only connection you possess to the virtual world of the game.

Better controllers beget better content because they increase the amount of influence you have in that gaming world. With the introduction of the analogue stick, the player was not only able to indicate a direction but also the SEVERITY of that direction: before, I could make Mario walk or hold down a button and make him run. That was it.

After the birth of the analogue stick, I could make Mario walk, run in circles, sneak as slowly as possible, etc.

An advancement in controller technology allowed the game to provide more depth and content to the player.

Prior to the Wiimote, games could place the player in a situation where they would be tested on a basis of timing and at best, direction. Oblivion is a good example of this.

In a simulated swordfight, the player would be responsible for facing the right direction and timing their attacks to hit the enemy. This is what Oblivion offered in the way of swordfighting: you faced the direction, hit the button, and the game did the rest for you, assuming that your character would swing the weapon and hit the target for you.

In this way, the game can only test the skill of the player based on the input the player can give the game. The game can test you on timing and direction in order to determine whether the player succeeds or fails.

In the case of the Wiimote, the game can now test the player on a whole range of previously unavailable variables because the player now has control of these. The game can test your physical dexterity, aim, speed and coordination, all of which it literally COULD NOT do before.

You seem to think that these variables will, in fact, make the games LESS enjoyable (mostly because they'll require physical work), but I disagree on all fronts.

When your motion can translate directly to the game world, it brings the player closer to the games. Pressing a button can NEVER be as immersive as actually making the gestures involved in the activity you are simulating in the game world.

Just like the analogue stick before it, the Wiimote evolves the concept by giving the player more direct control of the game world, by knocking down more of the barriers which separate the player from the experience.

I'm not arguing that games CAN be unique and innovative without new control schemes, but A) I've not seen any games which I feel fall under that heading this generation (no FUN ones, anyway) and B) new control schemes speed the process up, DRAMATICALLY.

Would we have figured out ways to make Mario sneak with a regular D-pad? Sure, but that didn't change the fact that the analogue stick not only made the act more intuitive but drastically more FUN as well, and FUN is still the bottom line here.

Do I think pantomiming the stabbing of on screen enemies will be more FUN than pressing a button to stab them? Oh HELL yes. So in short, there's no reason to complain about something which is going to revitalize what I believe is a dying industry. It's not a question of whether or not people CAN innovate without controller improvements, it's a question of whether or not they WILL and I think that question has already been answered in the steady flow of bland, uninspired games I've seen released this generation.

[couchmonkey]

I agree with both Ian and Smash.  I think that there's still plenty of room for change in games without new controls, but I think the new controls are going to go a long way towards contributing to innovation and freshening the experience.

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
I agree with both Ian and Smash.  I think that there's still plenty of room for change in games without new controls, but I think the new controls are going to go a long way towards contributing to innovation and freshening the experience.

Yeah, like I said, I agree with the "can" part. Developers CAN still squeeze more out of the existing control schemes.

It's the "WILL" part I'm not so sure about.

[Galford]

Point and case to Ian's last post.  

Resident Evil 5

It has been annouced for PS3 and 360. Where is the Wii version?
The hand me down Umbrella Chronicles doesn't count.

Granted RE isn't the system seller it use to be, but is still a big franchise.

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: Galford It has been annouced for PS3 and 360. Where is the Wii version?
The hand me down Umbrella Chronicles doesn't count.

But WTH could RE5 POSSIBLY have in it that REs 0-4 didn't already offer?  

[odifiend]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Now why was the fun game more fun? There are no right answers but it is doubtful it has anything to do with graphics."

Hardware improvements create more than just prettier graphics.  The SNES wasn't just a prettier Nintendo.  It could do scaling and rotating and all sorts of other effects that affected gameplay and that could not be done on the NES.  Miyamoto has stated that he wanted Mario to ride a dinosaur on the NES but couldn't do it because the hardware wasn't good enough.  That right there is a new feature in Super Mario World that was impossible on the NES.  Mode 7 games like F-Zero and Super Mario Kart were impossible.  And then the N64 takes it a step further.  How could you do 3D like THAT on the SNES hardware?  On the Cube could 100 Pikmin be on screen on the N64 without the framerate going to hell?  No.

My point has nothing to do with any of that.  Miyamoto has gone on record as saying that he wish he invented the Tamagochi too.  From that statement, it seems to me that Miyamoto is about simplistic fun.  A child can play with his shadow and have a blast for hours.  How much RAM or GHz does it really take for a human being to have fun while playing a video game?
I don't understand how individualized AI a mile away plays differently from scripted AI a mile away...  I don't know if it is because I'm an engineer or what, but Nintendo's policy is clicking with me.  It is practical.   HD is great, I want one and will probably get one, but the LCD boom is not likely going to come until 2009 and beyond.
IceCold, amen.
Smash, from what I skimmed over (sorry), yes, it is having some real organic fun and the controller makes it easier for the developer to give the gamer that satisfaction.

[Smash_Brother]

The question you have to ask yourself is this:

Games will be made better and more immersive by:

A. Seeing.
B. Feeling

Heh, the DS's motto should have been "Why look when you can touch?"

[Ian Sane]

"Better controllers beget better content because they increase the amount of influence you have in that gaming world. With the introduction of the analogue stick, the player was not only able to indicate a direction but also the SEVERITY of that direction: before, I could make Mario walk or hold down a button and make him run. That was it."

Okay I'll agree with that but "better" is a relative term.  I could say the N64 controller was better than the SNES controller fairly easily since it pretty much just was a SNES controller with more stuff.  It expanded what was there.  The Cube controller didn't do that.  It changed things around and removed some stuff and it received a lot more criticism than any previous Nintendo controller because of it.  The Wii controller is different, not necessarily better.  It removes functionality and tries to replace it.  So there is reason to be skeptical.  Improvement and change aren't always the same thing.

Nintendo's credibility doesn't help.  They came across as clueless idiots with the Cube and that negative reputation makes it harder to believe that THIS time their utterly bizarre idea is a good one.  I think of connectivity and stupid Cube button arrangment and the useless clicky buttons (which are pretty fun to press actually, they just aren't that useful).  Nintendo made a big stink about a bunch of junk that turned out to be nothing.

Combine that with their reputation of being greedy and you think that maybe there was no real idea for connectivity.  Maybe the goal from the get-go was just to get people to buy both systems and to buy cables.  It seems pretty obvious that they didn't have any great ideas for it when they came up with it.  People bring up the DS.  I think the touchscreen is a neat idea that compliments the traditional Gameboy controls that were not removed from the design.  But since their first game was a port of an N64 game I don't believe that they had some big plan for it.  Any good ideas for it have come later after a long period of nothing and I still don't see anything that suggests that a touchscreen is a requirement for future game systems.  In fact some games have been made worse by forced touchscreen usage which you never saw with the N64 analog stick.  That's the difference between a real future impacting idea and a quirky distraction.  And I still feel that much of the DS success is due to Nintendo dominance of the portable market.  It sold because it was the follow up to the Gameboy.

Anyway I've assumed that the real incentive for the Wii is that the remote is an effective marketing tool.  It's different so it stands out better than another Nintendo console with the same goof ups and mistakes from ten years ago would.  Nintendo didn't want to address their real problems (or doesn't know those problems exist) so they made a distraction to hide them.  The remote also provides an excuse to cheap out on the hardware (to make more profit of course) with the promise of new experiences created by the controller providing the incentive for consumers to buy a Gamecube 1.5.  Now I think Nintendo is going to try damn hard to make new games for that controller.  Partially because they want to attract non-gamers and partially because it would look pretty bad if they didn't.  But I didn't think they had ideas that necessitated the creation of the remote in the first place.  They came up with it because of its marketing potential and then set down to figure out ideas for it.  They did the same thing with the DS.  Come up with something different to attract attention and then hope to hell you can actually come up with good ideas for it.

That's where Kent's suggestion of Nintendo switching to a normal controller in a year comes from.  It's a weird idea that attracts attention, hides weaknesses, and may or may not actually be a good idea.  All this coming from a company that has had a really lousy track record of actually delivering on promised "industry changing" ideas lately and who is known for squeezing every last dollar out of its consumerbase.  It is hard to believe with those factors in place.

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane Improvement and change aren't always the same thing.

No one would say they are, but from all FIRST HAND accounts I've heard, people LIKE the change.

Look at the 3rd parties who are rushing to support Nintendo now who had completely dropped cube support before. I think it's safe to say that THEY think it's an improvement.

And lastly, look at all of the people who don't play games or gave up on games who are excited about the Wii. Clearly, THEY see it as an improvement if they're willing to try/reacquire gaming as a hobby because of it.

I understand it's subjective, but the reaction to the idea is QUITE clear.

Quote
Nintendo's credibility doesn't help.  They came across as clueless idiots with the Cube and that negative reputation makes it harder to believe that THIS time their utterly bizarre idea is a good one.

Uhh, the DS?

It was an utterly bizarre idea and yet it stomped Sony's fancier, more hi-tech handheld and was responsible for the only growth in the gaming market this past year.

The time for doubting Nintendo's ideas came and went with the DS's proven ability to sell assloads of hardware and software.

Quote
And I still feel that much of the DS success is due to Nintendo dominance of the portable market.  It sold because it was the follow up to the Gameboy.

Your opinion is irrelevant in this case: we already have initial Wii sales data via preorders and despite the Wii having more than 2-3X the amount of PS3s available for reserve, the Wii reserves sold out faster across the country.

I believe the DS sells well because it delivers excellent software and new gaming experiences the likes of which its competitor didn't offer. So far, the Wii is already doing the same.

Quote
All this coming from a company that has had a really lousy track record of actually delivering on promised "industry changing" ideas lately and who is known for squeezing every last dollar out of its consumerbase.  It is hard to believe with those factors in place.

The problem with your assumptions is that, by your logic, every person to ever invent or innovate anything was a money-hungry c*ckbag.

Of COURSE money is the driving force behind innovation, and I find it puzzling that you blame Nintendo for overpricing and scamming their customers while Sony charges $600 for their console, $120 for an HDMI cable and Microsoft charges $60 for a wireless controller as well.

The "industry changing ideas" are already here in the DS: Brain Training especially changed the industry. It turned games from toys for children and sociopathic teenagers into something that was actually intended to help better the user. THAT is an industry change RIGHT there, and they're continuing that trend with interactive cookbooks that read you the next step via voice command and language learning software.

If people who would have never DREAMED of owning a gaming console own one, then SOMETHING IN THE INDUSTRY HAS CLEARLY CHANGED.

Here's where I take the MOST issue...

Quote
It's different so it stands out better than another Nintendo console with the same goof ups and mistakes from ten years ago would. Nintendo didn't want to address their real problems (or doesn't know those problems exist) so they made a distraction to hide them.

The only "mistake" Nintendo made was believing that a $16 billion company can play the same game and win against $100 billion behemoths who can afford to buy development houses and toss money hats around like it's no big deal.

What did you expect Nintendo to change that would win them the next console war? Make more games? Push for better graphics?

We've already seen what happens when people have three choices in the industry: Nintendo gets ignored. When you're up against companies like Sony and MS who outweigh you in sheer resources so heavily that they can ALWAYS out-advertise, out-develop and out-bribe you, what option does that leave?

People weren't buying the GC, despite the fact that it was home to all of the classic Nintendo franchises which people once enjoyed. Read my goddamn words: that wasn't enough. Gamecube 2.0 would have tanked and failed utterly, and to be honest, I had already accepted that this would likely be Nintendo's fate if they tried to play the same game as Sony and MS, a game in which they are INEVITABLY going to get beaten.

They did the only thing they COULD do: they innovated. They created something new and different, something simple and approachable and hoped it would appeal to a broader market.

They understood that they couldn't earn any of the existing market away from Sony and MS, and I don't care WHAT you think Nintendo could have done: that market would do nothing but shrink for them. So they aimed for a new market, made their next consoles into something that would be more appealing to people who were previously not their customers.

Apple did this too. Rather than trying in vain to push against Microsoft's OS monopoly, they branched out into a new market: the MP3 market and because of that, their core business of selling computers is doing much, MUCH better: people try an Apple product: the iPod, like it, and tend to give more of their products a try. The business model worked for Apple, despite harsh criticism from analysts predicting its failure and now Apple rules the MP3 market with an iron fist.

Nintendo is employing the same strategy and guess what? It's ALREADY WORKING. The Wii has earned a reputation as being something different from a standard console, and this has earned it a spot on CNN Money's hot toy list and the VERY TOP of TRU's hot toy list, the same TRU who predicted the Furby and TMElmo as being the hottest toys of the season that they were.

Meanwhile, you won't find any other consoles on that list because Nintendo has succeeded in differentiating the Wii has something different, which is exactly what they were aiming for from the start.

They basically took Apple's strategy and it's working for them. What was the alternative? To compete in a fight you're outmatched in yet again? Don't think so.

Nintendo did what they had to do in order to survive and it's already paying off for them in a huge way. Analysts like this Steve idiot are going to be chewing their words for YEARS to come.

[darknight06]

You know Ian, I see your posts all the time and every once in a while you do have valid complaints.  However, I just have to ask, why don't you have a PS2 or an X-Box if you're really this aggravated with Nintendo?  I mean really, a lot of what you seem to like is right over there, and at $149 you're getting a huge selection of traditional games, particularly from critically acclaimed 3rd parties.  So you're not the primary target market anymore, start looking elsewhere

Don't like them either?  Well have you ever considered just putting video games behind you since "the golden era" is long gone?  I mean egads man, if I was as angst filled against Nintendo as you are I wouldn't be here shoveling post after post after post on the forums, I'd have just said f*ck it all and packed it all up.


By the way, the DS at one point in time was losing to the PSP.  Game Boy's dominance wasn't helping it at one point in time.
 

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
The other consoles will possibly force Nintendo to keep up with it's Player's Choice ways, but I don't recall Player's Choice ever being a big deal on Super Nintendo or NES, and certainly not on Gameboy.  In the case of NES, Player's Choice games appared sometime after the Super Nintendo was already released.  I don't remember if they ever released any Player's Choice games on the Super Nintendo.

They released a number of them actually, each having to be a "Million Seller" to make it, just like the N64.

They had a lot of great games in that line up too, including all of the Donkey Kong Country games, Super Metroid, Mario Kart, A Link to the Past, Mario Paint and others. There are a couple of odd choices there too, although most of them were early titles so they were able to hit a million like Super Star Wars and SimCity (I seem to recall Punch Out making it... but can't find anything citing that). I can't for the life of me explain how "Tetris and Dr. Mario" hit a million, though...

Anyway, I would be surprised if they didn't continue something like this to push software more, I just wouldn't expect it very early in the system's life unless it looks to be struggling (be nice if they went back to doing the million set up too that they dropped for the Gamecube).

[Ian Sane]

"What did you expect Nintendo to change that would win them the next console war? Make more games? Push for better graphics?"

I expected Nintendo to stop f*cking routine sh!t up.  That's what sunk the Cube.  It seemed that regarding the three consoles if you made up a comparison chart Nintendo was last in like 90% of the items listed.  And almost all of it were problems that anybody could have avoided with ten minutes of thought.  Sony and MS beat Nintendo because they merely screwed up less than Nintendo did.  I think Nintendo would have done fine if they just admitted what they did wrong, fixed those problems, and thus leveled the playing field so that their games would shine through without a huge wall of incompetance in front of it.  They handicap themselves more than anything.  Doing this wouldn't win them first place right away but it would help them do better and gradually improve so that when Sony screws up they can swoop in for the kill.  Interestingly enough Sony IS screwing up and it would be the perfect time for this to work.

"Don't like them either? Well have you ever considered just putting video games behind you since 'the golden era' is long gone? I mean egads man, if I was as angst filled against Nintendo as you are I wouldn't be here shoveling post after post after post on the forums, I'd have just said f*ck it all and packed it all up."

I don't want to give up a major interest.  Who ever does?

[couchmonkey]

I promised not to argue the Player's Choice stuff in here anymore.  Thanks for the info, though I haven't changed my mind.

Smash's last post sums things up pretty nicely.  I have said in the past that I think Nintendo could have succeeded with a GameCube 2, but I now realize that that was a losing proposition in the long run.  Sony's momentum + Microsoft's money are too hard to fight.

The reason is that games are the main thing that sell a console.  And I'm not talking about one or two games, I'm talking about hundreds of games.  Without third parties, a console will fail.  So how does Nintendo convince third parties to make games for its console?

In a brute force battle with a GameCube 2-type system, the only way for Nintendo to convince third parties would be to bribe them.  Okay, before it does that, Nintendo could lower or eliminate liscencing fees...but that's practically the same thing as a bribe, right?  Once bribing becomes commonplace, the whole thing turns into a bidding war that Nintendo can't win.  I think Nintendo could improve it's position, but it would be temporary and it would eat up Nintendo's profits.

In this battle, Wii offers a way to separate Nintendo from the pack.  If the features are considered fun, then people buy it.  Publishers, especially Ubisoft, are already speculating on it, and Nintendo has increased third party support over what the GameCube had without making any sacrifices.

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane I expected Nintendo to stop f*cking routine sh!t up.  That's what sunk the Cube.  It seemed that regarding the three consoles if you made up a comparison chart Nintendo was last in like 90% of the items listed.  And almost all of it were problems that anybody could have avoided with ten minutes of thought.  Sony and MS beat Nintendo because they merely screwed up less than Nintendo did.  I think Nintendo would have done fine if they just admitted what they did wrong, fixed those problems, and thus leveled the playing field so that their games would shine through without a huge wall of incompetance in front of it.  They handicap themselves more than anything.  Doing this wouldn't win them first place right away but it would help them do better and gradually improve so that when Sony screws up they can swoop in for the kill.  Interestingly enough Sony IS screwing up and it would be the perfect time for this to work.

Even with a perfect track record, I still see Nintendo in 3rd, maybe not as much of a distant 3rd, but still 3rd.

The problem, as I see it, is that no matter WHAT Nintendo did, hardcore gamers saw them as not appealing to them because of the lack of mature franchises on the cube (as is evidenced with the huge sales spike from MP and RE4), casual gamers saw the PS2 as a better console because it had more games, and pretty much EVERYONE viewed the GC as being a system for children. Non-gamers didn't even realize Nintendo existed.

They tried getting the M games onto the system. It didn't change the kiddié image.

They tried getting more games. It didn't change the fact that most people still preferred the PS2.

They tried securing exclusive titles. Again, no one cared.

Nintendo isn't going to win the console war by trying to do what Sony and MS are doing, only better. It's NOT going to happen.

As much as I dislike the Wii name, they picked it because it would separate them from the competition and make them stand out and it worked.

They went with a controller which would make them stand out and it worked.

They're going with a strategy which is aimed at making them stand out, and according to TRU and CNN, it's workING.

I do not, for even a SECOND, believe that Nintendo has a prayer in hell of being anything but a distant 3rd if they continue to try to beat MS and Sony at their own game. It's like a 99 pound kid trying to arm wrestle a 300 pound weight lifter: the weight lifter has FAR FAR more resources (muscle) and thus the kid (Nintendo) has no prayer in hell of beating them.

So they did the smart thing: they moved the market, suddenly and without warning, which is akin to pulling out a nail and jamming it in the weight lifter's eye. Sony and MS probably thought Nintendo would arm wrestle with them forever, at least until they were tired of losing and quit. Low and behold, Nintendo says, "We can't go through you so we're going to go around you."

Nothing else would have worked. Gaming isn't the same industry it was 10 years ago. When Sony entered the market, everything changed. Nintendo trying to be the "same old Nintendo" would get them killed.

The company itself has been around for over 100 years. Do you think it survived that long by doing the same thing without ever questioning it?

[GoldenPhoenix]

delete

[GoldenPhoenix]

Hmm I think one of my previous posts would be better off here in regards to Nintendo's strategy which is different from other generations. They changed in order to compete again and are taking a more differentiation, prospector strategy which usually is not concerned with price or really trying to react to everything the competition does but focuses on innovation.  Sony and MS are taking a more "low-cost", "reactor" approach strategy where they try to give more "bang for your buck" reacting to the competition.


To call Nintendo's move a mistake or them making the same error is stupid until we see the final outcome. This is pretty much untreaded territory for gaming consoles, and all a thinking person would say is that it is risky, we still do not know if it will work for sure. Apple did the same thing with iPod, and Nintendo is trying to do the same with Wii which is to create another market within the gaming industry through differentiation (iPod was quite unique at the time and was competing within the small consumer electronics industry) and also like iPod these fights are won through abstract value along with its uniqueness to hopefully create a new market for others to follow suit (price is seldom "low" for this kind of approach).. This paraells the Wii in that it is competing within the console industry but has done something different to set it self apart hoping that this new take on gaming will create a new market within the industry while bringing in current gamers, like iPod did within the small consumer electronics industry.

[Ian Sane]

"They tried getting the M games onto the system. It didn't change the kiddié image.

They tried getting more games. It didn't change the fact that most people still preferred the PS2.

They tried securing exclusive titles. Again, no one cared."

I wouldn't say they tried very hard in any of those.  For mature games for example it was a token title here or there but no real commitment.  A typical offering from Nintendo where no real effort is put into anything they don't really want to do.  In some cases they tried but were so clueless about what they really should have been doing that it didn't help.  Attracting third parties to make more Mario games isn't attracting third party support.  It accomplishes nothing because it provides no variety and nothing Nintendo couldn't have made themselves got made.  Getting Final Fantasy in name only or a Metal Gear remake gets nothing.  And anything you do do correctly is nullified if you can't market worth a damn.  Though I am assuming Nintendo can tell what mistakes they've made in the past.  They probably can't tell.  Thus they think they did do everything right but failed anyway.

We differ in our view of the Cube.  I don't consider the Cube a full effort.  I feel they half-assed at first and just assumed that because they're Nintendo people would eat the Cube up.  Then they realized they were in trouble so they panicked and went sequel crazy which probably made things worse.  Then they quit and left all us Cube owners out to dry.  The Cube was a weak effort from a company that didn't really know what they were doing in the first place.

You're probably right in that Nintendo couldn't compete but I think that's because they would f*ck up another normal console.  My idea is unrealistic because it requires Nintendo to suddenly figure things out which wasn't going to happen since it hasn't yet.

[Guitar Smasher]

Do you honestly believe that if Nintendo did everything right (with respect to a traditionnal console), they'd be back in first?

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane I wouldn't say they tried very hard in any of those.

I still wouldn't say that it mattered.

The Xbox boasted itself as an online-centric console for the hardcore adult gamer. The PS2 was everything else, including some online support, and the GC was a lesser version of the PS2.

This generation was a wash from the start. Nintendo didn't get the sheer number of exclusives and the library of the PS2 and they couldn't afford to buy a place at the table like MS did.

They were going to lose no matter what.

[Ian Sane]

"Do you honestly believe that if Nintendo did everything right (with respect to a traditionnal console), they'd be back in first?"

Not necessarily in first but in a good position.  With a stable or even increasing marketshare, better image with consumers and the media, increased interest from third parties as a result of better marketshare and image, fanbase being content, and as usual a consistent annual profit.  I don't think anyone can get the number one position without number one f*cking up first.  So the idea is to be making a profit and being in a position where when the market leader goofs you can take their spot by default.

It's not too often that I hear about a profitable company being incredibly competent going under.  This isn't like the Sega Dreamcast where regardless of how great a console they made they were broke from the get-go.  Somehow Nintendo has continued to make a profit with the Gamecube so is it so unbelievable that a traditional console from Nintendo that wasn't borked beyond belief would do at least as good?  I'm not asking for a Gamecube 2.  Get the image of the Gamecube out of your head completely when thinking of what a traditional console should be like.  A better comparison would be the Sega Genesis, an incredibly competent console that was very successful and competed with a strong market leader despite the fact that it was the follow up to an unpopular flop.