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

[Kairon]

Yeah IceCold, here's hoping that all these cancelled Cube games, as well as all these slightly pushed back games keep the momentum going.

Wario Ware was pushed back to January or February 2007, Metroid was pushed back to likely the same date. We're all hoping that Mario Galazy hits 6 months after launch, and the same for Sonic, which is a Spring launch right? Then after that, let's hope that Strikers Charged and BWii arrive on time, not to mention Pokemon Battle Revolution...

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Yeah IceCold, here's hoping that all these cancelled Cube games, as well as all these slightly pushed back games keep the momentum going.

Wario Ware was pushed back to January or February 2007, Metroid was pushed back to likely the same date. We're all hoping that Mario Galazy hits 6 months after launch, and the same for Sonic, which is a Spring launch right? Then after that, let's hope that Strikers Charged and BWii arrive on time, not to mention Pokemon Battle Revolution...

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

I feel so ashamed about getting the Wii launch date wrong and I have it in my signature too! Grrrr, anyway good posts from both of you guys. This may sound strange but I think we should make an extra effort to support the 3rd party games this holiday season even if, heaven forbid, the bigger ones like Red Steel or Madden don't turn out to be stellar. If those games are supported heavily I think the 3rd parties will start flocking to Wii. In regards to a drought, I think Kairon has shown that there isn't that much to worry about in the way of droughts, there are so many hot titles coming out fairly consistently, though my guess is that we will see a short drought from July to late august but that happens with ALL the systems.

[Ceric]

You know by applying some peoples logic I'm outraged that a profit is made off of Can openers.  I need the Can opener to open my cans.  Also I'm enraged by companies making money off of Refrigators, Stoves, Microwaves, Ovens, and Toaster Ovens.  I need those to cook my food.  Computer part manufacturers really chafe me.  By some peoples logic by now since the computers been around for a while it only takes pennies to do the R&D, Manufacturing, and all those other related things for my new computer parts.  I demand they be sold at under a dollar.

A Jack of All Trades is a Master of None.

Player Choice is going no where.  They extended to the GBA for goodness sake.  Nintendo will drop the price of the games as they lose steam just to introduce new people to the style of play in hopes that they will like it enough to want the sequel.

This official ends my post and makes it the most incoherent of the thread...

[Smash_Brother]

I don't care if Nintendo makes money: that's the fundamental basis of all capitalism.

I care that I get what I pay for.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
I don't care if Nintendo makes money: that's the fundamental basis of all capitalism.

I care that I get what I pay for.

You know when I first heard about the 250$ I was outraged, and now admit I was dead wrong. After knowing more about the Wii I am actually pleased by what I"m getting for the 250$. Not only do I get 512mbs built in, but also a game, internet browser, media player of sorts (that may be used for custom soundtracks), potential external HD compatibility, built in Wifi, and all the Mii channels. All that in addition to the unique gaming experiences doesn't seem so bad after all a much better deal than previous Nintendo consoles.

[Adrock]

I, too, like the drinking problem analogy. I think Nintendo has learned some valuable lessons and presented solutions though those solutions may not have been the best by any means.

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. It's not like standard televisions can't handle more. So what has Nintendo actually learned? Not much, but hey, they're trying something different and deserve points for that.

I know bringing up the graphics debate is like beating a dead horse, but it's really the easiest example. Nintendo is a company that continually says that the gaming industry is getting stale, but its biggest titles this generation were sequels, some weren't necessarily better than its predecessors depending on how you look at it. Would you consider Wind Waker a better game than Ocarina of Time or simply different? Was it really all that innovative? Slap Twilight Princess-esque graphics onto it and it seems like Ocarina of Time with a huge, annoying sea. My point is that there are several examples of Nintendo offering new solutions, but many of them are less than perfect. It really comes down to whether Nintendo finally found a formula that consumers, developers and themselves can accept.

And $250 isn't a terrible price. Wii is an extremely attractive console and people seem more than willing to pay the price. I might wish there was an extra controller (at least another freehand controller), but I'm buying one regardless albeit next year. If Prime 3 was available like it was supposed to, I would be standing in line on November 19.

[capamerica]

okay the MGM thing is so freaken confusing that I'm not sure whats going on over there any more.

last thing I knew was that in April 2005 MGM was acquired by a partnership led by Sony and Comcast in association with Texas Pacific Group and Providence Equity Partners.

I heard about the deal with Fox doing distributing of MGM's Home Videos and figured it was some type of good will jester by Sony to keep Fox on the Blu-Ray team. Sony is still in control of the theater releases.
I went over to Wikipedia and read what they have over there and I can't figure out who owns what and who controls what. It looks like Sony bought them in 2005 but at the same time it looks like MGM was not purchased by anyone.

Anyway for now I'm still putting MGM in the same boat as Columbia TriStar. If Fox goes multiformat and MGM goes along then I'll start counting them as a actual studio again.

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: capamerica
Anyway for now I'm still putting MGM in the same boat as Columbia TriStar.

It's not at all the same as Tristar, which is a subdivision of Sony Pictures as of 1991.

MGM is their own studio, they were bought by a number of collective companies that pooled their resources to stop Time Warner from getting the company, which include (according to this article):

Quote
The Sony-led group, which includes the buyout firms Providence Equity Partners, Texas Pacific Group and DLJ Merchant Banking Partners, struck the deal with MGM on Monday, just 24 hours before the studio had scheduled a board meeting to approve a deal with Time Warner.

So a number of companies own MGM, not just Sony, each part of the agreement for their own reasons. Sony's interest being very clear, although they no longer have the home video sector anymore, just the theatrical distribution in the United States (although MGM is talking about doing their own distribution once again).

Sony owns a large part of the company, at 20%, but they don't own them, or even have a majority of the company (Providence Equity Partners has the largest at 29%) and with the move to Fox it's clear that Sony won't be able to call the shots here. The problem is that most people saw the headlines that read "Sony buys MGM" when that was only a fragment of the whole story. If it helps, as I said before, think of it like the relationship between Sony and Square after Spirits Within bombed and before the Enix merger.

Seriously, though, read up on it if you are still confused (make sure you are reading stuff that is current too), as Sony looks to be getting screwed from all of this as they paid $300 million for a seat on MGM's board which seems to be shrinking in importance with each month.  

[Spak-Spang]

This is a section of a rant I put on my blog.  I think it applies to this thread.

The negative press has been centered around the concept that this is actually just a sparkling innovation.  This control system is limited, and will not allow true depth of gameplay that current generation controllers do.  The big question is, how will Nintendo continue to create new and great experiences using the controller into the future.  Won't Nintendo and developers run into a limit of cool control options for the system?  

This negative look at innovation and creativity always seems to pop up with new ideas, technology and such.  We doubt the need for the advance, the potential utility, and we never look at the full potential.  

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.  Yet people are still playing and buying Xbox 360 games because the experience and content as still fun.  

Why doesn't Nintendo get that luxury of assumption with the Wii?  Why must the innovative controller be limitless with ideas or be a failure.  What counts is the connect and experience...and control is only a single part of the equation.  Let it be known, First Person Shooters will rock on the Wii, but each one will play similar and control innovation will be minor.  Yet, if the game is fun then people will buy it.  

In the end, that is all that matters in any product be it an innovative new concept or a simple upgrade to an existing product or game.  If it brings satisfaction to the consumer then it is a success.

Lets stop judging new concepts and innovative ideas by a higher standard than we do the status quo.  Because if we continue to do that, all we will ever have is the status quo.  Personally I am pleased that Nintendo is bucking the trends and moving the industry in a new direction...be it better or worse at least it is something new.

[Strell]

You know.

I remember when you bought a game system based on the games.

That is what used to matter.

None of this "I get value X for cost Y."

What the f*ck happened.

[Adrock]

When my mom bought the SNES some 15 years ago, she said she got it because it was $179.99 and it came with 2 controllers (for me and my sister) and Super Mario World. Games are important, but it's always been about value. That's consumerism. People want the most band for their buck. For example, Twilight Princess is destined to be a great game, but most people wouldn't pay $90 USD for it.

[GoldenPhoenix]

I wonder if there was profit made on the SNES and what the price would be with inflation factored in.

[ShyGuy]

I don't think Nintendo has ever lost money on their hardware sales.

[UncleBob]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
Also I'm enraged by companies making money off of Refrigators, [...].  I need those to cook my food.

You cook food in your fridge?  How does that work?

[capamerica]

thanks for clearing it up for me Arbok. I did go off and do some more reading out side Wikipedia and its becoming a bit clearer now, Some people out there make it clearer then others.

This would explain why Sony got hit hard lately in the entertainment area. They were hoping that they would be controlling the content coming out of MGM and be given a nice profitable library of movies and then they lost it to Fox and now it looks like Fox may even lose it and MGM will go back to doing everything them selves.

I would bet that the reason they are listed as a Blu-Ray suporter still has something to do with Sony thou.

[Ceric]

I possibly could...<.<  >.>

Actually it was a list of things that I used with food preparation but it sort of got twisted by the time I wrote the last part.

[Blackplague]

Nintendo is going to make alot of money this generation and suceed
1.) They have the cheapest console
2.) The Wii is targeted at a MUCH broader range of people, Sony and Microsoft are targeting a more Hardcore bunch
3.) Nintendo is not losing money on the Wii
4.) Software development is much cheaper than the PS3 and thus will attract more companies, including smaller ones( check out the game " Sadness")
5.) Wii is being marketed as an active and fun multiplayer console
6.) The Games are innovative
7.) The HD reason, most people still dont have HD televisions though it is a growing trend(360 and probably the PS3 wont look good on SD tv)
8.) Ease of programming with ALive
9.) Connect24, similar to Xbox live in terms of updating games, but will do it automatically
10.) Virtual Console, older games are just fun, Im currently playing OOT and MQ to get ready for TP and im having a blast.  Also people remember growing up to certain games and old consoles are very hard to find.
11.) An extremely broad range of games from many different developers. (sadness, mario, zelda, metroid, redsteel, elebits, ect)
12.) Compactness. This may not seem like a big reason, but I for one dont have much space for a console and im betting not many others do either.  Also makes for a more portable console
13.) Wii stresses innovation over graphics. Simply put, HD graphics are very expensive.  I also have a PC for my graphical needs but play my ROMS more than anything else.  Games today all seem to be the same, the industry needed some innovation.  Look at the DS, in europe it is outselling the psp 3:1, in Japan it outsells everything combined, and in the US it is the top selling console.

Add anything else if you would like

[couchmonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
Player Choice is going no where.  They extended to the GBA for goodness sake.  Nintendo will drop the price of the games as they lose steam just to introduce new people to the style of play in hopes that they will like it enough to want the sequel.

See, I don't consider dropping the price on three games years after the fact to be much of a deal.  Yeah, Nintendo eventually did it, but it happened so late that it's pretty much useless to early adopters.  Nintendo basically hates giving anybody a deal on anything.  Which makes perfect sense!  Nintendo is smart to charge a healthy price for products (such as Virtual Console games) to maximize its profits.  But as a consumer, I've really enjoyed the big selection of low-priced games on GameCube, and it's safe to say that's going to come to an end if Wii takes first place.

Quote
Originally posted by: Strell
You know.

I remember when you bought a game system based on the games.

That is what used to matter.

None of this "I get value X for cost Y."

What the f*ck happened.

Amen!  And this will be the main factor in who actually wins.  The thing is, until you get well into the lifespan of a system not a lot is known about the game lineup, so people focus on less important things.

There's good news and bad news in the game lineup respect.  The bad news?  Take a look at IGN's preview sections.  There are 43 games previewed for Wii.  There are more than 50 games each for PS3 and Xbox 360, the 50 most recent previews go as far back as August for PS3 and September for Xbox 360.  Wii goes all the way back to May, when the very first preview was written.  The good news is that it seems like a lot of developers are jumping off the Sony ship and Nintendo seems to be getting a really enthusiastic reception now that we know more about it.

[Ceric]

Quote
See, I don't consider dropping the price on three games years after the fact to be much of a deal. Yeah, Nintendo eventually did it, but it happened so late that it's pretty much useless to early adopters. Nintendo basically hates giving anybody a deal on anything. Which makes perfect sense! Nintendo is smart to charge a healthy price for products (such as Virtual Console games) to maximize its profits. But as a consumer, I've really enjoyed the big selection of low-priced games on GameCube, and it's safe to say that's going to come to an end if Wii takes first place.

The price of entry to being an "Early Adopter" is the full price of the game.  Of course it's not going to help you.  I'm still sure that Player Choice is not going to go anywhere.  I'm sure we'll see TP at a bargain price Summer 2008 or so.  By that time all the "Early Adopters" will have it and most of the people who weren't on the fence about it.  Then drop the price and the people who don't normally play Zelda's will pick it up because it's at a bargain price and has garnered good reviews.  It took forever but even SSBM went to player Choice.  Even today they could have probably sold it for full price.  Nintendo is also hoping to get some of the new audience they are trying to grab into more traditional games as well.  Player Choice is a great way to do that.

Also on Strell:  I like to add a Hallelujah.

[couchmonkey]

So remind me, which DS Games went Player's Choice this summer?

[JonLeung]

Seeing as how all the consoles this generation had discounted games - PS2's Greatest Hits, Xbox's Platinum Hits, and GameCube's Player's Choices...I don't see how being #1 threatens the existence of them.

I would think that if a game has been around long enough, was a big hit, and is in a position where rereleasing them at a lower price might bring in more revenue, anybody, no matter their current position, would be up for it.

There are costs with manufacturing and repackaging and marketing of them, sure, but it's not like they have to write game code from scratch which I imagine is where the real bulk of the cost of a game comes from - so it should be a good deal for them too, not just the consumer.

There are a lot of so-called hardcore gamers still on the fence about the Wii just because it's unconventional, that I imagine that when they do pick up a Wii, they may have missed out on the first several Wii games.  For that additional reason I believe Player's Choice games will come out at some point for the Wii.

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
So remind me, which DS Games went Player's Choice this summer?

Players choice games before the DS has been out for even a year?!?!?!

Anyways, no need. New games for the DS can be released for $20 right out the gate, first party games like Brain Age, and even third party titles like Cooking Mama.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Kairon]

Player's Choice games, or even simple rereleases, are a way for a company to make more money off of its biggest titles without looking greedy.

I mean, wouldn't we all have loved Atlus to be more greedy with Trauma Center? Capcom to be more greedy with Phoenix Wright?

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[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."

[couchmonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon

Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
So remind me, which DS Games went Player's Choice this summer?

Players choice games before the DS has been out for even two years?!?!?!

Fixed.

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.

I will admit, though, that Nintendo is moving towards "fairly priced" games, where some titles don't cost as much up front if they weren't as expensive to develop.  I think that's great.  But as far as discounting more expensive games goes, I think we're going to see a lot less of it if Nintendo is in first place, and I'll point to every other Nintendo system besides N64 and GameCube as evidence.