Topic: The possible reason for Nintendo's "lackluster" E3.

[BlkPaladin]

 I sat down last night after Nintendo's 3DS software show case to digest the information that had been presented the last few days. I took time to ask myself the question: “If I was Nintendo why wouldn't I show next to no new content?”

 
It really wasn't that they had a bad show, it was more like they avoided to reveal that much new information. The answer sudden came to me, Nintendo doesn't need to use E3 as a platform to announce new content. It benefits Nintendo more to show off the content that is coming in the next few months to the press as a why to advertise those product.

 
I the past year Nintendo has been nurturing it own information dissemination channels Nintendo Direct and various Press and fan events around the globe. These are better platforms to announce new titles as their release date draws close.

 
There was a study of sorts down a few years ago that came to the conclusion that the “sweet spot” as it where for a title where the two months before the release upto two week after where the title would be in the collective conscience of consumers, before the the “next big thing” takes the spot light. So the titles that would benefit the most from showing at E3 are the ones that are going to be released this summer. And this is what Nintendo has concentrated on, the 3DS titles that will be out this summer into early fall.

 
Sure they also released information on the up coming WiiU console but they main worked on keeping titles that had already been announced fresh in the market's mind, and these are the titles that will be launching in the two-to-three month period of the launch window. The few “new” titles we learned about where ZombiU, SiNG and P100. But since the WiiU is still a little over 5 months away, according the rumors, there will be a better time to show off the WiiU and it's launch titles. Which is what Nintendo intends to do since an event that only announces the release date and price would be a little short on content.

 
So we should be hearing more about the WiiU, Animal Crossing, Fire Emblem and a lot of the other items that we had hoped to hear something about at E3. And the fact that after the 3DS show Reggie accidentally leaked that Fire Emblem is in localization, should be proof enough that Nintendo is no longer using E3 as a platform for announcments.

 
Nintendo also made news a few months ago when the decided not to attend Gamescom but instead hold evens themselves, we much remember that going to these events cost the company money and it may have been decided that it would be cheaper to this route. Also the new information platforms they use also don't cost very much to use, so from this point forth I doubt that Nintendo will have a “big show” in any of the old expos.

[MegaByte]

The thing is, they actually scheduled multiple events for E3 (they've never done it like that before) and yet said little in all of them.

[BlkPaladin]

Yes they did. I watched them all. And I asked why. It seems Nintendo is using E3 to sell games that are already in the mind of people or coming out soon. Which actually is kind of a good marketing move. (Not to mention in the long run it can be cheaper for them to do it this way.)

They also have the Nintendo Channel and the 3DS show to also help. The thing is they don't need E3 for new announcements any more. It is a better use of their time and effort to sell the products that are coming out, instead of spreading their show thin. I think Sony recently made a comment that their advertising it getting spread thin so they may make less games and market them more. Nintendo view is marketing the stuff that is coming and leave the rest for a more apporate time.

[Pixelated Pixies]

I don't know if I agree that Nintendo don't need E3. Certainly that's been true in the past with the Wii and DS. In their current financial position, however, Nintendo really needed to show to their core fans and crucially to their investors that what they had planned for the Wii U launch would be drastic enough to turn things around. I would argue that E3 this year was crucial for the launch of the Wii U, if not necessarilly crucial for the company generally. Nintendo has consitently stated that the intention behind the Wii U was to win back some of the core audience, and if that's true then E3 is biggest venue for doing just that.
 
I also don't believe that Nintendo has any other games (beyond those shown at E3) which will meet the launch window. It's very possible that they'll have more details about Smash Bros, or perhaps even hint at what Retro's working on, but the games we saw at the press conference are likely to be the only ones that Nintendo launches with the system.
 
I'd love to be wrong, but I think that if Nintendo had more to show, they would have shown it.

[BlkPaladin]

I'm not saying Nintendo doesn't need E3, they just, like Sony and Microsoft, don't need E3 as a platform to announce new titles. They are just going through the motions and presenting the stuff that is coming out soon. I mean they could of shown Fire Emblem but they didn't. Why the best answer is probably because localization will not be done until late-2012-to-mid-2013, so why take time and effort to show and announce something that will not be out in months.

[nickmitch]

It really wasn't that they had a bad show, it was more like they avoided to reveal that much new information.

That's what most of us would call a bad show.

[Pixelated Pixies]

why take time and effort to show and announce something that will not be out in months.

I think Nintendo's performance at this year's E3 answers your question for you. Why take the time to show games which are still in development or won't be out for months? Look at what's happened over the course of this week. Gamers and the press went into E3 with a lot of excitement and anticipation for the Wii U, and have left with a bitter taste in their mouths. By opting not to unveil games which are in the works Nintendo have not only squandered the hype which had built up among gamers, they have also failed to demonstrate to people why they should want to own a Wii U. This was Nintendo's big opportunity to put their flag in the ground as far as core gamers go. To make a statement. In an industry as competitve as this, Nintendo can't afford to play coy.

[Kairon]

I agree that we've seen Nintendo definitely pull away from the traditionalist gamer's view of how to do hype and marketing. As enthusiast gamers, we want new announcements, plenty of hype, and things to basically over-excite our brains with possibilities. However, I think you're right in that Nintendo thinks that a more cost effective way to market their games is to do it on a different time-frame, and a much tighter, focused, pertinent-to-actual-release launch cycle.

Whether that will bear out true is yet to be seen. Certainly when viewed from a traditionalist sense of how we're supposed to get excited about videogames - reading magazines previews, watching trailers, etc. - for up to two years before a game comes out, it doesn't make much sense. One argument that could be made is that early adopters at launch are heavily enthusiast leaning, so without a more traditional discussion about their upcoming library Nintendo may be making the wrong "launch advertising" buildup play. Of course, one might also argue that Nintendo's early adopters are a different bunch than regular tech enthusiasts.

There's also the possibility that Nintendo had games and announcements they could make at E3, but they're holding them off for other soon-to-come events due to scheduling issues, deals with other companies, or because they opted to polish the projects off more first.

[Ceric]

I would have really like a side by side comparison on a 3rd party game.

360 version = Ugly
Wii U Version = Pretty

[Kairon]

I would have really like a side by side comparison on a 3rd party game.

360 version = Ugly
Wii U Version = Pretty

I personally doubt we'll see a lot of that. Why would third parties spend extra resources just to make the Nintendo console's version the prettiest? Everyone's hurting for cash right now, I'm just praying to the Videogame gods that we DO get third party games at all. I don't care about having the "best" version out there, I just want to have decent "good enough" ports of either PS360 games or PS4-720 games.

[LOZman]

I personally doubt we'll see a lot of that. Why would third parties spend extra resources just to make the Nintendo console's version the prettiest? Everyone's hurting for cash right now, I'm just praying to the Videogame gods that we DO get third party games at all. I don't care about having the "best" version out there, I just want to have decent "good enough" ports of either PS360 games or PS4-720 games.

I completely agree with this statement. I'm happy now mostly because of Arkham City and Mass Effect 3, even if they are older games. The real question is if we will have this kind of support throughout the entire life cycle of the system. I hope that poor sales for these games, which might happen considering they are older, does not change third party support. Also, we don't need better graphics to have better versions of games. All they need to do is implement the controls and use the GamePad in a way that makes the game better.


I do very much want to believe that Nintendo has plenty of more games and features to show off, so hopefully the Paladin's theory is correct!

[Ceric]

I personally doubt we'll see a lot of that. Why would third parties spend extra resources just to make the Nintendo console's version the prettiest? Everyone's hurting for cash right now, I'm just praying to the Videogame gods that we DO get third party games at all. I don't care about having the "best" version out there, I just want to have decent "good enough" ports of either PS360 games or PS4-720 games.

I completely agree with this statement. I'm happy now mostly because of Arkham City and Mass Effect 3, even if they are older games. The real question is if we will have this kind of support throughout the entire life cycle of the system. I hope that poor sales for these games, which might happen considering they are older, does not change third party support.


Also, we don't need better graphics to have better versions of games. All they need to do is implement the controls and use the GamePad in a way that makes the game better.

Honestly those 2 games in particular have a lot going against them.

Both are Sequels and relatively recently released at that.  Mass Effect 3 I believe was a particular bad choice because of how it is part of a Trilogy.  I say KotoR HD port would have been an excellent choice.  Redoing Batman Arkham Asylum would have been a great choice.  Cleanup and rethink for the tablet.

[Kairon]

Was talking with my brother and he got me thinking... would I rather have RE 6 ported to Wii U... or RE 4?

[Ceric]

Was talking with my brother and he got me thinking... would I rather have RE 6 ported to Wii U... or RE 4?

Porting RE 4 would start to bring it to Rayman 2 level.  Talking about that where is are obligatory port?

[nickmitch]

I would definitely vote for RE6 for the reason Ceric mentioned. I've already played what I would consider the definitive version of RE4, I don't need to play it again in HD.

[broodwars]

I would definitely vote for RE6 for the reason Ceric mentioned. I've already played what I would consider the definitive version of RE4, I don't need to play it again in HD.

Especially since, by all accounts, "Resident Evil 4 HD" is merely the Standard Definition version upscaled to HD resolution, so all the textures look like crap.  Plus, given that Capcom didn't put Move controls into the HD version, I have my doubts that they'd add Wiimote support to it for a Wii U version.

[nickmitch]

Wouldn't it just be upscaling the Wii version? I mean, the Move only reached a percentage of PS3 owners, so Move support is just a costly waste of time. With Wii U, I already have Wiimotes and nunchucks. There's a version that works with them. I wouldn't think it'd be that hard.

[broodwars]

Wouldn't it just be upscaling the Wii version? I mean, the Move only reached a percentage of PS3 owners, so Move support is just a costly waste of time. With Wii U, I already have Wiimotes and nunchucks. There's a version that works with them. I wouldn't think it'd be that hard.

You forget that Capcom would (from their perspective) essentially be scrapping their old version and restarting from scratch if they did that.  That means re-coding the engine (which is apparently no small feat for games from that generation), achievement unlocks, etc.  I'd be in favor of doing that if it meant we actually had a true HD version of the game, but judging by how lazy RE 4 HD apparently is I just don't see them doing that.

By the same token, I don't understand why they didn't just rip their Move code out of their RE 5 "Gold" Edition and insert it into RE 4 "HD".  They have shortcuts they could use for a motion controlled version.  They just decided to go the extremely cheap route and not use them.

[Kairon]

I wonder if Nintendo will take the Pikmin 3 template with many of their games going forward. They only showed Pikmin 3 what? Less than 6 months before it comes out? Imagine if they did that with their other games.