Topic: "The Trouble With Nintendo"

[Mumei]

While I wasn't responding directly to what you wrote, I will now.

Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
[L=Game-Revolution]Dear Game-Revolution and Kaanchy,

Quite frankly, though, Nintendo's business practices are perfectly fine, exemplary even- you do realize they've only lost money for one quarter since going public some 40 years ago? Most other companies could never dream of being able to make such a claim. The problem, as I have always said, is the third parties. Nintendo makes the best games in the world- even if you don't care for their style, you have to admit their games are some of the finest made and most polished pieces of software on the planet- it's not a coincidence they have such an incredibly loyal following. This poses a conundrum for 3rd parties- when sitting on a shelf next to a world class Nintendo game, who's going to want to buy a mediocre 3rd party game that's riding more on image than quality?

No one wants to buy the mediocre 3rd party game, but there are many, many third-party games that are just as good as any of Nintendo's offerings.  

Quote
3rd party games rarely do well on Nintendo consoles as of late because of the simple fact that most owners of Nintendo consoles would rather lay down their hard earned money for the assured quality of a Nintendo game as opposed to taking a gamble on a 3rd party game, which can range from being rare gems to little more than excrement hastily slapped on a disc. This used to not be a problem, back in the NES/SNES/Genesis days, and there's a very good reason for that- the only consoles 3rd parties could develop for were made by extremely talented 1st parties, which forced the 3rd parties to match that level of quality in order to catch the attention of the consumer and convince them to buy their game. Again, it's no coincidence that some of the best 3rd party games ever made were released during those two generations, and the bad ones nearly always floundered- quite the opposite of today. [/quote]

That is no reason for a games like Prince of Persia, Beyond Good and Evil, or Viewtiful Joe to do poorly.  Those games are as good as anything Nintendo has to offer and the fact that they sold poorly on the GCN has nothing to do with the idea of it being a gamble.  There are countless places to check reviews, talk to other people on forums, etc. where you can find out whether a game is good or not.  It is not a gamble at this point to buy a third-party game.  And if you are still unsure, you can almost always rent the game.

Quote
Then along came Sony- not to disrespect the advancements Sony has made for the industry, and they are improving, but they created a console (the Playstation) completely devoid of a stellar 1st party, or really a good 1st party at all, which meant half-assed crappy games could sell much better than before simply because the consumer didn't have a choice. Conversely, 3rd partiers left Nintendo, whose consoles it was now difficult to garner sales for, requiring at least as much effort as Nintendo put into their own games. When they left Nintendo, all that was left was Nintendo, and, by association, Nintendo fans. Gone were the people who enjoyed a few of Nintendo games but really liked the diversity their consoles offered. Indeed, gone was the diversity altogether, gone to the Playstation. It's truly a testament to Nintendo's quality that their hardcore fans alone could not only support them in such bleak times but turn them an enormous profit as well. When we moved into the next generation, Microsoft released the XBox, which is based on the exact same principle as the PSX/PS2, that without the high quality 1st and 2nd parties, mediocre 3rd parties can thrive.

I can understand not liking some of the PSX's more "mainstream" games, but the PSX definitely has its merits.  Have you ever actually played one, or are you going off of hearsay?  Go buy and play a game like Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Star Ocean 2, or Suikoden II and tell me that the third-parties are mediocre.

And I am no fan of the X-Box, but it does have a games that are good; Panzer Dragoon Orta, Ninja Gaiden, Halo (it's alright >_>), The Chronicles of Riddick, etc.  Can you explain this stance that the reason that third-parties do poorly on the GCN is because Nintendo is so much better?  

Quote
That's why I truly believe that it's not competition between multiple consoles that brings the best out in developers, but competition between each other on one console, at the very most two if both have extremely good 1st parties. I say this because it forces the 3rd parties to rise to the level of quality of the 1st party to catch the buyer's eye.

That makes no sense, seeing as how the best third-party developers (eg. Konami or Capcom) regularly match Nintendo's quality.

Quote
Basically, the point I'm trying to make is that Nintendo is doing all they can do- yes, sometimes they make some bad business decisions, but so does every company (especially Microsoft with the XBox- why no fortellings of doom for the console currently in 3rd place worldwide, not to mention losing hundreds of millions of dollars?), and Nintendo makes far less than most. It's the industry that needs to change, not Nintendo. Sony's 1st parties are gradually improving, but both the PS2 and the XBox are making it okay for 3rd parties to shove half-assed games out the door because they actually SELL. Eventually, though, when image and graphics no longer matter, when the difference in graphical ability between consoles is indistinguishable, actual game quality will be what drives sales, and it's then when Nintendo will rise once again.

And why should the industry change to accomodate Nintendo's needs?  And Microsoft did not expect to make a profit off of the X-Box this generation.  They expected to get their foot in the door, create loyal fans, people who would buy an X-Box 2; laying the groundwork for the next generation and for that, they were willing to take a loss in the short-term.  Frankly, Microsoft can afford to take the $2 billion dollars in losses that they have accumlated through their gaming divison.  That is the reason that there are no foretellings of doom for Microsoft; it was expected for them to take huge losses and everyone knows that they can absorb them for quite some time.  Microsoft as a whole is still turning a huge profit, despite the losses that their X-Box division has been causing them.

Quote
As for image, that’s a subject Nintendo fans generally feel very strong about- the day Nintendo changes their image, the day Nintendo throws in blood and gore for the sole purpose of getting sales, is the day they’ve lost my business- I’ll turn away and never look back. If such elements are the result of a creative decision, that’s fine, but Nintendo’s always been about creating the best games possible, and it’s not their fault if people don’t recognize that. You forget that there is such a thing as dignity left in this world, and I’d rather Nintendo lag behind with the best games than nab the #1 spot bowing to the public’s demands. It’s no fluke that most of the developers that still do believe in dignity are Japanese. Nintendo's all I could have ever hoped for, multiplied a hundred times, and there are millions out there who agree with me- we’ve carried Nintendo this far, and have been greatly rewarded, and we will continue to carry them until the time comes when the public finally recognizes Nintendo for the incredible effort and heart they’ve poured into this industry for decades. In a world where a game can ride on image alone, Nintendo is holding true to the one mantra they’ve kept for so long, which is to make the best games possible. If that means they’re not the sales leader, so be it, as long as they still make a profit. I’d rather live as a poor man with a clear conscience than as a rich man with none at all.

I've been a Nintendo fan for 12 years, and I can tell you point-blank that most people don't agree with you.  Nintendo can and should cater to everyone, not just a set group.  Nintendo claims that there games are for everyone, but they don't appeal to everyone.  Nintendo really should take the time to create new franchises that target older gamers, and games like Geist show that they do know that they need to get more of the market.

The don't have to turn a Mario game into a bloodfest to make a game that caters to older games; they could just as easily create a new franchise.  Also, the new Zelda would likely draw in people who want the darker edge to their games.  While we don't know that it will necessarily be "darker" it looks that way for the time being.

Nintendo can do a lot to improve, and there is no excuse for not improving when you know what you should do to improve.  You say that you are happy as long as Nintendo is making a profit?  So is Nintendo.  But they would be much happier if they were making a larger profit.  They could be making more money in profits than Sony's Computer Entertainment Division does if they actually aggressively pursued people other than their core audience.  They don't have to abandon their core audience to go after other groups as well.  

[KDR_11k]

(actually Microsoft just noticed they CANNOT afford to lose those billions and need to cut costs, employee benefits are the first things to go)

The problem is when you're giving the market what the market wants, you become EA. People want the same different, that's the dillemma: Give them a game that differs from their set perception of what the game should be like (i.e. the previous game) and they'll complain, give them the same game with prettier graphics and a few new levels and guns and they'll complain about a lack of change... Hm, no, if you give them new weapons they're already happy, if you change more they start to complain. I.e. the only game that'll satisfy the fans is a game that uses the same gameplay and everything and just adds more guns, vehicles, missions, etc. Only add, never change or remove. Of course, even then some people will complain that you didn't add any major changes (though they would if you did, too). You'll always have complainers and you can only listen to a few (since they contradict each other).

[mouse_clicker]

Sheer amount of words doesn't make a rebuttal, mumei- you're still missing what I was saying, and even repeating things I did say. Please, read it again- I explain myself quite well in my editorial, you just have to read all of it. My writing style is one of many subtle yet essential details.

[Mumei]

Don't patronize me.  When I read that article, all I got out of it is "I am mad because you said Nintendo could be doing some things better.  They are doing their best right now, quit complaining."  If you actually had a point in that article, I would address it.  But that entire article of yours is fraught with mistakes.  If that article of yours actually has a point beyond complaining about their article, then please tell me what it is.  

[Chongman]

Quote
I can understand not liking some of the PSX's more "mainstream" games, but the PSX definitely has its merits.

it has its merits but it also has its sea of crap. I had a regular PSX back in the day, and man if you didn't pick your games right you got burned over and over again. This has nothing to do with the topic but...the original playstation had far far far far more bad games than good. that's "mainstream" in the sense you're talking about and, and that's just a lot of quickly made, crappy games.

Quote
No one wants to buy the mediocre 3rd party game, but there are many, many third-party games that are just as good as any of Nintendo's offerings.

yes, but not nearly with the reuputation that nintendo maintains. other third parties can make great games, sure, but they still stand the test against nintendo's franchises, and often times, they lose. quality is almost always assured (gah...almost...personally i think nintendo branched out their own departments too much this gen, meaning faster dev time and poorer games). Afterall, what single game out there can evoke the madness that Zelda brings with it. And I don't mean the gamer madness halo2 and gta:sa instigates, but Zelda gives most everyone out there a different pang of long since beat zelda titles and a craving for a new one.

Quote
Nintendo claims that there games are for everyone, but they don't appeal to everyone. Nintendo really should take the time to create new franchises that target older gamers, and games like Geist show that they do know that they need to get more of the market.

grrr.............grrrr..........

I'm sorry...its just that personally, while fpses are fun, I get a much much much more bigger sense of enjoyment of playing wind waker rather than when I play a game like Halo or GTA. I mean...those other games are great great great great games...but when I play a nintendo game its just so much more enjoyable on a deeper level for me...so really, I have no idea what you're talking about. Bah, ignore this part of my post. its just silly opinion =P

[Mumei]

Quote
it has its merits but it also has its sea of crap. I had a regular PSX back in the day, and man if you didn't pick your games right you got burned over and over again. This has nothing to do with the topic but...the original playstation had far far far far more bad games than good. that's "mainstream" in the sense you're talking about and, and that's just a lot of quickly made, crappy games.

All systems have their sea of crap.  But in the end, there were just as many, or more, games for PSX that were incredible as there were for the Nintendo 64.  

Quote
yes, but not nearly with the reuputation that nintendo maintains. other third parties can make great games, sure, but they still stand the test against nintendo's franchises, and often times, they lose. quality is almost always assured (gah...almost...personally i think nintendo branched out their own departments too much this gen, meaning faster dev time and poorer games). Afterall, what single game out there can evoke the madness that Zelda brings with it. And I don't mean the gamer madness halo2 and gta:sa instigates, but Zelda gives most everyone out there a different pang of long since beat zelda titles and a craving for a new one.

If you are smart about buying, you can get third-party games that are just as good as Nintendo's offerings.  And I know exactly what you mean about Zelda.... It is one of the franchises that Nintendo has that still gets the average person excited, not just a Nintendo fan.

Quote
grrr.............grrrr..........

I'm sorry...its just that personally, while fpses are fun, I get a much much much more bigger sense of enjoyment of playing wind waker rather than when I play a game like Halo or GTA. I mean...those other games are great great great great games...but when I play a nintendo game its just so much more enjoyable on a deeper level for me...so really, I have no idea what you're talking about. Bah, ignore this part of my post. its just silly opinion =P

You misunderstand; I wasn't suggesting that Nintendo should go off and make a bunch of FPS, I was citing that as an example that they are trying to directly target some of the older buyers as well.  And the point of what I just said is not about you.  They already have your business and as long as they keep releasing the games that you like, you will likely stay with them.  But also having franchises that attract new people, in addition to you, would help them immensely.

And frankly, they need to attract new people.  Nintendo sold about 45 million Nintendo 64s, if I recall correctly - someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.  And they've sold about 15 or 16 million Gamecubes so far.  They hope to sell an additional 20 million, brining the total to 35 or 36 million.  A loss of about 9 or 10 million buyers is nothing to scoff at, and it is important that they get people back.  You say they are still profiting?  Imagine how much they would profit if they had an additional 10 million people buying their console.

[Chongman]

Ok...well, lets go bcak to the title of this topic..."the trouble with nintendo"

What I think most people don't realize is that nintendo, just like sony, just like microsoft, is only one company. When you see all these masses of games pouring over ps2 and xbox, it's not sony or microsoft that's creating them, it's third parties!!

of course, you and I both know this. Thats just stupid logic right? Afterall, GTA wasn't created by sony. What I'm getting at though is, when it comes to first party titles, nintendo deffinitely delivers. can you agree with me on that? but all this other stuff, the horde of games on the other platforms that are, indeed, good games, they AREN'T first party. You say nintendo needs to diversify...but what if all sony had was its first party titles? same with microsoft? (if any single console needs to diversify, its xbox...they're missing a very large demographic, meaning while nintendo's games are user friendly and nearly anyone can play them, this is not so with the xbox. but do I hear anyone complaining about that?) If all these companies had were their first and second party games...I'm pretty confident that nintendo would come out on top.

but you're making the assumption that the reason nintendo is struggling this generation is due to the lack of diversity in their first party games. Look, when it comes to diversity in first party games, Nintendo's got it made. It the third party they dont got.

But hey, nintendo KNOWs this. hello...i mean, you can't deny that. You can't deny that they've made a serious effort to diversify, to change up their line up, and get some third party action in there. And it seems to be working...slowly, yes, but I think if nintendo plays its cards right, by the end of the next generation of consoles, they can once again be on even footing with the competition. Of course, they could fix a few things, like the whole expensive royalty fee thing they have goin, but all things come with time.

What I think MC is tryin to say ( i think..since i haven't read his editorial in months...) is that hey, nintendo is gettin there. you really cant complain, they're listening, they're changing, they're improving. its not like they're ignorant to their faults anymore...everyone can complain but what you don't realize is nintendo has actualy started listening as of late. they have first party games down....now all they need is third party stuff to mix it up


oh, and btw, i don't know what you were doin during the last generation, but while ps1 had more games in general for sure, they had faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more crap games than any other system ever created. again, most if not all of their games, good and bad, were third party, something nintendo lost.

[mouse_clicker]

The point of the article, mumei, was that Nintendo is trying their hardest- yes they are making mistakes, but they're doing just fine. And you know what? Even if they AREN'T doing fine, who cares? Just play the games for godsakes and stop worrying about the sales statistics and the image problems. Gamers have become so "hardcore" now that they follow everything related to the industry and have lost site of the whole point, which is to play games. Now we judge games on their graphical quality, the depth of their story, the variety of the gameplay, the originality of the scenario, but when we were kids all that mattered was if it was FUN or not. Nintendo is still the same Nintendo they were when we were kids, we're just looking at them more critically than ever before. If we'd just learn to enjoy the games, none of this would matter.



I didn't want to have to explain the point of my article to you again because my article said it well enough. All your complaints about it were completely misconstrued.

Quote
No one wants to buy the mediocre 3rd party game, but there are many, many third-party games that are just as good as any of Nintendo's offerings.

I never said ALL 3rd parties are bad, you simply assumed as much.

Quote
I can understand not liking some of the PSX's more "mainstream" games, but the PSX definitely has its merits. Have you ever actually played one, or are you going off of hearsay? Go buy and play a game like Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Star Ocean 2, or Suikoden II and tell me that the third-parties are mediocre.

Read the first sentence of the paragraph you quoted:

Quote
Then along came Sony- not to disrespect the advancements Sony has made for the industry, and they are improving, but they created a console (the Playstation) completely devoid of a stellar 1st party, or really a good 1st party at all, which meant half-assed crappy games could sell much better than before simply because the consumer didn't have a choice.

I'm not saying Sony has done no good- on the contrary, they brought the industry onto the disc medium, making it cheaper and easier to produce games. They also gave more control to the 3rd parties, who before were quite restricted, especially by Nintendo. And I do own Symphony of the Night- it's an incredible game. Again, I'm not saying ALL 3rd parties are bad, but you can't deny the incredible amount of them that ARE.

Quote
And I am no fan of the X-Box, but it does have a games that are good; Panzer Dragoon Orta, Ninja Gaiden, Halo (it's alright >_>), The Chronicles of Riddick, etc. Can you explain this stance that the reason that third-parties do poorly on the GCN is because Nintendo is so much better?

Ugh, you're taking a very shallow look at this. Yes, the XBox does have a good games- I never said it DIDN'T. As for explaining myself on why 3rd parties do poorly on the Gamecube, read my article. I flat out TELL you several times, and I've repeated myself enough already.

Quote
I've been a Nintendo fan for 12 years, and I can tell you point-blank that most people don't agree with you. Nintendo can and should cater to everyone, not just a set group. Nintendo claims that there games are for everyone, but they don't appeal to everyone. Nintendo really should take the time to create new franchises that target older gamers, and games like Geist show that they do know that they need to get more of the market.

You see, THIS is why I said you missed the point of my article. I've been a Nintendo fan for 13 years, so I must have seniority. ::rolls eyes:: And I can tell you that there are millions out there who do still love Nintendo.

And Nintendo shouldn't have to cater to anyone but themselves- they make games they think are the best possible, and if people don't like them, too bad. I don't want Nintendo targeting anyone, because when you start making a game with a certain demographic in mind, the creative decisions are overruled by the sales potential, which leaves you with a bad game. Nintendo never said their games would appeal to everyone, they simply said everyone can enjoy their games, they don't exclude anyone. That doesn't mean everyone is going to like Nintendo's games, although many do, it just means everyone has the potential to like them.

Quote
Nintendo can do a lot to improve, and there is no excuse for not improving when you know what you should do to improve. You say that you are happy as long as Nintendo is making a profit? So is Nintendo. But they would be much happier if they were making a larger profit. They could be making more money in profits than Sony's Computer Entertainment Division does if they actually aggressively pursued people other than their core audience. They don't have to abandon their core audience to go after other groups as well.

You REALLY missed everything I was saying- I never said Nintendo couldn't improve, or shouldn't improve, just that if they don't improve I'm still happier than I ever though I'd be, and that's all that really matters. Most of all, I don't want them deciding against ideas they think will make the game better simply because it will hurt the sales. Case in point Crystal Chronicles- since Nintendo was funding the entire thing, Square went all out with the game. They did whatever they wanted because they didn't care if it would sell or not, since it wouldn't hurt them at all either way. That's why they had the balls to not only include but require the GBA connectivity. In the end Crystal Chronicles became one of the best Gamecubes yet, in my and many others' opinions, and it's because the motivation to make the game wasn't sales, it was quality. This is the way Nintendo always has been and hopefully always will be.



 

[DrZoidberg]

too long didn't read

[Mumei]

Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
The point of the article, mumei, was that Nintendo is trying their hardest- yes they are making mistakes, but they're doing just fine. And you know what? Even if they AREN'T doing fine, who cares? Just play the games for godsakes and stop worrying about the sales statistics and the image problems. Gamers have become so "hardcore" now that they follow everything related to the industry and have lost site of the whole point, which is to play games. Now we judge games on their graphical quality, the depth of their story, the variety of the gameplay, the originality of the scenario, but when we were kids all that mattered was if it was FUN or not. Nintendo is still the same Nintendo they were when we were kids, we're just looking at them more critically than ever before. If we'd just learn to enjoy the games, none of this would matter.

You really don't understand why sales matter?  They matter because if less and less people buy from Nintendo each generation, that may mean that they will start to take a loss one day.  I want to be certain that the console that I choose will have the support of third-parties; Nintendo's offerings are wonderful, but not enough by themselves.

Quote
I never said ALL 3rd parties are bad, you simply assumed as much.

You repeatedly claimed that third-party games don't live up to Nintendo's games or aren't nearly as good and that is why they don't sell.  You may not have said they are all bad, but you did give the impression that you considered them inferior.

Quote
I'm not saying Sony has done no good- on the contrary, they brought the industry onto the disc medium, making it cheaper and easier to produce games. They also gave more control to the 3rd parties, who before were quite restricted, especially by Nintendo. And I do own Symphony of the Night- it's an incredible game. Again, I'm not saying ALL 3rd parties are bad, but you can't deny the incredible amount of them that ARE.

Yes, the vast majority, frankly, suck.  But I still believe that many of Capcom, Konami, Enix (not necessarily Square...), or Ubi Soft's games are just as good as Nintendo's games.  Just because the majority suck doesn't mean you should discount the ones that are incredible.  

Quote
Ugh, you're taking a very shallow look at this. Yes, the XBox does have a good games- I never said it DIDN'T. As for explaining myself on why 3rd parties do poorly on the Gamecube, read my article. I flat out TELL you several times, and I've repeated myself enough already.

I read the article.  You said that people don't want to take the risk of getting a mediocre third-party game, if I recall correctly.  But where's the risk?  I haven't bought a poor third-party game in years, and all I do is read a few reviews and talk to friends.

Quote
You see, THIS is why I said you missed the point of my article. I've been a Nintendo fan for 13 years, so I must have seniority. ::rolls eyes:: And I can tell you that there are millions out there who do still love Nintendo.

I think you missed the point of that comment.  The point was to make sure I didn't get any BS about bashing Nintendo.  I could care less about what you mentioned.  I was trying to avoid being flamed - some people believe that if you act as though anything is wrong with Nintendo that you are bashing them.

Yes, there are millions of people who still love Nintendo.  I still do, even though they frustrate me at times.  But Nintendo has lost the business of millions and millions of people.  That is something that is concerning.

Quote
And Nintendo shouldn't have to cater to anyone but themselves- they make games they think are the best possible, and if people don't like them, too bad. I don't want Nintendo targeting anyone, because when you start making a game with a certain demographic in mind, the creative decisions are overruled by the sales potential, which leaves you with a bad game. Nintendo never said their games would appeal to everyone, they simply said everyone can enjoy their games, they don't exclude anyone. That doesn't mean everyone is going to like Nintendo's games, although many do, it just means everyone has the potential to like them.

Actually, Nintendo is a business and should be required to follow the whims of the customer.  And what do you mean that you don't want them targeting anyone?  They already target the hardcore Nintendo fans; why not branch out and target more people.  Nintendo has always had a target audience; why not expand and try to target more people?

Creative decisions don't have to be abandoned, either.  I was rather disappointed when they lost Sillicon Knights... I was looking forward to Too Human.  Would the fact that that game was targeting a different demographic mean that creative decisions would be abandoned?  No, it wouldn't.  

Quote
You REALLY missed everything I was saying- I never said Nintendo couldn't improve, or shouldn't improve, just that if they don't improve I'm still happier than I ever though I'd be, and that's all that really matters. Most of all, I don't want them deciding against ideas they think will make the game better simply because it will hurt the sales. Case in point Crystal Chronicles- since Nintendo was funding the entire thing, Square went all out with the game. They did whatever they wanted because they didn't care if it would sell or not, since it wouldn't hurt them at all either way. That's why they had the balls to not only include but require the GBA connectivity. In the end Crystal Chronicles became one of the best Gamecubes yet, in my and many others' opinions, and it's because the motivation to make the game wasn't sales, it was quality. This is the way Nintendo always has been and hopefully always will be.

You are kidding yourself if you think that Nintendo doesn't care about sales and focuses only on quality.  Do you know why they focus on the quality?  So it will sell.  They expected FF:CC to sell much better than it did; they didn't put money into it for it to sell the way it did.  And FF:CC isn't even a good example.  The game wasn't even that great and honestly was a disappointment.  When Square said that they were going to be making a FF for GCN, I wanted a full-fledged RPG, not a game like Crystal Chronicles.  I can't believe that they actually called the game "Final Fantasy."

And I don't want them deciding against ideas like that either.  That is not what I am saying.  I want them to have those same ideas and do thinks that other people want as well.  And if you don't think that Nintendo couldn't or shouldn't improve, why are you arguing with the idea that it is a good idea that they branch out and target people besides the ones that already have a GCN?  That is all I've been saying >_>.

[mouse_clicker]

I'm done with you, mumei- I'm just rewriting my article. I have a back-to-basics philosophy when it comes to games, which means all I care about is the games. Maybe that's where we're clashing, but everything you're throwing out at me I've either already addressed in my article or one of the posts following it, and quite frankly I'm tired of repeating myself to someone who repeatedly misses my point. Maybe I'm not explaining it well enough, but all the same I'm done explaining it altogether.

[Mumei]

Quote
I'm done with you, mumei- I'm just rewriting my article. I have a back-to-basics philosophy when it comes to games, which means all I care about is the games. Maybe that's where we're clashing.

Really?  Well yes, that might explain something T_T.  I am more concerned with sales and things like that.  If you don't care about those things, then we aren't going to agree on this =/.

[Ian Sane]

"And you know what? Even if they AREN'T doing fine, who cares?"

C'mon you know better than that.  It's worth caring about because if Nintendo goes broke then we don't get any more games from them and the industry is controlled entirely by non-gaming companies.

[Mumei]

Well chances are that if Nintendo ever starts having losses consistently, they will use the $8 billion that they (or probably much more by the time that would happen) have to bail themselves out .  

[Deguello]

Funny thing about Nintendo's image "problem."

Can anybody here tell when when Nintendo was first arbitrarily and unfairly labeled as "too childish for this market?"

No, not 1997.  No, not 1993.  1981.  When Nintendo was bringing Donkey Kong over, arcade operators were sure it would flop because the game was too childish and simple, and gamers wanted hardcore violence like MISSILE COMMAND.  True story.

[mouse_clicker]

Quote
C'mon you know better than that. It's worth caring about because if Nintendo goes broke then we don't get any more games from them and the industry is controlled entirely by non-gaming companies.

Indeed, that wouldn't be good at all- but my point is that, as far as I'm concerned, Nintendo has done more than they needed to in this industry and anything else they do is icing on the cake. If they went out of business tomorrow I'd be very sad but would consider their existence more than justified- they fulfilled their purpose.

[Ian Sane]

"When Nintendo was bringing Donkey Kong over, arcade operators were sure it would flop because the game was too childish and simple, and gamers wanted hardcore violence like MISSILE COMMAND."

Well the opinion of arcade operators is not quite as damaging as the opinion of the general gaming public.  It's gotten to a point where nearly everyone who isn't a dedicated fan or a kid themselves thinks they're kiddy.  When third parties, retail stores, the media, and a large portion of the customers associate you with an inaccurate image that is going to restrict your sales you've got a problem.  Nintendo's image should be that of quality like Blizzard has with PC gamers because it's both flattering and ACCURATE.  If they have to experiment with some more adult titles, dabble in some unfamiliar genres (FPS, fighting, RPG, sports), and change their marketing all while retaining that same level of quality so be it.  As long as the quality doesn't dip there's nothing wrong with a little change.  Nintendo should be the hardcore gaming company and should do what they have to to be associated as such.

[mouse_clicker]

The ONLY thing Nintendo should associate themselves with as far as I'm concerned is great games, and they've been doing that for 20 years. Nintendo is not a "hardcore" gamers' company, unless by hardcore gamer you mean those who judge games based on how fun they are to play, in which case Nintendo already IS a hardcore gamers' company and the problem is there aren't enough hardcore gamers. There's nothing wrong with the kind of games Nintendo makes now. Nintendo's image isn't THEIR fault and they shouldn't have to be the ones to fix it. If the public doesn't come around, their loss.  

[odifiend]

I disagree, Ian.  Nintendo should not have to to dabble in unfamiliar genres to change their image.  One, the general public is not going to take notice barring an online title, Two, they'd just be wasting development time and Three, they'd turn it into a Mario spinoff.  As mentioned before, third parties are there for a reason.

Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
Nintendo's image isn't THEIR fault and they shouldn't have to be the ones to fix it. If the public doesn't come around, their loss.

I agree Nintendo's image isn't entirely their fault but they should be the ones to fix it.  I barely ever see any gamecube specific commercials and I would say I watch a good amount of television.  Nintendo seems absent in a market they created, not good.  When a Gamecube commercial does materialize, often it is incredibly short and ineffective.  There is no way they can sway an audience of the circulated that Nintendo is kiddie.  More effective advertising is all that is needed.
Your last sentence, Mouse, indicates that you don't understand business.  It is money, and not your philosophies and ideals, that make the money go 'round.

[Mumei]

You are right that no one would notice, but only because Nintendo does a horrible job at creating awareness for their games beyond the people who read video gaming websites.  And they do need more effective advertising.  The normal reaction when a Nintendo commercial comes on in my classroom (and I just ended my junior year in high school for reference) is groaning, eye rolling, and covering your head.  If anyone actually likes the commercial, they must fear being made fun of for liking it.

One of Nintendo's bigger problems is that they can still get kids into gaming, but at 12 years old, the kids suddenly think that Nintendo isn't "cool" enough for them.  And it isn't as though Nintendo's rivals aren't aware of this.  One Sony executive said that Nintendo gets the kids when they are 5 and they get them when they are 12, or something to that effect.

Nintendo needs to work on their image so that they can keep those younger customers that they have said are the future of their business.

I don't think Nintendo needs to change everything, but some teams would be better making new, original titles that target new audiences instead of sequels.    

[KDR_11k]

I think Nintendo's bad image stems from exactly one source: Their competitors' marketing propaganda. Their competitors want to give Nintendo all kinds of lables to keep them down because they KNOW how dangerous Nintendo at full strength would be for them. The arcade operators don't matter, the general public does and the general public apparently believes everythng the marketing droids tell them.

[Mumei]

And Nintendo didn't choose a good look or color (at launch) for the Gamecube.  The very image of the console itself made it seem more like a toy than a serious console.

And at this point, MS and Sony hardly have to do the propaganda; the damage is done =/.

[mouse_clicker]

Quote
I agree Nintendo's image isn't entirely their fault but they should be the ones to fix it. I barely ever see any gamecube specific commercials and I would say I watch a good amount of television.

You seem to have public awareness and image confused. People who think Nintendo is kiddy before aren't going to suddenly change their mind simply because there are more commercials on now.

Quote
Your last sentence, Mouse, indicates that you don't understand business. It is money, and not your philosophies and ideals, that make the money go 'round.

I think the last sentence of my original editorial proved that a LOOOOOONG time ago. No, I don't understand business, but Nintendo understands it well enough to stick around longer than anyone else, and with only one quarterly loss, too. I do understand fun games, though, and Nintendo has never failed to continue delivering in that area. Keep in mind, too, I'm looking at this from a gamer's perspective, and the LAST thing on a gamer's mind should be business, while the FIRST thing should be the games. F*ck the sales statistics, just go enjoy your games.

[odifiend]

Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker

Quote
I agree Nintendo's image isn't entirely their fault but they should be the ones to fix it. I barely ever see any gamecube specific commercials and I would say I watch a good amount of television.

You seem to have public awareness and image confused. People who think Nintendo is kiddy before aren't going to suddenly change their mind simply because there are more commercials on now.

Public awareness and knowledge of Nintendo's products from Nintendo could break down the image their competitors have set up for them, so I think you're underestimating the power of advertising.  Informing the public has broken down racial barriers and is breaking down sexual orientation barriers.  Why couldn't it work for something as minor (relative to prejudice) as Nintendo's image problem?

Also, Mouse, while I respect Nintendo for how long they've been around, please note that that quaterly loss was a pretty recent fiscal quarter (most recent if I'm not mistaken) meaning there is a problem now, as opposed to 15- 20 years ago when they ran the market uncontested.  Anyone can fail and as you sacastically mentioned with Mumei, seniority has no barring.  

[KDR_11k]

Perhaps Nintendo should do what every ther company does when slapping their name on a certain product would hurt the name or the product: Fork. Means create a wholly owned subsidiary and useits name to publish your product. For example, when a brand is known for making expensive things but wants to tap into the market for cheap ites, they just slap another name on their product and sell it cheaper without tarnishing their image as expensive. Nintendo could fork a division for mass-market games or something. That way they could make not family friendly first party games while still being seen as a family friendly company. Hell, they even made Square do that, they should be able to do it themselves, too!