Topic: Wii U - e3 is over... now what?

[Luigi Dude]

And there is no way the Wii was the safer route.  Give Nintendo credit for doing something insanely risky.  If the blue ocean market didn't like it, the Wii would probably have completely bombed and Nintendo would only be making handhelds, if they stayed afloat.

Do you not seem to understand the part about how development cost went higher then ever before in a short period of time and most of the industry payed for it?  Seriously, do you not understand how the Wii was a much cheaper system to make then something as powerful as the 360/PS3 would have been.  The Gamecube had only sold a little over 20 million systems which was done over 10 million from the N64 which was over 30 million.  If the Gamecubes successor had been as powerful as the competition and sold 10 million less then the Gamecube like the Gamecube did from the N64, that would have cost Nintendo a lot more then if the Wii failed.

The Wii was just a modified Gamecube which in 2006 was cheap for Nintendo to produce while a 360/PS3 level console would have costed much more.  A more expensive console failing would have cost them much more then a less powerful console failing.

[Kairon]

The Game Boy isn't "last gen" because it was the first handheld video system.  It isn't like the Game Gear and Lynx were already out and Nintendo thought "hey, we'll make a black and white system!"  They started the whole damn thing!

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Looking at a GB and a Lynx side-by-side Atari's handheld definitely makes the GB look "last-gen".

I agree that it makes the GB look last gen but it came out AFTER.  Nintendo didn't set out to make some archaic handheld that was in black & while while everyone else had colour.  Nintendo came first, everyone else followed with handhelds with superior specs.  That's not a conscious effort on Nintendo's part to push inferior hardware.

But that's just it, Nintendo DID consciously push inferior hardware. The timing is not exactly analogous, but the technology was available for more and Nintendo did not pursue it, pretty much what nets you a "last-gen" piece of hardware. I mean, I guess at this point we're arguing semantics, but I figure the intentions, which is what we're really talking about, behind either case are the same.

In fact, the GameBoy is also potentially super-relevant to this discussion because it could be argued that Nintendo learned from the GB line that "last-gen" technology wins. From 1989 to 1998, a full nine years, the GB did not get a hardware refresh, and then only one in the form of the incremental (could it be called "Two GameBoys duct-taped together"?) GameBoy Color. Looking at wikipedia spec rundowns I'm starting to actually wonder whether the GBC was even any more powerful than the GameGear from eight years before. And during all this time, the GB fended off multiple competitors with more advanced hardware.

But that's all still beside the point, it's bigger than just releasing so-called "last-gen" hardware. This is about the over-arching philosophy of "Lateral Thinking With Withered Technology." This has been a major trend in Nintendo's thinking for a long time, I think it's inaccurate to imply that their hardware choices today are anything new.

The convention is to increase a console with each gen so even if the development costs increasing the rest of the industry was maintaining the status quo and Nintendo is the one who changed.  The Wii was the unexpected move, not the PS3 or Xbox 360.  Nintendo is the one that stepped off the beaten path.  Sony and MS didn't do anything unexpected or unconventional.

Really? Increasing hardware technology so much that you had to charge $400 to $600 was "normal" when previous console generations (including every Nintendo console from the NES to the GameCube) had almost always hit mass market prices of $200? It may not be the case of Nintendo being underpowered, their competitors may have been overpowered while Nintendo actually held the conventional, traditional course for new consoles.

[Adrock]

To me nostalgia is when you think Transformers is a good show until you actually go back a watch it as an adult and realize it sucked.

That's not what nostalgia means.

We may have different opinions on whether or not Nintendo changed (but I do have the FACT that the management changed in my favour) but I don't like people telling me that *I* changed.  I think I know myself and my opinions and thoughts better than people who have never met me.

I don't know how you define "change" but judging by your definition of "nostalgia," it's probably wrong. You have, on numerous occasions, described your evolving gaming tastes. This is based on your posting habits.

People have different opinions and this is subjective.  But I'm not wrong and I'm not just "blinded by nostalgia" here.

You're pulling the subjectivity card, but I don't think you really understand the nature of subjectivity. Like I said earlier, it's almost as if you can't grasp the idea that some people actually like where Nintendo's going. So, you say you're not wrong. Fine. However, you have repeatedly told other people (to the point of mockery, I might add) that they are for liking something that you don't like. You're not stating an opinion anymore; you're pushing it as established fact.

On top of that, you still haven't explained why Nintendo should abandon a strategy that is clearly working. Because you don't like it? You're going to have to do better than that. That's not necessarily better for Nintendo; that's mostly just better for you because you get what you want without considering the ramifications of changing an entire strategy.

[nickmitch]

[Kairon]

On top of that, you still haven't explained why Nintendo should abandon a strategy that is clearly working.

Well, to be honest, there's no guarantee it will work again. Each generation is a reset, and new technology and market changes necessitate strategies changing to match them.

Of course, when those market changes include a lingering and ongoing global recession...

[Adrock]

Well, to be honest, there's no guarantee it will work again. Each generation is a reset, and new technology and market changes necessitate strategies changing to match them.

What are you referring to specifically? How Nintendo marketed the Wii and DS? I meant more along the lines of Nintendo being Nintendo and the way they continually think outside the box instead of simply copying the competition. Nintendo didn't get where they are by following trends.

[Kairon]

Well, to be honest, there's no guarantee it will work again. Each generation is a reset, and new technology and market changes necessitate strategies changing to match them.

What are you referring to specifically? How Nintendo marketed the Wii and DS? I meant more along the lines of Nintendo being Nintendo and the way they continually think outside the box instead of simply copying the competition. Nintendo didn't get where they are by following trends.

No no, I agree that Nintendo is where they are today because of that Nintendo Difference. I'm just saying that it hasn't always been a smooth ride, nor is it guaranteed to be.

[Adrock]

Few things in life are guaranteed. I don't think that's a good enough reason to abandon an entire strategy. Adopting a completely new strategy and changing the philosophy and culture the whole company was built around isn't guaranteed to be successful. That probably has a greater chance of failing.

[Chozo Ghost]

On top of that, you still haven't explained why Nintendo should abandon a strategy that is clearly working.

Its not working. If it was working the Wii wouldn't have had such a severe software drop or sharp drop in sales from 2009 to the present. The Wii performed extremely from its launch until 2008 or so, but after that its been more or less stagnant.

If you call that "working" I don't really know what else to tell you, but personally I don't think its working.

[broodwars]

According to Michael Pachter, Nintendo has lost so much money in the past couple of years that they essentially have less than they started with when the Wii launched.  Pachter's predictions may be spotty at best, but usually he's pretty good at quoting hard numbers (as one would hope from a market analyst) so I'm inclined to believe it.  That doesn't sound like a strategy that "is clearly working."  Granted, a large part of that is Wii U development costs, but I don't believe Nintendo's software has moved over the past couple of years at the level it did in the early years.

And before anyone brings up Sony, supposedly their gaming division has been fairly successful, but their numbers have been dragged down by the dead weight of their other electronics divisions.

[Adrock]

Its not working. If it was working the Wii wouldn't have had such a severe software drop or sharp drop in sales from 2009 to the present. The Wii performed extremely from its launch until 2008 or so, but after that its been more or less stagnant.

If you call that "working" I don't really know what else to tell you, but personally I don't think its working.

Wasn't Nintendo still outselling Microsoft and Sony for most of that time? Market saturation leads to slower sales. It doesn't mean their strategy stopped working.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I'm pretty sure Nintendo made more money this gen than Sony and MS lost combined, and that was quite a bit, so I highly doubt the few 100 million they lost in the last year or so is gonna equal them having less money now than when they started this gen.

[MegaByte]

Probably he was referring to stock value, which is true. However, that's not the same as the actual assets of Nintendo.

[Luigi Dude]

Probably he was referring to stock value, which is true. However, that's not the same as the actual assets of Nintendo.

Yeah, in terms of actual money in the bank, Nintendo's got a lot more cash now then they had before they released the Wii.

[Enner]

According to Michael Pachter, Nintendo has lost so much money in the past couple of years that they essentially have less than they started with when the Wii launched.  Pachter's predictions may be spotty at best, but usually he's pretty good at quoting hard numbers (as one would hope from a market analyst) so I'm inclined to believe it.  That doesn't sound like a strategy that "is clearly working."  Granted, a large part of that is Wii U development costs, but I don't believe Nintendo's software has moved over the past couple of years at the level it did in the early years.

And before anyone brings up Sony, supposedly their gaming division has been fairly successful, but their numbers have been dragged down by the dead weight of their other electronics divisions.

I find that odd when in a recent Pach-Attack he reiterated what is repeatedly said here that Nintendo has enough money in its war chest to operate for several more years. Great, I can't find the particular episode. Now I'm wondering if I just dreamed it.

They couldn't have spent it all on R&D, could they?

[broodwars]

Probably he was referring to stock value, which is true. However, that's not the same as the actual assets of Nintendo.

It's possible he misspoke (it's Pachter. It wouldn't be the first time), but I'm pretty sure I heard what I wrote before.

Incidentally, I could have sworn that was on a Pac-Attack! episode as well, but I can't find it either.  It's not on the latest Nintendo-focused Bonus Rounds, either, which makes me think it was something he said on Spike TV's live broadcast commenting either directly before or after the Nintendo press conference when discussing "just what has Nintendo been spending all their money on?".

[oohhboy]

Patcher is wrong, seriously, don't ever listen to him, he is always wrong. Nintendo has no debt and has more than enough cash to lose a generation, survive to launch the next before even thinking of taking out loans or offering stock. The guy is about as good as the oracles of ancient times where they read the movements of the birds to determine future outcomes. Instead of birds, Patcher has a computer spit out numbers from algorithms he doesn't understand which has little to do with day to day operations that determines the success of a company. The type of analysis might work for the commodities markets since it is very easy to value everything in the market and to determine future trends outside of natural disasters with the risks hedged against with insurance.

There is no computer program that says this game is good, or this game is bad. An initial bad impression or non release can be turned around from word of mouth(Operation rainfall). A mod(dayZ) released in the future might drive a massive increase in sales. Too much product from a solid franchise might crash and burn entire segments of the market(Guitar Hero). Computers is never going to tell him any of this and he will never understand as long as he is fixated on the numbers.

[Chozo Ghost]

Probably he was referring to stock value, which is true. However, that's not the same as the actual assets of Nintendo.

Yeah, in terms of actual money in the bank, Nintendo's got a lot more cash now then they had before they released the Wii.

This is good, because if the Wii U fails then it won't be a death blow for the company. That said, I do want the Wii U to fail because it would be a wake up call and it would force them to reconsider their focus and start catering to their core gamers. They have enough money in the bank that the Wii U could be a total disaster, but the company would still survive, and my hope is Iwata and Reggie would face a vote of no confidence and replaced by someone who will steer the company back on course.

[Adrock]

Lulz. Tell us what you really think about Pachter, oohhboy. +1

[Kairon]

They have enough money in the bank that the Wii U could be a total disaster, but the company would still survive, and my hope is Iwata and Reggie would face a vote of no confidence and replaced by someone who will steer the company back on course.

Noooo! I LIKE Iwata!

[Kytim89]

Nintendo needs to hire someone that understands the western gamer and market to replace Reggie. While he is certainly not a bad figure head for the company the gaming industry is becoming ever increasingly reliant on western gamers and developers to stay afloat. I am not advocating that Nintendo do like SEGA and let every branch of their company run unrestrained. However, I am sure that Nintendo of America most likely can not ink a deal with western developers without home base's approval. Look at all the Japanese developers that have western companies making games for them, and the ones that are not are becoming westernized in their developing habits (Platnium Studios). Nintendo is no different. They should focus home base's attention on the 3DS and let all development outside of let's say Mario to western developers and NoA/E.

[Oblivion]

To me nostalgia is when you think Transformers is a good show until you actually go back a watch it as an adult and realize it sucked.  If something holds up as an adult then nostalgia is not affecting you.  If you want videogame examples of nostalgia for me I used to think Mortal Kombat was legitimatelly cool and now see it as embarrasingly stupid and immature (though in a funny way).  I used to think Goldeneye was an amazing game but now realize it's too dated, while Super Mario 64 looks terrible but is still good.

Isn't that the complete opposite of the definition of nostalgia? If we were to use your analogies, you would think that Mortal Kombat was legitemately cool back then and you'd still think that now, even if, by all intents and purposes, you SHOULD think it sucks. If something still holds up as an adult, it's likely that nostalgia IS affecting you.

[BranDonk Kong]

I don't know exactly what you're trying to say there...but Mortal Kombat will always kick ass.

[BlackNMild2k1]

To me nostalgia is when you think Transformers is a good show until you actually go back a watch it as an adult and realize it sucked.  If something holds up as an adult then nostalgia is not affecting you.  If you want videogame examples of nostalgia for me I used to think Mortal Kombat was legitimatelly cool and now see it as embarrasingly stupid and immature (though in a funny way).  I used to think Goldeneye was an amazing game but now realize it's too dated, while Super Mario 64 looks terrible but is still good.

Isn't that the complete opposite of the definition of nostalgia? If we were to use your analogies, you would think that Mortal Kombat was legitemately cool back then and you'd still think that now, even if, by all intents and purposes, you SHOULD think it sucks. If something still holds up as an adult, it's likely that nostalgia IS affecting you.

Nostalgia is just reminiscing memories from way back when. Has nothing to do with whether they we good or bad memories.

[Oblivion]

I said that wrong. That isn't what I meant. Too lazy to fix it.