Topic: Official Sales Thread

[Mop it up]

It's a mixture of stubbornness and arrogance. Cartridges cost more than CDs to manufacture and they passed that cost unto the consumer. They figured people would pay that extra amount for Nintendo's games.

Nintendo had brand recognition with the Nintendo 64 as well (maybe not as much as they do now, especially the Wii name), and it didn't really help them against the newbie PlayStation.

[NWR_Lindy]

Nintendo also didn't want to give up the big royalties associated with cartridges.  Let's just say that the N64 using cartridges was NOT done with third-party developers in mind.  It was fine for Nintendo since they made the system, but third-parties were told to make do.  Instead of making do, they made their way over to the PS2.  I wouldn't classify that as arrogance; it's more self-interest.  But then, Nintendo is a corporation, so self-interest is their job just like any other corporation.

What Nintendo has done is basically get the budget consumer on the front end instead of the backend.  People that are on the fringe, and wouldn't have bought a PS3 or 360 until they came way down in price to the $200 range, already have a Wii.  They effectively took the previous generation's business model and used it against Sony and Microsoft.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Nintendo also didn't want to give up the big royalties associated with cartridges.  Let's just say that the N64 using cartridges was NOT done with third-party developers in mind.  It was fine for Nintendo since they made the system, but third-parties were told to make do.  Instead of making do, they made their way over to the PS2.  I wouldn't classify that as arrogance; it's more self-interest.  But then, Nintendo is a corporation, so self-interest is their job just like any other corporation.

What Nintendo has done is basically get the budget consumer on the front end instead of the backend.  People that are on the fringe, and wouldn't have bought a PS3 or 360 until they came way down in price to the $200 range, already have a Wii.  They effectively took the previous generation's business model and used it against Sony and Microsoft.

The funny thing is that even last generation they stomped Sony and MS profit wise as well. They may not have sold as many systems but they won in the territory that really matters.

In regards to arrogance, I think they had it during the NES/SNES era but that was (thankfully) shortlived where they bullied publishers around. I hate to defend carts but I honestly cannot imagine a game like Mario 64 being quite the same game on CD. People like to slam carts now, but they had (and still have) benefits that media like CDs/DVDs/Bluray do not, ESPECIALLY in the era of PS One where the technology was relatively new. Nintendo did what many companies did they stuck with what worked for them, and were most comfortable with. If I recall Miyamoto had quite a bit to say about the usage of cartridge again as well.

Sure, in retrospect, it wasn't a good move for the most part but I can UNDERSTAND Nintendo's position at the time. Nintendo's gaming lively hood was based upon the cartridge format all the way up to N64, why change then? Sony came at it from the perspective of a hardware manufacturer who had no real format they were "experienced" with so they chose CD. It is kind of funny though, in handhelds, it is the reverse, the "CD" systems flaws are hurting it while the cart based one has its format helping it.

[KDR_11k]

Cartridges seemed like the best idea back then if you look at what came before: The Sega CD, TurboGrafX CD and CDi were flops, throwing mostly badly done FMVs at the games without real improvement while having drastically longer load times than carts. Of course now we've seen that the PS1 didn't suffer the same fate but could Nintnedo have known that back then?

Anyway, it's not relevant for the Wii. Nintendo knows that mobility has given them this advantage and to keep it they have to keep outmaneuvering their competition. They might get complacent if Sony and MS make their next system another graphics update instead of really attacking Nintendo as that would leave Nintendo without competition but Sony or MS aren't simply going to turn the tables on Nintendo this gen or even next gen.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Cartridges seemed like the best idea back then if you look at what came before: The Sega CD, TurboGrafX CD and CDi were flops, throwing mostly badly done FMVs at the games without real improvement while having drastically longer load times than carts. Of course now we've seen that the PS1 didn't suffer the same fate but could Nintnedo have known that back then?

Anyway, it's not relevant for the Wii. Nintendo knows that mobility has given them this advantage and to keep it they have to keep outmaneuvering their competition. They might get complacent if Sony and MS make their next system another graphics update instead of really attacking Nintendo as that would leave Nintendo without competition but Sony or MS aren't simply going to turn the tables on Nintendo this gen or even next gen.

That is another good point, CD based systems did not fair all that well back in the PS One days. It is kind of funny though I preferred the cart format to the CD format, I appreciated the fast paced, non-loading gaming experiences along with the ability to save directly to the cart. Many PSone games, while there were some stellar titles, were hampered because of the constant loading. It ruined the flow of games for me far too often.

[Chozo Ghost]

This is the kind of thing which could happen yet again. If Nintendo refuses once more to upgrade the hardware of their next home console and either Sony or Microsoft makes a strong showing with a system that attracts Nintendo's new found costumers, they could easily steal the market from them.

You are wrong in several respects:

1) The Wii is a hardware improvement over the GC. It may not be as big of a leap in graphics as the PS3 was over the PS2, but it is an improvement nonetheless.

2) Graphics are reaching a point where they are nearly indistinguishable from reality. They're not quite there just yet, but its close enough that graphics improvements just don't matter anymore. They mattered in previous generations when you have pixelated sprites and so forth, but from this generation on the area of graphics are completely irrelevant.

3) Has the fact the Wii lacks HD graphics kept it from selling out like crazy since launch? I rest my case.

[Chozo Ghost]

Many PSone games, while there were some stellar titles, were hampered because of the constant loading. It ruined the flow of games for me far too often.

Yeah. Even though the N64 was outsold by the PS1, it did beat the 3DO, Saturn, Jaguar, and whatever other systems may have existed way back then. So the PS1 was the ONLY system that managed to beat it, and that meant the N64 was in second place, which isn't really that bad of a thing really....

Plus it did generate profit for Nintendo, and even to THIS day the 1st party lineup is regarded as A+++ material. Depending on who you ask, many people will tell you the N64 Zelda and Mario 64 were the GREATEST GAME of all time. Those games sold extremely, and are still insanely popular today. Sure, 3rd party support for the N64 left much to be desired, but all in all the N64 library was top notch.

As for the PS1, sure its library was larger and it did sell more systems, but how many PS1 games are still being played today? Aside from Final Fantasy, probably not many at all. The PS1's library was made up of crappy 3rd party filler for the most part, and today these games are sitting unused in boxes or tossed carelessly into landfills, because they aren't worth the plastic they're etched on.

And as for the load times and all that, imagine if Super Mario 64 or Zelda 64 were on CDs rather than carts. Imagine the ridiculously long load times that would cause... and if that were the case, would those games be regarded as highly as they are because they were on carts instead? Also, in addition to the load times, carts don't get easily scratched, cracked, or destroyed like a disc can.

[mac<censored>]

I get the impression that many many people (the general public here, not just NWR readers :-) have very fond memories of the N64 and its games.  Kind of weird given the amount of disrespect it seemed to suffer back in the day...

[GoldenPhoenix]

Yeah what Chozo said. I think we need to think back to that time and what all was going on before we deem Nintendo as arrogant. It wasn't even like they were pushing a new format, it was their tried and true format. On a side note it is funny though when you think back, when they ported RE2 to the N64 it was a stunning achievement because of the size restraints. Now you can fit half of a CD on a cartridge that fits in the palm of your hand.

[GoldenPhoenix]

I get the impression that many many people (the general public here, not just NWR readers :-) have very fond memories of the N64 and its games.  Kind of weird given the amount of disrespect it seemed to suffer back in the day...

But people never disrespected ground breaking games like Mario 64, Zelda: OOT, Goldeneye and various others. The disrespect was directed more to the limited amount of games and the limitations of the cartridges compared to a medium that was finally proven with PS One.

[Mop it up]

1) The Wii is a hardware improvement over the GC.

2) Graphics are reaching a point where they are nearly indistinguishable from reality.

3) Has the fact the Wii lacks HD graphics kept it from selling out like crazy since launch?

1. I'll believe that when I see a Wii game which has better graphics than GCN games. Not even Super Mario Galaxy looks like something which the GameCube couldn't handle.

2. They've got a ways to go still. I want graphics so realistic that I look out a window and say "Those graphics suck! I'm going to go play my XBox 1080".

3. It will matter if Sony or Microsoft makes a system that rivals Nintendo's control methods and the games to back it up. They probably won't... but then again, anything can happen.

[Chozo Ghost]

Maybe most games don't look much better than the typical GC game, but the hardware capability to do better is there. Maybe its not being utilized completely, but in leaked specs for the Wii it was revealed that the Wii is 1.5 to 2 times more powerful than the GC was. It was a much faster processor, and has improvements in RAM and the GPU and so on.

I know it isn't a BIG leap in improvement, I'm just saying it is an improvement nonetheless. And to be fair, the GC itself never really seen its capabilities fully utilized either. Don't blame the system; blame the developers.

[Mop it up]

I do blame developers. I know the Wii can do better.
The more I think about it, I may have been wrong about Super Mario Galaxy. It has a few effects which the GameCube probably would have stumbled with, such as the shiny smooth rocks on that fire galaxy. It's been a couple months since I've played it. Still, I don't feel the Wii has justified its lack of any significant hardware upgrade, but I suppose this isn't the topic for that.

Perhaps I should change my statement. If Nintendo's next console isn't a significant upgrade in hardware, they could be in trouble if Sony or Microsoft makes a system that rivals Nintendo's control methods with super crazy awesome graphics and the games to back it up. The graphical gap between the two would be even greater than it already is. Again though, the more I think about it, it probably won't happen. Microsoft and especially Sony don't seem to want to go that route.

[KDR_11k]

1. I'll believe that when I see a Wii game which has better graphics than GCN games. Not even Super Mario Galaxy looks like something which the GameCube couldn't handle.

Diminshing returns. The system has twice the power but the visible difference is practically nil. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there but nintneod dd figure that differences are getting too costly now.

2. They've got a ways to go still. I want graphics so realistic that I look out a window and say "Those graphics suck! I'm going to go play my XBox 1080".

You know how much it would cost to implement that in a game? The hardware might be affordable but getting the data in there to use it costs big money and it's already hard to break even on HD games. At your desired level a company would make a blockbuster, it'd sell many millions, define new standards, make everyone gaze in amazement... and the company would go bankrupt.

Last I checked the increased graphical output brought no substantial increase in enjoyment or popularity of the games. It's nice to have but the effort that goes into the game to make all that is in no relation to the resulting improvement.

3. It will matter if Sony or Microsoft makes a system that rivals Nintendo's control methods and the games to back it up. They probably won't... but then again, anything can happen.

They have neither the motivation nor the ability to do that so talking about what if is a bit like talking about what if rocks suddently fell upwards.

Besides, in the new market values graphics have a very insignificant role. Releasing a Wii with better graphics won't do much but it'd cost more to make. Making the games to back both the new values and the improved graphics up will be both hard and expensive.

Additionally, the next Nintendo system won't be a Wii with slightly improved hardware, there's no point in that. Nintendo seeks previously ignored values that can easily be improved massively instead of pushing already pushed values even further with higher and higher force needed to make them move. Just as a Wii with better graphics wouldn't work for Sony or MS it wouldn't work for Nintendo either. It's not a real increase of value to the potential customers and the value to the customer is what matters, not the objective total value of the product (as Sony learned the hard way).


Anyway, this is a completely pointless slinging of what-ifs. What matters is now, not then.

[Mop it up]

My second comment was facetious.

Are you saying the next Nintendo console won't have any hardware upgrade at all? There's a scary thought. There's more to hardware than simply graphics, there are also more complex artificial intelligence scripts, more intricate game physics, more moving objects on screen, etc. These things can bring new experiences to gaming as well. Simply changing control input isn't enough; why can't the next Nintendo console give us both? Why couldn't Wii have given us both? And yeah, there's the "It costs too much" argument, but Nintendo makes a profit on each system sold and huge profits on game sales so they could have easily afforded it.

[KDR_11k]

The Wii does many things the GC doesn't that have nothing to do with raw power. That's an upgrade too.

[Mop it up]

Yeah, things which don't benefit games (most of the Wii Channels) and things which could also be better with improved hardware (online play).

[GoldenPhoenix]

Yeah, things which don't benefit games (most of the Wii Channels) and things which could also be better with improved hardware (online play).

Not sure how online play could benefit, unless you are talking visually. Have you not played CoW: WaW or MOH2? Not to mention the controller itself, I can't imagine playing a game like NMH, heck even MP3 on the other consoles.

Seriously though, all you need to do is look at Nintendo's profit margins for the last 10 years, I think they know how to run a business more then anyone here. Most of their consoles they make profits on, the Wii is no different and guess what, they are the market leader by a TON. Which is why all the angst is getting annoying. If you want pretty HD graphics get a Xbox 360/PS3, I personally like BOTH because they offer different gaming experiences.

Also I still can't get over the fact you said Galaxy could be done on GC. I don't recall any GC game looking nearly as great as Galaxy which even rivaled some of the early generation 360 games. Heck some of the bosses looked CGI.

there are also more complex artificial intelligence scripts, more intricate game physics, more moving objects on screen

Alot of this is stuff most Japanese developers don't even worry about, heck look at MGSIV. The AI is still extremely stupid and the physics are so-so. Nintendo has never and WILL NEVER be about those things.

Also I think people discount the Wii's hardware way to often, even at the $250 price point most analysts suggested that they were BARELY making a profit. The Wii's hardware had these things in addition to the modest hardware upgrade:

1. An integrated menu system for different functionality
2. Wifi (Big deal considering the 360 doesn't even have that)
3. Internal flash memory
4. Ability to download various games and applications to the system
5. Compact and energy efficient design (not to mention extremely durable because they didn't cheap out on the quality of components)
6. Motion controls and pointer functionality
7. Packed in game
8. Much more capable hardware for online gaming (Most of the less than stellar online experiences are more due to inexperience in online design then the hardware)
9. DVD based
10. USB device support along with SD card support.

[Chozo Ghost]

Perhaps I should change my statement. If Nintendo's next console isn't a significant upgrade in hardware, they could be in trouble if Sony or Microsoft makes a system that rivals Nintendo's control methods with super crazy awesome graphics and the games to back it up. The graphical gap between the two would be even greater than it already is. Again though, the more I think about it, it probably won't happen. Microsoft and especially Sony don't seem to want to go that route.

Sony and MS might match Nintendo's control scheme and greatly surpass them in graphics quality, but where they would fail to match Nintendo is in price. Nintendo's console launched $249, which is far less than the $699 or whatever it was the PS3 launched at. I'm sure the Wii's innovative controls have a LOT to do with the system's success, but the more reasonable price than its competitors probably has just as much to do with their success.

When you beef up graphics it makes the system more expensive, so Nintendo would have either had to sell it at a loss or charge a few hundred dollars more for it. But instead, they decided to shoot for only modest improvements and that way they were able to keep the price low and still make a profit. It was a very smart move from their perspective, and it has guaranteed Nintendo is going to be in the console making business for at least several more generations to come.

Even if Sony and MS copy Nintendo's control ideas (and I'm certain they will) as long as their system's cost 2 or 3 times as much it doesn't matter to the average gamer whether the graphics are better or not. The average parent is not wealthy and will not spend 500+ dollars on what is essentially a toy for their kids. And the truth is the more graphically powerful system has almost always come in second or last place. The only exception was when the SNES beat the Genesis, but that was the closest battle of all time. If graphics were so important, why is the Wii number one now? Why was the PS2 number one last time? Why was the PS1 with its 32 bit graphics leading the N64 with its 64 bit graphics? etc...

[Mop it up]

Also I still can't get over the fact you said Galaxy could be done on GC. I don't recall any GC game looking nearly as great as Galaxy which even rivaled some of the early generation 360 games. Heck some of the bosses looked CGI.

I took back what I said about Mario Galaxy. I was so engrossed by the gameplay that the graphics didn't really leave an impression on me, so after I thought about it some I remembered some details about it that couldn't have been done on GameCube.

I think I need to play Galaxy again as I'm sure there are some details I overlooked the first time.

If you want pretty HD graphics get a Xbox 360/PS3.

I don't really care that much about graphics in the technical sense, otherwise I wouldn't have a Wii (and only a Wii). I guess I may be giving that impression by complaining about the lack of a significant hardware upgrade, but, well... it is still something I would have liked to see. Style over specs is what I appreciate though; I don't care how many people knock games like Paper Mario or The Wind Waker, such people are blinded to the beauty of those games.

The thing is, games which don't use the features of Wii are basically the same as GameCube games. Take Super Smash Brothers Brawl as an example: doesn't use Miis, doesn't use the Wii controller's features at all. Besides the online play, it would have been no different as a GameCube game, save maybe a few slight decreases in graphics. This is a game which could have benefited from better hardware.

I realize the Wii has many components but I still think Nintendo could have made a more significant hardware upgrade without breaking the bank. They make most of their profits on game sales so don't tell me they can't afford it. They might have taken a slight loss at first but by now they'd be making a little profit on it, especially since they have no need to lower the price and probably won't for a while. It's also the long term I worry about. Have we seen the best graphics the Wii can do in Mario Galaxy? Where can Wii go from here?

[KDR_11k]

Why would they make better graphics? They figured that graphics don't matter anymore because they're good enough and it worked out.

[GoldenPhoenix]

The thing is, games which don't use the features of Wii are basically the same as GameCube games. Take Super Smash Brothers Brawl as an example: doesn't use Miis, doesn't use the Wii controller's features at all. Besides the online play, it would have been no different as a GameCube game, save maybe a few slight decreases in graphics. This is a game which could have benefited from better hardware.

I'd quote your whole response but I don't want to make a quote train! I actually agree with you about SSB:B, in fact I brought up the very same point about SSB:B. Here we had a new system with new features along with a brand new controller and it was like they didn't even try to utilize the features that make Wii, well the Wii. Even Mario Kart Wii falls into this same realm. So I agree with you.

In regards to system power, I think there will be more progress with the Wii, heck the Conduit is showing that there is quite a bit left in the system visually. Now it will run up against a wall sooner than PS3 or 360 but still I think we will soon improvements. My guess is that the next Wii system will be equal in power to the 360 or PS3, which is fine with me considering that the visuals are at such a high level now and Nintendo should have free roam to create some really great looking games.

[NWR_Lindy]

When I think of a game that can't be done on the Wii but I wish it could, I think of LittleBigPlanet.  That's the kind of concept I'd love to see from Nintendo.  I just think of what Miyamoto could do with that concept - full online integration, user-created levels, four-player co-op - and start frothing at the mouth.

To me, LBP is what I wish Super Mario Galaxy would have been.  SMG is an amazing game, don't get me wrong, but it's still fairly "inside the box" in terms of what the Mario series has done in the past.  Aside from the semi co-op, you're still one character running through a 3D world solving puzzles suspended in space.  The overall core game concept hasn't expanded much.  When you see what's being done on other consoles in terms of co-operative play and other online functionality, it really makes you wish that Nintendo was a little more committed to online gameplay.

[KDR_11k]

I don't think Mario Galaxy was meant to be unlike anything before, it's a Mario game and people want Mario from those.

Also user created content means you play the ideas of the users, not the ideas of the game maker. I think Miyamoto on the project wouldn't be very helpful because you wouldn't play his ideas. For "user" ideas I'd rather get an indie game because when you make your own game you are not constrained by the limits of the game you're making levels for.

[Flames_of_chaos]

and things which could also be better with improved hardware (online play).

At the rate that network hardware is going and improved hardware does jack on improving online play, excellent netcode can make or break a game. Many ISPs are stingy with the amount of bandwidth and speed they offer to residential customers at a decent rate so even if you play on Wi-Fi it doesn't really affect the speed if you play with an ethernet connection(with an exception of movie streaming and large downloads but that's a given). When I was playing Battalion Wars II with Nick last night we were amazed how fluid everything was it felt like the game was 60 FPS and I never experienced any lag at all considering how much goes on during an online game. 

If you want to see an example of how bad netcode can wreck an online mode Super Smash Bros Brawl is sadly the perfect example where games slow to a crawl and how sometimes matches can be so unstable.  When I picked up Castlevania Judgement I was surprised how little lag there was in that game and CV:J is a lower budget game.