Topic: Must-read IGN editorial on Nintendo and upcoming E3 show

[couchmonkey]

Ian's got me convinced.  A blow-out for Nintendo this year is a good idea.  I just think they should save enough surprises to keep us interested later on - especially if the system won't be out until after E3 2006.  Supply one or two major game demos and parcel out more information when the launch approaches.

Edit: Gamebasher: I don't have actual numbers, but I've paid attention over the years, and I'm sure others here would back me up when I say that Nintendo has been losing customers with each of it's home consoles.  I can say that I read the NES had sold some 70 million units worldwide at some point back in the 90s (the first time I remember reading any sort of sales figure for videogames) and I believe GameCube has yet to pass the 20 million mark.

[Ages]

I dont have exact figures either, but from what I can recollect:
NES: roughly 70 million consoles
SNES: roughly 50-60 million
N64: 30 million
GC: last I heard it was around 11-12 million

Can anyone confirm any of these statistics?  The fact is clear though, Nintendo's marketshare continues to shrink.

[Famicom]

Quote
Originally posted by: Spak-Spang
Here are some facts that we know and some speculations.

1)Nintendo is very secretive and they don't like to release any information about games or hardware until they feel it is in a presentable form and able to get good press.

2)Nintendo also distrusts releasing information early for fear of people copying ideas.

3)Ian Sane is correct, all launch games, and hardware for all three systems are being worked on and finalized now.  None of the systems can be drastically changed at this point, and remain capable of hitting their launch date.

So my question is what is Nintendo afraid of?

Well if you want to read that deep into it, you could interpret it as the "revolutionary" part of the Rev can be easily stolen, and Ninty knows this and will hide it for as long as they can.

I personally don't buy that, but I'm just throwing a 'what if' out here....

[Ian Sane]

I don't think you need hard data to prove that Nintendo's market share is shrinking.  It's just common sense.

NES: Total dominance.  Practically everyone who played games had it.  "Nintendo" was synonymous with "videogames".
SNES: Constant war with Genesis.  Just the fact that there were two popular consoles means the SNES obviously had a smaller market share than the NES.
N64: Playstation is the undisputed market leader.  Just the fact that someone else was unanimously considered the top dog proves that Nintendo fell to second which is a drop from the SNES where there was debate over who "won".
Gamecube: Obviously the least popular console in the US as PS2 vs Xbox is often all people talk about.  The N64 was the clear alternative to the Playstation but the Cube is often the odd man out when it comes to media coverage and third party support.

"Now, another option is to not have it playable at the show, but behind curtains allow all the editors of the Magizines and the internet sites to play it. Make them feel special, and allow them to hype the system. This may be a much better and cheaper approach that will bring similar results."

I like this idea.  I was never even thinking of having it playable really.  I just wanted stuff to be shown so that everyone knows what the console looks like and what the controller looks like and what games are in development.  Allowing exclusive play testing is even better.  Realistically I doubt they have anything yet that's ready for the floor but behind the scenes stuff should be doable.

[Spak-Spang]

Famicon:  You know you might be right.  Nintendo did have the rumble pack feature stolen.  But if the Revolutionary feature to the new Nintendo is something easily cloned and adapted to the other systems then it isn't revolutionary.  

Ian Sane:  I don't think the review of past consoles markets to the current market is fair.  When Nintendo entered and dominated the 8-bit market the industry was hurting and was seemingly going to die.  Technology just wasn't there.  Nintendo released a system that created mass appeal and generated amazing popularity.

Next generation technology finally got better and companies got comfortable with the industry.  Competition soon arouse.  Sega came onto the scene and became the hip new system.  (Yeah I know Sega was around during the 8-bit era, but they were too little too late.)  Sega learned that image is important and positioned itself as the cool system.  It almost worked, but still Nintendo dominated with better products and technology that was superior to the "Blast-Processing" Genesis.

The next generation, Nintendo wasn't willing to gamble with CD technology.  It seemed like an inferior product, except for storage capacity.  (and Nintendo was right it was inferior)  Unfortunately, the media and the public disagreed with Nintendo.  When Sony entered the market, they aggressively courted 3rd party developers with sweet development deals and larger profit margins with the use of CDs.  Once again more competition entered the playing field making it hard for one console to dominate.

This current generation holds the same pattern.  3 systems are equally competing for the audience.  They are all three holding their own and doing great.  But none of them have the hold that Nintendo had during the 8 bit generation.

[Ian Sane]

Spak-Spang what you're saying makes sense but that doesn't mean that Nintendo's market share isn't shrinking or that they're not going to be in serious trouble if things continue as is.  It doesn't matter what the reason is, Nintendo's market share is shrinking with each gen.  And three systems are not equally competing this gen.  One console is dominating, one console is trying to build a market and one console is being squeezed out of a traditionally two console market.  There's nothing equal about it.

If the pattern is that competition keeps entering the market then Nintendo has to do something about that.  Losing market share every gen just because of an inability to handle newcombers is not acceptable.  If they lose out to the new product every time eventually they're just going to be killed off for good.

[Talon]

As quoted from nintendo australia
the N64 sold 32 million units worldwide
the SNES sold 49 million units worldwide
the NES sold 60 million units worldwide

That being said it is clear that nintendo really needs to aggressively persue sony and microsoft in order to gain more of the market in the next race.  However since Nintendo is still making a profit with the gamecube there is no real incentive for them to be more aggressive.  Even though they have a smaller user-base gamecube could still be deemed as a success and financially it is.

Whether or not revolution does gain some more ground on the ps3 xbox2 is totally irrelevant if Nintendo is still making a profit off it. Also if microsoft maintains a loss on the xbox and the xbox 2 dont you think even though this system is considered 'cool' and 'mature' that eventually microsoft will have to pull the pin and bow out of the console market because of the amount of money its loosing and is not financially viable for microsoft to continue persuing the video game console sector? (This is a hypthetical and doesnt necessarily mean the next generation of consoles it could be a few generations down the track).

[Caillan]

Quote
Whether or not revolution does gain some more ground on the ps3 xbox2 is totally irrelevant if Nintendo is still making a profit off it.

No its not. More market share will attract more third party supporty. Even though Nintendo itself provides a wide vaiety of games, third party support is important. To me, games like Katamari Damacy and Ico are among the most important of this generation.

[PaLaDiN]

Then buy a PS2?

Why is this an either or situation?

[Caillan]

It's not, and I am planning to buy half a PS2. I just mean to state that third party support is important in both attracting gamers initially and keeping the fans happy.

[Artimus]

I love how everyone must have enough money to own two game systems. As yes, this is indeed a world full of rich people. I am so happy we are all rich.

Paladin, people are saying they love Nintendo and WANT TO STAY WITH NINTENDO. But if it comes down to gimmicky mcgimmick or a good gaming system then I'll honestly get a PS3 over the Revolution. I'm not going to buy it JUST because it has Mario.

[Ian Sane]

"However since Nintendo is still making a profit with the gamecube there is no real incentive for them to be more aggressive. Even though they have a smaller user-base gamecube could still be deemed as a success and financially it is."

The problem with that logic is that although Nintendo may be happy with that scenario not all the fans are.  I'm pretty sick of Nintendo losing third party support, denying me options, and making it damn near impossible to rent games for their consoles.  I really like Nintendo and the games they make but I can only put up with a half-assed effort from them for so long.  I think a lot of other fans share that opinion.  Having to buy a second console is NOT acceptable.  I don't care if Nintendo is profitable I care if the games and the genres I want to play are on the console I own.  At some point I'm just going to say "f*ck it" and not buy their consoles anymore until years later when I can buy them used to pick up the Zelda titles I missed.

[PaLaDiN]

"Paladin, people are saying they love Nintendo and WANT TO STAY WITH NINTENDO. But if it comes down to gimmicky mcgimmick or a good gaming system then I'll honestly get a PS3 over the Revolution. I'm not going to buy it JUST because it has Mario."

How nice. Go ahead... why confer with me beforehand? What's the big deal? You don't have a duty to buy the next Nintendo system.

If you can't afford both PS3 and Revolution, and you want PS3 games more than Nintendo games, then buy a PS3, what's stopping you? You're going to have to make a choice. I hear that's an important part of life these days, making choices.

There are enough people who will buy it JUST because it has Mario, Zelda and Metroid. I'm one of them.

"At some point I'm just going to say "f*ck it" and not buy their consoles anymore until years later when I can buy them used to pick up the Zelda titles I missed. "

Good idea, nothing wrong with that.

[Ian Sane]

"If you can't afford both PS3 and Revolution, and you want PS3 games more than Nintendo games, then buy a PS3, what's stopping you?"  "Good idea, nothing wrong with that."

Well from Nintendo's perspective there is something wrong with that.  "Don't like it go buy something else" is not a good attitude for Nintendo to have.  We're not just random gamers we're Nintendo FANS.  It would be foolish for Nintendo's future to put us in a scenario where we might have to buy a different console.

Paladin your whole attitude towards Nintendo seems to be "as long as Nintendo meets my very specific needs I don't give a f*ck about what anyone else wants."  That's a pretty selfish attitude to have and Nintendo will DIE if they focus on people like you.

[couchmonkey]

The point for me is that Nintendo could shrink into oblivion.  Nintendo can profit all it wants, but as the customer base goes down, either Nintendo will have to charge outrageous prices for its products or it will have to start cutting back on staff and technology.

How many customers can Nintendo lose before that happens?  How long can it scale back before we notice that the games are getting worse, or that they aren't coming out as often?  How long will it be before you can only buy Nintendo products in the back corner of speciality gaming stores?  I've heard on these boards that some Wal-Marts in the U.S. have already stopped carrying the GameCube, and a few smaller retailers have done the same thing in my city.

Now that Nintendo no longer has the handheld market all to itself, the company will have to compete or die.

Nintendo isn't doomed today or tomorrow or even three years from now; I think it will still be in the videogame business for at least a decade to come.  But Nintendo won't survive forever if it keeps losing customers and that makes me sad!

[PaLaDiN]

I hardly think that making enjoyable games satisfies very specific needs, Nintendo has been doing that since Mario Bros.

I thought I was right in thinking that Nintendo fans were Nintendo fans because they enjoyed Nintendo games. Do you enjoy the games they make or the games their hardware allows you to play?

If the former, buy a Revolution. If the latter, buy something else. If both, buy both or choose between them. I don't see what's so controversial about my logic. All I'm doing is dispensing extremely obvious advice.

Nintendo's market share isn't going to decrease indefinitely. You're neglecting all the people who will buy their consoles just for their games... such people do exist. All the Zelda nuts, Mario freaks, Pokemon addicts and Metroid lovers make up a minimum userbase that isn't negligible.

[Ian Sane]

"I thought I was right in thinking that Nintendo fans were Nintendo fans because they enjoyed Nintendo games. Do you enjoy the games they make or the games their hardware allows you to play?"

I enjoy both.  Some people were Nintendo fans before the N64 you know.  There was a time where Nintendo fans had both and enjoyed both.

Plus I expect different things from Nintendo the game maker and Nintendo the console maker.  A game maker's job is to make great games which Nintendo is pretty damn good at.  But the console maker's job is to serve their userbase and that means providing options and attracting third party support.  Nintendo as is fails as a console maker.

"You're neglecting all the people who will buy their consoles just for their games... such people do exist. All the Zelda nuts, Mario freaks, Pokemon addicts and Metroid lovers make up a minimum userbase that isn't negligible."

The amount of people who are like that is smaller than the total Cube userbase.  Nintendo's games cost money to make and therefore have to sell a certain amount of copies to make a profit.  Nintendo's Cube games don't sell nearly as well as their N64 games did.  If they have less people to sell to then they have to make some cut backs.  They have to cut lower selling titles and scale back the games they do make to fit a smaller budget.  That will hurt the quality of their games which in turn will turn away some fans.  If Nintendo adapts a model that only appeals to those who would buy a whole console just for their games then they will die out because such a userbase would gradually shrink with few new people coming in to take their place.

Plus if Nintendo games were all that was on the console then why make a console in the first place?  If Nintendo is only competent as a game maker then they're ripping us all off by making us buy a whole console just for like 20 games.  If they're going to focus entirely on the total diehards then they might as well go third party instead of screwing everyone over with virtually useless hardware.

[Bill Aurion]

There was a time where Nintendo fans had both and enjoyed both.

Ummm...I'm still here...*raises hand*

[theRPGFreak]

Plain and simple: If Nintendo wants to be number one they will have to show the console with a solid line-up at E3. I am backing Ian up all the way on this topic because i too was disapointed with th elaunch of the DS. Nintendo keeps saying that they want only to be number one, so if they go into E3 with a bunch of wishy-washy promises, people are going to look elsewhere.

[PaLaDiN]

The way I see it, Nintendo is a console maker merely as a means to the end of being a great game maker... which is how they design their controllers and such, so they're perfect for their games, if I'm not mistaken. They want to use their own tools to make their own games.

I guess you have a point though... if Nintendo games didn't satisfy me and I couldn't afford another console I'd probably be pissed. You have my condolences.

[Artimus]

The problem is that Nintendo is catering to what has slowly become a dying market. The kids grow up, plain and simple. Only a fraction of people will buy Nintendo and only Nintendo for their games. When you're looking at less than 10 million consoles sold then you're in trouble.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Quote
Plain and simple: If Nintendo wants to be number one they will have to show the console with a solid line-up at E3. I am backing Ian up all the way on this topic because i too was disapointed with th elaunch of the DS. Nintendo keeps saying that they want only to be number one, so if they go into E3 with a bunch of wishy-washy promises, people are going to look elsewhere.

And the best way to avoid wishy-washy promises would be towait until you are ready and not worry about making a big splash at E3.

Remember E3 is not the be all and end all, heck if they wanted to they could ressurect Spaceworld and show it off there instead.

[nemo_83]

i believe they should show some pics or vids before E3 of the new Zelda and some Revolution demos to increase hype before they are offered playable at the show

[theRPGFreak]

And the best way to avoid wishy-washy promises would be towait until you are ready and not worry about making a big splash at E3.

Remember E3 is not the be all and end all, heck if they wanted to they could ressurect Spaceworld and show it off there instead.




It would already be too late by then! Companies, and the public are going to give them their chance at E3. If they disapoint then, then they are already screwed. Lets pretend that E3 was today. Sony shows off the PS3 to the public and shows the game quality is similar to what weve seen in the movie Shrek 2. Fnas drop their jaws at games possibly as Final Fantasy Xlll, GTA,GT5, and more. Then XBox shows their console and gives the public promises that it can play both PC and XBox games, fully upgradable, and people wet their pants at Halo 3 and DOA4, and may I say it, A Square-Enix game. Then we go to Nintendo, they show us a list of games, some tech-specs, and tell us to "wait and see." Gamers by then would have already made up their mind. Im not saying everyone would, but enough to start trasing Nintendo all over again, and get their hopes up for the other consoles. This would also happen with developers:theyd go to Sony and my post is a train wreck.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Quote
Then we go to Nintendo, they show us a list of games, some tech-specs, and tell us to "wait and see." Gamers by then would have already made up their mind. Im not saying everyone would, but enough to start trasing Nintendo all over again, and get their hopes up for the other consoles. This would also happen with developers:theyd go to Sony and my post is a train wreck.

It would be worse if Nintendo had a bad showing at E3 rather than a subdued showing, rushing to meet E3 would be worse than pointless.  Also the only concern that would be raised by Nintendo remaining quiet would be whether they would release on time, an issue that could be quashed at a later showing of the Revolution in all its glory, also rushing to show off the Revolution at E3 would mean they would have a samller cache of third party devs to present their games, which would spur more talk of nintendo having no third party support, which is a bigger issue with gamers, but at a later showing more Devs would have Rev dev kits and also have demos of games they want to release, maybe even at launch.