Topic: Nintendo's Tipping Point?

[NWR_Lindy]

Jon wonders if Operation Rainfall could mark a turn in Nintendo's fortunes.

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/editorial/27090

Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point is a book that I've had sitting around for a while, and recently I've decided to finish it off (yes, even my Kindle has a backlog). It attempts to answer the question of what contributes to certain products or behaviors going "viral", and breaks down the elements that Gladwell believes are involved in that process.  It contains a fascinating account of the rise and fall of Airwalk, the skateboarding shoe company that exploded in popularity in the mid-90's, that is especially relevant given recent events involving Nintendo and its relationship with its legions of fans.

Airwalk was born of the skateboarding culture of Southern California, developing a strong street following with its original shoe designs and strong connection with skate culture. Thanks to savvy advertising and a concerted grass-roots effort to get "cool" people (rock bands, high-profile skateboarders, etc.) to wear their gear, the mainstream eventually took notice and "Airwalks" soon populated every mall in the country to meet a suddenly explosive demand.

However, Airwalk made a fatal mistake just as it was hitting its peak.  It had originally segmented its business such that boutique skate shops received high-end, exclusive shoes, while mall stores received more generic designs. The company decided that it made more sense to provide one line of shoes across the board, moving away from the extra effort required to cater to hardcore skateboarders.  This made the Airwalk brand extremely uncool to the trendsetting kids that frequented the underground shops, because they soon realized that the shoes they were buying were no different than what MTV Brad could buy at the mall.  Airwalk unwittingly abandoned the very people that made them cool by shifting their philosophy to cater to the mainstream.  Former company president Lee Smith put it best: "Cool brands treat people well, and we didn't….we had this little jewel of a brand, and little by little we sold that off into the mainstream".

I found Gladwell's account of these events to be eerily reminiscent of Nintendo of America's apparent refusal to localize anticipated Wii games Xenoblade, The Last Story, and Pandora's Tower for the North American market. This decision – alluded to at June's Electronic Entertainment Expo and recently confirmed by a terse response on Nintendo's Facebook page - has led to a very public outcry from Nintendo fans in North America. Operation Rainfall, a grass-roots letter-writing campaign intended to spur NTSC localization of these titles, has picked up steam on Facebook and become a rallying point for disgruntled Nintendo fans who simply want more "hardcore" games to play in the twilight of their favorite console's life cycle.

It's not difficult to see the parallels between the trials of Airwalk and Nintendo's current situation. Swap skate shoes with video games and skateboarders with gamers and the two tales become strikingly similar.  Make no mistake: Nintendo has built its brand on its cachet with hardcore gaming enthusiasts.  For the most part, these are not the people that have bought Mario and Zelda games, although there is some overlap; these are primarily the people playing Pikmin, F-Zero, StarFox, Kirby, and Smash Bros.  With their 2006 introduction of the Wii console and its subsequent mainstream explosion (thanks to general-audience titles like Wii Sports, Wii Fit, and Mario Kart Wii), Nintendo caught serious flak for supposedly abandoning the hardcore and catering exclusively to "lapsed" gamers.  However, those following Nintendo more closely knew that this wasn't the case, as there was still a steady stream of core titles like Metroid Prime 3, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Super Paper Mario, and Sin and Punishment 2.

For reasons unknown – but probably having a lot to do with a shift of development resources towards the 2012 rollout of their next console, Wii U – this steady stream of core content soon turned into a trickle, and then dried up entirely.  As of this writing there isn't a whole lot for core Wii gamers to look forward to in 2011 outside of the next Zelda game and Rhythm Heaven, a quirky title that in itself resides in a grey area between hardcore and general audience.  This fact alone makes purely "core" titles like Xenoblade, The Last Story, and Pandora's Tower even more anticipated by North American Wii owners, and the sting of their absence in the region even more pronounced. What's worse (and more baffling) is that all three games are being released with an English translation in PAL territories, including Europe and Australia. There is even a special edition of Xenoblade being released that includes a red Classic Controller, exactly the kind of exclusive package that core gamers covet.

Meanwhile, Nintendo is trumpeting how its next console is aimed squarely at reclaiming the core gamers it has lost to Sony and Microsoft. Yet it seems to be snubbing the core gamers it already has on board, shaking the confidence of its faithful that Nintendo is looking out for them in addition to its newfound "casual" audience.  At the same time, it is reinforcing the claims of its detractors – and with Nintendo's success, there are many – that Nintendo really only cares about the most mainstream of mainstream gamers, begrudgingly trotting out core games every once in a while to keep its hardcore fans quiet.  Like Airwalk before it, Nintendo is failing to realize that its fanbase is far from homogeneous. It likes to say it makes games for everyone, but at the same time it must understand that not all gamers want games for everyone.  Those most loyal to a brand want to feel special, they want to be catered to, and they want to feel like their favorite company is making something "just for them".  If this doesn't happen, a brand's greatest supporters can become its greatest critics, and over time may abandon it entirely for what they perceive to be greener pastures.

This is not to say that Nintendo's refusal to bring these games to North America would doom them as a brand. The Nintendo brand remains one of the strongest and most recognizable on the planet, right up there with Coca-Cola and Nike. However, the potential damage of this fiasco cannot be understated. With the company already fighting an uphill battle to win back the hearts and minds of the hardcore who have migrated to other consoles, it needs to foster all the goodwill it can amongst its evangelists. In this context, the prudence of this decision is particularly questionable, and Nintendo's failure to extend an olive branch to its loyalists can't help but make one wonder what the future holds.

Cool brands treat people well. If Nintendo doesn't learn this lesson, they may soon face a tipping point markedly different from the one they experienced with Wii so many years ago.

And that's a game nobody wants to play.

[Enner]

Good editorial.


It's frustrating that this situation persists when Nintendo of America can solve it so easily. If NoA is so risk averse with their money, then maybe they could offer the games in a limited pre-order/order on demand offer through select retailers. They could work with a specialty publisher such as Atlus or XSeed to bring the three games out at a lower cost to Nintendo of America. Heck, maybe they could work with Nintendo of Europe to have the PAL discs include a NTSC and NA region mode and open an import offer through the Nintendo of America online store or through other retailers like Amazon, Best Buy, or Gamestop.


As it has been echoed so many times these past weeks: I want to buy these interesting Nintendo games for my (NA) Nintendo console and I'm sad/angry/disappointed/frustrated that I can't.

[ejamer]

Great editorial. Really makes you wonder where the balance is between profit and goodwill for companies like Nintendo. Has their recent success with casual and expanded audiences given them enough cachet to sell without the support and evangelism of core gamers? Are there enough Nintendo supporters who simply won't care about these titles and will be loyal anyway?


I know where I stand: Nintendo has to earn my interest and dollars going forward, having long since exhausted any trust I have that they'll cater to my interests. Doesn't mean they won't get my money... but the competition is stiff.

[Killer_Man_Jaro]

Interesting piece. The key difference I observe is that, from the sound of it, Airwalk's aspiration to be mainstream seemed to encompass all of their products, to the point where there was nothing that their former niche was satisfied with. Whereas in this scenario with Nintendo, while it must be frustrating for the people who were looking forward to these specific games, the Marios and the Zeldas and the Metroids are still being made, and in fact, in the Wii generation, they've been drawing more from older series such as Punch-Out and Sin & Punishment. Because the franchises favoured by long-time fans continue to be represented, people have a continued interest in what Nintendo does in spite of their mainstream approach, hence why we have enthusiastic communities like this one.

One point you made that stands out to me was:

Nintendo caught serious flak for supposedly abandoning the hardcore and catering exclusively to "lapsed" gamers

I think this is a strange way to phrase this, as my idea of the lapsed gamer is somebody who played the aforementioned franchise games back in the day, and is now rediscovering gaming by playing their modern incarnations. So really, they would like the same kinds of games that the 'hardcore' audience would because of the connection to those games they played when they were younger. For example, hypothetically, someone who's been lapsed from video games since Super Mario 64 gets introduced to Galaxy and loves it in large part due to nostalgic feelings and reminders of Mario 64. If that makes any sense...

Anyway, I understand the concern. The way I see it, as long as Nintendo carries on developing the types of games that I enjoy, they'll get my business. I have problems with some of their attitudes and decisions, but I'm in it for the software, and if it remains fun and up to high quality, it's a price worth paying.

[NWR_Lindy]

"Lapsed", "Casual", however you want to phrase it, my point was that Nintendo was miscast as being primarily concerned with customers that had either stopped playing games altogether or had drifted to the "occasional" side of the scale.

The difference nowadays is that they are not sufficiently catering to the wants and needs of their most hardcore fans, at a time when those wants and needs are most distinct.

[Ceric]

I'm glad you wrote this up.  Good example.  No example is perfect. 
 
I'm hoping NCL and especially the people in charge of Customer Relations and Branding at NoA are pay to this fine editorial and other opinions.  What is the point of having a separate branch but to cater to the local audience?

[KDR_11k]

Reminds me, when was the last time they did anything serious for their "casual" audience?

[Ceric]

Reminds me, when was the last time they did anything serious for their "casual" audience?

The don't discriminate.  Yeah they haven't really been doing anything to any of their customers on Wii.

[broodwars]

Reminds me, when was the last time they did anything serious for their "casual" audience?

Wii Play Motion.

[Ian Sane]

It likes to say it makes games for everyone, but at the same time it must understand that not all gamers want games for everyone.

This sums up what Nintendo has done wrong since the N64.  These days they're the casual company.  Remember when they were the kiddy company?  Same thing.  The Playstation was the first console to really have a wide variety of games targetted squarely at adults and teenagers, where as before videogames were largely targetted at children.  Nintendo made games for "everyone" but that meant that the content had to be family friendly.  But the audience that ate up Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy VII were not interested in games that everyone COULD like.  They wanted games specifically for THEM.  Same thing with the Wii.  I don't care if I COULD enjoy Wii Sports - to accomodate everyone is has have very broad gameplay.  I'm not interested in that.  I want something more specific to my tastes.  To truly target "everyone" Nintendo has to have different games targetting different audiences, not a bunch of broad mainstream games that are supposed to be loved by everyone.
 
For Nintendo the problems all started with the N64.  Losing the third party support removed much of the variety the NES and SNES had.  But another thing to note is that was the first console without Gunpei Yokoi.  It wasn't always the Miyamoto show.  The two of them both contributed to Nintendo's success and they both had different styles.  The Metroid series for example is not at all the sort of game Miyamoto would make.  Nintendo themselves had variety but after essentially firing Yokoi they became more homogenus since almost everything is filtered through Miyamoto.  Miyamoto is a legend but so is Paul McCartney and would you want McCartney being directly involved with all of your favourite bands?  Probably not.  Variety requires independent creators.
 
I don't think for a second Nintendo ever figured they would turn off core gamers so much with the Wii.  It's because they don't get this variety thing.  They saw how accessible Wii Sports was and figured EVERYONE would love it.  And they don't get this Xenoblade stuff.  They don't get that some people have been waiting specifically for a game like Xenoblade to come to the Wii.  They don't get that those same people might not be content with Wii Sports and Wii Fit.  Some might not even want Zelda.  That's probably something Nintendo can't imagine because for so long with Nintendo consoles it has been feast or famine.  But on consoles with actual variety, people will skip the big title in favour of some niche title they really want.  On Nintendo systems you buy the big title because there is jack **** else.  On other consoles you just buy whatever you want because there is always something available and it might be a huge mainstream hit or some obscure Atlus RPG.  It's like Nintendo got so used to their userbase mulling around until the big first party game and then devouring it that they think that THAT is the model to go with.  Like that's the way you please your fans.
 
I would like Nintendo to get their **** together so I want the Wii U to be successful with core gamers.  But I wouldn't be surprised at all if it wasn't and this Xenoblade stuff is later pointed to as an important turning point.  If they really wanted to get the core gamers back and knew HOW to do that, they would never for a second consider not localizing these games.  This very action demonstrates a completely lack of understanding the core market.  Next year they're going to beg us to buy their new system but THIS year they're telling us to screw off.  It is so counter-intuitive that I can't for a second believe that they know what they're doing.  In the clutch when they need to prove their detractors wrong, Nintendo has an astonishing track record of proving them right.

[farnham]

I dont get things like this. Its plain and simple. The game code belongs to nintendo. Its their property. They can do whatever they want with it. If they feel that they want to release it and sell it they might do so and if they feel that they want to keep it unreleased thats their freedom to do so. Nobody except Nintendo has the right to decide what happens with their code. If Nintendo just gives up on whatever market those games might have had, then they have no obligation to sell those games. They are entitled to just keep the games by themselves. I believe there is a certain degree of financial freedom that companies like nintendo should have. And the decision what they want to sell or not is one of them.

Remember. Its their money that they will loose if the games dont sell not yours. They probably did a risk calculation and they dont want to take that risk. After those games bomb we as consumers dont need to care. But Nintendo will have lost that money just because of some internet campaign.

So yeah, if you have the slightest respect to their property then just let them make their decisions themselves.

[farnham]

It likes to say it makes games for everyone, but at the same time it must understand that not all gamers want games for everyone.

This sums up what Nintendo has done wrong since the N64.  These days they're the casual company.  Remember when they were the kiddy company?  Same thing.  The Playstation was the first console to really have a wide variety of games targetted squarely at adults and teenagers, where as before videogames were largely targetted at children.  Nintendo made games for "everyone" but that meant that the content had to be family friendly.  But the audience that ate up Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy VII were not interested in games that everyone COULD like.  They wanted games specifically for THEM.  Same thing with the Wii.  I don't care if I COULD enjoy Wii Sports - to accomodate everyone is has have very broad gameplay.  I'm not interested in that.  I want something more specific to my tastes.  To truly target "everyone" Nintendo has to have different games targetting different audiences, not a bunch of broad mainstream games that are supposed to be loved by everyone.
 
For Nintendo the problems all started with the N64.  Losing the third party support removed much of the variety the NES and SNES had.  But another thing to note is that was the first console without Gunpei Yokoi.  It wasn't always the Miyamoto show.  The two of them both contributed to Nintendo's success and they both had different styles.  The Metroid series for example is not at all the sort of game Miyamoto would make.  Nintendo themselves had variety but after essentially firing Yokoi they became more homogenus since almost everything is filtered through Miyamoto.  Miyamoto is a legend but so is Paul McCartney and would you want McCartney being directly involved with all of your favourite bands?  Probably not.  Variety requires independent creators.
 
I don't think for a second Nintendo ever figured they would turn off core gamers so much with the Wii.  It's because they don't get this variety thing.  They saw how accessible Wii Sports was and figured EVERYONE would love it.  And they don't get this Xenoblade stuff.  They don't get that some people have been waiting specifically for a game like Xenoblade to come to the Wii.  They don't get that those same people might not be content with Wii Sports and Wii Fit.  Some might not even want Zelda.  That's probably something Nintendo can't imagine because for so long with Nintendo consoles it has been feast or famine.  But on consoles with actual variety, people will skip the big title in favour of some niche title they really want.  On Nintendo systems you buy the big title because there is jack **** else.  On other consoles you just buy whatever you want because there is always something available and it might be a huge mainstream hit or some obscure Atlus RPG.  It's like Nintendo got so used to their userbase mulling around until the big first party game and then devouring it that they think that THAT is the model to go with.  Like that's the way you please your fans.
 
I would like Nintendo to get their **** together so I want the Wii U to be successful with core gamers.  But I wouldn't be surprised at all if it wasn't and this Xenoblade stuff is later pointed to as an important turning point.  If they really wanted to get the core gamers back and knew HOW to do that, they would never for a second consider not localizing these games.  This very action demonstrates a completely lack of understanding the core market.  Next year they're going to beg us to buy their new system but THIS year they're telling us to screw off.  It is so counter-intuitive that I can't for a second believe that they know what they're doing.  In the clutch when they need to prove their detractors wrong, Nintendo has an astonishing track record of proving them right.

dont buy nintendo consoles.

plain and simple.

[StrawHousePig]

The Airwalk example is totally backward. They sold everything everywhere and it brought them down, Nintendo is not selling everything everywhere and it could bring them down? Does not compute.

Has Nintendo really built their empire by treating a tiny segment of the audience to what they want? I don't see it that way. Sometimes they have complied (Kid Icarus for example) but on the whole I doubt trying to satisfy the myriad small groups of gamers makes much business sense to them. If the cool kids are *that* into JRPGs, importing is *always* an option.

For the sake of candor: I would consider The Last Story if they localized it, but I doubt I'd actually get it in the end. I don't have (or make) that kind of game time any more. So the news of probable failure of "Operation Rainfall" doesn't faze me in the least, nor would have its success.

What is the point of having a separate branch but to cater to the local audience?

To market to the local audience.

[Ian Sane]

The game code belongs to nintendo. Its their property. They can do whatever they want with it. If they feel that they want to release it and sell it they might do so and if they feel that they want to keep it unreleased thats their freedom to do so.

Well, yeah, of course they can do what they want with their own games.  But they also have to risk pissing off the audience they're trying to win back with the Wii U and the potential lost customers that could result from that.
 
And we're also allowed to express our opinion if we would like to buy a product that the parent company is not selling in our region, but is selling in others.

[NWR_Lindy]

@farnham Certainly Nintendo owns the game code and can do whatever they want with it. But who do they (or their contractors) write that game code for? They aren't writing it for themselves. Their job is to provide fans of their systems with the consistent entertainment they want; they put themselves in that position. Nobody forced them to do it. To say that they don't owe their paying customers anything is completely backwards, especially when thousands of those customers are literally asking for content that Nintendo is willfully withholding from them.

@StrawHousePig It's not backwards. The point is that no company benefits from ignoring the wants and needs of the customers that were there at the start, and that made their product into a hot commodity.  If you don't think Nintendo built their empire on catering to a select few, I'll direct you back to the year 1985 when a select number of video game fans decided to take a flyer on something called the Nintendo Entertainment System, at a time when the industry was all but dead in the United States.

[farnham]

The game code belongs to nintendo. Its their property. They can do whatever they want with it. If they feel that they want to release it and sell it they might do so and if they feel that they want to keep it unreleased thats their freedom to do so.

Well, yeah, of course they can do what they want with their own games.  But they also have to risk pissing off the audience they're trying to win back with the Wii U and the potential lost customers that could result from that.

i believe they clearly calculated the numbers of people that will get pissed by this decision and decided that they will rather risk pissing people of them releasing the game. I also believe that they thought that the probability that the WiiU will flop due to the absence of Xenoblade, Last Story and Pandoras Tower on Wii is low.

 

And we're also allowed to express our opinion if we would like to buy a product that the parent company is not selling in our region, but is selling in others.

im not saying you are not allowed to say your opinion. im saying that you are not having any having any financial responsibility. you are not the one who has to fire employees if the business goes wrong.

[farnham]

@farnham Certainly Nintendo owns the game code and can do whatever they want with it. But who do they (or their contractors) write that game code for? They aren't writing it for themselves.

of course they are. do you think nintendo is a altruistic organization ? they are a business. they invest in software in order to make a product that makes money for them.

Their job is to provide fans of their systems with the consistent entertainment they want; they put themselves in that position. Nobody forced them to do it. To say that they don't owe their paying customers anything is completely backwards, especially when thousands of those customers are literally asking for content that Nintendo is willfully withholding from them.

no their job is to make money off of the hardware and software they manufacture. and fans are no stockholders. they are consumers that pay a fixed price for a certain product and have no financial responsibility. its not like they loose huge chunks of money due to nintendos release policy. if the games nintendo provides does not confirm with the tastes of each consumers they are entitled to sell their console or not buy the next one.

as i said none of the consumers that are asking for certain games will bear the financial responsibility of that particular decision. so they have nothing to say. simple as that.

[Ian Sane]

"Core gamer" as a term used by anyone that would describe themselves as such, doesn't refer to a small group.  What it means is the ENTIRE videogame market prior to the Wii and DS, which both introduced a huge new audience to videogames.  Nintendo did make their living targetting this group because prior to 2005 NO ONE in the entire videogame industry made any serious effort in attracting anyone outside this group.

"Core gamer" means anyone who plays and buys videogames on a regular basis.  It's the audience that made it so stores like Gamestop would ever exist in the first place.  "Casual" is used to describe someone who plays the odd game once in a while and might jump on to the current hot videogame fad for a few years and then jump off.  What Nintendo is accussed of when talking about casuals vs. core is the suggestion that they are neglecting what had been the ENTIRE videogame market from 1985-2005.
 

im not saying you are not allowed to say your opinion. im saying that you are not having any having any financial responsibility. you are not the one who has to fire employees if the business goes wrong.

So if I don't work for Nintendo in some way I can't say squat about how they run their business?  I actually think this IS bad for business.  I feel they're prioritizing short term profit over long term customer goodwill.  Leaving the Wii to rot with like two games in the pipeline when there is product RIGHT THERE to fill the release schedule will risk turning disgruntled customers to the competition which could cost them Wii U sales.

[farnham]

So if I don't work for Nintendo in some way I can't say squat about how they run their business?  I actually think this IS bad for business.  I feel they're prioritizing short term profit over long term customer goodwill.  Leaving the Wii to rot with like two games in the pipeline when there is product RIGHT THERE to fill the release schedule will risk turning disgruntled customers to the competition which could cost them Wii U sales.

no if you dont own shares of nintendo, and therefore are partly an owner of nintendo, you have nothing to say. if you are an employee you have to say whatever the corporate wants from you. if you are a subcontractor you have to do whatever the contract says. 

and if they are prioritizing short term profit over long term customer good will thats their decision to do so. they are carrying the financial responsibility for that decision not you. if they loose wiiu sales its their financial damage not yours.

they have the property and they are taking the risks. you dont have any rights on their IPs and you dont take any risks or bear any financial responsibility.

i dont see any ethical issues in nintendos behavior. and if its a purely financial critique, as i said they are taking the damage if they are wrong not you.

[broodwars]

If you are a Nintendo consumer, you have every right to complain when the company doesn't make something you and gamers like you want to buy, and in fact withholds it because it doesn't fit the company's agenda.  We are the people who make it possible for companies like Nintendo to exist.  They answer to us by providing products we want to buy, or they find themselves filing Bankruptcy.  That's the symbiotic nature of business: we provide companies with our cash, and they provide us with things we want to own.  When companies don't provide us with things we want to own, we complain and stop buying their products.

Nintendo has 3 products here that people in North America want to buy, and these products will be already localized in a form that audience can use.  To say Nintendo has big gaping holes in their release schedule is an understatement.  They are choosing to not serve a market they want to court with the Wii U, so yeah it's perfectly valid to berate them for that.  The fact that companies like Atlus; XSEED; and NISA exist selling games like these is proof enough that the "well these games could never sell in North America!" argument is nonsense.  It just requires more effort and more targeted manufacturing and advertising attention than Nintendo of America feels like bothering with.

[AV]

take it to the next level PROTEST in front of NOA HQ and Nintendo World store .Have dozens of people with signs chanting in front of the entrances.


Protest in front of wall street so people sell the stock.


Find Reggies HOME ADDRESS and send letters to him personally .


Take this to the next level !!!!!!!!

[farnham]

If you are a Nintendo consumer, you have every right to complain when the company doesn't make something you and gamers like you want to buy, and in fact withholds it because it doesn't fit the company's agenda.  We are the people who make it possible for companies like Nintendo to exist.  They answer to us by providing products we want to buy, or they find themselves filing Bankruptcy.  That's the symbiotic nature of business: we provide companies with our cash, and they provide us with things we want to own.  When companies don't provide us with things we want to own, we complain and stop buying their products.

i dont see any contractual or legal right of any nintendo consumer to demand specific games from nintendo.

you have the right to complain in terms of you have the freedom to express yourself, sure. but at the same time nintendo has no obligation to listen to those words. if they just abandon all their gaming business and go back to hanafuda cards and love hotels and if they dont sell the gaming ips they own just for the hell of it. i mean you cant complain to mcdonalds that they are not making cars. nintendo can make and sell whatever they want as long as its not illegal and you can buy it or dont buy it.

also its not you who made it possible for nintendo to exist. its themselves. they put in the capital. they recruited the employees. they bought the tools to ensure the employees develop the games and they marketed the games that they get enough money back to warrant other games. if they see a problem in that system and want to fix it, its their right to do so. because unlike the consumer who pays 50 dollar for a game nintendo invested millions in that business to get the copyrights, the employees and the marketing machine to do business.

stop buying their products.

agreed. stop buying nintendo games if you dont like em. its simple.

[broodwars]

I have no earthly idea why you are arguing about legal rights to these games.  No one is arguing that Nintendo doesn't have a right to withhold these games from us.  Nintendo's just making an extremely bad and short-sighted business decision, and one that will cost them in the long run with the Wii U as the very audience they have said they want to court ignores their products.

And companies can't exist if an insufficient number of customers buy their products.  I don't care how much capital they've invested in the company.  They lose enough money putting out products no one wants to buy, they will eventually go bankrupt and cease to exist.

[farnham]

I have no earthly idea why you are arguing about legal rights to these games.  No one is arguing that Nintendo doesn't have a right to withhold these games from us.  Nintendo's just making an extremely bad and short-sighted business decision, and one that will cost them in the long run with the Wii U as the very audience they have said they want to court ignores their products.

im saying that if they have the legal rights to these games nobody can stop them from whatever they are doing. in the end they will pay for the consequences. if its a short sided business decision they will suffer losses not you.

and i also said that i dont see any ethical hindrance in this decision.

so basically its legal and ethically neutral what they do. i dont see any grounds to criticize them.

And companies can't exist if an insufficient number of customers buy their products.  I don't care how much capital they've invested in the company.  They lose enough money putting out products no one wants to buy, they will eventually go bankrupt and cease to exist.

i hardly doubt that they will go bankrupt because they did not release xenoblade. also nintendo has done very fine financially the last couple years. they hardly lost any money.

[NWR_Lindy]

There's absolutely grounds for criticism here, that is, if Nintendo is indeed in the business of providing what their fans want as they certainly claim to be. You're absolutely right...no company is obliged to do anything, ever.  For example, Sony wasn't obliged to do anything to "make it up" to their customers for allowing their user information to get leaked on a massive scale.  But they did.

You know why?

Because ultimately, the strength of your brand cannot be measured in dollars and cents.  It can only be measured in the degree of goodwill afforded you by your customers.  Even the perception of being a strictly dollars-and-cents operation ultimately weakens Nintendo in the eyes of their biggest fans, which is exactly the opposite of what a business wants.  It's a double-edged sword...the more popular your business becomes, the more people you need to please, and the more people you risk pissing off.  It's the price of success.

Nintendo should know better.