Topic: Official Sales Thread

[NWR_insanolord]

Why does everyone have this ludicrous idea in their head that firing Iwata would be a good thing for us? I mean, it could be, if they replaced him with someone who understood Western markets and wanted the company to focus on them, but that's the exact opposite of who they'd pick. The Iwata successor we'd realistically get would take all the things we don't like about the company and amplify them. Whoever it would be would be far more likely to cave in to demands to develop for smartphones than to go after the Western console market.

[Mannypon]

It's kind of funny how the sales of the Vita never stopped japanese developers from supporting it. Here's the number of planned releases (not counting download-only stuff) for each platform in japan.

Vita 128
PS3 108
PSP 74
3DS 63
PS4 40
360 31
WiiU 16

It's kind of funny how the sales of the Vita never stopped japanese developers from supporting it. Here's the number of planned releases (not counting download-only stuff) for each platform in japan.

Vita 128
PS3 108
PSP 74
3DS 63
PS4 40
360 31
WiiU 16

Damn that list pisses me off.  I decided to look at the installed base of both the WiiU and Vita.  According to VGchards, the Vita has an installed base of 6.62 million whereas the WiiU is at 4.32 million.  The Vita is ahead at the moment but still not enough so to warrant so much support.  Given Vita games are lower scaled PS3 projects it seems, why can't these developers double down and release ports of these games onto the WiiU?  The WiiU should be able to handle them and it'll just be another market for them to try and make sales off of where there is less competition as a result of WiiU's software droughts.  I know these games won't be considered "next gen" on the WiiU but sh*t, any support is better than nothing. 

Here's the link to the numbers I stated.
http://www.vgchartz.com/analysis/platform_totals/

EDIT: Holy &*&*, looking at that list again, how the hell is the PSP still getting that much support?  How come everyone was able to move from the DS to the 3DS for development yet some companies are still working on PSP games?  I know the PSP has a large installed based but so does the DS yet no one is lining up software for that. 

[broodwars]

Rose-tinted Bull**** about how "games used to be about gameplay and now they're all about 'graffix!'

Dude, were you even alive when the SNES was the big machine on the market? Graphics have always been a major factor in the marketing and sales of video games. What did you think the whole "bit wars" thing was about?! "The NES is just 8 bits, BUT THE GENESIS IS 16 BITS!", etc.  Nintendo pretty much sold the Donkey Kong Country series on its graphics alone. That they were 3 fairly decent games was almost immaterial, "BECAUSE LOOK AT THOSE SWEET 3D MODELS!"

Anyone who thinks there was ever a time when "games were about gameplay instead of graphics" (in the sense of gameplay being prioritized instead of visuals) is either too young to be aware of the history of the industry or too drunk on nostalgia to see the industry for what it always has been. Just because older games looked like **** doesn't mean the developers weren't trying to create visually-appealing video games.

[Mannypon]

did you just "quote" me and yet summarized what I said within the quote?  That's not word for word what I said.  Regardless the point is the same.  I was gaming during the NES and SNES era and of course developers are always going to look to push graphics to get you to bite as its the first thing you see.  The difference from then and today is that back then, you got what you saw.  The commercials were all gameplay.  A lot of commercials now are either CGI, quick time events which look bad ass, or action scenes from views you'll not be gaming from.  Graphics have advanced to the point now that the games don't look too far off from the CGI trailers but still, its misleading. 

[broodwars]

did you just "quote" me and yet summarized what I said within the quote?  That's not word for word what I said.  Regardless the point is the same.  I was gaming during the NES and SNES era and of course developers are always going to look to push graphics to get you to bite as its the first thing you see.  The difference from then and today is that back then, you got what you saw.  The commercials were all gameplay.  A lot of commercials now are either CGI, quick time events which look bad ass, or action scenes from views you'll not be gaming from.  Graphics have advanced to the point now that the games don't look too far off from the CGI trailers but still, its misleading.

I really don't understand what the marketing materials for a game have to do with the quality of the games themselves, but if the technology had existed back in the 90s, we totally would've seen the same thing back then (just see any of Square's trailers for their PS1 Final Fantasy re-releases, which used the new CGI cutscenes). Instead, we got wacky live action trailers that the games looked nothing like.

While we're on the subject of "gameplay over graphics" in older game commercials, though, how about this NINTENDO trailer for the original Legend of Zelda on the NES:

Just for emphasis, the first two lines of the commercial:

Nerd 1: "Did you see the latest Nintendo newsletter?"
Nerd 2: "WOAH! Nice graphics! I'd like to get my hands on that game!"

Behold that the very first thing Nintendo tries to drive into you with this commercial is how amazing the graphics were (for the time). Yeah, "gameplay over graphics", indeed.

[Mannypon]

All you've done is prove my point.  I'm not arguing the quality of games in relation to how they are marketed.  All I originally stated was that games now are more flash than substance and that approach is emphasized in their commercials.  Since graphics were so basic in the NES and SNES generation, the commercials showed you exactly how the games were as apposed to now where your often shown strictly cinematics or set action pieces.  Regardless of what message the commercial is trying to portray, you saw exactly what the game played like.  The commercial you just showed had all gameplay in it.  FF7 is the biggest offender of what I was touching upon. 

I would say games back in the 90s were 50/50 gameplay to graphics, maybe a slant more towards graphics if that makes you feel better.  Now the ratio has been slanted heavily towards graphics over gameplay as evident by games releasing with subpar framerates and other graphical glitches, all of which are a result of the developer putting more resources into getting that much more out of the graphics as apposed to having a better consistent gameplay experience. 

Again, this will always vary depending on the company as some developers (Nintendo) choose to sacrifice some graphic fidelity for a better gameplay experience while others don't.  Some choose to market their games different also, depending on the game and who they are trying to sell it to.  There's really nothing much else I can say about this so I'll just leave it at that. 

[Ceric]

Back in the Day, you wanted the best graphics of a game console but, you also realized that you couldn't compete with Cartoons and Comics even.

That started to change with the PS2 and this current generation (PS4, and the rest) you can start to rival real Cartoon CGI.  I would not be surprised if we see a Ninja Turtle game or Transformers game that looked like you were running around in an episode of those series.

[smallsharkbigbite]

Why does everyone have this ludicrous idea in their head that firing Iwata would be a good thing for us? I mean, it could be, if they replaced him with someone who understood Western markets and wanted the company to focus on them, but that's the exact opposite of who they'd pick. The Iwata successor we'd realistically get would take all the things we don't like about the company and amplify them. Whoever it would be would be far more likely to cave in to demands to develop for smartphones than to go after the Western console market.

I didn't say it would definitely be a good thing. It could certainly be worse. I just think the Gamecube was a more traditional console and did a lot of things right. Iwata, in my opinion, has led the gimmick over comparable hardware approach. The Wii and 3DS were successful. Though I'd argue a true GBA successor would have been successful anyway. So there is hope. I just think Iwata has burned the third party bridge and there is no hope to getting them back while he is here.

[smallsharkbigbite]

Again, this will always vary depending on the company as some developers (Nintendo) choose to sacrifice some graphic fidelity for a better gameplay experience while others don't.

I disagree. They both sell you hardware experiences. SonyMicrosoft sell you powerful cpus and gpus. The most obvious benefit is great graphics. This can benefit gameplay with great physics engines or allowing you to place more items on screen. It doesn't ever hurt gameplay but doesn't necessarily get used by developers for gameplay items.

Nintendo sells you touch screens and motion controls. Their goal is to find the next big tech and make a profit on it before it becomes mainstream. Sometimes it benefits gameplay (Wii Sports Wii Fit) but most of the time it hurts traditional gameplay experiences(since that is the default setup) and the traditional market doesn't take Nintendo seriously anymore.

I believe giving credit to Nintendo prioritizing gameplay over graphics because of the Wii is false. It was a profit grab and it worked. I dont see how Mario or Zelda were better with motion controls. I think it's your bias that Nintendo is better for the game industry and thinking what they are doing is right.

[NWR_insanolord]

Yamauchi did far more to drive third parties away than Iwata has. All the **** he pulled in the '80s and '90s still lingers to this day. As for comparable hardware, it really doesn't fit the business model Nintendo wants to go with. Now that Wii U has bombed, that could be something they're willing to try again, or they could just abandon the console space, or something completely different that we haven't thought of.

I really don't think Iwata is the problem, though, or at least not anywhere near the whole problem. Replacing him won't fix things, at least not with the kind of replacement the people who'd choose him would pick. This is a "devil you know" situation; Iwata's certainly not perfect, but I trust him more than I trust somebody new.

[BranDonk Kong]

I dont see how Mario or Zelda were better with motion controls.

Exactly, because they weren't. Arguably they were actually worse because of motion controls.

[Ian Sane]

In regards to this blaming of the public for the Wii U's woes, in 1986 if there were internet boards like this Atari fans would be saying the same things.  "The public doesn't like high score arcade games anymore!  It's their fault the 7800 is bombing!"  So the public is supposed to just take whatever Nintendo gives them?  I would say that telling the public what they want has been a big Nintendo problem for years.  Nintendo has to either give the public what they want to buy or introduce a product so influential that it changes what the market wants to buy.  They're not doing it.  Their games come across as old and outdated.

As for ditching Iwata, I've hated the way he has run Nintendo.  He pretty much ruined them for me.  He compromised their GAMES by going with outdated hardware, dumbed down casual focused design, cookie cutter retro pandering sequels, and unresponsive gimmick controls.  Nintendo did one thing right and it was under HIS leadership that they started fucking that up.  Do I figure Nintendo would replace him with someone worse?  Yeah because this is Nintendo.  But what I consider the "real" Nintendo is already dead so maybe things will get worse but maybe they'll get better.  They're not going to get any better with Iwata in charge and considering the Wii U's fate are likely just going to get worse.  No one deserves to hang on to a position entirely because of the fear of their successor being worse.

[ShyGuy]

I dont see how Mario or Zelda were better with motion controls.

Exactly, because they weren't. Arguably they were actually worse because of motion controls.

I disagree. Using the bow in Twilight Princess was better than in Ocarina of Time. Mario Galaxy added Co-star mode, which was great asynchronous coop play.

Subjectively, one could argue the sword combat in Twilight Princess Wii and Skyward sword was more engaging than Ocarina of Time or Windwaker.

[Ceric]

I dont see how Mario or Zelda were better with motion controls.

Exactly, because they weren't. Arguably they were actually worse because of motion controls.

I disagree. Using the bow in Twilight Princess was better than in Ocarina of Time. Mario Galaxy added Co-star mode, which was great asynchronous coop play.

Subjectively, one could argue the sword combat in Twilight Princess Wii and Skyward sword was more engaging than Ocarina of Time or Windwaker.

I liked Windwaker's better.

[shingi_70]

I don't think the Wii U is doomed, but I do think it will be easier for Sony to ANchor the Vita than it will be for Nintendo to do to the same for Wii U.

[Luigi Dude]

As for ditching Iwata, I've hated the way he has run Nintendo.  He pretty much ruined them for me.  He compromised their GAMES by going with outdated hardware, dumbed down casual focused design, cookie cutter retro pandering sequels, and unresponsive gimmick controls.  Nintendo did one thing right and it was under HIS leadership that they started fucking that up.  Do I figure Nintendo would replace him with someone worse?  Yeah because this is Nintendo.  But what I consider the "real" Nintendo is already dead so maybe things will get worse but maybe they'll get better.  They're not going to get any better with Iwata in charge and considering the Wii U's fate are likely just going to get worse.  No one deserves to hang on to a position entirely because of the fear of their successor being worse.

The number one reason the shareholders are angry with Iwata is because he isn't developing for smartphones, not because the Wii U isn't as powerful as the PS4.  The majority of Nintendo top shareholders are Japanese and in Japan, the home console market is nothing compared to the massive handheld/mobile games market.  This is why the rest of the Japanese industry has focused more on smartphones and cut tradition gaming console development in recent years.

It's not really a case of the devil we know versus the one we don't know, because we already know.  Just look at the rest of the Japanese industry to see what companies run by people who are slaves to the investors look like.  Many Japanese investors right know see smartphones as the future of gaming and so that's where they want their fellow Japanese companies to focus on.  If Iwata is forced to leave, then you're not getting a hardcore graphics powerhouse home console focused Nintendo, you're getting an even cheaper mobile games smartphone focused Nintendo.

So I hope you love playing games on your smartphones because if Iwata is fired that's were you'll be playing most Nintendo games from now on.

[BranDonk Kong]

I dont see how Mario or Zelda were better with motion controls.

Exactly, because they weren't. Arguably they were actually worse because of motion controls.

I disagree. Using the bow in Twilight Princess was better than in Ocarina of Time. Mario Galaxy added Co-star mode, which was great asynchronous coop play.

Subjectively, one could argue the sword combat in Twilight Princess Wii and Skyward sword was more engaging than Ocarina of Time or Windwaker.

I was going to say that the motion controls in Twilight Princess were cool, but they get old quick. In Link's Crossbow Training it makes more sense because it's like a simulation of sorts, but it felt like a distraction in TP after a while. Co-star mode is no fun in my opinion and is more like cheating.

[Ian Sane]

As for ditching Iwata, I've hated the way he has run Nintendo.  He pretty much ruined them for me.  He compromised their GAMES by going with outdated hardware, dumbed down casual focused design, cookie cutter retro pandering sequels, and unresponsive gimmick controls.  Nintendo did one thing right and it was under HIS leadership that they started fucking that up.  Do I figure Nintendo would replace him with someone worse?  Yeah because this is Nintendo.  But what I consider the "real" Nintendo is already dead so maybe things will get worse but maybe they'll get better.  They're not going to get any better with Iwata in charge and considering the Wii U's fate are likely just going to get worse.  No one deserves to hang on to a position entirely because of the fear of their successor being worse.

The number one reason the shareholders are angry with Iwata is because he isn't developing for smartphones, not because the Wii U isn't as powerful as the PS4.  The majority of Nintendo top shareholders are Japanese and in Japan, the home console market is nothing compared to the massive handheld/mobile games market.  This is why the rest of the Japanese industry has focused more on smartphones and cut tradition gaming console development in recent years.

It's not really a case of the devil we know versus the one we don't know, because we already know.  Just look at the rest of the Japanese industry to see what companies run by people who are slaves to the investors look like.  Many Japanese investors right know see smartphones as the future of gaming and so that's where they want their fellow Japanese companies to focus on.  If Iwata is forced to leave, then you're not getting a hardcore graphics powerhouse home console focused Nintendo, you're getting an even cheaper mobile games smartphone focused Nintendo.

So I hope you love playing games on your smartphones because if Iwata is fired that's were you'll be playing most Nintendo games from now on.

So we're fucked either way?  Then I guess Nintendo ain't ever bouncing back because Iwata is a boob that got lucky with a fad.  Though their handhelds are still good.  I guess handheld-only Nintendo is still better than smartphone Nintendo.  Still Iwata is part of the problem at Nintendo.  They need a shake-up to get rid of the many negative aspects of their corporate culture.

I think what I really need is the "next Nintendo".  I need some dev to come out that represents the positive elements of Nintendo's peak on a present day console.  Nintendo themselves returning to form would be miraculous.

[Stratos]

I was going to say that the motion controls in Twilight Princess were cool, but they get old quick. In Link's Crossbow Training it makes more sense because it's like a simulation of sorts, but it felt like a distraction in TP after a while. Co-star mode is no fun in my opinion and is more like cheating.

It is just not your shtick. 'Girlfriend-mode' is a big hit with certain groups. I know a couple that adore the Co-Star mode in Galaxy and my parents (who long ago gave up playing with us) loved playing along with my younger sister as well. It is a clever mechanic and it takes very little to implement that gives a whole new avenue for people to enjoy games with 'less capable' players. I know another guy who loves to do it with his toddler because they (toddlers) can feel like they are playing without the frustrations and the parent can get some 'traditional' gaming time in without losing sleep or compromising other responsibilities. This was also an unintended feature of the 'Double Dash' kart sharing in the GameCube Mario Kart.

As for ditching Iwata, I've hated the way he has run Nintendo.  He pretty much ruined them for me.  He compromised their GAMES by going with outdated hardware, dumbed down casual focused design, cookie cutter retro pandering sequels, and unresponsive gimmick controls.  Nintendo did one thing right and it was under HIS leadership that they started fucking that up.  Do I figure Nintendo would replace him with someone worse?  Yeah because this is Nintendo.  But what I consider the "real" Nintendo is already dead so maybe things will get worse but maybe they'll get better.  They're not going to get any better with Iwata in charge and considering the Wii U's fate are likely just going to get worse.  No one deserves to hang on to a position entirely because of the fear of their successor being worse.

The number one reason the shareholders are angry with Iwata is because he isn't developing for smartphones, not because the Wii U isn't as powerful as the PS4.  The majority of Nintendo top shareholders are Japanese and in Japan, the home console market is nothing compared to the massive handheld/mobile games market.  This is why the rest of the Japanese industry has focused more on smartphones and cut tradition gaming console development in recent years.

It's not really a case of the devil we know versus the one we don't know, because we already know.  Just look at the rest of the Japanese industry to see what companies run by people who are slaves to the investors look like.  Many Japanese investors right know see smartphones as the future of gaming and so that's where they want their fellow Japanese companies to focus on.  If Iwata is forced to leave, then you're not getting a hardcore graphics powerhouse home console focused Nintendo, you're getting an even cheaper mobile games smartphone focused Nintendo.

So I hope you love playing games on your smartphones because if Iwata is fired that's were you'll be playing most Nintendo games from now on.

So we're fucked either way?  Then I guess Nintendo ain't ever bouncing back because Iwata is a boob that got lucky with a fad.  Though their handhelds are still good.  I guess handheld-only Nintendo is still better than smartphone Nintendo.  Still Iwata is part of the problem at Nintendo.  They need a shake-up to get rid of the many negative aspects of their corporate culture.

I think what I really need is the "next Nintendo".  I need some dev to come out that represents the positive elements of Nintendo's peak on a present day console.  Nintendo themselves returning to form would be miraculous.

With all of the talk about combining console and handhelds in the next generation, it may not be as much of a hurdle as we think it will be. That has been covered already in other threads so I won't beat y'all with it here.


Also, I think Retro could fill those shoes and be the 'Rare' of this generation. the biggest problem is they are too small. Expand the studio and let us see what they can do with both old and new properties under Nintendo's creative guidance. We also have Monolith Software who have a lot of potential. Who made Pandora's Tower again? I wonder what they are working on (or the guys that made Last Story).

[shingi_70]

Retro will never be the Rare of this generation as they weren't the Rare of last generation. They should be Nintendo's Naughty Dog and them not being expanded says alot about Nintendo between Wii and Wii U.


It's also a bit crazy how NST started working on games like Wave Race, 1080 snowbaording, and Metroid Prime Hunters. Now they're a Mario vs Donkey Kong Factory.


Not sure what Monster Games or Next Level software is working on.


Pandora's Tower developer worked on Wii Fit U and One Piece Games.


Mistwalker the guys behind the last story have pretty much given up with console games and are working on Mobile stuff. I'd blame Microsoft and Nintendo about Mistwalker and Sakaguchi stopping RPGs. If they do decide to make another console game it will probably something kickstarter related.

[Ian Sane]

When I say the "next Nintendo" I certainly don't mean a company like Retro that exists within Nintendo.  I mean a completely unrelated company that has nothing to do with Nintendo and doesn't even necessarily support their hardware but demonstrates the creativity, innovation and quality that Nintendo demonstrated in the pre-Wii era.  Think of the 2013 equivalent of 1985 Nintendo.

[Stratos]

Oh, wow, that is a huge difference.


I have been hoping that a few dev houses within Nintendo would rise up and fill the role that Rare, Factor 5 and other's filled on Nintendo systems. We had Rare on the N64 and we had Factor 5, Silicone Knights and Retro on the Gamecube.


Hoping for a spiritual successor for Nintendo is a pipe dream. The level of nostalgia and the weight of legacy Nintendo properties are never going to be replaced by another company. The only other areas a company could hole to fill Nintendo's shoes are consistent quality and innovation. The closest comparison with quality consistency I can see is Valve. But they don't fill nearly as many niches and genres as Nintendo does. Valve entering the console business could be the one thing to breath life back into the console market. It is a pity Nintendo didn't team up with Valve. Even a team up with Google would be helpful to Nintendo.

[Ian Sane]

Hoping for a spiritual successor for Nintendo is a pipe dream. The level of nostalgia and the weight of legacy Nintendo properties are never going to be replaced by another company.

I didn't list nostalgia.  If nostalgia was a draw for me I would have bought a Wii U at launch for NSMB U.  Nintendo doesn't have to be making Mario or Zelda games to please me.  If anything they have gone to that well too frequently in the last generation.  When those franchises were newer they offered a more unique experience and that novelty is more what I crave than to go through the tropes of those series for the hundredth time.  I was disappointed in Twilight Princess because Nintendo was giving me another Ocarina of Time and I actually wanted the NEXT Ocarina of Time.

The idea that Nintendo is defined by their IP is misguided and Nintendo themselves started to make that mistake after Iwata took over.  Nintendo's IPs were special because of the creativity, innovation and quality shown in those titles.  Super Metroid is legendary because it is one of the greatest games ever made, not because it is of the Metroid franchise.  A Nintendo that would never make another Mario game but continued to make creative games of a high quality would actually provide a more authentic Nintendo experience than one churning out uninspired sequels.

Hoping for the next Nintendo is a pipe dream but that just demonstrates how exceptional the company was at its peak.

[NWR_insanolord]

I think everyone's putting too much blame on Iwata in all this, especially Ian. I seriously doubt things would be all that different if Yamauchi were still alive and ruling the company with an iron fist. I really don't think who's at the top is the issue, but the culture of the company. Merely replacing Iwata won't change that.

[Mannypon]

Again, this will always vary depending on the company as some developers (Nintendo) choose to sacrifice some graphic fidelity for a better gameplay experience while others don't.

I disagree. They both sell you hardware experiences. SonyMicrosoft sell you powerful cpus and gpus. The most obvious benefit is great graphics. This can benefit gameplay with great physics engines or allowing you to place more items on screen. It doesn't ever hurt gameplay but doesn't necessarily get used by developers for gameplay items.

Nintendo sells you touch screens and motion controls. Their goal is to find the next big tech and make a profit on it before it becomes mainstream. Sometimes it benefits gameplay (Wii Sports Wii Fit) but most of the time it hurts traditional gameplay experiences(since that is the default setup) and the traditional market doesn't take Nintendo seriously anymore.

I believe giving credit to Nintendo prioritizing gameplay over graphics because of the Wii is false. It was a profit grab and it worked. I dont see how Mario or Zelda were better with motion controls. I think it's your bias that Nintendo is better for the game industry and thinking what they are doing is right.

Sorry, I should've been a little more clearer in the point I was trying to make.  I wasn't referring to hardware design but more so software design philosophies.  This was more of an issue during the previous generation on the PS360.  Developers often sacrificed framerates and other glitches in order to squeeze out a little more juice out of the graphics.  That was a design decision on their part prioritizing the graphics slightly above the gameplay.  No matter what the guts of the hardware, these developers will always take this approach.  Nintendo on the other hand, always seems to look to establish a steady gameplay experience and then try to squeeze as much graphics as possible without taking a hit on performance.  I'm sure if Nintendo were developing on PS4 and XboxOne, that design choice will still be the same. 

Check this article out in which Super Mario 3d World was analyzed technically, it helps better describe the point I'm trying to make regarding Nintendo's approach to game design. 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-super-mario-3d-world