Topic: "A single game saved the GB (Pokemon), it could save the Wii U too” Iwata said

[tendoboy1984]

I find it odd that you all claim Nintendo is hard to work with, yet they've done great with indie developers. Indies like Shinen, WayForward, Gaijin Games, and Renegade Kid (Jools Watsham) have praised Nintendo constantly.

[Adrock]

It's not a claim when major third party publishers are all essentially saying the same thing about Nintendo and their policies. Besides, they're not mutually exclusive. Nintendo can be (and is) bad with major third parties and can be (and is) great with independent developers. It really depends on the kind of support Nintendo offers. They're notoriously terrible at meeting even the basics of big third party needs while gradually improving their relationships with small indie developers (probably because indies and their games are far less demanding). On Wii, Nintendo was flat-out awful at indie support.

[tendoboy1984]

Well maybe Nintendo should utilize Dan Adleman as their third-party negotiator, since he has a great track record with indies.

[Stratos]

I would venture to guess that the reasons indies praise Nintendo is like how a child praises the parent/teacher/adult who gives them candy. Indies need all of the leverage they can get to spread their product out there. Large 3rd party companies have more leverage and therefore need more in return than Nintendo may be willing to give.


I know I would take a lot of crap from a large distributor if they were willing to help sell my product. So from the indie perspective the benefits outweigh the negative aspects.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Did you guys hear about how the Toki Tori guys almost got Valve and Nintendo to let their games communicate like Portal 2 did on PS3?
They said that ultimately there was too many requirements needed to get it in place for Toki Tori 2, but they aren't ruling out making it happen on a future title. I'll link to it later if I anyone is interested. I think it was on Kotaku (like Oct. last year), but I just read it. It was an interesting thing that almost happened because an excited indie wanted to push their product harder.

[BlkPaladin]

Here is an opinion piece posted at forbes a few days ago.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/02/18/microsoft-should-give-xbox-one-to-nintendo/

Its kind of interesting.

[Ceric]

It definitely is something to consider for Microsoft.

[Adrock]

Would Nintendo give Microsoft stock like the article suggests? Kind of doubt that.

And while this would help Nintendo on a number of fronts, it actually strengthens Sony's position even more. PS4 is already outselling One two to one. With this, there would be one fewer competitor and Nintendo has to convince all the Xbox people to stay when they're struggling with some of their own fanbase. Maybe Nintendo is okay with that as long as the market is less crowded.

At the same time, if Microsoft sells their Xbox division, whichever company buys it is likely not investing in the same way as Microsoft. Consider the lengths Microsoft went just to get Xbox to be the brand it is. I could see Xbox just fading away under a different company at that point which would be a better time for Nintendo to go shopping anyway. I just don't see it happening unless Nintendo can attain these assets at firesale prices and even then, that's iffy because that's not really how Nintendo does things.

Should they? In my opinion, no. Too risky, too complicated. Some people would likely support this thinking Nintendo should abandon a sinking ship for a leaky one. I'm not sure how that helps them in the middle of a generation. Nintendo can fix their problems without shelling out for a division with its own set of problems. I'd rather see them stick it out with Wii U and come out smarter with a successor in like 2016. Not that that's a given; I just think it's better and safer than trying to dig their way out of a larger hole. Having to deal with two groups of disgruntled customers and struggling platforms is clearly worse than dealing with one.

[Ian Sane]

That's a surprisingly cool idea.  The Wii U is dead.  Nintendo needs a new console that is more up-to-date with the competition.  The Xbox One is losing out to the PS4 but it already has hardware that third parties are familiar with and is comparable to the PS4.  It's also already out so Nintendo isn't some latecomer with a mid-generation console.  The existing third party development on the XB1 would presumably continue so that would be able to cover the release gap between Nintendo's last Wii U games and first XB1 games.  Nintendo could also port some of their first party Wii U games that don't really need the Gamepad to pad things as well.

There are obvious problems though.  I think Kinect needs to go.  Nintendo would probably be completely befuddled by Xbox Live.  Third parties might not stick around as Nintendo might suddenly implement new unfriendly policies or just plain scare them away as they assume that Nintendo will just **** everything up and kill any commercial value the XB1 has.

I don't think they can stick with the Wii U and trying to release their own console would probably be less likely to work out.  I like the idea of Nintendo having someone else design their hardware while Nintendo just focuses on the games and this effectively does that already.  If MS offers it I say Nintendo take it.

[MagicCow64]

If Microsoft divests themselves of the Xbox division, I seriously doubt they'd sell the entire thing to one party. Who would want it, especially with all of the missteps that have been taken with the console? Despite the Xbox mindshare, it's been famously unprofitable. Microsoft would basically have to start the R&D process for a follow-up console within the next year, so I see it as much more likely that they just opt out if the Xbone does as poorly in the next 12 months as it seems poised to. Then they could just sell off their studios and IPs to whoever is interested in four or five years, and probably keep the Kinect tech for whatever they might want to use it on in the future.

[shingi_70]

Not sure Microsoft will sell Xbox with Nadella, Gates, and Ballmer on its corner as well as being a services and devices company. As well Microsoft's media brands are entrenched in Xbox(Xbox magazines is coming soon) and Cortana is being used for Mictosofts version of Siri.


Either way even though Nintendo and Microsoft have my favorite IP not sure Nintendo could work with Microsoft which had studios in two other continents, as well they have a TV and film studio.

[Khushrenada]

It's just nice to hear news articles pointing out the problems and doom and gloom of another console instead of another Wii U article. Good enough for me.

[Adrock]

Nintendo needs a new console that is more up-to-date with the competition.  The Xbox One is losing out to the PS4...

This is basically all anyone needs to know about the hardware debate. Does Nintendo really need better hardware? Having comparable hardware sure hasn't helped Microsoft. You can keep pushing the hardware card like it means everything, but ultimately, the problem with Wii U and Xbox One is that they're both collectively flawed on a fundamental level, at least more so than PS4. Sony just made the least flawed console; they're "winning" by "not losing." Wii U and One are both doing a bang up job making PS4 look golden by being so terrible. I just really don't see how this comes down to hardware specs again. Put better hardware in Wii U and it's still an incomplete console, even to this day.

[Ceric]

Well the PS4 is being easily shown as the strongest or at least easiest to get the muscle out of the 3.

[nickmitch]

Would Nintendo give Microsoft stock like the article suggests? Kind of doubt that.

More likely than not, if Nintendo were to buy the Xbox division, it would be a cash and stock deal.

The idea is actually pretty interesting.  Nintendo could greatly benefit from having an excellent online infrastructure, comparable hardware, and franchises that appeal to the west.  MS could benefit by becoming instantly more profitable, as the article stated.

I just don't think a mid-generation shakeup like that would be good for either party.  Nintendo can't just start developing games for Xbox One, that would add at least a year or two to the development cycle, just to switch gears and familiarize themselves with the hardware.  There's also no way Nintendo offers up a sweet enough deal to justify MS calling all of their marketing and R&D "sunk costs".

Then you kind of have some problems, if you make this deal for the next console generation.  Sure, the Xbox One is a more powerful machine, but Nintendo will still be Nintendo.  Unless MS gets enough stock to exert significant influence over the decision making, I don't see Nintendo benefitting from what the Xbox line has to offer.  Like Ian said, Nintendo won't know what to do with Xbox Live.  Is there a middle ground between Live and Miiverse?  Will Nintendo push the hardware significantly far enough past the XB1 for match a PS4?  Will that even matter if 3rd parties don't want to work with Nintendo or Nintendo forces another gimmick on its console.

[Ian Sane]

Nintendo needs a new console that is more up-to-date with the competition.  The Xbox One is losing out to the PS4...

This is basically all anyone needs to know about the hardware debate. Does Nintendo really need better hardware? Having comparable hardware sure hasn't helped Microsoft. You can keep pushing the hardware card like it means everything, but ultimately, the problem with Wii U and Xbox One is that they're both collectively flawed on a fundamental level, at least more so than PS4. Sony just made the least flawed console; they're "winning" by "not losing." Wii U and One are both doing a bang up job making PS4 look golden by being so terrible. I just really don't see how this comes down to hardware specs again. Put better hardware in Wii U and it's still an incomplete console, even to this day.

The XB1 is merely not winning and someone has to be in second place.  The third parties support the XB1 because it has the sort of hardware they're comfortable using.  The PS3 didn't win last gen but despite any setbacks constantly had great third party support, support Nintendo would kill for to get right now, because the hardware was compatible for multi-platform development.  The XB1 can be "saved" (and really it is too early to write it off, fuckin' Titanfall hasn't even been released yet) because it has third party support while the Wii U cannot.

[MagicCow64]

Not sure Microsoft will sell Xbox with Nadella, Gates, and Ballmer on its corner as well as being a services and devices company. As well Microsoft's media brands are entrenched in Xbox(Xbox magazines is coming soon) and Cortana is being used for Mictosofts version of Siri.

Nadella is talking the device talk, but there have been a lot of high-profile articles about investor unrest. Ballmer didn't exactly leave on a grace note. If we see 12 months of 150K average Xbone sales, I think Microsoft could quite ruthlessly cut the throat of the division. They're crazy if they think their Xbox branded media suite is going to take off in this day and age.

[Mop it up]

Nintendo's hardware and software go hand-in-hand. I think they would have a lot of trouble making games for hardware that they didn't develop themselves.

[Adrock]

The third parties support the XB1 because it has the sort of hardware they're comfortable using.

Sure, that's exactly right and it has nothing to do with the ridiculous payouts for content Microsoft has shelled out over the years and continues to.

The XB1 can be "saved" (and really it is too early to write it off, fuckin' Titanfall hasn't even been released yet) because it has third party support while the Wii U cannot.

Okie dokie. So you can write off Wii U in every thread when its highest profile game within a year after launch was a remake of a decade old game as well as before Mario Kart 8 then at the same time claim that it's too early to write off Xbox One because of Titanfall.

That's rather unfair to me. I agree that it's too early to write off Xbox One though Microsoft has collectively fumbled so much of their console thus far (much like Nintendo). What hurts Titanfall's impact as an Xbox One title is that it's also available on two other platforms, particularly the one Microsoft is trying to replace.

[Mop it up]

Wait, wait, are you saying Titanfall is on the Xbox 360? I knew it was on the PC but I didn't think they were putting it on the 360 too. That'd be like if Nintendo had released games like Super Mario 3D World on the Wii.

...Or heck, it's kinda like how NSMB2 came out on the 3DS right before the Wii U came out with NSMBU. Although those aren't the same game, I'm sure that hurt things.

[nickmitch]

It oversaturated the 2D Mario market.

[Adrock]

Wait, wait, are you saying Titanfall is on the Xbox 360? I knew it was on the PC but I didn't think they were putting it on the 360 too. That'd be like if Nintendo had released games like Super Mario 3D World on the Wii.

I was surprised Titanfall was on 360 as well. I originally thought it was only on One and PC until about a week ago. The 360 version comes out two weeks later, but still. Microsoft probably paid a lot of money to keep the game off Sony machines. They probably should have paid more to keep the game off 360 as well. It would have been a nice console exclusive.

[smallsharkbigbite]

Nintendo taking over the xbox division only works if they are willing to change their third party policies going forward.  Although it would be a nice way to get that immediate third party bump. 

I thought these couple of quotes were interesting and somewhat comparable to Nintendo's situation:

Steve Jobs - "Innovation has nothing to do with how many R&D dollars you have. When Apple came up with the Mac, IBM was spending at least 100 times more on R&D. It's not about money. It's about the people you have, how you're led, and how much you get it."-- Fortune, Nov. 9, 1998

I think this is why Nintendo should be able to compete with Sony/Microsoft.  People always say Nintendo is innovative, then why doesn't the market see it? 

Tim Cook (Apple COO at the time, Goldman Sach's Q&A -"We say no to good ideas every day. We say no to great ideas in order to keep the amount of things we focus on very small in number, so that we can put enormous energy behind the ones we do choose, so that we can deliver the best products in the world. In fact, the table that each of you are sitting at today, you could probably put every product on it that Apple makes, and yet Apple’s revenue last year was over $40 billion. I think the only other company that could say that is an oil company."

That's why I'm not excited about QoL platform.  It seems like a lack of focus from Nintendo and their focus should be on improving what they've done best and why we are all fans, making interactive gaming experiences better. 

[Ian Sane]

If I called the Wii U a flop at this time last year everyone would jump on me for not giving it time to prove itself.  The same "courtesy" applies to the Xbox One.  The Wii U in comparison has been out for over a year, has had two Christmas seasons and had an infamous "holy **** we're fucked" sales projection update from Nintendo.  The Wii U is toast.  The Xbox One might be or might not be and really we can't say until after it also has had two Christmas seasons under its belt.

The Nintendo Xbox ain't going to happen anyway.  But upon the concept being suggested I immediately figured that is their best chance to salvage this gen.  I don't see holding on with the Wii U as a realistic option and getting a successor out to replace it is probably not feasible in the timeframe it needs to happen (basically it needs to happen THIS YEAR and that's not happening).  Acquiring the Xbox brand is a real outside-the-box idea that effectively lets them replace the Wii U ASAP.

[Stratos]

Microsoft actually first offered to buy Nintendo and make them their entire software division instead of creating the X-Box brand. But Nintendo did not want to be under a non-Japanese company and refused.