|
Nintendo gimmicks have always smacked of throwing poo poo at a wall, at least to me. The wii was a huge success but they never seemed to really understand why or capitalize on it. The success of the DS has more to do with lack of real competition, plus it's not a huge market to begin with, than with any innovation on Nintendo's part. I think the market has gotten too big for them, to be honest. People act as if they're major players of the industry or one of the big three, but they haven't been able to compete directly with Sony and MS in a long time. I have to question their ability to actually perform at that level, because best I can tell they have no idea what they're doing. MS and Sony have huge reserves to take the fall for their stupid decisions, but Nintendo doesn't, and appears to be even less competent than them. Compare with a company like Apple, which had / has a fairly similar position in the market, but made truckloads of money and turned into a 900 pound market gorilla because they were simply really loving good at what they did. I think that the limping along thing they've been doing for 10 years now is going to come to an end sooner rather than later. Whether that means a shakeup of leadership and miraculous revival or crash and burn, I can't say. In any case I think things are going to change drastically from the ~2000-2010 status quo. How long till they run out of the pile of money they made off the Wii? icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 07:40 on Sep 20, 2013 |
#
¿
Sep 20, 2013 07:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 03:26 |
|
|
True, but they're going to have to basically rebuild their company from the ground up to become competitive again. They have no idea how to market, they have no idea how to do online, they have no idea how to make games other than clones of the same soulless platformer and rereleases of old games, and the WiiU is flatlining not a year after release, even after big price cuts. $4 billion is a lot of money, but these are some massive, massive problems and fixing them will take a big chunk of it. I don't think they're in danger of collapsing in the near future, but you can't point to the Wii money and say they're fine.
icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 08:38 on Sep 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
Yes that's my point exactly. I was a little harsh on them but it's not that their games are bad artistically or unfun, just that they're uninspiring. They need system sellers. If they're either unwilling or unable to compete with Sony and MS, then they have to make their own system sellers, and enough of them to keep a system afloat, but they haven't done that in close to 10 years. The Gamecube got SSBM, Pikmin 1 and 2, Metroid Prime 1 and 2, Mario Sunshine, The Wind Waker, plus actual 3rd party system sellers on top of that like RE4, Eternal Darkness, etc. Since then we've gotten what exactly? Mario Galaxy 1 and 2, maybe Zelda, maybe SSBB, no big third party titles. That's not even approaching enough to stay afloat without the magic money machine that was Wii Sports. Also you're delusional if you think today's That was a little ranty, but TLDR yes Nintendo's game output is a significant problem. That doesn't mean that Nintendo are making bad games or are incapable of making good games, just that they aren't making good games in nearly the quantity they need to be given their 10 year long refusal to compete with MS and Sony. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 10:15 on Sep 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2013 09:53
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:-NSMB NSMB NSMB 2 NSMB Wii NSMB U New Super Luigi U (They're selling it for $30, it counts as at least half a game) Mario 3D Land Mario 3D World (possibly) I realize you're going to insist 3D Land and World are totally different, and to be fair I haven't looked at World too much yet, but I've played Land and it's nearly as sterile as NSMB. The actual gameplay is different, yes, but a person's impressions of a game aren't based solely on that, and they're both platformers. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 10:14 on Sep 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2013 10:12
|
|
|
I don't think we're actually disagreeing here. Art style and presentation are very important, and Mario 3D World will be their 7th game with the same art style and presentation in as many years. The gameplay is similar enough for the average game consumer to roughly equate them. My point originally was more about the business side of things anyways. Basically if Nintendo wants to keep doing this countercyclical not competing against MS and Sony thing they have to do a lot better than they are. This is where my criticism of the games fits. Their games are alright, but alright isn't good enough when maybe one big game a year is literally all that's propping up their system. These games have to be loving incredible to get people to buy a system, and they aren't. I contrast this with the GC era, where you had games of comparable or better quality, and like twice as many of them. They want to have their cake and eat it too with regards to actually competing for mainstream gamers vs being their own walled off videogame empire. I think Nintendo is scared of competing with MS and Sony, and I don't know if it's because they can't or are just lazy. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 10:42 on Sep 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2013 10:33
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:It's all the more proof that Nintendo should have once again tried to be the economic console instead of going after next gen gamers. Actually I think it's exactly the opposite, which was my original point. Nintendo can expect basically zero third party support if they keep releasing consoles a generation behind the competitors, because why would you spend the effort making new games for a third of the market at absolute best? I don't think Nintendo is capable of producing enough system sellers to keep a platform afloat by themselves, and in any case they haven't been lately. The last conventionally successful (ie not based on gimmicks to draw people in) console they had was the GC, and that was as powerful as the competitors and had a few big name third party titles. I think what they should do is return to that strategy, because at the very least it was mildly successful, as opposed to the trainwreck that is the WiiU. This is what I mean by have their cake and eat it too. They want to release cheapo consoles a generation late, but they are apparently unable to do the extra work required to support the system with games by themselves. It may be entirely unreasonable to expect a single company to do that, and in that case the only option is to start competing directly with the Xbox and Playstation again. TL/DR Nintendo's problem is their 'economic console' strategy
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
Nintendo should make a 2D Zelda roguelike. Just rework nethack, make it slightly less difficult and actually playable without spoilers and you're golden.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2013 06:41
|
|
|
edit: n/m
icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Oct 5, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
JetsGuy posted:These are probably the biggest reasons why I don't bother with PC games. I think you need to take a deep breath and calm down. You can put together a PC better than a PS4 for like $900. My computer that I built 4 years ago for $1000 can play BF3 fine on medium settings. If you want over 80fps you can turn it to low. You haven't had to 'religiously check ping' since 1999 when you were playing quake on dialup. Seriously the level of apeshit rage that the mere mention of PC gaming inspires in some people is hilarious. Besides, what games do you think people play on their PCs anyways? Nobody plays AAA console titles and CoD on their PCs because they're often mediocre games with bad value and even worse ports to the PC. If you want to play the latest call of duty then buy a console. PC gaming is a big mad max style wasteland filled with insular gaming communities almost unrelated to each other. Most PC gamers are not in fact  15 year olds who buy pro gaming apparel.
icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Nov 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
The only person here going hysterical console/PC warrior is you.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2013 23:52
|
|
|
I'd like to emphasize once again that the kind of games people play on the PC are really varied and most of them are not spec-intensive. Just looking at the games forum you have space station 13, nethack, dwarf fortress, minecraft, GTA5, team fortress, battlefield, civilization, starcraft, DOTA, MMOs. There literally isn't a thread close to the frontpage about a spec heavy game like Crysis or Metro. edit: enough with the derail.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:I still have zero idea what that chart means. Should I be unsatisfied with my PS3's prim? The chart says that the Wii U is significantly less powerful than the new consoles and that it is almost exactly the same power as the current generation. This isn't new information. Someone in here earlier claimed that the wiiu was more powerful than the 360/PS3, which that chart shows is wrong. It's funny how many people are unable to read a graph though.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
Most console to PC ports are horrible garbage. Devs will just have the game eat 4x the memory that's actually necessary because why bother optimizing it. This will probably be much less of a problem with the PC architecture of the new consoles, though, which just means Infinity Ward is incompetent.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
Astro7x posted:If you told my childhood self that the N64 and Gamecube were failures because they had low sales, I would have not given a poo poo and continued playing Goldeneye. Yes but the Gamecube and N64 weren't also a generation behind and $100 or more overpriced.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
bushisms.txt posted:You can't even get new 360s or PS3s for that price. But the next gen Nintendo system with the defacto game of 2013 isn't enough to plunk down 300 for the deluxe system with a game? Whatever you say! You can get an original model PS3 or 360 for like $70 on ebay. And sorry, even if it is game of the year the 360 and PS3 have 6 games of the year at least. The WiiU is at least $100 overpriced, and honestly is worth no more than a new 360 or PS3, which as fischmech just posted go for like $180. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Nov 23, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2013 03:00
|
|
|
I still think their best option was to ditch the tablet and slash the price $100 or more, and have a redesigned marketing campaign about 6-8 months ago. The biggest impediment to selling the things is the price, if they can't get third parties and they can't cut the price, then they'll sell like poo poo regardless of how good or bad the marketing is. The tablet is useless in most games I've seen, and nobody is excited about like the wiimote. I don't think the backlash from diehard nintendo fans would have any actual effect. That's not really a good option, but it's not like they're going to sell less consoles than if they continue the present track. It seems to me that was/is the only thing they could change to actually sell more of them. Someone mentioned earlier that nintendo refuses to play along with the rising costs of game production in general, but the reason that's a problem is that they won't embrace being a bargain console maker. You can either spend money and make a good console, or you can not spend money and make a cheap console, but you can't do something in between. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 08:14 on Dec 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 08:03
|
|
|
To the people saying they can't get rid of the gamepad because of the existing games that use it, why couldn't they just patch the games to not require it? I mean, I was under the impression that aside from two or three games the most they use it for is an inventory or map screen. They can just send out a patch.MechaCrash posted:The tablet that people keep saying should be removed to bring down the costs. The tablet isn't selling. It would appear the consumers don't give a poo poo about it. The argument that somehow the tablet adds more value than the ~$100 it adds to the retail price is pretty ridiculous to me. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 07:25
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:You are incorrect. Many games use them for smaller elements or minor features which would then become unavailable. It isn't enough that they are unplayable without the gamepad but it is enough that you'd be removing or disabling features or rendering parts of the game unavailable. It isn't a trivial or easy thing to patch games like that. Yeah it probably won't be trivial but it's not like they're doing anything else at the moment besides watching this sink Titantic-style. You keep insisting that getting rid of the gamepad will make consumers want this thing even less, and I just don't see that. The gamepad is not selling consoles. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 07:33
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:A big part of it is also the matter of dedicating resources and manpower sensibly. Pulling programmers working on upcoming games, thereby delaying those titles, so that they can go back to work on already-completed games in order to remove a feature? loving preposterous, sorry. Why do you think future software is going to help the WiiU in any way? If they pull manpower from future games I think it's safe to say it won't hurt much. And why do people keep dancing around the issue of the price? The reason given that they can't remove the tablet is that it will break some games. Okay, so fix the games. Do you not think that slashing the price is their best option? They can't do that without removing the tablet. And no, the tablet is not a system selling feature. The consumers don't care. This isn't an advertising problem either. If it's that much of a burden to patch games then just cut the tablet and don't patch them. The amount of rationalization in this thread is incredible. Apparently nintendo's best option is to do what they're doing right now, and literally every other one is worse. ImpAtom posted:Because it would mean spending time and resources they could be using on other things which also add value to the system instead to devoting resources to 'fixing' old games, as well as further alienating their few loyal third party developers by telling them to either spend money patching their own games or be left with a bunch of games that will no longer sell even the limited amount they did on the Wii U. Wait, what are the costs in removing it? If they don't patch the games the costs are zero. And do you think that cutting the cost by up to $100 won't sell any more consoles? icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 08:06 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 08:02
|
|
|
So their only option is to continue what they're doing right now, every other one is worse? I thought that was reasoning that has been causing them to decay for the past 15 years, but hey, what do I know?  Also yes, they would sell more if it were $100 cheaper. This isn't some kind of crackpot idea. And their advertising has been poo poo from day one, so you can't use that as an argument not to do this.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 08:12
|
|
|
Okay, so what should they do? Continue supporting a dead console for another 3+ years then release another failing console? I mean this thread has consisted of nintendo supporters shooting down every single suggestion and offering basically no alternatives. And 'fix the advertising' isn't any better an idea than cutting the price by $100, sorry. vvvvvv jesus christ then out with them. What are the solutions? icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 08:18 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 08:16
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:No it hasn't. We in fact had this exact same argument earlier which you appear to have skipped over. I, personally, don't think the Wii U is going to recover but that doesn't mean I think they should do random things in a desperate flailing attempt to survive. Yes, it has. In this very friggin post you're doing it, alluding to some vague solutions without actually explaining any of them. Tell my why selling the gamepad separately, and selling an SKU without it for $200 is a bad idea, and what better option exists for nintendo. vvvvv Holy poo poo. You make a post saying you have solutions besides do nothing, and then say their best option is to do nothing in your very next post. Are you listening to yourself? This is ridiculous. No, cutting costs over the console's life isn't an alternative, it's loving expected. It's what every single console maker has done with every single console ever. If they didn't do that they would be doing less than nothing. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 08:27 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 08:22
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:My take has more or less been: Okay, this is an actual thing they could do. I agree they should do this, and they should also cut the price and sell it minus the gamepad. But fine, you've given an alternative. This is better than "keep sailing towards the iceberg and maybe cut costs some I guess".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 08:29
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:No, you're just ignoring everything except what you want to hear and you're going to continue doing that because you decided that "remove the gamepad" is the miracle solution. It isn't a good solution. It would reduce the system's costs but open up a boatload of new issues, reduce the number of available games on the system, require patching of the OS and system itself if not the games, and it is clear by this point that the Wii U's problems are more than "it costs too much." Okay, you don't think selling it minus gamepad is a good idea. Fine. But don't accuse other people of not being open to ideas when your 'solution' is literally to continue doing what they've been doing and not change anything. Like, do you not see the irony in saying that everyone else is closed minded and hearing what they want to hear when your idea is for them to not change at all and continue what they've been doing?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 08:34
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Because it's effectively the same splitting with all the same problems except the need to patch, but adding in the fun problem of Wii U games and Wii U w/ Gamepad games to further confuse people already confused by the Wii U/Wii. People are already confused to the point where most of them don't even know this thing exists. There is no stock of public opinion that they will be destroying or whatever. ImpAtom posted:Basically making it optional is not very different from removing it all together but with slightly different potential problems, plus Nintendo still has to make the pad (and thus spend money on manufacturing.) This isn't an argument, they can sell them at cost or at a profit. I mean, you have every right to think it won't help, but your backing of your idea that removing it won't help has essentially been 'because'.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 08:54
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:That doesn't help if they don't sell and we're starting from the viewpoint of "people don't want the pad." Why would people suddenly buy the pad separately? You misunderstand me. You said that Nintendo would still have to pay to manufacture them if they sold them separately. No, they wouldn't, because if they don't sell then Nintendo doesn't have to manufacture them. They probably won't buy the pad separately, you're right, and that's just fine because neither they nor Nintendo will be paying any money relating to gamepads in that case. And the brand confusion won't have much effect considering how little there is to being with. You keep acting like they have lots to lose here. They don't. Supercar Gautier posted:They'd still need to patch the games. Even a game playable entirely with the Pro Controller will currently still react to a lack of Gamepad communication. If they can't patch something as simple as this without taking significant manpower away from other games then they have even bigger problems than we thought.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 09:03
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Nintendo is not currently going bankrupt. They are not, as far as we know, even remotely in danger of going bankrupt, of losing all their assets, of being bought out by a bigger company, or any situation which could rightly be described as "they don't have lots to lose." Increasing brand confusion can hurt them in the future, especially if they decide to use the Wii name again for a theoretical Wii Two or something even more saccharine and stupid. The implication that they would go bankrupt if they started selling the gamepad separately is pretty ridiculous. Do you actually think this? I'm trying to imagine this scenario where a product that is making nintendo zero dollars and has zero public presence starts selling a little less than it is, and nintendo suddenly goes bankrupt, and I just can't. How would this happen? Why would any of these things happen if they sold the gamepad separately? You keep implying this stuff without backing any of it up at all. They're already making negative dollars and every time this is mentioned people say they're fine and have tons of cash but this is what will bankrupt them? AngryCaterpillar posted:Simple? How many changes would have to be made to Nintendo Land, Zombi U and Game & Wario? They'd have to be designed from scratch. No I mean patching the firmware so you can start the console without a gamepad. Which is what the post I quoted said. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 09:12 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 09:10
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Nobody said that. ImpAtom posted:Nintendo is not currently going bankrupt. They are not, as far as we know, even remotely in danger of going bankrupt, of losing all their assets, of being bought out by a bigger company, or any situation which could rightly be described as "they don't have lots to lose." Increasing brand confusion can hurt them in the future, especially if they decide to use the Wii name again for a theoretical Wii Two or something even more saccharine and stupid. You posted this in response to me saying that nothing particularly bad will happen if they sell the pad separately. Implying that yes, there are bad things that will happen if they sell the pad separately. Why would you post that if you weren't implying that they would go bankrupt, or lose all their assets, or be bought out if they do the thing your were responding to?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 09:15
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:No I didn't. Read what I said. I was responding to your comment about how they don't have a lot to lose. The thing quoted directly in front of that. My response was that they, in fact, do have a lot to lose because they are not in a situation where they are going bankrupt or in massive debt or anything like that. They don't have a lot to lose by selling the gamepad separately. I was not making a general comment about the company and it's future, but specifically about that action. I'm sorry you misunderstood me. I don't think they do have a lot to lose by doing that. It won't cost them anything, their branding is already a tire fire, and there are great potential benefits. Sure, it might not help, but I don't see it hurting at all.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 09:23
|
|
|
Mattavist posted:Just rename it now. Astro7x posted:Why couldn't they? Advertising jargon is not regulated like the FDA regulates food jargon. No but then they'll lose all the hard earned brand loyalty they've built up an- 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
I don't think they have a problem with game quality, their games are just fine. I think the game console market is just shrinking/maturing, and there doesn't seem to be room for a third console, especially when they are so comically terrible at getting third party support / the internet. Not only do they not seem to have any idea what market they want to compete in, I'm not even sure there is a market besides the one that MS and Sony are currently beating the poo poo out of each other in. Maybe they can make one, I don't know.
icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Dec 13, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
They did the worst possible option, that is, releasing a family friendly gimmick console but making the gimmick cost $100 extra and requiring people to buy in. They could've put that $100 towards making it competitive with the PS4/XBO specwise, but they went with a bad gimmick instead to try to attract the casuals. So basically they just jacked the price up $100 and declared that they were now courting hardcore gamers, somehow.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
Considering the ubiquity and ease of SNES and NES emulation, I see no reason at all to bother paying eight dollars for a game. An HDMI cable to hook up my laptop to the TV costs $10, and a controller to USB plug is like $5. You can say it should cost whatever, but I'm not paying $8 for 25 year old games. It's not that big a pain in the rear end to use an emulator.
icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Dec 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2013 14:55
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:They charge what they think the market will bear. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Yes and the market won't bear it, which was the entire point of that guy's comment in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
Orgophlax posted:You can't compare the pricing of the eShop to the ease of using emulators, because technically that's illegal. You're literally arguing between paying for something or stealing (unless of course you already own the cartridge; And I'm not trying to make a moral statement here, I use emulators all the time). NES & SNES games are not abandonware. You should go back to the early 2000s and tell record companies that they should definitely be able to sell albums online at full retail price with DRM, because piracy is illegal remember. Yes, you have to factor in ease of emulation to the price, even though it's illegal. The effective consequences are basically 0, significantly less than even music piracy. It being illegal means nothing if the law is never enforced. Just look at steam. Selling games for peanuts is basically a license to print money, and Steam is dealing with recently released AAA titles in many cases. I bought dungeons of dredmor the other day, with expansion packs, for $1.50. Nintendo is selling 30 year old games with less content than that for $5 or $8 icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Dec 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
OLIVIAS WILDE RIDER posted:Why would a grown adult be playing Smash Brothers. It's mechanics are about as deep as a children's play pool. smash brothers players aren't grown adults  for real though, nintendo makes good games but they are really really bad at selling consoles, minus the time they struck oil based on complete random chance.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
What exactly caused third parties to drop nintendo like the goddamned plague exactly? I understand they were sort of assholes to third parties back in the SNES days, then they used cartridges for the N64, but was there anything in particular they did besides that? Did devs slowly leak away then continued with Sony because of momentum?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Yeah I know that third parties have no reason to develop for consoles a generation behind like the Wii and WiiU, but the N64 and Gamecube always interested me in just why third parties fled. What was wrong with the Gamecube in particular? Third parties had mostly moved to sony by that point, but minus the proprietary discs the hardware was fine. Did they pull some rear end in a top hat move like having really high licensing fees or giving no developer support at all or something?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Yeah the camera had problems and a few of the levels were mediocre but it was still a great game. It was also lightyears more ambitious and charismatic than stuff like NSMB Wii.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 03:26 |
|
|
WiiFitForWindows8 posted:Sean Malstrom(who I am sure people consider a grognard) made the point that Nintendo probably will never go third-party because they believe it would devalue the games they make? Pretty much what Taint Reaper said, plus the fact that they're essentially family owned, and they won't go third party out of pride.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2014 10:57
|
|