And while things that are done well can get an advantage when it comes to sales, it doesn't always work. Case in point: the Zumba game. That damn thing shows up on the top 10 of sales charts month after month after month, and it's a pile of shit. And I don't say that in terms of "I hate Zumba, therefore the game sucks," I mean it's a buggy, unfun mess of an experience. (I can speak first-hand; my in-laws forced me to play it.) Yet it's still a sales monster. It's baffling.
This is why I think it's pointless to talk about sales figures when discussing the quality of anything.
And while Metroid Prime 3 may have sold like gangbusters, I don't think it says anything about people wanting a new input experience for Metroid. It says they wanted new Metroid. If Metroid Prime 3 had come out in motion-control and non-motion-control versions then we could compare sales and maybe say something about people's desire to point and waggle with Samus. But even then it's largely a matter of expectations and marketing rather than what people actually like. Sales can't tell you anything about whether people liked a game: people (mostly) only buy a game once, and they do so before they play it. If one million people purchased a game on release day and hated the fuck out of it, that's still a million day-one sales. You might see a sharp decline in sales over time based on how people felt about it, but then that's making assumptions about people's purchasing strategies based on reviews and word-of-mouth as opposed to brand or franchise loyalty. Sales figures are a stupid way to try to judge quality for one-off purchase items.
PSN,Steam,Live | CptHamiltonian
0
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
edited February 2012
What can be said with certainty is that Corruption's new input technology did not bring in people that hadn't played the predecessors (well, duh). Not to mention it did motion controls right. Shame it did some things wrong.
Absalon on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
My point had nothing to do with how well it sold. I'm talking about me paying for a whole new console to play a game that isn't measurably different than its last-gen predecessor.
What Nintendo seems to have gotten all backwards is that gamers are largely looking for new gameplay experiences, not new input experiences.
There's really only one way to prove or disprove how much an entire marketplace wants a device or feature that's extremely tied to the experience -- sales figures. And, well, we have sales figures for Metroid Prime 3, and they're about as strong as Metroid Prime 1. So, at the very least, that disproves that "gamers" don't want new input experiences, at least for that game.
Protip: Realizing that your opinions are not the opinions of the market as a whole will help avoid situations like this in the future.
I have no idea why you would base a refutation around the idea that "tolerant of" is anywhere near the same phenomenon as "actively seeking out." M:P3 was a great launch title on a (at the time) very hot system. I sincerely doubt the driving factor for sales was the nunchuk and waggle. My guess is that sales were driven by being a well-reviewed launch title on a popular system that was itself the second sequel in an already-popular franchise.
The only thing the sales figures "disproves" is that the controls weren't likely a significant hindrance to those leery about the new system in the first place. And still, M:P3 only sold half the units of M:P1, which I think is saying something considering there are about 500% more Wii consoles in circulation than there are GameCubes. Meaning, if my math is right (which correct me if I'm wrong, I have dyscalculia), there's about 1 copy of MP1 per 10 GameCube owners, and about 1 copy of MP3 per 60 Wii owners. Draw from those figures what you will.
The assy comments are needless.
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
I never picked up Corruption because I happen to be one of the ten people who liked the Wii but didn't like the Prime series. Never felt they really failed at what they were trying to do, just didn't really think said games were for me. Which is a shame I suppose, as Retro is a fantastic studio, but they haven't really made a game I wanted yet, despite the fact that I see they make top-shelf stuff whenever they do anything.
Nintendo seriously needs three more studios like Retro under its banner. Tacit support from Capcom, Squeenix, and Namco is not gonna cut it, and Nintendo would be better served making their own divisions that would mimic what those three would do if they were on board with a Nintendo console for a change.
Still surprised Nintendo hasn't made more overtures towards Sega.
Sega and Nintendo are raking in cash from the Mario & Sonic in the Olympics series, which is developed by Sega. But I know what you mean. F-Zero GX was good times and proved a Nintendo/Sega partnership can produce quality stuff.
I never picked up Corruption because I happen to be one of the ten people who liked the Wii but didn't like the Prime series. Never felt they really failed at what they were trying to do, just didn't really think said games were for me. Which is a shame I suppose, as Retro is a fantastic studio, but they haven't really made a game I wanted yet, despite the fact that I see they make top-shelf stuff whenever they do anything.
Nintendo seriously needs three more studios like Retro under its banner. Tacit support from Capcom, Squeenix, and Namco is not gonna cut it, and Nintendo would be better served making their own divisions that would mimic what those three would do if they were on board with a Nintendo console for a change.
Still surprised Nintendo hasn't made more overtures towards Sega.
They already have a Squeenix, so just Capcom and Namco?
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
I never picked up Corruption because I happen to be one of the ten people who liked the Wii but didn't like the Prime series. Never felt they really failed at what they were trying to do, just didn't really think said games were for me. Which is a shame I suppose, as Retro is a fantastic studio, but they haven't really made a game I wanted yet, despite the fact that I see they make top-shelf stuff whenever they do anything.
Nintendo seriously needs three more studios like Retro under its banner. Tacit support from Capcom, Squeenix, and Namco is not gonna cut it, and Nintendo would be better served making their own divisions that would mimic what those three would do if they were on board with a Nintendo console for a change.
Still surprised Nintendo hasn't made more overtures towards Sega.
They already have a Squeenix, so just Capcom and Namco?
I don't really believe they have Squeenix until Squeenix produces a major JPRG for their home consoles again.
I never picked up Corruption because I happen to be one of the ten people who liked the Wii but didn't like the Prime series. Never felt they really failed at what they were trying to do, just didn't really think said games were for me. Which is a shame I suppose, as Retro is a fantastic studio, but they haven't really made a game I wanted yet, despite the fact that I see they make top-shelf stuff whenever they do anything.
Nintendo seriously needs three more studios like Retro under its banner. Tacit support from Capcom, Squeenix, and Namco is not gonna cut it, and Nintendo would be better served making their own divisions that would mimic what those three would do if they were on board with a Nintendo console for a change.
Still surprised Nintendo hasn't made more overtures towards Sega.
They already have a Squeenix, so just Capcom and Namco?
I don't really believe they have Squeenix until Squeenix produces a major JPRG for their home consoles again.
A Squeenix. Monolith.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Still surprised Nintendo hasn't made more overtures towards Sega.
The great results NIntendo has had from exploiting the Sega brand in even the limited capacity is has is largely what put the idea in my head that Nintendo could go 100% 3rd-party for consoles in the years to come.
Do I think they will? Hardly. Nintendo seems entirely prideful for a company that doesn't really seem to want to pull in marketshare outside its own proprietary brands. But just looking at the numbers it seems that there is a reasonable argument to be made that Nintendo should get out of the console-making business, though that totally depends on how much net profit they actually made on the Wii console once the R&D, manufacturing, periphery, and fixed costs are assessed. At it's current price point of $99 I wouldn't think they're clearing too much profit, but they moved a lot of units at the original $250 price, so who knows?
Anyway, my point is that other than a half-dozen dancing game titles, 100% of Nintendo's software sales are first-party titles. It seems reasonable to wonder that having an expanded marketplace to offer their titles in, at generational parity in terms of specs and graphics, and without the costs of crafting and marketing their own console and periphery, might be financially lucrative.
We're all basically buying Nintendo consoles just to play our Nintendo-brand games. If those games were available for any other system that I owned, I'd still be buying them regardless. Mario, made by Nintendo, is still Mario.
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
We're all basically buying Nintendo consoles just to play our Nintendo-brand games. If those games were available for any other system that I owned, I'd still be buying them regardless. Mario, made by Nintendo, is still Mario.
Nintendo's very happy to be selling the plate you also use to eat the meals you buy from them. There's some arguments that can be made for Nintendo building their own hardware that allows them to build their software better, but that's an argument that would be helped if people other than Nintendo's own made high-grade stuff too.
I wonder if Nintendo is so set in their ways they consider it cheaper to develop their own console rather than learning to develop for four or five different systems and decide which games belong on which things. Preeeetty sure Nintendo don't want to make their next Mario for the PS3, XBOX, iPad all at the same time-and you know the way Nintendo works they'd only release that way if it was a simultaneous release.
EDIT:
Crazy thought. Nintendo creates a Nintendo App that's essentially a downloadable content delivery suite for your console of choice. Then Nintendo would only need to develop for the App itself. Given the big N's preferences for relatively underpowered tech, it could become very, very possible for your machine of choice to have a partition dedicated to Nintend's brand of characters.
That just might be enough to satisfying Nintendo's way of looking at things.
Linespider5 on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
We're all basically buying Nintendo consoles just to play our Nintendo-brand games. If those games were available for any other system that I owned, I'd still be buying them regardless. Mario, made by Nintendo, is still Mario.
Nintendo's very happy to be selling the plate you also use to eat the meals you buy from them. There's some arguments that can be made for Nintendo building their own hardware that allows them to build their software better, but that's an argument that would be helped if people other than Nintendo's own made high-grade stuff too.
I wonder if Nintendo is so set in their ways they consider it cheaper to develop their own console rather than learning to develop for four or five different systems and decide which games belong on which things. Preeeetty sure Nintendo don't want to make their next Mario for the PS3, XBOX, iPad all at the same time-and you know the way Nintendo works they'd only release that way if it was a simultaneous release.
Well, given that Sony and Microsoft are to be the only players in the next generation of consoles, Nintendo would really only have to code for those two systems, and I hear that's not an utterly herculean task. Hell, Nintendo could license their own kernel or shell subOS into the hardware of those two systems and make Sony and Microsoft pay THEM for the right to play Nintendo games, and still not have to significantly alter the way they design their games. The highest selling Nintendo title that wasn't a pack-in with a peripheral or a console only sold 10 million copies, and the figures fall sharply from there, whereas combined ports for PS3/360 games sell upwards of 25 million copies, and have several titles in that range.
At the very least the argument can be made that Nintendo, going that route, would have much greater market potential. Whether that potential is already being met by the Wii, I can't say, and it may already be. But who knows.
We're all basically buying Nintendo consoles just to play our Nintendo-brand games. If those games were available for any other system that I owned, I'd still be buying them regardless. Mario, made by Nintendo, is still Mario.
Nintendo's very happy to be selling the plate you also use to eat the meals you buy from them. There's some arguments that can be made for Nintendo building their own hardware that allows them to build their software better, but that's an argument that would be helped if people other than Nintendo's own made high-grade stuff too.
I wonder if Nintendo is so set in their ways they consider it cheaper to develop their own console rather than learning to develop for four or five different systems and decide which games belong on which things. Preeeetty sure Nintendo don't want to make their next Mario for the PS3, XBOX, iPad all at the same time-and you know the way Nintendo works they'd only release that way if it was a simultaneous release.
EDIT:
Crazy thought. Nintendo creates a Nintendo App that's essentially a downloadable content delivery suite for your console of choice. Then Nintendo would only need to develop for the App itself. Given the big N's preferences for relatively underpowered tech, it could become very, very possible for your machine of choice to have a partition dedicated to Nintend's brand of characters.
That just might be enough to satisfying Nintendo's way of looking at things.
Unlike the other consoles, the Wii was sold, per unit, at a profit over production costs on launch day. Assuming they can pull off that trick with the Wii-U as well, and as long as people keep buying their consoles hand over fist, Nintendo has no reason to develop for any other platform.
PSN,Steam,Live | CptHamiltonian
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Unlike the other consoles, the Wii was sold, per unit, at a profit over production costs on launch day. Assuming they can pull off that trick with the Wii-U as well, and as long as people keep buying their consoles hand over fist, Nintendo has no reason to develop for any other platform.
Yes, I recall the Wii bringing in good profits at the initial price point because so much of the hardware was recycled from the 'Cube. I seriously wonder if the trick can be repeated with the Wii-U, as I've said before I doubt that Nintendo can get away with charging more than $250 for it if it's really as limited in hardware and utility as some rumors suggest, and I don't think Nintendo can really afford to release a low-tech console at high-end prices. They're still in competition with Sony and MS, even with their new console, and if I can get those boxes for $150-250 and all their added utility, it's a hard sell to get me to pay much more than that just to have an HD Zelda box, especially since Zelda's not exactly setting my world on fire these days anyway.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Crazy thought. Nintendo creates a Nintendo App that's essentially a downloadable content delivery suite for your console of choice. Then Nintendo would only need to develop for the App itself. Given the big N's preferences for relatively underpowered tech, it could become very, very possible for your machine of choice to have a partition dedicated to Nintend's brand of characters.
That just might be enough to satisfying Nintendo's way of looking at things.
I've thought about this too, and I think as long as Nintendo isn't really committed to bringing high-powered next-gen tech to the development table (and no one in their right mind would have any reason to think otherwise), this might be a lucrative way for them to move into the future.
You could have the Nintendo Channel on your media bar, go in there, and pick whatever titles you wanted and download them to your HDD.
Unlike the other consoles, the Wii was sold, per unit, at a profit over production costs on launch day. Assuming they can pull off that trick with the Wii-U as well, and as long as people keep buying their consoles hand over fist, Nintendo has no reason to develop for any other platform.
Yes, I recall the Wii bringing in good profits at the initial price point because so much of the hardware was recycled from the 'Cube. I seriously wonder if the trick can be repeated with the Wii-U, as I've said before I doubt that Nintendo can get away with charging more than $250 for it if it's really as limited in hardware and utility as some rumors suggest, and I don't think Nintendo can really afford to release a low-tech console at high-end prices. They're still in competition with Sony and MS, even with their new console, and if I can get those boxes for $150-250 and all their added utility, it's a hard sell to get me to pay much more than that just to have an HD Zelda box, especially since Zelda's not exactly setting my world on fire these days anyway.
I don't think I buy the rumors saying it will be on-par with an xbox 360. The 360 is 6 or so year old technology and the PS3 5 or so. The Wii-U could be cheap and still out-power both of them. It can't be cheap and out-performing the forthcoming 720 and PS4, but it will have a year or two of lead time on them, depending on when all of these Mystical Future Machines actually reach market. The Wii is barely more performant than a gamecube and still sold like crack-laced hotcakes, but it had the benefit of OMGMotionSensor. I have doubts about the tablet controller sparking the same sort of frenzy, but the combo of Nintendo's marketing department and being the only new console releasing around holiday buying season will probably push plenty of units.
They would have to try to go high-end and actually compete on a level field, hardware-wise, with a same-gen xbox and playstation, and then fail for Nintendo's hardware section to tank at this point. Even if the console didn't sell at a profit, they'd have to just have terrible adoption rates to prevent them making it up in software sales. Like you said, Nintendo consoles are basically Nintendo Appliances. You buy a Nintendo to play some Nintendo. So every console sale is pretty much a guarantee of future software profits in Nintendo's pocket.
I suspect that Nintendo learned from Sega's fall. Selling super-awesome console hardware at a loss is great for us consumers, but it's a risky game to play from the console-maker's point of view. One bad product cycle can last for years, and if you're selling at a loss and not getting enough market penetration to make it up in software, that will kill you. Nintendo's apparent strategy of an offset release cycle from the high stakes end of the table lets them play safer and hedge their bets on new, weird hardware tricks that look good in the marketing material.
Crazy thought. Nintendo creates a Nintendo App that's essentially a downloadable content delivery suite for your console of choice. Then Nintendo would only need to develop for the App itself. Given the big N's preferences for relatively underpowered tech, it could become very, very possible for your machine of choice to have a partition dedicated to Nintend's brand of characters.
That just might be enough to satisfying Nintendo's way of looking at things.
I've thought about this too, and I think as long as Nintendo isn't really committed to bringing high-powered next-gen tech to the development table (and no one in their right mind would have any reason to think otherwise), this might be a lucrative way for them to move into the future.
You could have the Nintendo Channel on your media bar, go in there, and pick whatever titles you wanted and download them to your HDD.
I do admit I would pay moneys to have the Virtual Console on my PS3. If they fixed things like having the colours come up properly and add proper widescreen support that I don't have to squish my TV seperately for.
Saw a few pages back the talk that the Wii U would only support one of the touch screen controllers. To clarify:
"Let me correct something that is a misconception," Ryan began. "We said that the Wii U system will come with one Wii U controller, but we haven't said that you can only use one Wii U controller. The fact is that if the developer makes a game or an experience that uses more than one, then anything is possible."
"What we've also talked about is to imagine taking some of the experiences you've had at your own home, putting them on your Wii U controller, and taking that with you somewhere else. That would again get rid of that myth and misconception that only one can be used. So, the possibility is there, but the system will only come with one at this point."
Like Mega Man Legends? Then check out my story, Legends of the Halcyon Era - An Adventure in the World of Mega Man Legends on TMMN and AO3!
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
It'd be somewhat amusing if Nintendo went this route for a 'Nintendo Channel' on competitor's products but only sold their older virtual console titles on it.
Come to think of it, that would be very in step with Nintendo's general attitude about things.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
They would have to try to go high-end and actually compete on a level field, hardware-wise, with a same-gen xbox and playstation, and then fail for Nintendo's hardware section to tank at this point. Even if the console didn't sell at a profit, they'd have to just have terrible adoption rates to prevent them making it up in software sales. Like you said, Nintendo consoles are basically Nintendo Appliances. You buy a Nintendo to play some Nintendo. So every console sale is pretty much a guarantee of future software profits in Nintendo's pocket.
I think the $10,000 question is how much people are willing to pay to play HD Nintendo. There's a good argument that Nintendo should just stop trying to compete in the market altogether, since A) their 3rd-party games are selling like plague-tainted radium tonics, and it's unlikely the Wii-U is going to become the mainstream choice for traditional gaming experiences if everyone assumes that the next-gen consoles from Sony and MS (and all the utility and familiarity that implies) are just around the corner.
However, even in that scenario the Wii-U and Nintendo's open strategy of "getting back hardcore gamers" looks like a bad move. Right now, the Wii-U might be the worst thing Nintendo could do to themselves. People wanting a Nintendo Experience™ don't need too many bells and whistles to get their fix and are likely unwilling to pay a large amount to get it, while people wanting the traditional console approach will be loathe to re-up on a new console when they think The Next Big Thing is only a year or two out.
Put it this way: if the Wii-U isn't going offer a radically different experience for games like Mass Effect or Call of Duty, the people who play those kinds of games are going to stick it out with their current console until its next-gen counterpart hits the market. If the Wii-U isn't even going to offer those titles, they're going to have to either come up with some hellaciously fantastic restricted licensed titles (like Uncharted is with Sony and Halo is with MS) or they're going to have to have some shit-hot 1st-party launch titles, maybe even as pack-ins. Like Zelda.
And Jesus, the launch is going to have to be flawless. Like Mortal Kombat flawless. Like "so slick it's airflow profile doesn't even register" flawless. Like an Argonne x-ray laser diamond.
My point had nothing to do with how well it sold. I'm talking about me paying for a whole new console to play a game that isn't measurably different than its last-gen predecessor.
What Nintendo seems to have gotten all backwards is that gamers are largely looking for new gameplay experiences, not new input experiences.
There's really only one way to prove or disprove how much an entire marketplace wants a device or feature that's extremely tied to the experience -- sales figures. And, well, we have sales figures for Metroid Prime 3, and they're about as strong as Metroid Prime 1. So, at the very least, that disproves that "gamers" don't want new input experiences, at least for that game.
Protip: Realizing that your opinions are not the opinions of the market as a whole will help avoid situations like this in the future.
I have no idea why you would base a refutation around the idea that "tolerant of" is anywhere near the same phenomenon as "actively seeking out." M:P3 was a great launch title on a (at the time) very hot system. I sincerely doubt the driving factor for sales was the nunchuk and waggle. My guess is that sales were driven by being a well-reviewed launch title on a popular system that was itself the second sequel in an already-popular franchise.
The only thing the sales figures "disproves" is that the controls weren't likely a significant hindrance to those leery about the new system in the first place. And still, M:P3 only sold half the units of M:P1, which I think is saying something considering there are about 500% more Wii consoles in circulation than there are GameCubes. Meaning, if my math is right (which correct me if I'm wrong, I have dyscalculia), there's about 1 copy of MP1 per 10 GameCube owners, and about 1 copy of MP3 per 60 Wii owners. Draw from those figures what you will.
The assy comments are needless.
What assy comments? You mean the ones where I point out that you're assuming the entire market believes the same way you do? Dude, I've got nothing against you at all, but if you keep doing that, I'm going to keep pointing them out.
While we're on the subject of those pesky "fact" thingies, MP3 sold 1.31 million. MP1 sold 1.5 million. Not exactly "half" there.
And by the way, I didn't actually say "seeking out." All I said was that MP3's good sales disproved your notion that "gamers don't want new input experiences."
Still curious what the heck "putting motion controls in Metroid Prime 3 is a bargain in bad faith" is supposed to mean.
The highest selling Nintendo title that wasn't a pack-in with a peripheral or a console only sold 10 million copies, and the figures fall sharply from there, whereas combined ports for PS3/360 games sell upwards of 25 million copies, and have several titles in that range.
Because they appear on multiple systems, as we've said before. They have a bigger audience. Overall first-party, single-system games for the PS3 and 360 tend to sell less than multiplatform games.
By the way, I'm VERY curious about what your actual standards for success are here, because selling "only" 10 million is a ginormous success.
Yes, I recall the Wii bringing in good profits at the initial price point because so much of the hardware was recycled from the 'Cube. I seriously wonder if the trick can be repeated with the Wii-U, as I've said before I doubt that Nintendo can get away with charging more than $250 for it if it's really as limited in hardware and utility as some rumors suggest, and I don't think Nintendo can really afford to release a low-tech console at high-end prices. They're still in competition with Sony and MS, even with their new console, and if I can get those boxes for $150-250 and all their added utility, it's a hard sell to get me to pay much more than that just to have an HD Zelda box, especially since Zelda's not exactly setting my world on fire these days anyway.
Given that the 360 launched at $400 and the PS3 launched at $600, I think that's a rather optimistic hope.
And you do know that Nintendo makes more games than Zelda, right? And that the latest Zelda sold well, all things considered? Just sayin'.
cloudeagle on
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Saw a few pages back the talk that the Wii U would only support one of the touch screen controllers. To clarify:
"Let me correct something that is a misconception," Ryan began. "We said that the Wii U system will come with one Wii U controller, but we haven't said that you can only use one Wii U controller. The fact is that if the developer makes a game or an experience that uses more than one, then anything is possible."
"What we've also talked about is to imagine taking some of the experiences you've had at your own home, putting them on your Wii U controller, and taking that with you somewhere else. That would again get rid of that myth and misconception that only one can be used. So, the possibility is there, but the system will only come with one at this point."
That's some PR horseshit.
It's not a misconception, Miyamoto stated outright at E3 last year that the Wii-U would only support one tablet, suggesting that multiplayer games would use the old Wiimotes .
Doing some Googling, there seems to be a consensus now that the Wii-U will support up to two tablets per console, but no more thanks to hardware limitations. And even that hasn't been confirmed, and those rumors didn't start until well after the abysmal E3 showing. It's probably Nintendo using consumer feedback to do the right thing, but crap they really botched that expo.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
While we're on the subject of those pesky "fact" thingies, MP3 sold 1.31 million. MP1 sold 1.5 million. Not exactly "half" there.
If you've got another source for numbers, let me know. This is where I get mine. And it says half. Not quite half globally, but worse than half in just North America.
Again, I have dyscalculia, so let me know if my math is off.
Still curious what the heck "putting motion controls in Metroid Prime 3 is a bargain in bad faith" is supposed to mean.
We've delineated this already: asking consumers to pay for a new console and use a new input dynamic to play a game that isn't measurably different in terms of scope, specs, or style than it's predecessors. If MP3 is running on mostly the same hardware as its 'Cube ancestors, then I feel a little swindled.
Overall first-party, single-system games for the PS3 and 360 tend to sell less than multiplatform games.
You don't say? That was my whole point as to why Nintendo might want to offer multiplatform titles: increased access to consumers without having to market and design a new console.
By the way, I'm VERY curious about what your actual standards for success are here, because selling "only" 10 million is a ginormous success.
I'm not talking about success, this isn't an argument about who's failing at what. I'm talking about expanding the brand, and 10 million copies as Nintendo's peak for non-pack-in sales is pretty dim compared to the competitions' 25 million. That's territory Nintendo could be exploiting either on the front end by offering a competitive console or the back end by licensing their games to other consoles.
Yes, I recall the Wii bringing in good profits at the initial price point because so much of the hardware was recycled from the 'Cube. I seriously wonder if the trick can be repeated with the Wii-U, as I've said before I doubt that Nintendo can get away with charging more than $250 for it if it's really as limited in hardware and utility as some rumors suggest, and I don't think Nintendo can really afford to release a low-tech console at high-end prices. They're still in competition with Sony and MS, even with their new console, and if I can get those boxes for $150-250 and all their added utility, it's a hard sell to get me to pay much more than that just to have an HD Zelda box, especially since Zelda's not exactly setting my world on fire these days anyway.
Given that the 360 launched at $400 and the PS3 launched at $600, I think that's a rather optimistic hope.
It depends again on the utility and specs offered by the device. It it's as limited as the Wii was, with no HDMI output or 3D support, no DVD/BRD support, no real online functionality, limited access or no access to streaming video services, and no cloud storage, the thing better show up real cheap-like.
If it's amazing and apparent and has great launch titles and cuts, dices, and juliennes, they can charge a lot more.
I think the $10,000 question is how much people are willing to pay to play HD Nintendo.
The answer, as always, is "it depends on the games". People didn't start buying the 3DS in any real quantity until Mario Land/Mario Kart came out, at which point it jumped up to 5 million consoles sold, and did so faster than any previous Nintendo system. By the time WiiU coes out, the casual market will have had plenty of time to get tired of the current-gen systems, even counting for lifetime-extending innovations like Kinect and... okay, just Kinect... so there will definitely be an opening for a new HD console to enter the market. The question isn't just "does the market want a new HD Nintendo console?" but more broadly "does the market want a new HD console?"
There's a good argument that Nintendo should just stop trying to compete in the market altogether, since A) their 3rd-party games are selling like plague-tainted radium tonics, and it's unlikely the Wii-U is going to become the mainstream choice for traditional gaming experiences if everyone assumes that the next-gen consoles from Sony and MS (and all the utility and familiarity that implies) are just around the corner.
A is ony true if you ignore the million-selling third-party titles ("dance games don't count! party games don't count! games that sold less than 2 million copies don't count!"). B, again, depends entirely on the games library available on all consoles during the 3-12 months following the other consoles' launch window(s).
Put it this way: if the Wii-U isn't going offer a radically different experience for games like Mass Effect or Call of Duty, the people who play those kinds of games are going to stick it out with their current console until its next-gen counterpart hits the market.
During its first three months, Call of Duty: World at War sold more copies than Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare had during its first three months specifically because of Wii sales.
If the Wii-U isn't even going to offer those titles, they're going to have to either come up with some hellaciously fantastic restricted licensed titles (like Uncharted is with Sony and Halo is with MS) or they're going to have to have some shit-hot 1st-party launch titles, maybe even as pack-ins. Like Zelda.
Or, more likely, whatever the next-gen equivalent of Wii Sports will be. A mainstream or casual game, not a "core" game.
...and, wait, what? Uncharted and Halo weren't "restricted licensed titles", they were second-party titles. Sony owns Uncharted (IIRC) and MS obviously owns Halo.
If you've got another source for numbers, let me know. This is where I get mine. And it says half. Not quite half globally, but worse than half in just North America.
You didn't exactly source your numbers, either: vgchartz is notorious for making up their numbers.
There's a good argument that Nintendo should just stop trying to compete in the market altogether, since A) their 3rd-party games are selling like plague-tainted radium tonics, and it's unlikely the Wii-U is going to become the mainstream choice for traditional gaming experiences if everyone assumes that the next-gen consoles from Sony and MS (and all the utility and familiarity that implies) are just around the corner.
A is ony true if you ignore the million-selling third-party titles ("dance games don't count! party games don't count! games that sold less than 2 million copies don't count!"). B, again, depends entirely on the games library available on all consoles during the 3-12 months following the other consoles' launch window(s).
If you're formulating an argument that the Wii-U will be the next-gen leader thanks to dance games, I'd love to hear the rest of it.
Put it this way: if the Wii-U isn't going offer a radically different experience for games like Mass Effect or Call of Duty, the people who play those kinds of games are going to stick it out with their current console until its next-gen counterpart hits the market.
During its first three months, Call of Duty: World at War sold more copies than Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare had during its first three months specifically because of Wii sales.
That' still a bit misleading. When the dust settled, World at War sold almost 12 million copies on HD consoles to the Wii's 1.8 million. The saturation index on that looks real ugly, as the HD boxes did 500% better per capita.
Uncharted and Halo weren't "restricted licensed titles", they were second-party titles. Sony owns Uncharted (IIRC) and MS obviously owns Halo.
I was referring to brands exclusive to a single console. Sorry for any confusion.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
If you've got another source for numbers, let me know. This is where I get mine. And it says half. Not quite half globally, but worse than half in just North America.
vgchartz is notorious for making up their numbers.
Source? I'm willing to pull numbers from elsewhere. VGcharts is just really easy and comprehensive.
While we're on the subject of those pesky "fact" thingies, MP3 sold 1.31 million. MP1 sold 1.5 million. Not exactly "half" there.
If you've got another source for numbers, let me know. This is where I get mine. And it says half. Not quite half globally, but worse than half in just North America.
I promise this is not an attack on your position, but VGchartz literally makes up their numbers. Sometimes they go back and put in the correct numbers after the fact... usually they don't. Sorry man, I know it sucks... I'd give a nonvital body part for a site that was like VGchartz except, well, accurate.
Still curious what the heck "putting motion controls in Metroid Prime 3 is a bargain in bad faith" is supposed to mean.
We've delineated this already: asking consumers to pay for a new console and use a new input dynamic to play a game that isn't measurably different in terms of scope, specs, or style than it's predecessors. If MP3 is running on mostly the same hardware as its 'Cube ancestors, then I feel a little swindled.
But why does the game itself have to be measurably different for it to be worthwhile? Or did you feel the same way about, say, having to buy a new 360 in order to play the new Halo?
Overall first-party, single-system games for the PS3 and 360 tend to sell less than multiplatform games.
You don't say? That was my whole point as to why Nintendo might want to offer multiplatform titles: increased access to consumers without having to market and design a new console.
Ah, but your current thread title explains why they don't: they get licensing fees off every third-party game that's sold. So, even if they aren't able to leverage multiple platforms in order to juice sales, they still get exponentially more money off every other game. In addition to money off sales of the first-party games themselves, they act as, essentially, another carrot to get people to buy your system and plug into that system.
By the way, I'm VERY curious about what your actual standards for success are here, because selling "only" 10 million is a ginormous success.
I'm not talking about success, this isn't an argument about who's failing at what. I'm talking about expanding the brand, and 10 million copies as Nintendo's peak for non-pack-in sales is pretty dim compared to the competitions' 25 million. That's territory Nintendo could be exploiting either on the front end by offering a competitive console or the back end by licensing their games to other consoles.
But again, the only game selling 25 million is Call of Duty. Therefore, by that reasoning, every single publisher except for Activision is a failure. Or to put it another way: I think your standards for measuring success for Nintendo might be a tad high.
Yes, I recall the Wii bringing in good profits at the initial price point because so much of the hardware was recycled from the 'Cube. I seriously wonder if the trick can be repeated with the Wii-U, as I've said before I doubt that Nintendo can get away with charging more than $250 for it if it's really as limited in hardware and utility as some rumors suggest, and I don't think Nintendo can really afford to release a low-tech console at high-end prices. They're still in competition with Sony and MS, even with their new console, and if I can get those boxes for $150-250 and all their added utility, it's a hard sell to get me to pay much more than that just to have an HD Zelda box, especially since Zelda's not exactly setting my world on fire these days anyway.
Given that the 360 launched at $400 and the PS3 launched at $600, I think that's a rather optimistic hope.
It depends again on the utility and specs offered by the device. It it's as limited as the Wii was, with no HDMI output or 3D support, no DVD/BRD support, no real online functionality, limited access or no access to streaming video services, and no cloud storage, the thing better show up real cheap-like.
If it's amazing and apparent and has great launch titles and cuts, dices, and juliennes, they can charge a lot more.[/quote]
Wait... 3D support? Er... I'm not exactly sure that was a big loss. Though yes, functionally the Wii was more limited than the other systems. But that was part of a calculated strategy to be able to compete on price. And, in that case, it worked. In the last couple of generations Nintendo has been very competitive on price, so it would be a surprise if the Wii U was not.
Yes, there's that glaring exception: the 3DS. $250 for a portable wasn't cheap. Then again, its early sales were much, MUCH softer than Nintendo expected. When they slashed the price to $170, sales skyrocketed, and now it's selling better than the Wii did at that point in its life. So I think the lesson was very well learned. They could always surprise us, but lower prices are the precedent.
As to the rest of the things. HDMI support? The main reason HD wasn't in the Wii was due to cost. Now that it's so cheap, there's really no reason not to. DVD/BRD support? I'd be surprised if it did, since the Wii didn't pony up the $30 per unit for DVD support. Online functionality? True, Nintendo has skimped on that in the past, though they have promised a more robust Nintendo Network with retail downloads, DLC, no friend codes, etc. etc. Of course there's plenty of room to be skeptical, but we'll see how that one goes. Cloud storage? No word as of yet. Video services? Well, not only did the Wii have Netflix, but of the three consoles it was the most used for Netflix. And in fact Nintendo is currently negotiating more content streaming for the Wii U. Check it out:
By the time WiiU coes out, the casual market will have had plenty of time to get tired of the current-gen systems, even counting for lifetime-extending innovations like Kinect and... okay, just Kinect... so there will definitely be an opening for a new HD console to enter the market.
I feel like I need to come back to this.
Why would you come to this conclusion? Is there a trend showing a dropoff in software sales for current-gen systems? If there is, I'm totally not aware of that. According to the internet, software sales on HD consoles is up 11-15% over last year. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that the trickle will happen eventually, but we're talking about a new system that will be on the market potentially in just 9 short months.
I still think the current consoles have a good bit of life in them yet.
Interesting article, but it doesn't exactly disavow VGChartz' methods. At worst, it says that the figures for low-to-modestly selling games that have only been in release for a short period of time have been shown to be off in a handful of instances, and the company frequently addresses those discrepancies after the fact. Which, agreed, is not a great thing, but it's hardly what we're talking about here. Damningly, the article offers little to the contrary as an alternative, and its one example of a company spokesman refuting errant figures openly admits that the spokesman did not confirmed those numbers with data and he possibly could have gotten "sold" confused with "shipped.
I don't want to die on the hill of defending some database, but they seem fairly up-and-up.
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
Saw a few pages back the talk that the Wii U would only support one of the touch screen controllers. To clarify:
"Let me correct something that is a misconception," Ryan began. "We said that the Wii U system will come with one Wii U controller, but we haven't said that you can only use one Wii U controller. The fact is that if the developer makes a game or an experience that uses more than one, then anything is possible."
"What we've also talked about is to imagine taking some of the experiences you've had at your own home, putting them on your Wii U controller, and taking that with you somewhere else. That would again get rid of that myth and misconception that only one can be used. So, the possibility is there, but the system will only come with one at this point."
That's some PR horseshit.
It's not a misconception, Miyamoto stated outright at E3 last year that the Wii-U would only support one tablet, suggesting that multiplayer games would use the old Wiimotes .
Doing some Googling, there seems to be a consensus now that the Wii-U will support up to two tablets per console, but no more thanks to hardware limitations. And even that hasn't been confirmed, and those rumors didn't start until well after the abysmal E3 showing. It's probably Nintendo using consumer feedback to do the right thing, but crap they really botched that expo.
Not so sure on this. Miyamoto's opinions might mean a lot, but he's not the one that designs Nintendo's systems or has final say on what they can or can't do. Admittedly, he does have a lot of pull, and he obviously has access to a hell of a lot more than just about anyone else would on what Nintendo is up to.
At the risk of sounding optimistic, I'm more willing to believe that Miyamoto was really saying he would only be making games that used one tablet and no more than that. There's a hair's breadth between whatever Miyamoto does and what everyone else thinks is possible on a Nintendo machine, but in this case, I'm gonna say that's something to consider still.
I'm not suggesting anything more than that there's quite a lot we don't know, and that Nintendo's agenda at this point factors a lot less squarely on Miyamoto's opinion than it used to. Dude won't be around forever, after all.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
But why does the game itself have to be measurably different for it to be worthwhile? Or did you feel the same way about, say, having to buy a new 360 in order to play the new Halo?
Stealing an analogy from Linespider, what Nintendo did with MP3 was like having to pay for a new plate to eat the same steak. MP3, like almost all Wii games, is a GameCube game, and MP3 played exactly like its predecessors with no discernible difference other than the input device.
I don't own a 360, and I don't play Halo, but if I did buy a 360 I would be getting a hell of a lot more utility and hardware over the old Xbox; in paying for a new console, I'd be getting HD graphics, a DVD player, a great online gaming network, and several options for other services.
It's definitely not apples and oranges.
Ah, but your current thread title explains why they don't: they get licensing fees off every third-party game that's sold. So, even if they aren't able to leverage multiple platforms in order to juice sales, they still get exponentially more money off every other game. In addition to money off sales of the first-party games themselves, they act as, essentially, another carrot to get people to buy your system and plug into that system.
How many times do you think Nintendo will be able to successfully market a console that has productions margins like the Wii? Can they keep on selling underpowered boxes based on old tech forever?
A great article on how Zelda kind of sucks now and what could be done to right the ship. It's a bit wordy, but a lot of really salient points.
To test your receptiveness, the author initially offers that every Zelda game since A Link to the Past, with the exceptions of Majora's Mask and Wind Waker, were fundamentally broken experiences. Temper your expectations accordingly.
Also, interesting fact: Eiji Aonuma, lead project director on all things Zelda since Ocarina of Time, doesn't like the original Zelda and has never finished it.
Saying anything bad about Ocarina of time is worse than calling my mom fat
Because Ocarina is great, and well she could stand to lose a few pounds
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
Isn't Nintendo's video game division only a fraction of their income?
A great article on how Zelda kind of sucks now and what could be done to right the ship. It's a bit wordy, but a lot of really salient points.
To test your receptiveness, the author initially offers that every Zelda game since A Link to the Past, with the exceptions of Majora's Mask and Wind Waker, were fundamentally broken experiences. Temper your expectations accordingly.
Also, interesting fact: Eiji Aonuma, lead project director on all things Zelda since Ocarina of Time, doesn't like the original Zelda and has never finished it.
Saying anything bad about Ocarina of time is worse than calling my mom fat
Because Ocarina is great, and well she could stand to lose a few pounds
I personally don't have a problem with OoT. I think it's great.
What's not so great is that every title after OoT has been just a warmed-over OoT rehash, with maaaaybe the exception of Wind Waker.
Wind Waker is awesome.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
My opinion is that by most controlled rational analyses of traditional factors, the Wii has been (or rather, should have been) a total failure. Basically, IMO, the Wiimote never worked well. For the games I still play on the Wii, I usually prefer to opt out of any Wii-enabled control and use horizontal NES style or nunchuck Gamecube style controls (or use my Wavebirds, which still work great). The broad market of non-traditional gamers they targeted ended up, surprise, not wanting to spend a lot of time or money on games. Their strategy that "games are ready for online yet" was obviously wrong and they've been trying hard to overcome it ever since.
The Wii had some powerful "soft" factors working for it that had a huge impact. If not for these, I'm certain Nintendo would have continued their demise that had been going on since the N64 and PlayStation. Launching at a significantly reduced price point was major. When kids were screaming for the latest console, parents had a viable option to offer them the latest hardware from the most trusted name in video games, at hundreds of dollars less. And, the wiimote at least looked innovative enough to drum up a lot curiosity and impulse buying from a much broader market of consumers. Even a lot of gamers, including me, were willing to consider that maybe games weren't about just another hardware spec sheet buff anymore, and that this Wiimote thing was the entry into VR we'd all been hoping for.
But most of those kids got their PS3 or 360 soon anyway, because what's the latest system if it can't run a decent version of the latest great games? And 99% of those non-gamers don't touch their Wii anymore and are trying to sell them and regret ever buying them. And although it has in many ways turned out to be true that the latest hardware specs aren't as significant as they used to be, we've learned this lesson mostly through things like Steam, and Portal, and the media capabilities of XBL and PSN. And, to some degree, the Kinect has fulfilled the Wiimote fantasy better than the Wiimote ever did. Nintendo made a ton of cash selling Wiis like crazy out of the gate, and has kept the platform respectable in some ways due to the large market presence. There's no denying the financial success, at least initially. But in practicality, the thing is a failure. And I seriously seriously doubt that Nintendo will have all those tides moving in its favor with the next console. They can launch at a lower price point, but they won't be seen as an alternative to other next-gen consoles. Non-hardcore casual gamers aren't going to want the Next Thing, and hardcore gamers, even kids relying on their parents, aren't going to consider the next Nintendo to even be the Next Thing. Of course I can't have a whole lot of certainty in a prediction, but my gut says the next Nintendo will be a spectacular failure. At one point I might have said that Nintendo should stick to handhelds, but not if the 3DS is any indication. I'd like to see the Gameboy/DS line continue as the hardcore gamer's alternative to Angry Birds. But failing that, yeah, let's just have Mario and Zelda on the next Xbox,
Posts
This is why I think it's pointless to talk about sales figures when discussing the quality of anything.
And while Metroid Prime 3 may have sold like gangbusters, I don't think it says anything about people wanting a new input experience for Metroid. It says they wanted new Metroid. If Metroid Prime 3 had come out in motion-control and non-motion-control versions then we could compare sales and maybe say something about people's desire to point and waggle with Samus. But even then it's largely a matter of expectations and marketing rather than what people actually like. Sales can't tell you anything about whether people liked a game: people (mostly) only buy a game once, and they do so before they play it. If one million people purchased a game on release day and hated the fuck out of it, that's still a million day-one sales. You might see a sharp decline in sales over time based on how people felt about it, but then that's making assumptions about people's purchasing strategies based on reviews and word-of-mouth as opposed to brand or franchise loyalty. Sales figures are a stupid way to try to judge quality for one-off purchase items.
I have no idea why you would base a refutation around the idea that "tolerant of" is anywhere near the same phenomenon as "actively seeking out." M:P3 was a great launch title on a (at the time) very hot system. I sincerely doubt the driving factor for sales was the nunchuk and waggle. My guess is that sales were driven by being a well-reviewed launch title on a popular system that was itself the second sequel in an already-popular franchise.
The only thing the sales figures "disproves" is that the controls weren't likely a significant hindrance to those leery about the new system in the first place. And still, M:P3 only sold half the units of M:P1, which I think is saying something considering there are about 500% more Wii consoles in circulation than there are GameCubes. Meaning, if my math is right (which correct me if I'm wrong, I have dyscalculia), there's about 1 copy of MP1 per 10 GameCube owners, and about 1 copy of MP3 per 60 Wii owners. Draw from those figures what you will.
The assy comments are needless.
Nintendo seriously needs three more studios like Retro under its banner. Tacit support from Capcom, Squeenix, and Namco is not gonna cut it, and Nintendo would be better served making their own divisions that would mimic what those three would do if they were on board with a Nintendo console for a change.
Still surprised Nintendo hasn't made more overtures towards Sega.
They already have a Squeenix, so just Capcom and Namco?
I don't really believe they have Squeenix until Squeenix produces a major JPRG for their home consoles again.
A Squeenix. Monolith.
The great results NIntendo has had from exploiting the Sega brand in even the limited capacity is has is largely what put the idea in my head that Nintendo could go 100% 3rd-party for consoles in the years to come.
Do I think they will? Hardly. Nintendo seems entirely prideful for a company that doesn't really seem to want to pull in marketshare outside its own proprietary brands. But just looking at the numbers it seems that there is a reasonable argument to be made that Nintendo should get out of the console-making business, though that totally depends on how much net profit they actually made on the Wii console once the R&D, manufacturing, periphery, and fixed costs are assessed. At it's current price point of $99 I wouldn't think they're clearing too much profit, but they moved a lot of units at the original $250 price, so who knows?
Anyway, my point is that other than a half-dozen dancing game titles, 100% of Nintendo's software sales are first-party titles. It seems reasonable to wonder that having an expanded marketplace to offer their titles in, at generational parity in terms of specs and graphics, and without the costs of crafting and marketing their own console and periphery, might be financially lucrative.
We're all basically buying Nintendo consoles just to play our Nintendo-brand games. If those games were available for any other system that I owned, I'd still be buying them regardless. Mario, made by Nintendo, is still Mario.
Nintendo's very happy to be selling the plate you also use to eat the meals you buy from them. There's some arguments that can be made for Nintendo building their own hardware that allows them to build their software better, but that's an argument that would be helped if people other than Nintendo's own made high-grade stuff too.
I wonder if Nintendo is so set in their ways they consider it cheaper to develop their own console rather than learning to develop for four or five different systems and decide which games belong on which things. Preeeetty sure Nintendo don't want to make their next Mario for the PS3, XBOX, iPad all at the same time-and you know the way Nintendo works they'd only release that way if it was a simultaneous release.
EDIT:
Crazy thought. Nintendo creates a Nintendo App that's essentially a downloadable content delivery suite for your console of choice. Then Nintendo would only need to develop for the App itself. Given the big N's preferences for relatively underpowered tech, it could become very, very possible for your machine of choice to have a partition dedicated to Nintend's brand of characters.
That just might be enough to satisfying Nintendo's way of looking at things.
Well, given that Sony and Microsoft are to be the only players in the next generation of consoles, Nintendo would really only have to code for those two systems, and I hear that's not an utterly herculean task. Hell, Nintendo could license their own kernel or shell subOS into the hardware of those two systems and make Sony and Microsoft pay THEM for the right to play Nintendo games, and still not have to significantly alter the way they design their games. The highest selling Nintendo title that wasn't a pack-in with a peripheral or a console only sold 10 million copies, and the figures fall sharply from there, whereas combined ports for PS3/360 games sell upwards of 25 million copies, and have several titles in that range.
At the very least the argument can be made that Nintendo, going that route, would have much greater market potential. Whether that potential is already being met by the Wii, I can't say, and it may already be. But who knows.
Unlike the other consoles, the Wii was sold, per unit, at a profit over production costs on launch day. Assuming they can pull off that trick with the Wii-U as well, and as long as people keep buying their consoles hand over fist, Nintendo has no reason to develop for any other platform.
Yes, I recall the Wii bringing in good profits at the initial price point because so much of the hardware was recycled from the 'Cube. I seriously wonder if the trick can be repeated with the Wii-U, as I've said before I doubt that Nintendo can get away with charging more than $250 for it if it's really as limited in hardware and utility as some rumors suggest, and I don't think Nintendo can really afford to release a low-tech console at high-end prices. They're still in competition with Sony and MS, even with their new console, and if I can get those boxes for $150-250 and all their added utility, it's a hard sell to get me to pay much more than that just to have an HD Zelda box, especially since Zelda's not exactly setting my world on fire these days anyway.
I've thought about this too, and I think as long as Nintendo isn't really committed to bringing high-powered next-gen tech to the development table (and no one in their right mind would have any reason to think otherwise), this might be a lucrative way for them to move into the future.
You could have the Nintendo Channel on your media bar, go in there, and pick whatever titles you wanted and download them to your HDD.
I don't think I buy the rumors saying it will be on-par with an xbox 360. The 360 is 6 or so year old technology and the PS3 5 or so. The Wii-U could be cheap and still out-power both of them. It can't be cheap and out-performing the forthcoming 720 and PS4, but it will have a year or two of lead time on them, depending on when all of these Mystical Future Machines actually reach market. The Wii is barely more performant than a gamecube and still sold like crack-laced hotcakes, but it had the benefit of OMGMotionSensor. I have doubts about the tablet controller sparking the same sort of frenzy, but the combo of Nintendo's marketing department and being the only new console releasing around holiday buying season will probably push plenty of units.
They would have to try to go high-end and actually compete on a level field, hardware-wise, with a same-gen xbox and playstation, and then fail for Nintendo's hardware section to tank at this point. Even if the console didn't sell at a profit, they'd have to just have terrible adoption rates to prevent them making it up in software sales. Like you said, Nintendo consoles are basically Nintendo Appliances. You buy a Nintendo to play some Nintendo. So every console sale is pretty much a guarantee of future software profits in Nintendo's pocket.
I suspect that Nintendo learned from Sega's fall. Selling super-awesome console hardware at a loss is great for us consumers, but it's a risky game to play from the console-maker's point of view. One bad product cycle can last for years, and if you're selling at a loss and not getting enough market penetration to make it up in software, that will kill you. Nintendo's apparent strategy of an offset release cycle from the high stakes end of the table lets them play safer and hedge their bets on new, weird hardware tricks that look good in the marketing material.
I do admit I would pay moneys to have the Virtual Console on my PS3. If they fixed things like having the colours come up properly and add proper widescreen support that I don't have to squish my TV seperately for.
Like Mega Man Legends? Then check out my story, Legends of the Halcyon Era - An Adventure in the World of Mega Man Legends on TMMN and AO3!
Come to think of it, that would be very in step with Nintendo's general attitude about things.
I think the $10,000 question is how much people are willing to pay to play HD Nintendo. There's a good argument that Nintendo should just stop trying to compete in the market altogether, since A) their 3rd-party games are selling like plague-tainted radium tonics, and
However, even in that scenario the Wii-U and Nintendo's open strategy of "getting back hardcore gamers" looks like a bad move. Right now, the Wii-U might be the worst thing Nintendo could do to themselves. People wanting a Nintendo Experience™ don't need too many bells and whistles to get their fix and are likely unwilling to pay a large amount to get it, while people wanting the traditional console approach will be loathe to re-up on a new console when they think The Next Big Thing is only a year or two out.
Put it this way: if the Wii-U isn't going offer a radically different experience for games like Mass Effect or Call of Duty, the people who play those kinds of games are going to stick it out with their current console until its next-gen counterpart hits the market. If the Wii-U isn't even going to offer those titles, they're going to have to either come up with some hellaciously fantastic restricted licensed titles (like Uncharted is with Sony and Halo is with MS) or they're going to have to have some shit-hot 1st-party launch titles, maybe even as pack-ins. Like Zelda.
And Jesus, the launch is going to have to be flawless. Like Mortal Kombat flawless. Like "so slick it's airflow profile doesn't even register" flawless. Like an Argonne x-ray laser diamond.
Which is flawless.
What assy comments? You mean the ones where I point out that you're assuming the entire market believes the same way you do? Dude, I've got nothing against you at all, but if you keep doing that, I'm going to keep pointing them out.
While we're on the subject of those pesky "fact" thingies, MP3 sold 1.31 million. MP1 sold 1.5 million. Not exactly "half" there.
And by the way, I didn't actually say "seeking out." All I said was that MP3's good sales disproved your notion that "gamers don't want new input experiences."
Still curious what the heck "putting motion controls in Metroid Prime 3 is a bargain in bad faith" is supposed to mean.
Because they appear on multiple systems, as we've said before. They have a bigger audience. Overall first-party, single-system games for the PS3 and 360 tend to sell less than multiplatform games.
By the way, I'm VERY curious about what your actual standards for success are here, because selling "only" 10 million is a ginormous success.
Given that the 360 launched at $400 and the PS3 launched at $600, I think that's a rather optimistic hope.
And you do know that Nintendo makes more games than Zelda, right? And that the latest Zelda sold well, all things considered? Just sayin'.
That's some PR horseshit.
It's not a misconception, Miyamoto stated outright at E3 last year that the Wii-U would only support one tablet, suggesting that multiplayer games would use the old Wiimotes .
Doing some Googling, there seems to be a consensus now that the Wii-U will support up to two tablets per console, but no more thanks to hardware limitations. And even that hasn't been confirmed, and those rumors didn't start until well after the abysmal E3 showing. It's probably Nintendo using consumer feedback to do the right thing, but crap they really botched that expo.
If you've got another source for numbers, let me know. This is where I get mine. And it says half. Not quite half globally, but worse than half in just North America.
Again, I have dyscalculia, so let me know if my math is off.
We've delineated this already: asking consumers to pay for a new console and use a new input dynamic to play a game that isn't measurably different in terms of scope, specs, or style than it's predecessors. If MP3 is running on mostly the same hardware as its 'Cube ancestors, then I feel a little swindled.
You don't say? That was my whole point as to why Nintendo might want to offer multiplatform titles: increased access to consumers without having to market and design a new console.
I'm not talking about success, this isn't an argument about who's failing at what. I'm talking about expanding the brand, and 10 million copies as Nintendo's peak for non-pack-in sales is pretty dim compared to the competitions' 25 million. That's territory Nintendo could be exploiting either on the front end by offering a competitive console or the back end by licensing their games to other consoles.
It depends again on the utility and specs offered by the device. It it's as limited as the Wii was, with no HDMI output or 3D support, no DVD/BRD support, no real online functionality, limited access or no access to streaming video services, and no cloud storage, the thing better show up real cheap-like.
If it's amazing and apparent and has great launch titles and cuts, dices, and juliennes, they can charge a lot more.
The answer, as always, is "it depends on the games". People didn't start buying the 3DS in any real quantity until Mario Land/Mario Kart came out, at which point it jumped up to 5 million consoles sold, and did so faster than any previous Nintendo system. By the time WiiU coes out, the casual market will have had plenty of time to get tired of the current-gen systems, even counting for lifetime-extending innovations like Kinect and... okay, just Kinect... so there will definitely be an opening for a new HD console to enter the market. The question isn't just "does the market want a new HD Nintendo console?" but more broadly "does the market want a new HD console?"
A is ony true if you ignore the million-selling third-party titles ("dance games don't count! party games don't count! games that sold less than 2 million copies don't count!"). B, again, depends entirely on the games library available on all consoles during the 3-12 months following the other consoles' launch window(s).
During its first three months, Call of Duty: World at War sold more copies than Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare had during its first three months specifically because of Wii sales.
Or, more likely, whatever the next-gen equivalent of Wii Sports will be. A mainstream or casual game, not a "core" game.
...and, wait, what? Uncharted and Halo weren't "restricted licensed titles", they were second-party titles. Sony owns Uncharted (IIRC) and MS obviously owns Halo.
You didn't exactly source your numbers, either: vgchartz is notorious for making up their numbers.
If you're formulating an argument that the Wii-U will be the next-gen leader thanks to dance games, I'd love to hear the rest of it.
That' still a bit misleading. When the dust settled, World at War sold almost 12 million copies on HD consoles to the Wii's 1.8 million. The saturation index on that looks real ugly, as the HD boxes did 500% better per capita.
I was referring to brands exclusive to a single console. Sorry for any confusion.
Source? I'm willing to pull numbers from elsewhere. VGcharts is just really easy and comprehensive.
I promise this is not an attack on your position, but VGchartz literally makes up their numbers. Sometimes they go back and put in the correct numbers after the fact... usually they don't. Sorry man, I know it sucks... I'd give a nonvital body part for a site that was like VGchartz except, well, accurate.
But why does the game itself have to be measurably different for it to be worthwhile? Or did you feel the same way about, say, having to buy a new 360 in order to play the new Halo?
Ah, but your current thread title explains why they don't: they get licensing fees off every third-party game that's sold. So, even if they aren't able to leverage multiple platforms in order to juice sales, they still get exponentially more money off every other game. In addition to money off sales of the first-party games themselves, they act as, essentially, another carrot to get people to buy your system and plug into that system.
But again, the only game selling 25 million is Call of Duty. Therefore, by that reasoning, every single publisher except for Activision is a failure. Or to put it another way: I think your standards for measuring success for Nintendo might be a tad high.
It depends again on the utility and specs offered by the device. It it's as limited as the Wii was, with no HDMI output or 3D support, no DVD/BRD support, no real online functionality, limited access or no access to streaming video services, and no cloud storage, the thing better show up real cheap-like.
If it's amazing and apparent and has great launch titles and cuts, dices, and juliennes, they can charge a lot more.[/quote]
Wait... 3D support? Er... I'm not exactly sure that was a big loss. Though yes, functionally the Wii was more limited than the other systems. But that was part of a calculated strategy to be able to compete on price. And, in that case, it worked. In the last couple of generations Nintendo has been very competitive on price, so it would be a surprise if the Wii U was not.
Yes, there's that glaring exception: the 3DS. $250 for a portable wasn't cheap. Then again, its early sales were much, MUCH softer than Nintendo expected. When they slashed the price to $170, sales skyrocketed, and now it's selling better than the Wii did at that point in its life. So I think the lesson was very well learned. They could always surprise us, but lower prices are the precedent.
As to the rest of the things. HDMI support? The main reason HD wasn't in the Wii was due to cost. Now that it's so cheap, there's really no reason not to. DVD/BRD support? I'd be surprised if it did, since the Wii didn't pony up the $30 per unit for DVD support. Online functionality? True, Nintendo has skimped on that in the past, though they have promised a more robust Nintendo Network with retail downloads, DLC, no friend codes, etc. etc. Of course there's plenty of room to be skeptical, but we'll see how that one goes. Cloud storage? No word as of yet. Video services? Well, not only did the Wii have Netflix, but of the three consoles it was the most used for Netflix. And in fact Nintendo is currently negotiating more content streaming for the Wii U. Check it out:
http://www.joystiq.com/2012/02/22/report-nintendo-negotiating-wii-u-video-content-streaming/
Really, assuming Nintendo isn't blowing smoke up our asses the Wii U doesn't look as limited as it may seem.
I feel like I need to come back to this.
Why would you come to this conclusion? Is there a trend showing a dropoff in software sales for current-gen systems? If there is, I'm totally not aware of that. According to the internet, software sales on HD consoles is up 11-15% over last year. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that the trickle will happen eventually, but we're talking about a new system that will be on the market potentially in just 9 short months.
I still think the current consoles have a good bit of life in them yet.
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/637240-ultimate-marvel-vs-capcom-3/61853966
http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/The_Truth_Behind_How_VGChartz_Gets_Their_Numbers
Interesting article, but it doesn't exactly disavow VGChartz' methods. At worst, it says that the figures for low-to-modestly selling games that have only been in release for a short period of time have been shown to be off in a handful of instances, and the company frequently addresses those discrepancies after the fact. Which, agreed, is not a great thing, but it's hardly what we're talking about here. Damningly, the article offers little to the contrary as an alternative, and its one example of a company spokesman refuting errant figures openly admits that the spokesman did not confirmed those numbers with data and he possibly could have gotten "sold" confused with "shipped.
I don't want to die on the hill of defending some database, but they seem fairly up-and-up.
Not so sure on this. Miyamoto's opinions might mean a lot, but he's not the one that designs Nintendo's systems or has final say on what they can or can't do. Admittedly, he does have a lot of pull, and he obviously has access to a hell of a lot more than just about anyone else would on what Nintendo is up to.
At the risk of sounding optimistic, I'm more willing to believe that Miyamoto was really saying he would only be making games that used one tablet and no more than that. There's a hair's breadth between whatever Miyamoto does and what everyone else thinks is possible on a Nintendo machine, but in this case, I'm gonna say that's something to consider still.
I'm not suggesting anything more than that there's quite a lot we don't know, and that Nintendo's agenda at this point factors a lot less squarely on Miyamoto's opinion than it used to. Dude won't be around forever, after all.
Stealing an analogy from Linespider, what Nintendo did with MP3 was like having to pay for a new plate to eat the same steak. MP3, like almost all Wii games, is a GameCube game, and MP3 played exactly like its predecessors with no discernible difference other than the input device.
I don't own a 360, and I don't play Halo, but if I did buy a 360 I would be getting a hell of a lot more utility and hardware over the old Xbox; in paying for a new console, I'd be getting HD graphics, a DVD player, a great online gaming network, and several options for other services.
It's definitely not apples and oranges.
How many times do you think Nintendo will be able to successfully market a console that has productions margins like the Wii? Can they keep on selling underpowered boxes based on old tech forever?
Saying anything bad about Ocarina of time is worse than calling my mom fat
Because Ocarina is great, and well she could stand to lose a few pounds
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
I personally don't have a problem with OoT. I think it's great.
What's not so great is that every title after OoT has been just a warmed-over OoT rehash, with maaaaybe the exception of Wind Waker.
Wind Waker is awesome.
As opposed to their seafood and power tool divisions?
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
I dunno. Maybe.
The fact that I can't recall any other product made by Nintendo other than video games probably doesn't bode well for that line of thought.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
The Wii had some powerful "soft" factors working for it that had a huge impact. If not for these, I'm certain Nintendo would have continued their demise that had been going on since the N64 and PlayStation. Launching at a significantly reduced price point was major. When kids were screaming for the latest console, parents had a viable option to offer them the latest hardware from the most trusted name in video games, at hundreds of dollars less. And, the wiimote at least looked innovative enough to drum up a lot curiosity and impulse buying from a much broader market of consumers. Even a lot of gamers, including me, were willing to consider that maybe games weren't about just another hardware spec sheet buff anymore, and that this Wiimote thing was the entry into VR we'd all been hoping for.
But most of those kids got their PS3 or 360 soon anyway, because what's the latest system if it can't run a decent version of the latest great games? And 99% of those non-gamers don't touch their Wii anymore and are trying to sell them and regret ever buying them. And although it has in many ways turned out to be true that the latest hardware specs aren't as significant as they used to be, we've learned this lesson mostly through things like Steam, and Portal, and the media capabilities of XBL and PSN. And, to some degree, the Kinect has fulfilled the Wiimote fantasy better than the Wiimote ever did. Nintendo made a ton of cash selling Wiis like crazy out of the gate, and has kept the platform respectable in some ways due to the large market presence. There's no denying the financial success, at least initially. But in practicality, the thing is a failure. And I seriously seriously doubt that Nintendo will have all those tides moving in its favor with the next console. They can launch at a lower price point, but they won't be seen as an alternative to other next-gen consoles. Non-hardcore casual gamers aren't going to want the Next Thing, and hardcore gamers, even kids relying on their parents, aren't going to consider the next Nintendo to even be the Next Thing. Of course I can't have a whole lot of certainty in a prediction, but my gut says the next Nintendo will be a spectacular failure. At one point I might have said that Nintendo should stick to handhelds, but not if the 3DS is any indication. I'd like to see the Gameboy/DS line continue as the hardcore gamer's alternative to Angry Birds. But failing that, yeah, let's just have Mario and Zelda on the next Xbox,