Nintendo Switch

[action]

if nintendo stopped being quirky, i wouldn't be a gamer anymore (except for playing my back catalogue)

[RussTCB]

For anyone interested, IGN put up an extremely helpful map:

http://www.ign.com/maps/the-legend-of-zelda-breath-of-the-wild/hyrule

[downzy]

7 hours ago, Rovim said:

Nintendo's first console was a handheld. Their approach to making videogames always took advantage of what you can do when you develop both the hardware and the software. They are slow to change as a company, but they make changes all the time, it's important for them to keep the identity of their games and they want to be like the Disney of videogames basically.

They don't compete directly with Sony and Microsoft cause to take losses on hardware and focusing on power was never ever their chosen strategy. It was selling an affordable gaming console with perfect gameplay, focusing on fun and unique shit you can't get anywhere else cause you're looking for that Nintendo signature magic.

It's like comparing a fusion chef with an old school cook with 60 years of experience making totally awesome food that doesn't taste like nothing else, but you kinda expect the advantages of having all the modern tech in every console by any company cause the other 2  can do amazing shit that's pretty much the standard now. But that's ignoring the way Nintendo operates and what they aim to offer.

They didn't make all this money cause they're stupid. It's a transitioning period for them with a new president and new business strategies and partnerships with other developers, but without the freedom of always trying new and maybe risky things, Nintendo cannot move forward cause they can't beat Sony at their own game. They're better at being Nintendo and finding the balance of affordable hardware that always tries to highlight the great things about Nintendo games and delivering quality.

It's good to have one quirky company that offers very different things to a PS4 experience which is also great.

While I don't disagree with some of your analysis, I still think it's over-evaluating the importance in hardware when compared to where Nintendo's value proposition truly lies - it's software/games.

Your summary of Nintendo's unwillingness to compete on a power basis has only been true since the gamecube.  The NES, SuperNES, and N64 were competitive from a hardware perspective with their rivals at the time.  

I'd also have to counter that Sony and Microsoft don't also position their products as affordable options to gaming.  The Nintendo NES, released in 1985, when adjusted for inflation, would cost $450 in today's dollars (more than the PS2, PS4, Xbox, and Xbox 360). 

Your analogy of the chef and his food again misses the point I'm making: the value of Nintendo isn't in the hardware, it's in the software.  Save for the Wii, which caught people's attention for a couple of years before motion-controlled gaming fell out of favour, Nintendo's success is solely the product of the strength of their games.  They are excellent game makers, but there's little need to produce their own hardware (outside of the profit motive).  Yes, Nintendo has made a lot of money and is sitting on enormous cash reserves.  They're not going away any time soon.  But their ability to attract new customers and retain brand loyalty is shrinking.  Making different consoles, unless it delivers a truly unique and captivating gaming experience, isn't going to help in this cause.  There's an entire generation of young gamers on its way who were introduced to gaming on an iPhone and later a playstation or xbox.  Mario or Zelda means nothing to them.  Nostalgia and excellent game design keeps Nintendo in business, not it's hardware.  The only reason people bought a Wii U was because it was the only place to play Mario games and it lost Nintendo a lot money.  How many more failed hardware efforts can it afford to make before it gives up that approach?  For me, the Switch is the make or break product.  if it turns into another Wii U, board members and shareholders will either revolt or watch Nintendo become a much smaller, less viable company in the long term.  Keep in this mind: Nintendo hasn't turned a fiscal year profit in seven years and revenue has been flat for the last six.  

I agree that Nintendo can't beat Sony at its own game if it's unwilling to even try.  They use to compete on that front and win because their games were so much better or different.  But at this point their handicapping their customer's experience by not giving them the best platform and multiplayer to play on.  As some have already commented, while its' great to play a new Zelda game, it sucks that it isn't all it can be due to limited hardware capabilities.  

The Switch does offer a new means of playing games, but will it be enough for non-Nintendo fans to jump aboard?  And I agree that is good for a company to take a different approach, but not at the expense of degrading a player's experience.  Unfortunately for Nintendo, doing things differently hasn't made financial sense for coming on a decade.  The desire to retain revenues/profits from their iconic brands has not translated into making actual money.  The company made $120 million US from Pokemon Go by finally accepting who now runs mobile gaming.  When will they do the same for console gaming?

What I would like to see Nintendo do is become a cloud/stream gaming company that enters into licensing agreements with television manufacturers.  Then adopt a Netflix subscription business model where customers only need a relatively new smart tv, a controller Nintendo sells, and $10 a month to enjoy Nintendo's entire catalogue, including all newly released games (that would run on computers powerful enough to compete with anything Microsoft or Sony releases).  Maybe the technology or infrastructure isn't quite there to do that, but it's insistence on remaining in the hardware business isn't doing it any favours.  

[Rovim]

23 hours ago, downzy said:

 

I see where you're coming from, some valid points. Nintendo are still playing catch up with hardware, online, and console power to use for graphics, physics, etc. But I also believe Nintendo's willingness to push forward with their gameplay and experiment to find out what the future of gaming might be was the main reason traditional console controllers are the standard now. They released Mario Run for smart phones which was highly successful for 10 bucks, and they're looking into VR, and their Amiibo line is printing money.

Best example I can think of is how Nintendo came up with a way to use the analog stick for the N64 console, and put that hardware to use in Mario 64, creating an industry standard of third person platforming games. This is just one out of many examples of Nintendo innovation that stood the test of time.

Freedom in Mario 64, freedom in Breath Of The Wild, true open world where you can interact with the world fully. On the other hand, implementing a jump button in Zelda took them 30 years.

Thanks to the fact Nintendo cares a lot about gameplay, their R&D department comes up with innovative ways to control a game, and even more than that experience it. Even the Wii controllers were built upon for VR controllers like Oculus Touch and HTC Vibe. Sony as well for Morpheus wand controllers.

the NES was affordable compared to what came before it from other companies and compared to direct competitions from others in it's time and years after it's release many consoles were sold for 600$ or more. The snes was not a power house compared to the genesis by Sega. The two were comparable in power wite better colors in the snes and a fake 3d chip thing. They've always made affordable consoles, Nintendo even said something like that. If anything, making both the hardware and the software is underrated. Valve is doing the same thing with a lot of their products. You just have more to do when you're thinking about the next game you want to make.

But not every new hardware is gonna be adopted for the future by the entire market, it's just most of what Nintendo came up with first, other developers are still using it, even open world games like GTA were first on 2d and Zelda 1 was the pioneer of those types of games. Nintendo takes an old idea sometimes and years later you can see what they wanted to do. Like Breath Of The Wild after Aonuma played Skyrim and Witcher 3 and then the team made one of the best open world games.

All Mario, Zelda, and Metroid games are not the same. They act as a basis to try completely new gameplay mechanics and you still get new ip's sometimes. Nintendo learns from some of their mistakes but they're conservative and want control over money and total creative freedom. The Gamecube was more powerful than the PS2, but was a failure for Nintendo.

Nintendo hates taking losses on hardware. HD development of AAA titles has got out of hand in recent years, to develop a game is way more expensive now. Nintendo doesn't want to compromise on the value and gameplay of their games, and not on innovative hardware. But they sure as fuck are willing to release the cheapest console they can possibly release that can do the main things they want it to do plus an enticing new gimmick that sometimes proves to be an innovation that the market embraces and runs with.

The Switch got 2 things going for it which seem to have potential, taking the console on the go, making it a hybrid, more freedom to play games, and the HD Rumble which most reviewers are saying it's the real deal. Sony and Microsoft are good at selling updates of tried and true experiences, they're not as good at innovating or even interested in doing that.

Sony and Microsoft work on giving you what you want and go bigger and versatile. Nintendo is working on making the most money off of their hardware and software while never compromising gameplay for more time spent on making realistic graphics or graphics in general. It's really not the same goal or approach, even it's it's all videogames.

 

Edited March 10, 2017 by Rovim

[Rovim]

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/08/26/11-gaming-innovations-we-owe-to-nintendo

[downzy]

5 hours ago, Rovim said:

I see where you're coming from, some valid points. Nintendo are still playing catch up with hardware, online, and console power to use for graphics, physics, etc. But I also believe Nintendo's willingness to push forward with their gameplay and experiment to find out what the future of gaming might be was the main reason traditional console controllers are the standard now. They released Mario Run for smart phones which was highly successful for 10 bucks, and they're looking into VR, and their Amiibo line is printing money.

Best example I can think of is how Nintendo came up with a way to use the analog stick for the N64 console, and put that hardware to use in Mario 64, creating an industry standard of third person platforming games. This is just one out of many examples of Nintendo innovation that stood the test of time.

Freedom in Mario 64, freedom in Breath Of The Wild, true open world where you can interact with the world fully. On the other hand, implementing a jump button in Zelda took them 30 years.

Thanks to the fact Nintendo cares a lot about gameplay, their R&D department comes up with innovative ways to control a game, and even more than that experience it. Even the Wii controllers were built upon for VR controllers like Oculus Touch and HTC Vibe. Sony as well for Morpheus wand controllers.

the NES was affordable compared to what came before it from other companies and compared to direct competitions from others in it's time and years after it's release many consoles were sold for 600$ or more. The snes was not a power house compared to the genesis by Sega. The two were comparable in power wite better colors in the snes and a fake 3d chip thing. They've always made affordable consoles, Nintendo even said something like that. If anything, making both the hardware and the software is underrated. Valve is doing the same thing with a lot of their products. You just have more to do when you're thinking about the next game you want to make.

But not every new hardware is gonna be adopted for the future by the entire market, it's just most of what Nintendo came up with first, other developers are still using it, even open world games like GTA were first on 2d and Zelda 1 was the pioneer of those types of games. Nintendo takes an old idea sometimes and years later you can see what they wanted to do. Like Breath Of The Wild after Aonuma played Skyrim and Witcher 3 and then the team made one of the best open world games.

All Mario, Zelda, and Metroid games are not the same. They act as a basis to try completely new gameplay mechanics and you still get new ip's sometimes. Nintendo learns from some of their mistakes but they're conservative and want control over money and total creative freedom. The Gamecube was more powerful than the PS2, but was a failure for Nintendo.

Nintendo hates taking losses on hardware. HD development of AAA titles has got out of hand in recent years, to develop a game is way more expensive now. Nintendo doesn't want to compromise on the value and gameplay of their games, and not on innovative hardware. But they sure as fuck are willing to release the cheapest console they can possibly release that can do the main things they want it to do plus an enticing new gimmick that sometimes proves to be an innovation that the market embraces and runs with.

The Switch got 2 things going for it which seem to have potential, taking the console on the go, making it a hybrid, more freedom to play games, and the HD Rumble which most reviewers are saying it's the real deal. Sony and Microsoft are good at selling updates of tried and true experiences, they're not as good at innovating or even interested in doing that.

Sony and Microsoft work on giving you what you want and go bigger and versatile. Nintendo is working on making the most money off of their hardware and software while never compromising gameplay for more time spent on making realistic graphics or graphics in general. It's really not the same goal or approach, even it's all videogames.

 

Mario Run hasn't been the success you're making it out to be.  Sure, tens of millions downloaded it (I did), but only five percent actually bought the game (I didn't).  

Your article on the innovations owed to Nintendo underscores my point: other than what they offered with the Wii, most innovations are twenty to thirty years old.  We owe Sony a world of credit for creating the portable music industry with the walkman, but there's a reason why we no longer turn to Sony to play music on the go.

I also disagree with your assessment of the SNES vs. Genesis.  Sure, Genesis did have a faster frame rate, but the SNES was no slouch and could do a lot of things that the Genesis could not (Mode 7, semi-3D, plasticy-3D, and almost orchestrated music).  Genesis games ran faster, but SNES looked a lot prettier.  

Gamecube was a failure because it never had a killer game like the PS2 (GTA) or Xbox (Halo).  It's sole Mario offering was underwhelming and Zelda was only offered at the very end of the system's lifecycle, which was coopted by the Wii.  Again, the market doesn't care about a Nintendo console unless it provides iconic Nintendo games.  It's great that the Switch is being launched with a new Zelda game, but it's only going to succeed if Nintendo does more to offer up more Nintendo games.  Two games a year using iconic Nintendo games isn't going to cut it.  

Look, my whole point in all of this is that Nintendo is acting like a typical Japanese company of late, that they're underserving their customer base by not competing on a hardware basis or providing enough iconic Nintendo content to justify the purchase of a Nintendo system.  While I'm sure the new Zelda is great, I just don't see a future for the company that doesn't offer a comparable gaming experience in terms of technical prowess or plays to its strengths.  This is the primary reason why third-party game makers don't bother with Nintendo consoles.  Why spend the money on porting and releasing a game on a Nintendo system that plays better on a PS4 or Xbox One?  I'm sure the Switch's hybrid gaming experience appeals to some, but ultimately this system, just like every other Nintendo system save for the Wii, will succeed or fail based solely on the games Nintendo can offer customers.  

Nintendo's approach the last seven years has not made the company one dollar in profit.  That giant stockpile of cash it's sitting on is solely the product of previous successes and nothing to do what it's been doing lately.  Perhaps they're fine with not turning a profit and to just break even.  But I'm not sure that's going to last much longer. I think the allure of Apple's and Google's install base with mobile gaming will eventually lead it to release more, and eventually all, mobile games on hardware that they don't produce.  I can see them releasing some sort of official Nintendo control accessory for the iPhone or Galaxy phone, but it's a long shot to think Nintendo can fight a two-front war with Apple/Google and Sony/Microsoft with the Switch.  

Nikon released a press release a few weeks ago after another abysmal quarter stating that investors need to prepare themselves for the fact that it's going to be a much smaller company in the next few years.  I think Nintendo will eventually release something similar.  I could be wrong, perhaps the Switch reverses seven years of negative growth, but unless Nintendo doesn't do more to offer exclusive content (i.e. more than two or three games a year), they're going to look like a very different company in five to six years.  

[Rovim]

I won't argue further, but I'll just say Nintendo's Switch is pretty innovative, the device itself and the different play styles and people want to take quality games with them on the go, just something that has real support like the 3ds, not Vita.

The HD Rumble is another innovation if it works like Nintendo says it does. It's too early to tell if they're over their prime and can't deliver enough great first and second party games in a year. This device and combining some 3ds and console teams is how they're trying to deal with this problem, that is their solution for a more consistent release flow cause they're not going to get true third parties support with this console like Sony and Microsoft are getting. (even if the console was just as powerful or in ballpark)

The Switch just came out and developers are going to try to use the new features the Switch offers. Nintendo almost always makes a profit if it's from 3ds, Amiibo, reselling old games and HD versions and accessories.

How many Switches will Nintendo sell with a one two punch of releasing Pokemon Stadium Switch and Metroid Prime 4?even if they reach a 40 million install base it could still be profitable.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Rovim

[L'HopitalsRule]

On 3/9/2017 at 1:31 PM, downzy said:

While I don't disagree with some of your analysis, I still think it's over-evaluating the importance in hardware when compared to where Nintendo's value proposition truly lies - it's software/games.

Your summary of Nintendo's unwillingness to compete on a power basis has only been true since the gamecube.  The NES, SuperNES, and N64 were competitive from a hardware perspective with their rivals at the time.  

I'd also have to counter that Sony and Microsoft don't also position their products as affordable options to gaming.  The Nintendo NES, released in 1985, when adjusted for inflation, would cost $450 in today's dollars (more than the PS2, PS4, Xbox, and Xbox 360). 

Your analogy of the chef and his food again misses the point I'm making: the value of Nintendo isn't in the hardware, it's in the software.  Save for the Wii, which caught people's attention for a couple of years before motion-controlled gaming fell out of favour, Nintendo's success is solely the product of the strength of their games.  They are excellent game makers, but there's little need to produce their own hardware (outside of the profit motive).  Yes, Nintendo has made a lot of money and is sitting on enormous cash reserves.  They're not going away any time soon.  But their ability to attract new customers and retain brand loyalty is shrinking.  Making different consoles, unless it delivers a truly unique and captivating gaming experience, isn't going to help in this cause.  There's an entire generation of young gamers on its way who were introduced to gaming on an iPhone and later a playstation or xbox.  Mario or Zelda means nothing to them.  Nostalgia and excellent game design keeps Nintendo in business, not it's hardware.  The only reason people bought a Wii U was because it was the only place to play Mario games and it lost Nintendo a lot money.  How many more failed hardware efforts can it afford to make before it gives up that approach?  For me, the Switch is the make or break product.  if it turns into another Wii U, board members and shareholders will either revolt or watch Nintendo become a much smaller, less viable company in the long term.  Keep in this mind: Nintendo hasn't turned a fiscal year profit in seven years and revenue has been flat for the last six.  

I agree that Nintendo can't beat Sony at its own game if it's unwilling to even try.  They use to compete on that front and win because their games were so much better or different.  But at this point their handicapping their customer's experience by not giving them the best platform and multiplayer to play on.  As some have already commented, while its' great to play a new Zelda game, it sucks that it isn't all it can be due to limited hardware capabilities.  

The Switch does offer a new means of playing games, but will it be enough for non-Nintendo fans to jump aboard?  And I agree that is good for a company to take a different approach, but not at the expense of degrading a player's experience.  Unfortunately for Nintendo, doing things differently hasn't made financial sense for coming on a decade.  The desire to retain revenues/profits from their iconic brands has not translated into making actual money.  The company made $120 million US from Pokemon Go by finally accepting who now runs mobile gaming.  When will they do the same for console gaming?

What I would like to see Nintendo do is become a cloud/stream gaming company that enters into licensing agreements with television manufacturers.  Then adopt a Netflix subscription business model where customers only need a relatively new smart tv, a controller Nintendo sells, and $10 a month to enjoy Nintendo's entire catalogue, including all newly released games (that would run on computers powerful enough to compete with anything Microsoft or Sony releases).  Maybe the technology or infrastructure isn't quite there to do that, but it's insistence on remaining in the hardware business isn't doing it any favours.  

I would loooove seeing nintendo adopt a subscription service because that seems more affordable than buying ALL the games I want :c

With licenced game series like Pokemon, Zelda, and Mario (all very popular brands)  it's Nintendo's fortune to lose. 

[downzy]

2 minutes ago, L'HopitalsRule said:

I would loooove seeing nintendo adopt a subscription service because that seems more affordable than buying ALL the games I want :c

With licenced game series like Pokemon, Zelda, and Mario (all very popular brands)  it's Nintendo's fortune to lose. 

That's the benefit of the subscription model, it gets people to pay for content they otherwise wouldn't pay for.  They could make separate tiers whereby the base subscription gets you access to their back catalogue.  Silver would get you back catalogue and one or two new games.  Gold gets you access to the back catalogue and all new games.

Now you're paying Nintendo $120 to $240 a year without any need to develop consoles or portable machines (though, there would be some heavy capital costs to setting up a cloud/streaming service).  I would sign up in a second versus spending $400-$500 for a new console and $60 for the one game I really want to play.  They would attract not only hardcore gamers but casual gamers who have no interest in forking over a lot of money at once to play Nintendo games.  

[L'HopitalsRule]

13 minutes ago, downzy said:

That's the benefit of the subscription model, it gets people to pay for content they otherwise wouldn't pay for.  They could make separate tiers whereby the base subscription gets you access to their back catalogue.  Silver would get you back catalogue and one or two new games.  Gold gets you access to the back catalogue and all new games.

Now you're paying Nintendo $120 to $240 a year without any need to develop consoles or portable machines (though, there would be some heavy capital costs to setting up a cloud/streaming service).  I would sign up in a second versus spending $400-$500 for a new console and $60 for the one game I really want to play.  They would attract not only hardcore gamers but casual gamers who have no interest in forking over a lot of money at once to play Nintendo games.  

Yeah, I wonder if nintendo could develop games for PC(as part of a subscription) as well as their regular consoles. I prefer my PC myself, and usually borrow consoles/3DS specifically for nintendo games. But hey, did you hear the Switch is supposed to have a funky bitter taste to keep kids from eating it?? >_< 

Nintendo should hire you as their new marketing strategist. 

[Zurimor]

What I really like about Nintendo are their innovative ideas (see Gameboy, Wii, etc.) which all others eventually copied. For that reason alone I wish all the best to them.

And regarding graphics, to be fair, Nintendo mostly was the first to release the new console generation while Microsoft and Sony released their next gens months or even years later, so no surprise they were ahead at that graphics thing, but Nintendo caught up.

The only thing Ninrtendo lacked during all the years was third party support. Their own franchise, awesome, Zelda, Mario, Fire Emblem, Kirby, Pokemon, Star Fox, Super Smash Bros, Xenoblade...., alll others can't keep up with that. If they now manage to get the same third party support like Sony and Microsoft, it looks pretty good for them. And based on the video that might happen, we'll see.

 

[AxlisOld]

The reason Nintendo can rely on their own games without 3rd party support, is because their 1st party shit is that fucking good. They know if they release a Mario game, followed by Mario kart, and a Zelda game, followed by sports game with intellectual property as players, they'll make a profit.

[Dazey]

Think I'm gonna pull the trigger on one of these at the end of the month. New Zelda looks awesome. 

[Rovim]

10 hours ago, AxlisOld said:

The reason Nintendo can rely on their own games without 3rd party support, is because their 1st party shit is that fucking good. They know if they release a Mario game, followed by Mario kart, and a Zelda game, followed by sports game with intellectual property as players, they'll make a profit.

Like that time Nintendo released the Gamecube? I don't know if they can rely on just their own games cause their so fuckin' good and polished and can't be pumped out every year like COD or some shit.

On the other hand, third party developers never sell as good on a Nintendo system cause they always have to directly compete with Nintendo's first party offerings. That actually happened many, many times

Plus all third party developers care about is a big enough install base. More than graphics. If it's easy to develop and there's a huge amount of people that own a console, it would be foolish not to release your game on that platform.

What this means is that success is not built on power. Games do benefit from powerful and easy to develop consoles, developers demand a certain standards these days, depends on the teams, but if the install base is large enough, third party games will come to it, at least to test the waters. Problem is they actually have to sell as well in large enough quantities and that is only a thing on the DS and the 3DS so far. (mainly)

Nintendo is very unlikely to get real third party support anytime soon. Their strategy is very different to what Sony and Microsoft are doing and that's the place third parties call home for the most part.

A lot will have to change in Nintendo and I can see why they're reluctant to do it.

Edited March 12, 2017 by Rovim

[Dazey]

35 minutes ago, Rovim said:

Plus all third party developers care about is a big enough install base. More than graphics. If it's easy to develop and there's a huge amount of people that own a console, it's would be foolish not to release your game on that platform.

Not necessarily true. The Wii had an installed base of over 100 million and yet 3rd party games sold terribly because 80 million of those users were moms and casual gamers who had no interest in the latest big release and were happy to play nothing but Wii Sports forever.

The issue with releasing a console that is way behind the competition technology wise isn't that 3rd parties don't want to develop games for it. They effectively have to develop a completely different game because the hardware can't handle the real deal and the gimped version always pales in comparison.

Bottom line is that if there were 3 major consoles all with comparable hardware then most developers would release all their major titles for all 3. 

[Rovim]

14 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Not necessarily true. The Wii had an installed base of over 100 million and yet 3rd party games sold terribly because 80 million of those users were moms and casual gamers who had no interest in the latest big release and were happy to play nothing but Wii Sports forever.

The issue with releasing a console that is way behind the competition technology wise isn't that 3rd parties don't want to develop games for it. They effectively have to develop a completely different game because the hardware can't handle the real deal and the gimped version always pales in comparison.

Bottom line is that if there were 3 major consoles all with comparable hardware then most developers would release all their major titles for all 3. 

It's more than one thing. Take for example the PSP and the Vita. Or the Gamecube with it's more powerful hardware compared to the comparable in graphics PS2.

All 3 major consoles were already all comparable hardware. Yet the Gamecube sold like shit. It's not just power, it's not just the install base, but it's also factors like what type of games Nintendo fans mostly expect to be on a Nintendo hardware or on a Sony hardware.

It's also competing directly against Nintendo's first party teams. I don't think you fully understand how important this point is.

The PS2 won it's generation with a very hard to develop for console, 2 good games at launch, and the weakest of all 3 consoles power wise.

Power won't solve Nintendo's third party problem. If they get a big enough install base with a comparable power, they can attract more third party support, but Nintendo doesn't seem to believe losing money on every console sold or any hardware for that matter is the right strategy to go with to make the most money. So it's irrelevant. Instead they try to expand their businesses and expand Nintendo but still keep the console affordable. You can't achieve comparable in graphics and offer it for the same price without taking a loss and Nintendo won't have it unless it absolutely must like the price cut for the 3DS soon after it didn't sold enough at launch.

Edited March 12, 2017 by Rovim

[downzy]

14 hours ago, Wagszilla said:

Nintendo has a giant cash hoard. They're not going out of business anytime soon.

A subscription model for new games? What. Please god in heaven no. That would kill video games like it's killing(ed) music. 

If people want to pay low-dollar for entertainment, they're going to get low-dollar quality. 

They should be investing into expanding their studios (I don't think they've done that) but at some point you need to balance quality. 

They did spend a lot of money learning HD toolsets so that is one positive to the WiiU's complete and utter failure. I don't think they learned enough lessons from that failure as the Switch seems more of the same but whatcha gonna do. 

That giant pile of cash hasn't grown since 2010. Unless the Switch proves to make the company money, they'll continue to tread water or drown. 

You might want to revise your view of streaming music sites. The industry has returned to revenue growth solely due to services like Spotify, Apple Music and Pandora. 

Nintendo can survive on a few Nintendo branded games a year, but its relevance will continue to decline and they can say goodbye to revenue growth. 

[Dazey]

1 hour ago, Rovim said:

It's more than one thing. Take for example the PSP and the Vita. Or the Gamecube with it's more powerful hardware compared to the comparable in graphics PS2.

All 3 major consoles were already all comparable hardware. Yet the Gamecube sold like shit. It's not just power, it's not just the install base, but it's also factors like what type of games Nintendo fans mostly expect to be on a Nintendo hardware or on a Sony hardware.

It's also competing directly against Nintendo's first party teams. I don't think you fully understand how important this point is.

The PS2 won it's generation with a very hard to develop for console, 2 good games at launch, and the weakest of all 3 consoles power wise.

Power won't solve Nintendo's third party problem. If they get a big enough install base with a comparable power, they can attract more third party support, but Nintendo doesn't seem to believe losing money on every console sold or any hardware for that matter is the right strategy to go with to make the most money. So it's irrelevant. Instead they try to expand their businesses and expand Nintendo but still keep the console affordable. You can't achieve comparable in graphics and offer it for the same price without taking a loss and Nintendo won't have it unless it absolutely must like the price cut for the 3DS soon after it didn't sold enough at launch.

The PS2 won it's generation due for 3 reasons.

1. It launched a good year and a half earlier than its competition

2. The PS1 was the outright winner of the previous generation

 3. It was the 1st to feature DVD out of the box at a time when standalone players were about twice the cost of a PS2

[downzy]

1 hour ago, Rovim said:

It's more than one thing. Take for example the PSP and the Vita. Or the Gamecube with it's more powerful hardware compared to the comparable in graphics PS2.

All 3 major consoles were already all comparable hardware. Yet the Gamecube sold like shit. It's not just power, it's not just the install base, but it's also factors like what type of games Nintendo fans mostly expect to be on a Nintendo hardware or on a Sony hardware.

It's also competing directly against Nintendo's first party teams. I don't think you fully understand how important this point is.

The PS2 won it's generation with a very hard to develop for console, 2 good games at launch, and the weakest of all 3 consoles power wise.

If you go back and read interviews from third party game makers during the GC/PS2/Xbox era, a big part of the problem was Nintendo assuming that because they were Nintendo third party games would naturally flock to their new system. They did little to cultivate relationships and work with third party publishers and distributors because of their self perceived importance to the industry as a whole. Sony, and later Xbox, nurtured and promoted third party support. 

It wasn't the fault of the consumer, who faced a new landscape where 80 percent of the games they wanted to play were on Xbox or Sony. This same dynamic plagued the Wii U and will likely hurt the Switch. The last traditional (ie non Wii) console that succeeded for Nintendo was the N64. It gave consumers a destination to play third party games and the iconic games Nintendo is known for.  Now, consumers are forced to buy two systems. And while I don't have stats to back this up, my guess is that if you polled gamers, most would choose Sony or Microsoft as their first choice in home console over Nintendo. Nowadays, most buy a PS4 or Xbox One before they add a Nintendo system as a second or third console. 

If the Switch could play the most recent CoD game or upcoming Rockstar titles, then I think it becomes a viable and competitive system. But if it continues to be a destination to only play Nintendo games while not also providing the option to play third-party AAA games, it will likely face the same fait as the GameCube and WiiU. We'll see where we're at in a year or two. 

[Dazey]

9 minutes ago, downzy said:

If you go back and read interviews from third party game makers during the GC/PS2/Xbox era, a big part of the problem was Nintendo assuming that because they were Nintendo third party games would naturally flock to their new system. They did little to cultivate relationships and work with third party publishers and distributors because of their self perceived importance to the industry as a whole. Sony, and later Xbox, nurtured and promoted third party support. 

It wasn't the fault of the consumer, who faced a new landscape where 80 percent of the games they wanted to play were on Xbox or Sony. This same dynamic plagued the Wii U and will likely hurt the Switch. The last traditional (ie non Wii) console that succeeded for Nintendo was the N64. It gave consumers a destination to play third party games and the iconic games Nintendo is known for.  Now, consumers are forced to buy two systems. And while I don't have stats to back this up, my guess is that if you polled gamers, most would choose Sony or Microsoft as their first choice in home console over Nintendo. Nowadays, most buy a PS4 or Xbox One before they add a Nintendo system as a second or third console. 

If the Switch could play the most recent CoD game or upcoming Rockstar titles, then I think it becomes a viable and competitive system. But if it continues to be a destination to only play Nintendo games while not also providing the option to play third-party AAA games, it will likely face the same fait as the GameCube and WiiU. We'll see where we're at in a year or two. 

I would argue that the N64 wasn't really that great a success either. I think it's remembered more fondly than it was thought of at the time. Nintendo basically shot itself in the foot with the N64 and gave Sony a blank check to take over the industry. The insistence on cartridge media vs CDs cost them big time. Nintendo always had a stranglehold over software production on their consoles. They not only produced the console hardware but 3rd party developers were also required to buy the actual cartridges off of them.

If you were making a game for the NES, SNES or N64 then you had to commit to a specific number of cartridges and buy them from Nintendo in advance. Basically you had to predict your sales up front and get it right or you'd be out of pocket. Now think about paying a few $ per cartridge vs pennies for a PS1 CD and you can see why 3rd party developers deserted Nintendo en masse back in the late 90's.

[Rovim]

18 minutes ago, Dazey said:

The PS2 won it's generation due for 3 reasons.

1. It launched a good year and a half earlier than its competition

2. The PS1 was the outright winner of the previous generation

 3. It was the 1st to feature DVD out of the box at a time when standalone players were about twice the cost of a PS2

Good games and a vast library. Pumping out a game after a game in all genres.

[Dazey]

Just now, Rovim said:

Good games and a vast library. Pumping out a game after a game in all genres.

The others had plenty of good games too. The reasons that the PS2 blew them both away are as I mentioned.

[AxlisOld]

10 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I would argue that the N64 wasn't really that great a success either. I think it's remembered more fondly than it was thought of at the time. Nintendo basically shot itself in the foot with the N64 and gave Sony a blank check to take over the industry. The insistence on cartridge media vs CDs cost them big time. Nintendo always had a stranglehold over software production on their consoles. They not only produced the console hardware but 3rd party developers were also required to buy the actual cartridges off of them.

If you were making a game for the NES, SNES or N64 then you had to commit to a specific number of cartridges and buy them from Nintendo in advance. Basically you had to predict your sales up front and get it right or you'd be out of pocket. Now think about paying a few $ per cartridge vs pennies for a PS1 CD and you can see why 3rd party developers deserted Nintendo en masse back in the late 90's.

You take that back, you N64 hating motherfucker.

[L'HopitalsRule]

On 3/8/2017 at 1:37 PM, downzy said:

The problem with Nintendo is it behaves much like most other Japanese electronic companies.  It's why most of Japan's most iconic brands have been surpassed by Korean or American brands in the last five to ten years.  

They're just too inward looking of a company, unwilling to accept outside criticism or see the world changing around them.  They act as though because they are the godfather of modern gaming that they'll be around forever regardless of their current or future efforts.  I see a lot similar behaviour and posturing by Nikon and other Japanese camera companies.  Too much groupthink and denial about where the industry is heading.  They'd rather prefer to ignore current trends and act as though their glory days will return.  Nikon has essentially fucked themselves by ignoring the onslaught of smartphones while doing little to cater to their middle to high-end niche users that have essentially become their only customers.   

I give Nintendo credit for trying to innovate to a certain degree.  Sony and Microsoft have essentially been making the same machine for fifteen to twenty years now - just a more powerful iteration of the previous machine.  Nintendo at least tries to make something new.  

But they need to understand that their value is with their brands and their ability to make amazing games.  While we all might feel some grief if Nintendo stopped being a hardware company due to feelings of nostalgia, those feels would be quickly relieved if Nintendo focuses their efforts on producing more fantastic games for the Xbox or Playstation.  Imagine the new Zelda game on a PS4 with its abilities to provide 1080p 60fps video quality or the upcoming Xbox Scorpio with native 4k output?  Nintendo could become the next Take-Two/Rockstar if it released quality iterations of their biggest gaming brands on a three to four year basis (and considering how many iconic brands they own, they could do two to four per year).  

While I think the Switch is a clever idea, I just don't see it succeeding in the long run.  It's attempting to fight a two-front war in both mobile and home-based gaming.  If it were a true competitor to the iPhone and Xbox, then sure.  But outside of their gaming catalogue, Nintendo is at a severe deficit here.   Nintendo could greatly improve itself if it were willing to use all the tools at its disposal.  This means being more proactive about releasing more quality games using iconic characters, but it has long abandoned that approach since the waining days of the Super NES.  

Working with Japanese companies in the past, they have an odd habit of taking the last product model and only improving on it a tiny little bit (think DSi to 3DS) Americans, however, like scratching everything out and coming up with a radically different product idea. Keep in mind this is only a generalization and that there are upsides and downsides to each type of product development method. I am not quite sure if this is cultural or not but I am pretty confidant about it being a pattern. 

Same goes for Nintendo's game designs. I see less new game series (like Splatoon?) and more slight improvements on previous series. (Think about the Super Marios)

[Dazey]

25 minutes ago, AxlisOld said:

You take that back, you N64 hating motherfucker.

I didn't say I hated it. The reason I know so much about it is because it was my console at the time. I bought one on the day of release and it's the only machine I owned for that generation. It was a great machine but it was hamstrung by Nintendo's greed.

Edit: Just ordered my Switch.

Edited March 12, 2017 by Dazey