Support NeoGAF

[Meelow]

Where are you hearing that?

On the thread about Japanese's devs thoughts on the PS4 they were all like "power is nice and everything, but that Share feature is what I'm really excited for!"

None of them were really praising the specs unlike the Western devs and they were more interested in the features.

 

[dwu8991]

As long as we get GTA V - Wii U will still be relevant to the West

 

[Zarx]

I honestly think it stems from western devs just wanting to make the same games over and over and replicate whatever is currently popular.

Having a system that is remotely different from other established consoles already is a huge roadblock to the cycle of replication and sequels.

You say that like Japanese devs don't endlessly recycle stuff just as much. Maybe you missed all those Pokemon games, Musou games, endlessly recycled JRPG tropes, Legend of Zelda formula etc. And the western franchise that most point to as the shining example of recycled sequels Call of Duty was a regular on both the NDS and the Wii.

 

[Outtrigger888]

iwata and miyamoto roll around town, in response to western support, listening to this song...

chyea

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

Wouldn't have made any difference whatsoever, as evident by the lack of Tomb Raider, Bioshock Infinite, Destiny, Battlefield 4 and so on. All those games could be on Wii U if publishers actually gave a fuck. They don't. Technology and specs have nothing to do with that. Once you realize that, it becomes obvious why Nintendo doesn't waste money on more powerful hardware.

And I agree. If they cared for 3rd party they would have made a powerful machine but just because its strong does not guarantee third party games.

 

[Opiate]

I've phrased a similar idea in a different way.

Most of the major western publishers grew up in the PS1/PS2 era. Technically, Take 2 existed before the PS1, of course. As did Electronic Arts. But it was in that time period that both went from small companies to large ones, where EA grew from a company of perhaps 1,000 employees to >10k.

During the height of the PS2, there were years when EA was regularly making net profits exceeding 500m: for contrast, this is likely more than Microsoft will make in the E&D division for the entire generation, and of course more than Sony too (since they've lost boatloads of money).

So the design and production philosophies of most of these western third parties were shaped during that PS1/PS2 era, and as such they're likely to prefer systems that are clear, consistent upgrades on that design philosophy, with modern bells and whistles added in. This philosophy includes:

1) A focus on more "epic" games, originating all the way back to the games that made the Playstation like Final Fantasy 7 and Metal Gear Solid. This means a stronger focus on presentation and narrative.

2) An intense focus on 16-35 male gamers. Sports games, shooters, racers, "badass" or "dudebro" games.

3) A heavy preference for the traditional game pad over alternatives like the Wii Mote or Kinect.

By contrast, Nintendo's games tend to de-emphasize presentation and narrative and instead focus on mechanics; they tend to focus on broad demographic groups (Wii Fit was a hit with grown women, Nintendogs a gigantic hit with young girls, Mario has always been a hit with people of all ages, etc.), and has been the most persistent of the big three in exploring alternative control methods.

When combined, this means that Nintendo is simply philosophically out of step with the big publishers like Activision and especially EA and Take 2. If Nintendo wants to connect with Western developers, they'll either need to grow their own (As in inside the company), or foster the growth of new ones like Fifth Cell, Level 5 and others which are more in sync with their design philosophies.

 

[Opiate]

And I agree. If they cared for 3rd party they would have made a powerful machine but just because its strong does not guarantee third party games.

Oh they care about third parties, but making a powerful machine has dangerous drawbacks for a company like Nintendo. They do not want to get drawn in to an arm wrestling competition with huge corporate conglomerates like Sony and Microsoft.

That doesn't mean the path Nintendo has chosen instead has worked out well for them; I just don't think playing on Microsoft and Sony's terms is a good idea for Nintendo either. When it comes to sheer brute force -- offering the most power you can at the lowest cost you can afford, even if it means losing lots of money at first -- companies as large as Microsoft and Sony will bully the comparatively small Nintendo out consistently.

Even if I don't personally like the Wii U (or, for that matter, the Wii) I think it's important that we discourage a market ecosystem where only huge corporate conglomerates can possibly compete, which is essentially what you're endorsing here.

 

[Outtrigger888]

Oh they care about third parties, but making a powerful machine has dangerous drawbacks for a company like Nintendo. They do not want to get drawn in to an arm wrestling competition with huge corporate conglomerates like Sony and Microsoft.

That doesn't mean the path Nintendo has chosen instead has worked out well for them; I just don't think playing on Microsoft and Sony's terms is a good idea for Nintendo either. When it comes to sheer brute force -- offering the most power you can at the lowest cost you can afford, even if it means losing lots of money at first -- companies as large as Microsoft and Sony will bully the comparatively small Nintendo out consistently.

Even if I don't personally like the Wii U (or, for that matter, the Wii) I think it's important that we discourage a market ecosystem where only huge corporate conglomerates can possibly compete, which is essentially what you're endorsing here.

You're almost too sensible for gaf, its frightening.

 

[Dave Meltzer]

Western development has a lot of roots in PC dev, and a lot of the people working in games are very interested in technology and hardware power. Nintendo don't offer hardware as exciting on a personal level. So when it comes to "grass roots", the only people who want to make games on Nintendo hardware explicitly tend to be people who are fans of theirs.

On a business level, there's still the belief that even if third party games can sell on Nintendo hardware, you're unlikely to make as much money as you would working on a 360/PS3 tier blockbuster. The belief is better graphics = more sales. Publishers would rather bet a high budget for a very high return on PS360 than a modest budget with a modest return on Nintendo. It's the same logic that means handheld consoles don't get much attention from western publishers.

 

[cafemomo]

Where are you hearing that?

I think he is referring to this thread.

 

[hatchx]

As long as we get GTA V - Wii U will still be relevant to the West

.....um.....



...not sure if you got the notice.

 

[speculawyer]

Nintendo is viewed as a kiddie platform where Nintendo's 1st party software dominates. So you don't tend to see a lot of AAA M-rated titles on it.

 

[hatchx]

Oh they care about third parties, but making a powerful machine has dangerous drawbacks for a company like Nintendo. They do not want to get drawn in to an arm wrestling competition with huge corporate conglomerates like Sony and Microsoft.

That doesn't mean the path Nintendo has chosen instead has worked out well for them; I just don't think playing on Microsoft and Sony's terms is a good idea for Nintendo either. When it comes to sheer brute force -- offering the most power you can at the lowest cost you can afford, even if it means losing lots of money at first -- companies as large as Microsoft and Sony will bully the comparatively small Nintendo out consistently.

Even if I don't personally like the Wii U (or, for that matter, the Wii) I think it's important that we discourage a market ecosystem where only huge corporate conglomerates can possibly compete, which is essentially what you're endorsing here.

 

[A Black Falcon]

I've phrased a similar idea in a different way.

Most of the major western publishers grew up in the PS1/PS2 era. Technically, Take 2 existed before the PS1, of course. As did Electronic Arts. But it was in that time period that both went from small companies to large ones, where EA grew from a company of perhaps 1,000 employees to >10k.

During the height of the PS2, there were years when EA was regularly making net profits exceeding 500m: for contrast, this is likely more than Microsoft will make in the E&D division for the entire generation, and of course more than Sony too (since they've lost boatloads of money).

So the design and production philosophies of most of these western third parties were shaped during that PS1/PS2 era, and as such they're likely to prefer systems that are clear, consistent upgrades on that design philosophy, with modern bells and whistles added in. This philosophy includes:

1) A focus on more "epic" games, originating all the way back to the games that made the Playstation like Final Fantasy 7 and Metal Gear Solid. This means a stronger focus on presentation and narrative.

2) An intense focus on 16-35 male gamers. Sports games, shooters, racers, "badass" or "dudebro" games.

3) A heavy preference for the traditional game pad over alternatives like the Wii Mote or Kinect.

By contrast, Nintendo's games tend to de-emphasize presentation and narrative and instead focus on mechanics; they tend to focus on broad demographic groups (Wii Fit was a hit with grown women, Nintendogs a gigantic hit with young girls, Mario has always been a hit with people of all ages, etc.), and has been the most persistent of the big three in exploring alternative control methods.

When combined, this means that Nintendo is simply philosophically out of step with the big publishers like Activision and especially EA and Take 2. If Nintendo wants to connect with Western developers, they'll either need to grow their own (As in inside the company), or foster the growth of new ones like Fifth Cell, Level 5 and others which are more in sync with their design philosophies.

The problem with this post is that while you do a good job of describing the Nintendo of the DS/Wii era and beyond, a lot of this really doesn't apply to the N64/GC era Nintendo I was talking about earlier in the thread...

 

[RawkHawk2010]

I think this is accurate for a lot of western devs:

"Why should we support this console when...

1. It's not as powerful as the consoles we could do/add much more on.

2. Based on sales of games of the same genre, the audience that plays consoles from this company usually aren't interested in the games we make.

3. The system is lacking in its online features/community... causing the time we put into huge online features to probably go to waste.

(and)

4. The system has a poor attach rate overall at the moment."

It's just a bad spot overall for the Wii U. Fortunately though, the system will have new Nintendo games. If it didn't then man... the system would pretty much be DOA.

But how many developers actually want to feel obligated to render every individual fiber in a car seat?

 

[Opiate]

The problem with this post is that while you do a good job of describing the Nintendo of the DS/Wii era and beyond, a lot of this really doesn't apply to the N64/GC era Nintendo I was talking about earlier in the thread...

I think it does. Even in the Gamecube era, there was already a focus on family friendly games that was already disjointing from the big third party hits of the era (Grand Theft Auto being the biggest and most obvious example, but most of the others listed, like Madden, would also fit).

That demographic difference is easily the most important of the factors I listed. Companies like EA and Take 2 want a highly concentrated, homogeneous group to deliver their games to. Mario has always appealed to children and adults, and this focus on a broader demographic has only intensified with the Wii and DS.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

Oh they care about third parties, but making a powerful machine has dangerous drawbacks for a company like Nintendo. They do not want to get drawn in to an arm wrestling competition with huge corporate conglomerates like Sony and Microsoft.

That doesn't mean the path Nintendo has chosen instead has worked out well for them; I just don't think playing on Microsoft and Sony's terms is a good idea for Nintendo either. When it comes to sheer brute force -- offering the most power you can at the lowest cost you can afford, even if it means losing lots of money at first -- companies as large as Microsoft and Sony will bully the comparatively small Nintendo out consistently.

Even if I don't personally like the Wii U (or, for that matter, the Wii) I think it's important that we discourage a market ecosystem where only huge corporate conglomerates can possibly compete, which is essentially what you're endorsing here.

Agreed. They probably care but they arent gonna change their identity or even become a triplet companion to sony and MS. Thats why I say they dont care. It might come off as ignorant but Im trying to say it in a way in which most of gaf could try to relate to. Most people honestly believe they are oblivious to the "mistakes" that they are doing. I mean this is how they want to make their system, why cant they make it like this as they more than likely see it beneficial in their own way. Every winter where I live it gets cold and snowy as heck. Yet everywhere I go Im wearing converses. Just because Im not wearing boots mean I fucked up? No. Just because my feet are cold does not mean I made a mistake. They might be cold but I still want to wear my chuck taylors damnit. Bad analogy but it makes sense to me lol.

 

[Opiate]

To expound further, I think Nintendo's general design philosophies are much more in line with many mid range developers (like Level 5 and Fifth Cell) and indie devs (who have shown a general willingness to reduce production values in order to allow more risk taking with game mechanics).

Nintendo has also bungled their relationships with these parties in their desperate attempt to get EA/Ubisoft/Activision/Take 2 back on board, and this seems like the big mistake, to me. EA/Take 2/Etc. are philosophically at odds with Nintendo, and no amount of cajoling could realistically bring them on board unless Nintendo wants to start playing on MS/Sony's terms. A much better approach would have been to grow their own third parties, just as iOS (Gameloft, Rovio, and many more) and Facebook (Zynga) have done. If the big third parties seem unwilling to play ball, then start training your own players instead.

But Nintendo made it much harder for grass roots development to take root on their platforms than it is on iOS/Facebook -- everything from a general lack of advertising for downloadable games to a relatively poor networking framework (which is essential for small developers and indie titles which cannot necessarily afford a retail release) to even openly disparaging "garage developers."

Those are the developers Nintendo really needs and needed, and Nintendo's relative disinterest in them while they focused on trying to claw the big publishers back to their platforms was the real mistake.

 

[royalan]

Oh they care about third parties, but making a powerful machine has dangerous drawbacks for a company like Nintendo. They do not want to get drawn in to an arm wrestling competition with huge corporate conglomerates like Sony and Microsoft.

That doesn't mean the path Nintendo has chosen instead has worked out well for them; I just don't think playing on Microsoft and Sony's terms is a good idea for Nintendo either. When it comes to sheer brute force -- offering the most power you can at the lowest cost you can afford, even if it means losing lots of money at first -- companies as large as Microsoft and Sony will bully the comparatively small Nintendo out consistently.

Even if I don't personally like the Wii U (or, for that matter, the Wii) I think it's important that we discourage a market ecosystem where only huge corporate conglomerates can possibly compete, which is essentially what you're endorsing here.

You (and others who make the argument that Nintendo doesn't do powerful hardware because of the financial risk) aren't considering one thing: Nintendo went with a customized chipset for Wii U.

Nintendo could have easily gone with more readily available current technology to power the Wii U and ended up with a more powerful console than the Wii U currently is and at roughly the same price.

But instead they choose to go with a customized chip designed to be energy conservative at the cost of power. Technically, that means the Wii U is expensive for what it is...which kind of invalidates this whole point, right?

It's not so much that Nintendo is risk-adverse with the Wii U, it's that they made a bad bet on what would be worth prioritizing with the hardware. Their obsession with making everything energy conservative at the cost of everything else is what's biting them in the ass here, and not the financial risk of making more powerful hardware.

 

[Dion Blaster]

You (and others who make the argument that Nintendo doesn't do powerful hardware because of the financial risk) aren't considering one thing: Nintendo went with a customized chipset for Wii U.

Nintendo could have easily gone with more readily available current technology to power the Wii U and ended up with a more powerful console than the Wii U currently is and at roughly the same price.

But instead they choose to go with a customized chip designed to be energy conservative at the cost of power. Technically, that means the Wii U is expensive for what it is...which kind of invalidates this whole point, right?

It's not so much that Nintendo is risk-adverse with the Wii U, it's that they made a bad bet on what would be worth prioritizing with the hardware. Their obsession with making everything energy conservative at the cost of everything else is what's biting them in the ass here, and not the financial risk of making more powerful hardware.

Would that have made a reasonable difference in power / gaining third part support? Did they really real the bank that much? I know nothing about chipsets and such.

 

[Anth0ny]

I think it does. Even in the Gamecube era, there was already a focus on family friendly games that was already disjointing from the big third party hits of the era (Grand Theft Auto being the biggest and most obvious example, but most of the others listed, like Madden, would also fit).

The crazy thing is, Goldeneye was the third best selling game on the N64, after Mario 64 and Mario Kart. N64 was the go to multiplayer, first person shooter console. They should KNOW shooters/more mature oriented titles sell, and bring in a totally different audience. I knew a ton of people who owned an N64 solely for Goldeneye, and later Perfect Dark.

The fact that they don't see any value in creating a new FPS franchise, or at least trying to make their console the go to console for shooters (only the BIGGEST genre in games at the moment) just screams lack of awareness to me.

 

[OccamsBlender]

Ninty should have done all their dev out reach with the Wii.

Major game publishers aren't interested in having to make a gimped port of their ultra shiny games for a console they think that only children own, but indies who don't have the resources to make big shiny graphics would have jumped at a chance to produce smaller, nicer titles.

Software sells hardware, unless you're Apple.

 

[Opiate]

You (and others who make the argument that Nintendo doesn't do powerful hardware because of the financial risk) aren't considering one thing: Nintendo went with a customized chipset for Wii U.

Nintendo could have easily gone with more readily available current technology to power the Wii U and ended up with a more powerful console than the Wii U currently is and at roughly the same price.

But instead they choose to go with a customized chip designed to be energy conservative at the cost of power. Technically, that means the Wii U is expensive for what it is...which kind of invalidates this whole point, right?

I definitely do not agree that it invalidates the point -- I feel it reinforces it strongly. It suggests Nintendo is deliberately focusing on other concerns besides power because they know they cannot compete with Sony/MS in a competition of raw horsepower.

You could say the same thing with the control pad to a much greater degree. If Nintendo had simply made a dualshock-esque classic controller as the standard, they could have saved considerable money and either sold the system at a cheaper price or packed more horsepower under the hood and continued to sell the system for 300. Again, they make a concerted effort to look for any way to add value other than raw horsepower, because lots-of-horsepower-for-the-cheapest-price-possible-even-if-you-lose-money is a brute force approach that larger companies like Sony and MS are more likely to win.

It's not so much that Nintendo is risk-adverse with the Wii U, it's that they made a bad bet on what would be worth prioritizing with the hardware. Their obsession with making everything energy conservative at the cost of everything else is what's biting them in the ass here, and not the financial risk of making more powerful hardware.

Absolutely, many of Nintendo's value propositions aren't working for them well this generation, and energy consumption is just one of them. I also think the Wii U Pad isn't proving to be highly compelling to many consumers in the same way Nintendo hoped it would. They also try to design their systems to be small; again, I think this value proposition is less important to Western gamers. I definitely agree that Nintendo's focus on energy consumption as a value add has failed, but I do feel it's only one of the Wii U's failings.

 

[Dion Blaster]

Software sells hardware, unless you're Apple.

Not to derail, but I'm pretty sure most people buy Apple products for the software (computers at least, not sure about phones. I would imagine the App Store plays a big part though).

 

[A Black Falcon]

I think it does. Even in the Gamecube era, there was already a focus on family friendly games that was already disjointing from the big third party hits of the era (Grand Theft Auto being the biggest and most obvious example, but most of the others listed, like Madden, would also fit).

That demographic difference is easily the most important of the factors I listed. Companies like EA and Take 2 want a highly concentrated, homogeneous group to deliver their games to. Mario has always appealed to children and adults, and this focus on a broader demographic has only intensified with the Wii and DS.

You're right that that shift happened over the Gamecube generation, but as I was saying earlier, that wasn't really the case with the N64; I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo did better (proportionally) with 18-35 year olds with the N64 than the GC or Wii, for instance. Maybe even the SNES too. With stuff like Goldeneye and the very popular sports and wrestling games, the N64 had games to attract an older gamer audience that Nintendo has never managed to recapture since Microsoft entered the industry and took it away.

They did also have the games for everyone on the N64 too, of course, but with the Kinect even MS eventually added that to their platform...

 

[Outtrigger888]

You (and others who make the argument that Nintendo doesn't do powerful hardware because of the financial risk) aren't considering one thing: Nintendo went with a customized chipset for Wii U.

Nintendo could have easily gone with more readily available current technology to power the Wii U and ended up with a more powerful console than the Wii U currently is and at roughly the same price.

But instead they choose to go with a customized chip designed to be energy conservative at the cost of power. Technically, that means the Wii U is expensive for what it is...which kind of invalidates this whole point, right?

It's not so much that Nintendo is risk-adverse with the Wii U, it's that they made a bad bet on what would be worth prioritizing with the hardware. Their obsession with making everything energy conservative at the cost of everything else is what's biting them in the ass here, and not the financial risk of making more powerful hardware.

regardless of a costum cpu, is not the wii u selling half/close to half of what the ps4(not sure on 720) will cost?

costco is selling the basic for $200 and in europe the deluxe was selling for $250 + zombieU, and this was before an official price cut by nintendo.

How can you not say nintendo went the cheaper route with hardware? How?!

Just because nintendo chose to make a costum cpu? Isnt the gpu costum? The controller? Yet the proof is in the price...

 

[Opiate]

You're right that that shift happened over the Gamecube generation, but as I was saying earlier, that wasn't really the case with the N64; I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo did better (proportionally) with 18-35 year olds with the N64 than the GC or Wii, for instance. Maybe even the SNES too. With stuff like Goldeneye and the very popular sports and wrestling games, the N64 had games to attract an older gamer audience that Nintendo has never managed to recapture since Microsoft entered the industry and took it away.

They did also have the games for everyone on the N64 too, of course, but with the Kinect even MS eventually added that to their platform...

I agree that the N64 strikes me as the outlier here, and can readily be explained by other concerns peculiar to that platform -- the cartridge format being the most obvious.

Regarding Kinect, I think the horrible support from third parties for the platform shows that this isn't some specific, seething hatred for Nintendo, but rather a general apathy towards family friendly products and new input methods regardless of who makes them.

I mean, the Kinect is made by Microsoft, who we all know the four big publishers have a strong affiliation with. And Kinect sold very strongly right out of the gate. And yet, almost no serious support ever materialized after the launch, despite this. This should tell us that EA/Take 2/etc. aren't companies run by fanboys who hate Nintendo, but instead are companies which focus on a particular demographic which the Wii, DS, Kinect, Facebook and other emergent platforms simply do not harness as well as the PS3/360 do.

It does not mean there wasn't money to be made on Kinect and Wii; it means that EA and Take 2 aren't the right companies to take advantage of those opportunities, any more than Zynga is the right company to start making huge AAA hits on the PS4.

 

[Risette]

Software sells hardware, unless you're Apple.

Uh, OSX and iOS (+ apps) are most certainly the selling points of Macs and iDevices, respectively. They just happen to have great hardware design too.

Unless you're one of those individuals who thinks that Apple products only sell because of "sheep who only care bout logos" or some other blathering nonsense.

 

[Outtrigger888]

You (and others who make the argument that Nintendo doesn't do powerful hardware because of the financial risk) aren't considering one thing: Nintendo went with a customized chipset for Wii U.

Nintendo could have easily gone with more readily available current technology to power the Wii U and ended up with a more powerful console than the Wii U currently is and at roughly the same price.

But instead they choose to go with a customized chip designed to be energy conservative at the cost of power. Technically, that means the Wii U is expensive for what it is...which kind of invalidates this whole point, right?

It's not so much that Nintendo is risk-adverse with the Wii U, it's that they made a bad bet on what would be worth prioritizing with the hardware. Their obsession with making everything energy conservative at the cost of everything else is what's biting them in the ass here, and not the financial risk of making more powerful hardware.

dont know how this slipped passed me, but didn't nintendo make a costum cpu so that it was BC?

Did you forget that point?

 

[sfried]

I definitely do not agree that it invalidates the point -- I feel it reinforces it strongly. It suggests Nintendo is deliberately focusing on other concerns besides power because they know they cannot compete with Sony/MS in a competition of raw horsepower.

You could say the same thing with the control pad to a much greater degree. If Nintendo had simply made a dualshock-esque classic controller as the standard, they could have saved considerable money and either sold the system at a cheaper price or packed more horsepower under the hood and continued to sell the system for 300. Again, they make a concerted effort to look for any way to add value other than raw horsepower, because lots-of-horsepower-for-the-cheapest-price-possible-even-if-you-lose-money is a brute force approach that larger companies like Sony and MS are more likely to win.



Absolutely, many of Nintendo's value propositions aren't working for them well this generation, and energy consumption is just one of them. I also think the Wii U Pad isn't proving to be highly compelling to many consumers in the same way Nintendo hoped it would. They also try to design their systems to be small; again, I think this value proposition is less important to Western gamers. I definitely agree that Nintendo's focus on energy consumption as a value add has failed, but I do feel it's only one of the Wii U's failings.

So in essence, you're saying they're cornered, because their philosophy does not jive with the times (unique features versus arms race), and that adopting their competitor's philosophies would also be to their detriment too?

Would they have still been able to release competitively powered devices while still maintaining their core philosophy, or would that have spread themselves too thinly? If the WiiU's launch was anything to go by, it might be that latter. Which leaves us at a particular predicament: How do you keep the companies core philosophies in this day and age?

 

[RedSwirl]

I've phrased a similar idea in a different way.

Most of the major western publishers grew up in the PS1/PS2 era. Technically, Take 2 existed before the PS1, of course. As did Electronic Arts. But it was in that time period that both went from small companies to large ones, where EA grew from a company of perhaps 1,000 employees to >10k.

During the height of the PS2, there were years when EA was regularly making net profits exceeding 500m: for contrast, this is likely more than Microsoft will make in the E&D division for the entire generation, and of course more than Sony too (since they've lost boatloads of money).

So the design and production philosophies of most of these western third parties were shaped during that PS1/PS2 era, and as such they're likely to prefer systems that are clear, consistent upgrades on that design philosophy, with modern bells and whistles added in. This philosophy includes:

1) A focus on more "epic" games, originating all the way back to the games that made the Playstation like Final Fantasy 7 and Metal Gear Solid. This means a stronger focus on presentation and narrative.

2) An intense focus on 16-35 male gamers. Sports games, shooters, racers, "badass" or "dudebro" games.

3) A heavy preference for the traditional game pad over alternatives like the Wii Mote or Kinect.

By contrast, Nintendo's games tend to de-emphasize presentation and narrative and instead focus on mechanics; they tend to focus on broad demographic groups (Wii Fit was a hit with grown women, Nintendogs a gigantic hit with young girls, Mario has always been a hit with people of all ages, etc.), and has been the most persistent of the big three in exploring alternative control methods.

When combined, this means that Nintendo is simply philosophically out of step with the big publishers like Activision and especially EA and Take 2. If Nintendo wants to connect with Western developers, they'll either need to grow their own (As in inside the company), or foster the growth of new ones like Fifth Cell, Level 5 and others which are more in sync with their design philosophies.

Yeah I've heard this argument before and it makes a lot of sense. EA, Take 2, etc. are trying to maintain the market they know, even as it's in danger. I think the problem they face now is that they've run up against an upper limit of how many consumers are willing to buy their kinds of games. Their budgets have shot right past the addressable audience for their products.

However, I'd still like to add a third design philosophy -- the PC school of design that guys like Bethesda, Irrational, and Epic come from. These guys aren't just opposed to Nintendo, they've never had real contact with Nintendo. They're even more foreign to Nintendo philosophically than EA and Activision are.

To expound further, I think Nintendo's general design philosophies are much more in line with many mid range developers (like Level 5 and Fifth Cell) and indie devs (who have shown a general willingness to reduce production values in order to allow more risk taking with game mechanics).

Nintendo has also bungled their relationships with these parties in their desperate attempt to get EA/Ubisoft/Activision/Take 2 back on board, and this seems like the big mistake, to me. EA/Take 2/Etc. are philosophically at odds with Nintendo, and no amount of cajoling could realistically bring them on board unless Nintendo wants to start playing on MS/Sony's terms. A much better approach would have been to grow their own third parties, just as iOS (Gameloft, Rovio, and many more) and Facebook (Zynga) have done. If the big third parties seem unwilling to play ball, then start training your own players instead.

But Nintendo made it much harder for grass roots development to take root on their platforms than it is on iOS/Facebook -- everything from a general lack of advertising for downloadable games to a relatively poor networking framework (which is essential for small developers and indie titles which cannot necessarily afford a retail release) to even openly disparaging "garage developers."

Those are the developers Nintendo really needs and needed, and Nintendo's relative disinterest in them while they focused on trying to claw the big publishers back to their platforms was the real mistake.

Totally agree with this too. If nothing else, the Wii did become a bit of a refuge for a few mid-tier retail games.

It's also ironic that Nintendo took this long to start aggressive courting indies, when indies are probably more like Nintendo than anyone else. They should've realized this back on the Wii, but probably didn't see that whole sphere of game development coming since they were still focused on the retail market and their blue ocean.

Now on the Wii U eShop they've actually been surprisingly forward-thinking. Furthermore, the 3DS eShop is kind of in beast mode right now. Hopefully they can draw indies to eShop and repeat that strength on the Wii U. Since the whole Wii program did essentially carve out a new market that the big publishers are unwilling to enter, it makes sense for Nintendo to try to foster a new community of developers.

Problem is, you've also now got Microsoft and Sony aggressively going after indies.

 

[Opiate]

So in essence, you're saying they're cornered, because their philosophy does not jive with the times (unique features versus arms race), and that adopting their competitor's philosophies would also be to their detriment too?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying they were right to take a different path, but there are lots of "different paths". The different path they chose was the wrong one. Right idea generally, wrong execution specifically.

Making a lower powered system with a tablet controller is a risk. The problem with risks, by definition, is that they don't always work out. The Wii did, the Wii U did not. It happens.

Would they have still been able to release competitively powered devices while still maintaining their core philosophy, or would that have spread themselves too thinly?

Extremely high risk, which is a problem. This is similar to the idea that you could theoretically release a big budget AAA title that broke all genre molds, but you rarely see it because it entails so much risk. Generally speaking, taking more financial risk means you take less intellectual risk, and vice versa.

 

[RedSwirl]

The problem with this post is that while you do a good job of describing the Nintendo of the DS/Wii era and beyond, a lot of this really doesn't apply to the N64/GC era Nintendo I was talking about earlier in the thread...

Ehh. Nintendo was still very much focused in their traditional direction (fun mechanics) during the N64 era. They pushed those mechanics extremely far then and ended up with some of the most influential games of all time. This was countered however by the PS1's introduction of epic, cinematic games.

I think the GCN era shows what happens when Nintendo somewhat tries to follow the direction of the competition.

 

[Outtrigger888]

So in essence, you're saying they're cornered, because their philosophy does not jive with the times (unique features versus arms race), and that adopting their competitor's philosophies would also be to their detriment too?

Would they have still been able to release competitively powered devices while still maintaining their core philosophy, or would that have spread themselves too thinly? If the WiiU's launch was anything to go by, it might be that latter. Which leaves us at a particular predicament: How do you keep the companies core philosophies in this day and age?

nintendo will always retain their philosophies of gameplay first. They keep that by innovating.

Could they of kept it by releasing a system equal to ps4? Yes, but not so much as if they spent r/d on innovation over horsepower. As said, it wouldnt be wise to tie themselves up in the same category as sony/ms who can take big losses.

The wise choice is to make cheaper hardware, but to expand their gameplay innovations with it therefore evolving their core philosophy.

 

[royalan]

I definitely do not agree that it invalidates the point -- I feel it reinforces it strongly. It suggests Nintendo is deliberately focusing on other concerns besides power because they know they cannot compete with Sony/MS in a competition of raw horsepower.

You could say the same thing with the control pad to a much greater degree. If Nintendo had simply made a dualshock-esque classic controller as the standard, they could have saved considerable money and either sold the system at a cheaper price or packed more horsepower under the hood and continued to sell the system for 300. Again, they make a concerted effort to look for any way to add value other than raw horsepower, because lots-of-horsepower-for-the-cheapest-price-possible-even-if-you-lose-money is a brute force approach that larger companies like Sony and MS are more likely to win.



Absolutely, many of Nintendo's value propositions aren't working for them well this generation, and energy consumption is just one of them. I also think the Wii U Pad isn't proving to be highly compelling to many consumers in the same way Nintendo hoped it would. They also try to design their systems to be small; again, I think this value proposition is less important to Western gamers. I definitely agree that Nintendo's focus on energy consumption as a value add has failed, but I do feel it's only one of the Wii U's failings.

This is all true. I've just been feeling lately that a lot of Nintendo's missteps come from plain old bad bets and poor positioning and long-term planning. They're really losing their grip on understanding the market, which is strange considering how on-target they were the first few years of the Wii.

regardless of a costum cpu, is not the wii u selling half/close to half of what the ps4(not sure on 720) will cost?

costco is selling the basic for $200 and in europe the deluxe was selling for $250 + zombieU, and this was before an official price cut by nintendo.

How can you not say nintendo went the cheaper route with hardware? How?!

Just because nintendo chose to make a costum cpu? Isnt the gpu costum? The controller? Yet the proof is in the price...

This isn't my point. The Wii U is an inexpensive console relative to what the PS3 and 360 cost when they launched and where PS4 and Durango will likely launch at. My point is that if Nintendo had gone with more off-the-shelf parts they likely could have gotten a more powerful machine at the same pricepoint, but by choosing to go with a custom chip they got something less powerful for the sake of lower energy consumption, which I don't think will be very worthwhile in the end. In that sense, the Wii U isn't a console designed to be cheap, because it's not cheap considering what's in it. It was a console designed to be small and draw little power.

Heck, going along with Opiate pointing out Nintendo also prioritizes physically small hardware, I think I remember reading in the Wii U community thread a while back that Nintendo has even underclocked the hardware in the Wii U to prevent it from overheating in the Wii U's small shell. So even what little power Nintendo DID put in the Wii U is being choked by Nintendo's odd sense of priorities.

Spoiler

This could be false though. I haven't kept up with that thread.

 

[Opiate]

This is all true. I've just been feeling lately that a lot of Nintendo's missteps come from plain old bad bets and poor positioning and long-term planning. They're really losing their grip on understanding the market, which is strange considering how on-target they were the first few years of the Wii.

If I were to speak broadly, I feel Nintendo's insight that lots of potential gamers don't really care about graphical advancement was a very powerful one. I think this belief has been strongly reinforced by other breakthrough platforms since then: iPhone/iPad, Facebook, Android, and even Kinect (to a less successful degree) all show that there is a huge population of people out there who don't care very much about the game tech race and are perfectly happy to play games with lower production values if they believe they are fun. I really cannot stress enough how valuable this insight proved for Nintendo in the early days of the Wii.

On the flipside, their belief that gamers didn't really care about network functionality has proven to be hugely wrong, as evidenced by the same means; iOS, Android and Facebook are all deeply networked platforms. In fact, casual/social gamers might be even more concerned with network functionality than traditional "core" gamers are.

I think Nintendo's inability to attract indies and maintain strong relations with big publishers can be attributed significantly to Nintendo's disregard for the importance of network functionality. I think this is an oversight that they are still paying for -- and will continue to pay for -- across the entire spectrum of publishing, from the big publishers like EA who want to microtransact everything to the indie publishers who cannot feasibly release their games at retail to the mid tier devs who have $40 game idea that don't quite fit the retail paradigm to the family friendly social developers like Zynga whose game design philosophies might have been appropriate for Nintendo consoles if they were more robustly networked years ago. Across the board, this oversight has proven disastrous for Nintendo.

Again, all very broad analysis, but I think these are the two big takeaways from the Wii. Graphics don't matter as much as people thought; big win. Networking isn't that important; big lose.

 

[Outtrigger888]

This is all true. I've just been feeling lately that a lot of Nintendo's missteps come from plain old bad bets and poor positioning and long-term planning. They're really losing their grip on understanding the market, which is strange considering how on-target they were the first few years of the Wii.



This isn't my point. The Wii U is an inexpensive console relative to what the PS3 and 360 cost when they launched and where PS4 and Durango will likely launch at. My point is that if Nintendo had gone with more off-the-shelf parts they likely could have gotten a more powerful machine at the same pricepoint, but by choosing to go with a custom chip they got something less powerful for the sake of lower energy consumption, which I don't think will be very worthwhile in the end. In that sense, the Wii U isn't a console designed to be cheap, because it's not cheap considering what's in it. It was a console designed to be small and draw little power.

Heck, going along with Opiate pointing out Nintendo also prioritizes physically small hardware, I think I remember reading in the Wii U community thread a while back that Nintendo has even underclocked the hardware in the Wii U to prevent it from overheating in the Wii U's small shell. So even what little power Nintendo DID put in the Wii U is being choked by Nintendo's odd sense of priorities.

Spoiler

This could be false though. I haven't kept up with that thread.

You did miss the point about the cpu being costum for bc, right? Thats adds a lot more value.

Do you really think it was all because of lower power consumption? Or is there something we both cant see?

You still prove the point that nintendos not about power, as they could of made a more powerful machine at the same cost.

"You (and others who make the argument that Nintendo doesn't do powerful hardware because of the financial risk) aren't considering one thing: Nintendo went with a customized chipset for Wii U."

The big picture is nintendo could have made a console equally powerful as ps4, but didnt come close. Youre just digging into smaller, deeper, unnecessary details to win a battle, but not the war.

 

[AZ Greg]

I think the GCN era shows what happens when Nintendo somewhat tries to follow the direction of the competition.

I touched on this in the Mark Rein thread, but I don't think statements like that are a true representation of what really happened. Yes, Nintendo did compete with Sony/MS with regards to horsepower. Yes, the Gamecube ultimately ended up being their worst performing console in their history up to that point. But there were so many other flaws it had (Physical design issues, marketing, image issues, proprietary disc, poor online infrastructure compared to the competition, lackluster 3rd party relations/support, etc...) that we can't point to that route alone being a mistake and one current day and age Nintendo should never go back to.

 

[Anth0ny]

I touched on this in the Mark Rein thread, but I don't think statements like that are a true representation of what really happened. Yes, Nintendo did compete with Sony/MS with regards to horsepower. Yes, the Gamecube ultimately ended up being their worst performing console in their history up to that point. But there were so many other flaws it had (Physical design issues, marketing, image issues, proprietary disc, poor online infrastructure compared to the competition, lackluster 3rd party relations/support, etc...) that we can't point to that route alone being a mistake and one current day and age Nintendo should never go back to.

Not to mention 3rd party exclusives were still a thing during that gen.

Today, Metal Gear Solid, Devil May Cry, Final Fantasy, Grand Theft Auto and all the other third party games that were PS2 exclusive are day one multiplatform titles.

I think for the Gamecube the real killer was the mini discs and the controller not having enough buttons, because god awful sales sure as shit didn't stop Xbox from receiving late ports of GTA and MGS.

 

[Burai]

This is all true. I've just been feeling lately that a lot of Nintendo's missteps come from plain old bad bets and poor positioning and long-term planning. They're really losing their grip on understanding the market, which is strange considering how on-target they were the first few years of the Wii.

The thing about the Wii that many people forget is that Nintendo really did seem all at sea in spite of the success they enjoyed. They were lucky that people really bought into the Sports/Fit/Kart/Bros combo and that those titles had decent legs because they really did leave huge, barren periods of no releases, misguided software schedules (that year where they released a bunch of GC ports, Animal Crossing and Wii Music springs to mind) and games that got no traction at all (the aforementioned Wii Music being a prime example).

The success of the Wii as a concept with those cornerstone releases helped them ride out what was essentially an ongoing catastrophe within. With the Wii U we're seeing the catastrophe continue unabated but without the appealing hardware and software to counterbalance it.

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

And I agree. If they cared for 3rd party they would have made a powerful machine but just because its strong does not guarantee third party games.

Thats obvious though.

You need two things to get third party support:

A system that can handle the games without causing the dev to waste too much time or money on porting.

A system where the game can sell.

WiiU had neither of those things and it doing bad commercially only makes things worse.

You could argue that devs could build that audience on the WiiU. Why would devs risk potential losses to build a user base that might not even formulate? Its far more safe to try and build they user base on their current platforms before going to more platforms.

Thats just my take on it though.

 

[ArtHands]

I know nintendo wants to make sure their eshop games are of top quality, hence disparaging "garage developers." but their over conservative actions are doing more harms than good. Great games can be produced by people with no experience too, and people with lots of experience doesnt turn every games into a classic either.

I think they should instead go after the mid tier developers, titles and the indies and carve out their own identities. Maybe encourage developers to make low cost HD-collections consisting of their older ps360 (or even include wii/psp/ios) titles on the Wii U. Individual months old ports wont sell. bundle several old titles at an attractive cost and maybe people will feel better at it. This is a win-win situations for everyone. If their library is going to fill with months old ports, might as well turn it into their strength and go after the late adapters instead. Its crazy how they are letting stuffs like Final fantasy X collection or kingdom hearts collection slip by like this. A modern warfare collection for the Wii U may be nothing much, but it is still better than having literally nothing.

 

[royalan]

If I were to speak broadly, I feel Nintendo's insight that lots of potential gamers don't really care about graphical advancement was a very powerful one. I think this belief has been strongly reinforced by other breakthrough platforms since then: iPhone/iPad, Facebook, Android, and even Kinect (to a less successful degree) all show that there is a huge population of people out there who don't care very much about the game tech race and are perfectly happy to play games with lower production values if they believe they are fun. I really cannot stress enough how valuable this insight proved for Nintendo in the early days of the Wii.

On the flipside, their belief that gamers didn't really care about network functionality has proven to be hugely wrong, as evidenced by the same means; iOS, Android and Facebook are all deeply networked platforms. In fact, casual/social gamers might be even more concerned with network functionality than traditional "core" gamers are.

I think Nintendo's inability to attract indies and maintain strong relations with big publishers can be attributed significantly to Nintendo's disregard for the importance of network functionality. I think this is an oversight that they are still paying for -- and will continue to pay for -- across the entire spectrum of publishing, from the big publishers like EA who want to microtransact everything to the indie publishers who cannot feasibly release their games at retail to the mid tier devs who have $40 game idea that don't quite fit the retail paradigm to the family friendly social developers like Zynga whose game design philosophies might have been appropriate for Nintendo consoles if they were more robustly networked years ago. Across the board, this oversight has proven disastrous for Nintendo.

Again, all very broad analysis, but I think these are the two big takeaways from the Wii. Graphics don't matter as much as people thought; big win. Networking isn't that important; big lose.

I agree with all of this. Never let it be said you're just a pretty face.

The thing about the Wii that many people forget is that Nintendo really did seem all at sea in spite of the success they enjoyed. They were lucky that people really bought into the Sports/Fit/Kart/Bros combo and that those titles had decent legs because they really did leave huge, barren periods of no releases, misguided software schedules (that year where they released a bunch of GC ports, Animal Crossing and Wii Music springs to mind) and games that got no traction at all (the aforementioned Wii Music being a prime example).

The success of the Wii as a concept with those cornerstone releases helped them ride out what was essentially an ongoing catastrophe within. With the Wii U we're seeing the catastrophe continue unabated but without the appealing hardware and software to counterbalance it.

This is true, too. And I know it's been said before a million times, but it bears repeating: it really does seem like the Wii U is (thus far) failing for all the reasons many people were predicting the Wii would have failed had it not been for the wiimote becoming such a cultural phenomenon. Kinda lends itself to the "Nintendo just doesn't care" theory - because it doesn't seem like they've learned anything in all this time. I'd say the Wii U also has one more strike against it: I know a lot of people who bought the Wii on good faith that it would get tons of compelling content (especially when sales took off). A lot of people view the Wii has not having delivered on that particular promise; as a result, a lot less people seem willing to go in on the Wii U until the software is there.

There seems to be zero good faith, and with it looking more and more like Nintendo didn't use their bountiful Wii years to secure 3rd party support in their future hardware endeavors, that might not change for a while.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

Thats obvious though.

You need two things to get third party support:

A system that can handle the games without causing the dev to waste too much time or money on porting.

A system where the game can sell.

WiiU had neither of those things and it doing bad commercially only makes things worse.

You could argue that devs could build that audience on the WiiU. Why would devs risk potential losses to build a user base that might not even formulate? Its far more safe to try and build they user base on their current platforms before going to more platforms.

Thats just my take on it though.

Obvious is just as right as not obvious. In order to achieve the first point the more obvious answer should come first. Cant start from 2 or 3 without 1.

 

[KevinCow]

They would have infinitely better western third-party support if they did two things:

1) Give NoA some autonomy to actively seek and produce western games.

2) Hire some people who actually understand the western market, and give them positions at the top of NoA. Probably even replace Reggie.

When Nintendo has a meeting with some Western third-party, it shouldn't be a Japanese guy with no grasp of the western market going through a translator, nor should it be a suit with no understanding of games in general.

You know the kinds of deals Nintendo's been making with Japanese companies like Namco, Koei, Platinum, and even getting Monster Hunter from Capcom? NoA should be free to make those kinds of deals, and they should have people who know which deals to make.

 

[freddy]

They just can't afford to risk the type of outlay required to match the other two. Fortunately for them they have a stable of some of the best franchises in the world otherwise they'd be screwed.

God knows what they've been doing fo the last 2-3 years though because I thought by now they'd have built up a solid first and much expanded second party stable again to combat the lack of third parties but it seems like they are scrambling to make any games at all. Whole popular franchises sit by for generations without a release because no one can be found to make them.

 

[AzaK]

They just can't afford to risk the type of outlay required to match the other two. Fortunately for them they have a stable of some of the best franchises in the world otherwise they'd be screwed.

God knows what they've been doing fo the last 2-3 years though because I thought by now they'd have built up a solid first and much expanded second party stable again to combat the lack of third parties but it seems like they are scrambling to make any games at all. Whole popular franchises sit by for generations without a release because no one can be found to make them.

That's the biggest mystery to me. Finally launching your system not quite fully baked, not sure how to take full advantage of it thenselves, having no games and devs still struggling.

 

[BMOFTW]

IDK guys, the situation seems pretty dark but I like to see the bright side and I think not everything is lost with the 3rd Parties and Nintendo. Maybe the time will tell us at E3 or a New ND as Iwata said when we will see the games for the 3rd parties. I can see more games that Nintendo wil hunt in developers like TW101, Lego and Bayonetta, SMXFE, and even with some Western developers, but just time will tell us.

 

[Dali]

They would have infinitely better western third-party support if they did two things:

1) Give NoA some autonomy to actively seek and produce western games.

2) Hire some people who actually understand the western market, and give them positions at the top of NoA. Probably even replace Reggie.

When Nintendo has a meeting with some Western third-party, it shouldn't be a Japanese guy with no grasp of the western market going through a translator, nor should it be a suit with no understanding of games in general.

You know the kinds of deals Nintendo's been making with Japanese companies like Namco, Koei, Platinum, and even getting Monster Hunter from Capcom? NoA should be free to make those kinds of deals, and they should have people who know which deals to make.

This is a really good point. The Japanese heads have a strangle hold on the rest of the company. Both points are very well made. They need to give some level of autonomy to the West. My theory is Miyamoto got pissed at DKC and was jealous of Rare so he made a big enough stink to keep that sort of thing from ever happening again.

 

[RobertM]

It stems from one thing and one thing alone. Ever since NES and the days of Yamauchi, Nintendo always sought control of their own platform. They wouldn't let anyone release games for their own platform until they realized it's not sustainable and they need another channel for making money; licensing followed.