By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nintendo hates money and these four games prove it

I never understood why people think Metroid is some massive selling franchise.

There have been 14 releases of Metroid, and not one of the games have sold more than 3 million units, the last three major installments Metroid Prime 2, 3, and Other M were all lackluster in sales selling about 1.5 million each. Mario Kart 8 by comparison has already sold nearly 3 million - a number the article already identified as poor. So how is Metroid going to make Nintendo money when the production cost will be high, and the sales will be poor even if it sells as much as the top selling game in the franchise?



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network

They also hate money by not releasing HD collections.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Jumpin said:
So how is Metroid going to make Nintendo money when the production cost will be high, and the sales will be poor even if it sells as much as the top selling game in the franchise?

Metroid is considered a loss leader franchise, it draws people in who want to see more diversity in the Wii U portfolio.



foxtail said:

Metroid is considered a loss leader franchise, it draws people in who want to see more diversity in the Wii U portfolio.

No it's not. Was NES Metroid a loss leader? Was Metroid Prime a loss leader? Those are the sales Nintendo wants and expects from Metroid games. Notice that after Super Metroid, one of the most critically-acclaimed video games of all time, the series took a long break. It could be because the game sold roughly half as well as the NES original. It didn't even sell as well as Metroid II.

Nintendo put their faith in Retro to rejuvenate the franchise, and it worked. Metroid Prime is the best-selling installment in the series. That's not a loss leader. That's a profitable game. But it's been downhill since then, with Prime 3 still not matching the first Prime's sales despite being on a much more successful console, and Other M being the worst-selling console game in the series.

If every Metroid game sold 2-3 million units, Nintendo would never stop. They would keep coming, like Kirby games. Even 1.5-2 million isn't so bad. But under 1.5 million is no good. Fans will act like 1-2 million is fine for Metroid because they want more games; they might even pretend that this is the sales range Nintendo has aimed for all along with the franchise, but it's not true. The truth is that more than half of the Metroid games released in the last two generations fell short. The only success stories were Prime 1, Prime 3, and Fusion. Prime 2 may have been 'acceptable' because it was a late-life GameCube game that could reuse assets from Prime 1, so it probably cost less to make.

I don't think Nintendo was too thrilled with sales of Prime Hunters, Other M, or even Zero Mission, though, and the proof is in the drought. It's been 4 years since the last Metroid game, 8 years since the last one on a handheld, 10 years since the last 2D game. Metroid didn't convince anyone to buy a DS or a Wii, and Nintendo knows it won't convince anyone to buy a 3DS or a Wii U unless they can reenact that magic Metroid Prime 1 formula for success again.



^

Well I was mostly thinking about the 3D console Metroids (Primes and Other M) being loss leaders because they probably had higher production costs while they were still showpieces for the consoles they were on.  Wasn't really considering the NES or handheld titles at all.  Though I do agree that they need to recapture that magic that Prime 1 had in order to draw people in again.  The first prime was the reason I bought a Gamecube.

-edited for clarity



Around the Network
the_dengle said:
EricFabian said:

don't like the idea of Wii U Pokemon? [not a Snap I mean]

I don't see the point. It would be cool if you could play your game on a big screen (like the gameboy player or transfer pak with Stadium allowed). But Pokemon is designed for handhelds, and there's nothing you could do with the main installments on console that you couldn't do on a handheld.

When I think about what Pokemon can be on consoles, I think of the old battle simulators like the Stadium games. We don't need those any more; they were a novelty because the Pokemon had 3D models, but now they have 3D models in the main games (models which are far superior to the original Stadium models on N64). The RPGs belong on handhelds first and foremost. I see the future of Pokemon on home consoles when I look at Pokken. Snap could make a comeback, I could see that working well on console or on handheld.

When people start describing all these things Pokemon could be on a home console that it can't be on a handheld, they stop describing Pokemon. They start describing WOW or Skyrim with a different coat of paint. That's all good and fine, as Pokken is obviously Tekken with a different coat of paint, Pokemon Conquest was obviously Nobunaga's Ambition with a different coat of paint, etc. But that's just it, a big console Pokemon RPG would essentially be a spin-off. People expect GameFreak to completely throw out all of their work on Pokemon over the past 20 years and start from scratch, making brand new battle mechanics, brand new models for all 700+ Pokemon (over 800 when taking forms into consideration) plus all of the trainer models.

This would be an absurdly massive project (it would have to be massive by nature in order to be impossible to make on handhelds). People think it would sell so well that Nintendo would make all of the money spent on it back instantly, but I don't buy it. The market for Pokemon is on handhelds. The internet has a habit of convincing itself that things are more popular than they actually are (such as convincing themselves that Metroid is some kind of juggernaut franchise comparable to Zelda, or that Majora's Mask is the best Zelda game and a remake would obviously sell gangbusters).

I believe this is one of those cases -- the internet has convinced itself that the majority of the Pokemon fanbase (which is at least 50% children) really would rather play a completely different game on a completely different console than the one they're already buying, and that there is some kind of enormous market of non-Pokemon players who would suddenly jump right into the series once it comes to consoles, because it's the gameplay and platform preventing the average college-aged gamer from taking the plunge into Pokemon, and not the world or the art style or the fact that it's Pokemon.

I agree with this post 110%. IMO Pokémon pretty much IS an MMO.

She convinced me...

As for the other ones, Pokémon Snap would be a HUGE game considering there are 780+ Pokémon. Metroid I love but it's not a huge system seller, and Mario and Sonic are both platformers but they are both different sides of a coin.

This guy doesn't know GAMES!! O:<



I3LuEI3omI3eR said:

As for the other ones, Pokémon Snap would be a HUGE game considering there are 780+ Pokémon.

I don't think the original Pokemon Snap had all 151 original Pokemon in it though, did it? I could see them using only a couple hundred in a new game, taking a few dozen from each generation.



the_dengle said:
I3LuEI3omI3eR said:

As for the other ones, Pokémon Snap would be a HUGE game considering there are 780+ Pokémon.

I don't think the original Pokemon Snap had all 151 original Pokemon in it though, did it? I could see them using only a couple hundred in a new game, taking a few dozen from each generation.

It didn't, I remember it having about 50 to 70. That being said I guess it would be a success having some of the roster, and maybe they can come out with sequels each with different Pokemon from each region.



yeah those ideas are pretty bad.

MMOs are very expensive, but I could see a normal Pokemon games doing very well on a console.



"Nintendo Hearts" (crossover with Square-Enix) RPG would outsell all four of those combined. 3-4 million from Japan alone and probably another 4-6 million worldwide minimum IMO. Mario x Pokemon x Final Fantasy x Dragon Quest x Zelda. Game over. Could be an on-going franchise that makes Nintendo + Square-Enix a ton of money. 

Yes, even more than Pokemon MMORPG ... MMORPGs have smaller fanbases, and for what's a kid-centric franchise it would work as great as people think. A monthly subscription fee would be a swift "no" from a lot of parents. 

Metroid fans need to kinda stop with the complaining. Yes, we get you want a new Metroid (I'm a F-Zero fan, would be nice to have a new F-Zero, seeing as how Metroid has gotten like 3-4 new instalments since the last F-Zero), but Metroid is never going to be a big seller. It's too slow paced/solitary of an experience to gain a big mass following.

It sounds like from what Miyamoto and Tanabe have said one is already in development for Wii U anyway (perhaps centering around the Hunters concept?).