I've already said this to someone else, but "ever" might've been a bit hyperbole. As big as ever post-SNES days might be more accurate. :-3

But those old gens also had pretty decent or strong 3rd party support.  WHen people knew they had more than 2 core franchises to play they comitted to the console. 

Its like this pretty much everone buys Nintendo for their games.

But then yo need the3rd party games to cater to different tastes of people. Nintendo games alone will not justify a spending for someone $400 when they got about 10x more games to pick from and to buy on the competition's console.

This.

One of Nintendo's biggest problems at the moment is that like 95% of their output is E-rated cartoon fare.

Most gamers today demand more than that. Nintendo needs to make their own equivalents to stuff like Uncharted, The Last of Us, Gears of War, etc.

Ehhhh...

This is now really accurate to what the thread is asking. Like everything you said is true, but that's not what the thread is asking. You're talking about new franchises, and the thread is talking about existing ones.

Unless you're saying that their existing franchises need to be like Uncharted, The Last of Us, Gears of War, etc. Then that's obviously wrong, but I don't think you are.

Adding those new western franchises won't do anything for their existing IP. The problem with their existing IP is that Nintendo is heinously fucking cheap with them. If Nintendo treated a Pokemon release the way Rockstar treated GTA V, Pokemon would easily do those kinds of numbers, but they don't. If Nintendo treated Zelda the way Disney treated Frozen, it could easily sell Fallout 4 numbers, but they don't and likely won't with Zelda U. Nintendo are so goddamn cheap when it comes to the production of their franchises, and it comes through in the end product.

When Disney localized Ghibli movies, they'd hire top tier actors and writers. When making Other M, they had Sakomoto write the script and hired a no-name. Nintendo should be doing what Disney is doing. They're Nin-fucking-tendo. Nintendo is supposed to be the Disney of gaming, but it's so frustrating the ways in which they don't act like it. I thought Galaxy was a push in the right direction, and then Galaxy 2 proved me wrong. I'd love to believe that Nintendo is gearing Retro up to make Nintendo's Uncharted, but you know why I know that'll never happen? Nintendo's to fucking cheap to do it. You know why Nintendo won't do what Square did and buy a 3rd party studio/collection of IP up to make up for their gap in market appeal? Because they're too fucking cheap to. Disney bought Marvel and prospered. You know why Nintendo won't buy Capcom and do the same when they could and should? Because they will never spend the kind of money necessary to make that purchase worthwhile. Not just the acquisition, but actually funding the games afterwards in a big, AAA way.

And let me clarify: when I say cheap, I mean the experiences feel cheap. They feel like they were made on a strict budget. When Nintendo releases a Zelda game with no VA and looping animations, it's not charming anymore. It looks cheap. If Zelda U has no VA, it's not going to do as well, because it's going to come off as a cheap-ass game compared to what's out today. When Nintendo let's Retro make another 2D platformers instead of a big budget AAA game, they come off as cheap. When Nintendo makes all of their products feel like fisherprice toys when everyone else is designing their products to look premium, they come off as cheap. When the first trailer for a new Star Fox comes out and it looks like it hasn't progressed a day since the N64 era, Nintendo looks cheap. When Nintendo tells its audience that Federation Force is their next Metroid game, spin off or not, they look cheap. And when all you're known for is making cheap looking games on cheap looking systems, eventually people are going to go towards the more premium experiences. And again, it has nothing to do with their games being aimed at children. Disney made Frozen, Tangled, Inside Out, Big Hero 6, and Brave in the last 5 years or so and NONE of them look or feel like cheap experiences. Turning Chibi-Robo into some throwaway 2D platfomer when it could have easily been this Pixar-esque 3D adventure game with a plot and a purpose and a message high quality animation and good writers and a voice acting team comes off as cheap. Looking at an IP like Chibi-Robo and thinking that putting that much time, effort, marketing, and recourses into it because it might be "too niche" looks fucking cheap. It's not too niche, Nintendo. You're just being too cheap to give it the tools necessary to appeal to a mainstream audience. When Gardians of the Galaxy came out, Disney marketed that shit like it was the second coming of Christ and put money into making sure it really was the second coming of Christ. Nobody gave a shit about that IP until Disney decided to. Nobody will give a shit about Nintendo's IP until Nintendo starts to, and more than they have with anything this gen.

Say what you want about Destiny, I sure have, but it doesn't look or feel like a cheap game. Guess what? The thing sold tens of millions. Like people look at XY as some big success because it sold 10m+ units on 3DS. There is a possible future where a mainline Pokemon game could do 35m+ on a single dedicated gaming device just like the originals did on the Gameboy, but it doesn't, because Nintendo is so fucking cheap with their games. It wasn't as much of an issue before as they could blame those shortcomings on lack of tech, but the alibi doesn't hold up anymore. It's just cheap now. It just looks cheap. And it shows when they don't cheap out. Mario Kart 8 didn't come off as cheap. Smash didn't either. Everything else does to some extent.

Woah.

Sorry, just had to get that off my chest lmao didn't mean to air that out on you. That wasn't directed at you at all lmao just so frustrated with Nintendo software-wise the past two gens.

The question is (and this is an honest question since I really don't know much about it), does Nintendo has the money to do all of that? I agree with you, Nintendo's IPs are strong enough to be worth an AAA treatment, and maybe they'll sell a lot more. But there's a risk. Games like Destiny, GTA; movies like Frozen... have spent an insane amount of money in marketing alone. Marketing imo is what sells the most, but it's expensive as fuck. And I'm not really sure if Nintendo could aford nearly the same treatment. 

Ehhhh...

This is now really accurate to what the thread is asking. Like everything you said is true, but that's not what the thread is asking. You're talking about new franchises, and the thread is talking about existing ones.

Unless you're saying that their existing franchises need to be like Uncharted, The Last of Us, Gears of War, etc. Then that's obviously wrong, but I don't think you are.

Adding those new western franchises won't do anything for their existing IP. The problem with their existing IP is that Nintendo is heinously fucking cheap with them. If Nintendo treated a Pokemon release the way Rockstar treated GTA V, Pokemon would easily do those kinds of numbers, but they don't. If Nintendo treated Zelda the way Disney treated Frozen, it could easily sell Fallout 4 numbers, but they don't and likely won't with Zelda U. Nintendo are so goddamn cheap when it comes to the production of their franchises, and it comes through in the end product.

When Disney localized Ghibli movies, they'd hire top tier actors and writers. When making Other M, they had Sakomoto write the script and hired a no-name. Nintendo should be doing what Disney is doing. They're Nin-fucking-tendo. Nintendo is supposed to be the Disney of gaming, but it's so frustrating the ways in which they don't act like it. I thought Galaxy was a push in the right direction, and then Galaxy 2 proved me wrong. I'd love to believe that Nintendo is gearing Retro up to make Nintendo's Uncharted, but you know why I know that'll never happen? Nintendo's to fucking cheap to do it. You know why Nintendo won't do what Square did and buy a 3rd party studio/collection of IP up to make up for their gap in market appeal? Because they're too fucking cheap to. Disney bought Marvel and prospered. You know why Nintendo won't buy Capcom and do the same when they could and should? Because they will never spend the kind of money necessary to make that purchase worthwhile. Not just the acquisition, but actually funding the games afterwards in a big, AAA way.

And let me clarify: when I say cheap, I mean the experiences feel cheap. They feel like they were made on a strict budget. When Nintendo releases a Zelda game with no VA and looping animations, it's not charming anymore. It looks cheap. If Zelda U has no VA, it's not going to do as well, because it's going to come off as a cheap-ass game compared to what's out today. When Nintendo let's Retro make another 2D platformers instead of a big budget AAA game, they come off as cheap. When Nintendo makes all of their products feel like fisherprice toys when everyone else is designing their products to look premium, they come off as cheap. When the first trailer for a new Star Fox comes out and it looks like it hasn't progressed a day since the N64 era, Nintendo looks cheap. When Nintendo tells its audience that Federation Force is their next Metroid game, spin off or not, they look cheap. And when all you're known for is making cheap looking games on cheap looking systems, eventually people are going to go towards the more premium experiences. And again, it has nothing to do with their games being aimed at children. Disney made Frozen, Tangled, Inside Out, Big Hero 6, and Brave in the last 5 years or so and NONE of them look or feel like cheap experiences. Turning Chibi-Robo into some throwaway 2D platfomer when it could have easily been this Pixar-esque 3D adventure game with a plot and a purpose and a message high quality animation and good writers and a voice acting team comes off as cheap. Looking at an IP like Chibi-Robo and thinking that putting that much time, effort, marketing, and recourses into it because it might be "too niche" looks fucking cheap. It's not too niche, Nintendo. You're just being too cheap to give it the tools necessary to appeal to a mainstream audience. When Gardians of the Galaxy came out, Disney marketed that shit like it was the second coming of Christ and put money into making sure it really was the second coming of Christ. Nobody gave a shit about that IP until Disney decided to. Nobody will give a shit about Nintendo's IP until Nintendo starts to, and more than they have with anything this gen.

Say what you want about Destiny, I sure have, but it doesn't look or feel like a cheap game. Guess what? The thing sold tens of millions. Like people look at XY as some big success because it sold 10m+ units on 3DS. There is a possible future where a mainline Pokemon game could do 35m+ on a single dedicated gaming device just like the originals did on the Gameboy, but it doesn't, because Nintendo is so fucking cheap with their games. It wasn't as much of an issue before as they could blame those shortcomings on lack of tech, but the alibi doesn't hold up anymore. It's just cheap now. It just looks cheap. And it shows when they don't cheap out. Mario Kart 8 didn't come off as cheap. Smash didn't either. Everything else does to some extent.

Woah.

Sorry, just had to get that off my chest lmao didn't mean to air that out on you. That wasn't directed at you at all lmao just so frustrated with Nintendo software-wise the past two gens.

I actually agree with you.

Nintendo isn't fulfilling even a fraction of the potential of their IPs these days. Games like Mario 3D World and Tropical Freeze may be polished for what they are, but they play it so safe that they ultimately feel like missed opportunities. Instead of pushing the envelope and aiming for greatness like they did in past gens, they are settling for "good enough" instead.

Not a single game they have released on Wii U has the boundary-shattering magnificence of games like Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime, or Ocarina of Time. Not one.

Nobody is going to look back in 10 years and talk about what a timeless classic New Super Mario Bros U was.

i agree to an extent with you and Spemanig.

You are right that 10 years from now NSMBU wont put on a high pedestal like Galaxy/Prime/Ocarina but Xenoblade X could be remembered as their first truly ambitious HD, open-world game. Splatoon could be remembered as their first online-focused shooter. Mario Maker could be remembered as Nintendo's entry into user generated based games.

Nintendo does get alot of flak for being behind on the times but in 2015 we saw them embrace open-worlds, online shooters, user generated content which is clearly a sign of them willing to pursue modern gaming trends.

Their net worth rivals Activision's ($18m), almost triple's EA's ($6-8b), and absolutely eclipses Ubisoft's ($700m) for comparison.

Yes, they have the money, and then some. And they could make more. Like WAY more.

Apple is worth $700b. Disney is worth $100b. Nintendo can literally be both the Apple of gaming and the Disney of gaming at the same time. Nintendo can be that high, but you have to spend money to make money. I already think they are on their way to being the Apple of gaming with the NX. All they need is good branding and a good design for the hardware that looks simple and feels luxurious. But they are being a really poor representative for being the Disney of gaming because of how cheap they are, and I have absolutely no faith that they plan to change that outside of things like the theme park, their IP appearing in TV and films, the rumored BG&E2 rumor, etc.