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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Why do we still look forward to Nintendo's E3 directs?

Nautilus on 20 June 2018
Lonely_Dolphin said:
Nautilus said:

I didnt extrapolate anything, Im just pointing out that you are dismissing the third party games shown there as mostly inconsequential, shown by your lack of interest in them with frases as "Even if the games hadnt leaked, it would make the direct 0.2% better" or the non acknoledgement of its success found with the consoles through its sales numbers and such.So it seems you are misunderstanding me once again, so let me rephrase:

Nintendo games usually do the heavily lifting of the consoles sales, and its not much different with the Switch.However, in a matter that is usually uncharacteristic to Nintendo hardware, 3rd party games are generally selling extremelly well on the Switch, and all of them are not shovelware.So it stands to reason that a considerable number of Switch owners and thus, people watching the Nintendo presentation, wouldd have been more thrilled with the presentation itself if such games as DB Fighters Z, Fortnite and Overcooked 2 werent leaked ahead of the presentation.For an example of such an "adoption" of one of these games is Fortnite, which was downloaded over 2 million times in a single day.Yes, its a free to play game, but people wont download anything unless they are interested.

In conclusion, what I mean to say is that all your talk about third parties being mostly irrelevant compared to Nintendo games being shown and that the show would be 0.2% better if those same games hadnt been leaked is complete BS, especially because you are looking at this in a personal way, and Im using data to back up my claims.
And I'm using data to back up my claim of 1st party holding more weight, thus directs are rated mainly by their 1st party showing. That some 3rd partys have seen moderate success doesn't change this. That quote of mine, "Even if the games hadnt leaked, it would make the direct 0.2% better," is not dismissing the games themselves rather than the effect surprise factor has. 2 million people myself included still downloaded Fortnite day 1 despite everyone knowing it was coming. Mario + Rabbids was still a hit despite being spoiled months in advance.

So if surprise factor means little, and most people mainly care about 1st party which is why the direct is getting heat in the first place, then I think it's less bs and more common sense to say thay the leaks had no effect on how the direct is being percieved.

And therein lies your mistake.You are so obssesed with selling the idea that since the first party games shown there werent as exciting as people thought they would be, the presentation failed to live up to expectations, that you cant actually read what im defending.Im not saying that if the games in general werent leaked beforehand the presentation would be amazing, Im saying that it would have been better.As a show, as something that people will rate their excitement over, surprise is essential.After all, for you to excite people, to surprise them, you have to excite them with something they never seen, they never experienced.And thus, having its games not spoiled before is beneficial for the presentation.Plus you say you are talking facts and all, but you go and throw a 0.2% there, as if you can actually quantify something like that, with that precision.Please.

And all the sales data I presented serve to prove that the Switch userbase is more diverse than your usual Nintendo console.They are not only buying Nintendo games and games associated with its platforms(which is still where the big chunck of software sales comes from), but also buying stuff that are not only not common on the platform but also that are from different genres, like DOOm, Skyrim, Fifa and all the indies.If the Switch userbase is more diverse, the chance of them liking stuff other than Nintendo is higher.And thus, by consequence, the number of people that would have been happy with a surprise announcement of something like Overcooked 2 would be significant, which in turn would increase the percentage of people satisfied with the presentation.Thats all.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Around the Network
Kai_Mao on 20 June 2018
DélioPT said:
Miyamotoo said:

 

 

Reason why they decided hole E3 2016. only to Zelda BotW is because they didn't want to talk about Switch games yet that they were saving for January presentation, so E3 2016. was exaption and really can't be compared with any other E3.

 

But it's very obvious that Nintendo has staffs to show through the year:

-January: Kirby, Mario Aces, Dark Souls, DKTF, The World Ends with You: Final Remix, Hyrule Warriors: Definitive Edition, Ys VIII: Lacrimosa of Dana, Celeste, Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle DLC, SNK HEROINES Tag Team Frenzy, Labo...

-March: Smash Bros, Splatoon 2 Expansion, Okami HD, Sushi Striker, Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker, Travis Strikes Again: No More Heroes, Undertale, Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy, Little Nightmares, South Park...

-May: Pokemon Let's Go Pikachu, Pokemon Let's Go  Eevee, Pokemon Quest.

-June: Fortnite, Paladins, Daemon X Machina, Xenoblade Chronicles 2 DLC, Fire Emblem: Three Houses, Overcooked 2, Killer Queen Black, Dragon Ball FighterZ, Starlink, Fifa 19..

Offcourse they could show more staffs at E3 if they wanted, but they didnt want that, and we can expect at least 2-3 more Directs in rest of year where we will have more 2018. announcements.

But that doesn't take away from what i said: Nintendo clearly thought it could use a major game at E3 and get away with it.

It worked. So why not do again? Of, course they haven't been as focused (on a single game) as before, for the obvious reason. 
Thing is, this time, people obviously expected more (it's a new console in it's second year already).

Of course Nintendo could show more, as could MS, Sony and other companies. 
I don't know how many Indies MS is getting, but i bet it's not 2-3. They could have also showed more, too.

The difference here is that it's clear Nintendo does not have enough to do what the other do - see MS, for exemple.
So, their strategy can't be reveal all that at E3 and then scatter those many throughout the year during NDs. And because of that, they create less impact.

Are you expecting regular NDs or specific NDs?
If it's specfic, like last year, then i agree. One for Smash, one for Pokémon and another specific ND; If it's your regular ND, i don't see that happening. If you look at last year - as an exemple - they only had 1 regular ND after E3. The rest was directed towards specific games coming out in 2017.

I can see a Smash ND before launch and a regular ND. For Pokemon, I don't think having another direct is how the Pokemon Company promotes their games, especially that close to their releases. Remember Pokemon S/M and US/UM? They only had one direct respectively for those pair of games and those were just before E3. Other than that, they didn't host another direct. They either show more content through smaller trailers or in a few big trailers before release from this point on (from June onwards until release).



Pagan on 20 June 2018

Because we didnt give up the hope that nintendo moved from 373 BC to 1412.



Lonely_Dolphin on 20 June 2018
Nautilus said:
Lonely_Dolphin said:
And I'm using data to back up my claim of 1st party holding more weight, thus directs are rated mainly by their 1st party showing. That some 3rd partys have seen moderate success doesn't change this. That quote of mine, "Even if the games hadnt leaked, it would make the direct 0.2% better," is not dismissing the games themselves rather than the effect surprise factor has. 2 million people myself included still downloaded Fortnite day 1 despite everyone knowing it was coming. Mario + Rabbids was still a hit despite being spoiled months in advance.

So if surprise factor means little, and most people mainly care about 1st party which is why the direct is getting heat in the first place, then I think it's less bs and more common sense to say thay the leaks had no effect on how the direct is being percieved.

And therein lies your mistake.You are so obssesed with selling the idea that since the first party games shown there werent as exciting as people thought they would be, the presentation failed to live up to expectations, that you cant actually read what im defending.Im not saying that if the games in general werent leaked beforehand the presentation would be amazing, Im saying that it would have been better.As a show, as something that people will rate their excitement over, surprise is essential.After all, for you to excite people, to surprise them, you have to excite them with something they never seen, they never experienced.And thus, having its games not spoiled before is beneficial for the presentation.Plus you say you are talking facts and all, but you go and throw a 0.2% there, as if you can actually quantify something like that, with that precision.Please.

And all the sales data I presented serve to prove that the Switch userbase is more diverse than your usual Nintendo console.They are not only buying Nintendo games and games associated with its platforms(which is still where the big chunck of software sales comes from), but also buying stuff that are not only not common on the platform but also that are from different genres, like DOOm, Skyrim, Fifa and all the indies.If the Switch userbase is more diverse, the chance of them liking stuff other than Nintendo is higher.And thus, by consequence, the number of people that would have been happy with a surprise announcement of something like Overcooked 2 would be significant, which in turn would increase the percentage of people satisfied with the presentation.Thats all.
You're the one not listening, as I just showed, surprise is in fact not essential, the content itself being good is what matters. Another example, Animal Crossing Amiibo Festival. That sure was quite the surprise wasn't it? I mean come on, as if those who are interested in Overcooked 2 suddenly don't care anymore because it was spoiled rather than being happy to see gameplay and a release date.

DélioPT on 20 June 2018
flashfire926 said:
DélioPT said:

MS talked about 50 games at their press conference, whereas Nintendo talked about 21 games, YTD.
Even if we count the games that are going to be announced - which clearly won't be 29 - the difference is more than visible. Also, it's a platform in it's second year versus a platform in it's fifth year.

This is what i mean that Nintendo doesn't have enough to show for.
Even if Nintendo packed everything into a single presentation, they would pale in comparison; 

and the PS conference only showed 8 games...so does that means it a dying console?

Well, they really were at their worst (in terms of quantity).
I don't understand why they didn't show other stuff like AC, Battlefield, etc.. If it was a smaller game, i'd get it, but this… weird.

They could have easily be on par with MS, which is not the case with Nintendo. 
Nintendo would have to show every title to even try and reach that plateau.
Of course, there's more to be said, but that's not the point here.



Around the Network
Nautilus on 20 June 2018
Lonely_Dolphin said:
Nautilus said:

And therein lies your mistake.You are so obssesed with selling the idea that since the first party games shown there werent as exciting as people thought they would be, the presentation failed to live up to expectations, that you cant actually read what im defending.Im not saying that if the games in general werent leaked beforehand the presentation would be amazing, Im saying that it would have been better.As a show, as something that people will rate their excitement over, surprise is essential.After all, for you to excite people, to surprise them, you have to excite them with something they never seen, they never experienced.And thus, having its games not spoiled before is beneficial for the presentation.Plus you say you are talking facts and all, but you go and throw a 0.2% there, as if you can actually quantify something like that, with that precision.Please.

And all the sales data I presented serve to prove that the Switch userbase is more diverse than your usual Nintendo console.They are not only buying Nintendo games and games associated with its platforms(which is still where the big chunck of software sales comes from), but also buying stuff that are not only not common on the platform but also that are from different genres, like DOOm, Skyrim, Fifa and all the indies.If the Switch userbase is more diverse, the chance of them liking stuff other than Nintendo is higher.And thus, by consequence, the number of people that would have been happy with a surprise announcement of something like Overcooked 2 would be significant, which in turn would increase the percentage of people satisfied with the presentation.Thats all.
You're the one not listening, as I just showed, surprise is in fact not essential, the content itself being good is what matters. Another example, Animal Crossing Amiibo Festival. That sure was quite the surprise wasn't it? I mean come on, as if those who are interested in Overcooked 2 suddenly don't care anymore because it was spoiled rather than being happy to see gameplay and a release date.

Oh cmon.I thought it was common sense, and pretty explicit, that if the game is not good or if it the oposite of what people want(in every sense), it would be obvious that gamers would be negative about it.I mean, is it not obvious?I meant about games people want, sequel or not, and you know it.Now you are being ridiculous.

Surprise is essential.Or if you dont like that word, pretty important.Otherwise people wouldnt look foward for E3 and directs.they look foward to them to see new games or new footage of announced games and thus, be surprised by whats new or different.That "unknown" factor is obviosly important.Its marketing, its making a good first impression.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

DélioPT on 20 June 2018
Miyamotoo said:
DélioPT said:

 

It don't really matters at end, their strategy works, Switch keeped momentum and it will keep selling great, Switch games are also selling great, and Switch will definitely sell much better than XB1 in any case.

I definitely expecting at least one big regular direct probably in September like was last year, with around 2 specific ones also, but at E3 they said they have more announcements in coming weeks and months maybe we could have two regular Directs.

Yes, Switch is still selling great and the momentum is still there.
That kind of thinking shows that you are deliberately focusing on the short term and you are ignoring the fact that the most "popular" console still can't out do PS4, with the exception of Japan.

Instead of just focusing on the here and now, you should focus your attention on a little but very important detail: Switch's huge success last year hasn't made a dent on MS and Sony.
What does tell you?

Nintendo says a lot things.
Do you really expect Nintendo to come out and say that we have seen everything for 2018?
This E3 they changed their "games coming out soon (6 months)" to "6-9 months", which end in Spring. Expect, at most, 3 new games - with the strong possibility of more ports.

zorg1000 said:
DélioPT said:

MS talked about 50 games at their press conference, whereas Nintendo talked about 21 games, YTD.
Even if we count the games that are going to be announced - which clearly won't be 29 - the difference is more than visible. Also, it's a platform in it's second year versus a platform in it's fifth year.

This is what i mean that Nintendo doesn't have enough to show for.
Even if Nintendo packed everything into a single presentation, they would pale in comparison; 

Yes and how many games were shown when adding in the two other directs this year and how many will be shown in the inevitable directs later this year?

E3 is like the only big reveal event for MS each year while Nintendo splits their reveals into a half dozen or so smaller events.

Let's assume that at the end of the year, Nintendo has showed 50 games during their presentations in 2018.
MS's message for the year was: 50 games; Nintendo's message was: games here and there with a focus on Smash.

Which one do you think will resonate more with gamers?
If you look at the sales numbers for last year, you'll see that Nintendo didn't steal customers from MS or Sony despite a huge success; this year, MS is having it's best year while Sony will have a decline (?). 
Again, it's almost as if Switch wasn't in the market.

"We have 50 games, too" could do a lot more to really damage MS and Sony, than their strategy will.



Lonely_Dolphin on 20 June 2018
Nautilus said:
Lonely_Dolphin said:
You're the one not listening, as I just showed, surprise is in fact not essential, the content itself being good is what matters. Another example, Animal Crossing Amiibo Festival. That sure was quite the surprise wasn't it? I mean come on, as if those who are interested in Overcooked 2 suddenly don't care anymore because it was spoiled rather than being happy to see gameplay and a release date.

Oh cmon.I thought it was common sense, and pretty explicit, that if the game is not good or if it the oposite of what people want(in every sense), it would be obvious that gamers would be negative about it.I mean, is it not obvious?I meant about games people want, sequel or not, and you know it.Now you are being ridiculous.

Surprise is essential.Or if you dont like that word, pretty important.Otherwise people wouldnt look foward for E3 and directs.they look foward to them to see new games or new footage of announced games and thus, be surprised by whats new or different.That "unknown" factor is obviosly important.Its marketing, its making a good first impression.
Jesus you are reaching incredibly hard. Common sense should tell you that if surprise factor can't help a bad game, but a good game can still excite and succeed without surprise factor, then the game being good is all that matters.

zorg1000 on 20 June 2018
DélioPT said:
Miyamotoo said:

It don't really matters at end, their strategy works, Switch keeped momentum and it will keep selling great, Switch games are also selling great, and Switch will definitely sell much better than XB1 in any case.

I definitely expecting at least one big regular direct probably in September like was last year, with around 2 specific ones also, but at E3 they said they have more announcements in coming weeks and months maybe we could have two regular Directs.

Yes, Switch is still selling great and the momentum is still there.
That kind of thinking shows that you are deliberately focusing on the short term and you are ignoring the fact that the most "popular" console still can't out do PS4, with the exception of Japan.

Instead of just focusing on the here and now, you should focus your attention on a little but very important detail: Switch's huge success last year hasn't made a dent on MS and Sony.
What does tell you?

Nintendo says a lot things.
Do you really expect Nintendo to come out and say that we have seen everything for 2018?
This E3 they changed their "games coming out soon (6 months)" to "6-9 months", which end in Spring. Expect, at most, 3 new games - with the strong possibility of more ports.

zorg1000 said:

Yes and how many games were shown when adding in the two other directs this year and how many will be shown in the inevitable directs later this year?

E3 is like the only big reveal event for MS each year while Nintendo splits their reveals into a half dozen or so smaller events.

Let's assume that at the end of the year, Nintendo has showed 50 games during their presentations in 2018.
MS's message for the year was: 50 games; Nintendo's message was: games here and there with a focus on Smash.

Which one do you think will resonate more with gamers?
If you look at the sales numbers for last year, you'll see that Nintendo didn't steal customers from MS or Sony despite a huge success; this year, MS is having it's best year while Sony will have a decline (?). 
Again, it's almost as if Switch wasn't in the market.

"We have 50 games, too" could do a lot more to really damage MS and Sony, than their strategy will.

Well that was a bunch of nonsense, how does 90% of what you just said pertain to anything we were talking about?

Seriously, talking about how Switch sales affect PS4/XBO is about as irrelevant to the discussion as it gets.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Kai_Mao on 20 June 2018
DélioPT said:
Miyamotoo said:

It don't really matters at end, their strategy works, Switch keeped momentum and it will keep selling great, Switch games are also selling great, and Switch will definitely sell much better than XB1 in any case.

I definitely expecting at least one big regular direct probably in September like was last year, with around 2 specific ones also, but at E3 they said they have more announcements in coming weeks and months maybe we could have two regular Directs.

Yes, Switch is still selling great and the momentum is still there.
That kind of thinking shows that you are deliberately focusing on the short term and you are ignoring the fact that the most "popular" console still can't out do PS4, with the exception of Japan.

Instead of just focusing on the here and now, you should focus your attention on a little but very important detail: Switch's huge success last year hasn't made a dent on MS and Sony.
What does tell you?

Nintendo says a lot things.
Do you really expect Nintendo to come out and say that we have seen everything for 2018?
This E3 they changed their "games coming out soon (6 months)" to "6-9 months", which end in Spring. Expect, at most, 3 new games - with the strong possibility of more ports.

zorg1000 said:

Yes and how many games were shown when adding in the two other directs this year and how many will be shown in the inevitable directs later this year?

E3 is like the only big reveal event for MS each year while Nintendo splits their reveals into a half dozen or so smaller events.

Let's assume that at the end of the year, Nintendo has showed 50 games during their presentations in 2018.
MS's message for the year was: 50 games; Nintendo's message was: games here and there with a focus on Smash.

Which one do you think will resonate more with gamers?
If you look at the sales numbers for last year, you'll see that Nintendo didn't steal customers from MS or Sony despite a huge success; this year, MS is having it's best year while Sony will have a decline (?). 
Again, it's almost as if Switch wasn't in the market.

"We have 50 games, too" could do a lot more to really damage MS and Sony, than their strategy will.

I don't think Nintendo has to necessarily steal anyone of the fanbases. Players can still play their PS4s and Xbones while getting Switch. It's unique enough that its not just another high powered box. It's a console you can play on the go seamlessly for $300. No need to get a PSTV or PS Vita just to get remote play from PS4 (which is a lot of money combined compared to just getting a Switch). Plus, Nintendo can build upon new audiences. Gaming is evolving and so why not the audience?