| noname2200 said: Dammit BrainBox, stop making so much sense! I think you've identified the situation fairly well, but I'm still not completely satisfied. None of the Nintendo games have ever completely been just "more of the same" (contrary to some people's opinions), but the surprising part to me is that the changes have not been enough to entice at least as many people back in as before. Has Nintendo just been consistently misjudging the market? Or have they just not changed their titles *enough*? The massive breakout success of the Wii ____ series seems to imply the latter, but if that's the case what's changed within Nintendo to make these new titles possible? Is it Iwata assuming control, or the fact that Nintendo felt enough was enough? Having succeeded by upending the tea table, why do they continue to pump out the Mario/Metroid/Zeldas (not that I'm complaining!)? And why does that explanation not apply to Zelda and a few other titles (which haven't seen more change than other Nintendo series)? And while I agree that the smaller install bases played a role, I think that's too circular an explanation for our purposes: people don't buy the games as much because they don't own the system, but they don't own the system because they're not interested enough in the games. I guess this all boils down to one question: what makes some series more resilient than others?
|
If I knew the answer to your last question, I could probably get hired somewhere as a marketing consultant. =P
It's important to note that everything does have it limits and peaks, and there's only so much any one thing will sell. As for enticing as many people as before, well you have to look at the context. In the mid 80's, in the US, the console industry had mostly died with Atari. Nintendo and the NES was a massive revival for console gaming the US and it was an explosive success that swept a lot of people in a Nintendo Fad. Yes, the NES was indeed a fad. There was cartoons and cereal based around Mario and Zelda, but after the fad died, the NES and Nintendo did continue because they had made something people loved. But it's likely there are some people who were caught up in it, and didn't continue to follow it after the fad had passed, or simply not as intently. The NES brought a lot of people into console gaming, but some of them did leave, and others moved to the competition.
As for why Nintendo keeps making games from traditional franchises even though the Wii series and similar games are so profitable. Well there's probably a few reasons. One is even if they don't sell as well as Wii Fit or Wii Play, they do sell well, and they already know how to do those games well. Such expansive market presence also probably helps strengthen their overall brand name as well. Despite being a company, they are still run by people who each have their own passions for what they do. That's why someone like HVS is making the Conduit, they do just fine on license titles, but they didn't become game markers to only make money.
The big one is because the Wii series is bringing in so people, they'll want to make more Marios and Zeldas. To some of the new people buying Wii's, Mario and Zelda may be new to them. It's likely the same reason Iwata is against dropping the price of their games, he probably wants people buying a Wii to see Super Mario Galaxy and the Twilight Princess on the shelf at full price with all the new releases like they just came out. Like they belong there. Obviously not everyone buying a Wii is going to want Mario and Zelda, in fact it's probably a slight few at this point. But as long as there is a few new Wii buyers picking up Mario and Zelda, it'll keep adding up until the Wii stops selling.
It's where these Wii legs come from we like to keep talking about. Someone who’s buying the system for the first time isn't going to look at the new releases, but the system's entire library. Quality titles that can maintain shelf presence will likely keep getting bought up as long the Wii keeps selling. Someone from 2K actually said they’re not rushing to release Carnival Games 2 because they don’t want to cut off the first one’s sales. People like to laugh at Carnival Games, but it’s at about 3 Million now, and is only $3 cheaper now then when it released.
This is why Miyamoto wants to remove as many reasonable control boundaries as possible while not compromising the actual series he works on. To make the older Nintendo Franchises all the more enticing to the new comers who will grow up on Wii Sports and Brain Training. It's why Mario Kart Wii is doing so well. That wheel is more enticing then the control pad or joystick ever were for a lot of people. But the old controllers work just fine for it as well, keeping the old fans appeased. A tricky maneuver that let’s newcomers and old timers play together on relatively even playing field.
Going back to why aren’t there as many people invovled now as there were then, those numbers we have from the NES era aren't going to change, the Wii is still alive and going very strong, and many of it's games will keep selling. I wouldn't be surprised if at the very end of this generation Twilight Princess does manage to top the original Legend of Zelda. (If you include the GC numbers, it already has.) Even then, not everyone who bought a Mario game on the NES back then is going to get now. Going back to 80's, Nintendo were ruthless dictators to the 3rd party developers, limiting every company to only release five games a year on the NES. A measure likely to prevent another game crash for the time, but one that probably did stunt growth and experimentation. Since then there are many many more types of games that didn't even exsist then, and the same group of people who gamed on the NES are likely spread out over this wider variety titles now.
As for Zelda not sinking like Mario did, well you'd have to look each series. Like I said, the jump the 3D was a massive change from the 2D Mario series, and some may (And I think in this thread, already have) argue not for the better. I essentially had to re-learn to play Mario when I played Mario 64, but as a kid loving his new toy, it wasn't much of a hurdle for me. Other people, may not have liked that. Playing Ocarina of Time from the Link to the Past though, not as a big step for me. Having played Mario 64 first, I had already gotten use to the idea of a 3D Camera system, after that it felt like Zelda as usual, except now if I got lost, I could ask for hints of where to go instead of bombing every wall and charging into everything. You could say the 3D Mario games where made less accessible then the 2D ones, where as the 3D Zelda's where made more accessible then the 2D ones.
Malstrom already pointed out that New Super Mario Bros HAS sold more then Super Mario Bros 3, it's a return to the original easier to play Mario games. In a way the 3D and 2D Marios are almost separate series. Almost like the Metroid series, whose 3D and 2D games actually have similar sales slopes unlike the Marios. Something like the Mario Kart series didn't have that kind of big change gameplay wise, even in the jump the 3D. That's probably why it's DS version and Wii version are neck and neck instead.
Not sure if any of that actually answered any of your questions. I’m just another lunatic rambling like anyone else, and there are dozens of other variables I didn’t even touch on that shape these kinds of things. Still I’m enjoying this back and forth, so either way, I had fun.
