axt113 said:
No actually it does, since once again we are showing the effect of other 3D mario games, to show how its a wordwide thing, and not just one region You're arguing exceptions, Mario Kart in the GCN era was a different formula than its other eras, easily explaining its weak effect, it wasn't the same game type, and as I pointed out already, Mario 64 was a unique case due tothe novely of 3D at the time. No, its not narrow or wrong, Nintendo is a console maker, they're goal is to get more consoles out to the masses, people buy consoles for the games, if the games are not getting people to buy consoles, then it is not helping Nintendo. Ask Iwata if he thinks Nintendo software should not move consoles, he'll laugh at you. |
I'm going to ignore your first two paragraphs. You are wrong and have no intention of ceasing to be wrong, so I'm not going to try to convince you, but I think on some level you know how wrong you are concerning the equivalence of Japan with other territories.
But that third paragraph, that gets special treatment.
The problem that it comes down to is this: you have opted to qualify Nintendo as a console maker, which is true, but you have chosen to classify them solely as a console maker, which is wrong and disengenuous. You see, they're in the busienss of selling games. Why is that, you ask, and what does it mean? Allow me to tell you.
First, it should be noted that Nintendo does not create games with the specific intent of selling mroe hardware - Iwata has actually said that, and the biggest contributing reason is that they're never really sure what the next big thing is going to be. Needless to say, Iwata would not laugh at that question but give a thoughtful and protracted answer that is both illuminating and entertaining; I know that because he's done it already.
Now, you call Nintendo a console manufacturer, but that's not quite right. They are a game company.
But that's not quite right either. First and foremost they are a publically traded institution. Their goal is to make money.
Now, obviously the basis of your assertion is that selling more hardware is the best way to make money, but the problem with that assertion is that it's blatantly untrue.
Now I need you to step back from this argument for a moment. Say to yourself, "I will consider the merit of what is being said to me instead of dismissing that out of hand."
Can you do that for me?
I hope so.
Now, your original assertion is that all first party software should be made with the intent of selling mroe hardware, and that if it does not succeed in this task then it is a waste of developer resources. From that, we can assume that first party software should be made to appeal primarily to customers who do not yet own a system.
You can probably see where I'm going with this.
The problem with this model is that Nintendo doesn't make the body of their profit off of hardware, they make it off of software - gobs and gobs and gobs of software. Software doesn't exist to sell hardware - just the opposite! In spite of what being on a sales website where people measure their electronic dicks according to console sales might lead you to believe, hardware exists for the sole purpose of creating an audience for software to sell to. Flagging hardware sales are only really a problem in that they tend to lead to environments where a lack of fresh customers results in less software being sold.
Super Mario Galaxy was made with the intent that it should sell the console, and it failed to do that in Japan (but not provably anywhere else), which is to say that ti would create a market where ti was possible for other games like it to sell. Super Mario Galaxy 2, in point of contrast, was made solely for the purpose of selling on its own merits. So, too, was Metroid: Other M. Super Mario Galaxy 2 succeeded in that aim while Other M failed, but the point is that those two games were created to sell to audiences that would enjoy them, because games are where Nintendo makes most of its money.
How much do you figure Nintendo makes off first-party titles sold separately from the hardware? I don't know. You don't either. In point of fact, it doesn't actually matter exactly how much they make, it just matters that they make money by doing it. Why does it matter, you ask, if you operate off of the assumption that selling systems is the most important and profitable part of the business (which isn't true, but we'll pretend it is for the sake of argument)?
Firstly, Nintendo has limited production capacity at any given time, and will not increase beyong a certain point because they are a very conservative company when it comes to hardware. If every game they made sold primarily to new buyers, we would be in a perpetual Wii shortage with relatively abysmal software sales.
Secondly, software sales are important for a few reasons on their own, too. They are an alternative income stream when compared to hardware! Since not every game can sell hardware (which Iwata firmly established from his own mouth, since they don't know what will and what won't, and neither do you) games have to be made to make money in the first place, so games that are profitable on their own have to have their own niche.
Thirdly, it's important that current buyers be made to feel satisfied with their purchase! Satisfied buyers not only buy mroe games, they create brand loyalty and positive word of mouth, which leads to (gasp) more hardware sales, which leads to more software sales in the longterm. Software made to appeal to current owners, like Super Mario Galaxy 2, or Fire Emblem, or Zelda, or Donkey Kong, perpetuates the brand loyalty that ensures a certain baseline of software and hardware sales. More satisfied customers directly translates into mroe guaranteed sales in future generations for both software and hardware.
Fourthly, Nintendo has to be able to have their teams working on different things at the same time. Remember that Nintendo for a while was the most profitable company in the world per employee - you might argue that they could increase their profit-per-employee by downsizing teams that don't make system-selling software and that's true, but it would harm the absolute value of the company in that Nintendo hardware owners continue to buy games and Nintendo, in their heart of hearts, would prefer to get as many of those software sales for themselves as they can so that they are mroe absolutely profitable instead of having even more ridiculous profit margins. Every team needs to be put to work, and every team needs to be making money as best they can - some breakout hits (Rhythm Heaven) do a lot more than expected, some (Other M) do a lot less, but theintent of all of these game is to make money first.
Fifthly, and this is also important, Nintendo strives to maintain its image as a purveyor of top-grade software that can appeal to current owners and new owners, which means they need to make system-selling games and games that sell on their own merits. It's intrinsic to their image as a company and it's part o what makes many people (myself included) so comfortable about buying their products.
Lastly, and this is probably the most important even if it's slightly redundant, Nintendo needs to be able to experiment both within and outside of its established intellectual properties. It's been re-affirmed, over and over, that Nintendo does not know what games are going to be the biggest monster breakout hits. They can get a pretty good idea of consistent big sellers (Zelda, 3D Mario, et al) but the real monsters, like Pokemon, they're never sure of. Experimenting within their established franchises is what allowed Mario Kart DS and Mario Kart Wii to become the system-selling goliaths that they were, and what allowed them to continue selling long after they stopped moving systems. It's what allowed Metroid Prime to help push the Gamecube while establishing itself as the best-selling games in its own franchise. It's what let Phantom Hourglass outsell Link to the Past. It's how Rhythm Heaven exploded.
There are many reasons for games to sell. Selling hardware is important, but the other stuff is just as important - sometimes even moreso.
