THQ on WiiU: ''much more powerful than the other HD consoles''

[Boredmad]

RolStoppable said:

padib said:

Okay Rol, I'll also take a stab here, and try to give also my opinion on this, but before I do, I want to say that the two replies by Archbrix above, especially the last one, resonated with me.

Let me take a turn

Nintendo cannot reclaim its rightful image in the industry, but that shouldn't bother them. It's the market that counts, not developers. 

@bolded: How do you know? Who told you? Even more plausible to answer, what is your source? What interview?

From what I gather, Nintendo is at least doing everything it can to reclaim said image. If they didn't believe they could, why would they attempt it?

@no-format: The market is split into two main bases: the core, and the casual. There is noone on this forum that will contest with me that these two bases were dramatically rifted between the HD twins for the core and the Wii for the casual.

If an entertainer wins the hearts of the audience, but his colleagues talk crap about him, should they care? My point is that the opinions of the people who pay the bills are much more important.

I like this analogy. The question is, is Nintendo winning the hearts of audiences that are relevant to it, yet are turned off? Of course there are haters that will never be pleased. But what about those that are relevant, and that when catered to, will help reverse the hater-verse once and for all, due to being respected in the eyes of that audience?

Is Nintendo reaching out to them, or just being lame and playing the same old acts over and over, and turning old fans off? Mario is in need of new breath, it's getting more and more shallow by the game. They need to breathe in some depth to it, even children can't be patronized. The best movies are some that appeal to both adults and children. Why can't they do that? Why do they have to make it cheesy? A content creator can be cheesy whether it's mature or kiddy. But a content creator can be relevant and full-bodied also whether catering to children or to adults. The best is to cater with full-body to children, as certain adult themes cannot be exposed to children. Then the full-bodied content also appealing to children should become their aim. Not only do they get the bills, but they win the hearts, and they win the respect. That's the way they should go imho.

 

I see you didn't mention a weak first party lineup as a reason for the Gamecube's failure.

That's because a weak lineup was rarely a cause for failure back then. Consoles with weak launch lineups:

SNES

PSX

PS2

GBA

DS

What did you really play Fantavision, or the Bouncer? Did you really have fun playing super mario DS? I mean great game but good launch on DS?

Today, it's a different story. For this portable and home gen, a strong launch is important because people are much more informed. Social networking is huge and a console can go up and down very quickly this gen. Strong launch is only really a current and onward gen issue imho. True GC had a crappy launch lineup, but so did the PS2, so did the DS. Maybe to be completely fair a console that is not first runner needs to have a good lineup. It was okay for PS2, PSX and DS to have a weak launch, they had the leeway to mitigate. GC was late-comer, and had the onus on it to prove its worth. Nintendo being so self-centered, I think they missed that fact.

What is weak and what is strong? Strong are games that people pay for and buy the hardware for. The more people do this, the stronger the lineup is. This is why the DS and Wii succeeded, they had exceptional first party software. The hardware was just a tool to enable the software, but is entirely useless on its own (which is why Move is irrelevant).

The Wii maybe, but not the DS. Mind you, Wii Sports was bundled so your definition for strong launch there might not really apply.

Your argument centers around the importance of third party support, but the DS and Wii succeeded despite lackluster third party software. The good third party games for the DS only came after the fact and it was also crucial that the PSP struggled. There was nowhere else to go for third parties, only the DS (before the PSP's resurgence due to Monster Hunter's success). This is a scenario that isn't feasible in the home console space, because Microsoft and Sony won't allow that to happen, so Nintendo appeasing third parties will fall on deaf ears.

@bolded: Yes, but remember on the shoulders of which userbase? The casual. It is a market that you have to be very careful with, a hit or miss. However, if you secure the core, and establish a good base, by popularity this trend should normally expand to the casual. The Wii was an exception in that its software was so compelling, it was able to attract the casual without needing the core. I believe it is the only console in videogame history that was able to achieve that, i.e. it is an exception. Every other time, the casual piggy-backed on the core due to popularity reasons. However, by offering such compelling software Nintendo was able to win them over as a real feat! But as I said, MS is slowly learning to play Nintendo at their game (not completely successfully yet mind you), so this success may end up being short-lived. Also realize that if Nintendo doesn't hit a grand-slam, the casual attraction phenomenon may or may not succeed. They really have to shock and awe, but how long can they do that for? Do you remember how everyone was talking about the Wii when it came out? It was a smash hit! Can Nintendo guarantee such a revolution every time? I believe not. As sad as it may sound, it is a good thing for Nintendo, as they need to rest their victory on something sound, something long-lasting, not possible 1-hit wonders. They need to be eternally relevant, and can only do that by appealing to everybody, I mean absolutely everyone on a real, credible level.

@italics: What will happen when Sony doesn't allow it to happen on the portable arena? What will happen when MS joins the fray? Do you see what I'm getting at, you're staying near sighted you have to open your eyes. Nintendo can't count on luck! They have to plan and be aggressive. Otherwise I say bye bye big N. Their rivals are quick to the chase, ready to fix their mistakes. Nintendo needs to learn that agility or it will become obsolete.

Also, appeasing third parties inevitably raises the cost of the hardware and Nintendo's market doesn't ask for this sort of upgrade. They are not going to pay for something they didn't want in the first place (which is why the 3DS has to be sold at a loss now as stereoscopic 3D has little to no value). So there's a conflict between what third party developers want and what Nintendo's market wants which brings me back to the point I made in the opening paragraph of this post. Who should be higher on Nintendo's priority list? Does the world really need another HD twin; because ports is all the Wii U can hope for.

Archbrix answered this one very well, but I'll just add my thoughts here.

@stereoscopic 3D: That feature was not expensive. It's the graphics and ram required by Wii-level graphics that are expensive. 3D was mostly just R&D, and not that complex to implement once you have the idea. The idea itself is mostly free, but the experimentation comes at a cost, mind you not one that warrants 250$ a piece. No it's the graphical capabilities of the 3DS and Nintendo's understanding of demand that dictated the price. Though Nintendo misjudged demand for the 3DS, the graphical capabilities cost wasn't arguable, hence why they are most likely selling at a loss.

@paragraph in general: Was the NES expensive as compared to the mega drive? Yet was it relevant? yes. Was the N64 hardware-wise expensive as compare to the PSX? yes very. Yet was it relevant? no. It lacked the optical media, and that was a failure right there. To be relevant, you need to find that sweet spot that makes you relevant, and you need to cover "no-no" mistakes. Does that come at a cost? Not necessarily. A great example of that is the PS2 as mentioned by archbrix.

To elaborate, take for instance the Vita. How are they selling it at 250? Obviously it's at a  loss, but I'll argue that the loss is not considerable. I believe (from what I've read this far), that Sony employed some drastic engineering to achieve PS3 level graphics on its handheld, a huge feat. Portables to date have been 2-gens old. Sony's portables have been the exception. Though having sub-ps2 level graphics the PSP sold at 250$. Vita is even better gen-wise, and launching at the same price. So for Vita, what Sony did is that, rather than wasting their time with 3D (which I love as a feature but we're talking business here), Sony invested in R&D for graphical advancement. It was the smarter move of the two. It's time for Nintendo to follow suit until it has the lee-way to offer relevant yet still mildly sub-par graphics to their contemporaries. Find the specific "Nintendo difference(s)" that will not stop you from getting what you need to stay relevant. Get rid of the "Nintendo differences" that put you in a position where you become irrelevant.

Food for thought, just want to give you all pats on the back for knowing shit like this it's great to be able to discuss this with people ## God bless the intranats.

You must be drunk and have double vision, because there is only one archbrix post above.

Nintendo's rightful image: I don't even know exactly what it is, I am just making an assumption on what you mean it is. Respect among third party developers and something like that. But just because Nintendo believes that they could do something, doesn't mean they actually can. Likewise, just because you believe that you can convince me of something, doesn't mean you will. Hehehe.

Market split: It isn't between core and casual, it's between those who like Nintendo's Wii direction and those who do not. That's a much clearer definition than this stupid core and casual stuff and also less insulting; because if someone says casual, they usually think of lesser gamers and insist that more emphasis is put on the core who they belong to.

Relevant audience: Yes, Nintendo won the hearts of the people who are relevant and it's crucial that they do not disappoint them. As for content, I agree. In the case of Mario, Nintendo needs to expand the lore and mythos of the Mushroom Kingdom to keep people entertained at the highest possible level. It's a good thing for Nintendo that so many of their games can feed off of the Mario IP. If they create new stuff for Super Mario Bros., it can also be used in the next Mario Kart, Paper Mario etc.

First party lineup: I was talking about the entirity, not just the launch lineup. People bought the Wii, because of Wii Sports. It wasn't bundled in Japan and is one of the bestselling home console games of all time over there. Wii Sports was the strongest piece of software since Tetris on the Gameboy.

Appealing to their userbase: This eternal, credible game exists already. It's called Super Mario Bros. Now the only question is if you believe that Sony and Microsoft can compete with SMB. I hope you don't, because they simply can't.

Sony in the portable arena: They will allow it to happen, because they have priorities and they don't have the necessary talent to be competitive in both the home console and handheld space. With Microsoft being such a fierce competitor Sony can't afford to shift their best teams to portable games development. Microsoft won't make their own handheld and if they do, they can only fail. All Nintendo needs to do is catering to their audience, something they sometimes even refuse to do. Where is the sequel to NSMB on the 3DS? It still isn't announced. It's decisions like this that hurt Nintendo much more than anything Sony, Microsoft or anyone else can do.

I've said it before, Super Mario Bros. is the heart of Nintendo's body. If they take good care of it, then they can leverage the content from that one game in a dozen of spinoffs. And if they take good care of their other series too, they will be off even better. Nintendo cannot be made obsolete, if they don't destroy themselves. They have the strongest catalog of IPs in the entire industry.

Stereoscopic 3D: This feature is expensive, the increase in horsepower isn't. Nintendo basically took their normal generational leap (this time from N64 to GC graphics) which should keep costs at about the same level as usual.

The rest: I guess you meant to type SNES? Anyway, it wasn't expensive compared to Sega's console. Besides, times have changed. Third parties didn't get paid off left and right back in the day. It's also worth noting that Sony paid for (timed) exclusivity despite PS2 dominance.

People have always been optimistic about Sony's financials in recent years, but pretty much everytime the reality was worse. I don't think it's wise to jump to the conclusion that the PSV will only be sold at a marginal loss, especially when one considers those memory card prices. They must be going for those high margins, because the PSV itself is quite a big lossleader.

Nintendo needs to keep selling hardware at high volumes, that's how they will stay relevant. With the 3DS Nintendo took already measures to appease to third parties and you know how that turned out. Leaving the launch window to third parties to have them achieve better software sales didn't pay off at all. Hardware sales collapsed and we got news stories about third party games getting cancelled or pushed back.

Regardless of personal bias the best way to split the market RolStoppable is into two groups casuals and core gamers. In this case core is simply gamers that play and buy games often and casuals are merely gamers that play games occasionally. I'm not calling casuals inferior, non-gamers, or any other stigma you may or may not associate with the term.

Even though I consider the casual market a fundimental sourse for potential growth for the core audience since some individuals that start out as casual gamers may progress towards being a part of the core market fundimentally you advertise and market for both audiences quite differently. Usually the casual market has been gained through the use of new often simplified imputs and low barrier software. You seem to think the Wii U tablet controller will be counter productive towards this goal. I rather doubt that will be the case if Nintendo and Third Party devs utilize the controller's capabilities correctly. Traditional gameplay can easily be simplified using a touchscreen, yet with the button interface the core audience won't loose many of its sacred cows.

Nintendo's choice of the Wii U tablet controller even though it practically screams Japanese focus may come down to the fact they think they can sell the concept both to casuals and core gamers. Like the DS I suspect the Wii U will have several games that primarily utilize the touchscreen and games that focus more toward more traditional control concepts. Provided that the Wii U isn't priced outside the range of the mass market I can easily see how the tablet controller could potentially be just as large a hit with the casual market as Wii's motion controls.

Padib's point itself seems to be that Nintendo shouldn't merely continue to go after the same market as the Wii or DS, but go after both. This has been done before and certainly isn't impossible. There is a stigma within the industry against Nintendo like you've pointed out, but I don't think it would necessarily be as large an issue as you think. This is a business Wii U will get ports at the very least because the business has changed. The era of exclusive third party content is mostly gone. Of course default support that comes from the multiplat nature of the business isn't necessarily good support. For instance as long as the PS3 and Xbox 360 continue to sell along side Wii U few developers will be incouraged to take advantage of the Wii U's hardware.

Nintendo's focus on optaining Third Party support comes down to preventing what as you put it was one of the downsides of the Wii content droughts. Though you seem to believe otherwise Nintendo can't continue to support itself primarly. As hardware improves time and money spent on development increases. If Nintendo tried to support itself its resources would eventually be spread too thin. Not to mention that the cost of increasing it's own studios to decrease content droughts isn't an economic solution to Nintendo's woes.

To optain Third Party support the Wii U simply has to have a larger core focus. That does lead to larger hardware costs and further expenses regards to paying for exclusives or at least timed exclusive material through marketing ext. Ultimately in my opinion this option is still far more economic than Nintendo merely trying to maintain itself.

The only issue I really see is whether or not it is actually possible to market a console to both the casual and core audiences. Just because it has happened in the past doesn't necessarily mean it will ever happen again. A reverse relationship can easily happen if Nintendo markets too heavily toward one market or the other pushing one potential audience away. Then there is the Wii brand itself that simply isn't going to help Nintendo at all with the core audience and may of lost some of its value with the casual audience.

Still Nintendo more than likely has to court both markets. Nintendo has some serious barriors to strictly marketing toward the core with their current image. Then regardless they lack the resourses to truly go toe to toe with Sony and Microsoft. Yet portions of the audience that made Wii and DS so successfull may of moved on to other forms of entertainment, though some may disagree in this business brand loyalty outside a select portion of the market isn't guanteed. This coming gen Nintendo is likely to benefit from Microsoft and Sony's next consoles being far more economic than their previous efforts, but once the economy recovers Nintendo could land in an odd position again.