| Soleron said: http://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/longterm-things-nintendo-needs-to-do/ So much of recent discussion has focused on the Wii U. Because what we care about is Nintendo's continued existence to make more of the games we enjoy, we need to start thinking longer-term than that. Here are some ideas from Malstrom, (almost) refreshingly free of his usual focuses and just talking business. I particularly agree with the last one here. |
I'm pleased you linked this, so I could have a skim over it. And when I did so, I was able to spot something that proves what I've long suspected. Here's the relevant part, under "4) Profitability should be the aim, not innovation.":
"This is why Christensen couldn’t figure Apple out because Apple always chose profitability over innovation."
Christensen used to be Malstrom's idol, and his focus was understanding Nintendo under the prism of Blue Ocean and Disruption. He's clearly given up on that entirely. Nintendo has always found its great profitability through innovation. Meanwhile, there was a time when Malstrom criticised Activision, especially, for its focus on profitability over innovation. Indeed, Activision's greatest problem is that profitability is the prime goal, which results in milking franchises and focusing on only titles that make large profits.
Meanwhile, he's actually espousing many of the very goals that the hardcore espouse. Where he praised the Wii for focusing on local multiplayer, he's now saying that Nintendo needs to force "internet" play into every game - the very attitude that has been so annoying from MS and Sony, and which is a blight on the gaming industry.
And somehow, he thinks that 3D Mario and Zelda are massive black holes of money at the moment... which is just plain absurd. They're massively profitable titles.
If it weren't for some of the other points, I'd think that Malstrom was being sarcastic.
Mind you, there are a few points that I agree with. A "New Legend of Zelda" is something that would do incredibly well, and should be made for the 3DS. Mind you, I think he's absurd for arguing for 2D Zelda as the key feature - what the game would need is a return to the game design sensibility, rather than the actual structure. He's absolutely right that Sakamoto should not touch Metroid again... but that's more to do with developers making games for themselves rather than for consumers.
I used to read Malstrom's writings a lot. Before this link, I hadn't looked at his writings since E3, which I looked at mostly to see how he reacted to NSMB U... and he didn't surprise me in the least, by ignoring it completely after having made the claim that Nintendo was preferring 3D Mario over 2D Mario and that they wouldn't be making any more 2D Mario except in extreme situations.
Anyway, nothing about what Malstrom said in this link was about business. It was all about him. It was about what HE likes, rather than what works best for Nintendo.
