| RolStoppable said: Let's say by next March they've shipped 9m units LTD. The Wii U is obviously a failure at that point and it's clear that the PS4 will pass it eventually, and the One possibly too. The token support from third parties will be gone before too long as well. Why do I say this? Because a best case scenario doesn't change anything either. So what should Nintendo do? Games that are already in full development will obviously be completed and released as planned. The home console business will be put into survival mode, meaning that drastic price cuts are out of the question, but $50 in the fall of every year is still feasible. At least for 2014 and 2015, because once it's $199 with a bundled game, price isn't really an issue anymore. At that point people are either interested or they aren't. As for games development, games that demand huge teams won't be greenlit anymore (although the Zelda team isn't capable of finishing two games in one generation anyway). Instead the focus will be put on reasonably sized teams putting out quality titles. There's absolutely no point in investing into shiny graphics when the Wii U won't be able to match the PS4 and One anyway, and people who want Nintendo games don't care much about graphics either. There will be increased focus on the digital business, finally exploiting the immense back catalogue. This means an account system that allows people to carry over their digital games from one Nintendo console to the next, and everything else that works as incentive to make people spend more on digital games. For example, the one-size-fits-all pricing approach gets canned; not all NES games will cost $5, but only the best ones; same goes for other systems that are part of Virtual Console. Nintendo already has sales data from the Wii Virtual Console, so for many games they should already know if they need to be offered cheaper. Do you realize what I am getting at? The Wii U having worse margins on hardware than the GC won't make a difference for financials, because the Wii U has a digital business (where almost the entire price a game sells for amounts to profit) while the GC had not. You don't abandon the ship, you change the course of the ship. You make important decisions that should have a positive impact on your next systems. You don't deny people Virtual Console games, you embrace them. You tear down all artificial barriers and make GB/GBC/GBA games available on the home console as well. You make pro-consumer decisions instead of all those stupid pro-industry decisions that led to the Wii U disaster. You grow your games library at a low cost, but still make it increasingly more appealing. And all the while you are doing that, you begin to plan for the next generation and build strong launch games for an affordable system that launches in time for the holidays of 2017. What the big third party publishers demand won't matter one bit, because Nintendo can be successful without them. Nintendo needs to build a console that consumers want to buy (like the Wii) instead of a console that developers might want to develop for (like the Wii U). Also, it doesn't matter what Sony and Microsoft are doing at that point (2017). Since the industry doesn't want Nintendo, Nintendo is free to do what's best for them and best for their customers. Specs comparisons, what will the big third party publishers do, those are questions that have no relevance. Nintendo's success is not measured by what other companies do and say, but by what Nintendo's bottom line shows. |
I agree that pulling out soon is akin to Sega and that just ends badly for Nintendo.
I agree that a surgence in digital content especially better priced VC games is a very smart move. However, I disagree on Nintendo doing it. They are notorious for forcing their view of value on the game. But they need to realize the appeal of a $0.99 game and why angry birds at its simplicity outsells... well everything. Some a quality, smaller per world style 2D mario could be easily at $2 a pop.
However, I think pushing it a full 5 years to 2017 is not smart. I look at their inabilty to support Wii in 2010 and 2011 as proof of this. Wii was a massive win, yet they cut support because they couldn't work on games for it and Wii U/3DS.
I think they need to play for 2016 holidays.
Definitely need to push the proposition with a singular account system so digital VC content (at the least) will simply move over with the next console/handheld systems.
By focusing on the smaller quality titles you suggest and having Zelda out in early 2014, they have the time to refocus on big games for 2016 for N7. The base OS/Network is already done with Wii U so less resources need to be utlized to build that from scratch. Instead you focus on friendly dev hardware plus 3 big IPs for launch. Not months/years later, launch. Oct/Nov/Dec. and not remakes of anything. (regardless of how much I love zelda ww.
Also, I still disagree with you on 3rd parties. While Nintendo can remain profitable on just their software, its a path of diminishing returns. It will only continue to sell less each iteration until they are forced to go under. Wii was an anomoly due to motion and Wii Sports followed by Wii Fit. Its low price and these very mass market appeal experiences made it a must have for everyone. But to sustain real growth they need the other experiences too. They need the core 3rd party games as well as the awesome mass consumer entertainment.
As I said in a my thread from 2011, Nintendo needs to have their games on their harware plus 3rd party plus full android-like app/media entertainment options. They NEED this if they expect to remain viable in the home console business.
3DS can be argued that it actually has that. It has Nintendo's core. it has 3rd party support. It has media capability (actually more than Wii U). The lack of power is fine because it has all of that at a price point that is good for it to compete with smartphones/tablets, i.e. sub $200.
Wii U has none of that. Its barely getting Nintendo core now. It has almost no 3rd party support. Its media capability is crap compared to last gen PS3. Its at a price that is simply not value added based on its competing products last gen tech to current gen tech.
I know you don't like the gamepad, but had the system had real media center capabilities, bluray, music, android apps, and all 3rd party support up to now... it would NOT be under 4m sold. It would be 8m easily by now. At $349. Because the gamepad provides value to those extra items as well as games, well likely more value to nongaming related usage.
Nintendo just gimps out on the stupid things too often. Wifi-n smart. Bluetooth 2 stupid. Big digital push smart. lack of unified account and in general crap server/network capacity stupid.
ok sidetracked, sorry.
Point is, you make some very valid arguements. But your basic premise of Nintendo only will result in no Nintendo existing.
Essay Pro