| RolStoppable said: 1) Should do and will do are obviously two different things. Even if Nintendo doesn't change their VC pricing, performing some or all of the other things would still be huge improvement over the current state of things. 2) 2017 will be mostly empty for the Wii U, just like the GC's 2006. A 2016 launch for N7 would cut the Wii U too short with only really three years worth of games, if N7 is supposed to have a strong start. Plus 2016 could be the launch year of their next handheld, it's just going to make things too difficult by launching a new handheld and a new home console in one and the same year. 3) Zelda U won't be out in early 2014. We'll be lucky if it comes out in 2014 at all. One more reason why N7 is better suited for 2017, because otherwise it will feel like ages before it gets its Zelda game. 4) You just want to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. Nintendo doesn't need GameCube 3.0. If Nintendo sells their hardware at a profit, sells boatloads of their own software and creates new IPs on a regular basis, then their business isn't going to be on a road that will inevitably lead off of a cliff like you suggest. You say Nintendo needs those big third party games, even though you have the proof right in front of your eyes. The Wii U already had more of those big third party games in one year than the Wii had in all of its lifetime, yet it's the Wii U that isn't selling. You need to separate personal desire from your analysis to make your analysis worth a damn. Nintendo only needs core third party support, because you are a miser who doesn't want to buy a second console or a better PC. That's how you arrive at a ridiculous conclusion. 5) And I'll continue to say that that is hogwash. The more effort Nintendo puts into getting there, the lower their sales will be. That's because these things come at a trade-off where the price of the hardware increases. I don't even need to address media capabilities, because third parties alone already require a $400 box to even consider if they might want to develop for it. 6) Except that the 3DS doesn't have all that. It has Nintendo games, of course. But it only has some Japanese third party support and its media capabilities... heck, why do I even humor you on this? Nobody gives a damn, if the 3DS can do something besides playing video games. Hence why the 2DS was created, to remove all the unnecessary trash and focus on the only thing that matters: Play great video games at a great price. 7) You do realize that the Wii also had almost no third party support and wasn't far above the sixth generation consoles in terms of processing power? There were some delays of Nintendo games on the Wii U, but that alone doesn't explain the difference in sales performance between the two Nintendo consoles. What you call an anomaly, I call audience expanding games. New IPs that reach out to new consumers. That's what's causing growth for Nintendo, not tired third party core franchises that people can play on other systems too. The Wii U lacks audience expanding games that go beyond Nintendo's core. Nintendo Land was a new IP, but it has Nintendo's core attached to it everywhere you look. Wii Sports and Wii Fit didn't, they were blank slates. It's not that they sold despite of that, but rather because of that. 8) Seriously? Media capabilities and third party support would have easily doubled Wii U sales up until now? You are telling me that people would buy a Nintendo console for non-gaming and games they can play on at least two other systems? And you are telling me that there are more of those people than there are people who buy a Nintendo console to play Nintendo games? You know, that's the point where even you should realize that your Nintendo core + third parties + media capabilities argument has jumped the shark. My premise is sound. A Nintendo that keeps hardware and software prices under control while introducing new IPs on a regular basis will experience growth in both, revenue and profits. And when I say new IPs, I don't mean something like "another game that is like Zelda" like so many people claim they want. Let Zelda offer Zelda's experience and create something that isn't already there. That's how a company can keep growing. |
1) ok
2) shouldn't have 'empty' years. need better transition.
3) I meant early 2015 for Zelda U. My bad.
rest
3DS
It has Nintendo games. check.
It has good price. check.
It has 3rd party games that are suited for portables. check - doesn't need or want COD and other bigger console games. That is why PSP and Vita fail to rule. They try to copy/paste home console. Not the same audience.
It has other media features... my kids use that a lot as do their friends and cousins. You forget the primary audience is younger people. Those who likely won't have smartphones and thus see value in those extra features beyond games.
Of course games are most important, but you are too quick to dismiss the 3rd party and other media functionality.
2DS will fail like GB Micro. While its a great idea, its form-factor is hideous and it further confuses the DS name. They should've left it out and focused on bundles with 3DS or limited sales. It won't last a year.
Wii
ONLY was a uber success due to motion and wii sports/wii fit. Those clearly hit the widest possible market acceptance. That then trickled a bit to a few other games like Mario Kart and NSMBWii and other rare 3rd party titles like Just Dance.
The reason it died in 2009 wasn't because Nintendo didnt' deliver another sports title/fitness/new ip... it was because that market changed. It went angry birds and other mobile experiences that no home console was offering. Nintendo failed to see that and adapt (well its online wouldn't have supported it anyways) nor did it capture enough core experiences to grow that segment. Thus it faile to pass 50% marketshare and Nintendo jumped ship themselves causing the inevitable slow decline to become a rapid decline.
Wii U
Wii U has the tech, touchscreen, online etc to be that machine to hit both core and the mass market that wii sports/fit appealed to. But they didn't do that. Instead they went core only and it failed as 3rd parties once again turned their backs due to tech not being where they want it and without the lower price plus necessary IPs the mass market sees no appeal either.
Now we see wii fit plus a sports pack plus 2d mario bundles that should have been there at launch. That would have drew in the mass market and taht would have cause many 3rd parties to not drop support they seem to initially wanted to give Wii U.
But the gaming experience alone isn't enough. You need the media / full entertainment too now. Days of a NES in a corner room isnt' enough. If you don't have online entertainmetn options with video based options etc... you'll fail to capture any significant market share as a tv connected device.
Gamecube was the device you actually state they need to build. As was N64. In both cases Nintendo lost share.
Essay Pro