| Jon-Erich said: Everyone should read the whole article. It's actually a very interesting read. That being said, there are pros and cons to Nintendo's business approach. The good thing about it is a lot of people are on the same page and know what's going on, unlike at Sony where every division is treated like a company within itself and we end up with corrupt film executives who make more than the company CEO and having to introduce a $1200 MP3 player. Bad decision making like that won't happen under Nintendo. The bad thing about it is the lack of actual leadership. In Nintendo of America, Reggie Fils Aime should have the most say of wether something will get done or not. In Japan, Satoru Iwata should be the guy to put his foot down. |
It has its pluses that aren't apparent here. Integrated vision means that you get a very holistic approach, which is why Nintendo rarely half-asses their lines in. Compare to Microsoft and Sony which will dabble in things and drop them like a hot potato if they don't pan out, Nintendo is slow to adopt things, but once they do, they're generally all-in on the concept. This can be catastrophic if the concept is a dud, but the reason why they did so well diving into the blue ocean is because the company was all-in, compared to Microsoft where you basically have Rare making Kinect games, and other devs only grudgingly putting in token Kinect features, if at all.
The trouble is that when you come up with a stinker, like, say, friend codes in 2005, then it takes you until 2011 to ditch discrete friend codes, and another year to ditch them entirely. Because you had to get everyone on board with the one idea and cannot quickly change course.
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
