By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - Wii 'could be in trouble' post-Christmas - Iwata

 

Wii 'could be in trouble' post-Christmas - Iwata

Wii will continue to be s... 69 17.97%
 
It's true Wii has peaked 193 50.26%
 
Let's hope not 25 6.51%
 
Wii will be on the market for years to come 33 8.59%
 
We need Super Wii 64 16.67%
 
Total:384
Ninten78 on 16 October 2010

What do you think for Xmas sales?



Around the Network
theRepublic on 16 October 2010
axt113 said:
theRepublic said:

axt113 said:

No you're still wrong, a console maker doesn't need to have a wide library, they can focus on games that sell hardware, third parties exist for a reason let them focus on the games that don;t push hardware, I'm afraid you have no understanding of the VG business, and the fact is, your plan has been shown as flawed and a failure, resltng in wastes of resources and lost momentum

What is a system seller?  A game that appeals to people who have not yet bought the console so much that they buy the console.

Why haven't those people bought the system yet?  Because the games do not appeal to them.

Solution?  Make games with different appeal.  Different.  Diversity.

You can't make the same types of games over and over expecting the same results.  You will only see diminishing returns.

But that is not to say that the goal of every game should be to grow your base.  If you never follow up with similar games to your system sellers, you will not have happy customers.  Why should they buy your future consoles if you can't deliver?  The very goal of some games is to satisfy existing consumers.  Some games exist just to test an idea in the market place (This can go horribly wrong if handled incorrectly, but that is a different topic).

As a business, there is also such a thing as efficient use of your resources and maximizing profit.  Keeping teams busy, putting your people in positions to use their expertise, and reusing existing company resources are all examples of this.


The games that are wastes, don;t create incentive to buy, they don;t add value, diversity just for diversity sake is useless, diversity should come as a result of some gain, if you make a game, it should move hardware and bring in new buyers, if it doesn't then its just a waste

So in other words, you have no argument.  You are just repeating yourself.  You can't make similar games expecting expecting them all to be system sellers.  That doesn't add value for prospective customers.



Switch Code: SW-7377-9189-3397 -- Nintendo Network ID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing
Switch - Super Mario Maker 2 (2019)
3DS - Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (Trilogy) (2005/2014)
Mobile - Yugioh Duel Links (2017)
Mobile - Super Mario Run (2017)
PC - Borderlands 2 (2012)
PC - Deep Rock Galactic (2020)

Nintendogamer on 16 October 2010
theRepublic said:
axt113 said:
theRepublic said:

axt113 said:

No you're still wrong, a console maker doesn't need to have a wide library, they can focus on games that sell hardware, third parties exist for a reason let them focus on the games that don;t push hardware, I'm afraid you have no understanding of the VG business, and the fact is, your plan has been shown as flawed and a failure, resltng in wastes of resources and lost momentum

What is a system seller?  A game that appeals to people who have not yet bought the console so much that they buy the console.

Why haven't those people bought the system yet?  Because the games do not appeal to them.

Solution?  Make games with different appeal.  Different.  Diversity.

You can't make the same types of games over and over expecting the same results.  You will only see diminishing returns.

But that is not to say that the goal of every game should be to grow your base.  If you never follow up with similar games to your system sellers, you will not have happy customers.  Why should they buy your future consoles if you can't deliver?  The very goal of some games is to satisfy existing consumers.  Some games exist just to test an idea in the market place (This can go horribly wrong if handled incorrectly, but that is a different topic).

As a business, there is also such a thing as efficient use of your resources and maximizing profit.  Keeping teams busy, putting your people in positions to use their expertise, and reusing existing company resources are all examples of this.


The games that are wastes, don;t create incentive to buy, they don;t add value, diversity just for diversity sake is useless, diversity should come as a result of some gain, if you make a game, it should move hardware and bring in new buyers, if it doesn't then its just a waste

So in other words, you have no argument.  You are just repeating yourself.  You can't make similar games expecting expecting them all to be system sellers.  That doesn't add value for prospective customers.

If this was the case then there'de be little games on the market.



Buying in 2015: Captain toad: treasure tracker,

mario maker

new 3ds

yoshi woolly world

zelda U

majora's mask 3d

LordTheNightKnight on 16 October 2010
theRepublic said:
axt113 said:


The games that are wastes, don;t create incentive to buy, they don;t add value, diversity just for diversity sake is useless, diversity should come as a result of some gain, if you make a game, it should move hardware and bring in new buyers, if it doesn't then its just a waste

So in other words, you have no argument.  You are just repeating yourself.  You can't make similar games expecting expecting them all to be system sellers.  That doesn't add value for prospective customers.


Yeah, that is a bad conclusion axt made. You need variety. Even another Mario game would need to set itself apart. Lost Levels was not a system seller in Japan, but Mario 3 was. Mario 2 in the US was another system seller, despite being based off another platform game.

The GTA games also shows how this works. GTA III was a killer app. Vice City had a new setting, and was a killer app. San Andreas, same thing. Liberty City Stories was back to the same setting as III, and while it sold well, it was not the system seller the PSP needed, same with Vice City Stories. IV had a revamped Liberty City, but still didn't make the game a system seller in the vein of the PS2 trilogy.

So Nintendo should focus on system sellers more, while leaving the non sellers to non crucial release dates, but still have variety.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

theRepublic on 16 October 2010
Nintendogamer said:
theRepublic said:

So in other words, you have no argument.  You are just repeating yourself.  You can't make similar games expecting expecting them all to be system sellers.  That doesn't add value for prospective customers.

If this was the case then there'de be little games on the market.

What?  I'm not sure you understood what I am saying.  I am saying that you need diverse games to be able to hit more parts of the market.  That would not result in less games.



Switch Code: SW-7377-9189-3397 -- Nintendo Network ID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing
Switch - Super Mario Maker 2 (2019)
3DS - Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (Trilogy) (2005/2014)
Mobile - Yugioh Duel Links (2017)
Mobile - Super Mario Run (2017)
PC - Borderlands 2 (2012)
PC - Deep Rock Galactic (2020)

Around the Network
Nintendogamer on 16 October 2010
theRepublic said:
Nintendogamer said:
theRepublic said:

So in other words, you have no argument.  You are just repeating yourself.  You can't make similar games expecting expecting them all to be system sellers.  That doesn't add value for prospective customers.

If this was the case then there'de be little games on the market.

What?  I'm not sure you understood what I am saying.  I am saying that you need diverse games to be able to hit more parts of the market.  That would not result in less games.

I was refering to axt113 he said that there's no point making games if they will no bring many consumers in, well that what I thoguht he said, didn't read it in detail.



Buying in 2015: Captain toad: treasure tracker,

mario maker

new 3ds

yoshi woolly world

zelda U

majora's mask 3d

theRepublic on 16 October 2010
Nintendogamer said:
theRepublic said:
Nintendogamer said:
theRepublic said:

So in other words, you have no argument.  You are just repeating yourself.  You can't make similar games expecting expecting them all to be system sellers.  That doesn't add value for prospective customers.

If this was the case then there'de be little games on the market.

What?  I'm not sure you understood what I am saying.  I am saying that you need diverse games to be able to hit more parts of the market.  That would not result in less games.

I was refering to axt113 he said that there's no point making games if they will no bring many consumers in, well that what I thoguht he said, didn't read it in detail.

Oh, I thought you were talking to me.  Nevermind then.



Switch Code: SW-7377-9189-3397 -- Nintendo Network ID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing
Switch - Super Mario Maker 2 (2019)
3DS - Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (Trilogy) (2005/2014)
Mobile - Yugioh Duel Links (2017)
Mobile - Super Mario Run (2017)
PC - Borderlands 2 (2012)
PC - Deep Rock Galactic (2020)

axt113 on 16 October 2010
theRepublic said:
axt113 said:
theRepublic said:

axt113 said:

No you're still wrong, a console maker doesn't need to have a wide library, they can focus on games that sell hardware, third parties exist for a reason let them focus on the games that don;t push hardware, I'm afraid you have no understanding of the VG business, and the fact is, your plan has been shown as flawed and a failure, resltng in wastes of resources and lost momentum

What is a system seller?  A game that appeals to people who have not yet bought the console so much that they buy the console.

Why haven't those people bought the system yet?  Because the games do not appeal to them.

Solution?  Make games with different appeal.  Different.  Diversity.

You can't make the same types of games over and over expecting the same results.  You will only see diminishing returns.

But that is not to say that the goal of every game should be to grow your base.  If you never follow up with similar games to your system sellers, you will not have happy customers.  Why should they buy your future consoles if you can't deliver?  The very goal of some games is to satisfy existing consumers.  Some games exist just to test an idea in the market place (This can go horribly wrong if handled incorrectly, but that is a different topic).

As a business, there is also such a thing as efficient use of your resources and maximizing profit.  Keeping teams busy, putting your people in positions to use their expertise, and reusing existing company resources are all examples of this.


The games that are wastes, don;t create incentive to buy, they don;t add value, diversity just for diversity sake is useless, diversity should come as a result of some gain, if you make a game, it should move hardware and bring in new buyers, if it doesn't then its just a waste

So in other words, you have no argument.  You are just repeating yourself.  You can't make similar games expecting expecting them all to be system sellers.  That doesn't add value for prospective customers.


Actually its you who doesn't have an argument, I've already shown why your games don;t add any value, you haven't shown why old school games can;t add extra value, in fact, sales of 2D games on older consoles and their system pushing power would in fact disagree with you, look at the DS and GBA, chock full of 2D old school games, and those games added value, which explains the massive DS sales, on the other hand, the Wii momentum was lost by your so called diverse games, which didn't add value, DS sales and the sellers on its systems, seems to indicate that multiple old school games and the expanded audience games are far better at adding value to a system than your so called diverse games involving 3D mario, 3D Zelda and 3D Metroid, which didn't add value at all



Rumors indicate that it is planning on following the first approach, sticking a new, motion-sensitive controller onto an existing console. Our perspective is that this is the worst of the three options.

-Clayton Christensen back in 2007 already knew Move would be a bad idea

axt113 on 16 October 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:
theRepublic said:
axt113 said:


The games that are wastes, don;t create incentive to buy, they don;t add value, diversity just for diversity sake is useless, diversity should come as a result of some gain, if you make a game, it should move hardware and bring in new buyers, if it doesn't then its just a waste

So in other words, you have no argument.  You are just repeating yourself.  You can't make similar games expecting expecting them all to be system sellers.  That doesn't add value for prospective customers.


Yeah, that is a bad conclusion axt made. You need variety. Even another Mario game would need to set itself apart. Lost Levels was not a system seller in Japan, but Mario 3 was. Mario 2 in the US was another system seller, despite being based off another platform game.

The GTA games also shows how this works. GTA III was a killer app. Vice City had a new setting, and was a killer app. San Andreas, same thing. Liberty City Stories was back to the same setting as III, and while it sold well, it was not the system seller the PSP needed, same with Vice City Stories. IV had a revamped Liberty City, but still didn't make the game a system seller in the vein of the PS2 trilogy.

So Nintendo should focus on system sellers more, while leaving the non sellers to non crucial release dates, but still have variety.

How is it a bad conclusion, differences in 2D mario games are not diversity just for diversity sakes, they actually add value to the games, which is why Mario 3 sold a lot, in fact you just proved my point about how mutliple similar games can exist on the same system and actually create value without needing a valueless 3D game, on the other hand, 3D Mario is just diversity for diversity sake it adds no value as evidence by the sales.  What I find especially funny is you disputed my argument, then ended up supporting it with your post, you just showed how similar games can exist and add value upon each other,  destroying the need for diversity that doesn't add value, and yet you said my conclustion was wrong, how is it wrong if you supported it?

You guys are just saying i'm wrong, but not giving any good reason why, saying I'm wrong or coming to bad conclusions does not an argument make,  actually try showing me why I'm wrong, show me why 3D mario and others like it actually add value and are needed, since as you just proved, they aren't needed, show me why creating diversity for diversity sake is needed and why creating actual value is a wrong conclusion



Rumors indicate that it is planning on following the first approach, sticking a new, motion-sensitive controller onto an existing console. Our perspective is that this is the worst of the three options.

-Clayton Christensen back in 2007 already knew Move would be a bad idea

Bong Lover on 16 October 2010
axt113 said:
Bong Lover said:
axt113 said:
Cheebee said:

Yes, I get that. But he literally called such titles (including Galaxy, which happens to be a near-10-million-seller, how many games can claim that?) 'wastes'.

Also, he's claiming SS is a waste, a title we know hardly anything about and which may not release for another year. How awkward is that, especially considering TP, its predecessor, is one of the best-selling Zelda games ever, and was without a shred of doubt a system seller when Wii launched. And you and I both know there are a LOT of people clamouring for a new console Zelda, let alone a 1:1 motion controlled one.

So, in conclusion, those things do indeed make him wrong. And very much so.

 


Wrong, they are wastes, wastes are uses of resources that don;t add any value, thanks for proving my point that you have no understanding of the business.

 

If the games didn;t push hardware, then they didn;t add value, because consumers didn;t consider them a reason to buy the system, hence they are wastes

Skyward sword will not push console sales at all, so once again I will be right, and you wrong, just wait and see.

 

I find it funny people keep saying that I'm wrong, but no one has given me a reason why, except they like the games, but the fact is, they would have bought the system even without those games, so that argument is flawed

You are wrong. Nintendo isn't just a console maker, they have other goals for their products than to just expand the userbase.


Expanding the user base is proven by console sales, if games aren't selling consoles, they aren't expanding the base

 

C'mon people, these arguments are weak, and easily proven wrong by sales data

I am sorry I responded to your post, you are obviously not serious.