Just listen to this, please: how can you support a guy always negative.

Nintendo afectionados (i'm sure i failed this word) don't won't guy tellin total failure.
Sony ones the same.
Microsoft ones like above.

You can't always be negative or you're only talking **** and from that's not a discussion on what Nintendo has to do get to do better. (the thing i do sometimes)

Plus, i've seen like 10 article from this guy just now to better understand: he's always bad negative with the excuse of retro stuff, and 6 articles out of 10 i swear they were using for real Other M like a Linus blanket.

Help me understand a little bit better.

Selling a lot means nothing if at a loss? Why did Sony release a ps3 at a loss for an extended period of time then? Hell by this logic does this mean the masses are not ready for an hd handheld(vita)? 

Rol this is directed squarely at you.

Could you please explain what you meant by: "The fact that Nintendo had to operate at a loss makes it evident that the masses do not value stereoscopic 3D. The only thing that will sell the 3DS will be games"

The inference being that Nintendo operated at a profit with Wii and DS because consumers valued touch screen controls and motion controls and games didn't play any part?

Pretty sure Nintendo is making "games for the masses" (hello NSMB2 and Mario Kart).

Fanboys need to shut the f*ck up about Metroid already. It never was a big franchise, even in the NES days it was always like fourth or fifth fiddle to Mario and Zelda and Megaman etc. etc. etc. So what, Sakamoto didn't make the exact Metroid game you wanted, get over yourself, seriously. It was actually a pretty decent game minus the long winded cinemas. Even if they made the exact Metroid game the fanboys wanted it wouldn't have been some huge blockbuster, maybe it would've sold an extra 200-300k worldwide tops. 

Why wouldn't Nintendo make "more 3D Mario"? SMG sold more than the precious Ocarina of Time fanboys love to worship, SMG2 was another 7+ million for them by the time the gen is up and SM3D Land is probably going to hit 10+ million itself. These are monstrous sales numbers, just because the 2D Marios are so huge doesn't diminish that.

And the fact is, 2D Mario had to go away for the hunger for that type of game to come back. The 90s-early 2000s were all about 3D games, no one wanted to play 2D games then. By the mid-late 2000s as more of the NES generation got into their 20s/30s and had kids themselves ... the time was right to bring back 2D Mario and play the nostalgia card and it payed off huge for Nintendo. 

Same thing with Street Fighter IMO, it needed to go away for a long time before the nostalgia built up allowing Street Fighter IV to be a hit whereas Street Fighter III never really was. 

Malstrom: "My purpose is force my bias onto people about Nintendo."

Cancer?

Kill yourself?

Parasite?

Remind me never to piss off Nintendo fans.

Consumers didn't pay premium for the 3D screen which Nintendo hoped they would. So Nintendo basically had to subsidize the screen by lowering prize.

There are so many things wrong with that post.

If 3D was so valued, then why are so many of the essential classics from that era 2D, like Neverwinter nights, Rayman, Heroes of Might and Magic III, Starcraft: Brood War, Age of Empires 2, Red Alert 2, etc. Both 2D and 3D gaming thrived, it's just that the playing field wasn't level, IE everyone wanted to make 3D games. 2D games sold well too during that era, and a true Super Mario Brothers would have still kicked ass in sales.

Why would Nintendo give a game that sells less than 2D Mario more than quadruple the budget, effort, and production values? Noone is saying they shouldn't make it, but it is obvious that their priorities are wrong.

2D platformers never stopped selling, however, they stopped being produced, you have NO data to support your claims about Super Mario Brothers having to go away for it to have sold as well as it did. And please stop saying nostalgia, I never had the 2D games, yet I bought, and like NSMBW more than the 3D ones, these games selling because of nostalgia is a dogma that is getting awfully repetitive.

Bringing new content to the SMB series is all Nintendo have to do to keep sales high.

It's pretty obvious that Street Fighter suffered from the Guitar Hero effect during that time, just look at all the versions of Street Fighter 2, the market was exhausted.

I still do not believe that Nintendo ever planned to abandon 2D Mario games. I believe they would have released NSMB2 eventually regardless of 3DS sales levels, and then we still have the rumours of the Wii U launching with its own 2D Mario game, which we shall find out about at E3.

It is probable that they are releasing NSMB2 earlier than they ever intended though, due to the less than stellar start the 3DS endured. Given a ~1 year development time prior to its upcoming August release, it would roughly date back to the time of the price cut announcement after all, and I don't think that's a coincidence.

Still, they had MK7 planned for the first year of the 3DS, and it must be remembered that the last MK game outsold the last NSMB game quite comfortably. Given that we're talking about Nintendo needing to focus on games that sell, then that little tidbit cannot be ignored. That presents all the necessary justification for choosing to release MK7 first. That isn't an attempt to lessen the importance of NSMB, but I think the concept of having one truly big game every year with several smaller ones to support the rest of the year is a better strategy than unleashing two of your biggest sellers in the first year (and yes, I am categorising SM3DL as one of the support games) when you've got anywhere up to 7 years to fill.

True, but he also brought up some very good points, like SFIII not being a success but SF IV needing a breather to be what it was, a success. The same applies to NSMB. A sequel to Super Mario World back in 1998 was uncalled for when games like SM64, FFVII and GT were selling in the 10s of millions. The 2D mario series at that time was dwindling in popularity (I have graphs to prove it).

The same could be said about 8-bit games. They sold so well. Would they sell as well in a 16-bit era? I wouldn't gamble on it.

And that's exactly what I said in my NSMB2 thread, yet I got bashed for asking for that, even by OP of this thread.

Keep in mind, NSMB doesn't require the resources a new 3D mario does (3D games are almost always more dev resource intensive than 2D games). There is a sweetspot where adding development resource will honor NSMB's sales power (20M+) and not waste resources. Ultimately, whether AAA or not, the cost should be greatly lower than 3D Mario, so it would be ludicrous to expect the same investment for both.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4456481

It's the green line that makes the most sense tbh.

The only argument I've heard to counter this so far is that SMW was not a good enough sequel to SMB3. I can accept that, but you can't say SMW wasn't a dedicated videogame development. It was a AAA game. Rushed maybe, but AAA. Can't say the same about the upcoming NSMB2, which is rushed, and clearly not AAA from what we've seen so far (I'll just leave it at that). It'll probably still sell because there is now a market for garbage.

In today's market, yes that's a fact. They need to bring it back since there is still sales potential. Back then, it was time for SM64, it was time for something fresh; the sales were stagnating.

Yup, and 2D Mario at the time was not doing too too much better, even if they weren't saturated with versions, people just didn't want it as much anymore.