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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Nintendo should copy Sony

Tagged games:

 

Nintendo should

be more like Sony in gene... 35 19.55%
 
have at least one studio like Team Ico. 53 29.61%
 
not bother with the segment. 91 50.84%
 
Total:179
happydolphin on 24 September 2012
BasilZero said:
spurgeonryan said:
Yep....That was a good start on their end.

No it wasnt, it was a terrible idea. Funds that could of been used for other projects were wasted on the Kinect and the Move imo. At least one of them should of stayed away from motion controls.

As a result we get a Kinect Fable and Wonderbook.

Great.

Basil, I'm not familiar with move, but from a business standpoint kinect was sound. Here is Barozi's thread for an idea of the massive sales kinect generated.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=137938

Of course that stalled the funding of projects you prefer, but

1) It yielded significant profit that can be fed back into the development pipeline and

2) It catered to an audience that was catered to on the Wii, and so it helps MS expand, which is a good thing, as long as it doesn't hamper on the other segments they are seeking to reach.



Around the Network
Mr Khan on 24 September 2012
Kresnik said:
phenom08 said:

It truly is sad at how much Sony fans believe they know. Why exactly should Ninty make a game like that? Because a bunch of Sony fans want something like that out of them, while the Ninty fans don't. So why should they please you over me, a loyal fan? You make absolutely no sense what so ever. It's like me asking for Sony to make games like Metriod even though I don't even support them. They make what their FANS want, not what some random internet dwellers wants lol. I don't care what you think is quality, millions don't think so, so who cares about how much you like SOTC. Wow it truly is sad how much you guys try lol. Let it go, let Sony be Sony and Ninty be Ninty. I think Ninty has it right, those blue lines are the tallest on the front page for a reason. They have a massive fanbase to please, they don't waste time pleasing Sony fans lol. That's Sony's job. ;)


@ Bold, that's exactly the point.  Why wouldn't Nintendo want to sell more consoles?  If a 'bunch' of Sony fans like these kind of cinematic experiences - why shouldn't Nintendo at least have a go at making them?

@ italics, you are but one Nintendo fan.  Even with the vast number of them (us?) on this site, it's still not representative.

The point HappyD was making in his OP wasn't that Nintendo should stop making what they're making and start making what Sony is making, it's that they should look into diversifying and trying something different while continuing what they're doing.  How you're still missing that after nearly 30 pages of replies I have no idea.

If your answer is "No, they shouldn't", then why don't you just say that and leave the thread, instead of getting into these long-winded debates?

Such is counterproductive to the blue ocean strategy. There's no reason for Nintendo to try to fight Sony on its terms when there are lots of gamers (even without going into the realm of casuals or non-gamers) that are essentially unserved by anyone.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

happydolphin on 24 September 2012

Mr Khan said:

Such is counterproductive to the blue ocean strategy. There's no reason for Nintendo to try to fight Sony on its terms when there are lots of gamers (even without going into the realm of casuals or non-gamers) that are essentially unserved by anyone.

The blue ocean strategy is a thing of the past, as they have already won, there is no more turf to win. It's all red ocean now.

So, might as well be the best of the best. That is how you make an attractive proposal, and have more people say to others "Get the WiiU, it's good!", rather than "Don't get the WiiU, all it has is casual stuff, but if you want deeper experiences get a PS3/4".

That's the idea.



happydolphin on 24 September 2012
Mr Khan said:
Kresnik said:


@ Bold, that's exactly the point.  Why wouldn't Nintendo want to sell more consoles?  If a 'bunch' of Sony fans like these kind of cinematic experiences - why shouldn't Nintendo at least have a go at making them?

 

Such is counterproductive to the blue ocean strategy. There's no reason for Nintendo to try to fight Sony on its terms when there are lots of gamers (even without going into the realm of casuals or non-gamers) that are essentially unserved by anyone.

Okay, I haven't gotten responses from you in a while, so let me try harder.

The purpose of all manufacturer is to sell more hardware so as to then sell more software. I want to settle this point first and foremost so I will use numbers to demonstrate this.

Look at how vulnerable the Mario Kart series is to the success of hardware sales:

Pos Game Platform Global Systems Sold SW Proportion to Wii HW Proportion to Wii Tie ratio
1 Mario Kart Wii Wii 32.42 96.8 100% 100% 33%
2 Mario Kart DS DS 22.04 152.6 68% 158% 14%
3 Mario Kart 64 N64 9.87 32.93 30% 34% 30%
4 Super Mario Kart SNES 8.76 49.1 27% 51% 18%
5 Mario Kart: Double Dash!! GC 6.95 21.74 21% 22% 32%
6 Mario Kart 7 3DS 6.17 20.38 19% 21% 30%
7 Mario Kart: Super Circuit GBA 5.47 81.51 17% 84% 7%

However, in other cases sales don't depend so strongly on the hardware:

PosGamePlatformGlobalHW Proportion
to Wii
1 Super Smash Bros. Brawl Wii 11.17 100%
2 Super Smash Bros. Melee GC 7.07 22%
3 Super Smash Bros. N64 5.55 34%

For smash, the series only gained in popularity with the years, and may have enjoyed a minor boost due to the success of the Wii. One thing is certain, the more successful the console, the greater the chances of 1st party software on it doing well. As for 3rd party multiplats, let's keep that for a different time.

So we at least agree that HW sells software in this post at least.



happydolphin on 24 September 2012
RolStoppable said:
I am not sure what point you are trying to make with your "hardware sells software" post.

My point is to argue that it is in Nintendo's best interest to sell the most hardware possible, even if the games that increase the appeal of the system themselves aren't big sellers, but push the general appeal of the console (hence push HW, which in turn pushes SW).



Around the Network
Ronster316 on 24 September 2012
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Ronster316 said:
Uncharted aside (typical of sony, a company they had to BUY) i could not give a flying TOSS about ANY sony franchises............ Little Big Planet? no thanks, user created garbage has been around for decades, Gran turismo? sure, it was good once, but this gen theres far better racing games out there like PGR, NFS, Forza, Burnout etc.

FPS's? they are all second party anyway aint they? (the franchises that sony fans swear by as been the best of the best like killzone or resistance)

Nope......... no need for Nintendo to copy or take ANY inspiration from sony.

God of War? all about opinion on this one i guess........ but racking up 100+ hit combos by repeatedly pressing pretty much the same button hardly qualifies as skill to me, theres far better hack 'n' slashers out there like Ninja Gaiden 1 & 2, Onimusha 2, Devil May Cry, Bayonetta.


-Naughty Dog was purchased well before Uncharted was even thought of give Sony some credit on their vision. It was their vision as a company that made  Uncharted what it was or would you rather they just left Uncharted as a Lord of the Rings type fantasy game? Sony doesn't add companies to their team lightly and when they join they dont implode like Microsofts purchases because they mostly respect Sony andr d their decisions. Most of the companies were second party partners that Sony eventually purchased. InFamous 2 didnt sell as well as Sony would hoped but they still purchased Sucker Punch because Sony sees promise in their future as a gaming entity. If it was left up to Microsoft they would've scrapped InFamous, like they scrapped many other projects in the past. Sony has a fleet of known quality companies and a growing loyal core base because of it. You dont have to like them...and this gen might have been their worst in sales but showed they have more heart than Microsoft than Nintendo and Sony combined when it comes to publishing and creating games.

-I haven't heard very many Sony fans swearing by Killzone. But I havent heard anyone say the franchise sucked. I've heard that it is a quality game but it doesnt have the charm of Halo/COD. In truth...I wouldn't want it to. Kill has its own gritty feel like a major motion picture type action even in multiplayer. Great graphics and animations.

-God of War has taken hack n slash games to another level in story and gameplay. If you don't  to acknowledge that lets truly sad. 


In terms of story, graphics & presentation yes............. sorry, gameplay wise God of War is not up there with the aforementioned games.



Mr Khan on 24 September 2012
happydolphin said:
RolStoppable said:
I am not sure what point you are trying to make with your "hardware sells software" post.

My point is to argue that it is in Nintendo's best interest to sell the most hardware possible, even if the games that increase the appeal of the system themselves aren't big sellers, but push the general appeal of the console (hence push HW, which in turn pushes SW).

Games that increase the appeal of the system... sell the system.


Which isn't to say that all such games are huge mega-blockbusters, but they need to be games with a constituency dedicated enough to move hardware sales in a manner at least equivalent to the cost of the game's production.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

happydolphin on 24 September 2012
RolStoppable said:
happydolphin said:
RolStoppable said:
I am not sure what point you are trying to make with your "hardware sells software" post.

My point is to argue that it is in Nintendo's best interest to sell the most hardware possible, even if the games that increase the appeal of the system themselves aren't big sellers, but push the general appeal of the console (hence push HW, which in turn pushes SW).

Getting third parties on board would be much more efficient for Nintendo than making such games themselves. Not only do third parties already have established and thus strong IPs aimed at the segment you speak of, but it also allows Nintendo to make more of the types of games that third parties are neglecting, thus serving the people outside of this segment you speak of and increasing the general appeal of the system.

Nintendo made and had games like Goldeneye 007, Perfect Dark, Eternal Darkness, Metroid Prime and Resident Evil exclusivity during the N64 and GC eras. It didn't really help, because Nintendo's problem was that the majority of good third party games were not on their platform. Therefore Nintendo making or funding a game like Bayonetta 2 or Shadow of the Colossus here or there isn't going to raise the general appeal of the console by much. Getting proper CoD and AC games (and continuing to do so) is significantly more important for the appeal of the console. Ergo, there's no need for Nintendo to copy Sony.

I haven't read a post like this of yours in a while.  /bromance

Okay, the objective of the exercise is to show how Nintendo can optimize HW sales. You point out, and correctly so, that though Nintendo had these games during the Cube era, but it didn't result in sales. I'll explain that by saying that since the 3rd party exclusives and multiplats weren't adequate, that edge was lost. That leads us to believe that the edge I'm referring to is only to be taken advantage of when the more pivotal piece of the puzzle is supplied: 3rd party support.

However, having said that, there is another other key factor that make this a little less straightforward.

We know that 1st party developers are meant to lead the pack when it comes to offering content to a segment. As could be seen on the PS2, and by the nature of the first games to be launched on the PS3 (AC was to be a PS3 exclusive I believe), it only seems true that 3rd party developers feed off of the image (marketing) and content provided by the manufacturer (in this occurrence Sony). However, there seem to be exceptions to this rule, as Nintendo has been able to snag Japanese talent to cater to this segment without leading the pack. This is an oddity more than a rule, but Nintendo managed it by ensuring a healthy ecosystem on its platforms. For example, Resident Evil Revelations is one such case that Nintendo secured via aggressive pricing for the 3DS. MH was won by promising financial backing and partnership in the distribution of the games on the two most popular product lines of the day (DS & Wii). So normally, this is led by example, but we have seen powerful exceptions to this with Nintendo. However the 360 has Gears and other more shooter/sci-fi games, thanks to the posterchild that is Halo. Also, on the Wii, the system was flooded with casual titles due to publishers following Nintendo's lead in that segment. So the exception we see here with games from Capcom and now bayonetta, DQ, and such are the exception rather than the norm.

Imho, all the pieces need to fit together to attain godlike status in the industry. So to me 96M is not enough.

Then, there is the fact that I know that Nintendo is capable of making such games, and I like their games, and so personally in my taste (this is a matter of taste) I believe that Nintendo should copy them. As for sales, I know there are many others like me who are very vocal and who have shunned their Wii's due to this failure in 1st party offerings for the segment, and are reluctant to support Nintendo in the future.

Lastly, I want to mention that when people shot for a 360 versus a PS3, the reason they would choose the PS3 is for its exclusives, which are in majority 1st party.

When you say that Nintendo should rely on 3rd parties, do you mean for exclusives like Bayonetta 2 or do you mean for multiplats or both?



ninetailschris on 24 September 2012
BasilZero said:
happydolphin said:
BasilZero said:
spurgeonryan said:
Yep....That was a good start on their end.

No it wasnt, it was a terrible idea. Funds that could of been used for other projects were wasted on the Kinect and the Move imo. At least one of them should of stayed away from motion controls.

As a result we get a Kinect Fable and Wonderbook.

Great.

Basil, I'm not familiar with move, but from a business standpoint kinect was sound. Here is Barozi's thread for an idea of the massive sales kinect generated.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=137938

Of course that stalled the funding of projects you prefer, but

1) It yielded significant profit that can be fed back into the development pipeline and

2) It catered to an audience that was catered to on the Wii, and so it helps MS expand, which is a good thing, as long as it doesn't hamper on the other segments they are seeking to reach.


Yeah I read that before and other places that the Kinect actually seems like it has a future and has made profit, they could bundle it with a new version in the next xbox and it will do pretty well, but the PSMove was a failure I'm pretty sure. 

Sony should of invested on their first and second parties instead of wasting their money on the PSMove imo. I'm liking Sony's plans as of late when it comes to their software (not so much on hardware) with the PS3. Making a lot of new IPs and all, but they need to expand more into those IPs or at least exposing the characters more, PSABR is a good start for that imo, even if the game sells less than expected or less than the original SSB, it could pave its way to making a really good follow up I'm sure.

 

----------------------------------------

ninetailschris said:

Um it's one thing to say you want them to make a game like that but to say they should in order to do great is a different story.

Xenoblade was a great game but it isn't a system seller or going to boost the wii numbers greatly.

The fact is nobody but the internet few select even know the game exist. If I was business man that wouldn't be what i'm going to work for.

You can have great games that sell great for example Ocarina of Time or Mario Galaxy both of which sold better than the game and got more awards and got a higher rating.

Just because you enjoy a game doesn't mean it is something company must copy to do good. That's a fact.

There are two reasons why Xenoblade and SotC did not do so well in Sales (not quality).

1. New IPs (SotC at its time on the PS2) usually dont sell well especially if little to no advertisment has been done (such as you stating only those in the internet knew about Xenoblade) and if they are not Nintendo-developed. Its pretty clear that anything Nintendo-developed will be instantly popular and/or well known to even gain a decent number of sales (for an example Kirby despite the fact it sells less than Mario, it does good because its mostly a Nintendo game, if it wasnt, it would probably have similar numbers to the other mentioned games). Some games get lucky and sell millions while others are unfortunate and sell only a handful in the beginning but build up over the next few years (which are not recorded/updated in numbers data).

2. Piracy (this involves SotC in the Ico HD Collection) - Nintendo made absolutely no effort when it comes to securing the Wii, by the end of 2010, practically every Wii was hackable (hardmod or softmod), ever since that day, they havent released a firmware patch or even if they did, a significant one that helps patch homebrew channel and other warez. For Ico HD collection, you can easily emulate it on the PC and play it in HD.

Nintendo shouldnt stop trying to make these games, I mean they can still make your Wii Sports, your Marios, Your Zeldas, Your pokemons, etc, but especially for a company like Nintendo, wouldnt hurt to get into other series/genres/game types. 

Just because a game sells less than others doesnt deem them wortheless or a waste of time.

Edit: I feel like I'm missing one more reason but I couldnt remember it after posting the rest ;p, cheers~

Edit 2: Not sure who but lol @ the one who compared Kirby to SotC's sales as if Kirby was a bad series. Play the game(s) before judging it thank you. (this part not in reference to ninetailschris/happyd).


I like kirby but yea lately it hasn't been .. that great lately imo. But I do love that pink ball (>^.^)>

But yea my point was that SOTC isn't something Nintendo must have to do as some were saying.

If SOTC if it got some AD time it would have done better but how much we don't know. We have to go by how it did and from what it did it isn't something that would tell Nintendo we have to make a game like that.

I think God of War would be a better example even if I don't like the series it has shown success.

But God I don't want to see a Uncharted nintendo just no. I don't want to see a movie with a character that looks copy and paste. Nintendo is known for having characters that's there gimmick( not all gimmicks are bad). Plus one thing I like about Nintendo games is that they usually have short cutscenes with long gameplay which is what i enjoy. I mean story is good but I hate putting down my controller doing nothing for a couple of minutes.

But I think if your arguement is nintendo needs some more dark theme gameplay then i wouldn't agrue with you because there should always be a balance with dark and fun themes.

Btw not saying there isn't any dark games that if they add some more it would be great. 



"Excuse me sir, I see you have a weapon. Why don't you put it down and let's settle this like gentlemen"  ~ max

happydolphin on 25 September 2012
ninetailschris said:

I like kirby but yea lately it hasn't been .. that great lately imo. But I do love that pink ball (>^.^)>

But yea my point was that SOTC isn't something Nintendo must have to do as some were saying.

If SOTC if it got some AD time it would have done better but how much we don't know. We have to go by how it did and from what it did it isn't something that would tell Nintendo we have to make a game like that.

I think God of War would be a better example even if I don't like the series it has shown success.

But God I don't want to see a Uncharted nintendo just no. I don't want to see a movie with a character that looks copy and paste. Nintendo is known for having characters that's there gimmick( not all gimmicks are bad). Plus one thing I like about Nintendo games is that they usually have short cutscenes with long gameplay which is what i enjoy. I mean story is good but I hate putting down my controller doing nothing for a couple of minutes.

But I think if your arguement is nintendo needs some more dark theme gameplay then i wouldn't agrue with you because there should always be a balance with dark and fun themes.

Btw not saying there isn't any dark games that if they add some more it would be great. 

@bold. We have been saying repeatedly ITT that games like Xenoblade Chronicles follow the same logic. Would you recommend the same thing to Monolith before they set out to make it?

Another important question, do you believe that even though a game doesn't sell insanely, that it still bring support value to the console so it can in turn sell more HW-dependent SW (like Mario Kart, see my post above to Mr Khan)?

@Copy Paste. Copy paste as in Copy-Paste of Indiana Jones? What about Golden Eye on 64 then that is pure copy-paste of James Bond?? Please explain.

 

I mean story is good but I hate putting down my controller doing nothing for a couple of minutes.

@underlined. Do you realize there are people who like that? Do you realize SotC barely has cinematics and is almost all in-game epicness?

Thank you for the last two paragraphs, that is exactly what we're calling for from Nintendo. And I would argue further that in the big picture it would help Nintendo strengthen their current IPs with concepts like this:

 

See, it doesn't turn mario into the infamous "HD Mario" pic, but it adds a layer of art and emotion where can be integrated into Mario, and that can only be a good thing, something that will make the series more profound and memorable for the people of all ages that play it. That, in my opinion, trounces the cliches Mario usually offers.