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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - The problem with Nintendo seems to be their conscious choice!

LiquorandGunFun said:
it would not hurt to shake up the management and ceo position, they need some new blood in there.

It certainly could hurt to ditch Iwata. As i've said many times before, Iwata is uniquely from the generation when people who made games had to make games worth buying, and know how to build interest in the business because they had to. Nowadays, there are generally two types in the industry: suits (businessmen who could just as well be in any industry, good with money and little else) or developers who have the idea that people have to buy what they make because what else are they going to play?



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. said:
cbarroso09 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Really...you guys need to start blaming Nintendo and not third parties. Third parties are giving Nintendo games for now but once this gen is over Nintendo well be left out to dry. Nintendo does their own thing and expects third party to follow suit and that is just arrogance.


what companies are setting the rules for the 8th gen? it is not Nintnedo, Sony nor Microsoft, the big arrogant publishers and engine developers are. Those companies don't care about the big three, if they loose money selling their overpowerful consoles (assuming Nintendo does). They just want to make mowny no matter what, but when Nintendo put a stop on it saying: "hey that is not good for our only game bussiness" then Nintendo is arrogant. 

No way, i don't agree with you on that. 


Third parties have become more powerful and have come into their own over the years. They call the shots  now because third parties are the biggest draw for consoles. Look at the Xbox 360 and what third parties did for it and even Sony. He who has the support of the third parties gains the strongest and most loyal following. When Nintendo was on top they never had the best relationship with third parties. They still have not changed their way of business in which they come first and third parties come second. Nintendo refuses to just co-exist with third parties therefore they get into situations where they just get what they get. Devs (especially Ives at Ubisoft) were calling to console makers to launch next gen consoles but the only ones meeting the specs third parties have set seems to be Sony and Microsoft. Epic themselves even said you will need 8GB of ram and responded happily hearing that Sony followed suit.

Third parties make their own games regardless of what platform they are putting it on these days because multiplat seems to be the way to go, but they want to push what they can do. If Nintendo doesn't meet the requirements why should anyone feel bad? Nintendo needs to learn to co-exist.

When the media jumped down Reggies throat on the news (CNN I believe) Reggie told them not jump the gun on the tech assuming Sony and Microsoft would have tech similar to theirs. It turns out Reggie was so wrong and now the Wii U is a non-factor when it comes to pushing tech. They will get exclusives but if you want to see a truly immersive worlds taking proper advantage of next gen engines look no further than PC/PS4/720. The Wii U wont be the one....that might be a hard pill to swallow but what can I say other than it is what it is.


The specs for the sony console isn't actually that much of a jump above Nintendo's contrary to much belief. At this point the processor should be slightly better but we won't really know until the games that are system limited start coming out for each system. With consoles synthetic benchmarks are pointless. Also the argument that it has 8 cores as opposed to 3 doesn't mean all that much either. Look at the 360 with 3 cores to the PS3 with 8 cells, but they perform similarly. The gamecube spec/number wise was inferior to the xbox but out performed it. Same thing with intel vs AMD. The last couple generations of chips, the intel chips clock for clock were thrashing AMD's when they were supposed to be similar in performance. Or the opposite was true when AMD had their origin athlon chips. The 3800+ (running at 2 ghz) as opposed to intels 3.8ghz chips performed similarly even though there was such drastic differences between the clocks. 

As far as the RAM in concerned, most games on PC don't require more the 1 gig of gpu memory (which is what the Wii U has dedicated for games) for example, Bioshock Infiniti, and Defiance. Both will run on 512 mb gpu ram, but recommend 1 gig. Admittedly, they really should have went for at least 4 gigs I think for a bit of future proofing. Don't forget this is 4 times the amount of GPU ram that the PS3 had, and depending how the memory was allocated on the 360 at least twice as much (the 360 has 512 mb RAM system wide so it's shared between both the cpu and GPU but I don't know the allocation). 

I digress. We won't know till everything is released and games are made for the system. Maybe Nintendo is already planning on releasing a mid gen console in 2-3 years instead of 5-6 like a normal generation. 



Gotta figure out how to set these up lol.

Mr Khan said:
LiquorandGunFun said:
it would not hurt to shake up the management and ceo position, they need some new blood in there.

It certainly could hurt to ditch Iwata. As i've said many times before, Iwata is uniquely from the generation when people who made games had to make games worth buying, and know how to build interest in the business because they had to. Nowadays, there are generally two types in the industry: suits (businessmen who could just as well be in any industry, good with money and little else) or developers who have the idea that people have to buy what they make because what else are they going to play?


I get that, but I think Iwata needs an attack dog by his side to kick up some stink. 



Gotta figure out how to set these up lol.

Mr Khan said:
LiquorandGunFun said:
it would not hurt to shake up the management and ceo position, they need some new blood in there.

It certainly could hurt to ditch Iwata. As i've said many times before, Iwata is uniquely from the generation when people who made games had to make games worth buying, and know how to build interest in the business because they had to. Nowadays, there are generally two types in the industry: suits (businessmen who could just as well be in any industry, good with money and little else) or developers who have the idea that people have to buy what they make because what else are they going to play?

If i am wrong please correct me, but didnt he(Iwata) take over about the time gamecube was launched? and yes the wii was successful and he gets credit for that being the CEO at that time, however, failures should be pinned on him as well, and the wiiu is just that. its a bad spot for nintendo, and he should be held responsible as such.

On a side note:I think nintendos 3rd party support has suffered alot and nothing has been done with it since he has been CEO. I think they just need better vision. Some have it and some dont. i do not think he does, i can look at the nintendo network and what games are for it to see that, and yes its better but years behind M$ and Sony figured that out and got to work, nintendo seems to be dragging thier feet, in my opinon of course.

even bill gates was wrong to dismiss the internet back in the 90s. it happens, but make changes to fix it dont just keep going in that same direction.