Mummelmann, could you do me a favour please and write less. It´s annoying to over-scroll your postings when using the tablet. THANK YOU.

Regarding the future of the wii u, i developed a scientific formula. 

Wii U (Mario 3D Wolrd + NSMBROS U) Bundle + Mario Kart Release - (+ Price Cut 40>X $$$) = Sales Explosion.

Any opinions? 

“You've touched some good points about what Nintendo does for money that Sony/Microsoft don't:

- Consoles with region lock to better squeeze each market.

- Lack of depreciation in game prices along the time.

- Profit from User Generated Content that wasn't meant to fill Nintendo's pockets.

- Long-term blackmail of the market rather than adaption to it.

I kind of resent that particular phrasing, this wasn’t really the point I was trying to make; it’s not so much blackmail as it is refusal to cooperate and adopt certain standards. Blackmail is usually profitable; this strategy of theirs is seemingly not in the long run since they’re only losing touch with the market as a consequence of their policies.

I wouldn’t say that they’re blackmailing the market; they are clinging slavishly to tradition, they have a much more Japanese approach than Sony, for instance, and take so much pride in what they do that they perceive other options and solutions as inferior.

- Inability to admit the points above, making ridiculous excuses for such actions.

- Online fee for 1 single feature (pokemon storage) rather than an entire online service.

Yes, but like I’ve stated; I don’t agree with the policy of charging for online play seeing as how you’ve already paid for the game, the hardware and the internet connection. Paying for a movie/TV streaming service is widely different; it’s a portal with a huge catalog of offerings rather than simply an unlocking mechanism for what you already purchased. Imagine if you had to go online and pay monthly/annual fees to watch your Blu-ray movies, for instance. It wouldn’t make any sense. But, yes, it’s very hypocritical of Nintendo and their fans to berate Sony and MS for charging for online when they go and charge money for storing Pokemon.

Personally, though; I find both unappealing practices.

However, you conclusion is: Nintendo is like Sony/Microsoft. How would that be? Can't you perceive a difference looking at your own points?

I’m not necessarily saying that Nintendo and Microsoft are the same, I’m implying that they are equally prone to engaging in questionable practices. They quite clearly have very varying philosophies on their work, from hardware to software, one being adaptive and produced as a direct response to market movement and more mainstream features and focusing on expanding the concept of the console and the other being a much more traditional approach with the vast majority of focus on games sporting more graspable mechanics and a safer approach to visual fidelity and a an insistent policy of not reading the market and giving a corresponding reaction via their products but rather attempt to create the market and the demand themselves.

This post was mostly a means of conveying the fact that people have a false image of Nintendo as a saint in the gaming industry and all this also ties into my points on their struggle to achieve near absolute market control with the NES and their policies at the time, which in turn denotes that I feel they are not such a fantastic corporate entity overall to lead and maintain the industry. Monopolies, as I’ve mentioned, are bad, no one company should ever be allowed total market control and be left without competition. The way it stands now, we have Nintendo on one side with their policies and perception and ambitions, we have Sony and MS producing a friendly, yet not completely free haven for 3^rd parties and we have the 3^rd parties seeking good conditions while still remaining somewhat level overall with the ethics of the industry (like my example of how they almost always forego the region lock they are entitled to enforce on their own products on Sony and MS consoles). This is an environment with several interests and avenues for creative development and freedom, even though I really feel it’s not being exploited nearly enough on a creative and artistic and even technological level (remember my views on tech driving the total gaming experience in the 90’s and early 2000’s), and is to my mind a vastly better scenario than Nintendo calling all the shots, Microsoft calling all the shots or Sony calling all the shots.

Look what happened when MS gained such massive market control with Windows, look at what happened when Apple gained massive control with the iPod and iPhone, look and Nintendo with the NES; there comes a point where the control and ambition supersedes market and industry interest, i.e.; where the totalitarian approach awakens and chokes consumer, developmental and market interest. Watch Samsung, if they gain any more market power and influence; they will start piling on malevolent practices, grow decadent and ultimately punish consumers and manufacturer/developer alike, they are approaching the tipping point.

Look at how small the changes with each iteration of Windows have been in the past when MS was at the very top, look at the truly marginal improvements in the iPhone for every version, look at the lack of variation within each genre of games on the NES; this is not a desirable scenario for anyone. And for that reason, it is equally silly to want Nintendo to go away from the market, just as it is silly to want MS and Sony to go away, the more players the more potential for variation and lack of consumer shackles.

John Lucas’ “UNITY” dream would effectively be the death of consumer interest and the birth of a harmful monopoly. Now, I am an advocate for unified standards when it comes to formats and certain hardware optimization features, even controllers to a certain extent but I feel that it is up to each company to branch out and use their platform as a springboard to be truly creative and construct their own identity. With Sony and MS striving ever more for sameness in philosophy and market approach and Nintendo wasting their time refusing to wear the right shoes for the track; the whole console line-up is a lost opportunity. The 8^th generation will be, to my mind the generation where the sameness of consoles reaches its apex; even the Wii U is attempting to be the same on many areas, the main deciding factor, to my mind, will be the features that Nintendo and Microsoft are employing to set themselves apart; the Gamepad and Kinect, I believe that both of them are horrendous ideas for a gaming environment, they both try to force convergence and they will both miss a great deal of two or more potential markets due to a lack of precision in design and aim.

The 9^th generation will set itself apart, I think; it will be the generation where all three head into the quest of marking a proper and distinct identity all the while reading and responding to the market movement. The will retain a core of sameness but will strive to set themselves apart in a viable and sustainable way; finding their own “big niche”, so to speak. This will spark more creative risks, better budget spacing, conceptual experimentation and, at long last, the return of an era where technology will actually drive the gaming experience as a whole. I think it will be a new paradigm in modern gaming, a philosophical one most of all and it will revitalize the industry by bolstering all the links in the chain. That is my hope and belief, anyway.

You could say, with these things in mind, that the PS4 is the most boring console in the 8^th gen, the most predictable, but this is what will actually win the day. The sleek and mainstream design and appeal without a gimmick to try to make it something it doesn’t know whether or not it is. In my mind, Kinect and the Gamepad represent the same thing; a creative and marketing wart on an otherwise adequate product, these devices will, ironically, cause less people to embrace the platforms when the intention was to attain broader appeal.

This is also a problem for me; on the one hand I believe that gimmicks and short lived fireflies are not the way to go for sustained growth but I also resent the idea of the placid becoming the norm. The PS3 turned out to be founded on the most viable principals for longevity but it was a fairly poor effort as far as creative movements go; it was in no way as groundbreaking and trendsetting as the PS2 or PS1 and this is the same blueprint Sony are using for the PS4; it is very much an upgraded PS3 in almost every sense but hardly a creative catalyst that will evolve the overall direction of game development and the market at large.

John Lucas says that Sony are timid and uninspiring for not trying to push a new format this time around, I disagree with that notion. They are opting for a very safe route though, and it is somewhat of a creative cop-out in my opinion. It doesn’t really attempt to drive much at all and it represents a standstill in the market, kind of like a hovering helicopter. Meanwhile, the Wii U is attempting to mesh two main concepts, the tablet inspired and simple convenience paired with the trudging mainstream features from the non-gaming and online world, steeped in inferior packaging, it wants to be different but Nintendo simply don’t possess the wherewithal to set themselves apart and create a product with massive appeal all at once in this current market. Meanwhile, the One wants to be an extension of the 360 all the while trying to fool us into thinking that Kinect is actually a clever alternative to traditional gaming controls, when it is nonsensical and superfluous.

Kinect has the misfortune of belonging on a console that will thrive on 360 software; racing, shooters, RPG’s, sports games, software with mechanics and interfaces that rely rather heavily on direct physical feedback in order to function optimally. One can argue till one gets blue in the face about which controller is better between DS 4 and the One’s controller but one thing is certain; Forza, Call of Duty, NBA and Madden would be hopeless without a physical feedback, no sense of movement, timing, direction and interplay between gameplay elements (how do dribble and move, then shoot in NBA, how do you properly aim, fire, take cover and have your scope adjusted to recoil in CoD, how will you feel the tarmac interacting with your tires and shift manually in Forza, how will you direct players precisely, time and aim throws and tackle in Madden, all this without making gaming itself into a literal exercise in futility) and the whole simple approach and couch philosophy of traditional console gaming does not mate with the Kinect concept very well at all. It’s a cool interface tool but a wasted piece of tech if that is what it amounts to on the One, for video chat and other things, you could easily have integrated a cheap camera.  

I know what the word "company" means: profits first. But you acknowledge that Valve plays differently.

Yes, Valve plays differently. They have managed to fully appease both developers and consumers and even made a fortune doing it. They also have a very peculiar and original corporate and managerial structure that allows for immense creative freedom and a working environment that doesn’t impose a given constructed status or sense of worth on each individual worker. Wholly unique and highly efficient, if you only read about it in passing, it sounds like a hippie concept but Gabe Newell and Mark Harrington have achieved the impossible; fulfilling and continually developing and fulfilling visionary ambitions of massive scope without accomplishing it at the expense of others. Wow!

Aren't Sony/Microsoft playing differently from Nintendo too?

Yes they are, my points on ethics is that they are all three guilty of some fairly questionable practices, I never stated that these practices were all the same, which wouldn’t make much sense since MS is a software giant at heart, Sony is a media and hi-fi giant at heart and Nintendo are a toys and video game giant at heart.

My argument is not that Nintendo are worse than others; it is simply that they aren’t better, their charismatic and kindly management, beloved and innocent mascots and quirky and fun hardware lend them an image of being more harmless on the whole. I don’t subscribe to that belief.

I'm sure both Sony and Microsoft also engage into greedy behaviours that Nintendo doesn't.

Without a doubt. Sony have always had an artificial price point on much of their hi-fi produce, for instance, which starting biting them in the ass when Samsung started one-up’ing them with equal or better hardware at a lower price point. Sony had/has a corporate structure, R&D process, distribution solutions and assembly arrangements that were quite dependent on this price point; when they were forced to cut the price on their best tech, they started losing money overall and the profit margins were devoured by the processes themselves, Samsung being damn near entirely self-sufficient for having become a manufacturing giant rather than a conceptual player, had tech, assembly, streamlined R&D and probably the only distribution network of any hi-fi/electronics company that could rival Sony’s. To make matters worse (for Sony), Samsung were now supplying a great deal of components to a great many manufacturers and has gained market power and leverage others can only dream about.

Look at it this way; other companies outsourced the manufacture of dumbbells and barbells and weight plates to Samsung for a long time. Samsung being a quiet but efficient teenage boy sat in their room for ages, producing, ever reaching more and more market share as a components provider and eventually making entire companies wholly dependent on their produce. The recipients of said produce were living the high life, selling the produce in finished and assembled form through their own distribution and retail arrangements, inflating prices and having a good time with a grin on their face. Samsung had, not so secretly, been lifting the weights they made and become incredibly strong and conditioned; they rose up and started up ventures that were more or less entirely self-supplied, they used that strength against Sony and the others, picked them up and broke their backs with superior strength. They marked the produce they delivered as a 3^rd party up more and more, increasing their profits while forcing the competition to consolidate increasing costs and even flat out losses.

It’s brilliant business every step of the way and Sony and the others should have seen it coming; they deserve getting knocked down from their thrones and being usurped. However, like I said; keep your eye on Samsung, they are in a position to become 80’s Nintendo, 90’s Microsoft and 2000’s Apple; they can become perilous to the consumer and developer through their immense market power. In addition, they are based in a country with behemoth ambition.

It's a matter of business creativity so each company comes up with its own ideas to maximize profits.

Some are constant though. It’s a lot simpler to apply cunning than creativity, creativity needs to be sustained and re-ignited regularly while cunning can fly under the radar and embezzle and sneak revenue into corporate pockets. Three guesses as to which is the most prevalent today.

But my question is: are the Sony/Microsoft "infamous lists" as large and devastating as Nintendo's?”

They very likely are, Microsoft have been in a position where they can afford to be unreasonable for a long time and against a very large customer base. Sony has been in a lot of conflict as well, they have a stake in so many different markets and product lines and they have been a part of many joint ventures, some of which have ended badly and some of those being at least partly their fault.

MS came off of a historically favorable position in the late 90’s and early 2000’s, which was when the controversy started really kicking up dust around them, like almost all companies that gain too much market power and leverage. For some examples though, some MS blemishes to feast your eyes on:

http://www.informationweek.com/microsoft-massachusetts-reach-terms-on-open-office-2003-formats/d/d-id/1029718?

http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1662431,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4088702.stm

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/27/ec_fines_microsoft_largest_ever/

http://www.corp-ethics.com/company/microsoft_corporation/microsoft-must-pay-290m-patent-infringement.html

Sony have had immense influence and power in formats for a long time, not only due to being pioneers and co-engineering the formats themselves but also because they have stakes and ownership in sizeable music and movie industry venues, they provide the formats and the market segments to push them through consoles, audio releases and film. They have abused this power at times, for instance with the rootkit incident:

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2005/11/69601?currentPage=all

http://www.mubs.ac.ug/procdocs/Procurement%20Ethics%202/Public%20procurement%20Articles/Supply%20Chain%20Ethics.pdf

The above takes up some problems that are similar to Nintendo’s concerning Foxconn; Sony Ericsson in their joint venture claimed strict policy lines and procedures to ensure the well-being and integrity of the workforce supplying components, among other things. This wasn’t entirely so, predictably, the chase for profit overshadowed the ethical concern and adherence to promises of upholding social responsibilities.

Foxconn also works with Sony, resulting, among other things, in this:

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/168393-sonys-ps4-is-made-with-the-blood-and-tears-of-unpaid-blackmailed-student-laborers

Here’s one revolving around advertisement, which I have some pretty strong opinions on overall (the ethics pertaining to marketing are interesting indeed), this is also from the Sony Ericsson joint venture and is about them hiring actors to pose as tourists and making people snap pictures of them in their “travels” with the “new and amazing” camera phone they were pushing:

http://www.ethicapublishing.com/confronting/5CH11.pdf

It’s not hard to find dirt on Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo, especially if you cover a longer period of time, they all have skeletons in the closet and quite a few recent ones, possibly with some soft tissue still attached.

See, a lot of people take my critique of Nintendo as validation that I approve of the competition; this is simply not true but this is a thread primarily concerning Nintendo and their marketing strategies, which is the reason why I focus more heavily on them. There are a bunch of problems and weaknesses with Sony and MS that I write up if anyone would be interested, I quite like writing on these subjects.

No, I cannot do you that favor. Are you for real with your three posts and three week old membership going to come in here and try to tell me how I should express myself on the forums?

And all this while praising the OP who has, by far, the most long-winded posts in internet history?! If long posts annoy you, this is likely the very last thread on the internet where you should spend any time.

I don't care how annoyed you are on your tablet, no one's forcing you to read my posts anyway. This is a very strange attitude. Can you do me a favor and either join the discussion or simply read it? You're not really contributing here, you just come in and presume that you can order the layout and parameters of the discussion and have even told John Lucas not to respond to me and now you come and tell me I should write less. Get over yourself.

Edit; my opinions on your highly stylized formula should be self-evident if you've read any of my posts on the subject.

Quoting just to ann ....

Great post Mummel!!!

OT: Double Japan sales this week, and NPD next week. We'll have a really good idea of yearly totals.

...Lucas? 

Nintendo has the best exclusives and cannot be match when is comes to making awesome video games.
I even made the quick conclusion and thought the tablet was stupid, until I tried it for myself and realized it was really good. Sony and MS have the same 3rd party games and they kinda suck, and the little exclusives they have are not very good except for the occasional diamond in the rough.

Shame the majority disagree with you, and will do so even more this generation when WiiU is a distant third.

Ok, now I'm fully back. And I have something I'd like to talk about with John.

I agree with most of your points, John. But I never agreed with the 12 millions sales by last year's end. And I don't think Nintendo will sell 35 million WiiU consoles by this year's end, considering the 3DS reached something like 31 millions after two years. Here are some sales predictions of my own.

By Nov. 18 2014: 9,6 millions sold.
By Nov. 18 2015: 15 millions sold.
By Nov. 18 2016: 20 millions sold.

So far, this is all I can come up with. I might be wrong, but who cares? If I'm wrong, I learn something new. That's how I take it.

Nintendo doesnt run the pokemon company guys... Why do you all behave like you're in some clique jerking off to each other "fighting the good fight exposing them nintenhypocrites for the pissants they truly are"

"Nintendo's so poorly run they dont deserve anything that comes there way nope no siree lets just keep talking about how we should acknowledge them for jack shit"

Its like those people who go on twitter and write love letters to Shuhei Yoshida.

What sort of  enjoyment do you dervie from that?

It's really fucking weird and borderline hysterical.

Im glad I dont have to put up with this weird shit where I work

User was banned for this post.

yo_john117

Those seem like quite accurate predictions, I would argue it'll see a bigger drop in 2016 if it's selling that low in 14 and 15 though.

Big question nowis if it can beat Gamecube.