Shadow1980 said:
First off, I would start a huge ad campaign for the Wii U. The Wii U is criminally under-advertised, with nearly all of Nintendo's advertising budget going to the 3DS and its games. I would never have expected Nintendo to neglect one of their home consoles like that by having so few ads, and that needs to change. Even in the internet age, TV commercials are still very important, hence why companies shell out upwards of $100,000 for 30-second spot on prime-time network TV. Getting the word out is very important, as is convincing people that your product is worth buying. It can and should be done. I would make an ad campaign for the system itself that's targeted mainly towards the core gamers, with games being put front and center. The touchscreen should be de-emphasized and treated as something as innocuous as a D-pad or analog stick. Games, not innovative controllers, are what sell systems. I would also make sure every exclusive had sufficient advertisements, with big-name titles like Mario and Zelda being advertized most heavily.
Second, I'd invest more heavily in first-party production for the Wii U. Nintendo has relied primarily on its first-party exclusives to sell systems, and as third-party support will remain of tertiary importance for the system (something I'll mention again later) the Wii U needs more of them. I'd make sure another 3D Mario game in the vein of SM64 and Galaxy gets made. I'd see to it that at least one more Zelda game gets made after the current Zelda U (and it would be made to look more like the Zelda tech demo). I'd have at least another Metroid game in the vein of Prime, and perhaps even another 2D one that played more like Super Metroid. Nintendo also has several older IPs that is has been sitting on. Both F-Zero and Star Fox had no entries on the Wii. Both series would be brought to the Wii U, with Star Fox playing much like SF64, just bigger and better. I'd also resurrect series like Wave Race, Pilotwings, StarTropics, Earthbound, and Punch-Out. Whether or not all of those series would be suitable for a home console remains to be seen, but they should all at least be considered for the Wii U. Nintendo is big enough to where it can afford to invest more heavily in first-party output, and I'd see to it that it has more than enough exclusives to keep people coming back for years to come.
I'd also invest in new IPs as well. While Nintendo's existing IPs are still quality entertainment and are usually very popular, there really hasn't been much in the way of any new major first-party IPs from the Big N in many years, not counting the more "casual" Wii series (e.g., Sports, Play, etc.).
The 3DS would not be neglected, either, as Nintendo is dominant in the handheld market, and I'd make sure it stays that way. It seems to be doing fine right now as it is, but to be on the safe side I'd keep up the marketing efforts and first-party game production to make sure that sales stay strong for at least the next few years.
Finally, as for the future, when the time came for the Wii U's successor to be conceived, I'd ditch the current strategy of "weaker but less expensive and more innovative." That might have worked with the Wii, but it's obvious that the Wii U and its gamepad failed to get lightning to strike twice. Not only did the system have insufficient software, but it also didn't have a killer app that sold the gamepad like what Wii Sports did with the Wii. Going the Wii route a third time would be far too risky. Thus, I wouldn't be afraid to try to fight Sony and Microsoft on their own terms by making a more powerful system focused on the core gamer rather than more general audiences.
Instead of trying to make an innovative new gamepad, I'd stick with what we currently have. If touch screens are still relevant, then I'd have the new Nintendo system have a touch-screen controller like the Wii U's, as by then the costs to create such a gamepad will have gone down enough to where it wouldn't affect the price of the console. Otherwise, I'd go with a more standard controller in the vein of the Pro Controller as the primary controller. Touchscreens are certainly interesting and actually have practical applications (e.g., displaying menus & maps, allowing for asymmetrical multiplayer), I have my doubts that they'll ever be considered as dispensable as the D-pad and analog sticks were. The system would be far more powerful than the PS4 and XBO, and would be made to match or at least be very comparable to what the other ninth-gen systems would be expected to be in terms of power. This would make it a more attractive proposition for third-parties. The Wii and Wii U were not much of a step up from the systems of the generations previous to them, as as a consequence many popular third-party IPs were either nowhere to be found or are present but in a simplified form. The Wii U will almost certainly get barely any third-party games that will be coming to the PS4 and XBO over the coming years, with the few eighth-gen titles available for it being cross-gen titles (e.g., COD Ghosts, Assassin's Creed IV, Watch Dogs) that will probably not even be things after next year, and thus Nintendo will have to keep relying on their own output for the system. I would make sure Nintendo's next system averted this. While Nintendo's first-party efforts do get people to buy their hardware, one simply cannot neglect how big third party titles are, especially in this era where multiplatform releases are now the norm rather than the exception for third party titles. Imagine a system where one could play not only next-gen Super Mario, Mario Kart, and Zelda, but also Grand Theft Auto 8. That would be huge.
As the Wii U will likely have the same 7-year life cycle of the Wii, GameCube, and N64, this hypothetical ninth-gen system would likely have to debut in 2018 or 2019. The Xbox 4 and PS5 will likely not come out until 2020 at the earliest assuming the eight generation runs as long as the seventh (and given the law of diminishing returns and the return of "ten-year strategies," I suspect console generation lasting 7-8 years instead of 4-5 years like they did in the past to be the new norm), this would give the next-gen Nintendo at least a year's head start. The ninth-gen Nintendo console might end up having to cost $400 and sell at some kind of a loss, but that's the norm for a system early in its life, and Nintendo shouldn't have to worry about implementing such a strategy. The 360 shows how a powerful system released a year ahead of the competition can boost market share and garner it new games and series that are either exclusive, timed exclusive, or establish themselves on that platform as its primary sales base. But unlike the 360 (and the Xbox brand in particular), it would be marketable in Japan, something that kept the 360 from beating the PS3 in worldwide sales (that, and the fact that Europe is PlayStation Country). As a truly global brand, Nintendo, rather than Microsoft, could become Sony's main competitor, with the Xbox 4 becoming an increasingly regional brand with little impact outside its homeland of America (the XBO is already looking to be where it only at best matches the PS4 here, and it's a foregone conclusion that it will be soundly defeated by the PS4 in Europe and Japan).
I know some naysayers might say "Well, that just makes Nintendo too much like the competition," and to that I say "So what?" Innovation in hardware is overrated, and while the Wii was a surprise success, lightning rarely strikes twice. It used to be that games and games alone determined a system's success (well, maybe not alone, as price, marketing, and release timing all matter) and that a system didn't need a gimmick to sell it. Adding more buttons or an analog stick were just matters of fact, necessities brought out by advances in technology. There's a reason why waggle is already fading away (and the PS Move was a bust) and why motion controls have failed to catch on (which is why I think MS's insistence on having Kinect be a primary part of the Xbox One experience is a mistake), and that's because they're at best a supplementary input method, and in most cases are unnecessary and/or do things that can be done just as well if not better by a simple button push. The ninth generation should come down to games and marketing. By releasing a year ahead of the competition and by having power on par with the next-next-gen Xbox and PlayStation, the next-gen Nintendo system would be able to stand or fall purely on the merits of its game library. I suspect their first-party IPs will still be just as popular 7 years from now as they are today, and with the system being something that third parties can get behind, at the very least this hypothetical future Nintendo console could compete with the PS5 on even terms. It would certainly give the system greater longevity than any previous Nintendo system, as every Nintendo system peaked early in its life, whereas the 360 and PS3 peaked much later due largely to a steady stream of third-party content. The Wii went from well over 50% of the yearly seventh-gen market share in 2008 to only about 20% last year. That can and should be averted, and the only way to do that is to stop relying only on first-party titles. Mario, Zelda, etc., are all important, but Nintendo cannot live on them alone.
Now, as for what to call this hypothetical future Nintendo console, maybe "Ultra Nintendo"? Or how about "Nintendo Revolution"? Or maybe just plain old "Nintendo"? Sony has it easy with number-based names. Coming up with a marketable name for a non-numbered system is a bit more challenging.
|
