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

Forums - Nintendo - The truth about Nintendo

 

What do you think about Nintendo's attitude?

Awful, they should fail i... 189 14.04%
 
Pretty Bad, they should l... 385 28.60%
 
Not bad, they're just as anybody else 188 13.97%
 
Good, we need more like them 389 28.90%
 
Excellent, they don't need to change one bit 173 12.85%
 
Total:1,324
Zod95 on 27 February 2014
nomad said:

And that's one area where your arguements breakdown.

Nintendo DOES NOT have $32b, their Total Asset is worth about $15b ($5.49b of which is cash and deposit), and they have a market cap of $17b. If they have $32b, there would be no way their market value is worth less than their Total Assets.

source: http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2014/140129e.pdf

So, where did all those billions have gone? Nintendo mostly have gone and invested it into their core business, the Videogames Industry. Thus, Nintendo has actually been "contributing" a lot back to gamers, unlike what you claim in your OP. (Oh, and I dont think that $32.88b takes into account money infation, it may mean Ninty may have "given more" than what the numbers may say).

You say you presented facts, and you may have, but it looks you've mis-interpreted and distorted them.

You're right, they don't have 32B$ right now, neither did I say such a thing. But they had along the time 32 unique billion dollars of profit.

Answering your question, they have gone to the pockets of Nintendo's shareholders, where they will never come back.

You fail to understand what profit means. Investments = costs. Profits are out of that.



Prediction made in 14/01/2014 for 31/12/2020:      PS4: 100M      XOne: 70M      WiiU: 25M

Prediction made in 01/04/2016 for 31/12/2020:      PS4: 100M      XOne: 50M      WiiU: 18M

Prediction made in 15/04/2017 for 31/12/2020:      PS4: 90M      XOne: 40M      WiiU: 15M      Switch: 20M

Prediction made in 24/03/2018 for 31/12/2020:      PS4: 110M      XOne: 50M      WiiU: 14M      Switch: 65M

Around the Network
trixiemafia86 on 27 February 2014
Zod95 said:

You're right, they don't have 32B$ right now, neither did I say such a thing. But they had along the time 32 unique billion dollars of profit.

Answering your question, they have gone to the pockets of Nintendo's shareholders, where they will never come back.

You fail to understand what profit means. Investments = costs. Profits are out of that.

This. People on here don't seem to understand what profit means.



Smartest nam evila

Current Platforms: HighendPC[rip]/PS4/PS3[rip]/Vita[rip]

Zod95 on 27 February 2014
seiya19 said:

Actually, I believe I did. All those references you made about Nintendo's policies from the NES are not relevant anymore (aside the ones that are still standard practice), and comparing them to the PS2 era like you did in point 2.3 is being disingeneous. You're not making any clear distinction between the situation of the market at those different times, nor how Nintendo's practices have changed over the years. Putting everything on the same bag and trying to tie these elements together in order to prove some kind of attitude over the years is just misleading. As I said before, those decisions were made under different circumstances by different people.

Not relevant to you, it may be relevant to people who want to perceive Nintendo's mindset (when they had the opportunity X they did Y, now they don't have X anymore).

I didn't feel the need to make any market distinction. If you think I should, tell specifically what and why.

Nintendo's practices may have changed because they don't have the opportunity X anymore. I believe that opportunities are more volatile than company's mindsets, although I see you think otherwise.

 

seiya19 said:

Following a different strategy/philosophy hardware-wise is not the same as ignoring developers needs, and many 3rd parties have actually benefited from said differences. You're presenting a false dichotomy here of everything or nothing, as if the only way to support them is to do everything they (the big publishers) allegedly ask, all while ignoring how Sony and Microsoft have also taken unilateral choices (CELL, Kinect, etc). If there's a group of developers or publishers that refuse to work with said technology, it's their choice, nothing more than that.

Of course it is. Developers need means (hardware) to get to ends (software).

Tell me 5 of said "many" 3rd parties that got benefited from Wii's lower core capabilities.

I'm not presenting any dichotomy, the more power a platform holds, the more freedom a software developer has (it's continuous, not boolean). And to give such freedom is not to meet any whim devs ask, it's just to meet a "common sense" need.

Cell and Kinect were choices about spending, investing, moving forward. Not choices about doing less or doing nothing. I don't criticize Wii Motion either, do I?

 

seiya19 said:

And while Nintendo may or may not have holes regarding their support to 3rd parties in terms of development tools, it is undeniable that they have collaborated with 3rd parties in many other ways, which denotes intention. An intention that contradicts your narrative. 

Like I said, Nintendo's practices may have changed because they don't have the opportunity X anymore.

 

seiya19 said:

As for your point about hardware specs bringing freedom, I would argue that we're at a time now where developers are far more limited by budget and time constraints than the hardware itself. If you check the lineup of PS3, 360 or even Wii, how many games do you see that take full advantage of the hardware ? How many developers have the time and resources to take advantage of said specs ? And last but not least, how much of said power is used to expand gameplay, and not just graphics ? 

You fail to perceive that developers are very diverse. Some are more limited by budget and time, others by hardware. Let the latter not be restricted without harming the former, even if the former gets no benefit.

Your last question is enigmatic. Why are you assuming that every gamer prefers gameplay over graphics? Why are you assuming that a console maker is accountable for the 3rd parties' decisions regarding hardware use?

 

seiya19 said:

What's the downside ? Well, for starters, said hardware costs more to both the consumer and the company, and it tends to be less reliable. Then, it incentivizes "AAA" developers to get into an arms race that prioritizes the use of said technology at all costs, no matter how creativity and profitability are impacted, in order to meet the expectations of a relatively small number of gamers in the market. You might not see this as an issue, but I do.

PC costs even more, it has games that are even more cutting-edge than the ones on consoles and yet there are plenty of indies there.

There are games that cost 100M€, others that cost 10M€, others that cost 1M€, some may even cost less than that, but a 400€ PS4 is no significant cost to any of them, even if it's not reliable and they need to buy 2 or 3.

The issue that you see doesn't exist. Neither Sony nor Microsoft force any 3rd party to incur into big investments. Please, stop insisting on that argument. If you continue to ignore the fact that 3rd parties are free to do whatever they want on PlayStation and Xbox and pretend there are no indie games there because Sony and Microsoft force devs to only do AAA games, I will ignore such repetitions of false arguments.

 

seiya19 said:

what's the point of consoles to exist if freedom is the ultimate goal ? PCs will always have the advantage here because of being an open platform that regularly updates itself, so why not support it instead ? Historically, the reason why consoles existed in the first place was to prioritize a pick-up and play philosophy over customization, power and complexity. To reach more consumers through affordable hardware and ease of use. And to have a controlled enviroment where every game complies with a set of standards, in order to assure uniformity and "quality control" (more than one meaning here...) among every unit. The fact is, the current direction Sony and Microsoft are going (and the one you're apparently supporting) goes directly against said values, which ends up putting the reason of said platforms to exist into question...

...over power?? Do you think consoles sell because they are less powerful?!

Who said that freedom is the ultimate goal? There are other crucial goals like price and simplicity (as you said).

"Quality control"?? I begin to fear that you're apologist of the Nintendo from the 80s and early 90s. Do you really think that the games' quality control should be tyrantly made by the console maker?

Sony and Microsoft are not going against price and simplicity. PS4 and XOne are cheaper than PCs of the same level, much more simple to use and assure that any game will run in full for the coming years.



Prediction made in 14/01/2014 for 31/12/2020:      PS4: 100M      XOne: 70M      WiiU: 25M

Prediction made in 01/04/2016 for 31/12/2020:      PS4: 100M      XOne: 50M      WiiU: 18M

Prediction made in 15/04/2017 for 31/12/2020:      PS4: 90M      XOne: 40M      WiiU: 15M      Switch: 20M

Prediction made in 24/03/2018 for 31/12/2020:      PS4: 110M      XOne: 50M      WiiU: 14M      Switch: 65M

Zod95 on 27 February 2014
cannonballZ said:
Zod95 said:
mysteryman said:

So your complaint is that a Turn-Based Strategy game is not real-time? How does that even make sense to you?

It's also interesting that you use pokemon as an example that Nintendo puts no effort into their games when it is the exact opposite. Over 700 unique pokemon 3D character models were created for Pokemon X/Y. Each with 2 (or 3, I believe) attack animations, to be used with various attacks. This would align well with your cherry-picked criteria for a good game being one with a very large number of unique characters.

One problem with your assertion that only photo-realistic graphics require effort: they require no artistic skill. To say that artistic creation is not valuable, difficult, requiring 'eagle-eye' or thorough work is ludicrous. Conversely, one could argue that photo-realism is easier, because it requires no creativity, only pure technical effort.

My complaint is that Nintendo made Pokémon a turn-based fighting game within a primitive RPG architecture. Pokémons randomly appear after the character going around in circles in the grass? Wtf? The player cannot throw a pokeball at any time and how he/she wants? The battles are only about selecting attacks? How sad. The fans deserved more.

With such a primitive architecture and gameplay, it's easy to put in there 700 characters.

I have never said that only photo-realism require effort and that artistic creation is not valuable. Please post here the sentences where I said such things.


Well, you sure did talk a lot about Nintendo's cartoony characters , I refer you back to rant 1.2. You spoke of how they lack in visual fidelity/realism.

Yes I did. But I didn't say they require no effort.



Prediction made in 14/01/2014 for 31/12/2020:      PS4: 100M      XOne: 70M      WiiU: 25M

Prediction made in 01/04/2016 for 31/12/2020:      PS4: 100M      XOne: 50M      WiiU: 18M

Prediction made in 15/04/2017 for 31/12/2020:      PS4: 90M      XOne: 40M      WiiU: 15M      Switch: 20M

Prediction made in 24/03/2018 for 31/12/2020:      PS4: 110M      XOne: 50M      WiiU: 14M      Switch: 65M

cannonballZ on 27 February 2014
Zod95 said:

You are confusing invention with innovation. Invention is about creation, being original. Innovation is about changing the market (or at least making an impact) by releasing a product. So, yes, Farmville is innovation, otherwise Wii Motion wouldn't be either, once there were already motion controls on the PC before the Wii.

Anyway, I guess you got the point about the difference between innovation and evolution.


Farmville had an impact???? on what??? 



Around the Network
cannonballZ on 27 February 2014
Zod95 said:

Yes I did. But I didn't say they require no effort.


But you barely if at all acknowledge the effort...; especially if it's a Nintendo game, you downplay the effort like they took the easy route with all their games.

And as far as Wii U not having a better looking game than gt5.... Project cars says hello. It's still early in the consoles life cycle.. 

 

And cloning is not innovation, the only impact farmville had was on the game that it cloned. Zynga lost the lawsuit on that one.



Zod95 on 27 February 2014
UltimateUnknown said:
The first argument is laughable in my opinion. If Nintendo could make games with SNES graphics at this day and gamers would buy them, then more power to Nintendo. They don't have an obligation to make cutting edge stuff, that should be what gamers want. I WANT powerful consoles with graphically intensive games, that is why I bought a PS4 and skipped the Wii U. I voted with my wallet. That is the only vote that counts. But if a game company can make amazing gameplay experiences with constrained hardware and keep managing to sell them, then they are doing something right somewhere. Sure I'd like for them to make powerful hardware, but the audience needs to vote for that with their wallets.

Besides that particular point though, I found your arguments rather interesting. I definitely do agree that Nintendo does have enough money to solve the issues with their online infrastructure and 3rd party support, but they never do so. Their treatment of 3rd parties is one of the reasons why Sony was able to dominate at a time when Nintendo should have clearly won. I don't think these are as apparent, but tells the truth nonetheless.

I agree with everything that you said but the first phrase. The OP doesn't tell what gamers should do, it just describes the options. It's totally fair if gamers want to spend their money on primitive hardware and software and it's totally legitimate for Nintendo to collect such money.



Prediction made in 14/01/2014 for 31/12/2020:      PS4: 100M      XOne: 70M      WiiU: 25M

Prediction made in 01/04/2016 for 31/12/2020:      PS4: 100M      XOne: 50M      WiiU: 18M

Prediction made in 15/04/2017 for 31/12/2020:      PS4: 90M      XOne: 40M      WiiU: 15M      Switch: 20M

Prediction made in 24/03/2018 for 31/12/2020:      PS4: 110M      XOne: 50M      WiiU: 14M      Switch: 65M

Zod95 on 27 February 2014
cannonballZ said:
Zod95 said:

You are confusing invention with innovation. Invention is about creation, being original. Innovation is about changing the market (or at least making an impact) by releasing a product. So, yes, Farmville is innovation, otherwise Wii Motion wouldn't be either, once there were already motion controls on the PC before the Wii.

Anyway, I guess you got the point about the difference between innovation and evolution.


Farmville had an impact???? on what??? 

On the market: not only it had astronomical acceptance but also many people that had never played a single videogame in their lives have tried Farmville.

On the industry: after that, many more devs began to do facebook games.

 

cannonballZ said:

But you barely if at all acknowledge the effort...; especially if it's a Nintendo game, you downplay the effort like they took the easy route with all their games.

That's right. I acknowledge little merit on that. And it's easy to understand why: such games require little time, money and other resources but talent, they don't even require to go out of the 4 walls of the studios. For me, that's the easy route.

I understand you have a different view. You think talent and creativity are more scarce resources than effort/money/time. That's ok, I respect you opinion.

 

cannonballZ said:

And as far as Wii U not having a better looking game than gt5.... Project cars says hello. It's still early in the consoles life cycle..

Let's wait for the final result and then we make the comparison. My guess is that GT5 will stay ahead and that Project CARS on WiiU will be significantly inferior to the other versions.



Prediction made in 14/01/2014 for 31/12/2020:      PS4: 100M      XOne: 70M      WiiU: 25M

Prediction made in 01/04/2016 for 31/12/2020:      PS4: 100M      XOne: 50M      WiiU: 18M

Prediction made in 15/04/2017 for 31/12/2020:      PS4: 90M      XOne: 40M      WiiU: 15M      Switch: 20M

Prediction made in 24/03/2018 for 31/12/2020:      PS4: 110M      XOne: 50M      WiiU: 14M      Switch: 65M

sundin13 on 27 February 2014
Zod95 said:
DarkD said:

Yes Sony decided to make a huge leap forward in graphics which completely overshadowed what the 360 was doing by using unstable technology.  How could they possibly not realize it was gonna make development difficult.  All Sony was doing was trying to drown out the competition and create a monopoly but it backfired on them.

In your view about Sony and Cell:

- Sony was perverse by designing a complex system that would make 3rd party development difficult.

- Sony was naive by thinking they could win without 3rd party support.

You implicitly call Sony perverse or naive as it is convinient to you. Doublestandard?

 

DarkD said:

Sony does a little bit of everything

You have yet to reply to this:

"Then Eye Of Judgment, LittleBigPlanet and Flower are only refinements from what games? And what about Twisted Metal, EyePet and Singstar? I'm also curious to know which games are Heavy Rain, Destruction Derby and Getaway refinements from. And also MotorStorm, Knack and Killzone."

 

DarkD said:

Tell me exactly where was the risk in Little Big Planet?

Exactly on the editor. Making a powerful editor and creating a game from it is a tremendous risk. First, such a powerful editor is a monster of uncontrolled quality. Second, creating a game from an editor that will be available to everybody is like working on a fully transparent building. Their effort and talent was totally exposed. Third, such a game is not cheap to create and it could have easily become a massive flop.

 

DarkD said:

Tell me what sort of risk was involved.  Sony never innovates in a way that actually risks anything.  The only place you can claim that they risked anything was with the Cell processor and the PS3.  However I won't even give you that because that was just a graphics leap...

Graphic leaps don't count? Why? Cell was an innovation and a major risk.

But I tell you more. EyeToy was a risk. Blu-ray was a risk. PSP Go was a risk. PlayStation Now will be a major risk.

You want games? Eye Of Judgment was a risk. They've created an entire cards gaming ecosystem inside the PS3. LittleBigPlanet was a risk. Heavy Rain was a risk. A button-choice-based game could have turned into an anecdotic flop.

Let me know if you want some more.

 

DarkD said:

Those developers are doing that because the console market sucks right now.  The iPhone isn't that much better but there isn't a risk that your entire department will be disolved if your game doesn't perform.  iPhone's may be everywhere but those games cost like a dollar and the market is flooded with them.

You're not listening: the issue is not on the software, it's on the hardware dissemination. Imagine PS4+XOne selling 800M per year and smartphones selling 30M. How would be the software sales of each one? What would the the profits of the consoles' AAA games vs the 1-dollar apps?

1. That the whole point...hes using that example to point out your double standards and it seems to me that you just admitted it >.>

2. Eye of Judgement: TCG + Camera
LBP: Generic 2D platformer with custom levels
Flower: Technically not a Sony game but i'll give you that one
Twisted Metal: Car Combat with dark shell
Eyepet: Nintendogs with camera
Singstar: Karaoke
Heavy Rain: Fahrenheit aka Indigo Prophecy (published by Atari and available on PS2/XBox)
Getaway: Never heard of it but it sounds like GTA to me
Destruction Derby: you mean this destruction derby? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_Derby
Not even close to being sony's game
Motorstorm: Just a racing game
Killzone: Halo killer

None of these games are really innovative...they are all just evolution

3. yeah, the editor was good. Too bad they couldn't figure out the gameplay. Should've taken some lessons from Nintendo on that...

4. Graphic Leaps are natural progression so naturally they don't count as innovation.

Also, Eyetoy wasn't really a risk, if it flopped it wouldn't really hurt Sony too much. It was too peripheral to matter. 

BluRay was self support. They used a format that they made to make more money...

PSPGo was a terrible decision..If you classify terrible decisions as "risks" then I'll give you that

So if Eye of Judgement was a risk...what about the pokemon trading card game?

Seriously, if you classify those things as "risks", then I don't see how you could ignore that motion control was a risk, 3D was a risk, gamepad controller was a risk, First Person Metroid was a risk, etc....

5. As I've said before...if AAA games were making tons of money, devs wouldn't be leaving left and right. You don't walk away from something that works but the AAA gaming environment doesn't work

EDIT: @"That's right. I acknowledge little merit on that. And it's easy to understand why: such games require little time, money and other resources but talent, they don't even require to go out of the 4 walls of the studios. For me, that's the easy route."

110% your opinion...I would argue that it is just as difficult to create a game with a unique art style than it is to just make a cardboard cut out of real life. One of them actually takes talent and creativity, the other is just looking outside and saying "I'm doing that!"

Also, as I've said 100x, Nintendo games frequently have longer dev times than the industry standard for photorealistic games...what does that say about the time/money/effort that goes into Nintendo games? 

EDIT: @Your quote on pokemon below: You are clearly implying that a more complicated game is a better game. i have already fully argued your point on pokemon but this is ridiculous. Making pokemon real time wont make it a better game, it will just make it a different game. 



cannonballZ on 27 February 2014

I guess Nintendo obviously hurt someone's feelings to the point they are willing to write articles about how evil they have been to them.

I don't care, your entitled baby cry article is not whole truth.

I only care to play games. I am tired of listening to fanboys rant about their least liked company like it's going to make a big difference.

I love Sony, I love MS and I love Nintendo for all the great games they have provided me with. As well as all the great third parties that have made my life for the last 9 years some of the best a gamer has ever experienced.

You can keep on hating Nintendo all you want and keep hoping they crash and burn. You have succeeded in showing that this article is very biased.

I don't care what they did in the 80's and 90's, I only care what they do now and hope they find a way to bring more games to wii u. Whether they sell more systems is irrelevant to me, I want more games regardless.

My loyalty doesn't stand with any one company, my loyalty stands with my passion for gaming. Whether it be on pc handhelds or consoles. All big 3 companies have done something in the past that I disliked, but I will never go on a forum and write a huge nonsense article about my point of view based on their actions and claim all to be truth.

I'm not debating with you anymore. Not on this subject. It was well written in the sense that you properly paragraphed and split it by well put together points. I like your writing style, you obviously stick to your guns also. I look forward to more posts from you, I will not hold one bad article against you. Or use it as proof in another ten page article to show how biased you are.

You like gaming... guess what .. ME TOO!!!! FRIEND ME ON WII U!!!!!