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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What lessons did Nintendo learn this gen you think?

curl-6 on 09 February 2015
RolStoppable said:
curl-6 said:

Wii U and 3DS used established, outdated, and relatively inexpensive internal components. CPU, GPU, RAM, all withered tech. The extra costs came from the "lateral thinking" side of the equation; the tablet, for instance.

What would you suggest they do? You talk about "reaching beyond the Nintendo fanboys", but to who else would you have them reach, if not the dudebros? Children and the Wii crowd have moved on to smartphones. 

Lateral thinking with withered technology means to use matured technology and think of new uses for it. This results in a cheap manufacturing process, yet still a potentially appealing product. Neither the 3DS or Wii U were and are cheap to produce, and of course we have to look at these products in the entirety of their components instead of just a few cherry-picked ones in order to form an accurate conclusion. So neither the 3DS or Wii U qualify as following the philosophy of lateral thinking with withered technology.

Entertainment media aren't mutually exclusive, so the simplest solution for Nintendo is to offer something that nobody else does. But I am obviously not talking about something like the Gamepad because people aren't going to pay for minor things like map and inventories on a separate screen. The wonderful thing about the Wii was that its experience couldn't be replicated on smartphones or PCs, and neither Sony or Microsoft were up to the challenge to compete with Nintendo because for one, they would never put their top development teams on such software, and two, neither would third parties.

Nintendo was sitting on a huge competitive advantage, but then they decided to give up all of that and self-destruct by making a me-too system that was supposed to play exactly the same games as other devices. Even if all those third party games had been coming, the Wii U (or a more powerful version on the same level as the PS4) would still have failed to gain traction because of what I mentioned in my previous post: As long as people are satisfied with a brand, they aren't going to switch. So the result would have been that people waited a year for the PS4 and Xbox One to come out, and then buy those consoles. Well, a few might have bought a Nintendo console because the Xbox One reveal was a disaster and they can't stand Sony, but that wouldn't have amounted too much, seeing how Microsoft did one 180 after another to salvage the situation.

Anyway, the Wii's success wasn't all on motion controls. Nintendo actually made honest efforts to win back the people that bought an NES, but eventually quit console gaming when it all became about console wars and Nintendo's software output ultimately became what we know as the GC library. Most Nintendo fans on this forum hold the N64 and GC eras in high regard. However, these two consoles were failures, so reality doesn't line up with what is idealized as Nintendo's best periods of software. The Wii was a strong statement by Nintendo that the N64 and GC weren't the cream of the crop. On one hand, that means that the people who loved those consoles are often the most vocal detractors of the Wii direction. But on the other hand, that led to success for Nintendo. So to bring this post to an end (finally), Nintendo should do what pisses off the people who put the N64, GC and Wii U above the Wii.

I didn't cherry-pick the CPU/GPU/RAM, those are the only parts people really care about these days. It's all about the graphics. Wii U used withered processing hardware, then made it expensive with the lateral part, which nobody cared for.

You didn't really answer the question though; who should Nintendo go after? "Retired NES gamers" sounds like a mythical audience who in reality are just a mixture of casuals and non-gamers who could not be tempted back to consoles in sufficient numbers now that smartphones meet their needs.



Around the Network
Soundwave on 09 February 2015

The whole lateral thinking gobblydeegoop doesn't really even apply today IMO.

Yes it was a great line from Gunpei Yokoi ... for the 19-freaking-80s.

It's not 1989 anymore.

You have 8 year olds walking around with with is effectively a super high resolution personal computer in their pocket these days.

When I was a kid yes, the first time I saw a Game Boy, I went "wow". But to me at the time a transforming Optimus Prime toy was amazing. The bar has been raised quite a bit. 



curl-6 on 09 February 2015
Soundwave said:

The whole lateral thinking gobblydeegoop doesn't really even apply today IMO.

Yes it was a great line from Gunpei Yokoi ... for the 19-freaking-80s.

It's not 1989 anymore.

You have 8 year olds walking around with with is effectively a super high resolution personal computer in their pocket these days.

When I was a kid yes, the first time I saw a Game Boy, I went "wow". But to me at the time a transforming Optimus Prime toy was amazing. 

To be fair it worked pretty damn well 2006-2010, but in essence I agree, it is a futile strategy in today's market. People don't want "different" any more.



Soundwave on 09 February 2015
curl-6 said:
Soundwave said:

The whole lateral thinking gobblydeegoop doesn't really even apply today IMO.

Yes it was a great line from Gunpei Yokoi ... for the 19-freaking-80s.

It's not 1989 anymore.

You have 8 year olds walking around with with is effectively a super high resolution personal computer in their pocket these days.

When I was a kid yes, the first time I saw a Game Boy, I went "wow". But to me at the time a transforming Optimus Prime toy was amazing. 

To be fair it worked pretty damn well 2006-2010, but in essence I agree, it is a futile strategy in today's market. People don't want "different" any more.


People don't want "outdated" anymore I would say. People are more tech savvy these days, especially kids, you can't impress them by recycling some 10 year old piece of tech with some gimmick attached to it and think that strategy is going to work for you every time because Gunpei Yokoi said so in 1987 or someting. 

The NES and Game Boy weren't "outdated" feeling products for their time either, to me the NES was like a huge leap beyond what I thought of video games prior and that was basically playing Pong or Pitfall on my cousin's Atari 2600. 

The Wii and DS was simply Nintendo's correct read that with the PS2/GCN/XBox there were a lot of players that couldn't play modern games anymore. Mario Sunshine was 1000x more complex than Super Mario Bros. or Pac-Man. So they cashed in on that, but Apple basically stole all their thunder. 

The iPhone is more successful with casuals and women than the Wii/DS could ever dream of being, they got the genie out of the bottle, but that genie now works for someone else. Today there are so many convienant ways for anyone or any skill level to play games on. 



curl-6 on 09 February 2015
Soundwave said:
curl-6 said:

To be fair it worked pretty damn well 2006-2010, but in essence I agree, it is a futile strategy in today's market. People don't want "different" any more.

People don't want "outdated" anymore I would say. People are more tech savvy these days, especially kids, you can't impress them by recycling some 10 year old piece of tech with some gimmick attached to it and think that strategy is going to work for you every time because Gunpei Yokoi said so in 1987 or someting. 

The NES and Game Boy weren't "outdated" feeling products for their time either, to me the NES was like a huge leap beyond what I thought of video games prior and that was basically playing Pong or Pitfall on my cousin's Atari 2600. 

The Wii and DS was simply Nintendo's correct read that with the PS2/GCN/XBox there were a lot of players that couldn't play modern games anymore. Mario Sunshine was 1000x more complex than Super Mario Bros. or Pac-Man. So they cashed in on that, but Apple basically stole all their thunder. 

The iPhone is more successful with casuals and women than the Wii/DS could ever dream of being, they got the genie out of the bottle, but that genie now works for someone else. 

Wii U wasn't 10 years outdated, more like 4 or 5.

And 3DS was technically "outdated" too.

The home console market today is largely ruled by dudebros who get hyped for the latest "cool" product with high end graphics and blockbuster games. Obviously, a low end console won't fit the bill.



Around the Network
Soundwave on 09 February 2015
RolStoppable said:
curl-6 said:

I didn't cherry-pick the CPU/GPU/RAM, those are the only parts people really care about these days. It's all about the graphics. Wii U used withered processing hardware, then made it expensive with the lateral part, which nobody cared for.

You didn't really answer the question though; who should Nintendo go after? "Retired NES gamers" sounds like a mythical audience who in reality are just a mixture of casuals and non-gamers who could not be tempted back to consoles in sufficient numbers now that smartphones meet their needs.

curl, I have to give up on explaining lateral thinking with withered technology because you show no effort of understanding what it means.

I did answer your question, you just didn't like the answer. Nintendo should go after a mythical audience, for real. Turn back the clock ten years and people would say that there is nowhere to go for Nintendo because the core market is controlled by Sony and Microsoft while the people who are currently not buying consoles will definitely not buy consoles in the future. It's a good thing that Nintendo didn't believe in that back then, and it will be good for them if they don't believe in that now.

Yeah but there was an obvious play there - casual/non-gamers. 

That doesn't exist today. So what's left? Making games for pets? 

There is no magical untapped audience anymore. Every type of person from the person who virtually no ability to play games to the expert player has a multitude of readily available options made available to them. In terms of casuals they carry that around in their pocket, just seconds away from them when ever they feel the urge to scratch their gaming itch (which is maybe a handful of times a week). 

It's nice to believe in things like "lateral thinking" and "blue ocean" as some kind of dogma for gaurunteed success but it don't mean shit without an actual audience there behind them that isn't already being overserved by 10 other devices. 



curl-6 on 09 February 2015
RolStoppable said:
curl-6 said:

I didn't cherry-pick the CPU/GPU/RAM, those are the only parts people really care about these days. It's all about the graphics. Wii U used withered processing hardware, then made it expensive with the lateral part, which nobody cared for.

You didn't really answer the question though; who should Nintendo go after? "Retired NES gamers" sounds like a mythical audience who in reality are just a mixture of casuals and non-gamers who could not be tempted back to consoles in sufficient numbers now that smartphones meet their needs.

curl, I have to give up on explaining lateral thinking with withered technology because you show no effort of understanding what it means.

I did answer your question, you just didn't like the answer. Nintendo should go after a mythical audience, for real. Turn back the clock ten years and people would say that there is nowhere to go for Nintendo because the core market is controlled by Sony and Microsoft while the people who are currently not buying consoles will definitely not buy consoles in the future. It's a good thing that Nintendo didn't believe in that back then, and it will be good for them if they don't believe in that now.

Doesn't seem a great idea to me, hedging your bets on an audience that may not even exist. It worked ten years ago because there was a clear untapped audience, but where's the clear untapped audience today, and what makes you think Nintendo could tap them even if they are out there? Sounds to me like stakng everything on a miracle.



zorg1000 on 09 February 2015
Soundwave said:
zorg1000 said:

Yes it did and has not recieved a price reduction since then which was 2.5 years ago (not counting the 2DS because downgraded revisions have never in the history of handhelds or consoles had a lasting affect on sales). That's like if the GBA SP was the launch model then 2 years later they introduced a cheaper model without the clamshell design and backlit screen, the redesign wouldn't have done anything for sales.

3DS is still $169 and the XL $199 while the GBA was $79 and the SP $99 at this point.

Wii U is currently $299 while GC was $99 at the same point in its life.

So Nintendo hardware is 2-3 times as much as the 6th gen counterparts at the same point in their lives. Price isn't the one and only issue but it most definitely is an issue.

If Nintendo didn't include 3D or the Gamepad then they could have realistically released their devices at a lower price point and had further price cuts since then. Super DS releasing Sept 2011 for $149 with Nintendogs+Ocarina of Time+Mario 3D Land in the launch window and Mario Kart the following Spring would have gotten off to a much stronger start than 3DS did. Having Super DS at $129 with Super DS XL at $149 by now would likely be selling more than the current numbers at $199. Super Wii releasing Sept 2013 for $249 with a Motion Plus and Nintendo Land+Wind Waker HD+Mario 3D World in the launch window and Mario Kart the following Spring would have gotten off to a much stronger start than Wii U and being priced at $199 by now would likely see sales better than the current $299.

$169.99 is very affordable for a game console today, electronics don't remain static in price, you can't get shit for $169.99 these days. $99 in 2002 is about $130 today so that's pretty close to the 2DS/3DS. 

The GameCube not being able to sell even at $99.99 to me illustrates that a lot of people won't buy a machine just for Nintendo games at any price. 

To be honest I think we overthink these things too much and deify hardware too much. The consumer doesn't give a shit about what your brand is, they just want the widest selection of games. 

You may say "well that Call of Duty game you're buying isn't innovative! Wouldn't you rather play this game X/Y/Z", but man, when its their money and they bust their ass at work/school all day, and all they want is that type of game to come home to ... you better damn well have that game on your platform or they're going some place else. 

And I can't say I blame them. Taking brand politics and nostalgia out of the equation, would I want a DVD/movie disc format that only had movies from one studio? Hell no. Would I switch from Netflix to a similar service that only has 1/3 of the movies? Hell no. Would I choose a cable service that only gets 1/2 the channels? No. 

I think it's just that simple. Regular people don't deify or fetishize console hardware, they just want the games. And the system that has the best selection of overall games almost always does great, from the NES to SNES to Playstation to PS2 etc. etc. We make the console wars more about the "brand" rather than looking at it from an average consumers POV. 

Like i said, no downgraded revision has ever had any big impact on sales so its much more accurate to compare GBA SP to 3DS XL so its $99 vs $199 for the premium sku and for consoles it's $99 vs $299. I realize there is inflation, but u can't just double or triple ur prices and expect them to sell equally as well, that's why PS3 came absolutely nowhere close to PS2 numbers, had it not used the Cell or blu-ray and been priced at $299-399 at launch then it very likely wouldn't have lost such a large part of its market.

If 3DS/Wii U, were priced more similar to GBA/GC at launch and at this point in their lives than sales would probably be much closer. I find it really rediculous that u think being $100-200 more has no impact on sales being lower. I'm not saying they would be selling astronomically better, but simply closer to GBA/GC than they currently are. 3DS+Wii U=60 million currently, GBA+GC=80 million at the same point in time, with similar price points I think 3DS/Wii U could be more like 70 million total.

But anyway this has gotten so far off from my original point that I almost forgot what it was. My point was that during the GBA/GC era, Nintendo was making very healthy profits from selling 80 million handhelds and 20 million consoles, because they were selling their hardware at a profit. This generation 3DS was sold at a loss for a whole year after the initial price cut and Wii U was sold at a loss from day 1 and it's possible that 2 years after launch it is still being sold at a loss. If Nintendo were to never include 3D or the Gamepad in the first place and sold their devices at a lower price while also making a profit on them from day 1 then they would in a much better place financially this generation.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Soundwave on 09 February 2015
curl-6 said:
RolStoppable said:

curl, I have to give up on explaining lateral thinking with withered technology because you show no effort of understanding what it means.

I did answer your question, you just didn't like the answer. Nintendo should go after a mythical audience, for real. Turn back the clock ten years and people would say that there is nowhere to go for Nintendo because the core market is controlled by Sony and Microsoft while the people who are currently not buying consoles will definitely not buy consoles in the future. It's a good thing that Nintendo didn't believe in that back then, and it will be good for them if they don't believe in that now.

Doesn't seem a great idea to me, hedging your bets on an audience that may not even exist. It worked ten years ago because there was a clear untapped audience, but where's the clear untapped audience today, and what makes you think Nintendo could tap them even if they are out there? Sounds to me like stakng everything on a miracle.

Yeah I don't see it either. What audience is out there today that doesn't already have their gaming needs fairly well filled? 

Boys (Age 6-14): Smart Devices when they're younger, as they get older they graduate towards consoles and desperately want violent games that their older brother is playing. 

Girls (Age 6-14): Complete and utter domination by Smart Devices. Smartphones/Tablets have more female players than the Wii/DS could even dream of. 

Men (15-40+): PS4/XB1 is the home console of choice for big budget/deeper games/sports sims. When on the go, smartphones are good for short gaming sessions.

Casual Women (15-40+): Smart Devices. Allllll day. Not only is the iPhone the center of most women's social lives/networking, it's a fashion accessory. Nintendo isn't even in the equation. Plus, smartphone games are actually easier to play than most of Nintendo's games, no buttons > even B/A. 

Lapsed Gamer (25-40+): Played Pac-Man or Mario World back in the day, but outgrew gaming, has other life priorities, spending 40 hours on a video game doesn't fit. Smart Devices claim this crowd too. Lots of simple, easy to pick up and play games like Candy Crush that can be had for free/cheap. 

Seniors (50-60+): OK here Nintendo might have a small opening, but seriously, does a senior citizen need a game console? This is a dying audience (literally). 

Before Smart Devices, several of those categories were wide open for Nintendo, but now they're not. Nintendo's success with the wider audience was really with women. But women are the biggest driving force of smartphone gaming, they game more on smartphones than men do. 



Soundwave on 09 February 2015
RolStoppable said:
curl-6 said:

Doesn't seem a great idea to me, hedging your bets on an audience that may not even exist. It worked ten years ago because there was a clear untapped audience, but where's the clear untapped audience today, and what makes you think Nintendo could tap them even if they are out there? Sounds to me like stakng everything on a miracle.

I like your revisionist history. If that untapped audience was so clear ten years ago, then how come that the entire industry, including analysts, was completely caught off guard?


It was clear that there were large swaths of people that didn't play games. I don't think that was a shock to anyone. Nintendo was talking about it even before the Wii/DS, Pac-Man VS. was one example, even the GameCube controller with a large A button was an attempt to ease in to casuals. 

Getting to them was the issue, that's what caught people off guard. But really Sony/MS didn't even try because they had no reason to. 

And just because all this is true of 10 years ago, the more pertinent point is ... so what? It isn't 10 years ago anymore. Looking backwards to 10 years ago doesn't help Nintendo now, anymore than looking back to the 80s would've helped Nintendo in the 90s. 

The situation has changed. There is no magical untapped demographics of people who can't access video games today, virtually every imaginable demographic is well served today whereas it was not in 10 years ago. You can't just invent a demographic of people.