For the record before this goes on, I'm losing track of all these quote trees, so if a response is somehow in the "wrong" spot, I apologize hahaha
How do you think it would've been very different?
Iwata had a tendency to focus on end-user experiences, likely because he was a game developer moreso than a company suit. Since this is all predictive, there's a reason I said "think".
But I do think he cared about our gaming experiences, and I'm willing to bet he would have handled online services very differently. Do I think he would have pulled off getting voice chat built into the Switch after its release? I can't tell on that, but I'm willing to bet he would have understood forms of communication in games far better than what we ended up getting (I even tried that Nintendo Online app, gawh don't get me started on that, either... I really shouldn't need this app just to track my Splatoon 2 stats, put that shit IN the fucking game!).
Let's not forget, and this is something I'm going to be talking about in my Steam Deck video: the Wii U actually came BETTER EQUIPPED for communication than the Switch. Ironically, he likely had a hand in the Switch's development, but how we went from a Wii U that could, in and of itself, do video chat and had its own social community (Miiverse) to literally NONE of that is baffling. I think Iwata might have spearheaded Miiverse migration of some sort at the least instead of just axing it so that people could have their own Nintendo social space like the Wii U era. I don't have an inkling (har har) of how he'd have handled Virtual Console, though...
Remember: Miiverse led to some impact in social spaces beyond itself and led Xbox to attempt their own form of it on the Xbox One (Xbox actually still has community posting where you can even do posts and LFG for games that don't have matchmaking, so they actually KEPT it moving forward).
Again, key word is "think", as I'm basing this on perceived personality from interviews, etc.
I think Nintendo is in a healthier place now than they were in the Wii U/3DS era and I think most would agree on that. Let’s not forget that they were losing money for a few year during the Wii U/3DS era. You can complain about their current issues, but they were struggling during the previous era and kind words aren’t gonna suddenly make your business healthy.
In regards to “anti-consumer” tendencies, it wasn’t as if Nintendo never had those during their down years.
Whether you think their latest sports games are lazy or not, they’re likely just following the Splatoon playbook of updating games to keep consumer engagement. That’s part of the reason why Mario Kart 8 Deluxe will continue to see surges in sales even beyond 2023 with its DLC.
Nintendo is still making great games like Metroid Dread, Xenoblade Chronicles 3, Kirby and the Forgotten Lands, etc. They’ve published at least close to dozens of titles every year. How many publishers can do that?
If the content is there, then people will continue to buy Nintendo Switch and their software. It’s still selling well in the Americas and Europe and is completely dominating Japan even in year 5 of its lifecycle. Nintendo must be doing something right in that regard.
I just deleted and realized that I'm duplicating what I'm saying to you in a response further down about 3rd party games and attach rates.
But if you end up reading the novel, you'll be inadvertently responded to. The part I didn't delete is:
People always assume if sales are good, then something must be right. It's a strange thing because this exact narrative happened during the Wii era, and yet looking back, despite there also being some quality titles on the Wii (I mean, Super Fucking Mario Galaxy!), the dust has settled and some people realized that sales were not necessarily directly correlated with "great games" because the attach rate showed otherwise. Instead, it proved to be a total casuals and "grandmas bowling machine" system despite how deep that system made Nintendo's coffers.
Hell, I used this example once again: CoD sells like hotcakes every year, even at its worst. CoD must be doing something right, RIGHT? Or is that just copy-paste garbage every year...
Nintendo acquired Bayonetta 2 before the Wii U came out, when they were still coming off the massive success of the Wii. Bayonetta 3 is simply the continuation of that established partnership rather than the result of lacking success.
Nintendo did tons of "because they can" stuff in the Wii U era too when they were failing, like locking content behind Amiibo and games like Federation Force, Mario Tennis Ultra Smash, and Animal Crossing Amiibo Festival. Speaking of those travesties, now that they're successful again, we've gotten a proper HD Animal Crossing, and Metroid Dread, both big steps up. So that's really not down to their success either, they do some not so great stuff when they're struggling as well.
Having lived and gamed through 6 generations of Nintendo hardware, I don't see a correlation between them succeeding and giving me a bad time. I've pretty much always had a better experience the more successful they are.
The WIi U was designed to make bank even if they fucked up, which they did end up getting both in the end. They fucked up, but they still managed to make bank on the system, enough to consider it a setback, but not a "oh shit we've made no money from the system at all this entire gen", so they still got something out of it instead of absolute "you fucked up, now you're gonna suffer the consumer wrath" style of punishment they should have gotten. Despite that setback, they were still rewarded enough to make money back on the system they didn't push hard enough on, which tells me that there was a decent size of the fanbase to help them get that far, instead of hardly any at all.
Let's take babylon's fall for example, yes that's a game and not a system, but because of the way it was designed to be, and the lack of marketing, and exclusivity shit, it sold like utter crap and now has less players than it did on day/week one. That's how a game/system should be punished, or hell, the recent crap going down with VR chat has tons of folks requesting refunds and leaving negative reviews. That's basically become a big PR nightmare for VRChat, while Nintendo still got to slide by with the Wii U and make bank and still not have to worry all that much about PR, because they brought out the Switch.
Point is, the fans helped them get by, they just weren't punished hard enough, and with the Switch it's all magically water under the bridge, despite the joycon issue still looming over the system (and me having a 2nd pair busted, with Nintendo asking for another £70 from me if I ever want to play the system I bought ever again).
You may have not bought much into the Wii U, but others did. You have to remember that one purchase doesn't make for a a greater snowball effect, it takes bigger numbers for a greater effect to happen.
Mandalore already pretty much covered all the points I was going to here; gamers did not let the Wii U slide, the vast majority passed on it altogether and caused it to flop hard. It sold less than the Vita of all things.
The Switch succeeded by being a huge course correction away from the Wii U. It won people over who were not sold on the Wii U with its stronger software output and more accessible and appealing concept.
Bayonetta 3 is coming a massive 8 years after Bayonetta 2 (and by gawd have I been such a begger for a sequel!), and I'm guaranteeing you it was greenlit despite poor sales of the Wii U and of Bayonetta 2 during the Wii U's ending lifespan KNOWING it would release on Switch (though I personally think it got delayed, but not publicly as no release date or window was ever placed, for it to be coming this far into the Switch).
In order to support the theory that Nintendo makes more/better decisions during success (this isn't exactly what you're saying, but it's implied in this thread), it would have had to be greenlight DURING the start of the Switch era in which they watched the sales success and chose to make the decision, and then decided to greenlight Bayonetta 3 (though, I admit that COULD have been possible given the time windows even though it's confirmed not to be the case).
I, too, have lived through Nintendo. That's kind of the issue: the signs have always been there. The first sign of it was when the NES and SNES (albeit less than its predecessor) did so well and Nintendo would enforce things on third parties like limiting game development quantity and signing forced exclusivity contracts. A lot of that vanished as their consequent hardware not only sold poorly, but third parties decided that wasn't worth the trouble. I said above, Nintendo made mistakes during down periods, too, but those periods are what saw fundamental shifts. The N64 and GameCube was their attempt to win back third parties (though, considered largely unsuccessful), decisions made as console sales slumped and lessons needed to be learned.
As for naming off travesty releases, I'm pretty sure the Switch is beating the Wii U in a shorter lifespan with milked/mid games. We'll have to disagree on Metroid Dread being a big step up, though: not only is it more an upgraded and expanded Metroid Samus Returns, but I just can't agree with that in the face of Metroid Prime. Prime was the big, BIG step up, and is largely regarded as such by and large, too. Dread was the fan service, a bit of filler to give us Metroid fans something to chew on while waiting for the obvious big hitter, Metroid Prime 4. I honestly can't see otherwise when I have three Prime games that vastly outdo Dread. I actually LIKED the motion controls on Wii in Prime 3, I thought that was rather immersive and impressive...
I think we're just going in circles, no one's saying the Switch isn't succeeding, but that it's success is going to lead Nintendo to continue more and more towards the path of greed. What was once the Nintendo fandom's "quality over quantity" has suddenly conveniently reversed to "quantity, look how many exclusives!" when many of those are of the same quality as many games found on other systems not on the Switch, or in some cases lower.
Besides, I said it a long time ago, different thread and video, but a large part of the Switch's success is that it's grabbing the handheld DS/3DS crowd. After the 3DS, the Nintendo handheld crowd has nothing except the Switch, so the Switch has essentially combined the console and handheld fanbases. The other part is that 25% of Switch sales are to existing Switch owners, and also in said other thread I mentioned that the Switch is more seen as a personal device while PS5s and XSXs are seen as household devices. There is more "one Switch per kid" than there is "one PS5/XSX per kid".
That, and winning over people with stronger software is a whole different discussion since the attach rate is ostensibly worse for many titles that should see much larger numbers. This would indicate that many people are likely buying one game for multiple Switches. Many games still don't see "sales success" on the Switch: Metroid Dread selling 3 million on 110 million Switches as an exclusive IP is a bit rough. It is my belief that Metroid Prime 4 will do better if the game is made to the quality I'm expecting and hoping for so that it grabs more of the non-Metroid fans.
Well... I don't have a Switch, but I'll try to show my point of view.
Nintendo did a lot of right things with the Switch, and they are supporting the console. We have a lot of praised games from Nintendo and some third parties like Capcom, Konami, SEGA, and others. I still think they should be more ambitious when it comes to hardware power, and I don't understand why they are releasing Splatoon 3 on Switch. To me it feels like they are going to cut support to Splatoon 2 to make people upgrade to Splatoon 3 and get some extra cash. But well, any company could do that, it's not exclusive to Nintendo.
What Zyro said applies to all companies. But I don't see Nintendo being the "bad guy" with the Switch. Also, its success don't affect Sony or Microsoft, so anyone that feels like they are being bad for the consumers, they could just don't pay for it, and go to Playstation or Xbox.
Oi, don't get me started on Splatoon. A game I've poured hundreds of hours into, and it's just... hurting me a bit that Splatoon 3 hasn't shown me a whole lot that couldn't be just an expansion for Splatoon 2 (and since it's on the same system, as you mentioned, it literally COULD be an expansion if they wanted to).
Of course, there's the real argument against me once again: I plan on buying Splatoon 3. Ugh... And that highlights your statement about going PS or Xbox: that's exactly what people have done. If Nintendo hadn't pissed off third parties so long ago, then fell behind in hardware so badly with the Wii and up, things might be different, now. Almost everyone I actually know who has a Switch literally has another primary system they "play more" on because the Switch is missing too many third party games (like Elden Ring). Nintendo fanboys will just say, "none of those games interest me", but the truth is that many of those games sell crazy numbers to lots of people who are interested. Nintendo hurt itself with third parties during its successful monopolization of the NES/SNES era, turned away Sony, and gave birth to their biggest competitor. They're recovering and swinging the other way (twice if you include the Wii), but here I am discussing the reality that this may in turn give them the power to corner their own "Nintendo" market instead of playing nice with everyone in order to compete. And in response, its own fanbase tries extra hard to buy and "support" Nintendo only to find out what kind of decisions happen when you willingly just hand your money over to a company for any game you think is "good" because it's exclusive.
Naturally, based on this thread, I'd rather they need to compete. Then I might actually get built-in voice chat, better hardware, big third party games, etc. etc. lol (the Switch successor will more than likely have it or Nintendo WILL look truly dumb af). I mean, some part of me can easily imagine how Elden Ring would have led to good times on Miiverse he he he
We are on page 9 of this discussion... the guy makes click bait videos, not much else to say.
Page 2 for me.
It's not click bait, it's "intentional hyperbole" (I believe was the phrase he used). So yeah, try having an intellectually honest discussion with someone like that. That'll get you somewhere.
The irony of "intellectually honest" is that you conveniently ignore the type of response to a video that actually contained no targeting of anyone except the obvious blind fanboy in two 5 second clips. I mean, this entire thread contains so much "intellectual" irony: now you've got some dude complaining about the length of it (which is hilarious, how in the world does the length of a thread get in his feels lol), saying it's clickbait (which is commonly used incorrectly to define something they don't like, actual clickbait is the use of deception and misinformation to *dun dun dun* get someone to click, the title of the video is what the video is about, that's not clickbait even if it uses hyperbole and offends the whole Nintendo fandom at its worst); and then you've got personal attacks on me by people I don't even know over a video that wasn't about them... You speak of "intellectual", but here you are adding nothing to the thread. You'll probably take the scape goat route of saying it's not worth your time or something (or hopefully nothing at all), but hey, mobbing is easy.
Now if someone made a video about "Why ZyroXZ2 Sucks and is Stupid!", then you'd see me respond like people in this thread, sure. But seeing as how my video isn't about anyone on here, I'm getting a bit of a side chuckle about how some people can get so stirred up without actually being attacked.
"I don't like the texture of mangos"
"Wtf, you're stupid and wrong, mangos are amazing, here's all the reasons why you're so full of shit"
The reason people are acting vexxed with you because your arguments are so profoundly terrible that it appears you are trolling. Yet, despite how absolutely bad the arguments are, you are still somehow condescending and whining that criticism is because of bias.
Case in point, Bayonetta 2. Released in 2014. With a full port of the first Bayonetta. Most likely, the decision came, at the latest, in early 2012 (and even that's a huge stretch), when Nintendo was still swimming in Wii money like Scrooge McDuck. When someone brought up other decisions made during this time, like Nintendo's youtube policies, you attributed those to the Wii, yet somehow this decision, made while the Wii was actually still active, is attributed to the Wii U's failure which hadn't happened yet. Cause fuck logic and consistency. You could argue it was because they realized the Wii U was going to struggle, but that defeats your whole argument. That would show that even while they're successful, Nintendo does not think they are invulnerable, and still work on deals to improve their offerings.
Moreover, you are cherry picking examples, which is literally all you've done to support your argument. When anyone points out the obvious flaws, your reaction is "well Nintendo made this bad decision while they were successful so HAHA FANBOY I WIN!" Which doesn't actually prove anything, because nobody is arguing that Nintendo only makes good decisions when they're successful, and pointing to individual bad decisions made, on its own, doesn't prove any larger pattern. All you've shown is that Nintendo can make bad decisions while successful, congrats.
Meanwhile, you ignore any examples to the contrary (or make lulzy attempts to attribute them to success or failure to suit your needs regardless of timing or logic). The most obvious here are Wonderful 101, Astral Chain, and Bayonetta 3. Wonderful 101 started development on the Wii. Since it launched in early 2013, you gotta figure Nintendo agreed to the project at 2010 the latest, more likely 2009, earliest 2008. So, at the peak of the Wii's success, they were willing to fund a rather similar project to Bayonetta 3. And in 2019, they again released a Platinum project, Astral Chain. And in 2022, Bayonetta 3 will release. Not to mention Nintendo has published other projects like Ultimate Alliance 3, Triangle Strategy, Octopath Traveller, Bravely Default 1/2/Second, Monster Hunter Tri (in the US), Fitness Boxing, Professor Layton, Yokai Watch (US), Dragon Quest IX, Lego City Undercover, Ninja Gaiden 3 Sigma, Metal Gear Solid Twin Snakes, Fatal Frame, Baiten Kaitos, etc etc. You can't argue that publishing Bayonetta is somehow caused by Nintendo's failure, because this is something Nintendo has consistently done. Considering the release dates of these games, some of them were greenlit during successful periods, and others during unsuccessful periods. It's kind of like Nintendo is generally willing to pay for the development of games they think will be successful on their platforms, because that's literally their business model. At best your argument is ill-informed, and at worst willfully dishonest.
The combination of the condescension, whining about how people aren't disagreeing with you the right way (there's a report button if they're breaking anyrules), your insistence that anyone who disagrees is a fanboy, and just how utterly bad your arguments are is why you're getting this reaction. Because you come off as a troll.
So, if you're not, and you're actually interested in honest conversation, here's your chance. You can just ignore the rest of the post, and we can start fresh.
You said that you don't think Bayonetta 2 would have been made if not for the Wii U's failure... which hadn't happened yet. That is one possibility. Another possibility is that Nintendo was more financially stable than Sega and was more willing to take a risk. Another is that Nintendo's success with the Wii made them feel that the Wii U would be a large enough market to make Bayonetta 2 profitable. Another explanation is that Nintendo simply is willing to fund third party projects they think will be successful, and their current level of success isn't directly related to the decision.
So, if you think your explanation is the correct one, what evidence supports that?
See above about Bayonetta 3, I responded to someone else about Bayonetta. However, if your focus is on Bayonetta 2, assuming one of us didn't make a typo on the number or my memory isn't going bad in this thread, then yes they clearly greenlit something to bolster the Wii U knowing full well their third party support continues to be a sticking point. They also greenlit some other third party titles in an attempt to build better third party support, who said there aren't any games coming? The thing is, that's not what this is about as we are straying off the topic with third party support being its whole own capable thread/video topic. I never said, "there are no good third party exclusives", either. But if this is the more important route for you, then look at the Switch's top selling games and you'll very quickly see how much you see the word "Mario" and realize how much they're pushing the branding moreso than library diversity. Then look at the steep dropoff in attach rate as you go down the list. And yet somehow, someone's telling me Nintendo fans would know better than to just buy whatever Nintendo chucks out at full price. Reasonable people call the Switch a "Mario machine", and how are they wrong? Nintendo's all for milking this Mario stuff with lots of low effort titles because y'all keep buying it. Ya know, something I addressed in the video but somehow y'all keep arguing it despite numbers staring you right in the face.
Is this not literally the point of it all? Their downturn with the Wii U led to making more decisions to push third party games (and exclusives), and you're seeing that spill over on the Switch. But INSTEAD of using this success to keep moving this momentum in the forward direction as time moves on, they instead pump out even more half-effort, fast turnaround "Mario" games and low effort exclusives that we can all visibly see spent little time in development on a lower budget than they deserved... while completely ignoring legacy IPs like F-Zero and Star Fox... And let's not talk about how many re-releases the Switch took up. Isn't everything you're saying EXACTLY what I'm talking about? Then, if you toss in your tangential discussion about third party games...
Nintendo fans love "quantity" when it's convenient, then talk "quality" when there's not enough games. The thing is, Nintendo's "quality" games have been pretty overall sparse for the Switch's 5 year lifespan, and in some cases are a shockingly successful milkings like Mario Kart 8 or other re-releases which somehow get touted as "now I can play it on the go!" like it totally matters in the grand scheme of things. And the best part is that during that time without the channel, I specifically made sure to buy those better efforts to support that thinking, like Astral Chain and Mario+Rabbids (despite it saying, Mario, I knowwwww), but I know factually I'm not the only one just taking quantity at face value and saying things are great. Nintendo's core offerings have not been as great as Nintendo fans would try to convince you of where every mid to good exclusive game is instead "amazing, great, another banger, Switch exclusives just piling up!".
So no, I don't think it's just them running a business model independent of their success, there is definitely a shift in fundamental choices (and there HAS to be, you really think these suits paid full time to work for Nintendo don't respond to market shifts, financial reports, and projections?). You think my arguments are half assed, too, but I just ignore obvious misinterpretations, mostly by the fools who didn't watch anything and have no idea what's going on in the video and are so adamant about not watching it that they have no choice but to follow the mob. Nowhere in the video do I say the Switch is bad (as for hardware, that's a whole different day!). Nowhere do I say the Switch isn't getting any good games at all. Heck, the entire video is about the warning signs and the idea that Nintendo fans need to more closely choose their purchases as Nintendo grows into corporate greed because corporate greed is always the enemy, but about 75% (OH LOOK, HYPERBOLE!) of the thread responders have NO CLUE that's what it's about because they just rolled with a title that offended them and some dude getting mad about it. And you wonder why I say "mob mentality"...
And your statement about the copyright part is a bit confusing, btw. You say I attributed their heightened response to copyright protection during the Wii era (which I did), then say I attributed it to the Wii U's failure. So either I've got a typo in there somewhere, or you're misinterpreting something. I say that Nintendo chose to tighten their copyright leash during the Wii era, a continual sticking point with them as a larger overall decision made when they felt they could (success). I don't know how you got that I tied that to the Wii U, I tied that to a sign that a company's success is leading them to make decisions like that. That's clearly in the video, even lol... What's worse is PlayStation is starting to show clear signs, and it seems to me they're also heading towards that success point where they start deciding, "hey, fuck 'em, the repercussions won't outweigh the increased profits". Don't be surprised if they do enough over the years and I make a nearly identical video for PlayStation fans, lmfao!... Speaking of which, I am literally working on a video about that $10 increase in game prices because of things like God of War where you're paying an extra $10 to access haptics, 3D audio, and better graphics/framerate which you already paid for when you bought the PS5 hardware. You buy the hardware that does it, then you pay more EACH time to actually have it used in your games? Like, wtf...
In closing, though, stuff like this always gets some chuckles out of me. There's no need for a report button because people calling "bullshit" and that I'm just desperate for clicks (though, I AM desperately trying to make a difference in gaming, and we can all see how THAT's going, hahaha) isn't against any rules. Being toxic towards others isn't generally a punishable offense until it gets severely personal (like mysogyny, racism, etc., obvious offenders), which is why it happens so much when the anonymity of the internet offers protection and opportunity. But if you wonder why I ignore or don't really respond like you'd expect, it's because I can easily determine who's actually trying to disagree versus who's just trying to attack me. Little do they know they are a dime a dozen in gaming, there's actually MORE of them than there are civilized people. That may be true in general, too, but like I said before, gaming has an oddly disproportionate amount. Y'all ever been in public voice chat CoD lobbies? Yea? Then you know what I mean lmfao... Now find some public place in real life where people are behaving like that. The closest you'll get is a bar or club where alcohol is involved, and it still isn't a bunch of dudes talking the weirdest mysogynist shit or name-calling expletives at the top of their lungs over a fucking headshot in a videogame... Something's absolutely 100% unhealthy about a large portion of social behaviors in gaming which is why it earns itself the stereotypes and general disdain by the public.
And it's going to stay that way so long as the behavior continues because it pushes out people who don't want to be around these types of toxic people. The best I can do is decide whether or not I'm going to engage them at all, so you say "lulz" responses, but some of those responses are half ignoring people just looking to attack, not because of a lack of response. Then there's a sub discussion about Wii U sales vs profits, but I responded to that without quoting each response by both because I already saw what happened when I tried to (and you, too) quote everything I could, heh... I hope you realize this sucks up an hour or more at a time, I'm not on infinite time. Each of you is responding to one person (me), while I'm responding to all of you (many). I have the far harder end to keep track of...
And to the other guy about the Joy Con: Nintendo could have easily afforded to start rolling out upgraded Joy Con along with the OLED 5 years into this Switch lifespan and slowly sell through into it as well as continue replacements of affected Joy Con WITH said upgraded Joy Con. But to hell with that, right? That would have required effort on behalf of keeping their consumers happy as the problem became more and more prevalent (despite it not affecting me because my old Joy Con had about 20 hours on them total, and my new swoled Joy Con have about 3 hours on them).