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

Forums - Nintendo - Igarashi: DS the only platform in which it's acceptable to publish 2-D games

Avinash_Tyagi on 15 December 2009
Majin-Tenshinhan said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Majin-Tenshinhan said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Majin-Tenshinhan said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Majin-Tenshinhan said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
^Before they thought that 2D Mario was dead on consoles, which is why Galaxy 2 was even bothered to be made, in case NSMB Wii flopped, now that NSMB Wii is a huge success much more than Galaxy 2 will ever be, they are going to seriously rethink the future of 3D Mario and probably other 3D franchises

No, they are not, because it makes absolutely no sense. And I already told you why.

How does it make no sense?  Now that they see that 2D is viab;e on the home consoles, they'll definitely be looking into it, especially if their 3D sales remain stagnant or decline

I already told you. If they were going to give up 3D Mario, which posts spectacular sales, just because they aren't as good as 2D Mario sales, then they would be more likely to give up every single Nintendo franchise that sells lower than 3D Mario, and that includes Zelda. And since they haven't done that yet, they probably never will. There's no logical reason why they would suddenly stop making 3D Mario-games when the lowest-selling one is at 6,28 million. Metroid hasn't even broken 3 million with any of it's games and they keep making games for that series. Zelda's top seller is 7,60 million, that doesn't stop it from being one of their most liked franchises.

Even if New Super Mario Bros. Wii goes on to sell 30 million they won't suddenly drop every other franchise they have. Stop talking nonsense.

If they can net more sales with 2D, isn't it better to put out more 2D games?  Here's my point, if every 2D game costs 50% of every 3D games and sells as well or better, then isn't it better to make two 2D games and get the same sales and more profits?  Get rid of 3D Mario, and put out two 2D marios instead, kill 3D zelda and put out 2 2D zeldas and so forth, sure 3D mario might make more sales than 2D metroid, but for the cost of a single 3 D mario, they can put out a 2D Mario and a 2D Metorid, then you've made more money, so then there is little point to a 3D mario, even if it sells more than  2D metroid, since two games makes more profit than the one.

But that's fourth-grader logic. That's not how the world works. If they put out 2 2d Mario-games a year people won't buy them. Look at Guitar Hero, those games are tanking, and fast.

If we go by your logic, we can say the same thing about Metroid. If they can net more sales with Mario, isn't it better to put out more Mario-games? But they still make Metroid-games. And they're not going to stop. You aren't listening to me, man.

Also, I can guarantee you that 2D Zelda will not sell better than 3D Zelda in this day and age.

They don't need to do two a year, but right now it takes 2-3 years to get out a Mario or a Zelda or a Metroid, and that causes droughts, but with a 2D zelda, the time for Dev drops, so you could make a Zelda/ Metroid and Mario every year or every other year, and withthat extra dev time, make other games as well, reducing the number of droughts and increasing the number of games in a year.

Its true too much of one game can be bad, but by releasing a 2D metroid in place of a 3D you reduce costs and dev time, releasing a 2D metroid and a 2D mario is less than one 3D mario, then you're putting out more games and at greater profits.

That's what they said about NSMB Wii, I bet it would sell more.

... No, no they didn't. ... I don't think anyone ever said anything like that. People were convinced way before launch that it would sell over 20 million without any trouble. Where the hell have you been?

Actually a lot of people were saying it would not sell better than galaxy, sure many said it would, those who knew more about it, but many were saying it wouldn't sell, wouldn't push consoles, and so forth, people were even saying it wouldn't beat either versions of MW2 in sales, so yeah



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)

Around the Network
burgerstein on 15 December 2009
Avinash_Tyagi said:
WereKitten said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Naum said:
As long as 3D mario or Zelda games turn profit why would they ever stop making them?


  If the 2d versions make a bigger profit, then why keep the 3D around?

Because they cater to different users and as such they can bring revenue in parallel, whereas doubling on 2D games doesn't guarantee that? I don't know much about marketing, but I understand there's something called differentiation of offer.

By your same strange logic they should kill off each and every franchise but the most profitable one. Zelda not selling as much as Mario? Let's kill it off and make more Mario games, then.

Big difference though, 3D  is much less profitable and much more time consuming, a 2D zelda would not be as time consuming, hence why you'd still keep it around, yes having multiple products is great, but when you can switch your multiple products to lower costs and time consumption, then why wouldn't you.


There still isn't any reason they can't make both 3D and 2D for everything. It would be more profitable than making only 2D.



"Now, a fun game should always be easy to understand - you should be able to take one look at it and know what you have to do straight away. It should be so well constructed that you can tell at a glance what your goal is and, even if you don’t succeed, you’ll blame yourself rather than the game. Moreover, the people standing around watching the game have also got to be able to enjoy it." - Shiggy

A Koopa's Revenge II gameplay video

Avinash_Tyagi on 15 December 2009
getsallad said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:

But if 2D makes more profit and sells more consoles, why have one Galaxy when you can have 2 NSMB's, why have one prime or other M when you can have two super metroids, why an OoT when you can have two LttPs

What keeps them from making both Mario Galaxy and NSMB? Obviously they have man-power enough to do so right now, so why wouldn't they in the future?

It's not like Mario Galaxy doesn't net them profit. In fact, it's a rather successful game. It doesn't make any sense to stop making it because a game in another genre sells more.

Roughly, you're using the same logic as this:

Mario games sell more than Zelda games. Hence, we will stop making Zelda games.

If it takes 2-3 years to make a Galaxy and 1 year to make an NSMB Wii, you get better sales on the NSMB Wii at higher profits, you can use all that manpower to make a second game of a different title even a third, sure you can have the manpower, but look at Nintendo, 3D games take a lot of time to make, for no real gain.



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)

WereKitten on 15 December 2009
Avinash_Tyagi said:

Big difference though, 3D  is much less profitable and much more time consuming, a 2D zelda would not be as time consuming, hence why you'd still keep it around, yes having multiple products is great, but when you can switch your multiple products to lower costs and time consumption, then why wouldn't you.

You missed the point, even glossing over the ridiculous statement that "3D is much less profitable".

Even if the latest 2D Mario goes to be more profitable than the latest 3D Mario, it might very well be that a 2D Mario game +a 3D Mario game brings more profit than two 2D Mario games. There's such thing as saturation of a sub-market, that's what offer differentiation is about.



"All you need in life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain

"..." - Gordon Freeman

Avinash_Tyagi on 15 December 2009
burgerstein said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
WereKitten said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Naum said:
As long as 3D mario or Zelda games turn profit why would they ever stop making them?


  If the 2d versions make a bigger profit, then why keep the 3D around?

Because they cater to different users and as such they can bring revenue in parallel, whereas doubling on 2D games doesn't guarantee that? I don't know much about marketing, but I understand there's something called differentiation of offer.

By your same strange logic they should kill off each and every franchise but the most profitable one. Zelda not selling as much as Mario? Let's kill it off and make more Mario games, then.

Big difference though, 3D  is much less profitable and much more time consuming, a 2D zelda would not be as time consuming, hence why you'd still keep it around, yes having multiple products is great, but when you can switch your multiple products to lower costs and time consumption, then why wouldn't you.


There still isn't any reason they can't make both 3D and 2D for everything. It would be more profitable than making only 2D.

No it wouldn't as the time to make a 3D Mario is probably 2-3 times that of a 2D, so all that lost time, could be better spent on other games, games with lower dev and time costs, and more profits, since they are both going to be sold at the same price.



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)

Around the Network
Majin-Tenshinhan on 15 December 2009

Actually a lot of people were saying it would not sell better than galaxy, sure many said it would, those who knew more about it, but many were saying it wouldn't sell, wouldn't push consoles, and so forth, people were even saying it wouldn't beat either versions of MW2 in sales, so yeah


Okay... And I strike you as such a person? Believe me, 2D Zelda would not sell close to 3D Zelda in our world. Hell, just look at history. 2D Mario has always beat 3D Mario, the best-selling 3D Mario is at 11 million and like 4 different 2D Marios are above it in sales. 2D Zelda however got beat as soon as Ocarina of Time, the first 3D Zelda, launched.



Avinash_Tyagi on 15 December 2009
WereKitten said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:

Big difference though, 3D  is much less profitable and much more time consuming, a 2D zelda would not be as time consuming, hence why you'd still keep it around, yes having multiple products is great, but when you can switch your multiple products to lower costs and time consumption, then why wouldn't you.

You missed the point, even glossing over the ridiculous statement that "3D is much less profitable".

Even if the latest 2D Mario goes to be more profitable than the latest 3D Mario, it might very well be that a 2D Mario game +a 3D Mario game brings more profit than two 2D Mario games. There's such thing as saturation of a sub-market, that's what offer differentiation is about.

Nope, you missed the point the problem with that is it took 3-4 years man time to make a 2D and 3D Mario, basically in that time you could make 3-4 2D games, so its not more profitable than making 2D, and who says they have to all be the same title?  You could make other games and net a greater profit without oversaturation



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)

The Ghost of RubangB on 15 December 2009

I will follow 2-D gaming to the ends of the Earth if I have to.



twitter.com/evaneldeneller

Sunday Fundays

Avinash_Tyagi on 15 December 2009
Majin-Tenshinhan said:
Actually a lot of people were saying it would not sell better than galaxy, sure many said it would, those who knew more about it, but many were saying it wouldn't sell, wouldn't push consoles, and so forth, people were even saying it wouldn't beat either versions of MW2 in sales, so yeah


Okay... And I strike you as such a person? Believe me, 2D Zelda would not sell close to 3D Zelda in our world. Hell, just look at history. 2D Mario has always beat 3D Mario, the best-selling 3D Mario is at 11 million and like 4 different 2D Marios are above it in sales. 2D Zelda however got beat as soon as Ocarina of Time, the first 3D Zelda, launched.

Actually I said NSMB Wii would definetly beat MW2 combined sales and easily outsell Galaxy.

 

Actually OoT is the only 3D Zelda that may have beaten 2D Zelda and even that is iffy, considering VC and GBA sales of LttP and Zelda 1, but considering how much more expensive and time consuming it was to make OoT than LoZ 1, which do you think was more worth it in terms of cost and man hours?

 

 



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)

Majin-Tenshinhan on 15 December 2009
Avinash_Tyagi said:
WereKitten said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:

Big difference though, 3D  is much less profitable and much more time consuming, a 2D zelda would not be as time consuming, hence why you'd still keep it around, yes having multiple products is great, but when you can switch your multiple products to lower costs and time consumption, then why wouldn't you.

You missed the point, even glossing over the ridiculous statement that "3D is much less profitable".

Even if the latest 2D Mario goes to be more profitable than the latest 3D Mario, it might very well be that a 2D Mario game +a 3D Mario game brings more profit than two 2D Mario games. There's such thing as saturation of a sub-market, that's what offer differentiation is about.

Nope, you missed the point the problem with that is it took 3-4 years man time to make a 2D and 3D Mario, basically in that time you could make 3-4 2D games, so its not more profitable than making 2D, and who says they have to all be the same title?  You could make other games and net a greater profit without oversaturation

Diversity. Different products. Nintendo can't make the same games all the time and expect them to sell. There's a reason so many people go back and play OoT after all these years, it's because contrary to what some people claim, Twilight Princess and Ocarina of Time aren't the same things. They are different games that are both great in their own right. Even moreso when it comes to 2D and 3D. If Nintendo only had 2D Mario, 2D Zelda (If you still believe this would sell more than 3D Zelda you must seriously be high) and 2D Metroid, they would be releasing pretty much the same thing over and over and people. Don't get me wrong, 2D is great. But it is limited.

Nintendo have already accomplished most of the stuff you can do with 2D, which is probably one of the reasons NSMBWii has multiplayer. With 3D, there are still lots of stuff to explore. Nintendo care about sales in the long run. If they went with your fourth grade tactic they'd get great sales for maybe 3 years and then everything would go to hell. But Nintendo are businessmen. They make sure that people associate the name "Nintendo" with "Quality" no matter what game they see it on.

Same as an actor. Sure, Christian Bale could play Batman and only Batman, but then he would be typecast. Rather than going "Oh, Christian Bale, he's that guy who plays Batman", people rather go "Oh, Christian Bale, I love him, he's great in so many movies".

I honestly wish I would've gotten through to you with my first damn post because it is really unbelievably simple and I have no idea why you fail to grasp it.