Nintendo stockholders ask the stupidest questions.

#1 Posted by outworld222 (2311 posts) -

Here is this link which you must read if you ever wanted to read an amusing article:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/220256/Nintendo_finds_itself_under_fire_from_furious_shareholders.php

From the article:

And partway through the meeting, a shareholder puts simply: "I do not understand video games and I even feel angry because, at Nintendo’s shareholders’ meetings, the shareholders always discuss things relating to video games or such childish topics as 'what the future of video games should be,' while I, for one, was flabbergasted that Mr. Iwata continues to hold his position although he had said that he would resign if the company’s performance were bad.

My point of view:

Miyamoto, Iwata, and Reggie are doing an excellent job at Nintendo.

Thoughts? I think if you wanted to be a Nintendo investor, there should be a questionnaire test, as in:

What is the name of Nintendo's plumer?

and

Name one princess from a Mario or Zelda series.

Minimum to pass: 50% correct scores. LOL.

#2 Edited by trugs26 (5114 posts) -

Hence why Nintendo has begun buying back all of their stock.

#3 Edited by Celsius765 (598 posts) -

Excellent? I was leaning toward adequate myself. Wii U is experiencing a boom thanks to MK8 but it seems Nintendo was not expecting it and therefore under supplied the MK8 bundles. On top of that thanks to the free game promo Club Nintendo went down briefly. Iwata and crew are doing a passable job and e3 was a step in the right direction but to be satisfied with the job they've been doing thus far would be ridiculous. As a fan I hold them to the same standards I do Sony/MS especially since those two have been doing what Nintendo is trying to do with the eshop and online play since 2006. Nintendo has an uphill battle going forward if they wanna bring Wii U up to scratch

#4 Posted by Jaysonguy (37410 posts) -


My point of view:

Miyamoto, Iwata, and Reggie are doing an excellent job at Nintendo.

So destroying Nintendo is considered excellent?

When Iwata makes the company unable to recover and it's lost you'll think "mission accomplished"?

#5 Posted by Celsius765 (598 posts) -

@outworld222 said:

My point of view:

Miyamoto, Iwata, and Reggie are doing an excellent job at Nintendo.

So destroying Nintendo is considered excellent?

When Iwata makes the company unable to recover and it's lost you'll think "mission accomplished"?

Once upon a time nintendo had 10 billion in the bank now it's down to 4.7 billion. You must be a young fan if you're so easily satisfied and unwilling to criticize their substandard performance.

#6 Posted by Jaysonguy (37410 posts) -

@Jaysonguy said:

@outworld222 said:

My point of view:

Miyamoto, Iwata, and Reggie are doing an excellent job at Nintendo.

So destroying Nintendo is considered excellent?

When Iwata makes the company unable to recover and it's lost you'll think "mission accomplished"?

Once upon a time nintendo had 10 billion in the bank now it's down to 4.7 billion. You must be a young fan if you're so easily satisfied and unwilling to criticize their substandard performance.

I think you quoted the wrong person here.....

#7 Edited by Celsius765 (598 posts) -

@Jaysonguy: possibly but oh well. I was merely stating Nintendo fans of today are too used to getting less and getting backhanded by the gaming industry so they feel ok with getting the left over scraps Ms/Sony don't want

#8 Edited by Master_Of_Fools (1251 posts) -

@Celsius765: Uh no. They lost like 200 MILLION last year, not billion. They didn't lose half their money in a year and a half.

#9 Posted by Celsius765 (598 posts) -

@Celsius765: Uh no. They lost like 200 MILLION last year, not billion. They didn't lose half their money in a year and a half.

I didn't say they lost that much in a year and a half now did I. They've been losing money for far longer than a year and a half and losing third party support for far longer. Why do you think wii had a gross excess of party games and out of 700+ games only 72 snes games made it onto the VC since wii launched in 2006

#10 Posted by superbuuman (2522 posts) -

So trying to shift blame to investors?..eventhough the screw up is done by Iwata & co. :P

#11 Posted by Star0 (326 posts) -

These topics never end well, hence I won't contribute. I'll just watch it implode with insults and ignorance.

#12 Edited by Celsius765 (598 posts) -

@Star0 said:

These topics never end well, hence I won't contribute. I'll just watch it implode with insults and ignorance.

you do know this is the nintendo discussion forum and not system wars right, insulting each other will only deviate from the discussion at hand

#13 Posted by YearoftheSnake5 (6860 posts) -

Shareholders say the darndest things. It's in their nature.

#14 Posted by Star0 (326 posts) -
#15 Posted by bunchanumbers (192 posts) -

Shareholders don't actually care about what they invest in. Its almost always just stock speculation. All they care about is if it will make them profit before they dump off the stock for the next big thing. Their opinion matters little to me.

#16 Edited by Celsius765 (598 posts) -

@Star0 said:

@Celsius765:

Re-read my post carefully.

All you said is that you think that the conversation will devolve into insults and people spewing things without knowing what they're talking about. I understood what you said but please don't assume we here in the Nintendo discussion forum are incapable of an intelligent and civil discussion whether we agree with each other or not. as you've seen so far no one has insulted anyone, nor are we trying to speak with such a level of ignorance that would make your comment necessary. If there is any ignorance that would mean that person isn't up to date on the news and happenings with nintendo which is excusable and they can easily be informed if they don't know something. If you want ignorance and insults go to system wars

#17 Edited by Star0 (326 posts) -

@Celsius765:

I didn't tar everyone with the same brush so I don't understand why you are interpreting my remark as such. Who's "We"? Please speak for yourself. It is my experience that these types of discussions usually result in pointless verbal jabs and a flurry of misinformation just so people feel 'superior', especially when certain individuals present hard truths whilst others become needlessly argumentative due to bias. I did not say everyone here was ignorant or infer that they cannot hold "an intelligent and civil discussion". I honestly could not care less about system wars so, once again, you've lost me. Anyway, freedom of speech and all that good stuff. I didn't encroach on anyone's civil liberties and I'll remain as an onlooker. Sorry if I wasn't clear in what I said. I'll make sure I am next time.

#18 Posted by fishpockets (115 posts) -

Some of the statements are funny, like the one in the OP.

Why would you invest a games company if you don't have any knowledge about gaming or interest?

#19 Posted by Pierst179 (10684 posts) -

For some reason, that statement sounds fake to me.

It sounds precisely like something somebody would make up to cause a commotion among the Nintendo fanbase.

#20 Edited by MirkoS77 (6855 posts) -

@outworld222 said:

My point of view:

Miyamoto, Iwata, and Reggie are doing an excellent job at Nintendo.

So destroying Nintendo is considered excellent?

When Iwata makes the company unable to recover and it's lost you'll think "mission accomplished"?

I believe so.

I think people that say they're doing excellent are ignorant of the business side of things and are making that statement from a viewpoint of how they're enjoying their games and nothing else. If losing near a billion dollars over three years (all fallen from a position of the Wii's incredible prosperity and advantage) is considered excellent management, then I'd hate to see terrible.

#21 Posted by Star0 (326 posts) -

@MirkoS77:

I will never understand why people get so hot under the collar about "the business side of things". I doubt you have any vested interest in the company so why should you or anyone else care? Nintendo is a toy/gaming company. People buy games. People enjoy games. People continue to buy games. Just because some people don't see the value in being in tune with Nintendo's corporate strategy that does not make them ignorant. They simply have a different outlook, an outlook that is more relevant to the hobby they partake in.

#22 Posted by Celsius765 (598 posts) -

@Star0 said:

@MirkoS77:

I will never understand why people get so hot under the collar about "the business side of things". I doubt you have any vested interest in the company so why should you or anyone else care? Nintendo is a toy/gaming company. People buy games. People enjoy games. People continue to buy games. Just because some people don't see the value in being in tune with Nintendo's corporate strategy that does not make them ignorant. They simply have a different outlook, an outlook that is more relevant to the hobby they partake in.

the business is part of what's keeping a company afloat. Execs have to meet, talk, and negotiate with third parties in order secure content they themselves can't supply. There's nothing wrong with a consumer being somewhat informed about the business and financial situation of a beloved company, it beats wondering why the company had to shut down should that happen

#23 Edited by HaziqAgha (46 posts) -
@Pierst179 said:

For some reason, that statement sounds fake to me.

It sounds precisely like something somebody would make up to cause a commotion among the Nintendo fanbase.

I thought it was a joke too, it's unfortunate that it's not. Reading the entire investors meeting kind of scares me. The thought process from the investors makes you wonder why they're even investing in a company which they seem to know little about.

#24 Edited by MirkoS77 (6855 posts) -

@Star0 said:

@MirkoS77:

I will never understand why people get so hot under the collar about "the business side of things". I doubt you have any vested interest in the company so why should you or anyone else care? Nintendo is a toy/gaming company. People buy games. People enjoy games. People continue to buy games. Just because some people don't see the value in being in tune with Nintendo's corporate strategy that does not make them ignorant. They simply have a different outlook, an outlook that is more relevant to the hobby they partake in.

Nothing is more relevant to that hobby than the underlying business strategy that enables it. Nintendo's a business. Where do you think those games arise from? Every decision Nintendo makes (business as well as creative) should be very relevant to anyone who claims they even care one whiff for Nintendo's games for it's the foundation that makes all of it possible. You don't think Nintendo's losses over these years has more than likely cut down on games we otherwise would have seen? You don't think their refusal to build the VC into a service worthy of its potential is keeping us from enjoying great retro titles on our 3DS and U? You don't think their digital policies turn off a lot of people and reduce their income on their digital stores? Etc, etc.

It's exactly this myopic, carefree outlook that you're advocating that allows Nintendo to get away with their continual half-assed, live 10 years in the past, bullshit attitude and actions. Always allowed an easy pass by "fans" who not only let them get away with murder, but then rabidly defend them to the death.

#25 Edited by outworld222 (2311 posts) -

@haziqagha said:
@Pierst179 said:

For some reason, that statement sounds fake to me.

It sounds precisely like something somebody would make up to cause a commotion among the Nintendo fanbase.

I thought it was a joke too, it's unfortunate that it's not. Reading the entire investors meeting kind of scares me. The thought process from the investors makes you wonder why they're even investing in a company which they seem to know little about.

See this is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Don't investors have some sort of superhuman powers to influence how the company (in this case Nintendo) goes? Where in this situation, they have demonstrated they know little or...next to nothing about video games.

How about we the gamers have a voice for once?

Oh, and @MirkoS77: Nintendo is just trying to take us to a time a place where the golden video game era existed. I call it the world before 2001. So it was more than 10 years. More than 15. Not this constant stream of violent games where very little meaning is projected in them. New gamer are good and are always welcome, but, I like my good games too.

#26 Edited by MirkoS77 (6855 posts) -

@outworld222 said:

@haziqagha said:
@Pierst179 said:

For some reason, that statement sounds fake to me.

It sounds precisely like something somebody would make up to cause a commotion among the Nintendo fanbase.

I thought it was a joke too, it's unfortunate that it's not. Reading the entire investors meeting kind of scares me. The thought process from the investors makes you wonder why they're even investing in a company which they seem to know little about.

See this is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Don't investors have some sort of superhuman powers to influence how the company (in this case Nintendo) goes? Where in this situation, they have demonstrated they know little or...next to nothing about video games.

How about we the gamers have a voice for once?

Oh, and @MirkoS77: Nintendo is just trying to take us to a time a place where the golden video game era existed. I call it the world before 2001. So it was more than 10 years. More than 15. Not this constant stream of violent games where very little meaning is projected in them. New gamer are good and are always welcome, but, I like my good games too.

There's nothing noble to be found in being so stubborn to modernize, and this doesn't just apply to the type of games they make. Many of their philosophies are antiquated, policies ancient and anti-consumer. Their values towards what they believe constitutes a good game is admirable and certainly has its place, but I find Miyamoto and Iwata's position of "we make toys" to be a grave disservice and belittlement to the potential this medium has to offer. A potential begun to be be seen by such games as TLoU, Journey, Flower, and many indie titles, not GeoW, CoD, or any bro-shooter on the market. Games have the ability to be much more than mere "toys", yet Nintendo refuses to see this and act upon it. To do so would not mean they'd stop making the games they do, anymore than QoL would. It would just mean they'd expand their horizons post 1980.

This is actually a large reason why I think it's due time for Miyamoto to retire. I can admire what he values in games, but not at the cost of excluding everything else that is possible.

I don't really care for dude-bro games either, but don't sit there and spew this garbage narrative that Nintendo is the only one making "true" games or whatever nonsense Nintendo apologists love to use in a sea of generic, mediocrity laden, LCD trash when it's anything but. For Nintendo to sit there and shovel out reiterations on the same basic concepts made 30+ years ago when they could be doing so much more is both shameful and a disgrace to their talent. At least Sony and MS are really willing to put their backing behind large budget, novel concepts and take risks and take failures along with it, something that at one time Nintendo could only be accredited to. Now they are ultra-conservative in everything they do and new, AAA titles that are truly new are a rarity, if seen at all.

And btw, gamers do have a voice......the largest one there is, actually: their wallets.

#27 Posted by outworld222 (2311 posts) -

@MirkoS77: you sound like you're angry/raging/venting. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

#28 Posted by MirkoS77 (6855 posts) -

@outworld222: No not angry, just a bit frustrated. Wasn't a rant directed at you anyway, sometimes I kind of go on semi-rants unknowingly. Sorry if that's how it came off.

#29 Edited by Star0 (326 posts) -
@MirkoS77 said:

Nothing is more relevant to that hobby than the underlying business strategy that enables it. Nintendo's a business. Where do you think those games arise from? Every decision Nintendo makes (business as well as creative) should be very relevant to anyone who claims they even care one whiff for Nintendo's games for it's the foundation that makes all of it possible. You don't think Nintendo's losses over these years has more than likely cut down on games we otherwise would have seen? You don't think their refusal to build the VC into a service worthy of its potential is keeping us from enjoying great retro titles on our 3DS and U? You don't think their digital policies turn off a lot of people and reduce their income on their digital stores? Etc, etc.

It's exactly this myopic, carefree outlook that you're advocating that allows Nintendo to get away with their continual half-assed, live 10 years in the past, bullshit attitude and actions. Always allowed an easy pass by "fans" who not only let them get away with murder, but then rabidly defend them to the death.

First of all, why don't you articulate Nintendo's "underlying business strategy" for those of us who are "letting them get away with murder"? *NB: I wish I could be that melodramatic. I could get the last piece of steak at dinner time! Although those Pikmin are delicious too! Decisions! o.O*

I was under the impression that they championed a Kanō Jigorō-style 'lean startup' principle - 'maximum efficiency with minimum effort'. They have no need to diversify. They monopolise a whole market segment. As for Nintendo not taking risks - the Wii was a massive risk and it was hugely successful.

A hobby is a leisurely activity. Gaming is a hobby. Aggressively following the business operations of a company as an outsider where there is limited corporate transparency is not relevant to this hobby, that's merely a passageway to arbitrary data that can only be used to make weak references and assumptions. Nintendo hire professional industry advisers who interpret and act on ALL available data. It's their day-to-day job and I think their clearance and experience puts them in better stead than any of us. We're all gamers here and ultimately we judge Nintendo by the games they produce. Don't like the games on offer? Taking a dislike to the dearth of original, game-changing IPs? Want more AAA shooters? Well, you'll find there's a simple solution - purchase another system. You just sound like a disgruntled end-user with a heavy case of self-entitlement. It's, how should I put it, cute that you seem to believe your emotional rants on a forum can have any bearing on the marketing plan of a multinational electronics company, cuter still that you think they should listen to your complaints. My attitude isn't "myopic" or "carefree", it's aware and realistic. Please don't insult my intelligence, I have not insulted yours. Whether or not you, I or anyone else believes Nintendo need a change in leadership is of little consequence because fundamentally that decision is not up to us. We're passengers on a ship, nothing more. Nintendo may well make a few tweaks to their overall structure as all forward-thinking companies do (in fact, this has already begun with the consolidation of their Großostheim HQ and warehouse to a smaller base in Frankfurt which means they'll likely be reshuffling some functions such as outsourcing marketing in European markets), but they are a well oiled and highly efficient machine. They'll take lessons from the debacle that is the Wii U* and come back stronger, of that I have no doubt.

[*its identity crisis in particular - they followed up the Wii with something far too similar (its Achilles' heel) and marketed it terribly, they tried to greedily appeal to the wants and needs of everyone with the Wii U which predictably proved unfeasible due to hardware limitations, they used an unfriendly chip architecture and the outcome was egg on their face and virtually non-existent 3rd party support.]

#30 Posted by Solaryellow (422 posts) -


Miyamoto, Iwata, and Reggie are doing an excellent job at Nintendo.


Reggie is a good face for NOA but he's only doing what he is told and that is unfortunate as I think he could really shake things up at NOA if given a chance. Miyamoto didn't impress me in the least with his showings at E3. Iwata? He's a mere shadow of his once glorious self and it is starting to catch up to Nintendo with the Wii U and its sub-par performance and demand. The old dog doesn't want to learn any new tricks and it is hurting.

#31 Posted by MirkoS77 (6855 posts) -

@Star0:

"I was under the impression that they championed a Kanō Jigorō-style 'lean startup' principle - 'maximum efficiency with minimum effort'. They have no need to diversify. They monopolise a whole market segment. As for Nintendo not taking risks - the Wii was a massive risk and it was hugely successful."

I won't argue with Kano Jigoro......that's sure what it feels like. I'm happy you're content with such a principle in a business, it's apparently really paying off. What segment of the market does Nintendo monopolize, btw? They have every reason in the world to diversify, they need to diversify as their lack of doing so is partly why they have incurred such losses. They need to reach out to the Western audience far more than they have been, for one. Nintendo has fallen more and more into niche territory as time passes. As for taking risks, to clarify I was referring to their software.

"A hobby is a leisurely activity. Gaming is a hobby. Aggressively following the business operations of a company as an outsider where there is limited corporate transparency is not relevant to this hobby, that's merely a passageway to arbitrary data that can only be used to make weak references and assumptions. Doom are gloom articles are facile. Nintendo hire professional industry advisers who interpret and act on ALL available data. It's their day-to-day job and I think their clearance and experience puts them in better stead than any of us."

Obviously, as near a billion dollars in losses has exemplified these past three years. I find it pretty astonishing given their clearance, experience, and insider hired professional industry expertise that Nintendo finds itself in the position it is today. Why must I (or anyone) be required to hold full "corporate transparency" to find their business relevant past the point of references and assumptions? Is that what such things as the Virtual Console sitting there rotting unused are? No, it's a fact. So are things such as no cross-buy and locked digital accounts to hardware, as is insufficient marketing and continual game droughts. I don't need full transparency to understand these are all terrible, nor would it change a thing if I were privy to it. As a consumer I see what I need to see to make things very relevant. And what the hell does gaming being a leisure activity have anything to do with my being able to hold interest in them as a business?

We're all gamers here and ultimately we judge Nintendo by the games they produce. Don't like the games on offer? Taking a dislike to the dearth of original, game-changing IPs? Want more AAA shooters? Well, you'll find there's a simple solution - purchase another system. You just sound like a disgruntled end-user with a heavy case of self-entitlement. It's, how should I put it, cute that you seem to believe your rants on a forum can have any bearing on the marketing plan of a multinational electronics company, cuter still that you think they should listen to your complaints.

I already own all systems, thanks. That does not preclude me from expressing my grievances.

And no, I don't see games as the sole determinant on which to judge Nintendo, just as I don't take any single product as the ultimate verdict on how a company is performing. I look at things such as marketing, how they support their products once on the market, and what services they offer to compliment it and the manner in which they do so. There are many factors I take into account, respective to each company, that holds bearing on my judgement. A non-myopic view.

A case of entitlement? Right. I suppose expecting to have accounts tied to the cloud instead of hardware, something every other company that offers digital wares has been doing since the early 2000s, is "heavy self-entitlement". How dare I expect as much in 2014? Basic consumer rights a decade past are now seen as entitlement......I learn something new every day. What's really cute here is your little condescending soap-box act. Read my last paragraph for my reply to it. I would ask you to not insult my intelligence, but now I suppose we are now even on that front.

My attitude isn't "myopic" or "carefree", it's aware and realistic. Please don't insult my intelligence, I have not insulted yours. Whether or not you, I or anyone else believes Nintendo need a change in leadership is of little consequence because fundamentally that decision is not up to us. We're passengers on a ship, nothing more. Nintendo may well make a few tweaks to their overall structure as all forward-thinking companies do, but they are a well oiled and highly efficient machine. They'll take lessons from the debacle that is the Wii U and come back stronger, of that I have no doubt.

If I'm a passenger on a ship, you better believe I have a vested interest in who the captain is. A poor analogy regardless as I'm not an investor, but nevertheless I care if this ship is driven into an iceberg as I care for Nintendo's offerings and have been with them since the beginning. Since when does Nintendo's leadership become inconsequential simply because we hold no say in it? As far as "efficient and well oiled".....what, exactly, in the past few years has given you any evidence that is what Nintendo is? Their continual consecutive losses in the hundreds of millions? Damage to the brandname? Gamer hostility? They are notorious for being stubborn and not learning from their past mistakes. Do I really have to do this to show that they do not learn (or if they do) are unable to rectify their faults?

It is exceptionally myopic and downright apathetic to claim that people that enjoy Nintendo's output shouldn't care about their business affairs. Doing so affords people the power to make informed decisions about supporting aspects of their business they may wish to see changed. And no, they don't require hired professional advisers to attain that knowledge. Being aware, for example, of their digital policies makes me not support them respectively in the hopes they will eventually come around, and I hold out the hope that through my discussions and "rantings" on these forums others may realize or at least begin to ponder over what Nintendo is doing so they may make choices that will eventually help to enact long-overdue change. This is why I find their business very relevant, your view very myopic, and is why I talk about this on forums. Paying heed gives me and others more than just useless references and assumptions when it ultimately affects what's in our wallets and where it goes.

Nintendo listens to that.

#32 Edited by Star0 (326 posts) -

"What segement does Nintendo monopolise?"

The casual market clearly. Did you really just ask that question? How myopic of you, eh? Financial risks are things you try to avoid, doubly so when you have no logical reason to take them.

"Nintendo has fallen more and more into niche territory as time passes"

Nintendo has targeted a niche market since the post-SNES era. This has not changed. Their entire development outlay, whether that be software or hardware, is based on this model.

"Why must I (or anyone) be required to hold full "corporate transparency" to find their business relevant past the point of references and assumptions?"

It makes it a useless exercise, but go ahead, your time is best spent how you want.

"They have every reason in the world to diversify, they need to diversify as their lack of doing so is partly why they have incurred such losses"

Says you. Reasoning? Proof? Cake? All of the above? Okay, maybe not cake.

"I find it pretty astonishing given their clearance, experience, and insider hired professional industry expertise that Nintendo finds itself in the position it is today"

Amazing as it might sound to you people aren't perfect and they sometimes make bad judgement calls for whatever reason. Nintendo are historically stubborn so who knows what the ins and outs of their meetings are. You certainly don't and your guesses have been wide off the mark so far due to a lack of scope.

"Is that what such things as the Virtual Console sitting there rotting unused are? No, it's a fact. So are things such as no cross-buy and locked digital accounts to hardware"

I don't understand your obsession with the Virtual Console, but it's pretty obvious that you're quite particular. They'll release a lot more games nearer to the end of the system's life cycle so you can sing their praises then. They drip feed games to maximise sales.

The lack of cross-buy and a universal account system - another naïve complaint. I don't know if you've realised, but Nintendo isn't Santa Claus. Their motivation is to make money. Why in Lo or Hyrule would they add those features when they can make more money dismissing them and forcing people to buy games multiple times? I think it's time to leave Koholint Island. Either that or learn some basic business strategies. They don't care about your grievances unless you hit them where it hurts, their finances. Unfortunately for you, you hold minority views.

"I don't need full transparency to understand these are all terrible."

Actually you criticised their business model comprehensively. You literally praised them on zilch. Selective memory must be an upper echelon skill that my mere myopic mind can't handle :)

"As a consumer I see what I need to see to make things very relevant"

No, as a consumer you see what you want to see because you're clearly uniformed. You haven't displayed any understanding of what it takes to maintain and grow a business that operates very differently to that of the competition. You've just demanded things. Your views are meaningless.

"I already own all systems, thanks. That does not preclude me from expressing my grievances."

Your grievances are either "niche" or at odds with what Nintendo represent. This 'ideal' system you're looking for that has all your requirements covered will never exist. It's a simple idea. Leave enough in to grab the consumer, leave enough out so they'll buy the successor. People can decide on their own whether or not they want a Wii U. They don't need you give orders out in a patronising fashion or coerce them into anything. Act on your own accord and stop being so sanctimonious. You don't speak for the internet.

"There are many factors I take into account, respective to each company, that holds bearing on my judgement. A non-myopic view."

Does that entail a 'non-myopic' price you'd pay for all those services? What financial model can you present for all those added value features? Oh that's right, you don't have one. You're just a layman like the rest of us.

"A poor analogy regardless as I'm not an investor,"

This ship is self-automated, indestructible and runs on endless magic sourced from the Golden Goddesses themselves! Let's see you get a straw-man rebuttal out of that!

You say you're not an investor yet you'd come onto a forum and bad mouth an established company like Nintendo. You have no foot to stand on, simple as that. You care for Nintendo's offerings? What ties do you have to them? Emotional ones? Are you trying to be funny? I'm honestly not sure at this point. All I'm hearing is criticism, some valid, most throwaway.

I might gain some semblance of respect for your views if you offered some solutions.

Oh and I've got that link bookmarked, but thanks!

Check this one ->

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-08-09-what-does-success-look-like-to-nintendo

I didn't say Iwata was a flawless leader, but your tirade is neither measured nor methodical. It's a typical internet rant looking at things from one point of view, the consumer's POV.

"It is exceptionally myopic and downright apathetic to claim that people that enjoy Nintendo's output shouldn't care about their business affairs. Doing so affords people the power to make informed decisions about supporting aspects of their business they may wish to see changed. And no, they don't require hired professional advisers to attain that knowledge. Being aware, for example, of their digital policies makes me not support them respectively in the hopes they will eventually come around, and I hold out the hope that through my discussions and "rantings" on these forums others may realize or at least begin to ponder over what Nintendo is doing so they may make choices that will eventually help to enact long-overdue change. This is why I find their business very relevant, your view very myopic, and is why I talk about this on forums. Paying heed gives me and others more than just useless references and assumptions when it ultimately affects what's in our wallets and where it goes."

Your favourite word again - "myopic". That means brilliant, right? xD You must have been popular at school today! :)

You've already bought your Wii U! It's a straight-forward transaction - you hand over money and you receive a brand spanking new system. You have no power anymore so I don't have any idea what point you're trying to prove. Have a nice day. Nintendo isn't the angelic being you remember as a kid [or maybe that was just me? o_O], Nintendo is a ruthless money-making machine.

Take heed? You have absolutely no clue how Nintendo operate and the reasons for the latter yet you're presenting an argument which lambasts their modus operandi. That's called misrepresentation. That helps no one. Spend some time and start an unbiased blog or something if you really want to do something constructive.

If you decide against buying a Nintendo system next gen, well surprise, Nintendo target consumers when they're young so they've always got a steady install base waiting in the wings.

Good luck whatever you do.

"What's really cute here is your little condescending soap-box act"

Whatever that means...the irony.

#33 Posted by nintendoboy16 (25824 posts) -

Shareholders don't actually care about what they invest in. Its almost always just stock speculation. All they care about is if it will make them profit before they dump off the stock for the next big thing. Their opinion matters little to me.

Pretty much.

#34 Posted by outworld222 (2311 posts) -

@bunchanumbers said:

Shareholders don't actually care about what they invest in. Its almost always just stock speculation. All they care about is if it will make them profit before they dump off the stock for the next big thing. Their opinion matters little to me.

Pretty much.

Spot on. Well said.

#35 Posted by Star0 (326 posts) -

I'd just like to add that not all shareholders are like that. It's a bit unfair to group them all together.

#36 Posted by thedude- (1994 posts) -

I still cannot tell if Nintendo is changing it's complacent ways or not. On one hand they have utilized a presentation for E3 that has changed the games industry. On the other hand they are still expected to have awful software droughts all the way into 2016.

It is very problematic to me that the only games that make significant difference in their hardware sales now is Mario Party, SSB and MK. Mario, Zelda, DK, Pikmin, Wario, and many other main entries to their IPs are failing to push new fans into the Nintendo household. They need to expand to older game series with new coats of paint and new IPs that facilitate genres they normally never delve into.

#37 Edited by MirkoS77 (6855 posts) -

@Star0:

"The casual market clearly. Did you really just ask that question? How myopic of you, eh?"

Yea, I guess it would be......if I insisted on living in 2006, a period of time Nintendo apologists can't seem to free themselves of and are often left nothing but to resort to in aid of their argument. Thanks for demonstrating as much; it's funny how every time you open your mouth you only go to prove how myopic you truly are. Aside, I was under the mistaken impression that the mobile sector held a monopoly on the casual market currently. How silly of me.

Nintendo doesn't monopolize jack shit these days with the exception of the dedicated handheld market.

"Nintendo has targeted a niche market since the post-SNES era. This has not changed. Their entire development outlay, whether that be software or hardware, is based on this model."

Right, as the immense casual market you just claimed they monopolize is very niche, right? So which is it? Only more recently have they become niche. I have a feeling you would not claim the Wii to be based on this model, though now apparently since it fits Nintendo's current predicament it fits your argument and attempt at revisionist history. How convenient, eh?

"Says you. Reasoning? Proof? Cake? All of the above? Okay, maybe not cake."

I'll take chocolate, please. Easy, see?

"Amazing as it might sound to you people aren't perfect and they sometimes make bad judgement calls for whatever reason. Nintendo are historically stubborn so who knows what the ins and outs of their meetings are. You certainly don't and your guesses have been wide off the mark so far due to a lack of scope."

And you've not provided yours at all, so I'm not even going to bother when you don't extend the courtesy.

"I don't understand your obsession with the Virtual Console, but it's pretty obvious that you're quite particular. They'll release a lot more games nearer to the end of the system's life cycle so you can sing their praises then. They drip feed games to maximise sales."

What a brilliant strategy, it IS most wise to simply leave money on the table from a catalog of games reaching back 30 years which only goes to increase customer frustration which causes them to take their money elsewhere in the meantime. If they were to release 5 games a week, they'd still not be able to use all in their arsenal by the end of the U's lifespan. It's gonna be one hell of a ride near the end, boy. Who needs business school, I can just watch Nintendo, or better yet, just listen to your wisdom.

"The lack of cross-buy and a universal account system - another naïve complaint. I don't know if you've realised, but Nintendo isn't Santa Claus. Their motivation is to make money. Why in Lo or Hyrule would they add those features when they can make more money dismissing them and forcing people to buy games multiple times? I think it's time to leave Koholint Island. Either that or learn some basic business strategies. They don't care about your grievances unless you hit them where it hurts, their finances. Unfortunately for you, you hold minority views."

Well whaddaya know, something we can finally agree upon. Screwing the customer over is good for business. Not entirely untrue I'll grant, but not in this case. Looks like my "minority view" along with others is having no impact on Nintendo raking in the money. Oh, wait....

"Actually you criticised their business model comprehensively. You literally praised them on zilch. Selective memory must be an upper echelon skill that my mere myopic mind can't handle :)"

Apparently not.

"No, as a consumer you see what you want to see because you're clearly uniformed. You haven't displayed any understanding of what it takes to maintain and grow a business that operates very differently to that of the competition. You've just demanded things. Your views are meaningless."

As are yours, because you've not the guts to actually come out and assert anything, what you deem to be courageous and meaningful is to come out and simply attack my position with condescension and mockery in the attempt to dismiss them and make yourself look smart and in the know without actually putting any effort in. No wonder you agree with Nintendo's principle of Kano Jigoro. It suits you well, unfortunately it's paying off for you just as well as it is for Nintendo.

"Your grievances are either "niche" or at odds with what Nintendo represent. This 'ideal' system you're looking for that has all your requirements covered will never exist. It's a simple idea. Leave enough in to grab the consumer, leave enough out so they'll buy the successor. People can decide on their own whether or not they want a Wii U. They don't need you give orders out in a patronising fashion or coerce them into anything. Act on your own accord and stop being so sanctimonious. You don't speak for the internet."

Sanctimonious? That's a riot coming from you. I'm not the one speaking down to people. You are. Get off your horse.

"Does that entail a 'non-myopic' price you'd pay for all those services? What financial model can you present for all those added value features? Oh that's right, you don't have one. You're just a layman like the rest of us."

Well that's a relief. I was afraid for a moment I actually was speaking to someone who knew what he was talking about and being set straight by the enlightened.

"You say you're not an investor yet you'd come onto a forum and bad mouth an established company like Nintendo. You have no foot to stand on, simple as that. You care for Nintendo's offerings? What ties do you have to them? Emotional ones? Are you trying to be funny? I'm honestly not sure at this point. All I'm hearing is criticism, some valid, most throwaway."

I'm honored and privileged to have someone so in the know tell me some of my criticisms are valid. It would be nice to know what you find valid and throwaway so I may elaborate, but I suspect that it would be a wasted effort.

"I might gain some semblance of respect for your views if you offered some solutions."

And I would yours, if you'd at the very least take a position instead of simply opposing mine for nothing more than what seems to be opposition's sake. Grow some fucking balls, take a goddamn position, and let's have a discussion.

"You've already bought your Wii U! It's a straight-forward transaction - you hand over money and you receive a brand spanking new system. You have no power anymore so I don't have any idea what point you're trying to prove. Have a nice day. Nintendo isn't the angelic being you remember as a kid [or maybe that was just me? o_O], Nintendo is a ruthless money-making machine."

Assumptions make an ass out of you and......well, just you. I haven't sent a single cent Nintendo's way since the U's release. Ever heard of buying used?

"Take heed? You have absolutely no clue how Nintendo operate and the reasons for the latter yet you're presenting an argument which lambasts their modus operandi. That's called misrepresentation. That helps no one. Spend some time and start an unbiased blog or something if you really want to do something constructive. If you decide against buying a Nintendo system next gen, well surprise, Nintendo target consumers when they're young so they've always got a steady install base waiting in the wings.

Good luck whatever you do."

Tell me something: what makes you think you stand in any position to talk to me in such a manner? What makes you think you have the authority to talk down to me as a misinformed "outsider" when you do nothing to prove you are anything but, but instead resort to one-line, drive by Youtube sarcastic-laden, useless replies that do nothing to address my points or try to edify this lowly plebe of his ignorance? Are you an insider? Do you have a degree in business? Do you run a business? Do you work for Nintendo? Are you an analyst? I'm quite curious as to where this attitude arises from. Obviously you must have quite a foundation to speak to me in such a way, so let's hear it. What gives your position anymore credence than mine?

None? Than you can shut your mouth or at the very least attempt civility with it open, for you hold no more qualification to speak upon matters you know nothing of more than I do. And if you do, then you should know I am not closed minded and am open to hearing valid reasoning, if you'd actually take one instead of sitting believing you have the right to attack my position with nary an effort put in on your part. But you have to try, because you are doing nothing worthy to convince.

So what evidence/expertise do you hold? I can tell you what's on my side that runs contrary to your proclamations that I essentially have no clue as to what I'm talking about: my criticisms, flawed they may be, align with Nintendo's abysmal performance, your assertions that they are doing things right, do not. They are obviously not doing some (or many) things right, which you casually ascribe and dismiss as "a little bad judgement" which, in fact, amounts to nearly a billion lost in three years, and any other defense of yours predictably cites performance from the distant past to support the present. You throw out replies that I have no doubt help reinforce your little world of self-deluded intellectual superiority, laughably through a means that does not even warrant acknowledgement past the point of what could be seen daily on the worst /b has to offer.

Try harder, because I'm sick and fed up with your bullshit. I'm not expecting much.

#38 Posted by Star0 (326 posts) -

I clearly wasted my time with this moron.

#39 Posted by HaziqAgha (46 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:

There's nothing noble to be found in being so stubborn to modernize, and this doesn't just apply to the type of games they make. Many of their philosophies are antiquated, policies ancient and anti-consumer. Their values towards what they believe constitutes a good game is admirable and certainly has its place, but I find Miyamoto and Iwata's position of "we make toys" to be a grave disservice and belittlement to the potential this medium has to offer. A potential begun to be be seen by such games as TLoU, Journey, Flower, and many indie titles, not GeoW, CoD, or any bro-shooter on the market. Games have the ability to be much more than mere "toys", yet Nintendo refuses to see this and act upon it. To do so would not mean they'd stop making the games they do, anymore than QoL would. It would just mean they'd expand their horizons post 1980.

This is actually a large reason why I think it's due time for Miyamoto to retire. I can admire what he values in games, but not at the cost of excluding everything else that is possible.

I don't really care for dude-bro games either, but don't sit there and spew this garbage narrative that Nintendo is the only one making "true" games or whatever nonsense Nintendo apologists love to use in a sea of generic, mediocrity laden, LCD trash when it's anything but. For Nintendo to sit there and shovel out reiterations on the same basic concepts made 30+ years ago when they could be doing so much more is both shameful and a disgrace to their talent. At least Sony and MS are really willing to put their backing behind large budget, novel concepts and take risks and take failures along with it, something that at one time Nintendo could only be accredited to. Now they are ultra-conservative in everything they do and new, AAA titles that are truly new are a rarity, if seen at all.

And btw, gamers do have a voice......the largest one there is, actually: their wallets.

Your mistake is thinking that Nintendo is trying to appeal to that same audience as TLoU, Journey and Flower types. They aren't. Nintendo talks about consoles being like toys because that's essentially what they are. Those are the types of games they make. You can for sure criticize Nintendo in other areas of their business where they haven't modernized. This one statement about them being toys is not a good example of what to pick at.

Miyamoto hasn't pretty much been in the back seat for years now. He's spent the majority of the last 10 years training younger staff with his philosophy of games design. Look no further than this years E3 as proof of that. Code Name S.T.E.A.M. and Splatoon are examples of the younger staff getting the freedom to design the games they want to make.

Comparing the type of games Nintendo makes to the likes of Sony and Microsoft is silly to begin with. The experiences are different. Sony and Microsoft's first party developers make games that are story driven with strong narrative with a secondary focus on gameplay, usually. Whereas Nintendo focuses almost entirely on game mechanics and gameplay first, with story taking a backseat.

#40 Posted by Celsius765 (598 posts) -

@Star0 said:

I clearly wasted my time with this moron.

I can understand where your coming from but it feels like you're saying they don't need to change or grow more than they already have. I will say they need to keep doing what they're doing so they don't end up clones like ps/xbox but I can say they need to grow bigger. NIntendo is good at platformers, action/adventure games, and other genres. It's just a shame they stick with the same franchises considering how good at coming unique characters they are. With each new game they make it feels like they're stifling their overall creativity. And that is hurting them somewhat, so is not modernizing. They seem like they just aren't prepared for spikes in activity on their servers and network, like how club nintendo got whammied awhile back thanks to the MK8 promo. I even here they had issues with the day1 patch at the wii u launch. They don't need to make games like Sony/ MS but they need to dig deeper and really use what they're good at to make wii u shine even brighter.

#41 Posted by MirkoS77 (6855 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:

There's nothing noble to be found in being so stubborn to modernize, and this doesn't just apply to the type of games they make. Many of their philosophies are antiquated, policies ancient and anti-consumer. Their values towards what they believe constitutes a good game is admirable and certainly has its place, but I find Miyamoto and Iwata's position of "we make toys" to be a grave disservice and belittlement to the potential this medium has to offer. A potential begun to be be seen by such games as TLoU, Journey, Flower, and many indie titles, not GeoW, CoD, or any bro-shooter on the market. Games have the ability to be much more than mere "toys", yet Nintendo refuses to see this and act upon it. To do so would not mean they'd stop making the games they do, anymore than QoL would. It would just mean they'd expand their horizons post 1980.

This is actually a large reason why I think it's due time for Miyamoto to retire. I can admire what he values in games, but not at the cost of excluding everything else that is possible.

I don't really care for dude-bro games either, but don't sit there and spew this garbage narrative that Nintendo is the only one making "true" games or whatever nonsense Nintendo apologists love to use in a sea of generic, mediocrity laden, LCD trash when it's anything but. For Nintendo to sit there and shovel out reiterations on the same basic concepts made 30+ years ago when they could be doing so much more is both shameful and a disgrace to their talent. At least Sony and MS are really willing to put their backing behind large budget, novel concepts and take risks and take failures along with it, something that at one time Nintendo could only be accredited to. Now they are ultra-conservative in everything they do and new, AAA titles that are truly new are a rarity, if seen at all.

And btw, gamers do have a voice......the largest one there is, actually: their wallets.

Your mistake is thinking that Nintendo is trying to appeal to that same audience as TLoU, Journey and Flower types. They aren't. Nintendo talks about consoles being like toys because that's essentially what they are. Those are the types of games they make. You can for sure criticize Nintendo in other areas of their business where they haven't modernized. This one statement about them being toys is not a good example of what to pick at.

Miyamoto hasn't pretty much been in the back seat for years now. He's spent the majority of the last 10 years training younger staff with his philosophy of games design. Look no further than this years E3 as proof of that. Code Name S.T.E.A.M. and Splatoon are examples of the younger staff getting the freedom to design the games they want to make.

Comparing the type of games Nintendo makes to the likes of Sony and Microsoft is silly to begin with. The experiences are different. Sony and Microsoft's first party developers make games that are story driven with strong narrative with a secondary focus on gameplay, usually. Whereas Nintendo focuses almost entirely on game mechanics and gameplay first, with story taking a backseat.

I understand that, I just don't see why it's not possible for Nintendo to make that appeal. It's not silly to compare the types of games Nintendo makes to Sony/MS, as they once produced games such as Eternal Darkness, which I find to align more along the lines of what Sony and MS makes these days. That was not a game that was heavily gameplay/mechanics focused nor would fit into the "games are toys" mentality, IIRC, it was a fairly heavily narrative driven experience. Only more recently, even since the Wii days, has this changed.

Nintendo is no longer trying to appeal to that audience. That doesn't mean they never did, nor does it mean they couldn't again if they so wished. And as far as I see it, to not do so is, again, excluding not only a large audience that hunger for these types of games, but is neglecting a lot of potential to be found in other philosophical design approaches.