A Compelling Case For Nintendo To Go Third Party (Long Read)

  • 171 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#1 Edited by charizard1605 (58961 posts) -

Although I really shouldn't have to, I will begin this post with a disclaimer: I love Nintendo, in case you didn't already know. I grew up on Nintendo, I love their games, I've owned their systems, I think they are the greatest game company in the world. My Wii U is my most played console, and my 3DS my most played system outright every year for the last three years.

And yet I think it's time for Nintendo to do the smart thing, the wise thing, and stop making hardware.

What? Why?

The gaming industry is slowly moving towards a platform agnostic future. Eventually, there will be no dedicated hardware to play games sold- all games will be streamed at a server farm to local clients on PCs (or at worst, will be locally installed on PCs via game/company specific clients). In today's world of convergence centric devices, there is no place for dedicated game devices, handheld or console. Yes, I know the PS4 is breaking all records, but it's only the PS4 that is breaking all records- the console gaming industry itself is shrinking (the total number of consoles sold this gen will be far lower than the staggering 260 million sold last gen; further proof lies in the sheer number of high profile studio closures and game and franchise cancellations).

Nintendo's strength has never been its hardware- yes, they make good reliable hardware, and they have genuinely contributed to the advancement of console gaming more than any other console manufacturer, except for maybe Sega. Nintendo's strength has always been its games. Nintendo's games are amazing- arguably, Nintendo makes the best games in the world. You don't buy a Nintendo console or handheld because holy shit it's so awesome, you buy it to play Mario Kart or Pokemon. It's Nintendo's games that are its biggest asset, and you desire their games, not their hardware, never their hardware. For you, the hardware is just a (costly, and mostly inconvenient) way to buy into playing Nintendo's games.

Nintendo would be best served by dropping the hardware side of the equation entirely. Focus on the games- those amazing games that have defined the industry. Do your incredible game developers justice, they don't deserve to be hamstrung by the limitations that a Nintendo system poses on them, they deserve to have the latest and greatest hardware to show off their prowess with.

I don't like this. No console manufacturer has ever survived the transition to going third party successfully.

No console manufacturer has been Nintendo. Atari's talent in making games was, by the end, laughable at best. Sega was very good, it was excellent, but when all was said and done, it neither had the depth of catalog that Nintendo has, nor the expert management that Nintendo has, nor the great funds that Nintendo has, nor the sheer talent that Nintendo has.

If Nintendo were to go third party, Sony and Microsoft would bend over backwards to accommodate them- don't you for a minute think they wouldn't. Again, Nintendo's games are the best. This is something that Sony and Microsoft have outright, in public, on the record, acknowledged. You really think they won't heavily court Nintendo in co-branding/co-marketing/bundling deals to get preferential treatment?

This isn't even to consider the amazing things Nintendo could manage on a PC. They would probably not allow mods for their games- Nintendo likes to ship what it thinks is a finished product that needs no further work- but just think how well Nintendo's artstyle and its lovely limitless gameplay would come to life on a PC, unhindered by the artificial restrictions and limitations that Nintendo's machines pose.

So, why will Nintendo survive this transition when no one else has? The answer is simple:

  • Nintendo is better managed
  • Nintendo has more funds

Both, Atari and Sega, when they went third party, were on the verge of bankruptcy, and could scarce afford making the kinds of games that they had been known for in the past. Their poor management also ensured that the companies were eventually bought out by larger corporate entities that cared about the brand, but not about the business. These are not problems Nintendo has- they're incredibly well managed, and they have a staggering amount of money. More money than any third party publisher in the world. They not only would survive this transition, they would thrive.

What about the money that they make from their hardware? They'd lose out on that revenue stream.

What money? They don't make any money from their hardware. The Wii U is a loss making venture. The 3DS has never met a single sales target that Nintendo has ever set for it. Their hardware sales have constantly contracted, DS/Wii aside, and they will continue to contract, because Nintendo makes dedicated devices that have no place in today's world.

What about all the jobs that they would lose? Their entire hardware segment laid off...

Yes, that will suck. Unfortunately, it's also an inevitability. As stated above, the entire game industry is moving away from a hardware based business model to a client based model (and if you don't believe me, ask Sony and Microsoft, with their emphasis on PS Now/Azure Cloud respecitvely). Sooner or later, Nintendo's hardware department will be useless, simply because no one will buy consoles anymore, ever. They will buy multi purpose devices that also happen to play games, and Nintendo's best bet is to make that transition now and get a head start, instead of waiting ten more years and play catch up with the industry. That never works out well for them.

What about the money that they make from third party licenses?

What third party licenses?

What about the money they will have to split with the console manufacturers?

They don't have to. They can easily just go PC only, and make their own Nintendo client to sell their games, where they will have no one to share their revenue with. If for some reason Nintendo decided that they wanted to go to consoles as well to expand their market, well once again, they would have a of leverage- Sony and Microsoft would kill to have their games on their systems (for as long as those systems last- eventually, all dedicated hardware will be a thing of the past, as stated above multiple times), and would almost certainly provide them with much better license terms than are offered to any other third party publisher or developer.

What about Nintendo's game output? What reason will they have to make anything but Mario and Pokemon if they don't have a console to sustain?

Because they won't have to worry about losses from the hardware end anymore- think about it. An F-Zero, or Star Fox, or Metroid, these have always been loss making franchises. Currently with Nintendo losing as much money as it does, what are the odds that it licenses big budget titles in these (and their other dead) franchises? They would lose even more money on top of the money they are already losing.

If they went third party, they wouldn't have to worry about hardware losses at all, and their software sales for higher selling games like Mario Kart or Pokemon could easily subsidize their development for an F-Zero or Metroid.

Why can't that happen now, you ask? Because right now they have additional hardware losses to consider, don't they?

This entire argument about only focusing on the money making franchises is one that I find asinine. Think of EA, for example. Biggest publisher in the world. Does it focus only on FIFA and Madden? Fuck no. It also produces games that cost more and make less- Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Need for Speed, Battlefield, Dead Space, Medal of Honor, and so on. Nintendo won't be any different. They will constantly try to diversify their lineup. In fact, no longer held back by the consideration of trying to sell their expensive hardware, which is what causes them to fall back on established franchises to begin with, they will probably end up experimenting more than they do now.

How do Nintendo's games benefit?

By them not being hindered by asinine restrictions or considerations imposed on them by their hardware (oh, so I somehow have to take advantage of motion controls, you say? All right, waggle to roll!)

Imagine a Mario or Zelda game with the power of the PS4. Or a Pokemon game utilizing the online functionality of Xbox Live or PSN.

How do Nintendo's economics benefit?

Are you daft? Have you been reading so far? Go back and re-read the entire topic. I refuse to answer this question again.

So you're saying you hate Nintendo now?

No I don't, I love them and want them to survive, that's why I'm prescribing what is the best move to them.

So you hate their systems?

No, I love their systems, but I love them because of their games, not for any other reason. Their machines aren't impressive or anything special in and of themselves like an Xbox or a PlayStation is. They're just something I need to play their games, and my love for them is restricted to my needing them to play said games.

If Nintendo doesn't want to go third party, it doesn't matter to me. I will continue to buy their games and systems for as long as they continue to exist. But pure market conditions dictate that won't be for much longer. Nintendo would be best served to make the transition now, get a headstart, be better established by the time the rest of the industry makes the transition, and shore up their economics and development in the meanwhile.

Okay, sorry about another long topic, but once again, I wanted to ensure that I covered everything. What do you think, System Wars?

#2 Edited by lglz1337 (3883 posts) -

so much effort for nothing lol!

did not read!

#3 Posted by FreedomFreeLife (2655 posts) -

Nintendo games on PS4 and Xbox One would be so much better. Then we finally may have online games. Nintendo has no money.

#4 Posted by lostrib (39186 posts) -

@FreedomFreeLife: Nintendo has online games. Haven't you gotten in trouble multiple times for spreading such false information ?

#5 Posted by charizard1605 (58961 posts) -

@lglz1337 said:

so much effort for nothing lol!

did not read!

Excellent. Are you proud of yourself?

@FreedomFreeLife said:

Nintendo games on PS4 and Xbox One would be so much better. Then we finally may have online games. Nintendo has no money.

Nintendo has more money than any other third party publisher, and... it has online games. Stop. Spreading. Misinformation.

#6 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (14694 posts) -

Why is it that everytime you say "hardware" it only sounds like you are talking about graphics and system performance ?

Yes Nintendo is behind in those departments but they are doing just phine in the Controllers department.... They came out with motion controls 1st and it wasn't a gimmick... They actually used them in their games, quite admirably if I may say so myself. The Wii U is no different and the gamepad is starting to get some features too.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm a multiplatform crusader, I hate exclusivity as a general principal. But Microsoft and Sony are not going to bend to Satisfy Nintendo, not as much as you believe anyway, Nintendo is going to have to do some bending too, 1st of all, they would be stuck developing for PS and Xbox Controllers, which lets face it, haven't changed much over the years, its not the best fit for Nintendo's ambition.

And 2ndly, Nintendo philisophy differs from that of its competitors, They are the masters of gameplay and local multiplayer... Which happens to be the top two most irrelevant things in the industry right now.

If they want to multiplatform then hell yeah, but I'l buy everything they got because everything they touch is gold, but I don't think the rest of the industry will see it that, its not an instant fix.....

#7 Edited by charizard1605 (58961 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

Why is it that everytime you say "hardware" it only sounds like you are talking about graphics and system performance ?

Yes Nintendo is behind in those departments but they are doing just phine in the Controllers department.... They came out with motion controls 1st and it wasn't a gimmick... They actually used them in their games, quite admirably if I may say so myself. The Wii U is no different and the gamepad is starting to get some features too.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm a multiplatform crusader, I hate exclusivity as a general principal. But Microsoft and Sony are not going to bend to Satisfy Nintendo, not as much as you believe anyway, Nintendo is going to have to do some bending too, 1st of all, they would be stuck developing for PS and Xbox Controllers, which lets face it, haven't changed much over the years, its not the best fit for Nintendo's ambition.

And 2ndly, Nintendo philisophy differs from that of its competitors, They are the masters of gameplay and local multiplayer... Which happens to be the top two most irrelevant things in the industry right now.

If they want to multiplatform then hell yeah, but I'l buy everything they got because everything they touch is gold, but I don't think the rest of the industry will see it that, its not an instant fix.....

Functionally, what exactly is so great about the Wii U controller? What Nintendo game uses it so well that it couldn't be done on any other platform, with any other controller?

Of course Nintendo will have to do some bending, any transaction is a compromise between two parties. If Nintendo hates that so much, it can just go PC only, and try to get a jump start there (also addressed in the OP).

What in the world, exactly, is preventing Nintendo from making their games exactly as they are, with an emphasis on multuplayer or gameplay? It's not like a game on PlayStation or Xbox automatically loses those two qualities, is it?

#8 Posted by Maroxad (8434 posts) -

I want Nintendo to go PC :)

No licensing fees, hopefully mod support, absolutely no hardware restraints.

#9 Posted by charizard1605 (58961 posts) -

@Maroxad said:

I want Nintendo to go PC :)

No licensing fees, hopefully mod support, absolutely no hardware restraints.

I do outline going PC only as the best case (and really, ultimately, only) probable scenario.

However, I highly doubt they would have mods, for reasons enlisted in the OP.

#10 Edited by SolidTy (44500 posts) -

It's late, but I'm going to read this tomorrow.

#11 Posted by bunchanumbers (1706 posts) -

Actually I think it will be the other way around. Nintendo not using PC architecture pretty much assures that their products are unique to their hardware and unique to gaming today. Its what makes their games stand out so much. Could you make a game like SM3DW on PS4? Probably. But most likely most of those developers just throw raw hardware power at the thing and hope it pans out. Its why even with all the 'power' of the PS4 it still couldn't do 1080p/60 on Watchdogs. Nintendo uses other different techniques to make the games do what they want. And it takes years before people figure out how they did what they did on their games. Emulators had trouble with WW for years because they couldn't figure out how Nintendo did some of their effects. Same thing with TP. And the reason why they turn out as well as they do is because they are uniquely familiar with their hardware.

As for the finances I think the golden era of the Wii/DS is past. Nintendo hopefully knew this and planned accordingly. I think they are more uniquely prepared for the future of gaming than the others. I think that more than likely MS will leave gaming and Sony will probably sell off the Playstation brand to Samsung or go bankrupt. I do agree that the future of gaming itself is pretty bleak. I think its why Nintendo is more likely than ever to stay the course they always have. Sell reasonable hardware at a reasonable price and make most of their money off their games. Live on those profits and move onto the next project. At least until the mobile craze dies down it will be like this no matter which company you like.

I think that in the future they will continue to use their own designs for hardware. As you said both of the HD twins are working towards a all digital streaming future. But I think this is where they find a way to finally coexist in peace. I believe that both Sony and MS will find a way to exist peacefully on Nintendo's future consoles in a manner similar to EA Access existing on Xbox One. Both Nintendo Handheld and Console will have access to the Sony and MS streaming services. In this sense I predict that Nintendo will be the last console standing. And in the end physical gaming devices will be along the lines of PC, Nintendo, Phone and Tablet and various streaming devices.

#12 Posted by Maroxad (8434 posts) -

@charizard1605 said:

@Maroxad said:

I want Nintendo to go PC :)

No licensing fees, hopefully mod support, absolutely no hardware restraints.

I do outline going PC only as the best case (and really, ultimately, only) probable scenario.

However, I highly doubt they would have mods, for reasons enlisted in the OP.

True, you did state that in the OP, several times using an example. I just said I agreed with you :)

And yes, pretty sure there would be mods, not necessarily mod support, but mods would be there. Do not underestimate the capability of the modders.

#13 Posted by trugs26 (5673 posts) -

I'll give this a proper read tomorrow. But initial concerns:
- Nintendo can optimise their own hardware better
- Lack of advancements in the console space (let's face it, the style of console Microsoft and Sony have are pretty redundant, especially when the Steambox comes around)
- If anything, everyone should be third party and work on a unified platform (Steambox maybe?). Consoles are becoming more and more redundant as time goes on.

#14 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (14694 posts) -

@charizard1605

Uhm its a controller with a screen on it.... Thats what makes it awesome ! :) as if I need to explain that.

Anyways, you are the Nintendo expert... If you say its possible then great.

It would be nice to play their games without having to have multiple systems.

#15 Posted by charizard1605 (58961 posts) -

@trugs26 said:

I'll give this a proper read tomorrow. But initial concerns:

- Nintendo can optimise their own hardware better

- Lack of advancements in the console space (let's face it, the style of console Microsoft and Sony have are pretty redundant, especially when the Steambox comes around)

- If anything, everyone should be third party and work on a unified platform (Steambox maybe?). Consoles are becoming more and more redundant as time goes on.

- True, but they are talented enough to be able to optimize any hardware that they work on well enough.

- Agreed, and I do say the ultimate end goal of all of this is to move to PC via client based gaming- going third party now is just starting the transition now, ahead of time, and getting a head start.

- Agreed, see above.

@Lulu_Lulu said:

@charizard1605

Uhm its a controller with a screen on it.... Thats what makes it awesome ! :) as if I need to explain that.

Anyways, you are the Nintendo expert... If you say its possible then great.

It would be nice to play their games without having to have multiple systems.

It's a controller with a screen that is singularly useless. Again, I love it for Off TV Play, but I cannot think of a single game that would be worse without the Wii U controller.

#16 Edited by Gamerno6666 (2030 posts) -
@charizard1605 said:

@Maroxad said:

I want Nintendo to go PC :)

No licensing fees, hopefully mod support, absolutely no hardware restraints.

I do outline going PC only as the best case (and really, ultimately, only) probable scenario.

However, I highly doubt they would have mods, for reasons enlisted in the OP.

I think if nintendo ever goes PC they will have their own client. Also just imagine splatoon on pc. It would be glorious.

#17 Edited by charizard1605 (58961 posts) -

@Gamerno6666 said:
@charizard1605 said:

@Maroxad said:

I want Nintendo to go PC :)

No licensing fees, hopefully mod support, absolutely no hardware restraints.

I do outline going PC only as the best case (and really, ultimately, only) probable scenario.

However, I highly doubt they would have mods, for reasons enlisted in the OP.

I think if nintendo ever goes PC they will have their own client. Also just imagine splatoon on pc. It would be glorious.

Yes, I presume that is how Nintendo will keep control of distribution of their games (plus I assume they would also agree to sell indie games on their storefront and split revenue there).

Splatoon on PC, with a mouse and keyboard? Holy shit, that would be incredible. Or think of Kid Icarus: Uprising, that game is begging to be on PC.

#18 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (14694 posts) -

@charizard1605

Super Mario Brothers U Uses it..... So its not useless.

#19 Posted by charizard1605 (58961 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

@charizard1605

Super Mario Brothers U Uses it..... So its not useless.

It uses it in no meaningful way. NSMBU would not be a worse game without the Gamepad, it might even be better without having to accommodate the gimmickry of the touch screen (which is only used in multiplayer, optionally, anyway).

#20 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (14694 posts) -

@charizard1605

You said it was useless... Not that it was meaningless....

Besides... It has meaning to me.

#21 Edited by charizard1605 (58961 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

@charizard1605

You said it was useless... Not that it was meaningless....

Besides... It has meaning to me.

No, I said that no Nintendo game uses it meaningfully.

There is no function that the Wii U pad enables that wouldn't be possible on just about any other controller on the market, sans Off TV Play.

#22 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (14694 posts) -

@charizard1605

Nope... Pretty sure you said it was useless.

And what about the Microphone ? None of the other systems have a controller with Microphones.

#23 Posted by Maroxad (8434 posts) -

Just because Nintendo abbandons consoles doesnt mean they cant make peripherals and controllers.

Sony and Microsoft could give them permission to and there are no restrictions on PC.

#24 Posted by charizard1605 (58961 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

@charizard1605

Nope... Pretty sure you said it was useless.

And what about the Microphone ? None of the other systems have a controller with Microphones.

No, I said no game uses it such that it would be worse off without it.

What games use that microphone, exactly? If you need it so bad, a headset can replace it.

#25 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (14694 posts) -

@charizard1605

Nope... I can clearly see the Wors "useless" right there, thats the word you used.

Anyway a headset is very uncomfortable, besides in the world of entertainment the word "need" is useless, I don't need anything... I want it.

And if memory serves correct, 3D World uses it.

Theres a chance it might make a comeback in that Toadstool game aswell.... Games don't need anything, but we want specific things to be there.

I'm just burnt out on conventional controls some "useless" gimmicks are very much welcome.

#26 Posted by nintendoboy16 (27258 posts) -

Of a few major problems I have with this, here's one of them. Like Chris Kohler (WIRED) and Sean Malstrom have said, interest in their IP's is dying. With that in mind, how the hell do you expect them to survive on even other people's hardware?

"Oh, but people are asking for it."

Where? Here? Neo/SonyGAF? YouTube comments? I'm sorry, but wasn't I told not to completely take internet comments seriously? Actions speak louder than words, especially in these industries. Just because those who prefer to game on their PlayStation, XBOX, iOS, and PC beg for them to go multiplatform, doesn't mean that Nintendo will magically be better off, and these days, it couldn't be ANYMORE clear that many gamers massive interest is no longer with Nintendo (as much as they refuse to admit it, saying stuff along the lines of "I like their games, not their consoles") and the sales charts, particularly for the rivals last gen platforms (there is nothing in regards to PS4/XBONE lifetime game sales right now, so it's the best I got). They'd rather buy the next Call of Duty, they'd rather continue supporting EA no matter how much criticism they get, they'd rather buy the new GTA, Assassin's Creed, or Elder Scrolls.

This is part of the reason I think Nintendo would be better off pulling out of the game industry and finding another business (QOL, maybe?), much like they did in the past. Sure, there would be tears, but's it's not like gaming would die off with them gone. If it would be a major loss with them gone, maybe the industry could use a kick in the pants for all the bullshit going on with it.

#27 Posted by SolidGame_basic (18414 posts) -

I guess blogs are OK now in SW.

#28 Posted by Maroxad (8434 posts) -

@SolidGame_basic said:

I guess blogs are OK now in SW.

Except for the fact that this thread has brought up plenty of discussion already.

#29 Edited by charizard1605 (58961 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

@charizard1605

Nope... I can clearly see the Wors "useless" right there, thats the word you used.

Anyway a headset is very uncomfortable, besides in the world of entertainment the word "need" is useless, I don't need anything... I want it.

And if memory serves correct, 3D World uses it.

Theres a chance it might make a comeback in that Toadstool game aswell.... Games don't need anything, but we want specific things to be there.

I'm just burnt out on conventional controls some "useless" gimmicks are very much welcome.

Yes, it's useless because no game uses it meaningfully, are you arguing for the hell for the hell of it, or do you seriously do not understand that?

Then don't use a headset. Name a game that meaningfully uses the microphone in the Wii U pad, and if you can't, then stop bringing up pointless strawmen arguments for the hell of it.

We know how the Toad game works. There's no indelibly embedded usage of the gamepad within that game either.

If you're burnt out on conventional controls, then Nintendo isn't the answer for you either, go iOS or something.

@nintendoboy16 said:

Of a few major problems I have with this, here's one of them. Like Chris Kohler (WIRED) and Sean Malstrom have said, interest in their IP's is dying. With that in mind, how the hell do you expect them to survive on even other people's hardware?

"Oh, but people are asking for it."

Where? Here? Neo/SonyGAF? YouTube comments? I'm sorry, but wasn't I told not to completely take internet comments seriously? Actions speak louder than words, especially in these industries. Just because those who prefer to game on their PlayStation, XBOX, iOS, and PC beg for them to go multiplatform, doesn't mean that Nintendo will magically be better off, and these days, it couldn't be ANYMORE clear that many gamers massive interest is no longer with Nintendo (as much as they refuse to admit it, saying stuff along the lines of "I like their games, not their consoles") and the sales charts, particularly for the rivals last gen platforms (there is nothing in regards to PS4/XBONE lifetime game sales right now, so it's the best I got). They'd rather buy the next Call of Duty, they'd rather continue supporting EA no matter how much criticism they get, they'd rather buy the new GTA, Assassin's Creed, or Elder Scrolls.

This is part of the reason I think Nintendo would be better off pulling out of the game industry and finding another business (QOL, maybe?), much like they did in the past. Sure, there would be tears, but's it's not like gaming would die off with them gone. If it would be a major loss with them gone, maybe the industry could use a kick in the pants for all the bullshit going on with it.

Interest in their IPs is literally the one things that isn't going down. Pokemon remains a system seller. Mario Kart remains a system seller. Sales for Fire Emblem and Animal Crossing are higher than they have ever been. Mario continues to sell consistently. Franchises like Kirby and Donkey Kong sell at their usual rate. Something like Zelda came back from the dead.

You have no justification whatsoever for pointing out that people would not want to buy Nintendo's games on other consoles. Before you say 'if they want them so bad, why don'y they just buy Nintendo systems,' they don't buy Nintendo systems because spending $300 on a console to play four Nintendo games is a stupid ass idea with no sound economic grounding. Just today I had a conversation with a friend who I know follows through on what he says who said he loves Nintendo games so much, but he sees no point in buying a Nintendo console for just a Zelda, a Mario Kart, and a Smash Bros., and you know what, he is right. He is more likely to pick them on a system that he already owns. Moreover, the halo effect around Nintendo's games itself will also cause others, who have never played a Nintendo game, to at least look into Zelda or Metroid when they release on PlayStation or Xbox just to see what all the hype is about. After that, their quality speaks for itself.

Your last paragraph is such a ridiculous doomsday scenario (with no logical, rational, coherent, or financial sense to it whatsoever), that I won't even bother to respond to it.

@SolidGame_basic said:

I guess blogs are OK now in SW.

Yes, discussing games and systems, and why a certain console manufacturer should leave the industry, is certainly not System Wars material.

Don't thread whine. Stop posting things for the heck of it.

#30 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (14694 posts) -

@charizard1605

I don't need a reason beyond simply wanting it... Its entertainment, not The Constitution.

Whether the feature gets used 10 times or 100, its not useless... It may not be usefull but its certainly not useless. Perhaps the idea of using my voice to play games instead of a simple button press to play games is beyond your comprehension.

#31 Posted by charizard1605 (58961 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

@charizard1605

I don't need a reason beyond simply wanting it... Its entertainment, not The Constitution.

Whether the feature gets used 10 times or 100, its not useless... It may not be usefull but its certainly not useless. Perhaps the idea of using my voice to play games instead of a simple button press to play games is beyond your comprehension.

It wouldn't be, if you could point to a game that actually uses your voice to play. Can you?

#32 Posted by Legend002 (7322 posts) -

No thanks. I don't want to be charged for playing Mario Kart online.

#33 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (14694 posts) -

@charizard1605

Semantics, Voice, Breath, Sound... Whatever....

#34 Posted by osan0 (12820 posts) -

@charizard1605: moving to the PC with their own store front is an interesting proposition. it gives them many of the beneifts of having their own console (they can conduct their business as they see fit rather than as MS/sony dictate, make their own devices for the PC if they wish, price their own content as they want and so on).

but its not without issues. if nintendo wanted to make a gamepad like device for the PC it would pose a challenge for example. there is no standard on the PC (that i know of, correct me if im wrong) that allows the level of integration nintendo required for the gamepad. windows itslef is not designed with that functionality in mind. so nintendo would probably have to make some sort of cusom USB dongle that people would need for the gamepad. this would require its own set of drivers and those drivers would need to be tested on various hardware and software setups. a new console is a chance to start with a clean slate. nintendo take advantage of this unique element of the console market more than anyone else. granted the gamepad is probably the exception though. something like the wiimote and nunchuck would have been very easy to make for the PC.

the other issue with that is that PC gaming, unfortunately, is tiny in japan which is a stronghold for nintendo. sure nintendo moving could give PC gaming a shot in the arm in japan but then all nintendo would be doing is selling other companies hardware. an odd decision.

nintendo would also need to restructure themselves as a PC developer (even fi they want to be multiplat the PC and PC thinking is the place to start) which would require a complete rethink about how it does business. the level of DRM nintendo uses would be deemed completely unacceptable on the PC. you think ubisoft get flack? just see what happens if nintendo try to pull something off that is far more draconian. the nintendo platform, as a whole, has the most brutal and backward DRM system in existance. maybe they will be smarter than that if they move to the PC....but how willing are nintendo to give up some control (and lets not be under any illusion here...nintendo would have to give up some control). nintendo have next to no experience in developing PC games. they would be in the same position as from software starting out...perhaps even worse. long delays would be the norm as nintendos own developers try and get the latest mario running at an optimal rate on their target hardware.

they also have no concept on building up gaming communities (the miiverse is nothing to write home about). compare them to CD projekt red, obsidian, bioware in the early days. nintendo do not even have this as a notion, never mind a concept. it is absolutely essential to have this working if you want any chance of success on the PC. communities are at the absolute core of fostering success on the PC. again a big cultural shift from the console world.

then there are the other competitors on the PC: steam of course but also others such as GMG and GOG. it is very difficult to get people to shift or even try other services. MS gave up, EA are trying but with limited success and others have their own niches. nintendo could make an interesting proposition by making the entire nintendo catalogue available (+ possibly anything released on the VC/wiiware from 3rd parties....licencing issues there though) and requiring a unique gaming device to be able to play those games...but that could also just shoot themselves in the foot.

some of the problems you highlight with their hardware, the hardware restriction, the motion controls, i dont think nintendo sees these as restrictions/problems (with the possible exception of the wiiu) either. nintendo hardware is built for nintendo and nintendos needs (one of the reasons they still struggle to get 3rd parties interested). for the next zelda, metroid, fzero (please ninty), or whatever the wiiu and 3DS serve their requirements just fine. remember that nintendo do not and will not spend 100 million on massive projects that take advantage of the latest and greatest tech. they have made technically impressive games in the past but they never bet the farm on it. i dont think their own developers hated the wiimote and nunchuck or the fact that the wii was only 2X as powerfula st eh gamecube....on the contrary i think they found it very interesting. the wiiu is the only nintendo platform i can think of where nintendos own developers seem to be resistant to it (im not sure what happened internally with the philopophy of that console).

what about the handheld market? there is not one single mobile/tablet device on the market that is acceptable for gaming. not one. they are all, without exception, garbage (especially for nintendos own games). sure they have plenty of horsepower but they dont have the other functions nexcessary to make them good gaming devices. bolting on a controller is an unacceptable compromise. the only other device that is a great handheld gaming device is the vita....but then you are back to the same problem. all nintendo would be doing is selling vitas. why would they do that? there is no suitable PC equivelant in the mobile market.

#35 Posted by charizard1605 (58961 posts) -

@Legend002 said:

No thanks. I don't want to be charged for playing Mario Kart online.

How about playing it on a proper online network period?

@osan0 said:

@charizard1605: moving to the PC with their own store front is an interesting proposition. it gives them many of the beneifts of having their own console (they can conduct their business as they see fit rather than as MS/sony dictate, make their own devices for the PC if they wish, price their own content as they want and so on).

but its not without issues. if nintendo wanted to make a gamepad like device for the PC it would pose a challenge for example. there is no standard on the PC (that i know of, correct me if im wrong) that allows the level of integration nintendo required for the gamepad. windows itslef is not designed with that functionality in mind. so nintendo would probably have to make some sort of cusom USB dongle that people would need for the gamepad. this would require its own set of drivers and those drivers would need to be tested on various hardware and software setups. a new console is a chance to start with a clean slate. nintendo take advantage of this unique element of the console market more than anyone else. granted the gamepad is probably the exception though. something like the wiimote and nunchuck would have been very easy to make for the PC.

the other issue with that is that PC gaming, unfortunately, is tiny in japan which is a stronghold for nintendo. sure nintendo moving could give PC gaming a shot in the arm in japan but then all nintendo would be doing is selling other companies hardware. an odd decision.

nintendo would also need to restructure themselves as a PC developer (even fi they want to be multiplat the PC and PC thinking is the place to start) which would require a complete rethink about how it does business. the level of DRM nintendo uses would be deemed completely unacceptable on the PC. you think ubisoft get flack? just see what happens if nintendo try to pull something off that is far more draconian. the nintendo platform, as a whole, has the most brutal and backward DRM system in existance. maybe they will be smarter than that if they move to the PC....but how willing are nintendo to give up some control (and lets not be under any illusion here...nintendo would have to give up some control). nintendo have next to no experience in developing PC games. they would be in the same position as from software starting out...perhaps even worse. long delays would be the norm as nintendos own developers try and get the latest mario running at an optimal rate on their target hardware.

they also have no concept on building up gaming communities (the miiverse is nothing to write home about). compare them to CD projekt red, obsidian, bioware in the early days. nintendo do not even have this as a notion, never mind a concept. it is absolutely essential to have this working if you want any chance of success on the PC. communities are at the absolute core of fostering success on the PC. again a big cultural shift from the console world.

then there are the other competitors on the PC: steam of course but also others such as GMG and GOG. it is very difficult to get people to shift or even try other services. MS gave up, EA are trying but with limited success and others have their own niches. nintendo could make an interesting proposition by making the entire nintendo catalogue available (+ possibly anything released on the VC/wiiware from 3rd parties....licencing issues there though) and requiring a unique gaming device to be able to play those games...but that could also just shoot themselves in the foot.

some of the problems you highlight with their hardware, the hardware restriction, the motion controls, i dont think nintendo sees these as restrictions/problems (with the possible exception of the wiiu) either. nintendo hardware is built for nintendo and nintendos needs (one of the reasons they still struggle to get 3rd parties interested). for the next zelda, metroid, fzero (please ninty), or whatever the wiiu and 3DS serve their requirements just fine. remember that nintendo do not and will not spend 100 million on massive projects that take advantage of the latest and greatest tech. they have made technically impressive games in the past but they never bet the farm on it. i dont think their own developers hated the wiimote and nunchuck or the fact that the wii was only 2X as powerfula st eh gamecube....on the contrary i think they found it very interesting. the wiiu is the only nintendo platform i can think of where nintendos own developers seem to be resistant to it (im not sure what happened internally with the philopophy of that console).

what about the handheld market? there is not one single mobile/tablet device on the market that is acceptable for gaming. not one. they are all, without exception, garbage (especially for nintendos own games). sure they have plenty of horsepower but they dont have the other functions nexcessary to make them good gaming devices. bolting on a controller is an unacceptable compromise. the only other device that is a great handheld gaming device is the vita....but then you are back to the same problem. all nintendo would be doing is selling vitas. why would they do that? there is no suitable PC equivelant in the mobile market.

When you say Gamepad, do you mean the current Wii U controller? Because that controller, as good as it is, is ultimately meaningless and pointless, and I do fully anticipate Nintendo themselves just dropping it with the successor. It serves no purpose other than to shore up the costs (and to cause a negative perception and image to be associated with the console), and to create unnecessary pressure on developers to utilize it in some way.

As for Japan, currently, any and all forms of gaming in Japan are tiny. The industry is in a transitional phase there. Nintendo, as one of its biggest and most influential players, has the chance of dictating where it goes, and honestly, moving towards PC would be a swell idea.

I don't think the development will be as difficult as you are making it out to be. Most Nintendo games first get target renders and concept demos on PC hardware before they are greenlit. The developers are well aware and acquainted with programming for PC. Sure, there would be some issues, some learning period, but I really don't think it will be as long nor as destructive as you seem to think it will be. That, plus, as mentioned above, the industry is moving towards a console-less client based gaming future. If Nintendo wants to survive in this industry, it will have to make the transition sooner or later, so they might as well start trying now, and get over the messy transition ahead of time, that way they have a head start on the rest of the industry.

I am not saying that Nintendo's developers have any issues with Nintendo's consoles- Nintendo is too insular for that. But I am pointing out that Nintendo's games would be incredible on something like a PS4 or a PC, not hamstrung or handicapped by ridiculous requirements or deficiencies.

As for competition for storefronts on PCs, sure, there is competition in that Nintendo can never hope to have the one stop to go store for PC gaming such as Steam. However, just mandating that you use their own (hopefully unobstrusive, such as GoG) store for their games doesn't sound too bad at all. Remember, companies like Riot and Blizzard still use their own clients for their own games, and people do not mind that at all. My assumption is Nintendo's games would fall under that category, because their client would exist only for their games, they wouldn't go out of the way to poach third parties like EA.

The handheld market is an interesting conundrum in that in the immediate future, I don't think or see much of a future there. For now, smartphones and tablets will be the go to handheld game devices, and maybe Nintendo can experiment with putting some of their older games on Android or something (via their own storefront, so Google doesn't get a revenue split). That said, an alternative is to continue selling their own low cost handheld by the side, at least until the trends of the market become clearer. Unfortunately, currently, the mobile and handheld market is too stuck in a limbo for me to make any assessment either way. Nintendo too might want to wait it out and watch.

#36 Posted by nintendoboy16 (27258 posts) -

@charizard1605 said:

@nintendoboy16 said:

Of a few major problems I have with this, here's one of them. Like Chris Kohler (WIRED) and Sean Malstrom have said, interest in their IP's is dying. With that in mind, how the hell do you expect them to survive on even other people's hardware?

"Oh, but people are asking for it."

Where? Here? Neo/SonyGAF? YouTube comments? I'm sorry, but wasn't I told not to completely take internet comments seriously? Actions speak louder than words, especially in these industries. Just because those who prefer to game on their PlayStation, XBOX, iOS, and PC beg for them to go multiplatform, doesn't mean that Nintendo will magically be better off, and these days, it couldn't be ANYMORE clear that many gamers massive interest is no longer with Nintendo (as much as they refuse to admit it, saying stuff along the lines of "I like their games, not their consoles") and the sales charts, particularly for the rivals last gen platforms (there is nothing in regards to PS4/XBONE lifetime game sales right now, so it's the best I got). They'd rather buy the next Call of Duty, they'd rather continue supporting EA no matter how much criticism they get, they'd rather buy the new GTA, Assassin's Creed, or Elder Scrolls.

This is part of the reason I think Nintendo would be better off pulling out of the game industry and finding another business (QOL, maybe?), much like they did in the past. Sure, there would be tears, but's it's not like gaming would die off with them gone. If it would be a major loss with them gone, maybe the industry could use a kick in the pants for all the bullshit going on with it.

Interest in their IPs is literally the one things that isn't going down. Pokemon remains a system seller. Mario Kart remains a system seller. Sales for Fire Emblem and Animal Crossing are higher than they have ever been. Mario continues to sell consistently. Franchises like Kirby and Donkey Kong sell at their usual rate. Something like Zelda came back from the dead.

You have no justification whatsoever for pointing out that people would not want to buy Nintendo's games on other consoles. Before you say 'if they want them so bad, why don'y they just buy Nintendo systems,' they don't buy Nintendo systems because spending $300 on a console to play four Nintendo games is a stupid ass idea with no sound economic grounding. Just today I had a conversation with a friend who I know follows through on what he says who said he loves Nintendo games so much, but he sees no point in buying a Nintendo console for just a Zelda, a Mario Kart, and a Smash Bros., and you know what, he is right. He is more likely to pick them on a system that he already owns. Moreover, the halo effect around Nintendo's games itself will also cause others, who have never played a Nintendo game, to at least look into Zelda or Metroid when they release on PlayStation or Xbox just to see what all the hype is about. After that, their quality speaks for itself.

Your last paragraph is such a ridiculous doomsday scenario (with no logical, rational, coherent, or financial sense to it whatsoever), that I won't even bother to respond to it.

Yes, interest isn't going down. That's why Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon haven't sold as well since the transition to the new gen. I'm sorry, but if that isn't a sign that interest in Nintendo is dying, evidenced by the big three franchises affiliated with them, I'm not sure what is. How is this not a justifiable reason to see that audiences on the PS/XBOX/iOS/PC will have little to no interest whatsoever in anything Nintendo related? It's in the freaking sales.

#37 Posted by charizard1605 (58961 posts) -

@nintendoboy16 said:

@charizard1605 said:

@nintendoboy16 said:

Of a few major problems I have with this, here's one of them. Like Chris Kohler (WIRED) and Sean Malstrom have said, interest in their IP's is dying. With that in mind, how the hell do you expect them to survive on even other people's hardware?

"Oh, but people are asking for it."

Where? Here? Neo/SonyGAF? YouTube comments? I'm sorry, but wasn't I told not to completely take internet comments seriously? Actions speak louder than words, especially in these industries. Just because those who prefer to game on their PlayStation, XBOX, iOS, and PC beg for them to go multiplatform, doesn't mean that Nintendo will magically be better off, and these days, it couldn't be ANYMORE clear that many gamers massive interest is no longer with Nintendo (as much as they refuse to admit it, saying stuff along the lines of "I like their games, not their consoles") and the sales charts, particularly for the rivals last gen platforms (there is nothing in regards to PS4/XBONE lifetime game sales right now, so it's the best I got). They'd rather buy the next Call of Duty, they'd rather continue supporting EA no matter how much criticism they get, they'd rather buy the new GTA, Assassin's Creed, or Elder Scrolls.

This is part of the reason I think Nintendo would be better off pulling out of the game industry and finding another business (QOL, maybe?), much like they did in the past. Sure, there would be tears, but's it's not like gaming would die off with them gone. If it would be a major loss with them gone, maybe the industry could use a kick in the pants for all the bullshit going on with it.

Interest in their IPs is literally the one things that isn't going down. Pokemon remains a system seller. Mario Kart remains a system seller. Sales for Fire Emblem and Animal Crossing are higher than they have ever been. Mario continues to sell consistently. Franchises like Kirby and Donkey Kong sell at their usual rate. Something like Zelda came back from the dead.

You have no justification whatsoever for pointing out that people would not want to buy Nintendo's games on other consoles. Before you say 'if they want them so bad, why don'y they just buy Nintendo systems,' they don't buy Nintendo systems because spending $300 on a console to play four Nintendo games is a stupid ass idea with no sound economic grounding. Just today I had a conversation with a friend who I know follows through on what he says who said he loves Nintendo games so much, but he sees no point in buying a Nintendo console for just a Zelda, a Mario Kart, and a Smash Bros., and you know what, he is right. He is more likely to pick them on a system that he already owns. Moreover, the halo effect around Nintendo's games itself will also cause others, who have never played a Nintendo game, to at least look into Zelda or Metroid when they release on PlayStation or Xbox just to see what all the hype is about. After that, their quality speaks for itself.

Your last paragraph is such a ridiculous doomsday scenario (with no logical, rational, coherent, or financial sense to it whatsoever), that I won't even bother to respond to it.

Yes, interest isn't going down. That's why Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon haven't sold as well since the transition to the new gen. I'm sorry, but if that isn't a sign that interest in Nintendo is dying, evidenced by the big three franchises affiliated with them, I'm not sure what is. How is this not a justifiable reason to see that audiences on the PS/XBOX/iOS/PC will have little to no interest whatsoever in anything Nintendo related? It's in the freaking sales.

Pokemon X and Y has sold faster than any other Pokemon game till date. It sold 12 million units in three months. This is not it being 'down.'

Mario 3D World sold 1.2 million units in 28 days on an install base of 5 million- once again, proportional to install base, that game sold just about on par with any other 3D Mario (and actually faster than Sunshine or Galaxy 2).

There has been no new Zelda game this generation, not unless you count A Link Between Worlds, which is so far selling at the same pace as previous handheld Zelda games.

'How is this not a justifiable reason to see that audiences on the PS/XBOX/iOS/PC will have little to no interest whatsoever in anything Nintendo related?'

How about... maybe they care to play Pokemon or Zelda or Mario but don't want to spend $200 on a 3DS XL or $300 on a Wii U, and then a further $40/$60 on the games they want to play? Potentially, that's $400 to play just one game. How does that make any economic sense?

Now, if these games were available on a system they already owned, why would they not pick them up?

You seem to think that just because some people don't want to pay the ridiculous cost of entry to pay just a handful of Nintendo games- again, this is literally a few hundred dollars to play three or four games for most people- they have no interest in anything Nintendo, ever. I think that argument is pretty dumb, because they are in fact interested in what Nintendo has to offer, they're just not willing to pay $420 just to play Mario Kart 8 and Smash Bros. 4. But they will gladly pick them up on their PC/PlayStation/Xbox for a fourth of the combined cost, yes.

#38 Edited by scottpsfan14 (5856 posts) -
@charizard1605 said:

@nintendoboy16 said:

@charizard1605 said:

@nintendoboy16 said:

Of a few major problems I have with this, here's one of them. Like Chris Kohler (WIRED) and Sean Malstrom have said, interest in their IP's is dying. With that in mind, how the hell do you expect them to survive on even other people's hardware?

"Oh, but people are asking for it."

Where? Here? Neo/SonyGAF? YouTube comments? I'm sorry, but wasn't I told not to completely take internet comments seriously? Actions speak louder than words, especially in these industries. Just because those who prefer to game on their PlayStation, XBOX, iOS, and PC beg for them to go multiplatform, doesn't mean that Nintendo will magically be better off, and these days, it couldn't be ANYMORE clear that many gamers massive interest is no longer with Nintendo (as much as they refuse to admit it, saying stuff along the lines of "I like their games, not their consoles") and the sales charts, particularly for the rivals last gen platforms (there is nothing in regards to PS4/XBONE lifetime game sales right now, so it's the best I got). They'd rather buy the next Call of Duty, they'd rather continue supporting EA no matter how much criticism they get, they'd rather buy the new GTA, Assassin's Creed, or Elder Scrolls.

This is part of the reason I think Nintendo would be better off pulling out of the game industry and finding another business (QOL, maybe?), much like they did in the past. Sure, there would be tears, but's it's not like gaming would die off with them gone. If it would be a major loss with them gone, maybe the industry could use a kick in the pants for all the bullshit going on with it.

Interest in their IPs is literally the one things that isn't going down. Pokemon remains a system seller. Mario Kart remains a system seller. Sales for Fire Emblem and Animal Crossing are higher than they have ever been. Mario continues to sell consistently. Franchises like Kirby and Donkey Kong sell at their usual rate. Something like Zelda came back from the dead.

You have no justification whatsoever for pointing out that people would not want to buy Nintendo's games on other consoles. Before you say 'if they want them so bad, why don'y they just buy Nintendo systems,' they don't buy Nintendo systems because spending $300 on a console to play four Nintendo games is a stupid ass idea with no sound economic grounding. Just today I had a conversation with a friend who I know follows through on what he says who said he loves Nintendo games so much, but he sees no point in buying a Nintendo console for just a Zelda, a Mario Kart, and a Smash Bros., and you know what, he is right. He is more likely to pick them on a system that he already owns. Moreover, the halo effect around Nintendo's games itself will also cause others, who have never played a Nintendo game, to at least look into Zelda or Metroid when they release on PlayStation or Xbox just to see what all the hype is about. After that, their quality speaks for itself.

Your last paragraph is such a ridiculous doomsday scenario (with no logical, rational, coherent, or financial sense to it whatsoever), that I won't even bother to respond to it.

Yes, interest isn't going down. That's why Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon haven't sold as well since the transition to the new gen. I'm sorry, but if that isn't a sign that interest in Nintendo is dying, evidenced by the big three franchises affiliated with them, I'm not sure what is. How is this not a justifiable reason to see that audiences on the PS/XBOX/iOS/PC will have little to no interest whatsoever in anything Nintendo related? It's in the freaking sales.

Pokemon X and Y has sold faster than any other Pokemon game till date. It sold 12 million units in three months. This is not it being 'down.'

Mario 3D World sold 1.2 million units in 28 days on an install base of 5 million- once again, proportional to install base, that game sold just about on par with any other 3D Mario (and actually faster than Sunshine or Galaxy 2).

There has been no new Zelda game this generation, not unless you count A Link Between Worlds, which is so far selling at the same pace as previous handheld Zelda games.

'How is this not a justifiable reason to see that audiences on the PS/XBOX/iOS/PC will have little to no interest whatsoever in anything Nintendo related?'

How about... maybe they care to play Pokemon or Zelda or Mario but don't want to spend $200 on a 3DS XL or $300 on a Wii U, and then a further $40/$60 on the games they want to play? Potentially, that's $400 to play just one game. How does that make any economic sense?

Now, if these games were available on a system they already owned, why would they not pick them up?

You seem to think that just because some people don't want to pay the ridiculous cost of entry to pay just a handful of Nintendo games- again, this is literally a few hundred dollars to play three or four games for most people- they have no interest in anything Nintendo, ever. I think that argument is pretty dumb, because they are in fact interested in what Nintendo has to offer, they're just not willing to pay $420 just to play Mario Kart 8 and Smash Bros. 4. But they will gladly pick them up on their PC/PlayStation/Xbox for a fourth of the combined cost, yes.

An even better problem solver is for Nintendo to release current hardware with no 3rd party barriers in the way. Just a redesign of the GameCube pad, and a nice beefy system that can handle 8th gen graphics and content. That way a Nintendo console will be all anyone needs in the gen. Just as feasible choice as PS4 or XB1. Currently, Nintendo have a secondary console. You have to pay hundreds just to play Nintendo games.

It would be quite cool if we could play our Nintendo games on PC/PS/XB, but I still would rather have a SNES 2 in terms of buisness model and power (for the time).

This article is proof that Wii U was the wrong move by Nintendo. Only the most die hard Sheep are against it. But even I am to an extent. Again, I'd rather have a current Nintendo console that just plays all games that get released like PS4 and XB1 do. They haven't delivered on that since the SNES. Crazy really.

EDIT: - Jesus I thought it was a link to an article. Seems it was your opinion. And I kind of agree that Wii U is not the best effort Nintendo could have made for console hardware.

#39 Posted by nintendoboy16 (27258 posts) -

@charizard1605 said:

Pokemon X and Y has sold faster than any other Pokemon game till date. It sold 12 million units in three months. This is not it being 'down.'

Mario 3D World sold 1.2 million units in 28 days on an install base of 5 million- once again, proportional to install base, that game sold just about on par with any other 3D Mario (and actually faster than Sunshine or Galaxy 2).

There has been no new Zelda game this generation, not unless you count A Link Between Worlds, which is so far selling at the same pace as previous handheld Zelda games.

'How is this not a justifiable reason to see that audiences on the PS/XBOX/iOS/PC will have little to no interest whatsoever in anything Nintendo related?'

How about... maybe they care to play Pokemon or Zelda or Mario but don't want to spend $200 on a 3DS XL or $300 on a Wii U, and then a further $40/$60 on the games they want to play? Potentially, that's $400 to play just one game. How does that make any economic sense?

Now, if these games were available on a system they already owned, why would they not pick them up?

You seem to think that just because some people don't want to pay the ridiculous cost of entry to pay just a handful of Nintendo games- again, this is literally a few hundred dollars to play three or four games for most people- they have no interest in anything Nintendo, ever. I think that argument is pretty dumb, because they are in fact interested in what Nintendo has to offer, they're just not willing to pay $420 just to play Mario Kart 8 and Smash Bros. 4. But they will gladly pick them up on their PC/PlayStation/Xbox for a fourth of the combined cost, yes.

But where the hell has Mario 3D World been in recent days? I haven't heard ANYTHING in regards to how much farther in selling, but according to the Wiki's Wii U sales charts, it's STILL barely over 2 million. Last I checked, lifetime sales of X and Y are low in comparison to Black and White and Diamond and Pearl and like 3D world, hasn't gotten much farther, if at all, in sales.

Well, Nintendo's games are usually the ones that sell on their platforms, aren't they? Besides that, no. As I've said, the sales are pretty much dictating where gamers interests lie, AS THEY ALWAYS HAVE.

#40 Posted by Heirren (17780 posts) -

Can't agree here. First the industry is in a shaky place and Nintendo moving towards where it seems to be going would NOT be a good move. They almost seem to be alienating themselves. They way in which they represent the brand is far different than the others. People will eventually see this. People will eventually grow tired of how every company seems to want your last dollar.

As for nintendo going 3rd party? That doesn't make sense for them to do so. So, nintendo goes third pary. Then what? They still have to publish ALL their games, in addition to paying the fees to other companies? Nintendo having their own consoles gives them the potential to maximize profits from games and consoles. Then there are the release dates. Quality would drop because of pressure to release games. Nintendos structure revolves around that. People say they aren't doing well yet theyve still got the most money in the bank.

#41 Edited by charizard1605 (58961 posts) -

@nintendoboy16 said:

@charizard1605 said:

Pokemon X and Y has sold faster than any other Pokemon game till date. It sold 12 million units in three months. This is not it being 'down.'

Mario 3D World sold 1.2 million units in 28 days on an install base of 5 million- once again, proportional to install base, that game sold just about on par with any other 3D Mario (and actually faster than Sunshine or Galaxy 2).

There has been no new Zelda game this generation, not unless you count A Link Between Worlds, which is so far selling at the same pace as previous handheld Zelda games.

'How is this not a justifiable reason to see that audiences on the PS/XBOX/iOS/PC will have little to no interest whatsoever in anything Nintendo related?'

How about... maybe they care to play Pokemon or Zelda or Mario but don't want to spend $200 on a 3DS XL or $300 on a Wii U, and then a further $40/$60 on the games they want to play? Potentially, that's $400 to play just one game. How does that make any economic sense?

Now, if these games were available on a system they already owned, why would they not pick them up?

You seem to think that just because some people don't want to pay the ridiculous cost of entry to pay just a handful of Nintendo games- again, this is literally a few hundred dollars to play three or four games for most people- they have no interest in anything Nintendo, ever. I think that argument is pretty dumb, because they are in fact interested in what Nintendo has to offer, they're just not willing to pay $420 just to play Mario Kart 8 and Smash Bros. 4. But they will gladly pick them up on their PC/PlayStation/Xbox for a fourth of the combined cost, yes.

But where the hell has Mario 3D World been in recent days? I haven't heard ANYTHING in regards to how much farther in selling, but according to the Wiki's Wii U sales charts, it's STILL barely over 2 million. Last I checked, lifetime sales of X and Y are low in comparison to Black and White and Diamond and Pearl and like 3D world, hasn't gotten much farther, if at all, in sales.

Well, Nintendo's games are usually the ones that sell on their platforms, aren't they? Besides that, no. As I've said, the sales are pretty much dictating where gamers interests lie, AS THEY ALWAYS HAVE.

Diamond and Pearl sold 18 million in four years. Black and White sold 13 million in two years. X and Y sold 12 million, and it hasn't even been a year. Tell me which game is selling more here.

Super Mario 3D World has sold to roughly a third of the install base. it has a 33% attach rate. Any further performance is limited by the install base, even you should be able to understand that. It can't sell more than there are consoles to run it (your number is from months ago, btw). It's 33% attach rate, incidentally, is right in line with the attach rate of Super Mario 64 or Super Mario Sunshine, and more than Super Mario 3D Land.

Sales are dictating that gamers don't want to buy a Nintendo to play two or three games. Not that they don't want Nintendo's games period. That is all, that is all these sales trend are demonstrating, not some unbacked, unsubstantiated doomsday complex that for some reason you seem to cling to pretty hard, convinced that Nintendo are doomed to failure, and no one outside a rapidly dwindling core fanbase likes them, really.

#42 Posted by MlauTheDaft (3923 posts) -

I endorse this thread. Ninty on PC!!!

#43 Posted by nintendoboy16 (27258 posts) -

@charizard1605 said:

Diamond and Pearl sold 18 million in four years. Black and White sold 13 million in two years. X and Y sold 12 million, and it hasn't even been a year. Tell me which game is selling more here.

Super Mario 3D World has sold to roughly a third of the install base. it has a 33% attach rate. Any further performance is limited by the install base, even you should be able to understand that. It can't sell more than there are consoles to run it (your number is from months ago, btw). It's 33% attach rate, incidentally, is right in line with the attach rate of Super Mario 64 or Super Mario Sunshine, and more than Super Mario 3D Land.

Sales are dictating that gamers don't want to buy a Nintendo to play two or three games. Not that they don't want Nintendo's games period. That is all, that is all these sales trend are demonstrating, not some unbacked, unsubstantiated doomsday complex that for some reason you seem to cling to pretty hard, convinced that Nintendo are doomed to failure, and no one outside a rapidly dwindling core fanbase likes them, really.

There's little update on how X and Y is selling (and 3D World for that matter). Just because X and Y sold better in a certain shorter time, doesn't mean it sold better in the overall scheme of things. Are you forgetting how important the lifetime sales are?

Despite that, sales of 3D World were succeeded by Mario Kart 8 and while you say that it's a system seller, that's STILL not saying much.

The sales demonstrate WAY more than people's refusal to buy certain hardware, especially when that hardware is what sells these games to begin with.

#44 Posted by charizard1605 (58961 posts) -

@nintendoboy16 said:

@charizard1605 said:

Diamond and Pearl sold 18 million in four years. Black and White sold 13 million in two years. X and Y sold 12 million, and it hasn't even been a year. Tell me which game is selling more here.

Super Mario 3D World has sold to roughly a third of the install base. it has a 33% attach rate. Any further performance is limited by the install base, even you should be able to understand that. It can't sell more than there are consoles to run it (your number is from months ago, btw). It's 33% attach rate, incidentally, is right in line with the attach rate of Super Mario 64 or Super Mario Sunshine, and more than Super Mario 3D Land.

Sales are dictating that gamers don't want to buy a Nintendo to play two or three games. Not that they don't want Nintendo's games period. That is all, that is all these sales trend are demonstrating, not some unbacked, unsubstantiated doomsday complex that for some reason you seem to cling to pretty hard, convinced that Nintendo are doomed to failure, and no one outside a rapidly dwindling core fanbase likes them, really.

There's little update on how X and Y is selling (and 3D World for that matter). Just because X and Y sold better in a certain shorter time, doesn't mean it sold better in the overall scheme of things. Are you forgetting how important the lifetime sales are?

Despite that, sales of 3D World were succeeded by Mario Kart 8 and while you say that it's a system seller, that's STILL not saying much.

The sales demonstrate WAY more than people's refusal to buy certain hardware, especially when that hardware is what sells these games to begin with.

No, that's where you are wrong entirely. People don't buy Nintendo games because they have Nintendo hardware, they buy Nintendo hardware because they want to play Nintendo games. Nintendo's own games aside, there is no appeal to their hardware whatsoever, at all.

#45 Posted by nintendoboy16 (27258 posts) -

@charizard1605 said:

@nintendoboy16 said:
The sales demonstrate WAY more than people's refusal to buy certain hardware, especially when that hardware is what sells these games to begin with.

No, that's where you are wrong entirely. People don't buy Nintendo games because they have Nintendo hardware, they buy Nintendo hardware because they want to play Nintendo games. Nintendo's own games aside, there is no appeal to their hardware whatsoever, at all.

Which... still goes into me saying "Nintendo's hardware is what sells their games?" Where else can you get them? And with software sales that low to coincide with those asinine hardware sales, the general interest in Nintendo goes with it.

#46 Edited by charizard1605 (58961 posts) -

@nintendoboy16 said:

@charizard1605 said:

@nintendoboy16 said:
The sales demonstrate WAY more than people's refusal to buy certain hardware, especially when that hardware is what sells these games to begin with.

No, that's where you are wrong entirely. People don't buy Nintendo games because they have Nintendo hardware, they buy Nintendo hardware because they want to play Nintendo games. Nintendo's own games aside, there is no appeal to their hardware whatsoever, at all.

Which... still goes into me saying "Nintendo's hardware is what sells their games?" Where else can you get them? And with software sales that low to coincide with those asinine hardware sales, the general interest in Nintendo goes with it.

Because the price of entry to said Nintendo software is too high. What part of this is hard for you to understand?

#47 Posted by nintendoboy16 (27258 posts) -

@charizard1605 said:

Because the price of entry to said Nintendo software is too high. What part of this is hard for you to understand?

It's like I said, there is more to it than that.

#48 Posted by charizard1605 (58961 posts) -

@nintendoboy16 said:

@charizard1605 said:

Because the price of entry to said Nintendo software is too high. What part of this is hard for you to understand?

It's like I said, there is more to it than that.

No there isn't, and you have thoroughly failed to demonstrate that so far.

#49 Posted by SolidGame_basic (18414 posts) -

@charizard1605: You need to stop taking things so personally. It's a blog. I don't care. Just let's not have double standards. If this was a blog about consoles being superior to PC, it would most undoubtedly be locked in this forum. Why? because the PC mods will say "no, that's not possible. lock!" but an opinion is an opinion. and this thread is no different.

@Maroxad: Blogs tend to do that.

#50 Edited by nintendoboy16 (27258 posts) -

@charizard1605 said:

No there isn't, and you have thoroughly failed to demonstrate that so far.

I'm sure there is. Because as far as I'm concerned, this "demand" for Nintendo to go third party is nothing more than what internet forum goers are asking for (Investors/Shareholders too if we count all their iOS demands). Hardly anybody else outside it (where they'll likely not care as much). Besides that, I was told that listening to forum goers is a bad way for business.