Why does Nintendo choose not to compete?

tl;dr: don't be lazy.

I recently have been hearing this whenever Nintendo comes up:

"Nintendo does its own thing, they just choose not to compete with MS and Sony.  That doesn't make them worse, just different"

I find this to be such a cop-out.   This excuse immediately absolves Nintendo of any responsibility to perform to any acceptable level.  Claiming that they are not in direct competition with Sony and MS effectively allows them to set their own standards, which, as we're seeing, are piss-poor.  It also holds the added benefit of lowering our expectations and it also helps shift the blame away from them.  The thing is, I find it humorous that so many apologists come out in droves crying that they hope Nintendo never goes away because more competition means an all around healthier industry, yet then they immediately turn around and say that they "do their own thing and don't attempt to compete, and I'm glad" or some other apologist nonsense.  

I'm at a loss as to why anyone would be glad, because they end up waiting months and months for games while dealing with sub-par features and antiquated practices (such as region locking and a poor account system), the direct result of Nintendo's stubborn refusal to acknowledge and address their opposition and adapt to where the industry is/is going.  Heading their own direction is wonderful......but refusing to compete is never a good thing, and they are a prime example of the consequences of this strategy.  Refusal to battle it out head-on is leading them straight to stagnation and irrelevancy.  It enables complacency and gives no motivation to work hard or progress at a healthy pace.  Nobody expects much from Nintendo nowadays, and they are becoming an afterthought for many and it's simply due to the fact that they don't find it necessary to stand up and hold their ground against the odds. 

And that's exactly what we're seeing.  Outdated, overpriced hardware.  Paltry marketing.  A lacking Internet infrastructure.  HD years late.  Massive game droughts.  No centralized account system.  No press conference at E3 (though with the games they showed, probably for the best).  Lots of rehashes.  And on and on.  They always come to eventually realize and slowly adopt what the others have been doing for years so it's evident to me that they are not choosing to be different at all....they ARE different due to either a) laziness, b) incompetence, or c) lack of ability, or d) lack of vision (I'd choose b with a touch of a), and this tired line that they do their own thing is nothing more than a masquerade for any or all of the above.  It must be because they always start to do what Microsoft and Sony have been doing for so long, but even then it's inadequate in comparison.  They have become reactionary. 

Aside from their hardware choices, they don't always do their own thing.  The way I see it, theyy simply CAN'T do what everyone else is doing to any level of effectiveness and the only difference that distinguishes them aside from their types of games and hardware they produce is they are complete morons at running a good business.  The term different in Nintendo's case is used to isolate them because criticism then holds no basis as the standards are completely arbitrary and subject to change at their discretion.  How convenient.  It is nothing more than weasel room so they can save face for poor performance under the guise of being unique.  The main thing that differs them from the others is that they are unable to live in the present.  This "they're just different" excuse is exactly the same as telling someone who invites you over for dinner that the meal they cooked was "interesting".  Translation: a polite way of saying it sucked.

I don't want to talk about all Nintedo has done wrong as this is well known and would be walking a well worn path.  I want to go deeper and discuss what is it about their approach and strategy that is allowing all this to happen.  Is it culture?  Is it a CEO who is not an alpha male who has no balls to run a multi-billion dollar enterprise?  All the upper management?  What exactly is Nintendo's problem?  I guess I'm just fascinated by the thinking behind their choices and wish to understand their thinking better.

They have a game console. MS and Sony also have game consoles. They can say they are not competing, but they are. That's just how actual lived reality works. That said, they still make great games worth buying a system to play. (just not for $50 shy of a PS4, that's absurd to an extreme)

Mario and Zelda and other first party games are the real reason they r still around on home console.

They make good ahndhelds and good handheld games, not so much home consoles anymore.

Their hardware and business practices on the console market have been horrible. But they continue to make fantastic games so they will never go anywhere. 

dvader654

As I mentioned in another thread in SW, their games are so good that it makes up for any flaws in the way they run their business.  It's the only reason they're able to survive.

As long as they continue to make games I want to play, I don't care if they're like other companies, or not.

They dont need to compete because of their fanbase. No personal offense intended but have you paid attention to them? They go apeshit over the new mario game announcement because......mario now gets a cat suit. Or they get excited over new super mario luigi despite the fact its just another new super mario game re-skinned. They went crazy for yet another smash bros game because it has a couple new characters in it. All nintendo has to do is throw in one or two small features and people line up to buy the game at full price.

All nintendo has to do to make money is shit out another mario, zelda or pokemon game and rake in the cash. Nintendo hasnt had an original idea in decades yet they always make money.

"Take that game there. Put some new levels in it and slap 49.99 on it"

"See that game there? Do it again"

"See that old game? Re-release it"

"Put a new character in that one"

Thats pretty much their design process. They dont spend money or time doing anything but have a rabid fanbase that will throw money at them.

Nintendo competed with their best technology in the NES, SNES, N64, and Gamecube. At that point, they did not see the need for the highest end in hardware fidelity for a couple of reasons:

-it's expensive. This is something we're seeing now with all the paid extra content (DLC, online passes, free-to-play, Kickstarter campaigns, etc...). Developers are complaining about how expensive it is to make games. And more Developers are closing their doors because they cannot afford to stay in business. Meanwhile, Nintendo has tons of cash in the bank.

-Why develop the latest technology when only a percentage of the people will take advantage of it? When the Wii was being developed, HDTVs were still considered new and expensive. That's why they chose not to spend so much money on an HD console (which MS and Sony lost money on - at least at launch). The Wii wasn't successful just because of the casual approach. But because many more people could play it without feeling like they're missing out. Many people complained about how bad text from HD games looked on an SD TV, and how the games did not look better than the PS2.

So, basically, Nintendo made a decision not to go broke developing something for the minority crowd.

The biggest problem with Nintendo right now is that 360's and PS3's can be had for cheap. The Wii-U is not giving late adopters, who recently purchased one of these consoles, a reason to buy it. The gamepad is not intersting enough, and the games are not there. Which is another problem Nintendo has - it is STILL relying on Miyamoto for its big game ideas. And no matter how amazing he is, he's been making for over 30 years! Nintendo needs new people who can offer fresh ideas.

The Wii wasn't successful just because of the casual approach. But because many more people could play it without feeling like they're missing out. Many people complained about how bad text from HD games looked on an SD TV, and how the games did not look better than the PS2.

So, basically, Nintendo made a decision not to go broke developing something for the minority crowd.Grieverr

http://www.lostgarden.com/2005/09/nintendos-genre-innovation-strategy.html

I am pretty baffled with their handling of the Wii U so far. They haven't been marketing the Wii U anywhere near as much as they did with the Wii, and none of the decision-making that saved the 3DS has yet to have been attempted on the Wii U yet it seems, with no price cut announced at the moment or any sort of deals/bundles, or any sort of new features, etc. They also get a head start with the WIi U yet barely take advantage of it.

I guess after finally making a very successful, generation-winning console again after the SNES Nintendo didn't know how to follow up that success, and have been letting the WIi's, DS's, and 3DS's success get to their heads.

Although Nintendo has made mistakes, I believe it is a successful company overall. Nintendo's creativity is one of its best qualities. Even though over multiple video game console generations Nintendo has and continues to make many games of the same franchises, almost all of them are considered high quality and I attribute that to its creativiteness. Conformity sacrifices creativity and if Nintendo is unwilling to partake in trends to preserve its uniqueness, so be it. I think I understand its bad decisions and will embrace its good ones.BranKetra

I disagree that conformity necessarily stifles or sacrifices creativity, nor do I find it's required to conform to be competitive.  Nintendo's creative because they create unique games, not because they aren't conforming to trends.  If they offered what Sony and MS are....comparitive online features, indie games, accounts, more games, that would be conforming wouldn't it?  But how would that affect their creative side?  Even then, they're barely even being creative anymore.  Retro doing DK is extremely disappointing and safe.  The thing that made Nintendo so great in the past was that they took creative risks.  That seems to be lessening looking at their lineup, and without that their only ace up their sleeve will be gone.  

http://www.lostgarden.com/2005/09/nintendos-genre-innovation-strategy.html

syztem

They have a game console. MS and Sony also have game consoles. They can say they are not competing, but they are. That's just how actual lived reality works. That said, they still make great games worth buying a system to play. (just not for $50 shy of a PS4, that's absurd to an extreme)

Randolph

Nintendo does its own thing, they just choose not to compete with MS and Sony. That doesn't make them worse, just different"

No, it definitely makes them worse. Ignoring console specs their laziness really should upset their fans. Their poor online, how long they were without voice chat, overcharging for their VC games, keeping their region locks, not having a descent sized hard drive, not adding a second circle pad to the 3DS, not allowing someone to have one account for their Wii, 3DS, and Wii U, not allowing people to combine their Nintendo points between their three system even though Club Nintendo should allow for that, and not combining the marketplace for all thee systems.

Them choosing not to compete and forcing people to buy their system for their exclusives is not a good thing for their customers it just promotes their lazy backwards attitudes that they have had since the N64.

They lucked into their asinine practices working with the Wii but this is not something that should continue to work well.

I don't want to talk about all Nintedo has done wrong as this is well known and would be walking a well worn path. I want to go deeper and discuss what is it about their approach and strategy that is allowing all this to happen. Is it culture? Is it a CEO who is not an alpha male who has no balls to run a multi-billion dollar enterprise? All the upper management? What exactly is Nintendo's problem? I guess I'm just fascinated by the thinking behind their choices and wish to understand their thinking better.

MirkoS77

On the console market, its easy to sum up Nintendo's position/attitude in a few sentences. Nintendo is filled with people who only know how to make Mario/Zelda/Metroid (people looking to make original games don't join Nintendo) and their fanbase is composed of core gamers who key on those franchises. Nintendo used to partner with Western developers and trust them enough to let them build original games oriented at Western sensibilities (Rare). Nowadays despite the fact that the level of Western talent/popularity of Western games is exponentially higher than it was back in the 8, 16 and 32/64 bit days, Nintendo doesn't trust or respect any Western developer that much. Its one remaining Western partner works on mouldering Japanese franchises under the close supervision of Miyamoto. The only Nintendo funded original game is Wonderful 101 from Platinum Games, a talented Japanese studio who has never made a commercially successful original game.

Their now nonexistent relationship with casual gamers is a bit more complex. The simplicity and novelty of the Wiimote drew tens of millions of new gamers, a massive group Nintendo quickly lost because they clearly didn't/don't understand them. The DS, the Wii and their first couple of casual games (Nintendogs, Braining Training Wii Sports, Wii Fitness, etc) were huge hits, but Nintendo didn't try to keep their attention with more novelty (which could have been a new HW gimmick or could have been new types of games) they started cranking out sequels and offering a more refined/complex versions of its old hardware and games.

Sequels and the wiimote plus and the 3DS struck such casuals as pointless (in that sense casuals are kind of the opposite of the core, many of whom prize familiarity and refinement) and the follow-ups to games which sold tens of millions of copies have only sold small (in some cases very small) fractions of that. Its also worth nothing that the monsterously complex Wii U tablet which not only offers functionality which is old hat, but is the combination of of a full controller and a tablet and thus boasts a level of complexity that the Nintendo of 2005 would have ridiculed.

Last but not least, Nintendo's management is intentionally screwing over its consoles in order to strengthen the 3DS (handhelds are Nintendo's bread and butter). As I mentioned, the 3DS has manifestly failed to capture the casual audience, but it has sold quite well. This has happened because Nintendo drastically reduced support for its consoles when the 3DS started to struggle and there is no evidence that their focus will change anytime soon. During the long span of nothing that is Nintendo's release calendar for the Wii U the 3DS has hosted Animal Crossing, Fire Emblem and Luigi's Mansion 2. Nintendo will continue to lavish support on the 3DS while Christmas 2013's most heavily promoted (and probably bestselling) Wii U game will be an uprezzed port of an old Gamecube game.

Nintendo "chooses" not to compete because they can't compete. Nintendo is a backwards and antiquated company that's finally being relegated to a status of irrelevancy they've actually been in since 1995.

But now they're losing even that last shred of appeal they had. Their last three consoles were trash with shit support, but they still had some appealing games. Even the Wii, which I hated as a concept and maintained since it was known as Revolution that it's a fad that will sooner or later fizzle out and won't bring absolutely anything new to the table, had interesting games like Super Mario Galaxy. The Wii U is a complete and utter trainwreck, even compared to their last three consoles. Even their premier games are meh. Super Mario 3D World not only looks like a total piece of shit, but quite frankly, it's insulting.

As for why that is the case? Honestly, I think it's Miyamoto. It's high time that he goes away and lets some new people with new visions have a crack at it. As evidenced by multiple studios who worked with Nintendo, Miyamoto runs a dictatorship which regularly stifles other people's creativity.

Good points. I'm kind of "done" with Nintendo. Granted my last Nintendo console was a gift, I could just never justify spending any kind of money to get treated so badly (as a gamer/consumer) by a company I support.

Nintendo just has a different approach. 

Nintendo's Wii was successful in its entirety since they did not compete with the other. It is good bussiness. Even if the more gamers did not like that. Now, Nintendo find they are competing and losing with the iOS and they are having to get back on the more hamers god side.

That last sentence is bologna. Nintendo would not have even come close to going broke if they had put equivalent horsepower to a 360 in the Wii with HD support, and you know it.

Randolph

True, that was hyperbole. But it seems it was more of an investment than Nintendo thought it was worth.

I'm not necessarily defending them. I think the Wii-U is a hot mess and I wish I could get my money back. I got it at launch and only have Nintendoland, which came with it, Scribblenauts - a present, and Lego City. And I'm honestly not interested in anything they've announced. Not Donkey Kong, not Mario Kart, and not the 3DS port they're calling the next big Mario game. I'm very disappointed as a customer.

They dont need to compete because of their fanbase. No personal offense intended but have you paid attention to them? They go apeshit over the new mario game announcement because......mario now gets a cat suit. Or they get excited over new super mario luigi despite the fact its just another new super mario game re-skinned. They went crazy for yet another smash bros game because it has a couple new characters in it. All nintendo has to do is throw in one or two small features and people line up to buy the game at full price.

All nintendo has to do to make money is shit out another mario, zelda or pokemon game and rake in the cash. Nintendo hasnt had an original idea in decades yet they always make money.

"Take that game there. Put some new levels in it and slap 49.99 on it"

"See that game there? Do it again"

"See that old game? Re-release it"

"Put a new character in that one"

Thats pretty much their design process. They dont spend money or time doing anything but have a rabid fanbase that will throw money at them.

Gargus

How is that different to any other company? EA releases FIFA, Madden, PGA Tour and Need for Speed every year, Activision releases CoD every year, Ubisoft releases Assassin's Creed every year, with little to no changes in any of them. At least outside of Mario, Nintendo takes there time with there games, people are excited for Smash 4 because it's been 5 years since the last one (probably 6 by release). If you want to talk about a rabid fan base look towards the people who by EA, Activision and Ubisofts yearly titles each and every time, instead of Nintendo's fans who have to wait over half a decade to get a new title in some franchises.

spike6958

Firstly, Nintendo is often cited as being an innovator that specifically doesn't churn out redundant franchise releases, which is clearly not the case. They exploit franchises as much as any other company with the marked difference being that they take their sweet time releasing these redundant offerings.

Secondly, publishers such as EA and Ubisoft also develop and release new IP's on a regular basis with far more frequency than Nintendo.

So basically those companies you cite in some vain attempt to obfuscate Nintendo's ineptness only serves to demonstrate a stark and unavoidable reality, which is that companies like EA, Ubisoft and Activision achieve what Nintendo does but with far more efficiency and a much larger output of quality software.

How is that different to any other company? EA releases FIFA, Madden, PGA Tour and Need for Speed every year, Activision releases CoD every year, Ubisoft releases Assassin's Creed every year, with little to no changes in any of them. At least outside of Mario, Nintendo takes there time with there games, people are excited for Smash 4 because it's been 5 years since the last one (probably 6 by release). If you want to talk about a rabid fan base look towards the people who by EA, Activision and Ubisofts yearly titles each and every time, instead of Nintendo's fans who have to wait over half a decade to get a new title in some franchises.spike6958

This is yet another:

"Everybody else does it, therefor it's OK that Nintendo does."

For some reason Nintendo fans believe that everyone is fine with EA, Ubi, and Activision throwing out the same games year after year.  I hear just as much complaints and tired lamentation towards the next Madden, AC, and CoD releases as I do towards Nintendo's, the difference being (as Gram touched upon) is that those annual releases are interspersed with new, fresh, AAA releases.  I would have NO trouble with Nintendo reusing their IPs if they offered something else.  And no, I don't consider Nintendo Land, X, and Pushmo to be classic, heavy hitters on the caliber of Pikmin and Galaxy with their particular creative spark and polish.

Also, Nintendo's franchises are probably older than a large majority of people on this site, all the others you are comparing them to are not (I'll grant Madden is up there though).  Nintendo's games hit seldom, and recently with such minimal improvements that really do not warrant the amount of time it takes to get them on the shelves.  Hell, the Mario game coming looks to be a massive step back from the SMGs and when I first saw it my initial reaction was believing it to be a 3DS game.  Retro taking 3 years (this is why many were suspecting a new IP) to develop a simple Donkey Kong sequel that barely looks better than its Wii counterpart is absurd, not to mention it already having existing developmental assets to use, the amount of time it's taking astounds me.

Everything's just coming to a head.  I was deeply concerned for Nintendo before E3, now after their pathetic Direct I'm now outright frightened for them.  Instead of creating a flood of new software for the Wii U and overhauling online to be able to stand up to Live and PSN among other changes, they believe the best strategy at this point is to withdraw their head into their Koopa shell, throw out safe bets, and weather the storm and then peek meekly out when it settles down only to resume their boneheaded stubbornness all over again.  It's just insane.  I've been with Nintendo since the NES, and despite so many saying it's the typical doom cycle again repeating (and as much as I agreed with those people in the past) I don't think I've ever seen Nintendo in nearly such a bad situation as they are now.  It's different.  Not only are many of their business practices archaic and anti-consumer but now it seems like even their games (the ONE thing keeping them afloat) are beginning to lack that special something and are losing their brand strength and appeal.  And if they don't have those.....what exactly do they have?

And no, I don't consider Nintendo Land, X, and Pushmo to be classic, heavy hitters on the caliber of Pikmin and Galaxy with their particular creative spark and polish.MirkoS77

 I mean the game was probably the most promising thing they showed at e3 and it's from the makers of Xenoblade, one of the few great JRPGs this gen

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]Although Nintendo has made mistakes, I believe it is a successful company overall. Nintendo's creativity is one of its best qualities. Even though over multiple video game console generations Nintendo has and continues to make many games of the same franchises, almost all of them are considered high quality and I attribute that to its creativiteness. Conformity sacrifices creativity and if Nintendo is unwilling to partake in trends to preserve its uniqueness, so be it. I think I understand its bad decisions and will embrace its good ones.MirkoS77

I disagree that conformity necessarily stifles or sacrifices creativity, nor do I find it's required to conform to be competitive.  Nintendo's creative because they create unique games, not because they aren't conforming to trends.  If they offered what Sony and MS are....comparitive online features, indie games, accounts, more games, that would be conforming wouldn't it?  But how would that affect their creative side?  Even then, they're barely even being creative anymore.  Retro doing DK is extremely disappointing and safe.  The thing that made Nintendo so great in the past was that they took creative risks.  That seems to be lessening looking at their lineup, and without that their only ace up their sleeve will be gone.  

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

[QUOTE="spike6958"] How is that different to any other company? EA releases FIFA, Madden, PGA Tour and Need for Speed every year, Activision releases CoD every year, Ubisoft releases Assassin's Creed every year, with little to no changes in any of them. At least outside of Mario, Nintendo takes there time with there games, people are excited for Smash 4 because it's been 5 years since the last one (probably 6 by release). If you want to talk about a rabid fan base look towards the people who by EA, Activision and Ubisofts yearly titles each and every time, instead of Nintendo's fans who have to wait over half a decade to get a new title in some franchises.Shinobishyguy

This is yet another:

"Everybody else does it, therefor it's OK that Nintendo does."

For some reason Nintendo fans believe that everyone is fine with EA, Ubi, and Activision throwing out the same games year after year.  I hear just as much complaints and tired lamentation towards the next Madden, AC, and CoD releases as I do towards Nintendo's, the difference being (as Gram touched upon) is that those annual releases are interspersed with new, fresh, AAA releases.  I would have NO trouble with Nintendo reusing their IPs if they offered something else.  And no, I don't consider Nintendo Land, X, and Pushmo to be classic, heavy hitters on the caliber of Pikmin and Galaxy with their particular creative spark and polish.

Also, Nintendo's franchises are probably older than a large majority of people on this site, all the others you are comparing them to are not (I'll grant Madden is up there though).  Nintendo's games hit seldom, and recently with such minimal improvements that really do not warrant the amount of time it takes to get them on the shelves.  Hell, the Mario game coming looks to be a massive step back from the SMGs and when I first saw it my initial reaction was believing it to be a 3DS game.  Retro taking 3 years (this is why many were suspecting a new IP) to develop a simple Donkey Kong sequel that barely looks better than its Wii counterpart is absurd, not to mention it already having existing developmental assets to use, the amount of time it's taking astounds me.

Everything's just coming to a head.  I was deeply concerned for Nintendo before E3, now after their pathetic Direct I'm now outright frightened for them.  Instead of creating a flood of new software for the Wii U and overhauling online to be able to stand up to Live and PSN among other changes, they believe the best strategy at this point is to withdraw their head into their Koopa shell, throw out safe bets, and weather the storm and then peek meekly out when it settles down only to resume their boneheaded stubbornness all over again.  It's just insane.  I've been with Nintendo since the NES, and despite so many saying it's the typical doom cycle again repeating (and as much as I agreed with those people in the past) I don't think I've ever seen Nintendo in nearly such a bad situation as they are now.  It's different.  Not only are many of their business practices archaic and anti-consumer but now it seems like even their games (the ONE thing keeping them afloat) are beginning to lack that special something and are losing their brand strength and appeal.  And if they don't have those.....what exactly do they have?

[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"]

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

This is yet another:

"Everybody else does it, therefor it's OK that Nintendo does."

For some reason Nintendo fans believe that everyone is fine with EA, Ubi, and Activision throwing out the same games year after year.  I hear just as much complaints and tired lamentation towards the next Madden, AC, and CoD releases as I do towards Nintendo's, the difference being (as Gram touched upon) is that those annual releases are interspersed with new, fresh, AAA releases.  I would have NO trouble with Nintendo reusing their IPs if they offered something else.  And no, I don't consider Nintendo Land, X, and Pushmo to be classic, heavy hitters on the caliber of Pikmin and Galaxy with their particular creative spark and polish.

Also, Nintendo's franchises are probably older than a large majority of people on this site, all the others you are comparing them to are not (I'll grant Madden is up there though).  Nintendo's games hit seldom, and recently with such minimal improvements that really do not warrant the amount of time it takes to get them on the shelves.  Hell, the Mario game coming looks to be a massive step back from the SMGs and when I first saw it my initial reaction was believing it to be a 3DS game.  Retro taking 3 years (this is why many were suspecting a new IP) to develop a simple Donkey Kong sequel that barely looks better than its Wii counterpart is absurd, not to mention it already having existing developmental assets to use, the amount of time it's taking astounds me.

Everything's just coming to a head.  I was deeply concerned for Nintendo before E3, now after their pathetic Direct I'm now outright frightened for them.  Instead of creating a flood of new software for the Wii U and overhauling online to be able to stand up to Live and PSN among other changes, they believe the best strategy at this point is to withdraw their head into their Koopa shell, throw out safe bets, and weather the storm and then peek meekly out when it settles down only to resume their boneheaded stubbornness all over again.  It's just insane.  I've been with Nintendo since the NES, and despite so many saying it's the typical doom cycle again repeating (and as much as I agreed with those people in the past) I don't think I've ever seen Nintendo in nearly such a bad situation as they are now.  It's different.  Not only are many of their business practices archaic and anti-consumer but now it seems like even their games (the ONE thing keeping them afloat) are beginning to lack that special something and are losing their brand strength and appeal.  And if they don't have those.....what exactly do they have?

MirkoS77

As for charm I don't even get what you're going on about. Its a huge ass open world rpg with mechs. Sounds pretty awesome to me

how do you even know the game doesn't have that same level of polish when it isn't even out yet

 As for charm I don't even get what you're going on about. Its a huge ass open world rpg with mechs. Sounds pretty awesome to me

Shinobishyguy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqw4LP2nL64

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIIPkyWaiu0

Does this?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnpR6S4iKXY

That's what I'm going on about.  You don't see a large difference? I'm also not saying games with that Nintendo appeal are not coming, but they're not pushing anything past what we've already seen before.

Nintendo competes, but they just do it on their own terms.  The Wii U isn't doing so hot right now, but I expect it to pick up once they release some of their big hitters.  The 3DS right now is practically untouchable.  It would be nice if Nintendo would actually release a new IP instead of rehashing all their existing ones.  That's not to say they shouldn't make new Mario or Zelda games, but something new doesn't hurt.  Their last new IP was what, Pikmin?  However, I do love the fact that Nintendo is video game centric.  They aren't concerned with being the center of your home theater system, just delivering games.

Overall, uniqueness benefits Nintendo more than harms.BranKetra

Much of that uniqueness I would categorize as obstinate; a pronounced and protracted inability to adopt certain technological norms even when doing so would be beneficial to the company, the software developers and the consumers.

And Nintendo's success regarding consoles is, at best, uneven. They essentially tied with SEGA during the 16-bit era and decisively lost both subsequent generations thereafter. The Wii was a massive success but even that boon was mitigated by an almost cataclysmic drop off in sales that rendered the platform practically irrelevant for the last three years of the console's lifecycle.

Approaching the matter of Nintendo holistically and within the context of their storied history does little to negate their continuous failures, many of which are predicated on their supposed uniqueness.

Nintendo competes, but they just do it on their own terms. The Wii U isn't doing so hot right now, but I expect it to pick up once they release some of their big hitters. The 3DS right now is practically untouchable. It would be nice if Nintendo would actually release a new IP instead of rehashing all their existing ones. That's not to say they shouldn't make new Mario or Zelda games, but something new doesn't hurt. Their last new IP was what, Pikmin? However, I do love the fact that Nintendo is video game centric. They aren't concerned with being the center of your home theater system, just delivering games.

isv666

The Wii U isn't going to start selling well merely because a few new games start dropping, especially in light of new hardware coming from the competition. This erroneous assumption that a trickle of familiar IP's can salvage such a poorly-received platform disregards historical precedents, which have demonstrated that these franchises can and will only carry a fledging system so far.

As to the notion that Nintendo is gaming-centric, bear in mind they have consistently been the worst at delivering games at a healthy pace post-SNES while their competition practically drowns in software.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"] Overall, uniqueness benefits Nintendo more than harms.Grammaton-Cleric

Much of that uniqueness I would categorize as obstinate; a pronounced and protracted inability to adopt certain technological norms even when doing so would be beneficial to the company, the software developers and the consumers.

And Nintendo's success regarding consoles is, at best, uneven. They essentially tied with SEGA during the 16-bit era and decisively lost both subsequent generations thereafter. The Wii was a massive success but even that boon was mitigated by an almost cataclysmic drop off in sales that rendered the platform practically irrelevant for the last three years of the console's lifecycle.

Approaching the matter of Nintendo holistically and within the context of their storied history does little to negate their continuous failures, many of which are predicated on their supposed uniqueness.

How are you defining success, for us, yeah Nintendo made big mistakes. For Nintendo the company, they are LIGHTYEARS ahead of basically every game company in terms of making money. Its not even close. So while they maybe hit a brick wall just now, whatever Nintendo has been doing has been working for Nintendo.

dvader654

Nintendo's finances are heavily predicated on cheating the consumer with outdated hardware that doesn't conform to industry standards, which helps keep them in the black.

Of course they also make a great deal of money from handhelds, which is well-deserved.

I would consider the fact that they have been effectively trounced by the competition in terms of hardware sales during most generations to be a strong indicator of failure, along with their pathetic inability to generate a meaningful and steady flow of software support for their own consoles.

They continue to make money because they take few risks and no longer push any technological advancements and they are able to milk certain franchises to the hilt but even that strategy is waning as the Wii U is causing them to hemorrhage money as it is one of the first Nintendo consoles to be sold at a loss.

I said in the post you quoted partly that my stated opinion of Nintendo is about the entire history of its business in the video game industry and not holistic. Also, my opinion of success in business is dominance is one aspect of it, but not the only kind which I think is a difference between you and I. When considering Nintendo's entire history in the gaming industry, I do not know of any continuous failure.

BranKetra

Not to be pedantic but what you are claiming to be evaluating is a holistic representation of the company, including history and their place and function within the larger context of the industry.

As to continuous failure, I would consider most of their consoles abject failures given Nintendo's initial rise to prominence and their key role in salvaging the console business, only to lose that market share because of their obstinate and stubborn refusal to evolve in logical and necessary ways.

I also consider the inability to garner third party support an ongoing failure that stretches as far back as the mid-90's. I think any rational metric would entail the philosophy that a console lacking in games isn't much of a console and every Nintendo console post-SNES has suffered from a dearth of software.

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"]let me ask you something, why don't you consider project X as a quality new ip? I mean the game was probably the most promising thing they showed at e3 and it's from the makers of Xenoblade, one of the few great JRPGs this gen

dvader654

And wait now you are arguing you dont want Nintendo to make non-nintendo games?

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"] Overall, uniqueness benefits Nintendo more than harms.dvader654

Much of that uniqueness I would categorize as obstinate; a pronounced and protracted inability to adopt certain technological norms even when doing so would be beneficial to the company, the software developers and the consumers.

And Nintendo's success regarding consoles is, at best, uneven. They essentially tied with SEGA during the 16-bit era and decisively lost both subsequent generations thereafter. The Wii was a massive success but even that boon was mitigated by an almost cataclysmic drop off in sales that rendered the platform practically irrelevant for the last three years of the console's lifecycle.

Approaching the matter of Nintendo holistically and within the context of their storied history does little to negate their continuous failures, many of which are predicated on their supposed uniqueness.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

I said in the post you quoted partly that my stated opinion of Nintendo is about the entire history of its business in the video game industry and not holistic. Also, my opinion of success in business is dominance is one aspect of it, but not the only kind which I think is a difference between you and I. When considering Nintendo's entire history in the gaming industry, I do not know of any continuous failure.

Grammaton-Cleric

Not to be pedantic but what you are claiming to be evaluating is a holistic representation of the company, including history and their place and function within the larger context of the industry.

As to continuous failure, I would consider most of their consoles abject failures given Nintendo's initial rise to prominence and their key role in salvaging the console business, only to lose that market share because of their obstinate and stubborn refusal to evolve in logical and necessary ways.

I also consider the inability to garner third party support an ongoing failure that stretches as far back as the mid-90's. I think any rational metric would entail the philosophy that a console lacking in games isn't much of a console and every Nintendo console post-SNES has suffered from a dearth of software.

The SNES sold less consoles than the NES and the latter is probably the console you speak of which is Nintendo's initial success. The SNES, N64, and Gamecube sold less than the NES. The Wii sold better than all previous consoles not including handhelds according to wikipedia. If you do not consider handheld systems consoles then one could say Nintendo failed to improve its console sales for three generations, but I do consider handheld systems to be consoles because they are. What you call Nintendo's abject failures of home consoles, I call not as successful. Each Nintendo home console since the NES besides the Wii U has been sold over twenty million times. I call that a successful business considering Nintendo profitting from each of them besides the Wii U thus far. 

Nintendo home consoles lack the amount of third-party support the SNES and the NES before it had, but there are games for them made by developers besides its first party including the Wii U. This is another instance in which our opinions of success differ. Not all consumers want many games. Instead, some want one great game or several of them which is probably why there are one-console homes featuring Nintendo consoles. The type of game a consumer wants is ultimately subjective.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

I said in the post you quoted partly that my stated opinion of Nintendo is about the entire history of its business in the video game industry and not holistic. Also, my opinion of success in business is dominance is one aspect of it, but not the only kind which I think is a difference between you and I. When considering Nintendo's entire history in the gaming industry, I do not know of any continuous failure.

BranKetra

Not to be pedantic but what you are claiming to be evaluating is a holistic representation of the company, including history and their place and function within the larger context of the industry.

As to continuous failure, I would consider most of their consoles abject failures given Nintendo's initial rise to prominence and their key role in salvaging the console business, only to lose that market share because of their obstinate and stubborn refusal to evolve in logical and necessary ways.

I also consider the inability to garner third party support an ongoing failure that stretches as far back as the mid-90's. I think any rational metric would entail the philosophy that a console lacking in games isn't much of a console and every Nintendo console post-SNES has suffered from a dearth of software.

The SNES sold less consoles than the NES and the latter is probably the console you speak of which is Nintendo's initial success. The SNES, N64, and Gamecube sold less than the NES. The Wii sold better than all previous consoles not including handhelds according to wikipedia. If you do not consider handheld systems consoles then one could say Nintendo failed to improve its console sales for three generations, but I do consider handheld systems to be consoles because they are. What you call Nintendo's abject failures of home consoles, I call not as successful. Each Nintendo home console since the NES besides the Wii U has been sold over twenty million times. I call that a successful business considering Nintendo profitting from each of them besides the Wii U thus far.

Nintendo home consoles lack the amount of third-party support the SNES and the NES before it had, but there are games for them made by developers besides its first party including the Wii U. This is another instance in which our opinions of success differ. Not all consumers want many games. Instead, some want one great game or several of them which is probably why there are one-console homes featuring Nintendo consoles. The type of game a consumer wants is ultimately subjective.

I don't know what Wikipedia page you were looking at, but in seven years the Wii hasn't hit the 100 million mark (though it will get there any day now). The PS1 and PS2 shot past that mark in less than five and both have lifetime sales north of 150 milllion. The Wii sold really fast out the gate, but sales crashed in part because Nintendo stopped focusing on it (when the 3DS had sales troubles Nintendo stop focusing on consoles and thus far has not resumed focusing on consoles) and in part because Nintendo didn't understand the tastes of the new gamers it created. They were drawn by the novelty of the Wii's library and initial offerings had tremendous success, but Nintendo didn't keep offering them new experiences, it eventually went into sequel mode (core games tend to appreciate the refinement and familiarity of sequels, the casuals Nintendo had created wondered why Nintendo was trying to sell them the same experience again) and Nintendo's new audience drifted off to either the Kinect, smartphones or away from gaming.

And the Wii U's tablet/controller hybrid is the sort of idea Nintendo would have ridiculed back in 2005, when it stated that the complexity of conventional controllers kept more people from gaming (they were right). Nintendo apparently forget its own admonition when it designed the Wii U's monsterously complex controller, but MS remembered those words when it designed the Kinect.

And they make decisions that are just insane. The Wii U was always going to have an uphill battle against the PS3 and X360, but Nintendo made the fight harder than it had to be not only with a wildly expensive controller no one is excited about, but by keeping the specs. Keeping the specs of the system secret avoids embarrassing leaks of tech details (the specs of the X720 and PS4 leaked through developers months before they were announced, whereas the Wii U's specs are secret to this day) but it means that developers have a poorer understanding of the hardware and game development is both more time consuming and more expensive (both the PS4 and X720 have a level of developer support the Wii U can only dream of).

The games consumers want is subjective, but look at the fact that Nintendo's handhelds offer a far broader, stronger range of games than its consoles (due to more boldness by Nintendo and more support from third parties) and sell a lot better, surely you can concede that the more options one gives consumers the happier most consumers are?

Man, you guys are so deep on your analysis of Nintendo and modern gaming. (Being sincere)