Why doesn't Nintendo just do what they did with the SNES?

  • 112 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for MonsieurX
#51 Posted by MonsieurX (37251 posts) -

Yes,simple as that. Wii U is saved,thanks PS4hasNOgames

Should make you new Nintendo's CEO.

Avatar image for Chutebox
#52 Edited by Chutebox (43474 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@ps4hasnogames said:

The best nintendo console of all time was the SNES, some say its the best console ever. Why don't they just keep coming out with classic RPG's and to keep up with the times start developing some new school shooters?

Uh...phrasing?

Avatar image for wiifan001
#53 Posted by wiifan001 (18657 posts) -

@ps4hasnogames said:

The best nintendo console of all time was the SNES, some say its the best console ever. Why don't they just keep coming out with classic RPG's and to keep up with the times start developing some new school shooters?

Because they came up with the Wii, far better than the snes

Avatar image for LegatoSkyheart
#54 Posted by LegatoSkyheart (29702 posts) -

Because while Nintendo HAS actually been doing the same stuff they've always been doing, 3rd Parties are not.

Avatar image for jg4xchamp
#55 Posted by jg4xchamp (61470 posts) -

@nintendoboy16 said:

@Gue1 said:

because what made the Snes awesome wasn't the nintendo gamesbut the 3rd party support. But because nintendo never listens then the 3rd party's don't give a **** about them either.

It's posts like this that REALLY make me question what qualifies as a "true Nintendo" fan.

By the way, you're aware that the SNES, even with all the third party support, STILL HAD a first party foothold in sale right? Look at the top list. The only third party game to crack the top ten was Street Fighter II (two different versions), but even so, like the N64, Nintendo and Rare ran things across the board in sales.

Nintendo without 3rd party, has been outclassed by the competition every gen sans The Wii, which had the motion control thing going for it.

With 3rd party they were a market leader with the Nes, Snes, and in the handheld space.

Those third party games may never match up to a single nintendo games sales individually, but as a collection, a group they mean way more than Nintendo's first party.

Avatar image for jg4xchamp
#56 Posted by jg4xchamp (61470 posts) -

@Salt_The_Fries said:

Because unlike Sony which is a pure cash grabbing machine (not unlike Microsoft), Nintendo is built on principles. Sometimes said principles bite them on the ass but they'd never blindly favour bigger processing power over their flagship gameplay.

lol, that's the absurd reasoning we're going with?

It's because they are cheap.

Avatar image for ps4hasnogames
#57 Edited by PS4hasNOgames (2620 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:
@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

@ps4hasnogames: Why not ask car companies why they don't make cars like the Pinto or ask Apple why they don't make computers in the vein of the Apple II. That business model doesn't work.

Not what he was saying at all. He meant why don't Nintendo start making a competetive console again. Not another 16 bit console lol. Something that has the 3rd parties, and the power, and the nintendo IP's. Wouldn't hurt them.

this, and start making or releasing some exclusive RPG's. The SNES had probably the best RPG catalog of any console ever (PS1 strong contender). The Wii had maybe 2-3 classic great RPGs, one of them was Xenoblade chronicles but still they can't match the SNES's.

Make your marios and donkey kings and zelda's, but it seems like every Nintendo release now is either one of their classic mascot games....or complete crap.

Avatar image for KBFloYd
#58 Edited by KBFloYd (19419 posts) -

they proved with the wii....they dont need to make an snes...

now they just have to find the right combination of hardware that actual appeals to people more than better graphics and the same controller....

its gonna be tricky

Avatar image for drummerdave9099
#59 Posted by drummerdave9099 (3450 posts) -

@ps4hasnogames said:

The best nintendo console of all time was the SNES, some say its the best console ever. Why don't they just keep coming out with classic RPG's and to keep up with the times start developing some new school shooters?

They have the best console jrpg's coming out right now with Xenoblade actually.

More shooters would be cool, but they wouldn't be good without better servers and a larger community

Avatar image for MirkoS77
#60 Edited by MirkoS77 (12923 posts) -

@Salt_The_Fries said:

Because unlike Sony which is a pure cash grabbing machine (not unlike Microsoft), Nintendo is built on principles. Sometimes said principles bite them on the ass but they'd never blindly favour bigger processing power over their flagship gameplay.

Since when does favoring one compromise the other? Point in fact, more processing power never hurt gameplay. You guys buy into Nintendo's bullshit far too much.

Avatar image for big_mak523
#61 Posted by big_mak523 (210 posts) -

@MirkoS77: And you act as if processing power matters with Nintendo... They have made consoles that were on par with other systems, yet still sold terribly. Their issues are with 3rd parties REGARDLESS if the system was capable of producing sweat on someone's forehead. Nintendo is doing the right thing FOR THEM which is making cheaper consoles that can adequately support THEIR games. They went the power route before and it has crushed them.

There is the assumption that, "oh if nintendo made a super duper console all of its problems would be solved". When in reality it's much deeper than that. On the topic, why the hell do people want 3 identical consoles anyways. Like what the hell?. The XBOX and PS4 are barely different as it is, I don't need Nintendo joining that group.

Avatar image for Dom_Hawk_basic
#62 Posted by Dom_Hawk_basic (411 posts) -

@ps4hasnogames:

as they went from NES to SNES they could have gone from Wii to Swii, brought a little 80's vibe in and made and ad calling the system swiit (sweet) *pulls out umbrella for rotten tomatoes*

Avatar image for nintendoboy16
#63 Posted by nintendoboy16 (34379 posts) -

@jg4xchamp said:

Nintendo without 3rd party, has been outclassed by the competition every gen sans The Wii, which had the motion control thing going for it.

With 3rd party they were a market leader with the Nes, Snes, and in the handheld space.

Those third party games may never match up to a single nintendo games sales individually, but as a collection, a group they mean way more than Nintendo's first party.

Look, I'm not denying that third party is important, but to say MORE important is kind of wrong (there needs to be a balance), considering first/second parties are the ones bringing experiences on systems you can't find anywhere else, which last I checked also helped drive sales. Hell, look at the Vita, a Sony handheld that has more third party support than first party support and... well, you know it's fate.

Besides, it still surprises me how third party support is still used for bragging rights on Nintendo handhelds when even the support they give for that seems to be doing nothing in comparison to their first party offerings, including their "Triforce" (Mario/Zelda/Pokemon) and is just... there (which is, granted, better than nothing). Both the 3DS (bar Monster Hunter) and DS sales charts show that. At least the PS1, PS2, and 360 have enough third party games (especially in their top 10's) to prove that it's helping them.

Avatar image for super600
#64 Edited by super600 (32423 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:

@Salt_The_Fries said:

Because unlike Sony which is a pure cash grabbing machine (not unlike Microsoft), Nintendo is built on principles. Sometimes said principles bite them on the ass but they'd never blindly favour bigger processing power over their flagship gameplay.

Since when does favoring one compromise the other? Point in fact, more processing power never hurt gameplay. You guys buy into Nintendo's bullshit far too much.

To an extent nintendo can't afford more processing power because it will increase the price of their console to a price that their audience does not want to pay for their console or handhelds,(as you saw with the WiiU's and 3ds's high launch prices). A mix of processing power and price has to be used. I really don't expect the next nintendo console depending on when it's released to be significantly more power than either the PS4 or XB1. It may end up being weaker than either of those consoles, but it will depend on the price nintendo wants to sell their console for and they things they want to emphasize on their next gen console after the WiiU.

Avatar image for MirkoS77
#65 Edited by MirkoS77 (12923 posts) -

@big_mak523 said:

@MirkoS77: And you act as if processing power matters with Nintendo... They have made consoles that were on par with other systems, yet still sold terribly. Their issues are with 3rd parties REGARDLESS if the system was capable of producing sweat on someone's forehead. Nintendo is doing the right thing FOR THEM which is making cheaper consoles that can adequately support THEIR games. They went the power route before and it has crushed them.

There is the assumption that, "oh if nintendo made a super duper console all of its problems would be solved". When in reality it's much deeper than that. On the topic, why the hell do people want 3 identical consoles anyways. Like what the hell?. The XBOX and PS4 are barely different as it is, I don't need Nintendo joining that group.

I was under the impression that Nintendo's games made them different. Just as Sony's exclusives make them different. As does MS's. Don't try to act like if Nintendo took the same hardware approach they'd all of a sudden lose their identity. That's found in their software and that's what makes them unique. It always has and will.

And I don't disagree about what you said necessarily, I take issue with the notion that had Nintendo made their hardware more capable, that they would somehow have to sacrifice gameplay which is rubbish. In fact I'd argue that weaker hardware ultimately limits a broader scope of gameplay. But for what Nintendo needs, the U is adequate.

Avatar image for MirkoS77
#66 Posted by MirkoS77 (12923 posts) -

@super600 said:

@MirkoS77 said:

@Salt_The_Fries said:

Because unlike Sony which is a pure cash grabbing machine (not unlike Microsoft), Nintendo is built on principles. Sometimes said principles bite them on the ass but they'd never blindly favour bigger processing power over their flagship gameplay.

Since when does favoring one compromise the other? Point in fact, more processing power never hurt gameplay. You guys buy into Nintendo's bullshit far too much.

To an extent nintendo can't afford more processing power because it will increase the price of their console to a price that their audience does not want to pay for their console or handhelds,(as you saw with the WiiU's and 3ds's high launch prices). A mix of processing power and price has to be used. I really don't expect the next nintendo console depending on when it's released to be significantly more power than either the PS4 or XB1. It may end up being weaker than either of those consoles, but it will depend on the price nintendo wants to sell their console for and they things they want to emphasize on their next gen console after the WiiU.

I no longer expect decent hardware from Nintendo, and for the games they make what they have suffices. They no longer attempt to push the envelope so it'd be wasted. Mini-games and what they do put out could still be done on the Wii. Hardware's the last thing Nintendo should be concerned about.

Avatar image for jg4xchamp
#67 Posted by jg4xchamp (61470 posts) -

@nintendoboy16 said:

@jg4xchamp said:

Nintendo without 3rd party, has been outclassed by the competition every gen sans The Wii, which had the motion control thing going for it.

With 3rd party they were a market leader with the Nes, Snes, and in the handheld space.

Those third party games may never match up to a single nintendo games sales individually, but as a collection, a group they mean way more than Nintendo's first party.

Look, I'm not denying that third party is important, but to say MORE important is kind of wrong (there needs to be a balance), considering first/second parties are the ones bringing experiences on systems you can't find anywhere else, which last I checked also helped drive sales. Hell, look at the Vita, a Sony handheld that has more third party support than first party support and... well, you know it's fate.

Besides, it still surprises me how third party support is still used for bragging rights on Nintendo handhelds when even the support they give for that seems to be doing nothing in comparison to their first party offerings, including their "Triforce" (Mario/Zelda/Pokemon) and is just... there (which is, granted, better than nothing). Both the 3DS (bar Monster Hunter) and DS sales charts show that. At least the PS1, PS2, and 360 have enough third party games (especially in their top 10's) to prove that it's helping them.

Their most successful systems with the exception of the Wii, is the one with third party support.

The other systems may "sell" systems, when the systems are actually on an even playing field, otherwise it's about making sure you are getting as many games as humanly possible from third party. And that's why the Playstation has clowned, it's why even with all the backlash for the Xbox One they are in better position going forward than the WiiU is.

Avatar image for nintendoboy16
#68 Posted by nintendoboy16 (34379 posts) -

@jg4xchamp said:

Their most successful systems with the exception of the Wii, is the one with third party support.

The other systems may "sell" systems, when the systems are actually on an even playing field, otherwise it's about making sure you are getting as many games as humanly possible from third party. And that's why the Playstation has clowned, it's why even with all the backlash for the Xbox One they are in better position going forward than the WiiU is.

And it's also about how well these games sell too, and, once again looking at Nintendo's handhelds in comparison to the home consoles from Sony/MS... yeah.

Avatar image for AzatiS
#69 Posted by AzatiS (14238 posts) -

@KBFloYd said:

they proved with the wii....they dont need to make an snes...

now they just have to find the right combination of hardware that actual appeals to people more than better graphics and the same controller....

its gonna be tricky

What the hell you tlaking about ?

They proved with the Wii that missing 3rd party AAA titles gonna hurt in the long run. You think Wii was in a serious life support after 3 years in the market when was officially dead after 4-5 despite its 100M userbase a success ?

No bro , all Wii proved was that it was a bubble that POPED , thats all Wii proved. Wii was the ONLY console in history that was so far ahead vs competition while being a dust collector at the same time. That never happened before , ever. So plese with the ...proves.

Avatar image for deactivated-57ad0e5285d73
#71 Posted by deactivated-57ad0e5285d73 (21398 posts) -

@Star0: as I said I'm not sure which really is the superior console. More classics on the NES? I think you'd be surprised to hear that I may agree. The racers have actually aged better IMO, for the most part. Pure platforming? I don't know--the NES is just loaded with stellar releases. Even the sound and visuals are better in a lot of ways. Now I adore the snes, but unless used properly the sound chip tended to output this muffled tone a lot of the times vs the ultra crisp output of the nes. However, factor in what happened with games like Starfox and Donkey Kong?

It's hard to say because there are areas that the snes completely demolished the snes. The hardware itself was much better designed. Top Loader NES(trying to find a decent priced one) rectified this somewhat.

The fighting and RPG genres were two that really lacked on the NES, IMO.

Genesis is up there as well. I could go on and on but I'm typing on my ipad...

Avatar image for ps4hasnogames
#72 Posted by PS4hasNOgames (2620 posts) -

@AzatiS said:

@KBFloYd said:

they proved with the wii....they dont need to make an snes...

now they just have to find the right combination of hardware that actual appeals to people more than better graphics and the same controller....

its gonna be tricky

What the hell you tlaking about ?

They proved with the Wii that missing 3rd party AAA titles gonna hurt in the long run. You think Wii was in a serious life support after 3 years in the market when was officially dead after 4-5 despite its 100M userbase a success ?

No bro , all Wii proved was that it was a bubble that POPED , thats all Wii proved. Wii was the ONLY console in history that was so far ahead vs competition while being a dust collector at the same time. That never happened before , ever. So plese with the ...proves.

The Wii is their most successful console, but it might also be their worst. It is the ultimate casual console, made for grandmas and soccer moms who want to lose weight. The Wii sold MILLIONS of consoles just to fat people because they thought it'd be fun to lose weight on wii fit. $300 later they are still fat and have a bunch of plastic crap lying around the house.

Avatar image for deactivated-57ad0e5285d73
#73 Posted by deactivated-57ad0e5285d73 (21398 posts) -

@ps4hasnogames said:

@AzatiS said:

@KBFloYd said:

they proved with the wii....they dont need to make an snes...

now they just have to find the right combination of hardware that actual appeals to people more than better graphics and the same controller....

its gonna be tricky

What the hell you tlaking about ?

They proved with the Wii that missing 3rd party AAA titles gonna hurt in the long run. You think Wii was in a serious life support after 3 years in the market when was officially dead after 4-5 despite its 100M userbase a success ?

No bro , all Wii proved was that it was a bubble that POPED , thats all Wii proved. Wii was the ONLY console in history that was so far ahead vs competition while being a dust collector at the same time. That never happened before , ever. So plese with the ...proves.

The Wii is their most successful console, but it might also be their worst. It is the ultimate casual console, made for grandmas and soccer moms who want to lose weight. The Wii sold MILLIONS of consoles just to fat people because they thought it'd be fun to lose weight on wii fit. $300 later they are still fat and have a bunch of plastic crap lying around the house.

The wii isn't their most successful console, it is the nes. The nes is what created nintendo as a brand. The nes was responsible not just for console and game sales, but also in creating the branded merchandise. The NES was the Star Wars of the videogame industry.

Avatar image for big_mak523
#74 Posted by big_mak523 (210 posts) -

@MirkoS77: Yeah I agree with most of what you said. More power doesn't in anyway limit gameplay. I was just talking in terms of focus and policies. I would hate to see Nintendo start focusing solely about Online, shooters and third person sandbox type games haha. I know that is a generic stereotype about the rest of the industry but that is all I see. I like where Nintendo's focus is at and I like the price it comes at. I wouldn't pay 400 plus for any Nintendo system because I know it's games don't need all of that power.

Avatar image for pelvist
#75 Edited by pelvist (6939 posts) -

@edwardecl said:

All cartridge consoles back then were shit, there was much better available at the time. The best was the Amiga, that got so many games that were the definitive version and sometimes the only version it wasn't funny (although sadly not much Japanese stuff). Some say you can't class it as a console, but for many all they used it for was games and you could plug in joysticks and controllers and you did not need an operating system to boot the games.

Then the PS1 came along and changed everything. I suppose one of the reasons was that Sony bought up all the old Amiga devs.

I had an Amiga 2000, my mates where jelly because it had an 80MB HDD and two floppy drives. I did play the Amiga a lot more than my SNES and Megadrive and some Amiga games that got ported to those consoles where terrible -Theme Park on them was really bad. But I do remember a few games on the Amiga that sucked compared to the Megadrive versions, off the top of my head; both Shadow Dancer and Double Dragon where much better on the Megadrive than the Amiga.

Avatar image for PAL360
#76 Posted by PAL360 (28958 posts) -

No idea. Nes and Snes are the reasons why i still love Nintendo!

Avatar image for leandrro
#77 Edited by leandrro (1644 posts) -

@Gue1 said:

because what made the Snes awesome wasn't the nintendo games but the 3rd party support. But because nintendo never listens then the 3rd party's don't give a **** about them either.

what made nes great was the arcade to console ports, arcades were on another level just like PC are now and people were used to only shitty visuals on console like the shitty atari console games

so comes nintendo with this new console with visuals above anything on the competition, just like ps4 is now, and make the console market alive again

the next nintendo console was by far the better one, way above genesis and other 4th generation visuals, there was neo geo, but it was 500 dollars against snes 200, for that time it was like buy a ps4 for 400 or a 1000 dollars PC, with no option in between

what made nintendo great were great hardware with decent price, what destroyed nintendo was the increasingly crappy hardware and unfair price, starting with the lack of cd in 1993 up to the point they are selling past gen hardware at 350 dollars in 2013

i guess microsoft is trying to follow that same path to the abyss

Avatar image for IMAHAPYHIPPO
#78 Posted by IMAHAPYHIPPO (3185 posts) -
@ps4hasnogames said:

@scottpsfan14 said:
@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

@ps4hasnogames: Why not ask car companies why they don't make cars like the Pinto or ask Apple why they don't make computers in the vein of the Apple II. That business model doesn't work.

Not what he was saying at all. He meant why don't Nintendo start making a competetive console again. Not another 16 bit console lol. Something that has the 3rd parties, and the power, and the nintendo IP's. Wouldn't hurt them.

this, and start making or releasing some exclusive RPG's. The SNES had probably the best RPG catalog of any console ever (PS1 strong contender). The Wii had maybe 2-3 classic great RPGs, one of them was Xenoblade chronicles but still they can't match the SNES's.

Make your marios and donkey kings and zelda's, but it seems like every Nintendo release now is either one of their classic mascot games....or complete crap.

Mostly a joke :p That stuff doesn't translate well on the interwebs.

To discuss it more thoroughly, I'm not sure the RPG market is quite as dedicated as it was in the SNES days. They're much more expensive to make, and gamers are very selective in their choices of 100+ hour games.

Also, Xenoblade Chronicles X...

Avatar image for Jag85
#79 Edited by Jag85 (11378 posts) -
@lamprey263 said:

back then it was just them and Sega, and back then they were neck and neck, or I've heard it arguable that Sega had a slight lead in the overall market

believe me when I say it, people in the early 1990s would kill to have even the shittier games we have today

Most gamers in the early 90's would have lambasted today's games for being too easy, lacking in challenging gameplay, filled with too many cutscenes, and trying too hard to imitate Hollywood movies. The only thing they would have liked about today's games is the graphics.

Avatar image for Lucianu
#80 Edited by Lucianu (10283 posts) -

The SNES is the greatest console of all times not because of Nintendo's 1st party offerings, but because of its 3rd party support which resulted in a unfathomably huge library of varied excellent games.

Nintendo's 1st party support only got better as time went on, but their systems had a massive drop in support from other developers. Wii U might just alleviate the situation if it keeps the momentum going after 2015, which is going to be their year.

Avatar image for Jag85
#81 Edited by Jag85 (11378 posts) -
@system-reboot said:
@Heirren said:

@system-reboot said:

NES was terrible console

elaborate.

NES was about pure gameplay. Any console that reaches extreme popularity will get some garbage, but there's so many classics on the console that play just as well now as they did then. It is one of the best consoles without question. You are in the minority, here. The NES is an inspiration for so many games and game developers it is actually rather ridiculous; pixel "art" and even the "chip tune" tone of the console is still used to this day.

hmm no. PC was superior in every way.

but if we talk about solely console. Atari consoles were better.

When it came to gaming, PC was inferior in the mid-80's. If you meant actual gaming computers (Amiga, Atari ST, FM-7, MSX, PC-98, etc.), then you might have a point. But as far as PC goes, it was clearly inferior at the time.

And as far as consoles go, the Atari 7800 couldn't hold a candle to the NES. The only console that rivalled the NES at the time was the Sega Master System, which was technically superior and more successful in Europe and South America.

Avatar image for KBFloYd
#82 Edited by KBFloYd (19419 posts) -

@AzatiS said:

@KBFloYd said:

they proved with the wii....they dont need to make an snes...

now they just have to find the right combination of hardware that actual appeals to people more than better graphics and the same controller....

its gonna be tricky

What the hell you tlaking about ?

They proved with the Wii that missing 3rd party AAA titles gonna hurt in the long run. You think Wii was in a serious life support after 3 years in the market when was officially dead after 4-5 despite its 100M userbase a success ?

No bro , all Wii proved was that it was a bubble that POPED , thats all Wii proved. Wii was the ONLY console in history that was so far ahead vs competition while being a dust collector at the same time. That never happened before , ever. So plese with the ...proves.

butthurt playstation fanboy still can't accept defeat...the wii was a better console than the ps3.

get over it.

nintendo found a way to win without 3rd party...they just need to find the right combination of hardware, software or gimmick that appeals to everyone more than just a graphics update with the same controller.

Avatar image for jg4xchamp
#83 Edited by jg4xchamp (61470 posts) -

@nintendoboy16 said:

@jg4xchamp said:

Their most successful systems with the exception of the Wii, is the one with third party support.

The other systems may "sell" systems, when the systems are actually on an even playing field, otherwise it's about making sure you are getting as many games as humanly possible from third party. And that's why the Playstation has clowned, it's why even with all the backlash for the Xbox One they are in better position going forward than the WiiU is.

And it's also about how well these games sell too, and, once again looking at Nintendo's handhelds in comparison to the home consoles from Sony/MS... yeah.

Again I am not denying that individually Nintendo's games will sell more. Their high profile shit sells more to because their apologists are pretty big.

But third party>first party, in terms of value. We think less of it on this forumbecause of the "multiplat" label, but without those multiplats you get a Wii scenario, you get a Wii U scenario. You get a dry system with very little going for its game library. By their sheer quantity and size, they are more valuable than first party. Because the only exception to Nintendo succeeding without third party is the motion control thing, which when they couldn't do it twice, they got burned on.

More to the point the third party the PS3/360 get=/= what the DS gets in terms of third party. DS is relegated to niche japanese studios that were never all that popular with the exception of something here and there from Square. The PS3/360 got shit from highly successful third party companies, and highly influential franchises in terms of market share. So again, having third party on your side is more important than a first party lineup. Because without you are dead in the water. Exhibit WiiU, exhibit Gamecube, Exhibit n64,

First party matters more when the systems are actually on an even playing field third party wise ala 360/PS3, X1/PS4, or to bring this back some Snes v Genesis.

Avatar image for jg4xchamp
#84 Posted by jg4xchamp (61470 posts) -

@Lucianu said:

The SNES is the greatest console of all times not because of Nintendo's 1st party offerings, but because of its 3rd party support which resulted in a unfathomably huge library of varied excellent games.

Nintendo's 1st party support only got better as time went on, but their systems had a massive drop in support from other developers. Wii U might just alleviate the situation if it keeps the momentum going after 2015, which is going to be their year.

Bingo, except for the last part. "their year" is silly notion.

Avatar image for super600
#85 Edited by super600 (32423 posts) -

@KBFloYd said:

@AzatiS said:

@KBFloYd said:

they proved with the wii....they dont need to make an snes...

now they just have to find the right combination of hardware that actual appeals to people more than better graphics and the same controller....

its gonna be tricky

What the hell you tlaking about ?

They proved with the Wii that missing 3rd party AAA titles gonna hurt in the long run. You think Wii was in a serious life support after 3 years in the market when was officially dead after 4-5 despite its 100M userbase a success ?

No bro , all Wii proved was that it was a bubble that POPED , thats all Wii proved. Wii was the ONLY console in history that was so far ahead vs competition while being a dust collector at the same time. That never happened before , ever. So plese with the ...proves.

butthurt playstation fanboy still can't accept defeat...the wii was a better console than the ps3.

get over it.

nintendo found a way to win without 3rd party...they just need to find the right combination of hardware, software or gimmick that appeals to everyone more than just a graphics update with the same controller.

This is why I always say nintendo needs to go back to their NES/handheld stragety. It worked for them pretty well last gen and I think they may think about the strategy when they are designing there next console.I don't think they need a gimmick to appeal to other audiences, but they need to design hardware and software that is accessible,appealing and easy to understand for people that would like to buy their next console and/or handheld.

Avatar image for LegatoSkyheart
#86 Posted by LegatoSkyheart (29702 posts) -

@super600 said:

@KBFloYd said:

butthurt playstation fanboy still can't accept defeat...the wii was a better console than the ps3.

get over it.

nintendo found a way to win without 3rd party...they just need to find the right combination of hardware, software or gimmick that appeals to everyone more than just a graphics update with the same controller.

This is why I always say nintendo needs to go back to their NES/handheld stragety. It worked for them pretty well last gen and I think they may think about the strategy when they are designing there next console.I don't think they need a gimmick to appeal to other audiences, but they need to design hardware and software that is accessible,appealing and easy to understand for people that would like to buy their next console and/or handheld.

Wii and WiiU proved one thing to Nintendo.

Lightning doesn't strike twice.

With Wii it was the perfect storm. PS3 was TOO expensive, Xbox was still out proving itself, and Wii had MOTION CONTROLS AND WIISPORTS AND EVERY NEWS OUTLET PROCLAIMING THAT THE FUTURE IS NOW! Not to mention it being the cheapest of the 3 consoles AND the newest Zelda game was going to be there AT LAUNCH it was a clear no brainer what console to get that holiday.

WiiU is coming from 7 years of what people actually found out about the Wii. Casuals not giving a single crap about Gaming, just got a Wii for the novelty. Wii not getting the Blockbusters of Grand Theft Auto, Bioshock, Tomb Raider, Mass Effect, Devil May Cry, Batman, and the like, and of course the Xbox and PS brand war made the consoles WAY more popular than Nintendo's.

WiiU came up and said "Hey I now have those games you like on the other consoles as well as all of those Wii games! wanna play?" and Gamers went "LOL you don't have 1080ps or Grand Theft Autos." and went back to Xbox and Playstation. and 3rd parties just gave Nintendo scraps and just told them "Sorry your game doesn't sell and it's not our fault that we don't support your version of the game with DLC like what we do with the other systems" and left Nintendo.

WiiU is the too little too late console. It's only getting a resurgence now because of Mario Kart and Smash Bros.

Avatar image for AzatiS
#87 Edited by AzatiS (14238 posts) -

@KBFloYd said:

@AzatiS said:

@KBFloYd said:

they proved with the wii....they dont need to make an snes...

now they just have to find the right combination of hardware that actual appeals to people more than better graphics and the same controller....

its gonna be tricky

What the hell you tlaking about ?

They proved with the Wii that missing 3rd party AAA titles gonna hurt in the long run. You think Wii was in a serious life support after 3 years in the market when was officially dead after 4-5 despite its 100M userbase a success ?

No bro , all Wii proved was that it was a bubble that POPED , thats all Wii proved. Wii was the ONLY console in history that was so far ahead vs competition while being a dust collector at the same time. That never happened before , ever. So plese with the ...proves.

butthurt playstation fanboy still can't accept defeat...the wii was a better console than the ps3.

get over it.

nintendo found a way to win without 3rd party...they just need to find the right combination of hardware, software or gimmick that appeals to everyone more than just a graphics update with the same controller.

What i cant accept ? That PS3 was a big failure ? Listen you little sheep , i was one of the most harsh critics of PS3 around here , so dont get butthurt over facts and truths. And no i dont own a PS3 nor a PS4 , how im a PS fanboy ? You mad ?

Wii was a bubble nothing more nothing less. Sold because of casual appeal and nothing else. It went into life support and died prematurely despite its amazing sales because ...was BAD not because it just happened. Period.

Live with it and move on . I know truth hurts if you are a fanboy over something but facts are facts. It was you , SHEEPS , that were crying all over internet and were calling Wii a dust collector not me ... You dont win shit if you just die after 4 years or losing 3rd party support with a brand new , next-gen console over 8 years old consoles. Thats what i call a crap !

Now if you are Nintendo fan and you cant live without 4-5 worth playing Nintendo games overall ... so be it. But calling Wii good console ... behave.

Avatar image for KBFloYd
#88 Edited by KBFloYd (19419 posts) -

@AzatiS said:

@KBFloYd said:

butthurt playstation fanboy still can't accept defeat...the wii was a better console than the ps3.

get over it.

nintendo found a way to win without 3rd party...they just need to find the right combination of hardware, software or gimmick that appeals to everyone more than just a graphics update with the same controller.

What i cant accept ? That PS3 was a big failure ? Listen you little sheep , i was one of the most harsh critics of PS3 around here , so dont get butthurt over facts and truths. And no i dont own a PS3 nor a PS4 , how im a PS fanboy ? You mad ?

Wii was a bubble nothing more nothing less. Sold because of casual appeal and nothing else. It went into life support and died prematurely despite its amazing sales because ...was BAD not because it just happened. Period.

Live with it and move on . I know truth hurts if you are a fanboy over something but facts are facts. It was you , SHEEPS , that were crying all over internet and were calling Wii a dust collector not me ... You dont win shit if you just die after 4 years or losing 3rd party support with a brand new , next-gen console over 8 years old consoles. Thats what i call a crap !

Now if you are Nintendo fan and you cant live without 4-5 worth playing Nintendo games overall ... so be it. But calling Wii good console ... behave.

lol...that wii butthurt still in your butt i see

wii could have died 2 months after launch and it doesnt matter....its the best selling console of its generation which means more people bought a wii than the ps3 or the 360(if your a lem) not sure what you are.

wii proved nintendo can win a gen with their software alone.

Avatar image for littlestreakier
#89 Edited by littlestreakier (2950 posts) -

@ps4hasnogames said:

The best nintendo console of all time was the SNES, some say its the best console ever. Why don't they just keep coming out with classic RPG's and to keep up with the times start developing some new school shooters?

I don't think this will work because gamers as a whole has changed. RPGs just don't sell like they used to. Also, games are more expensive to develop now. Shooters for a while, have been proven to make money. With this being said though, I would love for Nintendo to come out with a SNES 2. I agree the SNES was a fantastic system.

Avatar image for ps4hasnogames
#90 Posted by PS4hasNOgames (2620 posts) -

@Heirren said:

@ps4hasnogames said:

@AzatiS said:

@KBFloYd said:

they proved with the wii....they dont need to make an snes...

now they just have to find the right combination of hardware that actual appeals to people more than better graphics and the same controller....

its gonna be tricky

What the hell you tlaking about ?

They proved with the Wii that missing 3rd party AAA titles gonna hurt in the long run. You think Wii was in a serious life support after 3 years in the market when was officially dead after 4-5 despite its 100M userbase a success ?

No bro , all Wii proved was that it was a bubble that POPED , thats all Wii proved. Wii was the ONLY console in history that was so far ahead vs competition while being a dust collector at the same time. That never happened before , ever. So plese with the ...proves.

The Wii is their most successful console, but it might also be their worst. It is the ultimate casual console, made for grandmas and soccer moms who want to lose weight. The Wii sold MILLIONS of consoles just to fat people because they thought it'd be fun to lose weight on wii fit. $300 later they are still fat and have a bunch of plastic crap lying around the house.

The wii isn't their most successful console, it is the nes. The nes is what created nintendo as a brand. The nes was responsible not just for console and game sales, but also in creating the branded merchandise. The NES was the Star Wars of the videogame industry.

NO. The Wii sold more than any other Nintendo console, therefore it made the most $, therefore it is their most successful console....if you're talking about their most IMPORTANT console, then of coarse the one that started it all the NES.

Avatar image for Lucianu
#91 Posted by Lucianu (10283 posts) -

@jg4xchamp said:

@Lucianu said:

The SNES is the greatest console of all times not because of Nintendo's 1st party offerings, but because of its 3rd party support which resulted in a unfathomably huge library of varied excellent games.

Nintendo's 1st party support only got better as time went on, but their systems had a massive drop in support from other developers. Wii U might just alleviate the situation if it keeps the momentum going after 2015, which is going to be their year.

Bingo, except for the last part. "their year" is silly notion.

I thought that Bayo 2, Smash and Hyrule Warriors were to release in 2015. If they were for 2015, that would tally up to 7 high profile exclusives released in one year, and in my book that would have definitely been their year.

Avatar image for nintendoboy16
#92 Posted by nintendoboy16 (34379 posts) -

@jg4xchamp said:

Again I am not denying that individually Nintendo's games will sell more. Their high profile shit sells more to because their apologists are pretty big.

But third party>first party, in terms of value. We think less of it on this forumbecause of the "multiplat" label, but without those multiplats you get a Wii scenario, you get a Wii U scenario. You get a dry system with very little going for its game library. By their sheer quantity and size, they are more valuable than first party. Because the only exception to Nintendo succeeding without third party is the motion control thing, which when they couldn't do it twice, they got burned on.

More to the point the third party the PS3/360 get=/= what the DS gets in terms of third party. DS is relegated to niche japanese studios that were never all that popular with the exception of something here and there from Square. The PS3/360 got shit from highly successful third party companies, and highly influential franchises in terms of market share. So again, having third party on your side is more important than a first party lineup. Because without you are dead in the water. Exhibit WiiU, exhibit Gamecube, Exhibit n64,

First party matters more when the systems are actually on an even playing field third party wise ala 360/PS3, X1/PS4, or to bring this back some Snes v Genesis.

If third party > first party in terms of value? Then WHY is the Vita not even trying to put up a fight against the 3DS? If what FlamesofGrey and Blabadon say are true (and they are the biggest defenders of the Vita), that platform has WAY more third party support (ports included) than the 3DS does, BUT the first party support freaking sucks in comparison to what the 3DS has offered there.

This proves that there NEEDS to be a balance between good first party and third party, but whether or not (especially NOT) you're getting that third party support (or for that matter, selling at all), you HAVE to expect something from the systems own freaking creators (you know, the ones who have to move these freaking systems). You cannot tell me with a straight face that a Nintendo console/handheld, lacking Mario/Zelda/Pokemon/Kirby/DK/Smash but with mostly games from the likes of Activision/Bethesda/Capcom/Ubisoft/EA/Rockstar/WB would have more value.

And again, to say first/second party had NO impact on the SNES is wrong when, bar Street Fighter II, those are the games actually making the top sellers. SNES, despite many third party's criticisms of how they were treated back then, had a balance of great third party and first party support (mostly from Japan, because the devs there were even less trusting of SEGA). As did the PS2.

Avatar image for AzatiS
#93 Edited by AzatiS (14238 posts) -

@KBFloYd said:

@AzatiS said:

@KBFloYd said:

butthurt playstation fanboy still can't accept defeat...the wii was a better console than the ps3.

get over it.

nintendo found a way to win without 3rd party...they just need to find the right combination of hardware, software or gimmick that appeals to everyone more than just a graphics update with the same controller.

What i cant accept ? That PS3 was a big failure ? Listen you little sheep , i was one of the most harsh critics of PS3 around here , so dont get butthurt over facts and truths. And no i dont own a PS3 nor a PS4 , how im a PS fanboy ? You mad ?

Wii was a bubble nothing more nothing less. Sold because of casual appeal and nothing else. It went into life support and died prematurely despite its amazing sales because ...was BAD not because it just happened. Period.

Live with it and move on . I know truth hurts if you are a fanboy over something but facts are facts. It was you , SHEEPS , that were crying all over internet and were calling Wii a dust collector not me ... You dont win shit if you just die after 4 years or losing 3rd party support with a brand new , next-gen console over 8 years old consoles. Thats what i call a crap !

Now if you are Nintendo fan and you cant live without 4-5 worth playing Nintendo games overall ... so be it. But calling Wii good console ... behave.

lol...that wii butthurt still in your butt i see

wii could have died 2 months after launch and it doesnt matter....its the best selling console of its generation which means more people bought a wii than the ps3 or the 360(if your a lem) not sure what you are.

wii proved nintendo can win a gen with their software alone.

Stating the truth and facts is now Butthurt ?

Let me ask you again little sheep and try prove me wrong then

1) Did Wii go in serious life support after 3 and a half years of its release out while having extraordinary user base with the only game worth mention Zelda SS ? It did.

2) Did Nintendo let 100 Million owners with no support at ALL ( let system die for dummies ) out of nowhere ?

3) Did Nintendo fans all around the world say that sadly their Wii collecting dust and playing with X360 or PS3 instead ?

4) Did Wii had the most shovelware out of all Consoles in gaming history with game after game being a crap DESPITE being by far the leader in console war ( thats the issue , being leader yet you dont deliver ...pathetic. )

5) Did Nintendo make millions out of Wii and in the end showed you the middle finger with the excuse of " we focusing on the next console that will come in 2 years " ?

6) Did Wii lack 95% of AAA third party / multiplatform games once again ?

7) Is Wii the FIRST and ONLY console in gaming history since ATARI 2600 that sold so much and died so fast ? Pathetic again

8) What all you sheeps were playing when Wii was in life support or dead ? PS3/X360/PC !!!! Thats what you did for years till Wii U arrives ... and then you showed it the middle finger ...how not to when Nintendo showed theirs first with Wii .

Can you deny something of these statements sheep ? No , you cant are facts. Thats what happened. I was here , all my friends bought a Wii because of wii mote and price at the time ... I read forums excessively all the time. I know exactly what happened or what im talking about. If that makes me butthurt ... lol ... whatever but you cant deny recent history. We were all part of it and we know exactly what happened.

Avatar image for super600
#94 Posted by super600 (32423 posts) -

@LegatoSkyheart said:

@super600 said:

@KBFloYd said:

butthurt playstation fanboy still can't accept defeat...the wii was a better console than the ps3.

get over it.

nintendo found a way to win without 3rd party...they just need to find the right combination of hardware, software or gimmick that appeals to everyone more than just a graphics update with the same controller.

This is why I always say nintendo needs to go back to their NES/handheld stragety. It worked for them pretty well last gen and I think they may think about the strategy when they are designing there next console.I don't think they need a gimmick to appeal to other audiences, but they need to design hardware and software that is accessible,appealing and easy to understand for people that would like to buy their next console and/or handheld.

Wii and WiiU proved one thing to Nintendo.

Lightning doesn't strike twice.

With Wii it was the perfect storm. PS3 was TOO expensive, Xbox was still out proving itself, and Wii had MOTION CONTROLS AND WIISPORTS AND EVERY NEWS OUTLET PROCLAIMING THAT THE FUTURE IS NOW! Not to mention it being the cheapest of the 3 consoles AND the newest Zelda game was going to be there AT LAUNCH it was a clear no brainer what console to get that holiday.

WiiU is coming from 7 years of what people actually found out about the Wii. Casuals not giving a single crap about Gaming, just got a Wii for the novelty. Wii not getting the Blockbusters of Grand Theft Auto, Bioshock, Tomb Raider, Mass Effect, Devil May Cry, Batman, and the like, and of course the Xbox and PS brand war made the consoles WAY more popular than Nintendo's.

WiiU came up and said "Hey I now have those games you like on the other consoles as well as all of those Wii games! wanna play?" and Gamers went "LOL you don't have 1080ps or Grand Theft Autos." and went back to Xbox and Playstation. and 3rd parties just gave Nintendo scraps and just told them "Sorry your game doesn't sell and it's not our fault that we don't support your version of the game with DLC like what we do with the other systems" and left Nintendo.

WiiU is the too little too late console. It's only getting a resurgence now because of Mario Kart and Smash Bros.

The problem with the WiiU it's a console that was targeted towards the core gamer a lot more than the WiiU. It failed to appeal to the core gamer. Nintendo did not really think on how to appeal to the audiences that were most excited about the Wii's successor.

Avatar image for LegatoSkyheart
#95 Posted by LegatoSkyheart (29702 posts) -

@super600: I think everyone who bought a WiiU before Mario Kart 8 were those exact people.

Avatar image for jg4xchamp
#96 Edited by jg4xchamp (61470 posts) -

@nintendoboy16 said:

@jg4xchamp said:

Again I am not denying that individually Nintendo's games will sell more. Their high profile shit sells more to because their apologists are pretty big.

But third party>first party, in terms of value. We think less of it on this forumbecause of the "multiplat" label, but without those multiplats you get a Wii scenario, you get a Wii U scenario. You get a dry system with very little going for its game library. By their sheer quantity and size, they are more valuable than first party. Because the only exception to Nintendo succeeding without third party is the motion control thing, which when they couldn't do it twice, they got burned on.

More to the point the third party the PS3/360 get=/= what the DS gets in terms of third party. DS is relegated to niche japanese studios that were never all that popular with the exception of something here and there from Square. The PS3/360 got shit from highly successful third party companies, and highly influential franchises in terms of market share. So again, having third party on your side is more important than a first party lineup. Because without you are dead in the water. Exhibit WiiU, exhibit Gamecube, Exhibit n64,

First party matters more when the systems are actually on an even playing field third party wise ala 360/PS3, X1/PS4, or to bring this back some Snes v Genesis.

If third party > first party in terms of value? Then WHY is the Vita not even trying to put up a fight against the 3DS? If what FlamesofGrey and Blabadon say are true (and they are the biggest defenders of the Vita), that platform has WAY more third party support (ports included) than the 3DS does, BUT the first party support freaking sucks in comparison to what the 3DS has offered there.

This proves that there NEEDS to be a balance between good first party and third party, but whether or not (especially NOT) you're getting that third party support (or for that matter, selling at all), you HAVE to expect something from the systems own freaking creators (you know, the ones who have to move these freaking systems). You cannot tell me with a straight face that a Nintendo console/handheld, lacking Mario/Zelda/Pokemon/Kirby/DK/Smash but with mostly games from the likes of Activision/Bethesda/Capcom/Ubisoft/EA/Rockstar/WB would have more value.

And again, to say first/second party had NO impact on the SNES is wrong when, bar Street Fighter II, those are the games actually making the top sellers. SNES, despite many third party's criticisms of how they were treated back then, had a balance of great third party and first party support (mostly from Japan, because the devs there were even less trusting of SEGA). As did the PS2.

That argument works both ways. Why was the 360 so successful in spite of a mediocre first party?

Why did the Xbox do as good as the gamecube, even though the first party didn't hold a candle to what Nintendo had to offer?

Your arguments makes these 1:1 comparisons between the console market/handheld market, and facts they are completely different. The Vita's problem is a vast majority of what it gets can be played on other systems, more to the point it suffered from the stuff that hurt early WiiU third party attempts. It was games that are on systems that are already on the market, and sold to a bunch of gamers as is. What the vita gets for third party support doesn't even count, it's barely anything outside of indie games. A group of games that get a majority of their sales and early releases on the PC and consoles to begin with. The vita gets port jobs. That's not the same as getting Destiny, as getting The Witcher 3 on launch day, as Arkham Knight on launch day, as Evolve on Launch day, as getting a game like Ori on launch day, as getting Hotline Miami 2 on launch day, as getting Transistor on launch day, as getting FTL on launch day, as getting Mighty No. 9 on launch day. In contrast the 3DS actually gets exclusive third party, meaningful third party releases on day one, as opposed to getting a console left over.

No matter how many ways we spin this, the value of good third party trumps first party. Because without third party you do not have much of a library. That doesn't invalidate first party, rob it of its impact/success, nor devalue it. First party is valuable. It is however not the same league as third party on the following premise alone: Third party games be they triple A, midtier, downloadable, or indie completely outnumber first party by a huge margin. It's why the SNES library is to this day respectable, its why the PS2 was successful, its why the Wii's sales dominance over the 360/PS3 was mostly irrelevant to the success of those systems, and the WiiU. Because at the end of the day the first party may create a fanbase, but it's the third party that make a systems library worth it. It keeps the system healthy with consistent releases.

So spare your Mt. Pious drivel about how "I have to respect the creators of the system". I have no disrespect towards Nintendo as a development house (some criticisms here and there, but mostly respect for their legacy). More to the point you want to live in a world where we play zero sum game of A: either first party or B: third party. The problem for Nintendo is, they compete against systems that have C: Both of the above. If the third party devs are not on your side, YOUR games is all you have to offer. On the flip side Microsoft and Sony' have to offer their games+third party.

Too long; didn't read: by sheer quantity of games made by third party, and how they outnumber ANY SINGLE first party, third party is more important. All first party can ever really do by itself is keep you afloat as a respectable side bitch, but as a primary? you are dead in the water without third party. That is what they had in the SNES era, a system that had Both first and third party, and it was a difference maker. The only other time they were ever able to overcome the loss of third party in the console space was with the Wii: and even then for the more seasoned gamers: it was still a side bitch system.

Edit: oh and I forgot this part. The inverse of Nintendo's situation. Third party, with no first party= PC gaming since we are enjoying making comparisons that are super loose. Never devoid of consistent game releases. Unlike a Nintendo platform.

Avatar image for super600
#97 Edited by super600 (32423 posts) -

@LegatoSkyheart said:

@super600: I think everyone who bought a WiiU before Mario Kart 8 were those exact people.

Nintendo with the wiiu went far away from their core audience which Iwata admitted awhile ago.Mario Kart 8 opened up the door for the casuals to buy the WiiU,but the console still does not appeal to the casuals and no wiiu game will make most of the wii audience buy the WiiU.

Avatar image for nintendoboy16
#98 Posted by nintendoboy16 (34379 posts) -

@jg4xchamp said:

Edit: oh and I forgot this part. The inverse of Nintendo's situation. Third party, with no first party= PC gaming since we are enjoying making comparisons that are super loose. Never devoid of consistent game releases. Unlike a Nintendo platform.

The major difference, PC gaming is OPEN and doesn't have to rely on first party developments. Nintendo is closed platform, even with a healthy flow of third party games, they'd be screwed without their IP's.

Avatar image for KungfuKitten
#99 Edited by KungfuKitten (25082 posts) -

School shooters wouldn't go well with today's audience.

Avatar image for LegatoSkyheart
#100 Posted by LegatoSkyheart (29702 posts) -

@super600 said:

@LegatoSkyheart said:

@super600: I think everyone who bought a WiiU before Mario Kart 8 were those exact people.

Nintendo with the wiiu went far away from their core audience which Iwata admitted awhile ago.Mario Kart 8 opened up the door for the casuals to buy the WiiU,but the console still does not appeal to the casuals and no wiiu game will make most of the wii audience buy the WiiU.

yet I find it funny that the low sales of the WiiU tell me that only the Nintendo Faithful went and bought the WiiU.

Casuals didn't want it, The Majority of Gamers didn't want it. Only those who knew what they were going to get with a WiiU got it. That's their actual core audience.

The Core audience you speak of is fake. Like I and many of others have said, Those millions who bought a Wii weren't gamers, they got it for the novelty, for the "OOoooo"s and "Ahhhhhh"s factor. That "Core" audience left to go play on their phones. No Game in the Nintendo Library could ever bring them back. The Nintendo Fans? Pretty much anything would bring those suck in. And I'm pretty sure they were on board day 1, and that's all who bought it thus the low sales.