What Has Nintendo Done Right Lately?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Evonisia:

Misterian:
I'm personally not worried about what's going on with Nintendo lately, they've had their slip-ups in the past, sure, but they always eventually bounced back on their feet.

Besides, has Nintendo ever tried to shove DRM down our throats?

Has Nintendo taken up using anti-consumer methods?

Has Nintendo ever tried to make us buy season passes or online passes?

Did Nintendo ever try to kill the used game market?

Did Nintendo ever try to shun backwards compatibility?

Taking all these into account, where do you do think Nintendo's choosing not to be any of the above will bring them in the long run?

I don't know all the details (don't do enough research into these things), but one anti-consumer method Nintendo adopted is region locking. Sony does it to some extent still, but not so much that you can't have a PS4 in a country which does not sell it. As far as I can tell the Xbox One has no region locking.

Err PlayStation 3 and 4 games are region free. I think the Vita is too but not 100% certain.

Stealth:
Nintendo had the highest reviewed games last year. They sold the most hardware last year too. Telling them to abandon everything and say there games arent good is stupid.

Yes the WiiU beat two ageing consoles at the end of their production run who had their successors waiting in the wings, well done Nintendo. slow clap That's like beating two geriatrics in a 100m sprint in which you proceed to faceplant every ten metres or so.

And then the PS4 dropped in and bettered the WiiU numbers in less than four months. And that's with the PS4 yet to release in Japan, a major Sony stronghold.

If you meant handhelds only then yes Nintendo moved the most stock.

As for 'highest reviewed' that don't mean diddly, sales is what keeps a corporation afloat.

Yo, Ben, you've done well in criticizing the oppressive nature of peoples' childhood memories, but I think you went a little too far here in one paragraph, where you make the flat statement that top-down adventuring and grid-based movement are inherently inferior to their full-3d and free-roaming counterparts. That's silly to say, even though it may be the case in the two games you mentioned.

Grenge Di Origin:

LordTerminal:

Death Mountain says otherwise. I've died at least three times early on because the enemies there do too much damage.

Then whose fault is it they rushed into the Lynels (whose attacks are easily dodge-able) and got themselves killed? Dying repeatedly to them doesn't denote difficulty, it denotes your inability to realize that you don't need to kill all the enemies you find on the overworld.

They aren't easily dodge-able in the frigging cave where you're forced to stand on that platform and have limited space to move. And you can't just ignore them either. Don't assume I just rush into the ones on the other side of the bridge and start swinging blindly because those aren't the ones I'm talking about.

And their console isn't selling because of that attitude. And their stock is i ntrouble, and their profits faltering for the first time ever, and their investors angry.

Do you really support cutting off your nose to spite your face?

No their console isn't selling because of people like you being petty and unreasonable yet willing to blow hundreds of dollars on the competition because of "graphics" and "multimedia functionality" and other materialistic crap.

Both of those companies have benefited from backing off bad ideas and listening to consumer response.

Then why hasn't Sony responded to my complaints to patch that bug that keeps making PSABR freeze up at certain times?

And why is Microsoft constantly bleeding Forza 5 and RYSE players with unnecessary microtransactions?

No they only listen to consumer response when it means they can sucker people into giving them money. I'm not convinced when they let that crap happen. If the competition's outselling Nintendo then I expect them to be above being complete assholes as well and so far, they're not.

Oh, you mean like region locking?

If that's you're only argument then bother making one. Besides, region locking is only a problem to importers who bother to learn how to read Japanese. The average joe doesn't give a crap.

Didn't Yahtzee say in the aLBW video that going third party didn't work for Sega? And now he wants Nintendo to go third party like them?

Yahtzee contradicted himself.

VG_Addict:
Didn't Yahtzee say in the aLBW video that going third party didn't work for Sega? And now he wants Nintendo to go third party like them?

Yahtzee contradicted himself.

Or maybe the failure of one attempt does not invalidate others attempting the same under different circumstances?

Mcoffey:

VG_Addict:
Didn't Yahtzee say in the aLBW video that going third party didn't work for Sega? And now he wants Nintendo to go third party like them?

Yahtzee contradicted himself.

Or maybe the failure of one attempt does not invalidate others attempting the same under different circumstances?

Yeah, I mean, we could always look to Atari's example...

...wait...

Oh, hey, Hudson's still successful!

...oh, right...

Mcoffey:

VG_Addict:
Didn't Yahtzee say in the aLBW video that going third party didn't work for Sega? And now he wants Nintendo to go third party like them?

Yahtzee contradicted himself.

Or maybe the failure of one attempt does not invalidate others attempting the same under different circumstances?

Going third party also didn't work for Atari or SNK. I think it's fair to say it wouldn't work for Nintendo.

Why do people want Nintendo to go third party after ONE failed console? It took Sega and Atari several consecutive failures to drop out of hardware.

VG_Addict:

Mcoffey:

VG_Addict:
Didn't Yahtzee say in the aLBW video that going third party didn't work for Sega? And now he wants Nintendo to go third party like them?

Yahtzee contradicted himself.

Or maybe the failure of one attempt does not invalidate others attempting the same under different circumstances?

Going third party also didn't work for Atari or SNK. I think it's fair to say it wouldn't work for Nintendo.

Why do people want Nintendo to go third party after ONE failed console? It took Sega and Atari several consecutive failures to drop out of hardware.

McMarbles:

Mcoffey:

VG_Addict:
Didn't Yahtzee say in the aLBW video that going third party didn't work for Sega? And now he wants Nintendo to go third party like them?

Yahtzee contradicted himself.

Or maybe the failure of one attempt does not invalidate others attempting the same under different circumstances?

Yeah, I mean, we could always look to Atari's example...

...wait...

Oh, hey, Hudson's still successful!

...oh, right...

Atari, SNK, and Hudson were all in very dire straights and were bought out by other companies (Hasbro, Aruze, and Konami, respectively) before they went third party. If Nintendo went multi-plat now, they'd still retain their ownership and be in a financially stable position.

Again, different contexts surrounding similar decisions leads to different outcomes.

the hidden eagle:
What?So just because I think quality games aren't those who have game breaking bugs that are not patched I must have low standards?

A game simply not having bugs being "high quality" is definitely a low standard.

Riverwolf:

I think he means in terms of software stability. In that way, they're very much superior to pretty much everyone else (one game-breaking bug in two games is hardly equal to the dozens of game-breaking bugs in other high-profile games).

But again, that's so broad as to be meaningless. Most major games are released without game-breaking bugs. If you are to offer examples like SimCity and Battlefield, those are the minority and should not be portrayed as the norm.

So if that's the mark of quality., it brings me back to the question I've been beating around: so what? If it's something so easily achieved, it no longer has any beneficial meaning. So while I'll concede I can't name a Nintendo-published title in the last decade or so that's as broken as SimCity was, I have to ask, so what? Aside from Steam's marketplace, I'm hard pressed to name five games like that, period.

Thanatos2k:

Arbitrage is a consumer right, so yes, it's anti-consumer.

Arbitrage is a behavior of Supply, not Demand. So no, it isn't.

It's also anti-consumer to lock people out when they don't localize titles.

Only if you assume Free Market rules, which don't apply when you have disparity between markets.

EDIT: Only because I don't want to bump this again...
*sigh*

Thanatos2k:

What does the first sentence have to do with the second? Arbitrage is a RIGHT of the consumer to resell their own property.

Arbitrage is where a "middle man" buys out a weaker, cheap market en masse, and resells it in a stronger, more expensive market. It has nothing to do with consumers' rights; it's just a behavior that exploits disparity between markets and it's performed, overwhelmingly, by suppliers.

(individual consumers rarely carry the clout to perform arbitrage at a larger economic scale. In practice, in a multiple-market scenario, consumers are only concerned with their own market; it's almost always a firm or other supplier that performs arbitrage at that scale where possible; usually a competitor)

Region locking is not designed just as a restriction for consumers; it's a restriction for other suppliers.

If the markets aren't free, then by definition they're not optimal for the consumer.

With multiple markets, "Optimal" is different for the consumers in each market. You can't treat a multi-market scenario as being "one consumer population" because there isn't just one.

Eventually, due to unchecked arbitrage, the consumers in the weaker economy have no "consumer's rights" to speak of because their market effectively won't exist. Because some middle man will have bought it out and resold it elsewhere.

Which is why a moral argument citing arbitrage as some sort of consumer's right is not only completely ignorant of the concept, but condemnation for its prevention is downright foolish.

If a supplier knows they can make a profit (however small) in a given market as long as arbitrage doesn't take it away, that's an overall benefit for the market as a whole.

Bottom line: Arbitrage is BAD for the market as a whole, because it fucks with both Supply and Demand.

Could someone tell me, from a business perspective, how going third party would make Nintendo more money? It didn't make Atari or Sega more money.

VG_Addict:
Didn't Yahtzee say in the aLBW video that going third party didn't work for Sega? And now he wants Nintendo to go third party like them?

Yahtzee contradicted himself.

The bit about Sega was a retread of the video. Not exactly contradicting himself. Since he still promoted the idea.

Zachary Amaranth:

VG_Addict:
Didn't Yahtzee say in the aLBW video that going third party didn't work for Sega? And now he wants Nintendo to go third party like them?

Yahtzee contradicted himself.

The bit about Sega was a retread of the video. Not exactly contradicting himself. Since he still promoted the idea.

No, he clearly said that going software only didn't save Sega when he said that Sonic's gotten worse and they made Colonial Marines.

Atmos Duality:

Thanatos2k:

Arbitrage is a consumer right, so yes, it's anti-consumer.

Arbitrage is a behavior of Supply, not Demand. So no, it isn't.

What does the first sentence have to do with the second? Arbitrage is a RIGHT of the consumer to resell their own property.

It's also anti-consumer to lock people out when they don't localize titles.

Only if you assume Free Market rules, which don't apply when you have disparity between markets.

If the markets aren't free, then by definition they're not optimal for the consumer.

VG_Addict:
Could someone tell me, from a business perspective, how going third party would make Nintendo more money? It didn't make Atari or Sega more money.

Sega would be bankrupt right now if they didn't go third party, so I'd say wherever they are now made more money than they would have.

VG_Addict:

No, he clearly said that going software only didn't save Sega when he said that Sonic's gotten worse and they made Colonial Marines.

Yes, and a zinger after an argument doesn't mean that he didn't make the argument.

VG_Addict:
Could someone tell me, from a business perspective, how going third party would make Nintendo more money? It didn't make Atari or Sega more money.

Sega, who was already dying, and Atari, who had been bought out by the time they went third party and were also facing failures already?

Yeah, it kinda did make them more money. By the virtue of continuing to exist.

Or do you think they're less successful than, say, THQ?

Zachary Amaranth:

VG_Addict:
Could someone tell me, from a business perspective, how going third party would make Nintendo more money? It didn't make Atari or Sega more money.

Sega, who was already dying, and Atari, who had been bought out by the time they went third party and were also facing failures already?

Yeah, it kinda did make them more money. By the virtue of continuing to exist.

Or do you think they're less successful than, say, THQ?

Do you think that could happen to Nintendo after this gen?

Did Atari and Sega make money immediately after going third party?

VG_Addict:

Do you think that could happen to Nintendo after this gen?

Did Atari and Sega make money immediately after going third party?

Do I think it could happen immediately? Well, depends on what you mean by could. Technically, but I think it's unlikely to happen in its immediacy.

Sega and Atari managed to keep afloat, which still elevated their status. And as someone has already mentioned, Atari didn't even own its own IPs at that point, which makes it even less an apt comparison.

Zachary Amaranth:

VG_Addict:

Do you think that could happen to Nintendo after this gen?

Did Atari and Sega make money immediately after going third party?

Do I think it could happen immediately? Well, depends on what you mean by could. Technically, but I think it's unlikely to happen in its immediacy.

Sega and Atari managed to keep afloat, which still elevated their status. And as someone has already mentioned, Atari didn't even own its own IPs at that point, which makes it even less an apt comparison.

Then, do you think Nintendo could lose enough money off the Wii U to cause them to go third party next gen?

What do you mean, "technically"?

VG_Addict:

Then, do you think Nintendo could lose enough money off the Wii U to cause them to go third party next gen?

What do you mean, "technically"?

Virtually anything can happen. It's a matter of probabilities. Whether something is possible is useless. It's possible Microsoft and Sony bail and Nintendo is hit by a meteor and there is no next gen. Is it likely? Nah.

So here's the thing: we don't have data for a reliable prediction of the market. We don't know how long the Wii U will stay out. We don't know how long this gen will last. We do know Nintendo's trying to turn things around, but we don't know if it'll work. We only know so far it hasn't. Well, that's to be expected, honestly. There's no reason to expect any company to fix every problem virtually overnight. I expect in the short term, they're going to take hits. They may even get pummeled fiscally for this full generation. The Wii U is already worse hardware and lacks support in part because of that. If they can move enough games, great. They might be able to swing things around.

But here's the thing: I've seen a lot of PS3 comparisons and people were all "Well, everyone called the PS3 a failure and look what it did!" And that's sort of right. Look what it did. It took five years and drained the games division before it really started to work. It probably had the long-term goal of pushing BD over HDDVD, so it's certainly not a failure overall. But it turned things around at a heavy, heavy cost. It also put Sony's games division in what people are now calling do-or-die, make-or-break.

And part of why Sony can afford to get hammered like that is they have a lot of branches. Hell, at that time, most of them were still doing decent. Shift forward to now, and maybe they couldn't insulate a failure so well. Nintendo only really has two revenue streams (in a simplistic sense): games and merchandise. They can't afford to be losing money in their primary field, no matter what they're sitting on. At some point, they will feel the pressure to take some larger action. If the problem is their hardware is an obstacle, then ditching the hardware is logic.

But does that mean that's the path they take? I don't know. And I'm not Michael Pachter, so I'm not going to make wild guesses and call them predictions.

Zachary Amaranth:

Riverwolf:

I think he means in terms of software stability. In that way, they're very much superior to pretty much everyone else (one game-breaking bug in two games is hardly equal to the dozens of game-breaking bugs in other high-profile games).

But again, that's so broad as to be meaningless. Most major games are released without game-breaking bugs. If you are to offer examples like SimCity and Battlefield, those are the minority and should not be portrayed as the norm.

Most non-Nintendo games I've played have all been far more generally glitchy than recent Nintendo games I've played.

So if that's the mark of quality.,

For the software, not for the game. Nintendoland seems quite like a solid piece of software that holds absolutely NO interest for me.

it brings me back to the question I've been beating around: so what? If it's something so easily achieved, it no longer has any beneficial meaning. So while I'll concede I can't name a Nintendo-published title in the last decade or so that's as broken as SimCity was, I have to ask, so what? Aside from Steam's marketplace, I'm hard pressed to name five games like that, period.

I've heard that SimCity was particularly bad with game-breaking bugs (didn't play it myself; no money from me will they get), but most games in general I've played have had small bugs that broke the experience for me, even if not the game, except for Nintendo games. Game-breaking bugs aren't the only kind, and when talking overall software stability, Nintendo has generally been superior to everyone else, as aside from those few game-breaking bugs, I can't think of any bugs at all in recent Nintendo games I've played beyond a few instances of clipping.. Though, again, that's not a statement on the quality of the games themselves, which has been pretty lacking on Nintendo's part compared to other companies (though I hear Super Mario 3D World... or was it Land...? ... wow, Yahtzee was right, that IS confusing. SUPER MARIO CATS was pretty good). I'm just trying to clarify what he was trying to say.

...and I don't think "aside from Steam's marketplace" is much of an aside, since that encompasses over 2500 games from all generations(not counting add-ons, DLC, etc.), many of which are also found on both the 360 and PS3.

The last console I bought from Nintendo (excluding my DS, not a 3DS) was The Gamecube. I am only considering a Wii U because Bayonetta 2 is an exclusive, for some reason. None of the constant Mario/Zelda rehashes hold interest for me, I have never really liked those games to begin with. But that seems to be all the Wii U is offering in the way of games. So unless B2 is super-duper stellar, I fear I may be passing it over.

They need to be investing in new IPs and breaking new ground. If they keep trying to be Niche, they will go the way of Sega.

WildFire15:
I think what Nintendo really needs to do is open up to other developers rather then go software only (why do people even keep asking for that?).

Because they want the 1-4 games you must buy from Nintendo available and tuned to hte audience andmedia of pc gaming or other consoles.

I am REALLY disappointed in Yatzhee here. I know he gets flack from Nintendo fans but this go like SEGA is beyond ridiculous. I respect his opinion on base of creative writing, game design, and vision. Go third party lacks of that its an attempt to better the consumer who's not invested in Nintendo...because they are invested into something else.

eh, while i understand the sentiment, it's sort of like saying, "well, nintendo's already at this point, if they go completely third party, what's the worst that could happen?"

that is generally not a great question to ask

right, sega?

Big_Willie_Styles:
The N64 was immensely successful.

No, it wasn't. I loved the system at the time, but it got DESTROYED by the PS1. It was the start of the end of third parties really working with the big N. And that controller was built horribly (those thumbsticks were just make to break).

Big_Willie_Styles:
The GameCube is probably my favorite console of all time.

That's nice, doesn't make it more successful. It was wrecked by the PS2.

Big_Willie_Styles:
The Wii won last generation in sales.

It won in that it sold an absolutely ridiculous amount of systems. But then no one bought games. The attachment rate of games to that system was HORRID. It was still a huge win for them, but kept going in the same direction of 3rd parties not making games (other than shovelware) and didn't bode well for what came next....which is what I "think" I said before. There's no way to say they did anything but win last gen. But they didn't set themselves up well for the long run.

Big_Willie_Styles:
The WiiU had its problems because Nintendo told third party developers that they were gonna wait a year to release their flagship franchise games, so no real competition from Nintendo for a year on their own console. Few took them up on that. How is that Nintendo's fault, really?

Because of a history of the past 30 years of them effing over 3rd parties because, first they could, then they thought they could, then they could again, finally caught up to them?

Nintendo will not go third-party any time soon, if at all. Whether they should or not is another question. Right now, no, they probably should not. The WiiU is pretty much a failure at this point, and I personally don't believe that any games they have in the pipe is going to change that. Wouldn't care if I was proved wrong on that point though. Still, Nintendo needs to continue to support it as much as they can or they will totally eliminate any consumer confidence in their consoles.

I don't think anyone can honestly argue that their handheld division isn't doing wonderfully, though. It keeps getting exclusives (much to my dismay, as I would love some of their games to be ported to the Vita) and is pretty much printing money as quickly as the WiiU bleeds it.

I do not plan on picking up a WiiU this generation. I purchased a Wii and all it does is sit and collect dust. I feel like once my kids get older (a number of years from now as I have a 2 year old and a 2 month old) I'll break it out so they can play some Mario Kart, Brawl, NSMB and other titles. Meanwhile the only games that I really care to play on it are the Metroid Prime games. I might break it out now and then if I feel the urge to play Mario Kart or if a group of us wanted to play Mario Party, but Smash Bros. bored me quickly, as do fighting games in general, so that series just doesn't interest me anymore. I've also learned that the old school side scrolling platformers just don't really entertain me much anymore, which encompasses a lot of Nintendo's titles. I barely played NSMB, and I got Rayman Origins for free on my Vita and put it down after just one or two levels. I don't need a new system to play the same games again and again.

Stories are what get my attention for the most part when it comes to gaming now. Most of Nintendo's games just don't bother with a story short of "princess is kidnapped by bad guy, go rescue her". The Zelda games are better about this, and there is usually a charm to the characters in the games. Metroid Prime managed this as well with all the log entries, and the Paper Mario games are pretty good about it. Still I'm not going to buy a console for one or two games.

Nintendo needs to bring out new and interesting IP if they want to save the WiiU. They appear to be trying with games like X and Wonderful 101, though viewing gameplay of the latter really didn't impress me. Otherwise, they're just going to have to weather this storm and put some thought into their next console. They need to make sure it's easy for third-party developers to work with and they need to lose the gimmicks. No one cares about motion controls anymore, and the gamepad is apparently too hard to work with or something, since NO ONE is doing anything GOOD with it.

They also need to realize that the casual consumer who picked up a Wii is not going to bother getting a new console. They already have the Wii and the two or three games they wanted for it. They'll pull it out now and then to play golf or bowling or whatever, and then put it away until the next time. They don't need a new system in order get this same experience. They aren't looking for bigger and better things from their console. These are the people who didn't even care about gaming consoles until the saw how fun and accessible the Wii was. These people made up a majority of those who purchased a Wii. They are not going to be repeat customers, and Nintendo did not realize it.

Nintendo had it best when they were the only game in town. They've been steadily declining in popularity since the SNES as other systems came along offering more variety of games, some of which were willing to address mature themes that Nintendo rarely approached. As new gamers grow up with their parents gaming systems, less and less people are going to have a Nintendo platform as their first console. Nostalgia is not going to be the same for them as it is for gamers of my generation. They need to bring in new blood and that means less reliance on nostalgic titles. Somehow it seems they've figured that out for the handheld, as there are a slew of games on there that don't draw upon characters created in the NES days. Why the hell they can't do it for their console is beyond me.

Riverwolf:

...and I don't think "aside from Steam's marketplace" is much of an aside, since that encompasses over 2500 games from all generations(not counting add-ons, DLC, etc.), many of which are also found on both the 360 and PS3.

How many of those games on the 360 and PS3 are actually broken? The point of excluding Steam's marketplace is solely the number of low-quality indie games, which would grossly skew things away from any fair estimation. Besides, shitty shovelware isn't a thing that's alien to Nintendo consoles, either.

Zachary Amaranth:

Riverwolf:

...and I don't think "aside from Steam's marketplace" is much of an aside, since that encompasses over 2500 games from all generations(not counting add-ons, DLC, etc.), many of which are also found on both the 360 and PS3.

How many of those games on the 360 and PS3 are actually broken?

Not many of them. But being "not broken" doesn't mean "not full of bugs." Red Dead Redemption is FULL of bugs, but it's hardly broken. Nintendo games I've played generally have far fewer bugs, if any bugs at all, than most other games from other companies.

I WILL however, concede that I could be misremembering, as it's been a while since I've actually played a modern Nintendo game except Skyward Sword which I just recently finished.

The point of excluding Steam's marketplace is solely the number of low-quality indie games, which would grossly skew things away from any fair estimation.

Ah. Fair enough (though I remember browsing the XBLA marketplace at one time before Steam really started getting a slew of bad indie games and found all kinds of titles that looked like absolute garbage, or paid-for clones of free flash games.)

Besides, shitty shovelware isn't a thing that's alien to Nintendo consoles, either.

Certainly isn't. When I say "Nintendo games are generally good software" I'm generally referring to games I've played from Gamecube-on. Earlier Nintendo consoles had games that tended to be overall as glitchy, if not far more so, as modern games on other consoles (which I blame on the fact that those early games were limited in programming sophistication; games before the 16-bit era were always coded directly in Assembly, and it wasn't 'till the Genesis, as far as I'm aware, that consoles started allowing a modified form of C programming, and I don't think Nintendo started allowing C programming until the 64.)

As much as I love the Virtual Console (and other implementations of old-school ports to modern systems), there's a LOT of games they're bringing back that really should have been left in the past.

Honestly, I'm skeptical to the notion that going third party would be good for Nintendo. Just going by evidence, such as how it didn't help Sega, SNK, or Atari, I say that it would not help them.

Ed130 The Vanguard:

Stealth:
Nintendo had the highest reviewed games last year. They sold the most hardware last year too. Telling them to abandon everything and say there games arent good is stupid.

Yes the WiiU beat two ageing consoles at the end of their production run who had their successors waiting in the wings, well done Nintendo. slow clap That's like beating two geriatrics in a 100m sprint in which you proceed to faceplant every ten metres or so.

And then the PS4 dropped in and bettered the WiiU numbers in less than four months. And that's with the PS4 yet to release in Japan, a major Sony stronghold.

If you meant handhelds only then yes Nintendo moved the most stock.

As for 'highest reviewed' that don't mean diddly, sales is what keeps a corporation afloat.

Because consumers like you are buying into ignorant hype. The PS4 currently has very little to justify buying it. Hardly any exclusives and all of it's 3rd Party support is also being released on the PS3 or the PC. There is no reason whatsoever to buy it and I hate that Sony gets that kind of money despite this.

Also, sales may keep a corporation running but they don't denote quality and Sony has only shown me so far that they don't provide enough quality to justify those 4 months' sales. Proving that consumers and gamers today are getting dumber.

They need to be investing in new IPs and breaking new ground. If they keep trying to be Niche, they will go the way of Sega.

And yet every time they do, no one buys them. If by new IPs you mean, make a bunch of M-Rated crap with no substance that's already over saturating the market as is then you can shut your mouth. Otherwise, be more specific than new IPs.

LordTerminal:

Ed130 The Vanguard:

Stealth:
Nintendo had the highest reviewed games last year. They sold the most hardware last year too. Telling them to abandon everything and say there games arent good is stupid.

Yes the WiiU beat two ageing consoles at the end of their production run who had their successors waiting in the wings, well done Nintendo. slow clap That's like beating two geriatrics in a 100m sprint in which you proceed to faceplant every ten metres or so.

And then the PS4 dropped in and bettered the WiiU numbers in less than four months. And that's with the PS4 yet to release in Japan, a major Sony stronghold.

If you meant handhelds only then yes Nintendo moved the most stock.

As for 'highest reviewed' that don't mean diddly, sales is what keeps a corporation afloat.

Because consumers like you are buying into ignorant hype. The PS4 WiiU currently has very little to justify buying it. Hardly any exclusives and all of it's 3rd Party support is also being released on the PS3 or the PC. There is no reason whatsoever to buy it and I hate that Sony Nintendo gets that kind of money despite this. is making no profit from it.

FIFY. ALso, I'm a PC Gamer only.

The same criticisms you level at Sony can also be levelled against the WiiU, as most Nintendo releases have been at best rehashes of previous titles with very few actual 'new' games like Wonderful 101 and what third party exclusives it did get were either failures or were released onto other platforms.

Also, sales may keep a corporation running but they don't denote quality and Sony has only shown me so far that they don't provide enough quality to justify those 4 months' sales. Proving that consumers and gamers today are getting dumber.

Now that's where third party sales come in, lets face it the Sony launch titles were bunk for the most part but people are banking on third party support. Combine that with the PS4's superior performance its becoming a good investment for future gaming, something which the WiiU isn't looking to be.

I can see Nintendo succeeding as a software-only publisher, as long as their headquarters has an eternal flame in front of it, kept lit by the burning corpses of anyone who suggests joining the Day 1 DLC model.

Nintendo is basically the last place where you get what feels like a complete game for your money, instead of "Hey, here's what you get for your $60, and here's the 2nd disc's worth of stuff we put behind a $15/ea. paywall, instead of making the aforementioned $60 game complete and working.", or "Here's a seven-hour campaign for your $60; we know what you REALLY want is to pay extra per month to go online against 12-year-olds expressing their inner psychopath."

CriticKitten:

Really, Ben, you just admitted that Sony and MS are just making "shit PCs" in your review, so why on earth would you encourage Nintendo to drop out of consoles so that we're literally stuck with shit PCs and nothing else?

It's probably because those "shit PCs" come with games worth playing that don't have to be from 30 year old IPs. That's Nintendo's major problem right now. The third party can't sell anything on Nintendo's consoles so they're not wasting money with the Wii U.

Now I don't think Nintendo should drop out, but it needs to find a way to not rely on Mario and Zelda to selll units. The "shit PC"s have the benefit of people getting excited for new IPs every generation. Nintendo consoles sell on old IPs. Problem is, with old IPs comes a shrinking market for Nintendo because people have grown up and no longer play video games. Then there are people who simply don't want to buy a new console to play a game with the same structure as something they played 20-30 years ago.

I think most die hard Nintendo fans these days grew up playing N64. Those who grew up playing NES or SNES for the most part left the pack of the mega fan. The kinds of games that were released on the SNES (i.e. JRPGs such as Chrono Trigger) went over the the PlayStation in the 90s. The N64 had 3D Platformers 3D adventure games and great local multiplayer titles, but if you wanted JRPGs, you have to admit, the PS1 ran that shit. As did the PS2.

Like I said, the "shit PCs" have a bigger variety of games people want. and not just the franchises that you can't count with both hands.

FinalDream:
I recently sold my Wii U and 3DS, I've reached that point where Nintendo leaves me cold. I guess the countless days of the SNES, N64, Gamecube and Wii have taken their toll on me and I found myself in the curious position of both not looking forward to and then not enjoying the recent first party releases. The recent Mario on Wii U and Zelda on 3DS are great examples, when I was playing it I knew I should be adoring it, singing its praises, but I just couldn't be bothered to play it. I feel nothing for the upcoming release of Mario Kart, I always hated Super Smash Bros. so I was never looking forward to that. And scanning the future release list for the 3DS and Wii U I didn't want a single game. So I sold them on to someone who will hopefully find the joy I once found in Nintendo's games.

It's odd but such is life I guess.

But you still have third party titles, especially on the 3DS.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here