So which is it? Do they own all of Gamefreak or do they own half of it? Because half is still half. That's not a majority. That's an even number. And how do you know what say Nintendo has in what Gamefreak does? You aren't part of the development team, and you KNOW Nintendo are very hands off when it comes to what to what their studios make or don't make.
So, if Satoshi decides he wants to create Pokemon for the rest of Gamefreaks life, then you take your issue with Satoshi.
You are misunderstanding corporate structure. If you own over 50% of the stocks, you are in complete control of the company and call all the shots. There is no functional difference between owning 50.1% of shares in a company and owning 100%.
There's a reason why Nintendo bought that much. They wanted that control. They likely purchased something like 51% at the start and then the company has since purchased back some stock from other shareholders which brings their percentage up accordingly. I'm sorry, but you're wrong on this one. Game Freaks is for all intents and purposes a Nintendo Studio. I'm not sure why you're even debating this. Such a statement only means that Nintendo's IP is stronger.
They are endemic to you. Unfortunately in your case, people still love those IP's enough to want more. Still doesn't answer the question I asked at all. Which is why are you complaining about the Wii U in an article talking about a 3DS game.
The Nintendo 64 sold 34 million units (ps sold 102 mil). The Gamecube sold 22 million units (ps2 sold 154 mil and XBO sold 25mil). The wii was saved wholesale by the wiimote, not the IPs. If you really love Nintendo IPs and the content they're capable of creating, then you should consider backing me up here. It's one of the only ways they can survive in the market except maybe handhelds which are a nice alternative to tablets and giving children phones.
Then why not shift the blame to those producers? Why does it have to be Miyamoto that takes the brunt of the shit thrown at him when he has done plenty of new IP's? It's like the time when everyone threw crap at Jennifer Hepler because they deemed she was the one responsible for all of Bioware's writing fuck ups. No matter how prominent someone is in the company at the end of the day they are ONE PERSON in a network of people.
As I stated, it is either his fault for failing to delegate or Nintendo's fault for bottlenecking it to one person and not branching out. Frankly, it can be both their faults but either way it is a fault.
How do you know they are bottlenecking everything through him?
You really think one of the largest development studios on the planet is just out of unique ideas unless one man has them?
If those IP's still continue to bring in the money, than clearly the company isn't a failure in any sense.
The 3DS kicked off the ground not because of new IP's or that treasured third party support. It got back on it's feet because of the host of Nintendo games that people still like enough to buy an entire system for it.
1. Bringing in "SOME" money does not mean they're doing anything close to what they could be doing. If you really are a fan of Nintendo then you'd want them to try to branch out because any success they have would be a new NINTENDO brand IP. You'd only benefit from more variety in Nintendo IPs. Thinks about what made the Wii explode off the shelves. Do you really think it was the same old Nintendo IPs or do you think it was a new experience and an innovative peripheral that enabled those new experiences and resonated with a large consumer market? The latter is undoubtedly the answer. They bet and lost on the gamepad. So new IPs are the only way to create those new experiences where peripherals aren't working. I don't blame them for trying, but even the Wii had an amazing launch library that the WiiU doesn't have. That was a double threat that made 3rd party vendors want to sell games on the console if they could be scaled down enough.
2. Bringing in money now does not mean they're on a sustainable path. The Nintendo brand began to taper off with the N64 thanks to the introduction of the PS1 which they commissioned the creation of (for the Super Famicon) before breaching their contract with Sony to go with some Phillips deal that never panned out (essentially publically shaming Sony in a way that practically dared them to enter the market against Nintendo). Sony then hit the ground running with new IPs and vibrant 3rd party support. Even acquiring brands from Nintendo (FFVII comes to mind) that badly hurt Nintendo's ability to compete. The testing and establishment of new IPs means they get new customers and are able to compete more readily in the market. Anyone who says this is a bad idea is terribly mistaken. The Nintendo IPs are fantastic, but not enough to carry the console war by themselves. No publishing studio is capable of doing that by themselves. If Nintendo isn't going to do a better job of courting 3rd Party developers because they feel like it's beneath them, then they need to create an environment that compells people to develop for them or to start producing more content themselves. Sony and Microsoft had to create more new IPs because they were starting from scratch. Those new experiences meant that both consoles' first entry into the market saw a higher market share than Nintendo. When that happens, you have to acknowledge that there is a much larger market for new IPs. Sony didn't just magically sell 102 million PS1s to the N64's 34 million for no reason. It was new and had to earn it's place. Nintendo recognizes that they haven't provided a compelling reason to buy the WiiU. They know that software is where their salvation lies but we appear to be looking at too little, too late.
3. The handheld market is great because it is basically curated content for children. Far safer than tablets or phones for children and potentially less expensive when looking at hardware costs (even if software can add hundreds to the lifetime of the system). However, Nintendo is competing in two different areas. Good IPs on the handheld can become good IPs on the console depending on what they are. Heck, even if this game uses an old IP but to good effect, there's no reason why it can't eventually flood into the console. Good console Ips likewise often translates into decent handheld IPs. The point of this is, a failure to generate new IPs on one of their consoles does impact the others. So there is no reason why a statement about this game wouldn't relate to all faucets of Nintendo's problems.
Again, why just Miyamoto?
The man that has his hands in every pot? The guy responsible for nearly every major IP Nintendo has ever made? The buck kinda stops there. If he's able to take responsibility for innovations of new IPs then he's also got a hand in points of stagnation. Though, Hell, if I was Nintendo I'd give him free reign too. Darned if they don't owe nearly everything to him. It's just that I'd develop other things without him too while letting him do what he wants with his stuff.
It would only harm Nintendo fans, if they DON'T like those IP's and that's all Nintendo are making.
Nintendo being on a trajectory that makes their success in the home console market questionable does impact fans, regardless of how they like the content currently being generated. And it isn't like you can currently tell me that you're wholly satisfied with the extremely limited content you've been getting in this console cycle (do you have your WiiU yet?). At the same time, the iPhone and Android market is growing at an alarming path to a point where it can one day pose Nintendo a serious/legitimate threat where nicely curated content can be obtained without any need for a dedicated gaming device.
Additionally, liking a handful of IPs doesn't mean they couldn't have dozens of IPs instead. Nintendo actually had a mindset that they'd try to fit existing IPs into new gameplay mechanics. This was Miyamoto's model. The problem is stagnation of IPs. Every product has a life cycle and that includes Mario. This is why they've started paying closer attention to side-characters like Yoshi and Luigi. Something that harms consumers can just as easily be things they aren't getting but should be getting. New IPs 4 or 5 per generation, would give Nintendo a boost in every area of their product line.
Let me point out that Nintendo has recognised the error in their way of doing business. They hear customers complaints about a lack of truly new IPs and they've begun changing gears. You can see that in the way they've started promising new IPs and have backtracked on Miyamoto's statements to the reporters. This is extremely promising for Nintendo's company as long as they push through this model. They don't need a ton of new IPs but the more legitmate ones, the better.
And once again, it is completely insane to blame A single fucking person for whatever problems you have with a company.
I'll repeat it again. It is EITHER him failing to delegate or Nintendo failing to give other people more leeway. It also COULD be both. With someone that involved in the process, some blame must stop at them. You're right that not all of it should, but some certainly should. Right now pretty much all content has to cross Miyamoto's desk and he does devote real time to his babies. You can't blame him for that. Those are his legacy. But you can blame him for not delegating a little more responsibility and most of all you can blame Nintendo for not pushing other studios to innovate new IPs and taking chances on the promising ones.
Look, I get that you're a Nintendo fan. But it's not doing anyone any favors to defend their truly faulty choices.
EDIT: Oh, looks like Nintendo agrees with me on Miyamoto:
Miyamoto likely won't work on the next Mario game.