General Nintendo sales/business discussion topic (previously: The Wii U Thread)

[VO.SUPER]

I really don't think so. Mario is basically game Mickey Mouse, he'll never lose popularity. I always raise my previous statement, how is it being a different skin going to make the game any different? They're not going to stop making games like Mario and Zelda, so what the hell would be the point in replacing Mario and Link? We kind of get it, you don't like Nintendo but, statistics show they don't need to please YOU to continue to please a wide number of consumers.

[Conando]

It was more a general statement to people who are clamoring for new IPs. Which to be fair, was mostly coming from Stingray.

[VO.SUPER]

It was more a general statement to people who are clamoring for new IPs. Which to be fair, was mostly coming from Stingray.

[Conando]

Well, I could have worded it better. I shouldn't really be saying people who want new IPs want them to flat out die but, there are people who treat the new games like they're crap just because, they're not a new IP for the sake of being a new IP.

Edit: I do find this a bit odd coming from a site dedicated to one of the longest running IPs in the industry.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Crow T. Robot

[Nintendoga]

In my opinion honestly, too many Ip's create an overabundance of franchises for one company to simply handle. Too many franchises will cause many fans to glamor and whine over why Nintendo doesn't love them enough to bring back Mother or F-Zero.

It's good that they have tons of IP's to fall back on just in case something were to ever happen, but they shouldn't have too many ip's.

Pretty much people only really care about the franchises in Smash Bros. It's like "If they weren't in Smash Bros. we don't want to play as them."

I mean be honest, how many people were asking for a new kid icarus game before Brawl? Or another Ice Climbers game before Melee? None, because people forgot about them until Nintendo brought them back.

I have no idea where I'm going with this, so I'll just let it be.

[SuperStingray]

I really don't think so. Mario is basically game Mickey Mouse, he'll never lose popularity. I always raise my previous statement, how is it being a different skin going to make the game any different? They're not going to stop making games like Mario and Zelda, so what the hell would be the point in replacing Mario and Link? We kind of get it, you don't like Nintendo but, statistics show they don't need to please YOU to continue to please a wide number of consumers.

Did you even read my post Crow T.? I specifically said that IPs and genres are COMPLETELY different phenomena, much less the same game with different skins. Did creating Kirby mean Nintendo would retire Mario as their platformer du jour? NO. It simply gives the opportunity to explore new mechanics and tropes that would otherwise seem out of place in something they already have. New IPs shouldn't be created for their own sake, but existing ones shouldn't be stretched beyond their limits either. I think Sonic can vouch for that. Furthermore, I'm not on my knees pleading for new IPs here, it's just a worthwhile strategy. My concern isn't in the lack of new IPs so much as an imbalanced reliance on a select few to the point of tiring them all out; Starfox, Metroid and Zelda don't need to be replaced, they need a break. I give Mario and Pokemon exception because they're World of Warcraft-tier in mass marketability and the world would implode if a year didn't go by without even a spinoff from either. But as for the rest of Nintendo's go-to properties, Metroid is actually was good example of why some franchises just need a break. Despite it's quality, Super Metroid didn't have very strong sales, so Nintendo completely skipped the N64 generation for Metroid and revived it with two fantastic games in a row, Prime and Fusion, each selling over a million copies. THAT's the impact some moderation can have for using IPs. That said, wait a little too long and a revival kind of loses its impact. Duke Nukem Forever is a special case of how bad that can go, but the lack of enthusiasm towards XCOM and Kid Icarus outside, special niche groups, indicates a generational gap, so to speak. Even if Nintendo doesn't create any new IPs, I think the ones they do have will work much better if they're used in waves. Give Zelda, Metroid and Kirby a break for the Wii U's lifespan, give it Pikmin 3, maybe even 4 towards the end, a new F-Zero game, maybe bring back some obscure names for low-budget niche releases, like Chibi-Robo or CustomRobo, and, should they see a new worthwhile market that none of their IPs can optimally appeal to on name alone, a new property. When whatever the Wii U's successor is comes out, blast it with a group of titles that fans haven't seen in 5 years and just watch them fly off the shelves like never before. And when that cycle ends, the Wii U's biggest IPs will be most ripe for revival once again.

Edited January 26, 2012 by SuperStingray

[Conando]

>Zelda needs a break when Skyward Sword was considered the best 3D Zelda game ever made.

>Star Fox needs a break when it JUST CAME BACK.

Yeah ok.

Metroid? I might give you that, considering Other M damages have to blow over first.

Also, that strategy sounds so astronomically stupid I can't even begin to fathom why you think it's a good one. Companies SURVIVE on their IPs, if they were to throw everything out but Mario and Pikmin next generation, that wouldn't get anyone. How would that get anyone, seriously? Bringing new IPs out might interest a few but, putting others on break is just going to make them LOSE people. You can't just lose people like that. You can go "Oh well Gamecube" but, that doesn't work since what sold the Gamecube? Mario, Zelda, Metroid Prime, and Smash Brothers.

Edit: Also, you do realize the development cycle of games like Zelda is 5 years anyway, right? Skyward Sword started development right after they finished TP.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Crow T. Robot

[Patticus]

We shouldn't expect a new Zelda game from the Skyward Sword team until the middle of the Wii U's generation, but I think we may expect a new handheld Zelda, or a console one by the handheld team, in the not-too-distant future. But that's for a different topic. Nintendo has plenty of franchises it can toy with outside of Zelda, StarFox and Metroid, and it doesn't seem to be short of third party support nowadays so there's that too.

I just want a new Sega-developed F-Zero anyway.

[Conando]

The thing is, that Nintendo can't just outright abandon those for a generation and be ok. It's not like they treat their franchises the way SEGA treated Sonic for years anyway. You know, considering they still make every game high quality.

Edit: With that said. Shit yeah I want another Amusement Vision developed F-Zero. Though Amusement Vision or not, F-Zero on Wii U would be the most amazing thing ever. Can you imagine F-Zero in HD? Holy mother of God.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Crow T. Robot

[Patticus]

The thing is, that Nintendo can't just outright abandon those for a generation and be ok. It's not like they treat their franchises the way SEGA treated Sonic for years anyway. You know, considering they still make every game high quality.

They won't abandon them, but these games can take several years to put together so it probably isn't a good idea to expect them to come out at the kind of rate Sonic gets pumped out at. If the Wii U is launched this year, and Skyward Sword was released late last year, and Zelda console games can take 4-5 years to put out, you're definitely looking at mid-generation as the time period to expect the next Zelda game to be released. So, 2015-16, roughly.

As for the others, well, I don't know, but I do know Nintendo isn't going to leave us bereft of high quality first-/second-party games until the last year or two of the system's life.

[SuperStingray]

>Zelda needs a break when Skyward Sword was considered the best 3D Zelda game ever made.

>Star Fox needs a break when it JUST CAME BACK.

Yeah ok.

Metroid? I might give you that, considering Other M damages have to blow over first.

Fine, Starfox would be drastic to take out of the loop since its releases are relativley sparce, but Metroid would need a break regardless of Other M's quality; more than half of its entire library came out in the past decade. But the point stands for Zelda even more for being considered the best in the franchise. The thing about business is that things sell best when you leave customers the chance to want it more.

Also, that strategy sounds so astronomically stupid I can't even begin to fathom why you think it's a good one. Companies SURVIVE on their IPs, if they were to throw everything out but Mario and Pikmin next generation, that wouldn't get anyone. How would that get anyone, seriously?

Companies don't sell on what people enjoy, they sell on what people want, and realizing that there's a difference between them is why Steve Jobs never had to rely on consumer feedback to move billions of his toys. Restricting yourself only to building on what worked 10 years ago is just ignorant in a rapidly changing market, even if they still prove successful. Valve hasn't made a game in their flagship franchise for five years and they've moved more product during that period than the decade before, and when Episode Three actually DOES come out, I guarantee its release will be explosive. (Given the wait isn't still over half a generation away, then there's a legitimate problem.) The demand for a new Zelda won't be any worse 3 years from now, but it will be a hell of a lot stronger in 7, and its legacy would actually carry its marketing further than it ever did. Nintendo can survive a generation without it, but it will only improve the profit in the end when all the pent up demand is satisfied with a single release rather than several spread out.

Bringing new IPs out might interest a few but, putting others on break is just going to make them LOSE people. You can't just lose people like that. You can go "Oh well Gamecube" but, that doesn't work since what sold the Gamecube? Mario, Zelda, Metroid Prime, and Smash Brothers.

Pikmin sold over a million copies worldwide without any prior legacy or fanbase to push it. I don't see why a new IP can't be just as successful. Again, I don't know if it will be necessary to MAKE a new IP, particularly if the Wii U gets good third party, but there's always another niche to fill. Also, I specifically said Mario should never need to leave the public eye, Metroid Prime was popular because the IP was gone for a whole generation and Smash Bros. WAS a new IP, being created only two years before.

Edit: Also, you do realize the development cycle of games like Zelda is 5 years anyway, right? Skyward Sword started development right after they finished TP.

Yeah, but not without Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks filling the void. And Skyward Sword could have such a bigger impact on newcomers had Ocarina of Time 3D not come out just months before.

Edited January 26, 2012 by SuperStingray

[Conando]

You're implying more Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc. isn't what people want. You could have fooled me. Are you sure you're not confusing people with yourself? Hell, I already hear people saying "Where's the original Zelda title for 3DS?", even though it's obvious we won't see it until 2013 at the earliest.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Crow T. Robot

[SuperStingray]

You're implying more Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc. isn't what people want. You could have fooled me. Are you sure you're not confusing people with yourself?

Are you actually reading my posts or just skimming? I have said several times now that these are extremely popular franchises and they should be put on hiatus BECAUSE of the momentum they've built. A name associated with quality begets a legacy, but the legacy's worth nothing if it's perpetual- at that point it's just taken for granted.. You could be earning a lot more money by investing in a few games spaced out enough to increase demand by giving fans a chance to digest the last game and starve instead of creating a bunch of games that reduce the property's novelty simply through its numbers and dilute interest between them.

Also, I DO want more Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc. but not YET. I mean, I loved Skyward Sword, but it would have felt more refreshing had I not just come off playing Ocarina of Time again.

Hell, I already hear people saying "Where's the original Zelda title for 3DS?", even though it's obvious we won't see it until 2013 at the earliest.

And if you wait until 2015, MORE people will be asking that.

Edited January 26, 2012 by SuperStingray

[Patticus]

We ought to be seeing a proper 3DS Zelda title release well before 2015 guys, don't worry... unless it looks and plays as nicely as Wind Waker, in which case they should take as long as necessary and screw the haters!

[Conando]

Yes, I have been reading your posts. I still think your idea of what will be successful for Nintendo is atrocious. I think you underestimate exactly how popular the franchises are, putting other games on break after a huge success might make people go nuts when it's finally announced but, people will ALWAYS go nuts for Zelda. It doesn't need any help. It worked for Metroid but, here's the thing, Metroid wasn't popular before they dropped it for a bit. It never was. You even mentioned that Super Metroid didn't sell well, so I don't know what you're trying to get at. This only works if the game didn't already have a huge fanbase and mass market exposure. I should also note that the Prime games didn't sell nearly as much as Super Mario Sunshine and Wind Waker. Metroid still doesn't sell all that well in comparison to its brethren. By itself, it does pretty good from what Nintendo is saying. The sales of the Prime games, invidually, were over a million if I'm remembering correctly.

Also, I still don't fucking get why you're thinking every gamer out there thinks like you. "I want more etc but, not yet!". Who the hell cares? People want a Mario title at Wii U's launch but, it ain't happening. A Nintendo console doesn't become a Nintendo console until Mario shows up, and Zelda is always the game released later in the console's lifetime to rekindle the flames. I really cannot fathom how you think a single game released every console generation, for games like Zelda, is too much. This isn't CoD.

(Enjoy my wall of text. I shouldn't even be this composed at 6 AM in the morning.)

Edited January 26, 2012 by Crow T. Robot

[SuperStingray]

Yes, I have been reading your posts. I still think your idea of what will be successful for Nintendo is atrocious. I think you underestimate exactly how popular the franchises are, putting other games on break after a huge success might make people go nuts when it's finally announced but, people will ALWAYS go nuts for Zelda. It doesn't need any help.

If it doesn't need help, then why does Nintendo need to keep supplementing it with new installments every 1 or 2 years? Are they afraid people would lose interest if they didn't?

It worked for Metroid but, here's the thing, Metroid wasn't popular before they dropped it for a bit. It never was. You even mentioned that Super Metroid didn't sell well, so I don't know what you're trying to get at. This only works if the game didn't already have a huge fanbase and mass market exposure. I should also note that the Prime games didn't sell nearly as much as Super Mario Sunshine and Wind Waker. Metroid still doesn't sell all that well in comparison to its brethren. By itself, it does pretty good from what Nintendo is saying. The sales of the Prime games, invidually, were over a million if I'm remembering correctly.

Metroid 1 sold more than Prime and Super combined so I wouldn't call it unpopular. It's simply that interest in the series gradually declined after it, so it took a bit of a harder hiatus on it to let it build back up. And for the last time, I'm not arguing against Mario.

Also, I still don't fucking get why you're thinking every gamer out there thinks like you. "I want more etc but, not yet!".

Because I've yet to meet a human who doesn't or wouldn't think water tastes better after a long run in a dry spell than one in a rainstorm. This isn't my preference, it's a basic human psychology to be to have more demand for something that you've been denied longer.

Also, I still don't fucking get why you're thinking every gamer out there thinks like you. "I want more etc but, not yet!". Who the hell cares? People want a Mario title at Wii U's launch but, it ain't happening. A Nintendo console doesn't become a Nintendo console until Mario shows up, and Zelda is always the game released later in the console's lifetime to rekindle the flames.

Zelda would be extra marketable at the end of the Wii U's life cycle as long as there are no spinoffs or major 3DS installations between now and then.

I really cannot fathom how you think a single game released every console generation, for games like Zelda, is too much.

Zelda had 4 games in the past 4 years. 5 if you count the remake. It's one thing if they were under-the-radar spinoffs, but Nintendo tried to give even the DS spinoffs as much attention as they could.

This isn't CoD.

Oh, so when Nintendo milks a franchise its because it's what the fans want, but when CoD moves 2 million units in the first week it's exploitation? I can tell you I'd choose Zelda over it any day of the week, but demand is demand. Most people, at least that I've encountered, will say CoD was a quality series up until 4. Zelda's simply yet to pass it's "Call of Duty 4" and will most likely end up with the same fate if it continues on this path.

Edited January 26, 2012 by SuperStingray

[Tornado]

Edited January 26, 2012 by Tornado

[VO.SUPER]

Zelda had 4 games in the past 4 years. 5 if you count the remake. It's one thing if they were under-the-radar spinoffs, but Nintendo tried to give even the DS spinoffs as much attention as they could.

Edited January 26, 2012 by VisionaryBlur

[Marcello]

If you count ports, there's still LOZ, Zelda 2, Minish Cap and Four Sword Anniversary on 3DS.

[Marcello]

Rumor: Nintendo Considering Renaming Wii U

One of the many complaints levied at Nintendo in the aftermath of its E3 2011 reveal of the Wii U was that the system's name simply wasn't good enough. Although few faulted the publisher for wanting to retain its powerful Wii branding, many wondered if 'Wii U' would confuse consumers rather than make them immediately understand a new console was on the market. According to the latest rumor moving through the industry, Nintendo might now be reconsidering its naming strategy.

The bulk of Nintendo's second guessing apparently comes from how the 3DS was received, with many potential buyers wondering if the system was simply an upgraded DS. With losses mounting and even more pressure on Nintendo to perform, these rumors suggest that serious discussions are now being held as to whether the name 'Wii U' is strong enough. If a change is necessary, this same rumor claims a new name would be revealed prior to E3 2012.

Rumors regarding Wii U are nothing new. As 2012's biggest hardware launch, the entire industry is buzzing with speculation over what Nintendo has done and will do with its latest unconventional product. To be sure, we have far more questions than answers about the console, and Nintendo has much to prove.

Edited January 26, 2012 by MarcelloF

[Scar]

Bout time Nintendo decided to learn how to name consoles.

Fuck, even something like the Wii 2 would be better than "Wii U", which just implies a slightly upgraded or modified Wii, in the same sense the DSi was basically a DS but thinner and lighter.

[Victory Defender]

So what do you expect it to change to? Wii G?

[Jeffhog]

It must be done.

Edited January 26, 2012 by VizardJeffhog

[JezMM]

It'll be tricky. I liked the name Wii U but it was a double edged sword. It keeps the brand familiarity but also confuses as to whether it's a totally new system.

Or they can reuse the 3DS advert slogan...

"This is not Wii, this is Wii U."

...Preferably said by a rootin' tootin' cowboy.

Edited January 26, 2012 by JezMM

[Blue Blood]

Yeah, the system should definitely be renamed. With the amount of DS revisions out there, the 3DS was a difficult name for the less in-the-know consumer to get their head around. Something as simple as the "Wii 2" or even the "U" would help maintain a strong degree of brand identity and sound like something new at the same time.