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

[Sami]

I still don't understand what you're trying to prove.

I don't give a flying fart about sales or economic expansion or any of that other mumbo jumbo that only you seem to care about. You said that Nintendo stopped caring about the Wii and did nothing to support it in the 2009-2011 era. That's bull.

Furthermore, such a statement does not equate to saying that they didn't bother trying to expand their market or development teams. Those are two different kinds of arguments you're trying to prove and you're saying that they're somehow the same thing?

Look. For the better half of that list, they focused on more traditional games like everyone wanted them to, so pardon me if laundry list of games that received good reviews for the most part is somehow not enough evidence that they weren't making an effort to support the console.

Sales and economic expansion absolutely matter when the subject of discussion is the competence of their Chief Executive Officer. Signs of the Wii's decline were there in 2009, and nothing major was done to stop it from happening, or use a successor console to carry the Wii's momentum. That's all I said to begin with.

Whether it's "their fault" that it died when it did is completely irrelevant when the fact of the matter is that it did die and nothing was done to actually boost company profits until the 3DS' launch (which we all know did the exact opposite of that).

You want to talk about the quality of their games, go ahead. But that's a different line of discussion. I'm talking about what Iwata failed to do as president of Nintendo, and one of those things was allow the Wii to flatline without doing anything to carry the momentum it had into a future product.

[Indigo Rush]

That may be what you're trying to prove, but your terminology is doing you no favors.

 

Saying that Nintendo "did nothing" to support their console is bunk either way, and you can't get passed that. 

 

They may not have done anything in regards to what you're talking about, but you should know better than to flippantly use such statements without giving them greater context.

 

Seriously, you said Nintendo "did nothing." What in the world do you expect us to read from that?! That's a lie. It's not even a good lie!

 

I'm mad at you because I know you're better than that.

[Willsy]

The only problem I can see about the Wii around that time was the marketing. Though that was pretty much a universal problem with Nintendo systems at the time, which went on to plague the 3DS.

[Sami]

That may be what you're trying to prove, but your terminology is doing you no favors.

Saying that Nintendo "did nothing" to support their console is bunk either way, and you can't get passed that.

They may not have done anything in regards to what you're talking about, but you should know better than to flippantly use such statements without giving them greater context.

Seriously, you said Nintendo "did nothing." What in the world do you expect us to read from that?! That's a lie. It's not even a good lie!

I'm mad at you because I know you're better than that.

What, exactly, did they do to invest in the future? What did they do to capitalize on the Wii's success in the long term? They did do nothing, and you're misunderstanding what the main point here is. They had an absolutely immense audience in 2008 buying their products, and when that started to slow in 2009, nothing was done to carry that success in the future. Donkey Kong is not relevant to this point.

Releasing games is a way to keep a system profitable late in it's life, yes, but that's not what the "did nothing" is even referring to. I'm talking about a major new SKU to reignite hardware sales (DS lite, DSi), or a successor that carries the momentum of it's predecessor by using the same advantages. None of that was done. No long term plans or investments were made, and that is foolish.

[PSI Wind]

What, exactly, could Nintendo do? There was nothing TO make a difference to the Wii console. And yet we got the Wii Mini, which was utter shit except for the color scheme. No online AND no GC Compatibility? Why would people buy that? The 360 and PS3 got new SKUs BECAUSE they needed them due to hardware failure or overheating.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

What's this nonsense about the Wii "flat-lining"?

By those perspective standards the PS3 would be considered as dead in the water as the Titanic at that time.

[Sami]

What, exactly, could Nintendo do? There was nothing TO make a difference to the Wii console. And yet we got the Wii Mini, which was utter shit except for the color scheme. No online AND no GC Compatibility? Why would people buy that? The 360 and PS3 got new SKUs BECAUSE they needed them due to hardware failure or overheating.

What was wrong with the DS lite prior to the DSi?

What's this nonsense about the Wii "flat-lining"?

By those perspective standards the PS3 would be considered as dead in the water as the Titanic at that time.

The PS3 and 360 were both steadily increasing at that point, actually. They started flatlining about last year (terrible year for business all around, for the most part), but were quickly followed up by their successors. The 360 also had the Kinect to reignite hardware sales for a while.

[PSI Wind]

What's this nonsense about the Wii "flat-lining"?

By those perspective standards the PS3 would be considered as dead in the water as the Titanic at that time.

The PS3 picked up momentum in the third quarter of 2008, so actually, not really. If we want to talk about profits, by the way, the PS3 barely made money for Sony. Hell, it made them LOSE a crapload of money. And because you only need one game to sell to make up for the loss on the Wii U, Nintendo isn't losing much money if the Software attachment is bigger than the PS4, which is in the same boat. Technically, the PS4 is making Sony lose money again, and more than Nintendo, just not as much when they lost money to the PS3. 

What was wrong with the DS lite prior to the DSi?

The DSi was entirely different to the DS Lite and actually had a reason to exist due to the DSi Shop and the fact that it had better specs than the DS Lite. Technically speaking, the DSi was DS Version 2.0. 

[Doctor MK]

Sorry to interrupt everyone's ongoing discussion, but just for those who don't know... the first three GBA Virtual Console games are now available on Wii U! Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga, Advance Wars, and Metroid Fusion - all priced at £6.29 each in the UK.

 

 

Anyone planning to download any of these classics? Or are you waiting for the arrival of the other GBA titles in the coming weeks?

[PSI Wind]

Speaking of the GBA games, the reason there's all these options to the point it isn't just a straight emulation compared to the 3DS Ambassador games is because they were co-developed by M2. M2 is the same company that makes the SEGA 3D Classic games.

[Indigo Rush]

Discoid, buddy.

 

We're arguing for different things.

 

You're arguing for a long-term investment, which while I think wasn't necessary for Nintendo, is something that you're right about.

 

I'm arguing for a steady support with a flow of first-party games to the end of the console's lifespan, and I'm pretty sure those games existed. 

 

To me, releasing high quality first party games for your console is continual support. You said that it isn't.

 

That's the problem.

 

Nintendo didn't extend the Wii farther than it could have, but many would like to argue that, with slightly-above-Gamecube level of hardware, it was about dang time Nintendo moved on to the next thing.

 

Furthermore, the Wii U has full backwards compatibility with Wii game and it's peripherals anyway, so any game that wants to capitalize on the motion control fad with Wii, they still can. The Wii is technically still alive, just in HD.

 

The Wii is technically still going, it's just a part of a bigger console that has a focus on the gamepad.

 

Nintendo's investment was on a next-gen console, not extending the Wii's life span. We're in agreement with that, right?

 

Nintendo continued to support the Wii by releasing a load of first-party games until the Wii itself died. We're in agreement with that, right? 

 

So I'm trying to understand why you seem to think that those two different facts are the same thing. Those are two different situations and I'm arguing for the latter. 

 

 

 

 

Really though, I just want to move on. Discussing this sort of thing with you is ridiculously and needlessly high-maintenance, and I really just want to go back to ogling over Mario Kart 8.

 

#Nintendoomed.

[redhellc]

While I think adding GBA games is great I won't be buying any of these first releases, since the only one that I would buy is Metroid Fusion but I can still play that one on my DS.

I guess I have to wait a little longer for a game that I might actually want to buy.

[Willsy]

I want Sonic Advance on VC. I've only played it on emulator but it's very choppy.

[PSI Wind]

I want Sonic Advance on VC. I've only played it on emulator but it's very choppy.

Well, if M2 is already partnered with SEGA, I can see the Advance games making a comeback.

[Sami]

The PS3 picked up momentum in the third quarter of 2008, so actually, not really. If we want to talk about profits, by the way, the PS3 barely made money for Sony. Hell, it made them LOSE a crapload of money. And because you only need one game to sell to make up for the loss on the Wii U, Nintendo isn't losing much money if the Software attachment is bigger than the PS4, which is in the same boat. Technically, the PS4 is making Sony lose money again, and more than Nintendo, just not as much when they lost money to the PS3.

The PS3 is an embarrassment, yeah. Everyone responsible for making it turn out the way it did deserves to have been replaced, and I'm glad that happened. The PS4 is breaking records now because of an influx of fresh, smart minds eagerly coming onto the project. This is what Nintendo needs.

The DSi was entirely different to the DS Lite and actually had a reason to exist due to the DSi Shop and the fact that it had better specs than the DS Lite. Technically speaking, the DSi was DS Version 2.0.

The Wii could have gotten that, then.

Discoid, buddy.

 

We're arguing for different things.

 

You're arguing for a long-term investment, which while I think wasn't necessary for Nintendo, is something that you're right about.

 

I'm arguing for a steady support with a flow of first-party games to the end of the console's lifespan, and I'm pretty sure those games existed. 

 

To me, releasing high quality first party games for your console is continual support. You said that it isn't.

 

That's the problem.

 

Nintendo didn't extend the Wii farther than it could have, but many would like to argue that, with slightly-above-Gamecube level of hardware, it was about dang time Nintendo moved on to the next thing.

 

Furthermore, the Wii U has full backwards compatibility with Wii game and it's peripherals anyway, so any game that wants to capitalize on the motion control fad with Wii, they still can. The Wii is technically still alive, just in HD.

 

The Wii is technically still going, it's just a part of a bigger console that has a focus on the gamepad.

 

Nintendo's investment was on a next-gen console, not extending the Wii's life span. We're in agreement with that, right?

 

Nintendo continued to support the Wii by releasing a load of first-party games until the Wii itself died. We're in agreement with that, right? 

 

So I'm trying to understand why you seem to think that those two different facts are the same thing. Those are two different situations and I'm arguing for the latter.

The Wii itself got software support, yes. I agree. It's a fact.

My argument, however, is that it ultimately did not amount to much, and that steps that should have been taken to prevent loss of interest in the brand were unfortunately not taken by Iwata, and I hope we can agree on that. The Wii U came way too late, and nothing really justifies that.

[Indigo Rush]

Sonic Advance was amazing. I'd certainly pay for it again.

 

 

The Wii itself got software support, yes. I agree. It's a fact.

My argument, however, is that it ultimately did not amount to much, and that steps that should have been taken to prevent loss of interest in the brand were unfortunately not taken by Iwata, and I hope we can agree on that. The Wii U came way too late, and nothing really justifies that.

 

So, as I suspected, we're really on the same page, but your terminology just pissed everyone off. Again.

 

I need coffee. Stat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Love ya, bro. Mean it.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

The PS3 picked up momentum in the third quarter of 2008, so actually, not really. If we want to talk about profits, by the way, the PS3 barely made money for Sony. Hell, it made them LOSE a crapload of money. And because you only need one game to sell to make up for the loss on the Wii U, Nintendo isn't losing much money if the Software attachment is bigger than the PS4, which is in the same boat. Technically, the PS4 is making Sony lose money again, and more than Nintendo, just not as much when they lost money to the PS3.

Pretty much my point. I was comparing such stances to describe the nonsensical - ness of the presented notion.

[Mando-Whirl-Wind]

Well, I have to wait till to get those GBA games, but proably will within a week(waiting to make sure they arent the new club nintendo deal first though)

 

Oh and indigo/Discoid, you also forgot a major bombshell called XenoBlade Chronicles

[Sami]

Pretty much my point. I was comparing such stances to describe the nonsensical - ness of the presented notion.

False equivalency. Rising sales vs. Falling sales.

I need coffee.

I'll follow, this gets tiring after a while lol.

[Indigo Rush]

Oh and indigo/Discoid, you also forgot a major bombshell called XenoBlade Chronicles

 

 

Wasn't a first-party title, though.

 

I mean I'd have loved to add that to the list to make my argument look bigger and better, but it wouldn't be relevant.

[PSI Wind]

Wasn't a first-party title, though.

 

I mean I'd have loved to add that to the list to make my argument look bigger and better, but it wouldn't be relevant.

Actually it is a first-party title. Monolith is owned by Nintendo and Nintendo owns the Xenoblade license.

[Kuzu]

I thought Monolith was Second Party.

[PSI Wind]

I thought Monolith was Second Party.

Nope.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2007/04/27/xenosaga-developer-switches-sides

[Candescence]

While Nintendo hasn't been doing so hot lately, it's funny how the investors are up in arms about it, because their idea of how to fix the problem (aka go full-on with smartphone gaming) is, for anyone who has actually looked at the smartphone market properly, laughable. Mobile gaming is a toxic environment with horribad app stores and essentially the equivalent of playing the lottery, and is practically a bubble just waiting to burst. Some will make lots of money, but even the winners can easily become losers - just ask Zynga.

 

Besides, even a successor to Iwata who could handle things better would likely not even consider putting actual games on smartphones.

[Sami]

I don't like the idea of going knees-deep into mobile, but honestly putting the Virtual Console on iOS and Android is easy money just waiting to be made. SEGA did it just fine with Sonic 1 and 2.