Forum - View topic

NEWS: Nintendo Reports Weak Wii U Sales, Cuts Projections by 2/3rds

I am not so sure about that. Dumbing things down for a wider audience usually turns things into garbage. You cite the American comic industry, but I would cite the American cartoon industry. That industry had ruined itself by aiming for as many people as possible so it has to be as unoffensive and safe as possible, targeting as many viewers as it can. The shows might make profit but it is creatively dead so you will never see risky, unconventional shows like anime does.

I like the Tales series. It only sells 300-800K copies and while games which sell 10+ million make more money, like CoD or Battlefield, I'd still play Tales over those because I like them more. Catering to a core, dedicated audience is not bad, the problem with American comics is genre-limitation (superheroes) and continuity problems (they never end). Anime does a similar cater-to-a-small-dedicated-audience thing and it gets by just fine because it alleviates both those problems. A lot of games in Japan only sell less than 50K copies, like visual novels and otaku focused games on the PSP/Vita, but that is enough for them to make a profit and do sequels because they know their potential audience and expected sales so they plan and budget accordingly. On the other hand Sleeping Dogs and Tomb Raider sold millions but are considered financial failures because they spent so much money developing and trying to market them to the wider audience and not enough people bought them. Sometimes a core, dedicated audience is the best bet as otaku games and anime have shown us. Wider audiences are fickle and unreliable, but dedicated nerds are a sure fire bet and will always shell out money for something with a name brand on it.

Besides, Japanese mentality is predisposed against online gaming. They'd much rather get together and play Monster Hunter in the same room. Think of it as Nintendo thinking of an over-all meta-game that still involves face-to-face socialization. Bopping your friend on the shoulder while your friend sits next to you during a River City Ransom playthrough isn't the same as talking to him over a microphone. When Street-passing works, it works.

Online servers only stay up so long. If you like the idea of the games you bought being useless in 10-20 years then okay,

but I can still play Mario 3 for NES just fine, co-op and all. And it depends on the game.

Why buy an older shooter game in the series when there's a newer one out? If its not for single player which is often never talked about, then its for the multiplayer. Everyone will be playing the newest installment of CoD so you have to get that one, making the older games useless.

But that's the thing: so many people INSIST that Nintendo games are held back by a lack of online content. How? Why? No matter how much an industry may change, we've had plenty of games that don't have online content that are just as great today as they were in the Bush Sr. administration. Again: Fire Emblem Awakening and Luigi's Mansion 2: the most "online content" they have is DLC.

Why on earth would you use multiplatform games as a positive for a system? A game is not a selling point for a system if I can just buy the rival system and play it on that. I hate it when companies use stuff like CoD or GTA to sell their system at E3. Why is GTA5 a selling point for Xbox when it's also on the PS3 and I can buy it for that instead?

So....why can't we have both.

Rahxephon91 wrote:

So....why can't we have both.

Because we live in the real world.

3rd Parties will never fully support Nintendo again because they don't believe their games can compare to Nintendo games

And it's not even a worthwhile excuse that "oh they are Japanese". Sony is a Japanese company and they get it. PSN is pretty amazing and they were able to at least make online work on the PSP and then make it even better on the Vita. Nintendo has no excuse.

Nintendo... doesn't need one. They don't make their games with an online community in mind, they make them with functionality in mind. Again: round peg, square hole. I'd buy into the theory that Nintendo was held back by their lack of seamless, constantly-online synchronous multiplayer if Nintendo weren't constantly making great games that didn't use or need them.

That, and let's face it: we're not yet at the point where online can be made accessible for everyone. Not everyone benefits from an Internet connection that's strong enough for reliable online multiplayer. Scoff if you want, but it's true. I myself am an example: the only reason I'm typing this here right now is because I'm spending the weekend with some relatives who have an internet connection. I cannot get an Internet connection at home: no service reaches me there. Online may be complimentary, but I prefer a functional, cohesive whole.

Nintendo... doesn't need one. They don't make their games with an online community in mind, they make them with functionality in mind.

That, and let's face it: we're not yet at the point where online can be made accessible for everyone. Not everyone benefits from an Internet connection that's strong enough for reliable online multiplayer. Scoff if you want, but it's true. I myself am an example: the only reason I'm typing this here right now is because I'm spending the weekend with some relatives who have an internet connection. I cannot get an Internet connection at home: no service reaches me there. Online may be complimentary, but I prefer a functional, cohesive whole.

I never said they were held back, I said I see nothing wrong with them also providing better options. But maybe they are since they are the one's with the console doing horrible. I see nothing wrong with them actually developing online systems that aren't crap and giving gamers who want to use that option, something that is worthwhile. Other companies do it, Nintendo has no real excuse.

...

And there are those that do. So you're point is really quite pointless. Many gamers do use online and many don't. A company like Sony has been able to cater to both. Nintendo hasn't and that's pathetic.

se37 wrote:

3rd Parties will never fully support Nintendo again because they don't believe their games can compare to Nintendo games

The reason 3rd parties are hesitant to support Nintendo is because of their heavy licensing fees. If people wonder why companies still develop for the Vita despite the 3DS having a higher installation base, it is because of those fees. Rune Factory 4 was Neverland's fasted and highest grossing game yet, but they still filed for bankruptcy and shut down because Nintendo's licensing fees cut too much into their profits. Games will smaller fanbases and budgets find more profit on Sony systems.

Guile wrote:

se37 wrote: 3rd Parties will never fully support Nintendo again because they don't believe their games can compare to Nintendo games The reason 3rd parties are hesitant to support Nintendo is because of their heavy licensing fees. If people wonder why companies still develop for the Vita despite the 3DS having a higher installation base, it is because of those fees. Rune Factory 4 was Neverland's fasted and highest grossing game yet, but they still filed for bankruptcy and shut down because Nintendo's licensing fees cut too much into their profits. Games will smaller fanbases and budgets find more profit on Sony systems.

I haven't seen anything about CURRENT licensing fees being an issue for Nintendo. Back in the 80s and 90s that was true but in 2000s they lowered the fees to around the same as Microsoft & Sony (however, I could be wrong yet I find no evidence this is the case since I've been Googling it). Plus I saw no mention of licensing fees being a reason for Neverland failing but read that the reason was due to too much heavy debt they already had and how the environment has changed too much .