Forum - View topicNEWS: Nintendo Executive: 'No New Mario Title in 2015'
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Covnam
 Posts: 3672 |
|
|||||
|
What about Mario maker? Or did he just mean main line Mario titles?
Regardless, Nintendo doesn't need to annualize Mario. Those games sell well throughout the whole life of the console. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
gloverrandal
Posts: 406 Location: Oita |
|
|||||
I have to disagree. I think there's enough of variety to keep me interested in the games. New Super Mario Bros U and Super Mario 3D World were very different games and played differently. I much prefer 3D World. Even including the spin offs like Mario Kart that's also a very different game than the other two. There's might be a lot of Mario games, but they have more variety to them. They can be 2D or 3D platformers, RPGs, racing games, sports games, or something else entirely.
Good catch! Maybe he did mean main, games because Mario Maker is still coming out in 2015. I think the most main series Mario games we ever got on a system was 3. |
||||||
|
||||||
Stuart Smith
 Posts: 1298 |
|
|||||
Technically New Super Luigi U is just DLC for New Super Mario Bros U, but given an option physical release option. Similar to NES Remix being available on the eShop as well as in box form. The one thing I always applaud Nintendo for is they'll release physical releases of smaller games/add-ons like Luigi U, NES Remix, and Captain Toad. Other consoles probably would have made those digital-only. A lot of companies even release full size games as digital only these days. I applaud Nintendo for resisting the anti-consumer trend of companies doing digital only releases. I hate it when a game is only available as digital only. -Stuart Smith |
||||||
|
||||||
leafy sea dragon
 Posts: 7163 Location: Another Kingdom |
|
|||||
Nah, SEGA's marketing is much, much worse.
I think it's stemming from risk aversion: Names like "Call of Duty" and "Assassin's Creed" are guaranteed sales due to a large and established base of players. A new franchise may be a success, but it's also pretty likely to flop, which is a gamble most large American game companies don't really want to take. (Or European, in the case of Ubisoft.) This also applies to when one of these large companies brings in a small developer to make a AAA title, and if it doesn't sell, the host company dissolves the small one to recoup that money. You see it with Activision dissolving Bizarre Creations after blur didn't sell well, and with Disney Interactive ripping Junction Point to pieces after Epic Mickey didn't meet sales expectations. As Borat said, "If this no success, I will be execute." That's the stakes involved when a small developer ties itself to a larger company. The big companies can't seem to stand to see any loss for any reason. Nintendo functions way differently in that it constantly takes risks. That's how it got itself started in the video game business, jumping in shortly after the Video Game Crash of 1984 when the very name "video game" had a sour taste in people's mouths. Not every risk paid off, but that never deterred Nintendo.
While there aren't several Mario games a year, the answer is yes, they do. The Super Mario name has tremendous brand recognition power. It has a similar level of appeal as the above-mentioned Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed names, only it appeals to kids not desperate to look mature, parents, and young adults not into gritty brown stuff. Games licensed off of movies sell mainly to non-gamer parents. They tend not to be good, even if the development team wanted to make a good game, due to the much shorter production cycle of a licensed game, hence their sour reputation, but they don't need to be good because they are selling to people who don't play video games. The idea is "My kid LOVES [franchise]. He or she will LOVE the video game of it too!" And for kids who don't play many video games or play only licensed games, they will love it. (If you ever get to see a little kid's video game collection, chances are it consists entirely of games based on Disney films, DreamWorks films, and SpongeBob.) I've always tried to dissuage parents from buying these games because they tend to be shoddily-made messes, with varying levels of success. Some parents decide that "Super Mario" and "Pokémon" are recognizable and great with kids and decide to give them a try. Some parents are dead-set on buying only licensed games because they do not buy any games without a precedent of something their children like or are convinced they will bore of all video games in a week regardless of quality. And some just don't want any outside interference with their purchasing decisions. As for party games, those became something of a dead horse about halfway through the Wii's life. They came about as a misinterpretation of Wii Sports but were nevertheless very easy to market, so games like Boogie and Carnival Games became runaway successes. Even the expanded Wii audience eventually realized these games were crap though, and said games faded into irrelevance. This audience is now mostly into mobile gaming and are the bread-and-butter of companies like Zynga and King. Something like The Legendary Starfy or Glory of Heracles, both of which were aimed outside the Nintendo crowd (as opposed to Splatoon or Bayonetta 2), would have an uphill battle to climb. They needed to establish themselves as names to sell, but they flopped because they provided no reason to their intended audience that they should be played, let alone trusted, having to start from the ground up instead of on a pedestal of a franchise's legacy. Just like EA or Activision, American consumers are also pretty risk-averse and tend not to take the dive, sticking strictly to the series they trust. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Wuvwii
Posts: 3 Location: Texas |
|
|||||
|
Please remove this article or issue a correction. Trinen was obviously referring to 2014, as it appears that is when these questions were answered. It was only used as a different kind of example about installments of IP's not being annual after the previous two examples, ultimately amounting to saying "for the most part, we don't do that at all".
It would have been understood by anyone reminded of the information during E3 that there wouldn't be a new Mario title for 2014, but was used as an example for the readers that wouldn't have already clearly known this fact. Of all people, I don't think Bill Trinen would unintentionally break news about any future plans. |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group