Hacker News Reader

Comment by bigpapikite | Hacker News Reader

That's probably the case (as I don't know what else would make it worth buying), but the ultimate problem with Nintendo will still remain. They're bullies and they get away with it because they make some of the most consistently high quality first party games. Microsoft took the plunge first, but everyone is realizing that the future is an open platform. Turns out if you make a quality game and make it widely available people will buy it (surprise). But they're married to the idea of restricting how their titles are played, which is only going to continue to turn people off.

View on HN

>They're bullies and they get away with it because they make some of the most consistently high quality first party games.

You can look at it this way: Nintendo makes the most consistent high quality first party games and have the lowest hardware spec. So they are most prone to piracy and unauthorized emulation and thus get the most attention when lawsuits come up.

MS has 99% of its games on PC and Playstation specs are so hard (or maybe lack of interest. Probably many things) that gen 7 tech is still difficult to emulate in Gen 9. So Nintendo has the biggest target.

>but everyone is realizing that the future is an open platform.

If "release a port 2-3 years later on Windows OS to double dip" is "open platform", I kinda get why Nintendo defends their platform so rigidly. They are all closed down source games on closed down source OS's hosted on closed down source storefronts. There's no legal distinction there, just technical preferences of the minority who take the time to figure out how to setup emulation.

And despite all that, Nintendo sells more on one system than both competitors on all platforms combined. I don't think they are worried about sales. Especially since they aren't chasing 300m dollar productions with 10 hours of cinematics.

It's the difference between being a publisher/game developer and a hardware company.

Hardware companies see games as a means to sell consoles.

Game developers see platforms as a means to sell games.

If you're coming at things from the perspective of a hardware maker it makes sense to be as restrictive as possible, since that provides the differentiation that sells your (overpriced) hardware. In addition, if your hardware becomes common then you can charge game developers for access (more broadly, this is what Apple does, mostly)

From the game developer side, it makes sense to be on as many platforms as physically possible, since that's just more places to make sales and money.

Is Nintendo even making money on the Switches themselves ?

Nintendo is famous for not selling their hardware at a loss unlike other console manufacturers. The only systems known to be sold at a loss were the 3DS (after price cuts) and the Wii U. This is part of why the hardware is underpowered compared to contemporaries.

> This is part of why the hardware is underpowered compared to contemporaries.

The other part being that they decided years ago not to try and compete with MS/Sony and instead make great games. Switch is not an entertainment center it's a gaming console.

And the strategy is absolutely working and has been since the Wii days.

To be clear, I am not saying Nintendo is wrong for making the hardware choices they have. By all accounts they intended to have a meaningful Switch hardware revision when the OLED hit but decided against it because of the then-exploded and uncertain supply chain.

That said, I don't think you can draw a nice and neat trendline specifically from the Wii. I think the strategy has worked out well for them since its inception but a trend line from the Wii to the Switch only looks really good if you don't include the Wii U.

their strategy included the Wii U, to deny that is to deny reality.

I also wouldn't call the Wii U a failure. Not being as successful as previous consoles from Nintendo is not the same thing as being a failure. Nintendo profited from every sale.

Well, no. The Wii U is one of the two notable examples where Nintendo did sell the hardware at a loss. This isn’t speculation. Iwata said this in shareholders calls. ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20095125)

The Wii was a breakout success in a demographic the market had never previously reached. It is def unrealistic to expect the Wii U to have recaptured that market but it was done about as poorly as possible.

I’m not saying the Wii U was a failure in totality but it did not live up to expectations for both Nintendo as a corporation or for many consumers. It’s okay to recognize this, Nintendo themselves did.

What started all of this is the observation that they've been successful over the last 3 console generations by not trying to compete directly with Sony and MS but instead to try and innovate and make great games people want to play (game console vs entertainment center).

This doesn't stop being true because you want to label the Wii U as a failure. Many will tell you the Wii itself was a failure. Many don't consider the Wii U a failure.

Who cares, my point stands.

I can’t argue with your personal feelings. My point that the hardware is underpowered compared to MS\Sony is an agreement that they aren’t trying to compete with them directly, instead making a product that has meaningful differences in form factor/function rather than technical. It is a part of how they execute that strategy.

The WiiU doesn’t reflect that trend. It was sold at a loss. It was initially sold as a machine that would have strong third-party support, unlike the Wii. Ubisoft and EA were presented front-and-center as supporting it. That only lasted for a year because the WiiU was able to compete with 360/PS3 on power, but the investment was no longer worth it for third parties to do multi-platform releases once new consoles were out. Nintendo did incorporate Xbox One-like TV control mechanisms into the WiiU.

Ultimately the issue of whether or not it was a failure is again something you can take a personal feeling about but statements made by Nintendos leadership in their official capacity are hardly shy about how much it did not meet their own expectations in the marketplace. They wanted to sell at least as many units as the Wii and sold more like 1/8th as many units.

I agree Nintendo has done well by not competing to be the third horse in a two horse race. I don’t agree that the Wii U reflected a good execution of that strategy.

you think the Wii U doesn't reflect the trend of unique hardware?

There's no sense in continuing this conversation.

In terms of `the strategy working` absolutely not, for the reasons previously listed.

I wouldn’t argue the WiiU doesn’t have a unique approach to system design and I never did.

you're attempting to say "failure" without saying failure due to my previous comment.

you've been backed into a corner, you don't have a leg to stand on here.

if you're curious about my response, just re-read my comment that caused you to try and dress up the word failure in different clothing. Here, I'll link it to you and let you loop.

https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=PH95VuimJjqBqy&next=...

you can break out of said loop by having something different to say.

Okay. You disagree with the assessment of the Wii U, including that of Nintendo themselves. That is fine. I’m not trying to say failure without saying failure. I stand by everything I said.

Have a nice day, genuinely.

Microsoft, open platform, what? With all that Trusted Computing and Pluton stuff?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com