My Prescription for Nintendo
bendansby.tumblr.com
bendansby.tumblr.com
> Our primary focus is to think about and actually carry out something which other company's hardware can never realize. We are trying to provide consumers gaming experiences that can only be available on Nintendo platforms.
But except for Sports and maybe Skyward Sword, Nintendo isn't actually doing anything that other consoles can't provide. Everywhere else, motion controls or pointing is tacked on. If you took out Star Bits from the Galaxy games you would have the same game. Twilight Princess's "shake to attack" controls are pointless and equivalent to a sword button. The Wii U touch screen is an unmitigated disaster, with its pathetic battery life and no real compelling raison d'etre... the only time I ever use it is for those forced touch sequences in Rayman Legends.
> "If I was to take responsibility for the company for just the next one or two years, and if I was not concerned about the long-term future of Nintendo at all, it might make sense for us to provide our important franchises for other platforms, and then we might be able to gain some short-term profit," he said.
In other words, "we'd rather do our own thing than make money." We're talking about billions of dollars here, money that could prop Nintendo up for years while it sorts out its hardware business.
i'm not sure how casual gamers feel about it, but i find the motion controls extremely frustrating and they make games significantly worse, IMO. this might be more of a matter of opinion with better motion technology but for Skyward Sword the motion technology simply isn't good enough. i can test several motions to try to find the right one and do them carefully and both 1) struggle to do something successfully at all 2) find the identical motion gets variable results in game. Not fun. if the motion controls in Skyward Sword were equivalent to buttons at least they'd be simpler and I'd be able to mostly do the actions i want.
And I say this as a fan of the Infinity Blade iOS touch sword fighting games. if the non-button technology is good quality and the game actually makes sense with the controls, then it's fine. skyward sword fails on both counts.
Meanwhile in Link Between Worlds it breaks the flow of the game every time you want to change items or take the broom because you have to use the touch screen for those (which probably means pulling out the stylus since the touch screen sucks), and the whole rest of the game is buttons. the break in the action to grab your stylus, press twice, and set it somewhere again (on your shirt and hope it doesn't fall on the ground?) constantly interrupts you and does not add any fun.
Of course twilight princess controls are equivalent to buttons.
it's a gamecube game that was ported to Wii.
[1]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Twilight_P...
[2]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Twilight_P...
Anyway, it doesn't matter; the game was released on both systems almost simultaneously (Wii first). These two facts hardly imply that this was a GC game ported to the Wii. Years of development were spent specifically on the Wii version.
gamecube launch was delayed to help sales of wii version for fairly obvious reasons. you're telling me things i already know and then concluding, based on a quick (and careless) reading of wikipedia, that you know better. your own link even says stuff like motion to swing sword in wii TP is cuz they ran out of buttons.
Maybe that doesn't count because that market is supposed to by dying (like the desktop PC market). But really the fact that it continues to exist, and very profitably, must be humiliating to armchair market watchers. Hence the hand-wringing.
I'm not saying the great guys at Nintendo couldn't make great gaming experiences for other platforms. But it would dilute the brand to virtual extinction. Better to fold up the business than throw away their dignity like that.
Nintendo's been around for a really long time. At this point they're just having a few bad years. Let's not start dooming and glooming just yet.
Sure, why not?
Nintendo really are great at making games. I would have loved to play their more recent games on a 360 or PS3. As it is now, I just don't get to play them since I don't see much value in the Nintendo consoles. The only thing they have to offer on their consoles is a few games from their leading franchises. Don't get me wrong, those games are probably stellar, but it's not enough for me to buy a console just for those.
How long can you sustain a console business on first party titles alone?
Nintendo can afford to play the long game here. They're still bringing in lots of revenue from their handheld systems. There's also still a lot of money in merchandising on their core franchises. One failed console isn't going to ruin them.
In my opinion, Nintendo's console problem stems mainly from a lack of vision and a failure to execute. These failings say nothing about their ability to do so, just that they were unable to do so in this case. The answer is simple, cut their losses, and try a different approach.
I don't think the concept of the Wii U is fundamentally broken, it just needs some work to entice third party development and to fix the hardware problems.
They can turn it around. I think it's a good bet they will.
Nintendo is used to developing for old school consoles; boxes with discs or cartridges and where people play together in one room. But when nearly every person has a connected smartphone, an HD TV, and broadband the expectations for a system are well beyond what Nintendo has proven they can do.
Until they accept they don't have the skills to do that part properly or start to believe that it is actually important then they will continue to fail.
The Wii U is a complete failure. At some point very soon, Pokemon won't be enough to keep selling the DS when there's so much many compelling reasons to just buy an iPod touch or iPad.
Nintendo can still make great games, but pretty soon they're going to be making great games for systems that nobody wants because the rest of the games on those systems are years-late ports or just total shovelware garbage.
I couldn't imagine playing Super Mario World on a Genesis, but it wasn't the name on the console that made that game great. There's zero chance I will ever buy a Wii U, but I will probably buy an Xbox One or PS4 at some point in the next two years—once the game libraries for those systems improve. I'd love for Mario or Zelda to show up and help me make that decision.
This gif tells a different story.
The answer to these questions is no. The Wii got a lot of people who would probably never buy a video game console to buy one. But where are they now? How many are shoved under a TV in the spare bedroom at someone's grandparents' house? Why haven't they bought a Wii U yet?
It's because it was a blip. It wasn't sustainable.
Following SEGA footsteps. SEGA is still around.
> Nintendo's been around for a really long time.
Yes, almost since the begining. And they are also the ones to thank for the consoles requiring devkits and NDAs.
It was a concept introduced by Nintendo after the 1983 crash, as a means to control game quality.
So I don't pitty them.
Sega lost all of its influence and talent during the transition to software publisher. They hoped they will become #1 gaming software company but that never happened. Most of their gaming brands (Sonic the Hedgehog and others) took a masssive nosedive in quality or are abandoned, and new brands (like Aliens or Binary Domain) have failed. Sega is still around but it is a mere shadow of its former self. I'd prefer Nintendo to keep taking a gamble instead of giving up like Sega.
VR is next. Buy Valve. Buy Oculus. Or poach talent. Nintendo is the best company with the creative talent, playfulness, and penchant for risk-taking that is going to be necessary to rethink the gaming experience for VR. If they pull it off they will leapfrog MS and Sony and cement their legacy for another generation of gamers. Right now really feels like the opportunity that comes along once every 20-30 years in the tech industry where a few players thinking ahead make the right investments and file the right patents and absolutely dominate the next cycle.
> Buy Valve.
Valve is a privately held company that displays zero desire to be bought by anyone. I don't think it is possible to buy them at all.
1. They've already been burnt from trying to enter the VR market early with the Virtual Boy. I understand that times are different now, but the memory of the previous failure would definitely have some influence. 2. VR doesn't fit in with Nintendo's ethos of social gaming, which runs deep in the company. The idea that Nintendo seems to have with the majority of its products is to bring people closer together, here are some small touches that highlight this... Famicom (family computer), N64 (four controller ports), Gamecube (handle on console so can easily move, including to bring to a friend's house), Wii (all the casual games), I could go on. VR isolates us, we're physically there but our attention is not.
Perhaps Nintendo will do something with multiplayer VR (requiring more power than single player VR), or with AR, but I do think it'll take more than just a shrewd business decision to get Nintendo back using VR.
The stated strategy of innovative hardware is a hit-maker, the Wii nailed it. If it's a fluke, the DS wouldn't be where it is today. There is a history of intent and delivery, anyone betting against that is a fool in my opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_...
1) I agree that Pokemon on smartphones will definitely be a hit, but I am very skeptical of Nintendo's capability to execute well against that particular platform. Mobile gaming is a very different beast from the packaged goods console gaming space in which Nintendo is currently comfortable. They not only lack the experience and expertise, but more fundamentally lack the willingness to adopt a new platform. This is actually a common trait among almost all established game publishers such as Activision and Ubisoft. I highly doubt an iOS Pokemon would be the success it needs to be.
2) Handheld is a declining market. Period. Continuing making handhelds is not going to dig Nintendo out of the hole they are already in. Putting Pokemon on iOS would definitely not help, as the franchise is likely the biggest hardware mover for them. This is where the original post contradicts itself: doubling down on handheld while making a move on smartphones is a very bad idea.
3) Stop making home consoles and make titles available on rival consoles? Really? The post is simply suggesting Nintendo to castrate itself of a core competitive advantage of theirs. The level of disingenuousness is simply appalling.
"Nintendo, stop building hardware, start being a publisher."