In a would where companies just release their old (very successful) games on mobile devices with awful touch screen controls hacked in I am so glad Nintendo do not do that. Sure it would make them some money to sell Mario on the iPhone but god damn is it a horrible experience IMHO.
Nintendo have good years and bad years. The Wii U wasn't the success they hoped it would be. But they took a chance with the Gamepad. That is what I like about Nintendo, they do things differently. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't.
Now give me a 1080p60 F-Zero game on the Wii U please :)
The sad thing is that the Wii U's failure is 100% attributable to marketing. The GamePad is actually quite comfortable for normal uses (i.e., situations in which games do not include contrived "Look at me ma, I'm using the GamePad!" moments, which are too frequent) and I like it more than I expected to.
Most of the people I ask don't even realize that that the Wii U is different than the Wii. They think it's just a gamepad accessory for the Wii and don't understand that it's a different console. Really a shame.
Nintendo has always had trouble connecting with American audiences -- when they've done so, it's been basically by accident. It seems that while they like American money, they still build their products exclusively with the Japanese market in mind.
The GameCube is a similar tale of woe, a vastly underrated system that came in last entirely due to superficial considerations, like being purple.
I think it is party due to marketing, but I don't think that's the only issue with the Wii U. Other issues include the fact that there's no killer game that explains why the new controller is really needed (most games just mirror the TV to the controller, or show inventory or a map on the controller), the fact that there's only one controller with a screen, so most games that use it have asymmetric offline multiplayer gameplay (which can be difficult to explain to people), and the fact that playing the Wii U doesn't look as much fun as playing bowling or tennis on the Wii did.
Don't get me wrong, I think the Wii U is a console worth owning, and right now, it probably has the best games library of all current-gen TV consoles. I also think that poor marketing and misguiding naming play a role in its poor performance — why not call it the Wii 2, to clearly show that it is different and new?
But I don't think that its failure can be attributed solely to marketing.
The name/brand is part of marketing. I agree that it's bad and contributes to the confusion, but I'm not sure why Xbox can get away with "Xbox 360" or even "Xbox One" and have everyone know it's a different thing, but "Wii" can't do "Wii U". I guess people just expect letters to be modified versions of the same thing, not incremental new releases.
I don't think the issues with the GamePad's usefulness turns people off too much. I agree that most games just use it as a mirror or inventory quick reference, but I think the GamePad is an overall minor part of a great system. Part of the marketing failure is making everyone think the GamePad is fundamental to gameplay instead of complementary and that the Wii U is some weird hybrid tablet-console thing. They've even failed to communicate this to some game developers who apparently feel like they have to make some contrived GamePad level.
I agree it was a somewhat slow start out of the gate with games, but at this point it should be selling like hot cakes. We have a really big holiday season coming up and a few of those games have already released (Hyrule Warriors, Bayonetta 2).
I think you are right. Nintendo mainly makes products for the Japanese market. They might change a few things for an over seas release, but for the most part it is all for the Japanese market.
Only the Nintendo of recent years. They were famous for NOT innovating much before. The SNES was just another 16 bits console (albeit quite powerful), the N64 did not even ride on the CD technology, and the Gamecube did not have much points of differentiation versus the Xbox 1 or PS2.
- Nintendo experimented with a CD add on (with Sony) for the SNES. It eventually became the Playstation.
- They released the Double Density Drive addon for N64 (probably a failure).
- Mario 64 was the first really 3D platformer, and was groundbreaking.
- The weird looking controller for the N64 had an analogue stick before anyone else.
- Rumble packs
- N64 came with four ports for four-way split screens
It's not fair. Nintendo has a long history of innovation. They may not have foreseen every shift in gaming, but absolute prescience isn't a pre-requisite for innovation.
In the cases where Nintendo "lagged" others, it was mostly for good reasons; an example is the shift to optical media, which Nintendo resisted because they didn't want the user to have to wait for load times. Ultimately, cartridges were proven to be untenable long-term, but that doesn't mean Nintendo was "not innovative" in their principled choice to prioritize user experience over giving game devs extra space.
They did not experiment with the CD, they commissioned it to Sony first and then Philipps and broke the contract with Sony suddenly and that's why Sony decided to make a game console by themselves under the help of Kutaragi. Yet they never released anything for the SNES in terms of CD drive, while Sega did have the MegaCD or SegaCD way before them.
Analog sticks ? Didn't Sega had the Nights controller with analog sticks around the same period, for the Saturn ?
Four ports... wow, that's innovation ! You mean, everyone else could do it with a peripheral, but because Nintendo suddenly integrates 4 ports on the console, they "invented it" ? You had 4 ports extensions for about every 16 bit console out there to play Bomberman, already. Nothing new, really.
Four way split screens ? Guess you never heard of Hired Guns? Yeah you can argue that was not real-time 3D, yet that was already four way, multiplayer split screen in the very early 90s. Way before the N64.
Seriously, consoles ALMOST did not invent anything, and if they did, it's usually Sega who was at the helm of innovation most of the time - they released a 16 bits 2 years before Nintendo did. They released a 32 bits 2 years before Nintendo did, etc...
Sony and Sega both released analog stick-ish controllers before Nintendo, fwiw. They might have spurred it though by showing it off really early. Which is also probably why the "revolution" aka Wii's control scheme took so long to be revealed.
I think this is a little bit revisionist. In hindsight, much of what Nintendo did seems common, because it has become common. Back then, stuff like the rumble pack or the analog stick or a controller that has directional control on both sides actually was innovative.
Who cares about controllers at the time - it's not like having a rumble pack changed drastically how you played games. I'm talking about game hardware. Nintendo has almost always just copies what other consoles did with slightly more recent chips. And in recent history, they focused more on the controllers instead of the actual hardware.
Could you expand on what you consider "innovation" because I'm struggling to see how old nintendo, with their invention/pioneering of basically every part of the standard modern controller doesn't fit into my definition.
I think the fact that there were many joysticks before the NES came out, and many other kinds of input devices, kind of shows that the d-pad was a non-obvious invention. In hindsight, it seems super obvious, but back then, it was a major invention.
Nintendo (IMHO) is missing out on a huge potential revenue source by not releasing its old IP on a Windows/Mac/iOS/Android version of the virtual console. Sega seems to have been at least mildly successful re-releasing Genesis era games on these platforms. Do they really feel re-releasing something like say Super Mario Bros. 3 (NES) for iOS would detract from Wii U sales?
Nintendo has the best back catalog in the industry, and with today's microprocessors, emulation makes that catalog fully portable.
To me, Nintendo is the Apple of the Gaming world. They want to control the experience and the hardware it runs on. They are also very secretive and try to control what information reaches the press (for example how cautios Reggie Fils-Aime answers questions or how they controlled what Dan Adelman, their indie spokesperson, tweeted). But above all, they seem very conservative, technically as well as policy wise. They were late to acknowledge indies, their digital distribution seems old fashioned and the hardware usually follows the "withered technology" paradigm.
So, do I think we will ever see Nintendo games on Smartphones? In my opionion not unless they build their own smartphone. Personally I'm happy about it, because Apple does not seem to really acknowledge gaming. They are still "apps" after all, and they don't really improve their gaming services. Their controller API seems like a second thought. Android's hardware fragmentation will make it virtually impossible to keep the quality you are used from Nintendo games (Even though I think Google takes gaming much more serious than Apple).
One reason could have to do with very strict sense of quality. If the games would run on wide variety of platforms, Nintendo couldn't make sure that the experience for user is exactly what they want it to be, unlike when games are played in their own specific emulation hardware and gamepads.
I think a Mario game played without guaranteed tight controls could hurt the expectation what Mario games are.
I'm curently thinking about getting a new console (very light/casual gamer).
I've got the PS3 mostly for playing Blu-ray and never found a compelling game.
The Wii U is extremely interesting, not only because of its price, but primarily because of the games.
I have no idea about the business case, but releasing the games elsewhere would certainly cannibalize their own console.
And while it may be profitable, I think a Nintendo without a viable console on its own would be in very dire straits.
That's why I have always seen the disappointing sales figures for the Wii U in the past with a crying eye, even though I was not looking to buy a console. The Nintendo empire is kind of precious.
Sega is just yet another app and game publisher. As a kid from the 80's remembering the Sega vs. Nintendo wars, this is a sad state of affairs.
If you own the platform, you can really push your IPs. I don't think that Halo, which in my opinion was a rather generic shooter when it was first released, could have become this multi-billion dollar franchise without the help of MS.
I would love for SEGA to really push on their tradition of delivering pure arcade experiences and build out-of-this-world adrenaline pumping VR spectacles now that we have the right technology for it.
I think they can keep the prices for their old games up by keeping them on their own platforms. On iOS, Super Metroid would look expensive at 8 bucks. On the 3DS, that's just what games cost.
I'm fairly certain that Nintendo is simply scared to release their IP on a platform that they do not control. The last (and only) time they did was the Phillips CDI which they now entirely cease to acknowledge. That and the fact that their IP drives the sales of their hardware.
It's almost as if Nintendo and Apple have very similar cultures that cause them to always act as iconoclasts, choosing formats and channels different from their competition, and betting big on innovation. It's remarkable how both the original Wii and iPhone were both released within a year of each other. What I don't understand is why both companies like to use the same distinctive off-white color. Maybe it makes their products look like porcelain, something classical and timeless.
Yeah, I have always chuckled at the irony that the apple followers criticize Nintendo for not releasing its IP on other platforms. Because, of course, I can install OS X on my custom computer and Safari on my Android.
The strategy of Nintendo makes as much sense as Apple's, and anyway, I have always though that it is far more likely for Nintendo to launch an Android smartphone where you could play their games (And only there).
CDI may have been the last time they released their IP on a platform they do not control, but they have done this more than once. An example would be Mario Bros. and Donkey Kong for the Atari 2600.
> I think it’s fair for Apple writers to complain about the fact that a lot of people who have no clue about how Apple’s business works make crazy pronouncements about what Apple should do. But I do think that they should measure their own expertise by the same yardstick.
John Gruber is very guilty of this. He understands Apple very well, knows how they work, and how they think. But every time he discusses Nintendo, I see the same mistaken thinking about the company that, were a similar mistake made about Apple, would earn a "filed for future claim chowder". Like Apple, Nintendo does things differently than its competitors. But that doesn't mean that they do things similarly; nor do they face the same challenges.
Consoles are very likely to thrive for the next generation. China finally lifted the ban on game consoles and I'm starting to see Xbox One / PS4 being sold in different retail stores.
Even though it's still a tough sell for most Chinese (remember, no one pays for games here, at least not upfront), they'll come around.
Mario Kart 8 is an curious example to cite. The game was sold with a free download of another game - and choices included many top tier first-party titles. That's a very unusual tactic. It's a great game, but I'm sure this will have been a big driver for sales.
I wonder if the tallies for the other games (e.g. NSMB-U, Nintendoland, Z:WW) include those sold as a pack in, or free download?
You're right, I forgot about the fact that it was "bundled" with an additional game. Personally, I only found out about this after I bought it; I'm not sure how much the bundling helped Mario Kart's game sales. But it's a fair point.
I didn't want to pick Nintendo Land because the way it was sold is not entirely straightforward. For example, some copies were bundled with a controller.
I didn't want to use NSMB or 3D World as examples because Mario platformers are often outliers when it comes to sales. I guess The Wind Waker HD would have been a good example, because it sold really well despite being an HD remake of an older game.
Hahaha, I'm going to read the rest of the article but am I the only person having trouble taking the author seriously after the opening sentence where the other takes seriously the idea that Nintendo just make iOS games? Enough so to lead a post by addressing it?
You do realize that the second sentence was "I thought, and still think, that this would be bad for the quality of Nintendo’s games, and bad for their bottom line", right? Or are you trolling?
Nintendo have good years and bad years. The Wii U wasn't the success they hoped it would be. But they took a chance with the Gamepad. That is what I like about Nintendo, they do things differently. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't.
Now give me a 1080p60 F-Zero game on the Wii U please :)