Does Nintendo have too many artists in power?

If you ever wonder why Nintendo is seemingly oblivious to market demands and fans, well I think I might have an answer.

https://gamesandopinions.wordpress.com/2017/01/21/does-nintendo-have-too-many-artists-in-power/

I think Nintendo needs to realize that their Wii audience left.

no they didn't. did they vanish of the face of the earth or something?

bermuda triangle syndrome.

The article is focusing on the negative side of things. What about all the success stories? Also the article is trying to twist things. Samus was very bad-ass in Metroid Other M. Marketing and wasting millions into the Wonderful 101 wouldnt have made it sold better. That game when revealed wasnt well received, it was laughed at.

I don't think having an artist in power is necessarily always a bad thing. One of the most impactful modern companies in the world flourished while under the leadership of a man who likened himself and his employees to artists. That man's name was Steve Jobs and he famously said "It's really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot of times, people don't know what they want until you show it to them".

I agree with that statement and while I do get frustrated with some of Nintendo's business decisions sometimes, I think it is ultimately important to have a company like Nintendo in the industry who thinks outside the box and tries different things no matter what market research and focus groups say. It's a risky approach and some things fail when taking this approach to business, but this approach is what ultimately leads to the really big innovations.

Yay! Random opinion blog!

In a way, yes. Take the government as an example pertaining to Nintendo. Many things sound good on paper bet get diluted and compromised when too many hands get involved. Nintendo is the same.

@storm_of_swords: we know what we want, Nintendo has been trying to show us what they want since the N64, 87% desertion rate from Wii to WiiU.

They went mobile.

I am suprised having too many artists is the reason for Nintendo's problems. I thought having too many businessmen is the reason for the company's problems.

@onesiphorus: Gamers have no clue what they want. They want it to be anyway as long as itll fit their agenda.

No that isn't true. No one is running Nintendo, it's on autopilot. It's a rudderless ship.

@flyincloud1116: I guess that makes DC a propeller-less boat sinking in the sea. Fanboys be so funny.

Well where else would 100+ million people go? :P

I have been saying this for YEARS, and have made numerous posts on it to the point of being a broken record. Are people really only now waking up to the fact that it's maybe not the best move to put those with creative predilections into a position that requires detachment and objective determination of markets that far transcend the desires of the creatively inclined?

This is why I always disliked and disagreed with Iwata as a CEO, why I've objected with his appointments (moving Miyamoto to an executive role), and is exactly the reason I believe Nintendo deteriorated under their leadership. They are unable to detach their creative biases from executive considerations that (should) address international markets. They largely utilized Nintendo as their personal Japanese developmental studio. I've always said Nintendo needs someone in charge who doesn't give one shit about software aside from its quality and appeal to various demographics and territories.

Not saying that it's impossible to have someone creative in charge who can do this (Steve Jobs is a prime example), but many cannot remove themselves from their work to pull back and see a bigger picture.

@MirkoS77: Iwata is a prime example also. When Nintendo was ran by a business man last it was going down hill thanks to silly business quick cash grabs. Have you forgotten Virtual Boy? Nintendo's creative side were against releasing it stating it wasnt ready. But Nintendo's business side rushed it.

I also believe Nintendo's creative side wanted to release Wii U earlier, but due to Wii's massive success, business people wanted to wait and cash in on Wii more. I feel was a mistake. Even Nintendo's creative side agrees that Wii U and 3DS might have been late.

I think Nintendo having artists primarily running the company is one of the BEST things about them

Yamauchi made mistakes no doubt, but he also made Nintendo's name legendary and headed the company that literally brought gaming back from life support. Ever since Iwata took over, he had the legacy, resources, IPs, talent......yet Nintendo's name nevertheless has slowly turned into a verb for incompetence and idiocy ("Nintendo's gonna Nintendo"), skepticism, and has become a meme and butt of jokes. If Nintendo performed as they currently are (and have been for years past) back when Yamauchi was driving the boat, they would've always been viewed a joke and in all probability wouldn't have survived.

@MirkoS77: But was that him, or was that Nintendo's creative side busting butt to get America to play her games. Remember Nintendo was going downhill. I think its only her games that saved her. Seems he made a lot of foolish decisions. And i wouldnt blame Wii U on Iwata like i stated. I believe the business side of Nintendo milked Wii's success too long. Wii U should have been released earlier like many wanted.

I think keeping a business man like Yamauchi would have caused Nintendo to go like Sega. Same thing like with Vita, had creative minds been in control, they would have saved the sinking ship in my opinion. Wii U and Vita are good comparisons. Creative vs Business.

@iandizion713: I have a big post typed up for you, but a storm knocked out my internet. I'm posting from my phone now....will post it tomorrow.

@MirkoS77: No problem.

Iwata was a visionary, and a commendable CEO, but he wasn't perfect. I think the biggest problem with Nintendo under his leadership, was that he never seemed to have much of a long term plan for the company. Granted, much of Nintendo's current plans for the future, were put into motion by him, but I feel it could've been avoided had the company planed further ahead from the start. They struck gold with the Wii and DS, and then went "okay so... now what?". At times, it felt like Nintendo was just making shit up as they went along, never planing far enough ahead, instead focusing on short term goals, then scrambling at the last minnute to fix things when their ship is under fire. We've seen this happen time and time again from them. From quickly announcing core-focused Wii titles shortly after the E3 08 disaster, cutting the 3DS price 6 months after launch, and rushing to complete the holiday titles just to prevent it from failing, and the failure of the Wii U and not preparing for HD development prompting the company to quickly scramble to restructure and get everything on the right path just to keep the thing afloat for as long as they could. Iwata did a lot of great things for the company, and for gaming in general, but I feel a lack of a long term plan was his biggest flaw as a CEO.

Who do you think was making Nintendo bust their butt?

Nintendo's games have always been their ace card, but their creative side is at the beck and call of the executives above it. Yamauchi recognized the west's value, and he gave it its due attention. Strong arm monopolistic tactics they may have been, he got results and provided abundant third party support for Nintendo's earlier systems. What I appreciated most about Yamauchi though was that he wasn't fearful of competing. You may disagree that Nintendo's ever done so (as I've seen you argue this to other posters), but they did. "Now you're playing with power!", Mode 7. A lot of advertising. I reminisce on Nintendo back in their heyday and they were a different company then they are today, nearly unrecognizably so.

What happened once Iwata took over? Their games became more and more Japanese. IPs were ignored (Metroid, Wave Race, Pilotwings....a TRUE console one). Online was sat on. E3 was pulled out of for mundane Directs. They because increasingly more conservative, putting out mini-game casual garbage. The stopped competing and shrank into a bubble that farted out games every once in a while amidst anemic output. They've now become so Japanese-centric that is nigh impossible to relate to them and is detrimentally affecting them (look at the reaction to this last reveal).

@MirkoS77: Funny cause in both home consoles and handhelds Nintendo was out-powered quite often. They never tried to build the most powerful device. It was always an affordable step. He loved not only affordable devices to develop for, but cheap for the consumer. I dont see how anyone could argue any different. Even the example people love to use most doesnt work. Genesis vs SNES. Genesis released way before SNES and yet Nintendo didnt even bother to destroy it with power. He just released an affordable console.

Your Iwata argument doesnt work. Game become more Japanese? Nintendo became more universal during those times. Releasing games that catered to all around the world. Translating more games, etc. Under Iwata Metroid got a bunch of releases. It just didnt sell good. And at least Iwata tried to do online. And Miiverse, StreetPass, Download Play, etc were innovative and ground breaking.

Direct are awesome and copied by industries around the world. Nintendo was ahead of its time. Even his focus on musicals and stuff was copied by everyone. Now even Sony and Microsoft copy them. Everybody loves to copy Nintendo. Nintendo just did a Conference and you know what the internet said? OMG, go back to Directs. Thats the internet for you, they want whatever fits their agenda, focusing on pessimism over optimism. That conference was amazing. Nintendo was Nintendo and i loved every bit of it. The translation overlays were innovative and ground breaking.

Face it, whether we have Yamauchi, Iwata, or Kimishima, the results are about the same. Nintendo is Nintendo and will always be Nintendo. Thats why the whole world loves them so much no matter what. Its not easy being an innovator of implementations. Just look at Apple, their hated on in the same way. Blamed for being different and high priced. Its the cost of innovation. Sure they could be a copy company, but copy who? There is no one to copy, Nintendo and business like Apple, Google, etc must lead the fight to change to world for the better.

The bolded is not the definition of a company led by a visionary, that's known as being reactionary and someone lacking vision. Of to which I agree with you, Nintendo after the Wii became largely reactionary while attempting to thrust their dick rapidly at a wall while hoping they'd hit pay dirt. Under Iwata, Nintendo felt disorganized and chaotic, apathetic and lazy, not driven. I consider a visionary to be Steve Jobs. He knew exactly what he wanted and pushed extremely hard for it, to the point the man was nigh universally hated. Nintendo knew they wanted the success of the Wii again, but how to get it? That seemed to be arbitrarily determined out of the blue with no actual focus....and look at the U. It fits that description perfectly. It was a complete clusterfuck of a system.....a product of committee, not a single individual.

In the end, the proof is in the pudding when it comes to evaluating Iwata's legacy. He left Nintendo in an incredibly perilous position: years behind the competition, struggling for relevance, shrinking into niche territory, heading anti-consumer policies that alienated gamers, continual deterioration of third party support, terrible marketing, not utilizing the VC properly, laughable online and accounts, classic IPs left to rot, poor western support, and overall growing negative mindshare aside from the few diehards clinging on. Iwata left Nintendo much worse off than he received it. I don't only not consider him to not be a commendable CEO, I consider his appointment to a top executive position to be one of the worst things that has happened to the company.

Unfortunately I can't say this without being viewed as trampling on a man's grave, but his personal life is separate from his professional one, which should not be absolved of critique due to unfortunate circumstances in the former. I greatly admire Iwata as a game designer....the man was a genius. As a CEO? He was 100% a lemon.

A big reason why Nintendo felt so disjointed management wise was due to their corporate culture as a Kyoto based firm. Dan Adelman (former head of indie relations at Nintendo) explained this in possibly the best way he could.

Nintendo is not only a Japanese company, it is a Kyoto-based company. For people who aren’t familiar, Kyoto-based are to Japanese companies as Japanese companies are to US companies. They’re very traditional, and very focused on hierarchy and group decision making. Unfortunately, that creates a culture where everyone is an advisor and no one is a decision maker – but almost everyone has veto power.

Even Mr. Iwata is often loathe to make a decision that will alienate one of the executives in Japan, so to get anything done, it requires laying a lot of groundwork: talking to the different groups, securing their buy-in, and using that buy-in to get others on board. At the subsidiary level, this is even more pronounced, since people have to go through this process first at NOA or NOE (or sometimes both) and then all over again with headquarters. All of this is not necessarily a bad thing, though it can be very inefficient and time consuming. The biggest risk is that at any step in that process, if someone flat out says no, the proposal is as good as dead. So in general, bolder ideas don’t get through the process unless they originate at the top.

There are two other problems that come to mind. First, at the risk of sounding ageist, because of the hierarchical nature of Japanese companies, it winds up being that the most senior executives at the company cut their teeth during NES and Super NES days and do not really understand modern gaming, so adopting things like online gaming, account systems, friends lists, as well as understanding the rise of PC gaming has been very slow. Ideas often get shut down prematurely just because some people with the power to veto an idea simply don’t understand it.

The last problem is that there is very little reason to try and push these ideas. Risk taking is generally not really rewarded. Long-term loyalty is ultimately what gets rewarded, so the easiest path is simply to stay the course. I’d love to see Nintendo make a more concerted effort to encourage people at all levels of the company to feel empowered to push through ambitious proposals, and then get rewarded for doing so.

Dan Adelman

Long story short, there was a power struggle within the company where everyone has the ability to shoot down an idea at any point in the process. To get anything done at Nintendo, each division and board member involved has to be on board with the plan. If one person says no, then that's the end of that. It create a situation where instead of everyone working together and having a unified plan, each division was essentially, out for each other's blood, fighting for dominance over the company's inner-workings. Iwata has said and done some things I disagreed with, but not every bad business decision made by the company was his doing. A lot of it had to do with the inflated ego and stubbornness of the aging board members who insisted on doing things the old fashion way, instead of actually trying to grow as a company. Hell, I read somewhere that Iwata and the hardware team had to pretty much fight the board members just to get the Wii and DS made.

In a way, Nintendo's success with the Wii and DS was their own undoing, and it caused management at the company to spiral out of control. It also seemed that Iwata was all to aware of this, and handled the problem like a programmer, his quote "if the System doesn't work, it's definitely your fault" held especially true for Nintendo's situation at the time. Much of Nintendo's recent restructuring and re-branding efforts were put into place by Iwata himself during the last few days of his tenure.

It was essentially, the same problems Sega had during the mid-late 90s. Management all over the place, each branch at the company trying to sabotage each other, culture clash between Western and Japanese ideals. And unable to pick a direction and stick to it.

Like I said, Iwata has done a lot of good in the early Wii and DS era for Nintendo, but his lack of a long term plan caused management at the company to get out of control. While the limitations of Nintendo as a Kyoto based company will never truly go away, they can definitely be reduced, and that's something Iwata was trying to accomplish during his last days at Nintendo.

The Wonderful 101 is one of the only wii u games worth playing.

@putaspongeon: Enjoy it.

@TheMisterManGuy:

I've read that article and I don't believe it absolves Iwata from fault at all. It paints him as a helpless victim at the whim of others, and while I understand that culture plays a large part in how Nintendo operates, corporate bureaucracy is due to inaction of the top executive. Iwata made appointments, he held the final word. Why didn't Yamauchi suffer from the same issue if corporate culture is to blame? From Wiki:

"Due to his young age and total lack of management experience, most employees did not take Yamauchi seriously and resented him. Soon after taking over, he had to deal with a strike by factory employees who expected him to cave in easily. Instead, he asserted his authority by firing many long-time employees who questioned his authority. He had the company name changed to Nintendo Karuta and established its new headquarters in Kyoto. Yamauchi led Nintendo in a "notoriously imperialistic style".[attribution needed][8] He was the sole judge of potential new products, and only a product that appealed to him and his instincts went on the market."

I think Iwata's biggest fault was that he was a nice guy, but that translated into being a pushover when in charge of others. I suspect he was unable to put his foot down and truly assert himself when it came down to it. If people within Nintendo were constantly bickering and out for each other's blood, that's on him to deal with. In short, Iwata didn't hold the personality to be an effective CEO. He wasn't a go-getter, he wasn't aggressive nor driven. He couldn't control his subordinates. Not only the results of Nintendo's performance indicates this, but words out of his own mouth support it: "Nintendo's not good at competing", "We're too far behind PSN and Live to catch up", among others. Iwata gave off an incredible sense of defeatism. It doesn't at all surprise me that Nintendo's performance, ever declining when he was in charge, perfectly reflects such attitudes.

Management didn't make Iwata look at fault. Iwata, as the Chief Executive Officer, was in CHARGE of management. That management was all over the place and mired in bureaucracy was an indictment on his ability as someone who oversaw it. Iwata did great things for Nintendo, but in the end, I think his tenure, direction, and management style harmed the company significantly in a multitude of ways.

@TheMisterManGuy: In the first instance, I think this article asks a question based on a set of fairly shaky assumptions. For example, it starts by assuming that Nintendo is "arrogant" because they "don't always listen to fans when all we ask for is good games".

Firstly, Nintendo actually listens to fans more now than ever before. That may come as a surprise, but under Yamauchi's leadership, the general philosophy was that "if you're looking sideways, you aren't looking forward" (this was a reference to doing competitor analysis, although I think it can be applied to taking on board gamer suggestions as well). There are numerous examples in recent years of Nintendo directly taking player feedback on board and implementing it (everything from character suggestions in Smash Bros. to the constant player demands for Pikmin 3, especially where the commercial prospect of the latter is questionable).

Secondly, think for a moment about the subtext of this article: it is suggesting that games should be more subject to market pressures (i.e. "what's popular") rather than creative vision. I find this concept fairly ironic, given that gamers have for years railed against companies like EA and others who they see as pandering to market forces and sacrificing creative design at the altar of commercial convenience. I mean, would Nintendo have created Splatoon based on this approach to design? I think it'd be unlikely, at the very least.

I mean, this article directly argues against innovation and creativity. It holds up the PS3 - the "safest console of this generation" - as an example of the best possible approach that Nintendo could take, out of a broad range of possibilities. Honestly, I find that quite incredible, especially given the cynicism with which gamers generally view anything that they see as having a strong commercial - rather than creative - drive.

Overall though, what's most interesting to me is this idea that Nintendo have operated fundamentally differently over the last 10 years - I think this demonstrates a misunderstanding of the company's history, honestly. Nintendo never referred to focus groups or competitor analysis to design their products. They always had a view about "facing forward" and marching to the beat of their own drum. They also consistently held to the concept of leveraging "mature technology" and finding new uses for it; this philosophy began under Yamauchi and continued through with Iwata and now (to a degree) Kimishima (in fact, this could be one of many reasons why Yamauchi selected Iwata as his successor).

One final observation, which isn't directly related to this article but which I feel is still relevant in a general way: there's this idea that Nintendo never push technology forward, that they are always "behind" on a technological level. In reality, this isn't the case: all of their consoles have offered up some significant technological prowess, it's just that this investment hasn't always been weighted towards outright processing power.

I mean, if you look at the Switch, there's some incredible technology being packed into a small and affordable product. Taken as a whole, it's easily a technologically advanced as any other platform - but because it doesn't have the highest processing numbers, everything else gets dismissed as a "gimmick" or as somehow unimportant. This is an impoverished view, in my opinion, and a highly reductive one as well.

I highly recommend reading the book Game Over by David Sheff. It charts - in detail - Nintendo's history from the arcades up to the early days of the SNES. It's a remarkable read and it's the most in-depth resource on Nintendo's inner workings. If you read it, you'll find that you may come away with an updated perspective on the last 10 years of Nintendo. :-)

(By the way, Nintendo's performance was not "ever declining" while Iwata was in charge - that's rubbish. Iwata presided over the introduction of both the original NintendoDS as well as the Wii. Given where Nintendo had come from with N64 and GameCube, it is disingenuous at best to argue that Iwata simply managed a company in decline.)

@djura:

Your post was intended for me as well obviously, so I'll reply.

Nintendo is listening? Where's Metroid? Wave Race? F-Zero? Games certainly should not be more subject to market pressures and popularity than creative impetus I agree, as in the former you have the potential towards stagnant exploitative annual iterations, but there is a fine line between addressing market desires and abandoning them altogether to greater detriment both as a business and to consumer faith. People have been screaming for the aforementioned games for years to be met with nothing but silence and apathy, and when not, tossed a lazy half-assed low-budget effort such as Federation Force which in truth felt like trolling. Or F-Zero in Nintendoland. How can you claim they are listening when they do these things? People have not been that vocal about Pikmin, and the implementation of characters in a game that was being made anyway is not a testament to any significant degree of satiating gamers' desires.

As for Iwata: if Nintendo wasn't declining under him, how exactly would you describe it? Sure Iwata presided over the DS and Wii.....thirteen and ten years ago. While I'll give Iwata credit for the DS, I believe the majority of the Wii's success to be predicated largely upon fortuitous circumstances, not any degree of real managerial acumen. It was, yes, a--"gimmick"--combined with brilliant marketing that targeted an audience that transcended traditional demographics Nintendo had depended on thus far. But its success did nothing to strengthen Nintendo's core business, and in that, it's difficult for me to lay any real merit past the fleeting fiscal benefits it produced. I'd go so far as to argue the Wii actively weakened the company by affording them an influx of cash that allowed the carrying of their outdated philosophies and policies years into the future while letting their business remain in the past.

Mobile came in, the Wii phenomenon died, the audience made an exodus, and Nintendo was dumped into a situation that relied upon their previous base but who by then had moved on to standards/features that Sony and MS had been busting their asses for years to execute properly/ improve as Nintendo sat back doing nothing but laughing all the way to the bank during the Wii furor. Iwata failed to heavily invest into modernizing Nintendo. Expanding, creating new studios, fixing their drought problem, tackling their online, taking serious efforts to courting third parties. Sure, some of this was done......but only much later when the consequences of his inaction began to manifest as hundreds of millions in losses. As MisterManGuy said, reactionary. In contrast to the Wii, Iwata also ended up presiding over the Wii U of which (aside the Virtual Boy) is Nintendo's worst selling hardware in its history and is up there with the worst selling consoles of all time. The enormous disparity between the Wii and U demonstrates one thing to me: luck. If you base a company's ascent or decline solely from a fiscal standpoint I suppose you could claim that for a time Iwata didn't manage a company in decline, but taken in macro context with all other considerations into play and viewing Nintendo's current predicament, he not only managed a company in decline....he managed a company into decline.

I'm open to being proven wrong, but no one has been able to explain to me how you can go from the astronomical success of the Wii into the gutter of the Wii U in such a short amount of time, because to have so much potential at your fingertips that the Wii afforded Nintendo to fucking up so badly just doesn't jive. What is incompetence if not that?

Now comes the Switch, and while being met initially with great optimism with its initial teaser, is now creating a lot of pessimism and disappointment on further examination. Nothing appears to have changed. The software lineup still looks anemic despite the promise of consolidation long ago, the online appears unnecessarily convoluted, obtuse, and an awful value proposition in parity to Sony/MS, third party support seems worse than ever before, and peripheral pricing is downright insulting. The Switch is (like the Wii U before it) purely Iwata's baby. He approved it, he dealt with DeNA for the online, he "fixed" the droughts (I'll give it a year to see if this has changed, but things don't hold promise), and third party was supposed to be better. Only the pricing I would fault Kimishima for. Not to say I find the Switch concept bad, but its execution? Terrible.

What I believe to be rubbish is to try to claim Nintendo wasn't in decline under Iwata. When you have to cite systems from over a decade ago to argue that point it's saying something. He had a period of great success I won't deny, but he also was responsible for Nintendo's greatest failure for a main console while also being responsible for a new one that by all appearances looks to be suffering from many of the same problems.

Which was probably written by the OP.

Yeah, what Nintendo really needs is more businessmen. That way the gamers get the benefit of paying more money to play worse games. Give the consumer what they want, after all.

That is a fickle audience. They went over to mobile. I'm pretty sure that's run its course and they're ready to SWITCH over to something new. Something where you can play two players on the fly. Something where you can play both on the couch and in your bed. If only something like that existed...something that allowed your hands to rest if you're tired of holding the controller. Something that has both indie and AAA game experiences.

If only...

About iwata.

Wii and DS sold so well, because of zero competition.

Sony alienated its market by making a massive overpriced box that nobody could buy, developers didn't understand. it basically killed itself completely out of its own market. And also released later on top of it then there competition i think.

The only one that really was in that gen available for the average joe was a wii. Because it was half its price practically 670 euro's for a ps3 + game vs 300 euro's. Massive difference.

Thing was barely faster then the gamecube but fast enough to create ps2+ experiences and mud furhter on family based games.

But why family based games? and not core games? because they couldn't compete with microsoft anyway and pc without having to invest massively ( which they couldn't ). so why bother. They already lost that market.

It's not mind blowing hard to see why the wii sold. it was the ps2 next generation market. It was interesting for everybody in the living room and not just that one hobo son that likes to shoot people 24/7.

A lot of new people got introduced to console gaming with the PS2 and eye toy and they searched the next big time.

Eventually people got tired of wii and moved away to other products that did things better like tablets / mobiles and ps3/xbox360 ( ps3 end of its life time basically ) because wii was doa when it came on software a few years into its life span already.

Iwata had zero other option to build anything differently. I can give him kudo's for the wii remote which eventually didn't ended up being a standard but rather a gimmick much like the eye toy was.

If he indeed was such a good visionairy or mastermind then when he had the funds with the gamecube did he not build a wii from that point already? or focused on family based games like the ps2 did late in its life. He really didn't had the vision until the point he was forced into a situation.

This only further showed when his whole market moved towards mobile / ipads and he was sitting with a straight face at investors meetings saying ( no to ipads and no to mobile ). The whole market was just slipping under his arse away right there.

Then he launched a wii-u, for 350 bucks with a game nobody understood or cared for. Never reduced the price. Had a system that brought nothing that the wii brought forwards. Terrible to develop for, ancient hardware. Just a massive dud entirely. All 3rd party's just walked away from him instantly again.

he only had one job, release a ps4/xbox one performance box, with nintendo games + a decent online system. Nobody asked more from that gen. Or something that coudl keep up. Yet the wii-u barely runned current gen games. Support was dropped pretty much the day after its announcement from the market.

People could buy ps3's for super cheap with loads of content available and ps4 would most likely be the same price and around the corner where people where waiting on in the core segment also xbox one.

Basically he let his entire market slip. The handheld market got completely gutted by ipad's / mobiles also something he didn't paid any second of his time on.

Iwata has been a disaster for nintendo. It alienated there own markets to the point of moving back to a worse position then the gamecube area.

Before iwata:

n64 sold 33m

gameboy sold 120m

Iwata start ( 50% reduction on market )

gamecube sold 21,74m

gba sold 81,5 million

End of iwata ( 100% market reduction from before iwata took control )

wii-u sold 13,4m

3ds sold 61,5m

From what i can find is that in 1996 the gaming market was 20b worth, in 2016 that's almost 100b. that's a factor of 5 more. So that basically means, he lost a lot more market then they had back in the day. A lot more.

conclusion

Iwata was a disaster for nintendo.

Why should profit be the main concern?

Ah right, this is SW where the only numerical values that proove e-peen are profit/sales numbers. I would highly recommend trying a thing called "fun" once in a while, it really can be refreshing.

Because in the reality I live in, companies that produce products I enjoy need to profit so I can continue to enjoy them. But in actuality, I'm kind of hoping Nintendo will take a financial beating so as to their betterment.

@MirkoS77: I'm not absoving Iwata of fault. Like I said, lack of planing for the future post-Wii and DS was his biggest shortcoming as a CEO. I'm just saying not everything wrong with Nintendo is entirely his fault. The reason Yamauchi ruled Nintendo with an iron fist was because Nintendo was a very different company back then, it's corporate structure was nothing like what it is today. Unlike Iwata who focused on group decision making, Yamauchi wanted keep Nintendo and the industry in-check. He had the ability to make things happen through sheer force of will, and it was his way or the high way.

Of course, this also led to Yamauchi's biggest flaw as a CEO, his ego. His own arrogant attitude was what created the PlayStation in the first place, and his need for Nintendo to rule the industry with an iron first and his controversial statements towards the RPG genre drove away many of Nintendo's third party developers, who by that point, were already fed up with the company's restrictive nature.

Yamauchi was by no means a bad CEO, but he single handedly caused Nintendo's third party problems, of which the company is STILL trying to recover from.

Iwata was not a disaster for Nintendo. He had his flaws as a CEO sure, but he led Nintendo's most successful era and helped lay the blueprints for the current casual market.

Eventually people got tired of wii and moved away to other products that did things better like tablets / mobiles and ps3/xbox360 ( ps3 end of its life time basically ) because wii was doa when it came on software a few years into its life span already.

The Wii didn't start having significant sales declines until the 2010s. While I do stand by the fact that Iwata should've been better prepared for the next generation, making just a PS4 with Mario games wasn't the answer.

@KBFloYd: That may be; however what are the odds that every condition will be right for Nintendo to strike gold again?

I think the whole point is instead of chasing the Wii, may e they should have made capable hardware and just pumped out the Nintendo goodness.

Well, there are a lot of different topics pulled together here. Rather than dive down every rabbit hole, I'll just pick up on some key threads.

Saying that Nintendo is listening more now than ever before is not the same as saying that they are literally responding to every suggestion and creating games on that basis. C'mon.

Also, surely I don't need to point out that the company has finite resources and time like any company - they physically can't produce every game that fans request at every moment in time. I'm sure you'll see more of those franchises eventually. :-)

How would I describe it? Well, exactly as I did in my previous post - Iwata very clearly led the company to some great heights, and he initiated the restructure that we're starting to see the results of (i.e. Nintendo Switch, extended use of Nintendo IP, a push into mobile, etc...) - we won't know the full results of those changes for another couple of years, I'd say. It goes without saying though that this restructuring and change of strategy is clear evidence of their business not "remaining in the past", so that argument has a conclusive answer at this point.

The biggest blot on Iwata's record is really the Wii U, which failed to meet the company's own expectations. But there are two ways you can look at this. You can be entirely reductive and say that this failure happened under Iwata's watch and is evidence of him driving a company into decline, or you can go deeper and actually look at the full breadth of history to understand Nintendo as a company.

If you take the former approach, then you might as well hang Yamauchi out to dry for the Virtual Boy fiasco. The problem, of course, is that this is a simplistic view of reality.

The Wii U certainly didn't succeed according to Nintendo's own lights, but that's the risk you take when you innovate! Even Steve Jobs said this in regard to Apple. Nintendo takes calculated risks, and they don't always pan out. But they continue to take these risks because they understand that their competitiveness lies in creating a point of difference.

I have been through extensive discussions with you in the past about why the Wii's success was not simply due to luck; I refer you to those older posts. I don't want to re-litigate that again.

On your final point about the Nintendo Switch: my advice is to wait and see. The thing hasn't even launched yet, and you're already framing a narrative around it that fits neatly into a reductive view of Nintendo that you already hold.

Switch might be successful or it might not. Who knows. I personally think the concept looks great, although I share concerns about what the game library will ultimately look like as time moves on - but I'm willing to say that it's too early to really know how the landscape will look a year from now. Again, let's wait and see.

The relevant question at this point though is how you define success for the Nintendo Switch - what does it take for you to concede anything that doesn't fit your pre-defined view of Nintendo? From everything I've read of your posts, it seems to me like nothing will convince you until Nintendo makes a PS4. I mean, when the Wii U fails you place all the blame on Nintendo, but when the Wii succeeds you do all sorts of gymnastics to avoid crediting Nintendo in any way (it's luck, it's a gimmick, it's nothing but timing, etc...)

So, I'd be interested to know how you define success for Nintendo Switch, and then we can wait and see what unfolds from there. But I suspect that if the platform does well in your eyes, it won't have anything to do with Nintendo.

This reminds me of a Frank Zappa interview:

This is applicable to Nintendo. The CEO who transformed Nintendo from a small playing card company to the world's largest video game company, Hiroshi Yamauchi, had apparently never played a video game in his life, nor was he interested in playing them while he was alive. And yet Nintendo was a lot more successful under him.

@djura:

Saying that Nintendo is listening more now than ever before is not the same as saying that they are literally responding to every suggestion and creating games on that basis. C'mon.

Also, surely I don't need to point out that the company has finite resources and time like any company - they physically can't produce every game that fans request at every moment in time. I'm sure you'll see more of those franchises eventually. :-)

Saying Nintendo's listening more than they ever have been when failing to pull that into context that they've never really listened in the first place isn't really saying much, so you'll have to forgive me for holding any expectations past the bare minimum. I've never said they need to do every little thing people are asking for, but look:

We've (arguably) not had a good console Metroid game for 15 years if you fail to acknowledge Other M (as many consider it a poor Metroid game), if included that's still 6. No new F-Zero in 14 years nor a new Wave Race in 23. They "can't produce every game that fans request at every moment in time"? How about at any moment in time? The degree of remiss on Nintendo's part is incredible, as are the continual apologists trying to excuse it. There's many valid reasons why these games should exist, of which I'd be happy to elaborate if you'd like. But please don't attempt to insinuate and paint me as some impatient, entitled gamer as is so often the tactic when anyone wishes for games they've not made in ages. I (and many others) have been more than patient enough.

How would I describe it? Well, exactly as I did in my previous post - Iwata very clearly led the company to some great heights, and he initiated the restructure that we're starting to see the results of (i.e. Nintendo Switch, extended use of Nintendo IP, a push into mobile, etc...) - we won't know the full results of those changes for another couple of years, I'd say. It goes without saying though that this restructuring and change of strategy is clear evidence of their business not "remaining in the past", so that argument has a conclusive answer at this point.

The biggest blot on Iwata's record is really the Wii U, which failed to meet the company's own expectations. But there are two ways you can look at this. You can be entirely reductive and say that this failure happened under Iwata's watch and is evidence of him driving a company into decline, or you can go deeper and actually look at the full breadth of history to understand Nintendo as a company.

If you take the former approach, then you might as well hang Yamauchi out to dry for the Virtual Boy fiasco. The problem, of course, is that this is a simplistic view of reality.

The Wii U certainly didn't succeed according to Nintendo's own lights, but that's the risk you take when you innovate! Even Steve Jobs said this in regard to Apple. Nintendo takes calculated risks, and they don't always pan out. But they continue to take these risks because they understand that their competitiveness lies in creating a point of difference.

I have been through extensive discussions with you in the past about why the Wii's success was not simply due to luck; I refer you to those older posts. I don't want to re-litigate that again.

On your final point about the Nintendo Switch: my advice is to wait and see. The thing hasn't even launched yet, and you're already framing a narrative around it that fits neatly into a reductive view of Nintendo that you already hold.

Switch might be successful or it might not. Who knows. I personally think the concept looks great, although I share concerns about what the game library will ultimately look like as time moves on - but I'm willing to say that it's too early to really know how the landscape will look a year from now. Again, let's wait and see.

The relevant question at this point though is how you define success for the Nintendo Switch - what does it take for you to concede anything that doesn't fit your pre-defined view of Nintendo? From everything I've read of your posts, it seems to me like nothing will convince you until Nintendo makes a PS4. I mean, when the Wii U fails you place all the blame on Nintendo, but when the Wii succeeds you do all sorts of gymnastics to avoid crediting Nintendo in any way (it's luck, it's a gimmick, it's nothing but timing, etc...)

So, I'd be interested to know how you define success for Nintendo Switch, and then we can wait and see what unfolds from there. But I suspect that if the platform does well in your eyes, it won't have anything to do with Nintendo.

GS doesn't retain posting history from so long ago, and while I vaguely remember our exchange I don't much recall the details. Throw me the gist of your argument as to why the Wii was successful when the U wasn't. How Nintendo managed The Wii so perfectly and then failed so miserably only a few years later without the word phenomenon, fad, or gimmick involved. The Wii craze was massive. There was nothing Nintendo did that could ever account for nearly 100 or so million unit disparity between generations, especially when you place all their other consoles into context and view their declining console numbers. As for me having a negative pre-conceived view: I don't hate systems nor companies, I don't wish their failure (though with the Switch I'm getting there). I want Nintendo to succeed, but before that can happen I think they need to drastically change.. I thought the U would be impetus enough for them to alter course. Before the Switch's reveal I was enthusiastic and optimistic towards its prospects because that change appeared to be in the works.

"What does it take for you to concede anything that doesn't fit your pre-defined view of Nintendo?"

Abiding by minimum standards of competence and parity that defines the console industry today would be a great start. Here's what I believe would benefit Nintendo and help make the Switch a success:

• a fully featured online ecosystem with chat and matchmaking natively integrated, that's reasonably priced, offering value and game offerings per month in comparison to Sony/MS.
• getting to work on putting resources into the leveraging of their entire legacy (or as much as could be accomplished with Switch's tech) through the Virtual Console, and stop the drip-feeding.
• a cessation of their droughts or having more third parties to compensate.
• more investment in new IPs if they are unable to procure substantial third party support.
• giving classic IPs their due attention instead of neglect (Metroid still has a shot.....the other two are 99% dead).
• not being so uncompromising to Nintendo fans doing coverage of games/products on YT videos; to be appreciative instead of shitting on them to pinch a few pennies.
• not attempting to price gouge consumers through peripherals.
• according the western market more attention through software differentiation and experimenting with different genres and aesthetics.
• utilizing regional marketing instead of using Directs, or make Directs complimentary. Coming back full-blown to E3 would be amazing to see.
• getting back into the ring and trying to offer a competitive edge (in this I mean an underlying mentality).

Are they doing these things? Some are no, others time will tell, but after years of "Please understands", defeatisms and excuses that never amounted to anything, then after seeing this reveal and hearing the same old shit, I can no longer benefit Nintendo the presumption of change. I'm going to approach everything they say with pessimism and degree of skepticism until it's done, because such an expectation is precisely what they've earned. We've held this "wait and see" mentality to them for years and it continually cycles and nothing really improves. If there's any pre-defined view in me towards Nintendo, they've been instrumental in forming it through years of their own continual neglection, questionable decisions, policies, bureaucracy, and anti-consumer moves.

I suppose you could say I desire Nintendo to be a PS4 (and Xbone) insofar as I crave modernization, ambition, and competitiveness in running a business that creates hardware, games and the infrastructure that supports them. Nintendo's software has ultimately always been their point of competitive difference to me, it's never come from drastic hardware distinction. While I can appreciate their view and approach on hardware, it's also at times marred the software. If the Switch succeeds in the manner that Nintendo's managing themselves currently as the reveal indicated, I'll be disappointed. A business that does not offer parity to alternatives (and in fact seems to be offering worse) I do not think should be rewarded, and that's what Switch is looking to do in some respects as noted in some of those bullet points.

On a final note, stop acting like you're exclusive to Nintendo's history and philosophies; even if you were it doesn't relegate everyone else's opinions on Nintendo immediately wrong or ignorant. I'm not misinformed as I've been with them since the very early eighties so I'm very familiar with all of their past and present.

'If I had asked customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse"- Henry Ford

@MirkoS77:

Saying Nintendo's listening more than they ever have been when failing to pull that into context that they've never really listened in the first place isn't really saying much, so you'll have to forgive me for holding any expectations past the bare minimum.

I never suggested that they listened much in the first place though. I think one of their strengths historically has been that they have not crowd-sourced game ideas or developed the specific games that people have asked for. As I said: Yamauchi's philosophy was that if you're "looking sideways you are not looking forward".

Let me be more explicit about why I think that quote applies here.

Nintendo's strength has always been that they have shown fans things we didn't even know we wanted. The magic of Nintendo has been that the core of their business was about imagining worlds and experiences that surprised and delighted players.

If you take that away - if you ask them to "just create a "good" Metroid game" (whatever that means - I'll get into that next) - and if they actually do that, then what's the point? You are directly asking them to erode the very DNA that makes them special, whether you know it or not.

I don't mean to say that you can't/shouldn't desire a specific game from them; I need to separate these concepts clearly for you here, because I'm not going after you for wanting particular things. You can want whatever you want. But because Nintendo aren't creating exactly what you want on your approved timeline, you accuse the company of being remiss or somehow deficient; the two things aren't related in the way you're trying to relate them, that's what I'm pointing out to you.

Here's an example of the misfiring that I see going on here:

They "can't produce every game that fans request at every moment in time"? How about at any moment in time? The degree of remiss on Nintendo's part is incredible, as are the continual apologists trying to excuse it.

Here you are simply ignoring all the games they have made that people want. I'm not painting you as an impatient, self-entitled gamer; I'm saying it's valid to want a new Metroid or Wave Race, that there's nothing wrong with that. But because Nintendo has filled space with other games for the last few years, you think they are remiss? What about the people who didn't want Wave Race but who were excited about Splatoon? Are they just wrong? Are they remiss or negligent in some fashion?

As I said - and as I'll repeat - it's perfectly fine to want a new [insert game title here]. Totally fine. I don't care about that and I'm not arguing against that. I'm just saying that you're drawing a long bow by connecting your personal disappointment in this situation into some broader narrative about Nintendo being remiss and Iwata somehow being a poor leader - it's just an unnecessary and irrelevant connection to make.

How Nintendo managed The Wii so perfectly and then failed so miserably only a few years later without the word phenomenon, fad, or gimmick involved.

As I said, I don't really want to re-litigate the argument yet again. If you're really keen to have this discussion, I'd consider a private message chat if you like.

But let me be really, really, really clear again: I never suggested directly or indirectly that Nintendo "managed the Wii so perfectly" or that words like "phenomenon, fad, or gimmick" were not involved. That bears zero relationship to anything I've ever said about this topic. It's quotes like this which suggest to me that you aren't coming to the discussion with an open mind, but rather, with a pre-defined narrative that everything must be shoehorned into. That's what makes me cautious here.

Anyway, give it some thought, if you want to have the discussion then I'd be open to private messages. :-)

Let me make one final point without going into all the dimensions of this, related to this quote:

Abiding by minimum standards of competence and parity that defines the console industry today would be a great start.

Do you realise - honestly - that you're really misusing a word like "competence" based on some of the bullet points you included below? I mean, for god's sake, you talk about E3 press conferences vs Nintendo Directs as an example of incompetence! Geeze. Don't you realise that you might have a personal preference for something...but others (including Nintendo) might disagree? This doesn't make them incompetent! It simply means that what you prefer in a particular case isn't necessarily what they've decided to do - I mean, I'm not sure that this warrants the wide-ranging barrage of attacks that basically say "if Nintendo do anything that doesn't sit on my wishlist, they are by definition incompetent or somehow neglectful".

On a final note, stop acting like you're exclusive to Nintendo's history and philosophies; even if you were it doesn't relegate everyone else's opinions on Nintendo immediately wrong or ignorant.

I'm not exclusive to Nintendo's history and philosophies; if I were, I wouldn't have recommended David Sheff's book! :-)

But if I see something that appears objectively wrong or blatantly unfair, I'll call it out. Much of your analysis about Iwata and Nintendo's business structure is, I think, clearly objectively incorrect. So I'll call that out when I see it.

Certainly though, there are many people who have great expertise in Nintendo and how they operate (aside from David Sheff). I'd be happy to give you more reference points if you're interested.

@djura:

I never suggested that they listened much in the first place though. I think one of their strengths historically has been that they have not crowd-sourced game ideas or developed the specific games that people have asked for. As I said: Yamauchi's philosophy was that if you're "looking sideways you are not looking forward".

Let me be more explicit about why I think that quote applies here.

Nintendo's strength has always been that they have shown fans things we didn't even know we wanted. The magic of Nintendo has been that the core of their business was about imagining worlds and experiences that surprised and delighted players.

If you take that away - if you ask them to "just create a "good" Metroid game" (whatever that means - I'll get into that next) - and if they actually do that, then what's the point? You are directly asking them to erode the very DNA that makes them special, whether you know it or not.

I don't mean to say that you can't/shouldn't desire a specific game from them; I need to separate these concepts clearly for you here, because I'm not going after you for wanting particular things. You can want whatever you want. But because Nintendo aren't creating exactly what you want on your approved timeline, you accuse the company of being remiss or somehow deficient; the two things aren't related in the way you're trying to relate them, that's what I'm pointing out to you.

It was about imagining worlds and experiences that surprised and delighted players, but I'm not the one who wishes to take that away. Nintendo (through dismissal) already has. How's them continuing to make Metroid (a franchise that is part of their DNA) sacrificing it or betraying their core business philosophy? On the contrary, its continuation would keep it alive. Does "showing me something I didn't even know I wanted" necessitate ignoring what's made Nintendo what they are? I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning.

I'd love to see a new Metroid given their unique philosophy, with a caveat: that it makes sure to adhere to the tenets foundational to what has made that franchise so renowned in Nintendo's legacy, studied to death within the industry, and adored in the hearts of its fans. Aspects like exploration, isolation, a foreboding sci-fi atmosphere, back-tracking, power-ups, brilliant map design, tight controls, epic music, and cool boss fights. That's what I mean by a "good" Metroid. I'm not demanding that they make MY Metroid specifically and in doing so betray their identity, but create one consistent with that identity they created while also infused with their current one. The last game that included all of the aforementioned arrived 15 years ago, a few less if you include its sequels. Other M stands on its own fine, but the general consensus is that it's a poor Metroid game.

Through negligence in addressing their older IPs for so long, I believe Nintendo is remiss in making efforts to keep alive their DNA while also overlooking the profits these titles could (collectively) bring to the company and ecosystem on various fronts. I consider that to be deficiency of leadership, and if you do not believe investments towards these titles to be prudent expenditures, as I said, I can elaborate on why I do. This isn't to claim they shouldn't do new things in such spirit as you praise, I want that as well, I only think Nintendo needs to remember what and who got them to where they are today and respect that as well as utilizing it to further their business. If not, they're nothing but wasted assets alienating fed-up gamers while allowing the legacy defining their heritage to fade.

Here you are simply ignoring all the games they have made that people want. I'm not painting you as an impatient, self-entitled gamer; I'm saying it's valid to want a new Metroid or Wave Race, that there's nothing wrong with that. But because Nintendo has filled space with other games for the last few years, you think they are remiss? What about the people who didn't want Wave Race but who were excited about Splatoon? Are they just wrong? Are they remiss or negligent in some fashion?

As I said - and as I'll repeat - it's perfectly fine to want a new [insert game title here]. Totally fine. I don't care about that and I'm not arguing against that. I'm just saying that you're drawing a long bow by connecting your personal disappointment in this situation into some broader narrative about Nintendo being remiss and Iwata somehow being a poor leader - it's just an unnecessary and irrelevant connection to make.

You are painting me impatient and entitled while also attempting to frame it as if Nintendo is operating on some truncated and rigid time table ("for the last few years") as if they have barely any time or resources available. They've had more than sufficient time to work on a new Wave Race, F-Zero, and Metroid while also having put out the others you mentioned. Enough for numerous entries in fact. You're acting like I'm demanding the world here. There are many fans immensely frustrated about their apathy and treatment towards some of their classic IPs, and their gripe isn't unjustified. There comes a point where so much time has passed that your rebuttal becomes invalid, and it has passed.

As for coming to the conclusion about Iwata, see the above and below. It's not an irrelevant connection at all.

As I said, I don't really want to re-litigate the argument yet again. If you're really keen to have this discussion, I'd consider a private message chat if you like.

Perhaps.

Do you realise - honestly - that you're really misusing a word like "competence" based on some of the bullet points you included below? I mean, for god's sake, you talk about E3 press conferences vs Nintendo Directs as an example of incompetence! Geeze. Don't you realise that you might have a personal preference for something...but others (including Nintendo) might disagree? This doesn't make them incompetent! It simply means that what you prefer in a particular case isn't necessarily what they've decided to do - I mean, I'm not sure that this warrants the wide-ranging barrage of attacks that basically say "if Nintendo do anything that doesn't sit on my wishlist, they are by definition incompetent or somehow neglectful".

I'll grant this point to tackle this from another angle. It's not incompetence but simply a difference in taste and philosophy. How then would you define that philosophy? Do you believe any of the points I brought up hold merit? That Nintendo, having run their business doing the exact opposite, has seen benefit from? They've been struggling in the console space utilizing a strategy that I did nothing but flip on its head with those bullet points. Usually a company does not struggle to sell 13 million consoles when it's run competently. That their philosophies and policies differ from my preferences is completely irrelevant to the fact that Nintendo's nevertheless been hurting under them, nor does it mean just because they're intentional that they can't arise from managerial ill-considerations, corporate dogmatism, stubbornness, and neglection of aspects that would possibly help their business prosper if re-examined and executed upon. Something can be intentional or preferred while also being incompetent. What they've decided to do didn't help them, yet they stuck to it for so long.

During this we had them coming out, time and again, apologizing for things with the promise they'd improve. They didn't, or things moved so slowly that they had to apologize again, yet the same issues persisted. This got so bad that it became a "Please understand" meme and running joke. Their recent history doesn't portray a very flattering picture of competence, and that's how I paint the broader narrative that Iwata (and his subordinates) were poor leaders....not solely from my personal disappointment of software I desire they've failed to produce, but a variety of factors I've witnessed over their tenure combined with the end result Nintendo finds itself in that exceeds the scope of this debate.

But if I see something that appears objectively wrong or blatantly unfair, I'll call it out. Much of your analysis about Iwata and Nintendo's business structure is, I think, clearly objectively incorrect. So I'll call that out when I see it.

As is your right, but I disagree with you assessments. I enjoy these debates regardless, passionate and long-winded they may become.

@MirkoS77:

You are painting me impatient and entitled while also attempting to frame it as if Nintendo is operating on some truncated and rigid time table ("for the last few years") as if they have barely any time or resources available. They've had more than sufficient time to work on a new Wave Race, F-Zero, and Metroid while also having put out the others you mentioned. Enough for numerous entries in fact. You're acting like I'm demanding the world here. There are many fans immensely frustrated about their apathy and treatment towards some of their classic IPs, and their gripe isn't unjustified. There comes a point where so much time has passed that your rebuttal becomes invalid, and it has passed.

Let me try to put this another way, because I think we're talking past each other on this point. :-)

As I said earlier, I don't think it's at all unreasonable for you to ask for a new Metroid or F-Zero or Wave Race. You are entirely within your right to ask for that, and I want to see those games too. I'm completely sympathetic to that point.

That said, there's one big underlying assertion where we differ. I'll try to explain my point of view more clearly.

I want to address the assertion that I bolded in the quote above: "They've had more than sufficient time to work on a new Wave Race, F-Zero, and Metroid while also having put out the others you mentioned."

I can understand that if you believe this assertion, then you feel right to be pissed off at Nintendo. The problem is that I think your assertion is clearly wrong. If Nintendo did have sufficient time and resources to work on those games plus all the other games they published, it's very likely they would have done so. In all honesty, what else could explain the reality that actually unfolded? Do you think that Nintendo consciously decided to have a software shortage during the Wii U's lifecycle?

The thing is - and this is true for all companies, not just Nintendo - time and resources are finite. When Nintendo chooses to work on one project, they are almost by definition avoiding another somewhere else. Every one approved project might equate to dozens of other projects that never saw a green light. That's the kind of decision that companies make on a regular basis. Gabe Newell discussed this at length when talking about Valve (that's a great interview that I highly recommend checking out).

So then, the question is...how does Nintendo choose what to work on? Why choose, say, Animal Crossing versus F-Zero?

Well, again, Nintendo have explained how they make those choices. Their entire R&D is heavily weighted to experimentation - in some ways they are a bit like Valve in this regard. Even the big Mario games often don't start with Nintendo setting out to create a new Mario game and then figuring out the gameplay; the projects usually start with a mechanical experiment that they then decide to wrap within a particular franchise at a later time.

What does this mean in practice? Well, frankly, it means that Nintendo goes where their ideas take them. That might mean we get a few Mario games followed by an Animal Crossing followed by Splatoon - and it might mean that Metroid sits it out for a while.

If I accepted your assertion above, then I'd probably be as angry as you are about the situation. I'd be frustrated at Nintendo, and I'd be unable to define why certain major franchises have been missing for so long - I might even be tempted to assume incompetence on their part.

But the assertion is not correct. If we dig underneath that and examine the why question here, then the whole thing makes more sense - even though it does leave us, on the one hand, with a frustration about not seeing certain games for a long time. :-)

I know that's long-winded, but I hope it makes more sense. I'm really not trying to have a go at you here, I'm just trying to dig underneath the problem a bit further. I think - I hope - this also answers (at least in part) the first point in your post (which I didn't quote here).

Perhaps.

No worries. If you ever feel like it, feel free to flick me a message. :-)

How then would you define that philosophy? Do you believe any of the points I brought up hold merit? That Nintendo, having run their business doing the exact opposite, has seen benefit from? They've been struggling in the console space utilizing a strategy that I did nothing but flip on its head with those bullet points. Usually a company does not struggle to sell 13 million consoles when it's run competently.

Well, I guess there are two points I'd make in response to this.

To take the example of E3 press conferences versus Nintendo Directs: Nintendo would likely argue that they can reach more people more directly (no pun intended) and for much less money by doing web broadcasts than by doing a glitzy press conference. They'd have a pretty compelling case there, too.

The thing I want to unpack a little bit though is the bolded comment. That's where I think you're really mistaken, not just about Nintendo, but about any company.

There's an implication in that statement. The implication you're making is that anything less than 100% success in all cases equates to incompetent management. But that's not how any company works in reality. Even the most well-run company will make mistakes, or will produce something that doesn't sell as well as they expect. This is as true for Sony and Microsoft as it is for Nintendo, as it is for anyone else (Apple, Google, you name it).

To take the story a bit further, I think it can be argued that companies which take bigger risks with innovation are more likely to have failed products. Look at Google and their many different high-profile failed projects over the years. Yet I doubt anyone who would say that Google are "incompetent" - not by a long shot. The analogy works for Nintendo as much as it works for Google in this case (except for the fact that Google have a lot more money to spend on blue sky stuff!)

As is your right, but I disagree with you assessments. I enjoy these debates regardless, passionate and long-winded they may become.

Sure, it's fine for you to disagree. One thing I always try to do is make sure that I clearly explain where I'm coming from, and I'm not always successful when doing that (it's an ongoing endeavour!) :-)

I enjoy these discussions too. I really appreciate that you take the time to respond so thoughtfully, and that you never resort to ad hominem attacks - that is a credit to you, and it doesn't go unnoticed.

@djura: Meaning to respond, this week's just been a slammer of schoolwork. Weekend's probably the best.

No worries mate, take your time. I've had a crazily busy week too! Can't wait for the weekend. :D