Pachter: Nintendo "Still in denial about Wii U failure"

@TheEroica: If I had a PC, why would I spend 400 bucks on a PS4 or an Xbox One when the exclusives simply doesn't justify the price tag (lol at Destiny)? Value is subjective, and let's face it, NOBODY on this forum will only have one console in their lifetime.

The Wii U's value lies in it being an excellent secondary console with next to no overlap. Add it with a PC (prebuilds are a 750ti graphics card away from blowing the PS4 to dust), and you are set for this gen. (unless you love baseball games like me, then the PS4 is literally the only option for it)

Agree on Pachter is a moron.

But there's no defense for Nintendo squandering what likely will be the last advantage they'll ever have with the release of the WiiU. They absolutely could've had a "WiiHD" ready sooner, but they ignored calls for new hardware until the Wii's sales were plummeting. They absolutely could've brought a more capable machine to market when they did and worked overtime to repair their terrible relationships with major 3rd party devs, but they either naively assumed their machine was going to stack up better than it did with the competition, or thought their success with the Wii was going to guarantee them massive sales. Both are inexcusable positions to take from a company with the history of Nintendo.

Instead they gave us the worst of both worlds: a mid-gen machine too late to attract a player base thirsty for new hardware, and too weak to stand beside the fast approaching competition or run most 3rd party games. If that's the best Nintendo RnD was capable of doing flush with cash from Wii sales and with years to work with then they're headed exactly where they belong.

Nintendo know the fail on Wii-U and it should been price $99.99 and hopefully when Nintendo make their new consol don't high price it and have third party support and bring back Star Fox,New Zelda,Metriod prime,

Everyone else: Pachter "Still in denial about prediction failures"

From a sales standpoint, it's a failure period. The Dreamcast died at around 10.5 million. That is not where a well-known company like Nintendo - with all of those franchises - should be anywhere near at all (and I say the Wii U stops dead at around 13 million total). Microsoft's first Xbox released in 2001 is even outpacing the Wii U. Is this not a wakeup call or what? In its first year that big oversized black shoebox still sold 8 million, and totaled 13.5 million in the second year. We could even forgive Microsoft if they produced lower numbers than that, because it was their first console, and they started off with NO established franchises or mascots to help them out, and had to compete against the PS2. So, what is Nintendo's excuse today, when they have all of those IPs and Mario characters, all that history AND are coming off of the Wii success not that long ago? To make matters worse, Reggie was even showing off and taunting the other companies prior to the Wii U launch, as if they found the secret of sales success the others didn't know about. The arrogance at the time, from both company and extreme fans, was kind of sickening.

During the Wii era, lots of Nintendo owners were laughing at how the PS360 was trailing the Wii totals. Even though those two consoles were steadily climbing from 50, 60, 70 and on towards 80+ million, they were laughed at ("ahahahahaa!!") for not achieving the same height (NUMBER) as the Wii. Now, these same Nintendo defenders want everyone to go easy on the Wii U numbers, go easy on Nintendo and try to somehow remind us that it's not about sales, but the games in the end. Suddenly they've become teachers, making us search for substance. lmao

I'm not even concerned with laughing at the Wii U totals. I've done my share, and there are other places to laugh at Nintendo soon enough. I don't even care or expect Wii U to reach the same number as Wii (we've all mentioned this already from the beginning how impossible this is). Forget even matching the PS360 (numbers which they ironically made fun of). I'll be lenient and just ask Nintendo not to repeat the same historically low numbers of the GCN/N64. Whoops, too late. It won't even reach those numbers and barely make it past the halfway mark of the GCN total.

Here's a quote from Iwata, who has also apologized in Q&A investor meetings about not reaching the 9-12 million Wii U target he set forth over a year ago:

"I do not intend to declare how many Wii we will be selling today, but Wii will be a failure if it cannot sell far more than GameCube did. In fact, we shouldn't continue this business if our only target is to outsell GameCube. Naturally, we are making efforts so that Wii will show a far greater result than GameCube." -- Iwata

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/kessan/060607qa_e/

So mission accomplished on the Wii success and passing the GCN numbers. Was that Iwata statement a one-time thing? Does Iwata allow all future Nintendo consoles to sell whatever he pleases, and even lower than the GCN if he felt like it?

I don't agree with everything Pachter says or suggests, but his idea about Nintendo going third party - while extreme and potentially harmful - was an idea for lethargic, timid and sometimes paralyzed Nintendo to light a fire under their ass. Get something moving. I don't completely agree with the idea, but I understand why Pachter wants this company to do something radically different than what they've been doing.

And it's not about number boasting in the end. It hurts the developers and the variety and output of games, and their chances of success on future consoles becomes even murkier. When highly anticipated Wii U exclusives like Mario Kart 8 and SSBU (their top sellers) end up selling worse than Call of Duty: Ghosts and Advanced Warfare on the PS4/X1, you know that low console sales is really hurting the potential of those Wii U games. While the attach rate of those games seem good, they could've been much higher with a bigger install base to start from - something every fan of those games would've liked to see. And how does someone who worked passionately on MK8 feel seeing an annual and multiplatform COD game outsell MK8 just on the PS4 alone? You think that's okay or normal? You seriously think there is nothing that Nintendo needs to work on?

In this is the entire fucking problem with the industry which I have driven into peoples heads over and over again.. The expectations of the industry are completely fucking outrageous.. In which every game has to be compared to juggernauts like the CoD series to be successful, even though it is not sustainable.. No I do not think so WHAT so ever if your going to compare it to massive juggernauts, because there is more to the industry than making as much profit within as little time as possible.. Not only is it unsustainable but it is had devs like Crytek making absolute generic awful games in pushing for the bottom line.. its like the MMO genre.. Before World of Warcraft.. Anything from 500k to alittle bit over a million subscribers was seen as a healthy and sustainable game.. When WoW came out it broke expectations to the extreme, as we all know.. The problem? This wasn't seen as a aberration but a new standard which has had devs creating massive budgets and streamlining games to some how reach 10 million subscribers in which no MMO before this.. Leading to themepark MMO's that were all too similar, and most literally CRASHING AND burning within a few years of its release.. This has led to the bastardization of beloved games that were successful before this, just not at the money grubbing levels of the highest grossing series at this time that have become painfully derivative and repetitive. It's this fucking mentality that has created abominations like the mobile Dungeon Keeper game from EA.. They read a spread sheet, saw mobile games were building, so lets take a successful and beloved franchise and bastardize it to match the kinds of success of Clash of Clans..

You don't need to some how surpass what other games done if the game is promoting a profit and keeping a healthy user base.. And gamers are catching on as well with the absolute explosion of the kickstarter and indie market in which smaller devs who don't have corporate jackasses breathing down their necks in producing a product that absolutely MUST sell 5 million to even be considered ok, all while cutting corners and rehashing the same shit over again.. Too much money is corrupting the industry to the point that execs who have absolutely no knowledge in game outside of reading spread sheets is pushing for the bottom line.. We have seen this with EA, Crytek, Ubisoft etc etc.. Do you seriously think its normal or ok? And so what your saying is basically in the end of the day is the dev cares only about money.. Not that he/she wants to produce a game with its own niche market that is sustainable and doesn't have corporate jackasses breathing down their necks.. Have you heard the horror stories from companies like Ubisoft and EA in how they treat their devs? These people don't fucking take it personally when a game sells less than another, they are just feeling fucking lucky if their game meets all too often the unrealistic and stupid expectation set by the publisher so they can keep their jobs. Give me Divinity Original Sin niche games over the mainstream AAA franchises that has stupidity and dumbed down mechanics hammered into the end user just so they can cover their over the top budgets for "cinematic" experiences.

What exactly is it that you're saying?

That Nintendo should be content to be continually shrinking its business as long as it's making a profit? I'm not sure if you're aware, but the entire point of a business is to expand and grow to attempt to attain higher profits. Nintendo's not doing this. Aside from the aberration that was the Wii, each Nintendo console system has seen a down slope in sales, with the U currently tracking to be the worst selling one they've ever made.

"You don't need to some how surpass what other games done if the game is promoting a profit and keeping a healthy user base."

Then you and I are seeing a different reality. Keeping a healthy user-base? Nintendo is losing more of a user-base every gen if you take the Wii out of the equation. Profit isn't good enough in business, a viable sustainable business requires growth and change to keep up with the ever changing market. You can have a business run by two people making a profit, but so what? Would it be making as much as if it were being run by 1,000 instead? No. Profit is important, but it's contingent upon continual expansion, modernization, and sustainable growth. This is the danger for Nintendo, because they are largely failing to accomplish this. They especially sat content on their hands back when all the Wii $ was flowing in, doing nothing to get ready for what was to come, which they are now paying the price for. An unbelievable major oversight of leadership.

If you were to view Nintendo in a vacuum absent of Sony and MS, they'd still be doing poorly when contrasted to the general tendency of their decline since the early eighties (sans one system).....they are performing worse each time. Shrinking. That is bad news for any company. You speak of Nintendo being expected to live up to these unsustainable expectations set by the competition......hell, Nintendo hasn't been able to live up to their OWN expectations. They've missed numerous forecasts, not too far off in the past, at one time having to slice expected sales by what...70%?

So what do you want? Are you content with Nintendo shrinking and shrinking until they're eventually at 10% of the capacity they are today as long as at that point they are still bringing in a minuscule profit? Would you be happy if they shrunk to a little shack on a street corner, soldering boards together, programmed by Iwata, and sold them for a .75$ profit? Hey, it's still a profit, right? Or would you prefer like to see them aggressively pursue growing their business in their own unique direction to see that profit return from their fullest potential?

You cannot just view profit in and of itself as a good thing. It is hugely dependent on the context it comes from.

I think Mirko already did a great job above explaining why profits are not about hitting some number just to flash around or contribute to prideful feelings. All companies want and need to sell a certain amount to not only break even, but go beyond that point to actually begin earning real profit. It also determines the future of many of these games. Wonderful 101 or ZombiU not being able to pass 1 million is a disappointment to fans of that game and the studio. Gamers may likely never see any sequel just because Platinum and Ubisoft did not make enough to recover costs (and the low sales seems to indicate to them an overall tepid interest in their new IP, making the chance for a sequel pretty much zero). And you also seem to forget how much money from these sales don't even go straight into the pockets of Nintendo, Sony, MS and gaming studios. A significant portion of every game or console sale goes right to Amazon, Target, Walmart, Best Buy, etc. Throw in overhead costs and we can easily see that making a profit is hard, and this isn't a new thing. It's been a hard all the time - since you were playing Goldeneye 64, GTA III or Halo 1 back in the day (and there were no Kickstarters or indies, so for every curse you have for today's "restrictive" or "destructive" industry, there are also options and channels that exist for creative devs that weren't there before too).

And while 18.5 million console sales for the PS4 sounds great, you now need to take that revenue and begin chopping it in half (I don't know the actual retailer cut for consoles, but for now, just imagine how much Sony doesn't get back, despite those record-high numbers). Once again, you have to sell quite a few just to begin making meaningful profit for the company.

No you do not. You can lower your costs and make smaller budget games.. Budget does not equate to quality.. In fact many would argue as these games get more expensive they are getting more streamlined and dumbed down..

These are not whimsically-determined numbers pulled out of the air by gamers. It will depend on the game and manufacturing costs for each console, but there are certain averages that they should be hitting.

Bioshock Infinite or GTA V selling 1-2 million across all platforms is just not good enough.

Wrong, it depends entirely on the budget.. That is the problem I am pointing out.. That these games are getting so astronomically expensive that it requires absurd goals to be made.. We aren't talking about 1 to 2 million sold.. We are talking about the expectations of selling 5 to 10 million+ for brand new franchises..

That's disastrous. It will jeopardize the future of the series if every GTA, Halo and Uncharted only sold 1-2 million.

... Your talking about established franchises with massive budgets.. The original GTA, Halo and Uncharted did not have expectations far from that.. They are established.. But quite literally we are getting devs and publishers pushing for a EXPECTED 5 to 10 million+ easy on new games because they sunk a fortune in it.. A fortune I might add that has caused them to take little to no risks what so ever.. Outside the fact that dumbasses would eat up their shitty copies of games.

We wouldn't even be getting the many AAA sequels that we've enjoyed if the studios were not successful and profitable in the first place.

You make that sound as if it is a bad thing.. When it isn't.. AAA has been synomous with streamline, dumbed down, "cinematic" garbage.. Games that have become too big to fail because they will sink the company that is pushing it through. I don't know what the biggest tragedy, that the one company who refuses to jump on the shitty streamlined bandwagon is struggling for the first time in decades, or that shitty games like Bioshock Infinite (another AAA) is seen as successful even though it falls into the exact same typical shit that we have been seeing for years.. Meanwhile a single guy who developed a simple game in comparison, Minecraft, has sold infinitely more and is one of the most recognized games out there.. All with a minuscule budget. I always felt this doom and gloom to be incredibly shortsighted and ironic.. After the amount of struggling Sony and Microsoft have gone through the past decade.. In which Sony took MASSIVE losses and so did Microsoft's gaming division..

Right there you can tell there is a very real, objective number that exists.

No there isn't.. Your talking out of your ass now.. Lets look at the MMO genre, really the easiest example we can look at.. Before WoW the MMO genre was niche but very healthy with successful ones ranging in from around 500k to 1 million subscribers. WoW comes out and becomes a instant hit netting upwards to 10 million subscribers.. This suddenly becomes the fucking benchmark that numerous MMOs budgeted for in trying to copy.. SWTOR is a huge example of this.. In what fucking world is that considered a "real" and "reachable" objective to suddenly put that kind of expectation which was nonexistent up until recently for one game? It is why we saw numerous devs try to hop onto the bandwagon in trying to copy WoW's success more or less, and failing miserably.. Not just for being medicore games, but having ridiculous expectations.

Like I said, how many millions of units needed will vary, depending on the game, studio and other factors, but it's a real set point that isn't defined by some random guy on the computer. Sure, 1-2 million of anything sounds like a lot, but I know that's just not enough to cover production costs for many AAA games. Again, not a new thing, or exclusive to gaming. Movies require a certain amount of ticket sales and success in the home video market, and TV requires a certain level of viewership. Newspapers and magazines need good circulation to continue, and restaurants need patronage. None of them would enjoy dwindling numbers.

That is EXACTLY my damned point that seems to be going over your head.. AAA Franchises are NOT sustainable for a number of reasons. A) Extremely high production costs B) Extremely high expectations. C) Due to A and B the developer is UNWILLING to take risks and continues to regurgitate the same thing.. Until consumers stop buying it, leading to their collapse.. This is fucking text book.. Look at Crytek's history.. Crysis 1 outsold their realistic expecations.. But they didn't like it and felt they could make more money.. Fast forward to Ryse, a shitty QTE game that cost a fortune and barely sold because it was crap.. ARE WE SEEING patterns here folks?

If you're saying greedy video game publishers like EA and Ubisoft have deranged the original purpose and heart of gaming, making budgets skyrocket and just ruining everything, I will agree that there are examples of greediness, but I also think you're exaggerating.

Exaggerating? We are seeing massive uses of DLC content in milking franchises.. We literally have numerous evidence of the "gaming journalism" in bed with the devs and publishers.. AND FINALLY these are publicly traded companies.. Their goal is to make as much money as possible to make their shareholders and board happy. PERIOD. They would sell dog shit in a box if they could get away with it.

I'm willing to bet in the last five years you've enjoyed quite a few high budget AAA games.

Yes, but as time goes on less and less for the specific reasons I am pointing out.. They are becoming the same fucking games.... Is it little wonder that the indie market is literally exploding these past few years? There are of course good ORIGINAL titles in the AAA franchises, but they are getting less and less as time goes on.

You said yourself you prefer the PC over PS4/X1, so I imagine you have a good set up to enjoy the best visuals that you can possibly get.

Nope midrange system.

Well, that didn't come free or cheap at all, and the high production values we like in franchises like Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed, Batman Arkham and other games wouldn't happen if the studios that created them constantly put up dismally low figures with their previous games.

... Uh what? Mass Effect and Batman Arkham were not ground breaking visual games.. They never were, even at their release.... Mass Effect 1: Smallest budget of the series, actually sold the most.. The sales dwindled down overall through the second and third installment.. Assassin's Creed: The latest one is considered one of the largest disappointments in the franchise and isn't selling well due to negative pub.. This isn't about putting dismally low figures.. This is about having realistic BUDGETS AND EXPECTATIONS..

Furthermore define "dismally" low expectations.. Because just recently a rpg for instance that came out with more content than most AAA's, Divinity Original Sin,sold past sales expectations by selling 1 to 2 million copies for a SINGLE platform. Something your trying to claim isn't correct or is a failure. Than we have a group of modders who did Black Mesa Source for freaking FREE with more polish than top budgeted AAA games..

And when I mentioned that MK8 or SSBU were not hitting higher numbers, I don't mean to make it sound like they were complete failures. Clearly many people bought and enjoyed those games. But as Mirko mentioned, even comparing it to Nintendo's own past sales (who themselves are supposed to be juggernauts, to use your description), it could've and should've been better. Not to momentarily reward some ego, but to reward the devs and Nintendo, and to enough gain profit to comfortably finance whatever future projects (and creative risks) they wish to take on.

And there it is folks on why this logic needs to fucking die.. Its economics people.. You have a budget.. You use this budget for said service to create a profit.. And if the costs to do said thing are greater than profit, you adjust accordingly.. With this kind of logic every indie dev, every small developer out there should never have started.. Because obviously they "deserve" to be rewarded.. This is a damn business, "reward" has absolutely fucking NOTHING to do with creating a sustainable business and industry.. The fact of the matter is this.. It took many of the morons out there to realize after gamersgate that the "gaming journalism" was in bed with the developers and publishers.. That is the point.. These games are just costing a fortune to make now but they are spending a fortune to advertise and push for pre-orders..

Profits, consumer satisfaction, growth. This is kind of the universal language of business that Google, Apple, MS, Sony, Nintendo, Samsung and everyone else agrees upon. Not sure why these simple rules suddenly need to be reevaluated when even Nintendo fans agreed upon them at the start. When the Wii U was about to launch two years ago, no one said "I hope all of these third parties leave right away, and the Wii U hardware and software sales are the lowest in Nintendo's history, and the overall MK8 and SSBU's sales potential is clipped short and ends up lower than the GCN totals."

Yet again point went right over your head.. This isn't about Nintendo shrinking, this is about Nintendo actually creating their own path instead of going into the AAA circle jerk.. In which these companies are releasing sub par games at enourmous budgets of games we really have been playing for over 7 years.. All while giving "gaming journalists" nice kickbacks just so they can promote their product so you dupes can pre-order this shit not realizing it was a unfinished game until you already have it... This is causing a bubble in which these games are getting too big that if they were to fail the publisher/dev group would go bankrupt... Capcom is a fucking huge example of this entire trend.. Of dumbing down of franchises (or outright abandoning them) in the goal for massive sales increase by creating poor games because they just happened to notice the CoD bandwagon is going strong.. That is the problem with the industry currently, namely the AAA market.. It has become a industry of bandwagon trends all to appease executives and stockholders in giving their next massive pay day.. It isn't suddenly coincidence with the explosion of popularity with games like Clash of Clans that we are seeing all these companies like EA trying to hop onto the mobile market in creating shitty games.