@MirkoS77: That's on third parties, not Nintendo.
TheMisterManGuy's forum posts
@MirkoS77 said:
Agree with you on pricing, but they’ve always charged premium for their software. As long as the market enables it, they’ll continue to do it.
In regards to software pricing. Nintendo games stay full price for years because of their business model. Unlike Sony or Microsoft, Nintendo hardware is primarily a vehicle for the latest Nintendo software. The first party games are designed to be sold throughout the entire generation, It's not better or worse than the model other companies use. It's just different. Besides, it's the secret to how their games are able to stay in the top 20 even years after their release. With most publishers, the heavy price slashing is not done out of the goodness of their heart, it's to clear retail space for the next big title by pushing older games out.
How many salty troll threads are people going to make about the Switch before people get sick of them?
@uninspiredcup said:
Exactly, the entire experience is intrinsically downgraded by being limited to a Nintendo platform as well as more expensive.
The "vision" afforded by Nintendo is limited compared to what other platforms offer, where limits and constrictions are comparatively non-existent.
Had they abandoned this product, seeking crowdfunding, which they would undoubtedly get, aside from respectable sales, a liberating creative freedom, more people could play an objectively superior product, at a better price.
As it stands, we have another self-hobbled game, with weak sales, on a weak platform.
Talent completely wasted.
Aside from arguably hardware limitations, what exactly did Nintendo do to limit Platinum with Astral Chain? The Most Nintendo did was change the game's scenario from generic fantasy, to a more original Police motif.
100% creative freedom sounds good in Marketing. But it's unfeasible in practice. More often than not, you need limitations to be creative. I'm all for letting the developers do what they want, but there has to be some kind of framework enforced to ensure they're doing a good job.
And what makes you think they wouldn't have limitations on PS4 or Xbox One? Stronger hardware or no, I doubt the game would be all that different as Nintendo is the big reason it exists in the first place. Also, LOL at weak sales since it debuted at No. 1 on the UK charts.
Xenoblade Chronicles is one of those rare games that actually kind of needs a remaster, considering the original was released late in the life of what was essentially an overclocked GameCube.
@MirkoS77 said:
I mean holding a cohesive vision as a company, not simply in a product. Their online and the way they're handling their legacy feels to be an afterthought at best.
I do agree that they still need to do work on online functionality and get more retro games onto the service. But in regards to retro titles at least, there's likely a good reason why they go the drip feed route. If you dump everything onto the user at once, then the user has no incentive to keep using the service and collection because they'll be swamped with titles they don't care about. Releasing only a few games at a time however, encourages users to check back in to play something they might like every month. Long term engagement is the key here. The drip feed can get annoying I'll admit, especially when there are a lot of great NES games they could bring over, but it's completely understandable as to why they take they slow and steady route. And considering this is a paid service, I imagine the same applies to the systems themselves, only adding one retro system at a time is a strategy designed to convince people to renew their subscription, creating a sense that there's more stuff on the way if they keep subscribing for a little while longer.
I get that Nintendo can make baffling decisions, all companies do, but I don't think occasionally doing dumb shit and being weak in one or two areas is a sign of a poorly run company. I don't think a poorly run company, would have the most successful new gaming platform worldwide at the moment with fantastic software attachment ratios. Nintendo has weak spots they should address in the future, yes, but at the moment, they're a mostly well oiled machine with solid leadership in place.
@MirkoS77 said:
Nintendo reeks of a company now run by committee and one mired in bureaucracy. I've seen entire governments get on top of shit faster (hell, entire governments rise and fall) than this Japanese dinosaur of a corporation. Yamauchi was a dictator who got shit done and had balls. He fired a ton of people upon his appointment. Today? Probably a decision that'd take years to make.
I would've agreed during the Wii U days. But the Switch feels like a much more responsive and aware Nintendo than the past. The only real thing they still need to work on is online functionality, but hey they're adding more value to their service, so it's a start.
@MirkoS77 said:
I don't think it much matters who the CEO of Nintendo is nor do I believe it will change how they operate, its corporate culture appears (or at least feels) to lack any real cohesive, strong vision but more feels like it's one that's the product of many people. It's been structured that way to ensure no radical element may come in any rock the boat so heavily as Yamauchi did. Unfortunately, that ensures that much needed change will take forever to happen.
Again, that might have been true in the Wii U days, but that simply isn't the case with the Switch. I honestly don't see how you can look at a product like the Switch and say there's no cohesive vision.
Shuntaro Furukawa has only been President of Nintendo Co. Ltd for almost a year now, and so far it doesn't seem too much different from the Kimishima era, which wasn't that much different from the Iwata era as Kimishima was only ever meant to be a stopgap CEO to keep Nintendo afloat until a proper successor to Iwata could be found.
For a company as fairly big and conservative as Nintendo, it usually takes time for new management to take hold. After all Iwata became head of Nintendo in 2002, and we didn't see him put his full stamp on the company until around 2 years later, when the DS was released, and the GameCube was on its final legs.
So with that in mind, I think sometime around next year is when we'll start to actually see what Furukawa's Nintendo will be like. Furukawa isn't a game developer like Iwata was, but he does come across as a guy who genuinely loves games, citing Golf Story, a niche indie title from some developer in Australia as a recent favorite of his, as well as having grown up of the Famicom/NES as well. So he'll probably put an even greater focus on trying to get Nintendo to develop and produce games of all kinds, and step out of their comfort zone more.
I'm actually impressed that Nintendo's trying to keep their word on adding more value to this service. Tetris 99, the Game Vouchers, Trials, Free bonuses for existing games. They still need to work on improving the actual functionality of the service, but they're actually serious about adding to the service for once, it convinced me to buy a year, and if this keeps up, I may buy another.
@MirkoS77 said:
F-Zero is already distinguished from Kart. It's a futuristic sci-fi-centric, extremely fast-paced racer with an amazing techno soundtrack that's an exhilarating rush, while Kart's more of a family-centric, slower-paced one that exploits the Mushroom Kingdom. They share mechanical similarities due to genre, but they hold appeal to different audiences.
It is, but with Mario Kart 8, it'd be harder to distinguish it since the game already has Zero Gravity and a 200cc mode. A new F-Zero in Nintendo's eyes, would need some form of new gameplay element to not only better stand out from the competition, and Nintendo simply hasn't come up with one yet. Personally, I'd be fine with just an HD GX, but again this is Nintendo, the company who can't seem to release a game unless it's completely unique from anything on the market, or even in their own catalog.
@MirkoS77 said:
Both Kart and F-Zero saw their inception on the SNES, and Nintendo had no trouble whatsoever in distinguishing them in the marketplace right aside each other when they weren't that drastically divergent mechanics-wise. Nor on the GameCube was this a problem. Why now? It is this inconsistency that tends me to view Miyamoto's explanations as a cop out. But I suspect that more of the issue stem from Nintendo's leadership changing from a businessman's hands (Yamauchi) into a creator's (Iwata).
With Mario Kart 8 DX, it's much harder for a new F-Zero to distinguish itself from the other series. Sure, back in the past, it was easier, as stuff like Zero Gravity and 200cc didn't exist in Mario Kart. But these days, there doesn't seem to be any ideas or interest from the development team to try and make a new F-Zero work. Mario Kart 8 is selling well, and if there's no real ideas to take F-Zero in a new direction either from inside or outside the company, then Nintendo doesn't see why they should bother at the moment. Let me make it clear that I'm not saying Nintendo's decision is right or wrong, I'm just giving some perspective as to what they might feel when trying to bring it back.
@MirkoS77 said:
I believe we're both being somewhat disingenuous in downplaying the role of how these franchises sell in how much attention Nintendo accords them. I think we both know that Mario, Zelda, Kart and Smash will never be shelved for a lack of ideas. Not simply because they're IPs that are more conducive to novelty in gameplay, but because they sell well. If F-Zero moved truckloads, I would not be convinced that Nintendo wouldn't keep coming up with new ideas for it.
I think it could very well be possible. My honest opinion? I think we probably won't see an original Mario Kart game on Switch... Ever. Maybe the next console, but I feel the team is more interested in building on ARMS at the moment than coming up with new MK ideas. So in a way, Mario Kart could be shelved for a while despite its great sales.
@MirkoS77 said:
Thing is, gamers don't love IPs solely because they are constantly reinventing themselves. Again, iterative improvements are expected, but people are interested in Starfox because they enjoy blowing shit up in space as Fox McCloud while dodging asteroids, dog fighting spaceships, and trying to shoot down Slippy. I just cannot agree that Nintendo lets these franchise rot because they cannot think of a single thing that would keep it "fresh" to players.
If Nintendo cared only about the sales of their properties, Star Fox would've been dead and buried after Assault Bombed on the GameCube. The fact that they even bothered resurrecting it despite mediocre sales shows Nintendo is willing to use any of their in-house IP if they find a good use for them. 64 3D happened because the team thought the 3DS' 3D was a good fit for Star Fox, same with Zero and the Wii U Gamepad.
@MirkoS77 said:
Metroid has never been one of Nintendo's better sellers; as you probably are aware it's more popular amongst western audiences than eastern. They've never lost money on it, but it's nowhere near the success of Mario Kart. They simply don't see it as all that worth it fiscally and time wise, which again, I disagree with due to my previous point about games assisting an ecosystem.
I don't buy the fact that Nintendo doesn't care about Metroid simply because it doesn't sell. Even if it's less popular than Mario, Nintendo's always seen it as one of their premiere franchises, simply because as you said, it's typically always been a hit in the Western market. They wouldn't have bothered bringing the series back if they didn't see any potential in the series. They even went as far as to publicly update fans on the status of Prime 4's development, and started from scratch with the original developers to ensure that it's the best it can possibly be. All that work from the original build couldn't have been cheap, and restarting development like that was a pretty big risk, but it was a risk Nintendo was willing to take if it means a better product. This really isn't a move that a purely numbers-driven company would've done. Any other publisher would've just canned the game outright, but the fact that Nintendo gave the producers another chance to get it right showed that they care about delivering a great game regardless of the IP's sales history.
@MirkoS77 said:
As for determining which properties to pay more heed to financially, I believe Nintendo should be respectful to their legacy. As for new properties, that's where shrewd business acumen comes into play, and where I believe their cultural insularity is hurting them. Ascertaining and reading the market, recognizing trends, and aligning them with their creative predilections while effecting prudent fiscal allocations respectively. This is precisely what happened with BotW, to great result. But there's always going to be risk involved no matter what they do, that's simply the nature of business.
If you're aiming for commercial success, I agree. This thinking was also applied to Splatoon and ARMS. Creative games with business acumen put into them as well. Splatoon became Nintendo's most successful original property in years, and while ARMS didn't make quite as big a splash, it was still able to win over 2 million people. That said, there will always be ideas and developers that are almost never guaranteed to be a hit either. I think Nintendo should continue taking in those types of games as well. Even if it fails, it still helps bolster the library and provides consumers with more choice, even if its a really niche and unsuccessful choice.
@MirkoS77 said:
When it comes down to it, I'm more arguing it looking at Nintendo and their properties from a business/marketing/fan perspective and you're viewing it from Nintendo's developers' perspective who are being driven by their creative desires. That's fair enough, but I feel that a careful balance needs to be struck in this and that Nintendo is (if what you and Miyamoto say holds water) so creatively focused in adherence to mechanical ingenuity that it's coming at the cost of wasting their potential and losing fans.
I agree with this. As I said, I don't agree or disagree with Nintendo's thought process here, I was simply trying to explain where they're probably coming from. I certainly would like to see Nintendo branch out in terms of the developers they work with. They haven't worked with many western developers who aren't Next Level or Retro in years, so I would like to see them do more in this regard.
Log in to comment