The Wrong Time And Place: Why Wii Was Nintendo’s Biggest Failure(liisten.com)
liisten.com
The Wrong Time And Place: Why Wii Was Nintendo’s Biggest Failure
http://liisten.com/the-wrong-time-and-place-why-wii-was-nintendos-biggest-failure
18 comments
Critics seem to say every console launch is a failure. I'm actually continually amazed to constantly read the same stories again and again and again. You'd think eventually people would wise up a bit. :(
Well, as they say, the trend is their friend and the sales fell off a cliff.
>Nintendo's console sold just 57,000 units in January, managing to up that number to 64,000 in February.
By comparison, the 7.5 year old XBox 360 sold 302,000 and 281,000 in Jan and Feb respectively.
>Nintendo's console sold just 57,000 units in January, managing to up that number to 64,000 in February.
By comparison, the 7.5 year old XBox 360 sold 302,000 and 281,000 in Jan and Feb respectively.
Yes, the numbers for the WiiU in January and February were pretty low. But, I think that it does make sense for a new console with practically no games available to sell less than a mature console with a catalogue of hundreds of games. As I said in my previous comment, I think it is still too early to know if the WiiU will be successful or not.
Also, it seems like the numbers you mention are for North America only, were the XBox 360 has been most successful. If you look at the global numbers, the WiiU still sold less than the XBox 360 but no so bad as it looks when looking only at North America:
XBox 360 January + February: about 850 thousand units http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&star...
WiiU January + February: about 400 thousand units http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&star...
Also, it seems like the numbers you mention are for North America only, were the XBox 360 has been most successful. If you look at the global numbers, the WiiU still sold less than the XBox 360 but no so bad as it looks when looking only at North America:
XBox 360 January + February: about 850 thousand units http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&star...
WiiU January + February: about 400 thousand units http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&star...
The Xbox 360 has games people want to play. The Wii U is currently lacking in that department.
Every major game console for ~10 years has had this issue, and they never seem to learn, and it is actually really relatable in the HN tetchy startup side of things : if you don't have a killer app, you won't drive adoption. Like how Halo is the Xbox killer app, Mario is the Wii killer app, etc. Same with the 3ds and Pokemon. If you want a new console launch to look spectacular, launch it with a platform exclusive of your killer franchise. If the Wii U, for example, launched with the next Zelda game on release, it would have probably crushed Wii sales.
Every major game console for ~10 years has had this issue, and they never seem to learn, and it is actually really relatable in the HN tetchy startup side of things : if you don't have a killer app, you won't drive adoption. Like how Halo is the Xbox killer app, Mario is the Wii killer app, etc. Same with the 3ds and Pokemon. If you want a new console launch to look spectacular, launch it with a platform exclusive of your killer franchise. If the Wii U, for example, launched with the next Zelda game on release, it would have probably crushed Wii sales.
"Maybe it's the desire for official Nintendo games to come to iOS and Android that's coloring my opinions, but it seems like the writing is on the wall for some form of mobile gaming to eventually and completely push consoles to the side."
I understand where this "Nintendo must get into mobile" idea comes from. Folks look around on the subway and see that everyone is on their smart phones, and many are playing games. It's still very unclear to me however, to what extent smart phones are affecting Nintendo's business, and how Nintendo should adjust their business model in response.
Nintendo just announced[1] that Fire Emblem: Awakening for the 3DS smashed franchise sales records, selling 180k copies in the first month (a month plagued by shortages[2]) and selling more than a third of those units via their own digital distribution store. For perspective the lifetime sales of the previous Fire Emblem title was only 250k.
This game is selling out at $40 and 1/3 of the sales are online sales that they don't have to share with anyone else (still $40!). One of the main reasons why I don't think Nintendo should become a software only is company that I don't see how they can remain as profitable if they had to adjust their prices for the realities of the iOS market and had to share their profits with Apple. The most profitable games on mobile stores are free to play titles, and while I think Nintendo should experiment here and develop their own F2P games to test that market, I don't see why they couldn't do that on their own platform.
[1] http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/14/3dss-fire-emblem-awakening... [2]http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=511036&highligh...
I understand where this "Nintendo must get into mobile" idea comes from. Folks look around on the subway and see that everyone is on their smart phones, and many are playing games. It's still very unclear to me however, to what extent smart phones are affecting Nintendo's business, and how Nintendo should adjust their business model in response.
Nintendo just announced[1] that Fire Emblem: Awakening for the 3DS smashed franchise sales records, selling 180k copies in the first month (a month plagued by shortages[2]) and selling more than a third of those units via their own digital distribution store. For perspective the lifetime sales of the previous Fire Emblem title was only 250k.
This game is selling out at $40 and 1/3 of the sales are online sales that they don't have to share with anyone else (still $40!). One of the main reasons why I don't think Nintendo should become a software only is company that I don't see how they can remain as profitable if they had to adjust their prices for the realities of the iOS market and had to share their profits with Apple. The most profitable games on mobile stores are free to play titles, and while I think Nintendo should experiment here and develop their own F2P games to test that market, I don't see why they couldn't do that on their own platform.
[1] http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/14/3dss-fire-emblem-awakening... [2]http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=511036&highligh...
Have you seen Square Enix's pricing in the app store? They charge 20-30 dollars a game. I think Nintendo could get away with a 30 dollar Mario game in the app store.
Nintendo currently sells Mario at $40. A move to $30 would be profitable if Nintendo makes 33% more sales (ignoring costs). Do you really think Mario would sell 33% better on Android than it does on the 3DS?
Mind you, the majority of Nintendo Fans have a 3DS already.
Mind you, the majority of Nintendo Fans have a 3DS already.
Another issue that is never addressed when discussing whether Nintendo should become a software only company and develop for mobile is whether their most successful products are even all that suitable for mobile devices. Would the user experience of playing Nintendo games actually improve on a touch screen smart phone?
Ironically, Advanced Wars and Fire Emblem, Nintendo's tactical RPG entires, can go on touchscreen just fine. A few others (such as Elite Beat Agents) would arguably do better on the Smartphone platform.
But this is definitely the minority of the games that Nintendo makes. The thought of playing something moderately fast-pace like "Mario Tennis" on a touch screen scares me. There isn't enough precision, and no touch screen is as responsive as a controller yet.
The major brands: Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Kid Icarus, Donkey Kong require speed and precision beyond that of the touchscreen. Let alone the issue of blocking the screen as you play the game.
But this is definitely the minority of the games that Nintendo makes. The thought of playing something moderately fast-pace like "Mario Tennis" on a touch screen scares me. There isn't enough precision, and no touch screen is as responsive as a controller yet.
The major brands: Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Kid Icarus, Donkey Kong require speed and precision beyond that of the touchscreen. Let alone the issue of blocking the screen as you play the game.
I think if they were added on both Android and iOS, they would sell much better. I know many, many people that are fan enough to shell out money for these games, but not fan enough (anymore) to get a dedicated console, portable or otherwise, myself included.
Not the complete story either.
Fire Emblem: Awakening has paid DLC, that is very tempting to buy if you're a Fire Emblem fan. Lucina's full story is available in paid DLC, and the only way to experience it is to purchase those maps.
Anyone who has finished the game will know the importance of Lucina's character. (Spoiler alert btw: don't look her up if you haven't gotten to chapter 14 yet).
Fire Emblem: Awakening has paid DLC, that is very tempting to buy if you're a Fire Emblem fan. Lucina's full story is available in paid DLC, and the only way to experience it is to purchase those maps.
Anyone who has finished the game will know the importance of Lucina's character. (Spoiler alert btw: don't look her up if you haven't gotten to chapter 14 yet).
[deleted]
> The most profitable games on mobile stores are free to play titles
Any evidence to support this? Generally curious.
Any evidence to support this? Generally curious.
There's what you can observe for yourself: on the iOS App Store, there are three "top" lists--Top Free and Top Paid (both of which measure downloads), and Top Grossing. Top Grossing is saturated with free-to-play.
Sooooooooo let me get this straight.
Nintendo is disappointing us because they're not leaving the TV set and going into mobile, and Apple is disappointing us daily because they're not leaving the mobile space and going into the living rooms with a TV set.
Sound about right?
Nintendo is disappointing us because they're not leaving the TV set and going into mobile, and Apple is disappointing us daily because they're not leaving the mobile space and going into the living rooms with a TV set.
Sound about right?
I bought Fire Emblem, and I'm having quite a bit of fun. If there wasn't a demo I'm not sure I would have.
It should be noted that there is a good reason 1/3 of people bought it online: supply was too low. I would have bought the physical game but it simply wasn't available.
It should be noted that there is a good reason 1/3 of people bought it online: supply was too low. I would have bought the physical game but it simply wasn't available.
A bolder move than the Wii U would have been to completely flip the tables and infiltrate the cellphone gaming market.
So, mindlessly following the fad du jour is what passes for bold nowadays? Bullshit. Let's think it through. Imagine we suddenly decided to give up control over Nintendo's whole product. Instead, we put our ass on a plate for Apple and Samsung, primadonnas par excellance. All that for the privilege of becoming suppliers for a market of undiscriminating, volatile buyers, very reticent to part ways with their money. Of course, we would give Apple & Samsung at the very least a 15% cut, and completely alienate a devote user base that has very deep pockets. Not to mention our first-rate talent [1], who would either be pissed off and go to Sony/Microsoft, or just be easily acquired by any other insipid mobile development gaming startup with deep pockets. Add to that your product being trivial to copy, now.
Sounds familiar? This is just the Wii, recasting Apple/Samsung in the role of Nintendo, and Nintendo in the role of those shitty third-party developers no-one gives a fuck for today, desperately begging for a Rovio-style massive luck out. Congratulations, we just made millions for our competitors, while simultaneously blowing the fucking Mariana's Trench on our feet. Even Emperor Hiro Hito would think it too much kamikaze.
[1] This would be the finisher. Like Sony shitting over Square-Enix. Lose Miyamoto, Kondo, Aonuma... and you're done.
So, mindlessly following the fad du jour is what passes for bold nowadays? Bullshit. Let's think it through. Imagine we suddenly decided to give up control over Nintendo's whole product. Instead, we put our ass on a plate for Apple and Samsung, primadonnas par excellance. All that for the privilege of becoming suppliers for a market of undiscriminating, volatile buyers, very reticent to part ways with their money. Of course, we would give Apple & Samsung at the very least a 15% cut, and completely alienate a devote user base that has very deep pockets. Not to mention our first-rate talent [1], who would either be pissed off and go to Sony/Microsoft, or just be easily acquired by any other insipid mobile development gaming startup with deep pockets. Add to that your product being trivial to copy, now.
Sounds familiar? This is just the Wii, recasting Apple/Samsung in the role of Nintendo, and Nintendo in the role of those shitty third-party developers no-one gives a fuck for today, desperately begging for a Rovio-style massive luck out. Congratulations, we just made millions for our competitors, while simultaneously blowing the fucking Mariana's Trench on our feet. Even Emperor Hiro Hito would think it too much kamikaze.
[1] This would be the finisher. Like Sony shitting over Square-Enix. Lose Miyamoto, Kondo, Aonuma... and you're done.
I don't see how any of that calls into question whether or not the Wii was successful (as a product, it succeeded by every measure). The Wii U failing on it's own merit certainly opens up Nintendo to criticism about the choices they made, but calling the Wii a failure by way of pointing fingers at it's ancestors doesn't seem to fit for me.
This article is stupid in stupid ways. Nintendo has the largest share of the portable handheld market with its handhelds, and is also the only profitable arm of the company right now.
Partnering with Samsung / Apple would be resigning their position, and then forcing their games to be sold at the $5 / game level to compete in Samsung / Apple's marketplace.
Nintendo continues to make a profit selling $40 games on their handheld system. Why should they give up the revenue advantage on their custom platform?
Partnering with Samsung / Apple would be resigning their position, and then forcing their games to be sold at the $5 / game level to compete in Samsung / Apple's marketplace.
Nintendo continues to make a profit selling $40 games on their handheld system. Why should they give up the revenue advantage on their custom platform?
Depends how you define the portable handheld market. If you mean to say that they are beating Sony, then yes, if you add tablets and phones to the mix, then no, not at all. There is reason for them to worry, even if 3DS will have games that mobile devices won't. Here at the office, most of coworkers' kids are perfectly fine with playing on the iPad, while the DS sits in the corner, that's not good. And tablets don't need to take the entire portable gaming market, they just need to take a chunk to really hurt Nintendo.
Same way as every game console: PCs and Macs have always been excluded from "game console" markets, despite the fact that multi-million dollar games are PC-exclusive (ie: SimCity, Starcraft).
I can't even think of a single multi-million dollar title for handhelds, outside of Bejeweled (which existed long before the smartphone era). Tablets / Phones need games on them for sure, and the market is there... but I'm not really seeing anyone get to the revenue levels of Nintendo games.
I can't even think of a single multi-million dollar title for handhelds, outside of Bejeweled (which existed long before the smartphone era). Tablets / Phones need games on them for sure, and the market is there... but I'm not really seeing anyone get to the revenue levels of Nintendo games.
That was the traditional way of looking at the mobile gaming market. You miss the elephant in the room if you just consider 'consoles'. Reality is that iPads and iPhones already took a chunk of what was traditionally a Nintendo market segment. This is a trend that will probably continue (tablets and smart-phones will be more pervasive). There will be people (I know some already) who would ordinarily have bought a Nintendo gaming system but won't because the tablet is good enough.
Then they aren't gamers.
Gamers require precision in their controls first of all, and they also require that their fingers don't cover half the screen while playing. There are no good fighting games on tablets / smartphones. There are no platformers. The FPS experience absolutely blows in comparison to anything else.
No one buys a Smartphone / Tablet to game. No one goes out and seeks the iPad for the perfect "Angry Birds" experience. No one picks the Galaxy Note 2 to get a leg up in "Draw Something".
As I stated before, yes, Tablets / Smartphones eat a bit into the Nintendo handheld market. But so did dumb Cell phones in the past with Bejeweled. Indeed: Bejeweled was a paid app with 75 million purchases and 150+ million downloads... its success far exceeds even Angry Birds of today.
But go back to the early 2000s, and lets see you argue that the cell phones should be included in the market share of "handheld consoles". They are a different market. People don't buy Tablets or Smartphones to "game". Tablets and Smartphones are useful devices yes, but they satisfy a different market.
No gamer worth his salt will be satisfied with poor touchscreen controls with an internal compass and accelerometer. The fact that the Wii / DS managed to get a few dozen million "temporary fans" who were wow'd by that sort of thing is interesting... but that is not the market that will support the gaming industry in the long term.
Gamers require precision in their controls first of all, and they also require that their fingers don't cover half the screen while playing. There are no good fighting games on tablets / smartphones. There are no platformers. The FPS experience absolutely blows in comparison to anything else.
No one buys a Smartphone / Tablet to game. No one goes out and seeks the iPad for the perfect "Angry Birds" experience. No one picks the Galaxy Note 2 to get a leg up in "Draw Something".
As I stated before, yes, Tablets / Smartphones eat a bit into the Nintendo handheld market. But so did dumb Cell phones in the past with Bejeweled. Indeed: Bejeweled was a paid app with 75 million purchases and 150+ million downloads... its success far exceeds even Angry Birds of today.
But go back to the early 2000s, and lets see you argue that the cell phones should be included in the market share of "handheld consoles". They are a different market. People don't buy Tablets or Smartphones to "game". Tablets and Smartphones are useful devices yes, but they satisfy a different market.
No gamer worth his salt will be satisfied with poor touchscreen controls with an internal compass and accelerometer. The fact that the Wii / DS managed to get a few dozen million "temporary fans" who were wow'd by that sort of thing is interesting... but that is not the market that will support the gaming industry in the long term.
>No gamer worth his salt will be satisfied with poor touchscreen controls with an internal compass and accelerometer.
I am making a distinction between mobile consoles (e.g. PSP, DS, Gameboy) and home consoles like the Xbox, PS3 and Wii. I think the latter group is safe, for now. There are very good reasons to have home consoles, in addition to tablets and smartphones. It's the former that's under threat. Anecdotally, I've seen what friends' and coworkers' kids (ages: 5-14) get excited about. We've talked about how they seem to be content with the current game library on the app stores and don't really care about mobile consoles. Furthermore, I've seen more kids playing on a smart phone, or a tablet, next to their moms out in public, than I've seen them play on a DS or equivalent. This is bad news for Nintendo. Again, it isn't necessary for mobile devices to take the entire market, if they take a chunk, it hurts Nintendo incredibly. The hardcore mobile console gamer market, isn't nearly as big as you think it is. Certainly not big enough to sustain the entire industry. Finally, smartphones and tablets are only going to get more ubiquitous and they are going to get even better, making it that much harder to justify spending extra money on a mobile console and that much harder to justify lugging yet another devices around (in addition to your smartphone and tablet).
>No one buys a Smartphone / Tablet to game. No one goes out and seeks the iPad for the perfect "Angry Birds" experience.
No they don't. They pick-up smartphones and tablets for multitude of other reasons and get a gaming platform for free. This has the effect of expanding the gaming market by turning people who would never have purchased a mobile consoles into mobile gamers (e.g. me), but more importantly I believe it also cannibalizes existing market in that there is a segment of population that would ordinarily buy a mobile console, now will not as they are content with the game selection on their tablet/smart phone.
>But go back to the early 2000s, and lets see you argue that the cell phones should be included in the market share of "handheld consoles".
I wouldn't do that because realistically they didn't impact sales of mobile consoles, unlike modern smartphones and tablets. They were also under-powered, clumsy devices with a tiny low resolution screen and no easy way of loading any programs onto them, again, completely unlike modern smartphones and tablets.
I am making a distinction between mobile consoles (e.g. PSP, DS, Gameboy) and home consoles like the Xbox, PS3 and Wii. I think the latter group is safe, for now. There are very good reasons to have home consoles, in addition to tablets and smartphones. It's the former that's under threat. Anecdotally, I've seen what friends' and coworkers' kids (ages: 5-14) get excited about. We've talked about how they seem to be content with the current game library on the app stores and don't really care about mobile consoles. Furthermore, I've seen more kids playing on a smart phone, or a tablet, next to their moms out in public, than I've seen them play on a DS or equivalent. This is bad news for Nintendo. Again, it isn't necessary for mobile devices to take the entire market, if they take a chunk, it hurts Nintendo incredibly. The hardcore mobile console gamer market, isn't nearly as big as you think it is. Certainly not big enough to sustain the entire industry. Finally, smartphones and tablets are only going to get more ubiquitous and they are going to get even better, making it that much harder to justify spending extra money on a mobile console and that much harder to justify lugging yet another devices around (in addition to your smartphone and tablet).
>No one buys a Smartphone / Tablet to game. No one goes out and seeks the iPad for the perfect "Angry Birds" experience.
No they don't. They pick-up smartphones and tablets for multitude of other reasons and get a gaming platform for free. This has the effect of expanding the gaming market by turning people who would never have purchased a mobile consoles into mobile gamers (e.g. me), but more importantly I believe it also cannibalizes existing market in that there is a segment of population that would ordinarily buy a mobile console, now will not as they are content with the game selection on their tablet/smart phone.
>But go back to the early 2000s, and lets see you argue that the cell phones should be included in the market share of "handheld consoles".
I wouldn't do that because realistically they didn't impact sales of mobile consoles, unlike modern smartphones and tablets. They were also under-powered, clumsy devices with a tiny low resolution screen and no easy way of loading any programs onto them, again, completely unlike modern smartphones and tablets.
I have a different amount of anecdotal evidence however, where the majority of my friends have gone out and bought a new 3DS (including multiple co-workers, my sister, her husband, myself, several little cousins of mine...). We all have smartphones: some of us have top-end ones. Some of us have tablets as well. But none of us like the gaming experience of it, and have gone out to get a 3DS... and some have even gotten a PS Vita.
So our personal experiences differ. What else can we go on? If we look at historical sales... then the 3DS is selling exceptionally well right now. And Pokemon White 2 / Black 2 have a combined sales of 7.5 million: consistent with previous "partial remake titles" like Pokemon Yellow, Crystal, or Emerald. (remake titles always have fewer sales... but White2 / Black2 came out in 2012, and are thus a better test of the market today)
It took 5 years for the Gameboy Advance to reach 30 million sales. It only took 2 years for the 3DS to reach 30 million. The handheld gaming market has not shrunk. If anything, the 3DS is doing better today than its Gameboy predecessors.
If the iPhone / Android effected handheld sales... you'd think it have done it by now. Or at very least, you'd expect it to negatively effect the 3DS's sales. Why then is the 3DS selling better today than its previous incarnations?
As an FWI, the 3DS was launched in 2011, well after the iPhone and around the same time as the 2nd generation iPad.
So our personal experiences differ. What else can we go on? If we look at historical sales... then the 3DS is selling exceptionally well right now. And Pokemon White 2 / Black 2 have a combined sales of 7.5 million: consistent with previous "partial remake titles" like Pokemon Yellow, Crystal, or Emerald. (remake titles always have fewer sales... but White2 / Black2 came out in 2012, and are thus a better test of the market today)
It took 5 years for the Gameboy Advance to reach 30 million sales. It only took 2 years for the 3DS to reach 30 million. The handheld gaming market has not shrunk. If anything, the 3DS is doing better today than its Gameboy predecessors.
If the iPhone / Android effected handheld sales... you'd think it have done it by now. Or at very least, you'd expect it to negatively effect the 3DS's sales. Why then is the 3DS selling better today than its previous incarnations?
As an FWI, the 3DS was launched in 2011, well after the iPhone and around the same time as the 2nd generation iPad.
I've lost count of the number of opinion pieces I've read about Nintendo's impending demise or how Nintendo blew their chance etc. etc. I'm talking since the original PS came on the scene. For a company that's been an independent, profitable business for over a century, bloggers, armchair economists and Silicon Valley types don't seem to give them much credit when analyzing their business decisions.
I have also wondered this a lot, but a big thing that's ignored is that a lot of these console/portable games don't translate that well to a touch device. For example, there is a reason why there aren't a lot of great racing games on iOS, and in my opinion it's because tilting the device left and right to steer just isn't as good of a mechanic as a d-pad. I am convinced that a game like MarioKart just would not be as fun without the physical buttons. The same applies to a lot of the classic side scrollers like Mario: without buttons they get a little frustrating. So far the best solution I've seen for porting is to put up virtual buttons, which in my opinion don't work well at all. You need to be looking at the action, not concerned with where your fingers are.
This, along with the focus on casual play, is part of the reason why you have a different class of games succeeding on iOS, such as endless runners. Since the controls are harder to get right on a touch device, we see simpler controls succeeding (such as helicopter style "just touch or don't touch" in Jetpack Joyride or simple swipe/tilt in Temple Run).
Now, that's not to say that:
1. Nintendo couldn't write all new games using their IP/brands/characters custom tailored for iOS/Android/touch. In fact, this would probably be the best approach.
2. Nintendo couldn't think up a way to fix this for existing games.
However, my only point is that the idea that Nintendo could just dump their entire libraries into iOS and resell every game they've ever made is a bit naive. But who knows, maybe they would suck but everyone would buy them anyways because they're "Nintendo". I don't think that's Nintendo's style though. I think Nintendo more so than Apple believes in the idea that if you care about software then you'll make your own hardware, or at least, if you care about software you will tailor the software to the device it is running on.
This, along with the focus on casual play, is part of the reason why you have a different class of games succeeding on iOS, such as endless runners. Since the controls are harder to get right on a touch device, we see simpler controls succeeding (such as helicopter style "just touch or don't touch" in Jetpack Joyride or simple swipe/tilt in Temple Run).
Now, that's not to say that:
1. Nintendo couldn't write all new games using their IP/brands/characters custom tailored for iOS/Android/touch. In fact, this would probably be the best approach.
2. Nintendo couldn't think up a way to fix this for existing games.
However, my only point is that the idea that Nintendo could just dump their entire libraries into iOS and resell every game they've ever made is a bit naive. But who knows, maybe they would suck but everyone would buy them anyways because they're "Nintendo". I don't think that's Nintendo's style though. I think Nintendo more so than Apple believes in the idea that if you care about software then you'll make your own hardware, or at least, if you care about software you will tailor the software to the device it is running on.
Having played Mario Kart on both Wii (with the steering wheel attachment on the controller) and GameCube, I have to agree about the driving games.
I think Nintendo's failure is way more complex than this article makes it appear. It has nothing to do with hardware, but a lack of compelling reasons to buy into the hardware.
If you think way back to the GameCube, they were king of the hill, so to speak. They had the best hardware for gaming and even the most innovative at the time. No one else had wireless controllers for example.
The reason they lost was because they didn't take the threat of the PS2 and Xbox seriously. They ran a decade long empire in console gaming and were caught off guard.
Sony and Microsoft both knew they needed exclusive content and bought all the 3rd party gaming companies that were building AAA games for Nintendo at the time. With no AAA titles from 3rd parties Nintendo had to double-down and create their own. Zelda and Mario can only go so far.
If you think way back to the GameCube, they were king of the hill, so to speak. They had the best hardware for gaming and even the most innovative at the time. No one else had wireless controllers for example.
The reason they lost was because they didn't take the threat of the PS2 and Xbox seriously. They ran a decade long empire in console gaming and were caught off guard.
Sony and Microsoft both knew they needed exclusive content and bought all the 3rd party gaming companies that were building AAA games for Nintendo at the time. With no AAA titles from 3rd parties Nintendo had to double-down and create their own. Zelda and Mario can only go so far.
What? Before the Wii... Nintendo hasn't "dominated" any market since 1995 or earlier.
The PS1 had 100+ million worldwide sales compared to the N64 ~30 million. The PS2 also soundly beat the Gamecube in worldwide sales, and the XBox established itself as a market leader.
The last time Nintendo had dominance in the console wars was the SNES. In fact... one can argue that the 1995 to 2005 decade was Nintendo's worst performance in the console market.
The PS1 had 100+ million worldwide sales compared to the N64 ~30 million. The PS2 also soundly beat the Gamecube in worldwide sales, and the XBox established itself as a market leader.
The last time Nintendo had dominance in the console wars was the SNES. In fact... one can argue that the 1995 to 2005 decade was Nintendo's worst performance in the console market.
So far, the Wii U has been a $350 New Super Mario Bros. U box. It also gave me a way to play my Wii games without hearing the disc sounding like a jet engine (due to something wrong in my original unit's drive).
Where are the games for everyone else? I don't want to kill zombies or take hill #423, and I don't need any more versions of Angry Birds.
Where are the games for everyone else? I don't want to kill zombies or take hill #423, and I don't need any more versions of Angry Birds.
Hang on, let me put my Miyamoto fanboy hat on...there.
A lot of people (including me) are waiting for Pikmin 3 before buying a Wii U. I think that game will open the floodgates.
A lot of people (including me) are waiting for Pikmin 3 before buying a Wii U. I think that game will open the floodgates.
I'm waiting for Pikmin 3 as well before I even consider getting a WiiU. I might wait a bit longer as well, for the next Super Smash Bros and the next installment of Pokemon Stadium (yeah... I know...)
Nintendo Land (their grab-bag minigame compilation) is actually really fun too if you have several people you like to play with.
>> A bolder move than the Wii U would have been to completely flip the tables and infiltrate the cellphone gaming market.
It would have been a bold move, but it may have been disastrous. Right now, the mobile market is owned by Apple, Samsung and Google. They may partner with Nintendo, but on their terms, and always in control of their respective platforms. Furthermore, they don't actually need Nintendo, which means there is only so much concessions Nintendo could gain. So no, there is no guarantee that this strategy will do anything for Nintendo.
I do think however that Nintendo should have some sort of an app presence on mobile devices. Not necessarily putting marquee titles on the respective app stores (although, why not get some exposure and test the waters), but maybe experimenting with second-screen options for the 3DS or Wii U. For example, there is no reason why an iPad or an iPhone cannot play the role of the Wii U GamePad, or why you couldn't play (stream) your NES/SNES games from the Wii store to your android device. There's potential there, but I think Nintendo is too stupid, short-sighted and stubborn to see it.
It would have been a bold move, but it may have been disastrous. Right now, the mobile market is owned by Apple, Samsung and Google. They may partner with Nintendo, but on their terms, and always in control of their respective platforms. Furthermore, they don't actually need Nintendo, which means there is only so much concessions Nintendo could gain. So no, there is no guarantee that this strategy will do anything for Nintendo.
I do think however that Nintendo should have some sort of an app presence on mobile devices. Not necessarily putting marquee titles on the respective app stores (although, why not get some exposure and test the waters), but maybe experimenting with second-screen options for the 3DS or Wii U. For example, there is no reason why an iPad or an iPhone cannot play the role of the Wii U GamePad, or why you couldn't play (stream) your NES/SNES games from the Wii store to your android device. There's potential there, but I think Nintendo is too stupid, short-sighted and stubborn to see it.
I remember Sony trying to pull off Playstation Certified phones but it didn't catch on. They released this services called the PS Mobile and they half assed it and treated it like an extension of the PSN store. Basically, the PS Mobile is a mediocre app store with water downed games.
Nobody besides Microsoft, is going to make a high end mobile device, that updates every year with high end games. Nintendo and Sony are not going to take the risk of going against Apple, Samsung, HTC, and Motorolla. They're losing some money now in order to not lose more money in the llong run. They're investing time to professionally tackling these established mobile companies.
Think about it: if Nintendo doesn't even release a dumb downed version of Pokemon games, Donkey, Kirby, Mario, etc. on "certified" mid-end Android devices that's because they don't want to take a 30% cut on their sales.
The larger demographic is not noticing but we're at that point where it's about online services in a Steam vs. PSN vs. Xbox LIVE world. Until the larger demographic notices this they will squeeze all life from consoles until people move to mobile devices with PC specs capable of running decent games.
You're discrediting the company who took design ideas from flip phones and created the GameBoy Advanced SP. They're obviously waiting for Linux to evolve and for Samsung to get their act together on providing enough high-end chips so their timing is not off. Again, all while losing money but they're not RIM, they've AT LEAST acknowledged making pokemon games in 3D with Pokemon X/Y, they'll make the money back in software.
Nobody besides Microsoft, is going to make a high end mobile device, that updates every year with high end games. Nintendo and Sony are not going to take the risk of going against Apple, Samsung, HTC, and Motorolla. They're losing some money now in order to not lose more money in the llong run. They're investing time to professionally tackling these established mobile companies.
Think about it: if Nintendo doesn't even release a dumb downed version of Pokemon games, Donkey, Kirby, Mario, etc. on "certified" mid-end Android devices that's because they don't want to take a 30% cut on their sales.
The larger demographic is not noticing but we're at that point where it's about online services in a Steam vs. PSN vs. Xbox LIVE world. Until the larger demographic notices this they will squeeze all life from consoles until people move to mobile devices with PC specs capable of running decent games.
You're discrediting the company who took design ideas from flip phones and created the GameBoy Advanced SP. They're obviously waiting for Linux to evolve and for Samsung to get their act together on providing enough high-end chips so their timing is not off. Again, all while losing money but they're not RIM, they've AT LEAST acknowledged making pokemon games in 3D with Pokemon X/Y, they'll make the money back in software.
> A bolder move than the Wii U would have been to completely flip the tables and infiltrate the cellphone gaming market.
Don't judge Nintendo by the Wii and its descendants--consoles are increasingly irrelevant, and "casual game" consoles doubly so. Multiplayer = internet play, these days. Nintendo knows that: the Wii U is a definite niche product, aimed straight at those rare instances when you actually have lots of people in a living room who want to sit around a TV and play the same video game at the same time. Playing games with your kids, or at a party; not fragging d00dz on a leaderboard. It's why the Wii line's online story is so bad: the whole console is aimed at the multiplayer you do offline.
So, as I said, don't judge Nintendo by the Wii. It's not their main business any more. Instead, judge Nintendo by the DS, and its descendants. It's increasingly where all of Nintendo's actual "game" games have gone. And its online story is becoming better and better with each generation--it might actually become a phone one of these days, who knows. (I could see Nintendo buying a Japanese phone company, firing all their industrial+UI designers and putting the DS people in charge, and then building a "Nintendo DS" that happened to internally be an Android phone.)
Don't judge Nintendo by the Wii and its descendants--consoles are increasingly irrelevant, and "casual game" consoles doubly so. Multiplayer = internet play, these days. Nintendo knows that: the Wii U is a definite niche product, aimed straight at those rare instances when you actually have lots of people in a living room who want to sit around a TV and play the same video game at the same time. Playing games with your kids, or at a party; not fragging d00dz on a leaderboard. It's why the Wii line's online story is so bad: the whole console is aimed at the multiplayer you do offline.
So, as I said, don't judge Nintendo by the Wii. It's not their main business any more. Instead, judge Nintendo by the DS, and its descendants. It's increasingly where all of Nintendo's actual "game" games have gone. And its online story is becoming better and better with each generation--it might actually become a phone one of these days, who knows. (I could see Nintendo buying a Japanese phone company, firing all their industrial+UI designers and putting the DS people in charge, and then building a "Nintendo DS" that happened to internally be an Android phone.)
The problem is that we have to value Nintendo as a business and the Wii is costing them money. I'm replying from my phone at the moment but Nintendo is losing money. Hopefully someone else can paste sources. With the wii u performance, the DS family is also at risk.
Why don't they just put a cell radio in the DS? Then parents can call their kids home right in the middle of their video game.
I think the idea of "mobile phones" as a thing is going to pass. They're all just computers that happen to be able to make calls. Put cell radios in laptops and portable gaming systems and no one needs to choose between bringing their phone or their DS, or their phone or their tablet. Almost every computing device should also be a phone, in my opinion.
I think the idea of "mobile phones" as a thing is going to pass. They're all just computers that happen to be able to make calls. Put cell radios in laptops and portable gaming systems and no one needs to choose between bringing their phone or their DS, or their phone or their tablet. Almost every computing device should also be a phone, in my opinion.
Why? Because its not successful. See Neo Geo and Sony Xperia Play.
Every few years, someone tries this exact idea and fails. Plus, I don't want someone interrupting me when I'm in the middle of a Megaman boss. Thats just stupid.
Every few years, someone tries this exact idea and fails. Plus, I don't want someone interrupting me when I'm in the middle of a Megaman boss. Thats just stupid.
The Xperia play probably failed due to relatively weak games available compared to a 3DS. So you have a phone pretending to be a games console, you might do better by adding phone functionality to an already strong gaming system.
Now I'm seeing the potential for the successor to the 3DS to be the (I assume) first 3D videophone device.
I think this is unlikely, but I'm charmed by the idea.
I think this is unlikely, but I'm charmed by the idea.
Fair enough. Seems easy to put an on/off switch on the side, though, like laptops have for wireless. Then you can just turn the phone off during your tough gaming moments.
don't forget the nokia n-gage
Actually... I mean the n-gage. The Neo-Geo was an older system. Just a similar name >_< (both have "n" and a hyphen in it...)
I think I more or less agree with the article. The Microsoft bit (that they are new at manufacturing) is a tad off as the author focuses on Surface even though they've been making peripherals since the 80s and Consoles for over a decade now.
I think another component is that the Wii was a bit cheaper at its launch and its closest competition (price wise) was the aging PS2 and the XBox 360 Core model at $299. The Core model lacked wireless controllers and initially lacked HD capability and I seem to be unable to remember any of my high school friends buying one (though I'm sure they sold well enough on their own), instead opting for the more expensive model.
Today the $299 WiiU has to compete with the still excellent $199 XBox 360 and $270-$350 PS3 Bundle Packs (Console + Games + extra Controller + additional Content). This is a lot harder sell especially since a lot of the multi platform titles are going to look just as good, if not better, on the 360 and PS3.
I think another component is that the Wii was a bit cheaper at its launch and its closest competition (price wise) was the aging PS2 and the XBox 360 Core model at $299. The Core model lacked wireless controllers and initially lacked HD capability and I seem to be unable to remember any of my high school friends buying one (though I'm sure they sold well enough on their own), instead opting for the more expensive model.
Today the $299 WiiU has to compete with the still excellent $199 XBox 360 and $270-$350 PS3 Bundle Packs (Console + Games + extra Controller + additional Content). This is a lot harder sell especially since a lot of the multi platform titles are going to look just as good, if not better, on the 360 and PS3.
Just so its clear, the Wii was a resounding success. Nearly 100 million sold vs 75 mil each for the ps3 and xbox 360
No one could have predicted this level of success, in fact many were complaining that the Wii had low graphics capabilities and thiz would signify its doom
Yet it was succesful since it launched early, was cheaper (and profitable from day one) and had something innovative(wii remote) And they tried to use that same formula this time with the wii u(the new thing is te tablet like controllers) and their sales have been abysmal, but I wouldnt count them oit just yet, i wouldnt be suprised they go into a heavy marketing campaign when the launch of the ps4 is nearer
Yet it was succesful since it launched early, was cheaper (and profitable from day one) and had something innovative(wii remote) And they tried to use that same formula this time with the wii u(the new thing is te tablet like controllers) and their sales have been abysmal, but I wouldnt count them oit just yet, i wouldnt be suprised they go into a heavy marketing campaign when the launch of the ps4 is nearer
Nintendo is like Apple and Pixar, their track record is so phenomenal that they get held to a ridiculous standard.
Couldn't agree with you more. Was saying this in a similar way bit ago here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2901756. IN that thread I was thinking they should buy WebOS and create their own i type device, but that was sometime ago and they invested a ton in the Wii U.
Overall the market has moved to mobile they unfortunately didn't it.
Guess they still could embrace it by making apps for Android and iDevices, ones that turn those devices into Wii U tablets and Wii remotes. Ha ha though your kid using your iPhone as a Wii remote, better have a durable case!
Overall the market has moved to mobile they unfortunately didn't it.
Guess they still could embrace it by making apps for Android and iDevices, ones that turn those devices into Wii U tablets and Wii remotes. Ha ha though your kid using your iPhone as a Wii remote, better have a durable case!
At launch, the PS3 sold about 1.2 million units in November-December 2006 http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&star...
At launch, the WiiU sold about 2.3 million units in November-December 2012 http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&star...
That doesn't look bad at all for the WiiU. Of course, it wasn't as successful as the Wii, which sold at launch about 2.9 million units in November-December 2006 http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&star... but I'd say it was still pretty good.
Furthermore, we are still waiting for most of the interesting games announced for the WiiU to be released (Lego City Undercover, The Wonderful 101, Bayonetta 2), so I think it is far to early to say that the WiiU is a failure. If I remember correctly, many critics also were saying some time ago that the 3DS was a failure!