Support NeoGAF

[MisterHero]

The only practical change I want to see are cost cuts. Cut the hardware so it costs $200. Produce software that would look and play really great at that price.

If the Wii U gamepad costs $100-150 by itself, Nintendo should consider replacing it with the 3DS followup and bundle that with the Wii U followup. 2 brand new Nintendo platforms that work together and seperately for $300-350.

I should admit I think a lot of the panic over Nintendo's situation really silly. They screwed up with bloated hardware costs. Their best internal teams are overtaken by individual single games, when they could make 2 or even 3 cheaper games. Despite those two things they are still one of the most efficient companies in the industry, which says a lot more about the industry than it says about them.

 

[JordanN]

Yup, and if the GameCube taught Nintendo anything, it's that if they don't conform to industry norms then they are completely left behind.

Fixed.

Really tired of the myth Gamecube was just like everyone else but it wasn't. There were so many things about its demise that's it's ignorant to place it all on one thing.

You want to know why PS2 did better? Its first requirement was not missing out on one of the most important media formats of all time. Can you say Gamecube did the same?

Even the Wii could have been a failure if Nintendo did not know how to convince the masses why you should use a wiimote (weren't there alot of people doubting it? It was not even seen as an instant success at first). It's not "gimmicks" or being the "same" it's about demonstrating appeal and value.

 

[tim.mbp]

Keep it simple. 3D has prevented the 3DS from having a mass market price and I'm guessing the Gamepad will have the same effect on th Wii U.

 

[radcliff]

Team Hybrid.

Since they can't get third-parties, they can consolidate all their teams on one platform. All your Nintendo games on a single platform.

This might even be enough to sway people who wouldn't buy a 3DS or Wii U, but would buy one piece of hardware for the library of both combined.

This allows them to only have to release a single NSMB, Mario Kart, Smash, etc. on the platform. That means more experimentation, which is better for gamers and ultimately better for Nintendo when they find the next big thing.

They're losing money on the Wii U anyway, so they don't have to worry about "lost profits" from selling hardware.

They gave up on making a console that's cutting edge, so why bother making one at all? That's the one benefit of a larger box over a handheld. And it matters less and less as handheld graphics (3DS and Vita) improve to the level they're at.

Not going to happen, IMO. Why limit themselves to 1 revenue stream when they can have 2? Using Mario Kart for example. The IP sold 57 million copies last gen (23 for the DS version, 34 for the Wii version). If they only have 1 console, they would never be able to achieve those numbers, especially when you consider 1) the Wii and DS were Nintendo's best selling consoles ever and 2) that they only release one game in the MK series per platform. Not to mention the more platforms they have, the more Mario games (Mario & Luigi, Paper Mario, Golf, Tennis, Land, New series, etc.) they can release. Seeing as how Nintendo makes its money on software, the more vehicles they have to release games on, the better.

Nintendo converging their handheld and console development teams is to allow for sharing of assets for more efficient game development. It also provides 3rd parties to make a game for one system and easily up/down port it to the other for better support. The creator of Cosmic Star Heroine recently said he chose PSN over Wii U because releasing a game on PSN gives access to multiple consoles, while releasing on Wii U only gives you access to 1. Two Nintendo consoles (1 handheld and 1 console) with similar architectures will give Nintendo a way to counter this advantage Sony currently enjoys.

 

[bomblord]

Fixed.

Really tired of the myth Gamecube was just like everyone else but it wasn't. There were so many things about its demise that's it's ignorant to place it all on one thing.

You want to know why PS2 did better? Its first requirement was not missing out on one of the most important media formats of all time. Can you say Gamecube did the same?

Except being a media player was not an industry norm at the time.By today's definition playing DVD's would have been considered a gimmick. The only "industry standards" at the time were a minimum level of power and a disc based media format.

 

[Kokonoe]

Because when both consoles are actually selling they're making MUCH more money with two than with just one (let's not forget the multiple different version of handhelds that Nintendo puts out which people by more than one of I.E. XL and now 2DS) . This fuck up with the Wii U is not going to make them change the philosophy especially since the 3DS is the only thing keeping the ship afloat at the moment.

I wasn't talking about portables, I meant trying to be unique like they did with Wii and Wii U. The Wii U this time is more expensive, unlike the Wii, since they went with expensive tech this time around.

 

[JordanN]

Except being a media player was not an industry norm at the time.By today's definition playing DVD's would have been considered a gimmick. The only "industry standards" at the time were a minimum level of power and a disc based media format.

DVD's were set to be the new norm (their popularity was massive as the PS2 proved when it was the cheapest dvd player at the time). Gamecube's mini disc were not (which by the way, debut later after that fact). This would play out true in the long run when games would go fill up the entire disc (and as a result, games would either skip gamecube or ended up gimped).

All in all, if you want to debate if the mini-disc was a better idea than the DVD, I don't think it will last.

 

[Caramello]

I think Nintendo need to look back at the design process of the DS and Wii and go back to basics.

Design a low cost system that is differentiated from competitors more by software than hardware. For a portable the maximum that it should cost is $199 and for a home console the maximum it should cost is $299. However aiming for $169 and $249 would be ideal.

Then they need to build compelling reasons for people to want to buy these systems. Having cross platform digital accounts, having fully fledged Virtual Console services available at the launch of both systems perhaps with a subscription option, planning game development to begin two years before the launch of each system to ensure that the first year of each system has top tier titles available without major droughts.

They also need to make a break from the DS and Wii lines and focus on these products being brand new and stand alone. Even if the portable has two screens it shouldn't continue the DS line and even if Wii Remotes are compatible with their new home system it shouldn't maintain the Wii name.

 

[bomblord]

DVD's were set to be the new norm (their popularity was massive as the PS2 proved when it was the cheapest dvd player at the time). Gamecube's mini disc were not (which by the way, debut later after that fact). This would play out true in the long run when games would go fill up the entire disc (and as a result, games would either skip gamecube or ended up gimped).

There was no game console besides the PS2 on the market that could play DVD's when the PS2 released. There was still not one when the gamecube released and the XBox didn't have one at release either but ended up selling it as an optional add on.

It was not an industry norm. Regardless of the benefits they reaped from it by today's definition DVD's would have been considered a gimmick and that gimmick was what set the PS2 apart from the other two consoles and allowed it to sell more.

More sells meant more support from third parties and this continued in an escalatory spiral.

 

[Starphoenix]

I'll never understand people who complain about the Wii U name when people understand the difference between the PS3 and PS4 fairly well. The problem isn't the name: the problem is a myriad of different mistakes that have all caught up with Nintendo and placed them in the position they find themselves in today. The chief problem is Nintendo rushed to put the system on the market first when it was rumored -- probably proven accurate now -- that the Wii U needed more time in development. Obviously the games were not ready. Either way Nintendo was in a position that they were potentially damned either way: release the console early and suffer software droughts, or release it months or weeks separated by Sony and/or Microsoft and risk being pushed out in a three way race.

As for Nintendo's lack of home entertainment options, I think people need to step back and remember something about Microsoft and Sony. As large as Nintendo is, Sony and Microsoft have resources that stretch far beyond gaming into other areas of entertainment. Does that excuse Nintendo's lack of multimedia presence? No, but I understand the reasons. The only thing that is inexcusable on Nintendo's part is the lack of a cross platform account system for digital software. If Club Nintendo is able to track all of my digital purchases, there is a way Nintendo can offer better safeguards for those of us who lose our software without requiring mailing the system back to Nintendo.

The Wii U just needs games.

 

[Freezie KO]

Not going to happen, IMO. Why limit themselves to 1 revenue stream when they can have 2? Using Mario Kart for example. The IP sold 57 million copies last gen (23 for the DS version, 34 for the Wii version). If they only have 1 console, they would never be able to achieve those numbers, especially when you consider 1) the Wii and DS were Nintendo's best selling consoles ever and 2) that they only release one game in the MK series per platform. Not to mention the more platforms they have, the more Mario games (Mario & Luigi, Paper Mario, Golf, Tennis, Land, New series, etc.) they can release. Seeing as how Nintendo makes its money on software, the more vehicles they have to release games on, the better.

Nintendo converging their handheld and console development teams is to allow for sharing of assets for more efficient game development. It also provides 3rd parties to make a game for one system and easily up/down port it to the other for better support. The creator of Cosmic Star Heroine recently said he chose PSN over Wii U because releasing a game on PSN gives access to multiple consoles, while releasing on Wii U only gives you access to 1. Two Nintendo consoles (1 handheld and 1 console) with similar architectures will give Nintendo a way to counter this advantage Sony currently enjoys.

Let's go with your premise that Nintendo makes money via software. I agree.

So imagine if they consolidated that audience into a single platform. They could sell a single Mario Kart to a larger audience. Let's say that means they sell 50 million instead of 34. There's no golden rule that says they have to only release one or that they can't release DLC for that audience of 50 million. It's not like that Mario Kart team is going to sit out the rest of the generation, twiddling their thumbs. They're going to get to work on the next game, either DLC, a sequel, or something brand new (which might reach a whole new audience of 50 million).

As for games like NSMB, the same rules apply. In fact, I'd argue that they're better off only releasing one, instead of continual diluting of the brand. For NSMB2, they even had to put a secondary team on it. What if, instead, they could be searching for the next big game, rather than forcing the same game (NSMB) on two platforms? This would let them sell a NSMB game to a larger captive audience, while the other team can find the next big game, which is what they need to keep growing their business.

Currently, they are stuck in a cycle creating the same franchises for one platform, and then as soon as the team is done, they have to make that same franchise for the other platform. And so on. It's diminishing returns.

Further, on your premise that Nintendo makes its money selling software, I would argue that more people would own the hybrid platform because it's a more appealing proposition. Anyone holding out on Nintendo platforms because of droughts or a lack of diversity could feel safer buying into the hybrid, which would have all Nintendo teams on it creating all new software. And if there was really more money to be made in making two separate Mario Kart games, then nothing is stopping Nintendo from doing that on the hybrid.

 

[JordanN]

There was no game console besides the PS2 on the market that could play DVD's when the PS2 released. There was still not one when the gamecube released and the XBox didn't have one at release either but ended up selling it as an optional add on.

It was not an industry norm.

The DVD took over the entire gen. It was a norm. The Gamecube missed that and slowly faltered to near last place (among other host of problems).

How is something unique to a single console a norm. The PS2 was the only console that launched with the ability to play DVD's even the Xbox had to release an add on to allow DVD's to be played.

I don't get what you're saying. I'm saying the DVD proved better because PS2 sold on it and had most game development based around it (as games were gutted or skipped on Gamecube due to lack of space). Gamecube did not have the opposite happen. End is.

 

[Shikamaru Ninja]

I believe Iwata's goal is to again emulate apple. Create multiple products that share architecture for cross platform compatibility. This actually means they could develop one mega Mario Kart, Smash Bros., New Super Mario Bros., that is playable across console and portable. They don't have to spend resources developing multiple versions of the same IP.

I don't think their plan is to release one hybrid platform, as much as releasing both styles but with unified architecture. I think that is a win-win for developers and consumers.

 

[Duxxy3]

Keep it simple. If you're not sure how to integrate a new gimmick into your games, that can actually improve it, then don't use the gimmick.

 

[bomblord]

The DVD took over the entire gen. It was a norm. The Gamecube missed that and slowly faltered to near last place.

How is something unique to a single console a norm. The PS2 was the only console that launched with the ability to play DVD's even the Xbox had to release an add on to allow DVD's to be played.

 

[Caramello]

How is something unique to a single console a norm. The PS2 was the only console that launched with the ability to play DVD's even the Xbox had to release an add on to allow DVD's to be played.

That one console had something like a 70% market share which would make it a clear norm.

 

[bomblord]

End is.

That a "gimmick" something unique to that one console won that generation not conforming to industry norms.

 

[Platy]

Moneyhat games

Moneyhat more like Monster Hunter and less like Bayonetta.

Proven sucess > awesome cult games

 

[Natureboy99]

So TC basically wants Nintendo to copy Sony. The Vita/PS3/4 combo is almost exactly what you are describing. Some gamers whine about it, saying Vita gets to many ports and not enough original stuff.

I personally think it's genius that there is such a thing as cross buy and would love it if Nintendo copied the idea.

 

[Log4Girlz]

If Nintendo wants to sell Nintendo boxes (i.e a console that's only good for its first party because third party relations is in shambles), they should price it $99-$159 and keep it that way forever.

Wii U showed how a much of scam it is after PS4 cost $50 more than it while boosting far better graphics and third party support. Even a slightly lower price is bad since last gen systems can still compete (i.e PS3/360).

Edit: Another problem was Nintendo's own game development. They let 7 years slip by and had nothing ready for HD because they just started learning.

At this point you can't do worse than the Wii U. They may as well follow this strategy.

Perhaps they can pick off the shelf cell phone parts for their next DS and use overclocked versions for their console and sell that for cheap. The DS could have an add on dongle for off screen play etc.

 

[radcliff]

So imagine if they consolidated that audience into a single platform. They could sell a single Mario Kart to a larger audience. Let's say that means they sell 50 million instead of 34. There's no golden rule that says they have to only release one or that they can't release DLC for that audience of 50 million. It's not like that Mario Kart team is going to sit out the rest of the generation, twiddling their thumbs. They're going to get to work on the next game, either DLC, a sequel, or something brand new (which might reach a whole new audience of 50 million).

The problem with this part of your argument is that there were many people who owned both DS and Wii. Therefore Nintendo was able to sell MK to these people twice (the DS and Wii versions). If there is only 1 hybrid console, they couldn't do this and therefore it would be near impossible to achieve 50 million in sales MK experienced last generation.

 

[Fauv]

Fixed.

Really tired of the myth Gamecube was just like everyone else but it wasn't. There were so many things about its demise that's it's ignorant to place it all on one thing.

You want to know why PS2 did better? Its first requirement was not missing out on one of the most important media formats of all time. Can you say Gamecube did the same?

Even the Wii could have been a failure if Nintendo did not know how to convince the masses why you should use a wiimote. It's not "gimmicks" or being the "same" it's about demonstrating appeal and value.

Oh I agree completely, I was oversimplifying. And by "gimmick" I really meant something that hasn't been seen before in a console. So I guess something like the analogue stick on the N64 would count. Something that changes the way the game is played that drives that appeal. All I was saying is that if Nintendo had released a $250 console last Fall that had no gamepad and just the Pro Controller, I don't think the sales numbers would be too different.

 

[GameGuru59]

I've been thinking about this a bit too...

First off, Nintendo's on the right track, the implementation is just off a bit. The Wii was a success because it was cheap enough to be a contender as an impulse buy, but it was also fun and accessible- so it was an impulse buy compared to the 360 and certainly the PS3. The DS was in a similar position against the PSP, and the 3DS is essentially running of the DS's success (and 3D).

The Wii U is not that. Its not an impulse buy at $350. And its not instantly accessable; Wii Sports instantly conveyed what was fun about the Wii- Nintendoland does not do the same for Wii U. But the real hindrances are the price, and the fact games are absent. I see people trying out the Wii U all the time in Walmart (unlike the GC). Something is keeping these people from buying it, its either the price or the fact there are no games for it. Hell, that kept me from buying it until I could pair a new $264 Basic set with a $40 260 GB WD My Book on Ebay, and my family's owned every Nintendo system since the SNES (unfortunately I got the Wii U before the price drop, but I still did better considering the premium only comes with 32GB).

For Nintendo's next console, they can do better. Here's how.

1) Make a full break with the previous Wii hardware and improve on it.
Nintendo messed up the original Wii implementation by not including WM+ from the jump. This split the userbase and WM+ caused other problems with the Wiimote add-on not being as good as the built in WM+ (Zelda SW proves this). Nintendo should drop the Wii-mote design altogether and opt for a Wii-mote implementation like Sony's (the remote broadcasts the IR info instead of the sensor bar broadcasting IR). Sony's implementation was more accurate and should be copied. Don't worry Nintendo, we know you invented it in the first place. Also, add a fucking click stick to the nunchuck for God's sake (COD Black Ops is driving me crazy on Wii U because of this).

The Wii U's Gamepad is basically fine, I think. It may not require a full break, although the N7's (Nintendo's 7th console) Gamepad should be sleeker.

2) Don't be afraid of splitting the userbase. Lower the price of controllers.
Alot of people are arguing for the Gamepad to be dropped from the WiiU because it's increasing the price of the console. I disagree with that. Nintendo can't do that for the Wii U because there's litterally no reason to buy it after that other than for Nintendo games (GC). The N7 need not be burdened by such logic. The console should be focused on being as powerful as it can possibly be at $300 midway through the X1 and PS4 generation. It should essentially copy Sony's fantasic hardware design, only be more powerful- Sony may have out Gamecubed the Gamecube, so copy them again. Also, include a small (50GB) SSD with a few GB dedicated to a developer chache. Even if the N7 had the exact same processor as the PS4, the SSD would help propel it alot further.

What was this section about again? Oh yeah controllers. The only way you're going to undercut Sony, and X1 mid gen on value is through not having a pricey controller. The hardware is going to be too expensive. Therefore, the consumer should only get one controller per console. They one they get should be up to them (Wiimote, Gamepad, or Classic). Sell the consoles separate from the controllers, and simply allow the consumer to select a controller from the store at the store counter. The (new) Wiimote and Classic come free with their console purchase, and the discounted Gamepad costs them $10 extra (normally $25). As a secondary controller purchase, the Wiimote and Classic controller prices are dropped to the floor (sold at production cost + shipping + storage) and shouldn't cost more than $15 or so. As I said, the Gamepad would cost $25 as a secondary controller, because it's more expensive to produce.

[edit: The Nintendo Eye or whatever is used to run the new Wiimote is included as well (as is the case with the Wii U), it shouldn't cost too much because its basically a camera].

The reason for doing this is to de-couple the Gamepad cost from the console's cost (the problem now with the Wii U). Since the Wii U Gamepad will be compatible with N7, early adopters won't demand so many- lowering costs for Nintendo greatly.

Arguments against this are that it will split the userbase. This is NOT true. Developers are still using the Wiimote even though its not included with the Wii U (and not even really advertised anymore). Activision still uses it in COD. Nintendo uses it in Pikmin. There are likely other games I'm forgetting about. Developers don't seem to mind developing for alternate control schemes. Programming controls is actually pretty easy. One could also argue that its wrong to FORCE controls on the consumer. The consumer should be free to select which controls they want to use. They also shouldn't be forced to subsidize controls they don't want to use- as Nintendo is currently doing.

Making the controllers cheap, and optional appeals to the widest variety of consumers. Why do you think there are so many versions of spaghetti sauce?

[edit again: Also make the next Gameboy/DS thing fully compatible with the N7 as a Gamepad. There is NO reason not to do this, all it would probably take is another radio within the next handheld. Nintendo's full product line should be 100% compatible control wise next time around. Remote play of N7 games through the Gameboy, "Super Gameboy" style TV play, the whole shebang. They should even consider some game cross-compatibility]

3) Use indies to sell the console and the controllers.
So we've got cheap ($300). We've got unique (controllers). Now we need fun. That's up to the games, of course. That's where indies come in. Before the console is launched, Nintendo should release a virtual devkit to indies (a power profile) so they can begin programming to the relative specs of the system. Of course, these pre-specs would be vastly underrated, so the system can run the optimized code at launch. Nintendo should start a competition with the release of the dev kit (a year or earlier before launch) to allow indies to develop an equivalent to Wii Sports for the N7 using Mii's. The best 5 games in the competition get put in the compilation. Requirements being that all the games use either the Wiimote or the Gamepad (Classic controller is optional) and be multiplayer. For incentive, each game that gets selected earns a million dollar cash prize from Nintendo ($5 million in total prizes). The game would come packed in with the system... and the $5 million dollar cost to develop it written off as sunk.

This way, Nitnendo doesn't have to spend time writing much of its own time developing a Wii Sports. The end result from indies would likely be more creative anyway. The competition could even be held anually, essentially creating a new Nintendo "franchise" that can't be easily copied by Sony or Microsoft (lest they radically change direction).

I have other thoughts on this, but I'm tired of writing. That's the jhist of what I think.

 

[MisterHero]

Xbox had DVD playback and most of the 3rd-party releases that PS2 had and did not far much better than Gamecube. GCN had the advantage that major Nintendo releases still sold a crapton even with its minimal userbase.

 

[Freezie KO]

The problem with this part of your argument is that there were many people who owned both DS and Wii. Therefore they could sell MK to these people twice (the DS and Wii versions). If there is only 1 hybrid console, they couldn't do this and therefore it would be near impossible to achieve 50 million in sales MK experienced last generation. The MK producer has worked on other Nintendo IPs like Nintendogs, Yoshi's Island, Super Mario Bros/World, and Luigi's Mansion. So its not like he and his team would be twiddling their thumbs after MK's release.

To the bolded, why not? If they were willing to buy two Mario Karts in the course of two years, why does it matter if both those Karts release on the same platform?

And if the argument is that there are people that own both the console and handheld, let's just look at a hypothetical.

The DS version sells 23. The Wii version sells 34. Let's say half the DS crowd also bought the Wii version. So a hybrid version sells 45 million. Now, we've got the Mario Kart team able to either make a whole new game. If that game sells 12 million, then they've sold the same amount of software, which if they budget the same, it's breaking even. If that new game sells more, they gain and they don't dilute the Mario Kart brand by rushing out games every two years.

And that's not counting the fact that a single Mario Kart can also leverage a larger audience for DLC. And a hybrid has a potential for a larger installed base because it's a more attractive proposition.

 

[gutterboy44]

It doesn't matter. They can release whatever they want for at least another two gens before their software doesn't carry their weight. In fact, I think as long as they don't release a tin can on a string for a hand held or a moldy piece of bread for a console they will be fine with their hardware being the only place you can play Nintendo games.

 

[JordanN]

Xbox had DVD playback and most of the 3rd-party releases that PS2 had and did not far much better than Gamecube. GCN had the advantage that major Nintendo releases still sold a crapton even with its minimal userbase.

What was Xbox going to do? PS2 had already sold 30 million or something when they first came out. Microsoft selling the same in less time seemed unlikely if not impossible.

However, that shouldn't excuse Microsoft to make a console as bad as Gamecube as that would mean losing good will (something that proved more important in the next gen).

 

[ArtHands]

I think they should retain the dual screens setup for the next portable. It helps expand the overall screen space without sacrificing the hardware size. Many games such as shin megami tensei 4, bravely default, fire emblem, kid icarus etc has shown that the 2nd screen is still much needed.

The only downsides here is the cost issue and it limits the hardware capability due to the hinge. Just have the next system to have bottom screen as big as the top screen, touch screen for the top too, higher res, 2nd analog and tv output, account system and better eshop and i will be very satisfied here.

 

[royalan]

The problem that I have with the hybrid idea is that Nintendo wouldn't actually make a "hybrid" console. To do that they would have to develop a portable device that also matched the fidelity expected from console games. In short, they'd have to develop an honest-to-god tablet. This would require them to create a product significantly more expensive than anything they've ever made, and I don't think that would fly with Nintendo.

What they'd likely end up doing is just continuing the DS line (low-tech-but-affordable gaming devices) and pulling out of console gaming outright. I just don't think this would work. It would put them in more direct competition with the tablet/smartphone industry, and Nintendo just doesn't have what it takes to compete with that industry. They don't move fast enough.

Also, there's the increasingly unavoidable fact that tablets and smartphones are chomping away at the dedicated portable gaming market. I wouldn't want Nintendo putting all of their eggs in a basket that's getting picked at by termites.

Personally, I'd rather see Nintendo grow and diversify, not consolidate and shrink (and they WOULD shrink).

Also, Nintendo needs to move to a one screen solution for the DS. The second screen on the DS is so low-res that a larger, much higher res screen would more than make up for it. Also, the dual screens require bulky hardware that just isn't attractive. Face it: the DS slim design was sexy for a time when MOST portable devices were bulky and unseemly. But in this day and age when people are carrying graphically capable devices that are thinner than a pencil, the DS design is now...well, fucking hideous.

 

[Rolf NB]

Lesson 0: if you're following up on a success, make it somewhat like the success you're following up on.

 

[Marlowe89]

Bad marketing is the only obvious problem here aside from a crappy account system, and Nintendo's already taking steps to remedy the former.

And like others have said, ignore anyone on the internet claiming to have extensive knowledge on business choices in addition to claiming to know what Iwata thinks, eats, breathes, and shits.

 

[Meesh]

What matters to me here is that they take the time to craft their next console with as much care and consideration that goes into their big games...cuz the Wiiu hardware felt a little unpolished, rushed ect.

 

[MisterHero]

What was Xbox going to do? PS2 had already sold 30 million or something when they first came out. Microsoft selling the same in less time seemed unlikely if not impossible.

However, that shouldn't excuse Microsoft to make a console as bad as Gamecube as that would mean losing good will (something that proved more important in the next gen).

None of the platforms were bad. PS2 just cleaned up that generation. They had a good lead then pushed further ahead with the PS2slim. Cheaper hardware and lots of cheaper software thanks to the Greatest Hits line.

It doesn't matter how much they sell or where they stand against rivals if they make money. That was PS2's true victory.

 

[Evolution_1ne]

at this point is it even worth it to think Nintendo is even capable of learning any lesson. If Nintendo was competent enough to do anything to change their position right now, we'd know it.

I believe they will just keep spinning around the drain until they can no longer keep their head above the water and then slowly wash away like all the other relics of a by gone era, long past their due, so you can give them that at least

 

[JordanN]

None of the platforms were bad. PS2 just cleaned up that generation. They had a good lead then pushed further ahead with the PS2slim. Cheaper hardware and lots of cheaper software thanks to the Greatest Hits line.

It doesn't matter how much they sell or where they stand against rivals if they make money. That was PS2's true victory.

I doubt this is what was running through their minds back then. Microsoft in particular wanted to kill Sony and Nintendo was hoping for 50 million sales that gen. They both failed.

 

[jts]

For the portable:

Orientation flipping, multitouch hybrid capacitive and resistive, foldable 7-8" 2D display (along with a smaller version of it). Dual-analogue and dual-shoulder buttons (with analogue triggers).

Games being the main draw, but with that display attracting all kinds of apps that could slowly start an healthy Nintendo digital ecosystem, propelled by a revamped, friendlier account system. No Android though. Nintendo's own thing.

Name it something new, like Nintendo Game Tab. Full DS, DSi and 3DS legacy support, but no 3D.

It sports Nintendo's wifi direct thing, so it controls directly the Wii U Successor, which allows for multiple display controllers from the get go.

Home console:

My name suggestion for the Wii U sucessor is Nintendo 7, or Nintendo Super 7. 7 is a great number (note: at this point, upon previewing the post, I've read similar suggestions, which is normal).
Although the naming convention doesn't tie too well with the portable's name, so maybe this needs additional thinking. It's not the most important thing though.

The Super 7's controller should be an evolution from the GamePad, lighter, and more feature packed, analogue triggers and maybe pointing ability (features that should also get their way into the Super 7's Pro Controller).

Thanks to evolved, faster wifi direct, the Super 7 allows, from the get-go, 2-4 display-enabled controllers - both the GamePad 2 and the Game Tab (Nintendo's new portable if you haven't been following) are display-enabled controllers.

Hardware-wise, something like the One and PS4 (so, like Nintendo's been doing) but with some extra kick that puts it clearly halfway into next-next-gen.

Consider X86, but if so, include legacy chips.

Internal upgradeable HDD bay. SDXC support.

For both:

Rely immensely on Nintendo's legacy. VC packed with games from the get-go, including from the GameCube. Keep all your VC games from Wii, Wii U and 3DS. VC games always released as universal binaries that run on both the S7 and the GT. Buy one time, get it on both consoles. Cloud and local sync (for speed and redundancy).

eShop games may or may not be universal, up to the publisher and dev.

Fucking achievements or trophies or Nintendo's version of it. Nintendo players are colectathon lovers by definition. Every single new full retail and eShop game. VC games could also have at least a trophy trigger to indicate completion.

For every digital purchase: allow 1 transaction between Nintendo accounts. Maybe even at a small cost (tied to the RRP price, say 10%) paid by the receiver. And after a established ownership period, up to a whole year (both measures intended to get software companies to play along). This will ease off people, get them into digital purchases. Get some goodwill from being way behind to 1uping the current status quo.

Well, I'm done daydreaming for the moment.

 

[JordanLMiller]

3DS and Wii U both suffered from a huge gap is software releases immediately after launch. The lesson needs to be to finalize your hardware long before the release date and be able to supply REAL dev kits earlier on in the process. Having a consistent flow of software is key - you can't be learning about how to use shaders in your "launch window" games 6 months after it's been languishing on the market!

In other words, I just want them to plan it out better. Nintendo was coming off the back of two of the most popular video game systems ever and basically squandered the opportunity by quickly throwing their hardware out the door when it wasn't ready.

at this point is it even worth it to think Nintendo is even capable of learning any lesson. If Nintendo was competent enough to do anything to change their position right now, we'd know it.

I believe they will just keep spinning around the drain until they can no longer keep their head above the water and then slowly wash away like all the other relics of a by gone era, long past their due, so you can give them that at least

Entirely useless post. Yeah, it's too late this generation when your systems are already on shelves, but remember that in five years time we went from GCN to Wii.

But, nah, you're right. Nintendo's just doomed!

 

[royalan]

Bad marketing is the only obvious problem here aside from a crappy account system, and Nintendo's already taking steps to remedy the former.

And like others have said, ignore anyone on the internet claiming to have extensive knowledge on business choices in addition to claiming to know what Iwata thinks, eats, breathes, and shits.

I don't think anybody's doing that. I think people are looking at Iwata's performance as it reflects in observable metrics like profit and market penetration and drawing their own conclusions from that.

And LOL at the idea that marketing functions completely independent of the CEO of the company.

 

[Marlowe89]

And LOL at the idea that marketing functions completely independent of the CEO of the company.

Are you suggesting I implied this, or are you referring to someone else's post? At no point have I ever insinuated that Iwata is blameless.

And no, I think it's quite obvious (especially as indicated in the other thread) that a lot of people on this board seem eager to inform everyone exactly and specifically what runs through Iwata's mind regarding the company. The "stubbornness" accusations appear to be the most rampant.

 

[MisterHero]

I doubt this is what was running through their minds back then. Microsoft in particular wanted to kill Sony and Nintendo was hoping for 50 million sales that gen. They both failed.

Fair enough, but profitability is usually the #1 reason for them to do anything*. Lower hardware sales does not mean total failure though. As I said before, Nintendo's own game sales remained very competitive. Nintendo achieved what they set out to do that gen, just on a diminished scale.

*And indeed, the only reason anyone's in a panic over WiiU.

 

[Resilient]

If Nintendo wants to sell Nintendo boxes (i.e a console that's only good for its first party because third party relations is in shambles), they should price it $99-$159 and keep it that way forever.

Wii U showed how a much of scam it is after PS4 cost $50 more than it while boosting far better graphics and third party support. Even a slightly lower price is bad since last gen systems can still compete (i.e PS3/360).

Edit: Another problem was Nintendo's own game development. They let 7 years slip by and had nothing ready for HD because they just started learning.

Posts like these are so passive aggressive. If you don't like it at the price it is now dont buy it...you don't need to have it. $99 will only benefit self entitled consumers.

 

[JordanN]

Posts like these are so passive aggressive. If you don't like it at the price it is now dont buy it...you don't need to have it. $99 will only benefit self entitled consumers.

I thought this thread was about lessons? I'm suggesting how Nintendo should sell their products so they don't fail next time (unless you think Wii U is a grand success or something then you don't need to read the rest).

I need a compelling reason why Nintendo should charge the same prices as Microsoft and Sony that isn't based on profit. Again, from what I gather Nintendo consoles are sold on first party, not third party no? It's otherwise a premium to buy their products when all future third party looks bleak. You are not getting these things that the competition offers or if you do, why buy it on the Nintendo system when chances are the games are either the same or worst on their home console?

Maybe their gimmicks? What happens when the showing is weak? I guess this varies from person to person but does a console who specializes in just first party with a unique feature equal that of a much newer or older console who will have a bigger library than them? Especially remember what will the first year look like? Will it be a disaster like Wii U's launch was? Can Nintendo guarantee they can even deliver a lineup of games in such time or is that what their output will always look like?

Lastly you have the little stuff like online and hardware specs. If their consoles are weak and behind everyone else, you are only hoping Nintendo's first party and any unique feature they push can overcome these differences.

This is why charging $99 - 159 doesn't look insane to me. Nintendo fulfills their niche. If they back out from specs, if they back out from wanting third parties, then asking for a console cheaper than what's on the market, now and into future, is reasonable unless again. You can find the value of first party and the unique peripheral rivaling that of a $400 powerhouse or a $200 console with similar graphical capabilities but still better online and bigger lineup of software.

Edit: This is also about the future by the way. Nintendo has to even prove they can even duplicate the Wii's success over and over and over and over again. What are the chances and how many times can Nintendo do this and what will Nintendo do when it fails? Still charge the same price? What happens when software output gets slower (something much needed for a pricecut)? It's gonna be a chicken or the egg scenario. No one buys it because it's too expensive but no games also wont interest them.

Edit2: Of course, you'll have the diehards who buy a Nintendo system at any price. Maybe they should charge $1000. They could make a sweet profit off that at the cost of serious market share if none of this matters at all. None.

 

[I Stalk Alone]

they company internally is making some good decisions going forward. consolidating their divisions into one building so they can work on a unified software platform is a good move. having a singular software platform that is scalable allows nintendo and their partners a greater exposure and potentially have a greater and a more lucrative base going forward. this may even allow three types of products or maybe even four anand although i would not advocate it personally a handheld, a hybrid, a home console and a premium home console is not out of the realms of possibility. This allows iterations delivering the same content for the most part and allowing a synergistic message to the shareholders of their vision as a software company as well as a platform holder.

The pricing structures will be tiered and will give the consumer the option to buy into all platforms or just pay for one specific platform. paying for a handheld tier only allows you the license to play on the handheld or hybrid. the console only tier allows you to play only on the home and premium and the premium price tier allows you to play on all platforms.

Having these tiers allows the facilitation of physical media to still be sold so as to not affect the markets in Japan where it is a very important part of the japanese gaming ecosystem. This will also give the option to the consumer to jump into the platform on their own pricing terms and allows nintendo to release incremental updates of their hardware as they already do but this time provide some nominal improvements in either frame rate effects or resolution or input. This in turn will keep early adopter types happy and gives the budget orientated consumer an option to be part of the platform at a very early stage.

Having a potential for a larger install base using the method outlined in the paragraph above can give potential platform partners some confidence in releasing their flagship titles as well as giving smaller partners more exposure.

Nintendo can them focus on more variety in software as well as being able to release more of their franchises without having to to resort to yearly iterations COD style. F2P models can also have more impact on a consolidated and unified software platform.

Having a consolidated and unified software platform does not mean that you cannot have exclusives. On the contrary, a developer may use this to their advantage by releasing something only available on one hardware platform if they deem it is best to do it this way and later sell them to the rest of the platform as a way to promote a hardware iteration of the platform.

Finally, having the ability to use certain games to promote a refresh of hardware every two years split between handheld and home allows nintendo to keep releasing hardware and stay relevant in the minds of early adopters even if it isnt the most cutting edge of hardware.

here is on aff the head example based on how nintendo currently releases hardware since 2004.

At the start of the next generation release a $199 and $249 version of the handheld. the following year release a $399 and $299 home console which can play all the current first year releases of the handheld but also promote a handful of home console only versions. This will give other developers some extra time to add to their existing games previously released on the handheld and make more money when the home console is released.

On the third year release an incremental hardware refresh on the handheld side again to promote various software timed exclusive to the new refresh which will keep the same two tiered prices but allow some updates such as more storage, better battery and better or bigger screens. on the fourth year update the home console again making sure it coincides with a handful of big releases. and on the fifth and.sixth year rinse and repeat but focusing on a more budget oriented direction. on the seventh year will be the start of a major hardware iteration introducing whatever new input methods that nintendo will want to introduce which will then be considered a generational leap. however all games will still be available from the previous generation.

This to be honest is not just something nintendo is probably in the process of trying to achieve, but other platform holders are probably also trying to achieve. While Apple and google have vaguely similar methods by using the os as the synergistic selling points for game platform holders it will be the games themselves that will hold this synergy in trying to promote hardware with the software. I think this method allows for greater profit without having to go for record numbers which allow for a more sustainable gaming ecosystem.

typing this on a phone sucks.

 

[RawkHawk2010]

Make a hi-definition portable that you can display on your TV via included HDMI cable. With multiplayer being possible via Wii and Wii U controllers that everyone has gaggles of.

Perfection.

 

[Chindogg]

Make sure games are there at launch and continue to stay there. Games sell systems and the launches and droughts really hurt this generation.

Have a clear marketing plan that explains your products and why consumers should want them. This goes for naming conventions, commercials, and pricing.

Ignore anything else NeoGAF or any other site that demands you go 3rd party, price your consoles at well below R&D cost, or copy Sony/MS says. You do that already, but swaying from your ideals of making the best games on unique hardware will only hurt you in the long run. It's better to try something new and fail than it is to copy someone else. Otherwise we'll be stuck with CoD and Candy Crush clones for the rest of our lives.

 

[Tabris]

Stop trying to "innovate" constantly and instead focus on making a superior product. Perfect something. Instead of switching to a tablet device, you should have focused on perfecting motion control. Instead of going with 3D, focus on perfecting the 2 screen interface. Let someone else innovate.

The truly successful are the second or third innovator, never the first. Facebook wasn't the first social media platform, iPod wasn't the first mp3 player, iPhone wasn't the first smartphone, etc.

I was at a conference and listened to Malcolm Gladwell give a fantastic speech on technology innovations and it's always the second or third innovator (the "perfecters") that are truly successful.

 

[TIGER-COOL]

I can't be the only one who remembers the 3DS going through the same growing pains as the Wii U. The complaints were almost the EXACT SAME. "People don't see enough of a difference between the DS and 3DS", "consumers don't understand it", "The pricepoint is too high", "It has no games", "Not enough 3rd party support", "Still too underpowered" and of course "Doomed lol".

Lookie now. 3DS is one of my favourite consoles of all time, and they're selling like hotcakes. The game line up looks fantastic, from a present perspective, and in the near/distant future. Well... Wii U price cut JUST announced, and when some quality games start coming in (A few already released, and coming the next couple months), as well as a couple major IP announcements, and we'll see a very similar turn around. Mark my words. This time next year, the Wii U will be doing very well. When it does, we'll all be grateful to have a console offering a different gaming experience from the PS4/Xbox One.

I think we'll be the one's learning a lesson about placing way too much importance small sample sizes. On second thought, no. No lessons will be learned.

 

[Tabris]

Is 3DS actually one of your favourite consoles of all time? I understand a hyperbole to make a point, but come on now. I assume you are appreciating the device due to the quality of games released on it, not due to the actual hardware benefits. Is the 3D a game changer for you, or is it that games like SMT and Fire Emblem have been fantastic?

Disassociate the content with the device. The device is holding back the content and has been for multiple generations because it hasn't been focused, perfected, and been very "gimmicky".

Look at the best to offer on Nintendo consoles, and tell me their hardware has actually helped or hindered it.

 

[Chindogg]

Is 3DS actually one of your favourite consoles of all time? I understand a hyperbole to make a point, but come on now. You are appreciating the device due to the quality of games released on it, not due to the actual hardware benefits. Is the 3D a game changer for you, or is it that games like SMT and Fire Emblem have been fantastic?

Super Mario 3D Land does feel kinda lacking without the 3D. Same with Kid Icarus.

 

[jts]

Is 3DS actually one of your favourite consoles of all time? I understand a hyperbole to make a point, but come on now. I assume you are appreciating the device due to the quality of games released on it, not due to the actual hardware benefits. Is the 3D a game changer for you, or is it that games like SMT and Fire Emblem have been fantastic?

Disassociate the content with the device. The device is holding back the content and has been for multiple generations because it hasn't been focused, perfected, and been very "gimmicky".

Look at the best to offer on Nintendo consoles, and tell me their hardware has actually helped or hindered it.

Don't forget that the 3DS also plays DS games and that has a huge value.

Pretty hard for me to justify getting a PS4 at launch when I still have a PS3 backlog to play. By the time I finish playing it, the PS4 will be cheaper. Now, if the PS4 had BC, I'd trade in my PS3 for $100, pay $300 to get a PS4 and between the sparse good launch games and typical slow 1st year, I'd play my backlog with it. Single console under the TV. I'm flabbergasted how people can't see it that way, tbh.