Nintendo Abandoned the Core? The Myth Exposed

[mrcorbo]

Saying that Nintendo has abandoned their core audience is, of course, an exaggeration. Saying that they are no longer their primary focus, though, is just reality. The fastest selling console with the largest userbase has a first-party holiday release lineup that consists of 2 titles. Wii Music and Animal Crossing. That speaks volumes.

As for this being the third parties' fault. That's not how this works. It is the platform holder's responsibility to create a market that can allow 3rd parties to sell their games. If there were an opportunity for 3rd parties to develop quality software for the Wii and make money doing it then they would. Look at what Microsoft has done in Japan. Microsoft made sure that several JRPGs appeared on their system. They didn't do spectacular numbers. They didn't radically change the fortunes of the system in that territory. What they did do was attract fans of the genre to buy the system. Would you now see (minus MS's support) a Square-Enix independently decide to make an RPG for 360 on their own initiative? Probably not. But how about a smaller developer like Atlus? There's a reasonable expectation that a modestly-budgeted (not to be confused with poor quality) JRPG could make money on the 360 even without MS's direct support.

If MS hadn't worked to create this market would you then say it was the third parties' fault that there were no JRPGs on the 360?

 

[RudeCurve]

I can tell you RE5 doesn't have 1/10th the amount of depth as Pokemon. Have you ever seen battles between 2 skilled trainers? The amount of time they spent raising the perfect Pokemon for combat? The amount of strategy used to outwit their opponent? Can you say the same for RE5? I know plenty of kids who play Pokemon without understanding any of that depth, and I'm sure kids can play RE5 without putting in a second of thought..

So Pokemon was made for 30 yr olds who play turn-based strategic battle games while RE5 was made for 15 yr olds who like to shoot zombies? Bwaaaahahahahaha! I'm sorry but you just jumped the shark with that one!!

Weren't you the guy/gal who said Excite Truck was the shiznits???

 

[obonicus]

Why is it too much to expect? Do you know how long Nintendo games take time to make? Do you know the amount of delays to polish a title? Games like Mario Galaxy didn't come from a single year of development. Have you ever seen how long it took to get Ocarina of Time? Plus, what about games coming from Nintendo in the future? Do those suddenly become irrelevant because all they have for X-mas this year is Wii Music?

How can MS deliver Halo 3 and PGR4 one year, then Gears of War 2 and Fable 2 the next? Why can Sony deliver Uncharted and R&C one year and Resistance 2 and LBP the next? Maybe these games aren't equivalent in quality, but they're all high-budget, high quality games provided by first-party studios in addition to their (not entirely successful) casual forays. Not to mention that neither of these companies' gaming divisions is swimming in money the way Nintendo is.

And why should I care about games coming in the future if I'm talking about this year? Games in the future are irrelevant because I can't play them. I have to cope with Animal Crossing and Wii Music. If games coming in the future meant a damned thing, Sony would be the greatest publisher ever, and only the most rabid fanboy can even make that sort of argument.

I can tell you RE5 doesn't have 1/10th the amount of depth as Pokemon. Have you ever seen battles between 2 skilled trainers? The amount of time they spent raising the perfect Pokemon for combat? The amount of strategy used to outwit their opponent? Can you say the same for RE5? I know plenty of kids who play Pokemon without understanding any of that depth, and I'm sure kids can play RE5 without putting in a second of thought.

In a way, yes, Pokemon is for mature gamers, gamers who aren't too insecure about themselves and can really see beyond what's at the surface of the game, while RE5 is just another shallow game. I can write an encyclopedia on Pokemon battle strategies and still wouldn't consider myself a high ranking Pokemon trainer.

Oh, and I love it when people try to bring up mature using Pokemon Vs X without even the slightest knowledge about Pokemon other than what you see.

I've played Pokemon. Have you played RE5? I would expect that given you have such strong opinions of the game.

And something apologists are forgetting about is simple fact: RE5 is not to be played by younger gamers without parental consent, while Pokemon is E for Everybody. It's just a fact that one is designed for gamers over a certain age while the other isn't. That it appeals to more people is testament to their design skill. And please, stop with the cheap 'insecurity' shots, because really, that's just trolling. 'They don't get it' is also not a defense.

 

[obonicus]

Saying that Nintendo has abandoned their core audience is, of course, an exaggeration. Saying that they are no longer their primary focus, though, is just reality. The fastest selling console with the largest userbase has a first-party holiday release lineup that consists of 2 titles. Wii Music and Animal Crossing. That speaks volumes.

I agree fully with you (the rest of the stuff too). I just don't think that Nintendo, with the money it's making, really needs to give their core audience such sparse support. I'm sure they can afford to produce their bi-annual Wii * games as well as a SMG-type game a year, but they clearly have no interest in doing so.

 

[DeadlyNinja]

So Pokemon was made for 30 yr olds who play turn-based strategic battle games while RE5 was made for 15 yr olds who like to shoot zombies? Bwaaaahahahahaha! I'm sorry but you just jumped the shark with that one!!

You're pretty spot on expect for the 30yr old part. The appeal certainly isn't in the 30yr olds, but Resident Evil 5 would appeal to 15 year olds. I grew out of Mortal Kombat by high school, myself.

I've played Pokemon. Have you played RE5? I would expect that given you have such strong opinions of the game.

Do you seriously think that RE5 would suddenly throw everything out the window and completely refine the franchise with gameplay that would require strategy guides with hundreds of pages on each individual element?

It's like saying the next Mario won't be a platformer and would become a strategy war game.

And please, stop with the cheap 'insecurity' shots, because really, that's just trolling. 'They don't get it' is also not a defense.

But you're allowed to take cheap shots like it being kiddy while ignoring a game's true depth and potential? They don't get it isn't a defense, it's a fact. If you don't get it, that's quite all right, not everything appeals to everybody. I don't play music games on any system, nor do I ever speak about them with any kind of label. I just simply say I don't get it, and move on; instead of taking lame shots and calling it names to make yourself feel better.

How can MS deliver Halo 3 and PGR4 one year, then Gears of War 2 and Fable 2 the next? Why can Sony deliver Uncharted and R&C one year and Resistance 2 and LBP the next? Maybe these games aren't equivalent in quality, but they're all high-budget, high quality games provided by first-party studios in addition to their (not entirely successful) casual forays. Not to mention that neither of these companies' gaming divisions is swimming in money the way Nintendo is.

You've listed what, 2 games each year from each 1st party (even though Gears isn't even 1st party). Nintendo already delivered 2 games. Right now, it seems like you're just focusing on the holiday season and pretending the rest isn't there. What happened to Brawl, Kart, and Galaxy at the beginning of the year? I could understand if you're angry that there's nothing this holiday season, but to me, it's just bad timing on their end. Let say Brawl, Kart and Galaxy wasn't released in early 08 and was released now, you'd complain there's nothing for X-mas 07.

If games coming in the future meant a damned thing

You do realize this topic is about Nintendo abandoning the core, correct? Abandon would mean there's nothing for them... EVER. That would mean we'd have nothing but Wii Sports, Wii Play, and Wii Fit starting from 2006 and on with absolutely nothing else to play and absolutely nothing else to play in the future.

Not only that, but fearsomepirate's list clearly shows there are more games for the regular gamers than the casual. All people can cry about right now are like... what 5 games. Wii Sports, Wii Play, Wii Music, Wii Fit, and Animal Crossing (which is actually a pretty well loved franchise) and compare that to Prime 3, Galaxy, Fire Emblem, Zelda, Wario, Brawl, and Wars.

Just look at your own reply right under it. You ignore what else they have in store for the future, and make completely baffling claims. What else do they have besides Wii Sports 2? They have Punchout and Sin and Punishment 2 coming out. I already know 2 games I'd like to play that would appeal to regular gamers, and one game that'll appeal to other gamers. That doesn't really fit what I'd consider as being abandoned. If all they have for the future is Wii Sports 2, then yes, I agree they've abandoned them. You're making it sound like there are hundreds of Wii Sports coming out from Nintendo with 1 or 2 Marios Galaxies every now and then when they've actually been bringing out for both sides. There's probably nothing exciting this Christmas, but I don't care. Well, that and I don't have a Wii. The only "next gen" I own is a DS and damn proud of it. Oh hey, wasn't Nintendo going to abandon the handheld crowd with nothing but brain training games and puppy sims?

 

[obonicus]

Do you seriously think that RE5 would suddenly throw everything out the window and completely refine the franchise with gameplay that would require strategy guides with hundreds of pages on each individual element?

It's like saying the next Mario won't be a platformer and would become a strategy war game.

No, it's calling you on your ridiculous prejudice. A game having obsessed fans doesn't make it incredibly deep. It just makes it a game with a ton of little niggling details, which is what Pokemon is -- which is what most videogames are. Going on about depth, as if RE5 were a superior game is true, laughable elitism, of the sort I thought died 10 years ago.

But you're allowed to take cheap shots like it being kiddy while ignoring a game's true depth and potential? They don't get it isn't a defense, it's a fact. If you don't get it, that's quite all right, not everything appeals to everybody. I don't play music games on any system, nor do I ever speak about them with any kind of label. I just simply say I don't get it, and move on; instead of taking lame shots and calling it names to make yourself feel better.

This is a ridiculous strawman. Where did I call any games kiddy? An E for Everybody is FACTUALLY intended for EVERYBODY. A mature game isn't! It's not even open for argument; these are the demographics these games are aiming for. I'm giving Nintendo credit for every single game they release; I'm not saying SMG is bad, or its kiddy.

You've listed what, 2 games each year from each 1st party (even though Gears isn't even 1st party). Nintendo already delivered 2 games. Right now, it seems like you're just focusing on the holiday season and pretending the rest isn't there. What happened to Brawl, Kart, and Galaxy at the beginning of the year? I could understand if you're angry that there's nothing this holiday season, but to me, it's just bad timing on their end. Let say Brawl, Kart and Galaxy wasn't released in early 08 and was released now, you'd complain there's nothing for X-mas 07.

I don't even know where to start, here. For one, Galaxy is a 2007 game. It wasn't released in 2008 in a single territory. Second, and this is where I suspect you're just being difficult is that you know that first-parties have had more releases than just these. Sony released SOCOM and wipEout as well, two key franchises. MS had Infinite Undiscovery, Too Human and Ninja Gaiden 2. And before you go there, it's not an issue of quality, but of big-budget games released throughout the year as well as the 'blockbuster' titles released for the holidays.

You do realize this topic is about Nintendo abandoning the core, correct? Abandon would mean there's nothing for them... EVER. That would mean we'd have nothing but Wii Sports, Wii Play, and Wii Fit starting from 2006 and on with absolutely nothing else to play and absolutely nothing else to play in the future.

Again a strawman! Yes, clearly if you take on a position that no one in this thread is actually defending because it's factually false, you can be right. Too bad that no one is saying these things.

How about this: abandoning as in, in the process of. Not fully abandoned. Personally, I don't think they'll fully abandon the core at all, but they will, as mrcorbo pointed out, shift focus to their mass market games.

Not only that, but fearsomepirate's list clearly shows there are more games for the regular gamers than the casual. All people can cry about right now are like... what 5 games. Wii Sports, Wii Play, Wii Music, Wii Fit, and Animal Crossing (which is actually a pretty well loved franchise) and compare that to Prime 3, Galaxy, Fire Emblem, Zelda, Wario, Brawl, and Wars.

Again, you're touching on relative numbers that are mostly irrelevant. The other first parties are doing a much better job catering to their core. Why can Nintendo not afford to do better? You haven't responded: you say that that's because making a SMG 'takes time', which, yes, is obvious. But if any first party can afford big, expensive games, it's Nintendo.

The only "next gen" I own is a DS and damn proud of it. Oh hey, wasn't Nintendo going to abandon the handheld crowd with nothing but brain training games and puppy sims?

Again, the future doesn't matter other than to make you feel better about your choice in the console wars. I don't play potential, I play games.

And who said that about the DS? It's apples and oranges: Nintendo has always made 'core' games for the DS, and third party support there has been great. Neither of these is the case of the Wii.

 

[eastmen]

Quote:
Originally Posted by eastmen
Now that they know that they will continue with that.

Do you have evidence? You do not. Nintendo's "core" oriented output has not slowed down at all. This kind of heuristic, hand-wavy, hearsay-based speculation is useless. Unless you have evidence demonstrating that Nintendo is no longer putting out key franchise titles as often as they did on Gamecube, don't say it.


Quote:
I thinik the major thing is the lack of third party traditional games.

Now we're getting somewhere! The fact is, Nintendo hasn't abandoned its core. It's giving you more, better (btw, Mario Kart Wii is in fact much better than Double Dash, true scientific fact ), and more often than it was on Gamecube and, I suspect, N64. But the 3rd parties have really dropped the ball.

I think we can see it by this year. We got mario kart and super smash brothers . What other core games are there ? The casuals got animal crossing , wii fit , wii music and other games.

Also your list doesn't take into account that the wii is basicly using recycled engines and assets on their games. So the lead time between mario sunshine to mario galaxey is much faster than mario 64 to mario sunshine. The same goes with mario kart and super smash brothers.

To be perfectly honest the last game on the wii I looked at buying was mario kart. So i'm going to end up going at last a year with no wii titles from nintendo that hold my interest.


Its not the 3rd party's fault , its nintendo's . If you look its only nintendo's games selling really well on the system. There are very few traditional million sellers that are not nintendo games .

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Its not the 3rd party's fault , its nintendo's . If you look its only nintendo's games selling really well on the system. There are very few traditional million sellers that are not nintendo games .

Well thats not true. Certainly not before the GC days. In the GC days it also was a matter of 3rd party devs generally just releasing not very good games. Wii also proves different. Even games released for like the 5th time like resident evil 4 sold over a million. That RE onrail shooter, decent, but not very good, also did close or over a million I think. EA had a bunch of good selling games too.

Its not a case of nintendo people will only buy nintendo. That is not true. I'd gladly buy other games if they were any good. But thats the problem. Alot of 3rd party games on Wii just arnt any good. Can you honestly be suprised if your game fails than? I mean, nobody is suprised if crap x360/ps3 dont sell, so why would it be any different on wii? the only difference is that on x360/ps3 it are other 3rd party's that fill up for the crap games. On wii its pretty much only nintendo and even they dont do a too good job on it.

 

[eastmen]

Well thats not true. Certainly not before the GC days. In the GC days it also was a matter of 3rd party devs generally just releasing not very good games. Wii also proves different. Even games released for like the 5th time like resident evil 4 sold over a million. That RE onrail shooter, decent, but not very good, also did close or over a million I think. EA had a bunch of good selling games too.

Its not a case of nintendo people will only buy nintendo. That is not true. I'd gladly buy other games if they were any good. But thats the problem. Alot of 3rd party games on Wii just arnt any good. Can you honestly be suprised if your game fails than? I mean, nobody is suprised if crap x360/ps3 dont sell, so why would it be any different on wii? the only difference is that on x360/ps3 it are other 3rd party's that fill up for the crap games. On wii its pretty much only nintendo and even they dont do a too good job on it.

Right and what good is another port of re4 for traditional gamers. We all played re4 years ago on either the cube of the ps2.

 

[fearsomepirate]

(and again, the GC had actual new IP in Pikmin, which the Wii still hasn't brought unless you consider Wii * to be valid new IP).

So in other words, Nintendo hasn't brought in any new IP for Wii, unless you count their new IP. Brilliant observation. Turns out that when Nintendo brings out new IPs, the "hardcore" really just get angry. Is Disaster new IP?

Let's look at the first 2 years of 1st party publishing on the SNES:

Super Mario World
Super Mario All-Stars
Zelda: Link to the Past
F-Zero
NHL Stanley Cup
Sim City
Battle Clash
NCAA Basketball
Mario's Early Years: Fun With Numbers
Mario's Early Years: Fun With Letters
Mario's Early Years: Preschool Fun
Yoshi's Safari
Tinstar
Super Play Action Football
Super Soccer
Super Tennis
Mario Paint

Yeah, that's a laundry list of classics. Nintendo's really abandoned its customers since the good ol' days of Mario's Early Years, and pure catering to the hardcore like Mario Paint. It looks nothing at all like the Wii list. /sarcasm

 

[fearsomepirate]

SIf there were an opportunity for 3rd parties to develop quality software for the Wii and make money doing it then they would.

That isn't true in any industry. The world is full of companies who pass up opportunities to make money because management doesn't grasp the market. The video game industry right now is not very customer-oriented; it's product-oriented. Some 3rd parties have figured out how to make money on the Wii. Capcom and Sega come to mind.

Look at what Microsoft has done in Japan. Microsoft made sure that several JRPGs appeared on their system. They didn't do spectacular numbers. They didn't radically change the fortunes of the system in that territory. What they did do was attract fans of the genre to buy the system.

Spectacular profit MS has been making, hasn't it? There's a reason Nintendo isn't following the "buy your way to success" strategy, and that is the very simple reason that it doesn't make you money. Microsoft's version of welfare for JRPGs hasn't made them money and, moreover, hasn't made the HD console market in Japan take off.

Would you now see (minus MS's support) a Square-Enix independently decide to make an RPG for 360 on their own initiative? Probably not.

Probably. Neither PS3 nor 360 are doing very well in Japan, and 360 is #2 in America. Development costs on FF XIII are likely so high that they can't afford to not release it on the 360, regardless of MS's funding of Blue Dragon or [insert failed JRPG here].

If MS hadn't worked to create this market would you then say it was the third parties' fault that there were no JRPGs on the 360?

It depends on whether or not JRPGs matter any more. Evidence from Japan suggests that the JRPG is going the way of the platformer--reduced to a niche. But supposing that they do matter, if a 3rd party can't figure out how to release a title and make money on the 360, yes, it's their own fault.

 

[obonicus]

So in other words, Nintendo hasn't brought in any new IP for Wii, unless you count their new IP. Brilliant observation. Turns out that when Nintendo brings out new IPs, the "hardcore" really just get angry. Is Disaster new IP?

Is Disaster coming out in the US? Do you live in Japan or Europe? Do you own a Japanese or PAL Wii? Are you unlocking your Wii? That's when Disaster becomes relevant. There's a ton of games NoA does not bring over that would change this whole discussion considerably. But I would suggest you read what other people are actually saying, first.

Is Wii * new IP? Sure, in a literal sense, but there's no characters, there's no characteristic gameplay, all of the things that come to mind when you think of a franchise, which is in direct contrast to Pikmin.

Let's look at the first 2 years of 1st party publishing on the SNES:

Super Mario World
Super Mario All-Stars
Zelda: Link to the Past
F-Zero
NHL Stanley Cup
Sim City
Battle Clash
NCAA Basketball
Mario's Early Years: Fun With Numbers
Mario's Early Years: Fun With Letters
Mario's Early Years: Preschool Fun
Yoshi's Safari
Tinstar
Super Play Action Football
Super Soccer
Super Tennis
Mario Paint

Yeah, that's a laundry list of classics. Nintendo's really abandoned its customers since the good ol' days of Mario's Early Years, and pure catering to the hardcore like Mario Paint. It looks nothing at all like the Wii list. /sarcasm

Actually, I knew you'd do this. I know the point you're trying to drive at, but it's a very strange point to make. You're trying to say that Nintendo has always been excessively casual, and only now we're noticing. It's a strange because we're framing this casual approach as a bad thing, as in, 'Nintendo sucks for doing this', and your counter-argument is, 'Nintendo doesn't suck -now-'. A suggestion would be for you to instead explain why this focus is a good thing. Not for Nintendo, not for casual gamers, but for the core audience, people for whom gaming is their main hobby.

But it's a false point anyway. There's worlds of difference between the SNES and the Wii, and they revolve around what mrcorbo said: first-party support. Maybe riding off the success of the Famicom/NES, maybe because they managed to build their own audience off a slew of high-quality titles, the fact is that they had tremendous third-party support (for core games), which the Wii does not. Note, however, that in Japan Nintendo is worlds ahead of NoA in working with third parties. Again, a lot of this focuses on 'NoA is doing a lousy job catering to the core gamer', rather than Nintendo as a whole (which isn't doing great, but still not awful).

 

[obonicus]

That isn't true in any industry. The world is full of companies who pass up opportunities to make money because management doesn't grasp the market. The video game industry right now is not very customer-oriented; it's product-oriented. Some 3rd parties have figured out how to make money on the Wii. Capcom and Sega come to mind.

Sega hasn't had tremendous success on the Wii; I'm really hoping Mad World will do well and prove me wrong in regards to the Wii market, but with no Japan release and considering how non-Nintendo 'core' games do on NPD, I don't think it'll be a success. Otherwise Sega's biggest success on the Wii was Mario and Sonic at the Olympics. Undoubtedly a success, but by that metric we can say that 2k discovered how to make money on the Wii, or hell, even Ubisoft.

Capcom's also not been that successful. Their US lineup isn't great, certainly, though they're still testing the waters with games like Dead Rising. Japan is a lot better, but they're games that the US probably won't see, like Tatsunoko vs. Capcom and MH3. Meanwhile, Capcom's also being very tentative, releasing REmake after REmake onto the Wii, possibly with the intent of one day porting RE5 there.

Spectacular profit MS has been making, hasn't it? There's a reason Nintendo isn't following the "buy your way to success" strategy, and that is the very simple reason that it doesn't make you money. Microsoft's version of welfare for JRPGs hasn't made them money and, moreover, hasn't made the HD console market in Japan take off.

It's drawn people to the 360 who otherwise wouldn't have bought one. Its made it a credible platform for more than schmups and otaku games.

It depends on whether or not JRPGs matter any more. Evidence from Japan suggests that the JRPG is going the way of the platformer--reduced to a niche. But supposing that they do matter, if a 3rd party can't figure out how to release a title and make money on the 360, yes, it's their own fault.

How is this relevant, though? The question is: if you want to build third party support, you have to show publishers that your platform is viable for those games. That's why, despite its incredible success the Wii isn't getting exclusive after exclusive. Publishers are just too skittish to bet on finding an audience on a platform they don't understand, while they do understand who's buying the HD consoles. Whether JRPGs are dominant or not isn't the issue at all.

 

[Refreshment]

Actually, I knew you'd do this. I know the point you're trying to drive at, but it's a very strange point to make. You're trying to say that Nintendo has always been excessively casual, and only now we're noticing. It's a strange because we're framing this casual approach as a bad thing, as in, 'Nintendo sucks for doing this', and your counter-argument is, 'Nintendo doesn't suck -now-'. A suggestion would be for you to instead explain why this focus is a good thing. Not for Nintendo, not for casual gamers, but for the core audience, people for whom gaming is their main hobby.

How is this relevant, though? The question is: if you want to build third party support, you have to show publishers that your platform is viable for those games. That's why, despite its incredible success the Wii isn't getting exclusive after exclusive. Publishers are just too skittish to bet on finding an audience on a platform they don't understand, while they do understand who's buying the HD consoles.

A good thing... a bad thing... third parties...."hardcores"... "casuals"...

The point, the essence of this thread still remains: Nintendo's "traditional games" output has remained in order this generation.

How is this relevant, though? The question is: if you want to build third party support, you have to show publishers that your platform is viable for those games. That's why, despite its incredible success the Wii isn't getting exclusive after exclusive.

I understand this part of your argument, but for this case the third party situation is somewhat tangencial.External support for the last 3 Nintendo home consoles has been poor, yet not until this generation people were so vocal about it.

Its an amusing situation for sure, one that Nintendo's own marketing agenda helped create.

Btw, theres some stuff being discussed that i think scapes the topic focus

 

[obonicus]

A good thing... a bad thing... third parties...."hardcores"... "casuals"...

The point, the essence of this thread still remains: Nintendo's "traditional games" output has remained in order this generation.

Didn't the N64 have much better 1st party support? True, Rare was still with Nintendo back then. No one says it, but I suspect Nintendo fans wish Nintendo went back to those days.

I understand this part of your argument, but for this case the third party situation is somewhat tangencial.External support for the last 3 Nintendo home consoles has been poor, yet not until this generation people were so vocal about it.

This may be true; my impression is that the people who were actually critical of Nintendo's 3rd party support in the last two generations jumped ship to Sony. Only the die-hards remained, of which there were very many. Sony consoles saw enormous third party support; for PS1 because Sony actively courted them and for PS2 because it was just so overwhelming.

Now the wheel has turned, Nintendo has the lead again. Fans are expecting Nintendo to be the new Sony, and it's just not happening. I'm not going to say that every complaint is rational, but I don't think it's safe to say that things are 'fine' either. I do think things are worse than before, mostly because Nintendo knows who pays the bills now, and I do think quite a few of their choices reflect a lack of interest in courting core gamers.

 

[Acert93]

Out of sheer curiosity, I decided to see how true this claim was that Nintendo has abandoned its core fans, which for Nintendo means fans of its core franchises (as opposed to self-identified "hardcore" gamers obsessed with first-person shooters and racing sims, to whom Nintendo has never catered). Every time Nintendo announces an expanded audience title, there is a great outcry from the gaming press and fans that Nintendo has abandoned them, implying that the core software support was much better on the Gamecube.

The GCN stunk in terms of library (to say the least) and your statement about hardcore gamers is very slanted. Look at the N64 which touted a number of FPS early in its life (Turok, GoldenEye, Doom, etc). The general complaint I have heard is that Nintendo took the track of continued antagonism toward 3rd parties and the direction of the industry (which they were getting spanked by the competition) and have made Nintendo fans choose between Ninny titles or popular 3rd party titles. Which of course is exactly what they have done. But one could argue they had no choice because competing on visuals and technology (and the inflated price tag) would have blown their strategy of delivering a platform that was significantly cheaper at launch than the competition that offered a different experience.

 

[Crono]

Out of sheer curiosity, I decided to see how true this claim was that Nintendo has abandoned its core fans, which for Nintendo means fans of its core franchises (as opposed to self-identified "hardcore" gamers obsessed with first-person shooters and racing sims, to whom Nintendo has never catered).

I can't help but see a (subtle) strawman here (or perhaps there's a better term for it that I don't know).

You're arguing that the claim is made that Nintendo has abandoned it's core fans, and by them you're referring to the Mario/Zelda/etc. fans.. I might be out of touch here, but I've always seen the claim to be that Nintendo has abandoned the core gaming market altogether.

By the way I can see why you're using the Gamecube as a comparison; but the Gamecube was a bad console, and it got stick for having a poor library. That point is being expressed more vocally now imo because a) they're doing it for the second time consecutively, and b) they're absolutely steamrolling the competition, so more is expected than they delivered on the GC.

Your post appears to ridicule people who expect something other than the big Ninty franchises from the Wii; and the part where they're 'self identified "hardcore" gamers obsessed with first-person shooters and racing sims' is laughable imo. The Wii currently caters to non-gamers and what I can only see as a niche audience of staunch Nintendo fans. Are you claiming that this has been the case throughout Nintendo's history?

The 'hardcore gamers' you're intent on ridiculing [who can enjoy just about every type of game on the market that isn't Mario, Zelda or Metroid] aren't interested in Nintendo's main console, for the argument that they've largely been left out. If it isn't obvious, I consider myself one of those - as one who's owned/enjoyed Nintendo consoles before the GC - I've personally enjoyed the third-party/non-Mario etc. games as much as or probably more than the core Ninty franchises.

I'm looking at Joshua Luna's point that Nintendo shouldn't really be criticised for this, since it was their strategy to release an inexpensive console at launch with significantly inferior technology than their market rivals.. just because we should have seen it coming (I did in all fairness), doesn't mean we've no right to be critics when the time comes.

 

[Jack_Tripper]

One could also take the stance that rehasing those "core franchises" does little to support their core audience - rather, it tries (with varying degrees of success) to create an entirely new generation of gamers with previous gen (gamer) expectations - how is that supporting your core audience again!?

If Wii Fit and Wii Sports are truly the revolutaionary next step in gaming - wouldn't it be nice to have your "Core" audience evolove in their choices as well?

Jack

 

[fearsomepirate]

Look at the N64 which touted a number of FPS early in its life (Turok, GoldenEye, Doom, etc).

Acclaim published Turok, and Midway published Doom. If Midway wants to publish a first-person shooter on the Wii, they can. You know, kind of like how Activision, Ubisoft, and now Sega have been doing. Maybe they'll make money for a change! Acclaim fans are, of course, SOL.

Here's an interesting fact: Activision brings in the most money from MMOs (duh, WoW), but on the consoles, Wii brings in the most revenue:
http://news.spong.com/article/16529/Activision_Blizzard_What_Makes_its_Money

But one could argue they had no choice because competing on visuals and technology (and the inflated price tag) would have blown their strategy of delivering a platform that was significantly cheaper at launch than the competition that offered a different experience.

Or one could argue that not going for hot new visuals was not intrinsically antagonistic toward third parties, since no one is twisting their arms and forcing them to ignore the new market direction. In fact, Wii is very friendly to third parties like Majesco, who weren't able to turn a profit in cinematic gaming and are now making money. Activision doesn't seem to be complaining, either. Meanwhile, Midway hasn't turned a profit in years. More powerful processors are fun for developers, but bank-busting development costs are not friendly to the people who pay the bills.

And since you asked, here are Nintendo's first 2 years' worth of N64 output:
Mario 64
Mariokart 64
Star Fox 64
Goldeneye
Banjo-Kazooie
Shadows of the Empire
Diddy Kong Racing
Cruis'n USA
Cruis'n World
1080 Snowboarding
Waialae Country Club: True Golf Classics
Bomberman 64
Mischief Makers
NBA Courtside
Killer Instinct Gold
Bomberman Hero
Blast Corps
Tetrisphere
MLB Feat. Ken Griffey, Jr
Wayne Gretzky's 3D Hockey
Yoshi's Story

It's kind of an interesting list. But it also makes it clear that "returning to those days" isn't possible, not because we'll never see sports games or Bomberman on the Wii, but because 3rd party publishers have pretty much taken care of that. There's no need for Nintendo to publish Cruis'n titles when EA cranks out its yearly Need for Speed. Rare is gone for good, and their output really was an artifact of the 90s. You'll never see that number of people be that productive again.

 

[swaaye]

So, what exactly do Wii owners have to look forward to? I haven't played a Wii game since like February of this year, cuz I got Mario Galaxy for Xmas. But that really didn't do it for me as much as I thought it would so I never got far in it. Other than that I have Zelda. Skipped Metroid cuz that is another overrated series IMO.

I think I'm gonna sell the Wii off and grab a cheap Cube again so I can play the few Cube titles I still own and like. Wii doesn't seem to have a future for me, from what I can see by looking at what's been previewed. I just get disgusted when I go look at the Wii's game library..... And there are lots of people blowing big bucks on Wii (what for!?) right now so getting in on that seems like the way to go for me.

I'm not much interested in 360 or PS3 either though. I think I'm just getting bored with the gaming choices out there. 360 and PS3 at least have some sweet racing games however, and I do enjoy those. Every other genre is better on PC, IMO. (I don't do sports games tho)