Nintendo's hardware choice philosophy *spawn

[Shifty Geezer]

How important are ports to Nintendo as a company?

If they don't have a USP like Wii that can reach many millions, ports are vital. There are only so many people who'll buy a console just to play Mario games. If Nintendo want a larger audience, they have to cater to wider tastes. If they don't have the current-gen versions of FIFA, Madden, COD etc.they are losing many tens of million of potential customers.

 

[Exophase]

Third party titles aren't that important if it isn't selling consoles.

Almost all Wii U owners will own a Nintendo game and probably a majority of them hinged their decision on Nintendo games, so I don't think they'd lose a lot of console sales if not for third party.

Sure, Nintendo gets some licensing money per sale but it's pretty meager compared to the amount they get from selling one of their own games.. Just imagine how much profit Nintendo gets on NSMBWU if it sells millions of copies, $60 a pop for something that surely cost much less to develop than the usual big sellers on XBox360 and PS3. Probably cost substantially less to develop than the Super Mario Galaxy games for that matter.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

How are Nintendo supposed to sell to non-Nintendo fans if they don't have third party support?

 

[babcat]

The WiiU is obviously not meant to be a next generation system, but to lag behind a generation. Nintendo has proven that people will purchase inferior hardware.

 

[AzaK]

How important are ports to Nintendo as a company? Ports are good for third parties and people who don't want to buy the lead console. But to nintendo itself it seems less important. Suppose there are no ports at all? it would be like the gamecube days. lol.

I think the Wii showed that ports are important and Reggie has stated as much. If they don't have the ports, people who own their system that want to play those ports will go and by a competitor's system along with the game. That is money that could have been theirs. Sure there's the argument of people buying competitor's anyway due to be HD etc, but as Call of Duty showed there was an audience of some size there. Imagine if all the "core" games from this generation were also on Wii. Nintendo could have picked up licensing fees of several million units of software. For each $60 game that equates to about $12 a unit IIRC.

Wii U may prove to be move successful due to it's architecture, I just hope Nintendo is trying really hard to make them happen (within their power of course). With comparable tech to next-gen Sony/MS I think they could have really made a good dent but given what Wii U is and the more I hear about the other consoles, the more I feel that they can only alleviate it for a smaller range of consumers. That is, those consumers who prefer to have one console and are not entirely obsessed with high-end console graphics (Like me).

If Wii U gets the ports I probably will stick with it and not worry that Durango/Orbis are much "Sexier". I'm liking MiiVerse and the tablet so far and those could prove more of a draw than high end graphics.

The WiiU is obviously not meant to be a next generation system, but to lag behind a generation. Nintendo has proven that people will purchase inferior hardware.

You say that with disdain but I don't think that's a bad thing. People are sometimes more interesting other things than what CPU and GPU is in the system and the graphics it produces.

 

[Exophase]

How are Nintendo supposed to sell to non-Nintendo fans if they don't have third party support?

How is Nintendo supposed to sell to non-Nintendo fans with ports of games for other consoles they already own?

 

[function]

How is Nintendo supposed to sell to non-Nintendo fans with ports of games for other consoles they already own?

Well I guess Shifty's idea is that you sell them third party games for consoles they don't already own. Kind of how the 360 took over from the PS2 for many core gamers.

It's an infinitely easier proposition than trying to sell them current-gen ports that never even materialise on the WiiU because the CPU is too weak to even run the game in any capacity.

 

[Exophase]

Well I guess Shifty's idea is that you sell them third party games for consoles they don't already own. Kind of how the 360 took over from the PS2 for many core gamers.

It's an infinitely easier proposition than trying to sell them current-gen ports that never even materialise on the WiiU because the CPU is too weak to even run the game in any capacity.

But if they aren't Nintendo fans (I'm taking this to mean they're not interested in buying Nintendo games at all, correct me if this is too extreme) then why would they buy a Wii U for ports, when they could buy an XBox 360 for substantially less?

I can't see much of a reason for Wii U to get exclusives outside of first and second party games and the occasional title that fits tablet control especially well. And I don't think it'll be able to handle ports of next gen titles at all. It's definitely no PS2 to XBox 360 leap.

 

[owen]

How is Nintendo supposed to sell to non-Nintendo fans with ports of games for other consoles they already own?

Lol. Genius!

If it worked once for the Wii there is a good chance it will work again. It seems that the main complaint about the their hardware philosophy is that its not a port machine and that its over priced. Which seem to be pretty much a fact at this point. But if it keeps the company profitable and they keep making good first party games, then I don't think they will fail because of the lack of FIFA/MADDEN fans.

 

[function]

But if they aren't Nintendo fans (I'm taking this to mean they're not interested in buying Nintendo games at all, correct me if this is too extreme) then why would they buy a Wii U for ports, when they could buy an XBox 360 for substantially less?

Well I kind of agree, I don't think many people who aren't Nintendo or Wii fans to some degree would buy the WiiU. If you wanted to catch them with the multiplatform angle you'd need to use the hook that it was the first "next gen" multiplatform system like MS did with the 360, and like Sega tried with the DC.

I thought Nintendo might try this angle for the first 12 months or so, but despite Reggie's claim of radically better graphics it's pretty clear that Nintendo's Japanese leadership don't really believe in that, and that they know success will ultimately come through delivering their own 1st and 2nd party entertainment experiences and games built around their controller. Pretty much like the Wii I guess.

Current multi platform ports are simply about generating buzz, revenue, retailer presence and (quite importantly) making N-fans feel a little more comfortable investing in the platform while it builds up momentum. And it seems to be working - look at all the net posts (even here) talking about untapped CPU power to beat PS360 and using GPGPU to handle next gen ports from the "CPU centric" PS4 and Xbox 3.

I can't see much of a reason for Wii U to get exclusives outside of first and second party games and the occasional title that fits tablet control especially well. And I don't think it'll be able to handle ports of next gen titles at all. It's definitely no PS2 to XBox 360 leap.

Yep. Lots of party games, "spin off" next gen games (with last gen graphics) and plenty of Mario Tennis: kart Edition Touch Inventory Deluxe. And Zelda. Which will be awesome.

 

[Exophase]

Lol. Genius!

If it worked once for the Wii there is a good chance it will work again. It seems that the main complaint about the their hardware philosophy is that its not a port machine and that its over priced. Which seem to be pretty much a fact at this point. But if it keeps the company profitable and they keep making good first party games, then I don't think they will fail because of the lack of FIFA/MADDEN fans.

Nintendo didn't sell Wii by selling third party games. The best selling list speaks for itself.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Wii_video_games

 

[Platon]

Nintendo didn't sell Wii by selling third party games. The best selling list speaks for itself.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Wii_video_games

I would almost say they didn't sell it by first party games either. Very strange statement, looking at that list, I know, but what did sell the Wii were the new controls. Having a game like Wii sports, which seems to be the outstanding nr.1 game without competition, showing the capabilities of the controller in a very easy/intuitive way made gaming easily accessible.

The question is if the Wuublet will sell the console in the same way? Will the 1st party games show of the capabilities of the new controller as easily and intuitively as Wii sports once did? If they don't they might actually need that 3rd party support, as this console will not sell to the same ultra casual demographic as the Wii did. Therefore they might need to dig into the same pool of gamers as PS360 and their next gen iterations and how will you attract those gamers?

There are the die hard Nin fans that will get the console and every game Nin spits out, as well as families that don't know that there are other video games than Mario. Question is if they are enough to keep the WiiU afloat through next gen...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

How is Nintendo supposed to sell to non-Nintendo fans with ports of games for other consoles they already own?

1) there are many, many millions of households without an HD console

2) surely Nintendo want HD console owners to upgrade to Wuu so Nintendo make far more money selling to a far larger market?

Your basically saying that Nintendo have given up on audience that isn't already a Nintendo fan who'll buy a Nintendo console to play Nintendo games. If instead they had really strong 3rd party support with amazing added value from the unique Wuublet experience, they could attract over a few HD gamers. It's Nintendo themselves that said they were going after the core gamer with Wuu - if they were serious about that (debatable!) then they need 3rd party support.

 

[Entropy]

I would almost say they didn't sell it by first party games either. Very strange statement, looking at that list, I know, but what did sell the Wii were the new controls. Having a game like Wii sports, which seems to be the outstanding nr.1 game without competition, showing the capabilities of the controller in a very easy/intuitive way made gaming easily accessible.

The question is if the Wuublet will sell the console in the same way? Will the 1st party games show of the capabilities of the new controller as easily and intuitively as Wii sports once did? If they don't they might actually need that 3rd party support, as this console will not sell to the same ultra casual demographic as the Wii did. Therefore they might need to dig into the same pool of gamers as PS360 and their next gen iterations and how will you attract those gamers?

I tend to agree with the analysis - the motion controls sold the Wii more than first party titles per se.

Personally, I think it is foolish to think that only casuals were pulled in even if they were a part of the success of the WIi. Rather it was everyone who were curious about what motion controls could offer. PC gamers, people who were using or had used other platforms, mobile players, casuals - you'll find them all among Wii buyers. Unfortunately the controls were coarse until the Motion Plus was introduced, so precious few titles actually used them with precision or allowed much skill building in terms of control. But the promise of a new experience pulled a lot of people in.

There are the die hard Nin fans that will get the console and every game Nin spits out, as well as families that don't know that there are other video games than Mario. Question is if they are enough to keep the WiiU afloat through next gen...

There are families that buy Nintendo precisely because they want to avoid the environment offered by the other consoles. How attractive is bloody gore and trash talking ten year olds on a scale again?

But the question is well put - personally I certainly don't think the screen in the controller is nearly as interesting as good motion control is, and I can't see it having the same ability to pull in the curious.
I think Nintendo tried too hard this generation to provide a new experience, and threw out the baby with the bath water. We'll see how the market responds. The overall console market is in decline and all players there tread a fine line going forward. As I mentioned in another thread, if Nintendo face difficulties, I think it is wise to assume that Sony and Microsoft won't find consumers any easier to convince.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There are families that buy Nintendo precisely because they want to avoid the environment offered by the other consoles. How attractive is bloody gore and trash talking ten year olds on a scale again?

That can be avoided on other platforms. What you're describing is akin to a TV/STB that can only receive PG and under content. Would such a box really find a market against open-ended STBs where you can manage channels?

I also don't see Nintendo's supposed target demographic as being a design philosophy in Wii U or other consoles regards choice of CPU, GPU, etc. They could put in more potent hardware and still sell to the same demographic. If they don't want bloody gore and trash talking, they can manage that through their licensing and only allow 3rd party titles that are PEGI 7/ ESRB E(10) tops. There's nothing in the core hardware choices that enforce a particular genre limitation. I suppose by including a gun controller or such as standard, one can promote a console for particular genres, but otherwise content is managed on the content side.

 

[Platon]

I tend to agree with the analysis - the motion controls sold the Wii more than first party titles per se.

Personally, I think it is foolish to think that only casuals were pulled in even if they were a part of the success of the WIi. Rather it was everyone who were curious about what motion controls could offer. PC gamers, people who were using or had used other platforms, mobile players, casuals - you'll find them all among Wii buyers. Unfortunately the controls were coarse until the Motion Plus was introduced, so precious few titles actually used them with precision or allowed much skill building in terms of control. But the promise of a new experience pulled a lot of people in.

I don't disagree at all, and my reference to ultra casuals was more about Nin expanding the gaming market. They managed to pull in people that most likely would never have bough a console, on top of course of the usual hardcore/core/casual gamers, because even though many of those were aware that graphically it was nothing special it was still a very interesting concept, I got one myself.

As I mentioned in another thread, if Nintendo face difficulties, I think it is wise to assume that Sony and Microsoft won't find consumers any easier to convince.

Overall I agree with that as well. There is so much more competition when it comes to entertainment from so many sources. Heck, even face book is a competitor, not because of their games but because people would rather hang around there than gaming. It will be interesting to see how the next gen unfolds...

 

[Exophase]

1) there are many, many millions of households without an HD console

Why would non-Nintendo fans buy a Wii U now over a cheaper XBox 360 or PS3?

2) surely Nintendo want HD console owners to upgrade to Wuu so Nintendo make far more money selling to a far larger market?

Why would non-Nintendo fans do this if Wii U isn't really an upgrade?

Your basically saying that Nintendo have given up on audience that isn't already a Nintendo fan who'll buy a Nintendo console to play Nintendo games.

What I'm saying is that Nintendo develops their consoles for first party games. Some have said that it was motion controls that sold Wii, not first party - in my mind these things are inextricably linked. Nintendo provided motion controls because Nintendo wanted to do games with motion controls. Being able to pack in big motion games like Wii Sports sold a ton of Wiis early on.

Not counting the pack-ins, Nintendo has sold more Wii games than Wii consoles. Probably a fair number of the pack-ins were sold outside of console sales. I don't know about Wii, but with this generation Nintendo is probably making a lot more money per game sold than console sold. And they make a lot more money per first party title sold than per third party title sold.

So the question in my mind is, who is buying the console for third party games but then is also buying first party games? Because I think Nintendo would trade more first party sales at the expense of fewer console sales. And they would also trade port friendliness if it didn't hurt their games but made the console cheaper.

 

[Entropy]

That can be avoided on other platforms. What you're describing is akin to a TV/STB that can only receive PG and under content. Would such a box really find a market against open-ended STBs where you can manage channels?

I also don't see Nintendo's supposed target demographic as being a design philosophy in Wii U or other consoles regards choice of CPU, GPU, etc. They could put in more potent hardware and still sell to the same demographic. If they don't want bloody gore and trash talking, they can manage that through their licensing and only allow 3rd party titles that are PEGI 7/ ESRB E(10) tops. There's nothing in the core hardware choices that enforce a particular genre limitation. I suppose by including a gun controller or such as standard, one can promote a console for particular genres, but otherwise content is managed on the content side.

Actually, I didn't describe the parent perspective, (even though it's probably a fair description of my wifes position regarding the HD consoles). Rather, I was thinking of my two daughters. They aren't impressed by killing games, nor by guys who find pixellated killing over and over and over again gratifying.

I don't think this has much to do with hardware choices, although it does point to a problem for Nintendo. They are probably perfectly aware that there is large category of people who find the HD-twin fare of G of Wars, CoDs, Witchers, Skyrims, Darksiders and so on repulsive, who are fine with Kirbys epic Yarn, Super Mario Galaxy, Wii Fit, Just Dance and so on. They don't want to alienate those customers, but at the same time they want to announce that they can do Gory Death too. Tricky.

 

[owen]

I also don't see Nintendo's supposed target demographic as being a design philosophy in Wii U or other consoles regards choice of CPU, GPU, etc. They could put in more potent hardware and still sell to the same demographic. If they don't want bloody gore and trash talking, they can manage that through their licensing and only allow 3rd party titles that are PEGI 7/ ESRB E(10) tops.

This the "have your cake and eat it too" problem. Basically saying why can't nintendo release cutting edge hardware and sell it for cheap as well? I don't think that is possible. This is the YYOD and RROD generation. I don't think it is ever a wise decision to release a fragile console or sell it at a significant loss in the hopes that it will catch on.

Another thing to notice about the hardware is that Nintendo left a component cable port on the Wuu console because they know people still have SD tvs. This further reduced the barrier of entry. It was a wise move, they even went as far as including a HDMI cable. They clearly know who they are selling to. They are selling to people who bought the wii.

Also the wii was not only sold on the motion controls, it had alot of other things going for it;
- cheap (still cheaper than the ps/360 at launch and even now),
- almost perfectly backwards compatibile (discs, controllers, memory cards);
- compact, quiet, white, slot loading

All these things plus easy to setup motion controls made it so that virtually anyone could waggle without needing a degree.

 

[liolio]

This the "have your cake and eat it too" problem. Basically saying why can't nintendo release cutting edge hardware and sell it for cheap as well? I don't think that is possible. This is the YYOD and RROD generation. I don't think it is ever a wise decision to release a fragile console or sell it at a significant loss in the hopes that it will catch on.

Another thing to notice about the hardware is that Nintendo left a component cable port on the Wuu console because they know people still have SD tvs. This further reduced the barrier of entry. It was a wise move, they even went as far as including a HDMI cable. They clearly know who they are selling to. They are selling to people who bought the wii.

Also the wii was not only sold on the motion controls, it had alot of other things going for it;
- cheap (still cheaper than the ps/360 at launch and even now),
- almost perfectly backwards compatibile (discs, controllers, memory cards);
- compact, quiet, white, slot loading

All these things plus easy to setup motion controls made it so that virtually anyone could waggle without needing a degree.

I think you don't get his argument, on technical level the design choices look "iffy". It is not a matter of shipping a more expansive product but a better one. If you think that the WiiU is best design wrt its BOM it is fine, the whole point is that neither me nor Shifty nor more educated people think that is the case.
Whether it is bothering for Nintendo own software is another matter.
Wrt to failure rate, I do agree that MSFT and Sony might have pushed a bit too far which also resulted in a way too long generation, complains from major editors, etc. (actually Ubisoft just declared that they hope that next gen doesn't last that along). The ps360 was a bit on the big side too, I agree with that, quiet invasive in a living room, etc.

But the issue is that Nintendo's goals are a bit unclear, they communicated on "core" games quiet a lot, ME3, CoD. They try to appeal to core gamers, core gamers read the press and may not be ok with games that dive in the 20 FPS range on a significant basis and feel like they are down grading more than up grading. They may move for the sake of exclusive but that another matter.
Point is the WiiU didn't deliver, not because of its BOM, but because it looks ill designed and 12 years after the Gamecube release it seems that Nintendo has not spend a penny to handle BC with that generation of product (GC/Wii) through software.

I would sum up like this:
*Will Nintendo manage to reach its fan base: Yes
*Will Nintendo reach the young gamers: Yes, though they better have good wiimote games out on the system and fast, so young "wii dancers" are asking their parents to upgrade that good old Wii. I don't think the Wiiumote provides enough value for that demographic, they have to leverage existing peripheral (and that applies to the next group). I also think that the price is still a bit high, 250$ was perfect for kid and occasional family uses.
*Will they reach other people that rallied the brand though the WiiU (so none of the aforementioned group): for now I would say mostly no (no titles leveraging existing peripheral, and kinect is a strong competition for fitness games, etc.).
* Will Nintendo gather core gamers they lost a while ago: now.

To me it looks like a shrinking of their potential targets.
I would say that on hardware alone Nintendo failed to get some core gamers on board, and that they also failed to push a software line up that would have leverage all of the Wii strength and what appealed to its user base (motion controls). I love the Wiiumote concept but they should have pushed at the detriment of their existing motion control technology even though that would have mean pushing games that doesn't use the new pad in any way. Whether or not it promotes the new pad, I think a new Wii sport and a good dancing game may have done them quiet some good in the kid demographic.

They are failing to present the product in a consistent way, for the sake of promoting the new system capability, they are imo not selling the device as a "Wii2".