Well they sell a portable console it in the same way that camera companies can still sell SLRs. They sell it as a premium device that does the same job but better. An SLR takes better pictures, has a great lens, has awesome zoom, a better sensor and so on. A dedicated portable console is the best way to play some kinds of games because it has buttons, is built for delivering decent visuals, and has a better battery life when being hammered.
I think the starting point for selling a portable console is to assume that the person already has a smartphone. Because they probably do. And then instead of trying to "beat" the smartphone at being a multifunction device be solid and cheap. Nintendo needs to keep doing what they've always done. What they need to do is convince the 20 year old who's on a Netflix binge on their tablet lying on their bed to take a break between episodes and dive into Zelda for a few minutes. Be the SLR to mobile gaming's built in camera.
Anecdotally I can say I got my daughter a DSi and 3DS because she was into Pokemon; she's gone off it a lot and plays more iOS games or just watches YouTube shows; the 3DS sits in the charge cradle most of the time and if she wants to play games it's on the Wii U. Consequently I see no point in upgrading her to a "new" 3DS or even a future Nintendo handheld; I'm sure she'd rather have my iPad Air handed down.
Well a similar anecdote with a slightly different conclusion. I convinced my sister to get a 3DS fairly early in its life. But she's one of the many people who is really, really into mobile gaming. So if what people are saying about mobile is true then she would have abandoned her 3DS right? Well no, she's poured hundreds of hours into Animal Crossing. Literally hundreds. Way more than I have. I got her Fantasy Life for Christmas last year and was kinda a bit unsure about how much she'd like it. Loves it. So there's a whole spectrum of different types of users but for most I suspect it's something like that, a portable console is the "premium" experience.
As a side note I told her about the Level 5 going mobile. Taking both Layton and Fantasy Life. Wasn't a fan of the idea. Said she wouldn't like a dumbed down version of Fantasy Life, would hate the idea of micro-transactions and wouldn't pay money for a mobile game. But knowing how much she loves both series she'd be first in line to pay $50AU for a retail release on the 3DS.
@skywake Wouldn't a premium device kind of go against what Nintendo has traditionally been doing with handhelds? I don't disagree, that sounds like what you need to do, but it is like walking away from the youth market. On the other hand that might make the mobile platform strategy more clear: sell the kiddies using the kit their folks bought them on the core IP via mobile games, then try to woo them to the premium dedicated game hardware Nintendo makes when they have their own disposable income. The price they pay is potentially having a smaller install base than any of the DS platforms, but if they can ensure software sales support the R&D of the platform it can work. If it doesn't dump the handheld platform in favour of mobile games and some kind of hardware peripheral line that "enhances the end-user experience."
Longtime fans will not be happy with change, but then they're often the most inflexible lot. Nintendo has to worry more about Nintendo surviving another 100 years than whether or not people freak out because the next console isn't meant for the wee ones at Xmas.
@Sean_Aaron
When I said "premium" I was talking about the content itself. Premium not necessarily because it's more expensive hardware. Premium because you can get content on it that you're willing to pay more money for. The price for a fairly entry-level tablet is around $300AU but people play free-to-play or 99c games on the thing. You can get a 2DS for $150AU and people will happily pay $50AU for something like Majora's Mask 3D. Nintendo's execs already talk about the split between mobile and dedicated consoles with that terminology. They used it when they announced the NX.
Like the digital camera analogy. If you have your phone in your pocket and want to take a quick photo? The built in camera is fine. And if you're not really into taking photos then that's probably enough. But if you want to dive into photography? You'll get a proper camera. It might happen to be cheaper than your phone but the fact that it's a dedicated device? It'll take better photos.
Ok, I'm gonna level with ya, here. You sound like Michael Pachter. In most spaces, that'd be wonderful, but in the gaming world, and especially when it comes to Nintendo, I've known total amateur analysts that get things right more often than he does. If you treat Nintendo like your ordinary company, you're gonna find yourself being wrong as often as you are right. This is because Nintendo doesn't act like your ordinary company. Yeah, on the surface, it seems like profits = good and everything adds up, except it doesn't quite add up when looked at more closely. There are a number of reasons for this, but the most important one is that Nintendo not only respects, but also enforces artistic integrity, which is somethig the majority of studios tend to jump up and down all over before telling their devs to get back to work.
This explains a lot of why Nintendo is loose when it comes to controlling their various dev teams and 2nd parties, but it also explains why their so iron fisted when it comes to unauthorized use of their IPs. so as long as you're looking at is as "Nibtendo needs to always be making money, how can they ensure that happens?" You'll wind up being wrong a little over half of the time. If you think about it like, "Nintendo wants to turn a profit, but they also want to treat all of their IPs, devs, and departments with respect and give them full creative freedom. How can they pull that off?" You'll find that their decisions often make a lot more sense.
Do you think Nintendo is a charity? Artistic integrity and creative freedom only gets you so far in life, if Nintendo isn't making money on something there's not much reason for them to continue. I do appreciate that Nintendo utilizes their IPs a bit more in spite of lower sales, but they need to balance that better with IPs that can actually appeal to the mass media and turn a profit. They can't continue this "screw profits, we'll just make what we want" approach forever, especially when the industry is trending further and further away from the kinds of games Nintendo likes making, that's a very naive and immature approach to running a business and it's going to come back to bite them at some point.
Also, even from a creative freedom perspective they've practically reached the limit of what they can do with the 3DS and Wii U. They're almost to the point (and will be at that point after 2 years' worth of games) where the only way they can progress from a creative standpoint is with new hardware features. 2017 is the right time for that.
And here you are, missing the entire point. I don't really care what Nintendo chooses to do as a company. As long as they're still making great games, I'm fine. Anyways, they do what they want. That's how Nintendo is. It's not a statement of opinion or anything. It's pure fact that Nintendo will do as Nintendo does. Personally, that's what I like about them.
As for your whole "naive" thing, honestly, I think that highlights the problem with a lot of things. Game development should be more artistic and less formulaic. That creates new and more interesting games, rather just just another CoD. Just another AC. Just another Mario. That's what creates your Splatoons and Metroid Primes. That's where your Mortal Kombats, Smash Bros, and Cave Stories come from. People making new and interesting ideas not because they think it'll sell but because it's what they want to make and what they would want to play.
You can keep saying all you want that Nintendo "needs" to do this or that they "have to" do that. But at the end of the day, Nintendo does whatever they want, within reason. They're aware they need money to do so, but so long as the business end isn't flat out failing (and it's drooping a bit, yeah, but not flat out failing) they will continue to put quality over quantity, something I really wish more devs would do, these days. Hmm... Do I want twenty mediocre games, this year or five really good ones? Considering the mediocre ones are gonna cost me about $1200 and the good ones are gonna cost me less than $300, I'm gonna go with the five really good games over the twenty formulaic ones. It's really a shame more gamers don't think like that. (And I'm aware there's room for opinion on what constitutes good, but I think we can agree that if you're guaranteed to run into a glitch in any hour of gaming, it's not a quality title. If there was little more thought put into the gameplay than "how can we keep it feeling like it always has while adding one or two new things to appease the fanboys?" it's not a quality title. And honestly, over the last couple years, I can't help but notice a dip in quality of 3rd party titles. Not looking good.)
Except they said they'll be sharing details next year. That strongly points towards a reveal next year, which would mean a 2016/2017 release.
Except that's NOT what they said, and that's NOT what that means. They said they weren't ready to talk about the NX AT ALL until 2016, meaning to say that what Iwata said at the DeNA press conference was NOT A REVEAL OF THE F-ING CONSOLE.
IT WAS ONLY EVEN MENTIONED SO PEOPLE WOULDN'T FREAK OUT Which clearly did not work since there are STILL IDIOTS talking about it.
What you are exhibiting is the logical fallacy of jumping to conclusions (or specificity) in which YOU JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS based off of little to no evidence or made up evidence.
Announcing something in order for people not to freak out doesn't mean they're going to release in 2017. I mean ... how anyone can come up with such a conclusion for LITERALLY ZERO EVIDENCE is baffling.
Sorry for yelling.
Neither do I, but sadly, this type of gamer is a huge majority. If Nintendo can't appeal to them, they're probably not going to last long in the market. I would however, like to see them balance quirky games with games that have actual mass appeal. It's not impossible, the Wii did take a somewhat balanced approach itself, but they're going to have to be
I would VERY much like to see the reference from which you are gathering your statistical figures of "huge majority". Because I'm willing to bet, you're 100% incorrect. That, in fact, this is a minority of very vocal gamers, not the majority.
who is this imaginary strawman "everybody" the OP is referring to that think the Wii U will be supported by 2020?
That Retro guy likes to make the same thread every week or so, and between him and Bolt_Strike, I don't know which one understands the concept of needing evidence to make a claim less.
There is zero evidence for any of their claims, yet they stand by them almost zealously. It shouldn't bother me as much as it does, but it does, because I hate illogic arguments.
But logic dictates that cows should be able to fly within 3 years, given the average intellect level they have and the time it takes an average rnd department to develop wings.
Logic isn't the answer to everything you can piece together you know. Estimation is much more than that.
Plus, speculation is fun. And using some level of estimate and speculation, there's lots off stuff we can deduce because estimation is coloured by experiences and logic is coloured by mere absolutes which, in actual paradox, dictate irrelevance.
So get off the high horses, join the conversation that exists because we like gaming the quality nintendo way, and have fun. There's lots of fun.
But not with caps lock. Caps lock is rarely any fun.
And I still think that by christmas 2016 we're talking about whatever nx turns out to be, maybe even holding it. But that's my guess, and I could be proven wrong while I was too busy gaming on my wii U to notice.
These guys apparently didn't recognize that literally every paragraph in the OP mentions either "2016" or "1.5 years from now". It's very obvious what I meant by it. Besides the fact that consoles are known to have 5 year life cycles, so it was a pretty common subject to bring up.
who is this imaginary strawman "everybody" the OP is referring to that think the Wii U will be supported by 2020?
I would imagine we will see the Wii U to be continued to be supported until at least 2019. The NX has simply been mentioned but no hardware has been shown, no games have been shown, so it is at the very infancy of ideas.
So you believe the company with a history of keeping a 5 year lifecycle for it's mot successful of consoles, 6 at the very most(with the 6th year being barely supported at all), will keep alive it's least successful and most universally bashed console for AT LEAST 7 years...?
Can we stop talking about "casual gamers" as if they want an entirely different set of devices? Because that's not anywhere near the truth. We're not talking about some sort of alien species here. The reason people play games on their mobiles and not their 3DS isn't because the 3DS "doesn't do facebook". They play games on their phone because they need their phone, because everyone needs a phone. A portable console is an extra thing ontop of a phone. I'm not going to put a SIM in my portable console, I'm probably going to play my portable console at home more than anywhere else. I don't need that extra functionality and I don't think I'm alone in thinking that way.
Phone, Facebook, same thing. People are passing up dedicated gaming hardware because they want to do more than just game. And while you may not be alone in thinking that, you're still in the minority since there are hundreds of millions, maybe even billions of people who need that functionality.
Well they sell a portable console it in the same way that camera companies can still sell SLRs. They sell it as a premium device that does the same job but better. An SLR takes better pictures, has a great lens, has awesome zoom, a better sensor and so on. A dedicated portable console is the best way to play some kinds of games because it has buttons, is built for delivering decent visuals, and has a better battery life when being hammered.
I think the starting point for selling a portable console is to assume that the person already has a smartphone. Because they probably do. And then instead of trying to "beat" the smartphone at being a multifunction device be solid and cheap. Nintendo needs to keep doing what they've always done. What they need to do is convince the 20 year old who's on a Netflix binge on their tablet lying on their bed to take a break between episodes and dive into Zelda for a few minutes. Be the SLR to mobile gaming's built in camera.
The problem with this strategy is that game development is too expensive for niche markets to be very profitable. And you're going to have a hard time convincing people to buy dedicated gaming hardware if their attention span is that short that they'd only play it for a few minutes. The market for this kind of device is shrinking.
@UGXWolf No, I got that. But my point is that they can't just do whatever they want with the hardware and software. Business doesn't work like that, you can't run a successful business without tailoring your product to fit the needs of a target audience. Nintendo isn't going to remain in the hardware business by expecting the consumers to come to them, they need to make an effort to reach out to the consumers. Creative freedom is certainly a good thing and it helps them stand out more, but you have to appeal to your target audience first before you have the privilege of exercising it, or else no one is going to care.
@crimsoncavalier It was my understanding that all of this was common knowledge, but if you insist.
Smartphones vs. Dedicated Hardware:
3DS sales: 50 million
Best selling 3DS games:
-Pokemon XY: 13.7 million
-Mario Kart 7: 11.42 million
-Pokemon ORAS: 9.35 million
-Super Mario 3D Land: 9.27 million
-NSMB2: 9.01 million
-Animal Crossing: New Leaf: 8.73 million
-Smash: 6.19 million
iPad sales: 200 million
iPhone sales: 700 million
Best selling mobile games:
-Tetris: 100 million
-Pac Man: 30 million in the U.S.
-Minecraft: Pocket Edition: 30 million
-Angry Birds: 12 million
-Block Breaker Deluxe: 8 million
-Sonic the Hedgehog: 8 million in U.S. and Europe
-Fruit Ninja: 6 million
There's a clear difference in hardware between dedicated hardware and non-dedicated hardware. Software is actually a little closer than I expected, but we can see that established brands sell at least double what they do on the 3DS. So if Nintendo would sell their games to the mobile audience, they could easily see 30-50 million in sales from their heavy hitters like Mario, Pokemon, and Smash.
As proof that Nintendo maintains strong enthusiasm for the dedicated game system business, let me confirm that Nintendo is currently developing a dedicated game platform with a brand-new concept under the development codename "NX." It is too early to elaborate on the details of this project, but we hope to share more information with you next year.
The phrasing is admittedly a bit ambiguous, but PR statements typically are. The implication is clear though, it's too early to share details now, but it's not too early next year.
Can we stop talking about "casual gamers" as if they want an entirely different set of devices? Because that's not anywhere near the truth. We're not talking about some sort of alien species here. The reason people play games on their mobiles and not their 3DS isn't because the 3DS "doesn't do facebook". They play games on their phone because they need their phone, because everyone needs a phone. A portable console is an extra thing ontop of a phone. I'm not going to put a SIM in my portable console, I'm probably going to play my portable console at home more than anywhere else. I don't need that extra functionality and I don't think I'm alone in thinking that way.
Phone, Facebook, same thing. People are passing up dedicated gaming hardware because they want to do more than just game. And while you may not be alone in thinking that, you're still in the minority since there are hundreds of millions, maybe even billions of people who need that functionality.
Well they sell a portable console it in the same way that camera companies can still sell SLRs. They sell it as a premium device that does the same job but better. An SLR takes better pictures, has a great lens, has awesome zoom, a better sensor and so on. A dedicated portable console is the best way to play some kinds of games because it has buttons, is built for delivering decent visuals, and has a better battery life when being hammered.
I think the starting point for selling a portable console is to assume that the person already has a smartphone. Because they probably do. And then instead of trying to "beat" the smartphone at being a multifunction device be solid and cheap. Nintendo needs to keep doing what they've always done. What they need to do is convince the 20 year old who's on a Netflix binge on their tablet lying on their bed to take a break between episodes and dive into Zelda for a few minutes. Be the SLR to mobile gaming's built in camera.
The problem with this strategy is that game development is too expensive for niche markets to be very profitable. And you're going to have a hard time convincing people to buy dedicated gaming hardware if their attention span is that short that they'd only play it for a few minutes. The market for this kind of device is shrinking.
@UGXWolf No, I got that. But my point is that they can't just do whatever they want with the hardware and software. Business doesn't work like that, you can't run a successful business without tailoring your product to fit the needs of a target audience. Nintendo isn't going to remain in the hardware business by expecting the consumers to come to them, they need to make an effort to reach out to the consumers. Creative freedom is certainly a good thing and it helps them stand out more, but you have to appeal to your target audience first before you have the privilege of exercising it, or else no one is going to care.
If you don't like it ir think it's naive, that's your problem, but I'd like to point out that Nintendo is the oldest if the Big 3 in both gaming and overall. Nintendo's the only one that survived the crash, has systems in every generation and the only one that seems capable of producing a stable hangeld system and durable hardware. Sony and Microsoft may have the spotlight, but Nintendo knows how to play the long game by ensuring support for their consoles with quality first-party titles and plenty of concepts that you won't see in most other corners of the gaming industry. Like it or not, Nintendo will do as Nintendo does, and it's been working for over a century, now, so I don't see why they should stop. Because of one consoles not getting off the ground? Doubtful.
Can we stop talking about "casual gamers" as if they want an entirely different set of devices? Because that's not anywhere near the truth. We're not talking about some sort of alien species here. The reason people play games on their mobiles and not their 3DS isn't because the 3DS "doesn't do facebook". They play games on their phone because they need their phone, because everyone needs a phone. A portable console is an extra thing ontop of a phone. I'm not going to put a SIM in my portable console, I'm probably going to play my portable console at home more than anywhere else. I don't need that extra functionality and I don't think I'm alone in thinking that way.
Phone, Facebook, same thing. People are passing up dedicated gaming hardware because they want to do more than just game. And while you may not be alone in thinking that, you're still in the minority since there are hundreds of millions, maybe even billions of people who need that functionality.
Well they sell a portable console it in the same way that camera companies can still sell SLRs. They sell it as a premium device that does the same job but better. An SLR takes better pictures, has a great lens, has awesome zoom, a better sensor and so on. A dedicated portable console is the best way to play some kinds of games because it has buttons, is built for delivering decent visuals, and has a better battery life when being hammered.
I think the starting point for selling a portable console is to assume that the person already has a smartphone. Because they probably do. And then instead of trying to "beat" the smartphone at being a multifunction device be solid and cheap. Nintendo needs to keep doing what they've always done. What they need to do is convince the 20 year old who's on a Netflix binge on their tablet lying on their bed to take a break between episodes and dive into Zelda for a few minutes. Be the SLR to mobile gaming's built in camera.
The problem with this strategy is that game development is too expensive for niche markets to be very profitable. And you're going to have a hard time convincing people to buy dedicated gaming hardware if their attention span is that short that they'd only play it for a few minutes. The market for this kind of device is shrinking.
@UGXWolf No, I got that. But my point is that they can't just do whatever they want with the hardware and software. Business doesn't work like that, you can't run a successful business without tailoring your product to fit the needs of a target audience. Nintendo isn't going to remain in the hardware business by expecting the consumers to come to them, they need to make an effort to reach out to the consumers. Creative freedom is certainly a good thing and it helps them stand out more, but you have to appeal to your target audience first before you have the privilege of exercising it, or else no one is going to care.
If you don't like it ir think it's naive, that's your problem, but I'd like to point out that Nintendo is the oldest if the Big 3 in both gaming and overall. Nintendo's the only one that survived the crash, has systems in every generation and the only one that seems capable of producing a stable hangeld system and durable hardware. Sony and Microsoft may have the spotlight, but Nintendo knows how to play the long game by ensuring support for their consoles with quality first-party titles and plenty of concepts that you won't see in most other corners of the gaming industry. Like it or not, Nintendo will do as Nintendo does, and it's been working for over a century, now, so I don't see why they should stop. Because of one consoles not getting off the ground? Doubtful.
Not because of the failure of one console. Because the market has changed significantly and they need to too. What worked in the 80's doesn't necessarily work today.
People don't buy phones to game. People game on their phones because they are able to. People that go out of their way to play games will want a dedicated gaming device. I can watch movies on my phone but I still go to the theater and buy Blu-Rays. People can take photos with their phones but people still buy high quality cameras. People that take their hobby more serious will be attracted to dedicated devices as they are more powerful and offer more features dedicated to that hobby. If you are chasing mass market then phone will probably be a better choice for developers to chase. If you are looking to attract a more dedicated fanbase then a gaming system will be more attractive. (not that you can't find a dedicated fanbase on Phones) The point of Nintendo/DeNa team up is not to move all or even most of their services to Phones, it is to provide a portal from (I hate to use this wording) the casual gaming experience to the more dedicated gaming experience. The reason why I hate this word is because I don't mean to attract people from Crushing Clans or whatever to a huge RPG but to attract people from a machine that can play games decently to a machine that can play games better and deliver a better experience. It isn't about going after the smaller more dedicaded fanbase or the larger more casual fanbase, it is about bluring the line between and offering players the experiences they want. Including more features consumers are use to isn't a bad idea but trying to copy what consumers already have isn't going to get Nintendo anywhere. They need to leverage the strength of Mobile to hook, and leverage the strength of Dedicated Gaming Devices to deliver better experiences.
People keep saying the Xbox One doesn't have Backwards Compatibility.
I don't think they know what Backwards Compatibility means...
3DS Friend Code: 2621-2786-9784 | Nintendo Network ID: DefHalan
@Bolt_Strike What worked in the 50's won't work in the 80's. What worked in the 20's won't work in the 70's. Nintendo has been around the block. What's working for them isn't doing what works now, it's making something else work. I don't understand why you want Nintendo to cater to your so-called "dudebros" so much. They're not gonna randomly die out. This isn't the first time Nintendo has seen some tough times. Their ability to sustain is far more important in the long run than appealing to the masses in the here and now.
@Bolt_Strike What worked in the 50's won't work in the 80's. What worked in the 20's won't work in the 70's. Nintendo has been around the block. What's working for them isn't doing what works now, it's making something else work. I don't understand why you want Nintendo to cater to your so-called "dudebros" so much. They're not gonna randomly die out. This isn't the first time Nintendo has seen some tough times. Their ability to sustain is far more important in the long run than appealing to the masses in the here and now.
That's just it though, their business model isn't sustainable in either the short run or the long run. They need to attract new audiences to survive. It doesn't have to be the dudebros. Hell, it doesn't even have to be the casuals. But their consoles, especially the home consoles, are in danger of dying out if they don't find some kind of outside audience.
Not really. If anything would be a bad idea, it would be Nintendo tryingb to make a major mainstream style game with realistic graphics and generic gameplay. These "dudebros" you were referring to hate Nintendo on principle. They're not coming to Nintendo no matter how gritty a game they make, and Nintendo would be spending a lot of money on it. Nintendo's current plan is sustainable because development is relatively cheap compared to what other devs tend to use up. Did you know that around this time last year, not one, not two, but all four New Super Mario Bros titles were in the top 100 annual sales figures. I don't think that's still the case, ut considerig how old NSMB DS is, showing up on a top 100 annual chart is nuts. Nintendo may not be the current hot thing, but they've got longevity like you wouldn't believe.
Guys. Nintendo will have a new console by 2020. Come on. That's five years away. Tech is changing rapidly and Nintendo are getting in on that. Their next console could be something that connects seamlessly with your 3DS successor and/or NX as well as the watch device on your wrist.
The Wii U has plenty of life in it, though. You guys just love talking about crazy stuff instead of actually playing your games.
Phone, Facebook, same thing. People are passing up dedicated gaming hardware because they want to do more than just game. And while you may not be alone in thinking that, you're still in the minority since there are hundreds of millions, maybe even billions of people who need that functionality.
Have you even read what I've been saying? I have a smartphone and a tablet, Nintendo is not going to convince me or anyone else to replace these devices. When I go out? I'm always going to take my phone because my 3DS is an optional extra device. As it has been since forever. And I'm damn sure I'm not the minority in thinking that. And some people who weren't that into gaming? The fact that mobiles can now do some gaming was enough to make them go with just mobile.
Nintendo are not going to beat Apple or Google at being a phone or tablet. So they shouldn't even try because that's NOT what people want out of their device. People want their specialised gaming portable to be good at playing games and that's it. If they bulk up the price with things like high resolution cameras, GPS, mobile connectivity? Sure, we'll geek out. But it'll just push even more people away from it because of the bulked up price. Because people already have a phone so they don't care if their portable console can or can't do those things.
and while I'm here, some more ammo for the "NX is a portable" argument
The Wii U's sales are pretty average especially when compared to the Wii/DS era. But right now the 3DS is actually in the start of its decline while the Wii U is on a (very slow) upwards trajectory. There's no guarantee that a new console of either type will perform better than the ones already out. But when a console is in decline? There's a lot more to gain out of a successor regardless of how well it performs.
Forums
Topic: Everybody who thinks there is no way the Wii U will be discontinued within 5 years
Posts 81 to 100 of 100
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.