News Article

Molyneux: Nintendo Is "Brilliant" At Attracting Players, But Their Hardware "Gets In The Way"

Posted by Damien McFerran

"They've probably got a plan, and you should never underestimate Nintendo"

Former Bullfrog, Lionhead and Microsoft Games Studios boss Peter Molyneux has once again voiced his opinion on Nintendo's place in the industry, directly contesting Shigeru Miyamoto's assertion that working with both hardware and software offers advantages to the Japanese company.

Speaking to GamesIndustry International, the outspoken British developer explained his stance:

What Miyamoto says defines things in this industry. What I say just upsets people. When Nintendo is making truly world-changing hardware, I totally see his point. But I do wonder about the Wii U - it seemed to be a kind of reaction to SmartGlass. And it's very chunky, doesn't really feel like it's cutting edge. That's when we start saying, 'Why not spend some of your unbelievable talent on these devices?' Because there's a billion people out there [points to iPad].

You know what Nintendo did - this is a fascinating thing - Nintendo created gamers by the software they made. They created millions of gamers with Donkey Kong and Mario - they were the birth of gamers. That exact same thing is happening on this platform today. Millions of new gamers are being created almost every month, and they're being created with titles not from Nintendo, not from Microsoft, not from Sony, not even necessarily from Activision or EA. They're being created by companies like Supercell and Rovio. They're the ones that are bringing and creating new gamers. And now there are millions of people interacting with franchises, which Nintendo won't even touch, which seems a shame to me because Nintendo are brilliant about bringing people into the industry, and I think their hardware is starting to get in the way of that.

However, Molyneux was quick to point out that Nintendo's talent lies in predicting upcoming trends within the industry, and the company's track record speaks for itself:

I caveat all of this by saying that they are a factor more intelligent than I am, and they've probably got a plan, and you should never underestimate Nintendo. We'll probably be sitting here in a couple years saying, 'Oh that's what they were doing'.

The debate about whether or not Nintendo should work on other platforms is likely to rage for some time; however, there's no denying that the smartphone and tablet arena is growing at a truly terrifying rate, and shows little sign of slowing. Perhaps Nintendo will try and enter this arena with its own device, like Apple did with the iPhone? Or maybe it is confident in its 3DS console, which posted some impressive numbers recently?

Why not share your own opinion by posting a comment below?


From the web

User Comments (138)



Linkstrikesback said:

". We'll probably be sitting here in a couple years saying, 'Oh that's what they were doing'."

Not likely. We weren't sitting there saying that after the missteps they made with the N64, Gamecube or Virtual Boy, it seems unlikely we will be with this.



mike_intv said:

Hmmm. Someone who is now working on iOS trumping iOS.
Imagine that. Had never seen it before.

/sarcasm off.

Seriously, Molyneux has a reputation for over-promising and under-delivering. Most software companies promise and patch. Nintendo delays and eventually delivers — because of its hardware.

He does not get it.



AlexSays said:

I agree with the first comment.

Also they would make a killing on the App Store. Unfortunately they are too stubborn to ever do such a thing, but having Nintendo exclusives on the best hardware and having smaller titles on mobile and tablet devices would be beautiful.

Rather than adapt though it seems like they're intent on sticking to their original direction. Which isn't getting much support from developers, publishers, or consumers at the moment.



DualWielding said:

I don't think putting their games on iphone/android store will be a good idea.... however, there's potential in an exclusive Nintendo phone...... something like the Xperia Play but better designed with access to its exclusive VC shop



DualWielding said:

I don't think putting their games on iphone/android store will be a good idea.... however, there's potential in an exclusive Nintendo phone...... something like the Xperia Play but better designed with access to its exclusive VC shop



AlexSays said:

Having access to every consumer with an IPhone or Android phone is a bad idea? You'd rather them come up with their own phone and only sell their games to the few million that may eventually buy it?

I would think about something else for a bit and then come back to this to see if you still think its a good idea.. lol



Shadowflash said:

"it seemed to be a kind of reaction to SmartGlass"
OK, Yeah. Nintendo is definitely 'reacting' to SmartGlass. Nintendo must be psychic because the SmartGlass was unveiled a year after the Wii U was.



deitypower said:

With the eShop, mobile developers can and should make games for Wii U that utilizes the gamepad like the iPad but also using the buttons and its other features. There should also be free-to-play games on eShop just like in App Store. Free games on App Store are a very big hit and might also convince people to buy the Wii U. Well, that's my opinion anyway. He's right about the Supercell and Rovio though, people I don't expect like my professors play a lot of mobile games.



jacksayspurple said:

Asking Nintendo to put their games on mobile phones and tablets is just like asking them to make Mario for Xbox. Never gonna happen. It might seem like it makes good financial sense, but it won't happen.



sinalefa said:

Why should Nintendo publish in other platforms? He puts Supercell as an example, and they only work on IOS. They won't even work with Android, being almost the same market.

That sounds like the millions that only bought a Wii because of Wii Sports and won't buy anything else. Not the best market to cater to in the long term.



neowolf said:

SmartGlass was clearly a reaction to the Wii U Gamepad if anything. It was shown off at the E3 the year AFTER Nintendo showed off the Gamepad..



C-Olimar said:

"it seemed to be a kind of reaction to SmartGlass" - only he can interpret the Wii U this way.



Sanqet said:

I will admit I am so far not a great fan of wii u what I've owned since launch but if Nintendo went muti platform it would end up like sega where you would have no way of knowing if your console of choice would get all their games it's just better and cheaper if things stay as they are



AlexSays said:

Just to put things in perspective, there are over one billion Android and iOS devices out there. One billion.

Even if Nintendo reaches an audience of 200 million with every handheld, which is A LOT, it would be less than 20% of the audience they'd have otherwise.

They would also not be responsible for all the R&D that goes into making their own hardware. Its perfectly okay to like Nintendo so much that you don't want their games on rival hardware, but there's no way to deny they'd be much more profitable than they are now.



AcesHigh said:

I'm getting sick of people like this who just like to hear themselves talk. And look at him... former boss of 3 organizations... that's a great resume. And believe me, when people are "former bosses", 9 out of 10 times, they don't choose to leave for something else, they are asked to leave. His incompetence dealing with anything but talking out of his booty is very much apparent in that he doesn't seem to know that the Wii U came BEFORE SmartGlass and SmartGlass was a reaction to the innovation that Nintendo provided. And lastly, how Nintendo's hardware design - giving developers an entire 2nd screen to put content on and continue to innovate gameplay - could POSSIBLY "get in the way" of making great games is just simply asinine. The ONLY thing the Wii U is behind the PS4 / XB1 on is graphic fidelity. That's it! And how can that POSSIBLY be getting in the way of making great games.

The ONLY thing I agree with him on is, "they are a factor more intelligent than I am". Yup. You got that right buddy. By saying that a few years from now, we'll all be sitting there saying, "so that's what they were getting at" just negates your entire interview. Nice.



Kirk said:

Most of what he said was reasonable enough but this...

"it seemed to be a kind of reaction to SmartGlass."

F'k off, Molynueux!

Nintendo had the Wii U GamePad concept on the cards well before Smart Glass was even a twinkle in Microsoft's eyes.

Of course, Microsoft did have the general idea that tablet computers were the future before Nintendo ever thought about seriously using a touch-screen on their consoles or control pads as far as I'm aware.



WhiteTrashGuy said:

The fact of the matter is that Nintendo is the only console manufacturer that pushes innovation because the software demands it. I hope that the 'big idea' around the gamepad is not just asymmetrical gameplay and Off-Tv play. We see glimpses of genius in ZOMBIU (scanner/real-time inventory). But Nintendo needed to show an IP that was innovative and showed a massive leap in gameplay that could only be done on the Wii U. That should have been their mission with E3. Give us more detective games, survival horror, AR puzzle games, RPGs, something meaty. As a parent I love everything the Wii U does. As a gamer I want to know why I should be excited. I've had a Wii U since launch and I use it mainly for netflix and web surfing. My 3DS is my most played system at the moment.



AlexSays said:

"The ONLY thing the Wii U is behind the PS4 / XB1 on is graphic fidelity. That's it! And how can that POSSIBLY be getting in the way of making great games."

You should ask all of the developers not making games for the Wii U.



Mortenb said:

The types of games people play on tablets are totally different from what types of games Nintendo usually makes. They would simply become a barely noticeable company if they switched focus away from what their fans enjoy and what they know, in order to compete in a different market for an imaginary increase in profits that would never materialize. In the meantime they would have also destroyed their brand as being one of quality and delivering special experiences.



Hyperstar96 said:

But I do wonder about the Wii U - it seemed to be a kind of reaction to SmartGlass.

Wii U was announced before SmartGlass...



mike_intv said:

People advocating Nintendo produce for non-Nintendo hardware (be it smart phones, other devices, competing consoles, etc.) seem to not realize there is a trade-off of today vs. tomorrow.

What might bring high profits today may not be in the company's best interest for long-term survival. The list of companies that have flamed-out while Nintendo has been involved in the industry runs from A to Z literally (Atari to Zynga). Analysts want companies to maximize the latter, until the former becomes a problem. Nintendo always looks to ensure the latter and analysts don't understand



Yorumi said:

@AxlexSays you're falling for the BS the spin doctors put out about the mobile market. There is so much spin about mobile it's not even funny. Three quarters of all apps have never even been downloaded. Of the last quarter only a tiny percent are even profitable. On top of that most people don't even want to pay $1 for a game. One developer reported doing a test, by charging $1 for their game, installs per day dropped by around 99%. With the game being free they reported a conversion rate of free players to paid players of 0.1%.

While people can argue, well it's nintendo they can sell by their name. Really? You can't realistically charge $40 for a game, let alone $60, and do you really want to play mario, or dk, or metroid with no buttons? This even further hurts their ability to sell games. Fact is there's no guarantee of success like the spin doctors like you to believe. You think nintendo is going to release their typical quality for $1 or freemium games? No way.

And finally lets talk facebook games. How's the working out for zynga? Why that was the next big thing and nintendo should have jumped on that bandwagon right?



Sir_JBizzle said:

Casual gaming is such a throwaway market and Nintendo doesn't make throwaway games. I know I download a game on my Android every once in a while, but it NEVER stays there for long. If anything, it's just a quick mindless diversion while waiting at the DMV or something of the like. I mean sure, N MIGHT make a killing if they dipped their toes in creating apps for mobile (just on their name alone) but I think the major point that Molyneux is missing is that Nintendo is about quality and the experience, not making the quick buck. Is this the equivalent of him saying that Nintendo should just get out the hardware business and pull a Sega? That would be a sad, sad day in gaming.

Oh and Molyneux, The Nintendo 3DS (as it sits on top of the best-selling platform chart in May) Would like to say hi to you.



AcesHigh said:

@AlexSays Why? It's clear that the bigger developers aren't making games for Wii U because after only 7 months on the market, the install base just isn't there yet. Even EA backed off their statement that they weren't going to make games for Wii U (which I called months ago) if the install base increases. There are also TONs of developers who actually praise the hardware. It's an economics thing. Plain and simple. How about you tell me what the other systems have that allow them to make better GAMEPLAY experiences than Nintendo? And don't even talk about better online experience because 1. I don't even consider the billion types of co-op or deathmatch that people blindly consume any kind of advancement in GAMEPLAY and 2. Nintendo has already built their pillars on local multi-player because they actually believe in people playing together and building closer relationships with their products. So, YOU tell me smart guy



hYdeks said:

In a way, he is actually right for once Nintendo seems to be more focused on games and how to experience them, and bringing people together to play these awesome experiences, so yay, things like the Remote and GamePad are ahead of there time, but their online features lack quite a bit because Nintendo barely saw a reason to have it, other than to download their older classic games. I prefer great games and couch co-op, compared to powerful graphic systems that make movie style games, and play multiplayer over the internet

@Hyperstar96 heh, yay, he's way off on that one lol.



Ronoh said:

@AlexSays The two problems with this line of thinking is that a) you're assuming that a larger audience on a different device translates into more sales and b) that the audiences share similar gaming tastes and purchasing habits. Point A is fairly straightforward but point B is often overlooked. The people who purchase consoles and dedicated gaming handhelds like the 3DS and Vita are not necessarily the same people who will purchase the same games if released on ios or Android and vice versa.



hYdeks said:

@AlexSays Developers are pissed scared of supporting anyone and them ending up like SEGA, about it Developers now-a-days also lack any kind of imagination, it seems ¬¬ Maybe PS4 and Xbox One will have lots of games at the beginning, but than there will be a huge dry spell cause no one will be making a game worth a damn to buy. Nintendo likes to try and offer their games in modesty, and try to get all the games coming to it to be at least games people want to play.



PanurgeJr said:

I, if I am to be honest, hate the type of gamer the mobile market is creating. Beyond-fanboy hate. I'd-rather-buy-an-Xbone hate.



AlexSays said:

"Of the last quarter only a tiny percent are even profitable"

I would love to see these numbers. You're telling me thousands of developers are developing on a non-profitable platform? Ok then.

I also never mentioned Facebook, not sure where you're going with that.

Finally nobody mentioned $60 games (besides releasing Nintendo games on other consoles, where $60 is the norm). As for the handheld games, you're acting as if Nintendo fans will not purchase these games because they are not on a Nintendo device. The people that love Pokemon on their DS, would love it on their Ipad. These devices don't have groundbreaking hardware. Which is why games like TWEWY can be ported from the DS to a tablet with no problem and sell just fine.



8thGenConsoles said:

@Linkstrikesback I don't see how the GameCube was a misstep. It was more powerful than PS2 and very innovative. GameCube offered you things not possible on PS2 for less money. The reason why most people didnt buy GameCube was because it was a pure gaming console while PS2 was also a DVD player.



AcesHigh said:

@JQuest Absolutely, 100% correct. I've been saying this for years. The pure COST in time and labor of developing an engaging, rich experience like Zelda or Metroid or even Mario is such that Nintendo simply cannot charge $5.99 or even $10 on iTunes. And no one will pay $50 for a full experience like that on a watered down platform that lacks proper control of gameplay on a device like a phone and tablet.

It floors me that seemingly veteran people in the industry just don't get the fact that you very simply cannot put a rich, engaging, enjoyable gameplay experience on a mobile gaming device... that will SELL. Nintendo is in a certain space of the market and they are comfortable there.

There is a reason why a fine Steakhouse doesn't sell fast food. It's just not their space. Get off of it already and learn you economics!



TrueWiiMaster said:

"it seemed to be a kind of reaction to SmartGlass"
As I recall, SmartGlass was announced after the Wii U...



hYdeks said:

@AlexSays actually, if these games came on said Ipad, I wouldn't buy it. Those kind of devices are crap, in my opinion (sorry to ppl offended and like ipad) Why would anyone buy a $600 ipad to play games we wouldn't even play for free back in the NES days?!? Honestly, you want Nintendo, buy Nintendo, stop wishing for Nintendo to become poopiedoodletastic-er and make their games available on a doodoocacapoopier device.



AlexSays said:

@Ronoh Yes, I am assuming point A. Almost 100% of people with Nintendo handhelds also have an android or apple device. There's no reason to believe they would magically stop liking Nintendo games because they are on these devices instead.

In addition, you gain access to over one billion new consumers. One billion..

Point B was sort of addressed above. The tastes really don't matter here, you're not looking to sell the same percentage, you're looking at just solely numbers. Numbers wise a large majority of consumers will already have access to this other market.

@hydeks Well I counted on there being at least one hardcore Nintendo fan on this site that would rather die than see Nintendo release a game on another system, so I don't find this surprising.



Kaihaku said:

Sigh. I am amazed by how many experts do not seem to understand that there are different markets. The smartphone gaming market is not the same as the handheld gaming market. It's like thinking that reality television is going to replace adventure films. It doesn't even make sense.

Also, just because a style of gaming is popular doesn't mean that it's ripe for expansion... You'd think that game developers would understand this by now after years of MMO-madness. There's such a thing as over-saturation, there can only be so many MMOs and there can only be so many "casual" smartphone games. If everyone is copying an idea, that's a good time to try something different.



theblackdragon said:

hey guys, i know some of us feel quite strongly about this sort of thing, but let's all please at least be civil, watch the profanity and refrain from insulting one another over it. it's not life and death, it's just video games, right? :3



SchamMan89 said:

Anybody that thinks Nintendo should go third party should look at the Gamecube years. The Gamecube sold pretty poorly-- probably a bit worse than what the Wii U will end up selling. Even still, Nintendo made more profit that console generation than either Sony or Microsoft.

So yeah, in terms of raw numbers and audience, Nintendo would reach more people by developing for other consoles and phones. They'd get enormous short-term profit, but long-term, they'd probably lose a lot of money.

On top of all of that, Nintendo sees themselves as software developers first, then hardware. They like to make hardware to fit the games they want to make. They won't want to give up that ability.



AVahne said:

Thing is...I'm pretty sure Wii U was announced BEFORE Smartglass......



Yorumi said:

@AlexSays It's funny you ask for proof and then start making up numbers.

Anyway I pointed out how well facebook worked out because that was the next big thing and everyone needed to jump on that market. Furthermore you're just ignoring all other points about how it's a different market.

You're just dismissing points instead of bothering to understand them which suggests you can't defend your statements. Does nintendo now make $40 game just to rip people off? Or is there perhaps some reason games cost what they do? Do you believe nintendo could deliver the same quality without buttons and for $1 instead of $40? Do you really want to see all nintendo games turned into cheap throw away experiences? It's also rather funny to bring up pokemon while saying you're not talking about $40 games, so which is it?

The mobile market is not as great as people think it is.

And one last point that just so well destroys the mobile arguments, gunman clive.



Sir_JBizzle said:

@AlexSays Nintendo creates software around the specifics of their hardware. Sure, they could port Pokemon to mobile or something.. but at the end of the day how profitable would it be? Mobile tech evolves too constantly. It would take EXTRA time, resources and development to even do so, thus hurting the quality of their main platforms. It would be a nightmare to even port Nintendo games on Android... As much as I love the platform, it's so fragmented that N would have a hard time making sure their games worked on the many different OS, hardware and screen configurations of Android devices that's available and constantly changing. Someone in the Android ecosystem would surely be left out, thus alienating some users. That's just bad for business.



AcesHigh said:

@Kaihaku Exactly. There's a reason why McDonalds does what it does, Outback does what they do and The 9s (uber exclusive steakhouse here in Vegas) do what they do.

I'm beginning to understand that a lot of these talking heads like Molyneux and other "developer visionaries/veterans" are not the marketing people or even the bean counters. They are the "creative" people who typically live in their own worlds and continually search for their creative utopia. They're like the Sheldons (Big Bang Theory) of the gaming industry. It's a good thing that cooler heads prevail over at Nintendo



AcesHigh said:

@LDXD This is the most basic and most accurate response that anyone need to know. You are 100% on the money. 'Nough said!



Emblem said:

Nintendo have had the most successful handheld console since the Gameboy days. If in a decade or so they decide to retire from the home console market they will just stick to handheld. Until then enjoy the Wii U and the epicness to come.



Smitherenez said:

If nintendo would develop games for app stores, the app stores will get into trouble too. Because suddenly there will be a very large quality gap between nintendo's games and the ones that Rovio makes and everyone realises they have been playing crappy games on there phones for years. (Just a prediction based on nothing )



Ronoh said:

@AlexSays You're still making assumptions. Also, please see the other points that others have made. The McDonalds vs Steakhouse comparison that was brought up is also a good analogy.



AlexSays said:

"It's funny you ask for proof and then start making up numbers."

There are plenty of sources that say how many android and ios devices are out there. There are no sources that say only a tiny percentage of apps are profitable. Considering this is the entire basis for your argument, it would make sense to back it up somewhat. lol

@JQuest How do we know it would take extra development time? Their handhelds are not difficult to develop for, and neither is mobile architecture. Developers don't have to relearn everything when ios or android gets updated. There's also no reason to believe quality would take a hit (and this is where I think people get upset.) There have been handheld games that have been ported to ios and play just fine, TWEWY being a very popular one. Most of Nintendo's games do not require crazy control schemes.

I'll agree the Android base is fragmented, but it doesn't seem to be causing too many issues. All of the popular games out right now work across multiple versions of android just fine. Whatever issues do arise are usually fixed within days, so it cannot be wildly difficult.



artofmana said:

I think the problem with the idea that Nintendo should make their own phone is that Nintendo isn't a phone company. They are a video game company. The best they could do would be to make a good handheld system with phone capability. Truthfully, that isn't likely to shake up the marketplace. It's possible it could sell a little bit to a small crowd. Perhaps a younger crowd. It's very unlikely anything they could do would disrupt Apple's momentum unless the company shifted its focus to consumer electronics.

As for putting games on other platforms, I'm no game designer but I imagine it would require a lot of extra effort to learn the ins and outs of additional hardware. Perhaps Mario could exist on the iPhone but without the intimate relationship Nintendo has with its hardware I would be skeptical of its quality.

A strange and unlikely "what if?" that I'm not even totally sold on: Apple and Nintendo could form a partnership. Perhaps, a dedicated Nintendo controller that would work universally with iOS devices. Perhaps have Nintendo curate all games in the App Store splitting all gaming profits and sweetening the possibility of a few Nintendo games on that platform. Essentially, let Apple do what Apple does best in other areas of the iPhone and let Nintendo handle all gaming for iOS. Then open up the App Store games that use the Nintendo controller to be playable on the Wii U with the Nintendo controller. The quality of both companies tends to be similar. Even their design elements have become similar in recent years. I offer it as an entertaining thought. Nothing more.



AcesHigh said:

@AlexSays Dude, you have absolutely no concept of development whatsoever. Very simply, the content packaged in the average one-dimensional "runner" or "defense" game available in the THOUSANDS on the mobile market is INFINITESIMAL when compared to what is required to create a 20 hour adventure like Zelda, Metroid or even Mario. There is just very simply a monumental effort and teams on the order of 50 - 80 people required to make finely crafted games that you get on consoles - and even handhelds. Do you honestly think that it takes the same amount of time, money and resources (the big three in any project) to make a .99 Ice Road Trucker "runner" as it does to make Luigi's Mansion? Or Paper Mario Sticker Star? The full experiences of the latter are what Nintendo are in the business of making. Plain and simple, end of story. And they need to charge $40 - $60 to recupe development costs for those experiences. And NO ONE will pay that much ofr a game on mobile markets. Especially with the bonus of having absolutely NO viable controls on a mobile device.

If you can't comprehend this, please know that I wholly disagree with you.
watch the insults — TBD



SCAR said:

All I got to say is:
Smartglass came out out after the GamePad, so get your facts straight.
Nintendo won't be making games for other platforms, because they need to be in charge in order to get stuff done right.
Smartphones and tablets simply just don't do games right. Some games work on those devices(Fruit Ninja, Angry Birds, and that's basically it, but those are on other systems now, too), but most will akways be lacking without actual gaming hardware.



AlexSays said:

@Aces You are arguing a point that has never been made. lol. Nobody is comparing Nintendo games to cheap $1 mobile games, calm down.

@Raylax Thanks for the support, it is appreciated. <3



Yorumi said:

some slightly interesting data.

A median would be better but average number of downloads per game, 25k and declining. Granted the data is a bit outdated. That means on average you can expect on a $1 game $25k in revenue minus apple's 30% cut so $17,500. Ouch.

And then there's this:

Lots of data and the conclusion is interesting. They were featured all over the place and at the time of the writing they were confident they would finally cover the development cost of the game. It's funny he even addresses some of the points you are making as debunking myths.

The app store certainly can be profitable but it's not the gold mine people like you claim.



AcesHigh said:

So please tell me then WHAT you're comparing it to then? A $5 dollar game? $10 game? You said,

"How do we know it would take extra development time? Their handhelds are not difficult to develop for, and neither is mobile architecture. Developers don't have to relearn everything when ios or android gets updated."

You miss the point entirely because it all comes down to the content of the game and the time it takes to put all that content in a given game. It has nothing to do with the acumen of a developer learning another device. That's as simple as giving a game to a dev that can program for that device. It's inconsequential. The real question is how much are you going to put into a game. And very simply put, the content found in console/handheld games is entirely more complex than what devs put into mobile games. Why? For the simple fact that the mobile audience will not pay more than $5.99 for a mobile game - unless you're SquareEnix. It's that simple dude. This is why Nintendo will not put games on the mobile market. They aren't in the business of watering down their gaming experiences to a $5.99 price point. It's not what they do and it's not a pillar of their business. Don't back track. Stand by your comments and argue based on what you wrote.



GraveLordXD said:

Why should Nintendo pull its resources to make phone games and tablets when they are having a hard enough time developing games on their own console this is what they do! You want them to compete with apple and android with an even thicker stronghold on that market



AlexSays said:

@Yorumi Do you believe Nintendo would be near the average when thrown in with other mobile games? Especially when it comes to names like Mario and Pokemon, which have an incredibly notable brand power?

@Aces I'll be honest, I'm not reading all that. lol

@LDXD Resources towards handhelds and consoles are not shared. They have different devs, making different games. And yes, I am confident enough in Nintendo's games and brand power to assume they would stand apart from most mobile games and be profitable. Surprisingly, everyone seems to think less of Nintendo than I do.



Yorumi said:

You just ignored all the data and didn't even bother to read that second link? So I guess that means you're afraid of what you'll find.

Interesting quote from that second one: "Meaning there are about 20% of developers who can earn a living from their games, and 1% of them have a very nice car." hmm kind of backs up my initial point about how few games are profitable.



Pierceton said:

Okay well this guy needs to get his facts right smartglass was a reaction to WiiU considering they didn't announce smartglass till 2012



SCAR said:

Smartphones and tablets will never fully support video games, that's why they don't matter as much in this case.
I think tablets would be able to support some possibly good games, but they still don't make that great of games. I'm thinking the way Surface is going, tablets will just become PCs anyway...
BTW, Apple didn't care about video games until it 'was a thing' on their systems, and Apple arguably hasn't done anything worth while with their devices since iPhone 1. The popularity of Apple devices is stupidity at it's finest, IMO.



Dogpigfish said:

Ha ha, its funny reading sone of these posts. 1 billion smart phones doesn't mean 1 billion potential gamers. Good luck in that black hole of a market. I agree entirely with his commentary.



Pierceton said:

@SCAR392 thank you it's two different types of gaming yes everyone has a smartphone but gaming on them are secondary features good to see someone who think about thing! Also I was pissed about the smartglass this as well!



AlexSays said:

@Yorumi You mean stats like World of Goo reaching one million downloads? lol.

There are no stats there that help either of us. Of course some devs are not going to be profitable, and others are. You seem to be thinking that Nintendo would be considered just another dev in a sea of ios and android devs, which is what we're primarily disagreeing on.

They would be the largest mobile dev force in the industry. Comparing them to small devs that make a majority of these games is useless. And even then, some of those devs are wildly successful.

That link also does nothing to support your claim that only a tiny percentage of apps make any profit whatsoever..



AcesHigh said:

@AlexSays I'm all for people sharing their opinions on here. But when you started putting people's opinions down and started picking arguments earlier on in this thread, you should be ready to finish it. Don't feign disinterest when you know you've just had it handed to you.



Monkeyofthefunk said:

He makes a valid point. So far I've finished Lego City, Mario U and ZombiU. All the other games on the system are multi platform I've already played and completed. So I had to turn to eshop and there is a mish-mash of games similar to the games available on Android and ios. They are priced a lot higher than they are on those platforms. This console so far has been a let down. No killer games, nothing new to excite me. I liked ZombiU at first but it then became a drag having to trek halfway across a map when you die. The games heading our way don't float my boat either. Another Mario game and another Pikmin game. The big N is running out of ideas and quickly. I fear by the time SSB and Mario Kart are out, it may be too late as people would have chosen a side in the big console war coming up this Xmas.



xevious said:

The day Nintendo starts developing games for other than Nintendo platforms I will cease buying new Nintendo games.



Yorumi said:

Lol still didn't bother to read it, or are you having trouble understanding it?



Caryslan said:

On the while Smartglass thing,

I'm not going to dismiss this as Molyneux as being an idiot since he did work art Microsoft and might have been aware of what they were working on. Smartglass could have been in development around the same time as the Wii U Gamepad, but Nintendo managed to announce their product sooner than Microsoft.

I have read reports that Sony was working on the Move around the same period that Nintendo was developing the Wiimote, and that Nintendo simply beat them to the market with the idea.

Here's the thing, unless you have full access to the R&D files of Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony, its impossible to know when any of these products started development. For all we know, Smartglass could have been in development at the same time or even before Nintendo started work on the Wii U Gamepad and Nintendo was simply able to get their product out first.

None of us(Unless you worked for those companies or have access to the R&D records) will never know for sure



AlexSays said:

@Yorumi Yes, I pulled stats out of your link, but never looked at it.

Do you want to share this great wealth of knowledge I'm missing and show me the light? lol



Sir_JBizzle said:

@AlexSays The extra development time comes just for deciding to port a game to mobile. A game that wasn't designed for the platform it's being ported to, mind you. They have to pull or hire the developers from somewhere in the first place right? The mobile architecture is still different than that of say a Wii U or 3DS. A sapce Nintendo hasn't even touched. And there's still a chance that a game might break after a phone OS firmware update or when a new phone is released because of different hardware. iOS doesn't suffer that much from that problem because their hardware/software gets a major update every year, but when you're talking about Android, every update seems to break something app wise. OEM's like to throw their own skin atop Android, that alone can break something that Nintendo would have to spend resources to patch.

I'll agree with you to a point. Nintendo could very well make a quality mobile game, but it still wouldn't be at the level that you could find on their own hardware because of the fluid nature of the mobile hardware market and the costs associated with developing a high quality game. Out of the billion or so in the mobile sector, how many of them actually play games? And of those games, how many of those are above $4.99? And how many of those games are one-and-done expirences?

I leave you with the wise words of Miyamoto-san as to why they won't get into mobile games anytime soon:



Yorumi said:

Well I already quoted the stat that shows only 20% of devs are profitable, rather backs up my point. Then there's the conclusions at the end where they talk about how much press and how much coverage, and how much visibility they got for their game which at the time of writing had yet to turn a profit. Then there's the stat that shows nearly all downloads are of free games, and the conversion rates on free games are terribly low.

Then there's the problem with the logical fallacy in your arguments. You're talking about current nintendo games and assuming that same quality will be maintained with $1 games as seen in your pokemon comment. It's essentially a fallacy of equivocation. A $1 nintendo game would be a completely different thing than anything seen on a current handheld.

And finally there's no proof the market is there. It's well know that 3rd party games generally do worse on nintendo consoles than on their competition. This has nothing to do with hardware as in the past nintendo has had the most powerful hardware. You can't look at number of devices and just assume there's a market for your game there.

They probably could turn a profit on the mobile market but it's unknown for sure and if they did could they make enough to be significant compared to the size of their company?

The point I have been making is that it's not this gold mine, and it's not guaranteed success. And again gunman clive.



GraveLordXD said:

@AlexSays even if they would outsource they would still have to manage their investment still pulling development time from their own handheld and home console and nobody wants that Nintendo always keeps a very tight leash on things they've seen what happens when they don't and lets not forget phones and tablets don't have buttons unless you like carrying a controller around in your pocket all the time

You want Nintendo to make phone games I want them to make me a hamburger and guess what neither is happening anytime soon so we both lose



Darknyht said:

We have this article because Molyneux needs to feed his ego more? Everything this guy has produced was over-hyped and under-delivered.



DreamOn said:

Yes yes, Peter forget Mario, you'd sell your own grandmother if it meant cashing in on the mobile app market.



ricklongo said:

"I caveat all of this by saying that they are a factor more intelligent than I am"

Well... yeah, but frankly, you don't need to be that intelligent to understand what they're doing here. The mobile gaming craze is a bubble. It doesn't make "gamers" - it sells quick bursts of gaming experience to non-gamers. My girlfriend played Angry Birds for months on her cellphone, but then got tired and moved on to other non-gaming endeavors. Myself, I buy AT LEAST one 3DS game and one Wii U game every month, with the odd PC game thrown in. Can people REALLY not see the difference between these two profiles?

There's a TON of money to be made in the mobile gaming market, obviously, but really, this doesn't mean dedicated gaming is going away anytime soon. THAT's what Nintendo does best, and THAT's what is obviously in their best interest to keep doing.

Nintendo didn't get where they are now by getting on the "gravy train", like every other industry analyst will frivolously suggest they do. They know their strenghts, and play accordingly.

Everything they say about the Wii U - not as powerful as the competition, lack of 3rd party big guns, "gimmicky" - was said about the 3DS, and look where it is now. Chances are the 3DS will end up being the best selling console of this generation, like the DS before it. And yet people keep on yapping that "the hardware gets in the way". I don't know if they're trolling or just really, really obtuse.



WiiLovePeace said:

I totally agree with Nintendo on this one. I can't imagine Super Mario games being half as fun or as controllable on tablets etc. as they are on Nintendo consoles. Half the reason for Nintendo's skill in making games is their knowledge of their own hardware & the other half is their creativity, imo. In Nintendo I Trust.



BestBuck15 said:

Nintendo are the greatest games software engineers/designers/creators whatever. So every know-it-all thinks they should be doing this and doing that. They don't care about Nintendo they care about themselves and they are probably trying to make themselves into 'the big cheese' by talking about Nintendo and going on like they know something that should be done.
Nintendo have never been snowballed or tricked by any company, they protect their own business and that's the way its going to stay. The likes of Peter Molyneux and Co. want Nintendo making games for everyone so they can leech of Nintendo and line their own pockets.



JGMR said:

Oh! It's him again. The only thing I agree on was the line "never underestimate Nintendo".



AlexSays said:

@JQuest Once they switched from their own devices to ios and android devices, they'd no longer be ports though. They'd be strictly developing for ios and android, which have proven to be fairly easy platforms to develop for. This is going to be a circular argument though, because we have no idea what the actual development time would change by, how much they would save on R&D versus how much they make from hardware sales, etc. A lot of this is us just estimating and disagreeing over our estimates, for instance, how difficult it is to manage apps across multiple versions of android.

As for the prices (which is where I think that Aces fellow is going on about), this is another thing that requires a lot of guesswork. The assumption here seems to be that they would need to charge the same price as now and therefore nobody would buy $35 apps, but that's illogical. Paying absolutely nothing for producing and distributing their games would save them a lot of money, and there would be no used game market to take sales from. (Though Nintendo isn't anti-used games so this may be another reason they don't like this direction)

@Yorumi I never saw you quote that, there's just one sentence in your last post on my screen. That doesn't change much from my original post though, Nintendo would definitely be in the top percentage of developers. Now if we knew how profitable the top 5% or so was, and then compared that to how profitable Nintendo is subtracting production, distribution, etc. then we could get somewhere. Until then I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on the level of success they would have with that market. There's only one franchise as popular as Pokemon, and Angry Birds turned into a worldwide phenomenon. If they could tap into that popularity at a higher price, good things would happen for them.

@LDXD We're talking about two different things here. I was referring to them putting all of their handheld support behind android and ios devices and discontinuing handheld hardware. This is a much more broader issue, but looking towards the future, there are so many handheld devices capable of playing games, it will become increasingly harder to sell people a device that primarily only plays games.

Also I apologize for the spelling or grammatical errors, but I am too lazy to proofread at the moment. lol



Akira_1975 said:

Nintendo is the last real gaming company making hardware. Sony and MS would love it if they left the hardware business. I really get suspicious when I hear big wigs like Peter making comments like these. Especially when competitors are just around the corner. Anyways I personally believe Nintendo's hardware and software go hand in hand. It just wouldn't be the same playing Mario on another machine. It will be a sad day if Nintendo ever leaves the hardware business. I'll probably stick with PC Gaming if that ever happens.



Akira_1975 said:

I'm so sick of this Nintendo bashing. The Wii was a HUGE success as is the 3DS. Things are a little rocky in regards to the Wii U and now all of the sudden Nintendo NEEDS to drop hardware???? I do however feel Nintendo needs to do a better job in terms of promoting themselves. I don't remember the last time I saw a decent commercial from Nintendo that didn't come across as being corny.



GraveLordXD said:

@AlexSays wtf ok so that's even worse man, you want them to get rid of the 3ds and adopt cell phones and tablets directly competing in an already saturated market with android and Apple?
Tablets and phones don't have buttons dude they aren't gaming devices that's why they get the games they get



Wolfgabe said:

"It seemed to be a kind of reaction to SmartGlass." Correction, it was the other way around



GraveLordXD said:

In case you haven't noticed alex the 3ds is doing great it would be completely stupid for them to abandon it to create a cell phone or tablet that only some Nintendo fans would buy so they can play games with no buttons and be interrupted by phone calls yeah this sounds like a good idea



Yorumi said:

And again you're equivocating, you're assuming nintendo's success in one market guarantees success in another. You're also completely ignoring the incredible drop in quality necessary to go from a $40 game to a $1 game. Lots of mobile success stories involve fads, angry birds was copied from another game, they just caught the fad and the others didn't. Candy crush is the same way, there's a million puzzle games on the market they just got lucky.

Also your reply to JQuest shows a severe lack of understanding of how game development and costs work.



AlexSays said:

@LDXD There are no buttons, that is correct. There are DS games on tablets and phones that work just fine though, magically.

How important is the control scheme in Pokemon? I have faith Nintendo could make it work. lol

@Akira Nobody here is bashing Nintendo. There are people saying Nintendo would be more profitable somewhere else. Everyone seems to think Nintendo would be admitting defeat by not producing hardware, when that's not the case.

@LDXDAgain Nobody is asking them to create a phone or tablet. lol.

@Yorumi Nobody said anything about Nintendo making their games $1. lol. If my mindset aligns with people actually in the industry though, and not people on this site that somehow know everything about developing games, I'm okay with that. Even if it is Molyneux. lol



theblackdragon said:

@AlexSays: Why is it that whenever you show up people start shoving words into your mouth? i don't understand it. i'm not interested in seeing Nintendo dev for phones, but i'm not about to start making it seem you've said things you haven't said, lol :3



Yorumi said:

People don't buy games over $1, heck people barely buy $1 games, the overwhelming majority of game downloads are free. They're downloaded by people who just want a quick game at the bus stop. The high end conversion rate of freemium games is 5%, that is the high end and you have to do a lot to get that.

You're trying to have it both ways, you want to say we're not talking about $40 games, but anything less will necessitate a drop in quality. The budget is necessarily smaller.

And finally you're you're committing the fallacy of the appeal to authority. An arguments validity is not tied to who is making it. But if you really want to go there, considering how many indie companies are making games, some companies as small as 2 or 3 people, it's not unreasonable to assume people posting on forums could be part of the industry. These logical fallacies do not help your arguments.



Sir_JBizzle said:

@AlexSays Fair point, but they are doing just fine on the handheld front, as they are making profit. Why try to fix something that isn't broken? Not to mention, if they went the handheld route, we would no longer get a hardware experience that is uniquely Nintendo

By the way, I totally respect your opinion, even if we have different viewpoints... I'm always game for an engaging conversation.



GraveLordXD said:

@AlexSays that's the thing they would limit themselves to only certain types of games like tbrpgs and such to accommodate for the lack of buttons and at the same time losing the 3ds not worth it dude
You did say for them to forget about the 3ds completely and focus on making games for phones and tablets



DreamOn said:

Iwata believes his company will be worth more in 20 years if he never fractures it's brand. No one can tell him with certainty that he won't be right. And Iwata is keenly aware that he's refusing a potential revenue stream as he sets a direction away from publishing for third parties in order to achieve that dream.

If Nintendo feels it serves it's customers and the gaming industry best by only publishishing for its dedicated gaming devices, why begrudge them that? Especially if you can't say with absolute certainty that the company in 20 years won't be more valuable for standing by it's long standing values.



Yorumi said:

Another funny thing with the appeal to authority are Iwata, Miyamoto, and the others not in the industy? Their views align with mine but you don't seem to be appealing to those authorities. Funny how that fallacy works, ignore the ones who disagree with out, but try to use the ones that agree as a weapon in an argument. Perhaps that's why it's considered a fallacy?



HeatBombastic said:

@AlexSays Even if they wouldn't put quality digital buttons into the port, and just said "deal with it" to the consumer with a crappy b-a run and jump combo button, and a nearly disfunctional d-pad, Super Mario Bros. [NES] would still probably trump angry birds.

The only negative thing I can see from them porting NES games to iOS and Android, is that they'll start getting a wee bit carried away, and start making actual games for the mobile market. How is that bad? Nintendo would put much of their development onto mobile games rather than the console market (unless they could use their tons of moolah to cater to both) and "forget" the core gamers even more so than with people claimed Nintendo did with the Wii.



AlexSays said:

@TBD I've always assumed its because people know I hate proofreading and therefore their way of punishing me is by making me re-read my posts several times to make sure I didn't say these things. : (

@JQuest Well with any company the goal is to become more profitable, nobody is ever happy with their current level of success. I can recognize it would be a huge change though and there isn't enough evidence to warrant that shift at the moment.

Re: edit. Thanks the respect is mutual!

@Yorumi Nintendo execs say Nintendo hardware is good and they don't plan on abandoning it for mobile platforms? Yes, that would make sense for them to say.

@HeatBombastic I agree with everything there.



Einherjar said:

Funny, i never felt that any nintendo hardware ever got in the way with gaming Mr. Mol...something. In fact, Nintendo provided one of the only systems that exclusivly catered towards gaming instead of beeing something else that accedentaly also playes games. But what would you know Mr. Mololol or whatever it was, you never made a game, you only told lies



Williaint said:

Pretty well said! For the most part, I agree with Y'all, and I'd just be repeating what's already been said.

Nintendo's double-edged sword has always been apparent: Nintendo games sell — 3rd party games can't/won't compete (looking for an article, "NintendoLife", that would be a good one, I'll even draw you a double edged sword).

Nintendo had said the Wii U was a very compatible system. Then, people started spewing how underpowered the hardware was. I can't say for certain how powerful it is, how compatible it is, or any truths/mistruths, but gossip tends to spread quickly over the media and facebook games.

You know what I heard? I'm just repeating the cliche messages...



CyberNature said:

Haha, look at all the naysayers changing their tones. Before E3 it was all doom and gloom, now they're starting to say Nintendo might have a chance after all.



Sir_JBizzle said:

@AlexSays I don't disagree with that point. I'm totally not saying that Nintendo should be comfortable with where they are at. I don't even think Nintendo is comfotable, being that typically they are the biggest risk takers in gaming as far as developing unique hardware. I suppose I was just saying that where they are at right now is just fine, as they are successful. As the only pure gaming company, I'm not so sure they would ever shift to solely going the iOS/Android route. I don't think it's in their DNA, honestly.

However if I'm looking at this objectively, I could however see a future where they would have a dedicated mobile dev team that could make some really cool mobile games. Even some that could compliment their parent games on their native hardware. Nintendo has shown some interest in this area by creating a pokedex app for iOS and most recently the Miiverse web and mobile web app.



SCAR said:

This article has so much fail involved...
Nintendo builds their hardware the way they do, to reflect the content on the console. Only Nintendo can do that for their software.
Is Sony and Microsoft including a GamePad with their systems? NO.
If you don't like what Nintendo does, that doesn't automatically mean they're 'doomed'.
Just leave it alone.



Zombie_Barioth said:

Anyone ever consider the fact that in order to make your business stand out you need to offer something people can only get by going to you? If you want Nintendo games you have to go to Nintendo, not Apple, not Samsung, just Nintendo. It really is that simple. Its the reason most people stick to a particular brand. You don't order fried chicken at Popeye's and expect KFC's recipe.

Nintendo has their niche, they know who and where their audience is and they stick to it.



ecco6t9 said:

Nintendo will be doing the same thing they do everyday, and the same thing tomorrow, the same thing next month, next year, next decade.

They may not make Apple/Google like profits but they will turn a profit. Most of these mobile developers simply come out with a bang and disappear like they never mattered. Angry Birds seems to be the lone exception as that company was smart enough to market the brand.

One cannot argue that for every great Angry Birds or Draw Something or Excellent Doom port, there are 20 or so games that "rot" away or end up buried to be found by someone randomly looking things up.



Hunter-D said:

"it seemed to be a kind of reaction to SmartGlass"

Wii U was revealed back in 2011, Smart Glass in 2012.

Besides, there's no need for Nintendo to go into Mobile gaming nor do I think they want to either.



SteveW said:

How quickly people forget that the Wii absolutely blew away the competition... they brought gamers of all ages, something that no other console has ever done.



sonicfan1373 said:

One reason I believe that Nintendo's software attracts people is because of their hardware. Many of the most cherished software experiences from Nintendo would not have been possible without special Nintendo hardware. The Famicom/NES controller made platforming games easy and accessible because of the intuitive d-pad design. The N64's analog stick made games like Mario 64, Zelda OCT and MM control beautifully. Experiences like Wii Sports, Mario Galaxy, Zelda Skyward Sword, amongst others would not have been as good without the Wii Remote. The Gameboy, DS, and 3DS all made their own unique hardware propositions that were not found anywhere else which made the software on them shine. I firmly believe that Nintendo is an experience based company that builds hardware in order to create new software experiences. If you look at almost all interviews with Nintendo execs about hardware, you will get a sense that the hardware is built in a unique manner to make certain novel software experiences possible; to paraphrase Iwata's words the experiences created by software are the first and most important priority, the hardware is simply stage hand for the software.

Molyneux and many others in the industry (third-parties, and analysts) do not understand Nintendo's approach because they are more engrossed in the technical side of the game (graphics, and AI) with less focus on the core gameplay itself. This section of the industry does not see potential in hardware that is gameplay oriented rather than hardware that is centred around power and multimedia functionality. However, the industry has been wrong before such as in the late 90s and early 2000s when they laughed off Apple because it focused more on design, quality, inexperience, and the union between software and hardware rather than trying to create the most powerful and inexpensive devices and leaving the software to another company which holds the software monopoly; those so-called industry experts are no longer laughing.



ungibbed said:

@Linkstrikesback hah, I love the good old N64. The console wasn't exactly innovative by any means as analog controllers existed years before it. One thing Nintendo did to right was make the right games for the right system making Super Mario 64 an instant classic with the analog thumb stick.

Most likely, other companies in the future will ape the Wii U.

It's the perfect platform for calling audibles as you draw routes for your wide receivers and such but EA wants nothing to do with it. It was awesome selecting plays on NFL 2K on the Dreamcast as each controller (if you had spare VMU's) to select plays without them being shown on the TV.

I can see many different uses for the game pad (if only the original battery lasted longer) that would be more than a gimmick, but useful for the game. If such games don't have a absolute need for it, Pro Controller support should be in the game. Think of a flight simulation with your view on the TV and your vital instruments on the Game Pad display in a full 3D cockpit view using the gyroscope. So much potential but so much risk as well sadly until more systems are sold.



iHailPhilly said:

Nintendo will be fine just like every console cycle. They always deliver the best experiences.



Technosphile said:

People always say, "Nintendo should just do software for other companies". while I think there could be a market for Mario on mobile devices, does anyone really think the dudebros who own Xbox 360s are going to buy the latest Mario Sunshine or whatever simply because its now "available" to them? Hell,no. If they wanted that, they would have bought Nintendo hardware in the first place.



Mk_II said:

people should really understand that the markets for smartphones, tablets and handheld game consoles are not mutually exclusive. Look at how the (3)DS is doing despite the huge growth in tablets etc.



JavierYHL said:

no...they should at least stay on making portables...their games are good to play on the go...



Sean_Aaron said:

As long as Nintendo has a profitable hardware product, no it doesn't make any sense to dump it. Yes I think they should make apps; maybe even offer some kind of emulator for classic stuff on iOS/Android, but no, they shouldn't be devoting any significant resource to anything but their own platforms. Not unless they're ready to throw in the towel on hardware altogether and I don't think they're anywhere close to doing that.

Makes about as much sense as telling Apple to let OS X run on any crappy plastic x86-based PC you can get on eBay.



GiftedGimp said:

And yet again, someone wanting Nintendo to take thier games to other hardware. Fact is Nintendo create thier hardware so fit thier ideas they have for game. If Nintendo were to go multiplatform then Nintendo would be restricted in thier ideas due to having to make thier ideas fit the hardware.
Its simple you want to play Nintendo games, then you buy Nintendo Hardware.
Whats really funny Nobody every bothers to wish Halo, Killzone or Gears of War was multiplatform.



AtomicToaster said:

I don't feel the need to tell Nintendo how to run Nintendo. They make a lot of money with their software and exclusive software sells hardware.



jetforce said:

Get HTC to make a Nintendo Smartphone...with only that device able to play Nintendo titles, problems solved???



WiiUDaily said:

A reaction to smartglass? You do know copyglass was unveiled at E3 2012, an entire year after Wii U's E3 unveiling?



AJSjedi said:

Why is it none of these " industry giants " ever say halo or uncharted should be on " other platforms"? If people want access to Nintendo games here is a radical concept, are you ready?

Buy a Nintendo product



b23cdq said:

@AlexSays One billion doesn't say much. Is that one billion devices used atm, or one billion devices sold, ever?
Keep in mind, Apple has released seven different iPhones since 2007. Only the latest three support most of the games, some of them just the latest two. Five iTouches in the same amount of time. And four iPads since 2010.
Also, many of those devices share the same account, which means I can buy a game on my iPhone, and have the same game on my iPad, free of charge.
Lastly, I don't think mobile gamers - who are used to paying between zero and six dollars for games - are gonna start paying 30-40$, even if it is Nintendo. And no, physical distribution donesn't cost them enough to justify selling their games dirt cheap.
There is a reason games cost 1$ on iOS and 15 on PC.



Pod said:

I see where he's coming from but I don't agree that Nintendo should fight tooth and nail to be the first thing that players get their hands on.

I primarily played games on an Armstrad when I was three. I played games on a Sega Master System when I was seven, and on a C64 (for various reasons) when I was eleven. Then we got a PC, and not until 1999 did I own a Nintendo console myself. I'd played Nintendo games before, and they ALWAYS stood out as something truly special, but it took a while before I was ready to buy into it.

Their games are still leagues above most of what is made, and even if people grow up loving something else on the side, most grow to love Nintendo games one way or the other.



paperskyx said:

I like Nintendo's exclusivity (is that a word?). If they started working with Apple's devices I would cry myself to sleep

Leave A Comment

Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...