This article gets some things wrong. The SNES (or Super Famicom) was not nearing the end of its lifespan in 1995. If Nintendo had continued to support it with great software like a new Super Mario Brothers game, it would have held strong against the competition. So what if 32-bit systems were soon coming from Sony and Sega? The NES had 8-bit graphics when it was released and its competition was the computer game industry which was making games with 16-bit graphics. Despite this graphical inferiority, the NES won and disrupted PC gaming in the process. Unfortunately, Nintendo had an obsession with 3D which continues to this day, so they abandoned 2D as fast as they could with disastrous results. Also, the Nintendo 64 didn't lose third party support to the PlayStation because of cartridges. It was because Nintendo failed to update its licensing agreements. These agreements restricted the number of games that a publisher could release in any given year, and the game industry hated them. Sony did away with these licensing agreements completely, and that was why third parties overwhelming supported the PlayStation. But lack of third party support wasn't why the N64 lost to the PlayStation as no Nintendo console has ever succeeded because of third party support. Every Nintendo console that succeeded did so because of Nintendo's quality games. The actual reason the N64 failed was because Nintendo failed to make quality games for it. The N64’s flagship game, Super Mario 64, was the first 3D Mario game and it was nowhere near as good as Super Mario Brothers. Almost every Nintendo game was now in 3D and this made the games a lot less fun to play. Ultimately, the N64 failed because of Nintendo’s games. Period.
"stick with it and after a couple of hours it becomes a lot easier to handle."
I can't imagine many people would be willing to struggle with a game's controls for a couple hours. Certainly not me. I'll stick with Mario Kart 8, thanks.
I wish Nintendo doing but the best, but I worry it's starting to go down the wrong road. Nintendo's first-party software after 2017 has been disappointing, mostly Wii U ports that weren't very good (Bayonetta, Captain Toad Treasure Tracker) and games with silly gimmicks (Labo and Ring Fit Adventure). Nintendo has clearly gotten lazy with their success, just like they did with the Wii. And the Switch is mostly a port machine. Fortunately, it has no competition right now. But is Sony going to continue to let Nintendo have all the handheld sales (especially since Japan is all handheld)? I think Sony may launch a handheld to compete with the Switch which could be a big threat.
Gamecube failed for two major reasons: No 2D Mario game plus an awful looking Zelda game. Super Mario Brothers is the mother of all killer apps, but Nintendo developers didn't want to make it. 'Celda' turned people off in droves.
@Anti-Matter I also like quirky games. One such game is Nippon Marathon. It's a bad game, but provides lots of laughs. However, it only cost me $15. Ring Fit Adventure will likely cost around $80 thanks to the ring peripheral. I don't want to spend that much on such a game.
I say leave the weird quirky games to indie developers. Nintendo should make games that are mainstream and appeal to everyone. Those are the types of games that will sell the Switch Hardware. Games like Ring Fit Adventure will not.
@Anti-Matter I try to look at Nintendo from a business perspective, and the purpose of first party games is to sell the hardware. Labo didn't do this, and I predict that Ring Fit Adventure won't either.
You may think Ring Fit Adventure will be a great game. That is fine. Everyone has different tastes. But I ultimately judge a game's quality based on sales. Sales numbers aren't open to interpretation. And I don't believe this game will sell. It may sell a million copies due to promotion from Nintendo, but a million would be pretty poor for a first party Nintendo game.
I'm disappointed by Nintendo's lack of ambition. Regardless of how wonderful you think Ring Fit Adventure is going to be, does anyone really think that this game is going to be the next Fortnite or the next Minecraft or the next Super Mario Brothers? I'd say no way. Bottom line, Nintendo should be trying to make the next video game phenomenon but clearly they are in cruise control right now.
I wouldn't care about this so much if the Switch was getting lots of brand new games from third parties, but the Switch is mostly a port machine. It seems that brand new games are going to have to come from Nintendo, and right now the near future is looking pretty bleak in my opinion.
Ring Fit Adventure looks atrocious. It seems to want to be both an exercise game and an action adventure game at the same time. People who simply want an exercise game are going to be embarrassed to play this. Same goes for those who just want an action adventure game. If it's about exercise, then Nintendo should have made it similar to Wii Fit. The only value I could see in a game like this is if I was having a party and wanted my guests to look like idiots. It could be worth some real laughs, but I might lose some friends in the process.
This reminds me of something that Nintendo president Furukawa said awhile back. He said Nintendo's mission was to create the most innovative ways to play games. If you ask me, this is Nintendo's excuse for being lazy. They make crappy games and try to cover up how bad they are by throwing in a stupid gameplay gimmick (i.e. Labo).
Someone needs to explain to Nintendo that we don't want games that are "innovative." We want games that are the best. Zelda BoW was the best Zelda game ever. Just Dance was the best dance game ever. Wii Sports was the best sports game ever (for tennis, golf and bowling, at least).
But expect this kind of crap from Nintendo for as long as they can get away with it. Only when Nintendo gets in serious trouble will we see a change.
@Silly_G I'm guessing either the update wasn't ready in time to be included on the physical carts or Nintendo is just being super cheap and using the least expensive cart possible. I wouldn't be shocked if it is the latter.
I bought the physical copy of this game... and it required a 750 mg download! The total game is 1 gigobyte. Is there any good reason Nintendo couldn't have put the entire game on the cart? Or are they just that cheap? Seriously, what's the point of a physical copy if it only contain 25% of the game?
Can you have 4 player local multiplayer on a single Switch? If so, I'd probably get the game. But where is Peach as a playable character? Why would they leave her out?
How much you want to bet now that Super Mario 3D World is going to be ported to the Switch? I can't help but think that Nintendo is trying to use Super Mario Maker 2 to try and promote its preferred 3D Mario game. It seems pretty clear that Nintendo is hellbent on converting 2D Mario fans into 3D Mario fans, but I don't think it's ever going to work.
Sonic Mania proved that Sonic is better as a 2D platformer rather than as a 3D adventure game, yet I believe that Sega developers have said they view Sonic Mania as nothing more than a nostalgia trip and will continue to make Sonic games in 3D. If this is the case, then Sonic hasn't turned a corner at all.
Ultimate went backwards from the previous game when Nintendo replaced the 3D trophies with 2D spirits. Nintendo always prefers 3D, yet this was one of the few cases when 3D would have been better than 2D, and yet Nintendo gives us 2D. What gives?
Gotta love it when they say didn't develop it because they saw a need for it but they did so because of their "passion". For sure, passion is all you need to succeed!
I'm increasingly convinced that Nintendo developers would rather play with new technology than focus on making great games. VR will never be mainstream because it is uncomfortable for the eyes. And a VR made for kids is almost certainly going to bomb because few parents are going to allow their kids' eyes to be put at risk. I wish Nintendo would stop giving us gimmicks and just give us great games.
Google says that one of the benefits of Stadia will be that no PC or game console will be required to play games. But this isn’t an actual benefit. Gamers actually like owning their own hardware.
The mistake being made here is a common one in that Google is seeing video games as being about technology when they are actually about entertainment. If you look at the history of gaming (which few people seem to do), you will constantly find technologically superior game consoles losing out to “inferior” competition.
The entire computer game industry was disrupted by the technologically inferior Nintendo Entertainment System (NES). The technologically superior Nintendo 64 lost to the first Playstation. The technologically superior Nintendo Gamecube lost to the Playstation 2. And the technologically superior Playstation 3 lost to the Nintendo Wii.
Why did these “inferior” games consoles win out? Because they had better games. It’s as simple as that. Consumers don’t buy a game console based on its technology. They buy it based on its entertainment value. It’s all about the games. It’s always about the games.
If Google thinks that Stadia’s technology will be enough to sell it, it is making a huge mistake. For Stadia to have any chance at success, Google needs to create a “killer app”, an exclusive game that is so amazing that people will buy their system just to get it.
The killer app of the NES was Super Mario Brothers. The killer app of the Sega Genesis was Sonic the Hedgehog. The killer app of the Playstation 2 was Grand Theft Auto III. And the killer app of the Nintendo Wii was Wii Sports. These games caused these consoles to rocket into the stratosphere.
But does anyone think that Google is capable of creating a killer app for Stadia? I doubt Google knows anything about making games. It probably assumes its deep pockets will be enough to overcome any obstacles, but if so it should talk to Microsoft (whose Xbox franchise has blown up billions of dollars).
Google is also touting the idea that you can watch someone playing a game live and then jump in and join them. It sounds like this will be a subscription-based service (although I’m sure you will still have to buy most of the games in order to play them). The problem with this is that gamers traditionally don’t like subscription services because most people play games sporadically rather than on a daily basis.
Cloud gaming is also problematic because not everyone has a great internet connection. If you are watching Netflix and the movie buffers once or twice, you may be able to live with that. But not so much if you are playing on the Cloud, get kicked out of the game and lose all your progress. Also, the Cloud is susceptible to hacking which only makes it even less attractive for playing games when you could potentially lose all of your player data.
Google Stadia seems to be a solution in search of a problem. It incorrectly assumes that the barrier to gaming is the hardware. It's not. It is actually disinterest.
Even worse, Google’s promise of eliminating the hardware isn’t really even true, because you are still going to need a game controller. Google has created a wireless game controller for Stadia, but these controllers usually sell for $50 or more. Want to stream the game to your big screen TV? This will require a Roku-like device which could cost as much as $100. Does Google really expect gamers to shell out $100 or more for this equipment and then $10 or $15 a month for a subscription service? Wouldn’t it be cheaper in the long run to just buy your own game console?
And many of the best games out there are console exclusives. Does anyone think that Nintendo is going to allow Mario Kart or Super Smash Brothers or any of its top games to show up on Stadia? Bottom line, if you want to play Nintendo's best games, you are going to have to buy a Nintendo console. Stadia will most likely get non-exclusive games that are already available on every other console. So if you already own a Nintendo Switch or Xbox One or Playstation 4, why in the world would you need to use Stadia?
And the absence of physical games won’t be seen as a plus. Gamers prefer physical games like cartridges and discs because they offer a form of insurance. If you don’t like the game, you can resell it to recoup at least some of your money. Also, gamers like to collect games in the same way that comic book fans collect comic books. But they prefer collecting physical games.
Many gamers are going to be hostile to Stadia because they are going to see it, correctly, as a loss of control. With Stadia, you’ll have to buy the games, but you won’t be able to actually own them, won’t be able to lend them to your friends, and won’t be able to resell them if you don’t like them. Where’s the benefit in that?
Even more amazing, what Stadia is attempting to do has been tried before. Ten years ago, a company called OnLive tried to sell a streaming-only gaming service. Just like Stadia, there was no hardware required. In less than two years, OnLive when bankrupt. It never had more than 1300 monthly subscribers.
Google Stadia is going to be a complete disaster. And you don’t need to be super smart to know this. All you have to do is ask, “What does the consumer want?” And Google Stadia is offering the exact opposite of what the consumer wants. So it is guaranteed to fail.
So many business disasters could be prevented by simply asking the following two questions:
What job does the consumer want my product/service to perform?
Does my product/service perform the job that the customer wants and does it do so better than the competition?
If your answer to the second question is no, then you can be certain you will not succeed. And whenever you hear a new product or service being touted based on its “technology” and nothing else, that should immediately send up a red flag.
Animal cruelty? In Super Mario World, Mario spends pretty much the whole game punching Yoshi in the head, yet that didn't stop Nintendo from re-releasing that game. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason Mother 3 isn't coming is simply because Nintendo doesn't care. Nintendo can be a selfish, lazy company, often refusing to give its fans what they want. Just look at the Switch online service.
I'm skeptical Nintendo understands what made Metroid popular. Other M was all about the character Samus Aran and it explored her maternal instincts. That is NOT what people want in a Metroid game. Hopefully, Nintendo won't go that route again.
I think Nintendo is smart to not allow Netflix on the Switch. Nintendo makes its money by selling its software. If you can use the Switch to watch movies, then you're less likely to use it to play games. Besides, people who want a streaming device are most likely going to buy a streaming device without all that 'icky gaming stuff' on it. I never really believed in the march to 'control the living room with one device." That turned out to be a pipe dream now that the TV is decentralized. In the end, I want my gaming console to just be a gaming console.
Gee, maybe the games are the problem? Luigi's Mansion was a dud for the Gamecube. Why would it be any different for the 3DS? But Nintendo Life says the games aren't selling because the 3DS is on the decline. Maybe the games aren't selling because they suck?
8 out of 10? I played this on Wii U and it sucked. 2D Mario games used to defy all conventions, but now they're given second-rate treatment. And why are we getting a port? How lazy is Nintendo that they can't be bothered to use their Super Mario Maker software to whip up something brand new? That said, I hope it outsells Super Mario Odyssey. The January release date is clearly meant to suppress the sales of the game. Nintendo doesn't want this game to make Super Mario Odyssey look bad. Nintendo prefers 3D Mario, but the mass market has always preferred 2D Mario (And please don't flame me if you disagree with what I've said here).
It bothers me that he says Nintendo's guiding principle is to offer the most innovative and unique ways to play games. Shouldn't Nintendo's guiding principle be to make the BEST games? Innovate and unique isn't always better. I'd rather play the best games than every goofy take on the genre. Nintendo just doesn't get that they don't have to be different; they just need to be better.
This is a terrible lineup in my opinion. Pikimin, Bayonetta, Luigi's Mansion, and Fire Emblem don't sell, so none of these are going to keep the Switch going strong. I don't trust Nintendo to do Metroid right anymore. Hopefully, there will be more, better announcements to come.
Pokémon, yes, although I'm not a fan so it doesn't do anything for me. Animal Crossing and Fire Emblem? No. Given Nintendo's vast resources, there should be a lot more than this coming up.
Well, nothing good has been announced, in my opinion. I don't see any of these games building momentum for the Switch. You might say Metroid, but that was always a game for the hardcore, and I suspect Nintendo will screw it up like they did with Other M.
I was very disappointed by Nintendo's output this year. We mostly got ports of mediocre Wii U games (except Hyrule Warriors). Yeah, Smash was great, but Nintendo is showing that they just can't handle success. Once they get it, they become lazy. It happened with the Wii, and it's happening again with the Switch. Almost nothing has been announced for 2019. Maybe third party games will keep the Switch going hot, but I don't think I'll be spending much money on games in the next year.
And am I the only one who notices Nintendo Life's almost unabashed praising of virtually everything Nintendo does? Was 2018 really a "remarkable year?" Also, Labo bombed in sales and yet is there any acknowledgement of this? When it comes to Labo, are they really only "slightly less enthused?" This is the same crew that gave a positive review for Star Fox Zero.
I'm sick of all these Wii U ports. A few of them made sense, but it's clear now that Nintendo is just being lazy. The biggest insult is the porting of NSMB U. There's no reason Nintendo can't make a brand new 2D Mario game. Please give us something new!
Why in the world would you want to play Smash in handheld mode? I often lose sight of my character when playing on a big screen TV. In handheld mode, the game would mostly be unplayable.
Comparing Switch sales to sales of other gaming devices is a bit problematic because you are comparing apples and oranges. Remember that the Switch is both a handheld AND a home console and thus isn't competing with another Nintendo device. If the Vita didn't have to compete with the PlayStation 3, it would have surely sold more. If the Wii U didn't have to compete with the 3DS, it would have surely sold more as well. Hope you all are getting what I am saying here.
If you want proof that Nintendo hates 2D Mario and wants it to die, just consider the January release date. You don't release a game in January if you truly want it to sell. Nintendo clearly wants to suppress the sales of 2D Mario so they have an excuse not to make it. I like 3D Mario, but 2D Mario games are simply better.
I don't see the point of these new joycons. Yes, the current joycons are too small but there are 2 grips I bought for $10 that make them easier to hold. Joycon grips are a much cheaper solution to this problem.
Here is an idea. Why not have all the characters and content unlocked from the start? Why does every game force us to jump through hoops to access all the content? Why not just make a game that people are willing to play because it's fun to play? Apparently, this has become an outdated concept.
@BanjoPickles Most gamers want to own their games, either physically or through an account system. Nintendo is offering neither right now. And I don't think your Disney analogy is accurate because all Disney movies are readily available to buy or rent. The online subscription debacle is a result of Nintendo doing what it wants to do, not what its customers want. This is a pattern I've seen ever since the Wii began to decline. Nintendo just doesn't care.
People who love the NES games want them on a cartridge. We want to own them, not rent them. But there are also many Switch owners who don't care about NES games, and so they resent having to pay for online with NES games being the only reward. So Nintendo has angered and annoyed both of these groups.
I also think we won't ever see a N64 mini because it likely wouldn't sell very well. The graphics from that era look ugly by today's standards, and most of the single player games were overlong and boring with a terrible camera system. Also, many of them were made by Rare which is now owned by Microsoft. Bottom line, the games were flawed and they've gotten even worse over time.
Print magazines can still sell. But the publishers will have to up their game and offer much better content than they have in the past. I recently bought an issue of Retro Gamer for $20 because it had great articles on various consoles from the past. It was the kind of content you wont' find online. That's how gaming magazines can survive. By offering better content.
Does Nintendo really want to learn? That should be the question. It seems to me that they want to do whatever they feel like. They've been acting that way since the decline of the Wii.
If I was Nintendo, I wouldn't exactly be trembling in my boots right now. The price tag is outrageous for a gaming device and there are apparently no exclusive games so why would any gamer go for this? It doesn't matter how much "better" the hardware may be. People don't buy gaming devices because of hardware or technology. They buy gaming devices because of the games.
This thing isn't even going to sell to people who just want a phone. Those people will be turned off by the gaming aspect of the device. So I see this thing bombing with all consumers, not just gamers.
What really galls me about Nintendo is that they say they need to be different, and yet almost all the games they release are sequels! They say they need to be innovative and so they give us Labo. Cardboard peripherals! It's never been done before! But how exactly are cardboard peripherals superior to plastic peripherals? And no one cares about the peripherals if the games suck. For Nintendo, "innovation" and "being different" are just excuses to cover up how lazy they are.
Someone needs to explain to Nintendo that they don't need to be different than their competitors, they just need to be better. Better beats different every single time. Just ask Apple. I think Nintendo decides to be different simply because they're lazy. It's likely why Nintendo has been so slow to get with online gaming.
Notice how Miyamoto doesn't seem to care about what the consumer actually wants. And consumers don't like paying for subscription services when it comes to games because for many people gaming is done sporadically. Few people play games every single day. But developers are going to pay a huge price if they keep trying to force a business model on the consumer that the consumer doesn't want.
Comments 78
Re: Best Of 2020: 1995's Nintendo Was Arrogant And Ahead Of Its Time All At Once
This article gets some things wrong. The SNES (or Super Famicom) was not nearing the end of its lifespan in 1995. If Nintendo had continued to support it with great software like a new Super Mario Brothers game, it would have held strong against the competition. So what if 32-bit systems were soon coming from Sony and Sega? The NES had 8-bit graphics when it was released and its competition was the computer game industry which was making games with 16-bit graphics. Despite this graphical inferiority, the NES won and disrupted PC gaming in the process. Unfortunately, Nintendo had an obsession with 3D which continues to this day, so they abandoned 2D as fast as they could with disastrous results. Also, the Nintendo 64 didn't lose third party support to the PlayStation because of cartridges. It was because Nintendo failed to update its licensing agreements. These agreements restricted the number of games that a publisher could release in any given year, and the game industry hated them. Sony did away with these licensing agreements completely, and that was why third parties overwhelming supported the PlayStation. But lack of third party support wasn't why the N64 lost to the PlayStation as no Nintendo console has ever succeeded because of third party support. Every Nintendo console that succeeded did so because of Nintendo's quality games. The actual reason the N64 failed was because Nintendo failed to make quality games for it. The N64’s flagship game, Super Mario 64, was the first 3D Mario game and it was nowhere near as good as Super Mario Brothers. Almost every Nintendo game was now in 3D and this made the games a lot less fun to play. Ultimately, the N64 failed because of Nintendo’s games. Period.
Re: Random: Brie Larson Says She's More Than Happy To Be In An Animal Crossing Movie
An Animal Crossing movie? What would the story be? There is no real conflict in Animal Crossing. Just seems like a bad idea for a film.
Re: Sakurai Says Fatal Fury's Mai Isn't In Smash Because The Game "Is For Good Boys And Girls"
I would have preferred one of the female characters be in Smash instead of Terry Bogard. Athena would have been great!
Re: Bandai Namco Celebrates Pac-Man's 40th Anniversary With Official Theme Song And Music Video
Terrible song. When is Namco going to port over Pac-Man Museum as well as Pac-Man Championship Edition DX? What are they waiting for???
Re: Review: Mario Kart Tour - Steer Around The Gacha For A Fun, Free Take On The Series
"stick with it and after a couple of hours it becomes a lot easier to handle."
I can't imagine many people would be willing to struggle with a game's controls for a couple hours. Certainly not me. I'll stick with Mario Kart 8, thanks.
Re: Feature: Nintendo's 130th Birthday Comes During A Golden Age For The Company
I wish Nintendo doing but the best, but I worry it's starting to go down the wrong road. Nintendo's first-party software after 2017 has been disappointing, mostly Wii U ports that weren't very good (Bayonetta, Captain Toad Treasure Tracker) and games with silly gimmicks (Labo and Ring Fit Adventure). Nintendo has clearly gotten lazy with their success, just like they did with the Wii. And the Switch is mostly a port machine. Fortunately, it has no competition right now. But is Sony going to continue to let Nintendo have all the handheld sales (especially since Japan is all handheld)? I think Sony may launch a handheld to compete with the Switch which could be a big threat.
Re: Hardware Classics: Nintendo GameCube
Gamecube failed for two major reasons: No 2D Mario game plus an awful looking Zelda game. Super Mario Brothers is the mother of all killer apps, but Nintendo developers didn't want to make it. 'Celda' turned people off in droves.
Re: Talking Point: Ring Fit Adventure Is A Thing, But Is It Your Sort Of Thing?
@Anti-Matter I also like quirky games. One such game is Nippon Marathon. It's a bad game, but provides lots of laughs. However, it only cost me $15. Ring Fit Adventure will likely cost around $80 thanks to the ring peripheral. I don't want to spend that much on such a game.
I say leave the weird quirky games to indie developers. Nintendo should make games that are mainstream and appeal to everyone. Those are the types of games that will sell the Switch Hardware. Games like Ring Fit Adventure will not.
Re: Talking Point: Ring Fit Adventure Is A Thing, But Is It Your Sort Of Thing?
@Anti-Matter I try to look at Nintendo from a business perspective, and the purpose of first party games is to sell the hardware. Labo didn't do this, and I predict that Ring Fit Adventure won't either.
You may think Ring Fit Adventure will be a great game. That is fine. Everyone has different tastes. But I ultimately judge a game's quality based on sales. Sales numbers aren't open to interpretation. And I don't believe this game will sell. It may sell a million copies due to promotion from Nintendo, but a million would be pretty poor for a first party Nintendo game.
I'm disappointed by Nintendo's lack of ambition. Regardless of how wonderful you think Ring Fit Adventure is going to be, does anyone really think that this game is going to be the next Fortnite or the next Minecraft or the next Super Mario Brothers? I'd say no way. Bottom line, Nintendo should be trying to make the next video game phenomenon but clearly they are in cruise control right now.
I wouldn't care about this so much if the Switch was getting lots of brand new games from third parties, but the Switch is mostly a port machine. It seems that brand new games are going to have to come from Nintendo, and right now the near future is looking pretty bleak in my opinion.
Re: Talking Point: Ring Fit Adventure Is A Thing, But Is It Your Sort Of Thing?
How about those plastic smiles on the presenters in the intro video? Does anyone believe that they actually excited about this game?
Re: Talking Point: Ring Fit Adventure Is A Thing, But Is It Your Sort Of Thing?
Ring Fit Adventure looks atrocious. It seems to want to be both an exercise game and an action adventure game at the same time. People who simply want an exercise game are going to be embarrassed to play this. Same goes for those who just want an action adventure game. If it's about exercise, then Nintendo should have made it similar to Wii Fit. The only value I could see in a game like this is if I was having a party and wanted my guests to look like idiots. It could be worth some real laughs, but I might lose some friends in the process.
This reminds me of something that Nintendo president Furukawa said awhile back. He said Nintendo's mission was to create the most innovative ways to play games. If you ask me, this is Nintendo's excuse for being lazy. They make crappy games and try to cover up how bad they are by throwing in a stupid gameplay gimmick (i.e. Labo).
Someone needs to explain to Nintendo that we don't want games that are "innovative." We want games that are the best. Zelda BoW was the best Zelda game ever. Just Dance was the best dance game ever. Wii Sports was the best sports game ever (for tennis, golf and bowling, at least).
But expect this kind of crap from Nintendo for as long as they can get away with it. Only when Nintendo gets in serious trouble will we see a change.
Re: Reminder: Tetris 99's $30 Physical Edition Is Now Available In North America
@Silly_G I'm guessing either the update wasn't ready in time to be included on the physical carts or Nintendo is just being super cheap and using the least expensive cart possible. I wouldn't be shocked if it is the latter.
Re: Reminder: Tetris 99's $30 Physical Edition Is Now Available In North America
I bought the physical copy of this game... and it required a 750 mg download! The total game is 1 gigobyte. Is there any good reason Nintendo couldn't have put the entire game on the cart? Or are they just that cheap? Seriously, what's the point of a physical copy if it only contain 25% of the game?
Re: SNES Games Headed To Switch Online, 20 Titles Release Today In North America
Where are the Gameboy games? Those are what I really want.
Re: It's Official, The New Game Style In Super Mario Maker 2 Is Based On 3D World
Can you have 4 player local multiplayer on a single Switch? If so, I'd probably get the game. But where is Peach as a playable character? Why would they leave her out?
Re: It's Official, The New Game Style In Super Mario Maker 2 Is Based On 3D World
How much you want to bet now that Super Mario 3D World is going to be ported to the Switch? I can't help but think that Nintendo is trying to use Super Mario Maker 2 to try and promote its preferred 3D Mario game. It seems pretty clear that Nintendo is hellbent on converting 2D Mario fans into 3D Mario fans, but I don't think it's ever going to work.
Re: Takashi Iizuka Believes The Blue Blur Has "Turned A Corner" Following The Release Of Sonic Mania
Sonic Mania proved that Sonic is better as a 2D platformer rather than as a 3D adventure game, yet I believe that Sega developers have said they view Sonic Mania as nothing more than a nostalgia trip and will continue to make Sonic games in 3D. If this is the case, then Sonic hasn't turned a corner at all.
Re: Fans Create Website With Descriptions For All Smash Bros. Ultimate Spirits
Ultimate went backwards from the previous game when Nintendo replaced the 3D trophies with 2D spirits. Nintendo always prefers 3D, yet this was one of the few cases when 3D would have been better than 2D, and yet Nintendo gives us 2D. What gives?
Re: Evercade Is A Brand New Cartridge-Based Handheld Console Which Connects To Your TV
Gotta love it when they say didn't develop it because they saw a need for it but they did so because of their "passion". For sure, passion is all you need to succeed!
Re: Super Mario Odyssey And Zelda: Breath Of The Wild Getting Labo VR Support
I'm increasingly convinced that Nintendo developers would rather play with new technology than focus on making great games. VR will never be mainstream because it is uncomfortable for the eyes. And a VR made for kids is almost certainly going to bomb because few parents are going to allow their kids' eyes to be put at risk. I wish Nintendo would stop giving us gimmicks and just give us great games.
Re: Talking Point: What Does Google's Stadia Mean For Nintendo And The Future Of Gaming?
The article fails to mention Google Stadia's biggest problem: Nobody wants it. That is why it will fail.
Re: Google Reveals Stadia, Its Vision Of A Cloud Gaming Future
Google Stadia is going to fail.
Google says that one of the benefits of Stadia will be that no PC or game console will be required to play games. But this isn’t an actual benefit. Gamers actually like owning their own hardware.
The mistake being made here is a common one in that Google is seeing video games as being about technology when they are actually about entertainment. If you look at the history of gaming (which few people seem to do), you will constantly find technologically superior game consoles losing out to “inferior” competition.
The entire computer game industry was disrupted by the technologically inferior Nintendo Entertainment System (NES). The technologically superior Nintendo 64 lost to the first Playstation. The technologically superior Nintendo Gamecube lost to the Playstation 2. And the technologically superior Playstation 3 lost to the Nintendo Wii.
Why did these “inferior” games consoles win out? Because they had better games. It’s as simple as that. Consumers don’t buy a game console based on its technology. They buy it based on its entertainment value. It’s all about the games. It’s always about the games.
If Google thinks that Stadia’s technology will be enough to sell it, it is making a huge mistake. For Stadia to have any chance at success, Google needs to create a “killer app”, an exclusive game that is so amazing that people will buy their system just to get it.
The killer app of the NES was Super Mario Brothers. The killer app of the Sega Genesis was Sonic the Hedgehog. The killer app of the Playstation 2 was Grand Theft Auto III. And the killer app of the Nintendo Wii was Wii Sports. These games caused these consoles to rocket into the stratosphere.
But does anyone think that Google is capable of creating a killer app for Stadia? I doubt Google knows anything about making games. It probably assumes its deep pockets will be enough to overcome any obstacles, but if so it should talk to Microsoft (whose Xbox franchise has blown up billions of dollars).
Google is also touting the idea that you can watch someone playing a game live and then jump in and join them. It sounds like this will be a subscription-based service (although I’m sure you will still have to buy most of the games in order to play them). The problem with this is that gamers traditionally don’t like subscription services because most people play games sporadically rather than on a daily basis.
Cloud gaming is also problematic because not everyone has a great internet connection. If you are watching Netflix and the movie buffers once or twice, you may be able to live with that. But not so much if you are playing on the Cloud, get kicked out of the game and lose all your progress. Also, the Cloud is susceptible to hacking which only makes it even less attractive for playing games when you could potentially lose all of your player data.
Google Stadia seems to be a solution in search of a problem. It incorrectly assumes that the barrier to gaming is the hardware. It's not. It is actually disinterest.
Even worse, Google’s promise of eliminating the hardware isn’t really even true, because you are still going to need a game controller. Google has created a wireless game controller for Stadia, but these controllers usually sell for $50 or more. Want to stream the game to your big screen TV? This will require a Roku-like device which could cost as much as $100. Does Google really expect gamers to shell out $100 or more for this equipment and then $10 or $15 a month for a subscription service? Wouldn’t it be cheaper in the long run to just buy your own game console?
And many of the best games out there are console exclusives. Does anyone think that Nintendo is going to allow Mario Kart or Super Smash Brothers or any of its top games to show up on Stadia? Bottom line, if you want to play Nintendo's best games, you are going to have to buy a Nintendo console. Stadia will most likely get non-exclusive games that are already available on every other console. So if you already own a Nintendo Switch or Xbox One or Playstation 4, why in the world would you need to use Stadia?
And the absence of physical games won’t be seen as a plus. Gamers prefer physical games like cartridges and discs because they offer a form of insurance. If you don’t like the game, you can resell it to recoup at least some of your money. Also, gamers like to collect games in the same way that comic book fans collect comic books. But they prefer collecting physical games.
Many gamers are going to be hostile to Stadia because they are going to see it, correctly, as a loss of control. With Stadia, you’ll have to buy the games, but you won’t be able to actually own them, won’t be able to lend them to your friends, and won’t be able to resell them if you don’t like them. Where’s the benefit in that?
Even more amazing, what Stadia is attempting to do has been tried before. Ten years ago, a company called OnLive tried to sell a streaming-only gaming service. Just like Stadia, there was no hardware required. In less than two years, OnLive when bankrupt. It never had more than 1300 monthly subscribers.
Google Stadia is going to be a complete disaster. And you don’t need to be super smart to know this. All you have to do is ask, “What does the consumer want?” And Google Stadia is offering the exact opposite of what the consumer wants. So it is guaranteed to fail.
So many business disasters could be prevented by simply asking the following two questions:
What job does the consumer want my product/service to perform?
Does my product/service perform the job that the customer wants and does it do so better than the competition?
If your answer to the second question is no, then you can be certain you will not succeed. And whenever you hear a new product or service being touted based on its “technology” and nothing else, that should immediately send up a red flag.
Re: Nintendo Allegedly Cancelled Localisation Of Mother 3 Due To Its Controversial Aspects
Animal cruelty? In Super Mario World, Mario spends pretty much the whole game punching Yoshi in the head, yet that didn't stop Nintendo from re-releasing that game. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason Mother 3 isn't coming is simply because Nintendo doesn't care. Nintendo can be a selfish, lazy company, often refusing to give its fans what they want. Just look at the Switch online service.
Re: Talking Point: How Do You Feel About The Metroid Prime 4 Delay?
I'm skeptical Nintendo understands what made Metroid popular. Other M was all about the character Samus Aran and it explored her maternal instincts. That is NOT what people want in a Metroid game. Hopefully, Nintendo won't go that route again.
Re: Limited Run Games Publishing Dragon's Lair Trilogy Physical Edition
Alas, these are really terrible games. It's a lot more fun to watch someone play them on YouTube than to try to play them yourself.
Re: Talking Point: Amazon's Efforts To Tempt Gamers Show Why We Need Dedicated Games Consoles
I think Nintendo is smart to not allow Netflix on the Switch. Nintendo makes its money by selling its software. If you can use the Switch to watch movies, then you're less likely to use it to play games. Besides, people who want a streaming device are most likely going to buy a streaming device without all that 'icky gaming stuff' on it. I never really believed in the march to 'control the living room with one device." That turned out to be a pipe dream now that the TV is decentralized. In the end, I want my gaming console to just be a gaming console.
Re: Disappointing 3DS Software Sales Show The Console's Slow Death In Japan
Gee, maybe the games are the problem? Luigi's Mansion was a dud for the Gamecube. Why would it be any different for the 3DS? But Nintendo Life says the games aren't selling because the 3DS is on the decline. Maybe the games aren't selling because they suck?
Re: Review: New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe - Nintendo Plays It Safe With This Timely Reissue
8 out of 10? I played this on Wii U and it sucked. 2D Mario games used to defy all conventions, but now they're given second-rate treatment. And why are we getting a port? How lazy is Nintendo that they can't be bothered to use their Super Mario Maker software to whip up something brand new? That said, I hope it outsells Super Mario Odyssey. The January release date is clearly meant to suppress the sales of the game. Nintendo doesn't want this game to make Super Mario Odyssey look bad. Nintendo prefers 3D Mario, but the mass market has always preferred 2D Mario (And please don't flame me if you disagree with what I've said here).
Re: Future Business Shift Could See Nintendo Move Away From Home Console Development
It bothers me that he says Nintendo's guiding principle is to offer the most innovative and unique ways to play games. Shouldn't Nintendo's guiding principle be to make the BEST games? Innovate and unique isn't always better. I'd rather play the best games than every goofy take on the genre. Nintendo just doesn't get that they don't have to be different; they just need to be better.
Re: Looking For A Brand New Wii U? That'll Be $800 Please
I'll never sell my Wii U. I have too many games for it, especially virtual console.
Re: Feature: Whatever Happened To The Sega-Style Racer '90s Super GP?
I've been really wanting to play this game for a long time. It looks fantastic.
Re: Feature: Our 15 Most Anticipated Nintendo Switch Games of 2019
This is a terrible lineup in my opinion. Pikimin, Bayonetta, Luigi's Mansion, and Fire Emblem don't sell, so none of these are going to keep the Switch going strong. I don't trust Nintendo to do Metroid right anymore. Hopefully, there will be more, better announcements to come.
Re: Feature: Nintendo's 2018: A Remarkable Year In Review
@electrolite77
Pokémon, yes, although I'm not a fan so it doesn't do anything for me. Animal Crossing and Fire Emblem? No. Given Nintendo's vast resources, there should be a lot more than this coming up.
Re: Feature: Nintendo's 2018: A Remarkable Year In Review
@Quarth
Well, nothing good has been announced, in my opinion. I don't see any of these games building momentum for the Switch. You might say Metroid, but that was always a game for the hardcore, and I suspect Nintendo will screw it up like they did with Other M.
Re: Feature: Nintendo's 2018: A Remarkable Year In Review
I was very disappointed by Nintendo's output this year. We mostly got ports of mediocre Wii U games (except Hyrule Warriors). Yeah, Smash was great, but Nintendo is showing that they just can't handle success. Once they get it, they become lazy. It happened with the Wii, and it's happening again with the Switch. Almost nothing has been announced for 2019. Maybe third party games will keep the Switch going hot, but I don't think I'll be spending much money on games in the next year.
And am I the only one who notices Nintendo Life's almost unabashed praising of virtually everything Nintendo does? Was 2018 really a "remarkable year?" Also, Labo bombed in sales and yet is there any acknowledgement of this? When it comes to Labo, are they really only "slightly less enthused?" This is the same crew that gave a positive review for Star Fox Zero.
Re: Feature: The Final Wii U Games We'd Like To See On Switch In 2019
I'm sick of all these Wii U ports. A few of them made sense, but it's clear now that Nintendo is just being lazy. The biggest insult is the porting of NSMB U. There's no reason Nintendo can't make a brand new 2D Mario game. Please give us something new!
Re: This Portable GameCube Controller Switch Adapter Hits Kickstarter Next Month
Why in the world would you want to play Smash in handheld mode? I often lose sight of my character when playing on a big screen TV. In handheld mode, the game would mostly be unplayable.
Re: Nintendo Switch Surpasses Lifetime PlayStation Vita Sales Within Japan
Comparing Switch sales to sales of other gaming devices is a bit problematic because you are comparing apples and oranges. Remember that the Switch is both a handheld AND a home console and thus isn't competing with another Nintendo device. If the Vita didn't have to compete with the PlayStation 3, it would have surely sold more. If the Wii U didn't have to compete with the 3DS, it would have surely sold more as well. Hope you all are getting what I am saying here.
Re: New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe File Size Revealed, Just 100MB Larger Than On Wii U
If you want proof that Nintendo hates 2D Mario and wants it to die, just consider the January release date. You don't release a game in January if you truly want it to sell. Nintendo clearly wants to suppress the sales of 2D Mario so they have an excuse not to make it. I like 3D Mario, but 2D Mario games are simply better.
Re: These Larger, Cheaper Third-Party Switch Joy-Con Promise Improved Grip And Customisation
I don't see the point of these new joycons. Yes, the current joycons are too small but there are 2 grips I bought for $10 that make them easier to hold. Joycon grips are a much cheaper solution to this problem.
Re: Unlocking All Super Smash Bros. Ultimate Fighters Should Only Take A Couple Of Hours
Here is an idea. Why not have all the characters and content unlocked from the start? Why does every game force us to jump through hoops to access all the content? Why not just make a game that people are willing to play because it's fun to play? Apparently, this has become an outdated concept.
Re: Reggie: N64 Classic Mini Is "Not In Our Planning Horizon", But Wouldn't Ever Rule It Out
@BanjoPickles
Most gamers want to own their games, either physically or through an account system. Nintendo is offering neither right now. And I don't think your Disney analogy is accurate because all Disney movies are readily available to buy or rent. The online subscription debacle is a result of Nintendo doing what it wants to do, not what its customers want. This is a pattern I've seen ever since the Wii began to decline. Nintendo just doesn't care.
Re: Reggie: N64 Classic Mini Is "Not In Our Planning Horizon", But Wouldn't Ever Rule It Out
@BanjoPickles
People who love the NES games want them on a cartridge. We want to own them, not rent them. But there are also many Switch owners who don't care about NES games, and so they resent having to pay for online with NES games being the only reward. So Nintendo has angered and annoyed both of these groups.
Re: Reggie: N64 Classic Mini Is "Not In Our Planning Horizon", But Wouldn't Ever Rule It Out
I also think we won't ever see a N64 mini because it likely wouldn't sell very well. The graphics from that era look ugly by today's standards, and most of the single player games were overlong and boring with a terrible camera system. Also, many of them were made by Rare which is now owned by Microsoft. Bottom line, the games were flawed and they've gotten even worse over time.
Re: Soapbox: I'm Causing The Slow Death Of Gaming Magazines, And It Hurts
Print magazines can still sell. But the publishers will have to up their game and offer much better content than they have in the past. I recently bought an issue of Retro Gamer for $20 because it had great articles on various consoles from the past. It was the kind of content you wont' find online. That's how gaming magazines can survive. By offering better content.
Re: Talking Point: Nintendo Has Stumbled With Switch Online, But It Can Learn From Its Mistakes
Does Nintendo really want to learn? That should be the question. It seems to me that they want to do whatever they feel like. They've been acting that way since the decline of the Wii.
Re: Huawei Is Launching A New Gaming Phone To Rival The Switch, And It Costs Over $1,000
If I was Nintendo, I wouldn't exactly be trembling in my boots right now. The price tag is outrageous for a gaming device and there are apparently no exclusive games so why would any gamer go for this? It doesn't matter how much "better" the hardware may be. People don't buy gaming devices because of hardware or technology. They buy gaming devices because of the games.
This thing isn't even going to sell to people who just want a phone. Those people will be turned off by the gaming aspect of the device. So I see this thing bombing with all consumers, not just gamers.
Re: Nintendo's Reggie Fils-Aimé On Why The Switch Uses A Mobile App For Voice Chat
@mctrials23
What really galls me about Nintendo is that they say they need to be different, and yet almost all the games they release are sequels! They say they need to be innovative and so they give us Labo. Cardboard peripherals! It's never been done before! But how exactly are cardboard peripherals superior to plastic peripherals? And no one cares about the peripherals if the games suck. For Nintendo, "innovation" and "being different" are just excuses to cover up how lazy they are.
Re: Nintendo's Reggie Fils-Aimé On Why The Switch Uses A Mobile App For Voice Chat
Someone needs to explain to Nintendo that they don't need to be different than their competitors, they just need to be better. Better beats different every single time. Just ask Apple. I think Nintendo decides to be different simply because they're lazy. It's likely why Nintendo has been so slow to get with online gaming.
Re: Shigeru Miyamoto Urges Game Developers To Embrace Subscription-Based Services
Notice how Miyamoto doesn't seem to care about what the consumer actually wants. And consumers don't like paying for subscription services when it comes to games because for many people gaming is done sporadically. Few people play games every single day. But developers are going to pay a huge price if they keep trying to force a business model on the consumer that the consumer doesn't want.