Should Iwata Resign?

[Jonnas]

I completely agree with that, but customers know the PS4 is technically a big leap over the PS3. Even if games don't yet have the "wow" factor, visually (which I don't think they do), they still require extra processing power to run. From now on, developers will be using the Xbox One and PS4 as a basis to design their games on. The Wii U is more like the PS3/Xbox 360, so customers will quite rightly realise it's not "in" the current generation the same way the PS4/Xbox One are, and thus won't get the same games.

 

Bolded Part 1: Of course they do, that's what I said But they know because they've been told, not because they noticed (which was my point).

 

Bolded Part 2: You're almost right, I think. I'd say the general public will realise this after multiplatform games don't come out on the Wii U (not before, like you imply).

 

Nintendo often harped on about power during the N64 and Cube eras. If their console was a beast in terms of performance then no doubt they would be still doing it. They stopped doing this when they decided to back out of the graphics race.

 

Really? The examples I gave were from that era precisely because I thought otherwise. The GC had more power than the PS2, but joe public just wasn't aware, nor did Nintendo go out of their way to tell them.

[david.dakota]

The GC had more power than the PS2, but joe public just wasn't aware, nor did Nintendo go out of their way to tell them.

 

You're right. GCN was more powerful - however Nintendo DID promote specs at the time - the problem came when they offered an honest, in game estimate of power whilst Sony and Microsoft promoted the raw - and rather disingenuous if you ask me - power of their machines. GameCube ended up looking far less powerful.

[Sheikah]

I said this in another thread, but I don't mind repeating it: hardware only sells if the company is willing to sell it. A couple of examples:

-With the PS4, the difference to its predecessor is negligible to a layman's eye, but as long as Sony hammers its tagline, people will convince themselves that the leap is significant (it's not like millions are buying PS4s due to its genuinely new features)

 

I don't think that's true at all. The problem at the moment is that there are many multiformat games being released to run on both last and next gen consoles. While you might see superficial improvements on the the next gen versions (60 FPS/ 1080p), the games themselves aren't being made to a next gen standard. You're not going to have significantly more character models on screen for instance as that would change to the gameplay between versions.

 

Laypeople and techies know the PS4 is much more powerful - you don't need to listen to Sony's marketing to know that. You just have to wait for the switchover to happen when most games no longer release on last gen consoles. This isn't just something that has happened between PS3 to 4 either.

[Jonnas]

This isn't just something that has happened between PS3 to 4 either.

 

No, but it was the most recent example.

 

I don't think that's true at all. The problem at the moment is that there are many multiformat games being released to run on both last and next gen consoles. While you might see superficial improvements on the the next gen versions (60 FPS/ 1080p), the games themselves aren't being made to a next gen standard. You're not going to have significantly more character models on screen for instance as that would change to the gameplay between versions.

 

Laypeople and techies know the PS4 is much more powerful - you don't need to listen to Sony's marketing to know that.

 

My point is: laypeople know that the PS4 is more powerful. Not because they can actually see the difference (there is no game to show that difference yet, like you said), but because power is part of Sony's marketing campaign (as it always was).

 

We're basically agreeing to the same thing

 

For the record, I did not mean that the PS4 is barely above the PS3. I meant that PS4's hardware was so effectively sold, consumers would believe it even if it was the same as the Wii U (and I'm talking about the early adopters, not the ones that will see the difference later down the line)

[Sheikah]

There is a game to show a big difference actually, just look at Killzone. It looks a lot better than most PS3 games.

[Happenstance]

I would say the next gen version of NBA 2K14 is also a very obvious leap.

[liger05]

I think with every next generation people say there isn't much difference between the new and current gen but not sure that's correct. There is always at least one title which shows a significance difference between the generations.

[Rummy]

Rare were brilliant up until when Nintendo sold them off. Starfox Adventures was a really appreciated title on release and Grabbed by the Ghoulies was really decent.

From what I've read in interviews, MS were ready to sign a deal with Nintendo to make all future Rare games both for Nintendo and Microsoft platforms.

Apparently a whole load of key staff left Rare when Microsoft took over. And while it's true that Retro was formed by ex-Rare people, those guys left quite shortly after Goldeneye was finished (because they felt that they, a team of eight people, had made a game that had sold eight million copies and yet hadn't received any bonus whatsoever), so Rare still managed to churn out a load of great games without them.

 

And the problem is that even if Microsofts involvement would've ruined Rares output anyhow, Nintendo have done nothing to allow for a replacement. Retro of course are great, but they're not particularly productive.

 

Nintendo received I believe a few hundred million dollars for selling Rare. This money should be enough to make sure there'll never have to be a software drought on a Nintendo console again (or at least the following ten years). Either by financing the acquisition and expansion of several smaller developers, or developing AAA products (MS paid 375 million for Rare, GTA V, the most expensive game of all time, developed 13 years after Nintendo sold Rare cost "only" 265 million, don't make me adjust that to inflation).

Instead Iwata wiped his nose with that money, or something like that, because the droughts of the last ten years have been ridiculous. We have seen no interresting new IP's, while many of our favorite ones have had a decade long sabatical.

 

Interesting; I'm not tip top on the story of Rare(especially with the Microsoft aquisition) but your point about the money made is certainly a very good one, and I can't help but agree they've not done as much to get Rare, or Rare like, studios into place. Their productivity was amazing looking back, and with what you've said I can't help but wonder why they don't have similar in place by now!

 

I think Eurogamer's article is a better assessment of the truth.

 

Miyamoto is a creative lame duck nowadays.

 

Franchise fatigue isn't news; in fact it's been one of the larger gripes of a number of people on this here forum for a long time. I definitely agree it's a problem, I don't know if it's wholly fair to lay blame on Miyamoto(though some must); that franchise fatigue and lack of focus for the west and markets outside of Japan are probably two of the biggest issues for Nintendo right now.

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

Iwata will take a 50% pay cut for the next five months... Damn.

 

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2014/01/29/nintendo-financials-show-profits-fall-as-wii-u-troubles-remain

[Fused King]

Just imagine being in his shoes right now.

 

Running a multi-billion dollar company.

Having to come up with new ideas along with others in order to turn a profit.

 

I weep at this system of competition and profits, but I wish him the best of luck and hope he will be able to enjoy a full and rich life

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

No pity from me - mistakes should have been learned, not lamented on and then be like "yeah... we really should have done that, shouldnt we? Yeaaaah...We should have.... ah well."

 

I hope a lesson will be learnt here... even still have my doubts.