What Would You Change About Nintendo/With Nintendo?

[RedShell]

Yeah, it still baffles me just what the hell Nintendo were doing during the twilight years of the Wii. They should have been ready, yet they weren't.

Yeah, it's so weird. I'd love to have been a fly on the wall inside Nintendo's HQ. Actually, make it a wasp. That way I could've stung anyone that was just sat there twiddling their thumbs.

 

Seriously though, seeing how badly they're coping at the moment, I do think Nintendo should strongly conciser releasing a single console next gen.

A portable system that can also be connected/streamed to TV.

That way they can focus all of their development efforts, and release a steady flow of titles.

[Hero-of-Time]

Yeah, it's so weird. I'd love to have been a fly on the wall inside Nintendo's HQ. Actually, make it a wasp. That way I could've stung anyone that was just sat there twiddling their thumbs.

 

Seriously though, seeing how badly they're coping at the moment, I do think Nintendo should strongly conciser releasing a single console next gen.

A portable system that can also be connected/streamed to TV.

That way they can focus all of their development efforts, and release a steady flow of titles.

 

I know people poo poo this idea but I would quite like it. For example, if you combined the software for the 3DS and Wii U then you have an amazing lineup of games, which could easily be spread to around 1 big game a month.

[Serebii]

Yeah, it's so weird. I'd love to have been a fly on the wall inside Nintendo's HQ. Actually, make it a wasp. That way I could've stung anyone that was just sat there twiddling their thumbs.

 

Seriously though, seeing how badly they're coping at the moment, I do think Nintendo should strongly conciser releasing a single console next gen.

A portable system that can also be connected/streamed to TV.

That way they can focus all of their development efforts, and release a steady flow of titles.

I think the cost of entry for such a device would be too high to be successful. If it's to stream to the TV, it'd have to be high spec in order to "compete".

 

I prefer the way they're going about it for their next devices. Two devices. Similar architecture. Same OS. As such, development can share assets between handheld & console easily, allowing for new games, engine ports etc. It'd also allow for porting and higher connectivity.

 

That way, they won't be developing for one console, or another, they'd be developing for their platform, focused on one device, but can use whatever they do on the other. Or have it like Smash Bros.

[RedShell]

I think the cost of entry for such a device would be too high to be successful. If it's to stream to the TV, it'd have to be high spec in order to "compete".

 

I prefer the way they're going about it for their next devices. Two devices. Similar architecture. Same OS. As such, development can share assets between handheld & console easily, allowing for new games, engine ports etc. It'd also allow for porting and higher connectivity.

 

That way, they won't be developing for one console, or another, they'd be developing for their platform, focused on one device, but can use whatever they do on the other. Or have it like Smash Bros.

Yeah, I mean what they have planned is certainly a step in the right direction.

Let's hope it's enough to help them release games in a more timely manner.

[Cube]

I don't like the idea of having similar devices. The Vita's biggest problem was that it was close enough for the PS3, so it ended up getting a lot of ports instead of new games. Having the systems even closer sounds like it would be more of an issue.

 

Edit: Although it it turns out that all of Nintendo's games are on the home console, with toned down versions form the handheld, with just a handful just on the handheld (like Pokémon), then I can just ignore the handheld and still enjoy all of Nintendo's games.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Cube

[tapedeck]

Just team up with apple. Sex their hardware up, have some kind of Apple TV integration and sit back and let the money roll in...it would get them a foothold in the America's and have SONY and MS scared. Shockwaves would occur.

The iOS approach to a constant development environment would be a good one. Unfortunately it could cannibalise sales of each platform. It's a tricky route to take...one that apple have negotiated effectively. Just an idea of course...

[Cube]

If that happened, my Nintendo days would be well and truly over.

[Daft]

Nintendo should open their Virtual Console games up to be playable on the Kindle Fire TV. In fact, they should open up the legacy collections to be available on as many platforms that make sense (iOS and even Vita).

 

They can keep the latest generations to themselves but anything 5+ years old needs to reach more platforms.

[Serebii]

Nintendo should open their Virtual Console games up to be playable on the Kindle Fire TV. In fact, they should open up the legacy collections to be available on as many platforms that make sense (iOS and even Vita).

 

They can keep the latest generations to themselves but anything 5+ years old needs to reach more platforms.

Or, they could ramp up output of the Virtual Console and use it as a selling point of their console.

[Ashley]

Yeah but that would require effort.

[Serebii]

Yeah but that would require effort.

And throwing them on Amazon's platform and various others wouldn't?

 

Also, the logic of putting them on the Vita astounds me. Almost makes me think @Daft was trolling.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Serebii

[Daft]

Or, they could ramp up output of the Virtual Console and use it as a selling point of their console.

 

I think the value of getting that content out there vastly outweighs restricting it just to use as a selling point. Honestly, how big a selling point is the Virtual Console? People aren't even that bothered about the lack of backward compatibility on the PS4 and Xbox One.

 

The pros of opening up the Virtual Console to other platforms are increased brand/IP awareness, a vastly bigger audience and most likely much better sales. Not to mention marketing support from those platforms. All this with no real detriment to Nintendo's recent USPs.

 

Pros of restricting the Virtual Console to the Wii U; another bulletpoint for a product that isn't looking to gain traction any time soon which in turn means less people have access to Virtual Console meaning less sales.

 

I'm not sure why anyone would buy new hardware to play games that are over half a decade old, but if that software was available on unrestricted platforms - well what's not to stop anyone from playing Mario Party 2 on a a round of tablets?

 

Edit: Aaaaaaaand you think I'm trolling. Thanks for undermining the discussion. You must be a lot of fun at parties.

[Serebii]

I think the value of getting that content out there vastly outweighs restricting it just to use as a selling point. Honestly, how big a selling point is the Virtual Console? People aren't even that bothered about the lack of backward compatibility on the PS4 and Xbox One.

 

The pros of opening up the Virtual Console to other platforms are increased brand/IP awareness, a vastly bigger audience and most likely much better sales. Not to mention marketing support from those platforms. All this with no real detriment to Nintendo's recent USPs.

 

Pros of restricting the Virtual Console to the Wii U; another bulletpoint for a product that isn't looking to gain traction any time soon which in turn means less people have access to Virtual Console meaning less sales.

 

I'm not sure why anyone would buy new hardware to play games that are over half a decade old, but if that software was available on unrestricted platforms - well what's not to stop anyone from playing Mario Party 2 on a a round of tablets?

 

Edit: Aaaaaaaand you think I'm trolling. Thanks for undermining the discussion. You must be a lot of fun at parties.

But then, why would people get a Wii U etc for Nintendo's current stuff when they can just wait five years for it to be on their console of choice?

 

Plus, they'd also have to recode and finetune emulators for every platform which isn't an easy thing to do. It wouldn't be as cost effective as you believe.

[Ashley]

And throwing them on Amazon's platform and various others wouldn't?

 

Also, the logic of putting them on the Vita astounds me. Almost makes me think @Daft was trolling.

 

You've argued before that more VC content isn't made because of the effort it requires on Nintendo's part. Was just trying it out.

[Daft]

But then, why would people get a Wii U etc for Nintendo's current stuff when they can just wait five years for it to be on their console of choice?

 

What?! You honestly think that if the games were worth buying people would wait A WHOLE FIVE YEARS to play them? Not only that, but that the number of people prepared to do that would be SO LARGE as to be detrimental to the Wii U in its current situation?

 

That's like being confused as to why people buy games at release instead of waiting five years and picking them up for super cheap.

 

 

Plus, they'd also have to recode and finetune emulators for every platform which isn't an easy thing to do. It wouldn't be as cost effective as you believe.

 

I don't think you understand how cross-platform development works. You create middleware and that compiles a game cross platforms. How do you think Unity works?

 

How do you not know this? Why do you think cross-platform games across the PS3, Vita and PS4 work?

[tapedeck]

Nintendo need to either re-imagine or re-engage with their consumer base through a new IP/Breakout hit ala Pokemon/Wii or do something new. They seem to be focusing on QOL for now indicating they have had their heads turned by their diminishing returns in the gaming space.

 

Mobile technologies and multiple platforms are a great way for them to release IP and draw interest into their portfolio again. A Netflix-like VC would be godly and would be something they could release everywhere. (I appreciate the complexity of such a service before I get shot down.)

 

As @Daft said, release their legacy titles first and maintain their current systems with the 'newer' versions. Of course, Nintendo can't even do this on their own console/handhelds so it is just wishful thinking tbh.

 

Things need a shake up at Nintendo. Exciting times. Concerning times for the industry at large in my opinion. But that's what makes it such a fascinating industry to engage with.

[Serebii]

What?! You honestly think that if the games were worth buying people would wait A WHOLE FIVE YEARS to play them? Not only that, but that the number of people prepared to do that would be SO LARGE as to be detrimental to the Wii U in its current situation?

 

That's like being confused as to why people buy games at release instead of waiting five years and picking them up for super cheap.

 

 

Because it's pointless and ridiculous. If you argue this, then you should damn well argue that Sony and Microsoft do the same. They're in a worse position than Nintendo, afterall.

 

 

I don't think you understand how cross-platform development works. You create middleware and that compiles a game cross platforms. How do you think Unity works?

 

How do you not know this? Why do you think cross-platform games across the PS3, Vita and PS4 work?

 

I do, but Nintendo are sticklers for wanting to provide the original experience for the Virtual Console. I read that they even toned down Lylat Wars on the Wii VC because it was running better than the Nintendo 64 original.

 

As such, they'd be making it so it'd run on each individual console, not run middleware that has varying results on each platform.

[Daft]

Because it's pointless and ridiculous. If you argue this, then you should damn well argue that Sony and Microsoft do the same. They're in a worse position than Nintendo, afterall.

 

 

 

 

I do, but Nintendo are sticklers for wanting to provide the original experience for the Virtual Console. I read that they even toned down Lylat Wars on the Wii VC because it was running better than the Nintendo 64 original.

 

As such, they'd be making it so it'd run on each individual console, not run middleware that has varying results on each platform.

 

I would LOVE for Microsoft and Sony to do that. And actually, Playstation Now will mean that a lot of games up to and including the last generation will be available to play as a service through other devices. So I'm really having trouble understanding why you have a problem with the idea.

 

Why are you bringing anyone but Nintendo into this discussion? Stop trying to warp the discussion.

 

 

You're just using this emulation rubbish as an excuse. Firstly, it isn't that hard to form a very good middleware solution. Secondly if they were THAT obsessed with getting as close as possible to the original, tweaking code would not be a problem. Thirdly...why would you be happy with a company so obsessed with recreating a game beyond what most people would notice that they'd rather not bother putting any content out at all?

 

But seriously, it wouldn't be that hard to get the VC to work across platforms so don't even bother answering the second two questions.

 

Edited April 2, 2014 by Daft
Spelling

[Sheikah]

What?! You honestly think that if the games were worth buying people would wait A WHOLE FIVE YEARS to play them? Not only that, but that the number of people prepared to do that would be SO LARGE as to be detrimental to the Wii U in its current situation?

 

I am also utterly gobsmacked that someone could say or think this. @Serebii...why would you say this? Surely you can see what you said literally makes no sense.

[Hogge]

Nintendo should open their Virtual Console games up to be playable on the Kindle Fire TV. In fact, they should open up the legacy collections to be available on as many platforms that make sense (iOS and even Vita).

 

They can keep the latest generations to themselves but anything 5+ years old needs to reach more platforms.

 

If Nintendo reach an agreement with Sony and Microsoft to do this, then I'm fine with this. Gran Turismo 5 and GTAV for the Wii U would be great. But that isn't going to happen, is it?

Nintendo's main USP is the first party software. Give that away to any extent at all, and Nintendo have NOTHING.

 

 

Playstation Now does NOT mean you'll be able to play PS3 games on XBONE, Wii U or anything of the like. It's for smart TV's and phone, which is a type of product that Sony manufacture themselves and desperately want to sell. Thus it's a profit deal for Sony to enable people to play their games on more of their own products.

[Ashley]

If I recall correctly, Playstation Now is starting out on Sony products (e.g. Sony phones, Bravia TVs etc) but with the intent of rolling out to further products (e.g. iPads), right?

 

May have misremembered the announcement!

[Daft]

Sony's own "SEL" devices like Bravia TVs get support in Q3 this year, with "partners" getting access to the functionality a little later.

 

It will be interesting to see who those partners actually are, but it all points to a future where PlayStation isn't just about traditional console gaming, but an online service available to a range of different devices - not necessarily Sony-branded. All that's required is an interface with a joypad and an h.264 video decoder: smartphones, tablets, televisions - in theory, the sky is the limit.

 

It's for smart TV's and phone, which is a type of product that Sony manufacture themselves and desperately want to sell. Thus it's a profit deal for Sony to enable people to play their games on more of their own products.

 

The service is the product, not the hardware.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Daft

[Hogge]

The service is the product, not the hardware.

 

Let's put it like this: when Nintendo released Pikmin 3, was Pikmin 3 or the Wii U the product they were trying to sell? The correct answer is that they both were. Nintendo released software, hoping that the software in itself would earn money. But they also wanted it to sell their own hardware (which it did, if only to a minor extent).

Sony have a hard time shifting Smart TV's and I believe that their Smartphone division has been failing for some years (which is the reason Ericsson have sold their shares). Plus they're uncertain if the dedicated games machine has a future, so they want to try out something else.

[Sheikah]

Let's put it like this: when Nintendo released Pikmin 3, was Pikmin 3 or the Wii U the product they were trying to sell? The correct answer is that they both were. Nintendo released software, hoping that the software in itself would earn money. But they also wanted it to sell their own hardware (which it did, if only to a minor extent).

Sony have a hard time shifting Smart TV's and I believe that their Smartphone division has been failing for some years (which is the reason Ericsson have sold their shares). Plus they're uncertain if the dedicated games machine has a future, so they want to try out something else.

 

I thought Daft was talking about Virtual Console (retro) titles going everywhere, not new games like Pikmin 3?

 

There is a big difference since VC titles likely aren't any real force behind driving Wii U console sales. People usually are buying a console because it has new games they want. Also a lot of people had the chance to get those VC titles back on the Wii (a console which far more had, too).

[Rummy]

Nintendo are definitely in a weird position at the moment. The Wii U idea seemed conflicting right from the very start. The fact that there were members of the public (quite a lot of them) confused over the fact that it was a new system, rather than an add-on didn't push it off to a good start.

 

Then, the debacle over third parties. Nintendo seemed intent on offering third party games that didn't appear on the Wii, although that seems to have dried up now.

 

Clearly, certain things need to change for the better...but what?

 

For me, I'd change the following:

 

1. Take online gaming seriously. I can't believe that we're STILL on this one and we've been talking about this since about 2006, perhaps earlier. With the online modes, it always seems like an after-thought rather than something that is embedded within every single game. Nintendo really needs to be more pro-active in this regard, especially given the nature of our digital world. Miiverse was a beautiful start, but the fact that games such as Nintendoland and Super Mario 3D World don't feature any online at all (I have both, it could and should have worked) is shameful.

 

2. Risks. Risks, risks, risks. Take them. I get the feeling at the moment that Nintendo are playing it very safe in certain areas, when perhaps desperate times calls for desperate measures. There's no "curve-ball" or plan that's going to make the competition think. Even the idea of the Wii U itself was something that they had already done to an extent with the DS years beforehand, only home-console wide. We need new things that are going to draw people in, created from the very heart of Nintendo themselves. As great as Smash and Mario Kart look, these are new entries into IPs that we've known for years. We need new things.

 

3. Evolve. I get the feeling that Nintendo have been in a time-warp and have been stuck there for the last decade. The little things matter. When I was at school, we all talked about how the PS2 had a DVD player built-in, which was somewhat of a plus, whilst the Cube couldn't manage this. Fast forward to the PS4, which has blu-ray whilst the Wii U still can't manage DVD that systems have been doing for years. I get it. It's nice and romantic for Nintendo to have these ideas about ONLY PLAYING VIDEOGAMES on their systems...but I can't help but wonder what things would be like if they eased up in certain areas.

 

Yesterday, you could buy a PS4 for £319 online. I paid just over a 100 pounds earlier for the Wii U...a technologically inferior machine and one that is in trouble. Added with the fact that I spent close to that 100 buying a separate blu-ray player, it seems like that deal wasn't too shabby at all. The price point for the Wii U isn't great, neither is the hardware nor the actual system features of the Wii U. Whilst the others evolve and improve their systems, I get the feeling that Nintendo are at a stand-still.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with all 3 of your points, I geuinely don't think I could agree any more! My points are mostly Wii U specific but...

 

4. Actively support more projects, especially for the western market. Work with studios to get their content to the system. Western devs/3rd parties but more importantly...

 

5. Heavily support indie devs. Go out, research scour and coerce - get their games ported to Wii U. If it leans towards an asymettrical control system/aspect especially - help them realise it and bring it to the Wii U. Don't make devkits a prohibitive factor with cost - set up loan/finance agreements for them to pay off either in time or when the game is released. Honestly how much is it going to cost to support an indie in this sense?

 

5.5 Overhaul the eShop into a more friendly system. I can't entirely say what I dislike about it - I just feel like if I don't know what I'm looking for I don't find it. Admittedly I haven't been on there in months, maybe half a year, so I'm probably a bit out of touch. Also with this - do Steam-esque flash sales and time-limited deals. Everyone loves a bargain. MAKE UNIFIED PURCHASES A BLOODY REALITY. If it exists on my Wii U, Wii and 3DS - don't make me buy it three bloody times!

 

6. Market and support the console. - Simple. Of course, it has to be done right, and has to be worth it. Sadly, I think this is actually a ship that has sailed now for the Wii U - just marketing can't turn it around now.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Rummy