Hero-of-Time Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 NINTENDO'S DOUBTS Despite its confidence and its cash, Activision was looking for a partner to help spread the risks of the new venture. Nintendo, flush with the success of Wii, also with experience of the toy business, and with a reputation for "blue sky thinking," seemed like the perfect choice. Toys for Bob journeyed to Nintendo of America's offices to present the idea, very early in its development cycle. "We had been directed towards thinking about something that would play well with Nintendo," says Ford. "I think there was some co-marketing money and the Wii was doing well. They had some success with peripherals." "They spent a long time looking and looking," says Reiche. "They were just like 'we have never seen anything like this before.' I've always wondered about the full meaning of that comment [laughs]." Although there was a limited co-marketing deal, Nintendo did not want to make a full commitment to Skylanders. "We have no idea why," says Reiche. "Clearly, they have got properties well suited to this world. Why it is that they didn't rush in here will probably haunt them for the rest of their days." A Nintendo-exclusive would have changed the shape of the project considerably, as well as adding the complexity of a business partner with a reputation for desiring granular control. It was a disappointment, at the time. Now, it looks like a fortunate escape. Reiche is still surprised that the entertainment giant which reacted most quickly was Disney, which launched Disney Infinity in 2013 and is looking to expand the franchise. "Nintendo could have kicked Disney's ass," says Reiche. "If I was running Nintendo I would have jumped on this." Crazy! Missed opportunity for Ninty? The series is pretty big now, especially among kids. One of my younger nephews adores the game.
Fused King Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 Wow, just wow. I think NINTENDO might've been wary because, even though it would've maybe have become an exclusive, it would compete internally with their own franchises and thus their own image. Now that NINTENDO is going to present their NFC plans this E3, one has to wonder if it will have the staying power of those that came before them. If it's Pokemon, then this will most likely be a homerun in Japan, but I think the younger generation in the west is more likely to already have jumped on the Skylanders/Disney Infinity bandwagon. Pokémon is alien to them.
Dcubed Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 (edited) They probably did end up kicking themselves a bit, but considering that Skylanders still ended up selling best on Wii by a significant margin; maybe not as much as some might think... I would imagine that they were more interested in the NFC concept than the actual Skylanders product itself though... (Hence why they put an NFC chip inside the Gamepad) Not to mention that Nintendo would have a very different philosophical slant in comparison to Activision and Toys for Bob. Look at how they approached KIU's AR Cards and Pokemon Rumble U's figurines (The way that they are optional and are not required to unlock ingame characters/idols). The way that they are required to unlock characters is one of the main factors as to why the Skylanders games rake in so much cash and I don't think that Nintendo would want to see themselves so closely associated with an exploitative game like that... If Skylanders was originally designed as a Wii exclusive, with Nintendo funding the project and dictating terms, it would've been a very different game, even when ignoring the possibility of Nintendo injecting their own IP into the project... Edited April 16, 2014 by Dcubed
Serebii Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 Hindsight is 20/20. Looking back, it was a bad decision to let it slide, but back then it would have been very, very, very high financial risk. Hell, remember the massive backlash Skylanders received on its reveal?
Cube Posted April 17, 2014 Posted April 17, 2014 Hell, remember the massive backlash Skylanders received on its reveal? The whole situation was rather odd. I think Activision massively misjudged the popularity of Spyro. People who have been gaming for a long time were nostalgic about Spyro, and Activision gave him a rather ugly redesign, and why there was originally a backlash. This was a new Spyro game, but it was completely different. However, the people the game was targeted at...most of them likely wouldn't have known. The fact that they dropped his name after the first one shows how unimportant he was to the game.
Agent Gibbs Posted April 17, 2014 Posted April 17, 2014 huge misstep! they could have been printing money, and the WiiU would have flown off the shelves for a skylanders game
Daft Posted April 17, 2014 Posted April 17, 2014 Kind of get the vibe - with the inbuilt NFC and all - that this would have been a home run for the Wii U and would have picked up a lot of the slack. Stupid move really, the Wii U is the perfect machine for it. Can't say I'm surprised, though - pretty standard Nintendo decision.
Serebii Posted April 17, 2014 Posted April 17, 2014 Kind of get the vibe - with the inbuilt NFC and all - that this would have been a home run for the Wii U and would have picked up a lot of the slack. Stupid move really, the Wii U is the perfect machine for it. Can't say I'm surprised, though - pretty standard Nintendo decision. Would you be saying the same if it had flopped? They can't see the future. As I said. Hindsight is 20/20 here. Back then, it would have been seen as a very very big financial risk and it would have made sense for it to be passed on.
Daft Posted April 17, 2014 Posted April 17, 2014 Probably. Isn't this idea why there's an NFC in the Wii U pad? This IP seems completely aligned with the technology Nintendo was going to implement in their new console but they didn't want to take a chance. What has the NFC on the Wii U been used for since? Also, a big financial risk? While raking in mountain ranges of cash during the Wii era, I think they could afford to take it. It's kind of embarrassing that they didn't and now they're paying for that lack of investment.
Hero-of-Time Posted April 17, 2014 Author Posted April 17, 2014 Would you be saying the same if it had flopped? They can't see the future. As I said. Hindsight is 20/20 here. Back then, it would have been seen as a very very big financial risk and it would have made sense for it to be passed on. They had ample time to do something similar though. Whether you agree with the business practice or not, a Nintendo style Disney Infinity/Skylanders game would do amazingly well, especially as we see now that there is a market for this kinda thing. I actually hoping this is one of the uses we see for the GamePad and NFC at E3.
Serebii Posted April 17, 2014 Posted April 17, 2014 Probably. Isn't this idea why there's an NFC in the Wii U pad? This IP seems completely aligned with the technology Nintendo was going to implement in their new console but they didn't want to take a chance. What has the NFC on the Wii U been used for since? Also, a big financial risk? While raking in mountain ranges of cash during the Wii era, I think they could afford to take it. It's kind of embarrassing that they didn't and now they're paying for that lack of investment. Just because they had a lot of money doesn't mean they should just take every risk. They probably did a risk analysis before deciding not to. You seemingly have little grasp on how business works.
Daft Posted April 17, 2014 Posted April 17, 2014 You seemingly have little grasp on how business works. And yet I haven't run the follow up to a console that sold 100 million plus units into dire straits. You don't think Disney did a risk analysis? Or Activision? But seriously, what has Nintendo done with the NFC instead? It's there in the machine, it added extra cost to the manufacture of the console to put in there. What's it doing?
Serebii Posted April 17, 2014 Posted April 17, 2014 (edited) And yet I haven't run the follow up to a console that sold 100 million plus units into dire straits. You don't think Disney did a risk analysis? Or Activision? But seriously, what has Nintendo done with the NFC instead? It's there in the machine, it added extra cost to the manufacture of the console to put in there. What's it doing? Disney's risk analysis came after the success of Skylanders. Plus Disney have like infinity money. Activision took the risk, and it paid off. Think about it from a logical standpoint, not the "OMG Nintendo sucks" standpoint that is so commonplace here. Say it's a parallel universe and Nintendo took it, however in this universe it didn't take off. They end up having invested millions in it, have millions of expensive toys unsold. It'd be very, very damaging and that risk analysis is probably why they passed. Nintendo have said that their next NFC title is to be revealed at E3. There was also a title last year, that sold rather well in fact. Edited April 17, 2014 by Serebii
Daft Posted April 17, 2014 Posted April 17, 2014 I didn't say OMG Nintendo sucks, I said it was an unsurprising decision from Nintendo. Which it isn't. 'Disney have like infinite money'? How often do we hear how much money Nintendo have? You're acting like they're poor. I don't really get the whole parallel universe scenario. The fact of the matter is Skylanders did take off. It's such a unhelpful hypothetical. That's like saying, say in a parallel universe NintendoLand had turned out to have exactly the same resonance as Wii Sport, in that case the Wii U would have sold so much more and would have momentum and would be a success instead of in the state it is in now. Neither of those hypothetical make any sense. Not to mention, at the time of the proposal, Nintendo did have money to take a lot of risk with and it wouldn't have been that damaging (especially considering it would have been a joint venture - and there are ways to negate risk during contract talks like a break of exclusivity tied to sell through - that's how business works. Not sure how you can accuse me of not knowing how business works.) What's the NFC title from last year? I've not heard of it.
Serebii Posted April 17, 2014 Posted April 17, 2014 I didn't say OMG Nintendo sucks, I said it was an unsurprising decision from Nintendo. Which it isn't. 'Disney have like infinite money'? How often do we hear how much money Nintendo have? You're acting like they're poor. I don't really get the whole parallel universe scenario. The fact of the matter is Skylanders did take off. It's such a unhelpful hypothetical. That's like saying, say in a parallel universe NintendoLand had turned out to have exactly the same resonance as Wii Sport, in that case the Wii U would have sold so much more and would have momentum and would be a success instead of in the state it is in now. Neither of those hypothetical make any sense. Not to mention, at the time of the proposal, Nintendo did have money to take a lot of risk with and it wouldn't have been that damaging (especially considering it would have been a joint venture - and there are ways to negate risk during contract talks like a break of exclusivity tied to sell through - that's how business works. Not sure how you can accuse me of not knowing how business works.) What's the NFC title from last year? I've not heard of it. Nintendo aren't poor, but they don't have the money Disney do and if they took Skylanders and it flopped, it would have been a devastating hit, bigger than Wii U Yes, Skylanders did take off, and we're saying that they should have taken it looking backwards. However, they obviously didn't have knowledge of the future and this is how business works. The hypothetical is because that is the scenario they also would have had to consider. They can't just assume everything is going to go right.
Sheikah Posted April 17, 2014 Posted April 17, 2014 Nintendo aren't poor, but they don't have the money Disney do and if they took Skylanders and it flopped, it would have been a devastating hit, bigger than Wii U Really? It would have hurt them more than their entire console failing? Why is that?
Cube Posted April 17, 2014 Posted April 17, 2014 It's also worth mentioning that Nintendo have even tried the same business model that NFC uses, although the technology wasn't as convenient: Different technology, but a similar concept. They could have been wary of the NFC technology because of their own experience with the e-Reader.
Daft Posted April 17, 2014 Posted April 17, 2014 Can you explain how Skylanders flopping would have been a bigger deal than the Wii U flopping? I don't really understand how, could you break that down for me? And, your telling me businesses can't look into the future ('they obviously didn't have knowledge of the future and this is how business works'); I'm not sure you could state anything more obvious. I think you're getting confused by it being easy to see the right decision in retrospect (which it is) and that it's amazing Nintendo didn't think this was a great idea to start. The benefit of hindsight doesn't change the proposal that - even if Skylanders hadn't been a runaway success - it would have been a great idea for Nintendo to partner up with Acti on. Also, what was that NFC title from last year? It's also worth mentioning that Nintendo have even tried the same business model that NFC uses, although the technology wasn't as convenient: Different technology, but a similar concept. They could have been wary of the NFC technology because of their own experience with the e-Reader. Why implement the technology at all into the Wii U pad then? It just added cost to the console manufacture.
Serebii Posted April 17, 2014 Posted April 17, 2014 Really? It would have hurt them more than their entire console failing? Why is that? Because of the amount of expensive toys that would have been produced and not sold.
Sheikah Posted April 17, 2014 Posted April 17, 2014 Because of the amount of expensive toys that would have been produced and not sold. Come on, don't give the Wii U a hard time.
Cube Posted April 17, 2014 Posted April 17, 2014 Why implement the technology at all into the Wii U pad then? It just added cost to the console manufacture. This I would love to know. Especially as, due to the way it's integrated, it won't work for games like Skylanders - you still had to use the portal for the Wii U version.
Serebii Posted April 17, 2014 Posted April 17, 2014 Can you explain how Skylanders flopping would have been a bigger deal than the Wii U flopping? I don't really understand how, could you break that down for me? And, your telling me businesses can't look into the future ('they obviously didn't have knowledge of the future and this is how business works'); I'm not sure you could state anything more obvious. I think you're getting confused by it being easy to see the right decision in retrospect (which it is) and that it's amazing Nintendo didn't think this was a great idea to start. The benefit of hindsight doesn't change the proposal that - even if Skylanders hadn't been a runaway success - it would have been a great idea for Nintendo to partner up with Acti on. Also, what was that NFC title from last year? Why implement the technology at all into the Wii U pad then? It just added cost to the console manufacture. Nintendo did think it was a good idea, but eventually decided against it. Read the article. It's clearly because of the financial risk. It'd have devastated them if it failed, so they made a prudent business decision. It's as simple as that. Also, the NFC title from last year was Pokémon Rumble U. It did well on the eShop and the figures made a decent amount of cash
Daft Posted April 17, 2014 Posted April 17, 2014 (edited) Nintendo did think it was a good idea, but eventually decided against it. Read the article. It's clearly because of the financial risk. It'd have devastated them if it failed, so they made a prudent business decision. It's as simple as that. Also, the NFC title from last year was Pokémon Rumble U. It did well on the eShop and the figures made a decent amount of cash I must be going blind, where does it clearly say in the article it was because of financial risk? Pokémon Rumble U? Interesting. I didn't realise that got a release outside of Japan. How do its sales compare to Skylanders'? EDIT Also, you still haven't broken down how Skylanders flopping would have been a bigger deal than the Wii U flopping. I'm a little more interested in that. Edited April 17, 2014 by Daft
Serebii Posted April 17, 2014 Posted April 17, 2014 I must be going blind, where does it clearly say in the article it was because of financial risk? Pokémon Rumble U? Interesting. I didn't realise that got a release outside of Japan. How do its sales compare to Skylanders'? EDIT Also, you still haven't broken down how Skylanders flopping would have been a bigger deal than the Wii U flopping. I'm a little more interested in that. Financial risk is a supposition, yes. However, seeing as they were impressed by it, it's the only logical reason. Pokémon Rumble U was on the top of eShop charts for months. We don't have exact sales figures, however. And again, as for Skylanders flopping, it'd be due to the expense in producing so many expensive figures that end up going unsold. That's what would make it worse.
FireMeowth Posted April 17, 2014 Posted April 17, 2014 To be honest, I very much doubt Skylanders would have been anywhere near as popular had it not been cross-platform for every console on the market. Still a bit of a shame, though, but nobody could ever have predicted how huge a success it would be, so I don't think Nintendo did anything wrong here. It was a massive risk and they decided not to go with it. Sometimes taking risks pays off, most of the time it doesn't.
Recommended Posts