Sorry, but I don't buy that number as accurate, given how relatively low-budget and simple the Fire Emblem games are outside the handful of FMVs every installment.  As I said on Twitter, when Intelligent Systems manages to turn out a Fire Emblem with the production values and play mechanics of something like Valkyria Chronicles, we'll talk about a Wii U installment needing to sell 700,000 units.  Until then, it just sounds like an excuse for Nintendo to not have to make the effort.

I don't care if the 700, 000 is real or not.

It's a solid game for a platform badly in need of solid games.  If Nintendo isn't willing to invest in the Wii U how can we possibly expectthird parties to?

Fire Emblem doesn't strike me as the type of game that should be on a home console. It can be on home consoles but iwouldn't gain any gameplay enhancements as a result.

And it doesn't really gain any gameplay enhancements as a portable title, either. The way Nintendo's designed it, it's a fairly platform-neutral series.  For all the off-and-on play being portable offers, I prefer not having to hunch over tiny screens for several hours.  There's definitely something to be said for just lying back and playing a strategy game on your big TV.

That number doesn't seem ridiculously high. It actually sounds reasonable, but with the exception of Awakening, it's a number the franchise hasn't consistently hit (I'm pretty sure). I would think with the success of Awakening, the chances of a Wii U title increase.

Nintendo do you know how you get your lesser known games to sell.  Advertise, Advertise, Advertise.  Promote, Promote, Promote. 


Let the people get to know you and spend time with you and see how nice you are before demanding their money....and definitely don't just put them out on the street to sell themselves like they aren't a second look.


You got great second and third tier franchises...do something with them.

Notwithstanding this title should sell better than the Wii version because there are no alternatives right now. It's a good title to fill the schedule with and is needed absent strong 3rd party support.

I'd assume the 700, 000 is to hit the rate of return they want on this project and not a true break even point.

I don't get the whole portable/non-portable argument. People who travel a lot may prefer portables but I travel little and wouldprefer everything on a home console. I just want games that are fun, and this series qualifies as that.

New Animal Crossing games still looks pretty much like the Gamecube versions(which was originally an N64 game). I fully expect a Wii U Fire Emblem game to look just like the Wii version (which was, again, a slight upgrade on the GC version). Is the bump to HD so big it breaks the bank and ends up needing to justify selling over half a million copies justg to break even? Doubt it.

That's disappointing. I thought Awakening had sold more copies than that.
Is that 900,000 just hard copies or does that include digital downloads?

I would hope so, because even taking out 15% for retailers, 700K copies at $59.99 would net Nintendo $35.6 million (and I doubt the cost of development plus advertising for the game would come anywhere close to that).

So...I would take this as them saying "Don't expect to see an announcement for Fire Emblem on Wii U until at least a few more years", so they have a chance of meeting that target.

It makes sense....they're focusing on all of their "system sellers" to hopefully push more Wii U units.  Once they increase the install base, I expect them to push out more of the "niche" titles in hopes they can meet these targets.

Making games ain't about making your money back on a game. It's about making a profit on a game.

We can all sit around and try to figure out Nintendo's profit/loss analysis for a Wii U Fire Emblem OR we can look at Awakening's success, note that "hey, 700k isn't absurd for the series," and cross our fingers for a new FE on Wii U in a few years.

And for all we know, the 700k number is an exaggeration or maybe even a guess.

This sounds like something I would hear from a third party, not Nintendo themselves.  So the Wii U is such a dud that Nintendo is showing disinterest in it?

Replace "Fire Emblem" with any third party franchise and it sounds like typical Wii U bad news.  "An entry of the series on Wii U would need to sell at least 700,000 units" sounds like third party excuse mad libs.

At this point Nintendo should be putting damn near anything they can think of on the Wii U.  Even if Fire Emblem was released on the system and sold less than 700,000 units, having another great game would make the Wii U lineup that much stronger and could encourage console sales.  At this point individual sales are not the priority because the userbase is small and will automatically cap any game's sales.  The priority right now should be to sell systems.  This whole thing reads like Nintendo needs to be wait for the Wii U to sell better before it is worth their while to release certain games on it.  Well with that attitude the Wii U is probably never going to sell like that.  Why would I buy a console that Nintendo appears to not be putting 100% into?

The number sounds quite reasonable, especially when EA wanted Dead Space 3 to sell 5 million.

@MrPhishfood
Compare Radiant Dawn to any of the portable Fire Emblem games. There are plenty of gameplay enhancements in that game over any of those portable FEs.

This is true and it's why I haven't been as hard on third parties. They've sold some wii u games and done projections that show they won't make money and they are dropping support. People like to argue about them being jerks or having flawed business models leading them to support different consoles, but at the end of the day they are making rational decisions.

My problem is Nintendo is also a hardware manufacturer. They have a profit cycle where games lead to console sales which lead to more games sales which lead to more console sales and round the wheel spins. A successful console leads to more profit than any individual game could. I understand EA not wanting to lose money by sacrificing a game or two until the wii u user base builds, but I don't understand why Nintendo wouldn't. Nintendo has a game issue and not greenlighting games will lead to less profit in the long run.

I also think it's not a very good pr thing to say. Give me, "I would love to work on FE in the future and see how we can improve and expand the franchise. Right now, our team has been given other exciting opportunities that I can't reveal at this time. I'll give you more updates at a later date."

That implies they want to make quality games and that the user base will still get a great game it just won't be FE.

The way they came off is that the userbase will get more games if they buy more games. Like the userbase is responsible for the wii u not having games and not Nintendo.

Well we technically are getting a Fire Emblem for the Wii U.  Nice to see everyones already forgotten about Shin Megami Tensei X Fire Emblem which is a Wii U game.  Yeah we don't know what the gameplay will be like yet, but considering Fire Emblem is the more popular series of the two, it shows Nintendo isn't completely against having Fire Emblem on a current home console, since the Fire Emblem name will carry most of that games sales.

Meanwhile Nintendo knows that any Mario Party they shit out will sell millions

Guess what we'll be getting instead of Fire Emblem U?

At this point the Wii U needs all of the games that it can get. Even if Nintendo made games that did not sell very well, but had a cult following, it is much better than the situation the Wii U is currently in with no games.

We're getting Shin Megami Tensei X Fire Emblem instead which I just said in my above post.  Seriously, are some of you blind as fuck or what.

Considering how ready and willing Nintendo is in releasing new installments of established franchises, if they felt Fire Emblem on Wii U could make them money, they would make Fire Emblem on Wii U. It's the same reason F-Zero is MIA. They don't have faith in the series being profitable enough to spend two years developing it.

Unless this is a red herring, what else could Intelligent Systems be working on if not Fire Emblem? If it's Paper Mario (minus stickers), I'd honestly rather have that.

Luigi Dude's right about Shin Megami Tensei X Fire Emblem.  So with that on the way why did Nintendo feel any need to mention this 700,000 units stuff.  They already have some sort of Fire Emblem title in the works so why even bring up the possibility of a different one?  This also suggests that the SMT crossover somehow doesn't count as a "true" Fire Emblem game and that's not how Nintendo should want us to see it.

I do not get this company's approach to PR.  They could have not mentioned any of this at all.  We all forgot that a Fire Emblem is due for the Wii U because they made a comment suggesting there wasn't.

I believe Atlus is developing that game. At least the youtube trailer i found started with atlus presents. They have a different cost structure and different expectations than a Nintendo developed game. With other games, usually the gameplay follows the first listed. I.E. sf x tekkan was really sf4  with tekkan characters.

As soon as Atlus shows more than concept art from existing MegaTen/Fire Emblem games strung together, I'll consider that a real game.  Until then, it's practically vaporware.

That seems a bit unfair to Intelligent Systems and Nintendo unless there are uncovered details on costs and budgets that I'm unaware of. Granted, I think Path of Radiance and Radiant Dawn look drab and ugly for their respective platforms (example : https://www.google.com/search?q=fire+emblem+radiant+dawn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=0endUb-4LcKdiQLX3oHIAw&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1418&bih=718 ).

700k doesn't sound to be an unreasonably high expectation of unit sales for a turn-based strategy game on a console, though I have nothing to base that on other than gut feelings. I'm probably still bummed from all the news of big video games that sold millions and are considered unprofitable.

Stole the words right out of my mouth.

If Nintendo themselves is making excuses on why to NOT support the Wii U, then I can't be mad at 3rd parties for doing the same exact thing...

Nintendo has drastically underestimated how much resources are required to develop HD games.

Yeah, Nintendo completely ignored 8 years of everyone else in the industry discovering exactly what resources were needed for HD games. They were pretty stupid that way.

Only Nintendo is releasing a Fire Emblem for the Wii U.  Yeah it's a crossover with Shin Megami Tensei that probably won't play like a traditional Fire Emblem but it still counts as a Fire Emblem game.  Hell the original idea came from IS looking for a studio to help make a Fire Emblem game that took place in the modern world, which eventually lead to them and Atlus making a SMT crossover.

So Nintendo is still supporting the Wii U with a Fire Emblem game of some kind that they are funding and publishing.  What about this is so hard for some of you to understand?

I do not feel the least bit sorry for Nintendo. Common sense would tell you that while they were managing the Wii they would research and develop their methods for making high profile games for the day when they would enter that field themselves. The learning curve for HD game development is non-existent at this point. It really just boils down to cost-benefit at this point. Hell, even small developers seems to make games faster than Nintendo.

Is that how you've revised the previous HD/Wii generation in your history book?

It appears to me that Nintendo was well aware of what was going on - which was half their reasoning behind creating an SD console in the Wii and pushing the lower development costs as a strong point for Wii developers.

Of course, everyone (gamers, retailers, publishers and developers ) bitched and whined about how they wanted Nintendo to create an HD console, so Nintendo was left with no choice but to give in - even while warning everyone about the high costs of HD development.  Now, we have an HD Nintendo console that third parties *still* won't develop for and that Nintendo is having a hard time supporting themselves.

Everyone act surprised.

I said this before but it might be a great idea if IS collaborated with the developer of the recent XCOM game, Fireaxis, on an Advanced Wars and Fire Emblem game for the Wii U.

We just spent the last 8 years watching companies adjust to making games in HD.  FOR EIGHT YEARS, companies have been commenting on and going out of business thanks to the higher resource cost and risk of HD game development. NINTENDO HAS NO EXCUSE FOR NOT BEING READY WHEN THEY FINALLY DECIDED TO SHOW UP THIS GENERATION.  NONE.  ZERO.  They may have made an HD console like everyone else did 8 years ago, but they didn't have their **** together. They've admitted it.  They've said they were surprised and unprepared by the higher demands of HD gaming.  Sorry, but there's no excuse for not learning from the mistakes of your competitors, and now they're paying the price.

And since I know Uncle Bob will probably ask me for a link to where I got that assertion, here: Miyamoto says Nintendo "underestimated" challenge of HD games.

You mean to say that Nintendo talked about concerns regarding the high costs of HD development, then, when they got into creating HD games, found out they were even higher costs than even they thought?

Again, everyone act surprised.

I'm trying to understand why Yamagami said this even though there's a FE game in co-development with Atlus. It shows two things, neither of which apply just to FE games:
1) Nintendo doesn't have full grasp yet of the true cost of developing HD games.
2) Nintendo is balking at the idea of releasing mid-to-high budget niche games for a system THAT DESPERATELY NEEDS GAMES PERIOD just because the cost would outweigh the return. Even though, again, THE SYSTEM NEEDS GAMES ASAP!


This will not be the Wii U's only software drought. If this attitude persists, the next drought could very well kill off the console.

Nintendo had 8 years of data showing where their competitors failed and where they succeeded with HD games.  They had 8 years to plan out how large of teams they would need and what expenses would be required.  Instead, they chose to throw all that out the window and go through the same growing pains everyone else did 8 years ago.  That's on them.  They chose to go into the Wii U unprepared, and wonder of wonders they got caught flat-footed and are having their ass handed to them by 8 year old consoles.  Everyone act surprised.

If eight years of data means so much, then why are developers and publishers *still* going out of business?

Why are both Microsoft's gaming division and Sony's Playstation division struggling to make a profit, this far into the game?

Because they made games people didn't want to buy.

Well, Sony's loss probably has a lot to do with R&D expenses on the PS4 and the unfortunate failure of the Vita.  The PlayStation division in general is one of Sony's few profitable divisions, or at least it had been in recent years.  As for Microsoft, look at the graph provided: a large period of loss from 2003-2008, where they were losing money on the original Xbox and the painful transition period into the 360.  Then, from 2008 onward, they're profitable after the release of Kinect and the end of the HD transition.  Your Microsoft link actually validates my point.

True for some - but not all.

I'm not arguing if Sony's PS division is profitable.

I'm pointing out the fact that it's struggling.

Did you see the giant bar for Fiscal Year 2011 and the bar that was about 1/4th the size for 2012?  Heck, 2011 was about the only year with a significant profit.

Here is a scenario: Suppose that the Wii U, PS4 and Xbone are the only home consoles on the market in 2014. Because the Wii U has been on the market for a year longer than its rival systems it has a bigger install base. Now, because of the bigger install base the weaker game developers use the Wii U as their primary console to put their games onto the system. Companies such as EA, Activision, etc, also adopt the Wii U as the lead platform in a similar manner to the PS2 in its era.

Actually, just based on the how long Sony let the pre-orders go on for, I wouldn't be surprised if the PS4 caught up to the Wii U in terms of year-end-2013 user base by mid-2014.  I'm not so sure about the Xbone, but it probably will as well by the end of 2014.  The big question will be how big a console-selling impact yet another Mario Kart and Smash Bros. will have on Wii U's 2014 hardware sales.

From what I understand most pre-orders have been froze at this point, or is it just with Gamestop? How many of those pre-orders are people buying the systems to sell on eBay for higher than the market price?

Does it really matter? Sold consoles are sold consoles.

Sometimes...

That assumes that people return the console when they fail at "flipping" it.  Assuming those Ebay-ed consoles sold, I don't see what different it would make why someone bought a PS4.  Besides, the Wii U's sales have proven to be pitiful since that January NPD report, as low as mid-30,000 in a recent month.  Whatever speculator bust happened w/ the Wii U, at worst it only affected one month.  Then the truth revealed itself, and it wasn't pretty for the Wii U.

Brood, I saw a Wii U with all the fixings selling for $239.99 with no shipping costs on eBay earlier today. When I went to buy it it was sold before I could purchase it. Now, when a game console is sold used then it does not register in the sales that a new purchase would if it were bought at retail.

So?  From Nintendo's point of view, nothing has changed in terms of their Wii user base.  One person dropped out of the Wii U user base, and another signed on for a net result of zero.  And neither Nintendo, nor developers can track that anyway.  All that matters is how many consoles are in the wild.  That's your user base.  It doesn't matter what happens to those consoles once they're sold, so long as they're not returned.

Do we know the context of why Yamagami said this? Was he asked? Producers tend to paint themselves into a corner when asked questions they're not prepared for. Miyamoto does this all the time. It's a rigged game for them. We see cherry picked quotes all the time. Knowing where it came from would would help in understanding what it means.

Yamagami could be trying to drum up support for such a game. Awakening outsold both Path of Radiance on GameCube and Radiant Dawn on Wii individually and by a fair margin (according to the link in the article). Fire Emblem U would cost more thus requiring more sales to make it worth the trouble. Yamagami's estimate is still less than what Awakening sold but more than Path of Radiance so what he's saying makes sense. Fire Emblem U would need better sales than the previous console installments, which probably had budgets close to Awakening anyway. A higher budget requires higher sales; that seems fair to me.

More importantly, while Wii U is in dire need of games and Nintendo has absolutely dropped the ball so far, ask yourself if Fire Emblem is really the kind of game that will satisfy the masses. It's a good game to have, but it's one meant to supplement an already healthy lineup, not be an unhealthy one's cure. Sure, this shouldn't be an issue, but it is and there's nothing to be done with what's already done. How do you fix it? Not with Fire Emblem. If Nintendo is going to spend years developing a game, ideally they want one that reaches as many people as possible. Intelligent Systems wouldn't be sitting on their hands, doing nothing. They would be making something that hopefully has longer legs than Fire Emblem.

I think the "system seller" is an overrated concept. Very few people would buy a wii u for one game ($410).  People buy a game system because of the experience, or collection of games available. Games like this push people over the top, and you absolutely need a lot of these games to move systems. Pikmin 3, which is about as popular, pushed me over the edge towards buying a system and I'm sure I'm not the only one. A games problem can only be solved with games and everyone has unique tastes so bringing variety is important. . NSMB Wii sold something like 33 million and is about as mass market as Nintendo has and that's not moving Wii U's.

I didn't say "system seller." I said " that reaches as many people as possible" which refers mainly to people who already own the console. I'm all for variety, but Fire Emblem reaches a much smaller number of people than many of Nintendo's other IPs.

The xbox 360 averaged 10 retail games a month for 8 years. I'm tired of 1 game/month release schedule for the wii u. What would make me happy as a wii u owner is a consistent release schedule with a variety of games. If Nintendo is unwilling to work with third parties to fill the gaps I think they absolutely have to find ways to bring these types of games to the market in-between more mass market releases because I want unique experiences on the wii u. Mass market games miss a big portion of your userbase and lead people like Ian to see Wii U as Wii HD system.

I'm just tired of excuses why there arent any games. Its Nintendos job to figure out how to bring games.

And they are bringing a unique gameplay experience that isn't aimed at mass market audiences for the Wii U.  It's called Shin Megami Tensei x Fire Emblem.  Seriously, some of you keep saying Nintendo isn't supporting the Wii U with games because we aren't getting a Fire Emblem.  But keep ignoring the fact they are releasing a Fire Emblem game of some kind on the system anyway. 

It's getting kind of insane at this point when people like yourself have even acknowledged the fact that this game exist, but still continue to act like Nintendo isn't releasing these types of games on the system, even though they are.

It's not a true Fire Emblem, and that's not really the point of my argument.  One game isn't going to solve the Wii U's game issue and I never pretended this release would.  It's a broader lack of games, and the fact that the Nintendo needs to broader the appeal of the Wii U.  The SMT spin off doesn't appeal to me, much like no one game is going to appeal to everyone.  That's why you need a healthy amount of each genre so that each customer is interested in a few of them and sees the value in the Wii U.  After this holiday season, it looks like the release schedule could dry up again.  It's hard to give credit to Nintendo for bringing one game to a system that is need of many games. 


If I'm so insane, and Nintendo is fulfilling consumer demand for games, why is the Wii U selling so poorly?  You'd probably counter with Nintendo's big hitters coming, but I don't just don't see them bumping Wii U sales to the point of relevance in the next generation of sales.  So we'll probably have this conversation in a year after the big hitters come and see if it solves the Wii U's sales issue. 

I was curious about the "Nintendo fulfilling demand" for games comment.

I'm not sure if I purchased any 3rd party games by this point with the Wii (skimmed through my collection and I don't think so), but, by this point, I had purchased six games.

Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
Wii Play
Super Paper Mario
Mario Party 8
Big Brain Academy
Wario Ware: Smooth Moves

Currently, I have the following Wii U titles
New Super Mario Bros. U
Nintendo Land
Skylanders: Giants
Need For Speed: Most Wanted U

If you want to count the downloaded New Super Luigi U and the fact I haven't picked up Game & Wario yet (it's on my list, but with Animal Crossing and NSLU, and now, the new StreetPass games... it's pretty low on my list), then I'm even - although, the argument could be made that two of those games aren't made by Nintendo, so they're not keeping up.

I think one of the biggest problems is that Nintendo treats the gaming ecosystem like everyone has their console and their handheld (and everyone should! :D).  If you have both, there are *plenty* of games to keep you (and your wallet) busy.  If you're trying to go with just one or the other, there tends to be some dry spells in between.

This is the issue that keeps coming up - Nintendo just doesn't have enough development studios under their belt.  Forget third parties (because they forgot Nintendo a long time ago), they're not going to make up for spaces in the line up.

I do believe this is why we see Nintendo courting all the indy developers.  I think we'll start seeing some of these teams come under Nintendo's wing as they start helping to mold them into Nintendo-game-making machines.  The only question would be - will Nintendo buy them out, or will they let them remain independent, so that the studios can later take everything Nintendo brought to the table and make games on other platforms.

Considering the DS and 3DS were selling like shit their first years like the Wii U until the big games were finally released, yeah I'm going to say the Wii U hasn't been selling because of no games.  You're telling me the over 8 million people and counting who currently own 3D Land and Mario Kart 7, aren't going to care that improved sequels to both are being released on the Wii U?  The over 5 million that bought Donkey Kong Country Returns 3 years ago, aren't going to care for a new 2D Donkey Kong?  The over 2.5 million that bought the last Mario & Sonic at the Olypmics won't be interested in the newest game this Fall either?  Seriously, I could go on.

The only game currently on the Wii U that has any kind of selling power is NSMB U, which we've gone over a million times were hurt by the fact Nintendo released a similar game only 3 months earlier on a much cheaper system.  Of course even that game will start having more selling power soon because the 2D Mario games have some of the best legs in the industry and many of the people who bought NSMB 2 last Fall are going to eventually want to play the Wii U game as well.

Seriously, take a basic marketing course.  Popular brands like Nintendo has don't just suddenly disappear.  Nintendo's made many of it's series more popular then ever last gen and as a result strengthened many of their brands.  This has already been proven with the 3DS where their games have been selling just as good or even better then their DS counterparts.

No need to be rude and misrepresent my points.  Nintendo first parties will sell great and push consoles, but what is good sales?  Microsoft and Sony are aiming for 100 million in console sales of this generation.  Right now I'm hoping that the Wii U will hit 50 million but I have my doubts. 


It's clear that a 3d Mario, Mario Kart, and SSB, couldn't carry a console during the Gamecube era.  Yeah, they sold millions and were great games.  The Wii success was based in part because of those games but really driven by a unique experience and other brands WiiSports/Fit, etc. 


You're simplifying the DS/3DS success to only Nintendo games made those consoles successful.  Go look at the Japan sales thread.  The chart is filled with 3DS games.  New 3DS games are jumping in all the time.  That is what a successful console looks like.  It helps extremely that the handheld market has no legitimate competition which results in 3rd parties flocking to the 3DS.  Nintendo games will sell but they will only sell to a portion of the market and won't bring bring widespread consumer interest. 


My argument was never that Nintendo brands will just disappear.  I disagree that they were strengthened last gen.  Nintendo was able to get people interested in the Wii, because motion controls were so unique.  Many of those people picked up other Nintnedo games.  These people will not pick up a Wii U unless another unique experience comes about that convinces them to buy one. 


You are trying to portray my argument as an extreme that Nintendo games don't sell and won't move consoles and that is never where I've been.  That's just an easier position for you to argue against.  Nintendo games will sell and will move hardware.  The question we disagree with is how much of a bump will they give Nintendo consoles and how long the bump will last?  And my belief is that without a consistent release schedule (which the Wii U doesn't have) the console bump will not last a long time and sales will return to the base they are at now (which is poor) sooner.  Again, look at the sales chart in the sales thread.  New games high on the sales chart lead to a bump of hardware.  As they games fall out of the chart and aren't replaced, console games go down.  I was never arguing their would never be a bump, I was arguing that the Wii U's lack of success would limit the bump and return to a norm more quickly.


Your argument appears to be on some game sales 3DS sequels > DS games, so Wii U sequels > Wii games.  I don't think is a strong argument as I believe the markets to be drastically different.  You also don't take into account the damage Nintendo has done with the Wii U brand, you'd just like to shrug it off as the 3DS started poorly and recovered so there is no reason the Wii U can't.  It's too simplified of an argument and the 3DS was never in as bad of a position as the Wii U. 

It is still the best game on 3ds! it got solid numbers there! If it came out on the wiiU i would buy it!
in my opion it is one nintendo's greatest creatition!