All of this sounds hauntingly familiar....

As long as Nintendo keeps those casual party games away from the Wii U then the sales of their better might spur interest in third parties.

Well, as Youtube is currently failing me in finding a video version of this clip from the Red Mass episode of The West Wing, I'll just quote the show's President Bartlett:

Iwata's big strategy is to do the same thing they've done in previous generations and hope it works this time: just throw out 1st party titles and hope they attract 3rd party titles, which they never do.

The first step is acknowledging there's a problem. ;)

I have bought every single Nintendo console but am waiting for a reason to pick up the Wii U. For me, that reason is Pikmin 3. I feel as if I'm not alone, even if the game people are waiting for is different.

Third parties be damned. Nintendo needs to bring out the most compelling titles to bolster their base. It's as simple as that.

Wow,


You know Nintendo...here is an idea.  Here is a crazy bold...insane idea, that just might work.  Might, really make a difference, but it requires you to swallow your pride and make a big business change.  Are you ready.


How about Charging an extremely low licensing fee (to NO licensing fee) on all games launched on Nintendo software up until they sell X number of units.  If you can help guarantee sales games released it might help. 


Sure it means you will lose some money from 3rd party publishers launching on your system...but you will gain 3rd party support. 


Let's make releasing games on your system as easy as possible and as profitable as possible for 3rd parties.  That might help.

This stood out to me in the article:

I have to say the primary reason I haven't bought many of the launch games for Wii U is because of this very reason.  I picked up Arkham City: GOTY edition for PS3 once it dropped to $20, and last time I checked, the Wii U version of the game is still selling at Target for $40-50.  Mass Effect 3 is in that $40-50 range too, but I was able to pick up the Mass Effect Trilogy on PS3 for $30. 

Why on earth would I opt to pay more as a gamer for a inferior product?  I'd love to buy multiplat games on Wii U, if just for the possibility of off-TV play, but those two examples explicity strike me as publishers thinking they can sell the "polished turd" edition of their games on Wii U and people will flock to it.

I'm in the same boat as you, waiting for Pikmin 3. Once I get a Wii U, I'll likely pick up NSMB WiiU and all the other junk, but it's not enough to buy the system for just yet.

I was in the same boat as you guys, but then the 8GB Wii U was on sale at target.com for $240. I figured I'd save money buying the Wii U then and Pikmin 3 later.

Having just got a WiiU myself and actually paying attention to the line up, it is shockingly spare in games you would want on this system. The only game I own right now is ZombiU. I don't plan ever getting any of the Mario games since I gave up on 2D platformers a long time ago. I might take the time to visit the Galaxy games. Right now I really only waiting on Mario Kart and the new Xeno RPG. I even took the time to look up the E-shop which was pretty sparse. I might get Nano Assault if it goes on special.

I am not hurting for games to play right now, but I can see why a WiiU owner would be hurting so much, even more so if they have other gaming options. I feel like I had more to play around the same time period with the N64 and the Gamecube.

TANK!TANK!TANK! turned out to be a no-skill lump of awfulness. No wonder it went full on DLC.

I did get mine 2nd Hand for NZ$299/USD$230.53, but that is a premium version with a Classic controller and a Wiimote/chuck combo.

Iwata is right about third party games not selling because they came to the Wii U late.  But then that's exactly why you don't release a PS360 equivalent a mere year before the next generation starts.  That's why you make sure to have a strong first party lineup at the beginning so that your console sells on your software because you know that six month old third party ports are not going to sell systems.  So did Iwata just figure this out after the fact when it was pretty damn obvious months or even years before launch?  I can't tell if Nintendo is incompetent regarding third party support or honestly does not give a fuck and figures they'll do fine without it.

This whole issue of games showing up on every console but Nintendo's has been around for a long time.  I complained about this on the Gamecube.  Nintendo should have known that this was a problem over ten years ago yet the Wii was practically designed to encourage it.  So has Nintendo been aware of this the whole time and just doesn't care because it hasn't really hit them hard enough financially or are they just really fucking stupid and can't come up with any way to fix it or only just noticed after all this time?

Nintendo is lost and has been for years.  They got lucky with a fad but have otherwise had no fucking clue what they're doing on the console front since they picked cartridges over CDs.  The Wii U is the breaking point - the moment where everyone has finally gotten fed up with their bullshit and they can't give it away.  I think this would have happend on the Wii if the casuals had not jumped on board.  Nintendo releasing a new console to a reaction of utter indifference was inevitable.  They're too stubborn to learn from minor mistakes - they needed to hit rock bottom.  And we'll see if that inspires them to get their act together or if they're quit consoles all together and focus on handhelds.

Ian Sane, I wouldn't overthink it. Just because we don't like their decisions doesn't mean they are stupid. We know better than that because in spite of our dislike for their choices, they always win. They have always won, they are winning right now, and are going to win in the future off of every purchase we make. We don't like their decisions because they win off of every purchase we make. You of all people on here know what I'm talking about--they make a profit off of every console unit sold whereas we win a little when we buy a PS3 or Xbox 360. It's the same case off of their first party titles no matter how watered down that experience is getting.



As far as leaving the console market goes, why would they ever? They are soundly winning that game every generation even though we don't like it or agree with it. No matter how much the market loves Microsoft or Sony's business decisions, the cold hard cash going into Nintendo's pockets has always been greener. If they leave the console market, it's because the market disappeared.

Ian Sane nailed it - and I think incompetence is the only explanation.  Recently Miyamoto was quoted as saying they had underestimated how much more costly developing HD games would be and that was why the Wii U titles had faced such terrible delays.  This hurdle had been faced and overcome by every other game development studio in the world over half a decade ago, and they were still unable to see this coming?  Iwata says that 3rd party offerings aren't selling because they came out later than their counterparts on other platforms - Hey Iwata, how will they sell when they come out at the same time but they're running on hardware that's a generation behind?  Oh ya...we saw this already with the Wii...they won't sell at all.


I really don't see any way for them to turn things around for the Wii U at this point, at least not without drastic changes.  A few good first steps would be:  fire Iwata, drop the price $50 and another $50 in November, and release all of the Wii VC games immediately.  The VC could be a gold mine and enough reason to own the console if they knew what they were doing - add Dreamcast support, add Gamecube, hold weekly sales specials, etc

Right now I imagine that Nintendo's investors are cycling through a stack of files for potential replacements for Iwata. Hell, they might even be fitting him for a janitor's outfit to scrub the toilets at Nintendo HQ. There is no way that a company with any sense would intentionally cut itself off of all the revenue that would be generated from third party licensing fees. I foresee a investor tea table uprising in the works for Nintendo.

Iwata's not going anywhere unless Yamauchi demands him gone, and that's not going to happen because it would look bad for Yamauchi to remove his hand-picked successor.  The investors don't have a large enough stake in the company to demand his removal no matter how much they dislike him.

One: All of the Wii VC games ARE on the Wii U. If you mean on the Wii U eShop, there isn't a "switch" to just release them. They have to be optimized to have higher resolution, Miiverse support, Wii U GamePad/Pro Controller support. Those cost money and require humans to do.

Two: The Wii U is off to a slow start and you think Iwata should be fired? Nevermind the fact that Wii had record success and the DS was the most successful system of all time (and the 3DS is doing great as well, and dominating in both Japan and North America). Calling for him to be fired because of one bad year is short sighted and foolish. It's like a sports team firing a coach that won them 3 straight championships just because they had one bad season.

Three: A $100 price drop within a year of release would be a desperation move and make it look like the system is dead and trying to clear it out. At MOST, they might do a $50 cut this holiday season, and that will be enough.

It's like Iwata thinks this is high school. "If I dress really cute in these first-party games, that cute third-party boy will stop ignoring me and be my Valentine."
That's one hell of a business plan.

Broodwars tried to point my folly in suggesting that Nintendo needs a new boss to set the course straight.

If a user has to go to the Wii channel, then to the Wii Shop, where they have to use different points and a totally different account setup to purchase the games, they are effectively not on the Wii U.  No average user would ever find those games, nor would they jump through the hoops necessary to purchase and play them.  The entire virtual console debacle on Wii U is just another example of Nintendo not knowing what the hell they're doing.  It should be practically as simple as flicking a switch - you update the emulators to output the right resolution and you upload the ROMs - done.  If they want to go back and add gamepad support and miiverse support then they can always incrementally update the games after the fact, but to launch the virtual console on Wii U and start back at zero slowly trickling out games like they did for the Wii is a sad joke.

Iwata should be fired because he has now botched two consecutive console launches in a row.  This is not about one bad year - the 3DS launch was an embarrassment, to the point where Iwata had to publicly apologize to gamers who bought it while slashing the price due to poor sales.  In the lead up to the Wii U launch, he was asked how it would differ from the 3DS launch and he said they needed more solid titles to help sell the system - I guess he was just talking about what they needed to do, not what they actually would do...

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/125859/Iwata_Nintendo_3DS_Launch_Software_Wasnt_Strong.php

They can't afford to continue doing nothing until the other consoles launch - they need to try and salvage any small advantage to their early launch that they can muster.  Cutting the price now might generate a little bit of interest before the big 2 hit, and a decent VC experience could help as well.

I wouldn't be suprised to see the basic discontinued and the deluxe offered at 269.99(without the deluxe promotion and things like the non-charging gamepad stand removed)

bizzy,  2 price drops in the span of four months is a horrible idea... it would make the system look like an even bigger failure then it looks like it is now

This, this and all 100% of this. With a side of Oprah Winfrey.

The only way Nintendo will listen is when collectively people vote with their wallets. Selling 90 million Wii's basically made them think everything was good, despite the blaring holes.

The irony about what Iwata said is that you can literally replace Wii U with either Wii, Gamecube or N64 in his statement and it would still be accurate.

I still think this idea that Iwata (or Nintendo) is ignorant or dumb is misguided. There is a difference between what we would like and what is making them money. It's easy to float ideas on here and suggest how it would be more profitable. FWIW, investors will agree with you. Why don't those investors try starting their own company? Oh, that's right. They won't have the properties that Nintendo owns, and their situation is going to look a lot different. Of the big three gaming companies, who has made the most profit over the past 6 years? Who is going to make the most profit over the next year? Or two?


Even if the Wii U continues to be a dud console, it will be profitable. It's sad, but isn't it true? How do you think the market landscape looks from that seat? If you weighed all your options and saw that you could make some risky moves to gain better marketshare, would you do it at the expense of, perhaps, 25% of your profit margin?


The picture, I figure, looks a lot different to them. Profit this year versus marginal losses with the potential for greater profit next year must not appeal to them, and so they play a very conservative game that barely anyone is keen on.

@ agent-x-
Are you aware that Nintendo hasn't made themselves any money in the last 2 (financial) years?  They saw a steep decline in revenue in fy 2010 as well.  If Nintendo were raking it in, I think you could say that Nintendo is doing what's best for them despite what "core" gamers are complaining about on the web--but that's not at all the case. 


I'd also like to add that the word profit has a specific meaning and takes into account ALL costs, explicit and implicit.  It's hard to claim something will be profitable (or is profitable) without seeing the books and all projected costs and earnings as well as alternatives.

considering that in this day and age a game can sell 3 million copies and still be considered a failure it may not be that bad of an idea...

But unless Nintendo makes some effort to make porting games from other systems as painless as possible the chances of them turning to Nintendo are slim...

marty, the way I understand Nintendo's declining revenue is due to two forces. Of course, one of those is declining sales. However, by itself, declining sales will not result in operating losses. The launch of a new game console could result in operating losses, however the system turns a profit on every sale. They shipped many more units during the launch window than they were able to with the Wii.

The other force is the Japanese economy and strength of currency. Without doing any research right now, it's been my understanding that their losses were considered "paper losses." A declining Yen to the American dollar would appear to be a loss.


Basically, I'm claiming that Nintendo isn't doing anything that would actually result in a net loss. Is their software selling? Are they going to be able to sell software? The fear is that the core Nintendo audience may give up on the company, but until that happens they're going to continue to turn a profit. They are not hurting for money.

Marty, I think you're getting turnover (or revenue) confused with profit (or net income.) Profit, of course, being total turnover minus total expenses in a given time frame.

Nintendo continue to post profit on the majority of products they release. This is fact. The only recent exception being the Wii U console - as Nintendo have mentioned they were taking a small loss on each console sold. Surely by this autumn season, that loss will be non-existent.

@ agent-x-
@ racht
I don't mean to address points out of order but when agent-x- is talking about eventual profitability, he really should take into account all costs/investments/alternatives (opportunity costs) over an extend time frame--economic profit.  Eventually isn't a timeframe you can measure accounting profit in, which only looks at revenue and explicit costs.


Think of the choice Nintendo gave Retro:  Make a DKCR game OR make a Metroid game.  The explicit costs (office leases, computers, staff, marketing) for both games would probably be roughly the same.  It's also unlikely that Retro could make a Metroid game that would sell better than a DKCR game.  Releasing a DKCR game means that they're losing all the benefits of releasing a Metroid game (Metroid might not sell the same number of copies, but it could move more WiiU's than another 2d platformer).


Also consider that Nintendo outright lost 1/2 billion dollars in FY2011 and was operating at a loss in FY2012.  From an accounting profitability standpoint, Nintendo would have been better off, scaling back or shutting down for those 2 years than making/releasing hardware and software.  That doesn't mean that that would be a long term, economically profitable move for them to make, despite it being more profitable in the short-term.


OR: The standard Econ-101 example is that quitting a job that pays 30k a year to go to college where tuition 10k a year doesn't cost you 40k over 4 years, it costs you 160k.  Like I said: without knowing exactly what Nintendo is doing and how they are spending money on, it's nearly impossible to know exactly how profitable Nintendo is, will be, or would be.

Their stock sure took a tumble the last few years after being one of the biggest companies in Japan.  Nintendo cites weak dollar/strong yen for some losses... but I just don't believe it considering how badly sales tanked on the Wii the last few years as well as the fumbled 3ds/Wiiu launches.  It's not like they would have lost even more money if they sold more games.  I'm sure the terrible sales weren't helped by international economics, though.  Nintendo pretty much lives and dies by game sale revenue.  Yes, they can survive and still sell less games and less hardware, but they've said that the margin on hardware is considerably smaller than that of their software.  Nintendo also says that they make hardware just to make sure they always have a way to sell their games.