Nintendo vs. Everyone

[Direwolf]

Spotted this posted over at the PA forums:
http://www.buzzcut.com/article.php?story=2005053122342247

Videogames are big business. We like to make that point clear when talking about games. The fact that entertainment software generates a lot of money helps us justify our interest and even our play.

Strangely, journalistic reporting and academic discourse on the subject of business trails almost every other aspect of game thinking. You’re as likely to find good Neo-Marxist feminist game criticism as you are in depth analysis of the medium as a business.

We see plenty of reporting and regurgitation of marketing hype. And we could subsist on an endless diet of wild speculation. But we rarely get the kind of business analysis that we need.

This gap was painfully obvious to me post-E3. Because while everyone was busily laying bets on the horse race between Sony and Microsoft for the dominance of the next generation of gaming, Nintendo was quietly disregarded on the side.

Business-wise, this was weird. Because as far as I can tell, Nintendo is the business story to watch. And strangely enough, you don’t have to try very hard to see why. I can only conclude that most of us are not looking at all.

Let me preface the following remarks with a couple of qualifiers. First, I am not a Nintendo fanboy. Like a lot of people, I’ve been trying to figure out Nintendo’s strategy, and wondering why they don’t do certain things. Like everyone else, I sat in the Nintendo press conference at E3 and said, “That’s it? Where’s the ‘Revolution’?” Also, I don’t consider myself a business analyst or even a biz reporter.

But I like to talk about business. And I have become convinced that the Nintendo story is emblematic of a chronic under-reporting of real business stories.. Let me explain in some detail.

Brass in pocket: Profit is Profit

Since videogames are a big business, it’s a good idea to understand how the game of business is scored. And the most impressive stat of all is net profit—the amount of money left over after the business has done what it has to do. This isn’t money collected from customers, but still owed to suppliers, lenders or the taxman. This is cash, free and clear. This is the company’s walking around money that either gets paid out to stockholders or saved for investment in new business opportunities.

In this light, it’s odd how few game commentators seem to understand just how profitable Nintendo really is. With a net margin of over 20%, Nintendo is a financial rock star. Just by way of comparison, General Electric, that monster global conglomerate whose executives write the books about corporate leadership that other Fortune 500 execs read, clocks in with a net margin of 11% Nintendo’s business engine is so efficient that even though they sell far less than Sony, they make, bottom line, about as much as all of Sony, Yes, that’s right. Little Nintendo generates about as much cash as giant Sony—electronics, movies, the works. (For a bunch of good financial data on this subject in one place, see PCVSConsole).

Now there are a number of lessons in this. But let me point to the most obvious:

When looking at the current console war, it’s important to keep in mind that Sony is a big company that does well on its games and film subsidiaries, but has been taking big losses in electronics. Microsoft is a very, very profitable software company that has so far taken large losses in its entertainment division. And Nintendo is a reasonably large company that has continued to make money with no obvious financial liabilities. As businesses, these three companies have different strengths and weaknesses. But none is the overwhelming leader from a business position.

Near term success dictates that Sony needs to hold market share and see the industry grow. Microsoft needs to gain market share and see the industry grow or else settle on an Reagan Cold War strategy—using the ample MS cash warchest, pursue deficit spending in it’s Xbox product line until the enemy, in this case Sony, faces financial collapse. All Nintendo really needs to do is just keep doing what it’s doing.

The platitudes and proclamations of the gaming press to the side, Nintendo is healthy. Even with the PSP in the market, Nintendo seems to be doing just fine.

And even though the announcement at E3 of the Game Boy Micro was greeted with a certain amount of skepticism and curious musing by the game press, from a business strategy standpoint, I expect that it will turn to pure gold.

Without making a significant investment in R&D or manufacturing, Nintendo repackages current technology and resells it at what, I would expect, is a healthy margin. Not only will the Micro put GBA technology in new hands, inevitably large numbers of the units will find their way into the shirt pockets and key chains of many current GBA owners. Not only will Nintendo make money on this new hardware product, it will stimulate additional demand for GBA software.

While Sony and Microsoft spent E3 showing off what billions of dollars of investment can do at their press events, Nintendo was demonstrating how minimal investment can generate cash.

That folks, is called smart business.

Yes, it makes for dull news. And the GBM can’t come close to generating the excitement of a PS3 or an Xbox 360. But this is where the fan-fueled press keeps going off the rails. We get excited about big ideas and the glitz and glory that colossal investments can create. But we miss the simple, sober successes of a solid business plan.

Hiding in Plain Sight: Market Differentiation

The chiming, chattering agreement of the game press these days is that Sony is going to beat Microsoft, but that Microsoft is going to take a chunk out of Sony. No one seems to think much about the next Nintendo hardware platform. And unless the big N surprises everyone with direct neural implants or something, I expect that the fan’s attention will continue to focus on the slugfest between Sony and MS.

But I think this is a misread and a gross misunderstanding of this market. Today Nintendo commands about 10% of the videogame market, give or take. This is important because Nintendo is terribly profitably, as we discussed, with this little slice of the game business. They have a business that has evolved to thrive at the edge of the market.

If you are Nintendo, you dream about taking over the lead in the market once again. But the reality is, you have a business built such that it could last 500 years doing just what it is doing, making cash hand over fist on a tenth of the market.

Further, you watched as Sega bet the farm on the Dreamcast and lost. You understand the opportunity and risk of ambition.

So, what do you do?

One obvious strategy is that you don’t do anything. You launch your next system with adequate power and adequate features, but you don’t worry about competing with Sony or Microsoft. In fact, you do everything you can to not compete.

In the war between Coke and Pepsi, non-cola sales go up. All the money Coke and Pepsi spend trying to displace each other in the market generates enormous amounts of interest in soda pop. But some people don’t want cola. So they buy root beer, and lemon-flavored fizzy water. Not-a-cola doesn’t have to spend the marketing dollars in the cola wars, but benefits from the attention generated by the prize fight—majority control of the soda market via cola.

 

[Direwolf]

It will work out the same way in the videogame business. Microsoft will increase Sony’s costs. Sony has to invest more in hardware R&D, marketing and game development. Sony and Microsoft then engage in a battle of the titans, fighting for market dominance. All Nintendo needs to do it stay out of the way. It just needs to be not-Sony and not-Microsoft. It just needs to be Nintendo.

How can they do it? Well, here’ s a couple of strategies that would probably work.

1. Launch a competitive, low cast product. If the Revolution turns out to be a $150 machine that generates graphics similar enough to the PS3 and the 360 that the layman can’t easily tell the difference, then Joe and Jane Casual Gamer will probably buy a Nintendo machine.
2. Market to the core audience—fan boys and families. Whatever Sony and Microsoft do, they are going to have a hard time convincing mom or dad that their system is good for the kids. The kids will beg for a PS3 to play the latest blood-soaked adventure from Rockstar or to get their mitts on Halo for the 360. But parents are going to be happier buying junior a Nintendo machine with a Mario game. The fan boy angle is already in works with the announcement that the Revolution will play games from entire history of Nintendo in emulation.
3. Produce a portable console. We know the Revolution will be small. But will it be small enough to haul around? If so, every kid in America will want a Revolution in their backpack. We’ve seen the 360. It’s a classy piece of hardware. But it’s a component for the home entertainment system. And if the PS3 is as powerful as people claim, it will probably be the size RD-D2. A portable console would be cool. And would sell.
4. Don’t do anything special with the hardware, just keep producing triple AAA titles. If you want Mario, Metroid or Starfox, you’ll have to buy a Nintendo.

Now the common objection to these strategies is that Nintendo will never displace Sony or Microsoft following these paths. And that’s partially right. None of these strategies is likely to do much to expand Nintendo’s current market share. But remember, if Nintendo sticks with profitability and 10% of a growing market, then they will be cash rich and competitive for the foreseeable future.

And this is where long-term thinking comes in.

Microsoft lost billions on the Xbox. They very well may lose money this round, depending on how fast the market grows and how much of the market they can grab. Sony has made lots of money on games. But facing a significant loss in market share, they will need to see a massive growth in the market to keep their net profits anywhere near where they have been.

So, a plausible scenario emerges that this generation of console wars exhausts Sony and Microsoft. Any financial weakness this round diminishes their ability to compete next round. And what happens while the dinosaurs battle to the death? That’s right. The profitable niche players come out. Enter the age of the mammals. By 2010 Nintendo could find a moment of opportunity, spend a lot and lead the next, next generation of videogaming technology.

This is a lot of speculation. But what we know is startling. Microsoft will attack Sony’s market. Someone is going to lose out unless the game market grows at a more phenomenal pace than it has to date. J Allard stood up at E3 and predicted a population of 1 billion gamers worldwide in the next generation. That’s triple or quadruple (or more) of the current population. Possible, but unlikely without opening the former pirate markets of Latin America and China.

So while Sony and Microsoft fly into the face of a risky future, Nintendo doesn’t have to worry about winning this round. They only need to survive. And by Microsoft attacking Sony, Nintendo really doesn’t have to do much to stay in the game. Just keep doing what they have been doing.

And, perhaps not so surprisingly, that’s what they’ve been saying all along, “We’re a game company. We make cool games. We’ll keep making new games. That is all.”

It’s the software stupid

My favorite disclaimer for all console war stories is that “Well, the games are what’s going to matter in the end.” And that’s is so perfectly right and wrong at the same time.

What’s wrong with the idea? Look no further than the Sega Dreamcast. Without a doubt, this system had great games. For a year or two, arguably it had the best games on any platform. But it failed, none-the-less. Sony convinced the market to wait for the PS2. So, the story is always greater than games. And the success of marketing, market position and the dream of new hardware matters as much as games.

It also seems ironic that many times the same story that claim the next generation is all about the games also picks the PS3 as the next generation winner. That’s odd since we have seen exactly zero PS3 games so far.

I think the PS3 will come out on top this generation because of brand identity. Most people know that the PlayStation is the big videogame machine. So when faced with conflicting information, the average consumer will buy brand. And at this point, Sony is brand.

But there is some wisdom to the software story, when you consider it in conjunction with brand. Madden sells because it is Madden. Even after EA spent hundreds of millions of dollars acquiring an exclusive license for the NFL brand, they kept the name of the game Madden. Why? Because in the world of videogames, Madden is NFL. To drop the Madden name would certainly be to lose sales.

So, who has brand in videogames? There are plenty of brands out there. But no software brand is as strong as Nintendo’s Just to say a game is a Nintendo game is to give it a shine. Why do people cheer at the Nintendo E3 press conference? Because they are die hard fans. Generation after generation of hardware, sequel after sequel, Nintendo game buyers return to the stores.

Where the “it’s the software stupid” argument leads is toward breakout hits—Grand Theft Auto and Halo—and to software brands, Madden and Nintendo. And if software brand matters in the next generation, who is going to benefit? You can bet Nintendo will be at the front of that line.

What do I make out of all of this? Am I predicting the rise of Nintendo in the coming golden age of videogaming? Not really. Do I hate Sony and Microsoft and want to see them fail? Hardly. In fact, I think the opposite. I’d like to see these game companies succeed and prosper. I think competition is healthy and that financial cataclysm helps no one.

Still, I think that the press has grossly underestimated Nintendo’s current position. I expect that Nintendo will actually grow in the next generation. And while I do not expect them to take a market leader role in the short term, I think it is entirely possible that they will generate more profit than their bigger, louder, competitors.

The Bottom Line

More than anything, I wanted to use this little screed as long form argument for taking the business of games more seriously. How the industry operates directly affects the less tangible aspects such as the aesthetics or social impact of games. If we want to talk about videogames in a serious and significant way, then we also need to get serious about thinking about the business of games.

Falling into line and making gross proclamation about the supremacy of the PS3 or the brilliance of the 360 marketing plan misses a raft of other business issues which will collide with, and complicate the story. And that’s the story that I want to understand better. Sucking down marketing hype as business intelligence is a foolish way to go about understanding videogames.

Ultimately, games and game companies should thrive or falter on the basis of how well their products communicate with us. Games that matter to us should make companies rich and those that don’t should fade silently away. It’s proper to focus on the life of gaming rather than the business of gaming. But the business matters and we risk missing the point if we don’t pay attention to the commercial spine of the medium

Or think about it this way. Microsoft spent billions of dollars more than they made on the Xbox. For them, it was an investment in the future, a future that they expect will make them money. For the average gamer, those billions of dollars were a gift. In a very real sense, Microsoft subsidized a big portion of the current generation of fun. They paid us to enjoy their games and to delight in the new products and services their money goaded their competitors into making. Whatever else you think about the Xbox, it was corporate charity, and every gamer benefited in one way or the other. The experience of playing videogames would be different if Bill Gates didn’t wake up one day and decide to aim his business at gaming.

We may not want to care about the suits behind the curtain. But they are there, and the strings they pull make the industry dance.

Very interesting.

 

[6iXx]

put it into 1 sentence please

 

[KU_]

Very interesting indeed. I think the public tries to make Nintendo look like they are in a lot more trouble than they really are. I don't think Nintendo is going the Sega route any time soon.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

put it into 1 sentence please

Nintendo is teh economic 1337camper!!

It's true though. Despite all the hype over the other two, I'm going to buy the nintendo because it's cheap and solid. It might not be the most popular, but it's a can't-miss purchase.

 

[Gray Fox]

Actually thats nothing new, and it's also the reason why I don't like nintendo.

 

[SimonomiS]

Nintendo is teh economic 1337camper!!

It's true though. Despite all the hype over the other two, I'm going to buy the nintendo because it's cheap and solid. It might not be the most popular, but it's a can't-miss purchase.

Snap, crackle and pop.

I think the Xbox 360 and PS3 will be waaaay over my budget, not exactly swimming in cash...
But I'm a rabid Nintendo fanboy anyway.

EDIT: You don't like Nintendo as they're not actively competing against the two?
I'd compare them to countries in the Cold War, (Russia = Microsoft, America = Sony, Uk = Nintendo) but I'd probably have all my facts wrong and get flamed.

 

[KU_]

Actually thats nothing new, and it's also the reason why I don't like nintendo.

Why don't you like Nintendo? Because they are a smart business?

 

[Noobulon]

Nintendo is teh economic 1337camper!!

I'm nicking that

 

[Warbie]

I'd compare them to countries in the Cold War, (Russia = Microsoft, America = Sony, Uk = Nintendo) but I'd probably have all my facts wrong and get flamed.

lol, you loony

 

[<RJMC>]

well that is too long to read so I will

nintendo will never die
sure the revolution will hav something that will make us think twice when choosing a x360 or a ps3

 

[smwScott]

I find it hard to believe that the Gamecube generated more profit than the PS2 did. Seriously, the PS2 sold a LOT more units at a higher price for a longer period of time. Because of this, there was obviously a LOT more game sales for the PS2. I realize it cost more to produce but seriously, it's quite clear that the PS2 generated more profit.

Now with the X-BOX, it cost more to produce than either of the other two consoles yet it sold as the same price as the PS2. Also, it only sold about equal with the Gamecube. It's obvious that the X-BOX came out last as far as profit goes.

But that article does make a good point. Relative to the amount of money Nintendo spend they had a much higher profit margin than the other two, with arguably a better business model. Doesn't change the fact that on the console front, Sony is a more successfull company.

 

[DrDevin]

I hope the revolution is really revolutionairy and has decent specs but I believe it will be a good console as long as it is cheap enough. I will probably get a 360 because I need a media center extender right now and it will be about the same price as good extenders I have seen so far. I would rather pay more to get a console too. The 360 would be the first console since the SNES I have bought from another manufacturer but nintendo has not yet let me down so the revolution could have a home too.

I think I will start making some money off of setting up WIFI networks as all the consoles are wireless now and people dont like wires.

 

[OCybrManO]

Actually thats nothing new, and it's also the reason why I don't like nintendo.

So, you're saying you don't like Nintendo because they don't have the huge pockets of Sony or Microsoft from which to pull billions of dollars to spend on hardware in order to stay in (or near) the lead graphically? They are the smallest company of the three. If they didn't run a smart business they would be doomed. Nintendo takes chances, but not the same kind as its competitors. Sony and Microsoft take chances by dumping tons of cash into their hardware and hoping they come out on top with a huge market share. Nintendo tries to maintain decent profit margins on their hardware and softwate but takes chances by innovating in the realm of gameplay and interaction (an example of them failing at this is the Virtual Boy). I've had a Nintendo console in every generation since the NES (but I haven't gotten a handheld since the GBC, because I don't really ever game on the go) specifically because I know they will always have games that I love to play. I usually end up getting two consoles per generation, but one is always a Nintendo. Why would I need two beefy, expensive consoles that have the same kinds of games?

 

[destrukt]

they're probably doing this, because they can't pull of what sony and microsoft are doing

 

[Warbie]

they're probably doing this, because they can't pull of what sony and microsoft are doing

You're right.

Instead they'll have to settle for continuing to make super popular hardware and many the greatest and most repected video games in history

Oh the hardship of being a Nintendo fan

 

[KU_]

they're probably doing this, because they can't pull of what sony and microsoft are doing

Nintendo could easily make the same type of hardware Sony and MS are making, but they are smart not to. Microsoft hasn't made ANY money on the Xbox, due to the producing price. Nintendo is a smart company, for a few reasons. #1-They innovate instead of release super powerful consoles. This pays off as you can see with the Nintendo DS. #2-They make affordable, well made consoles, and can lower price points to an amazing low price. ($99 bucks for a GC with better hardware than a PS2? That's a steal!) So again, Nintendo could probably easily make amazing technical consoles, but as you see with Sony and Microsoft, it will only lead to losing money. Nintendo has to survive by making consoles and games. Microsoft and Sony could do without games and consoles, and still be in the good.

 

[Cole]

Also Nintendo has made some of the most profit off of there console compared to the other companies.

 

[Raxxman]

Nintendo continue to make the most unique games. While Halo was clearly a market success, it's not like it's the only FPS around.

However try to find another Zelda style game (Please ), another game that matches Mario, etc.

I love my Cube cause of The Wind Waker, Metroid Prime (yet to get prime 2), and Res evil. I don't have many games, but the ones I do have you wouldn't see anything like it anyware else.

 

[Gray Fox]

So, you're saying you don't like Nintendo because they don't have the huge pockets of Sony or Microsoft from which to pull billions of dollars to spend on hardware in order to stay in (or near) the lead graphically? They are the smallest company of the three. If they didn't run a smart business they would be doomed. Nintendo takes chances, but not the same kind as its competitors. Sony and Microsoft take chances by dumping tons of cash into their hardware and hoping they come out on top with a huge market share. Nintendo tries to maintain decent profit margins on their hardware and softwate but takes chances by innovating in the realm of gameplay and interaction (an example of them failing at this is the Virtual Boy). I've had a Nintendo console in every generation since the NES (but I haven't gotten a handheld since the GBC, because I don't really ever game on the go) specifically because I know they will always have games that I love to play. I usually end up getting two consoles per generation, but one is always a Nintendo. Why would I need two beefy, expensive consoles that have the same kinds of games?

Did you have to tell me your lifes story?

Now, yes I hate them becasue they just recycle their old hardware and software,and concepts, and cracraters over and over and over again. They are like EA, but far worse. And then all their diot fanbiy come on messagboards and tell their lifes stories, and bitch about how niontendo are so innovative and how the the PSP sucks because if will only have ps2 ports. And after that is doen they go back and play on the GBA the port of some mario game that was released in the nes are, and that they also played ported on the snes, and GB, and GBC, And GC, now GBA and later on the DS.


Nintendo aren't smart, beeing the leader and then losing that position so quickly isn't smart, recycling your old shit isn't smart either. Sony and MS are constantly bringing in new poeple in, while Nintendo is just relying on their fanboys, you can't do that forever. Nintendo is backing itself up in a corner. Their so called fans who like inovation aren't letting letting them innovate, every game that ninteno has tried to innovate in has failed, unless it contained mario or one of the old N characters in it. N fans aren't people who like innovative games, theyr are poeple who ones bought a nes and after that weren't capable of making a critical decision on what harware to buy, you don't buy N becasue you like it, you buy it because u are used to buying N. Proof of that is the succes of RE4, a typical ps, xbox game, once it came to teh GC it was immidetly a succes. Hmm, that makes you think about what N fans are really looking for., and it aint what N is doing now.

 

[SimonomiS]

Whatever, I''m buying a Revolution 'cause I'm used to it.

 

[Warbie]

Still talking poop, Grey?

I see no more innovation on the PS2 and Xbox over the GC ........ I doubt we'll see more on the 360 or PS3 when compared to the Revolution. Infact there's very little innovation from anyone these days. However, over the years, Nintendo has pionered more than anyone else. They've also released the DS (what's that if not innovation?) Lastly, with the Revolution, they're the only people around who are still promising new things.

As for the success of RE4 - that's simply because it is an amazing game (the best of this generation imo) It didn't sell well because titles of this sort were lacking on the GC, it sold well because it's bloody good. This is why it's now being ported to the PS2.

Which games do you think they tried to innovate with that failed btw?

And comparing them to EA :/ Sure, Nintendo use their popular franchiese over and over (which is what many, many people want) - but these games are always of the highest quality (and often some of the best games of that generation) EA suck because they rehash poor title after poor title.

//edit

It's obvious that you're happy playing the same series of games (even one that's got steadily worse with every iteration ) Surely you can understand why others like Nintendo. Take it from my point of view - every generation of Nintendo consoles has titles form from 4 different series of games that I enjoy just as much as you enjoy MGS ....... not a bad deal eh? (all the extra good games that appear on their consoles are just a bonus *hugs RE4*)

 

[Gray Fox]

Noooooo, not mgs, you know thats my weakspot. I have admitted hunderd of times that I'm a fanboy( well actuall I just love it very much, but I'm not a fanboy, a long story, I just say fanboy for the ease) of mgs, and I don't ever go in to disuccions with poeple, cause I know I will be biased. And I do not pretend I'm not, but even after that I will not lower myself to buying a ps2 just for mgs3.

You asked me ehat failed, what ****ing failed. How about Pickmin, he how about that. If there is one game that made teh GC worth buying it was that. I bet if the damn game had mario in it you ****ers would buy it. Goiddam I spent hours playing that at a firends house and now there probably won't ba a third part. How about you people pull your heads out of your asses and buy something that isn't mario related, and non violant.

I'm not talking poop, whne I talk about N. You talk poop whne you say that nintendo innvovates the most, the only thing they innovated was the DS. I know MSA is shit, I know sony is shit, and I know N is shit. You know it to it seems ,and yet yuou insist they are original and innovate.

And their buseiness is not smart, and even if it was. Why would anyone be happy, You know whats smart, selling the PS2 for 150,- while the xbox and Gc are far more powerfull nad yet are the same or lower price. I don't admire sony for that, I think they'r shitheads, and i think nintenod are shitheads to for making the GBA more expensive that the GC,but is it smart yes. Do you poeple actually enjoy beeing screwed over, what the hell is wrong with you.

 

[Warbie]

I'm not arguing that they innovate a great deal at the moment (other than the DS) - just they've done a great deal more than anyone else over the years and are promising to do so in the next generation (whether they do or not is yet to be seen)

I agree about Pikmin, it's a shame it didn't sell that well. Both games are great fun and charming in every way This is nothing new though. Ico is one of the greatest games i've played, certainly on the PS2, yet it sold terribly. FFX comes out and sells truck loads :/ It was the same with Rez on the DC and many other titles over the years. Same shit, different day.

'Do you poeple actually enjoy beeing screwed over, what the hell is wrong with you.'

Where did that come from?

 

[Gray Fox]

First I meant screwed in the bad sense and it wasn't directed solely at you, it's at all the people who seem to appreciate that nintendo is just recycling shit all over again, and overpircing it.+ what I said about the ps2, and a lot of other shit. Why do you appreciate that, smart business almost always means you beeing screwed over.
How can you say nintnedo has innovatedt he most, they didn't do jack shit, thats why they aren't number 1 anyomer, they just used the same formula all over again. They didn't even bother to put it in a new jacked. N games these days feel just like N games in teh nes day, you won't find Sh2 or ICO types coming from N. The N games use the same formula, the same characters, alsmost the same story as they did in the NES day.

 

[Raxxman]

So what's innovative about the X-box or PS2? PS2 still uses the Same damn controllers as the PS1 and the X-box has its rippoff DC controller.

Nintendo have at least innovated on it's controller front, The n64 controller maintains itself as one of the very best ever. And the GC controller for me is the best of the current crop.

 

[Gray Fox]

So what's innovative about the X-box or PS2? PS2 still uses the Same damn controllers as the PS1 and the X-box has its rippoff DC controller.

Nintendo have at least innovated on it's controller front, The n64 controller maintains itself as one of the very best ever. And the GC controller for me is the best of the current crop.

If you would have taken the time to read my posts, you would have seen that I think sony and ms are both shit, but atleast they have brought games to a higher lvl.

The nintendo controllers is not the best, it's absolutely the worst, it's designed for people with three hands, the psx controler was better in everypossible way.
Even N apparently thinks so, why do you think the GC controller resembles the PS controller much more then the N64 controller.

 

[Warbie]

Naw - take Metroid Prime ....... it feels very 'Ico' to me, and oozes atmosphere at every turn.

One of Nintendo's greatest successes was taking these classic 2d titles and bringing them to life in a 3d world - while retaining the feel, atmosphere, and gameplay that made the orignals great (OoT is a perfect example, as is Mario 64) Never underestimate how important this was for them, and how much of an achievement it was.

(the games may have the same characters and similar story, but you'd have to be blind to not see how much they've evolved since the originals)

Nintendo have innovated the most, and have heavily influenced the way we play games today - both in terms of design, input and the setting of standards in quality and polish. You may disagree, but you'll find you're in the minority.

At times you talk as if they've done nothing over the years. Fair enough, their games may not be to your taste, but I honestly can't understand how anyone can fail to recognise what Nintendo have done for video gaming.

Sony has given video gaming to the masses. It's grown up. Nintendo were never going to be able to compete with this in terms of sales. Hopefully they'll continue to make the games we all know and love and leave it up to Microsoft to battle Sony for the top spot.

 

[Gray Fox]

Nonsnese, nintendo just took that formula form other companies but did it better. And they stayed with it all the way. And now they have come to a point where they hardly bother to make new games, but just port games over. Sony gave gaming to the masses, by actually making games that could compete with movies and books, while nintendo is still seliing games that look and play like flashgames that you can find on the net for free. They simply the are least innovative, and thats whats screwed them with the N64, cause they didn offer anything new. They just keep selling overpirced hardware and software(exept the GC). If nintendo keeps this up they will just keep loosing steadly poeple to sony and ms, who actually take very minor risks, but still moret han the big N.

 

[KagePrototype]

I'm not talking poop, whne I talk about N. You talk poop whne you say that nintendo innvovates the most, the only thing they innovated was the DS. I know MSA is shit, I know sony is shit, and I know N is shit. You know it to it seems ,and yet yuou insist they are original and innovate.

Well, apart from Game and Watch, d-pads, shoulder buttons, game saves, z-targeting, handheld consoles, tilt paks, rumble paks, analogue control, virtual boy, gameboy camera, DS, wireless controllers, multiplayer split screen...

I dunno about you, but that's a lot more than Sony, Sega or MS have ever done when it comes to video game innovation. To deny Nintendo's impact and influence on the industry is to be in denile (or at the very least uninformed).

Nintendo aren't smart, beeing the leader and then losing that position so quickly isn't smart,

They didn't lose anything quickly, they dominated the industry for almost a decade (with the only real competiton being Sega for a few years), and nowadays aren't far behind MS when it comes to worldwide sales (and certainly not in any danger of following Sega).

Sony and MS are constantly bringing in new poeple in, while Nintendo is just relying on their fanboys, you can't do that forever. Nintendo is backing itself up in a corner. Their so called fans who like inovation aren't letting letting them innovate, every game that ninteno has tried to innovate in has failed, unless it contained mario or one of the old N characters in it. N fans aren't people who like innovative games, theyr are poeple who ones bought a nes and after that weren't capable of making a critical decision on what harware to buy, you don't buy N becasue you like it, you buy it because u are used to buying N. Proof of that is the succes of RE4, a typical ps, xbox game, once it came to teh GC it was immidetly a succes. Hmm, that makes you think about what N fans are really looking for., and it aint what N is doing now.

So, if they're relying on their fanboys to generate profit, then why do they allow ports of Splinter Cell, Resident Evil, FIFA, WWE, Spider Man, Viewtiful Joe, Timesplitters, Hitman etc. on the GC? Why, when they're relying on their fanboys to buy their own game brands, do these games only take up a very small portion of the GameCube library of games? Nintendo are also saying that they wish to target as many people as possible when it comes to the Revolution; beat MS and Sony at their own game and target as wide an audience as possible. I'm not saying Nintendo have always had the perfect business model, but the picture you're painting is far from the reality of things.

 

[JellyWorld]

Nonsnese, nintendo just took that formula form other companies but did it better. And they stayed with it all the way. And now they have come to a point where they hardly bother to make new games, but just port games over. Sony gave gaming to the masses, by actually making games that could compete with movies and books, while nintendo is still seliing games that look and play like flashgames that you can find on the net for free. They simply the are least innovative, and thats whats screwed them with the N64, cause they didn offer anything new. They just keep selling overpirced hardware and software(exept the GC). If nintendo keeps this up they will just keep loosing steadly poeple to sony and ms, who actually take very minor risks, but still moret han the big N.

Overpriced?

 

[Direwolf]

Yeah? Overpriced? When you can nab a GC for less than a hundred bucks, how in the heck is it overpriced? Maybe you can complain about the GBA, but it's tons cheaper than a PSP and the like.

As for everything else, I don't think it can be argued. I mean, to seriously say that Nintendo is just recycling everything and hasn't innovated....you can't have been playing Nintendo games for the last five years. It's just not even an argument.

 

[Gray Fox]

Yes, for example the cartriges made N64 games and especially GBA games overpirced. You have to pay like 45,- per gba games, while I'll bet the amount of money the company gets per sold cartrigde is less then say for a pc game,thats insanity. PAying for a gba games as much as for a PC, and the N64 games were also overpriced. And mostly due the cartrige. And again the GBA was way overpriced when it came out, I mean it costed more than the GC. The N64 was way overpriced. Those are just a couple examples. But that is overpriced don't you agree, the GC showed that they can put out resonably priced harware.

 

[Gray Fox]

Yeah? Overpriced? When you can nab a GC for less than a hundred bucks, how in the heck is it overpriced? Maybe you can complain about the GBA, but it's tons cheaper than a PSP and the like.

As for everything else, I don't think it can be argued. I mean, to seriously say that Nintendo is just recycling everything and hasn't innovated....you can't have been playing Nintendo games for the last five years. It's just not even an argument.

HAve you tried reding my posts before you post yourself, is that so hard. I clearly stated the GC as an exeption. and the PSP is a lot more powerfull than the GBA, offcourse it should cost more, it's the price/power ration that I'm talking about. And what re you talking about, the article that started the thread is basicly saying the same thing, that they recycle shit all over again, but then again you don't actually bother to read do you.

 

[Gray Fox]

Well, apart from Game and Watch, d-pads, shoulder buttons, game saves, z-targeting, handheld consoles, tilt paks, rumble paks, analogue control, virtual boy, gameboy camera, DS, wireless controllers, multiplayer split screen...

I dunno about you, but that's a lot more than Sony, Sega or MS have ever done when it comes to video game innovation. To deny Nintendo's impact and influence on the industry is to be in denile (or at the very least uninformed).

You are basicly taking every innovation that has been made and ascribing it to N, thats just BS. the handheld market proves that they don't innovate, unless they have competition, The GB, the GBC, and GBA didn't offer anything new exept more power, and most of them just had ports of old snes and nes games.

They didn't lose anything quickly, they dominated the industry for almost a decade (with the only real competiton being Sega for a few years), and nowadays aren't far behind MS when it comes to worldwide sales (and certainly not in any danger of following Sega).

They dominated because they hardly had competition, when serious competition came they lost.

So, if they're relying on their fanboys to generate profit, then why do they allow ports of Splinter Cell, Resident Evil, FIFA, WWE, Spider Man, Viewtiful Joe, Timesplitters, Hitman etc. on the GC? Why, when they're relying on their fanboys to buy their own game brands, do these games only take up a very small portion of the GameCube library of games? Nintendo are also saying that they wish to target as many people as possible when it comes to the Revolution; beat MS and Sony at their own game and target as wide an audience as possible. I'm not saying Nintendo have always had the perfect business model, but the picture you're painting is far from the reality of things.

So you basicly contradict everything the article stated. If that is true than it just proves my point, taht they don't innovate but follow. They tried their old fashioned way with the N64, it failed and with the GC they just followed what MS and sony were doing.

 

[Direwolf]

Dude, I posted the darned article. I sure as heck read it. And at no point does it accuse them of "recycling" the same stuff over and over again. It talks about their good business practices, not about their gameplay. While Nintendo clearly reuses certain franchises, and the article mentions this, its what they do with those franchises that counts. And that hasn't been to make simple "rehashes."

As for the N64 being pricey, Sony as much to blame for that one as Nintendo. During that generation CD media was too slow to really be mature, and catridges were too small to be cheap. Sony went for the cheaper price of making CDs, but had horrific load times. Nintendo decided to avoid all the load time and durability problems of CDs and go with cartridges, even if it raised the cost. Neither route was superior at the time.

And I've been reading your posts the whole time. But just saying that Nintendo "recycles" stuff doesn't make a point. You have to actually cite some clear examples within the franchises that Nintendo keeps using. And thats hard, since almost every Zelda, Mario, Metroid, Star Fox, MarioKart etc has tried to push the envelope in at least one or two directions.

Edit:

You are basicly taking every innovation that has been made and ascribing it to N, thats just BS

Nintendo really did lead the market with almost every single one of those things.

 

[KU_]

HAve you tried reding my posts before you post yourself, is that so hard. I clearly stated the GC as an exeption. and the PSP is a lot more powerfull than the GBA, offcourse it should cost more, it's the price/power ration that I'm talking about. And what re you talking about, the article that started the thread is basicly saying the same thing, that they recycle shit all over again, but then again you don't actually bother to read do you.

If you are saying Nintendo is ocer pricey with their consoles that's just stupid. Ask anyone on a different forum who makes the most affordable console out of Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo and I guarantee most people will say Nintendo. It's obvious you don't like Nintendo with every post you make, but you are the only one I see making these posts.

 

[Warbie]

They simply the are least innovative, and thats whats screwed them with the N64, cause they didn offer anything new. They just keep selling overpirced hardware and software(exept the GC). If nintendo keeps this up they will just keep loosing steadly poeple to sony and ms, who actually take very minor risks, but still moret han the big N.

What rubbish

//fanboy rant

The N64 (imo) is the greatest console there has been, closely followed by the snes. The fact tha the PSX sold far more systems impresses me not one bit. Take away MGS, FF7, and GT, and there's not a great deal left.

There were so many more games worth owning on the N64.

//end rant

Sony didn't innovate any more than say Sega - who also switched to cds and used fmv in various titles. What Sony did do well was appeal to the average consumer - with particular emphasis on teenage males. They did this very, very well. Sony made a good machine, and marketed it extremely well - but didn't particulalrly innovate.

Before then gaming was a pretty tiny industry - most fans being quite dedicated home and arcade gamers. Sony brought gaming to joe public ..... after pub sessions of Tekken, 4 player Fifa after school with friends etc

I agree about many of the titles that appeared on the PSX being more cinemetic (Capcom and Konami deserve the credit for this more than Sony though) CDs certainly have their advantages. But so do Catridges (remember how awfully slow loading times on the PSX were back then)

Put simply, my favourite 4 games of all time appeared on the N64 (GE/PD, Mario 64 and Zelda OoT) None of them would have been anywhere near as great, or as popular, had they appeared on the PSX. The machine, media, and joypad just wouldn't have been up to the job. (just as the N64 wasn't up to the job of RE or MGS) To experience the best games of that generation you had to own both consoles - as neither of them were up to the job alone.

Things are different now - loading times have improved greatly and there's hardly any advantage to using a cartridge. But there definately was back then (just as there were disadvantages) Now we can enjoy the best of both worlds .... in the GC Super quick loading times with all the storage of a dvd (something Nintendo don't get enough credit for - espeically when you compare it to the long loading times of the ps2)

How can you look at a game like Mario 64 (one of the most innovative and influential video games ever) and say it's just a mindless rehash of a nes game. That's just silly :/

 

[KU_]

Nonsnese, nintendo just took that formula form other companies but did it better. And they stayed with it all the way. And now they have come to a point where they hardly bother to make new games, but just port games over. Sony gave gaming to the masses, by actually making games that could compete with movies and books, while nintendo is still seliing games that look and play like flashgames that you can find on the net for free. They simply the are least innovative, and thats whats screwed them with the N64, cause they didn offer anything new. They just keep selling overpirced hardware and software(exept the GC). If nintendo keeps this up they will just keep loosing steadly poeple to sony and ms, who actually take very minor risks, but still moret han the big N.

About the games. You do know Sony doesn't make those games right? Rockstar and Konami are responsible for making games that sold huge amounts. Nintendo by far makes the best First Part games. The only reason the Gamecube didn't do so good this gen is due to lack of 3rd party support. Also, can you please link me to a flashgame that is essentially a GC game, because I sure would like to play it.

 

[Gray Fox]

And I've been reading your posts the whole time. But just saying that Nintendo "recycles" stuff doesn't make a point. You have to actually cite some clear examples within the franchises that Nintendo keeps using. And thats hard, since almost every Zelda, Mario, Metroid, Star Fox, MarioKart etc has tried to push the envelope in at least one or two directions.
[/quote
You say that, but wabrie says this

One of Nintendo's greatest successes was taking these classic 2d titles and bringing them to life in a 3d world - while retaining the feel, atmosphere, and gameplay that made the orignals great (OoT is a perfect example, as is Mario 64) Never underestimate how important this was for them, and how much of an achievement it was.

make up your minds, and then tell how they inovated. Zelda on N64 and on GC felt, and played just like zelda on the snes, only with 3g graphics. The only old franchise that was rehached originally is metroid for the GC.