Jump to content


romeogbs19

Member Since 22 Oct 2003
Offline Last Active Today, 05:40 AM
*----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Nintendo Switch Revealed

20 January 2017 - 07:53 AM

This is the first interesting idea you've proposed. It's also wrong.

 

Nintendo isn't going to ditch the 3DS out of hand. It would be foolhardy to do so at this juncture. But they aren't also going to go all-in on a DS successor when they are currently launching another portable system. A New-New 3DS is only possible with the utter failure of the Switch. Granted, this seems to be something you are quite keen on, and fully expecting. But as it stands this is the only scenario that could lead to another DS. Where is the GameBoy line right now? It was supplanted by a successful DS line. If the Switch has solid first-year sales, it will prevent any successor DS system from appearing.

 

As to my personal arrogance, I'll readily cop to that. I have a strong tendency towards a swelled ego. But you can't really blame me under the circumstances. You haven't done a single thing to refute any of what I've posted. Incoherent, unfocused rambling walls of text do not constitute an argument.

 

The basic hypothesis I've put forward is that the Switch will do better than the Wii U, but will likely sell less than the Wii in a similar time frame. I understand that this is a difficult position to oppose. When you actually look at it, it's a very reasonable prediction that constitutes a huge swath of outcomes. The Wii U sold only around 13 million over the course of 4+ years. The Wii sold 100+ million over roughly the same time frame. That's an 87+ million spread to cover. Not exactly an ambitious prediction. It's a safe, conservative estimate with plenty of common sense to back it up.

 

Your assertion that the Switch will be another Wii U, and will perform as badly or worse, baffles me. And you still haven't provided any solid reasoning to back up your claims.

Again, you're putting words/thoughts there that I didn't say.  I think we're actually in more agreement than you think.  

 

I never said Nintendo would ditch the 3DS.  I absolutely agree with you; that would be foolish.   My post was only imagining a remote possibility where Nintendo might release a successor to the DS line.  Of course, even if it did happen, it wouldn't be anytime soon.  Nintendo should and needs to be committed to the Switch (though based on some of Reggie's comments, I'm not sure they are).

 

I also agree with you about the Switch.  You seem to think I am arguing it will sell less than Wii U.   I never said that.  In fact, I've said it looks like a 15-20 million console.  That's better than the Wii U, and I agree it should sell more.  But I'm not sure 20 million would be seen by many to be a success.  The Wii U set the bar low, but just beating by ~10 million won't sit well, and it may only further prove the Big N's base is ... well, small.

 

Anyways, it'll be fun/interesting to watch.  I don't game too much anymore; I'm more fascinated by seeing how the industry rolls, and evolves. There really are few business like it, and the players are intriguing to watch as they compete/jockey for position.

 

As I've said elsewhere, I'm a long-time Nintendo gamer.  Have every system since the NES; bought Gamecube on launch day.  Also have the Wii, two GBA (still enjoy some FF Crystal Chronicles now and then), the 3DS, and (yes) the Wii U.  Have 25 games on the system everyone seems to hate.  

 

I've said my piece on the Switch, and I'm done writing in this forum as well as any others as they relate to this machine.  I hope the console does well.   I hope we get amazing Nintendo games (we will).  I also hope Nintendo does better at E3 to convince people to buy it.  

 

That all said, my hope is largely clinging to a very small likelihood.  

 

I think the Switch is going to be a debacle (meaning 15-20 million sold).  That's not enough to maintain an ecosystem, and certainly not enough to get the AAA developers on board.  

 

It'll be Nintendo's last proprietary machine.  Sad, but that's the writing on the wall (IMHO).  


In Topic: Nintendo Switch Preorder Thread - $299.99 March 3rd.

19 January 2017 - 06:47 AM

So here's a thought ... posted this in the Wii/Wii U forum, but thought I'd also share here  :razz:

 

I have yet to watch the Fire Emblem video, but have at least read about the announcements.  I'm beginning to think that Nintendo's refusal to dismiss the 3DS may be more than mere corporate lip service.  While no one at Nintendo will say it, the Switch may be an experiment in the truest sense.  What I mean is that Nintendo may have a *serious* back-up plan to release a handheld device after all.

 

What the Switch tells me is that Nintendo is - for better or worse - taking everything about the Wii and putting it front and center on the Switch: the motion controls, the "HD rumble," the colored peripherals, the inevitable joy-con 2, or the multitude of custom joy-cons for specific games.  In other words, Nintendo seems to think these elements were the reasons for the Wii's success, and has concluded that enhanced iterations of them (or literally more of them) should help Switch succeed.

 

Based on my posts, most of you know what I think of that reasoning.  I think it completely misses the mark; Nintendo is looking at the trees instead of the forest.  It's neglecting the market conditions that I believe were the largest reason for the Wii's success - and that is casual gamers who had no smartphones or free, downloadable games.  In short, it was a world without Angry Birds.  

 

All of this is to say the Switch's gimmicks - many of which are why the system is so expensive - are peddling things most consumers probably don't care about anymore.  Didn't Nintendo learn that no one wanted the Wii U and its motion-based, gyroscopic games?  

But what the Switch shows, perhaps, is that Nintendo may be more married to dual-screen gaming than we think.  Sure, it may not have worked on a home console, but to Nintendo, the dual-screen (DS) line has sold almost 200 million machines.  Even the 3DS sold 60+million units.  

 

Most podcasters and analysts seem to think the Switch is a hybrid that will lead to the end of the 3DS, but it might be that Nintendo is in fact prepping a real DS successor for 1-2 years down the road.

 

Think about it.  A DS system that has backwards compatibility to the Switch.  There's nothing that makes that sound crazy.  In fact, Nintendo's Fire Emblem announcement, which include 3DS and N3DS releases, and a Switch FE game for 2018 (which we all know will probably be delayed to 2019), suggests Nintendo may be serious about keeping its handheld system on the market alongside the Switch.  It's a decision that seems to indicate Nintendo either shares in people's skepticism for the Switch, or earnestly believes that dual-screen gaming is something that its customers still want -- in a marketplace where smartphone devices are only getting more and more powerful.

 

It's an interesting possibility.  What makes me consider it with a little more legitimacy is due to the company's decisions behind the Switch hardware in light of its apparent willingness to carry on support for the 3DS despite the fact that the Switch is desperate for software.  Why bother porting FE Warriors?  It's not like Hyrule Warriors ran well even on the N3DS.  Do we really need another gimped one?

 

Why waste time on DS development at all if you're making mobile games, which Nintendo is?  Why spread yourself thinner when it seemed the point of the Switch was convergence of the divisions.  This FE announcement only reinforced the notion that Nintendo lacks confidence in the Switch.  If we get an E3 where Nintendo announces more 3DS titles, then I think we have to start believing the DS line is coming back.

 

Frankly, that may be a smart move.  As others here have commented, the Switch seems to be catering to a crowd Nintendo is gambling is big enough to be worth it.  It's too weak to be a home console so the AAA developers are going to wait until there's critical mass to invest resources to port down.  And on the flipside, it's perhaps too big and clunky for the average handheld player, not to mention substantially more expensive when compared to launch prices for the DS, 2DS, and 3DS (again, systems Nintendo apparently plans to keep selling).

 

The market seems to suggest the handheld pool may be a small one.  Those players may not be much interested in all the doo-hickey tech inside the Switch.  And meaty, home console games don't seem to be what they want, and especially ones priced at anything more than "free."  The home console gamer, on the other hand, may not like getting "watered down" versions of AAA titles.  This is the same crowd that screams on message boards about specs and resolution, even if it's practically impossible to tell with human eyes.  It's the crowd that visits Eurogamer to read the head-to-heads, and buys a game because it offers even a small edge on frame-rates.  Would they buy the Switch?  As long as Nintendo keeps messaging it as a home console, may be not.

 

So who does that leave?  The Nintendo faithful.  But that wasn't the intent of the Switch, right?  Surely that can't be.

 

But may be Nintendo has planned ahead because it could be.  And if it is, may be the next DS line is the opposite message of the Switch.  That tagline may be "the handheld console you can play at home."  Besides, if messaging doomed the Wii U, it would seem very unwise for Nintendo to muddle the Switch's message, which has been and remains, "the home console you can take on the go."  The two may sound interchangeable, but trust me, as a branding guy, they couldn't be any more different.

 

The Gamescoop crew surmised we'll know a lot sooner whether the Switch is going to fly like the Wii or burn down like the Wii U.  I think they're right.  Since Nintendo plans to support mobile games now, one might say that their development teams are saddled with two platforms even if they abandoned the DS line.  

 

Perhaps better to start with the Switch, and then get your real handheld killer hardware out, and just absorb the Switch's software with the tagline you meant to use in the first place ... May be by then the mobile players will realize free-to-play games and micro-transactions are, in a word, "abysmal."


In Topic: Nintendo Switch Revealed

19 January 2017 - 06:39 AM

And now back to more interesting conversations about the Switch.

 

I have yet to watch the Fire Emblem video, but have at least read about the announcements.  I'm beginning to think that Nintendo's refusal to dismiss the 3DS may be more than mere corporate lip service.  While no one at Nintendo will say it, the Switch may be an experiment in the truest sense.  What I mean is that Nintendo may have a *serious* back-up plan to release a handheld device after all.

 

What the Switch tells me is that Nintendo is - for better or worse - taking everything about the Wii and putting it front and center on the Switch: the motion controls, the "HD rumble," the colored peripherals, the inevitable joy-con 2, or the multitude of custom joy-cons for specific games.  In other words, Nintendo seems to think these elements were the reasons for the Wii's success, and has concluded that enhanced iterations of them (or literally more of them) should help Switch succeed.

 

Based on my posts, most of you know what I think of that reasoning.  I think it completely misses the mark; Nintendo is looking at the trees instead of the forest.  It's neglecting the market conditions that I believe were the largest reason for the Wii's success - and that is casual gamers who had no smartphones or free, downloadable games.  In short, it was a world without Angry Birds.  

 

All of this is to say the Switch's gimmicks - many of which are why the system is so expensive - are peddling things most consumers probably don't care about anymore.  Didn't Nintendo learn that no one wanted the Wii U and its motion-based, gyroscopic games?  

But what the Switch shows, perhaps, is that Nintendo may be more married to dual-screen gaming than we think.  Sure, it may not have worked on a home console, but to Nintendo, the dual-screen (DS) line has sold almost 200 million machines.  Even the 3DS sold 60+million units.  

 

Most podcasters and analysts seem to think the Switch is a hybrid that will lead to the end of the 3DS, but it might be that Nintendo is in fact prepping a real DS successor for 1-2 years down the road.

 

Think about it.  A DS system that has backwards compatibility to the Switch.  There's nothing that makes that sound crazy.  In fact, Nintendo's Fire Emblem announcement, which include 3DS and N3DS releases, and a Switch FE game for 2018 (which we all know will probably be delayed to 2019), suggests Nintendo may be serious about keeping its handheld system on the market alongside the Switch.  It's a decision that seems to indicate Nintendo either shares in people's skepticism for the Switch, or earnestly believes that dual-screen gaming is something that its customers still want -- in a marketplace where smartphone devices are only getting more and more powerful.

 

It's an interesting possibility.  What makes me consider it with a little more legitimacy is due to the company's decisions behind the Switch hardware in light of its apparent willingness to carry on support for the 3DS despite the fact that the Switch is desperate for software.  Why bother porting FE Warriors?  It's not like Hyrule Warriors ran well even on the N3DS.  Do we really need another gimped one?

 

Why waste time on DS development at all if you're making mobile games, which Nintendo is?  Why spread yourself thinner when it seemed the point of the Switch was convergence of the divisions.  This FE announcement only reinforced the notion that Nintendo lacks confidence in the Switch.  If we get an E3 where Nintendo announces more 3DS titles, then I think we have to start believing the DS line is coming back.

 

Frankly, that may be a smart move.  As others here have commented, the Switch seems to be catering to a crowd Nintendo is gambling is big enough to be worth it.  It's too weak to be a home console so the AAA developers are going to wait until there's critical mass to invest resources to port down.  And on the flipside, it's perhaps too big and clunky for the average handheld player, not to mention substantially more expensive when compared to launch prices for the DS, 2DS, and 3DS (again, systems Nintendo apparently plans to keep selling).

 

The market seems to suggest the handheld pool may be a small one.  Those players may not be much interested in all the doo-hickey tech inside the Switch.  And meaty, home console games don't seem to be what they want, and especially ones priced at anything more than "free."  The home console gamer, on the other hand, may not like getting "watered down" versions of AAA titles.  This is the same crowd that screams on message boards about specs and resolution, even if it's practically impossible to tell with human eyes.  It's the crowd that visits Eurogamer to read the head-to-heads, and buys a game because it offers even a small edge on frame-rates.  Would they buy the Switch?  As long as Nintendo keeps messaging it as a home console, may be not.

 

So who does that leave?  The Nintendo faithful.  But that wasn't the intent of the Switch, right?  Surely that can't be.

 

But may be Nintendo has planned ahead because it could be.  And if it is, may be the next DS line is the opposite message of the Switch.  That tagline may be "the handheld console you can play at home."  Besides, if messaging doomed the Wii U, it would seem very unwise for Nintendo to muddle the Switch's message, which has been and remains, "the home console you can take on the go."  The two may sound interchangeable, but trust me, as a branding guy, they couldn't be any more different.

 

The Gamescoop crew surmised we'll know a lot sooner whether the Switch is going to fly like the Wii or burn down like the Wii U.  I think they're right.  Since Nintendo plans to support mobile games now, one might say that their development teams are saddled with two platforms even if they abandoned the DS line.  

 

Perhaps better to start with the Switch, and then get your real handheld killer hardware out, and just absorb the Switch's software with the tagline you meant to use in the first place ... May be by then the mobile players will realize free-to-play games and micro-transactions are, in a word, "abysmal."


In Topic: Nintendo Switch Revealed

19 January 2017 - 05:51 AM

I think the real complaint is that a lot of the posts that are trying to make a point are doing so poorly, almost as if they haven't absorbed any of the reasoning from the preceeding posts. It can be a bit frustrating to read responses with very little coherent arguments, just a lot of venting about personal opinions. Personal opinions and impressions do not make for compelling rhetoric.

 

One person says "I didn't like the Wii, or the games that were released for it. Therefore it was a bad video game system that was not successful."

 

Another person points out, "That's your personal opinion. It may not have been successful for you, because you personally didn't like it. However, by every metric outside of your personal tastes, the system was objectively successful. It sold well, made lots of money, and garnered widespread critical praise and cultural acceptance."

 

Conflating personal impressions with facts isn't persuasive. We've all been there, and we've all done that. So anyone with any common sense can see such reasoning for what it is.

 

Take Rome's statements as an example. He points out that Sony was able to turn things around for the PS3, and eventually sell a decent number of them, thanks to the previous success of the PS2. He posits that Nintendo won't be able to succeed with the Switch because the Wii U failed, and "turning around" a system like this requires that its predecessor be successful. But this reasoning doesn't hold water. The PS1 succeeded, even though it was Sony's first system, and they had no console experience prior. The Wii succeeded, despite the fact that the GameCube had sold less than either the PS2, or the XBox, itself a new competitor in the market. (and the GameCube sold less than the N64) So what has occurred in the past does not support his reasoning.

Thank you, Mr. Kain for coming here and saving us.  I'm glad you think you must be the only one who has any sense of reason.  

 

I don't even know where to begin with the level of arrogance in this post.  Your comment about my apparent lack of reasoning in suggesting the PS2's success was a factor in the PS3's leaves me to conclude that you may simply be unable to grasp the rather rudimentary concept of using past history to analyze events.  It's, well, one of the fundamental ways we examine many actions.  

 

You must also know nothing about advertising or brands.  As someone who works in the game industry, and in particular, was charged with managing parts of Nintendo Gamecube's marketing initiatives (among other clients), I can assure you how a company manages its brands with customers affects future performance.   I can assure you the vast success of the brand, Sony PlayStation, helped the company dig itself out of the almost-fiasco that was its successor, PlayStation 3.  I can assure you the vast network of third parties that Sony PlayStation catered to, generously embraced, and active supported, appreciated the PlayStation brand, such that they continued to support the console during difficult times because the brand carried a legitimacy and hipness inside the industry.  

 

The Nintendo brand is - like any other brand - a sum of the company's successes, failures, and decisions.  I never said past failure mandates future failure.  That's asinine.  What past failures do is harm a brand; it makes consumers doubt the company's future actions.  In that sense, it results in making future success less likely.  If you find that illogical, then I'm unsure you understand what logic actually is.  I recommend you stay away from law school.

 

By your reasoning, there is apparently no basis to judge anything based on past actions because there is supposedly an exception.  Couldn't it be that the PS1 succeeded because Nintendo made serious miscalculations with the N64?  Or because Sony had worked with Nintendo on the console, and had studied what Nintendo had done and not done, and then leaned on those technologies Nintendo (wrongly) ignored?   Nintendo's inability to accept and embrace the benefits of CD-ROMs could be seen as a failure to better analyze the past disadvantages of cartridges, and what gaming customers were looking for (i.e. voice acting, cinema-like cutscenes - elements that were hard to deliver on expensive, data limited cartridges).

 

My reasoning about the Switch's tough road ahead is based on Nintendo's repeat failures to understand its past actions, and a seemingly tone-deaf approach to analyzing their decisions - good and bad - in the context of where the industry is headed.  The Wii was successful because Nintendo had a good pulse on a casual gaming community that had not yet been exposed to smartphones and free mobile games.  The Wii U failed for a host of reasons.  Ultimately, it was because Nintendo failed to understand why the Wii was successful, and failed to understand that success in the context of the industry as a whole.

 

if you're suggesting the Gamecube failed, that's an incorrect assumption.  Nintendo made money on every Gamecube sold; and while it may not have sold as well as PS2 and Xbox, keep in mind Microsoft lost millions on the Xbox to try to establish its brand.  I doubt you'll find many at Microsoft who would necessarily declare the Xbox a success.  MS was willing to burn millions to get into the gaming industry because - guess what - they looked at the history of the market, saw an opening, and analyzed the past to project the industry's direction.  

 

So excuse me if I take offense that you think my thoughts lack reasoning.  I think the arrogance in your tone shows a blatant lack of sophistication, and frankly, the responses you offer lack any understanding of the facts or events of that time.  You give no indication that you know anything about videogame history.  You don't seem to know Sony and Nintendo jointly made the PlayStation.  You don't seem to know that Microsoft rushed to the 360 because the OG Xbox was in fact a fiscal fiasco even Gates retrospectively suggested was too high a price for MS to have paid just to get a brand in the door.

 

You don't seem to understand at all the industry forces that Nintendo is again ignoring with the Switch, or how any of the decisions that it has made may be fatal given it is now releasing mid-cycle as opposed to start-cycle like it did with the Gamecube, Wii, or Wii U.  All the dynamics and risks that are at play now given what the past tells us -- your comments either ignore them or show you have no grasp of them.

 

So before you go on and accuse someone of lacking reason, I would check to make sure you know enough about the subject.  In my view, you sound like a fanboy desperate to pretend like you're the superior mind around here, but without any actual knowledge of the facts, history, and nuances around them.  If you're so much better at persuading others, then I'd like to see a better grasp of the facts and the analysis in your skin-deep examples.


In Topic: Switch Questions

18 January 2017 - 07:36 AM

Yup, as Green Giant said, just pick up Zelda on the Wii U.  That's what I'm doing.  

I'm holding off on the Switch until someone knocks some sense into Nintendo on that pricing, and we get more games.  Recall Nintendo dropped the price on both the DS and 3DS after the systems had troubled times after release.  I have a feeling we're going to see that happen again this time.

 

Nintendo may have been willing to keep prices of the Wii U high despite difficulties, but they know the Switch is their last roll of the dice.  I expect them to *eventually* become pretty aggressive after the core Nintendo players have bought the system and sales taper off or take a nosedive (which I definitely see happening either later this year or a few months after Odyssey comes out).  

 

Let's be honest, outside of Zelda and Mario, unless this thing sells like gangbusters, there will be third parties there to bring it the games it needs to stay afloat.  As much as we love Nintendo franchises, the fact is that outside of Zelda and Mario - the other franchises aren't "system sellers" in the traditional sense.  

 

It'll take a cultural phenomenon like game to get Nintendo Switch to a critical mass - think Nintendogs or Brain Age with the DS - problem is games like that are now easily found on Smartphones, so what could it be ... or cynically, is there really anything that can drive sales like that when the barrier to entry is $300+?  We are talking about a blue ocean strategy that requires Nintendo to sell this thing to casuals who balk at paying $10 for Mario Run.  

 

That's a tough, tough, crowd.  Not sure any Nintendo franchise can crack that nut.