Nintendo's quality output as a third-party developer

[Astrosmasher1]

The irony here is that Sony and MS have superb third party games.  Where as Nintendo and Wii u have a couple.  The games that are atrocious on wii U are very good on the other systems. The Ubisoft ones, the EA before they dumped Wii U.  Also Sega have not brought either of their alien titles to the wii u.
Titanfall is my game of the year made by a third party.  Call of Duty also made by a third party is available on Ps4 and Xbone. 

Plus Zombie Driver which is totally awesome and is not available for Wii U.  It is DLC only but is so much fun.

I am hoping that the CDi classic Hotel Mario gets a multi platform release so we can all enjoy it.

Normally I do not read the Nintendo topics any more but if I read something that I disagree with I will always comment.

[Paul1231]

It seems weird to me that this is even considered a relevant topic of conversation.

I listen to a lot of sports talk radio, and this discussion reminds me a lot of what one radio personality calls "overreaction" Monday: where fans and media take only that Sunday of NFL football games and make broad, sweeping statements about what the future holds for each team based almost solely on their most recent game. For example, a few months ago at the start of the season the New England Patriots had a bad game and we're beaten quite easily. The next morning all the pundits claimed that it was obvious that they aren't what they used to be and their quarterback needed to be traded and the franchise was in inner turmoil. Since then they have been become one of the most dominant teams in the league and all those pundits have quickly moved on to other topics of conversation.

Nintendo has had varied levels of success in each generation, but I doubt any of those could be labeled a "failure", and just last generation they made truckloads of money and completely changed console gaming as we know it, for better or worse. So now the Wii U is not nearly as successful as their recent monster hit so they should be considering dropping consoles altogether? Where is the logic in that and why is it worth debating? I mean, if our criteria are this stringent, shouldn't we be asking the same questions about Microsoft and Sony? If anything I want Nintendo to stick around for the long haul because they've been in this a hell of a lot longer than the other guys and frankly I think they have a more organic perspective on the industry. This just seems oddly misdirected, if not totally unnecessary to me.

[Vexer1]

Paul123-the worry towards Nintendo is not entirely unfounded, the Wii U wasn't just slightly less successful then the Wii, it was  a massive step backwards in terms of sales, it's so far sold the least amount of units in a two year-period of any Nintendo console released thus far(barring the Virtual Boy, which was a massive failure on every level), and that in itself is pretty worrisome.

How exactly do you have a more "organic" perspective on the industry?  Do you work in the industry or something like that?

Totalbiscuit perfectly sums up why people should be concerned about Nintendo:

https://soundcloud.com/totalbiscuit/the-inconwiinient-truth

[Segatarious1]

[QUOTE=Leo]
[QUOTE=Segatarious]Nintendo is far and away the best manged company, with the deepest and most talented teams
[/QUOTE]

If Nintendo was far and away the best managed company in this business today, there would be no videogame industry. Few companies could afford the bleeding that has gone on at Nintendo when they've screwed up. 

Their quality consistency where game development is concerned is largely unrivaled. Sadly though, they're quite lacking at times in other areas like adapting to change, marketing, their working relationships with 3rd parties, etc. Reasons such as these are why they've routinely struggled with their console line for the better part of 20 years, why they've lost a fortune in recent years, why their lucrative handheld business is a shadow of its former self despite top notch hardware and great 1st party exclusives, and why their sales are a fraction of what they should be across the board. 

It's all because they're routinely failing to complement their game making prowess. That's not a hallmark of the best managed company in this industry today when they're unable to even provide an environment that allows something like Super Mario 3D World to achieve the level of commercial success that it deserves.

If every component of Nintendo was as well managed as their internal development teams, everyone would be playing and developing for Nintendo hardware. Sadly, they're not and they're subsequently dragging down amazing projects like Mario Kart 8 with them.[/QUOTE]

This falls hand in hand with what Paul is talking about with over reaction.

Nintendos' bleeding? A small and modest failure of profit, now over,  after years and years of enormous proffit? Few companies could 'afford' do to that? Then how do you explain Nintendo balance sheet today, with zero debt with massive assets and ready cash? Any company could afford to do what Nintendo has done, and be rich and independent, like Nintendo is today. What on earth are you talking about?

Do you mean SEGA, who did not abandon Dreamcast because it was not selling, but rather because it was bleeding them dry?

Or Sony, who's entire company is in serious trouble, has been reorganized more than once in recent years, and who's PS3 set the stage for one of the worst console losses realized in gaming history? Or their Vita, already irrelevant a mere generation after Sony entered the hand held market?

Or MS, whos et the standard for failure with the RRoD scandal, which they at first tried to out right deny, who's game division is held up by Android proffits that will not be around for ever, and whose Kinect has been unbundled and abandoned, offering no impressive innovation to game design, a half of generation after they dropped it on the gaming world with a billion dollar ad campaign, much to the praise of the game media who were bitter critics  motion gaming, up to that point?

Major third parties abandoned Nintendo for easy profits from the hardcore game community they built up through advertising and game editorial, who will even pre oreder last years game,cone more time, even if the last years game was buggy as all get out. Ubisofts mission statement is to releasew yearly iterations of a handful of 'key' game IPs, and we will not even mention EA, and their wonderful collection of stagnant sports games, and their mission statement to take CoD sales away from Activision, but time beat them to it, time is eroding what EA could not emulate.

Mario 3D World and Mario Kart 8 are enormous financial successes, so what is your point? Add on to them  them Mario 3D Land and Mario Kart 7, games from this gen that were also enormous financial successes.

Leo, you call failure success and success failure, so I am very confused by your post.

[JustLikeHeaven1]

I agree with Paul...it's overreaction.  Nintendo and Sega while at one point seemed equal it wasn't quite the case.  Sega was horribly mismanaged and kept pumping out systems/add ons that consumers never fully embraced (Sega CD, 32X, Saturn).  Also, there were lots of disagreements between their Japan and North American higher ups.  By the time they got it right with the Dreamcast it was too little too late.  

Their output as a software developer is lackluster because most of it's games are outsourced to third party development teams.  Sega also seems to have no idea how to capitalize on their rich heritage.  They easily have the most bankable titles besides Nintendo and they do absolutely nothing with them.  They continue to pump out Sonic games regardless of quality.  They still sell well regardless of quality.  Think about all the great franchises Sega lets sit dormant.  Streets of Rage, Toe Jam and Earl, Shinobi, Golden Axe, Crazy Taxi, Daytona, Virtua Fighter, House of the Dead, Panzer Dragoon, Phantasy Star, Shining Force, Shenmue, Vector Man, Fantasy Zone, Altered Beast, Afterburner, Outrun etc...... If they could even pump out 1 or 2 of these games a year with the same level of polish as Nintendo puts into it's first party stuff...Sega would be one of the best third party companies out there.  It's been so long though that most of those games no longer have any meaning to gamers under 21.

The problem is that they're just not a good developer any more.  It's as simple as that.  Why did they stop making traditional JRPG Phantasy Star games after the Genesis?  They've been pumping out Phantasy Star Online stuff instead.  Phantasy Star could be one of the top JRPGs with Final Fantasy and Persona...instead it's a joke, a mere imitation of Monster Hunter at this point.  When Nintendo was doing stuff like Donkey Kong Country Returns and New Super Mario Bros Wii...where was Sega coming out with new 2D versions of Streets of Rage and Shinobi?  In theory if Sega made games of the same caliber as Nintendo they'd be able to survive merely on their heritage games alone.  

As for Nintendo going the way of Sega...no it's not happening.  Honestly the more likely thing would be Sega going belly up and Nintendo gobbling them up.  That would be the best thing to happen to Sega in my opinion.  As for Nintendo, they could bleed money for a decade and still not be forced to go third party.  Unlike Sony and Microsoft they know how to make money.  Even something that sold relatively poorly like the Gamecube made Nintendo money.  As far as I'm concerned they should keep marching to their own drum.  The last thing I'd ever want to see is for them to fall in line and be just like Sega, Sony, Atari or Microsoft.

[Segatarious1]

I agree with JLH's premise, I think part of the problem SEGA has had is they chased the illusion of the hardcore gamer, they should have teamed or aligned with Nintendo much earlier.

Now they ARE alligning with the Nintendo audience, but their Sonic games are so disjointed, you EXPECT them to get bad reviews. Honsetly, it is nice to have the Critic to review them, because at least you get a view point outside of the fanpoint the other sites give you - 'we know true Sonic, and this is not true Sonic!' Now, the Sonic games that score bad may well be bad, but is it bad on its own merits, or bad because it does not fit the game reviewers idea of Sonic??? Scored good or bad, with a Sonic game you really do not know what you are getting, the brand is bipolar. It is impossible to predict how the Critic will socre a SOnic game either, but at least you feel like you have a sense of the game, rather than 'here is how I feel about the new Sonic cartoon.'

And I agree SEGA has let too many good game series go dormant or just become a shadow of their former selves.

Crazy Taxi and Super Monkey Ball had great game play back in the day, and they do not see polished and ambitious updates, and how nice would those clean arcade games look today?

To be honest, I think the entire lot of major 3rd parties in Japan was dumb and shortsighted to limit and/or cut ties with Nintendo, they lost their identity by maining XBOX consoles last gen and chasing the western market and now their own market is slipping out from underneaths them into cheap mobile games.

[Paul1231]

[QUOTE=Vexer]

Paul123-the worry towards Nintendo is not entirely unfounded, the Wii U wasn't just slightly less successful then the Wii, it was  a massive step backwards in terms of sales, it's so far sold the least amount of units in a two year-period of any Nintendo console released thus far(barring the Virtual Boy, which was a massive failure on every level), and that in itself is pretty worrisome.

How exactly do you have a more "organic" perspective on the industry? [/QUOTE]

Yes, it IS entirely unfounded. I didn't say the Wii U was "slightly" less successful than the Wii, it's obviously significantly less successful. But how does that change my point or strengthen yours? So every time a company makes a less successful step they should throw in the towel? Where is the logic in that, especially when said company just finished up with a monster money maker that, if nothing else, bought them some time on the financial front. Companies don't just sail along until they hit a speed bump and then call it quits. They often will go deep into debt hoping to find an idea or hook that will get them back in the black. Nintendo isn't even in the ballpark of that kind of thinking, especially after just raking in the dough with the Wii.

How do they have a more organic perspective of the industry? Do you even have to ask? They've been in the console business a lot longer than the other guys, and it is all they do. That effects your decisions as a company. Sony, as a company, is barely treading water right now. The PS4 is just about their only ray of sunshine. If I'm not mistaken, the first two Xbox consoles didn't even turn an overall profit, even with good sales, but Microsoft has other irons in the fire that are making money for them. They were holding meetings with stockholders assuring them that this was still a good investment and to be patient. Why are we not discussing the possibility of Microsoft getting out of the industry? These two companies, like it or not, do and will make decisions based not only on their relatively short time in the industry, but also on the dealings and pressures that come from the rest of the company. Nintendo is different, and that works for them financially. They can have a modest success like the GameCube and still make money. Microsoft has had nothing but big sellers yet they haven't made a dime. And yet all this talk is about Nintendo's viability as a console maker? Weird.

[Leo1]

It's idiotic for them to throw in the towel. They've had issues, but they haven't been terribly severe until recently. Why abandon a successful business just because they hit a bump in the road? 

That said, I'll fight to the bitter end over the topic of them allegedly being the best managed business in this industry. The results simply don't bear that out, particularly recently. 

[QUOTE=Segatarious]Nintendos' bleeding? A small and modest failure of profit, now over,  after years and years of enormous proffit? [/QUOTE]

They've lost hundreds of millions in recent years. In fact as I recall, for the previous three fiscal years their operating loss is in the neighborhood of 1.2 billion USD.

And sure, they've been very profitable since the mid 1990's until recently. They build nice hardware, they have a strong catalog of IP, and they're masters at game development. But other than a short time with the Wii before the casual motion bubble burst, they've been well behind in the console arena during this time.

And once powerful multi-purpose mobile devices appeared, their handheld business has also struggled. Although still a success, it's no where near what its pedigree and what Nintendo accomplished with the 3DS suggests it should be at. And it's also no longer bolstering their financials (At least enough to compensate for weaknesses with the console line). 

And it's the handheld business that has been responsible for much of their success as they dropped to 2nd and then 3rd place in the console business. They can't even count on that anymore and are going to have a fight on their hands where portable gaming is concerned. 

[QUOTE=Segatarious]Few companies could 'afford' do to that? Then how do you explain Nintendo balance sheet today, with zero debt with massive assets and ready cash? [/QUOTE]

Let's look at cash and deposits from annual reports for one indicator of their financial well being...

Nintendo's cash and deposits:
2002: 7.2 billion USD
2003: 6.2 billion USD
2004: 6.9 billion USD
2005: 7.4 billion USD
2006: 5.3 billion USD
2007: 5.8 billion USD
2008: 9.0 billion USD
2009: 7.7 billion USD
2010: 9.5 billion USD
2011: 9.8 billion USD
2012: 5.6 billion USD
2013: 5.1 billion USD
2014: 4.7 billion USD

Note the drops when they've entered the next generation of hardware and how over the subsequent years, they traditionally recover that and build back up their reserves. Then note the results from the past three years and how it hasn't recovered, only drained several hundred million more from their account.

With a new generation of hardware likely not too far away for them and their hopes with the current generation resting on essentially breaking even rather than raking in the billions, things could get pretty barren looking before they turn the corner.

And according to their balance sheet for the most recently concluded fiscal year, they have 107,045 (In millions of yen) for their current debts (Discounting normal liabilities that any corporation is going to have such as tax expenses). 

[QUOTE=Segatarious]Few companies could 'afford' do to that? [/QUOTE]

Very few companies could survive the financial hardship that Nintendo has undergone recently (Particularly without something like entering receivership, making draconian cuts in desperation, trying to reinvent itself, replacing the executive team).

Nintendo's history, reputation, and current strengths are allowing them to weather the storm to a degree, but it's also why this is so disappointing. A company like this with so much promise simply shouldn't be in this situation. 

But it is and ultimately, the responsibility for that goes to their management. It's idiotic to blame everyone else for Nintendo's woes. Their health isn't my responsibility nor is it the responsibility of retailers, 3rd parties, or the media. 

That the Wii U is their most miserable commercial failure yet is proof positive that it's not a very well managed company these days (Yes, over the Virtual Boy... a device that was uncharted territory that everyone knew was a risky proposition... something that simply can't be said for a Nintendo console or handheld in the 2000's after the past 30 years of success).

[QUOTE=Segatarious]Do you mean SEGA, who did not abandon Dreamcast because it was not selling, but rather because it was bleeding them dry?[/QUOTE]

They abandoned the Dreamcast because it wasn't selling enough. They had a very specific figure that they had to meet during the Christmas shopping season and fell well short. They literally couldn't afford to continue, despite the system being popular and perceived as successful. 

It's unfortunate and is one reason why their struggles recently are disappearing. Few want to see Nintendo follow down that path in a few years. 

[QUOTE=Segatarious]
Mario 3D World and Mario Kart 8 are enormous financial successes, so what is your point? Add on to them  them Mario 3D Land and Mario Kart 7, games from this gen that were also enormous financial successes. 

Leo, you call failure success and success failure, so I am very confused by your post.[/QUOTE]

We've seen nothing on how financially successful any of those games are. The fact is that they've been received with critical acclaim, but have sold relatively few copies. Super Mario 3D World is only in the neighborhood of 2.5 million copies sold a year in.

How you can act as if Nintendo is perfect and then reconcile it with such a fact is beyond me. Are you actually suggesting that Super Mario 3D World met its full sales potential here? Nintendo isn't making money on the Wii U, hasn't sold anywhere near what they projected, and great games like Mario Kart 8 are selling a fraction of what they deserve.

Nintendo hasn't created the environment for Nintendo's development talents to fully shine. Yet you're claiming that they're the best managed company in the business?

If they were, they'd be setting positive records. Instead, they've been setting records of another sort in recent years.

[Segatarious1]

Nintendo is easily the best managed company in the business.

-Send me a link to the Nintendo Bug-Patch Live Blog, EA and Ubisfot sure as hell have them.

-Show me the massive Nintendo layoffs, - EA and Ubisoft have had them - on the contrary Nintendo is building new facilitates and hiring more workers as they gear up for the future - increased costs of this restructuring is one 'hit' on their recent financials that will presumably pay off in the future.

-Show me another company with the massive amount of variety in games Nintendo makes, and show me another company whose games are consistently as polished as Nintendo's

-If they are so poorly managed, show me the panic and back tracking, like MS has down with the Xbox Upside Down?

Nintendo has 85% of the dedicated handheld market share (and I bet a hell of a lot more software moving, Vita has very few hit games, and 25% of the current gen consoel share, again with loads of first party game sales, and now amiibo figures tied directly to Wii U, whih should help promote the console. And growing digital slaes, Nintendo recently stated revenue wise the eshop is one of their biggest outlets for sales.

Mario Kart 7 - 10 million
Mario Kart 8 - 3 million (and growing)
Mario 3D Land -10 million
Mario 3D World - 2.5 million (and growing)

Nintendo currently has the top 3 games on the Amazon (Smash, Pokemon, Pokemon) best seller list, it is late Nov, and Nintendo is a long way from irrelevant. They prodcue plaenty of hit games, and pay the license fee to themselves.

[Leo1]

[QUOTE=Segatarious]Nintendo is easily the best managed company in the business.[/QUOTE]

Then why has the Wii U in its 3rd fiscal year, not even brought up lifetime sales totals to the amount that Nintendo projected would be sold in just fiscal year 2 alone? We're several million away from just hitting the 10 million threshold that both competitors hit in half the time or less that the Wii U has been on the market. 

Even the GameCube, Nintendo's previous weakest console (Albeit, a profitable once despite its last place status and the greatly diminished numbers it sold in compared to its predecessors), far outpaced the Wii U at this point in its life. 

[QUOTE=Segatarious]Send me a link to the Nintendo Bug-Patch Live Blog, EA and Ubisfot sure as hell have them.[/QUOTE]

Doesn't prove a thing. For starters, Nintendo also has bugs and patches software. Heck, I've lost count of how many stability updates I've had to download

Plus, EA and Ubisoft do much more in the online arena than Nintendo does and that can't fully be stress tested until a game goes online and millions of players start putting it to the test. An awful lot of the work that goes on after release from big publishers are online multiplayer adjustments. That's something that Nintendo doesn't have much of and what it does, is much more limited.

And there's a heck of a lot more in this industry than just these three, Microsoft, and Sony.

[QUOTE=Segatarious]Show me another company with the massive amount of variety in games Nintendo makes[/QUOTE]

They do some smaller scale projects and outsource a lot. That basically leaves the occasional experiment and a handful of established franchises that occupy much of their development time. 

I'm sure Sony and Microsoft could rival this, but they don't really need to since they have a thriving development base that they don't have to pay to develop for them.

They actually pay the platform holder for the privilege...

[QUOTE=Segatarious]and show me another company whose games are consistently as polished as Nintendo's[/QUOTE]

Nintendo has their fair share of misses like Wii Music. And they're also not the only one with a great track record.

But show me where I criticized their development skills before proceeding down this tangent? I'm quite certain I've said the exact opposite multiple times already, if you'd actually read what I said. 

[QUOTE=Segatarious]If they are so poorly managed, show me the panic and back tracking, like MS has down with the Xbox Upside Down?[/QUOTE]

And we also have examples of emergencies with Nintendo like the big price slash the 3DS saw a few weeks into its life.

And show me where I said that Microsoft was better managed than they were? And even if I did, looking at the business they're doing, they must be doing something right. They hiccuped with the Xbox One, but seem to be recovering nicely and have made a lot more money over the past half decade than Nintendo has.

And remove the handhelds from the equation since MS doesn't have an equivalent, and it's even more lopsided. 

[QUOTE=Segatarious]Nintendo has 85% of the dedicated handheld market share (and I bet a hell of a lot more software moving, Vita has very few hit games[/QUOTE]

lol

I'll give you a clue here and we'll see if you can figure it out. Their troubles in the handheld line aren't coming from Sony...