The Video Game Critic

NX17 wrote:And Sony drops the PS4 price $50. Now XBONE and PS4 with huge hard drives and game collection bundles are $350 and Wii U is $300 with a game and 32 GBs of capacity. Sheesh, Nintendo really doesn't care do they?

Most of the price is the controller. Without that, it would probably be $199.99

scotland wrote:

NX17 wrote:And Sony drops the PS4 price $50. Now XBONE and PS4 with huge hard drives and game collection bundles are $350 and Wii U is $300 with a game and 32 GBs of capacity. Sheesh, Nintendo really doesn't care do they?

I am confused too. Maybe someone can explain more about how this is a wise strategy.

I am thinking Nintendo wants to avoid a total price collapse that also leads to a brand collapse, like the 32x ending up in bargain bins really hurt the Sega brand (in my opinion). Are they just no longer manufacturing or shippping WiiU consoles to retailers to avoid overstock? Are they giving retailers long term credit so that the retailers have nothing invested but inventory space? Otherwise, wouldn't retailers just liquidate their stock and wash their hands of the WiiU? Are there warehouses of WiiUs somewhere? Given the other companies improving their consoles and lowering prices, along with more family friendly 3rd party titles on them, the WiiU as a consumer product seems vastly overpriced going into the 2015 holiday season.

If not for the handheld market, Nintendo seems like it would be Sega already. When the Gamecube lost marketshare, the Wii was the sensation that brought it back, and even expanded the fanbase. Yet from about the mid-life of the Wii to today, I see an erosion of Nintendo's family friendly demographic that is better served by Sony and Microsoft via franchises like Skylanders, the many Lego and Lego Dimensions games, Disney Infinity, etc.

Anyone got an idea for what Nintendo's strategy is for the next few years?

I think you've got it with the bolded, that's my best bet. I feel like Nintendo is being run by an economist these days with the ways they're controlling supply and demand. Some Amiibos get released in fair supply, others aren't. Nintendo has cut production runs of retail games like Ocarina of Time 3DS, Pikmin 3, among others and the only way to get the games are at full price years after release in a digital version from the eShop or at high prices on the second hand market.

I also remember this from a couple years ago:

http://www.dualshockers.com/2013/08/04/ ... r-factory/

Let's say this vital semiconductor factory that Nintendo needs to produce a vital chip is no longer available, then Nintendo would need to find possibly an expensive workaround if demand rises, otherwise the console wouldn't be available on shelves any longer. The console is selling so weakly, maybe they just decided to stick with one high price realizing they're not going to start up production again for a bombing console so they can ride it out at that price for the next year or so until the next console at a high price.

Nintendo's basically acting like an online textbook store or something. They set one price, and whether or not people buy it at that price, they aren't changing it due to supply and demand. Then when the new version comes out, they'll liquidate anything that's left in the warehouse at that point. Nintendo seems to have determined they will only sell X amounts of Wii U's with whatever is left in production, and move on.

As long as Nintendo offers the cheapest of the three consoles I don't see any logical reason for them to cut the price. It's only going to create a "this system is dead mentality" if they slash the price of the system. Plus, they're probably looking at the numbers and figuring...it's already the cheapest option, if we go cheaper are people really going to go nuts and buy it? Probably not. Slashing the price and selling the console at a loss is not going to do them any good.

I think at this point Nintendo is just trying to tread water and keep their head afloat until the NX is revealed.

Nintendo can only sell this system at a loss if they think it can stay afloat for another eight months...

Nintendo has other sources of income besides the Wii U console sales. They also have deep pockets. It's not like they're gonna go bankrupt in a few months. They've always been a patient company (too a fault at times) so as much I would like to see them cut the price for personal reasons...it doesn't seem likely for them to do so.

Nintendo is like their own sovereign nation. They do what they want & don't bend to consumer trends. Want Mario, then pay what Nintendo says. It's worked for them before, but it looks bad now. Still I do like the idea of not "cheapening" their product. What games retain value? Nintendo first party games of course. Except for maybe the oddball RPG that can't be said for Microsoft or Sony's games.

I'm still waiting for the Wii U 3DS Player. I know that they will probably never make one, but I'd love to play my DS games on the big screen. I guess the virtual selling of games Is more profitable.

I would also buy a Wii U if they came out with a Fire Emblem or better yet an Advance Wars game. I think Fire Emblem is coming, but until then those are the only 3 reasons that willake me buy a Wii U anytime soon.

I like Mario, but not enough to buy a Wii U for it.

That settles it for me, no Nintendo this holiday season. Disappointing to say the least. Guess my monies will go to Ps4 games and a new laptop for my oldest.

Followup on Nintendo's holiday titles since Mario Maker released. Here's the averages on Metacritic to these games:

Wii U
Yoshi's Wooly World - 78%
Fatal Frame - 67%
Devil's Third - 43%

3DS
Animal Crossing Happy Home Designer - 67%
Chibi Robo - 62%

In Fatal Frame's defense, several popular review outlets that received it well don't provide scores and thus aren't represented at Metacritic. And 9 of the reviews there have it pegged in the 70-74% category, 11 from 75%-85%, 1 at 90%, and only 8 failing grades (Including a couple of names well known for wanting to create a stir on occasion by significantly low balling games). So I'd say that the Metacritic average is rather misleading.

It's clearly a very divisive game, but perhaps most importantly, a fair bit of the criticism I'm seeing are aspects already present in this franchise that are familiar to the fans. Take the backtracking for an example and go play Fatal Frame 3, a game that's fondly remembered today by those that played it. Nothing new to this franchise or for a Fatal Frame fan.

The biggest issues here are 10 years of no Fatal Frame in North America. People unfamiliar with this series are experiencing a franchise that's a cult favorite for many dedicated fans, yet finding a few game mechanics and aspects of it to take issue with that people didn't mind nearly as much back in the early 2000's.

Is it a problem that Fatal Frame hasn't evolved more to better suit today's audiences? Sure it is, but it also means that fans of the series most likely aren't going to mind these problems nearly as much as some of the reviewers did. And for those new to this series, Nintendo actually has you covered with a free demo of a substantial portion of the experience that will allow you to judge for yourself before spending a dime.

Atariboy wrote:In Fatal Frame's defense, several popular review outlets that received it well don't provide scores and thus aren't represented at Metacritic. And 9 of the reviews there have it pegged in the 70-74% category, 11 from 75%-85%, 1 at 90%, and only 8 failing grades (Including a couple of names well known for wanting to create a stir on occasion by significantly low balling games). So I'd say that the Metacritic average is rather misleading.

It's clearly a very divisive game, but perhaps most importantly, a fair bit of the criticism I'm seeing are aspects already present in this franchise that are familiar to the fans. Take the backtracking for an example and go play Fatal Frame 3, a game that's fondly remembered today by those that played it. Nothing new to this franchise or for a Fatal Frame fan.

The biggest issues here are 10 years of no Fatal Frame in North America. People unfamiliar with this series are experiencing a franchise that's a cult favorite for many dedicated fans, yet finding a few game mechanics and aspects of it to take issue with that people didn't mind nearly as much back in the early 2000's.

Is it a problem that Fatal Frame hasn't evolved more to better suit today's audiences? Sure it is, but it also means that fans of the series most likely aren't going to mind these problems nearly as much as some of the reviewers did. And for those new to this series, Nintendo actually has you covered with a free demo of a substantial portion of the experience that will allow you to judge for yourself before spending a dime.

I wouldn't say the way the scores are dispersed are any different than most 6 or 7 games. If something has a 70% average you don't see everyone with 7's, you'll see some 5's, some 8's, all sorts of range. I don't think that's a rare thing. And I doubt some reviewers want to create a stir by low balling a little known digital game for Wii U. Typically I've noticed Nintendo benefits more from reviews, because there are quite a few Nintendo fan sites that will hand out 8's pretty easy. That's why they're fan sites. And Nintendo has plenty more fan site than either Microsoft or Sony because of their history. I think anyone can like what they want, it's not odd to see people like a 6 or 7 average game.

Also as a side note the latest release, the Zelda multiplayer game on 3DS is at a 75% rating. I've never seen such a holiday where Nintendo has released so many critically lukewarm games.