Nintendo Philosophies

[scotland]

Nintendo seems to work off several ideas. Here is one:

Lateral Thinking of Withered Technology: Gunpei Yokoi 's concept of leveraging the lower price of mature technology, but using it in a novel way.

Nintendo is not known for being on the cutting edge, or engaging in a spec war of new expensive technologies. Nintendo famously swerved away from a SNES CD drive for instance. Nintendo is known for hardware 'gimmicks' (one womans gimmick is another womans innovation though). The Wii probably exemplifies a Nintendo console - older tech with innovative twists. The WiiU was much the same, but the WiiU twist of the tablet controller came nowhere close to the success of the Wii motion controllers.

As we look to the Switch, how do you think this philosopby will be reflected in it?

What are your thoughts on this philosophy in general? Has it worked for Nintendo better than a different one? How different are the philosophies of the other hardware companies of both past and present, large and small like Sega, Sony, At Games, Ouya, MS, Atari, Commodore, etc.

[Rookie1]

The Wii (to me) was their first console that solely relied on gimmick. Yes, their other consoles had gimmicks, but they werent the selling point. The huge popularity of that console (the wii) seems to have given Nintendo a "run with it attitude." The problem is, that system was a fluke. It was the right place at the right time. It was well priced, easy to use, and it attracted HUGE numbers of non-gamers. Now, I see them at every thrift shop I go to, and game stores have stacks of them they cant give away. My walmart still has some of the red Wii Mini systems on the shelf.

Nintendo is in a tough spot right now. Their handheld systems have well passed their peak, their WiiU was a flop, and they havent given the fans the IP's they have wanted in several years. Then there was the whole Amiibo debacle, Nintendo hitting tons of people with DMCAs, and the Nintendo Creators Program nonsense. There is a lot of bad blood with the masses. Yes, they have their fans, but their fans dont equate to enough $$$ to make everything they do successful.

Now, what youre seeing, is Nintendo trying to capitalize on both worlds. The mobile market they created, and the console market they have killed. It really can go either way. I think the switch looks to have been done 100% right. The innovation alone is amazing, and will attract a large audience. The question is, what is backing the innovation? We still have no idea. We dont know what the system can do, we dont know what games it will launch with, and we dont for sure know what 3rd parties will come through. We know nothing. All we have is speculation.

Graphically, Nintendo NEEDS to make it as close to PS4 and Xbone as they can for the sole reason that developers arent going to redesign a AAA game to work around another weak Nintendo system. There is no profit in that for them. They have a massive market share with a game that can easily be ported between PS4, Xbone, and PC. There is no reason to do extra work. If thats what ends up happening, you will see that big list of 3rd party developers that Nintendo released drastically shrink in size. Nintendo needs to capture that market of people that want AAA games, not just then Nintendo fanboys. You need that guy who wants every COD game, every Madden, every GTA. Those are are the games that make billions, and attract millions of people to a console. Mix that in with the game being portable now, and you have a winning combo.

In a nutshell, Nintendo needs to dump that philosophy and step up their game or they are going to go the way of Sega.

[scotland]

Sweet post, thanks.

I am not sure if the Wii taped into non-gamers, so much as potential gamers being left behind by mainstream gaming. The Wii did not have dual analog sticks, playing online in a toxic atmosphere, playing shooting simulators, etc. In short, the Wii motion controllers may have been less gimmick, and more just throwback to a simpler gaming style - a simpler, intuitive gaming style.

What did I want from a video game when all this was starting? A lot of things maybe, but one was something as simple as playing video game bowling with my family. We did that on the Odyssey 2. Years later, we did that on the Wii. We could also do that on the N64.

So, was the Wii really a fluke? It sold $100 million consoles, and one of the reasons people cite for the Wii U's lack of success is the association with the original Wii. The issue with the Wii is that people bought the system and a set of games, and seldom went back to buy more games. That wasn't the hardware's fault. The hardware and those motion controllers were all over mainstream television. That was a fault in the software department.

Nintendo is in a tough spot. They own the handheld market, but its shrinking in the face of mobile gaming. My experience says its not temporary - that mobile gaming will take some of that marketshare away for the foreseeable future. The PC and console market is merging into a single marketplace, and Nintendo is unable or unwilling to compete directly in that.

Yet there is another market. Those that were served by the Wii. Those that want inhouse entertainment. Those that want a single player experience. Those that want a couch co-op experience. Those that want big screen high def living room open space entertainment that is family friendly. Those that do not spend more than a few hours a week playing video games. Those that have other hobbies of importance. There are lots of people willing to drop at least some coin on video gaming not being well served by the other two major console makers.

I do not think Nintendo needs to compete graphically with MS and Sony. I totally agree it will kill off ports of AAA games from the other consoles. I don't think ports of those games are that important. I think 3rd party games are important, but not those. Instead, there are worlds of gaming experiences outside of AAA games - from older games to games from smaller studios - games that are on places like Steam, that would enliven a Switch experience. Smaller studios make games for in home offline solo experiences, because those don't need an online ecosystem.

We'll see where it goes. However, like with automobiles, not everyone wants a fast two door red convertible. Some of us want trucks, minivans, smart cars, commuter cars, hybrid cars, electric cars, blue cars, white cars, etc. There should be room in the video game market for that sort of market diversification too.

[Rookie1]

I feel AAA titles are what matter though, as like I said, they drive the numbers. And lets face it, the numbers matter. 3rd party indie titles are great, but they dont attract millions.

Graphics, to me, dont matter. I play my NES more than any other system, and have had sustained enjoyment with that for 30 years now. But these big name developers are dealing with HUGE games. Skyrim is a huge game. If that game can have the quality of the PS4/Xbone while being portable it will be huge. If Rockstar jumped in to the Nintendo game and Red Dead 2 came to the Switch, that alone would sell millions of consoles. So for them to not accommodate these massive games would be a mistake in this market.

[scotland]

The problem with AAA titles is that there are already 3 other venues - PC, XboxOne and PS4, competing for those same titles. The Wii U had some, and instead of that being a good thing gamers snarked how inferior or delayed they were compared to the others. Unless Nintendo tries to enter the Spec War, it can't win there, and any entries make the console look 2nd rate.

The Switch would just be one more and least effective platform for those AAA games in a very red ocean. Nintendo is not going to compete well there, and there are other markets to own. Better to be the profitable master in the second tier market, like in handhelds, than be beaten down like Sega in the big leagues of consoles and PCs.

If AAA games are important to you, then you have 3 other platforms. Nintendo's best hope is that you want more than 1 platform for all your video game desires. Whether its Nintendo 1st party games, or third party games that don't have cutting edge textures, involve shooting people, and take 100 gigabytes of hard drive space.

[Voor]

I think Nintendo picked a different target audience than MS and Sony long ago--kind of the urban/non-hardcore gamer (which they hope to entice with "cool" tricks...as oppose to "bit wars") and die hard Nintendo fans, which they rope in each generation with the Mario karts and zeldas.

I don't know....I'm glad they march to the beat of a different drum. Feels like Sony and MS just follow the logical tech path, and Nintendo is always trying to view the industry in a different light. I think that's healthy for competition, though you are always going to have hits and misses when you take that approach.

[CharlieR]

I think Nintendo goes with what has worked for them in the past there was a cd based add on for the SNES that was never released, and Nintendo stuck with cartridges, even with cd based technology starting to become popular. Didn't seem like it was too much of a problem for them with the SNES, but it's possible that sticking with cartridges hurt them during the N64 years, especially when the ps1 used discs. They finally did turn to discs for gamecube. I don't really know enough about specs to say it hurt them to go with mini discs.

I think by the time the Wiiu came out, touch screen game hadn't really been popular for a while. I think they say the success of the DS and 3DS, and decided to make a console out of it. I think the fact that the gamepad was underused wasn't necessarily the problem, maybe it was, but I believe that it was the fact that people didn't really want a big touch screen controller.

Maybe it wasn't about the controller, but for every person saying the switch is a good idea, there are people asking why Nintendo can't just make a normal system with a traditional controller.

[Rookie1]

I think Nintendo goes with what has worked for them in the past there was a cd based add on for the SNES that was never released, and Nintendo stuck with cartridges, even with cd based technology starting to become popular. Didn't seem like it was too much of a problem for them with the SNES, but it's possible that sticking with cartridges hurt them during the N64 years, especially when the ps1 used discs. They finally did turn to discs for gamecube. I don't really know enough about specs to say it hurt them to go with mini discs.

Both the carts for N64 and mini discs for the GC had massive size restrictions. Thats why N64 lost FF7, and most 3rd party devs wouldnt create games for the GC as games would have to span multiple discs. I have a handful of GC games that require me to insert multiple discs during gameplay. Its pretty lame for the time.

I think by the time the Wiiu came out, touch screen game hadn't really been popular for a while. I think they say the success of the DS and 3DS, and decided to make a console out of it. I think the fact that the gamepad was underused wasn't necessarily the problem, maybe it was, but I believe that it was the fact that people didn't really want a big touch screen controller.

The WiiU was 100% Nintendos fault. That thing is cool, and had potential, but they screwed the pooch on it and pretty much just cast it aside.

Maybe it wasn't about the controller, but for every person saying the switch is a good idea, there are people asking why Nintendo can't just make a normal system with a traditional controller.

Both the Swtich and the WiiU have the Pro Controller, which is a traditional controller.