Slashdot Mirror
Mixed News for Nintendo, Microsoft
If you were to just look at downloadable content this week, Wii and 360 owners would have a lot to cheer about. Virtual Console downloads include the (under-appreciated) Legend of the Mystical Ninja and the original Castlevania. Xbox 360 owners can finally sink their teeth into the board-game spectacular that is Settlers of Catan. Classic titles Millipede and Centipede will also be on offer via Xbox Live Arcade. Unfortunately, there are some less cheery things to discuss as well. Virtual Console sales are down, apparently, and some analysts are questioning whether Nintendo's success may be bad for the industry overall. As for the 360 ... the Elite may be bringing back some old problems. 'Red Rings of Death' have already been reported with the just-released consoles, and DRM issues with Live Arcade titles on the 'upgraded' system are making some new owners frustrated.
What? From TFA in question, ""Nintendo has not only increased the size of the market, but it has also re-segmented it in its own favor, in our view," Mitchell wrote. "Nintendo is dominating software sales on its popular hardware platforms, leaving the publishers with a smaller slice of an only somewhat incrementally larger pie."" What this sentence says to me is that the market grew, so it's good for the industry overall, but that the current players in the market are less innovative than Nintendo and so they have a smaller slice of this generation - which is good for the consumer.
"He continued, "Moreover, we feel that the likely shorter product cycles of Nintendo's platforms puts the publishers in a permanent catch-up mode. We think the upcoming releases of Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3: Corruption will highlight this phenomena [sic] this holiday season."" Interestingly, Microsoft had the short generation this last time around. Not Nintendo.
"What Mitchell alludes to is the tendency for Nintendo-published titles to overrun the top end of sales charts on Nintendo platforms, leaving third party publishers out of luck sales-wise." Also known as the tendency for third-party developers to be worse at making fun games than Nintendo is.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The whole "It's hard to make money because people only buy 1st party Nintendo games" schtick is really, really obnoxious. People buy quality titles (for the most part). Nintendo makes quality titles. The few third parties that do make quality titles sell well. It's not like I picked up Zelda because it was made by Nintendo; I picked up Zelda because it has gameplay that I enjoy, great artistic direction (vs. throwing mounds of polygons at you), and has proven a dependably excellent quality series. I also picked up Rayman, despite the fact that it's a third party title, because it looked to have some excellent off-beat humor and gameplay, and it lived up to that expectation.
I think its somewhat one-sided to say Nintendo is bad for the industry. It's bad for today's publishers who continue to pump out the same crap year after year after year because most of the new people who are getting into games (older people, etc) won't enjoy that garbage. It's good for gaming, though, because those more creative video game publishers will be more successful...
I say let the big companies fail, I'm hope I don't have to see Madden 2015 advertised...
In other news, analysts made the shocking discovery that the Nintendo Gamecube had the least amount of support from third party publishers leaving Nintendo-published titles to overrun the top end of sales charts on the Gamecube.
I don't understand why there's this psuedo-FUD regarding the VC sales by everyone carrying this article. Sales are not down. What he's pointing out is that VC sales have not been growing proportional to the skyrocketing sales of the Wii console.
My guess is that the average user isn't going to care a whole ton about the VC. The hardcore gamer might because they are trying to play games they never got to play before or are trying to consolidate their retro catalog legally into one location. I would be willing to be that the initial buyers for the Wii were in-fact hardcore gamers or previous gamers, not necessarily the soccer moms and grandma's who are now starting to actively seek the system for themselves. These newcomers to the system probably have less interest in the VC than in buying the Wii mostly for Wii Sports and a couple other titles. Finally, anyone who's been following the VC lineup knows that signal to noise ratio hasn't been incredibly high. There's a handful of must-haves on that list, but there's a lot of games waiting in the wings for some reason or other (my theory is to help keep gamers going if there's a big drought of Wii games).
A better description of what's happening is that sales are slowing or plateauing, not "down". I don't think Nintendo and its partners really care anyways. 1.8 million units sold with price tags >= $5 and only bandwidth costs to consider is nothing to scoff at.
Insert Sig Here
And this is why we have the first gaming "drought" all the hardcore players are complaining about. No one expected the Wii to sell like it has, and instead focused on PS3 which was supposed to dominate from Day 1. Fast forward 6 months and we get a drought of Wii games and developers are jumping the PS3 ship. Go figure.
And how is this any different from Nintendo's business strategy from past generations?
Insert Sig Here
That's not true. It's also good if you like the way Nintendo does business, or if you like the way Nintendo makes controllers, or if you like the way Nintendo makes systems. Because if they are on top, everyone will want to emulate or out-do them.
When one player who has been on the bottom gets on top, it usually leads to change.
Some change, at this point, could only be positive. The games industry is in a serious state of stagnation.
HDTV acceptance doesn't affect the Wii significantly for a number of reasons. The first reason is that the Wii is not an HD player, while still being cheap enough to purchase alongside one. The second reason is that HD might go nowhere, as you say. The third reason is that game consoles typically make shitty video players with the included software; for example the PS2 was an amazingly horrible DVD player (slimline is better but still not very good.) And in the case of the Xbox it's an external peripheral. External peripherals for video game systems have never succeeded. Even if it sets new records in that regard it will be an extremely niche product.
I don't see the problem here. Third parties ARE making Wii games, and they are more interested in making games for Nintendo in this generation than they have been of late, largely because of the Wii's massive popularity. And they are less interested in developing for Sony than ever before, largely because of the way Sony has totally blown their attempt to capture this generation so far. Whereas Microsoft is still a hit-and-miss sale to developers. They like the tools, they fear doing business with Microsoft, both very logical stances.
It can only be seen as bad for the industry if you don't ask Blizzard.
If the market grows, it's good for the industry. "Good for the industry" doesn't require that it's good for all the players, you know. If it truly led to a monopoly that would be one thing, but we all know that's not happening here.
Also, no one with a fucking clue can seriously argue that Nintendo has only slightly increased the size of the gaming market. The GBA SP and later the Wii (and the DS lite of course) have done more to legitimize adult gaming than anything all the other console manufacturers put together have done since the dawn of time (as we measure it on game consoles anyway.)
This is a stupid argument and you are stupider for having suggested it, and I am stupider for having read it. Microsoft has a monopoly position, Nintendo does not, stop using this stupid argument, thank you.
There is too much money for anyone to give up and unless the other players deserve to die, they will figure out that some innovation is what is required in the market.
Microsoft will probably be there for at least one more generation. There is no reason for Sony to give up at this point. Nintendo will not have a monopoly by the end of this generation, or the next. I am not an atomic playboy.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Think again. It trades in the U.S. over-the-counter (ADR receipts) under the symbol NTDOY, and on the Tokyo Stock Exchange as #7974 (latter via wiki).
As the owner of a lovely ten shares of Nintendo ADRs, I can say that it WILL make you wealthy.. mine are up about 125% (yes, ONE HUNDRED and twenty five percent) since last March. If only I had more than ten.
Heres the problem. Nintendo does NOT compete with other developers. Hell they don't even compete with MS & Sony. To Nintendo, competition really doesn't exist. They aren't worried about beating out their competitor, but concerned with making money. If anyone else wants to make some money too they aren't going to complain. You'll find if you look at the problem with devs that don't do as well are relying on existing IP. It's not Nintendo's fault developers can't take a risk on something new (primarily Western developers are this problem). Hell, take a look at Elebits for a good example of a dev that did something unique. It's no Super Paper Mario by any means, but at least it shows us the people who brought us DDR can think outside of the box enough to make a good game.
Developers can piss themselves all day that they won't make as much as Nintendo, but it's kind of hard to have any sympathy for them when their mantra is to develop for one console, and port to the rest (and ones like EA weren't even on board till just recently!). Of course people aren't going to buy Prince of Persia in droves. It's been out for the previous generation of consoles for how many years? Developers need to just stop complaining, and stop giving excuses so they can get out from underneath Nintendo's shadow, and *gasp* do something new & interesting.