Double standards against Nintendo

[Someone Depressing]

I'm not anti-Nintendo. I'm not pro-Nintendo. I'm a gamer. I play a Nintendo console, and I formulate an opinion based on what is infront of me.

It just so happens that each of these opinions have ranged from "I can't feel my fucking palms" to "The 3d is making me vomit in my mouth a little".

Nintendo has done a lot of bad things recently; they don't listen to fans, at all, which is why Earthbound only recently got on the VG, they're assholes to EU marketers, and then there's the issue about their consoles themselves.

 

[That Eeyore]

See, I think the reason why nobody clamors for MS or Sony to go third party is because they don't have as many worthwhile IPs to bring to the other consoles. In fact, most their best stuff is made by other companies (Naughty Dog, Sucker Punch, etc) under contract with the console maker.

Someone mentioned Nintendo breaking the law, and that they were tried, found guilty, and fined for them. Would anyone mind enlightening me on this? And why is it an issue when Nintendo has already paid the price as dictated by the court that found them guilty?

 

[st0pnsw0p]

They whine about how they casualized the industry, when the reality is that "hardcore" gamers do NOT in any way make up the majority of the gaming community.

Do you have any actual statistics, along with definitions for "hardcore gamer" and "casual gamer", to back up this claim?

If there's any evidence for this, I'd say that the success of the Wii is probably fairly telling, it's sold considerably more units than the Ps3 or Xbox.

More than the PS3 or 360, yes, but not more than PS3 and 360. Together, they have already outsold the Wii by a around 50 million units, if I remember correctly, and that doesn't take into account all the people who play on PC. Regardless, you didn't provide an actual definition for "Casual" and "Hardcore", so until one of us does we could spend all day arguing about this and we'd get absolutely nowhere.

Do you have any actual statistics, along with definitions for "hardcore gamer" and "casual gamer", to back up this claim?

Uh, that's just common sense. An industry can't survive on the most "hardcore" devotees. The comics industry learned that lesson back in the 90s when it pandered so much to the most entrenched fans that it forgot to expand its audience, thus leading to the entire industry IMPLODING to the point where even after 20 years it still hasn't recovered. "Casual" gamers have always existed, it's just that people didn't care up until now. Though I can't exactly say WHY they suddenly made this buzz term other than the fact that having companies try to bring in new people makes their hobby less special.

Same to you. If we're going to argue about this, we need to have a clear definition of these terms.

Except they aren't. At all. Sony has been bleeding money so badly for nearly eight years that it's gotten to the point where they're considered a moribund business and the PS4 is their last chance to keep afloat. MS on the other hand has never made a penny off their console division even with Live subscriptions. Nintendo has actually made nothing but profit for years and years with the sole exception of one year. Sony and MS, at best, have suffered a tactical victory, but a humiliating strategic defeat. Mostly because they have crap for foresight and crap for long-term ideas.

First of all, I'm talking exclusively about consoles here; the 3DS is doing great and I have nothing bad to say about it. In fact, it's doing so well that the Wii U could be losing Nintendo money and they could still earn a profit because of the 3DS, which could be the situation they're in now, because as far as I know, Nintendo doesn't release separate earnings reports for their console and handheld businesses.

Secondly, that's all in the past and nothing can be done to fix past mistakes. What matters now is whether or not Sony and Microsoft have learned from their mistakes and will do better this generation, which remains to be seen.

Also, that one year when Nintendo didn't turn a profit was last year, and it's perfectly possible that it could happen again this year.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Because most people here are not advocating that Sony and Microsoft get rid of their exclusives.This relates to the double standards the OP is talking about because if Sony and Microsoft has console exclusives it's because they are "needed" but if Nintendo has exclusives then they are just being stingy with their IPs.

Well Nintendo just so happens to a good deal more exclusives than the other consoles. In fact almost all of their games are exclusive. As well, if I had to choose one console to buy, without the exclusive coming into play, the Wii would be my last choice by far. There's only a single game where the motion controls added something to it for me, and unfortunately I also found them to be incredibly irritating in the same game.

In Okami it was good for the brushing, but a lot of the combat was so much more difficult. Dodging via shaking the nunchuck was obnoxious, to the point where I just wouldn't use it. It would also trigger randomly if I wasn't making every effort to keep my hand absolutely still. Attacking by waggling the remote was also inconvenient, as it wouldn't always register my waggles.

So yeah, that's the game where I liked the motion controls the most, and I still really didn't like them. Motion controls gone there is no reason for me to buy the Wii as my one console from a purely technical standpoint. It is just outright weaker than the Ps3 and Xbox 360 by a large margin. At the very least that's why I'm less bothered by the fewer Ps3 and Xbox 360 exclusives. Not to say I still don't object to them on the same principle

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Because most people here are not advocating that Sony and Microsoft get rid of their exclusives.This relates to the double standards the OP is talking about because if Sony and Microsoft has console exclusives it's because they are "needed" but if Nintendo has exclusives then they are just being stingy with their IPs.

Well Nintendo just so happens to a good deal more exclusives than the other consoles. In fact almost all of their games are exclusive. As well, if I had to choose one console to buy, without the exclusive coming into play, the Wii would be my last choice by far. There's only a single game where the motion controls added something to it for me, and unfortunately I also found them to be incredibly irritating in the same game.

In Okami it was good for the brushing, but a lot of the combat was so much more difficult. Dodging via shaking the nunchuck was obnoxious, to the point where I just wouldn't use it. It would also trigger randomly if I wasn't making every effort to keep my hand absolutely still. Attacking by waggling the remote was also inconvenient, as it wouldn't always register my waggles.

So yeah, that's the game where I liked the motion controls the most, and I still really didn't like them. Motion controls gone there is no reason for me to buy the Wii as my one console from a purely technical standpoint. It is just outright weaker than the Ps3 and Xbox 360 by a large margin. At the very least that's why I'm less bothered by the fewer Ps3 and Xbox 360 exclusives. Not to say I still don't object to them on the same principle

Sony and Microsoft have more exclusives than Nintendo.They have dozens while Nintedo only has ten exclusives at best.

Not true:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CategorylayStation_3-only_games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wii-only_games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Xbox_360-only_games

If there's any evidence for this, I'd say that the success of the Wii is probably fairly telling, it's sold considerably more units than the Ps3 or Xbox.

More than the PS3 or 360, yes, but not more than PS3 and 360. Together, they have already outsold the Wii by a around 50 million units, if I remember correctly, and that doesn't take into account all the people who play on PC. Regardless, you didn't provide an actual definition for "Casual" and "Hardcore", so until one of us does we could spend all day arguing about this and we'd get absolutely nowhere.

On the PC there's also many people who solely play flash games or facebook games, as well as people who only play mobile games on their phones. I don't have any hard numbers, but from the amount of people I see on the train playing games on their phones I'd be fairly certain that they outnumber the people who own consoles

I'll agree with you on that last part though, I was trying to appeal to the most popular definition of "casual" I see around here, but really there isn't much of a clear distinction like that

 

[Ipsen]

Sure,I agree.
The thing is,I didn't said that all Nintendo games are bad and that Nintendo 'buys' reviews or something.
Indeed many Nintendo games are quite fun and I like them myself. I even have a Wii. But the fact that I personally like some of Nintendo's games,doesn't make me want to defend everything they do,even if what they do is something I don't think is right. And sure Nintendo is not obligated or forced to give out free copies of their games to any reviewer.
But at least once,they do have stopped sending review copies to a magazine because someone said he liked PSP better.
But this part,of how Nintendo distributes review copies wasn't the main point of my first post,but an example of how Nintendo treats some parties not in the best way,which are not the end costumers.
Even if Nintendo made the most fun games ever,I would still not like it if they broke the law,or treated other people or businesses in a bad way.
The quality of a product a corporation makes is a different subject than the way it behaves as a company.

If you like some of the games, and they get good scores, doesn't that count as at least a bit of validity in their scores?

To not pick your example apart any further, I'll just state that it's pretty shoddy, to the point of being humorous.

I also didn't think ethics was a part of the portion I quoted. I don't (and no one else atm) know about review blacklisting, but I do agree that Nintendo has some ethical...eccentricities, if not straight-up issues.

The amazing Rob Rath wrote a two-part article [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/criticalintel/10049-Conflict-Minerals-and-the-Game-Industry-Progress-and-Setbacks] on the use of conflict minerals used in console production, and the Nintendo portion was...disturbing, to say the least. So I can at least see a point in what you've mentioned.

Besides, the increasingly frequent doomsayings of the internet for Nintendo have little to do with their ethics, which are generally and pretty agreeably aversive when broken. People just like to think Ol' Ninty is dottering (to the tune of 'ANOTHER rehash?!?'), and will die soon (what with the poor Wii U sales).

Eagerly awaiting your next article, Mr. Rath.

Also had a fun time perusing the features archive. This site has some gems...

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

Actually, what is it with the gaming community being anti-Nintendo? People claim that Nintendo "abandoned" them with the Wii, which is essentially whining about a company not catering to you.

And this isn't a valid complaint because...? They don't make products I want anymore, therefore I don't want their stuff. That's how business works. And complainers like that me happened to like the stuff that came out on the Gamecube but didn't like what came out on the Wii might be a little annoyed about that. "Oh but the Gamecube was a flop and didn't make Nintendo any money!" Boo hoo. I don't care if Nintendo makes makes money, I care if they make good games for me to play.

They whine about how they casualized the industry, when the reality is that "hardcore" gamers do NOT in any way make up the majority of the gaming community.

Once again, why should I care? I don't want "casual" games. If Nintendo makes causal games like you claim, then I don't want their stuff

Edit: and a better question is why do people bother defending Nintendo? Reggie himself said Nintendo doesn't care about what gamers want, they only care about how many games they sell. I recall Ubisoft saying the same thing and people losing their shit over it

 

[That Eeyore]

And this isn't a valid complaint because...? They don't make products I want anymore, therefore I don't want their stuff. That's how business works. And complainers like that me happened to like the stuff that came out on the Gamecube but didn't like what came out on the Wii might be a little annoyed about that. "Oh but the Gamecube was a flop and didn't make Nintendo any money!" Boo hoo. I don't care if Nintendo makes makes money, I care if they make good games for me to play.

While you're right that it's not the consumer's responsibility to keep gaming companies afloat, bear in mind that if Nintendo doesn't make money, they can't make games. Nintendo went the way they did because they knew that trying to compete directly with MS and Sony as they did with GC wasn't gonna cut it. And while nobody can force anyone to buy games they don't want, I really don't like hearing people say that Nintendo "abandoned" them, because that makes it sound way more personal than it actually was, and it's not like they quit making the games they were famous for or publishing "hardcore" games wholesale, they just shifted their marketing focus.

See, employees and bills cannot be paid with the goodwill of the hardcore crowd.

 

[SeventhSigil]

What is it with games journalism and the double standards it holds against Nintendo? If anything remotely negative happens to Nintendo, journalists claim that they're doomed and will go third party. When something bad happens to Sony or Microsoft, nobody says anything.

Actually, what is it with the gaming community being anti-Nintendo? People claim that Nintendo "abandoned" them with the Wii, which is essentially whining about a company not catering to you. They whine about how they casualized the industry, when the reality is that "hardcore" gamers do NOT in any way make up the majority of the gaming community.

Got to partially agree with you on the last point, the hardcore crowd, numerically speaking, does not make up the majority of the gaming industry. The success of that was perhaps a driving factor in its high console sales. But the problem there is that you should consider that sort of audience that it was selling to. The casual crowd, particularly the extremely casual crowd who gravitated more towards fitness games and the like, aren't going to see much point for the new console. Part of the reason the Wii U hasn't captured the Wii's sales boom, in my opinion at least, is that the casual market that supported it has looked at this new device and decided they don't need it. (once the marketing finally made it clear that it was a separate device of course.) They are perfectly happy with their Wii, and see no reason to sink an extra few hundred dollars on a new piece of hardware, because the experiences that they are interested in, they can find on their current console.

So while you are correct in saying that there is a sizable chunk of market that isn't the hard-core gaming group, this console hasn't really hasn't appealed to the casual crowd much either. Not because the device is unattractive, but simply because that particular part of the market isn't really looking to upgrade. The appeal of the console (outside those who will purchase it solely because they enjoy Nintendo products) seems to be nestling in a very narrow middle between both groups.

 

[Dragonbums]

As a Nintendo fan...to be honest, I'm not quite sure what your talking about here?

Yeah, there are a couple of things that I feel is unfairly cast against Nintendo, but most of the threads here are what...Wii U threads? Not something to get all that riled up about to the extent of making a rant thread.

 

[Dragonbums]

What do you mean they're doing worse than they are? Nintendo has made more money in the console business.

You really need to learn how to quote people when discussing on here.

The button is there for a reason.

 

[Dragonbums]

Nobody can say they have played a horrible Nintendo game and I'll be surprised if someone did.

Except for...you know...that Metroid game we never talk about.

 

[Roxas1359]

Nobody can say they have played a horrible Nintendo game and I'll be surprised if someone did.

Except for...you know...that Metroid game we never talk about.

What one...I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm sure it didn't try to retcon the Prime games or anything...XD
*wink* *wink*

 

[Stavros Dimou]

Sure,I agree.
The thing is,I didn't said that all Nintendo games are bad and that Nintendo 'buys' reviews or something.
Indeed many Nintendo games are quite fun and I like them myself. I even have a Wii. But the fact that I personally like some of Nintendo's games,doesn't make me want to defend everything they do,even if what they do is something I don't think is right. And sure Nintendo is not obligated or forced to give out free copies of their games to any reviewer.
But at least once,they do have stopped sending review copies to a magazine because someone said he liked PSP better.
But this part,of how Nintendo distributes review copies wasn't the main point of my first post,but an example of how Nintendo treats some parties not in the best way,which are not the end costumers.
Even if Nintendo made the most fun games ever,I would still not like it if they broke the law,or treated other people or businesses in a bad way.
The quality of a product a corporation makes is a different subject than the way it behaves as a company.

If you like some of the games, and they get good scores, doesn't that count as at least a bit of validity in their scores?

To not pick your example apart any further, I'll just state that it's pretty shoddy, to the point of being humorous.

I also didn't think ethics was a part of the portion I quoted. I don't (and no one else atm) know about review blacklisting, but I do agree that Nintendo has some ethical...eccentricities, if not straight-up issues.

The amazing Rob Rath wrote a two-part article [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/criticalintel/10049-Conflict-Minerals-and-the-Game-Industry-Progress-and-Setbacks] on the use of conflict minerals used in console production, and the Nintendo portion was...disturbing, to say the least. So I can at least see a point in what you've mentioned.

Besides, the increasingly frequent doomsayings of the internet for Nintendo have little to do with their ethics, which are generally and pretty agreeably aversive when broken. People just like to think Ol' Ninty is dottering (to the tune of 'ANOTHER rehash?!?'), and will die soon (what with the poor Wii U sales).

Eagerly awaiting your next article, Mr. Rath.

Also had a fun time perusing the features archive. This site has some gems...

Anybody saying that Nintendo is going to die clearly doesn't have an idea what Nintendo is. Perhaps WiiU is going to die (arguable),but not Nintendo.
Nintendo has billions,it can even buy small countries. It could survive at least 2-3 WiiUs in a row.
It's not like they won't be able to make another console and will go 3rd party if they decide to stop the production of the WiiU.They will instead make another console,and if that other console doesn't sell well too,they will try yet another one... They still have plenty of money to make failed attempts.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

While you're right that it's not the consumer's responsibility to keep gaming companies afloat, bear in mind that if Nintendo doesn't make money, they can't make games. Nintendo went the way they did because they knew that trying to compete directly with MS and Sony as they did with GC wasn't gonna cut it. And while nobody can force anyone to buy games they don't want, I really don't like hearing people say that Nintendo "abandoned" them, because that makes it sound way more personal than it actually was, and it's not like they quit making the games they were famous for or publishing "hardcore" games wholesale, they just shifted their marketing focus.

See, employees and bills cannot be paid with the goodwill of the hardcore crowd.

Oh really? Cause Microsoft, Sony, and I guess Valve have been making plenty of money off of "us" since I must be hard core too. Nintendo's problem is exactly what that guy already said in this thread: Nintendo doesn't play nice with other companies. Nintendo could make a console with their first party titles and the kind of third party games we see on other consoles but that would require them to actually work with other companies. The Gamecube had decent 3rd party support, though nowhere near as much as ps2, with decent games like Second Sight on the console in addition to interesting and "hard core" Nintendo titles like Eternal Darkness. It's not impossible for them to compete, they choose not to

And they can do whatever the hell they want. That doesn't mean I have to like them as a company