I Never Understand Nintendo

[Specter Von Baren]

I understand it (and I don't).

They've cornered such a profitable niche of gaming and, virtually unchallenged, get to do whatever the fuck they want with it. The business equivalent of having their cake and eating it too. They've got the monopoly on all of their IPs and the brand recognition/loyalty it takes to farm and milk as much as they want to. Which is why they get away with so many outrageous anti-consumer practices: nobody else is pushing Mario and Zelda and Pokemon on the street. You got a problem with how they do their business, you can't take it anywhere else if you're after their particular brand of gaming.

On the other hand I feel like the company is as great at keeping a steady fanbase as it sucks at drawing in new people into it (all together now: third party support).

How does one have a monopoly on their own IPs?

By default? A monopoly goes hand-in-hand with exclusive ownership.

Calling that a monopoly comes with this implied idea that its bad and that they shouldnt be able to do with their ideas as they want to.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

I understand it (and I don't).

They've cornered such a profitable niche of gaming and, virtually unchallenged, get to do whatever the fuck they want with it. The business equivalent of having their cake and eating it too. They've got the monopoly on all of their IPs and the brand recognition/loyalty it takes to farm and milk as much as they want to. Which is why they get away with so many outrageous anti-consumer practices: nobody else is pushing Mario and Zelda and Pokemon on the street. You got a problem with how they do their business, you can't take it anywhere else if you're after their particular brand of gaming.

On the other hand I feel like the company is as great at keeping a steady fanbase as it sucks at drawing in new people into it (all together now: third party support).

How does one have a monopoly on their own IPs?

Because...uh...GOTTA GO!

In all seriousness, I would buy into this idea of public domain IP for gaming if it weren't for the fact that it's just a veiled way of saying "I don't want to buy two systems to have a full library" or "I don't actually want to have to buy my toys." It's another zombie argument that refuses to die

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I understand it (and I don't).

They've cornered such a profitable niche of gaming and, virtually unchallenged, get to do whatever the fuck they want with it. The business equivalent of having their cake and eating it too. They've got the monopoly on all of their IPs and the brand recognition/loyalty it takes to farm and milk as much as they want to. Which is why they get away with so many outrageous anti-consumer practices: nobody else is pushing Mario and Zelda and Pokemon on the street. You got a problem with how they do their business, you can't take it anywhere else if you're after their particular brand of gaming.

On the other hand I feel like the company is as great at keeping a steady fanbase as it sucks at drawing in new people into it (all together now: third party support).

How does one have a monopoly on their own IPs?

Like the man said, by having exclusive ownership. No meaning to it other than the dictionary's.

 

[Chewster]

This is the nonsense you're allowed to get away with when you have some of the most popular IPs, I guess. Still, pretty inexcusable for a company that has been in the game this long.

I dunno, I always saw Nintendo as more of a throwback company. You play with your friends in the room so you can cuss them out to their faces instead of being racially absued by 12-year-olds on the Internet. It's more....wholesome. I've never really desired playing Nintendo games online.

 

[Saelune]

I understand it (and I don't).

They've cornered such a profitable niche of gaming and, virtually unchallenged, get to do whatever the fuck they want with it. The business equivalent of having their cake and eating it too. They've got the monopoly on all of their IPs and the brand recognition/loyalty it takes to farm and milk as much as they want to. Which is why they get away with so many outrageous anti-consumer practices: nobody else is pushing Mario and Zelda and Pokemon on the street. You got a problem with how they do their business, you can't take it anywhere else if you're after their particular brand of gaming.

On the other hand I feel like the company is as great at keeping a steady fanbase as it sucks at drawing in new people into it (all together now: third party support).

How does one have a monopoly on their own IPs?

By default? A monopoly goes hand-in-hand with exclusive ownership.

Calling that a monopoly comes with this implied idea that its bad and that they shouldnt be able to do with their ideas as they want to.

Well, plenty of people desperately want Mario and Zelda and all that on PC or...phones...so I am sure a lot of people consider it bad.

 

[Something Amyss]

Nintendo doesn't care, because it doesn't have to. People will buy anyway.

If gamers were better consumers, many of these practices would dry up.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Out of curiosity, can two Switch owners play something in co-op within WiFi range of each other, or anything of that nature?

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Out of curiosity, can two Switch owners play something in co-op within WiFi range of each other, or anything of that nature?

I know that the new Mario Party will work that way but most of the coop games I have involve both people using a different joycon.

 

[Worgen]

Ugh Nintendo. They made great full games that don't try to nickle and dime consumers and their hardware tends to be pretty solid. But holy crap, they are real assholes to their fans, they are also super lucky they make things good enough to overcome that kinda attitude. They tend to be more hostile to fans then even EA or Activision, they just don't pull the same asshole moves with their games.

 

[CaitSeith]

We had free online multiplayer in PS3 for years. Why are we forced to pay in PS4? You'll find the same answer applies to Nintendo. In any case, ask directly to Nintendo.

It was free yeah, but the infestructure was complete and utter shit.

There is a reason why people prefer playing their online multiplayer games on Xbox Live then Sony.

This.

Xbox Live was (and I'd still say IS)by and far the best Multiplayer system out there, period. I'll even have the balls to go out and say it was better than 99% of what you could ever get on most PC games without some serious hard work. It absolutely crushed the PS3, Wii and Wii U, and they were able to do that precisely because it generated revenue for them because of the sub fee.

Still it's naive to think that paying a service makes it inherently better if it really isn't different to the free version. In short, what new things does the Nintendo online service offer now that didn't when it was free?

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Out of curiosity, can two Switch owners play something in co-op within WiFi range of each other, or anything of that nature?

Yes. With Splatoon 2 you can have up to ten offline Switch consoles.

I'm on the fence about Nintendo's paid online subscription service. Without it we wouldn't have gotten a localization of MHGU ... which is infinitely superior to World. If Nintendo i focussing their efforts on maintaining good, Switch optimized servers on that dime ... ehhhh? Monster Hunter will always feel the most Monster-y Hunter when you can shit-talk your friends and mock them in person when they faint.

Also helps that there's three times the number of unique monsters to hunt and kill compared to World and that it's actually challenging. Which is nice. Plus #FashionableHunting... for real hunters.

The argument lends itself to just how much Nintendo should eat up the cost of maintaining servers on behalf of people wanting to make online games for it. I would personally argue that the Switch given its pricepoint and cost of games and veritable success should have done so ... or at least offered a more comprehensive service for half the price.