If Nintendo went under tomorrow, who should buy their assets?

[Poster1234]

If Nintendo goes under, so does innovation. Gaming will stagnate, and die.

But if they did, Retro seems to be very good in handling a Nintendo property.

What?! Seriously ?
Are we talking about the same Nintendo, whose lead series haven't moved a nanoinche in more that a decade ?
Okay, we owe them the Wii, which was a pretty neat innovation, but ended up a nothing but a gimmicky toy.
Right now, I see Nintendo as one of those major companies that pump out one sure hit after another, rellying on so-called "specialized press" (you know, those who never, NEVER seem to review bad games) and a rather, hum "outspoken" fanbase to advertise their games.

OP : I think licenses should go to people who would actually care about them, and not simply try and milk a bit more money out of them.
Or, alternatively, to people who would totally rejuvenate them.
Ever thought of a metroid game made in cooperation by Tim Schaefer and Suda51 ?

 

[SixWingedAsura]

Wow, what's with the Nintendo hate? I know the Wii really blew chunks, but with games like Skyward Sword, Kirby Wii and others on the horizon, not to mention the Wii U which, despite the retarded name, looks like it has more potential that the stupid waggle fest the Wii was spouting, I think Nintendo is going to do fine.

So for you naysayers who hold so much hatred in your hearts for Mario, Zelda, Metroid and other classic games I grew up with and loved, you can go perform coitus with yourself.

And yes, I know those games are strictly "by the formula" but I've seen so many horrible remakes and changes to games by people who wanted to "play with the formula" or "do something new" that I'd much rather continue to see those games maintain their sameness as opposed to some artsy crap some moron pumps out.

And yeah, I'm a Nintendo fanboy, so I know this argument is going to be thrown out the window in favor of bashing the above games again, but I had to throw my two cents in.

You may resume your Nintendo hate.

 

[Stall]

-snip-

Microsoft does support 3D to some extent (I believe GoW3 was recently announced in 3D), and <url=http://www.nvidia.com/object/3d-vision-main.html>PC developers do use 3D as well. Goes to show how much you know about what you are arguing about, eh? Next, Sony does use 3D. It adapts the 3D capabilities of their television to be used with their games on the PS3.... that's using 3D last time I checked. Plus, I believe there have been 3D capable games on the PS3 well before the 3DS came out, so wouldn't Sony be the first people to ever adapt 3D technology to games and make THEM the innovative ones? Not Nintendo as you claim? Even further, given the fact that handhelds are now in fierce competition with mobile phones, so perhaps Nintendo used 3D to make their handheld stand out from the growing adoption of cells as a gaming platform, a.k.a. a gimmick by your own definition (not that it worked, since some 3D phones cropped up)?

As for the sales of the 3DS, they might be impressive, but they were far below what both analysts and Nintendo expected. It didn't even meet their expectations in terms of sales. And on the price cut: do you really believe everything these companies tell you? Don't kid yourself: the price cut was because of the poor sales of the 3DS: just look at <url=http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=NTDOY.PK+Interactive#chart1:symbol=ntdoy.pk;range=6m;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined>this-- the stocks mysteriously started to fall around the launch of the 3DS... just a coincidence, amirite? It wasn't selling to ANYONE'S expectations and was costing Nintendo money. So far, the 3DS has had a very lukewarm performance, despite what the numbers tell you (numbers are worthless without perspective).

Yes, the Kinect and Move might have sold well, but how has been their overall adoption? Does anyone really care about the Move? And would the Kinect be doing so well if Microsoft wasn't putting full steam behind it and almost forcing its widespread adoption (Sony isn't forcing the adoption of the Move, and look how it is doing nowadays)? And on your 3D analogy: you do know that when you look at the history of cinema, <url=http://www.sonyrumors.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/3D-Movie-Timeline-Medium.jpg>3D sort of comes and goes in waves, right? You see a big influx of 3D, then its just forgotten until it makes another comeback 30 years later when Hollywood needs something neat to differential themselves from other media. It's hardly a good idea to liken motion controls to something that has a proven to be basically the definition of a gimmick. So I suppose you did my job for me in proving how motion controls are the 3D of the gaming world... aka a gimmick.

Wait until the WiiU comes out and people start jumping on that (Not to mention that at the rate everything is going, its going to be the only 8th generation console on the market at the time and will most likely have a larger revenue then the Wii did.). Nintendo isn't just any prize fighter, Nintendo is the Rocky of gaming, they can turn things around and end up on top fairly quickly.

Yes, I do think the Rocky analogy is appropriate. The film series started off strong and brilliant, yet descended into mediocrity with its sequels... never quite able to recapture what made the first film special. Then, out of nowhere, a sequel came out, did okay, and was quickly forgotten then afterwards. It's much like Nintendo really: they had a lot of success in the past, descended into mediocrity, and then suddenly came back. Nintendo is on the Rocky Balboa part of their career: they just got down with their second wind, but is anyone going to really care in a few years? Do you seriously think the WiiU is going to replicate the surprise and totally unexpected success of the Wii?

 

[No_Remainders]

Nobody. We should let them die. They've been remade enough that we don't need any more remakes.

This. A million, billion times THIS.

If that's not an option. I think I'd like to see Bethesda doing a TES-esque style Zelda game, core mechanics wise (obviously not setting and the like).

 

[IronStorm9]

I find it bizarre that, having found success with the Wii, Nintendo are actually going to try and re-engage with the 'hardcore' gamers with the WiiU. It's everything you bloody well asked for from a Nintendo console: It's significantly more powerful than it's competitors (it can run Unreal Engine 3, Cryengine 3, and Frostbite 2 nay bother), it has a 'proper' controller, and it's got much better third-party support. And you fuckers still moan about how Nintendo has 'let you down' yet again. There is no bloody pleasing you guys!

The only thing that will please these people is if Nintendo goes out of business and burns all products with their names on it.

OT: I think it would be interesting to see a Mario sandbox game, so I'm going to say Sucker Punch should get the rights to Nintendo IPs. I actually doubt Nintendo will go under like that, but as a what-if kinda thing, Sucker Punch.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

Nintendo's IPs have already suffered enough, we should just let them die. Also, to the OP; Zelda by Team Ico is a terrible idea, but it also would never happen.

 

[Rawne1980]

Atari.

How ironic would it be to be bought out by the company you kind of buried.

The big Atari flop of several years ago was pretty big news and Nintendo did quite well out of Atari's failure.

Not that Atari would be able to do much good with Nintendo just the irony of it would give me a good long giggle.

 

[SixWingedAsura]

The only thing that will please these people is if Nintendo goes out of business and burns all products with their names on it.

Indeed. Haters gonna hate.

I'm not worried personally. There is still enough people out there not hypnotized by the Call of Duty's and the Halos and the Gears of War to actually play something enjoyable and fun without it being dark and gritty and military-esque up the arse.

Again, Nintendo's gonna do FINE.

 

[V8 Ninja]

I would want Sega to acquire them all, just to be ironic. Then the phrase "Sega does what Nitnendon't" would be completely true in almost every way.

Although in all honesty, I don't ever see that happening. If Nintendo fails the hardware business, they'll start becoming a software-only company. Nintendo isn't going to abandon their lucrative IPs because their console business failed.

 

[Tommeh Brownleh]

I'd give them all to Valve. Yeah the games would take long as hell to make, but they would undoubtedly be great.

 

[Antag]

What's up with all the Nintendo is doomed shit. Nintendo is the only gaming company that's consistently profitable. They've got 10s of billions of dollars in their reserves right now because of the Wii. Unlike say Sony, who has lost nearly all the money they gained with the PS1 and PS2 this generation or Microsoft who might have gotten some profitable years now but is still far from earning back their investments.

And what's up with the hate; While I agree that Nintendo releases have been scarce lately, all their main releases with the possible exception of Metroid: Other M have been stellar and at the top of their respective genres. While they haven't actually shown a lot of Skyward Sword I'd bet anyone that it'll be among the best games released this year. Super Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 were incredible and from what I've played it's obvious that Xenoblade is one of the best RPGs ever made.

And some of the suggestions that are made here seem ridiculous. Why would anyone want to see Media Molecule do a Mario game? As charming as Little Big Planet might look, the actual gameplay and level design is nowhere near the quality what Nintendo puts out. And Bethesda doing a Zelda? Skyrim looks great, but the whole concept doesn't fit. Plus with it being Bethesda it'll lack all the polish that makes major Nintendo games so great.