Is Nintendo becoming irrelevant?

[EstrogenicMuscle]

Nintendo is far from irrelevant. If anything, they've hit a surge in popularity.

They seem much relevant now than they did back when the launched the Gamecube, I was legitimately worried for them then. Sony with the PlayStation went from dominant to even more dominant with the PlayStation 2. The Sega Saturn at least stood a chance against them, and the Nintendo 64 was picking up a lot of speed for having so many things like being late to the party and using cartridges going against them. The Nintendo 64 and Sega Saturn had done a lot to close in on Sony's PlayStation. But the Sega Dreamcast and the Nintendo Gamecube didn't stand a chance against the PlayStation 2. The difference between the two generations was staggering. Sega dropped out of the console race entirely, and Nintendo looked like they were in trouble.

However, when the Wii came out, it hit a market and hit it well. It was clearly the Gamecube that people always wanted. And managed to win over hardcore fans, casuals, and people buying games for their family. While the XBOX 360 was too focused on Western style PC games that has previously come out for Windows like first person shooters and wRPGs that the gaming fandom was still relatively new to as a genre(when the XBOX 360 was released, many gamers refused to buy it because "no jRPGs", hence we saw Blue Dragon and Tales of Vesperia to compensate). It carved out a niche by doing what it did, American fans who wanted PC style gaming on a console, but wasn't enough to allow them to dominate the new generation. And Sony's launch was disastrous. Despite the market power of the PlayStation 2 absolutely dominating its generation, it began a slow crawl to get where it is today. Not to mention both companies focused on the niche of "adult" gaming against each other, going head to head and focusing on M rated games targeted as the edgy teenagers and adults who wanted faux-mature experiences.

While people who actually wanted to buy child friendly games, or at least games that didn't throw sex and violence in their face, went to Nintendo.

The last console generation was absolutely disastrous and was the only console generation I can think of where there was no big winner. Microsoft and Sony handed things to Nintendo by staying too weird, too adult, too niche, too dark, too gritty, and too inaccessible. And Nintendo did nothing but benefit from this. And, like Sony did with the PlayStation 2 toward the PlayStation 3, Nintendo are riding on the coattails of this success.

The Wii U is slow growing, but it will most certainly be a success. The fanbase is already strongly growing and cult-like. In fact it's one of the most often request console port systems for indie games. People like the Wii U and are craving games.

 

[Lightknight]

They seem much relevant now than they did back when the launched the Gamecube, I was legitimately worried for them then. Sony with the PlayStation went from dominant to even more dominant with the PlayStation 2. The Sega Saturn at least stood a chance against them, and the Nintendo 64 was picking up a lot of speed for having so many things like being late to the party and using cartridges going against them. The Nintendo 64 and Sega Saturn had done a lot to close in on Sony's PlayStation. But the Sega Dreamcast and the Nintendo Gamecube didn't stand a chance against the PlayStation 2. The difference between the two generations was staggering. Sega dropped out of the console race entirely, and Nintendo looked like they were in trouble.

The Sega Saturn was dead from the start. It is what killed Sega. The Saturn sold less than 10 million units after the previous generation's Genesis saw over 40 million homes. Here's what happened, the Saturn had announced that they would launch in September (aka Saturnday). Playstation said they would too but a week later. Then, suddently, at E3 Sega announced that they were launching "TODAY!" Several retailers (like walmart, K-mart) were kept out of the loop (and held a grudge afterwards). In fact, only Toys R Us, Babbages, Software Etc.and Electronic Boutique were and it launched months before the legitimate games were set to be released at a pricepoint that was $100 over the playstation which was looking extremely promising. Sony had a very strong launch with multiple titles that were solid enough to have sequels. The N64 then didn't come out for another year. So Playstation's only (real) competition gave them almost complete control of the market that they ran with competitive prices and great software. That generation saw the N64 sell less than 33 million units. That's less than a third of Playstations sold. It has to be one of the biggest upsets of a new entrant to the market in business history. But think about that, the system that we all have fond memories of only sold 33 million units compared to PS's 102 million.

By the time the dreamcast showed up the fan base was so far removed and the marketing for the ps2 was so good that it didn't matter how good the dreamcast's lineup was, people weren't going to waste their time/money on it. It sold a million more units than the Saturn but that was perhaps solely due to its early launch that gave it 5-6 months over the ps2. The Gamecube showed up late to the party again here too, even a bit later than the Xbox (3 days in the US). So Playstation had the run of the market again because the dreamcast was already dead before it began thanks to the Sega Saturn's failures. Playstation pumped out huge game titles. Heck, GTA: San Andreas sold nearly 21 million copies. That's 3 million copies more than all three compititor's best sellers combined (18.06 million = Sonic Adventure 2.5 mil + Super Smash Bros Melee 7.07 mil + Halo 2 8.49 mil). That's just their best seller, they had three other games selling more than the next best performing game on another console and 8 games total selling more than 5 million each. The Xbox sold only 24 million, the Gamecube saw 22 million, and the PS2 sold that legendary 153.6 million. Triple (3.34 times) both competitor's units combined, 6.4 times the second best selling console of that generation.

However, when the Wii came out, it hit a market and hit it well.

The ps3 faltered with a console that was far too expensive for the market at the time and the 360 was just earning new customers. Wii exploded with the cheapest version of the console with a game mechanic that everyone loved. The WiiMote and the software made for it saved Nintendo. They delivered it at the right time and grew the gaming market considerably with a console that became really popular amongst the elderly and casual gamers who hadn't owned consoles previously. They did the right thing at the right time and peripherals are now a must have for consoles thanks to them.

I don't know where this generation is going to end up. The ps2 did so well because of the ps3's weak sales. With the WiiU's performance the Wii is in a similar position and will likely take the second spot in best selling console of all time (it's only a couple million from taking that spot from the original playstation). It looks like the ps3 has just overtaken the 360 in sales after all this time which I find surprising. The next generation appears to be back in Sony's court with them learning from this generation. Microsoft has a serious image problem that goes beyond the quality of their product and the WiiU's issues are pretty bad.

While people who actually wanted to buy child friendly games, or at least games that didn't throw sex and violence in their face, went to Nintendo.

Not necessarily child friendly, but family friendly. The motion controls made the game easier to play games without having to figure out buttons. I would say that without the motion controller the system wouldn't have fared much better than the gamecube which was also kid friendly. They created a market segment that wasn't there before when they made the Wii.

The last console generation was absolutely disastrous and was the only console generation I can think of where there was no big winner. Microsoft and Sony handed things to Nintendo by staying too weird, too adult, too niche, too dark, too gritty, and too inaccessible. And Nintendo did nothing but benefit from this. And, like Sony did with the PlayStation 2 toward the PlayStation 3, Nintendo are riding on the coattails of this success.

Disastrous? Everyone made out like bandits this generation. Every console sold wonderfully (80 million to 100 million units each) and they all hit around the same numbers where attach rates are concerned. I would say that Nintendo was the big winner here since their attach rate is very close to the top while having 20 million more units, but their games being cheaper ($10 less usually) on average may just average everything out even more. However, they also profited from the wii console from the start whereas Sony and Microsoft took hits.

The Wii U is slow growing, but it will most certainly be a success. The fanbase is already strongly growing and cult-like. In fact it's one of the most often request console port systems for indie games. People like the Wii U and are craving games.

I'm sorry, but you simply don't have any evidence of any of this. The console is selling worse than Nintendo hoped and their most positive outlook is for no more than 40 million consoles sold this generation. If you have evidence that Nintendo doesn't, please present it.

If the WiiU can pick up sales this holiday season by a fair amount, then we should see them as a legitimate entry as much as the gamecube was. The PS3 was in a similar situation as far as sales in its first year and managed to double its numbers starting with August. Any console should see a bump in sales, I'm talking about a dynamic shift in the trend. Sony had to drop the prices by $100 and offer larger titles, all the while playing catchup with Microsoft who had a year head-start with titles like Bioshock 1 and Oblivion.

But with Nintendo dropping the ball with marketing second party titles (I'm looking at Wonderful 101 here) and not doing much to change their problems that they've readily admitted, I don't think they're going to make a come back like Sony did. We'll see. But a "certain successs" it is absolutely the opposite of. It is a certain failure compared to its predecessor and amount of market share lost. The only question is how much of one it'll be.

 

[Dragonbums]

-snip-

Sorry if I don't address all of your points. Have too much schoolwork to indulge in tldr posts like I did over the summer.

First things first, one learns something new everyday. I never thought people would get a phone (or any electronics item) over a flushable toilet. Though to give them the benefit of the doubt it probably costs a lot more in certain circumstances to fix the plumbing than acquire a device like a phone. Then again, how can you contact the plumbing without a phone anyway?(since apparently home phones are on the decline which is silly imo because my cell phone signal at home is utter shit.)

If you want to call a smartphone in the metaphorical sense that they can both be held in one's hand then fine. I still do not consider a phone a "gaming handheld". Which is why I compared them to PC's. Smartphones are for multiple functions. One of the reasons why games are so big there is because most of them don't go beyond $5.00. However the first and foremost use for a smartphone is to call people. Everything else comes second. Also many games do take up quite the battery power. Especially when the machine is not dedicated to gaming alone.
Same can be said with tablets.

On that note, I have no doubt that iOS on tablets and such will get better with time. I'm not adverse to gaming on tablets and I have played many a nice game on said devices.
However I'm still of staunch belief that they will not directly butt heads with each other.
That day will come when iOS makes a tablet/smartphone devices that is solely for playing games.

 

[Lightknight]

First things first, one learns something new everyday. I never thought people would get a phone (or any electronics item) over a flushable toilet. Though to give them the benefit of the doubt it probably costs a lot more in certain circumstances to fix the plumbing than acquire a device like a phone. Then again, how can you contact the plumbing without a phone anyway?(since apparently home phones are on the decline which is silly imo because my cell phone signal at home is utter shit.)

Well, flushable toilets aren't especially necessary in the eyes of societies where they aren't common. A hole in the ground works fine for some people. Some people even have a two hole system where they fill up one while the other is composting over a few years. But the phone is their connection to information. It is their internet and that kind of data can be far more vital than flushing over a daily trip to the railroad tracks to do your business. It just ends up being a health hazard really quickly.

If you want to call a smartphone in the metaphorical sense that they can both be held in one's hand then fine. I still do not consider a phone a "gaming handheld". Which is why I compared them to PC's. Smartphones are for multiple functions. One of the reasons why games are so big there is because most of them don't go beyond $5.00. However the first and foremost use for a smartphone is to call people. Everything else comes second. Also many games do take up quite the battery power. Especially when the machine is not dedicated to gaming alone.
Same can be said with tablets.

A phone is absolutely a handheld device in every sense of the word. But its use is clearly broader than gaming and gaming still isn't the primary function. You wouldn't really call it a gaming handheld unless it was the primary function.

However, we have already begun to see some phones try to go the way of gaming as a primary function. Failures like the N-gage are an example of this. The market just wasn't really ready for them. As the quality of iOS games improve we'll see more and more attention given to this function.

Seriously though, I play a lot of games on my phone. I probably use it more for gaming than calls or text simply because it's there when I'm waiting. If games start being made for it that are DS-esque quality titles, then using it as a convenient way to play casual games will give way to better titles. Something like a Vita that can be used for calls would be nice.

However I'm still of staunch belief that they will not directly butt heads with each other.
That day will come when iOS makes a tablet/smartphone devices that is solely for playing games.

They've made several that are. Some have fared better than others. Tablets have handled better. But when phones become competent at gaming out of the box then we will start seeing real gaming. There's a few barriers to full entry into the market (such as DS's being able to use a cartridge), but it shouldn't be anything that 5 years can't overcome.

 

[Dragonbums]

First things first, one learns something new everyday. I never thought people would get a phone (or any electronics item) over a flushable toilet. Though to give them the benefit of the doubt it probably costs a lot more in certain circumstances to fix the plumbing than acquire a device like a phone. Then again, how can you contact the plumbing without a phone anyway?(since apparently home phones are on the decline which is silly imo because my cell phone signal at home is utter shit.)

Well, flushable toilets aren't especially necessary in the eyes of societies where they aren't common. A hole in the ground works fine for some people. Some people even have a two hole system where they fill up one while the other is composting over a few years. But the phone is their connection to information. It is their internet and that kind of data can be far more vital than flushing over a daily trip to the railroad tracks to do your business. It just ends up being a health hazard really quickly.

If you want to call a smartphone in the metaphorical sense that they can both be held in one's hand then fine. I still do not consider a phone a "gaming handheld". Which is why I compared them to PC's. Smartphones are for multiple functions. One of the reasons why games are so big there is because most of them don't go beyond $5.00. However the first and foremost use for a smartphone is to call people. Everything else comes second. Also many games do take up quite the battery power. Especially when the machine is not dedicated to gaming alone.
Same can be said with tablets.

A phone is absolutely a handheld device in every sense of the word. But its use is clearly broader than gaming and gaming still isn't the primary function. You wouldn't really call it a gaming handheld unless it was the primary function.

However, we have already begun to see some phones try to go the way of gaming as a primary function. Failures like the N-gage are an example of this. The market just wasn't really ready for them. As the quality of iOS games improve we'll see more and more attention given to this function.

Seriously though, I play a lot of games on my phone. I probably use it more for gaming than calls or text simply because it's there when I'm waiting. If games start being made for it that are DS-esque quality titles, then using it as a convenient way to play casual games will give way to better titles. Something like a Vita that can be used for calls would be nice.

However I'm still of staunch belief that they will not directly butt heads with each other.
That day will come when iOS makes a tablet/smartphone devices that is solely for playing games.

They've made several that are. Some have fared better than others. Tablets have handled better. But when phones become competent at gaming out of the box then we will start seeing real gaming. There's a few barriers to full entry into the market (such as DS's being able to use a cartridge), but it shouldn't be anything that 5 years can't overcome.

Saying a phone is a handheld is like saying a PC is a console because like a console they are for the most part stationary and can play games.
When people talk about gaming on phones, they don't call it handheld gaming. They call it mobile gaming. Because the only thing the 3DS/Vita and smartphones have in common is that they can be held in your hands and ones does a lot more than purely games.
However since the primary function of a phone is to first and foremost call people, everything else is secondary. Just like how most PC's primary functions are to run multiple programs at once, browse the internet, look up videos, contain various media, and be an overall work station. If somebody wants a computer to master the act of playing videogames at max capacity they have to go out of their way to buy specific parts from various companies, or spend money getting computers from niche companies that specialize in gaming PC's.

 

[Negatempest]

at the moment nintendo is filling a hole that no other gaming company is trying to fill, dabble in yes but not fill. regardless if you want notice it or not nintendo's focus has always been the players enjoyment/exploration of a world over selling the game as an art. Whether that is what you want from a game is subjective. with 3rd party, sony and micro focus being power or mature games, that just leaves nintendo to fill the hole(stupid fun games) that the others rarely touch.
More power does not mean better games. that is just 3rd party PR talk for lazyness in creativity. Fact is games like Team Fortess, Minecraft, Killing Floor, Terraria, Angry Birds, are just a small example of modern games with very dated graphics but are loved by gamers because they know there is heart and creativity in those games. making yet another shooter in an even bigger world will not equal a better game. destiny and titan fall are just bigger fps games. evolutionary, yes. revolutionary to fps? no.

 

[Zeldias]

I'm inclined to agree that Nintendo is hurting itself. As someone else said, kids are playing Minecraft and Angry Birds and shit, and generally only 20+ aged folks care about the nostalgia that Nintendo has been clinging to. The DS was pretty great eventually and the Wii was a fucking phenomenon but the 3DS is definitely not living up to the DS's legacy (it's betrayed by it's own gimmick and doesn't have a great library) and the Wii U just doesn't have many games (and I feel like Vita TV is kicking their only cool gimmick, streaming to a different screen, in the teeth).

I think Nintendo needs to revitalize their old IP and start generating new ones. And if we're gonna go with gimmicky stuff, stick to the Wii's wagglestick and the two screens for the DS. They lost the magic that the DS and the Wii had and are not getting it back. Meanwhile, I think Sony's on the come up (although the Vita, while I think it has a decent library, should be getting much better games much faster than it is).

Of course I'm just some asshole enthusiast on the internet so fuck me. I just noticed someone compared DC Comics to Nintendo and that is spot-on. Or TNA's approach to drawing in viewers, which seems to be getting old men together to scream at each other about 15 year old shit.

EDITED://

Said killing itself, which was way too strong. I don't think we're gonna see the end of Nintendo any time soon, but I also think that Nintendo's strategy for making it might not remain viable in perpetuity. Surviving on memories that are going to grow ever older doesn't strike me as being reasonable in the long game.

 

[Frokane]

Put it this way, As long as Nintendo has Mario, Link, Samus and the Pokemon franchise, they aren't going anywhere for a LONG time.

Hell they could survive on Pokemon alone, the amount of money them games churn out.

you can say that again, as long as video games are concerned nintendo will always be relevant. In the same way Superman is still relevant so superheoes even if the Man Of Steel wasnt very good.

the only people who dont want to acknowledge nintendo are those who CHOOSE not to, funnily enough that winds up being a lot people on this forum.

 

[MetalDooley]

The fact that they don't make any new games, rather milk the same teats they always do, came to a particularly funny head in the last Smash Bros; when they had to a)borrow Snake from Sony

Snake is a Konami character and the original Metal Gear game was ported to the NES in 1987 so he was on Nintendo consoles long before he ever became associated with Sony

and b) had to dig back as far as the early 90's to dig up the Kid Icarus guy.

Kid Icarus was released in 1986

Why? Because they haven't come up with any new games since then and they've run out of characters.

Just off the top of my head some games that Nintendo released after Kid Icarus - The Legend of Zelda,Kirby's Dream Land,Mother,F-Zero,Star Fox,Animal Crossing,Pikmin

 

[keniakittykat]

They're not relevant for the 20-30 something "hardcore" gamer, but for kids and idorts Nintendo isn't going anywhere.

I was raised in a anti-Nintendo household, and my dad always called Nintendo a kiddie console. How is that any different from now? Why are people just now realizing it?

Nintendo kiddie-console? Sounds like various slogans other console manufacturers used in the 90's...
(Panasonic, Sega, Sony) And you wonder why people are taking so long to see your 20-year old viewpoint? Well, because you're decades too late. You should stop waiting, it's been over a long time ago.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Nintendo kiddie-console? Sounds like various slogans other console manufacturers used in the 90's...
(Panasonic, Sega, Sony) And you wonder why people are taking so long to see your 20-year old viewpoint? Well, because you're decades too late. You should stop waiting, it's been over a long time ago.

Plus in retrospect that attitude was also just really juvenile and petty. It was a way to pander to insecure teenagers who weren't confident enough in themselves to not be ashamed of playing with toys. It comes off especially bad in the present. Then again gaming in general seems to be going through it's angry, 90s comic puberty phase. It's why we see so many games trying to emulate films or be "serious" only to reveal just how immature they truly are.

 

[Suave Charlie]

I have/had absolutely zero interest in the wii/wii u. Probably going to buy an xbone since my gold still has like 7 months on it.

But last week I really fancied pokemon, and went and impulse bought a 3DS and black 2.

I think ninty are going to be fine. Anyone who's arguing over it is slightly too invested into it, on either side, and should probably just cool off and just enjoy the games they play, whether that be xbox/PS/PC/nintendo based.
Vote with your wallets if you don't like something rather than rambling forum arguments.

 

[TehCookie]

They're not relevant for the 20-30 something "hardcore" gamer, but for kids and idorts Nintendo isn't going anywhere.

I was raised in a anti-Nintendo household, and my dad always called Nintendo a kiddie console. How is that any different from now? Why are people just now realizing it?

Nintendo kiddie-console? Sounds like various slogans other console manufacturers used in the 90's...
(Panasonic, Sega, Sony) And you wonder why people are taking so long to see your 20-year old viewpoint? Well, because you're decades too late. You should stop waiting, it's been over a long time ago.

Late when I saw it earlier than others and waiting for what? huh? I'm confused.

20 years ago I was a kid and thought Nintendo look cool. Besides it's not like kiddie games are bad either, kids need games to play too. My dad was a mature gamer who wanted mature games and Nintendo didn't have that, which sounds like a lot of people now.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Irrelevance is a matter of "relevant to who". I don't feel like retreading why as others have already pointed out the bloody obvious by now so I leave you with my irrelevant thoughts on Nintendo.

They've basically lost any appeal they had with me. I cannot bring myself to give a fuck about the latest Mario retread, or the upcoming Pokemon: Super Saiyan Genotype Edition.

My tastes have changed, and my opinion of their company has lessened greatly in this last year.