What approach should Nintendo take with their new console?

[HeXen]

I used to think that Nintendo should fall into line with the industry trends, but I've since changed my mind. The industry as a whole right now is a broken mess. A sea of conformity, dude bros, focus groups, unfinished games, and Lord Business type leadership. The last thing I want is for Big N to follow that same path.

I've said before that I think the Wii U is the best console this generation. I still maintain that. Even with its weird tablet controller.

Nintendo has two big problems right now.
1) Console gaming is dead in Japan
2) It doesn't have enough games coming out on a regular basis

Nintendo's big focus IMO needs to be bringing more studios on board. I don't think Madden and Call of Duty are the answer either. Nintendo sort of has to offer something different to avoid getting lost in the market. Medium-budget games would be a good place to carve a niche out. Nobody's really making them anymore, but as we've seen from recent Kickstarter campaigns, they're are still in demand.

There's a lot of talented but unsatisfied devs from other studios. It would be smart for Nintendo to start courting them. Treat them like royalty, and give them the resources to set up their own second party studios. Imagine if they scored people like Hideo Kojima, Hideki Kamiya, or Keiji Inafune to develop for them on an exclusive basis. It would be huge.

The other thing Nintendo needs to badly do is embrace internet culture. Namely stop their nonsense war against YouTubers. That's where the hype train comes from today.

I agree but I also think it wouldn't be a bad idea for Nintendo to just stop with the hardware side of things. They are in a much better financial position than Sega was when they went 3rd party so for N to do a similar move would not be bad for gamers at all nor them.

OR for them to make their own software platform (like Steam) available for PC and consoles alike...PS4 owners could click on the Nintendo App and it opens to N's own store and catalogue of games...let others do the hardware I say.

 

[Fulle]

Nintendo needs to get their stuff together.

Take Pokemon as an example. The target age for the game was a 10 year old kid, back in 1996-1998 when the game first released. So that player that would have been 10, would be 27-29 now. The average age of a Pokemon player, is estimated by some polls to be somewhere around 20 years old. Pokemon X/Y seemed to recognize that it's biggest market was with veteran players, so there was quite a bit of extra complexity added in, which made the game somewhat more confusing for new players. Pokemon Omega Rudy, and Pokemon Omega Sapphire, seemed to have been marketed towards vet players as well.

Why bring this up as a talking point? Well, it seems to me that with Pokemon the fanbase is getting older, and they're losing young players. New Pokemon games still have an age target of 8-12, completely ignoring the aging fanbase, AND they make each new game more complicated than the last with more pokemon, making it less accessible to new young players.

My 6 year old nephew doesn't even know what a Pokemon is. The biggest fan I know of the series, is a 24 year old woman.

You know, the friends I played Zelda with when I was a kid played Bloodborne with me, and talk to me about Skyrim mods. Nintendo doesn't make grown up Zelda, Metroid, F Zero, or Pokemon. They still make games in their IPs aimed at 10 year old target audiences, as if the last 30 years of gaming history didn't happen. The average gamer is between 30-37, depending on what data you go on... and Nintendo is still dropping all their money on kids games, while simultaneously hoping that the 20 and 30 somethings buy their stuff out of nostalgia.

If Nintendo makes another console aimed at children, they're done.

 

[Lil Frier]

I think that's a totally misguided assessment of the matter. So many of those in their 20s and 30s still love what Nintendo puts out because it's different in a sea of sameness. We don't need a gory, gritty Zelda game, there are plenty of action/adventure games that handle that. We don't need Metroid for that. We don't need PED-filled Pokémon games that look like something Michael Vick cooked up. Older gamers get their fill and more from the other platforms. The problem is still that Nintendo doesn't allow the third-party developers and publishers use their platform, nor do they put out a platform that those people want to deal with. On top of it, we're in an era of highly social gaming, and Nintendo ignores it.

That's the biggest problem, to me. The 20- and 30-something fans that grew up playing games in their friends houses still have many of those friends, but they're not next door. I played Game Boy and Nintendo 64 games with my sister when we were kids. We've not lived together in, like, 7 years. She no longer lives in the same city (though she's in a nearby one). I left my Wii U with her to play it at her house on occasion. Were Nintendo to embrace online gaming, they could reconnect those friends over the classic IPs, but we're instead left to bond over Xbox and PlayStation games, because a truly social gaming experience isn't possible on a Wii U.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I see what Fulle is saying though. The people who grew up with Nintendo are now grown up and Nintendo needs to grow up with them. They don't have to offer an ultra gore fest version of Zelda. They should though offer games and features that appeal to the demographic that remember playing SNES as a kid. They just don't.

 

[Lil Frier]

I get it as well, I just don't agree with his approach. I think it's less about changing the IP or killing some of it off for newer stuff, and more about embracing the lifestyles of those gamers. Like I said, a properly networked Mario Kart 8, maybe with tournament modes and such, would be awesome. Smash with party chat? Online co-op for the platformers? I think that would help more than just a new art style/story direction for Zelda or Metroid. It's not like the games are getting railed on for being bad (well, except for the abomination that is Mario Party 10).

 

[Ancalagon44]

Nintendo needs to get their stuff together.

Take Pokemon as an example. The target age for the game was a 10 year old kid, back in 1996-1998 when the game first released. So that player that would have been 10, would be 27-29 now. The average age of a Pokemon player, is estimated by some polls to be somewhere around 20 years old. Pokemon X/Y seemed to recognize that it's biggest market was with veteran players, so there was quite a bit of extra complexity added in, which made the game somewhat more confusing for new players. Pokemon Omega Rudy, and Pokemon Omega Sapphire, seemed to have been marketed towards vet players as well.

Why bring this up as a talking point? Well, it seems to me that with Pokemon the fanbase is getting older, and they're losing young players. New Pokemon games still have an age target of 8-12, completely ignoring the aging fanbase, AND they make each new game more complicated than the last with more pokemon, making it less accessible to new young players.

My 6 year old nephew doesn't even know what a Pokemon is. The biggest fan I know of the series, is a 24 year old woman.

You know, the friends I played Zelda with when I was a kid played Bloodborne with me, and talk to me about Skyrim mods. Nintendo doesn't make grown up Zelda, Metroid, F Zero, or Pokemon. They still make games in their IPs aimed at 10 year old target audiences, as if the last 30 years of gaming history didn't happen. The average gamer is between 30-37, depending on what data you go on... and Nintendo is still dropping all their money on kids games, while simultaneously hoping that the 20 and 30 somethings buy their stuff out of nostalgia.

If Nintendo makes another console aimed at children, they're done.

This is actually a very good point.

Personally I think Nintendo should aim to make IP that appeals to different age ranges, with most games being enjoyable by people older than the targeted range. For instance, they should ensure that an 8 year old can play a Pokemon game through to completion and enjoy it the whole time, while also ensuring that older players will not be frustrated and be able to get more life out of it.

But they should also have IP that targets specific age groups. They have a lot of IP for younger audiences, but not much for older audiences. Metroid is an obvious choice here, but its not enough. They should contact Square Enix to see if they can reach an excusive deal for a JRPG. Imagine a spiritual successor to Chrono Trigger?

Or reach a deal with Inti Creates for an exclusive Mega Man series? Or a new platformer not based on Mega Man?

Think about the system sellers that Nintendo had back in the day - Castlevania, MegaMan, the Brawl series, Pokemon, Mario, and a whole assortment of strong JRPG games including Dragon Quest/Warrior and Final Fantasy.

I'm not saying they must rehash the same IP, I'm saying they must ensure that IP that meets the same criteria is developed for the system. It doesn't need to be super gory to sell well - it needs to be good, with appropriate themes for more mature audiences.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I think square is more interested in showing off fancy graphics and art these days. They probably won't deal with Nintendo because they can make a game for ps4 and port it between PC and xb1 fairly quickly and it will look better. Is Nintendo still very restrictive with developers these days? In the past they had very strict requirements etc.

 

[Aikouka]

Delay the launch of the new console until at least 3 decent solid hitter first person games are ready. I'm talking Mario Kart and Zelda, that sort of thing.

I don't agree with this. The problem with releasing so many first-party titles at launch is that they won't have anything else for a while. What would be nice is if they said, "Every 3-4 months, we'll have a new first party title for you!", and it's one of the games that you're talking about (not like a new Mario Party, Animal Crossing or something like that). With that, they're able to help avoid a drought of popular games while keeping people interested.

However, they definitely need to ensure that their launch line-up is good.

My 6 year old nephew doesn't even know what a Pokemon is. The biggest fan I know of the series, is a 24 year old woman.

That's usually what I see as well when it comes to Pokemon. The greatest influence on kids is either seeing a game being played or having the game be a licensed tie-in. If they want another game like Pokemon, just go with Yokai Watch, which has three 3DS games available (in Japan). That series is actually coming over here now, so we may see the games released in the West.

I think square is more interested in showing off fancy graphics and art these days. They probably won't deal with Nintendo because they can make a game for ps4 and port it between PC and xb1 fairly quickly and it will look better. Is Nintendo still very restrictive with developers these days? In the past they had very strict requirements etc.

I think Bravely Default helps show Square that people are willing to play games with "lesser" graphics. I would argue that may be the reason why we're seeing games like World of Final Fantasy. The game may look clean and crisp, but the graphics are definitely not at the level of the latest Final Fantasy games. The graphics actually remind me a lot of Blue Dragon on the 360.

 

[Lil Frier]

I don't agree with this. The problem with releasing so many first-party titles at launch is that they won't have anything else for a while. What would be nice is if they said, "Every 3-4 months, we'll have a new first party title for you!", and it's one of the games that you're talking about (not like a new Mario Party, Animal Crossing or something like that). With that, they're able to help avoid a drought of popular games while keeping people interested.

Nintendo lacks the content to pull that off. Their games usually take, like, 4 years to develop, across a single franchise. You're basically asking them to manage 12 high-end franchises, at the minimum (possibly as many as 20), and I just don't think they have that. The only solution would be to shorten the life spans of their games, meaning shorter development cycles. They then risk hurting game quality and negatively affecting perception, due to constant refreshing of already-old franchises. They'd run the risk of milking some franchises to death, possibly with half-assed stuff in the vein of AC: Unity.

They'd be better-off buying into long-term DLC more and putting a few of their biggest titles into the launch. Mario Kart 9 with 6-month DLC packs like they did with MK8 would be good. Smash 5 with content every 2-3 months would be good. A follow-up to Super Mario Maker that has multiplayer would give the Mario platformer fans endless content via level creation.

The other side would be revamping old games. They could churn stuff out quickly if they did things like Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Sunshine and Super Mario Galaxy remasters. They have quality titles that are 15+ years-old that people would like to see in a truly remastered state, and it could be used as padding between the new releases.

 

[Bman123]

They need a controller, not that motion control shit. At least as strong as the ps4 hardware wise.

Like others have said they need to remaster some of the old games. I'm 30 and grew up playing nes, snes and Nintendo 64. If they made a competent system with a decent library of launch titles I'd buy it right away.

 

[futurefields]

What do you guys think the chances are that Nintendo releases a more powerful console than XB1/PS4?

I heard they signed on with AMD. Would AMD even agree to produce a more powerful system? Say the same processor but clocked at 2.4ghz and a GPU with more shader cores.

Say this system releases in late 2016. Then Sony and Microsoft relations with AMD sour because they are stuck with the slower chip and how dare AMD start to produce this faster chip for Nintendo right? So then Sony and/or Microsoft go with a different partner than AMD for their next systems. What do you guys think? This kind of competition would be good for end users?

 

[zerocool84]

Agreed.

Keep CoD, Modern Warfare, etc... on the other consoles, the dude bros have two platforms, they don't need a third.

No, you should WANT Nintendo to have all those games. That's part of the reason why they are failing with the WiiU, not having those types of games that are HUGE sellers relegate that console to a second choice automatically for the majority of people. They need to have all those games with the great Nintendo games so they can be a first option for everyone.

 

[Medu]

I think Nintendo have backed themselves into a corner and all they can do now is Wii2 - i.e Innovate, be different. The main issue with this is that it is very hard to do. It isn't easy to develop something every 5 years that can catch people's imagination.

 

[Sonikku]

At this point I think they might better exit the home console market, just make the games and release them on XB1 or something and limit their hardware offerings to portables. After that if they still want to make some goofy gimmick controller they can still release it as an accessory on either of the other big 2.

 

[Bman123]

I'm all for them selling the licensing to Microsoft or Sony. So many Nintendo games I'd like to play but no way would I buy a WiiU when I've got a ps4 and xbone already

 

[Lil Frier]

I'd much prefer it go to Microsoft than Sony, if they only went to one. Part of that is because I have a One, not a PS4, of course. The other part is it would let Rare work with Donkey Kong again. It would also open up those Nintendo rare titles for Rare Replay DLC or a Rare Replay 2, where Goldeneye could show up, among other Nintendo-published titles.

Ideally, they just let it go to both sides. However, we first have to get Nintendo to stop churning out mediocre home consoles.

 

[ImpulsE69]

There is nothing great about any of the consoles this gen. Seriously. The most talked about things for X1 is the tv integration. There isn't crap being talked about on PS4 aside from the constant PSN outages (which is funny since now it costs to use it).

People just like to hate on Nintendo, yet everyone clamors for their games saying "wish they'd put it on these other consoles." Guess what, quit buying the other consoles. What are you missing out on? 2-3 awesome (relative) games? Pfft. You want 'eye candy' get a PC. You won't be missing out on much. If you hate Nintendo that much, you don't need their games.

Listening to people talk smack about Nintendos consoles is like listening to PC gamers talk smack about MS/Sony consoles. Think about if companies were doing the same thing to MS/Sony console games to make them also work on Wii U. You'd see a crap ton of whiners. "This game could have been so much more if it didn't have to work on Nintendos console". Even without that, the games are lackluster as fack - and the best games are also on PC anyway. (Unless you're a destiny fanboy, but then you're just glutton for punishment anyway).

Edited for clarity.

 

[smackababy]

Nintendo needs to take whatever direction is the exact opposite that futurefields suggests.

 

[futurefields]

what if they solder two Wii U cpu's together & double the clockspeed? 6 Custom IBM PowerPC cores @ 2.48ghz destroys the PS4/XB1 & 14nm can handle it.

 

[poofyhairguy]

No, you should WANT Nintendo to have all those games.

If I get to selfishly want something it would be Nintendo is a Third Party Developer without dedicated hardware anymore so I don't have to buy a console just for their games. That also seems more reasonable out of the two options.

Here is what it would take for a Nintendo console to match a Sony or MS console:

-Better online play
-Faster first party development
-Enough console power that Nintendo maybe takes a loss at first
-Accommodation to developers in a way Nintendo has NEVER done before
-Acceptance of a more mature brand for their console, maybe even some first party adult games

Here is what it would take for Nintendo to develop for another console:

-They swallow their Japanese pride and buy a developer kit


It is obvious what the path of least resistance is out of the two options.

 

[Fulle]

So smackababy's like:

Nintendo needs to take whatever direction is the exact opposite that futurefields suggests.

And then, immediate post afterwards is:

what if they solder two Wii U cpu's together & double the clockspeed? 6 Custom IBM PowerPC cores @ 2.48ghz destroys the PS4/XB1 & 14nm can handle it.

That's just.... wow. Don't do this to me! My coworkers are going to wonder what's so funny!

Meanwhile.... Nintendo isn't going to make XBO/PS4 games people. They just announced that they're making a new home console ffs.

 

[preslove]

If they put out an Xbox 1 clone and started to outsell the one, then i could See m$ buying a piece of Nintendo and just partnering with them. The one is losing this generation and the Xbox division is still in the red, after all these years.

Microsoft should put out a kindle fire clone with Nintendo mobile games for cheap and Nintendo should out out a full console with full halo, forza and Nintendo 1st party games, with Xbox live as the backbone network, and whatever other living room and and windows integration they want.

 

[Fulle]

MS can't even afford to pay off 3rd party publishers anymore. How are they going to "buy a piece of Nintendo", which isn't for sale, because they're profitable right now.... unlike MS's game division, which is generally NOT profitable.

If anyone is going to exit the console business, it's MS, not Nintendo.... and MS is in no position to get Nintendo to do them any favors.

 

[futurefields]

That's just.... wow. Don't do this to me! My coworkers are going to wonder what's so funny!

What's so funny? PS4/XB1 both use dual quad core cpus soldered together.

 

[Lil Frier]

MS can't even afford to pay off 3rd party publishers anymore. How are they going to "buy a piece of Nintendo", which isn't for sale, because they're profitable right now.... unlike MS's game division, which is generally NOT profitable.

If anyone is going to exit the console business, it's MS, not Nintendo.... and MS is in no position to get Nintendo to do them any favors.

Choosing to not buy third-party DLC deals isn't the same as being too broke to pay off publishers. Microsoft's managed just fine to partner with Remedy for Quantum Break, Platinum for Scalebound, Crystal Dynamics/Square Enix for Rise of the Tomb Raider, and a decent number of indie studios. Plus, they've already brought forth similar deals through Capcom's Dead Rising 3, Respawn's Titanfall, Crtyek's Ryse, Harminx' Dance Central and Fantasia, Frontier's Screamride, and Insomiac's Sunset Overdrive. Oh, and they bought Mojang/Minecraft, plus they purchased Gears of War from Epic to keep it off of competing platforms. They also just partnered with Creative Assembly (Total War) for Halo Wars 2.

Honestly, I don't know how you can draw those conclusions. To me, it looks more like Sony's been securing these third-party deals (Destiny, CoD, Battlefront, etc.), in part, because their holiday first-party stuff doesn't stack up quite as well against Microsoft's. They've got Until Dawn, Uncharted's remastered collection, and not a whole lot else, in way of major releases.