Is Nintendo losing respect as a company?

[Orngeblu]

Well, I believe this is the right place to put it.

Anyways, as I was saying: You guys might've heard about them enforcing copyright on Let's Play video's playing Nintendo games. Let's Players will no longer get ad revenue, and it will all go to Nintendo. I, and a lot of people believe this will corrupt all, or most of the LP community. Popular Let's Players like Chuggaaconroy, NintendoCaprisun and such could possibly go out of business because they will not receive pay for their video's.

I hear a lot of people saying Nintendo made a bad choice, and I am worried they are losing most of their respect because of this.

Also, another reason I heard it was a bad choice by them, is because they wouldn't have to hire those people. They would give free publicity, and share their experience with the game so other people will know how fun it is to play.

I kinda tried defending it before, but I'm not liking the way Nintendo is going now... What do you guys think?

Edit: Maybe a blog would've worked better, lol.

 

[Frostwraith]

I've heard of this before when checking Eurogamer.

I understand how this alienates the LP community, but you can't help but ask "Is it okay that you profit from simply playing a game?"

One side could argue that, since those videos feature their own gameplay and their commentaries, it's something of their ownership, other side could argue that they're using another entity's (in this case, Nintendo) work and make a profit out of it.

I think a mid-term would be better in the end, as in, part of the money would go to the LP'er, while other part would go to Nintendo themselves.

Why is that? It's simple. It's crediting the player for his effort in the game and making the video and the company that produced the game. A win-win situation.

 

[Orngeblu]

I've heard of this before when checking Eurogamer.

I understand how this alienates the LP community, but you can't help but ask "Is it okay that you profit from simply playing a game?"

One side could argue that, since those videos feature their own gameplay and their commentaries, it's something of their ownership, other side could argue that they're using another entity's (in this case, Nintendo) work and make a profit out of it.

I think a mid-term would be better in the end, as in, part of the money would go to the LP'er, while other part would go to Nintendo themselves.

Why is that? It's simple. It's crediting the player for his effort in the game and making the video and the company that produced the game. A win-win situation.

I agree that a mid-term would be better. 50-50 for both Let's Player and Nintendo. Although I still don't know if that jeopardizes their income majorly or not.

But if these Let's Players decide to go out of business, and stop making LP's, I believe this will only heard Nintendo more. I've read around a lot, and I'm starting to understand the people who watch these LP's get inspired and buy the game themselves, which is good on their part. They won't even need to hire the people. It's free. I don't think Nintendo will go back, though. I'm not liking Nintendo's decisions recently. I do hope it doesn't jeopardize them, and maybe the Wii U dies. We also have to wait for the big games to hit the Wii U, and that might make a change financially for them.

 

[κomıc]

It's cool to hate on Nintendo. Especially them dudebros, who have a ball with it.

 

[Deleted member]

Kind of actually, a lot of people at my school hate Nintendo due to their "kid-friendly" games and content.

But they're 8th Grade COD Players, so it doesn't matter.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

They are loosing respect. it's that there are a lot more people that play video games in this day and age.

They wouldn't like nintendo if it was the only gaming company because it's not the games the would play. They probably wouldn't even be playing games

 

[mood4food77]

they are losing respect, the Wii and the WiiU aren't as powerful as the gen counterparts and lack the third party support of Sony and Microsoft

Also, when a huge part of gaming now is online play, nintendo really drops the ball here, to the point where i think they are ignorant of it. The online service they provide is by far the worst of the 3 companies. Not just about content but the multiplayer aspect is also really bad. They also use old technology, etc.

I could go on, but nintendo home consoles just aren't going to cut it if they keep going in the direction they are. the handhelds on the other hand, are still going strong and they have all the 3rd party support they need. I really think it's the handhelds that will keep nintendo going strong (especially with titles like Fire Emblem Awakening and the new Luigi's Mansion)

 

[Conda]

Nintendo is NOT going after just Let's Play videos. I wish this rumour would stop. They're going after everything from reviews to unboxings.

 

[mood4food77]

just found out that the WiiU is selling as well as the 360 and PS3 in the first 6 months

 

[etecoon]

On the whole it's hard to say, Nintendo has spent most of the last decade pissing it's long time fanbase off but it's also acquired millions of new players in the process. For those of us who are in our twenties-thirties and have been gaming for most of our lives? Nintendo has lost a ton of respect from our generation. Old people who only accepted that gaming wasn't causing school shootings after they got hooked on Wii Sports? They probably have a much different perspective

Personally I have a lot less respect for Nintendo these days just as a game developer, I can't say I give a **** that LPers aren't getting paid, but in my eyes Nintendo makes much lower quality games now than they did in years past and are more focused on easily marketed gimmicks than pragmatic design.

 

[theeboredone]

Nintendo rehashes their games, does not bother taking new steps, and worst of all, is terribly slow on releasing their IPs due to reluctance of outsourcing them. Because they also went for the non-graphic route, they are once again going to be in for a world of hurt when X1 and PS4 come out.

Nintendo is betting the farm that the "Wii" audience will carry over. This means those who were into Wii Fit and all that stuff. Sales have been modest so far, and people are expecting them to go up when more Mario and Zelda games come out. Similar to the 3DS. Like I said though, betting the farm.

 

[etecoon]

LOL Xbox One

as critical as I am of Nintendo and everything, Microsoft done ****ed up.

 

[Orngeblu]

Also, when a huge part of gaming now is online play, nintendo really drops the ball here, to the point where i think they are ignorant of it. The online service they provide is by far the worst of the 3 companies. Not just about content but the multiplayer aspect is also really bad. They also use old technology, etc.

Wait, what are you talking about with the online? The only console they have with bad online is Wii, and apparently the Wii U is supposed to have better online. I haven't played a Wii U online though, so I wouldn't know, but I haven't heard any complaints of bad lag. Not to mention in the Wii era, I've also heard complaints about the Ps3's online. I haven't played a Ps3 though, so I don't know for myself. It just sounds like you're saying the Wii U's online is bad, when it shouldn't be. But if it really is, then ok.

But this gen I am sure we will get a better online service from Nintendo. Until I get to test it myself on Smash, Mario Kart, etc, then I will judge it.

 

[finalark]

Kind of actually, a lot of people at my school hate Nintendo due to their "kid-friendly" games and content.

But they're 8th Grade COD Players, so it doesn't matter.

It's been like this ever since the GCN came out. Hell, you could even go as far back as the N64 and argue that it started there.

I think a mid-term would be better in the end, as in, part of the money would go to the LP'er, while other part would go to Nintendo themselves.

Why is that? It's simple. It's crediting the player for his effort in the game and making the video and the company that produced the game. A win-win situation.

That's actually a really good idea. Although in all honestly LPs are already win-win scenarios for both the LPer and the devs. The LPer gets to make money from people watching him play video games and devs get free advertising. Granted, it's advertising for older games which really rubs many companies the wrong way, since they're only interesting in people buying new games despite the fact that with today's technology its easy for companies to make money off of old games.

 

[Xyro77]

Nintendo rehashes their games, does not bother taking new steps, and worst of all, is terribly slow on releasing their IPs due to reluctance of outsourcing them. Because they also went for the non-graphic route, they are once again going to be in for a world of hurt when X1 and PS4 come out.

Nintendo is betting the farm that the "Wii" audience will carry over. This means those who were into Wii Fit and all that stuff. Sales have been modest so far, and people are expecting them to go up when more Mario and Zelda games come out. Similar to the 3DS. Like I said though, betting the farm.

At least every edition of kart/mario/smash/zelda is more different than the next version of CoD/Halo/GT.......ect. CoD for example is literally the SAME GAME every year.

The "nintendo is always behind in graphics" argument has always been dumb imo. if u want bad ass graphics why go console? Consoles are outdated in the graphics department right out of the box. PC is always and will always be the best graphics machine out there AND u can get your CoDs/MMOs or whatever you want with arguably BETTER controls.

People need to realize Nintendo will continue to do what they want regardless of what the rest of the competition does. Thats why the gaming media/masses are against them.



kinda off topic: The people get what NINTENDO WANTS to give them and not what THE PEOPLE want. That is the way it used to be. Doing what PEOPLE want restricts creativity (see CoD) but its done because of the money (see CoD). This whole industry is nothing but a money grab fest. from DRM/DLC/sequels every year/other BS. Im so sick of it.

 

[finalark]

When the hell have graphics ever meant anything?

PS1 was significantly less powerful than both the Saturn and Nintendo 64, and the PS2's graphics were hilariously bad compared to the GameCube and Xbox and the Wii was barely an upgrade to the GameCube's graphics. Despite that, the PS1, PS2 and Wii sold incredibly and stomped their competition into the ground. You want graphics? Go dump a stupid amount of money on a PC. If you actually want to eat and play games, get a console.

 

[theeboredone]

PC Gamers are a niche/hardcore audience though. Try asking your typical CoD fan or even someone like me to build a gaming rig, and we're gonna go "derp". We just want something right out of the box that connects to a TV, and we know will last us about 5 years.

People always say PC gaming is cheaper, but let's implore this idea...graphics have obviously come to a bit of a stale since the jump from PS2 era to PS3. The PS3 was "599.99", and you could possibly get a pretty good gaming rig out of that. Fast forward 7-8 years later (end of this gen's lifecycle), and how much more money will you have spent "upgrading" your PC if you wanna play on higher settings compared to when you first bought your PS3? Probably another 200-400.

I agree that Nintendo's rehashes are better than the CoD's of the world, but Nintendo has so much untapped potential in their first party games it just frustrates me to no end. They take risks, but not at the level of the whole "above and beyond" sort of deal. The Wii U is going to make or break itself at E3 IMO anyways. They need to come out with some footage of a 3D Mario, Smash, and possibly Zelda.

 

[finalark]

People always say PC gaming is cheaper, but let's implore this idea...graphics have obviously come to a bit of a stale since the jump from PS2 era to PS3. The PS3 was "599.99", and you could possibly get a pretty good gaming rig out of that. Fast forward 7-8 years later (end of this gen's lifecycle), and how much more money will you have spent "upgrading" your PC if you wanna play on higher settings compared to when you first bought your PS3? Probably another 200-400.

You're going to be spending more than that, I spent $800 dollars on a new computer roughly two years ago and it's already considered "outdated."

I've been to a LAN party with hardcore PC gamers, I swear they don't actually play games to have fun. They just play them to have **** measuring contests via the power of their PCs.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

My computer was $1000

 

[theeboredone]

Well...I was going for a optimistic/minimalist spending PC view, but guess I was proven wrong lol.

 

[Xyro77]

I agree that Nintendo's rehashes are better than the CoD's of the world, but Nintendo has so much untapped potential in their first party games it just frustrates me to no end. They take risks, but not at the level of the whole "above and beyond" sort of deal. The Wii U is going to make or break itself at E3 IMO anyways. They need to come out with some footage of a 3D Mario, Smash, and possibly Zelda.

I agree with you.

This is probably the first e3 in Nintendo's life where it is literally sink or swim (WiiU is 7 months old and not one "system seller" was released....that is unacceptable). Smash/Kart/3d mario/zelda/dk/fzero/pokemon/pikmin or SOMETHING non-casual/party needs to be shown . The gaming media is mostly against anything that is Nintendo so i really hope these few Nintendo Directs blow them out of the water so that they MUST say something good/nice.

But about the whole risks/above and beyond thing, im sorta torn. In one hand, you are correct, they do not produce new IPs that go above and beyond (wasn't the last true new IP Wiisports? or are we still on pikmin?). But on the other hand, their consoles most def take risks and certainly take gameplay/controls to a level above and beyond (wii and motion/wiiu and asymmetric gameplay). TBH, xbox/360/x-bone and ps1/ps2/ps3 are pretty much just leaps in graphics/online play. MS/Sony have had basically the same controllers and the same goals since day 1. Nintendo at least attempts to do something different with the controllers and HOW you play games. That is def "above and beyond" imo because they are the only ones doing it and it really does make a difference while you play.

 

[VillageofFitness]

I say Nintendo isn't losing respect, because it has the one thing X-Box and Sony severely lack
Exclusives.
Think about this, in order to get a new Nintendo game, you literally HAVE to buy the console. Sony and Microsoft barely have exclusives to begin with, muchless franchises with the power of Mario or Zelda.

 

[theeboredone]

I say Nintendo isn't losing respect, because it has the one thing X-Box and Sony severely lack
Exclusives.
Think about this, in order to get a new Nintendo game, you literally HAVE to buy the console. Sony and Microsoft barely have exclusives to begin with, muchless franchises with the power of Mario or Zelda.

Problem with Nintendo is they don't outsource their exclusives...leaving a long time for such games to come out. When was the last F-Zero, Kirby, Star Fox, or Metroid games made? Pikmin is JUST getting a sequel. Nintendo wants people to buy consoles so they've resorted to mainly "Mario" games. 2D, 3D, Kart, and the only non "Mario" game being Smash.

Sony has plenty of exclusives/studios that are generally released on a 2 year basis. Uncharted, Infamous, Killzone, Resistance, Little Big Planet, Quantic Dream games. Some one hit exclusives as well like Valkyria Chronicles, Last of Us, and Demon's Souls come to mind as well.

X1, while I'm skeptical on their commitment to Exclusives...have come out firing so far with a lot of new IPs.

 

[VillageofFitness]

Problem with Nintendo is they don't outsource their exclusives...leaving a long time for such games to come out. When was the last F-Zero, Kirby, Star Fox, or Metroid games made? Pikmin is JUST getting a sequel. Nintendo wants people to buy consoles so they've resorted to mainly "Mario" games. 2D, 3D, Kart, and the only non "Mario" game being Smash.

Sony has plenty of exclusives/studios that are generally released on a 2 year basis. Uncharted, Infamous, Killzone, Resistance, Little Big Planet, Quantic Dream games. Some one hit exclusives as well like Valkyria Chronicles, Last of Us, and Demon's Souls come to mind as well.

X1, while I'm skeptical on their commitment to Exclusives...have come out firing so far with a lot of new IPs.

This may or may not be the truth, but I see a method to slow sequel production. The example I'll use is Smash Bros

Brawl came out in 2008. It is now 2013, a game was just announced and be on the market in 2014 . There's been a huge hype building for that particular franchise for years now, and people will buy the games as long as there's hype. Why do you think people were so hype for Kingdom Hearts 3? Because the last advancement in the story came out eons ago, and now people have closure to all the hype, rumors etc.

Don't get me wrong, I see what you're saying, that people may forget about a franchise if it's not released yearly. And with some fans, that may be the truth, but from what I've experienced, especially with Nintendo diehards, that isn't the case.

 

[finalark]

Brawl came out in 2008. It is now 2013, a game was just announced and be on the market in 2014 . There's been a huge hype building for that particular franchise for years now, and people will buy the games as long as there's hype. Why do you think people were so hype for Kingdom Hearts 3? Because the last advancement in the story came out eons ago, and now people have closure to all the hype, rumors etc.

If you want to get technical, Dream Drop Distance released last year and that was the last advancement of the story. In actuality, KH fans are just excited to see a proper third installment instead of yet another gimmicky spin-off.

Don't get me wrong, I see what you're saying, that people may forget about a franchise if it's not released yearly. And with some fans, that may be the truth, but from what I've experienced, especially with Nintendo diehards, that isn't the case.

The way I see it, there are "fans" who are only interested in something as long as its popular. And then there are actual fans, who are interested in something because they legitimately like it. Actual fans never forget.

 

[VillageofFitness]

If you want to get technical, Dream Drop Distance released last year and that was the last advancement of the story. In actuality, KH fans are just excited to see a proper third installment instead of yet another gimmicky spin-off.

Note that I said, "The next progression in the sequel, so I was taking the in-between games into account, but 3 means much more to people because the story is advancing

The way I see it, there are "fans" who are only interested in something as long as its popular. And then there are actual fans, who are interested in something because they legitimately like it. Actual fans never forget.

Which, as every E3 proves, Nintendo has plenty of. I'd be interested to see if you polled a hundred COD/Little Big Planet (Insert other popular game here) fans, and asked them how many would lose faith in the series if it disappeared for several years, how many would say "Yes"

 

[finalark]

Which, as every E3 proves, Nintendo has plenty of. I'd be interested to see if you polled a hundred COD/Little Big Planet (Insert other popular game here) fans, and asked them how many would lose faith in the series if it disappeared for several years, how many would say "Yes"

I wouldn't say LBP is as big as something like COD. Frankly, LBP's popularity has waned in recent years. It's not even a yearly franchise, it received one sequel and a kart-racing spin-off. I think there was a handheld spin-off too but that's really it.

 

[theeboredone]

This may or may not be the truth, but I see a method to slow sequel production. The example I'll use is Smash Bros

Brawl came out in 2008. It is now 2013, a game was just announced and be on the market in 2014 . There's been a huge hype building for that particular franchise for years now, and people will buy the games as long as there's hype. Why do you think people were so hype for Kingdom Hearts 3? Because the last advancement in the story came out eons ago, and now people have closure to all the hype, rumors etc.

Don't get me wrong, I see what you're saying, that people may forget about a franchise if it's not released yearly. And with some fans, that may be the truth, but from what I've experienced, especially with Nintendo diehards, that isn't the case.

My issue is...those times they are putting all their resources into "New Super Mario Bros" (how many games are we at now?) or Mario this, Mario that...we could've had a Kirby game. Outside of DKR, all we've gotten is a remake put on the 3DS. Same with Star Fox. A lot of people wanted F-Zero, but they went with the more money grabbing game in Mario Kart.

The reason I also mention this is because...you can innovate and make some cool games with these other IPs. You know your Nintendo die hards will get it, but also think about this...if Mom is shopping for her little kid at a kid's game...she's already bought New Super Mario Bros...what other options does she have? I guess she can buy Kinect dancing? It'd be nice if every year, three-four IPs came out, and you would rotate them on a 2-3 year basis. This is how 2014 shoulda looked like...

1. Kirby
2. Mario Kart
3. Ice Climbers (You know there's potential with this on the Wii U)
4. Mario 3D
5. Smash

2015:

1. Metroid
2. Star Fox
3. Yoshi
4. Donkey Kong
5. A real Mario 3D like Galaxy or Sunshine

2016:

1. Zelda
2. Luigi/Mario RPG
3. Game and Watch
4. Dedicated Wario/Waluigi Game
5. Fire Emblem

There...is it so hard? All they'd have to do is outsource their IPs to some reputable companies. And this is not counting other exclusives like Bayonetta and Xeno-whatever.

 

[finalark]

As a Nintendo fan who really isn't much of a Mario fan, theeboredone is my ****ing hero right now.

 

[etecoon]

As a Nintendo fan who really isn't much of a Mario fan, theeboredone is my ****ing hero right now.

I like Mario and everything, but holy **** Nintendo forgot how to variety in the past decade. Star Fox is dead. F-Zero is dead. Metroid is probably dead after that abortion of an attempt to make it an action/narrative driven series. Zelda's been stuck in a cycle of attempting to xerox OoT. Earthbound/Mother is dead(did the US ever even get Mother 3?). Mario gets like 3 titles a year

w
t
f

 

[finalark]

I like Mario and everything, but holy **** Nintendo forgot how to variety in the past decade. Star Fox is dead. F-Zero is dead. Metroid is probably dead after that abortion of an attempt to make it an action/narrative driven series. Zelda's been stuck in a cycle of attempting to xerox OoT. Earthbound/Mother is dead(did the US ever even get Mother 3?). Mario gets like 3 titles a year

w
t
f

I feel like Nintendo is trying their hardest to emulate the SNES days. All recent Marios have been nothing but side-scollers (hell, even Mario 3D World is a side-scroller with a Z axis similar to Mario 3D Land), Nintendo is intent on bringing DKC back, LoZ Link Between Worlds is aLttP with a wall gimmick, they're making a new Yoshi's Island, ect. Hell, if they make a new Metroid I expect to to basically be HD Super Metroid.

 

[IYM!]

All started with te Wii, they forgot they fans for a tendence " the family gaming". Forgoting make a real improvement on graphics and online games too. I dont believe in the need of good gaphics to make a good game, but nintendo miss a lot of good tittles of this generation for that detail, Assassins creed, Batman AA, RE5, etc. and if this isnt enough, the main reason for nintendo to not bring us a new Star fox or F-zero are the low graphics capacity of the Wii (yes, again), this because in terms of ghraphical power, Wii = GCN and Star fox assaultt, and F zero GX used all the GCN capacity, my point is, if nintendo would done a game with one of these tittle, they would reveal his "secret", and it is the low capacity of the wii

With this, a good amount of costumers changed nintendo for X Box or PS3, and with this, nintendo lose respect.

Now, they are exploting Mario and Link, making tittles of the same all the time.


.-. IMO (i hope being clrear, i lose a lot of practice with my english)

 

[Pachinkosam]

Nintendo is awesome there not losing respect because there gonna release smash 4 on wii u. Btw way the nintendo wii was awesome because i put the homebrew channel it alot of fun playing classic games for free. Thats why i respect nintendo.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

I prefer the Mario Kart series to F-Zero TBH

 

[RoxburyGuy58]

Also, when a huge part of gaming now is online play, nintendo really drops the ball here, to the point where i think they are ignorant of it. The online service they provide is by far the worst of the 3 companies. Not just about content but the multiplayer aspect is also really bad. They also use old technology, etc.

I could go on, but nintendo home consoles just aren't going to cut it if they keep going in the direction they are.

I know this is an old post but those are the points that I care about: Nintendo has weak consoles and even weaker online play.

Now, Nintendo's been around for a long time. But for the past few years they're like that old man whose stuck in his ways, unwilling to change, going with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. When he does take a shot at catching on to the new trends, he clumsily screws it up. They're downplaying the importance of online play in a game. They see it as an extra feature rather than how they should see it: an essential component that the consumer will care about. IMO so far, the newest Pokemon games are really the best online multiplayer they've done so far, but even then it's very basic (when it comes to trading, exchanging FCs feels inconvenient and outdated).

As for the consoles (Wii and Wii U specifically), they purposefully use cheaper, lesser materials so they can keep the price down. They want to be the most affordable on the market, keep as much of a family-friendly price as possible. But it comes to a point where you're too behind on the competition, and then it's not worth it if consoles aren't selling. This is a rut that they're permanently stuck in, though, because they'll never abandon the "make it affordable for the family" mindset.

/rant

 

[finalark]

They're downplaying the importance of online play in a game. They see it as an extra feature rather than how they should see it: an essential component that the consumer will care about. IMO so far, the newest Pokemon games are really the best online multiplayer they've done so far, but even then it's very basic (when it comes to trading, exchanging FCs feels inconvenient and outdated).

Frankly, I hate the whole "online is key to every single game ever made ever being good" mentality. In my opinion, not every game needs online play or tacked-on multiplayer because its expected. In my opinion, if devs really want people to hold onto their games they need to make really solid titles that people want to revisit again some day. Hell, the Elder Scrolls series has been going strong for almost twenty years and not a single game in the series has had online play in it, at least until Elder Scrolls Online comes out. That aside, those games still sell millions and people easily have poured hundreds of hours into the series.

That being said, I am one man, and most people would like to disagree on my opinion about the subject. Most people feel like they can't get anything out of a game unless it has some kind of nonsensically online play regardless of how required it actually is for the game in question. It's sad but true. However, I am actually fine with Nintendo going their own way and doing their own thing. Who wants three consoles that are exactly the same out on the market?

As for the consoles (Wii and Wii U specifically), they purposefully use cheaper, lesser materials so they can keep the price down.

My Wii has survived being pulled down onto hard tile multiple times, my friend's Xbox 360 freaks the **** out if you pick it up while a disk is inside it.

What's this about being cheaper and lesser?

They want to be the most affordable on the market, keep as much of a family-friendly price as possible. But it comes to a point where you're too behind on the competition, and then it's not worth it if consoles aren't selling. This is a rut that they're permanently stuck in, though, because they'll never abandon the "make it affordable for the family" mindset.

What's wrong with something being cheaper so that more people can afford it?

 

[RoxburyGuy58]

I was just saying that the Wii is a weaker computer than the other systems. Regardless of its tech specs, we all know how freaking indestructible any piece of Nintendo machinery is. Hell I dropped my GBA from a moving car years ago and it still works fine.

And I'm not saying there is something wrong with trying to make a system affordable. It's just that, in order to keep the price down, they limit the potential of the kind of console that can be made. But it's a weird conundrum, since raising the price too high isolates their core demographic.
So it wasn't really a complaint, I was just explaining why I think Nintendo (purposefully) doesn't make as strong a console as the competitors.

 

[finalark]

Honestly, I think its just because they found a business model that works. Sure, the Wii U is underpowered compared to the PS4/X1 but last time Nintendo made a powerful console it really don't work out so well for them. The GameCube had specs that could nuke the PS2 out of the water and could easily keep up with the Xbox. But regardless of that they still had the "kiddie" label on them, so it really is a catch-22 for Nintendo. If they make a weak console, they'll be seen as the "kiddie" company. If they make a powerful console, they'll be seen as the "kiddie" company.

 

[the smash nerd]

My issue is...those times they are putting all their resources into "New Super Mario Bros" (how many games are we at now?) or Mario this, Mario that...we could've had a Kirby game. Outside of DKR, all we've gotten is a remake put on the 3DS. Same with Star Fox. A lot of people wanted F-Zero, but they went with the more money grabbing game in Mario Kart.

The reason I also mention this is because...you can innovate and make some cool games with these other IPs. You know your Nintendo die hards will get it, but also think about this...if Mom is shopping for her little kid at a kid's game...she's already bought New Super Mario Bros...what other options does she have? I guess she can buy Kinect dancing? It'd be nice if every year, three-four IPs came out, and you would rotate them on a 2-3 year basis. This is how 2014 shoulda looked like...

1. Kirby
2. Mario Kart
3. Ice Climbers (You know there's potential with this on the Wii U)
4. Mario 3D
5. Smash

2015:

1. Metroid
2. Star Fox
3. Yoshi
4. Donkey Kong
5. A real Mario 3D like Galaxy or Sunshine

2016:

1. Zelda
2. Luigi/Mario RPG
3. Game and Watch
4. Dedicated Wario/Waluigi Game
5. Fire Emblem

There...is it so hard? All they'd have to do is outsource their IPs to some reputable companies. And this is not counting other exclusives like Bayonetta and Xeno-whatever.

You Fogot Super and World on .5 of 2013

 

[the smash nerd]

and Smash is on 2014