Sign in to follow this  
Jake

Idle Thumbs 143: This One's Fr4e

Recommended Posts

This is just laughably untrue.  If by "mobile" we mean "you carry it around in your pocket," then many, many millions of people do very much want Nintendo to keep making games for mobile, on Nintendo's own hardware platform.  

 

Nobody at all is clamoring for Nintendo to abandon their own mobile platform and instead make games for that platform's two major competitors, Android and iOS, but weirdly this rather significant observation is ignored or instantly forgotten when you share it with the sort of people who keep insisting that Nintendo ought to quit making hardware and just make software for their competitors' platforms instead.

 

Also, there are a ton of people that would like Nintendo to make games on iOS and Android.  Those people own iOS and Android devices.  I don't think that's the only place they should make software, but I think they could make a pretty fun platformer.  And if they're so brilliant at designing games for unique hardware, then I'm super curious what they'd do with a touch only device.

 

 

I disagree - Nintendo have never struck me as a company that benefits from a larger budget. They're engineers, not artists, and those resources would be surplus to the requirements of making the next game in a series that sells their hardware. They have a huge warchest - if they wanted to, they could take all their teams and get to work on a AAA game or two.

Well yeah, that's kinda what I'm saying mostly.  I don't think it's a budgeting problem, it's a focus problem.  But I do think that if they didn't spend resources on hardware they would be able to run more game teams. Actually I think they would be better off growing their publishing wing.  There are a few external studios that really have shown a lot of love for handling old IP.  Next Level did a fantastic job with punchout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a totally different subject. What is this pie place, and will they ship to Toronto? My brother-in-law is from Australia and would probably like a box of pies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa, whoa, whoa, no. Nintendo's engineers were and are geniuses at taking components that didn't seem particularly useful, or seemed close to the end of their life, and breathing new life into them. People tried and failed to copy the Game Boy for years, but no-one managed to make anything that was as cheap, durable, or as conservative with power. The NES and SNES hardware was incredibly clever, making good use of its relatively low-power hardware. And since then, they've had a reputation for reliability that neither Microsoft nor Sony can even touch.

 

Alright, sure. I'll concede that the handheld side is one area where their innovative hardware has given them a leg up in the past. Although I would say that isn't the case any more considering the DS and 3DS only started selling well once they had built up a good catalog of games. But on the console side I still don't buy it. I really don't think Nintendo's innovation in hardware is what sold more Super Nintendo's than Sega Genesis's. It was their catalog of awesome games. That is what always sold their consoles, up until the Wii at least. 

 

I am just very skeptical of them continuing to find success by putting out consoles running on old specs, adding some peripheral in the hopes that it will be the next fad, and still charging over $300 for it when competitor's hardware is many times more powerful, isn't much more expensive, and has the horsepower to support games being made by people other than Nintendo. If they do find success doing that it will be because of their games, not their hardware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I would say that isn't the case any more considering the DS and 3DS only started selling well once they had built up a good catalog of games.

 

The 3DS is not merely "selling well," it was the best selling games console of 2013, and the best-selling games console for December, the first full month of sales for the xBone and the ps4.  Handheld hardware isn't a weird little offshoot product that Nintendo does, it's their core business.  The weird offshoot is the boxes they make that you have to plug into a TV.

 

I'm not sure how games journalists still manage to not-understand this, unless it's a combination of lazy, habitual leaning on the "console wars" narrative for the stories they have to file, plus an ingrained notion that it's not a console if it doesn't show games on a television.  But whatever it is, this completely backwards view of Nintendo's core business is transmitted from the press on to the games-thinking-about public, and it results in endless repetition of a few really terrible ideas about what Nintendo ought to do with itself.

 

Nintendo can keep manufacturing hardware with positive profit margins, marketing that hardware largely via games exclusive to it, resulting in chart-topping unit sales, all the while dabbling in experimental, cheap-to-build hardware of the old clunky plugs-into-televisions variety, possibly with an eye to eventually miniaturizing any successes there and incorporating them into their core product.  This is an enormously successful business, yet some people still want them to give all that up and just be Square Enix instead.

 

Why?  Why do people cling to this idea that would so obviously be completely awful for Nintendo's business, and quite possibly for their games, too?  Is it just because they're at some sort of uncomfortable in-between age where they don't want to be seen playing with a 3DS in public, but they can't credibly tell the clerk "it's for my kid" when they go to the store to buy one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3DS is not merely "selling well," it was the best selling games console of 2013, and the best-selling games console for December, the first full month of sales for the xBone and the ps4.  Handheld hardware isn't a weird little offshoot product that Nintendo does, it's their core business.  The weird offshoot is the boxes they make that you have to plug into a TV.

 

I'm not sure how games journalists still manage to not-understand this, unless it's a combination of lazy, habitual leaning on the "console wars" narrative for the stories they have to file, plus an ingrained notion that it's not a console if it doesn't show games on a television.  But whatever it is, this completely backwards view of Nintendo's core business is transmitted from the press on to the games-thinking-about public, and it results in endless repetition of a few really terrible ideas about what Nintendo ought to do with itself.

 

Nintendo can keep manufacturing hardware with positive profit margins, marketing that hardware largely via games exclusive to it, resulting in chart-topping unit sales, all the while dabbling in experimental, cheap-to-build hardware of the old clunky plugs-into-televisions variety, possibly with an eye to eventually miniaturizing any successes there and incorporating them into their core product.  This is an enormously successful business, yet some people still want them to give all that up and just be Square Enix instead.

 

Why?  Why do people cling to this idea that would so obviously be completely awful for Nintendo's business, and quite possibly for their games, too?  Is it just because they're at some sort of uncomfortable in-between age where they don't want to be seen playing with a 3DS in public, but they can't credibly tell the clerk "it's for my kid" when they go to the store to buy one?

You're missing the point. I'm saying it is their games that sell their hardware and as far as I can tell nothing you've said shows otherwise. The 3DS is only selling so well now because Nintendo put out a ton of great games on it and it is a justifiable purchase (which it wasn't for a while and sold terribly).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what you're saying, then, is that Nintendo's business needs to be restructured because they're successfully and profitably selling both the games and the hardware to play them on?  And that the way to fix this dire threat to the company's continued existence is to get rid of that enormous pile of horrible, terrible hardware profits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what you're saying, then, is that Nintendo's business needs to be restructured because they're successfully and profitably selling both the games and the hardware to play them on?  And that the way to fix this dire threat to the company's continued existence is to get rid of that enormous pile of horrible, terrible hardware profits?

 

Okay, point of order, not that I'm taking either side of this debate, because Nintendo's always done its own thing, but "best-selling console of 2013" does not equal "most profitable console of 2013". Do we know the markup on the 3DS and that represents the revenue from the 3DS, rather than the software sales that a substantial install base allows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we know the markup on the 3DS and that represents the revenue from the 3DS, rather than the software sales that a substantial install base allows?

 

We don't, because they don't break that out in their financial reports, but we do know that unlike other console manufacturers, Nintendo has always aimed to sell their hardware at a profit from launch day.  We also know that they were selling the 3DS at a loss from August '11 to around July '12 due to an early price cut, but have had positive margins on the unit since, including all of 2013.  I can't imagine the margins on the deeply discounted last-gen plug-in-to-tv consoles were especially good in '13, and as stated, the 3Ds definitely beat Sony and Microsoft on volume.

 

My larger point here is that so much of this idle chit-chat, or wishful thinking about playing Zeldario without having to buy a Nintendo device in addition to ones' Sony or Microsoft device, is based on the premise that Nintendo is a failure as a hardware company, when in reality Nintendo is actually a fantastically successful hardware company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have genuinely seen the argument that Nintendo's handheld consoles are laughably inferior compared to smartphones, and Nintendo should quit trying to compete in hardware if the 3DS is the best they can do. There is a rainbow of arguments about what Nintendo should do.

 

Nintendo's games sell their systems, but one of the games people seem ravenously excited about on the 3DS is made by Square Enix. Level 5 and Capcom both have iconic DS franchises. I think it's more accurate to argue that games that people want sell systems, and that Nintendo is not very good at convincing other developers to make games for their systems until Nintendo has already given hardware sales a shot in the arm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My larger point here is that so much of this idle chit-chat, or wishful thinking about playing Zeldario without having to buy a Nintendo device in addition to ones' Sony or Microsoft device, is based on the premise that Nintendo is a failure as a hardware company, when in reality Nintendo is actually a fantastically successful hardware company.

 

I don't think anyone here is saying Nintendo is a failure as a hardware company but I also wouldn't go so far as to say that they are fantastically successful on that front either. I'm not trying to pass down my opinion as some infallible truth, it's just where my mind is at right now. It seems like I struck some kind of nerve with you and I'm sorry if what I'm saying offends you.

 

Getting back to the point, I think Nintendo could definitely still be successful if they ditched their non-handheld hardware and stuck to just making games. It would be interesting to see how much money a company like Sony might pay to get exclusive rights to Nintendo franchises. I'd say it is pretty much a given that Nintendo fans (i.e. those that typically purchase Nintendo consoles) would purchase whatever system Nintendo's games might end up on and in addition, Nintendo would probably see increased sales from people buying their games who might not have otherwise. I guess the real question is, would the money they get for licensing their games plus the additional software sales from people who wouldn't normally buy Nintendo games be greater than the profits they typically make on their own hardware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

131698-thiefheader.jpg

 

I can't believe you guys doubted Jake about this.  He's seldom wrong about this kind of thing (at least on the podcast).

 

Eidos totally announced this game as Thi4f, and the internet mocked them for weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was that joystiq ran that logo recently with the new trailer, which confused me. Chris and Sean had both seen that logo back when it was announced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That thing is just marvelous. It's amazing how long it took for logo designers to realize that '4' looks exactly like the letter e.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Banner Saga Factions has no story to it. It consists entirely of multiplayer matches, upgrading and adjusting your roster.
Spear-persons, Wardens, and Hunts-persons are not available in Banner Saga Factions yet. 

It's got the typical multiplayer hardships of difficulty spikes, but matches only take about 15 minutes and (from my experience) are enjoyable more often than not. You are matched with teams with similar quantities of upgrades, but the veteran status of the other player seems to have no effect on the match-making. When I only have 30 minutes or so to play something, I'll play Factions. I stick to the single-player campaign when I am feeling like watching my caravan move over the winter landscapes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding a metaphor for how Link between Worlds related to Link to the Past, the best example I can think of is Hitchcock's Rear Window to DJ Caruso's Disturbia. They change enough things so that it's not a direct remake, but if you're familiar with the source you still know what part comes next. Also Disturbia as a film is fine, but the fit and finish doesn't come near Hitchcock's film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FUCKIN MATHNET

 

.... is what, in my heart, this episode would have been called.

 

Halfway Through The Animorphs would also have been good. I like when you guys ramble, good episode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda though about sending an email about Link Between Worlds, until I realized that the real issue is that Jake hasn't actually gotten to the part of the game that opens up yet if he just got to the dark world, aka Lorule (which, by the way, A+ joke Nintendo). In Lorule, you really can do the dungeons in ALMOST any order, so I'll be curious if that will change Jake's opinion at all. That said, I think the way this game is structured is only a partially successful experiment, and I hope in the next game they iterate on it, maybe incorporating the more traditional item-in-dungeon structure a little more, or trying something new altogether. I also think the game was marred slightly by being too easy - I literally never died, so the penalty of having your items repossessed was never keenly felt, though I came close a few times. Of course, I'm also not the person who's going to advocate strongly for any kind of "return to form" for the series - my favorite Zelda game is Twilight Princess, and I really don't like the original game, having never played it back when it was contemporary (I never owned an NES).

 

Speaking of Zelda - this is me being a terrible pedant, but it drove me crazy when Chris kept mentioning how recent Zelda games had item slots that looked like the items. The only one that sort of did that was Skyward Sword, and it was just for four "passive" items, and you couldn't tell what they were by the silouettes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3DS is not merely "selling well," it was the best selling games console of 2013, and the best-selling games console for December, the first full month of sales for the xBone and the ps4.  Handheld hardware isn't a weird little offshoot product that Nintendo does, it's their core business.  The weird offshoot is the boxes they make that you have to plug into a TV.

 

While your point is well taken, the difference between a $180 piece of handheld hardware with an established library vs $4-500 pieces of living room hardware with real (artificial or not) scarcity is hardly the most straightforward comparison.

 

Nintendo cut prices on the 3DS MUCH earlier than anyone anticipated, even after it was clear the launch hadn't gone as smoothly as they'd have liked. At that point, they were selling the 3DS at a loss. I don't know if they still are (e: I see you made this point in a later post). They literally apologized for the 3DS and it took 2 years to put games on it. While it's doing well now, for 2011, 2012 and a decent chunk of 2013 the 3DS looked like it was on life support. I believe the 3DS is now a success, but 18-24m for a platform to be profitable is way out of the norm for Nintendo.

 

Do you expect it will continue to be the highest-selling platform of 2014?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you expect it will continue to be the highest-selling platform of 2014?

 

Also worth noting that it was the first year that mobile software platforms both out-grossed dedicated gaming hardware like the 3DS and the Vita.  You could call 2013 a strong year for the 3DS, but you'd be putting a bit of spin on it.  Also to the point of "tell that to the kids in the backseat" argument.  You should check out what kids are using these days.  It may seem like a ridiculous expense, but kids are using iPads, iPods and iPhones to game now.  And that upfront cost is mitigated by the endless supply of free or near-free games available.

 

If the argument is that the handheld market is Nintendo's safe harbour, I'm a bit skeptical.

 

T8igHui.jpg

The yellow line is 3DS + Vita

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nintendo has had multiple straight quarters of losses, with a projected loss for their overall fiscal year, after previously predicting a return to profitability. How is this a profitable hardware business? (Or a profitable business of any kind?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I ever see parents giving their kids these days is iPads and it's insane how effective they are at placating them. I usually see them play movies and not games, but regardless of what's on the screen, as soon as the kids have them in their hands they get lost in the things. It's actually kinda creepy (I'm talking about toddlers here, not older kids). I think there's still a space for dedicated mobile game machines as long as phones and tables don't allow for more complex input than touch but that may not last forever. It would be a dangerous gamble to for Nintendo to depend too heavily on that market.

 

Regarding the WiiU, the only thing I have to say on that is that I think it was a mistake to not push the graphical power of the system further. It's going to limit third party support for the system, especially in the long term, and it also gives the console the stigma of being underpowered, which is enough to make a lot of people out there look elsewhere. They knew the PS4 and Xbox One were coming, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem with Far Cry 2 had nothing to do with Malaria or gun jamming, those are cool realistic mechanics.  No, my problem was that from the minute I started playing the environment just seemed fake, like a set rather than a real place.  Also the lighting seemed dull and ugly.  Maybe it was because I was playing on console?  Far Cry the original was all about atmosphere and beauty. 

 

As for gameplay, I think I prefer open world games like Crysis that just have missions that move you along from point A to point B, but allow a lot of exploration in the process.  The "systems" in games like Assassin's Creed, Far Cry 2, and Far Cry 3 usually just seem really artificial and stupid.  I'm talking about all those icons they put on your map indicating different copy-paste "activities" you can do.  Can't remember if Far Cry 2 had this or not, but it feels like that kind of game (weapon vendor quests, buddy quests, tower quests...snoooore).  I much prefer a Crysis style game where its just you, your gear, your mission, and the world.  No goofy "radio towers" to climb every 100 feet or repetitive "quests" to complete.

 

As far as I'm concerned Crysis is the real successor to Far Cry.  Far Cry 2 did not live up to that at all, I stopped playing after maybe 2 hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem with Far Cry 2 had nothing to do with Malaria or gun jamming, those are cool realistic mechanics.

 

I misread this sentence as "nothing to do with the Malaria gun jamming." A game with a gun that gave your enemies malaria would be the best/most terrifying thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this