The WORST Article about Nintendo EVER...

[Erik_Twice]

Nintendo has a lot of killer IP that others only ever imitate but never duplicate. To roll certain franchises (Animal Crossing was a good example, Pokemon would be another) under the micro-transaction model on tablets/smartphones may very well increase their brand recognition/money in the bank/whatever.

Nintendo doesn't need to increase their brand recognition and this move would actually harm it by watering down their ideals, alienating their existing audience, pushing anti-consumer practises and competing in a market more concerned with games being free than actually being well-designed. The supposed lucrative mobile phone market doesn't care about F-Zero and wouldn't have brought as much money as the 770.000, 50€ copies of Fire Emblem :Awakening that have been sold so far.

A game that does already have successful microtransactions, and expensive ones at that, they are like 6€ a piece and there's a lot of them. Nintendo is already making money with microtransactions and they are expanding their reach in that area, they don't need to move to mobile to profit from them.

But it can be boiled down to this: For all their small titles, they don't gain anything by going mobile. And their big titles are successful enough that they can sell them for 50€ on their propietary console, they would make less money on a mobile platform.

What Nintendo should be doing and IS doing is expanding their merchandaising. Their IP is incredibly popular and the public is hungry for T-shirts, plushes and extremely expensive plastic figurines. They are following the steps of Disney, in which the movies are simply the genesis of a wider product range.

And as I see it, it's a better path to follow than that of Zynga, which is already bankrupt.

At best, I think it makes as much sense to go Mobile as it does for John Deere to stop its production of tractors.

[Cronozilla]

Movies are not platform independent.

Any piece of hardware you watch a BluRay on, the manufacturer has to pay licensing fees to be able to legally do that. Even with DVD, manufacturers had to pay to say they could play DVDs, even though the discs themselves weren't closed specifications (I believe so, anyway)

That is a form of platform exclusivity. After all, you cannot get another violet laser device and play BluRay movies on it. It doesn't adhere to the proprietary BluRay standard and specification, because it legally cannot.

Video games are one area I would actually argue that agnosticism would be a negative thing. I think the spirit of competition between platforms is something that instills diversity and complexity in the games we enjoy, and if you took that away, they'd all turn into near-clones of one another. It would turn into an entirely homogenized field.

In some cases, homogenization would be wonderful, like user-environments for computers then everything can step forward together, and you wouldn't have fundamental incompatibilities just to line pockets.

But video games are different. They're unique experiences per game.

Furthermore, most of the time I hear people make this argument for non-exclusivity in games, it sounds like they're not even making an agnostics argument.

There are agnostic platforms out there. Linux and Android come to mind, there's Linux cell phones with open markets. You can use various networks to distribute non-DRM Android software and get paid for it, as well. There are environments that encourage open-ness.

But that's not really what it sounds like people want ... it sounds like what people want is random games x for platform y to be on device z, because they happened to buy device z. And that's just about the same as saying that all peripheral entertainment companies should just chase popular trends and only follow dominant platforms.

If that happened, that would be absolutely atrocious.

[samsonlonghair]

Wow. That article was ignorant.

Let's do some quick math. Pokemon Alpha Sapphire and Omega Ruby sold three million copies in three days. Three million times forty dollars equals one hundred and twenty million dollars. There's not a single app in the whole ios app store that can make one hundred twenty million in three days. Not even close.

[ZeroAX]

F-Zero with motion controls

nough said

[irixith]

I agree with the main point because I hate exclusives. All games should be available on every platform possible.

The reason that we need exclusives is that it drives competition, which brings us better quality games and more unique experiences than if there was just a generic box to pump out equally generic content for. I'd like to see even -more- exclusives, frankly. The value proposition of a particular box is intrinsically linked to the number of exclusive play experiences that can be had on that box.

Nintendo doesn't need to increase their brand recognition and this move would actually harm it by watering down their ideals, alienating their existing audience, pushing anti-consumer practises and competing in a market more concerned with games being free than actually being well-designed.

I completely agree, which is why I said...

Thank goodness it comes down to more than mere revenue.

...but perhaps should have elaborated on more.

I just didn't think it was the worst article about Nintendo ever. I don't agree with the author, but can understand their line of thinking and it makes for interesting dicsussion if nothing else. I am not the consumer this person is writing about -- one who completely ignores anything free-to-play, anything with microtransactions/or could be considered pay-to-play, don't utilize my telephone as a gaming device, don't own any Apple or Android products, the list goes on. I really do feel that the only way to express my disdain/disgust/dislike for any product or service is to speak with my wallet and nothing else.

There may be temporary revenue and growth for a company to chase in the mobile market, but the author forgets that 3 million copies of a game, plus the uptick in console sales...that's exactly why Nintendo's in the console market and not the mobile one. It doesn't need to be anywhere else, and as you say Erik, it can diversify in other ways that don't impact on any core properties/brands in a negative way.

[Opa Opa]

I think that by ignoring mobile, they're not reaching an entire generation of youth that doesn't buy dedicated portable consoles. Most kids I see nowadays have either their own phone/tablet or a hand-me-down to play around on. I don't see the Nintendo brand finding any new ground to expand on, tbh.

[BoneSnapDeez]

I wonder if they'd have success putting the Virtual Console on mobile phones.

[irixith]

I think that by ignoring mobile, they're not reaching an entire generation of youth that doesn't buy dedicated portable consoles. Most kids I see nowadays have either their own phone/tablet or a hand-me-down to play around on. I don't see the Nintendo brand finding any new ground to expand on, tbh.

Those three million copies came from -somewhere-.

Many of us here are in the first and second generation of gamers -- we've grown up through the entire development of the gaming industry. We're the ones who through ownership and play pass it on to the next generation, who will hopefully pass it on to the next generation and so on. It doesn't look like Nintendo is interested in reaching a market who complains about 0.99c being "too expensive", or who's entire experience with "games" is something like Candy Crush saga.

There is more than one market segment, and Nintendo has definitely found theirs.

I wonder if they'd have success putting the Virtual Console on mobile phones.

- They'd have to directly compete with better emulators;

- They wouldn't be able to get away with the inflated prices they currently get away with charging per game;

- They'd be in constant legal battles trying to get said emulators taken off the app stores (and since sideloading is a thing, it's really an unwinnable battle);

- The touch screen problem rears its ugly and devisive head;

- They would never be able to offer a game selection equal to what can be played via downloading rom sets due to all the hoopa around IP/licensing.

[Exhuminator]

Most kids I see nowadays have either their own phone/tablet or a hand-me-down to play around on.

This is an extremely good point. Every time I see a kid these days in public playing on a portable device, it is a smartphone or a tablet. I don't see 3DS units or Vitas out in the wild pretty much period. I think for the most part its older people who grew up with Nintendo still buying Nintendo devices and games. Take my 16 year old daughter for example, she wants the newest iPhone for Christmas, she doesn't give a damn about a 3DS. And I exposed her to NES and SNES and GC during her whole childhood. It's the same story with other people I know her age. They want devices that are socially oriented and offer app of the day throwaway fun.

[jfrost]

I agree with the main point because I hate exclusives. All games should be available on every platform possible.

The reason that we need exclusives is that it drives competitio, which brings us better quality games and more unique experiences than if there was just a generic box to pump out equally generic content for. I'd like to see even -more- exclusives, frankly. The value proposition of a particular box is intrinsically linked to the number of exclusive play experiences that can be had on that box.

What a weird argument, Why should I care what the value proposition of a corporate machine is? I care what games are available to me as the end user without having to shell out more cash for more plastic gadgets.

If the point is to drive up competition, let's just make everything platform-centric: music, books, movies.

Taylor Swift recently left Spotify. Let's celebrate that exclusivity!

The last and this generation are frankly the best, in my opinion. Very few exclusives among the dominant platforms. I can be content having just my PC and not connecting 3 boxes to my TV that I'm not missing out on much.

Call it generic if you will. It's been great to me.