The Problem With… Nintendo Apologists

bundle_gray_tabletopI’ve pre-ordered a Switch. I do however still stand by my original stance that the Switch isn’t an impressive system; it’s ugly, under-powered and will struggle to get 3rd parties back on board. So why then have I pre-ordered? I’ve been a Nintendo fan since back in the NES days and their games still have that something special that keeps me coming back. Don’t get me wrong, they do occasionally churn out some shit. Even big franchises like The Legend of Zelda have the occasional “miss”; I thought both Spirit Tracks and Skyward Sword were among the worst in the franchise. I also like the idea of taking some potentially great games like Super Mario Odyssey and The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild with me while I travel. These days I find myself playing handheld systems like my Vita more often than my home consoles so the Switch might be a great setup for me.

I understand Nintendo get a lot wrong (as we’ll delve into in this article) but there’s a lot of fans who I guess we’d call “fanboys” who are so blinded by their sheer love for everything Nintendo that they cannot and will not accept any criticism thrown at the company. Now to be clear, there’s die hards in both the Sony and Microsoft camps too but Nintendo breed a special kind of loyal fan. In the past I’ve been labelled a Nintendo fanboy and a Sony fanboy but honestly, I’m neither. I criticise things I hate with all 3 video game giants, I just have a tendency to enjoy first party Nintendo games and in recent years my consoles of choice tend to be Sony devices – that’s my personal preference. So let’s explore the special flowers that are Nintendo apologists. I’m going to use a few personal anecdotes in this article which I’m ok with as I’m specifically making an argument about these types of fans, not Nintendo fans in general.

I recently got into a debate on a Facebook group when I saw a post stating “That explains why the pro controller is more expensive, that’s insane it has that all built in. Glad to know that”. The post was accompanied by a brief description of its features. The tech inside the pro controller boasts features such as “motion controls”, “HD rumble” (whatever that will end up being) and “built in amiibo functionality”. Firstly, I’m not totally convinced that these features do explain the high cost of this controller. Doing a quick search, the Xbox One controller retails for around $50 and includes their own version of updated rumble in the form of “Impulse Triggers”. A PS4 DualShock 4 can also be picked up new for a similar price and they too feature new tech such as the light bar, speaker (new to PlayStation controllers) and a “Clickable touchpad”. Arguably of course the Switches HD rumble might be a revolution compared to the rumble of old but do an NFC reader and a fancy update to rumble justify a full $20 increase over the competition? Let’s give the poster the benefit of the doubt here and agree that this “new” tech actually does justify the $20 increase. WHY DO I NEED IT? And here’s my argument that I posted in response:

“That doesn’t mean the majority of players want all that tech. Does everything in your house really need to have the ability to scan amiibo? Or would the main screen be sufficient? I’d certainly take the lack of amiibo scanning in a specific controller if it meant the price was £15 less.”11396097-6244453754475000

A second poster then argued that indeed, this same logic could be applied to PS4 or Xbox One controllers. I agreed that indeed that is true but that doesn’t justify Nintendo bumping the cost of their controller up significantly. We as consumers come to expect a certain price bracket for consoles and accessories and indeed on this matter gamers will vote with their wallets I’m sure. The worst part about this is that the pro controller isn’t even the most expensive controller on offer. A set of Joy-Cons will set you back around $90! Journalists and fans alike (well, except for Nintendo apologists) seem up in arms about the price, Polygon seemed to have done the work for me here, after checking Twitter Ben Kuchera stated “I checked Twitter to see if I was just suffering from a case of unrealistic expectations and nope, there seems to be some serious pushback from others about the price of these accessories”1. Jim Sterling commented after the reveal “Let’s look at everything else Nintendo did to kill my interest in the switch”2 before going on to complain about the price of not only the pro controller but other accessories. Colin Moriarty explained on his new show “Colin Was Right”:

“You do have to do something to keep people around. The games aren’t there and they aren’t going to be there and these ridiculous peripheral prices are simply isolating potential customers even more.”3

sales-figures

Gamers could chose to take or leave the console and any accessories; Nintendo has every right to charge whatever they feel is reasonable but get this. Since the NES we’ve seen a notable decline in install base throughout all of their home consoles4, with the Wii being the one anomaly here. The NES for example shifted over 60 million units whereas the Wii U has managed fewer than 14 million units and with the Switch releasing in less than 2 months that figure isn’t likely to creep up much further. With that I’d consider it a reasonable expectation that Nintendo should do everything they can to win back a bit of loyalty. Maybe sell the console for a significant loss in order to get the install base back up? After all they’d make a killing on software, much like the business model Sony and Microsoft have used many times in the past.5 How about charge a reasonable price for extra controllers? Maybe bundle in the ability to charge the Joy-Cons with the included grip rather than having to shell out for a special charging grip?6 So the slightly higher than expected price of controllers and accessories alone isn’t the only issue here. I think a Facebook post I wrote summaries this nicely:

“What exactly would Nintendo have to do in order for you to call them out on it? Shit on your lawn? There are a stack of issues surrounding the switch and so many Nintendo apologists are coming out with excuse after excuse.

Look, it’s not JUST the charging issue here, that’s merely the icing on the cake or should that be cack?”

Let’s address some of the other points then that are contributing to this mess. The launch line-up is really weak, on the launch day itself we have The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild (Ok, here’s a decent first party franchise) and 1-2 Switch in terms of first party titles. As for 3rd party? Skylanders something or another, Just Dance 20 whatever year it is and Super Bomberman R.7 Nothing really to write home about. And as for Zelda, well although this is a beloved Nintendo franchise it really isn’t a big system seller; just take a look at past Nintendo sales figures.8 I’d also add that out of these games 1-2 Switch and Super Bomberman R are the only exclusives, Zelda is also on Wii U and the rest of the bunch are coming to multiple platforms. Ok, so how about games released during 2017? Notable “big” games include Super Mario Odyssey, Xenoblade Chronicles 2, FIFA, NBA 2K18, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, Splatoon 2 and ARMS. Notice the absence of a lot of major cross platform games? Where are Call of Duty, Battlefield, Resident Evil 7, Kingdom Hearts III, Mass Effect Andromeda, Metal Gear Survive, Red Dead Redemption 2 and South Park: Fractured But Whole to named but a few. Sure, as the saying goes “people buy a Nintendo or Nintendo games, not cross-platform games”. Hmmm, I’d be convinced of that if only the sales figures showed that to be the case. The fact is when most households chose to splash out on a console they are clearly picking the Sony or Microsoft boxes that can play a few great exclusives as well as being supported extensively by 3rd party developers. Think about it, gamers with a bit of excess cash might buy 2 or even all 3 of these home systems but many kids or adults on lower incomes will only buy one console. And these consumers will certainly want a box that gives them a decent variety of games, including games that their friends are talking about.  And this brings me to the next comment I found on Facebook:

“The hybrid nature of the console will hold it back from being a mainstream success. But it will likely do pretty well, Zelda at launch, MK8 Splatoon and Mario Odyssey all in the first year, will keep the system selling well all the way through its first year.”

My response to this statement?

“4 games in a year will not “keep the system selling well”, especially when 2 of them are essentially “deluxe” versions of existing games and zelda is not an exclusive.”

nintendoswitch_supermarioodyssey_presentation2017_scrn05_bmp_jpgcopy

The conversation continued with this user stating that I was “forgetting those are four of the biggest games Nintendo has”. The problem is that these “biggest” franchises also made appearances on Wii U and they didn’t shift enough consoles so what makes him think they will just because they are coming to a new platform? Another user then chimed in to tell me games like Mario Kart 8 Deluxe aren’t simply ports like we saw from PS3 to PS4. I’m not sure what he’d consider a port then when Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is (as the name implies) a Deluxe version of an old game, it includes all previous DLC and a couple of extra bits and pieces to sweeten the deal. It is by no means a brand new game and it isn’t being marketed in that way either. To top off this debate the original user then informed me that these games did in fact sell the Wii U console. Really? REALLY? The 85 million or so gamers who bought a Wii but didn’t buy a Wii U might disagree with you there! The final comment from the original user was also a bit of a surprise after I’d mentioned to him that you only have to look at how the media reacted after the second reveal. Proving my point that Nintendo apologists are almost blind to any criticism he noted:

“The “buzz surrounding it died”? In what world are you living in? Ever major gaming, tech, nerd , and even news outlet has covered the Switch conference.”

Well I’m actually referring to the likes of the Jimquisition episode9 on this subject where Jim Sterling does a fine job of highlighting some of the points (and others) that I’ve mentioned here. Jim specifically mentions at the end of the video that he made the episode out of frustration because he believes Nintendo has “the potential to be the best platform holder…”.10 I’m doing much the same thing here, I haven’t written this article to slate Nintendo – I’ve ordered the Switch! I’ve wrote this article to vent my frustration at a company which makes so many stupid mistakes that they really shouldn’t make.

Would you like more proof that the buzz died after the reveal? How about the Kinda Funny guys? Colin specifically stated after the Nintendo reveal11 back in October 2016 “I’m excited to pre-order”.12 After the second reveal Colin commented that he was “not very excited”13 before the guys commented negatively on the price of the accessories14 and everything else for that matter!15 Anecdotally I might also add that during the original reveal I left several comments on forums expressing my dislike of the Switch’s ugly, clumsy design. I was pretty much shot down immediately, not a lot of people agreed with me. Fast forward to the second reveal and forums are now seemly divided down the middle with arguments revolving around the high price of the accessories, the Nintendo network becoming a premium service (more on this soon) and the sparse launch line up. And then there’s the articles, of course it wouldn’t be fair to say that all the Switch press was negative. There are indeed a lot of positive posts and many fans and journalists alike have been won over. But just look at a few of these headlines and I think you’ll agree that Nintendo haven’t exactly knocked it out of the park:

The pricing on Nintendo Switch accessories is a bad, bad joke1
Nintendo Switch online service’s ‘free’ monthly games come with a huge catch161-2-Switch is not the killer app the Nintendo Switch needs17
Nintendo Switch will launch with fewer games than the Wii, Wii U or 3DS18
Nintendo Switch’s bundled Joy-Con grip doesn’t charge controllers19

And I think that sums up Nintendo, there are always caveats with their services, games and products. And talking of services, let’s take a look at Nintendo’s new offerings. First of all there’s news that the Switch’s voice chat is done…wait for it… via a smart phone app!20 That’s right folks, there is no native voice chat built into the Switch, and here’s the reasoning behind it according to NOA’s head honcho Reggie Fils-Aime:

“we want to reinforce the capability to take your experience with you on the go…. The ability to do matchmaking, voice chat through your phone, it’s a hell of a lot more convenient than having a gamer headset stuck into your backpack trying to do that. That’s why we’re doing it the way we are. We see the convenience, we see the ease of delivery. We think it’s going to lead to a better experience.”20

This is another common problem with Nintendo, they do things so against the grain that it defies all logic yet Nintendo will outright defend these decisions, as will their apologists. If the issue here is parental controls then implement controls to block this feature for children. If however the issue really is convenience then why can’t we have the best of both worlds and include voice chat out of the box as well as via a smart device app? Is Reggie seriously trying to say voice chat via a phone is more convenient? Not only does this mean anybody who wants to voice chat needs a couple of hundred pounds worth of mobile phone, but it needs to be charged, have a decent signal and be used separately from the Switch’s interface. And how about the “gamer headset stuck into your backpack”? Is he suggesting you no longer need a headset? So I just sit on the train with my phone next to my ear or with the speaker blearing out? Or do I use a small set of headphones with a microphone? If the latter then why can’t I use that with a Switch instead of the massively inconvenient headset Reggie assumes I need if voice chat was native to the console?

splatoon2

For the record, personally I don’t care about voice chat, especially on a Nintendo console as I’m not a big online gamer. Like voice chat or not though, there’s a hell of a lot of gamers out there who use this feature daily on the PS4 and Xbox One. How can Nintendo ever hope to gain a big fan base when online gamers are denied basic features like this? Yet again though, the apologists help justify Nintendo’s absurd decision. One Facebooker commented “When you make things more difficult for people to use – voice chat – you deserve to be endlessly mocked.” Perhaps he was trolling a little as this was on the Nintendo Voice Chat Facebook group, however, just look at this response “I don’t agree. Nintendo is pivoting towards mobile as a focal point. They approach online differently as such. So, it may not be for you, but mocking is for kids online.” “Pivoting towards mobile”? So that’s the justification for shafting core online gamers?

It seems that voice chat isn’t the only online feature Nintendo is having a stab at butchering either. Much like Xbox Live and PSN, Nintendo will now also start charging for online functionality and in return gamers can expect online lobbies with voice chat, exclusive deals and monthly game downloads from the NES and SNES libraries.21 Here’s the catch, not only have Nintendo miserably failed with all online ventures on previous consoles when compared to Sony and Microsoft but their new paid for service will be giving fans access to an 8 or 16-bit game for one month only!22 Ok, so I’m a firm believer that gameplay is king and I also think that some of the finest games in existence can be found on both the NES and SNES but there’s no denying that offering gamers limited access to 20 or 30 year old games for a month isn’t exactly on par with their competitors. Sony alone offers 6 games per month (2 on each platform from PS3, PS4 and Vita), not forgetting that quite often a selection of these games are also cross-platform so the argument of “I only have a PS4 though” doesn’t wash here. Arguably a lot of these games aren’t worth the bandwidth they use to download but there have also been some great games on the service over the years. And what’s more, both Sony and Microsoft let you play these games for the entirety of your subscription. Having now been a subscriber for 5 or 6 years myself I literally have access to hundreds of games.

I actually put this question to members of the Nintendo Voice Chat Facebook group and in general most responses agreed with me. There were however a couple which tried to justify Nintendo’s decisions and put a positive spin on things. Here’s a couple:

“I like it the flavor of the month concept to it. In reality most of these games take a few hours to beat. So a month should be more than enough time with an NES or SNES game.”

“In a way wouldn’t having it only as a month motivate people to play right away, fill the online modes and most will be done with NES and SNES games after a month anyway? Just a thought.”

“The good thing about the monthly thing would that it would encourage a lot of people to play it that month. This would make it a lot easier to find people to play online with during that month.”

“I like it, i think it will be great for everyone to have access to the same title at the same time.”

Now, I understand what the first commenter is suggesting. In general a lot of NES / SNES era games can realistically be beaten with a couple of hours. However, what I don’t agree with is justifying this decision just because a game is short. Let’s put it this way, sometimes I might buy a game or get one free with PS+ but not actually get around to playing it for months, or even years in some cases. Why would Nintendo putting a restriction on the availability of the game be a good thing? Isn’t it better for the gamer to decide when they want to play the game instead of having it dictated to them?

I’d urge you all to throw away your nostalgia and throw away your biases and really take a look at Nintendo’s decisions. This is a company I grew up with, I love their consoles and love their games but there’s nothing wrong with calling out a company when they do something shitty. It’s pretty clear from Nintendo’s dwindling sales figures that they are struggling to stay relevant and keep up with Microsoft and Sony and if they at least don’t try and offer similar services and technology they will eventually fall.

maxresdefault

Finally, please go and watch both the Colin Was Right episode “Same Old Nintendo” and the Jimquisition episode “What Nintendo Fucked Up With The Switch So Far”. Both of these episodes are excellent, level headed and delivered by Nintendo fans.

A note about any Facebook quotations I’ve used.
I’ve left quotes unaltered, including spelling and typos. I felt this was the best way to avoid misquoting anybody. I’ve left out any citation here; they are simply being used as anecdotes to protect the users anonymity.

1 – http://www.polygon.com/2017/1/13/14261342/nintendo-switch-extra-controller-price-terrible
2 – https://youtu.be/7fH_wl8ceAg?t=341
3 – https://youtu.be/LenzNAyRnWU?list=PLy3mMHt2i7RJjrxBVoVL5tDTbhimG4NFz&t=540
4 – https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/sales/hard_soft/
5 – http://www.pcworld.com/article/127906/article.html
6 – http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-01-16-nintendo-switchs-basic-joy-con-grip-doesnt-charge-controllers
7 – https://twitter.com/NintendoAmerica/status/820006323328864256/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
8 – http://uk.ign.com/articles/2014/01/29/these-are-nintendos-lifetime-hardware-and-software-numbers
9 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fH_wl8ceAg&t=352s
10 – https://youtu.be/7fH_wl8ceAg?t=681
11 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5uik5fgIaI
12 – https://youtu.be/HONQAWV5nxQ?t=754
13 – https://youtu.be/QdNiaVEzrwM?t=333
14 – https://youtu.be/QdNiaVEzrwM?t=452
15 – https://youtu.be/QdNiaVEzrwM?t=511
16 – http://www.polygon.com/2017/1/13/14266290/nintendo-switch-monthly-games-not-free
17 – http://www.polygon.com/2017/1/13/14268204/1-2-switch-nintendo-switch-pre-review
18 – http://www.polygon.com/nintendo-switch/2017/1/13/14263186/nintendo-switch-lineup-wii-wiiu-3ds-comparison
19 – http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-01-16-nintendo-switchs-basic-joy-con-grip-doesnt-charge-controllers
20 – http://uk.ign.com/articles/2017/01/14/nintendo-talks-voice-chat-online-approach-for-switch
21 – http://uk.ign.com/articles/2017/01/13/nintendo-switch-online-services-will-be-free-at-first
22 – https://twitter.com/kobunheat/status/819956802741747712?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

The Problem With… Nintendo

196v2v9ny3inljpg

I’ve pretty much been a lifelong Nintendo fan, receiving a NES at about the age of 6. Since then I’ve owned every major platform they have released apart from the ill fated Virtual boy. I’m still a huge Nintendo fan to this day, but they really infuriate me with some of the stubborn decisions they make. Nintendo have always followed their own path and have consistently innovated and pioneered a lot of main stay features from the Rumble Pak to analogue sticks. At times though, Nintendo’s blind refusal to compete and stay relevant is just baffling.

There are several main points of contention that I believe Nintendo need to address. Without doing so they will find themselves drifting further away from consumer’s expectations.

Console Branding

Let’s start by tackling the whole branding shambles. Nintendo have always tended to stick to a familiar naming convention (as do Sony and Microsoft) and in the past this worked out relatively fine. It’s fairly easy to understand a Super Nintendo is better than a Nintendo and that a Game Boy Advance is better than a mere Game Boy.

Nintendo Entertainment System
Super Nintendo Entertainment System
Nintendo 64

Game Boy
Game Boy Color
Game Boy Advance

Starting with the Wii and DS eras Nintendo have increasingly made poor marketing decisions when branding a console or handheld. As many will remember, codename “Revolution”1 was later renamed Wii which wasn’t exactly a fan favourite. Many fans will remember the jokes and digs at the name during the early days of Wii. Nintendo didn’t learn from this negative reception, in fact they refused to let go of both the “Wii” and “DS” brands by naming their subsequent consoles “Wii U” and “3DS”.

The DS itself isn’t necessarily a bad name and indeed it sold in excess of 154 million units2 making it the second best selling console of all time behind the PS23. So poor branding couldn’t have really been a factor here, the problem comes from branding successive consoles with extremely similar names. The hugely successful sales of the Wii and DS family might be one reason why Nintendo decided to use these brands to encompass the Wii U and 3DS. The problem here is that the majority of people aren’t typical gamers, they don’t read up on gaming news on a daily basis and they don’t keep up with the happenings of major game companies such as Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft. I’d forgive the average parent then if they were under the assumption that the 3DS is identical to the DS other than the ability to transform DS games into stereoscopic 3D. After all, Nintendo had already released a range of DS consoles from the DS, DS lite, DSi and DSi XL, all of which were based around the standard DS model. The DSi had a handful of games that were not compatible with the DS and so it was essentially an intermediary step towards a new handheld, a DS 1.5 if you will.

To make matters worse Nintendo created the 3DS family which currently consists of 3DS, 3DS XL, 2DS (more on this in a moment), New 3DS and New 3DS XL. It isn’t exactly obvious if somebody states “I have just bought myself a new 3DS”. What does this even mean now? Are we talking about the most recent model titled “New 3DS” or is the person referring to a brand new original 3DS console as opposed to a second hand one?

The 2DS is yet another example of the poorly chosen branding Nintendo are becoming synonymous with. How does a parent differentiate between a DS, DSi, 3DS, 2DS and New 3DS, let alone the lite and XL variations? Ah, the 3DS is like a DS but with a 3D slider? So the 2DS is the 3DS without the 3D? Is it a DS then? No, actually it’s not a DS. My head hurts just writing this paragraph.

wiiu

The Wii U branding is even worse; just take a look at the announcement trailer4. The entire focus here was on the “new controller”, each new piece of text that flashed up on screen talked about “… the new controller”. In fact, there was no mention of the actual console (which looks remarkably similar to the Wii by the way, confusing the matter even more) and it was only shown on screen for a few seconds, in the background. The Wii’s unique motion controls were in part responsible for its huge lifetime sales. Many will remember the stories of elderly and children alike all enjoying a game of tennis on Wii Sports. The concept was simple, hold this thing that looks like a TV remote and just swing it as you would a tennis racquet. It’s pretty understandable that Nintendo may have come to the conclusion that a similar marketing strategy would work for the Wii U – advertise the controller, it will sell the system. There was only one problem; it confused a whole lot of people. What had they just watched? Did Nintendo just reveal a new controller for the Wii? Satoru Iwata later went on to acknowledge this marketing mistake5 yet Nintendo still don’t seem to realise the brand names themselves are causing some of this confusion.

Sony’s consoles are clearly identifiable; they all look different for a start. Sony use numbers to denote their home systems (PS1, PS2 etc…) while their handheld straight up use different names (Portable, aka PSP and Vita). Most people can easily understand that the PS3 must be the successor to the PS2. Can anybody not in the know really come to the conclusion that the Wii U is the successor to the Wii? Or that the 3DS is the successor to the DS but not the 2DS?

Nintendo simply need to step back and think about how their branding will come across to a consumer who knows nothing about their products. It’s all well and good for a consumer who reads games journalism outlets and lives and breathes games but what about a parent buying their 6 year old a console for the first time? If you must stick with Wii, then name the successor a “Super Wii” at the very least. Really though Nintendo need to shake off the Wii branding as the Wii U really hasn’t taken off as expected and the Wii is now known to many people as the console that collected dust and filled people’s homes with shovelware. Due to the confusion with the DS, 3DS, and New 3DS I’d suggest Nintendo move away from the “DS” branding altogether.

Horse Power 

I’m slightly torn over this one as I firmly believe game play is king, not graphics, not horsepower. There does come a point however where you wonder why Nintendo refuses to keep up with the competition. Iwata has addressed this issue before6 however, and he seems keen on Nintendo continuing to innovate and carve their own path through the games industry.

Link_und_Epona_(Twilight_Princess)

Nintendo consoles are generally considered to be under powered compared to their competition. It’s easy to see why they go for this approach; they can use cheaper components and sell a system based on unique features and well loved franchises. Each system can then sell for a profit, which is unheard of in an industry of loss leaders7. The Wii U bucked this trend by selling for a loss8 but what is under the hood didn’t exactly scream “next gen” when the system was released back in 2012. Comparison charts between the current 3 home consoles9 only need to be glanced at to immediately see how under powered the Wii U is. In fact, the Wii U would be far more at home being compared to the PS3 and Xbox 360 which are 6 and 7 years it’s senior respectively.

There is nothing immediately wrong with Nintendo systems being under powered as long as there is a good catalogue of games. Fans will buy a Nintendo system for the Nintendo exclusive franchises, but will the average consumer? Hardcore fans are quite happy with the device sitting and gathering dust for several months a year while waiting for the next big exclusive. Nintendo have become many gamers secondary console of choice and for the majority of the year gamers will play with a Sony or Microsoft console then hop across to a Nintendo platform every couple of months to play an exclusive. And here we get to the real problem, 3rd party support. Having multiple consoles myself, I don’t really care if 3rd party support comes to Nintendo or not because I’ll just fire up my PS3 or PS4 and play games on those devices. However a large amount of gamers (particularly children) are not always in a position to have multiple consoles. They are left with a choice between a handful of really great Nintendo games or buying either a PS4 or Xbox One and playing their exclusives as well as a large amount of 3rd party games.

Nintendo could arguably dominate the market if they were to release a similarly powerful console complete with all of their historic franchises that consumers know and love as well as offering the same multi-platform games that both Sony and Microsoft provide. Developers would want to release games on the system because they wouldn’t have to create a stand alone, downgraded port just to run on that system. Porting games between PS4, Xbox One and PC is a fairly standard practice and can financially make sense. Porting a game to Wii U just doesn’t make great business sense because more effort has to go into the downgraded port and with such a small install base the risk isn’t worth taking.

As for the next system, well Nintendo have merged their hand held and home console R&D departments10. Many speculate that this merge may result in a future console being a hybrid device that can be hooked up to a TV and played like a traditional console as well as being portable. Whatever Nintendo choose to do going forward I believe they need to create a console powerful enough to compete with their rivals. Nintendo should take a hit on the sales of a new, powerful console and provide developers and consumers with a viable alternative to Sony and Microsoft’s offerings. This is the only way they will draw in 3rd party developers and increase their install base as a result. If Nintendo really want to impress they should look ahead to technologies that will be common place in 3 or 4 years time and aim to release a new home system in around 2 years time. This decision would allow for developers to easily port between all current consoles and PC as well as allow Nintendo to also show off powerful new exclusive games that wouldn’t be possible on the PS4 and Xbox One. If they wait too long to release a new system there will be early rumours of whatever Sony and Microsoft offer next, by this point many consumers will just hold tight until these consoles are released.

Cross-buy

Both Nintendo and Sony actively support multiple platforms yet Sony has been far more active in creating an eco system. When purchasing a game customers expect many will work across a combination of PS3, PS4 and Vita (if not all 3) all for one price. This isn’t always the case but there are countless examples of games being released and given away for free to previous customers, Dead Nation11 being one such example. Nintendo on the other hand haven’t made their ecosystem quite as friendly. This means that if you buy a virtual console game such as Mega Man on the 3DS there is nothing tying your Wii U account to that Mega Man purchase. In this instance you’d have to buy the game again on the Wii U if you wanted to continue playing on that platform.

I’m not aware of any sales figures that would highlight how many customers are buying a game twice because they want to play it on both the 3DS and the Wii U. Personally Nintendo are losing money from me as I hardly ever buy virtual console games because I don’t like the fact that Nintendo won’t let me play them on multiple systems. My digital library over on the Sony ecosystem however is pretty extensive, in part because I’ve had the ability to buy games on my PS3 and later replay them on my Vita. More recently games have then been ported over to the PS4 where I’ve had the option to download them again for no additional cost.

Nintendo online accounts, coupled with the lack of cross-buy feel downright archaic. What’s worse is customers cannot visit an online store to browse for and buy content. Generally when I receive an RSS feed from Sony informing me about a sale I’ll click through to the store and end up buying a few games if they take my fancy. It’s convenient to quickly log in and make a purchase while it’s fresh in my mind. Nintendo on the other hand don’t tend to have many sales and even when they do I’d have to be at home, boot up my console and head over to the shop then search for the game.

MvsDK

Nintendo are slowly making steps to improve their ecosystem as we’ve seen with Mario VS. Donkey Kong: Tipping Stars12 recently being announced as a buy one version and get the other one for free deal. We might yet make some progress, however this is labelled as a “Special offer”, potentially meaning in a few months time the offer will no longer stand. Keeping a back catalogue of virtual console games is also possible by using the system transfer to permanently move all purchases from the Wii to the Wii U. The catch here is that the virtual console games have to be played with the Wii U booted into Wii system mode. A small payment can be made to update some games to work in the Wii U OS, however the current virtual console library for Wii U is pretty lacking.

Now in terms of preserving the history that Nintendo are famous for they really need to sort out their virtual console. For a start we need at least some sort of preservation of existing purchases, I don’t want to be buying a copy of Super Mario Bros. For every Nintendo console I own. At the very least I’d like the ability to purchase a game and play it on my Wii U or 3DS without buying 2 copies. Ideally though, I’d like the Nintendo ecosystem to evolve enough so that I only have to buy a VC game once. At which point the game is tied to my account and I can access it from any future Nintendo platform. This might seem like a bad idea from Nintendo’s point of view because they’d only make money from one purchase but look at it this way, how often are consumers going to keep purchasing the same game over and over again? I know I’d buy more VC games if I thought I’d be able to access them on future platforms. That being said I know the Wii U VC library is lacking at the moment and part of that is down to porting games to work with the gamepad. There would have to be a compromise in creating a VC platform that would remain relatively unchanged on future platforms. Nintendo would need to avoid using time and resources continually porting old games to new systems. And don’t forget, Nintendo might then only generate one sale per game from veteran gamers but with every new generation of consoles comes a new generation of gamers who have all this history to discover. Think of it like iTunes, I buy a lot of my music digitally now because I can always access it through my account. If I had to re-buy my iTunes music every time I bought a new device I’d think twice about buying an album.

Nintendo Creators Program

If Nintendo haven’t already done enough to prove they have lost touch with their fans then the recent youtube program just tops it off. Essentially this program allows Nintendo to siphon off earnings from every youtube creator that posts videos featuring Nintendo games13. If a content creator doesn’t sign up to this program their content can be removed for copyright infringement. On the other hand they can choose to sign up and give Nintendo 30% of their total channel earnings or 40% for single videos14. There is no question of the legality here, Nintendo own the original material and are perfectly within their rights to take a cut of these earnings.

In the modern age the way we consume media is drastically changing. With the rise of on-demand TV and sites like youtube many people now consume media as and when they are ready. Consumers subscribe to their favourite channels not only to view various pieces of media but also to interact with content creators. Many channels now feature “Let’s play” videos, these consist of a content creator streaming themselves playing through a game. Some narrate their experiences, some review and critique games while others offer walkthrough advice. Most creators monetise their channels and make a small amount of profit for each view they receive so essentially these creators are making money by streaming copyrighted material that they do now own. This is where Nintendo decided to step in and cash in on their games being streamed.

miyamoto

So why is the creators program such a mistake? Aren’t Nintendo losing out on revenue if they don’t put this program into effect? Well yes but on the other hand many games companies are now getting free marketing. What better way to market a game than watching a likeable “real” person playing a game they have actually chosen to play rather than being asked to play? When viewers watch their favourite content creator having fun with a game they are much more likely to want to play that game than they would be from watching a very fake family in a studio “living room” all pretending to enjoy a game that they are being paid to advertise. So with Nintendo now forcing creators to pay a share of their profits many well known channels will be boycotting Nintendo games. Kinda Funny15 and PewDiePie16 have both expressed that while they admit Nintendo are within their rights to do this it’s not exactly a clever move. Colin of Kinda Funny went on to state that they will simply stop doing Nintendo content all together if this starts to affect them.

I’d just like to add that streaming a game cannot be compared to streaming a film or TV show. The core experience with the former involves interacting with the medium and making choices of some sort which you cannot do by watching a stream. The core experience with TV and film on the other hand is watching the content.

Nintendo should cut the creators program completely and let content creators stream Nintendo games without worrying about copyright infringement. Not only will Nintendo’s reputation improve from this move but they’ll benefit from the free marketing.

What else can Nintendo improve?

amiibo

Recently Amiibo showed just how loved Nintendo characters are but I’d like to see improvements here. Right now Amiibo are selling in their millions and are getting difficult to get hold of but how long can that bubble last? Nintendo need a way to keep the momentum going for years to come and the recently announced Amiibo cards17 and trial games18 should help see to that. Really though, I’d like to see Nintendo offering either full virtual console games or decent discounts on them. The other obvious idea is for a fully fledged Amiibo game in whatever form that might take. Characters could unlock parts of levels or new abilities and obviously a character model to play as in game. I suppose Skylanders is the obvious comparison but Nintendo have so many great ideas I’m sure they could come up with a unique twist.

Although trophies and achievements are loved by some and hated by others I think Nintendo are missing out on a similar system. If fans don’t care about these rewards, simply ignore them but at least allow fans who do like them to have something similar on the Nintendo ecosystem. I believe these reward systems can have value, for a start they lock a lot of people into the ecosystem. Player’s can look at all their trophies for all the games they have played on a system, when it comes to moving across to a rival they’d be losing all of their rewards. Secondly, Nintendo could incentivise collection of rewards by offering something similar to Club Nintendo. If 100% of the achievements are earned in a game the player might unlock a code for a virtual console game for example. Ok, so Nintendo would lose out on a sale here but they’d also be incentivising players to keep playing on their system and keep hold of their games for as long as possible.

Let’s go back to basics with the controllers. It’s all well and good having choice but having a Wii U with a game pad, motion controller and nunchuk as well as a classic controller is just overkill. Not only can this be confusing to new consumers but it also looks like an expensive system when at first glance a potential customer will wonder if they need all of these controllers on day one. 

Conclusion

I actually think Nintendo do get a lot right, they have a great back catalogue of classic franchises and as such they have a very dedicated fanbase. Nobody can deny that Nintendo innovate, who would have thought that motion controls would become so big over one console generation? Love or hate motion controls, there is no denying there was a point when every developer wanted a piece of the action with Sony and Microsoft also developing their own rival technologies.

Nintendo always experience peaks and troughs, going from such a phenomenal console like the SNES to experiencing low sales and a lack of 3rd party support during the N64 and GameCube eras. Nintendo have had huge failures in the form of the Virtual Boy and the Power Glove to huge successes that have changed the industry like the Rumble Pak and Analogue sticks. No doubt that whatever Nintendo does in the future they’ll have a mixture or sheer brilliant ideas and innovative games as well as a few failures along the way.

Nintendo are now playing catch up trying to get used to working with HD visuals a generation later than the competition. They have been late to the online party, having a pretty basic store, limited online multiplayer functionality and a lack of voice chat. Nintendo really do have the potential to rise to glory once again but a change is needed at the company. They really need to move with the times and reassess how they go about creating games and new technology. There is nothing wrong with keeping their core philosophies and inventiveness but they also need to look at what the competition are doing to stay relevant.

  1. http://uk.ign.com/articles/2006/04/27/introducing-nintendo-wii
  2. http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/library/historical_data/pdf/consolidated_sales_e1409.pdf
  3. http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2011/02/14/sony-playstation2-sales-reach-150-million-units/
  4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e3qaPg_keg
  5. http://www.standard.co.uk/business/nintendo-boss-admits-wii-u-could-have-had-better-launch-6410045.html
  6. http://thebridge.jp/en/2013/10/nintendo-satoru-iwata-bdash#fn:2
  7. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2006/11/8239/
  8. http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-10-25-iwata-wii-u-will-be-sold-below-cost
  9. http://uk.ign.com/wikis/xbox-one/PS4_vs._Xbox_One_vs._Wii_U_Comparison_Chart
  10. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-01-16-nintendo-plans-to-merge-handheld-and-console-teams-in-historic-shake-up
  11. http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2014/04/14/dead-nation-arrives-ps-vita-week/
  12. http://mariovsdk.nintendo.com/
  13. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-02-05-nintendo-clarifies-youtube-revenue-share-program-asks-users-to-delete-non-nintendo-videos
  14. https://r.ncp.nintendo.net/guide//
  15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHlBzxc3P6A#t=319
  16. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/02/youtube-pewdiepie-nintendo-revenue-sharing
  17. http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/library/events/141030qa/index.html
  18. http://uk.ign.com/articles/2015/02/17/amiibo-to-unlock-nessnes-virtual-console-trials-soon

The used games debate

coventryxl_01

Used games have plagued publishers and developers for many years but with a move towards digital content and talk of patents to stop used games sales from both Sony[1] and Microsoft[2] could the age of second hand games be coming to a close? It is very doubtful that only one developer will pursue this type of tech, otherwise they risk a large portion of their fan base switching sides. Nevertheless digital sales are on the increase and with no way to sell your digital content license after you have finished with it you no longer have the option to make money from old games (and nor do retailers).

You can’t blame console manufacturers for wanting to cut back or even stop the sale of used games; after all they normally sell consoles at a loss. Even the PS3 sold at a loss when it was first released and that was priced at £425[3]. The reason behind this is to get a good install base built up and then generate revenue from software sales. If gamers decide to buy only used games this means the console manufacturer will have no way to recoup their costs; IGN’s Colin Moriarity talks more about this issue during an episode of game scoop! Which I suggest you check out [4].

Used games have been a staple of many games retailers for years; it is no secret that shops can make a greater profit from buying and selling used games than they can from new releases. After all when a new game is released is has to cover manufacturing costs as well as pay the publisher and developer; all of these factors eat away at a retailers profits. When buying and selling a second hand game the retailer is free to pocket all the profits (minus overheads of course) as the developer and publisher has no way to take a cut (although there are now online activate codes, which I talk about later). Selling second hand games isn’t illegal so a shop or gamer is well within their rights to make a profit from doing this.

This article raises several arguments for and against used games and from the offset I’d like to make it clear that I don’t present a right or wrong answer, I am merely presenting both sides of the story.

Why should the games industry be any different? 

Many of those in favour of used games can argue that the games industry operates no different from other industries with regards to second hand sales. Vauxhall for example won’t get a cut of my money if I sell my Corsa next year, nor should they. Why should the games industry be the exception to this rule? If you purchased the game as a boxed product then decide you no longer want it why shouldn’t you be able to sell it? Now on the other hand it could be argued that Vauxhall have a very good chance of continuing to make a profit long after my car has sold, not only do they offer services and MOTs on used cars but Vauxhall parts will need to be bought to maintain the car (of course 3rd party parts can be purchased instead).

Another way in which car manufacturers capitalise on used sales is by having their own used car show rooms and finance options. This would be akin to a developer or publisher such as EA setting up a dedicated store, specialising in the sale of used EA games. You could then argue that if used games pose such a large problem then developers should open up shops to sell their own used games at competitive prices.

DLC, online multiplayer and patches

Developers can still benefit from sales of used software, let me explain why. This generation has witnessed a sharp rise in the sale of DLC (downloadable content) and generally this is viewed as a way to extend the life of a game by adding new maps, levels, stories etc…

The original owner may have also bought a DLC pack which cannot be transferred to the new owner. If the new owner then decides to also buy DLC the developer makes a further sale even though only one game has been sold. Strategically timed DLC can even prevent or at least prolong a player selling on their copy of the game. The Call of Duty franchise for example, offers DLC over several months, therefore if you want to experience the new content you have to keep hold of the game.

Along with DLC this generation has also seen a big push for online multiplayer content and this brings us to another debate. DLC and online multiplayer both require an internet connection and are both offered to a customer via a server. When DLC is obtained by a customer the developer is directly benefiting from the customer accessing the server (which will cost money to run and maintain) whereas multiplayer is generally a free service. Developers have recently started to capitalise on this by only allowing access to multiplayer content if an online pass is activated. The pass will come free with all new games but can only be activated on one account. If the game is bought used the new owner must buy another online code in order to access the multiplayer content. In this situation you cannot blame the developer; after all you are not only playing a game in which they have received no money from you directly but you are now also using their server bandwidth and interacting with their online community. It could however be argued that the previous owner will no longer be accessing the multiplayer content and so their impact on the server and bandwidth has simply been passed on to the new owner.

Developers can also lose out when they offer patches and various updates for a game. Patches cost the developer money to create, submit and store on a server for gamers to download. Services like this are totally free so a player with a second hand copy of the game will effectively be costing the developer money when they update their used game.

Building a fan base 

2307565-super_metroid

Although buying used games isn’t illegal this debate reflects a similar situation the music industry found itself in with the rise of Napster back in the early 2000s. Big well established bands such as Metallica complained that they were losing money from all the sales they were missing out on [5]. On the other end of the scale many artists (generally less well known bands) didn’t actually mind their music being stolen because word spread and their fan base grew. Arguably the same could be applied to second hand games, with one large difference (and note I am not saying that buying used games is as bad as outright stealing music). Musicians make the majority of their income from touring and not from sales of music; developers on the other hand make most of their income from the sale of games.

Building a fan base through the sale of used games can have long term positive effects on game sales; many franchises I got into as a kid have stuck with me to this day. When I was younger I remember waiting all year for my birthday or Christmas just so I could get a few new games. I also remember saving money for The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and this was a big event to buy a game brand new, on release! Generally this meant that if I wanted a game any other time of the year I would have to save a bit of pocket money and make a trip to the local games shop to sift through used games. Super Metroid was one game I remember buying second hand, years later I am still a fan and have bought brand new copies of every Metroid game ever since. This is one such example and I now find many established franchises I grew up with still interest me today and I buy new versions of these games. 

Retro games

Generally I will only buy a used game if it is no longer for sale brand new (retro games from old consoles) or if I have some sort of voucher e.g. CEX credit. This probably stems back to being a child and having to buy used games, generally in pretty poor condition. When I was finally old enough to earn my own money I opted for brand new games that I could open and be the first person to play (especially being a bit of a games collector and wanting to keep my collection in great condition). I no longer had to put up with kids who had smeared their jam and chocolate covered fingers over the cartridges.

As people get more invested in games they generally want to experience a back catalogue of a franchise they love or see how genres have evolved over the years. Others want mint condition copies of 20 year old games or to relive games they played as they were growing up. Previously I’ve never really considered retro games as part of the “used games” debate, owing to the fact that they are out of print and could not be bought new. This all changed with the release of consoles like the Wii and PS3, where back catalogues are now offered for many old franchises, effectively giving a developer a way to once again make money from old games.

Conclusion 

I can’t offer any real conclusion of sorts because I never expected to make a decision as to whether used games are a good thing or a bad thing. I think larger franchises which sell several million copies of a game won’t notice much of a mark on their profits from the sale of used games. If anything, my previous point about bringing in new fans to the franchise applies. With smaller developers and niche games that only sell several hundred thousand copies used games have a much larger impact on the developer. After all development costs are rising, teams are getting bigger and risky or poor selling games have a very large effect on the future of many developers. Maybe I’m biased because I work in the industry and see companies closing quite often. Maybe you think developers should be greedy and want to block all used games sales just so they make a bit of extra cash. Either way it’s an interesting time for the games industry.

[1] http://kotaku.com/5972787/sony-patent-could-stop-you-from-playing-used-games-possibly-on-the-next-playstation

[2] http://www.edge-online.com/news/the-next-xbox-always-online-no-second-hand-games-50gb-blu-ray-discs-and-new-kinect/

[3] http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/feb/01/games.guardianweeklytechnologysection2

[4] http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/02/06/game-scoop-the-pros-cons-of-an-always-connected-console

[5] http://web.archive.org/web/20071129061341/http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=195&wit_id=252