[Aptorian]

The thing is. Nintendo haven't so much been behind the "hardcore mainstream" of gaming the last couple of years, as much as they've completely ignored it and done something else. They've innovated and taken chances. The Wii was such a crazy idea for a console. Weak components. Little to no online functionality. Unorthodox control methods. Yet it was cheap and it offered something that none of the other consoles had, mainly mobility. Something about that little thing caught the public's eye and they made a ton of money.

Now they done something weird again. The question is if it was weird enough I say. I can't get myself to criticize them for being different, daring to break the mold is something special in the videogame business, but I am very confused about what their goal was or is with this thing. It boggles my mind that they didn't have a Zelda, Mario and Metroid game ready at launch or at least announced around the launch.

EDIT: No, New Super Mario Bro's Wii U does not count.

This post has been edited by Aptorius: 18 December 2012 - 07:24 AM

[Obdigore]

Aptorius, on 18 December 2012 - 07:21 AM, said:

The thing is. Nintendo haven't so much been behind the "hardcore mainstream" of gaming the last couple of years, as much as they've completely ignored it and done something else. They've innovated and taken chances. The Wii was such a crazy idea for a console. Weak components. Little to no online functionality. Unorthodox control methods. Yet it was cheap and it offered something that none of the other consoles had, mainly mobility. Something about that little thing caught the public's eye and they made a ton of money.

Now they done something weird again. The question is if it was weird enough I say. I can't get myself to criticize them for being different, daring to break the mold is something special in the videogame business, but I am very confused about what their goal was or is with this thing. It boggles my mind that they didn't have a Zelda, Mario and Metroid game ready at launch or at least announced around the launch.

EDIT: No, New Super Mario Bro's Wii U does not count.

They didn't make a ton of money on the Wii. They sold a ton of consoles, breaking even, and made like no money on games because they didn't sell many at all.

[Aptorian]

It's my understanding that they earned a metric shit ton of profit on the Wii sales, like a billion or more, but maybe there's some costs included that haven't been taken into account.

[Obdigore]

Aptorius, on 18 December 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

It's my understanding that they earned a metric shit ton of profit on the Wii sales, like a billion or more, but maybe there's some costs included that haven't been taken into account.

Interesting. I looked it up, it appears that the Wii cost around 200$ to manufacture and ship at the beginning of its life cycle (and 250$ to purchase, with some of that money being taken by the Retailer), so lets lowball and say they got 25$ for every console made. Assuming my figures are correct and that the cost to manufacture never went down (which I'm sure it did), they made at least 2.4 billion on the console itself over 6 years, which rounds out to about 404million a year. Hilarious. That Nintendo is still hemorraging money. The money really is in the games and licensing, but oh well.

[Aptorian]

Obdigore, on 19 December 2012 - 05:12 AM, said:

Aptorius, on 18 December 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

It's my understanding that they earned a metric shit ton of profit on the Wii sales, like a billion or more, but maybe there's some costs included that haven't been taken into account.

Interesting. I looked it up, it appears that the Wii cost around 200$ to manufacture and ship at the beginning of its life cycle (and 250$ to purchase, with some of that money being taken by the Retailer), so lets lowball and say they got 25$ for every console made. Assuming my figures are correct and that the cost to manufacture never went down (which I'm sure it did), they made at least 2.4 billion on the console itself over 6 years, which rounds out to about 404million a year. Hilarious. That Nintendo is still hemorraging money. The money really is in the games and licensing, but oh well.

I remember hearing a podcast with Michael Pacter (an expect who is notoriously unreliable I will add) who explained that Nintendo's problem is it's corporate structure. It is one of those Japanese businesses which are built upon lineage and the expectancy of success. As such they have more people working for them then they can actually afford if every game, every console, every franchise isn't a gold mine. Thus, the price cut on the 3DS was a serious problem for them. I don't know how they have restructured since but it's probably been painful.

[Defiance]

If you haven't played it see if a local Gamestop has copies of Xenoblade Chronicles as well. Not only is it the best jRPG of last generation, it's one of the most enjoyable games I've ever played. It has PS2-era graphics, but the art design is phenomenal. There were more memorable vistas in XC than in most other last generation games combined.

Definitely not required to play the sequel, however. From what's been said, XCX isn't going to be a true sequel, but more a successor more in Final Fantasy terms. Various similarities in theme, creatures, names, and so on, but a completely independent story.

[Aptorian]

Wasn't the first Xenoblade ported to Switch? Some kind of legendary edition? Would be somewhat cheaper than buying a WiiU.