Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Nintendo Businesses Wii

Nintendo's President Hopes To Avoid 'Return to Arrogance' 108

Posted by Zonk
from the make-sure-to-tell-reggie-that dept.
Today Newsweek's N'Gai Croal has up an interview originally held back at E3, speaking with current President of Nintendo Satoru Iwata. The piece is an interesting look inside one of the top minds at a company that has experienced unprecedented success in the last year. In the interview, Iwata states that one of his most important tasks right now is to avoid allowing the company to appear arrogant. Just because people now assume Nintendo will succeed, he needs to make sure that's not the company's view as well. "This time, we were very lucky and very fortunate that people were accepting and positive about the introduction of the Wii Balance Board and the Wii Zapper. Now, what we have to do, what's very important for us is to make sure that when those products are actually launched, we not only meet their expectations, but we surpass them so there's that gap--we thought it was going to be this, when actually it's here. We need to create that buzz. We need to create that word of mouth and that's our challenge."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nintendo's President Hopes To Avoid 'Return to Arrogance'

Comments Filter:
  • by meringuoid (568297) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @02:43PM (#20483197)
    Don't worry guys. Even though we're back on top, we're not going to try to make you all our bitches like in the old days. You can feel safe developing for Wii and have nothing to fear from us.

    Signed, Grand High Ultimate Iwata-sama-daioh.

    Seriously, though, it's good news. If you remember what the old Nintendo were like, you'd see Sony and Microsoft's evil pale in comparison. They've had plenty of time to repent in the meantime, of course.

    • by niola (74324) <jon@niola.net> on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @02:53PM (#20483343) Homepage
      Exactly! All you have to say is 10NES [wikipedia.org] to know how hardcore Nintendo was at controlling things
      • by steveo777 (183629) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @04:30PM (#20485337) Homepage Journal
        Riiight.. I don't see how people could hold the 10NES against Nintendo. They used it (albeit mainly) to keep crapware off their systems. Yeah, they also wanted to capitalize as much as possible, but if they hadn't, do you really think Nintendo would have had the same success? There's a good chance there would have been a lot of junk that gave Nintendo a bad name and ran it into the ground.

        Most the 3rd parties still made gobs of money and are still existing in one form or another. Nintendo went on to create more great systems and games (yes, even the N64... Virtual Boy? not so much).

      • by brjndr (313083)
        Exactly! All you have to say is 10NES to know how hardcore Nintendo was at controlling things

        Wasn't that the old Andre Agassi game?

        I thought it had pretty good controls.
    • by dancpsu (822623) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @02:53PM (#20483345) Journal
      I think the reason why Nintendo was so harsh to third party developers is because they believed (probably rightly) that too much crap games on a system leads to bad sales. Licensing allowed for better quality control. Of course, once developers realized the demand was for good games, and not just any crap you can push on a system, they straightened up, but Nintendo was slow to back down.
      • So how exactly do you explain the majority of games introduced by EA, Ubisoft, and what seems like every American and European third party studio? I still strongly associate these labels with crap games.
        • by Incoherent07 (695470) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:12PM (#20483665)
          That crap has far more production value than the crap Nintendo was trying to avoid.
        • by Opportunist (166417) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:31PM (#20483973)
          Hoo, boy, you haven't been playing in the 80s if you consider the junk made by EA true crap. EA games may keep you interested for 2 weeks or so, but that's at least 2 weeks of entertainment you get for your 60 bucks.

          In the 80s, there were games that didn't provide 2 hours of entertainment for that money.
          • by kalirion (728907)
            What, falling down and climbing out of holes cannot hold your attention for two hours? You got ADD, boy?
            • Umm... as much as I know I'll get flamed and modded troll for it, I kinda liked the E.T. game...

              Hey, I was 13 and back then we didn't really have good TV programs, ok?
        • Simple: They are game publishers with large coffers. The love of money (greed) encourages the breaking of many rules, even those designed to bring in more money.
        • There's a difference between a game which is merely mass-produced, formulaic or derivative and a game that is truly bad. I have to say, even though I think that the whole EA Sports franchise is banal bordering on pedestrian, if I were calling the shots I'd still keep pumping them out because, apparently, a sizable number of meatheads keep buying them. It's a good business move. You don't like those games? Well, they're not made for you, they're made for stereotypical jocks in the 14-24 bracket. Go play some

          • by Don853 (978535)
            This is a trivial point, but I think you're limiting the sports game demographic too much. It's not just meatheads, it's sports fans in general, and I'd wager it includes a lot of guys in their 30's and 40's. They want to buy the new game with the updated roster so they can play with 'their team'. If you're willing to buy $75 football tickets, park for $15 and drink $6 Miller Lites once you get there, $50 for Madden '0X doesn't seem so bad.
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by KDR_11k (778916)
          It's more about Dangerous Vaults [somethingawful.com] level crap or most of those "christian" videogames.
          • by gameboyhippo (827141) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @05:59PM (#20486741) Journal
            Yeah, if only Christian games were half as good as contemporary Christian music (P.O.D, Lifehouse, etc...)
            • Shouldn't this be +4 funny, not insightful?
              • I take it that you've never listened to contemporary Christain music? They've got some pretty good stuff out there. And for a generation of people who say "I like the music; however, I don't listen to the lyrics", then they shouldn't have a problem if someone praises God rather than sing about pimps, hoes, and smoking weed. After all, we don't listen to the lyrics, do we?

                Anyway, for those who are not Diephobic, try out groups like Disciple, Project 38, or Reliant K.
      • by Fozzyuw (950608)

        think the reason why Nintendo was so harsh to third party developers is because they believed (probably rightly) that too much crap games on a system leads to bad sales.

        Anyone who lived through the NES era will know that this is not true. The NES is second only to the PSONE in terms of the "If you build it, they will come" mentality. Suffice it to say it was all about making money. Wikipedia has a some good details you might be interested in reading [wikipedia.org]. The "Nintendo Seal of Quality" didn't mean much abou

        • I'd like to point out that the reference for the statements labeling the seal of quality as a "marketing ploy" is a single book. While that is better than nothing, I can't remember ever writing a research paper in college with fewer than 3 credible sources.

          Perhaps my memory is fuzzy, but this book [amazon.com] doesn't share the same assessment.

          It's possible it's merely a semantic issue or a bad implication on the part of Wikipedia.
          • by Runefox (905204)
            Ahem. If you need any references, just get an emulator and look up some Mattel games. Perhaps look at the X-Men game, or maybe any one of the AD&D games. If you need more, there's Gilligan's Island, The Little Mermaid, Home Alone, etc, etc.
          • by Fozzyuw (950608)

            Perhaps my memory is fuzzy, but this book doesn't share the same assessment.

            "Game Over" is definitely one of my favorite books on Nintendo. Though, it's been like 7 years since I read it, I don't recall what they said about Nintendo and their Monopoly practices. I'll have to see if I can find my copy and look through it again. It's definitely worth a read.

            It's possible it's merely a semantic issue or a bad implication on the part of Wikipedia.

            I might have the post wrong as I'm referring to the context

        • by drcagn (715012) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @09:35PM (#20488899) Homepage

          Anyone who lived through the NES era will know that this is not true. The NES is second only to the PSONE in terms of the "If you build it, they will come" mentality. Suffice it to say it was all about making money. Wikipedia has a some good details you might be interested in reading. The "Nintendo Seal of Quality" didn't mean much about how good a game was (in terms of "fun"). All it meant was that Nintendo was paid their license fee.


          Anyone who lived through the Atari era will know that every game on NES was gold compared to the amount of steaming shit that was put out for the 2600. Comparatively, the NES had great quality control.
          • The main problem with the Atari 2600 was its technical limitations, Pitfall did wonders, but Steve Crane knew the machine in and out, and for Pitfall2 they added custom chips on the modules. But on the average you couldnt do too much with the machine, hence most games on that machine sucked big time. The 2600 was an open platform after Atari lost the case against Activision, but the PC also is, and the junk to excellent game ratio is way better on the PC than it ever was on the 2600 for one reason it simply
      • by brkello (642429)
        How could you possibly believe that is right? Just look at the PS2...it has tons of crappy games...but it also has tons of great games. Let the people choose what they want to play...and the one with the most choices is going to do well. Bad games didn't ruin the Gamecube, that's for sure. Nintendo is much less strict now and many games coming out for the Wii are being rated extremely low. While not good for consumers, it is better for Nintendo to give more people a chance. Though the initial sales has
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by king-manic (409855)
          How could you possibly believe that is right? Just look at the PS2...it has tons of crappy games...but it also has tons of great games. Let the people choose what they want to play...and the one with the most choices is going to do well. Bad games didn't ruin the Gamecube, that's for sure. Nintendo is much less strict now and many games coming out for the Wii are being rated extremely low. While not good for consumers, it is better for Nintendo to give more people a chance. Though the initial sales has more
      • I'm the biggest Nintendo fanboy of them all, but I think the quality control argument for third-party licensing is a load of crap.

        The vast majority of the games made by third parties are garbage and they still get licensed for release. This was the case back in the NES days as well...remember Acclaim [wikipedia.org]?!? Those clowns put out tons of licensed shovelware on all systems.

        The only reason for third-party licensing is for the console manufacturer to make $$$ on the licensing fee.
        • by badboy_tw2002 (524611) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @06:39PM (#20487243)
          But the "quality control" isn't for "how fun a game is." There's no requirement that "the game is fun" in the list of stuff you have to pass to get certified by one of the big publishers. Basically, they're looking though a few categories of things:

          a) You don't violate various trademarks of the publisher.
          b) Your game doesn't crash, drop out the sound, render at 2 frames a second, sit on a black screen for 2 minutes while loading, etc.
          c) Consistent UI experience
          d) Do bad things that would break the system or introduce security holes.

          "Crap" has nothing to do with the content but the fact that you're delivering what could be considered a valid, working piece of software. Whether or not its any good to play is up to the market to decide.
          • by KDR_11k (778916)
            Yep, unless Sony Computer Entertainment America is involved which adds

            e) The game is either 3d or sold at a reduced price/part of a compilation.
            • Heh, I'm pretty sure they don't set the price. Once the publishers get their cut for pressing discs, how those boxes turn into $$$ is your problem. They of course have a suggested MSRP, but look at NFL 2k4 (5?) which sold for $20. They do have control over who they license to as a developer, so I could see them not giving out devkits to someone, but I don't know if 2d would be that big an issue. Little Big World is essentially 2d, right?
              • by KDR_11k (778916)
                Sony can refuse to license any title they want* and SCEA has a tendency to refuse when a title uses 2d graphics (little big planet uses 3d graphics AFAIK) and is not going to be sold as B rate, i.e. cheaper or in a compilation (though I'm not sure if cheaper is enough). I read that several 2d SNK titles weren't released for the PS2 outside of compilations in the US (Metal Slug series, for example) while in Europe they were sold as standalone games. Occassionally a 2d game gets through (Odin Sphere) but I ha
      • "I think the reason why Nintendo was so harsh to third party developers is because they believed (probably rightly) that too much crap games on a system leads to bad sales."

        There's no 'probably' about it. Atari learned that lesson very harshly and Nintendo set out to not repeat that mistake.
        • by bckrispi (725257)

          There's no 'probably' about it. Atari learned that lesson very harshly and Nintendo set out to not repeat that mistake.
          The two largest and most expensive game blunders that Atari made before the crash were E.T. and Pac-Man. Both of these titles were released by Atari itself! 3rd party shops didn't damn the 2600. It was Atari's utter lack of internal quality control.
          • It was not even ET although this game was close to fraud, the main problem was that Atari tried to milk the 2600 way beyound its lifetime and hence basically almost killed the entire market. People are basically stupid, back then they thought videogames = atari, after milking the 2600 way beyound its lifetime, they basically thought atari = trash = all videogames are trash, the other group the hardcore gamers simply moved over to the really open and way better homecomputers. The video game crash gave rise
    • by Khaed (544779) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @02:54PM (#20483359)
      I'm not so sure anything old Nintendo did is worse than the things Sony and Microsoft have done. Maybe their game divisions haven't done things as bad, but c'mon, both of those companies have done some seriously awful stuff: Rootkits, Windows ME...

      Some of Nintendo's policies in the past, like limiting games per year, had to do with avoiding a repeat of the crash. Others were just stupid legalese (suing over the Game Genie, for example) and every big company does stupid things with lawyers.
    • I seriously doubt how Microsoft's evil can be triumphed by Nintendo. Microsoft is still going at it. At least Sony has started to embrace open standards with the PS3. (ie. Linux, 3rd party peripherals..)

      I hope Nintendo can keep up it's lead while innovating further.
  • This time, we were very lucky and very fortunate that people were accepting and positive about the introduction of the Wii Balance Board..
    Wow. This was ridiculed by the Western gaming press. Perhaps Nintendo should avoid a "Return to Denial."
    • by Knuckles (8964)
      This was ridiculed by the Western gaming press.

      I suggest you pick up the latest issue of Edge.
    • by Goaway (82658) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @04:21PM (#20485155) Homepage

      This was ridiculed by the Western gaming press.
      Unlike, say, the Wii.
    • by Guppy06 (410832)
      "This was ridiculed by the Western gaming press."

      Exactly. My sixty year old father made an unsolicited comment to me that he's heard nothing but "good things" about the Wii and mentioned the balance board in particular, and he sure as hell doesn't follow the gaming press.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rjung2k (576317)
      "This was ridiculed by the Western gaming press."

      ...who were drowned out by the cheers of praise from the mainstream non-gaming press. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that compliments from USA Today and The New York Times will help Nintendo more than brickabats from the likes of 1Up.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    They need to make sure that at least 3 good games use the new devices when they come out, or shortly after. Third party help needs to be top-notch for the new peripherals. I like the balance board idea especially if it is linked to the wiimote, but SSX or Tony Hawk is never going to support it without a major push by Nintendo.
  • avoid allowing the company to appear arrogant
    These sound like wise words form one that realises that fame stops abrubtly when connection the spectator is lost.
  • by Hamster Lover (558288) * on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @02:59PM (#20483455) Journal
    As successful as the Wii has been, Nintendo still hasn't listened in regards to the on-line experience, which to say is nothing less than pathetic. The fact that Nintendo is steadfastly committed to the ridiculous and unwieldy "friend code" system for multiplayer games while the 360 and PS3 maintain a more workable and sensible system is probably the best example. That and the fact that just about a year after launch there are no compelling on-line games tell me that Nintendo isn't taking the Internet seriously.

    "Mii Parade" and weather updates aren't going to cut it as an on-line experience these days.
    • by seebs (15766) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:06PM (#20483577) Homepage
      Not listening to you, maybe.

      They're listening to me just fine: If I want online play, I'll play WoW. I have zero interest in online from my console, and I want them to spend that money instead on things I do want.
      • by WillAffleckUW (858324) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:10PM (#20483639) Homepage Journal
        Not listening to you, maybe.

        They're listening to me just fine: If I want online play, I'll play WoW. I have zero interest in online from my console, and I want them to spend that money instead on things I do want.


        Hmmm. I also play WoW online, but I think they are listening to me about how to do online.

        I like the idea of having to know someone's friend code to be able to talk with them online, and to visit their Animal Crossing II for the Wii village or their My Sims for the Wii village.

        One thing I really hate are spammers and shock-jocks and curse monkeys online. If it means that I only play with friends - or at least go to a test area and make sure they are ok before I exchange friend codes with them - I am all for that.
        • by seebs (15766)
          You have a point. It might be that Nintendo's online would actually be worth playing.
          • I think we'll have to wait until we see how it works with the games that we want to play.

            Spore for the Wii downloads copies of other players' worlds, so that should work fine, and an online version could allow you to "play" in sandbox galaxies.

            My Sims for the Wii should allow you to play in a friend's village while they're there, as will Animal Crossing II, but I always wonder does that mean they can mess with my stuff, put up graffiti, pick my fruit ... or does it mean any fruit they pick is regenerated an
        • by rjung2k (576317) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @06:56PM (#20487449) Homepage
          +1 to WillAffeckUW -- unlike the grandparent post, some of us are parents who are glad that Nintendo is making it harder for my family to get harangued by foul-mouthed 10-year-olds who think drawing penises is the height of comedy. Entering a friend code once is a minor inconvenience in comparison to dealing with the endless supply of twits who show up on XBox Live.
        • by Wordplay (54438)
          Sure, but why on earth does it need to be per-game? This is just a case of Nintendo not offering a centralized service and offloading it to each bit of component software, which is stupid, and based on a dumb-system/smart-cartridge model that didn't even play by the time they introduced it on the DS (which actually has some NVRAM storage).

          Why not have a central friend-code, then per-game authorization instead, if you really see value in that? And personally, I'm at a loss for what the value would be for p
          • Why per game?

            Hmm. I think I might object if I had a 10 yo playing Animal Crossing II with a friend who also owned a copy of Murder By Dagger: Destruction Apocolypse IV ....

            I might not mind the first, but mind the second.

            Each person is different.
            • You do realise the 10 year old would have to buy said hypothetical murder game as well? Unless it's a multiplayer only game that won't let you get past the title screen without anyone else to play with, I think Friend Codes are the least of anyone's worries.

              I enjoy the friend code system, but I hate the concept of not a single unified friend code. It's a mild inconvenience I'll admit, but an unnecessary one.

              • I see you don't know what kids today tend to play.

                I know a lot of local kids who have access to such games.

                Not everyone else's family is like yours.

                I think a Golden Friend Code might be fun - but something that parental supervision might be useful for.

                I for one would not allow my son's friend since he was in grade 5 - who was home-schooled and used to hack games - to be such a friend.
                • I do know what kids tend to play, I also know some kids with access to those games, and what my family is like is highly irrelevent (unless my family thinks logically and yours doesn't), because I was not implying any disagreement with kids getting violent games in anything I said.

                  Hmm. I think I might object if I had a 10 yo playing Animal Crossing II with a friend who also owned a copy of Murder By Dagger: Destruction Apocolypse IV ...

                  My point is that how would a single unified friend code make anything worse? If Timmy and Bobby can both get their hands on some multiplayer murder game, how would a per-game friend code make them any less likely to play than

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by uerunner (1046052)
      Mario Strikers Charged has been out for over a month now and you can play it online. It does use the friend code system, but also uses a matching system to play against total strangers. The new Madden game has online play, and it does not use Nintendo's friend code system. I've not played this to see if it is any good yet, but it is a third party game using the Wii's online play which is a good step in the right direction
    • I think you're assuming casual gamers care about online play the same way hardcore gamers do. Personally I own a wii because it doesn't have a 'live' component like the xbox had.
    • I see that as well, recently there were news that Nintendo used homeland security to track down wii key vendors, dunno if those news were true, but I assume there are more important things like terrorist tracking instead of wii key busting to do for homeland security. Add the fact that Europe on average is treated like shit release day wise, I cannot really say Nintendo has changed that much. It is just that Sony currently is king of arrogance.
  • What I have always found to be most arrogant about Nintendo is the fact that they release the same software for each console they release. Granted, the games are well received and predominantly well reviewed, but as consumer it strikes me as pompus (or lazy?) of Nintendo to just release

    Mario World
    Mario Kart
    Mario Party
    Smash Bros
    Metroid
    Zelda

    Even games that aren't that good, like Mario Golf and Mario Strikers get rehashed on every system. I understand franchises, but it just seems to me like Nintendo keeps p
    • by shoptroll (544006)
      Conversely....

      PS1 and PS2 were built on the foundation of Ridge Racer, Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, Gran Tourismo, Grand Theft Auto.... the list goes on.

      History seems to repeat itself with the PS3, no?
    • by hkmwbz (531650)
      So what you are saying is that it is arrogant of Nintendo to deliver titles that are of generally excellent quality, well received, and sell well? Wow. Basically, "if you supply demand, you are arrogant". If no one wanted these games, they would stop producing them.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by meringuoid (568297)
      as a Nintendo aficionado for the better part of two decades, I resent Nintendo for expecting me to continually buy the same type of games over and over.

      Two decades, you say? So you remember the NES era?

      Then how much does Twilight Princess resemble The Legend Of Zelda? How similar is Super Mario Galaxy to Super Mario Bros. 3? What at all does Metroid Prime 3 have to do with Metroid? The similarities are pretty superficial: character art, brand name. Just about everything else has been changed massively o

      • How similar is Super Mario Galaxy to Super Mario Bros. 3?

        Let alone, how similar was Super Mario Bros. 2 to Super Mario Bros. 3?!

        • by meringuoid (568297) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @05:25PM (#20486297)
          Let alone, how similar was Super Mario Bros. 2 to Super Mario Bros. 3?!

          Not very similar at all, but it was very similar to Super Mario Bros. 1. Except ridiculously hard, so they wouldn't let us incompetent gaijin get our hands on it and fobbed us off with a rebranded reissue of bloody Doki Doki Panic. Which as it turned out wasn't actually a bad game at all.

      • by 7Prime (871679)
        I'm sick of people badmouthing franchises. In other genres, franchises are completely embraced. A game series is about as relivant as a band's discography. Because that's really what it is. When the core Square/Enix Final Fantasy Team come together (and yes, most of the core people stay the same for quite a few titles), it's no different than They Might Be Giants, or Rush, or whoever, coming out with their latest album. Many game franchises aren't even series, and even when they are, they're likely to be ju
        • In addition Nintendo doesn't milk their franchises near as badly as as others. For example, the Ratchet and Clank series or the Jak series.
          • by matt_gaia (228110)
            Ok, I don't know whether I should laugh or be annoyed by that comment. Insomniac has released a total of five games so far for Ratchet and Clank (4 PS2, 1 PSP) and have one R&C Future coming out later this year. That is hardly milking a franchise (considering this was done over 5 years) when there have probably been that many Mario/Zelda offshoots released in the same period.
    • Mario Strikers was a great GameCube game and is even better on the Wii. Online play is awesome!!!

      Releasing a solid update to a classic series (e.g. Zelda, Mario, Metroid) is not arrogant...Nintendo is catering to its hardcore fan base by releasing these games and that's good business practice.
    • by BenoitRen (998927)

      Even games that aren't that good, like Mario Golf and Mario Strikers get rehashed on every system.

      Some examples in your list just don't apply.

      Mario Party

      Smash Bros

      Systems: N64, GameCube, and Wii.

      Metroid

      While this franchise has seen a game on every Nintendo console except the N64, the series has seen a 7-year-long hiatus, so I wouldn't say they are pumping them out per se.

      Mario Strikers

      Mario Strikers is actually a pretty recent sub-series. Only an entry on the GameCube and the Wii.

    • Mario Strikers bad? Have you tried the game? And I don't mean looked at screenshots of the game and determined its worth based on that, rather, actually put the game in your hands, played the tutorials and actually tried playing it? I know that when the first one released, I didn't even consider buying it. Looked bad so I decided not to. The Wii one I own, as I had received it as a gift and decided I would at least try the game, and probably never touch it again.

      It doesn't collect near as much dust as I tho
    • by Zeussy (868062)
      Compared to EA's rehash list of:

      Battlefield Series
      C&C (13 releases & expansions)
      7+ Cricket Games
      20 FIFA branded games
      All Harry Potter games
      20 Madden Games
      13 Medal of Honours
      10 Nascar Games
      18 NBA Branded Games
      18 Need For Speeds
      17 NHL Games
      31 The Sims Branded releases
      12+ PGA Releases

      I know a lot of them are sports games and you can't just change gameplay direction on a sports game. But C&C, Medal of Honour, Need for Speed and The Sims have never really and much deviation fr
    • Releasing the same software repeatedly is arrogant? To me it makes good sense. No one is saying let's release another Zelda, those nuts are sure to buy it! People are looking at sales figures and mail (snail and e) and seeing that there's a lot of demand for more of the same.

      Whether you're tired of Mario Kart or not, for the person who eats, sleeps and breathes it, why bother getting a Wii before the next version is released? Stick with the GameCube in the meantime. Think it's absurd that someone would
    • by ProppaT (557551)
      Nintendo's constantly pushing out new Intellectual Property, it's just that their "rehash" games are so hugely popular that they often overshadow the new IP. Then the new IP takes off and people are complaining about it being yet another "rehash" when they come out with a new game in the series.

      The only reason Nintendo gets this rap is that their IP's are usually extremely successful and recognizable. Just take a look at all the characters in Smash Brothers. Nintendo honestly owns the market when it come
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Emetophobe (878584)

      but it just seems to me like Nintendo keeps pumping them out assuming that the games will be purchased by the faithful

      There's no assumption involved. The faithful WILL purchase them.

      I resent Nintendo for expecting me to continually buy the same type of games over and over.

      You don't have to buy them. The thing that other people like about Nintendo are these key franchises. Without Mario, without Zelda, without Metroid Prime, I wouldn't have purchased a Wii. First party titles are what people want, even if th

    • If I want to play twilight princess, but don't have a Wii, I can buy it for the gamecube. If I miss the original Zelda, I don't have to track down a 60 dollar NES on ebay... I can just buy it for whatever Nintendo system I happen to own.

      I personally use their rehash strategy not to buy each game more than once as many people claim is their goal, but so that I can choose which systems to buy and not miss out on the games I really love. I feel it is a great service to the consumer. Especially since I c
  • by Opportunist (166417) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:33PM (#20484013)
    With competitors like Sony and MS in the console segment, they'd have a hard time to appear arrogant, so maybe they thought it ain't worth trying.
  • please don't put the "we hope to avoid a return to arrogance" quote immediately before a montage of Nintendo's arrogance in the intervening years. That would be a devastating edit.
  • Third party support is weak, first party support is industry-leading. Technical specs are weak, user experience is industry-leading. Traditional priorities of competitors are weak, brand new ideas that happen to be just what people didn't know they were looking for are industry-leading. Hollow and obviously manufactured branding is weak, charismatic executives are industry-leading.

Good salesmen and good repairmen will never go hungry. -- R.E. Schenk

Working...