Hello again, fellow Tempers! Today, I thought I'd revisit one of my articles that caused quite a bit of controversy when I wrote it, as I had written it from a completely subjective point of view. You guys pointed some of it out, but there are some things I said then that I don't necessarily believe to be true now. So, here we go again, as I delve into my original article entitled Why I Believe Nintendo Should Fail (and Why It Would be Good for the Company).
That said, I should point out that I never wanted Nintendo to fail. I still don't like everything Nintendo has done, but I'm a bit more optimistic than I was then. I abandoned that post because I got a lot of heat from it, but I'll do my best to not only be nicer, but to be more factual and also more open-minded.
Let's begin:
That "extensive research" was mostly Wikipedia and opinion pieces. I have broadened my horizons quite a bit since then to include much more than what I was referring to. I also was basing my thoughts on word-of-mouth - my parents' disdain of Nintendo services, store employees, and even others I talked to on the streets! It's not very reliable, I've since found out.
Even so, I still don't like what Nintendo has become, but I'll explain as we go on...
I should have mentioned that Nintendo only had distributing rights of the Magnavox Odyssey in Japan, a fact I overlooked. They never did so in the United States or beyond, but they did partner with Magnavox to create a light gun for the system, based on their earlier Wild Gunman arcade machine.
This was very region-specific on my part. I wanted to base it off of the 1983 Video Game Crash to try to prove a point, but no such crash happened in other regions outside of the United States. It's kind of lame, if you think about it, because it doesn't prove very well that Nintendo is the god of video gaming globally.
I still believe Kimishima is not a sociable man, but he can't be fully to blame for Nintendo's failures during this time. Sony had a far more superior console due to its multimedia capabilities. Nintendo struggled (and still does) to keep up for two reasons:
- Nintendo is not as tech savvy as other manufacturers because they have always seen themselves as a toy manufacturer - in fact, the real reason Nintendo was able to save video gaming was a clever marketing stratagem of selling the NES as a toy! That's because it's only natural - Nintendo started as a toy company, so why deviate from their origins? AFAIK, Nintendo still sells hanafuda sets in Japan.
- Nintendo doesn't believe they NEED to change the way people game because... they're Nintendo! Everybody knows Nintendo, so that'll keep them afloat... right? Unfortunately, Nintendo is relying a lot on nostalgia, which could cost them in the long run, because in general, younger gamers (Gen Z'ers specifically) don't really care about what 8-bit used to look like. They want games that are better, faster, and have come out within their lifespans (so therefore they'd flock more towards newer franchises like Angry Birds and Minecraft over something like Mega Man and Rayman) - in other words, games THEY are familiar with playing on systems they themselves owned. Now, that's not to say that there aren't Mega Man lovers who are Gen Z, but to consistently reference 8-bit Mega Man? CAPCOM might then be considered a nostalgia company just like Nintendo! They don't do it very often, but Nintendo does. A LOT. Especially within main games like Super Mario Odyssey.
Yeah, but that also caused quite a bit of friction with fans, and Iwata wasn't able to address all of the issues with Nintendo single-handedly. I mean, come on! They're a business with a board of directors, not a charity with a leader at the helm! Even the late, great Iwata couldn't keep other Nintendo execs from making bad choices, but he did his best.
Yes, but the Wii U is, sadly, still considered one of Nintendo's worst failures. That may have not been the case if Iwata had survived his bile duct cancer the second time around, but we'll never truly know for sure.
I still believe that very well could be the case, but so far I have not found evidence of such. It's quite possible that this was never openly discussed, but I presumed such was the case due to some of Nintendo's activities shortly after Iwata's death. However, this is only a theory, and I will never present it as fact.
Kimishima is a financial man, and from what I understand of the man - the way he talks, his facial expressions, etc. - he looks at Nintendo services as ways to make money from consumer interest, not as ways to please consumers better (Iwata, by contrast, did what he could to please customers first - "In my heart, I am a gamer."). Therefore, his axing of older, non-profitable services makes sense for any business, but for those of us who saw potential, as I did (especially Miiverse!), it was a stupid move because it alienated customers who wanted to use those services. I think a lot of times why people jump on the next big console is not so much excitement over something new, but also fear of no longer being supported anymore. Just my way of thinking, really.
What made YOU get on the Nintendo Switch from the previous console? Will YOU buy the next Nintendo console after the Switch? Let me know in the comments!
Also, E3 has gotten abysmal on its own. Especially after 2020. 'Nuff said.
...Says the same guy who got one for Christmas that year, then bought another one, hated it, swore off Switch, missed it, got back on it, and now... well, you get the point.
Furukawa is a weird case, from what I've found out. He's younger and likes to think of Nintendo as an "entertainment" company - hence why the theme parks and the Super Mario Bros. Movie. Yet, he doesn't seem to like to be out and about very much, instead allowing Yoshiaki Koizumi and Shinya Takahashi making Nintendo Directs, and allowing other key people like Miyamoto to show their faces more often instead of him. It's... I dunno. It's just weird. Then again, maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm expecting another Iwata figure and not getting it. I really don't know.
More presumption, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out if it's true.
Wellllllllllllllllll... maybe not. Then again, he might have pushed for it, but if he did, he would have suggested that the services be migrated into something newer, probably, which would have then made the older devices obsolete anyway. Kinda like what he did with the whole Nintendo DS line, actually.
This is both true and false. While I do believe that trying to best their competition has made it where Nintendo is not coming up with as unique of ideas anymore, originally it was the motivation for innovation. Nintendo pioneered several things in the gaming industry we are accustomed to today (the D-pad or control pad, "rumble" i.e. vibration in controllers and systems, motion control in games, and even VR games, just to name a few), but unfortunately they seem to have lost sight of that and are more concerned about staying on top.
I think we can safely say that first-level tech support of ANY company is not really the best support! This is more of my disdain for Nintendo and its services, which unfortunately wasn't thought out very well.
I probably wouldn't say today that there has absolutely NEVER been any kind of sale, but I personally haven't seen one. It's quite possible stores have managed to discount Switch consoles at some point - let me know in the comments if any of you got a Switch on sale somewhere.
No change. I still complain about that.
...And yet it exists. My main gripe with how Nintendo (and now other services) are handling this is by offering the games AGAIN on digital storefronts and subscription services at a cost, but at least it does exist in some way or other.
Uh, hello? We all saw it coming, actually. Also, while I am sad that the 3DS and Wii U are no longer open for business, what puts my mind at ease is the painstaking efforts of the community of gamers to archive as much content as possible from these platforms (like the Completionist). So, not as much of a loss, really.
I've since learned that people can be fickle. If told to clap, they probably will, so... repeat or not, they'll also buy into it. Simply because it's Nintendo.
SOURCES! We need SOURCES!
Why do I always assume stuff?...Then again, not always the case.
I feel like a lot of my negative viewpoints are because of my own personal experiences with the company. My personal life was at an all-time low when I wrote that blog post, so I was not only naïve, but also confused and depressed. Now that I'm a little better off... I still am not too fond of Nintendo services. Yet, I see potential in Nintendo being better as an all-purpose entertainment company as Furukawa suggested. While their game services still are lacking, their ideas for theme parks, toys, movies and TV shows are phenomenal. So... maybe Nintendo should focus more on those? I mean, Nintendo failing at gaming consoles and services wouldn't be so bad if they're gonna transition to something more successful. I mean, they could be more like SEGA became - SEGA ditched consoles and now do all kinds of stuff. They still make games, but they've also invested in other things too. Perhaps it would be better if Nintendo annexed dedicated consoles - as Iwata himself might have suggested; in a fiscal Q&A from 2014, he stated "I believe that the era has ended when people play all kinds of games only on dedicated gaming systems", and while he then supported the idea that Nintendo should continue to offer dedicated gaming hardware with "walled garden" software, he might not have thought so today if he saw what Nintendo was doing in contrast to other companies (Steam Deck, anyone?).
I mean, the Switch is great as a console, and games on it are fun to play. It's even not too hard to use. However, Nintendo's being Nintendo in neglecting to update the hardware for better performance, as well as services that you have to pay for that are not only costly but include things that were free before. In the hacking scene, Nintendo doesn't seem to trust anyone, as they're cracking down on one hacking group after another and locking down their console software to make it even more difficult to mod.
So... I'm still a Nintendo fan. I ultimately don't want Nintendo to fail, but if it did fail in dedicated consoles, I think it could continue to exist in other ways other companies have existed.
*****
So there you go! That's my revised take on why I believe Nintendo should (or at least has the option to) consider that dedicated consoles are a failure (despite Switch sales having reported to be so high - I still raise an eyebrow on those proclamations, but whatever).
What are YOUR thoughts? Do you think Nintendo should give up on closed-source video game consoles? What are your gripes with Nintendo? Unlike my previous article, I'm also more open to disagreements with this blog post, so if you find a problem with my way of thinking, fire away! Just don't argue, please.
