While I'm not going to discuss what is the weak point in Nintendo's sales, I agree that they should stop living in the past and start giving online multiplayer support to their games; it is a must nowadays.
Nintendo: Where Do We Point the Finger of Blame?
- Thread starter Ryukouki
- Start date
- Views 14,195
- Replies 135
- Likes 7
They do make games with online multiplayer.
And, also, not every game needs to have online multiplayer, it must only be applied when it is benefitial to the game experience. I don't see any point in having online multiplayer in Zelda.
But, I find it inexcusable that many games nowadays have online multiplayer while not having local multiplayer. Heck, I can't play Battlefield with my friend, because I don't own the game. At least with Mario Kart 7, I don't need to have the game, I can just use download play to play with a friend who owns the game
Of course I was talking about games that don't have online multiplayer, I think pointing that out would be redundant but I see some people need all kind of boundaries well defined...
I would say that every game that has local multiplayer involved already should have online mutiplayer as I said, times have changed and a lot of social stuff we humans do has reached the virtual stage (for the good and for the bad); it became a must and not fully integrating it to their schemes is bad for the general appealing of their products.
But, I think nowadays they make a lot of games with online features. If you're talking about the Wii and DS they're in the past know... At least with the 3DS, I've seen many games released with online multiplayer, even games that focus on single-player like Luigi's Mansion and Kid Icarus: Uprising. Of course, there are some inexplicable omissions like Star Fox 64 3D and Fire Emblem: Awakening lacking online multiplayer, but excluding these few cases, I see no lack of online multiplayer game as you say. It's not to say they shouldn't make more online multiplayer games but what you said make it seems like they have not been trying to get better in this area, when as a matter of fact, they are trying
I think you would be better to lead Nintendo than Iwata.
I'll add: get rid of the controller with a screen. (Nintendo can't compete with other Tablets)(Not to mention they already have a mobile device: 3DS).
Well, I wouldn't say getting RID of it, I actually think it's the only real innovative attraction about the Wii U.
However, I would go for 2 versions of hardware marketing:
1- A Wii U, with a classic controller with a 50$ - 100$ price drop, in order to increase sales.
2- A Wii U with the new screen controller, more expensive of course.
Lots of great feedback here, and that is awesome. Let's keep it going. In the meantime, I'm actually very curious as to where things are heading, so I created a "Part Two" of sorts that goes into their newer forays into the health industry, which are found here:
http://gbatemp.net/threads/nintendo-and-health-care-a-continuation.361659/
Let me know what you guys think!
http://gbatemp.net/threads/nintendo-and-health-care-a-continuation.361659/
Let me know what you guys think!
And that would be a brilliant idea. I kinda don't want to pay extra money for another tablet controller.
True, a very good idea. One that has been mentioned before, and in fact, ever since the PS4 - Vita controlling came possible.
But Nintendo doesn't seem to get it.
Nintendo needs to change with the time or others will do what Nintendon't.
I think that would effectively kill the screen controller.
As people would be unlikely to choose 2 often.
As well, when it's not in 100% of Wii U deployments, people won't develop for it.
Which will make people even less likely to choose option 2.
Well maybe.
The issue here is increasing sales.
Because lets face it, the Wii U controller is expensive and it doesn't need to be included. I agree with it, as an optional add-on or upgraded controller you can buy separately.
But to force it, just makes the price higher, and even worse, since its so expensive to produce, Nintendo won't drop the price by much if the controller is included.
We already had this bullsh*t with the Nintendo 64 Disk Drive. It didn't sell well and many games that were planned on it needed to be cut in content dramatically.
Nintendo just needs to create games that shows the full potential of the Gamepad. Up until now they don't know what to start with it them self.
The only game where me and my friends wanted to use the Gamepad was while playing Rayman Legends.
Which takes me back to my original point.
Don't force the controller, especially is it barely has any uses so far. It's unnecessarily making the whole product more expensive.
I think the gamepad as an optional extra, is the better option.
the point of my last reply was that this additional hardware failed and many games suffered from it.
The Gamepad brings no major advantages with itself so buying one is really pointless. This Hardware would also fail and people wouldn't even bother of programming anything for it.
so many games would suffer, again.
Why would anyone want to use the 3DS and it's awful as fuck control scheme as an extra controller?
That's like handing your friend a MadCatz controller. Where half the buttons are broken. And it's covered in rusty nails.
That's like handing your friend a MadCatz controller. Where half the buttons are broken. And it's covered in rusty nails.
Similar threads
