Nintendo Life writes: "2K Games president Christoph Hartmann is clearly something of a Nintendo fan, and has made some incredibly positive noises to UK trade publication MCV. Speaking in an interview which goes live on MCV tomorrow, Hartmann was effusive in his praise:"
"Nintendo always impresses and surprises me. The team there has so much knowledge built up over many, many years. Nintendo always finds its crowd."
0°
20°
30°
30°
Ad 
40°
And because basing hardware around pointless gimmicks always works out well in the end.
I really don't think Nintendo, or most people in the industry, really have the slightest clue why the Wii, or DS for that matter, were so monumentally popular. If they did, or if Nintendo did at least, the Wii U and 3DS would look very different.
The Wii was so successful because it didn't act or look like a normal video game console. It's controller gave off the vibe of easy to use, as anyone can use a TV remote.
Name a console that "failed" Sure the N64 or Gamecube didn't sell particularly well, but the Gamecube still sold over 21 million units worldwide. Every other console Nintendo has made has sold like gold. (And don't bring up the Virtual Boy because it's not a console)
So if the Wii was based around such pointless gimmicks, why did Sony feel the need to release the Move? Or are you going to tell me that it's any different from the Wii? Microsoft wouldn't have pushed the Kinect the way they did if Nintendo had just released a regular system with a regular controller.
If you don't see the value in the Wii U, then fine. But don't act like you are some successful entrepreneur who knows how to successfully manage a legacy like Nintendo. I really doubt they need your advice on how to run their company.
Regarding the second point, I was referring indirectly to Kinect and Move, to pieces of hardware based around a singular gimmick that didn't work. The Virtual Boy is another example.
...
And as for the third point, really? I have to spell it out for you?
The Wii was not successful because of the motion controls. It was succesful because Nintendo managed to use Wii Sports to appeal to an entirely new demographic, the casual gamer. The Wii U's gimmick has no appeal for that casual market, and therefore represents a failure on Nintendo's part to realize why the Wii was such a huge success.
As for the 3DS re: the DS, the reason the DS took off was simple--it was very cheap to develop games for, which meant it very quickly accummulated a large number of titles, particularly from smaller developers. Cheaper dev. costs also resulted in more risks being taken, hence the revival of the adventure genre with games like Layton and Ace Attorney and Ghost Trick. It was also very EASY to develop games for.
The 3DS? It's the opposite. It's far more difficult, time-consuming and expensive to develop games in 3D. This discourages smaller developers from developing for the 3DS (pushing them to the mobile market) and reduces the quantity of games, thereby diminishing the library. Once again, it's clear Nintendo didn't realize (or chose to ignore) what made the older hardware successful while designing the new hardware.
This idea you've got that it's only possible to criticize Nintendo (or any other big company) if you, yourself, run a large company is absurd. Hell, it's not even a legitimate argument, just a poorly-disguised straw man. My advice for you is to grow the **** up and realize that when someone criticizes a company that produces a product you like, it's NOT a personal attack against YOU or THEM.
The 3DS is hard to develop for? Then how come titles are pouring out for it VS the Vita? Developers are pouring their time and effort into the system because it has an install base. Why create a game for an install base of 3 million when you can make it for an install base of 25 million? Developers are here to make money, plain and simple, and numbers don't lie.
I already told you to not bring up the Virtual Boy as it was Nintendo's only real tarnish. The Nintendo 64 was successful in many ways, their only mistake being to stick with cartridge based gaming. Super Mario 64 and Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time are regarded as probably 2 of the greatest video games ever created, and wouldn't have been possible without the Nintendo 64.
I don't care what people say about Nintendo, I also own an Xbox 360 and a pretty decent PC gaming rig. I buy Nintendo hardware because I know the quality of software I am getting from the 1st and 2nd party developers. If the Wii U doesn't get GTA V or Bioshock Infinite, I'll buy it for the 360 instead. And when the 720 or PS4 comes out, I'll consider buying whichever of the two appeals to me more.
But I know I am not going to get a 3D Mario, Zelda or Metroid experience in HD on any other system than the Wii U. Hence the reason why I purchased it.
So at the end of the day, say what you will, but just don't act like you know how to run the company any better. I'd be more worried about a company like Sony, who seems to be losing a lot of traction with the Vita sales being quite poor, and the rest of their companies divisions suffering financially.
And your response is just as long as Xof's.
You really haven't refuted any of the points Xof made, instead you've tried to discredit him(?) and make up arguments he never made to refute.
...
Just so you know, most of us here can see right through that.
He said that the DS was easy to developer for whereas the 3DS is not. I mereley suggested that the 3DS is a lot easier to develop for than the Vita (since most developers are choosing to develop for the 3DS or Vita, only the Japanese market seems to still be releasing stuff for the DS and PSP). And with the install base being huge compared to the Vita, developers would be taking more of a chance on developing for the Vita, since there is a lot less guarantee on return with a smaller install base.
I also told him to not bring up the Virtual Boy because that was a blip, but he brought it up anyways. :P
And as for the 64 and Gamecube, sure they didn't sell as much as the PS1 or Xbox/PS2, but it was a new time for gaming, and there was a lot more to choose from. And I brought up the point that the 64 brought us some of the top acclaimed games ever created, so it isn't all that bad.
I was never trying to "discredit" him as you so eloquently stated. I am having a discussion with him. Did you ever see me throw around the words "idiot" or "retard" or insult him directly like most fanboys do on these boards? I don't think so, but if I offended him in any way then I apologize.
I just find it funny that people will automatically brand Nintendo as garbage and pretend like they know how to run the company better. I never implied that I knew how to run their company in any way. While a Nintendo fan at heart, I still embrace other systems because I want to maximize my gaming experience.
I am sorry if I misled either of you.
if nintendo didnt have a cheaper price point of their devices then theyd suffer. look how fast they dropped the price of the 3ds , it took 5 months to drop 1/3 of the asking price which was too high for what it offered. there will be a quick price drop of the wii u also because its too expensive for what is offered. the ps vita is a better value and device than the wii u.
the wii u has about 3 - 6 months before the wii u supports drop to 20% or so than it is right now. GDC might have xbox 720 or ps4. maybe itll be E3 before we see them and most interest in wii u will be gone. there are no must have games for the wii u at the moment or announced to be out within the 1st year for wii u.
the wii u is finished. no buzz nor buzz for games. its a system competing with ps3 and xbox which are at the end of their cycle. its obsolete and not needed when the ps3 is still more powerful and efficient with its tech.
>>>@Canary I didn't refute any of his points? He stated that the only
>>>reason the Wii was successful was because of Wii Sports attracting
>>>the casuals. I suggested that on top of that, it was also the ability to
>>>capture a new audience with the whole Wii Fit craze.
No, he said that was the main reason. Main. And Wii fit and Wii sports are basically the same for the purposes of this argument, both titles drew in a new casual demographic. So what you did here was /reiforce/ Xof's point, you didn't refute it at all. The basic notion is that the Wii was successful because games -like- Wii Sport, Wii Fit, etc. brought a new casual market to the table. This was accomplished chiefly through the use of the Wii's motion-control, which made gaming more accessible for non-gamers than it had ever been at any point in the past.
Xof's point was that this was ignored with the Wii U. This seems like an easy thing to refute, as the big pad-controller seems tailor-made to appeal to those casuals who like big screens and big buttons. The only way I can see for Xof to defend the Wii in this respect would be the fact that the Wii U is still using the Wii Motion +, and the lack of improvement re: motion control could mean that the Wii U ultimately won't be able to entice those casuals to upgrade.
>>>He said that the DS was easy to developer for whereas the 3DS is not.
>>>I mereley suggested that the 3DS is a lot easier to develop for than
>>>the Vita (since most developers are choosing to develop for the 3DS
>>>or Vita, only the Japanese market seems to still be releasing stuff for
>>>the DS and PSP). And with the install base being huge compared to
>>>the Vita, developers would be taking more of a chance on developing
>>>for the Vita, since there is a lot less guarantee on return with a
>>>smaller install base. "
Again, you haven't refuted any point here because the Vita... isn't part of the discussion. It's comparing the 3DS to the DS. And that by making a handheld (3DS) that's difficult to develop for (Nintendo is actually on-record saying that making 3D games ended up being surprising difficult) they're pushing third-party developers away from the 3DS to other platforms. Xof never brought up the Vita. Or the DS. Or the PSP. Because those platforms aren't the issue--the discussion involves the 3DS and DS, solely, and comparing those two platforms. He's saying that Nintendo made the DS more appealing for third party developers than they did with the 3DS.
>>>"I also told him to not bring up the Virtual Boy because that was a
>>>blip, but he brought it up anyways. :P "
Which isn't something you can do. You can't say, "none of Nintendo's consoles failed except for the one that did because it didn't count." Reality doesn't work that way. And you can't tell people what they can and cannot discuss--debate doesn't work that way.
>>>brought us some of the top acclaimed games ever created, so it isn't
>>>all that bad."
Again, you're refuting a point that was never raised. Xof never so much as implied that anything re: Nintendo was "all bad." His point was that there were certain elements to the design of the DS and Wii that contributed greatly to their success, and those elements appear to have been ignored in their respective successors. THAT IS THE POINT YOU NEED TO ARGUE AGAINST! And you could, easily, by discussing how the 3DS is tapping into the 3D fad to appeal to the casual market that the Wii introduced, or how the Wii U is attempting to broaden the market for co-operative gameplay, etc., etc. There are plenty of valid counter-arguments you could have made to Xof. But you didn't. You invented points that were never made and chose to argue against them. You're doing this quite a bit.
I get the feeling you read his comment and didn't really read what was written, but rather read /into/ it--to things that weren't there.
>>>"I was never trying to "discredit" him as you so eloquently stated.
>>>I am having a discussion with him. Did you ever see me throw around
>>>the words "idiot" or "retard" or insult him directly like most
>>>fanboys do on these boards? I don't think so, but if I offended him
>>>in any way then I apologize.
That's not what the word, "discredit" means. Your straw-man argument (the attempt to discredit Xof) was to bring up this nonsense about running a company, to imply that Xof's opinion was somehow not valid because he was daring to advise Nintendo on how to run their company without running a company of his own. First off, if he were advising Nintendo on what to do, his personal situation would be irrelevant. That is a straw man tactic, and is not a legitimate argument! And secondly, he wasn't saying anything about how Nintendo -should- run Nintendo, he was merely pointing out -how- they ARE running Nintendo.
>>>I just find it funny that people will automatically brand Nintendo as
>>>garbage and pretend like they know how to run the company better. I
>>>never implied that I knew how to run their company in any way. While
>>>a Nintendo fan at heart, I still embrace other systems because I want
>>>to maximize my gaming experience."
And I find it funny we're reading the same posts. No one here--NOT ONE--claimed, intimated or otherwise implied that Nintendo was garbage. No one here--NOT ONE--claimed, intimated or otherwise implied that he, she or anyone else here, there or anywhere knew how to "run Nintendo better." And personally, I find it funny that you, and all those people disagreeing with me, are so at odds with reality. Xof said certain specific things. You said specific things. They are right here! All you have to do is read them! There is a discrepancy! Some cognitive dissonance! No one is insulting Nintendo! No one! Your behavior here, your insistence that Xof (or Canary--me) is somehow insulting Nintendo in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary can only, only be construed as fanboyish delusion.
>>>I am sorry if I misled either of you.
No, see, the reason I'm bothering with this at all is because it seems to me that you're misleading yourself. Please, before you reply or PM me or whatever--please read through this post (all of it, even the quotes from yourself) one more time. Slowly.
As to why the Wii was so successful when you could get a far better gaming experience on he PS3 or the 360 in my opinion.
I've seen fifty year old women discuss playing Wii Fit. Old women playing video games. Ten years ago, that would have been unimaginable. Nintendo managed to tap into a new demographic by appealing to both parent and children, while at the same time pricing themselves well below the competition.
So, basically, it's fairly easy to see why the Wii sold so well. It appealed to a broad demographic. Yes, some of that came at the expense of core gamers who "could get a far better gaming experience on [the] PS3 or the 360," but ultimately Nintendo won because they tried to appeal to everyone, whereas Sony and Microsoft both chose to appeal to narrower demographics. They've branched out in recent years, Sony perhaps moreso than microsoft, but that's ultimately the reason why the Wii took off.
inb4 my opinion is meaningless because I'm not Reggie, and clearly he's the only person qualified to speak or understand anything related to Nintendo.
ok i agree with most of your points
BUT the ''expense of the core gamers"
if you mean NINTENDO CORE gamers then no we were not abandoned, we got a console 2D mario that hadnt happened in over a decade, a DKC game, 2 3d mario adventures, 2 different kirby games, a huge SSB etc
IF youre talking about the "BRO CORE GAMER" they LEFT nintendo WAY BEFORE the wii with the gamecube and prolly some with the N64
they SWITCHED OVER to the playstation and xbox
Get a Wii instead.
The only somewhat valid point that you made no mention of would be the price/availablility of the Wii is better. Otherwise than that it is worse is every possible way.
the sony and microsoft fans?:" IT WILL FAIL, IT WILL FAIL IT'S NOT OUT SELLING THE WII!! YEAH JUST LIKE THE PS3.. IT WILL NEVER OUT SELL THE PS2... SO THE PS3 HAS FAILED... RIGHT? PPUUULLEEASSSE... GET A LIFE!!
what an adorable little guy
t(^_^)z
Shut your mouth kid.
Use your brain in future, 'kid'.
would you rather trust the opinions of someone who has been part of a team of games developers which a long list of successful games behind them and a bigger presence in the gaming industry.
or 4A... a company from the ukraine that have only made one title and have only developed for 2 platforms. 3 if you count the next game they are working on.
I know i'd rather put my faith in someone a lot more established and credible.
The Vita has been on the market for months and no ones called the TOD for it yet.