Berrix wrote:Half a dozen Mario platformers doesn't equate to what people, by majority, are aware of and seen.
So the problem is not the number of Mario games, but how well Nintendo is promoting them? If that is the case, then they are better served by increasing the marketing budget of the games they have already released then yet another release.
"Saying this implies a HD re-release of PS2 classics sold PS3 systems, which is not naturally the case."
Obviously. Old IPs do not provide mass market appeal. Even super-popular HD collections were not enough to prevent the PS3 from being one of the biggest disasters the industry has ever seen.
Just as none of those Mario platformers (which include retail games), are preventing the Wii U from tracking below the PS3 in a similar timeframe.
"Hell, it's surprising how many are not much aware of Super Luigi U, while in the same breath mention Mario Kart 8."
You seem to be confusing 'awareness' with 'interested in'. Nintendo is pushing New Super Luigi about as hard as they push any games: that whole 'Year of Luigi' thing, Nintendo Directs, magazine buys, and even TV spots. They are plenty aware of it; just not interested
Mario Kart 8 gets talked about in a different light because instead of being indistinguishable in footage and screenshot from previous games, it actually appears to be doing creative new things.
"Mind you, there is never a true line where it becomes 'Too Much Mario' for Nintendo consoles. You may disagree"
It is not just me -- pretty much all schools of economic theory accept the concept of diminishing utility
. You can pretend that Mario games are among the only products on the entire earth that no one ever gets sick of, but the sales data does not back that assertion up -- if anything, it very much indicates the opposite.
"New IPs don't. Looking into sales figures, BK/2 sold millions, sure but didn't do much to flux the console attachment rate."
"Rythm Heaven sold more in a shorter time (shorter in total) than BK series, but did nothing to the sales figures of a declining Wii generation.""
Right, Rhythm Heaven was hugely popular and sold tons of systems when it debuted on the DS, and then by the time the series got to the Wii, it was an established IP, and comparatively no one wanted it -- because like I said, old IPs are a poor investment in this market. That example is not atypical.
"the universe of Miis seem to be Nintendo's only true IP that marked a major selling point that rivaled Mario during the Wii"
And the 'universe of Miis' was worth the neighborhood of two hundred million
copies of software sold alone, along with 100 million systems.
And why restrict ourselves only to the Wii? During that same period of time, the DS was killing it, and we had almost 25 million Nintendogs games sold and twenty-million of the first Brain Age alone. Along with the Wii series, these are the games credited for making Nintendo the most successful developer and publisher of the entire decade.
That Nintendo listened to people who thought that they could replicate that kind of smash-success with a system library built almost entirely around Mario is why
they are currently in the hole they are in.
"Much of that relates to a ton of reasons, from every console carrying one of their games, to utilizing the players' creativity on their Miis into a variety of games. They were essentially an extension of one's self. THEY raced against Mario, THEY triumphed against Sonic, THEY explored new territories. THEM, not the Miis, and that's reasons that made them so damn popular."
This is... surprisingly incoherent. Miis are an extension of the player, and that is what made the games popular, but the extensions of the players are not what made the games popular? What
Are you trying to say that the Mii aesthetic
did not make the Wii games popular? If so, I do not know if I can agree with that. While I personally think it looks kind of repulsive, as I am aware, most people who enjoy the games quite enjoy the clean, colorful, heavily-stylized look of the characters and would probably be turned off by a different presentation. Nintendo would seem to agree, considering how they keep reusing the artstyle. I suspect similar reasoning explains Mario's persistent reliance on the whole 'Bah-bah' music.
"Now, can Nintendo essentially do this with another IP? Sure, but it will take a lot of work to get their presence not only known of the IP, but of the console itself."
Nintendo never needed to do work to sell virtually any of the new IPs I have named so far -- new, interesting sell themselves. They never had to pay
to have Wii Sports show up on every talk and news show in existence back in 2006. It was a fresh new experience. People wanted to see it, wanted to play it, wanted to buy it -- wanted to spend hundreds of dollars to do so.
"Which they fumbled on, sure, but it's recoverable even at this point."
I agree it is recoverable. But it is only recoverable to the extent that they stop listening to people espousing the failed business model they are currently following.
"We do not know of all the supposed new IPs Sony is making in the supposed next year. Some may be delayed a year, some may be delayed into oblivion."
And I readily accept the idea that 'some' may be delayed. The part that approaches absurdity is when you get into 'almost all' territory, which is what it would take for either system to have a worse first-year line-up of new IPs than the Wii U factually has.
"That's not even counting some may merge into other projects, others change into an existing IP (like Mario and Luigi from the title Tomato Adventure), complete cancellation and even be an 'app' of some kind, as that still essentially qualifies as new IP, whether the gamer agrees or not. In all, I suspect five (if they are indeed new IP in some way) will be accessible by the gamer in some way by the end of next year from Sony at least. The remaining fall into the categories I mentioned. I heard this promise before, and purchased a $500 console and got almost two years of grief."
You can make that argument, but if that is the case, then I am clearly being much too charitable in assuming that X, Mario Kart, and Bayonetta will make 2014.
"And complaining that we have one game planned that's new IP next year even though we do not have knowledge of the entire line-up is crap."
No, 'crap' is pretending that there is this secret treasure trove of new IPs that Nintendo is going to magically conjure out of thin air -- and then apparently release almost immediately after announcing them.
Why is it that we should regard games with suspicion even if they are far enough into development to have working game demos and have concrete official release windows, but we should treat games that as far as we know do not even exist
with the utmost faith?
"As I said before, all companies get this flak, I do not think Nintendo should be void of it, but I do believe they catch more of it when they do something Mario."
Under what distribution why would Mario not deserve to receive more flak than any other series over that matter? There are objectively more Mario games currently on the market than any other franchise, and Mario games objectively release on a more frequent basis than any other franchise.
FadedAreWii wrote:The attach rate proves it is pushing systems
Attach rates have nothing to do with 'pushing systems'. In fact, the less systems you push, the better the attach rate ends up.
The actual number of systems being sold
proves that it is not pushing systems.
"4mil+ systems is a large ammount for a couple games pushing it"
A. No, that is not actually a 'large' amount at all. 'Large' would be surpassing what Nintendo expected it to push. 'Moderate' would be selling precisely how many Nintendo projected it to move. 'Terrible' is selling well below those expectations, which is exactly what we are seeing
. Pretty much everyone understands that, Nintendo most of all.
B. That is also assuming that everyone who buys NSMBU bought the entire console for the game, which is fairly dubious. For instance, despite owning NSMBU and being factored into that attach, *I* bought the system for Monster Hunter.
"Trying to include VC games and dlc is laughable."
I could have sworn someone earlier was complaining about Nintendo not receiving credit for their work in coming out with Earthbound or whatever. Are we now accepting the 'Virtual Console games don't count!' argument?
Well, either way, that is essentially an admission that Nintendo is wasting their time and money on all the Mario games they keep pumping out, so I will interpret this as progress.
"I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your anti-nintendo, pro-sonyms drivel."
As someone who approach things from the perspective of business, whether facts impugn or defend a corporation's Klingon honor or whatever is honestly fairly irrelevant to me.