Gaming Nintendo gets slammed.

[Magnum Apex]

[font=trebuchet ms][url]http://www.nintendojo.com/editorials/view_item.php?1065098911[/url][/font]

[size=4][b]Misfirings of Miyamoto[/b][/size]

[i]The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of Nintendojo as a whole or any of its affiliates.[/i]


[center][i]?What? How is it possible that this GameCube game is only worth $15 (CDN) as a trade in value??[/i][/center]

This is the question that I fired at a local retailer last week as I traded in Windwaker and Knockout Kings 2003 for a shiny new copy of the double disc Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2004 (go buy this game right now).

To which the shop owner replied;


[center][i]?Eric, do you know that I wouldn?t even carry this GameCube ***** if it weren?t for the few people around here like you who are stuck with the console? This thing [GameCube] is doing worse than the Dreamcast did during its dying days and Nintendo isn?t doing anything to help me soften the blow. When they drop their prices they don't subisdize the price cuts and I eat the difference. I lose money on any GameCube stuff. Not to mention that it doesn?t sell. Just go check your local Blockbuster and see how many GameCube games they carry compared to PS2 or Xbox.?[/i][/center]

While Nintendo may be running around saying that they are globally number two, what they aren?t saying is that they are getting their assess handed to them in the North American market. That is, until George Harrison of NOA came out (more than likely out of the contempt for all of the ill press and bad numbers coming at him) and recently admitted as much in an IGN interview.

Instead of the usual bull**** reply from the Japanese end of the company that sports games don?t matter to Nintendo?s market segment because they make games for all ages of people; Harrison acknowledged that sports titles are an important part of his market; a market in which Nintendo has made some fundamental errors.

[center][i]?We would love to have sports games sell better on GameCube. I think serious sports players sort of make their choice for their primary system and that was made over the last two or three years. So starting with the current installed base, it's a little discouraging that we can't sell more sports games. By comparison, though, sales of Madden on GameCube this year are up dramatically over the prior year so there is some progress, although it may not be as dramatic as we'd hoped. We recognize that sports is a category where we have to come out of the starting gates strong with the next console so we're going to be making every effort to make sure we've got the best sports games lined up at the launch of the next system.?[/i][/center]

First and foremost, Harrison is acknowledging (with some much needed honesty) that Nintendo?s GameCube is being fed to the dogs when it comes to a genre that attracts casual gamers and their hard earned dollars to platforms. Secondly Harrison directly points to Madden as an indication of success, which tells you just how significant sports games are to the business. It appears Harrison is saying that since Madden is one of the top selling video game franchises ever, and Madden isn?t climbing on the GameCube, they are giving up on the system in order to focus on the next generation.

That's right, folks, the plans Nintendo has are ala Saturn to Dreamcast... dump the loser and jump too quickly into the next generation of consoles.

I think this slash and burn strategy is the result of several key mistakes by Nintendo (including their exclusion of the sports market) and, more specifically, Shigeru Miyamoto himself.

Conversely; Microsoft, a supposed first timer and underdog in this generation of consoles kicked Nintendo in their pompous *** in North America because they floated a full, viable sports line up of their own to initially get the sports push on the system. Even if the games aren't comparable to better product, Microsoft showed the third party developers that they are seriously committed to sports and online sports. Then they went out and did their best to bribe most sports publishers like EA, Sega and Konami to jump aboard as well.

The result, the casual fans superfluous income (the reason that the videogame industry has boomed over the last few years- it?s now mass consumption) picked Xbox over the regurgitated line up of GameCube which features one weak in house first party sports title, Kobe Courtside, with 1080 Avalanche in perpetual development.

Further indication that Nintendo is giving up on the GameCube lies in their pathetic line up of rehashed crap coming in the near future (which isn't fooling anyone, especially the consumer). I?ve already covered this topic in another editorial but it bears repeating. Look at the next three major releases: Mario Kart 64 II : Double Dash, Metal Gear 1+2 with no replay value via VR missions, and Rogue Squadron Sequel #28 in which Luke blows up the imperial walkers on foot this time.

Now, I've been thinking this through a bit further. The REAL REASON why these games feel like cheap rehashes is because they don't have online play! The generation before brought a fresh look to gaming because things went to 3D. This generations' 3D innovation is online play; and like sports line-ups, Nintendo has essentially ignored this important innovation. Consquently, the system is dying a quick death.

What's more, Nintendo?s slash and burn policy on the way out of this generation is turning everyone off. Nintendo isn?t subsidizing retailers for their price drops. They aren?t offering to work with retailers to sell the stale **** that?s been cluttering up their walls. All of this poor management on the business end, no serious sports support, and a lack of fresh software via online play is also burning bridges for the next console.

Do you think that any casual player who bought a GameCube will make that mistake twice? As things stand, I know I won?t. To the delight of most of you blinded, ignorant-assed fan boy ****heads out there I will gladly be retiring from Nintendo coverage once the next console comes out and if things keep going this way, that day can?t come soon enough.

But I?m curious, what is the root of the problem? Well the most obvious answer is that Nintendo is completely out of touch. By Nintendo I mean the producer who?s had his non-violent / family first hands all over every Nintendo game in this generation: Shigeru Miyamoto.

Shigeru Miyamoto and Nintendo are one in the same in this generation and if he can take the praise for recreating Mario 1500 times across several consoles he can certainly take the blame for having the most out of touch attitude in business since auto insurance companies began raping the public. While he may be a genius, I don't think that Miyamoto's thoughts are anywhere near what the public wants. And as much as Nintendo thinks otherwise, companies are supposed to give consumers what they want; not what they think they should have, e.g. online play, a full sports line up, new/hot games and not rehashes of three year old games etc.

A while ago I wrote an editorial called [b][url="http://www.nintendojo.com/editorials/view_item.php?1016002785"]Ken Lobbed: Guess Who?s Next?[/url][/b] In it I hypothesized that Miyamoto would be the next to go. Oh how I wish that were the case. In the same way that Miyamoto?s brilliance supported Nintendo for years and lead it in the 3D era with incredible games like Ocarina of Time and Mario 64, it is ****ing the company now. His abstract thinking just can?t relate to the kicking of *** that Nintendo is taking by companies like (Sony and their inexpensive online strategy-DVD playback and mature games). The competition is adapting to what consumers want rather than forcing the consumer to take what they give them (Nintendo). Miyamoto should stop counselling the company on business matters he doesn't understand and locked in a dark room to do what he does best - create sappy videogames with boring plots and incredible gameplay.

Want proof? The first example of Miyamoto?s lack of business foresight was his brain fart on the N64. He pushed for the infamous cartridge format so that Mario 64 wouldn?t have any load times. This was the beginning of what has become a slippery slope for Nintendo. Nintendo went with Miyamoto?s thinking knowing that they?d have a production model that would be cost prohibitive for outside parties. But they figured that it would much more difficult to pirate cartridges (profit only) so the consumer/developer would take what Nintendo gave them and that would be that. I can hear the board meeting now? ?Hey we?re Nintendo-san. We?re number 1. You take--****--we give you and like it, dishonourable North Americans.?

Once again, with the GameCube, Miyamoto and Co. make the same fumble with their piracy proof small format. They contest that it won?t affect gameplay. Explain why Tiger Woods 2004 is on two discs? Explain how the rampant dissemination of piracy on the PS1 didn?t repeat itself this time around? Don?t believe me that Nintendo/Miyamoto, like a high school cheerleader, is all about 'me first and you later?without any foresight'? How about hearing it from George Harrison of NOA, once again discussing why Nintendo sucks at sport:


[center][i]?Well, some of it can be as simple as functionality. When we launched GameCube we didn't have a memory card at the time that was big enough to hold, say, a full season. People really fanatical about sports demand to have that memory whether it's in a hard-drive or a memory card capacity. So we kind of missed a beat there. Sports games were very important to the US market but maybe not quite as important to the Japanese one and as a result [memory card capacity] was overlooked at launch.?[/i][/center]

So Nintendo opts for their horse racing simulator market and neglects the millions of dollars to be had in the U.S. and Canada by making a memory system so pathetic that a single sports game can?t fit on one memory stick. Other systems have hard drives for Christ sakes!

I think there?s more to the memory card situation too. My good friend Noah Ward put it to me that Nintendo may have purposely sold those original crappy memory cards so that consumers would buy them by the bag load, only to sell the larger ones later, resulting in yet another upgrade. What the hell kind of move was the memory card in the first place? Don't forget, they also promised the Panasonic version and never delivered. Harrison is right, how can you play a sports game with no memory. Not to mention that in this world of convenience you can?t expect players to go searching through all kinds of memory cards for one game they want.

Okay, what about Miyamoto?s/Nintendo?s decision to go with Game Boy Advance linking rather than online play? Boy that really worked out, seeing all of PS2 and Xbox developing a core following of online gamers for their next generation consoles this generation while simultaneously leaving Nintendo far in the dust on the next. That really looks good on Nintendo. All the while Nintendo gamers get to enjoy, ?cool unlockables when they link up with their GBA.?

Speaking of which, the GBA has been remade three different times in order to whore out it?s 15 year old technology to Nintendo fanatics before Nintendo is stomped by a real portable in Sony?s upcoming effort. Once again, Sony gives the people what they want? Stereo, headphone jack, backlit, the works. Well hey, what does George Harrison think of Nintendo?s incredible GBA-GCN link up?


[i][center]?Since we've launched the GameCube we've seen a really big opportunity for enhanced gameplay with the Game Boy Advance. We haven't seen the killer application for it yet which is why I think it's hard for consumers to fully get it, but there are some more things coming this fall. Clearly we've not shown the full potential of connectivity. We either have to deliver on that or we have to stop talking about it.?[/i][/center]

And what does Miyamoto do in response to the consumer telling Nintendo that the GBA link is not a suitable replacement for online play? Apparently Miyamoto is hard at work on a killer PacMan application for the link up system that will allow GBA gamers to be the ghosts? whoah.

Can anyone be more arrogant or perhaps out of touch than Miyamoto and the company that follows his lead? When he asked at that recent famed press conference ?Why aren?t they cheering?? Maybe it?s because you?ve created the same plot and games with a few gameplay twists a million times, maybe nobody gives a **** about the ants in your garden, maybe you should stop influencing every game in the Nintendo line up, maybe you don?t know **** about hardware and the business dynamics involved and should stick to drawing Italian plumbers and fantasizing! And lastly, open your ears and Nintendo's eyes, you arrogant, insular ***. While the massive gaming public is telling you to do something like online play with Mario Kart Double Dash, you?re trying to fit a square peg into a round hole with GBA connectivity. It's our dollars that move the industry, not your "innovative-profit-only-motivated" ideas.

Even though you wanted to sell more GB?s by linking it to the GameCube, and even though you wanted to rape people of money by refurbishing six year old games, and even though you wanted to rip people off with a poor memory card strategy, you need to realize that nobody is buying your ?save the princess crap? or your outdated impracticality anymore. Why? [b]Because the kids that grew up with Mario have grown right up and they aren?t stupid.[/b] They have jobs and are spending their OWN money, not mommy?s money anymore. What is more, they are spending it on a system that gives them what they want.

Nintendo, you want to get hip, let Miyamoto work on his projects ONLY and allow fresh thinking people to work on other games. More importantly, hire someone from Sony to work on your next console because your bloated arrogance and disregard for the public?s demands are sinking you fast.



[font=trebuchet ms][color=darkblue]While certain attacks at Miyamoto were a little extreme (Pretty much the insults), it DOES represent the frustration from most of us. These are pretty much the summarized reasons why Sony took over as my favorite console maker, and why I have liked Nintendo less since the N64:[/color][/font]

[quote]The competition is adapting to what consumers want rather than forcing the consumer to take what they give them (Nintendo). [/quote]

[quote]Sony gives the people what they want[/quote]

[font=trebuchet ms][color=darkblue]I've always said Sony loves the fans, and it's hard to be supportive of a company that tries to recuperate profit by remaking the Game Boy 20 billion times rather than expanding their library positively. Well, the article puts it better and with more energy than I ever have, so I'll leave it at that.[/color][/font]

[James]

[color=#707875]Let me tell you right now; do not fall for Eric Mattei's rants. He's infamous within the gaming media for being an ignorant blowhard. This article is no different.

I don't have the energy to respond to every single point of Mattei's...but I will make a few comments.

[b]Cartriges[/b]

Eric Mattei is fundamentally wrong when he talks about cartridges and the way that Miyamoto pushed them.

First and foremost, Mattei seems quite happy to make Miyamoto responsible for Nintendo's decision to retain cartridges. I can tell you right now that from a purely creative point of view, Miyamoto probably [i]didn't[/i] want to use cartridges.

The decision to use carts was based entirely on business, rather than creative concerns. Obviously, Nintendo felt that it could still justify the use of cartridges. And while there were downsides to the format, it's also true that many of the major negative issues with catridges became completely transparent during the latter half of the N64's life.

Shigeru Miyamoto, for his part, was only towing the company line at the time. What is he going to say when questioned about cartridges? "No, they're horrible and they allow for no flexibility with game production". Seriously...Eric Mattei's understanding of the industry (and Nintendo specifically) is, at best, flawed.

[b]So-Called "Opinion on the Street"[/b]

Mattei often does this. He quotes people who work at various electronics and gaming stores and without fail, these quotes are always quite harsh and negative.

Firstly, the use of such quotes is an emotive device. What do they really represent? And how often does Mattei actually speak to the owners of large video game retailer chains? It's all very well to talk to some kid who works at Target or EB, but that individual isn't going to have a broader view of the market, let alone their own employer.

The truth is, these quotes are designed to somehow add legitimacy to Mattei's own thoughts. It doesn't matter how factual or legitimate these quotes are in and of themselves -- they make Mattei look right. And that's what he cares about most of all.

[b]Sports Games[/b]

While Mattei does tackle a legitimate concern, he does so in a completely uninformed way. And as per usual, he jumps all over Mr. Harrison's quote without actually considering what it means.

It's quite true that Nintendo haven't paid enough attention to sports games within this generation. I don't think anybody would deny that. But to then claim that Nintendo are dumping the GameCube, as Sega did with Saturn/Dreamcast, is an absolutely wild stretch.

[b]Microsoft Kicking Nintendo's Butt[/b]

Okay, let's follow Mattei's line of thought here. Based on what he says, you would imagine that Xbox is clobbering GameCube based on Microsoft's understanding of what game players want.

On the one hand, sports games on Xbox probably do attract gamers that may otherwise have bought a GameCube. And yes, that does take away potential GameCube sales.

However, let's look at the actual sales data. Right now, GameCube is ahead of Xbox in the United States, to the tune of around 250,000 units. That's not really a huge amount, to be sure. But it's still a significant enough margin. Oh, so, Microsoft has come in and taken the nation by storm, has it?

No. I'm afraid not. Once again, this is a case of emotive language outweighing cold, hard fact. If Nintendo didn't know what gamers wanted, this would truly be an obvious non-issue. Note that ERic Mattei makes no attempt to link to any specific sales data, nor does he use any solid reference guide here. Again, as per usual, he uses purely emotive ranting. There's nothing professional, authoritative or [i]true[/i] about what he's claiming here.

[b]Nintendo Being Out of Touch/Miyamoto's Responsibility[/b]

There is one big thing I dislike about Eric Mattei, and this article really is a strong example of it. Eric Mattei sees fit to blame Shigeru Miyamoto for Nintendo's ENTIRE strategy over the last several years. Not only is this plainly ignorant, but it borders on being nasty.

Secondly, Eric Mattei claims that Nintendo is out of touch with gamers at large. I'm sorry, Eric, but by "gamers" do you mean "you"? Eric might be dissatisfied with Nintendo for reasons that I consider to be invalid...but more importantly, we have to realize something here. If Nintendo was out of touch, do you think that GBA SP would be outselling PS2 consistently in Japan each week?

Nintendo has the greatest share of the video game market, when you combined GBA SP/GBA/GCN. How on earth does this translate to the company being out of touch? Not only does Nintendo hold a greater share of the market than Sony, but the company is also pulling ahead of Xbox in worldwide sales. I would like Eric to tell me how this plain fact equates to Nintendo being out of touch.

[b]Rehashes of Old Games[/b]

This is one claim that also annoys me. It annoys me because it's a very easy claim to make and it's an easily-believed claim. But I don't consider it to be true.

Let's think about this. Eric claims that Nintendo simply stamps Mario on everything. Yeah, I agree with that. But let's take three games with Mario's "stamp":

Mario Kart, Super Mario Sunshine and Mario Party.

Three games that utilize Mario as a franchise character, but three [i]very[/i] different games. Different genres, different gameplay styles and so on. How is Super Mario Sunshine a rehash of Super Mario Kart? And how is Super Mario Kart a rehash of Super Mario Paint? See what I mean? To compare these games and to classify them as being "rehashes", based solely on the fact that Mario stars in them all is, at best, ignorant.

Need I also mention Luigi's Mansion? Put another character in place of Luigi and think only of game mechanics. How on Earth could that game be considered a rehash of any other Mario titles? It can't, because it's not.

Nintendo uses franchise characters as a way of giving new gameplay ideas a sense of familiarity.

I can see why Eric objects to this -- because if you become bored of a certain character, you don't want to see them as much. I can completely understand that point of view. But why make false claims about it? Why not just be intellectually honest?

[b]Eric's Game Examples & Online Play[/b]

Eric talks about Mario Kart, Metal Gear and Rebel Strike. Oh, that's good. Apart from the fact that these games are probably going to be bit hits on their own, why is it that Eric conveniently ignores or forgets games like Baten Kaitos, Tales of Symphonia, Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles, Viewtiful Joe, Resident Evil 4 and so on? Wait, I remember now -- we wouldn't want to do anything in a fair and balanced way. No, we don't do that, because it might hurt our ridiculous diatribe.

The comments about online gaming are also interesting.

These are the comments that also reveal part of Mattei's true intent. The nature of this article is to be selfish -- to tantrum about what [i]Eric Mattei[/i] wants. Frankly, based on this article, Eric seems like your garden variety casual gamer. Eric might claim to speak for the market, but I assure you that he doesn't.

How Eric can sit there and claim to know about Nintendo's failings, whilst simultaneously making ridiculous claims about how maybe online gaming is the answer, is absolutely beyond me. Do I really need to sit here and tell you how much money Sony and Microsoft are losing on their respective online ventures? And is it really worth telling you how low the penetration of online gaming is in the console arena?

Geeze. I'm not saying that I don't want to see online gaming -- of course I do. It'd be wonderful. But that's not the point. The point is that, as a matter of fact and intellectual honesty, I'm not claiming to speak for the entire market when I make those comments. I'm speaking for myself and myself only. Eric Mattei confuses the two.

[b]The Last Few Paragraphs...[/b]

Well, how do I end this? Is it even worth responding to such tripe?

I call this tripe because there is [i]no[/i] sense of jouranlistic standard here. Where are the facts to support these claims? There are none.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that Shigeru Miyamoto is perfect. But to claim him as some arrogant nutcase who is completely unaware of the industry's current state is simply blind foolishness.

Let's look at Miyamoto's role in games like Metroid Prime. And let's look at Miyamoto's cultivation of exclusive third party ties, along with Mr. Iwata's guiding hand. There are many actions that have been taken, like those that I just mentioned, which Eric Mattei simply ignores.

Why does he ignore these developments? He does so because they don't fit his viewpoint. They contradict what he is saying.

I will stand here right now and make a bold prediction for you. I will predict the opposite to Eric Mattei; I will tell you that during the next two years, GameCube will pull further ahead of Xbox and will continue to perform well (and to improve its position in the market). I will also tell you that the third party links that Nintendo is cultivating now will have a direct beneficial impact on its next generation console. And that will result in Nintendo being in a position to compete more directly with Sony for first place, rather than with Microsoft for second.

Oh and, by the way...Eric might complain about Nintendo's rehashing of outdated technology with the GBA. But by doing so, he is single-handedly slapping the face of some 21 million + people who bought the machine and who actively purchase game software for it. It's 21 million and more versus one. That's about the size of it.

And Cyke...how can you say that Nintendo is producing Game Boy 50 billion times and not expanding its library? Haven't you seen Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, Sword of Mana and the dozens of other franchises making their way to the machine? I mean, come on. Game Boy's library is far, far more diverse than Xbox or PS2 for that matter. Saying that Nintendo has produced a lot of Game Boys is simply a very weak argument. Game Boy Advance certainly isn't a "rehash" of Game Boy Color, for example. And more importantly...yes, I can definitely point out many negatives with Nintendo. But this kind of article is simply unfair. It's extremely biased and horribly inaccurate. If you're going to criticize Nintendo, do it properly -- not with this weak garbage.[/color]

[Shinmaru]

James is right; you don't want to be stuck listening to Eric Mattei. At best, his articles are worthless pieces of trash designed to make him look like the genius that he's not. At worst, his articles reveal him to be the ignorant ******* that we all know he is.

I'm running a bit low on time, so I'll respond to the same points that James did.

[b]Cartridges[/b]

Yes, we all know by now that sticking with cartridges was a bad idea. But to blame all of that on Miyamoto is ludicrous. Does anyone think for one minute that Miyamoto has enough pull with Nintendo to affect a major hardware decision like that? Miyamoto's expertise comes from designing games, not hardware. I for one don't believe the crap that Mattei is spewing for a minute.

And, as James said, the negative issues with cartridges didn't really come up that often during the N64 regime. Again and again, Nintendo found creative ways to deal with the lack of space on their cartridges. Even though the high production costs were a turnoff to developers, it didn't really affect the N64 that much (if you look at the big picture, the N64 was actually a success and made Nintendo a lot of money).

[b]The Opinion on the Street[/b]

Does Mattei really think we'll believe that the opinion of one, and only one, shop owner represents the entire opinion of the gaming industry, it's fans, and the retailers who sell these games? If he does, then he's sorely mistaken. There are several retailers around my area that have make some good money since the GameCube dropped to $99. I guess the people around Mattei's neighborhood are just too busy listening to him spout his eternal BS.

[b]Sports Games[/b]

Yes, this is a legitimate problem. And, yet again, Mattei uses this to launch a personal attack against Nintendo. Nintendo has never been known as a sports-game developer. Could they have tried harder to lure in some more third-party sports titles? Sure, but to suggest that because they don't have enough sports games, Nintendo is dumping the GameCube is mind-boggling.

[b]Microsoft Kicking Nintendo's ***[/b]

As James said, by Mattei's logic, you'd think that Microsoft would be decimating Nintendo in America. That's simply not the case if you actually take the time to look at some simple data (which Mattei obviously didn't). Nintendo is indeed leading the XBox (albeit not "destroying" them persay) in the U.S. (and they've be leading them in Japan from the start). Later on today, I'll try to find a website or two with some tangible data, since I don't have the time to do so right now.

[b]Nintendo Being Out of Touch[/b]

One thing to say, Nintendo is definitely not out of touch. I don't really see them struggling right now, unless the real world is hidden in the confines of Mattei's imagination. I certainly hope that Mattei is not ignorant enough to believe that Shigeru Miyamoto is responisble for [i]every[/i] strategy that Nintendo has employed during his tenure. It's not Miyamoto's job to decide hardware, pricing, etc. and it never has been.

And since when did releasing game after game with innovative gameplay, solid controls and, most of all, fun qualify a gaming company to be "out of touch?" I'm sorry, I must have missed the boat.

[b]Rehashes of Old Games[/b]

This, along with the age old "kiddy games" argument *rolls eyes* is the argument that gets to me. If Nintendo's games were simply rehashes, I wouldn't buy them, simple as that. I guess Mattei saw fit to overlook every single gameplay advancement that Nintendo has made over the years in connection with their franchises. I know I did. Oh wait, I didn't. That's because I'm not an idiot.

Most of Nintendo's games (there are a couple, I will admit) are definitely not rehashes. What about Metroid Prime? That game alone had more gameplay advancements and innovations than most gaming companies make during their entire periods of existence. And that's just one game. What about Super Mario Sunshine and the FLUDD? Does that all of a sudden not count as a gameplay innovation? And need I mention Z-Targeting which revolutionized the world of gaming?

[b]Online Play[/b]

This is the only area (along with sports games) that I'll admit that Nintendo has dropped the ball. The only game that I know of that's available for Online Play is Phantasy Star Online. Does that disappoint me? Of course it does. Does it disappoint me to the extreme that it disappoints Mattei? No.

You have to understand that not every single gamer is looking for online play. In fact, I think that you'll find that the casual gamer that Mattei seems to think he represents more often than not won't have online capabilities for their system.

And then he throws out Mario Kart, MGS and Rebel Strike as his examples of rehashes. Yeah...sure...Mario Kart with co-op play...MGS with all-new graphical enhancements...and Rebel Strike with on-foot mode along with fighting in spaceships...yeah, I can see the rehash.

And, as James pointed out, he completely ignores other new games that are coming out like Baten Kaitos, Viewtiful Joe, Tales of Symphonia, etc. How convenient.

[b]Everything Else[/b]

What strikes me as being the most infuriating is that Mattei has the gall to call Shigeru Miyamoto arrogant...though, I would suppose that Mattei is the national authority on arrogance, since he's full of it himself (and that's not the only thing he's full of).

I know Shigeru Miyamoto isn't perfect because there is no such thing as perfect. To proclaim a man to be perfect would be to zone out the big picture. But to say that he's an arrogant nutcase...well, I think it's safe to say that dear Mr. Mattei may have a couple screws loose himself.

Shigeru Miyamoto has had a hand in many great things. James mentioned two examples in his post: Metroid Prime and his third-party ties (which brought over, among others, Sega, Konami, and Capcom). Mattei ignores every single detail that would detract from what he's saying. Why? Because his viewpoint is utterly and totally false and he knows it. But he doesn't want the public at large to know it. So, he disguises it all with a large veil of BS.

Hmm...so the GBA is outdated technology, is it? I'm sure that there are 21 million + who bought the GBA who agree with that statement, Eric. And Mattei has thrown his hat in with support of the PSP and said that it will bury the GBA. How does he even know that? I haven't seen one little bit of what the PSP is capable of; not one game, not one screenshot, only some drawings and specs. And we all know how well specs indicate how well a console does. For those who can't tell, that was sarcasm.

Now, I don't want this post to make me look like some biased, ignorant Nintendo fanboy. I will heartfully concede that PS2 has a handy lead in the market right now and that Microsoft isn't far behind Nintendo at the moment. However, it's just articles like that that get to me...articles that are so blatantly false, you wonder how they were even put up for the public to view in the first place.

[Semjaza]

Now I remember what it was I wanted to tell James last night. It was about this. Eric Mattei is a laughing stock of the game community.

Every single forum seems to be posting this and most seem to dismiss it rather quickly because of its many, many flaws. I'm assuming that's most likely why you posted it, as I don't know why anyone would visit willingly lol (although they have picked up recently). You may agree with the basic argument, but the manner in which he comes to these conclusions and supports the argument is terrible. The amount of melodrama he throws in here to make these points just ruins them even more.

Opinions are one thing. This is his opinion, fine enough. It's not even that I disagree with his main point or theme, it's that he tries to make it seem true to people by a bunch of doubletalking and obvious misunderstandings of how or why anything works. I'm a fan of Nintendo, but not a blind one. Sure they've ****** up plenty, but a lot of the ideas presented as "facts" in this editorial are just way off on even basic levels. The manner in which this guy comes to his conclusion is a bunch of idiotic burned-by-Nintendo fanboy nonsense and if a persons knows anything about Mattei, they'd know this to be the true scenario.

[url]http://www.nintendojo.com/specials/....php?1027458978[/url]

I think this article is proof enough that you should never listen to a thing this man says. This is the same man who was 100% sure that MS was going to buy Nintendo out over a year ago. If one knows anything about Eric Mattei one would never cite him for anything or use him to back up an argument.


This argument stems mostly from the idea that the GameCube doesn't really appeal to the casual gamer at this point. It's not a set top box that does everything on top of games, which is what many people here want. The same with Japan to an extent. No one talks about how when PS2 launched in Japan, more people were buying it to play DVDs like the Matrix than actual games. Sales for actual software back then were terrible.

Nintendo has no desire to do this as they're a game company. At least not with the GameCube. Who knows about the future, they may have to adjust this philosophy. They most likely will, considering their involvment with companies like Panasonic.

It is time for new franchises, though. At least in my opinion. Franchises that appeal more to the casual people and don't totally just scream "Hey it's Super Mario!" There are some probabilities. They resurrected Metroid through Retro. Silicon Knights seems to be improving. They're working with N-Space on Geist, which is sounding very cool. They have the possibilities, it's just a matter of capitalizing on them somehow.

[James]

[color=#707875]I don't even know why Eric Mattei remains at Nintendojo. His writing is poor quality, not to mention the numerous problems with the support behind his contentions, or lack thereof.

Honestly, I don't mind people being critical of Nintendo. At N-Sider, we've run quite a few articles that have questioned and criticized Nintendo on various levels. But what is the difference? We never do anything mean-spirited and we don't spread baseless venom like this. We base our opinions on facts that we can provide and demonstrate. And we don't abuse our public platform by slinging mud at individuals.

I'm disappointed in Nintendojo for not getting rid of Eric Mattei at this point. Nintendojo has run columns that oppose what he says...but still, why keep him around? Just for the controversy? Controversy is a quick shot in the arm if you're a dying site -- but ultimately, controversial articles like these are only going to hurt Nintendojo's reputation.[/color]

[Magnum Apex]

[font=trebuchet ms][color=darkblue]James: I worded what I said wrongly. What I meant was that while Nintendo kept releasing different, meaningless upgrades to the Game Boy as a way of profit, they could have chosen better ways to achieve their wanted numbers. Examples of this would be to increase their library of the Nintendo 64, at the time, or find alternate ways that would be more beneficial to consumers. Sure, the Game Boy is the top-selling system out there, but popularity doesn't necessarily mean quality. They promote and upgrade with just enough features to incite consumers into buying them. For example, the change from the GBA to the GBA SP isn't that much of an improvement, yet just enough to warrant a purchase... but $100? What about the majority of people that already bought their GBA? They would have to pay $100 more for just a front light and a more mature-looking system, when they already have one to play GBA games. It certainly doesn't seem fair, and the fact that you need headphones specifically made by Nintendo doesn't help, either.

Despite all that, I bought my GBASP while owning a glacier GBA. I spent a total of $190 in both systems, because of the simple fact that the GBA was too hard to play in not-so-well lit areas. I, like everyone else, didn't know that Nintendo would have plans to release a new version of the GBA when the system came out, nor did we know it by the time the project became a reality and Nintendo was actually working on it. It's a market strategy, of course, but certainly an unfair one for consumers, one that we don't see as often from Sony and Microsoft in the video game industry.

Moving on, I'm well aware of Mattei's reputation, yet from experience I know not to automatically dismiss something as incorrect just because of the person who's providing the information or opinion. The main point of the article is that Nintendo, rather than focusing on giving people what they want, expect people to like what they offer. This differs greatly from what both Microsoft and Sony are trying to do, [b]mainly with online play[/b].

The fact that Nintendo hasn't gotten into the online world with its GameCube console while Sony and Microsoft did is actually a testament to what consumers can expect from each company. One will trust a company more when they are willing to risk [u]immediate[/u] profit by giving people what they want, instead of companies that choose not to for themselves. If Nintendo is "all about video games," it's more than expected that they should be the first ones to tap into the online possibilities of their system. It is preposterous that this isn't the case. Sony and Microsoft are both losing money to their online plans, while Nintendo is saving up money by not doing it. As a gamer, what would you care for the most? You certainly couldn't care if a company is saving money... you just care (and rightfully so) about what the company is actually GIVING to you, the consumer. Surely, Nintendo is saving up money over Sony and Microsoft for now, but if one takes under consideration the economic factors that make consumers be "loyal" to a product, you would understand Nintendo might be in deep trouble for the next generation. Sony and Microsoft are building up a strong fan base with their online capabilities that will carry out to the next generation, while Nintendo isn't. This is a point that Mattei addresses with pointblank accuracy, so dismissing it because he's an "ignorant blowhard" isn't exactly wise. To make money you have to spend money, and Sony and Microsoft are obviously looking for future profits that would grow from today's spending on online play. The difference? Sony and Microsoft are planning on making profit by giving fans a service = online play. Nintendo does it by not risking themselves in giving consumers online play. In this case, from Nintendo we get = nothing.

Furthermore, while Nintendo has the biggest share of the video game market with the Game Boy Advance, it doesn't come close to the PS2 with the GameCube [I]alone[/I]. The market is divided into the handheld market and the home console market. Nintendo dominates the handheld market, and that's it. Sony and Microsoft, for now, don't take under account the GBA sales, as they have no system to compete with it at the moment. The PSP is on its way, and while we can't assume anything at such an early time, the fact that Sony took Nintendo's "leadership" of the industry with the PS is enough for Nintendo to start giving costumers something that the competitors haven't as of yet.

Another point that Mattei successfully portrays, which relates to the above, is the poor connectivity "advantages" between the GameCube and the Game Boy Advance. While this is the only unique feature it has over other consoles, it's too useless to be of mention. For example, with The Wind Waker you basically got tips from Tingle to reach certain unreachable areas, and in Metroid Prime, with Fusion, you got the Fusion suit and played a game that certainly hasn't aged well: Metroid. I own the "classic," and pretty much anyone who's interested in playing such an antique are the ones that have already gone through it back in the NES days. Making Super Metroid playable would have been a much wiser choice, but predictably that did not happen.

Nintendo hasn't been given the chance yet to actually show they truly know what they're doing with the GBA, as there has never been any competition. All developers are flocking around the GBA since it's the only handheld system out there. Nintendo doesn't have to worry about strategic decisions up to this point. The Game Gear was another failure from Sega's list of bad decisions, which is why Nintendo has yet to feel the pressure of good competition... until now. If the PSP becomes a successful system, Nintendo will have to be forced to actually change their ways in response to market loss. Then again, all this paragraph is nothing but a prediction based on possibility, but there's nothing stopping Sony from giving Nintendo a good "war," even if the barriers to market entry are higher than they were for the home console market back in '95.

The article is anything but a total waste. It shows some pretty good points, and it actually expresses the frustration that grows from people that can easily foresee the endless amount of fun from playing games like F-Zero GX, Super Smash Bros. Melee (not my cup of tea, but I know its popularity) and Mario Kart: Double Dash online. Thank you, Nintendo, for not giving to us.[/color][/font]

[Shinmaru]

I'll admit that the article does tackle some major points. However, it's done so unintelligently and venoumously that it's not worth paying attention to from someone like Eric Mattei. If Mattei had presented his points in a more intelligent matter like you did, then he wouldn't be so looked down upon.

I think that it's a bit unfair that Nintendo releases the GBA and, a short time later, they release the GBA SP. That's one of the biggest issues I have with Nintendo lately (especially in the realm of handhelds); they hold off with their technology for too long. Do I hope that the PSP does well? Of course I do. The more great handhelds there are, the better the games there will be; Nintendo, even though they have been releasing great games, has had virtually no competition in the realm of handheld gaming, so it will be interesting to see how they react to the PSP (if it ends up being a viable piece of hardware, that is).

And, while I would enjoy online play, I don't see online play as totally 100% neccessary. I, for one, wouldn't even get online play as it would be out of my price range (because I'm cheap). And, when you look at the big picture, the number of people who have online capabilities compared to the number of people who actually own a PS2 or an XBox is relatively small. Online players in the console world are a minority, plain and simple.

Right now, the GBA connectivity hasn't been any more than gimmicky. However, there are several games that I know of (Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles being the most prominent) that will take full advantage of the GBA's connectibility. If Eric Mattei hadn't been so insistent on only pointing out the negatives instead of also acknowledging the positives as well, perhaps more people would be able to see the big picture instead of just focusing on a few scant details.

So, yeah, the article does indeed address some good points, but the problem I had with it is that it did it in such an awful way that it lost all credibility.

[Semjaza]

I had something really long written out that covered the points presented here. I don't feel I need to post most of them though (it's still rather long though), because this article brings up absolutely nothing new.

In addition to relying on completely incorrect facts to back itself up, it doesn't even make an argument that hasn't been presented against Nintendo since the start. Therefore, even considering its points that [i]work[/i] and are backed up well, I can't really get too excited or worked up over it. I'm not in awe over his abilities in any sense of the word. He's regurgitating information and complaints from even past articles of his.

Where's the online play? Where's the new franchises? Where's the new Gameboy system that actually has current technology? Where's blah blah blah. These are topics I've read about time and time again in countless message board posts. Topics I've seen covered far better on much better Nintendo-oriented sites as well as mulitplatform sites (hell even on an Xbox-orientated one recently, and that made far more sense than this is).

Many of Nintendo's choices annoy me. I don't know who wouldn't want to play Nintendo games online. It would probably be a major selling point for quite a few people. However, they've stated time and time again why they won't be doing it this generation... of course this doesn't stop random people from believing every last rumor concerning it, which I'm sure is what makes the whole thing so aggrivating for so many people. How many times am I going to read about how Nintendo secretly has some plan in the works that never actually pans out? People should just give this up already. It's not happening.

For every thing Nintendo does right, someone feels they did some aspect of it incorrectly. Nintendo already is responding to the PSP, as work is underway on a successor. Of course, when that hits people will complain because the GBA isn't all that old. How are they supposed to come out winning in this situation? They can't because it is impossible for them to please everyone. There's always going to be someone who feels that they've spent enough and Nintendo somehow owes them a certain amount of time with a system, despite the fact that the GBA will almost certainly be supported well past the launch of its successor in whatever year it'll be launched (I'd assume 2005-ish). Of course, I'm sure there will be those that maintain that Nintendo deserves it since they should have made larger differences in the hardware to begin with.

While I'd love for them to make bigger strides between each system, they also are stuck with the whole backwards connectivity idea, among other things. Of course, the main reason they aren't making these strides is because they've never had any competition that really forced them to. The GBA seemed to be created mostly because the original Gameboy and GBC were just getting way too outdated.... and yes, I don't think it should have to come down to that before Nintendo will get off its *** and do something new with the technology. According to Nintendo, the SP was in the works before the original GBA was even released, but wasn't finished due to battery concerns.

I would love them to just get their portables more with the times, and the PSP will force them to... but at the same time, development costs will go up and so will software prices (word from Japan is that PSP games are expected to go for $40+). People complain about software prices now (and I've yet to spend more than $30 on a GBA game since launch - I don't know where these people shop), and no matter how great the game looks, I doubt anyone would want to spend that money on a portable game on a consistent basis. It's double-edged I'd say, but a lot remains to be seen obviously... especially what rumors turn out to be true and what doesn't.

I'd really like to know of all apparently hundreds of upgrades that are forcing people to buy new models. Over the entire history of the standard Gameboy, no changes were made until the size was reduced. This seemed like a natural evolution. Then there was the GBC, which came out many years later. The GBA followed years after that. People make it sound as if a new model has come out every year.

While I agree that the connectivity idea hasn't been used to a great extent so far, I can't really complain about it either. It's a bonus. I've never gotten anything out of it that I needed to play a game. It's annoying when its required for some random extra (in the case of Metroid, I think that should have just been there in the first place, if at all)... but I hardly feel that it is shoved down my throat or required to enjoy my games. This is coming from someone that bought the damn cable too.

I don't really expect Nintendo to be able to fix a lot of these problems mid-console generation, especially considering the fact that they've switched NCL presidents and shifted a lot of their senior staff. The GameCube, the GBA, the business model for both and the internet, connecting ideas and company responsibilities were all divided up and released before Iwata even became involved. No one seems to keep that in mind anymore. Things are happening under Iwata that would have never happened under Yamauchi. There have been may behind the scenes agreements leading to games and partnerships, while the Nintendo under Yamauchi would have been happy to sit there and ignore everything other than their first party profits. Iwata is far more aggressive. He also seems to know exactly what Nintendo's problems are based on the few interviews with him that are available (meanwhile Yamauchi would, more or less, just call everyone that opposed him stupid).

That's just a few examples, but part of my point is that people like Eric Mattei are never going to be satisfied no matter what is shown to tell them otherwise. There will always be something to harp on for someone who does nothing but search it out. And as I said before, I can't exactly feel Nintendo was put in its place or "slammed" or anything else, considering this is the same crap I've been reading from various sources for the past two years (even before GCN was released).

Acting like this article is enlightening me or anyone else is just ridiculous. If this is good writing that brings up excellent, well thought out points... then I guess the people who have said these same things at GAF, IGN Boards or any other random game forum for the past two years on an hourly basis are writing geniuses who can see into the future.

[James]

[quote][b]I worded what I said wrongly. What I meant was that while Nintendo kept releasing different, meaningless upgrades to the Game Boy as a way of profit, they could have chosen better ways to achieve their wanted numbers. Examples of this would be to increase their library of the Nintendo 64, at the time, or find alternate ways that would be more beneficial to consumers. Sure, the Game Boy is the top-selling system out there, but popularity doesn't necessarily mean quality. They promote and upgrade with just enough features to incite consumers into buying them. For example, the change from the GBA to the GBA SP isn't that much of an improvement, yet just enough to warrant a purchase... but $100? What about the majority of people that already bought their GBA? They would have to pay $100 more for just a front light and a more mature-looking system, when they already have one to play GBA games. It certainly doesn't seem fair, and the fact that you need headphones specifically made by Nintendo doesn't help, either.[/b][/quote]

[color=#707875]In terms of diverting funds from Game Boy to Nintendo 64...I don't know. I don't believe that Nintendo 64 would have benefitted simply by Nintendo putting a greater focus on that console than on Game Boy.

Since the SNES days, it's true that Game Boy has become Nintendo's bread and butter. Without doubt, Game Boy is Nintendo's primary source of income and it has been for several years.

In terms of small updates to each Game Boy...you're saying that Nintendo puts just enough changes to "incite" people to buy the newer machines. But these said people are not forced to buy the machine. Let's bear in mind that, with some exceptions (perhaps Game Boy Pocket), all of the Game Boy updates have brought something to the table.

Game Boy Color obviously brought colour visuals, but it also brought with it a slew of new titles that took advantage of the technology. To say that Nintendo was only offering token increases in technology to suck in profits isn't something that I agree with. While the technological update for something like GB Color was relatively minor, Nintendo chose to invest their time and money into new software for the machine.

So, this is an argument that cannot focus entirely on the hardware. Whether or not the hardware is a major leap forward is, in my opinion, a non-issue. I say that because the hardware is only a means of delivering game content. If the game takes advantage of the hardware to deliver something that the previous machine didn't...so be it.

As for your Game Boy Advance SP argument...I don't understand why you're even making argument there. You're saying that GBA owners are left out in the cold and that they need to pay another hundred bucks just to have a more mature looking system and a light. But who says that everyone is going to be concerned about having a "more mature system"?

The SP is primarily there for people who don't yet own GBAs. Are you saying that Nintendo shouldn't have produced the GBA SP at all? I mean, Nintendo cannot win here. The SP is a legitimate step up and it's a legitimate alternative for people who are on the fence about buying a handheld. If current GBA owners (like myself), are going to sit there and cry because their GBA doesn't have a fancy slimline case...that's just bad luck. If that concerns them, then maybe they own a GBA for the wrong reasons. The two machines play the same games. If you want a light but don't want to buy an SP...buy a Worm Light. I just don't see how Nintendo can be criticized for this decision in particular.[/color]

[quote][b]Despite all that, I bought my GBASP while owning a glacier GBA. I spent a total of $190 in both systems, because of the simple fact that the GBA was too hard to play in not-so-well lit areas. I, like everyone else, didn't know that Nintendo would have plans to release a new version of the GBA when the system came out, nor did we know it by the time the project became a reality and Nintendo was actually working on it. It's a market strategy, of course, but certainly an unfair one for consumers, one that we don't see as often from Sony and Microsoft in the video game industry.
[/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]Nintendo didn't have plans to release the GBA SP when they were developing the GBA. The SP itself is really more of a response to complaints about the primary GBA unit. So what would satisfy you? For Nintendo to ignore such complaints and to arrogantly say that the GBA itself is plenty and that these issues shouldn't be addressed? The GBA SP is a way of addressing any issues related to the GBA itself. If this isn't a response designed to directly benefit consumers, I don't know what is.

In relation to Sony and Microsoft...I don't know how you can say that these companies don't do it as much as Nintendo. They do it as much, if not more.

What about the Sony Dual Shock Controller? That game out well after the original PlayStation controller. Am I to get frustrated because Sony has released a superior version after I've just bought my three or four regular controllers? I can respond in one of two ways: I can be frustrated because Sony is taking advantage of me as a consumer, or I can be pleased that Sony is being competitive and responding to market demands.

The same thing can be said for Microsoft and its Controller S. If I, having bought four regular controllers on launch, now see a Controller S hit the shelves...once again, do I complain and say that Microsoft is hoodwinking the consumer? Or do I look at it as a case of Microsoft addressing an issue with its product?

And then there's the PSOne. What is the PSOne? It is a smaller and more compact version of the PlayStation. It was the PlayStation's replacement. Why are you not complaining that you had to dump your PlayStation to buy a PSOne? It's the same deal as the GBA SP, except that the SP actually addresses design concerns with the original GBA. PSOne doesn't.

You can look at things in a cynical way if you want. But if you want to complain about Nintendo, there are far more substantive ways of doing it.[/color]

[quote][b]Moving on, I'm well aware of Mattei's reputation, yet from experience I know not to automatically dismiss something as incorrect just because of the person who's providing the information or opinion. The main point of the article is that Nintendo, rather than focusing on giving people what they want, expect people to like what they offer. This differs greatly from what both Microsoft and Sony are trying to do, mainly with online play.[/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]Firstly, I did not dismiss Eric Mattei based on his reputation. You saw me only just respond to the points of his article. I responded to the substance of what he said -- or the lack of substance as it might be considered.

Also, I understand the main point of his article. And the contention he provides, in a vaccuum, is fine. I disagree in some respects with that basic idea, but it's his right to hold the opinion.

What I [i]don't[/i] like, is the inaccurate and erroneous stuff that he throws in there. Even I could criticize Nintendo in a more accurate way that Eric Mattei. It's one thing to go off on a purely emotional rant, it's quite another thing to provide intellectually honest responses to market-based concerns.

Moreover, I'm not convinced that Nintendo is simply offering what it thinks people want. Firstly, you have to once again look at the sales and Nintendo's market position. If we are to judge popularity based on console sales alone, then we must also say that Nintendo is offering consumers what they want [i]moreso[/i] than Microsoft.

Do you see what I am saying? The basic principles behind the article are not valid. They don't hold any factual weight.

While Eric himself may want to see certain things from Nintendo -- and whilst Nintendo's games may not even fit his own tastes, I do not know how he can extrapolate that to fit a broader market view. It can't be done, because it's not a broader market view; it's Eric's personal view. The problem is that Eric is claiming to speak on behalf of the gaming market.

The raw sales data suggests that Eric [i]isn't[/i] speaking on behalf of the market at all. And on that basis, Eric is only demonstrating his lack of understanding when it comes to the industry.[/color]

[quote][b]The fact that Nintendo hasn't gotten into the online world with its GameCube console while Sony and Microsoft did is actually a testament to what consumers can expect from each company. One will trust a company more when they are willing to risk immediate profit by giving people what they want, instead of companies that choose not to for themselves. If Nintendo is "all about video games," it's more than expected that they should be the first ones to tap into the online possibilities of their system. It is preposterous that this isn't the case. Sony and Microsoft are both losing money to their online plans, while Nintendo is saving up money by not doing it. As a gamer, what would you care for the most? You certainly couldn't care if a company is saving money... you just care (and rightfully so) about what the company is actually GIVING to you, the consumer. Surely, Nintendo is saving up money over Sony and Microsoft for now, but if one takes under consideration the economic factors that make consumers be "loyal" to a product, you would understand Nintendo might be in deep trouble for the next generation. Sony and Microsoft are building up a strong fan base with their online capabilities that will carry out to the next generation, while Nintendo isn't. This is a point that Mattei addresses with pointblank accuracy, so dismissing it because he's an "ignorant blowhard" isn't exactly wise. To make money you have to spend money, and Sony and Microsoft are obviously looking for future profits that would grow from today's spending on online play. The difference? Sony and Microsoft are planning on making profit by giving fans a service = online play. Nintendo does it by not risking themselves in giving consumers online play. In this case, from Nintendo we get = nothing.
[/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]The problem here once again relates to the fact that Mattei is claiming to speak for the market.

You have to understand that while Eric and yourself (and myself for that matter) would love to play games online, this is [b]not[/b] the viewpoint of the market as a whole.

The console gaming market is fundamentally different from the PC gaming market. Studies that have been carried out over the last two years confirm two things:

1) The number of console gamers who are interested in playing games online is [b]below[/b] 50% and;

2) Of those who want to play online, the number who are willing to [b]pay a monthly service fee[/b] falls to less than 20%.

This idea that online gaming is the ultimate bastion of gaming, or that this is what all gamers want is totally and utterly [b]false[/b].

I mean, in all honesty, I would like to play Mario Kart online. I can think of few hardcore Nintendo fans who wouldn't. But that's not the point here. The point is that Eric is trying to make a broad claim about the views of the entire gaming market. In doing so, he ignores the facts as they are.

In regard to the sales issue, once again, you have to look at the success of online console gaming. The truth is that so far, it hasn't been particularly successful. Xbox Live is thusfar falling well under Microsoft's most conservative targets and Sony's online service isn't even fully rolled out at this point.

Moreover, you have to look more closely at Nintendo's strategy with online gaming. Firstly, Nintendo does not want to charge people a monthly fee to play online. Satoru Iwata once said that if you buy a game, you shouldn't have to then pay [b]more[/b] just to play that said game. Are you going to tell me that Mr. Iwata isn't looking out for gamers when he makes a comment like this?

In addition, Nintendo has concerns about accessibility. By 2005, it's estimated that only 25% of Europe will have access to broadband Internet capabilities. Nintendo has legitimate concerns about the availability of infrastructure and the ability for the company to deliver a global service that is both stable and reliable, as well as cheap.

But once again, Eric Mattei ignores these issues. For him, it's a simplistic "Nintendo won't go online because they're selfish! BLAH I HATE THEM!"

It's simply not the viewpoint of someone who actually studies the game industry and has a knowledge of the issues at work.

Why should Nintendo be made to lose billions of dollars when a) the infrastructure isn't at an acceptable level globally (which would cut a lot of gamers out of the picture) and b) when there is actually [b]little demand[/b] for online gaming services amongst the console market? It's easy to sit there and claim that Nintendo is a greedy monster or something, but it requires effort and logic to deconstruct the matter in an intelligent and factual way.[/color]

[quote][b]This is a point that Mattei addresses with pointblank accuracy, so dismissing it because he's an "ignorant blowhard" isn't exactly wise. To make money you have to spend money, and Sony and Microsoft are obviously looking for future profits that would grow from today's spending on online play. The difference? Sony and Microsoft are planning on making profit by giving fans a service = online play. Nintendo does it by not risking themselves in giving consumers online play. In this case, from Nintendo we get = nothing.
[/b][/quote]

[color=#707875]Point blank accuracy? O_O

I have been involved in the gaming media for several years now. And let me tell you; there is a [b]reason[/b] why 99.9% of the industry ignores what Eric Mattei says. His comments are far from "point blank accuracy". If Eric was accurate, Nintendo wouldn't even exist at the moment.

In terms of losing money to make money...once again, it's a simplistic argument. It doesn't take into consideration the factors that I mentioned above.

Nintendo has known how to develop online applications for several years now. They will do it when market conditions are appropriate (ie: when demand is at a reasonable level and when Nintendo can offer the service at very low cost). If you want to play Xbox Live, that's fine. I'm quite happy to play on it myself. And I love to play online games when I get the chance to play them. And yes, I'd love to play Nintendo games online. But I have enough knowledge about the industry to know that my personal taste does not reflect the broader market view.[/color]

[quote][b]Furthermore, while Nintendo has the biggest share of the video game market with the Game Boy Advance, it doesn't come close to the PS2 with the GameCube alone. The market is divided into the handheld market and the home console market. Nintendo dominates the handheld market, and that's it. Sony and Microsoft, for now, don't take under account the GBA sales, as they have no system to compete with it at the moment. The PSP is on its way, and while we can't assume anything at such an early time, the fact that Sony took Nintendo's "leadership" of the industry with the PS is enough for Nintendo to start giving costumers something that the competitors haven't as of yet.
[/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]No, Nintendo doesn't come close to PS2 with GameCube alone. Nor does Microsoft. But once again, based on this idea that Microsoft is "giving people what they want" by the bucketfull, you'd think that'd be different, right?

As far as PSP goes...I wish Sony luck. But this is a whole other issue. You have to understand the technology and the differences between GBA and PSP. PSP is a high-end device that will have a battery life of maybe 3-4 hours. GBA is a low-end device with a long battery life and low cost. I'm not saying that one is better than the other -- I'm saying that they're different.
[/color]

[quote][b]Another point that Mattei successfully portrays, which relates to the above, is the poor connectivity "advantages" between the GameCube and the Game Boy Advance. While this is the only unique feature it has over other consoles, it's too useless to be of mention. For example, with The Wind Waker you basically got tips from Tingle to reach certain unreachable areas, and in Metroid Prime, with Fusion, you got the Fusion suit and played a game that certainly hasn't aged well: Metroid. I own the "classic," and pretty much anyone who's interested in playing such an antique are the ones that have already gone through it back in the NES days. Making Super Metroid playable would have been a much wiser choice, but predictably that did not happen.
[/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]I agree with you. And I'd say that there are few who would disagree.

In my view, the biggest problem here is that Nintendo hasn't successfully supported what is fundamentally a sound idea. Connectivity is a good idea, but Nintendo haven't given gamers reasons to get excited about it.

Perhaps games like Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles will change that. I don't know. But I doubt it.

So, on this point I agree. But this certainly doesn't make Eric Mattei some kind of game industry oracle. This isn't a revelation by any means -- anyone in the media will tell you the same thing. Talking about a blunt fact is like flogging a dead horse. [/color]

[quote][b]Nintendo hasn't been given the chance yet to actually show they truly know what they're doing with the GBA, as there has never been any competition. All developers are flocking around the GBA since it's the only handheld system out there. Nintendo doesn't have to worry about strategic decisions up to this point. The Game Gear was another failure from Sega's list of bad decisions, which is why Nintendo has yet to feel the pressure of good competition... until now. If the PSP becomes a successful system, Nintendo will have to be forced to actually change their ways in response to market loss. Then again, all this paragraph is nothing but a prediction based on possibility, but there's nothing stopping Sony from giving Nintendo a good "war," even if the barriers to market entry are higher than they were for the home console market back in '95.
[/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]Everyone from Sega, to Bandai, to SNK has attempted to nudge Nintendo out of the handheld arena. The reason they didn't was not necessarily because of poor products alone. Nintendo knows what it's doing in this field.

In terms of PSP...once again, I can only tell you that it's a different machine to GBA. In my view, PSP competes more directly with N-Gage. As far as I know, N-Gage will be considerably more expensive than GBA SP as it is. Same for PSP.

I'm not dismissing the efforts of Sony and Nokia though. I hope that they can bring something to the handheld market -- and I look forward to seeing what they are going to do in the longer term. I also look forward to the opportunity to play the PSP for myself.

Right now this is an open question. The PSP isn't even available yet. When it's been out for six months, then we'll all be in a better position to know how successful for unsuccessful Sony's strategy is.[/color]

[quote][b]The article is anything but a total waste. It shows some pretty good points, and it actually expresses the frustration that grows from people that can easily foresee the endless amount of fun from playing games like F-Zero GX, Super Smash Bros. Melee (not my cup of tea, but I know its popularity) and Mario Kart: Double Dash online. Thank you, Nintendo, for not giving to us.
[/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]The article is a complete waste.

It doesn't demonstrate anything particularly valid. The only point I can think of that Eric brought to the table of any legitimacy would be the connectivity issue. I agree with him there, but you'll find few who don't. And you'll find many articles that deal with connectivity in a more realistic and accurate way.

If you can enjoy endless fun playing those games online, you can also enjoy them offline. I mean, I understand your complaint about this...and I've already explained that I also would love to play these games online.

But I take great issue with Eric Mattei for the reasons I've mentioned above. Nothing he says is supported by any kind of real market data, he frequently misrepresents Nintendo and the market at large and he frequently insults the intelligence of gamers the world over.

The fact that Eric puts Shigeru Miyamoto on a pedestal, as though he is solely responsible for everything Nintendo does is [i]incredibly ignorant[/i]. This guy is supposed to be writing for a Nintendo website. He is supposed to be a member of the gaming media. But his glaring and undeniable misinterpretation of the industry is [b]only[/b] a demonstration that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

This is bad journalism, it is often mean-spirited and it stretches the truth to a ridiculous degree. While Eric's individual complaints are reflections of his taste -- and while that in itself is fine -- his misguided attacks and fraudulent representations of the market are very troublesome and problematic. He is not a journalist by any measure.[/color]

[Magnum Apex]

[font=trebuchet ms][color=darkblue]I guess I'm basically speaking just for myself, and I happened to agree with a lot of what Mattei said, mainly because I've [i]personally[/i] been continually disappointed at Nintendo, so the bad stands out for me more detailed than the good. I grew up with Nintendo, so it's kind of a fanboysh feel of betrayal that I've grown. This shows pretty much in my anger towards the prices of the GBA to GBASP, as well as the Game Boy being pretty much the same system through so many years; and people always bringing it up whenever there's a discussion about the GameCube, exclusively.

The reason why I got upset at the $100 price of the GBA SP was because I felt the "upgrade" made to the system was far more necessary than other similar re-releases. I can't really agree that the SP was made solely for people who didn't own a GBA, as complaints logically came (I suspect) from people who bought a GBA and were disappointed with the lack of lighting. I assumed the release of the SP was not only for new gamers, but also for the ones that were disappointed with their previous purchase. I therefore concluded that it should've been only fair to make the SP cheaper to appeal both groups. EB Games had an offer where you could get the SP for $70 if you turned in your used GBA for a limited time, but I wish this offer would have been a standard in all retailers. I can't say that the PSOne was as "unfair" as I feel the GBASP price was, as the PSOne offered no upgrades whatsoever, so people who already owned a working PS weren't compelled to get the newer system (Well, other than its new look and smaller dimensions). As a result, I feel the system was made only for non-owning PS owners. As for the XBox S controller, I guess I'm one of the very few people who didn't originally buy Microsoft's console just for the controller. I tried it out when it was being promoted, and I disliked it so much that I was convinced not to buy the console. As soon as they fixed the problem with the new S controller, I bought my system in a special kit at Costco. Then again, there's a difference between paying an extra $100 for a new system than 30 bucks for a controller. I was all for Nintendo fixing the problem, and to a certain point releasing the SP... I was just upset with the retail price.

As far as online gaming is concerned, if Nintendo saw several problems with making the GC online, mainly infrastructure restrictions and unattractive demand, then why are Sony and Microsoft still trying to make it work; or why did they even bother to go online in the first place? If there's one thing I can bet is that a company like Sony didn't walk into the online console market without some sort of predictions or data that would assure them that going online would be a success at some point. While the [I]current[/I] state of the online console market is anything but successful, its future may not follow the same negative pattern. At least that's what one can assume when Microsoft and Sony have yet to back down from offering this service. There has to be something that makes these companies keep going forward with their online projects.

I will stop defending Matte's article, but I will say that it has helped me realize some things on my own regarding this whole issue. Not because of the fact that he may or may not be right, but the points themselves that he brings up are worth thinking about.[/color][/font]

[James]

[color=#707875]Gah...I just lost my entire response to you. I'm going to start again. V_V;[/color]

[quote][b] guess I'm basically speaking just for myself, and I happened to agree with a lot of what Mattei said, mainly because I've personally been continually disappointed at Nintendo, so the bad stands out for me more detailed than the good. I grew up with Nintendo, so it's kind of a fanboysh feel of betrayal that I've grown. This shows pretty much in my anger towards the prices of the GBA to GBASP, as well as the Game Boy being pretty much the same system through so many years; and people always bringing it up whenever there's a discussion about the GameCube, exclusively.[/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]It seems like you're mostly talking about the GBA here. Is your disappointment in Nintendo really that high? And for the most part, you seem to be focusing on price concerns.

I don't know what else I can say. Nintendo has to offer the GBA SP at a certain price. It does cost them so much to manufacture each unit, afterall. And it would simply make no business sense for the company to incur a significant loss on each unit sold.

So, that's largely what dictates prices -- manufacturing cost.

When I did work experience at Nintendo Australia, I discovered the price differences between manufacturing, wholesale and retail sales. I can tell you that when Nintendo does make a profit per unit, that profit is only a few dollars. Usually, companies do not make profits on hardware -- only software. This is because, if you bought hardware at a price that is profitable for the manufacturer, you'd probably be paying a whole lot more.

When Xbox came out, Microsoft would have needed to charge circa $1,000 to make profits. They aggressively cut the price down in order to be competitive. Yeah, that's good for the consumer...but meanwhile, Microsoft predicted that Xbox would cause the company to lose $5 billion over its lifespan. And this projection came about back at that time -- given price changes since then, the losses could be even higher.[/color]

[quote][b]The reason why I got upset at the $100 price of the GBA SP was because I felt the "upgrade" made to the system was far more necessary than other similar re-releases. I can't really agree that the SP was made solely for people who didn't own a GBA, as complaints logically came (I suspect) from people who bought a GBA and were disappointed with the lack of lighting. I assumed the release of the SP was not only for new gamers, but also for the ones that were disappointed with their previous purchase. I therefore concluded that it should've been only fair to make the SP cheaper to appeal both groups.[/b][/quote]

[color=#707875]The GBA SP is essentially a repackaging of the GBA. But remember, again, it costs more to manufacture. The physical design, the front light, etc...

So, Nintendo obviously isn't going to want to subsidise the cost to that degree. I would say that they're probably doing that somewhat already, particularly given recent price reductions in various places.

Secondly, the GBA SP does address issues that exist with the original GBA. However, it is definitely squarely aimed at people who are either a) not gamers or b) not interested in buying a handheld game console. The physical style of the machine is evidence that Nintendo is going after a different demographic.

Of course, there will be some people who do buy the GBA SP and who already own an GBA. I'm sure Nintendo expects that. But what do you want them to do? Lose money? Nintendo, like Sony and Nokia, is a business. That's not an option.[/color]

[quote][b]EB Games had an offer where you could get the SP for $70 if you turned in your used GBA for a limited time, but I wish this offer would have been a standard in all retailers.[/b][/quote]

[color=#707875]It's a good offer, I agree. A smart move on EB's part.

But really, once again...what does Nintendo want as a business? Do they want people to trade in their GBA to buy an SP, or do they want [i]new[/i] buyers to invest in an SP? Obviously, the latter. Because the latter option is what delivers greater software sales.

I think there's only so far a company's compassion is going to go. Nintendo is usually the only manufacturer who actively tries to maintain low prices -- or as low as is affordable. Therefore, I think it's unfair to attack Nintendo based on GBA SP prices. There are physical limitations to what the company can do and at the end of the day, it does cost a certain amount of money to actually make these things.[/color]

[quote][b] can't say that the PSOne was as "unfair" as I feel the GBASP price was, as the PSOne offered no upgrades whatsoever, so people who already owned a working PS weren't compelled to get the newer system (Well, other than its new look and smaller dimensions). As a result, I feel the system was made only for non-owning PS owners. [/b][/quote]

[color=#707875]But why are GBA owners compelled to buy the GBA SP?

I mean, let's think about what it offers. It offers a slimline design (hardly anything necessary), a rechargable battery (is that really such a huge advantage if you already own a GBA?) and a front-lit screen.

It would be just as easy for you to buy a pack of rechargable batteries and a Worm Light -- for a lot less, I might add. I don't see the "compulsion" to buy a GBA SP. I mean, sure...you want it, but it's expensive. But I don't think that Nintendo is doing anything unfair in this regard -- I'm in the same boat. But I know I'm not compelled to dump my GBA for a GBA SP.

On the other hand, if Nintendo tomorrow dumped GBA and released a successor that plays new games that won't work on a GBA...sure, then I might be in a position to complain about it.

I think that my original point still stands here. It's such a trivial issue, really. I could just as easily complain about PSOne as I could with GBA SP. I could say that it's unfair of Sony to make the flat panel PSOne screen so expensive, because it's such an important part of what the PSOne offers (though most of the screens were non-Sony, but I digress).[/color]

[quote][b]As for the XBox S controller, I guess I'm one of the very few people who didn't originally buy Microsoft's console just for the controller. I tried it out when it was being promoted, and I disliked it so much that I was convinced not to buy the console. As soon as they fixed the problem with the new S controller, I bought my system in a special kit at Costco. Then again, there's a difference between paying an extra $100 for a new system than 30 bucks for a controller. I was all for Nintendo fixing the problem, and to a certain point releasing the SP... I was just upset with the retail price.
[/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]Yeah, there is a difference between a controller and a console. But the analogy still stands here -- someone who can barely afford new controllers and who has just forked out for a few original ones, is going to be angry. But that doesn't mean that Microsoft is unfair or greedy.

I mean, if I am a company and I produce a handheld...and it costs me $100 to make each unit, am I going to sell it for $90? Or $70? Of course not. If that were the case, what's the point of being in business? I have to sell for [i]some[/i] profit, even if it's a break-even $100.

That's just how things are. Nintendo is a business just like Microsoft or Sony.[/color]

[quote][b]As far as online gaming is concerned, if Nintendo saw several problems with making the GC online, mainly infrastructure restrictions and unattractive demand, then why are Sony and Microsoft still trying to make it work; or why did they even bother to go online in the first place? [/b][/quote]

[color=#707875]I'll explain why Sony and Microsoft are trying to make it work.

In Sony's case, you've got a situation where PS3 and its Cell architecture form the foundation of a home entertainment network. Sony's goal with PS3 (though maybe with PS4 at this rate), is essentially to produce a set-top box system, where you download everything. So, no physical software -- just downloading.

Why do this? The aim is to deliver entertainment directly into the lounge room, via the Internet. If Sony can be the first to do this, it can become the dominant figure in the market.

So with Sony, you've got PlayStation 2 as the stepping stone to what PS3 offers. The problem, however, is that Sony dramatically misjudged the console market.

Originally, Sony said that it planned to launch its online gaming services in mid-2002. The time came and we heard nothing from them. Then, they said, "late 2002". Once again, the time came...and nothing. No comments about it. Finally, Sony said "sometime in 2003". And then, "late 2003" for a full roll out.

There's only one reason for this backpedalling -- Sony misjudged the potential of online gaming in its current form. The [i]concept[/i] of online gaming is not in question here; it's the [i]implementation[/i] of successful online gaming networks that causes problems for these companies. Implementation is a problem because demand lowers dramatically when monthly fees are put into the equation. And both Sony and Microsoft need to do that to recoup their investment in servers and maintenance staff.

Microsoft has a similar goal to Sony. Microsoft wishes to use the Xbox as a stepping stone into the lounge room entertainment center idea as well.

There are some subtle differences though. Firstly, Microsoft only chose to make Xbox because it saw gaming as the most viable way of introducing a set-top box-esque system. Xbox is the precursor to Xbox 2, which will be even more online-focused. And Xbox 2 is the precursor to "HomeStation".

So what is HomeStation? HomeStation is basically like a computer for your TV. Why does Microsoft want to make that? Microsoft wants to make that because it wants to introduce MSN into the lounge room. And that is essentially the primary reason for Xbox's existence.

What about Nintendo? Nintendo does not deny that online gaming is a great concept and could be popular. However, Nintendo understands the console market and in particular, it is unwilling to shoot holes in its wallet for some vague future goal.

In addition, Satoru Iwata did say that he wanted to offer [b]free[/b] online gaming. How can costs be recouped when you think about the huge investments in infrastructure, technology, staff and so on? The current business models cause very little but heavy leaking of money. This is both because of the technical and business-related challenges, as well as the sheer lack of support from consumers.

That, in a nutshell, is why Sony and Microsoft are in the game right now, in regard to online gaming. Nintendo doesn't have an axe to grind -- it isn't going to introduce movies on demand or Tivo-like services to your home. And more importantly, Nintendo intends to deliver online gaming when the conditions are appropriate for doing so. Unfortunately, those conditions do not yet exist.[/color]

[quote][b]While the current state of the online console market is anything but successful, its future may not follow the same negative pattern. At least that's what one can assume when Microsoft and Sony have yet to back down from offering this service. There has to be something that makes these companies keep going forward with their online projects.[/b]
[/quote]

[color=#707875]I am sure -- as is Nintendo -- that online gaming will one day be highly successful on console. The key phrase there is "one day". That day has not arrived yet.

I've mentioned above why Sony and Microsoft are doing this. And I've mentioned why Nintendo aren't. Both points of view are legitimate, in my opinion. However, I feel that Nintendo cops a lot of flack for its online decision...and this is done in an unfair and selfish way. [/color]

[quote][b]I will stop defending Matte's article, but I will say that it has helped me realize some things on my own regarding this whole issue. Not because of the fact that he may or may not be right, but the points themselves that he brings up are worth thinking about.[/b][/quote]

[color=#707875]Well, yeah...Mattei's article is defintely a discussion point, apart from discussing why he's not a journalist. lol

In any case, I've enjoyed the discussion with you. It's a sign of respect that you respond to my points and try to understand and interpret what I'm saying. It can be frustrating when that doesn't happen. And, by the same token, I'm responding to you in this point-by-point fashion as a mark of respect -- like you, I'm investing the time to sit here and think about these ideas and look at the [i]why[/i] behind it all.

And the "why" is the key here. I'm not an expert on Sony or Microsoft, because I don't cover them directly in what I write. However, I do make it my business to understand where each company is coming from. And on that basis, I am inclined to disregard unfair criticism of [i]any[/i] party.

If Eric Mattei had criticized Nintendo for including the very lazy Triforce quests in The Wind Waker, I'd be fine with that. If he'd complained about the fact that every Super Mario Advance title comes with the same Mario Bros. title as an inclusion, rather than something new, I'd be fine. And if he complained about Nintendo Australia only [i]now[/i] releasing Animal Crossing down here, I'd be quite happy with that.

But you see, those are legitimate criticisms -- you can be critical of those things and have some basis with which to draw reference. And as with all things, you can be critical in a constructive way -- rather than venomously attack a company and an individual with very little factual support. This is what I object to with Eric specifically.

Fundamentally, I feel that Nintendo is often attacked unfairly. It is becoming fashionable to bash Nintendo -- often for the wrong reasons and on the wrong issues. As a Nintendo fan, I would rather address more specific and realistic concerns (like those that I mentioned above) -- concerns with quality, with competitiveness and so on. But also, we have to realize that Nintendo isn't Microsoft or Sony. And as time goes on and the latter two companies morph their consoles into home entertainment units, Nintendo will be going in the other direction.

Does that mean that any one company is right or wrong? No. It just means that Sony and Microsoft are really aiming for something else. And because of that, people are starting to judge Nintendo in irrelevant points.

I just dislike the unfairness involved. I get just as annoyed when people say things like "Micro$oft" or when they complain about trivial issues relating to MS or Sony. All I want is to see fairness and intellectual honesty, particularly from within the media. It's just that lately, Nintendo seems to be bearing the blunt of the flack, while Microsoft was in a similar position before and just after the Xbox launch. It was equally unfair then, too.[/color]

[Shinmaru]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Zidane [/i]
[B]I liked cartridges! Scratch that i still like them [/B][/QUOTE]

Please try to improve your post quality in the future. Your post has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Be more mindful of the rules in the future, okay? Thanks.

[Guest Flame Priestess]

Hmmmm... Isn't Phantasy Star Online 1&2 for gcn an ONLINE game? Nintendo sells modem and broadband adapters, too! They just don't really use them!

[Shinmaru]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Flame Priestess [/i]
[B]Hmmmm... Isn't Phantasy Star Online 1&2 for gcn an ONLINE game? Nintendo sells modem and broadband adapters, too! They just don't really use them! [/B][/QUOTE]

Er...are you sure you posted in the right thread? Your post seems to be more relevant in this topic: [url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32511]Phantasy Star Online Version 1 & 2[/url]. Please try to be a bit more careful about what you post and where you post.

[Magnum Apex]

[color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms]James: It was a pleasure debating with you, as well.[/color][/font]

[Shinmaru]

Okay, I think I'm gonna have to close this. Cyke, I definitely know that you know better than to make a near-useless post in a thread. You could've easily told James over PM or AIM that you had fun debating him.