15th Anniersary of the Nintendo Wii

[Original TMNT Cartoon Fan]

2021 marks the 15th anniversary of the launch of the Nintendo Wii.

The Nintendo Wii was first launched in North America on 19 November 2006 and in Japan on 2 December 2006. It was later released in Australasia on 7 December that year and in Europe on 8 December the same year.

The Wii Virtual Console console, combined with the May 2005 launch of the Youtube, made retro video gaming and watching video games over the Internet instead of playing them huge things.

Following the release of the Nintendo Wii in November 2012, the original Nintendo Wii was discontinued in Japan on 20 October 2013 and in Europe on 24 October 2013.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii

[Powder]

Wii was one of the best consoles ever, I think. It was/is so much fun, whether you played with motion controls or not. Nintendo pumped out a lot of first party classics!

I had sort of fallen out of love with gaming for a couple years, as a teen, focusing my attention on girls, playing music, partying, etc, but when I moved out of state to a place with no friends or prospects, I got a Wii for Christmas, & it sucked me back into that world like my childhood all over again. It was Christmas 2008, I got Super Mario Galaxy, Smash Bros Brawl, TLOZ Twilight Princess, & some Crash Bandicoot game (lackluster but whatever), & I was so hooked. The following year I got back into handheld gaming, too, with a DSi & Pokemon Platinum, among others.

Motion controls were a controversial thing, but I always loved them, & still do. Wii sports, anything involving swordplay (Skyward Sword!), it's mad fun. The mini-games in Mario Party, too, benefitted from it, I thought.

The Virtual Console & Wii Ware titles were a really sweet edition to the system as well, featuring not only a bunch of affordable titles from back in the day, but new entries to those classic series', like Adventure Island, & Castlevania.

[Leo656]

I actually was still having a hard time finding one of these until 2009. That's when I finally got mine. Most stores around here only ever got a couple in stock and they always sold quickly. So for literally years, every time I remembered "Hey, I should get one'a them Wii gimmicks" and went out to buy one, it was "We just sold our last one this morning."

Eventually I got lucky, and I got Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess to go with it. That kept me pretty busy for a good long while, that and Wii Sports. I never ended up getting a TON of Wii games but I eventually did build up a decent collection. There was definitely a TON of absolute crap for that system, like honestly it probably has the worst Crap-To-Good ratio of any major console ever released, BUT there's still a lot of really good or even great games for it. It's unfortunate that there's so much junk to sift through, but that doesn't erase the quality of the better games.

I had an absolute blast with stuff like Speed Racer, Tatsunoku vs. Capcom, Smash Bros., Madworld, and of course Super Mario Galaxy and New Super Mario Bros. Wii. There's a few I'm definitely forgetting. It's another console I haven't honestly hooked up in a very long time but I've definitely had a blast with it over the years, off and on.

I need to sell some blood to afford a copy of Arc Rise Fantasia, and then I'll pretty much have all the Wii games I want.

The motion control gimmick definitely didn't work great for everything, and I'm glad it wasn't forced into more games more prominently than it was. When it worked well, it was fine, when it was crammed in just to get it in there it was more of a hindrance than anything. Like I know I definitely said, more than once, "This game would honestly be better without the damn motion controls", about a few different games. But in some games it was a neat little addition.

The flipside being, they sold a billion units and got grandmas who'd only ever played Tetris to play video games again. That was the mission, and they succeeded. Obvious downside being, all the worthless shovelware. But you gotta take the good with the bad.

History shows us that MOST of those "lapsed" people who bought a Wii and otherwise hadn't played video games before didn't stick around. It was a semi-expensive novelty item or something to pull out at holiday parties, for most of those folks, and they didn't go on to become "serious" gamers; like the grandma who loved Wii Bowling didn't eventually become a PS3 or PS4 owner or whatever, they're not playing the FF7 remake on PS4 and they didn't buy a Wii U (they might've bought a Switch, but most of 'em probably not). For the most part, the many people who bought a Wii as their first game console, it was also their last. So that's kind of unfortunate, but also, somewhat expected. Like the entire point of the Wii was to sell games to people who were intimidated by the whole concept of gaming, and they did that, but it's the kind of trick you can only pull off once in a row successfully.

I was really attracted to the Wii Shop and all those retro games, but back then I didn't have a reliable enough internet connection to take any real advantage of it. And frankly a lot of the games seemed a little bit more expensive than they should've been, but eh. I thought it was great how they had so many games from other consoles on there, though.

I technically have two Wiis. Wife's mother got one way before we did, they bought like two games and never played it more than like twice. Wife asked if we could have it after we noticed it collecting dust for like, a year, and of course she got snippy at us for even asking, because people are ALWAYS like that, with everything. So we got our own like a year later. Then like two years ago she just plain gives it to us anyway. Because of course. So I've got mine and I've got the "spare".

All in all, fond memories. Other than the Wii U, it's the console I own the fewest games for by far, but at the same time it doesn't really bother me, because except for Manhunt 2 I really, really liked everything I played on the Wii. I might "only" have like 30 games for it, but that's still plenty and most of them were really fun. So I got everything I wanted out of it.

[Andrew NDB]

A literal game changer. Super innovative. A shame that Nintendo didn't take this level of interactivity to its next step in future consoles.

But yeah. The Wii represented a major "Yeah, we still have some tricks up our sleeve, f***ers!" moment for video games. I'd say the Wii U (which I still have) and the Switch represent Nintendo retreating back a bit and playing it safe.

[newfan]

Even people who weren't really/usually into game consoles seemed to be buying this, or people I knew anyway, that's how I was introduced.

I still have mine and it still gets used for a few of games that are still liked, I use Wii fitness too (though less than I should).

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

A literal game changer. Super innovative. A shame that Nintendo didn't take this level of interactivity to its next step in future consoles.

But yeah. The Wii represented a major "Yeah, we still have some tricks up our sleeve, f***ers!" moment for video games. I'd say the Wii U (which I still have) and the Switch represent Nintendo retreating back a bit and playing it safe.

I'd agree with that. But again, both functionally and statistically, it was unlikely that they'd recapture the lightning in a bottle that the Wii was, no matter what its successor ended up being.

One of the biggest problems with the Wii from the jump was that the motion control technology was fundamentally very primitive compared to what else was in development at the time - and what Microsoft and Sony ended up going with not long after. Nintendo was looking at multiple motion-control technologies during the Wii's development, and in the end, they didn't go with the one they thought was "best"; they went with the one that was "best" for a console released at a sub-$250 price point. And it worked fine for what they needed it for, but anything more advanced (or more functional) would have had the console's price skyrocketing.

A huge part of Nintendo's entire console identity has always been, "We're like at least a hundred bucks cheaper than Those Other Guys, though." So I'm just not convinced that they even COULD have jumped ahead into something significantly more advanced than what the Wii had, within one generation, and maintained a low price point. Like from a dollars-and-cents perspective, I'm not sure how they would've done that. I read an interview with one of their marketing people once, and someone asked them if they had any plans to keep pushing the limits on the whole motion control thing, or kind of move into where Kinect had gone, and the lady more or less said, "We feel like for the market and price point we aim to reach, the Wii's technology is still as good as it gets." And that's basically spin for, "We COULD keep pushing the envelope... but that'd be pretty expensive, both for us and for you."

In the end, I guess settling for a console where "The Wii and the DS had a baby, his name's Wii U, and yeah, we actually paid someone to come up with that name" was probably as much "innovation" as they could afford and still keep the console under three hundred bucks. That's what I always figured. Still, for what it was that was still pretty "innovative". Not AS big a jump forward as the Wii had been, but still pretty neat.

[Papenbrook]

It really was ( and still is ) an iconic gaming console.

My family ended up buying the console when it was on sale. I remember using the Wii Fit™ mat for exercise. I also remember playing many games with the Wii™ remote.

I had such an awesome time with it.

[Turo602]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

But yeah. The Wii represented a major "Yeah, we still have some tricks up our sleeve, f***ers!" moment for video games. I'd say the Wii U (which I still have) and the Switch represent Nintendo retreating back a bit and playing it safe.

I wouldn't exactly call a giant controller with a touchscreen and a portable/console hybrid with detachable controllers "playing it safe."

[Andrew NDB]

The Wii was definitely primitive in what it offered with motion technology... but nobody else was doing that and it represented a logical baby step in that direction. When the Wii came out and I screwed with it I went, "Wow, this is pretty great. I can't imagine what will be out there like 10 years from this!" It turns out nothing.

I like the Switch but I've always glowered at it a bit. It isn't in any way innovative when it's hooked up to a TV. The max resolution is the same as the PS3 from many years before it. That it offers a colorized handheld option... welcome to Sega Game Gear over 15 years before that. That you can switch it between TV and handheld... great for the tiny, cramped Japanese households it was meant for, but a big "who cares?" for everybody else. The motion technology of the controllers? Even less intuitive than the Wii remote and nunchuk, so a step backwards.

Originally Posted by Turo602

I wouldn't exactly call a giant controller with a touchscreen and a portable/console hybrid with detachable controllers "playing it safe."

Sure it is. Very few games took full advantage of that and you can largely ignore the screen on the gamepad. It's mostly just a half measure of the Switch... you can go portable with a lot of games on it, but only if you're near the main console so Mommy and Daddy can watch TV instead vs. the Switch which you can actually take into the car and drive off with it. That was the whole idea.

[Leo656]

It just breaks my heart how many people - TONS! - bought it, or had it gifted to them, loved it for a few months and then stuck it in the closet forever once they got tired of bowling or Zumba or karaoke.

Like, I'm pretty sure you have more of that with the Wii than with any other console, before or since. Just due to the nature of the beast. It was aimed at causals, and as one might expect, most of them got bored of it very quickly, like with any fad.

That's their prerogative as consumers, but it's still a shame, considering how many great games did come out for it. It deserved more love. It definitely hooked a lot of casual folks, but it didn't keep as many folks invested as they probably hoped. So it's like a Win and a Loss. They had one of their biggest hits and then their biggest failure back-to-back. You just KNOW that was never, ever the plan.

But yeah, it "got a bunch of people into games that had never gamed before"... but did it REALLY? I'unno. I'm hard-pressed to say it actually increased the overall gaming audience that significantly over a long-term scale. For a lot of Wii adopters, gaming was a very temporary hobby and they never really "graduated" from Wii Sports to anything like Zelda or "real" games. The rest already had their Xbox and PS consoles, but still needed their Mario and Zelda fix, so those people were already gonna be invested no matter what.

Either way... there's a bit of an asterisk next to its success, in a sense, but no question it was some really neat TRUE innovation for its time, did huge for Nintendo's business (even if it would prove to be short-term), and had a LOT of really great games. You really can't ask for more.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

The Wii was definitely primitive in what it offered with motion technology... but nobody else was doing that and it represented a logical baby step in that direction. When the Wii came out and I screwed with it I went, "Wow, this is pretty great. I can't imagine what will be out there like 10 years from this!" It turns out nothing.

Eh, I'm honestly not shocked. Even before the Wii came out, you had people in the industry forewarning everyone, "For every good game that thing gets, you're gonna see like a hundred pieces of trash; at the end of the day, it's still just a gimmick." And that... did turn out to be rather prophetic. And even at the height of the Wii's success, you had a lot of people - "serious gamers" - who were already worn out on the whole motion control thing.

I heard a LOT of chatter - even among people who liked the Wii a lot- that they actually did hope that Nintendo went more "traditional" with their next console. They looked at the Wii like a neat experiment that had a niche but didn't need to become a standard.

Most people would just rather press buttons. Like, you can tout motion controls, VR, all of that stuff, and all of it has a niche... but at the end of the day, MOST people would just plain rather press buttons.

[Turo602]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Sure it is. Very few games took full advantage of that and you can largely ignore the screen on the gamepad. It's mostly just a half measure of the Switch... you can go portable with a lot of games on it, but only if you're near the main console so Mommy and Daddy can watch TV instead vs. the Switch which you can actually take into the car and drive off with it. That was the whole idea.

And how exactly is that playing it safe? Sounds like they took a huge risk and it backfired which tends to always be Nintendo's problem. They develop hardware with their own games in mind, they get half-ass support from Ubisoft at launch, other developers wait to see how well it does before they even touch it themselves, and then they just get a bunch of ports, no major third-party support, and no one really takes advantage of their gimmicks other than Nintendo themselves. The Wii U was a solid idea that brought the DS and console full circle. The only downside was, no one knew it was a brand new console. Even the Wii was largely just a shovelware machine.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Eh, I'm honestly not shocked. Even before the Wii came out, you had people in the industry forewarning everyone, "For every good game that thing gets, you're gonna see like a hundred pieces of trash; at the end of the day, it's still just a gimmick." And that... did turn out to be rather prophetic. And even at the height of the Wii's success, you had a lot of people - "serious gamers" - who were already worn out on the whole motion control thing.

I heard a LOT of chatter - even among people who liked the Wii a lot- that they actually did hope that Nintendo went more "traditional" with their next console. They looked at the Wii like a neat experiment that had a niche but didn't need to become a standard.

I get that. I imagine a lot of people have been waiting for a "traditional" Nintendo console, maybe since the Gamecube.

Originally Posted by Turo602

And how exactly is that playing it safe? Sounds like they took a huge risk and it backfired which tends to always be Nintendo's problem. They develop hardware with their own games in mind, they get half-ass support from Ubisoft at launch, other developers wait to see how well it does before they even touch it themselves, and then they just get a bunch of ports, no major third-party support, and no one really takes advantage of their gimmicks other than Nintendo themselves. The Wii U was a solid idea that brought the DS and console full circle. The only downside was, no one knew it was a brand new console. Even the Wii was largely just a shovelware machine.

I guess that's fair. I mean, I didn't know until a couple of years ago. I thought the Wii U was just a Wii with better resolution. Which isn't entirely untrue either.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Turo602

And how exactly is that playing it safe? Sounds like they took a huge risk and it backfired which tends to always be Nintendo's problem. They develop hardware with their own games in mind, they get half-ass support from Ubisoft at launch, other developers wait to see how well it does before they even touch it themselves, and then they just get a bunch of ports, no major third-party support, and no one really takes advantage of their gimmicks other than Nintendo themselves. The Wii U was a solid idea that brought the DS and console full circle. The only downside was, no one knew it was a brand new console. Even the Wii was largely just a shovelware machine.

Nailed it. I love Nintendo, but that is indeed The Cycle. Especially with regard to third-party support, and Nintendo being the only ones to truly harness whatever "innovation" they come up with for their latest machine.

Granted, history has proven that Nintendo still does "fine" without a ton of third-party support, so long as ports of the Very Best Games show up in some form, at some point. But man, if some of the "good" companies ever truly cracked the code for taking full advantage of Wii (or Wii U) tech, that would've been even better.

Like there were lots of GOOD games on the Wii that used the motion controls, in some form. But how many GREAT games that weren't developed by Nintendo used it? Most other developers just made you waggle to jump, or whatever, and that was it.

Just calling a spade a spade, here. Love Nintendo, love the console... but on the whole, it was a niche product with a short-term gimmick and wasn't going to truly set the world on fire unless other developers wanted in. And they didn't. SO many developers from various third-parties begged off on even going near the motion controls at all, and only included some sort of motion control function because it was mandated.

Aside from Nintendo, most everyone else who actually makes games hated the gimmick, wanted nothing to do with it, and actively did not want to make games that supported it. That automatically puts a cap on any success you're going to have. If you have to figuratively put a gun to peoples' heads to make them develop in support of your product, it's just not gonna sustain itself.

[Andrew NDB]

Let me add... there was nothing stopping any other successor to the Wii (or the Wii itself and hell, if I recall you could even plug a GameCube controller into it or a special Wii SNES-like controller) from offering a traditional controller for some/most games. For SOME games, you could continue to evolve the Wii remote/nunchuk model. You could do both things simultaneously.

And as time goes on and the Steam library grows... there is very little reason to own a PS5 or a X-Box Series X vs. just owning a high end PC (beyond title exclusivity on a legal level to specific consoles... but this is a legal thing and not a technology thing). And you can always upgrade a PC all on your own. If there was a modern answer to the Wii... well, that'd be a reason to own a console.

[Coola Yagami]

Yeah, the Switch's main gimmick is basically being able to play it at home on the TV or portable, saving your progress as you go. I remember back in the office days, friends would bring their Switch to work and continue playing the latest Megaman game or Zelda game, continuing right where they left off at home the night before. So I guess there's that. Sure you can have say... a PS3 and a PS Vita with the same game, but they're not the same game in a literal sense. So I guess having the ability to play Pokemon on the bus continuing where you last left off on the TV at home is enough for gamers that don't really need elaborate gimmicks or nunchuck controllers.

As for the Wii, my ex had one. I remember mostly doing the Wii Fit and several versions of Just Dance on it. OPPAN GANDAM STYLE! It was fun when my brother came to visit cause then all 3 of us got to dance along.

Aside from that she was the more hardcore gamer on it, it was hers after all, so she was playing Resident Evil games and the like. I only used it for a few days when we rented Tatsunoku VS Capcom cause that game was (for some reason) only available on the Wii.

Small note, the pandemic finally led to our video store shutting down. It lasted quite a while, and it was cool whenever we were in the mood to rent something, wether a game or a movie or both... but eh, modern day finally caught up to it, I guess.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Let me add... there was nothing stopping any other successor to the Wii (or the Wii itself and hell, if I recall you could even plug a GameCube controller into it or a special Wii SNES-like controller) from offering a traditional controller for some/most games. For SOME games, you could continue to evolve the Wii remote/nunchuk model. You could do both things simultaneously.

In theory.

The problem with that is, having any sort of gimmick or peripheral become "optional" is always, ALWAYS Step One before it just gets tossed out completely. Kinect is a good example of this. They touted it as "Next Level" stuff, insisted you HAD to have it to get the most out of the next crop of games... but that simply wasn't true. Then they TRIED to make it a mandatory accessory with the Xbox One, and people sh*t on that idea so hard that they went back on it super-quick.

And now, in just a few years, they went from "Everybody is gonna get a Kinect whether they want one or not, because THAT is how important this technology is to the future of our brand," to "....Oh, yeah. Kinect. That was a thing we did, once, wasn't it? Haha, good times. But yeah, no, nobody needs that sh*t." Its grand "contribution" to the future of gaming is, sometimes you can turn your console on or off by talking to it, now. A really high-tech version of The Clapper. That's... not a big win, really.

It's like how the Sony/Nintendo "Playstation" cartridge/CD console never happened, or why the N64 DD never took off. Your big new technology or peripheral simply cannot be a "maybe", it can't be executed in half-measures or it WILL fail, sooner rather than later. There needs to be almost 100% penetration, 1:1 with console owners, and more than one developer needs to be working to produce products that take advantage of it. Otherwise it'll be a fancy and expensive paperweight in a year. Happens every single time.

That's why the PS1 was a 100% dedicated CD-based machine, and not a cart/CD hybrid. They saw how Sega tried that with the Sega CD - and almost again with the "Neptune" or whatever it would've been - and how badly it failed. Part of that was the tech not being there yet, but part of it was also a ton of people not feeling any "need" to get the peripheral, and developers not seeing any "need" to make games for it. People were excited for CD games but up to that point, it had never been done well, so people were still iffy about them. Then Sony says, "Well, we're not giving you a choice with this, you HAVE to go all-in on CD games because that's the only option we give you"... and THEN, suddenly, CD games are a big huge deal. If the PS1 was a hybrid, and people weren't "forced" to switch to CDs overnight, not as many people would have.

So in THEORY, there's no real reason why Nintendo couldn't keep pushing motion controls while also keeping standard controls as an option. Except for that last word... "option". When given the choice, most people on both the consumer and producer side of the equation just said "Nah. We don't need it."

Look at the sales of multi-platform ports; the Wii versions always suffered in sales compared to the 360 and PS3 versions, despite the Wii having a larger install base. And more importantly, look at how many developers took advantage of the "option" to make motion control games. MOST of the third-party developers, when given a choice, said "Nah fam, we good. We're just gonna keep pushing buttons and wait for this whole waggle thing to die off in a minute."

The very idea of giving people the CHOICE of continuing to support a gimmick or peripheral, or to NOT do that and stick with doing things the "old-fashioned way", means they're always going to revert to the base standard. Because it just works better for the most people that way.

The only real option would have been for Nintendo to dig in even further and say "Look guys, this motion control thing is what we do now. So you other guys making games better get good at it, or get lost, because we're NOT going back to standard controllers, period. We're all-in on this, so you have to be, too." And that only would've completely alienated the third-party developers and left nobody but Nintendo making games for their console. They've always been rather dismissive of third parties but I doubt they'd ever go THAT far.

It's a nice theory that they could have continued to pursue an Either/Or option with regard to motion controls. Realistically, looking at the industry's history, I can't see any way that would've worked.

It was a cool gimmick, it had some really cool applications, but in the end people just plain got bored of it, as those third-party developers predicted from Day One. We learned that people like that kind of thing SOME times, but not ALL the time. So it makes some good sense that they didn't stay too wedded to it. Like, it wouldn't have been as crazy as marrying their future to, like, the goddamn Power Glove would've been... but same wheelhouse.

[Andrew NDB]

Yeah, in the end and in hindsight, Nintendo proved the Wii motion feature was just what all of its critics claimed it would be -- a gimmick. Because that's what they've felt they've needed to survive vs. actually competing with Sony and later Microsoft on their level since about the Gamecube (and even with Gamecube it was "No we don't want CDs like everybody else... we need mini-CDs!"). A gimmick they discarded when they decided it wasn't convenient enough anymore (a little bit overly reactionary like WB and their superhero movies in this way). Then onto the next gimmick. Then the next one.

They've basically proven themselves to be a leader in nothing, sadly. Surviving on gimmicks and their exclusive IPs. And maybe Amiibos.

Didn't need to be that way.

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

I remember back in the office days, friends would bring their Switch to work

Anywhere I've ever worked, this would be called, "a guy who wants to be fired." And would be.

It was a feature designed and implemented specifically for kids in Japan in their tiny households, space-wise. In America, it might help kids piling into cars. For adults? Doesn't apply, because it'd be very hard to play a Switch and drive at the same time unless you have a chauffeur.

Originally Posted by Leo656

In theory.

The problem with that is, having any sort of gimmick or peripheral become "optional" is always, ALWAYS Step One before it just gets tossed out completely. Kinect is a good example of this. They touted it as "Next Level" stuff, insisted you HAD to have it to get the most out of the next crop of games... but that simply wasn't true. Then they TRIED to make it a mandatory accessory with the Xbox One, and people sh*t on that idea so hard that they went back on it super-quick.

Yeah, Kinect showed promise. My daughter was enjoying a dancing Dora game on 360 once with Kinect and that was pretty innovative.

Too bad.

Like, it wouldn't have been as crazy as marrying their future to, like, the goddamn Power Glove would've been... but same wheelhouse.

Eh, a little bit. But the Power Glove didn't actually offer anything the crazy commercials or magazine ads made it seem like it did. It was just a controller you wear on your hand/arm. Awkwardly.

[Leo656]

But again, the main problem with the Power Glove was only partly the technology - point of fact, the glove DID work, more or less, as advertised, if you went through the insane 90-step calibration process for Every Single Game. Not perfectly well, but well enough in some cases. As well as could be expected considering those games were never designed with the Power Glove in mind. Basically, its conception was a multi-thousand dollar prototype they needed to squash down into a $50 Christmas gift, and in the translation much was lost but it still functioned - more or less - as best as could ever have been expected, considering that ONE game was ever made with the Glove's tech in mind.

But that's really the clincher: You have to have software that's built from the ground up specifically to take advantage of the tech, not staple the tech onto a pre-existing product. Or else your fancy gadget just won't last long.

Power Glove, Kinect, and ultimately the Wii all shared that same fundamental problem - nobody except the people who built the tech, had any real desire to utilize it. They only did so grudgingly, under protest, and in many cases did not give a great effort because of that. When asked outright, "Will you actually build games designed around the Glove/Kinect/Wii Motion Controls?", all but the most sh*tty and desperate developers said "No way, man."

Like, Nintendo loved the motion controls. Of course they did, it was their baby! To a company like Capcom, though, it was just more work they had to do. For very little upside.

"Hi Nintendo, my name is (Big Third-Party Developer). We don't wanna make games for your new console, 'unique' and 'creative' as it may be, because only YOUR company's games sell on your console, everybody else sh*ts the bed. Your whole motion control thing is gonna cost us a lot of time and money to get used to, and frankly, we just don't see the point, considering we could just dump another Street Fighter game on PS3 for pennies and make WAY more money than we would playing tickle-taint with you guys and your waggle controls. So good luck, but nah, we're gonna sit this round out."

But meanwhile, if nobody BUT Nintendo ever uses the tech to its potential, then nobody else has any REASON to. So it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of "This is all pointless."

Which is a shame, but it's ultimately the nature of the beast.
---------

I thought Kinect was really cool when I got it for a Christmas present. I played it for two days and never again. Kinda regret that, but... there just wasn't anything FOR it. I hate to waste a gift, especially an expensive one, but I mean... there just weren't any games for it that were worth it. No games = fancy paperweight.

In my defense, I did not ask for Kinect, that was my well-wishing mother-in-law. Had I asked for it and THEN never used it, I'd feel even worse. As it is, I just keep reminding myself, "Ain't your fault they didn't support the thing, homie."
-----------

For wherever Nintendo may have fallen short, they allegedly did such great business from Day One through the end of the Wii era that they not only could weather the storm of the Wii U and barely feel it, they allegedly have so much money they could have a lousy year every year for the next three decades and only THEN would they start to feel it.

So if they occasionally feel the need to walk things back and "just" skate by on Mario and Zelda games, and re-selling people the same games they played as kids through their online store... well, they're not really doing badly by that. There's a time to take big risks and a time to weather the storm. They seem to know more than a lot of other companies do, in that regard.

They play the long game. That's why they tend to make such baffling decisions that, on paper, would seem to cripple any other company. I'm not saying they always make the BEST decisions, but they do know exactly how to pivot when they need to and how to weather any rough patches.

That's why they're still here and Sega isn't (as far as being a Big Name in the industry anymore). Sega, at one point, was kicking Nintendo's ass in almost 3/4s of the globe, including completely overtaking Nintendo's entire market share in some countries to the point where Nintendo may well not even existed in those countries.

Then Sega made a couple boner plays - none of which seemed especially devastating at the time they happened - had like two or three lean years, and then despite coming back with one of the best consoles ever produced they STILL had to fold.

Nintendo, arguably, along the way made bigger mistakes than Sega, lost more market share then Sega, and has had more "lean years" than Sega. Yet, Nintendo is still hugely relevant, but Sega isn't.

All about the long game. And nobody has ever played The Long Game like Nintendo. Credit where it's due to them on that one.

[Andrew NDB]

Two things.

One, I think you give Nintendo too much credit. We all remember the big Nintendo vs. Sega war. And Nintendo was still chugging along having that war even into the N64 days and regardless of what one might say of Nintendo's choices with the N64, they weren't hurting. But then suddenly, Nintendo's executives watched Sega spontaneously combust with the Dreamcast, which nobody saw coming. Particularly as Sony came up. They got scared. They got rattled. They retreated into boardrooms and emerged with buzz words like "toys" and "family" and "proprietary." And they never really came back out of that mode.

Two, the Nintendo of one year isn't the same Nintendo as 10 years ago. Or 5. Maybe the figurehead remains the same but the Japanese business structure is nothing if not transitional. There is no doubt the guy or team of guys that went to bat for the Wii and that vision originally for the future is very different than the guy or team of guys that is in play now, or 5 years ago.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

They retreated into boardrooms and emerged with buzz words like "toys" and "family" and "proprietary." And they never really came back out of that mode.

...Nintendo never WASN'T primarily about those specific things. Like ever, at all, in their entire history. They're more of a toy company whose "toys" happen to be video games, than a technology or strictly game-focused developer. That has always, 100% been their "niche".

I mean, the entire point of the NES/Famicom was, "Make it like a toy". They did that differently in different markets - using R.O.B. in America while using that goofy purple color scheme in Japan, for example - but the point was the same regardless of territory. "It's not a 'video game console'... it's a toy, that plays video games!"

So, less of a "retreat" and more of "Just doing what brought them to the dance."

I think they became a little bit "unfocused" post-N64, but I doubt they were ever, ever "scared".

If I find the thing I saw that said just how much money Nintendo, as a company, is sitting on, I'll share it. But it's an exorbitant sum. They're fine, are fine, and will be fine for some time to come. They won't always dominate the market, but in three straight decades they've only sporadically had a majority anyways, so it's pretty clear that so long as they're in the conversation, they don't need to be "Number One" at anything, anymore. I'm sure they'd LOVE to be, but after all these years I think they've accepted that just isn't likely so long as they resist jumping in with both feet into the "$400+ Console Pool." They're not going to do that; ergo, they'll never be a true dominating player in the game again.

And I get the feeling, that's okay with them. They haven't been Top Dog for ages, not consistently. AND, like both Sony and Microsoft, they have more than enough revenue coming in from all the other pies they have their fingers in, to the point where if their gaming rigs under-perform, no big deal. They've always had that cushion. Sega never did. That's another huge variable.

So yeah, they're fine. They're just doing what they do, as usual.