Phil Spencer: "getting [acquiring] Nintendo would be a career moment for me"; Nintendo's future "exists off of their own hardware" - eviltoast

Archive link: https://archive.ph/NF2r0

At some point, getting Nintendo would be a career moment and I honestly believe a good move for both companies. It’s just taking a long time for Nintendo to see that their future exists off of their own hardware. A long time… :-)

Email chain between Phil Spencer, Chris Capossela, and Takeshi Numoto discussing the potentially hostile purchase of Nintendo, ZeniMax, WB Games, and TikTok

  • ampersandrew@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    in order to sell the idea of ‘you can only get this experience with platform X’.

    I think this is the exact idea that Sony and Microsoft realized doesn’t make financial sense anymore, and that Phil expected Nintendo to come to late.

    • 520@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Phil Spencer of Microsoft thinks this idea doesn’t make sense because they haven’t been doing it well in years. The big innovation with Halo Infinite is live services and an open world. Their exclusives aren’t doing anything other games aren’t.

      Sony is a bit better and covers a few more genres, and if you’re into heavily-cinematic games, Playstation is your no-brainer choice, they’ve got you covered in all sorts of genres. And they’ve got the Spiderman games.

      Nintendo, meanwhile practically owns the kart racing genre. There is literally no other AAA effort that isn’t cash in crap or loaded up with so much MTX crap that even Fortnite would blush.

      Mario Oddesey might have a bit more competition nowadays but in 2017, your only options were Oddesey, a (very good) indie game, and a neutered reboot of Ratchet and Clank.

      Breath of the Wild came at a time when most open world games were very rigid when it came to how players dealt with tasks and enemies. BoTW gave players a lot more options thank simply going in quiet or loud, and ToTK took it much further. They practically changed how other companies look at open world games.

      Nintendo puts AAA efforts into entire game genres that most other companies ignore entirely, even if the audiences do not. This is how they’ve maintained crazy Switch sales.

      • ampersandrew@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sony’s games are on PC now. Final Fantasy restricted itself to PS5 and underperformed. Games that those platforms use to sell their platforms also come out on PC because they just cost too much to make, and there are too few of them because of how long they take to make now. Nintendo generally spends less, but they’re still running into the same problem with development time, and that means their exclusive offerings will dwindle as they have to ramp up fidelity on more powerful hardware, just like what happened with Sony and Microsoft, which means fewer and fewer games that can only be played on that specific set of hardware. Third party exclusives mostly disappeared because, for the same reasons, restricting yourself to one platform is generally a stupid idea these days.

        As an aside, racing games in general are rare these days, not just kart racers. My options are Mario Kart, sim racers, one step down from a sim racer like Forza Horizon, and little else. I like racing games, but not any of those. The market will come back around; I’ve got Trail Out right now and Aero GPX in the near future that will hopefully tide me over until someone makes racing games for me again.

        • 520@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sony’s games are on PC now

          Years after their playstation debut. Because they know that people who want to play AAA games on a PC do so for reasons the PlayStation platform just doesn’t cater to, thus they aren’t exactly competing. That and porting costs are reasonably minimal, so it’s money on the table.

          Games that those platforms use to sell their platforms also come out on PC because they just cost too much to make, and there are too few of them because of how long they take to make now.

          Do you really think the PC market is that big that it’ll plug a shortfall like that?

          Xbox initially only did it because both platforms were controlled and toll-collected by Microsoft (I’m talking specifically about Windows Store, they only put their stuff on Steam much later).

          Final Fantasy restricted itself to PS5 and underperformed.

          That’s not what Square’s been saying.

          Nintendo generally spends less, but they’re still running into the same problem with development time, and that means their exclusive offerings will dwindle as they have to ramp up fidelity on more powerful hardware.

          The switch has about 98 first party games, and isn’t exactly slowing down. That’s not counting third party exclusives, either.

          Nintendo generally gets around this by having certain third parties develop its first party games. It also acquires some of these studios to develop these titles. Smash was a Bandai Namco game. Mario + Rabbids is a Ubisoft game. Hyrule and Fire Emblem warriors were made by Team Ninja and Omega Force.

          Nintendo also has one more reason not to port: there is much less customer mutual exclusivity between switch and other platforms as there is between Xbox, PS and gaming PC. That is, a person who has one of the three is unlikely to have one of the other two, but may have a Switch for portable gaming.

          • ampersandrew@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Do you really think the PC market is that big that it’ll plug a shortfall like that?

            Do you realize how large the PC market has become? Games that used to only be available on consoles now sell more on PC than any single console.

            • 520@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Hmmm. I did some research on a few games and you are surprisingly correct. However, I did notice something else too.

              Nintendo doesn’t need extra sales numbers from PC. Their games sell record breaking amounts while being exclusive. Of the top 50 best selling games of all time, 7 are Nintendo games that are either Switch exclusives or WiiU ports, where they did much better on the Switch. Sony, in total, has 1, and Microsoft, in total, also has 1 (2 if you count Minecraft, as they bought Mojang during the latter’s heyday). Half of that list is Nintendo.

              • ampersandrew@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s true, but again, I think they’re going to run into more resistance with development time as they upgrade their hardware and the art assets have to rise to meet the new spec and the new audience expectation. Those Wii U ports had the benefit of being ports, which is a situation that will never happen again. Since basically no one played the Wii U, it was more like a machine gun fire of games for the Switch that already had the hardest part done. Also, unlike any time in history except for the lifespan of the PSP, there are real alternative options for handheld gaming now as we head into this new Switch successor, which probably doesn’t affect anyone buying the machine for Pokemon in hell or high water, but it will have an impact on the buyer who just wants to play Hades or Doom in bed or on a road trip and now has that many fewer reasons to buy Nintendo’s console over a more open platform.

                • 520@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Those Wii U ports had the benefit of being ports, which is a situation that will never happen again.

                  True, but they still had to develop these games initially for WiiU, only for them to bomb there. And the WiiU was an eighth gen console.

                  Since basically no one played the Wii U, it was more like a machine gun fire of games for the Switch that already had the hardest part done.

                  If the rumours of backwards compatibility are to be believed, the Switch 2 could just straight up sell Switch games with Switch 2 enhancement patches. Something very similar was shown to developers with BoTW running at 60fps at 4k on Switch 2, and such a patch is known to exist for Pokemon Scarlet and Violet.

                  It won’t have the same newness factor of the WiiU ports, but it will allow Nintendo’s evergreen titles to keep that status until the Switch 2 iteration.

                  Also, unlike any time in history except for the lifespan of the PSP, there are real alternative options for handheld gaming now as we head into this new Switch successor,

                  You mean the Steam Deck and clones? I don’t mean to burst your bubble, but the least janky of these units has you scouring ProtonDB to check a games compatibility with the unit, and community notes on what to enter into the advanced run commands section or on rare occasions, even what Linux commands to run.

                  And that’s the least janky option. The Steam Deck clones are worse, as at least the SD had the good grace to use an operating system designed for that specific hardware and form factor. Yeah. Switch 2 is pretty safe.

                  but it will have an impact on the buyer who just wants to play Hades or Doom in bed or on a road trip and now has that many fewer reasons to buy Nintendo’s console over a more open platform.

                  You honestly think they’re going to put up with any kind of SD/clone jank?

                  • ampersandrew@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It won’t have the same newness factor of the WiiU ports

                    This is exactly my point though. Backwards compatibility is an expectation now, but if you didn’t have a Wii U, like most people didn’t, it makes the Switch feel like it’s got twice as many original games as it actually had, and they won’t be able to repeat that.

                    You mean the Steam Deck and clones? I don’t mean to burst your bubble, but the least janky of these units has you scouring ProtonDB to check a games compatibility with the unit, and community notes on what to enter into the advanced run commands section or on rare occasions, even what Linux commands to run.

                    I’ve sat just about the most technically unsavvy people I know in front of a Steam Deck and told them to stick to verified games, and it’s been as smooth sailing as a Switch is; which is to say that neither is perfect, and the way they’re imperfect is a little different between them. But again, PCs have been steadily growing in gaming market share for over a decade. PCs got easier, consoles became more complicated, and maybe some percentage of the market was also willing to learn what they needed to to further close that gap just like how all of our parents eventually learned how to use the internet and cell phones. I’m certainly not capable of measuring the effect of each of those things on that trend, but this is the way we’re trending.

                    The Switch 2 is certainly safe. In particular, the Switch is a device made for children, which helps it reach a demographic that the Steam Deck isn’t targeting and may never target. I’m not so sure the next Switch is going to do as well as this one has though. And in each subsequent generation, I think they’ll head in the same direction as Microsoft and Sony or do something absolutely insane instead of responding to what the market is actually asking for.