On January 23rd, 2013, Nintendo pushed out another “Nintendo Direct” communication from the company to the gaming public, discussing their upcoming plans and vision for the newly released Wii U home console. The reaction of one major gaming media outfit, IGN, was telling:
There’s more in the original IGN.com article worth reading for the curious. And if you missed the review of Nintendo Magic, this is a good opportunity to go back and check it out, then compare those notes with how Nintendo has handled the Wii U rollout and how it comported itself in this latest “Nintendo Direct.”
Perhaps one might not agree with their direction and strategy, but at this point I think it’s hard to argue there is no consistency. And to a long-term investor who understands the strengths and success of this strategy in the past, I find that comforting.
Finally.What’s worth noting here is that the editors at IGN seem to have gotten a clear sense of Nintendo’s overarching strategy in this latest “Nintendo Direct”, a strategy which was laid bare in the book on the company I reviewed late last year called Nintendo Magic:
That’s really the only word that comes to mind after watching Nintendo’s new ‘Direct’ broadcast. In just over 30 minutes, the game publishing giant not only made a better case for the future of Wii U than in the previous 12 months, it managed to surpass the hype it generated at its past two E3 outings - combined.
[...]
Today Nintendo did something remarkable, in a way that puts most other developers and publishers to shame. Though the Big N is often quiet and secretive, it has managed to find a modern, progressive format to deliver its news directly to its fans, while retaining its trademark sense of humility. In 30 minutes, over a dozen games were showcased, some coming in mere months, others perhaps years away. Regardless, the message was clear – Wii U is not only home to innovative new play styles for families, but epic, core experiences that rival the grandest, most ambitious endeavors available elsewhere.
And these games are entirely, completely exclusive, all tied to Nintendo directly as a software publisher, not as a licensor. The sheer glee of Wonderful 101 won’t be coming to Xbox 360. The visual brilliance of Yoshi’s Island won’t be appearing on a phone with loads of in-app purchases. PlayStation 3 will never get a HD remake of the timeless, gorgeous Wind Waker.
That’s what made today so remarkably potent – for any gamer who actually cares about games instead of arbitrary, meaningless console supremacy. Nintendo has started to provide a real sense of strategy for Wii U. The GamePad’s much-hyped innovation doesn’t matter without games. Neither does Miiverse’s social connectivity. Nor the fact that all those Wii remotes and games will still work. None of that matters without compelling games. But those features and ideas, once combined with software we can’t get anywhere else, collectively start to say something powerful. Something special. At the end of the day, gamers care about games. That’s what they want, and nothing else matters. [emphasis added]
For some reason, Nintendo observers and critics don’t get this– why isn’t the company doing what everyone else is doing? Why are they making a console with a TV remote instead of HD graphics (the Wii)?The guys at the top of the company and most responsible for its current development (Iwata and Miyamoto) are software guys at the end of the day, and the hardware innovations in the Wii U and predecessor systems were all about driving unique software experiences. Those software experiences are now being divulged en masse, to early critical acclaim.
To Nintendo, the risk is in not trying these things and trying to do what everyone else does.
There’s more in the original IGN.com article worth reading for the curious. And if you missed the review of Nintendo Magic, this is a good opportunity to go back and check it out, then compare those notes with how Nintendo has handled the Wii U rollout and how it comported itself in this latest “Nintendo Direct.”
Perhaps one might not agree with their direction and strategy, but at this point I think it’s hard to argue there is no consistency. And to a long-term investor who understands the strengths and success of this strategy in the past, I find that comforting.
