More Income Opportunities: Nintendo must spend extra money on its video games

UK gaming has never been worth so much money — Does Nintendo must be taught to spend extra money? (pic: Nintendo)

A reader argues that Nintendo’s largest downside is its failure to spend sufficient of its earnings on making video games look higher.

So, Nintendo claims it’s not releasing a new model of the Switch this year, Change Professional or in any other case. I can’t say I’m stunned. A extra highly effective Change is precisely what followers have been calling for and that alone ensures Nintendo would by no means do it. Not that I’m suggesting Nintendo isn’t typically confirmed proper, however for those who suppose any thought is apparent then there’s little or no likelihood that Nintendo do as properly.

As an organization, they march to their very own beat and that’s why they’re so nice, so I wouldn’t essentially change something about them in that sense. What I do want would change although is their willingness to spend cash. Particularly given they've a lot of it. Only recently we’ve discovered they’ve made $1 billion from mobile games and the Switch has already sold over 50 million consoles and 310 million video games. So… the place does all that cash go?

GameCentral themselves have gotten very annoyed with how low cost video games like Pokémon Sword/Defend and Fireplace Emblem: Three Homes look, and I don’t blame them. Contemplating how spectacular video games like Luigi’s Mansion three and Yoshi’s Crafted World are they appear like they’re from one other system. Not solely are they artistically and technically weak however they’ve actively cheap-looking. It’s not that the Change isn’t extra highly effective that’s stopping these video games from trying higher, it’s as a result of Nintendo isn’t giving them the cash and/or the manpower wanted.

Zelda: Breath Of The Wild nonetheless seems higher than 50% of Change video games and that was made for the Wii U! This shouldn’t occur, particularly when the video games are main hits and completely justify having cash spent on them. As ever with Nintendo it’s very onerous to know the reasoning behind it. Why was a lot cash spent on these video games however not Pokémon? I’m certain Pokémon wasn’t low cost to make however on a technical stage it’s in all probability the least spectacular first get together sport on the system.

What seems good and what has the cash spent on it appears random and whereas Nintendo doing their very own factor is essential, they typically take their penny-pinching too far. Having a free on-line service was the proper cowl for it not being that good, however now it's important to pay for it and issues like Pokémon Home are £15 a yr. After which they’ll flip round and provides away years of free content material for one thing like Splatoon 2. There’s simply no consistency.

Exterior of the video games themselves, consistency is arguably the most important downside for Nintendo. They’re seemingly in a cycle of creating one nice console, adopted by one flop, adopted by an ideal one once more. Probably the most notorious is the Wii U, however a lot of its failure was right down to Nintendo being low cost and never spending the cash the place it was wanted.

They stopped making main video games for the Wii at the very least two years sooner than it made sense to, presumably as a result of they put all their assets into the Wii U – however why not simply splash the money to do them each? After which as soon as the Wii U got here out it had subsequent to no advertising, felt low cost and cheesy, and had virtually no video games for 2 years. Nintendo may simply have funded extra to keep away from that or signed up third get together titles, however they did nothing.

Now, you’d hope they wouldn’t make a mistake as large because the Wii U once more however there’s no purpose to guess in opposition to it, not when it’s the identical core downside: a refusal to spend cash to become profitable. If you happen to’ve not received sufficient video games popping out then set-up a brand new studio or purchase an present one. Not sufficient third get together video games? Then cash hat your self some good ones, that’s what Microsoft and Sony do and it’s a confirmed, efficient tactic.

The Change is already much less highly effective than its rivals and it’s going to look much more so subsequent to the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Sequence X. However when some video games seem like high-res PlayStation 2 video games and others have graphics that nearly beat the PlayStation four you recognize there’s one thing going mistaken. Significantly when most of those video games are being achieved by Nintendo themselves and so can share all the identical expertise.

Nintendo are nice at getting cash however they’re horrible at spending it and so they’ve received to get previous that. Apart from that, I believe the Change can final many extra years. However provided that its video games are funded properly sufficient to achieve their full potential.

By reader Coffey

The reader’s characteristic doesn't needed signify the views of GameCentral or Metro.

You may submit your personal 500 to 600-word reader characteristic at any time, which if used shall be printed within the subsequent applicable weekend slot. As all the time, electronic mail gamecentral@ukmetro.co.uk and follow us on Twitter.

MORE: My Top 5 games of 2019 not from 2019 – Reader’s Feature

MORE: Xbox Series X shouldn’t bring back any old franchises because they all suck – Reader’s Feature

MORE: My favourite Out Run home versions – Reader’s Feature