Do you think Nintendo considered the N64 a success?

[Nintegageo | 582]

On the one hand, it 'only' sold 32.9m units. The PS1 outsold it 3-1. It also had a smaller library. It did outdo the Saturn though.

On the other hand, its biggest games were giant sellers, critically well received and set the standard in their genres. They also started some seriously important franchises such as Smash, Paper Mario and Animal Crossing.

 

Just wondering what people think. There are certainly other arguments to be made with either choice as well.

[Tanooki | 4,950]

From a profitability stand point, yes.  From a market standpoint, no damn well.  Nintendo surely internally didn't chug their own kool-aid, not with a margin that wide and the losses they absorbed.  They were stuck with a legendary fossil in charge then still unfortunately that decided to be a vindictive old bastard about control + optical to the scam Sony almost got away with on them with the SNES-CD unit we find out decades later.

The lack of the N64 using CD solely put most of their third party backers entirely on Sony's take, and those who didn't extensively crippled their support instead.

 

That said from profitability though, yes, and their bad move in turn did allow them some leverage to keep things afloat largely on their own, and with 2nd party Rare too.  It allowed for experimentation with Animal Crossing, Custom Robo 1+2, Cubivore (N64 release in Japan too like Animal Forest), Paper Mario, Smash, Star fox 64 in lieu of SF2.  N64 doing poorly in in market share let them try various things that worked and didn't, or did late enough it was such a great idea it needed to come west just later on Gamecube.  N64 gave us half the games I mentioned that came to the US for the Cube that likely otherwise may not have existed at all.

[Brickman | 4,012]

I don’t think Nintendo would ever admit that a console is a flop. Look at the disaster of the Wii U.

I reckon they thought of it as a solid console that they probably wished could have sold more, but it was tough work against PlayStation 1. They lost so many third parties to Sony.

Some will disagree with this statement (but my fellow N64 buddies will back me up here). I personally think the N64 has one of the highest ratio of good games for a Nintendo console. It also had some of the most standout games that are still popular to this day.

 

[RH | 4,965]

@Brickman you are a gamer and collector so I know you know about a thing called the Virtual Boy.

You can’t spin that as not a flop, and if you try, everyone else will meet it with chuckles or generous eye rolls.

A learning opportunity? Yes! But it was a complete failure and there’s no way Nintendo could deny that.

But to answer your question, I think Nintendo defines success by their own standards.  The Nintendo 64 was a smash success by first party titles and it maintained the family console of choice. It’s true that third party titles were not great (apart from Rare) but there were still titles that did do well enough.

I consider it a success but you can’t quite compare it to the juggernaut of the PS1.  The N64 captured the fans, the younger but new generation and the people that were willing to have two consoles, while the PS1 appealed to more mature kids to adults and, IMHO, widened the market.

They we’re both a success, but the N64 wasn’t as successful as it should have been.

[Brickman | 4,012]

3 minutes ago, RH said:

@Brickman you are a gamer and collector so I know you know about a thing called the Virtual Boy

Oh man I actually completely forgot about the VB haha. I personally think both the VB and Wii U were a flop but does Nintendo? I’m sure they would spin it somehow.

[nrslam | 477]

I'd have to say it was a disappointment to them, but not an outright failure because it was profitable despite the missteps. The decision to stick with costlier cartridges reduced the profitability of every software unit, drove away 3rd party support and ultimately cost them their dominant market position.

It's an interesting thought experiment to contemplate how it might have played out differently had the N64 used optical media instead of carts.

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

I think the standalone data isn't bad, but Nintendo surely wasn't just looking at their own results. If your competitor is outselling you 3-1, that hurts no matter how much money you're making. I don't think they would have called it a flop or anything though. 

[spacepup | 2,411]

I think it's all about how you define success.  The N64 didn't have the most expansive, large library ever, and didn't sell as well, but it was also a pivotal and successful (imo) foray into 3d-gaming, and has a few absolutely iconic games - Super Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Super Smash Brothers, Mario Party, Goldeneye, etc.  I know that personally, I have very fond memories of playing the Nintendo 64 - and even if I don't play it often now, it definitely has an important place in gaming history, as a stepping stone for the company as they expanded into more modern gaming.

I don't think people will "remember" or have as much nostalgia for Wii U for example (broadly speaking), than the way people remember and adore N64.

If we're looking at the bigger picture, maybe the N64 wasn't as successful as PS1, but I don't think it was an unsuccessful console and I absolutely don't think Nintendo would look at it as a failure.

[Tanooki | 4,950]

I don't think Nintendo would spin the VB as a non-flop, their actions are enough to keep it at an arms length but yet not outright forgotten.  You'll get the occasional prop in the background of some games, or a smash style trophy saying HI too but that's all.  If anything ever made that more clear would be the 3DS.  Most of the 14 US games that came out they have great relationships with those makers still, and even losing those titles, there are their own games.... NONE of which hit the eShop.  The system was made for it doing effectively the same style of 3D, so why not have it up with their NES redone 3D Classics as its own $5-10 each line?  The stereoscopic was already done anyway, half the battle was already won, and yet, not done.

It was a learning period for them, but also a huge ass mini-Sega moment of stupid choice too.  Having assumed the N64 was a mid 1995 system, and NOT a 3Q 1996 system they nuked it...nuked it like they nuked Star Fox 2 for the same reasons.  Yet here we are in the 2020s we have Star Fox 2 legit, we do NOT have VB games.  They still could virtual console that stuff on the download service for Switch and still MIA.

The N64 though, it was and wasn't a learning experience.  Sure it was their first dedicated 3D system, but thanks to years of research behind the scenes and their FX chip work they had a grasp.  So more of the N64 being a learning experience was learning how not the middle finger your decade plus long relationships and how to earn that trust back, which for them, outside of handhelds, took like 20 years into the Switch with a brief respite with 3/5 years of the Gamecube when they got some stellar 3rd party drops(even if they did pale to the Sony stuff still.)

N64 wasn't a failure, it did well with games, it did well with buyers, it did NOT do well with that old bastard keeping carts alive out of sheer spite and some old era japanese style honorific revenge.  I used to respect what Yamauchi did for the company, and I still can in some ways in the 80s and some of the 90s, but at this rate mostly in my mind he can rot in hell of the damage he caused with his sheer arrogance.  We can all look back now and wonder, had Sony not tried to scam Nintendo taking 100% of the royalties for all CD published SNES titles while having Nintendo only earn a pittance on the hardware how different it would be.  Square, Enix, largely Capcom and Konami, Koei, Tecmo, Hudson, and the list goes on that ran for the hills mostly if not entirely.  What if SNES had its CD and therefore N64 was another 2X CD system in 1995/96?  Sony would have not likely entered still supplying the hardware, perhaps Sega would have held on too as the other guy the 16bit generation earlier, would MS have bothered?  Who knows, but Nintendo got screwed more or less for life out of the premium console market due to Yamauchi/N64 where their only wins have been the Wii motion gimmick, and high tier portable 1080p/720p gaming on the go/docked with Switch.

 

[fox | 1,673]

Nintendo was the biggest game in town for Nes and Snes generation.  If you only had Nintendo, you got the best of the generation.  Same could not be said for 64.

Sure it had some titles from ninty and a big assist from rare, but all the big third party titles were partying with PlayStation.  It is no secret how small the 64 library is and the lack of depth the third party section is.

[Tulpa | 3,534]

13 hours ago, Nintegageo said:

On the one hand, it 'only' sold 32.9m units. The PS1 outsold it 3-1. It also had a smaller library. It did outdo the Saturn though.

 

Sony had a year's head start and did everything they could to lure away 3rd party publishers. They made the Playstation easy to program for, they had incentives, they priced it low, and they took full advantage of the practical applications of CD-ROM technology at the time; both for the cinematic cut scenes that were a huge deal in 1995 and the fact that if a game takes off, you could print more CDs in a matter of days rather than months to assemble more cartridges. Those factors were going to make the Playstation a success and carve out marketshare no matter what Nintendo did.

Nintendo did what they could to put out a competing console, and in some ways it was a technical success. Yes, they did lose 3rd party support, both for not adopting CD and for not releasing their best development packages to anyone but Rare.

But their main screwup wasn't the N64 itself, it was screwing the partnership with Sony over a CD addon for the SNES and a CD/cartridge combo console. When Nintendo broke that partnership off and partnered with Philips instead (which just resulted in a few titles for the CDi), Sony went whole hog into making their own console, and Nintendo paid the price. Nintendo is still a force in video games, but they created their own competition.

The Saturn was destined for failure. Cool, powerful console, but it wasn't easy to program for, and they botched the September 1995 "Saturnday" launch by giving select retailers first dibs in May. That just confused customers, pissed off other retailers, and left 3rd party companies scrambling to put out games.

My take on this, anyway.

[phart010 | 1,708]

Nintendo doesn’t flop.
They just become determined to shift their focus to other areas.

[Tulpa | 3,534]

1 hour ago, phart010 said:

Nintendo doesn’t flop.
They just become determined to shift their focus to other areas.

Marty: The last time Tap toured America, they where, uh, booked into 10,000 seat arenas, and 15,000 seat venues, and it seems that now, on their current tour they're being booked into 1,200 seat arenas, 1,500 seat arenas, and uh I was just wondering, does this mean uh...the popularity of the group is waning?

Ian: Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no...no, no, not at all. I, I, I just think that the.. uh.. their appeal is becoming more selective.

[RegularGuyGamer | 2,017]

Nintendo went a decade without having a single win in the home console market. The Wii was a moonshot that landed but beside that they had 2 successful home consoles: NES & Super NES.

In contrast, they smashed every competitor on the handheld market, even out competing smart phones with both the 3DS and Switch. Nintendo was only able to maintain market share in the home console market by a thin margin, riding their IPs that got them established hard and hung them up wet. The best thing about the dark times (96-06) was that Nintendo learned no releases are better than rushed releases. It's better to nuke the Wii U so the Switch can live than it is to pump out hits that no one is going to play. 

Nintendo went down swinging on the GameCube, knew they had a ton of great games and once the Wii caught hold they just rereleased them onto the Wii. Same thing happened w the Wii U onto the Switch. 

The N64 is the middle child in that the console wasn't didn't wiff the ball, it was the inability to adapt to the new era of disc based gaming that did em in. While Nintendo was still worried about piracy and the like, Sony had already fought those battles and understood it was better to have a weaker stance on piracy if that meant easier to produce and get into the hands of customers. Sony's exposure to consumer media showed how much better they understood both the consumer and producers of media. As a result, the N64 couldn't get out of its own way the entire generation and allowed Sony to make the successor to the Super NES while the N64 seemed like a new chapter in gaming rather than a continuation of the Super NES's success. 

[OptOut | 8,892]

I am SO glad Nintendo went the route they did with N64 games on cartridge, I've felt that way since the system was new, and over the years as a collector that feeling has only grown stronger.

The appeal of collecting cartridges is SO much stronger than collecting discs IMO, they are so much more robust and reliable over time. When the last Playstation 1 CD has rotted to oblivion, and when the last Playstation disc-drive has shat the bed, N64 is still going to be going strong.

I thank my lucky stars time and again as I hug my N64 carts to sleep each evening. 

[MegaMan52 | 2,459]

Like Spacepup said, it depends on how you define "success." To me, the N64 and GameCube were moderately successful. It's true that they weren't as successful as the NES and SNES and didn't sell nearly as much as the PS1 and PS2. But they weren't disasters either, still managing to sell at a profit, having several successful games (Super Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Melee, Double Dash!!, etc.), and staying on the market for a good six years or so.

The Virtual Boy was discontinued after only about a year, while the Wii U officially became Nintendo's worst-selling console, was discontinued after four years (a little before the Switch was released), and most of its better games were re-released for Switch with added content. There's also the fact that, in 2014, Iwata took a 50% pay cut and Miyamoto took a 30% pay cut thanks to Wii U. The Virtual Boy and Wii U were the real flops.

https://kotaku.com/nintendo-boss-is-taking-a-huge-pay-cut-because-of-the-1511382834

Edited March 22, 2023 by MegaMan52

[Gentlegamer | 174]

17 hours ago, Tulpa said:

Marty: The last time Tap toured America, they where, uh, booked into 10,000 seat arenas, and 15,000 seat venues, and it seems that now, on their current tour they're being booked into 1,200 seat arenas, 1,500 seat arenas, and uh I was just wondering, does this mean uh...the popularity of the group is waning?

Ian: Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no...no, no, not at all. I, I, I just think that the.. uh.. their appeal is becoming more selective.

 

[Tanooki | 4,950]

I do agree partly with @OptOut in that at the time I was very happy with them still using carts, yes they were less on storage, but they were robust and forced some real creativity in design to get the most of the limited space.  If that sounds familiar, that has been their MO since on consoles (GC, Wii, WiiU) and handheld -- GBA, DS, 3DS, Switch ever since since they hardcore restricted the limited internal capacity crossed with external memory card restraints.

That said, even with that being a pivotal change in their tactics on storage, it was both a good and utterly terrible thing looking back since the gamecube era.  It burned so much good will and support which has only slowly trickled back over the decades since which is a shame.

Gamecube despite coming in roughly speaking as a tie for second under PS2 was more of a success than the N64 was, it was quite one at least the first half of its life only petering out due to cheaping out on things in the last half blaming the storage and user base (which denied us some nice sequels.)  It did re-attract quite a few developers and with that some quality releases, hitters too at times, like Tales of Symphonia or the RE titles, but at the same time there were still near N64 sized gaping holes and thin bald spots of genre support too.  There was more diversity of titles and fun, but still not up to snuff due to a mix of storage and developer antics.  I'm sure we remember the antics, lying perpetually to gamers in media site interviews saying if you want GC ports DO THIS, buyers would do this, then they'd not do it anyway.  You can only lie enough until people just don't like the taste of the kool-aid anymore.  Even when Wii was raging along it still got blown off in weird ways to a point it was like throwing away money.

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

A copy of The most common game on the system sold for the highest amount ever sold for a game. Sounds pretty successful to me.
 

I can’t imagine any PS2 games ever selling for even remotely that much.
 

If we look at it as more than “units sold” and the impact it has on gaming as the metric.
 

 Even call of duty might not have been successful If it wasn’t for a generation of kids playing goldeneye at slumber parties with their buddies. 

[goldenpp72 | 1,235]

Partly I'm sure, it failed to sell as much as their prior console, nor near as much as their biggest competitor.. However their IP sold a lot and made successful jumps to 3D while cementing their brands forever basically, the only time Nintendo was likely truly worried was the Gamecube generation, but thankfully, they seemed to have weathered that generation fine.

[Tanooki | 4,950]

Ehh that did fine on Gamecube and never lost in a quarter, but @goldenpp72 they 110% were scared shitless by the PiiU. If it wasn't for the pokemon juggernaut of merch, games, amusement parts, chain stores, and 3DS they'd have gone down in Sega like flames.  Gamecube didn't break or really even hurt them, just pointed out that trying to directly compete was a bad idea in a 3 leader market so they went off the rails (Wii.)

[goldenpp72 | 1,235]

2 hours ago, Tanooki said:

Ehh that did fine on Gamecube and never lost in a quarter, but @goldenpp72 they 110% were scared shitless by the PiiU. If it wasn't for the pokemon juggernaut of merch, games, amusement parts, chain stores, and 3DS they'd have gone down in Sega like flames.  Gamecube didn't break or really even hurt them, just pointed out that trying to directly compete was a bad idea in a 3 leader market so they went off the rails (Wii.)

The only reason they sheltered the Gamecube generation was the success of the GBA, and even then, I believe Nintendo recorded their first ever loss in a quarter during that time. I think people need to recall what things were like at that time, the media was heavily against Nintendo and many were pining for them to 'go third party' just as Sega did. There was a strong narrative about how their games were only for kids and that they needed to get with it, hence Nintendo themselves saying they don't intend to allow Mario to shoot at hookers. In a time where mega corporations were entering this hobby, Nintendo seemed small time in contrast and it didn't seem likely they would be able to hold up forever against MS and Sony, even today, they are considered a sort of adjacent to the normal industry rather than part of it directly like the other 3 primary platforms, they exist in their own sphere almost. That was a time where owning more than one console was extremely rare, versus these days where it's perfectly normal to own a Switch and a PS5.

If you were around the hobby at the time, you'll recall it was the 'growing up awkward teen years' of the medium, where everything needed to become dark, gritty, and mature in order to be relevant. Even reviewers were acting like manchildren at this time trying to prove how mature each game they played was. It's how we ended up with stuff like Jak II, Shadow the Hedgehog and Prince of Persia: Warrior Within to name a few. The media was entirely slanted against Nintendo, and at that time, it felt pretty uncertain how much they could shelter the way things were going.

However, they cast a pretty wide net with the Wii and DS, capturing kids, old people, women, alongside faithful Nintendo fans, and as those people grew up, had kids, got married, etc, they made fortified Nintendo fans while everyone else was chasing whatever the hot new perceived trend was. This is why games like Mario 64 still perform better in Twitch streams than newer games like Halo Infinite. Nintendo just leaves their mark in a way other companies rarely do, and now that their oldest base is in their 30s to 40s and comfortable to be playing on Nintendo hardware without fear to look 'teh kiddie' as they said back in the day, it has allowed them to remain prominent. It doesn't hurt that women like Nintendo which coincides with being able to play stuff with our partners more, etc.

Obviously Nintendo was shaken up by the Wii U, but that was simply a misfire of a product entirely rather than a non existent demographic which seemed to be the risk during the Gamecube era. Despite that, we did not see the price hemorrhaging of games or insane flops that the Gamecube had. First party titles on Wii U still outsold their counterparts on the Gamecube largely despite the disparity in the hardware units, the top selling Gamecube game is Melee at like 6 million units which is eclipsed or matched by quite a few Wii U titles. Those Wii U titles retained their prices in contrast to how Gamecube titles plummeted in price, you could find games like Sunshine or Metroid Prime on the cheap rapidly during that time along with a 99 dollar gamecube not that late in life, with bundled games, a totally different story in the modern times where Nintendo is able to retain their prices. I don't think the Wii U ever once got a real price drop, and only a few games got the 'Nintendo Selects' treatment in contrast.

 

 

Edited March 22, 2023 by goldenpp72

[Tanooki | 4,950]

I don't remember them taking a quarterly loss in the stocks, but I 100% remember the childish petty gaming media ganging up on them wanting Nintendo to die like Sega, like that would be something to cheer and enjoy.  Nintendo instead doubled down and made it bluntly clear, if they die, their IP goes with them as they'd never peddle themselves out and knowing how petty Yamauchi was, I'd buy it.

I remember the kiddie narrative too, N64 started it due to an utter sham of a smear campaign despite the fact before the cracks hit the 64 they had a strong lineup of T/M titles early on.  Nintendo though trucked on, doubled down with T and M titles (Geist, Eternal Darkness, MGS publishing, etc.)  They carved a hard corner for themselves that worked and kept things going pretty nice, until the baggage caught up and hosed them in  year 4 and 5 losing sequels to key fun games which ticked me off.  I had bloodrayne and baldurs gate, couldn't get the sequels, same with robotech to name three.  That was the period Nintendo became the strong to support "other console" if one just wasn't enough.

I'm heading out the door, I'll read more and reply when I can but I can't leave this hanging.

[wongojack | 220]

I think contributors to this thread know this, but the "Nintendo is for kids" narrative (right or wrong) started much earlier than N64 or Gamecube.  I guess the media pumped it harder at the Gamecube, but it was there almost from the very beginning.

[Tulpa | 3,534]

15 minutes ago, Tanooki said:

I don't remember them taking a quarterly loss in the stocks,

They did, and it was widely reported.

https://www.ign.com/articles/2003/11/14/nintendo-reports-loss

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-nov-14-fi-nintendo14-story.html

https://variety.com/2003/biz/features/nintendo-at-a-loss-1117895840/