Former Nintendo employee chats about the GameCube era - marketing issues, Wii U similarities
2 A portion of an NES interview with former Nintendo employee, Kyle Mercury...
NES: Was it difficult for employees to be critical of Nintendo’s policies even if the problems were quite clear? And did that negatively impact the decision making in promoting/marketing the GameCube effectively?
KM: It absolutely was. Again, Nintendo is a very proud company and they were facing a market shift unlike any in their history. The Marketing team had to walk a fine line of keeping the energy up, keeping people excited about the future, and implementing solutions that tried to resolve the really glaringly obvious problems of the present. Too far in either direction and you’re either seen as sadly naive or a cynical doomsayer. For me, this meant staying sincerely passionate about the brand (and I was), but being honest about the position we were in. I was fortunate to have that mix of philosophies, but a lot of people didn’t and that made for a very trying experience when it came to developing initiatives. A huge number of people refused to admit there was a problem and many of the cynics levied the blame against the consumer, rather than Nintendo’s own policies. Marketing was doing the best with what we had. We weren’t making the software, or the hardware, we were just bringing it to the people and doing what we could to keep an notoriously fickle and increasingly disenfranchised audience engaged in a time where amazing new options were everywhere.
NES: Recently, there’s been a lot of bad news about the Wii U. The console is even selling slightly less than the GameCube according to IGN. Right now, based on Wii U’s poor sales performance, it seems like casual gamers (or expanded audience) who made the Wii popular have abandoned Nintendo with the Wii U.
Since you worked with Nintendo during the GameCube era, what do you take from all of this? Do you see any similarities between the GameCube era and the Wii U era?
KM: There are certainly parallels. The Wii performed what was, at the time, a remarkable feat: It drastically lowered the barrier to entry to video games. Price, ease of use, novel and broadly appealing content, innovative technologies without the fear of complexity that usually comes from them, disregard for traditional demographics… It was a perfect recipe and something the video game industry sorely needed. The GameCube had elements of those things, but it’s not what the market was looking for in the time of the PS2. Nintendo’s mobile division (especially backed by the Pokémon money machine) saved the day and there was only gain to be had with the Wii.
The Wii U also has elements of that whole, but once again it’s not what the market is looking for. It has sacrificed the simplicity of the Wii, but hasn’t caught the sheer hardware or media power of Microsoft or Sony. Casual gamers have moved to phones and tablets which are unsurpassed in convenience of play and cost. Title offerings aren’t exactly bold and with more and more 3rd party developers, studios that defined the last generation of games, reducing or removing support for the Wii U and a sadly lacking indie development scene… what’s the value proposition? The Wii thrived because it changed gamers expectations. The GameCube and Wii U suffered because gamers expectations have changed.
The GameCube at least benefitted from 3rd party developers still looking to push boundaries and create a-typical experiences. Games that could take chances because we hadn’t quite reached the almost “AAA or Indie” only state we’re in now. The middle class of gaming has slowly been whittled away this past generation, though I would argue there is an exception to be made for the still Nintendo dominated handheld market.
NES: Was it difficult for employees to be critical of Nintendo’s policies even if the problems were quite clear? And did that negatively impact the decision making in promoting/marketing the GameCube effectively?
KM: It absolutely was. Again, Nintendo is a very proud company and they were facing a market shift unlike any in their history. The Marketing team had to walk a fine line of keeping the energy up, keeping people excited about the future, and implementing solutions that tried to resolve the really glaringly obvious problems of the present. Too far in either direction and you’re either seen as sadly naive or a cynical doomsayer. For me, this meant staying sincerely passionate about the brand (and I was), but being honest about the position we were in. I was fortunate to have that mix of philosophies, but a lot of people didn’t and that made for a very trying experience when it came to developing initiatives. A huge number of people refused to admit there was a problem and many of the cynics levied the blame against the consumer, rather than Nintendo’s own policies. Marketing was doing the best with what we had. We weren’t making the software, or the hardware, we were just bringing it to the people and doing what we could to keep an notoriously fickle and increasingly disenfranchised audience engaged in a time where amazing new options were everywhere.
NES: Recently, there’s been a lot of bad news about the Wii U. The console is even selling slightly less than the GameCube according to IGN. Right now, based on Wii U’s poor sales performance, it seems like casual gamers (or expanded audience) who made the Wii popular have abandoned Nintendo with the Wii U.
Since you worked with Nintendo during the GameCube era, what do you take from all of this? Do you see any similarities between the GameCube era and the Wii U era?
KM: There are certainly parallels. The Wii performed what was, at the time, a remarkable feat: It drastically lowered the barrier to entry to video games. Price, ease of use, novel and broadly appealing content, innovative technologies without the fear of complexity that usually comes from them, disregard for traditional demographics… It was a perfect recipe and something the video game industry sorely needed. The GameCube had elements of those things, but it’s not what the market was looking for in the time of the PS2. Nintendo’s mobile division (especially backed by the Pokémon money machine) saved the day and there was only gain to be had with the Wii.
The Wii U also has elements of that whole, but once again it’s not what the market is looking for. It has sacrificed the simplicity of the Wii, but hasn’t caught the sheer hardware or media power of Microsoft or Sony. Casual gamers have moved to phones and tablets which are unsurpassed in convenience of play and cost. Title offerings aren’t exactly bold and with more and more 3rd party developers, studios that defined the last generation of games, reducing or removing support for the Wii U and a sadly lacking indie development scene… what’s the value proposition? The Wii thrived because it changed gamers expectations. The GameCube and Wii U suffered because gamers expectations have changed.
The GameCube at least benefitted from 3rd party developers still looking to push boundaries and create a-typical experiences. Games that could take chances because we hadn’t quite reached the almost “AAA or Indie” only state we’re in now. The middle class of gaming has slowly been whittled away this past generation, though I would argue there is an exception to be made for the still Nintendo dominated handheld market.
Replies:
I think it comes down to the Gamecube suffered because it didn't have a DVD player and it didn't have any sense of identity. It remains to be seen if the Wii U will suffer because it has not fully embraced online and media functionality, but I would say they are doing a great job with the identity (minus the confusion with Wii). If the Xbox ONE and PS4 do really well then we will know, but I have a feeling they won't do very well either compared to 360/PS3.