"Nintendo Will Not Return To Profitability"

So Michael Pachter has this to say about Nintendo:

They should have, and because they didn't, the decline in Wii and DS hardware and software sales drove them into generating LOSSES. For those of you who aren't financial analysts, losses mean that the company is worth less than it was before. Nintendo stock has dropped by over 80% in the last few years, and the market has appreciated over the same period. I'm paid to advise investors, and none have made a profit owning Nintendo stock. I don't think that many will make a profit over the next few years, because I don't think Nintendo's strategy will return them to profitability.

I am not a financial analyst, and I'm not going to argue with Pachter over whether or not he's right. He has access to a lot more information than I do, although he's been saying that Nintendo's going to release a Wii HD repeatedly and hasn't been right so far.

I'm also not going to argue the point that the 3DS is doing great now after a rocky start, and that analysts' repeated calls for Nintendo to join up with smartphones is a complete waste of time, ink and breath. I'm not going to argue that the vision of a company like, say, Apple was run almost entirely off of the ideas of one man as opposed to a corporate culture like Nintendo.

I'm also not going to argue that while Nintendo is worth less now than they were two years ago, that was when Nintendo was at its absolute, once-in-a-lifetime peak, and I'm also not going to bring up the fact that  Nintendo has consistently weathered the tough times far better than other industry darlings and for far longer.

I don't believe I can argue with Pachter, especially since he tosses in this withering bon mot at the end:

If the context above infuriates you, go back to school and pay attention, then read it again ;-)

Since I do not have the time to go back to "school," where, most assuredly, Mr. Pachter learned a great deal about profit, judging from this statement:

I'm paid to advise investors, and none have made a profit owning Nintendo stock.

I understand that he means "in the last two years," or at least I would hope so. If he means what he wrote, that no investors have ever made a profit owning Nintendo stock, then it is quite possible that Mr. Pachter must go back to school.

No, I won't argue any of these points, since I am obviously not capable enough to argue any of them. So instead, I'll just sit back, enjoy my Nintendo products and accept their inevitable decline into obscurity. After all, he's a financial adviser. Surely none of them have ever been wrong.

Review: Pushmo

Developer: Intelligent Systems
Publisher: Nintendo

There is a right way and a wrong way to make a downloadable game. The wrong way is Sakura Samurai's way: Cool concept, lackluster execution. The right way? Pushmo. Cool concept, great execution, and a whole lot to do.


Pushmo is like this: They hand you a structure called a Pushmo, and you can pull blocks of the structure forward and backward in order to create steps. You use those steps to get to a predetermined point on the structure in order to rescue someone trapped in the structure. It sounds fairly complicated, but Pushmo does a fantastic job explaining exactly what needs to be done.

There are few things that make Pushmo work. One, most of the puzzles are devious. I found myself staring at puzzles blankly wondering what the heck I needed to do to get to the top. However, none of them are really impossible, just require a little bit of thinking.

Two, the difficulty curve is fantastic. They introduce concepts easily and slide them in alongside things you already know. If you've spent a while on a puzzle and can't figure it out, you can skip on to the next one, which is great.

Three, there are a ton of puzzles, and if you finish them all you can create your own with the Pushmo Studio and then share them with others using QR codes. That means that there's always plenty to do.

I'm impressed by Pushmo. Not only is it deep, but it's cute, the graphics are sharp, the music is fun and not very cloying, and it's a ton of fun. If you have a 3DS, buy Pushmo.

Final Grade: A

Review: Sakura Samurai: Art of the Sword

Developer: Nintendo
Publisher: Nintendo

Nintendo is finally making downloadable games for the eShop. It's taken them long enough, but they're finally trying something new, and good for them. It's important to show the other guys how it's done. However, Sakura Samurai: Art of the Sword isn't a good way to do so.
Sakura Samurai isn't like other, more kinetic swordfighting games. It's a game of observation and reflexes: Watch the way your opponents move, dodge their attacks and then counter with one of your own. In that sense, it's a great approximation of how swordfighting really is rather than how it's made out to be in most video games and movies.

The mechanics of Sakura Samurai are beyond reproach. The problem is that there isn't much else to do. In every new level, you'll face off against a few enemies. You kill them and some more appear. That's it. Rinse and repeat in the next level.

I mean, imagine what they could have done with this premise! What about a battle where you need to use the terrain to your advantage! Attacking downhill gives you a bonus! Rocky terrain can cause poor footing, meaning you can't dodge repeatedly or risk falling over! Use rocks and trees to your advantage and back up your opponents against them! Anything else!

On top of that, my love for this game was cut off at the knees because of one particularly annoying level. It's a really long castle where you fight about 20 enemies before arriving at the big baddie, who's twice your size with a giant sword. Threatening! Imposing! The first time you fight the battle, it looks like a total setpiece battle that you'll remember for a long time! However, if you die (and you will die repeatedly), you have to begin at the very beginning of the level, fight all 20 opponents again, then get to the big bad, who might kill you again. Then you have to fight through the level again, get to the big bad, so on and so forth.

I lost about ten times to the boss and almost gave up, but decided to press onward in the off chance that the next series of levels were somehow more entertaining. Nope. Same thing, same repeated series of levels.

I love the mechanics in Sakura Samurai. However, until they use those mechanics in a game that does more than just rehashes them over and over, I can't recommend this game.

Final Grade: D+

Adventures With Digital Distribution

As of right now, there are only two digital distributors worth dealing with: Good Old Games and Steam. The interesting thing is that both of these distributors are based on one guiding principle: Trust.
For example, Good Old Games lets you download the full files of whatever game you've purchased. There's nothing stopping you from putting that file on your torrent site of choice and letting others enjoy the sweet nectar of your purchase, and yet, you rarely see GOG files ending up on torrent sites.

Why is this? First, the games are so darn cheap that they're almost impulse buys. Second, they make the games easy to buy. Third, and most importantly, they don't treat the customer like a criminal. There's no limit on how many times you can download the game, no crazy online activation schemes to go through. That takes away the moral justification that people (myself included) have for pirating.

It's one thing to steal from the rich and give to the poor, but if the person you're stealing from is the nicest guy in town, it just makes you look like a jerk.

While Steam has to bow to the whims of the game industry's heavy hitters, it's also surprisingly flexible in the way it allows you to install the Steam client on different computers, and it also doesn't place any restrictions on how many times you can download the game. As we've discussed before, Steam succeeds for very good reasons.

Why do I bring this up? I'll tell you: Two bad experiences, one right after the other, with digital distribution. One demonstrates a misunderstanding of what digital distribution is supposed to accomplish, and one demonstrates the problem with the smaller providers as the industry grows and changes.

My first experience came from Batman: Arkham City. I first began playing the game via a pirated copy, since, while I had heard good things, I wasn't sure if it was a game I wanted to plunk down cold, hard cash for. I played it and enjoyed it immensely. When it came on sale at Impulse for $25, I immediately jumped at it to support the developer.

Impulse was previously owned by Stardock, who used the service to send out their own games. They couldn't make a go of the platform, and ended up selling it to Gamestop. Compared to Steam, it's lacking in features. There are no achievements, no community features, nothing. It's a pure delivery platform, nothing more and nothing less.

When I start the pirated copy, it waits on an initial loading screen for about fifteen seconds and then moves on to the actual game. When I start the legit copy that I paid for with cash money, it doesn't start for two minutes. This is because they're using DRM in the background to verify that I really paid for the copy that I paid for.

Bear in mind that this process is completely useless, since it's been bypassed handily in the pirated copy, and you can see where the issue lies. The whole point of digital distribution is to minimize piracy and used game sales, but when you layer DRM on top of the downloaded copy, it's completely destroying the point.

Not only that, but a ridiculous install limit was placed on the downloaded copy of Arkham City. I can only install the game five times before it runs out. If I decide to wipe my computer? That's an install. If I have to uninstall/reinstall the game? That's an install. I'm being penalized for purchasing the game instead of pirating it. The pirates have provided a better customer experience than the companies that are supposed to provide it. That's sick.

My second experience came from Civilization 4. I purchased the game via Direct2Drive a while back, and their system was pretty simple: Download the game, enter the product key and it'll go through a brief online activation. That's all. Since they gave me the capability of storing the files on my computer, it's only fair that I be forced to use a one-time online activation.

I've saved those files on my computer for a few years now, on the off chance that I'll want to reinstall the game. A week ago, I caught the bug again, so I started those setup files. The install went swimmingly, and I opened up Civ 4. It started to run the activation and then stopped with an error saying it couldn't connect to the server.

So why wouldn't it work? I went to Direct2Drive's site and found that it had been purchased by GameFly. I couldn't find any help forthcoming on GameFly's site about why Civ 4 wouldn't connect, but I have a clue. GameFly has a beta client software they would like me to download. I'm assuming that this is their new distribution model for their games, and what I would have to do if I wanted to play Civ 4.


Once again, I went to a torrent site, downloaded a Civ 4 .iso, installed it and was playing shortly after the download finished. No hoops, no muss, no fuss.

Since digital distribution is still in its infancy with only Steam being an established provider, purchasing from any other company can be a crapshoot. Will the company still be in their current form a year later? Two years later? Will any activation methods still work? Of course, the companies don't care because they have your money already.

As we've mentioned, Good Old Games steps around this. If Good Old Games were to go out of business tomorrow, every game that I have purchased through them would still work. Yes, they already have your money, but they still provide you with the followthrough that makes their business work.

And don't even get me started on the one time I tried downloading Age of Empires 3 from the Games for Windows Live client. Ugh.

This is what's driving me crazy. Most digital distribution providers are providing an experience inferior to what the pirates offer, and they're charging us money for the privilege! I've learned my lesson: When it comes to digital distribution, stick with the companies that trust you as the consumer, since most of them don't. Give them your money in appreciation of the great work they do, and maybe some of the other ones will get the hint eventually.