First off, sorry about how strident I was in my response.
We'll have to agree to disagree on Iwata since no one but him knows why he is choosing to launch an unprecedented deluge of platformers for 2013. Except for motion controls he is routinely at least 3 years behind on things so maybe he truly believes the best way to improve Wii U sales is to bum rush it with a genre that was popular 1985-1995 and 3006-2010 with declining sales since. I will be shocked, especially absent a massive price drop, if it has any effect on the Wii U slide to Dreamcastville. It already started off with the biggest 2D platformer of them all to little effect, and in Japan we have seen Wii U sales respond to getting NSLU, Pikmin 3, and advertising with a shrug. I think though that when combined with how the 3DS is being treated it's evidence that there may be a different focus for Iwata. Again, no one really knows except him.
On the 3DS, I only use myself because I am a huge gamer so if I (and many others I've come across) balk at $40 handheld games then so do most lower interest gamers. I could be wrong, but sales certainly indicate I'm not. Also, there is nothing shocking about being willing to pay less for something than you did in the past. I bought an HD TV for $800 years back, it was worth it at the time. I would hesitate to spend more than half that today even though the TV is better. Times change, though as I noted above Iwata seems to be particularly slow in noticing.
I understand most of Iwata's not especially long-term decision making in a few years back in the period of the strong yen. It was brutal for Nintendo and Iwata recognized reality that time regarding the 3DS which was a double whammy. I can only imagine what went on behind closed doors, so yeah it wouldn't surprise me at all if Iwata is focusing on getting profits up this year and not on what is best for Nintendo 2014 and beyond. To throw out another possibility for the Wii U, given Iwata almost completely unanticipated what just about every other company in the industry knew about HD development, maybe half of Nintendo is furiously learning leaving only half to make games. In that case easier to make but past their second prime 2D platformers are attractive. If that is true then Iwata needs to be fired regardless.
I don't have much of an opinion on the trajectory Iwata has plotted for Nintendo beyond saying that I think the Wii was correct in it's under-powered/novelty approach, but that Wii U needed to be more traditional that it is.
The conversation, in my eyes, started with a discussion of Iwata making current decisions to boost FY profits
that would somehow negatively impact Nintendo's future sustainability, intentionally or unintentionally. So that's really where I wanted to comment, because I don't think the evidence can show this. In fact, Iwata and Nintendo thought that the Wii U would be selling well (definitely better than it has been) and so, up until around January 2013, I would say that their decisions were made with that future in mind.
Before they saw how awful Wii U sales were, they had already paid Warner Bros. for an exclusive game in Lego City, paid P* for W101 (which costs 1.5 times the original Bayo), paid Sega and P* for Bayo2. Their R&D expense and staff hiring has increased by a significant amount over the last three years. They hired Leo Burnett to run the marketing campaign (in NA) for both 3DS and Wii U. Again,
I'm not defending Nintendo or the Wii U here.
When you look at currently sales, in hindsight, clearly, their decisions were not enough. But they really thought that the Wii U would sell faster and in that light the 3rd party content they initially announced seemed to be a good first step.
The Wii U's sales problems are not primarily with their inability to secure/moneyhat exclusive third party content. Nor can they simply buy multiplatform games, that's ridiculous. The problem was that their product and/or marketing was inferior and then, in January they pushed back all their games due to poor sales and development schedule issues. This decision was made consciously.
But whatever content is coming out in 2013 had already been planned for before they realized that sales were going to implode. T
here is a problem with the product itself, so from this perspective, I say that it's hard to simply accuse Iwata of sacrificing future sustainability for short term profits. That's all I'm saying, and don't have much of an opinion on Nintendo's future direction or Wii U sales targets.
The later examples you provide are more examples to make a case of his poor management than his sacrificing sustainability in favor of this FY's profits. Just because you or I think he made bad management decisions last year or the year before or this year doesn't necessarily mean that he made those decisions to increase this year's profits while intentionally or unintentionally sacrificing future sustainability. That's the distinction I'm making and the conversation I initially entered. So I hope I've cleared up where I'm coming from here. I'm not interested in discussing Nintendo's management philosophy or current business decisions outside of that lens.
As for the 3DS, I think you missed my point. There is no arbiter to tell any individual how much a game is worth. People who feel that a console game is more likely to be worth $60 than a handheld game be worth $40 based solely on that distinction alone are people whose opinions I don't take very seriously (not saying that's you).
To say that a handheld game's intrinsic value has decreased for gamers (people who appreciate quality games) because cheap mobile/tablet games are now ubiquitous is silly to me. Of course, the market has demonstrated that fewer people are willing to buy a handheld and buy handheld software at the previous suggested prices. But that's not what I'm talking about. I don't judge the value of console games or handhelds games or PC games based on shitty mobile alternatives and substitutes. Whether the smartphone/tablet market has eroded the handheld market is not (or shouldn't be) as relevant on a case by case basis when a gaming enthusiast evaluates a particular handheld titles.
To say that a great game (to you), be it Sound Shapes or Fire Emblem or Soul Sacrifice or Luigi's Mansion 2, is somehow worth less now (to you) because of "the smartphone market," or to say that you'd be willing to pay closer to $40 for those games 5-10 years ago than you are now, sounds mind-numbingly stupid to me.
