Email: About Zelda’s “decline”

Hey!

I just thought I should let you know since nobody else is bringing it to your attention and I hate to see you continue to spread misinformation. Regardless of your personal opinion on the direction of the Zelda series in recent years, the franchise has been showing no signs of decline in popularity. Here are the best selling games in the series as of now, according to VGCharts.

Ocarina of Time (N64) – 7.6 million
Twilight Princess (Wii & GC) – 7.48 million
The Legend of Zelda (NES) – 6.51 million
Phantom Hourglass (NDS) – 4.83 million
A Link to the Past (SNES) – 4.61 million
The Wind Waker (GC) – 4.55 million
The Adeventure of Link (NES) – 4.38 million

The rest of the list can be found here – http://www.vgchartz.com/worldtotals.php?name=zelda&publisher=&console=&genre=&minSales=0&results=50&sort=Total

As you can see, the series has been remarkably consistent throughout its 25 year history and there is no evidence to suggest a decline (the most recent console entry Twilight Princess will soon become the most successful in the series). There is also no evidence to suggest that people would prefer an oldschool 2D “arcadey” Zelda as opposed to the Ocarina formula that has proven to be the more popular in the past.

I am looking forward to Skyward Sword. It looks phemonenal. 

This has constantly been brought up to my attention. Why do you think you’re the first one to say this?

And just as before, I will laugh this out. You cannot just assemble a pile of ‘sales numbers’ and say, “That is it.” It is what manchildren do on Internet gaming forums. Here are the problems:

VG Charts is not data

No one in the Game Industry uses ‘VG Charts’ because it isn’t actual data. And since bad data drives out the good, VG Chartz is largely responsible for NPD not showing us the numbers they used to show. The point is that anyone who is quoting VG Chartz data is someone who is not doing actual research but allowing someone else to interpret data (and non-data) for them.

Now, if you used Aonuma’s numbers from GDC 2004, that is actual data from a proper source. VG Chartz is an unacceptable source because it is not actual data. Media Create, NPD, sales listed in financial reports are actual data.

The fact that you are using VG Chartz “data” tells me you aren’t actually doing any investigating on your own. You are just copy and pasting numbers that appeared on a website and declaring it an authority.

Population Growth Must Be Accounted

You cannot compare sales numbers between games from time periods distant directly. Population growth must be accounted. For example, it is accurate to say that the PlayStation 2 sold more systems in the United States than the NES. But it is inaccurate to say the PlayStation 2 was more popular. Why? Population growth.

This is why before the Wii came out, Nintendo (as well as myself) was saying that the PlayStation success wasn’t really a success when you account for population growth. Gaming was not becoming ‘more popular’. This is why the Wii, at least in its earlier years, began selling faster than the PS2 because it was more popular. I had retailers tell me they had never seen a system like the Wii sell the way it did (i.e. sold out for three years).

If you presented actual sales data (not VG Chartz numbers), you would then have to account for the population growth (which definitely occurred over 25 years in the history of Zelda). You didn’t do this not because you knew it would hurt your case, but because you think copying and pasting numbers from a website is good enough. Your approach isn’t just lazy, it is reckless.

Warm and Cold Markets Must Be Accounted For

A Cold Market is one that has never bought or heard of the product. A Warm Product is one that has bought or heard about the product.

This is why Atari gets a ton of respect. It is much, much harder to sell a video game console when no one had any idea what a video game console was. Atari had to actually explain that the 2600 could play DIFFERENT games. This is a barrier that no other game console manufacturer has faced before.

The NES also gets respect in that it sold to a cold market as well. The Famicom in Japan was the first game console. In the United States, the NES had to resurrect a crashed market. Resurrecting a crashed market is not easy, and Nintendo had to fight like hell in order to get retailers to accept the NES (going to such lengths such as including a robot).

Unlike Super Mario Brothers which had the road paved for it with Mario Brothers and Donkey Kong, Legend of Zelda (and Zelda II which was remarkably different) sold to a cold market.

No Accounting For Competition

The most remarkable amount of evidence for the phenomenon of classic Zelda was the amount of competitors and copycats (the existence of the CDi Zelda games are proof that outside hardware manufacturers thought the Zelda brand alone, pre-Ocarina, sold game hardware). Ocarina of Time and Modern Zelda do not have competitors because Nintendo has ridden production quality which is buying marketshare.  The few games that have tried to copycat Modern Zelda ended up bombing in the market and destroying the company. One of these games was Okami (whose poor sales destroyed Clover Studios).

With all the other competition to Zelda out there and clones (such as Battle for Olympus), it was a much tougher environment for Zelda to sell. But here’ the rub: the clones of Zelda actually performed well. Neutopia ended up performing well enough to make a sequel: Neutopia II. Not only was Zelda performing gangbusters, the clones were selling very well too where these smaller companies could afford sequels. This is totally not the situation with Modern Zelda.

If Modern Zelda is such a strong seller, then where are the clones? Where are the copycats? They aren’t there because Modern Zelda isn’t a money maker (when you factor in production costs and marketing which Modern Zelda has a TON of but classic Zelda does not). The few times there has been a Modern Zelda clone (example: Okami), the game bombs so fast that many people forget it was even released!

Global Market Not Accounted

The European market for the NES was barely developed. Nintendo of America was kept in courts for so long, they could not properly expand to Europe. There was also no globalism in the 80s and early 90s. Globalism only truly began with the fall of the Berlin Wall.

So if you compared the sales of Pitfall (which sold around four million in America, which is extremely popular for that time) to Super Mario Brothers, you are wasting your time in many ways. Pitfall never made its way to Japan. (And it wasn’t bundled with the [American] hardware which makes it difficult to judge the Super Mario Brothers and Super Mario World ‘sales’.)

It is grossly incorrect to compare these early times like the 8-bit generation to mid 90s on. Not all the global markets, we know today, were present. In fact, the NES wasn’t even sold nationally in the United States until around 1987 or 1988 which gave it a shorter life cycle than it should (it was released in Japan since 1983). And Nintendo had very little presence in Europe at the time (and Europe looked very different then than it does today).

The Great Cartridge Shortage of 1988

All NES games had lower sales than they should in 1988 because of the great cartridge shortage. All cartridges were bought from Nintendo. The American market had more demand than supply. Nintendo ran out of cartridges. If you look at documentaries in the 80s showing the success of ‘Nintendo’, it will actually show parents going from state to state in order to get a video game.  The games affected by the cartridge shortage were mostly games released in 1988. These include Super Mario Brothers 2 and Zelda II.

Since you’re likely a kid who knows gaming of nothing more than optical discs (except for the N64 cartridges and handheld cartridges), you couldn’t possibly know about the cartridge situation back then or how cartridges largely lowered sales numbers due to the cost of cartridges and their limited supply.

Many NES fans did what I did. We would coordinate our game purchases with our friends because these games were often difficult to find. I could not find Zelda I anywhere until the reprint near the end of the NES lifespan. My friend did buy Zelda I and allowed me to borrow it. So I found and bought Zelda II and let him borrow it. Trading and borrowing NES games was so popular that some third party companies made little ‘cases’ to send them around! hahaha

It is pretty ridiculous to compare sales of cartridge games to optical disc games. Cartridges were, in that time period, always limited in supply. Just how the Wii was constantly supply restrained, the NES games were constantly supply restrained.  People accused Nintendo, then, of restricting supply of NES cartridges to create a ‘Cabbage Doll’ effect.

If Modern Zelda is popular, why is it in the bomba bin?

This was an intense shock to Nintendo. Retailers were throwing Zelda into the bomba bin. Retailers in Japan tried to throw Super Mario Galaxy into the bomba bin but Nintendo strong armed them not to do so (this is why I reject the notion that Galaxy performed ‘well’. It didn’t do its job).

Classic Zelda never went into the bargain bin. Link to the Past stayed on top of the Nintendo Power’s reader’s choice polls throughout all of the SNES’s lifespan for example. Zelda games back then were REVERED. They came in the GOLD cartridge. And everyone felt that was appropriate. That reverence is completely lacking in Zelda today. Only Ocarina of Time has such reverence, but only young people have confused that reverence to be solely to Ocarina. It was applied through the other Zelda games as well. People don’t realize this because there was half a decade from Ocarina of Time’s release since the last Zelda released: Link’s Adventure (which was a Gameboy game). A person’s knowledge of video game history begins, sadly enough, on the day they were born. Zelda probably came out before these kids were thoughts in their parents’ heads! (Damn I’m old.)

Anyway, Modern Zelda is so risky that Nintendo restricted production of Ocarina of Time 3DS in a metered way. Why? To avoid the bomba bin like Spirit Tracks did above.

These are all red flag indicators that Modern Zelda is in serious trouble. Some games like Twilight Princess rode the Wii success, but did you see the Twilight Princess sales in Japan? Ouch!

Miyamoto has said Modern Zelda is in trouble

Perhaps you can copy and paste your ‘VG Chartz’ numbers to Miyamoto and tell him Modern Zelda is doing fine and well. He wouldn’t agree with you.

At the conference at E3 2011, Miyamoto made a warning about Starfox 3DS and Zelda 3DS. Due to Starfox 3DS’s horrible sales performance, Starfox will now join Metroid as a ‘dead franchise’. Miyamoto said that Zelda needs to sell or they can’t make it anymore. He did later say he was joking (Because the comment shocked), but it is completely in line with the poor performance Zelda is doing. (And why would he make such a poor taste joke?)

Costs are Not Accounted For

Did you compare the development cost for each Zelda game? Did you compare the marketing budget for each Zelda game? I can guarantee you that Modern Zelda has a much larger marketing budget than Classic Zelda did. And there is no doubt that Modern Zelda is extremely expensive to make.

Only eight people are listed in the credits for Zelda I and Zelda II. Eight people! Which Zelda games are the most profitable? And seeing how the early Zeldas created the franchise, it is clear that the early Zelda games were the actual movers.

Ocarina of Time Has Destroyed the 3DS

The reason why Iwata and Miyamoto are taking a salary cut is because of the failure of Ocarina of Time. It was assumed that Ocarina of Time would create momentum for the 3DS. Reggie Fils-Aime is recorded as saying as such. People on the Gaming Message Forums informed us that Ocarina of Time 3DS would be popular because ‘of the lines for it in Japan.

In the United States, according to NPD data, Ocarina of Time 3DS did not sell very much. Some PS3 game, that I never heard of (Infamous 2?) outsold it.

The point is that Ocarina of Time fans have been living in a bubble filled with other Ocarina of Time fans where they created a make-believe fantasy that the game is far more popular than it was. Why do they do this? Because they grew up with the game. It is a major part of their childhood. But the game isn’t half as popular as they think it is.

I chuckled at Nintendo Financial Statement calling Ocarina of Time 3DS sales ‘respectable’. That is what they said about the Galaxy games. Nintendo is quite disappointed. Ocarina of Time was supposed to sell hardware. It didn’t do it.

What is REALLY funny is how Nintendo is entering a state of denial that the Wii success occurred because of Twilight Princess, that people bought the Wii for Zelda but then Wii Sports went viral. This would explain the laughable software included on the 3DS which Nintendo thought would go ‘viral’ (it didn’t).

What is selling Nintendo hardware? It is games like sports simulators, fitness simulators, puppy simulators, brain simulators, arcade racers, and 2d Mario.  What is NOT selling Nintendo hardware? 3d Mario, Modern Zelda, Metroid, and Wii Music.

Nintendo has to be panicking. The only games that are performing (first party games must sell hardware or else there is no point in making it) are games Nintendo doesn’t want to make. And the games that are not performing are games Nintendo DO want to make.

The 3DS disaster shows that the games Nintendo wants to make cannot support the company. The massive price cut for the 3DS came well after Ocarina of Time 3DS not selling.

You could say that Ocarina of Time destroyed the 3DS and has caused Nintendo to have an operating loss. But you wish to tell me that I am ‘misinformed’ and that Modern Zelda is ‘very popular’ while all this upheaval is taking place.

The issue is that I cannot be misinformed because this blog wouldn’t be possible. This site is famous for getting ahead of Nintendo trends. This wouldn’t be possible if I was as grossly misinformed as you imply.

I was there for the birth of Zelda. I witnessed 40 year old men playing the game, and a legion of younger gamers having their lives consumed by it. This phenomenon, arguably one of the greatest in gaming, transcends Aonuma’s hatred for the game. It also transcends the Ocarina of Time Cult Club. Ocarina of Time wouldn’t have been remotely possible without Classic Zelda. From your perspective, Nintendo revolves around the same franchises today. But from my perspective, there was a time when Nintendo put out many different types of games and only a few of them became phenomenons (which Nintendo continued making). These games included Mario and Zelda. Zelda was so popular, it was the only franchise that could hang out with the titan of Mario.

As you get older, you will be relying on what you experienced in life to be able to see what is going to happen next. It may not seem fathomable today, but there will be future generations who did not experience the Wii and will not understand its history. They will buy a revisionist line that it was a ‘fad’ or a ‘casual device’. It is they who will be filled with misinformation. When you are older, you are going to have to fight this.

Going forward in time, the Wii has a complicated history which I suspect few will get correct. But those who do get it correct will be those who lived in this time period and witnessed it. And the same is true of classic Zelda. Only those who lived in that time period truly know the value of the ‘gold cartridge’ game. And Zelda is nowhere close to that value today which is why the series is in trouble.

Zelda Crisis Parallels the Mario Crisis

Ever since Mario 64, the Mario series entered a state of slow crisis that bubbled up more and more. At the end of the Gamecube era, people were demanding Nintendo to stop putting Mario in games. Mario just wasn’t cool, wasn’t popular. The reason why is that since 3d Mario, Mario’s popularity has only dropped like a rock.

For many, many years, I have said around me that there needs to be more Super Mario Brothers, less 3d Mario. I was told that I was an idiot because “2d is only for handhelds. Go play the Gameboy Advance! Hurr Hurr!” Regardless, I was quite happy that NSMB DS came out. It sold extremely well. Naturally, I said (and kept saying on the blog), “Nintendo must make Super Mario Brothers on the Wii.” I was told I was an idiot because “2d Mario is for handhelds! Hurr Hurr! Handhelds and consoles are different! Durrr!” And when Super Mario Brothers 5 was revealed, it was amazing to watch gaming media dump on the game. “Casual game!” “Copying LittleBigPlanet!” “Nintendo is being lazy!” I even did a countdown to the day the game came out. And when the game came out, boy, did everyone feel it. The Wii sold out, breaking the Nintendo concept of ‘console cycle’ and Wii sold more systems than ever before. Even the game was selling out. It was the best selling home console game in Japan for the past fifteen years.

Today, the issue of 2d Mario and 3d Mario is closed. 2d Mario sells and moves hardware. And 2d Mario is much cheaper to make. “But we have to keep making 3d Mario.” Why? As Nintendo’s latest quarterly earnings show, it may no longer be profitable to make 3d Mario. In terms of how little hardware it sells, 3d Mario may be a waste of time and money.

Anyway, I expect the Zelda issue to be resolved one day in the future as firmly as the Mario issue was solved this generation.

The Zelda issue is not 2d Zelda versus 3d Zelda. The Zelda issue is not that an argument about whether Modern Zelda is in decline (it is). The argument is about the solution to Modern Zelda, the antidote. Nintendo thinks the solution will be HD graphics and more ‘innovation’ like applying puzzles to whatever hardware doodad is on the console. I think this is wrong.

My solution is that the antidote of Zelda can be found in Classic Zelda. Zelda must be restored to a pre-Aonuma state if this series wishes to survive or have any future relevance. I fear we will likely lose Zelda entirely before this happens.

The big problem is there is a team inside Nintendo dedicated to nothing but Zelda. There is no ‘Mario’ team even though Mario games sell more. And Aonuma is always the director of every Zelda game. And, worse, Aonuma hires people he likes (and they are always people who want to make puzzles). The Zelda team has been acting as a sort of multiplying cancer on the Zelda series. How can you correct something with this sort of barrier?

A correction would entail not only removing Aonuma as being in charge of Zelda, it would require removing the people he hired as well. It would perhaps require the removal of the entire Zelda team.

What must occur is a reboot to the Zelda series. This will one day occur. But it will occur when the pain of Modern Zelda becomes so great that Nintendo either suspends the series or is willing to find the pain of such a reboot not as painful.

A restoration of Super Mario Brothers and Zelda are two things I will not let go. If Nintendo wants to run Metroid into the ground. Fine. If Nintendo wants to run Star Fox into the ground. Fine. If Nintendo wants to run F-Zero into the ground. Fine. But I am going to speak up against Nintendo running Mario and Zelda into the ground. These are not just games, they are too important to the gaming experience to let morons like Aonuma destroy. To the kids who grew up with them, you already know this. But to those who didn’t grow up with them, we can see how it elevated gaming to such a state. They are too important to be run into the ground.

I was absolutely sure that a 2d Mario would sell. This did not come about due to some Nostradamus ability, but it came due to a massive hunger for a dish Nintendo stopped serving (“I made that game before! I don’t want to make it again!” yells Miyamoto). There was a huge audience that has been on the sidelines, for decades, just waiting for Nintendo to make the game they never should have stopped making.

In just the same way, I am absolutely sure that Zelda willascend again once it got back in touch to what made the classics become so ridiculously popular. I do know for sure that Aonuma has to go. Aonuma has been the worst thing ever to occur to Zelda. Why was he hired in the first place? Because he made wooden dolls?

A Zelda restoration wouldn’t be as dramatic as the arrival of 2d Mario. What would occur is that the Zelda game would never stop selling. It wouldn’t have the typical fall-off that Zelda games have. It would be creating new Zelda fans left and right.

I’m not asking for Zelda to do anything differently than what it has already done. It is not fair to the customers for some Zelda games to be acknowledged while others are given the middle finger especially when those games established the series and were a bigger social phenomenon.

At the beginning of the 7th generation, my only question to Nintendo was: “Why do you hate us?” Clearly, Miyamoto and others had a chip on their shoulder that made them despise fans of 2d Mario. It is like Miyamoto is on a crusade to convert 2d Mario to 3d Mario for whatever reason. The most popular game in the world received no new releases for 18 years.

At the beginning of the 8th generation, my question remains the same. “Why do you hate us?” Why does Miyamoto and others despise the early Zelda fans? It is they who made Zelda a success, not the Ocarina of Time fans (who appeared to have destroyed the franchise as Modern Zelda track record is showing).

All I want is a well made, high quality, 2d Mario game and a well made, high quality, Arcade/RPG hybrid Zelda game (as was done in the past). This is an extremely reasonable request.

If Nintendo wishes to create customers, they must start with the ones they abandoned.