Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Major Shakeup in Nintendo of America Brass?

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the strang-tales dept.

Nintendo 82

Last month Game Informer Online was reporting that Nintendo of America's (NoA) marketing and sales team was being moved away from the company headquarters in Redmond. The likely new home cities for staffers were either New York or San Francisco. Either way, it seems as if that choice didn't sit well. GI is now saying that 90% of the folks in those departments have opted not to move, and instead are taking severance packages. Surprisingly, this includes three of NoA's biggest names: Senior Director of Public Relations Beth Llewelyn; Vice President, Marking and Corporate Affairs Perrin Kaplan; and Senior Vice President, Marketing and Corporate Communications George Harrison. At the moment there is no official confirmation from Nintendo, but if true this would constitute huge change in the message from the company in North America.

cancel ×

82 comments

huh (2, Funny)

nomadic (141991) | more than 7 years ago | (#19423405)

Weird. I mean, I can see if they were being asked to move to like Dallas or Detroit or something, but why wouldn't you want to move to New York or San Francisco?

Re:huh (1)

Herkum01 (592704) | more than 7 years ago | (#19423445)

Because the costing of living in NYC and San Francisco is incredibly high?

Re:huh (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 7 years ago | (#19423521)

Actually you can live on a relatively modest salary in NYC if you had to. Your home will be smaller and more cramped, and your commute will be longer, but a lot of people think the tradeoffs are worth it.

Re:huh (2, Funny)

toolie (22684) | more than 7 years ago | (#19427059)

Actually you can live on a relatively modest salary in NYC if you had to. Your home will be smaller and more cramped, and your commute will be longer, but a lot of people think the tradeoffs are worth it.

A lot of people like watching reality TV. A lot of people can't read. What a lot of people do can't even be remotely construed as a good thing.

Re:huh (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 7 years ago | (#19431549)

And the people who like reality TV show and who can't read probably wouldn't like the tradeoffs either. But those people who actually can appreciate real culture, and real arts, and life outside suburbia, do.

Re:huh (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#19431585)

Yes, but New York? I think I'd rather live somewhere where the soot doesn't cake onto your skin.

Re:huh (1)

Herkum01 (592704) | more than 7 years ago | (#19423523)

I could think of three good reasons for moving from Redmond.

  • Keep Microsoft from poaching their staff
  • Increased access to talented employees
  • Improved access to clients

The fact that 90% of their employees seem unwilling to move seems to indicate that their options in Redmond seem pretty good and that they don't really love Nintendo that much anyways.

Re:huh (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 7 years ago | (#19423749)

90% of Marketing and Sales department employees, including those big names. The focus is that while these guys might have been responsible for all the Wii-love puff pieces within the last year, they're not decision makers or technology makers or region licensing. Plus, judging from how my father feels about his middle-management job inside Sales (for another company), these guys get a lot of pressure and flak when things go wrong that aren't really under control so it's no surprise they'll see it as just another gig.

What really gets me suspicious is that I always see "SF or NYC" in stories regarding this move. Has no one decided yet? Hell, if my job asked me to follow them moving to either City A or City B, I'd probably not commit anything until I knew which one, also.

Re:huh (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#19424471)

I have to wonder... Did they take a poll beforehand and notice that 90% of the Marketing peeps would leave if they moved, and scream 'jackpot!' ? Maybe they -want- a shakeup in that department, without the mess of actually firing anyone.

Or maybe there was a good reason and this is just icing on the cake.

Re:huh (1)

faloi (738831) | more than 7 years ago | (#19423475)

You don't like earthquakes or being so close to New Jersey?

Re:huh (0, Flamebait)

J. T. MacLeod (111094) | more than 7 years ago | (#19423501)

Perhaps they have homes and families in the place they chose to live? Perhaps they prever sane politics to the insanity that passes for sensibility in NYC and SF?

Or maybe they just don't want to get shot.

Hold up on the "get shot" comment... (1)

LinDVD (986467) | more than 7 years ago | (#19424509)

First, while I am not a staunch defender of the California bay area (even though I am living here for now), Oakland is the city you move to if you are interested in significantly increasing your risk. San Francisco is not without problems, but the crime rate difference is noteworthy.

http://oaklandca.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm ?c1=Oakland&s1=CA&c2=San+Francisco&s2=CA [areaconnect.com]

Of course, New York is a bit safer than San Francisco in a general sense...

http://oaklandca.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm ?c1=New+York&s1=NY&c2=San+Francisco&s2=CA [areaconnect.com]

However, you are trading murder for carjacking and other items in Seattle...

http://oaklandca.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm ?c1=Seattle&s1=WA&c2=San+Francisco&s2=CA [areaconnect.com]

Finally, they could always try to live in somewhere like Berkeley...

http://oaklandca.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm ?c1=Berkeley&s1=CA&c2=San+Francisco&s2=CA [areaconnect.com]

A much better reason though for not moving here is the hyperinflation of the cost of housing has not subsided-the bubble is in full effect here.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/14/real_estate/first_ quarter_NAR_prices/index.htm?postversion=200705151 4 [cnn.com]

Re:huh (1)

aichpvee (631243) | more than 7 years ago | (#19426815)

Sane politics? Have you BEEN to Washington State?

Re:huh (1)

J. T. MacLeod (111094) | more than 7 years ago | (#19428563)

Well, relatively speaking, of course...

Re:huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19423527)

Both
- High cost of living

NYC
- Long distance move
- Crowded
- Unbearable hot in the summer, cold in the winter. Roughtly two weeks/year comfortable

SF
- Earthquakes
- Not sure what else...

Re:huh (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 7 years ago | (#19423803)

- Unbearable hot in the summer, cold in the winter. Roughtly two weeks/year comfortable

Ok, that's just not so. New York, in September-early November, and in like April-July, has beautiful weather. And Redmond isn't exactly an eternal springtime, it's June and still 52 degrees there.

Re:huh (4, Funny)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 7 years ago | (#19423829)

SF
- Earthquakes
- Not sure what else...
Commute to work continually held up by:
- Gay pride marches
- Exciting car chases starring Steve McQueen
- Massive cascades of small, brightly-coloured balls

Re:huh (1)

BenJeremy (181303) | more than 7 years ago | (#19426189)

Commute to work continually held up by:
- Gay pride marches
- Exciting car chases starring Steve McQueen
- Massive cascades of small, brightly-coloured balls


Massive cascades of small, brightly-coloured balls? Seems redundant, since you already mentioned the gay pride marches.

Re:huh (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#19423937)

Seattle is also has earthquakes and even volcanoes.
But you can get out of the Seattle cityscape very quickly. There is really some very pretty areas around Seattle. I don't know how fast you can get out of San Fransisco to the country but I know that there are also some very pretty areas around there I just have never been to SF so I don't know the details.

Re:huh (1)

HalWasRight (857007) | more than 7 years ago | (#19434705)

It is called the Marin Headlands [google.com] . All it takes is to cross the Golden Gate bridge. 10 minutes from town at the right time of day/week.(Begin the cackling about actually GETTING to the bridge from SoMa.)

Re:huh (2, Insightful)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 7 years ago | (#19423591)

If someone's a Senior VP or Senior Director of Nintendo, then chances are good that they have already made enough money to be able to live off returns from investments. Also, many of them probably have families and kids... if you're asking this question, your family likely never moved when you were a child.

Re:huh (1)

wgaryhas (872268) | more than 7 years ago | (#19424857)

Whats the big deal with moving as a kid? I moved a dozen times before I was 18.

Re:huh (1)

fbjon (692006) | more than 7 years ago | (#19426285)

..And here you are, on slashdot.

Re:huh (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#19423689)

Funny but I would rather live in Dallas than New York.
Some answers to your question are.
1. Cost of living. Yea Seattle is expensive but I think San Francisco is worse.
2. Quality of living. As big cities go Seattle is much nicer to live in than New York from my point of view. I have spent time in both and I like Seattle a lot more.
3. Family, friends, and opportunities. If you have lived in a place for years you have roots, you may have kids in school that you don't want to uproot.
4. Moving Tax. If you bought a home in the Redmond area a years ago it may have gone up enough in value that you could afford a home in New York or San Francisco but at least where I live you are taxed on the value you paid for your home and it can only rise a small amount a year. So you could be stuck paying a lot more in taxes if you move.
or
5. Bubble homes. If you just bought your home at the top of the housing bubble you may take a bath if you sell it right now. That is very market dependent and my not be a problem in Redmond.
Let's face it if you worked for Nintendo marketing you also have some real opportunities in the Redmond area. You would be a hot commodity.
BTW I would pick Dallas because I don't want to live in an apartment and I know of lot's of very pretty areas around Dallas that I could buy a nice home and commute to work. Oh and I have worked in Detroit. What I can say about Detroit is simply this. The nicest people in the ugliest city I have ever worked in.
I can not say much about San Fransisco. Never been there but it looks like it might be a little closer to Seattle than New York in feel.
Seattle is nothing like New York. I liked New York but I wouldn't want to live there.

Re:huh (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#19424543)

BTW I would pick Dallas because I don't want to live in an apartment and I know of lot's of very pretty areas around Dallas that I could buy a nice home and commute to work.

See, I think that not so many others would pick your solution. I've been to Seattle, I've lived in Austin and visited Dallas a few times, and I've lived in SF. So long as you can afford off-street parking (or plan to ditch your car) I'd choose SF out of all of those places simply because of the weather. It gets cold there, especially in the mornings, but on the average SF weather is beautiful. The weather in Seattle is quite literally depressing - to the point of it being clinical (in combination with the lack of sunlight.) And the weather in all of Texas is miserable and will likely only become more so in the immediate future.

Meanwhile, at least SF has plenty of hills, if you live on one then you can even stay there when the oceans rise :D

Re:huh (1)

macshit (157376) | more than 7 years ago | (#19430265)

on the average SF weather is beautiful. The weather in Seattle is quite literally depressing - to the point of it being clinical (in combination with the lack of sunlight.)

I've never quite understand why people say this. I grew up about half and half in the SF area (when I was a younger child) and near Seattle (when I was a teenager), and the Seattle weather was really nice for the most part -- pretty sunny in the summer but not oppressively hot, with very mild winters. I'd describe Seattle weather as being "gentle." I found SF almost more depressing since the winter in SF is essentially one long period of rain (Seattle gets some snow, though nothing insane like the eastern US).

Seattle also has nice mountains (and the sound!) around it for doing outdoors stuff, and those things seem a bit more accessible than they are in SF.

OTOH: compared to NYC, Seattle is has a very "provincial" feel, and frankly is kind of boring... and that's Seattle -- the Redmond/Bellevue area (where NOA actually is) is an awful, awful place, the epitome of out-of-control sprawl and depressing generic suburban landscape: dreadfully boring, and yet not relaxing or pleasant. I can completely understand why they'd want to move a marketing department out of Redmond to a city with a pulse.

Re:huh (1)

juan2074 (312848) | more than 7 years ago | (#19444867)

"The coldest winter I ever saw was the summer I spent in San Francisco."
--Mark Twain

Re:huh (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#19450931)

I was born in FL so the heat in Dallas isn't that bad. I found the people to very pleasnat and my wife has family there. You see people have different requirements. The other thing is I love to fly VFR San Fransisco has a LOT of restricted air space.

Re:huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19423757)

I think it's a requirement to be an arrogant asshole before they let you live in SF or NYC.

Re:huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19423901)

Nice try on making Dallas the new Detroit just because a slightly higher percentage of Republicans live around here, but it's actually a nice place to live -- real mass transit, plenty of space in suburbs if you're into that, etc. And the far-right types are keeping their mouths shut these days.

There was an issue a few years ago with a high murder rate in the poor part of the city, but that's cleared up since we got rid of a totally useless chief of police.

Re:huh (1)

MeanderingMind (884641) | more than 7 years ago | (#19424515)

I'm sorry, did you use Dallas and "Mass Transit" in the same sentence?

The DART and the busses are "real" I guess, but are drops in the bucket. Their capacity for transporting people is no where near enough to alleviate the massive congestion.

I moved down here from Massachusetts a year ago, so maybe I'm spoiled by the T. However, it still amazes me that Rush Hour lasts from 3 until 7 here.

Re:huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19427709)

The DART system isn't running at full capacity and could handle more riders. It's still fairly new and ridership has grown over time, and will continue to do so as the system is expanded. There's been huge improvement in the last few years and the lines opening in the next few years will also be huge. They are far more than "drops in the bucket", but don't expect them to ever reduce freeway congestion; congestion is an inherent design flaw in freeways. Bottom line is that there is a large area of the city where you can live and work without a car.

Compare to areas with a similar population density and it's doing great; comparing to Massachusetts is simply ridiculous.

Re:huh (1)

MeanderingMind (884641) | more than 7 years ago | (#19429307)

I'm assuming, perhaps erroneously, that you're comparing Dallas vs Massachusetts population densities (3,544/sq mi vs 11,543/sq mi) and concluding that a higher population density allows for easier mass transit.

I'm not an expert, but it seems that we must also consider the greater metropoliton area within which each draws it's commuters. The Dallas-Ft Worth-Arlington area is 9,249 sq. mi. with 6,003,967 (2006 est.) people, a density of 634/sq. mi. The Boston-Cambridge-Quincy area is 4,674 sq. mi. with 4,411,835 (2005 est.) people and a density of 947 /sq. mi.

We must also realize that with Boston bordering the ocean, approximately 180 degrees of potential angles for commuters to enter the city are cut off. This theoretically forces double the expected traffic of a fully accessible city on the remaining directions.

The question boils down to what difference a 50% greater density and 25% smaller population afford. However, considering that the 6 million people in the Metroplex can come from any direction, we actually have a 50% greater population within the same potential arc. This should approximately outweigh the density benefit.

Given all of this, we should expect the two cities to have similar (though not equal) commutes (although we have failed to consider New England vs Texas roads) barring the effects of mass transit. However, the rush hours of both cities/metropolitan areas are vastly different. The "hour" in rush hour for Boston is quite literal, with traffic being noticably heavier but not slower immediately surrounding the peak hour in the morning and the peak hour in the afternoon. As soon as half an hour before or after the rush hour traffic is neither hectic nor rushed. However, the first signs of the rush hour (in the afternoon) in Dallas start as soon as 3-3:30, and last as late as 7-7:30.

What's ridiculous is the stark and remarkable difference. Despite being theoretically even, there is a vast gap between the commutes of both cities. Boston isn't perfect, or even necessarily good, but it's been almost shocking to drive under 75 and 365 each morning and see bumper to bumper traffic almost regardless of when I wake up.

Again, I'm not an expert. I didn't account for population distribution, or other factors a true expert might. However, from a general and rudimentary accessment I remain surprized at how poor the situation seems.

Re:huh (1)

the dark hero (971268) | more than 7 years ago | (#19423959)

Personally, I'm offended you compared Dallas to Detroit. I really like this town. Lots of space too!

Re:huh (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 7 years ago | (#19424965)

Personally, I'm offended you compared Dallas to Detroit. I really like this town. Lots of space too!

Based on your reply, I'm not sure which city you're actually defending.

Re:huh (1)

the dark hero (971268) | more than 7 years ago | (#19426367)

I...uh...realized that after i posted it. I live in Dallas. Think about it though. Detroit is awfully cramped. North Texas has got TONS of open area.

Read between the lines (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19424105)

This is really those people getting fired. NoA has just provided them with an excellent B.S. excuse, that's all.

I'm going to guess N is pretty ticked off that the DS is not selling more units, and that "Brain Age" isn't selling better. Nintendo was hardly impressed by the Pokemon sales, since they could take a dump in a box, slap a Pokemon label on it, and it would sell millions of units.

A load of.... (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 7 years ago | (#19430627)

Nintendo was hardly impressed by the Pokemon sales, since they could take a dump in a box, slap a Pokemon label on it, and it would sell millions of units.
Wrong; they tried that with "Pokemon Brown", but it only sold 850,000 units.

To be fair, they *would* have sold more, but they couldn't keep up with demand, even after downing heroic quantities of laxative tablets.

Re:huh (1)

Tofystedeth (1076755) | more than 7 years ago | (#19424255)

Ouch. I grew up in Dallas, and I'd much rather live there than New York. It's just way too huge. San Fran on the other hand would be nice.

Re:huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19424765)

Lived in Dallas (Fort Worth actually) and Boston. Moved back to Fort Worth for the friendlier atmosphere, cheaper cost of living, nicer weather (sorry, I prefer 100 degrees in the summer over 10 degrees in the winter).

Visited New York a few times, far too dense for me to want to live there. San Francisco is far too liberal for me, I like earning my living rather than supporting everyone around me. Not to mention the ridiculous cost of living in CA.

I like the smaller feel of Fort Worth over those gigantic cities. Not everyone is in love with SF and NY.

Re:huh (1)

gorbachev (512743) | more than 7 years ago | (#19424813)

What's so weird about it?

People have families and other commitments.

I wouldn't move half way across the country for any company either unless they made it REALLY worthwhile to me and my family.

Re:huh (1)

dhakbar (783117) | more than 7 years ago | (#19425641)

Because city living is a poor fit for humanity. It's psychologically unhealthy, never mind all of the physically unhealthy factors.

That's right! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19429709)

Humans aren't social creatures, after all. We're designed to live far apart from each other -- at least far enough apart that you can drive for an hour in any direction without seeing anybody. We also need to get away from all of the physically dangerous things provided in cities such as running water, hospitals, and electricity.

Next time you want to make a completely bullshit claim, though, you might want to back it up with some proof.

So... (5, Funny)

maniac/dev/null (170211) | more than 7 years ago | (#19423533)

So, where do I mail my resume to? Its-a-me, new hire!

Re:So... (1)

Walkingshark (711886) | more than 7 years ago | (#19424745)

Wow, that one actually made me laugh out loud in the middle of class... I thought I could browse under the radar but I think now the professor is on to me...

What the hell? Why? (3, Interesting)

Spazntwich (208070) | more than 7 years ago | (#19423579)

I read the articles and didn't see a reason why they're moving their marketing department away from headquarters.

Marketing seems to me to be one of those departments that would be about as effective regardless of the geographic location of its employees. Is this just a thinly veiled way to lay off a lot of people without making themselves look like the bad guys?

Re:What the hell? Why? (1)

matt_king (19018) | more than 7 years ago | (#19423751)

its just marketing people, im sure they can find replacements pretty easily ;-)

Re:What the hell? Why? (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 7 years ago | (#19423945)

You could find replacement bodies pretty easily, but you sure can't find properly knowledgable marketing people that easily. A lot of marketing people can get pretty focussed on one specialty area; selling natural gas is quite a bit different from selling video games. Not everyone can adapt as quickly as the companies need.

Re:What the hell? Why? (1)

cez (539085) | more than 7 years ago | (#19426373)

Agreed, but one must take into consideration that NYC, and I'm sure to a lesser degree, SF, are pretty much Marketing / Advertising meccas. NYC is perhaps even the marketing / advertising capital of the world. How often were these employees flying back and forth from Redmond to SF and NY for meetings with agencies / executives of other companies I wonder? It won't be good for them to loose the experienced employees who have been with them long enough to become vested and comfortable enough to decline the chance to move in favor of a severence package, but there will be no shortage of highly qualified employees in either city...

Re:What the hell? Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19423823)

Well, given the failure of their latest console and handheld, it's not surprising that they'd want to - wait, Nintendo is doing this?

Apparently the reward for succeeding in opening the Wii and DS to a larger market than the traditional console market is to be told to move or lose your job.

Re:What the hell? Why? (4, Interesting)

hibiki_r (649814) | more than 7 years ago | (#19424097)

Given how many of their bigwigs are taking their severance packages, I can only think of two plausible scenarios:

-This change was mandated by some crazy executive in Japan without caring about what the US division said. This would probably mean the move will be a complete disaster for Nintendo of America.

-Maybe our good friend Reggie, who used to be head of Marketing, thinks that their marketing and sales department is full of bozos, and did this just because he'd get high attrition rates. On the new cities, he already has new management lined up, so the old figureheads take the severance now instead of just getting fired or demoted later. If this is the case, it could be good or bad: Maybe they really were under-performing.

Your typical option number three, an executive wants to move to a nicer city, and who cares about all his underlings, seems very unlikely given how many executives are leaving.

Re:What the hell? Why? (1)

LKM (227954) | more than 7 years ago | (#19429623)

Maybe they really were under-performing.

Possible. Pre DS and Wii, Nintendo was failing in the US, and even now, Japan seems to be unhappy with how the US is developing, compared to the other two large markets...

Re:What the hell? Why? (1)

RyoShin (610051) | more than 7 years ago | (#19431655)

Reggie is taking blames and kicking assets?

Re:What the hell? Why? (1)

metroid composite (710698) | more than 7 years ago | (#19424209)

I remember hearing something about Nintendo running out of space in their Redmond headquarters. As you said marketing is a department that would be about as effective regardless of geographic location, so it probably made the most sense to move that department as opposed to another department.

This is all purely speculation, of course.

Re:What the hell? Why? (1)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 7 years ago | (#19426739)

Perhaps since the Wii was mostly a product of NOJ engineering, and since recently (post-Yamauchi, around when Arakawa was taking lead and then after he left) NOA was pulling the reigns on Nintendo but were seen to have "dropped the ball" with GC and N64, so NOJ wants to tighten their leash on NOA. Perhaps also NOJ wants NOA to be closer physically to make travel and transport between the two easier.

Just speculation based on Nintendo's past attitudes, though, but it may have changed with Yamauchi gone (but I can picture him trying to run the place from his retirement home, or grave even, so maybe he's still influencing them somehow!).

Re:What the hell? Why? (1)

toolie (22684) | more than 7 years ago | (#19427327)

Perhaps also NOJ wants NOA to be closer physically to make travel and transport between the two easier.

First, to get closer to Japan from Seattle, I think NYC would be near the bottom of the list.

Second, any flights out of SFO to get to Japan go north along the coast, over Washington (Seattle/Redmond) and then cut over through part of Alaska (depending on the Jet Stream). They are in just about the best location they can be for access to Japan.

Good for them (1)

Diss Champ (934796) | more than 7 years ago | (#19423617)

It's about time that corportations got the message that they are not the most important thing in life, that telling everyone to pull up stakes and disrupt the rest of their lives is not a nice thing to do. Maybe other corps will think twice about closing locations where they have people they don't want to lose.

This kind of thing is good for nobody (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19424531)

Unfortunately, those soon unemployed in the wake of Nintendo HQ's impending exodus are the ones paying the real price. I salute those folks who chose to leave Nintendo rather than just pick up and move.

That said, though, I seriously doubt the suits calling the shots even lose a single night's sleep over it. In an increasingly competitive corporate world, this kind of thing happens all too often.

Wii In Trouble - Major Shakeup (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19423669)

Unlike previous months, Wiis are now sitting on shelves in every major store in my area. Not only that but I hear the same exact story over and over again from people I know who own a Wii or talk about it on the net:

Zelda was cool when I bought the console
Everyone had a blast around the holidays playing minigames
Started to get bored with the system after January
Haven't touched it in months now

Nintendo needs to do something to get the hype back on track. The release list for the rest of 2007 right now is a complete disaster.

Re:Wii In Trouble - Major Shakeup (1)

pionzypher (886253) | more than 7 years ago | (#19423973)

There are Wiis on shelves in your area? Seriously? My brother still regularly calls stores in the area looking for a Wii. So far they are still completely absent from Best Buy, CC, EB, Target and Wallmart in my area.

Maybe my area is the exception rather than the norm. Either case, want to send one my way? ;)

Re:Wii In Trouble - Major Shakeup (1)

vigmeister (1112659) | more than 7 years ago | (#19424483)

Ditto for ATL(anta)... There are people who have used it for a few months and then sold it at a $50 markup on craigslist...

Re:Wii In Trouble - Major Shakeup (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19429439)

The best place to get a Wii is a Toys'R'Us. I got one in the ATL a month ago. They get shipments every Sunday morning and open at 11am. I had to stand in a line for 30-minutes, but was number 3 in line. There were 15 units that morning and all were sold by 12:30pm.

Go to the store on Saturday night, ask how many they'll have Sunday morning. If there's more than 10 units, you can probably get one without waiting in line.

Re:Wii In Trouble - Major Shakeup (1)

LokiSnake (795582) | more than 7 years ago | (#19423983)

I don't see how having highly anticipated games like Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Super Mario Galaxy would make the list "a complete disaster".

Re:Wii In Trouble - Major Shakeup (1)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 7 years ago | (#19424053)

You're aware that neither of those titles have release dates, right?

Re:Wii In Trouble - Major Shakeup (1)

MeanderingMind (884641) | more than 7 years ago | (#19424553)

No release dates, but Nintendo recently stated (explicitly) that these games would be released before 2008.

There was even a slashdot article on it.

Re:Wii In Trouble - Major Shakeup (1)

vandon (233276) | more than 7 years ago | (#19424433)

Unlike previous months, Wiis are now sitting on shelves in every major store in my area. Not only that but I hear the same exact story over and over again from people I know who own a Wii or talk about it on the net

Really? I've got one because I lucked out and found a store that had 2 left, there were 2 other people in line, and one had their credit card declined. My sister tho, is still looking for one at all the stores.
Are you sure you're thinking of the right console? The Wii is a smallish white box and a PS3 is a shiny black box. Be sure you have your colors right, because I've seen loads of PS3s sitting on the shelves, but no Wiis

Re:Wii In Trouble - Major Shakeup (1)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 7 years ago | (#19426361)

Not seen that myself in the UK. In our area when shops to get them they put big signs outside saying "Wii now in stock", they had that outside for a grad total of 3 hours before they'd had to take them down because they'd sold them all.

That doesn't seem like they are struggling to sell them to me.

Also, I just spent the whole of today playing on my wii - so I've not left it untouched for months

What, companies still do this silliness? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19424019)

Didn't Tom DeMarco & Tim Lister tell us that corporations that try to move locations always get massive turnover in stay-put employees followed by moderate turnover in disaffected transported employees with the net result being huge cost to HR and Productivity over time from when the move is announced to about a year after it's completed? This is in Peopleware; it's not like it's a new book.

Why is it that so few managers read books like Peopleware or The Mythical Man Month, anyway? I just want to be a software developer but I swear I'm having to explain to them why they're failing to do their job...

Re:What, companies still do this silliness? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19424879)

Maybe someone wanted that turnover? You can't fire a whole department, but you can move it.

From a business perspective (1)

vigmeister (1112659) | more than 7 years ago | (#19424383)

CEO: Ok... looks like we're going to have to lose a few people... PR: But... the public will hate us! COO: Let's relocate sales and marketing to Podunk, AL CEO and PR: What a glorius idea!! Seems like it is a nice way to cut your workforce in half...(or in a tenth) Except if.... One week later Stockholder: You dumb #$%@s! We had 5000 people quit and it brought our share prices down Cheers!

Re:From a business perspective (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 7 years ago | (#19430751)

Except that, in Nintendo's case, "Stockholder's" name is Yamauchi.

Veracity? (2, Interesting)

MeanderingMind (884641) | more than 7 years ago | (#19424625)

I'm wondering about how true this "move" is. You'd think with such high profile people being lost there'd be something, well, official?

I realize Game Informer is a major gaming magazine, but it still seems really odd. "Sources" or no, Harrison and Kaplan are pretty important in the hierarchy of NoA, and I find it really weird that Nintendo would silently move/remove all of these people without announcing anything at all.

Not to mention how little sense it makes to move marketing so far away from headquarters.

Re:Veracity? (1)

EggyToast (858951) | more than 7 years ago | (#19424859)

I'm curious about their actual influence. Kaplan and Harrison are high profile because they're well known by gamers, due to interviews and press releases. But do they really DO anything? I'm not saying that their jobs are unworthy or meaningless, of course, but it's not like Nintendo has really done anything interesting regarding its own marketing and advertising. A few interesting commercials every once in a while but it wouldn't surprise me if this is both a space issue and a shakeup. A lot of these people have been around since at least the GameCube launch, so maybe they're just "old."

On the other hand, it does make sense to move a marketing department to a city where a lot of activity occurs simply so you're "in on the action" without having to take the plane each time. There's a lot more exciting things happening in media in both cities compared to Redmond, which I'm sure has an influence on the move.

Re:Veracity? (1)

the_nightwulf (1003306) | more than 7 years ago | (#19429075)

I realize Game Informer is a major gaming magazine, but it still seems really odd. "Sources" or no, Harrison and Kaplan are pretty important in the hierarchy of NoA, and I find it really weird that Nintendo would silently move/remove all of these people without announcing anything at all.

Please remember that Game Informer was once a product of FuncoLand, and as such is now a product of GameStop. As an experiment, visit your local GameStop and ask the friendly clerk about Nintendo products. When you feel yourself wanting to club the clerk to death because you're sick of hearing about Sony (and Microsoft to a lesser extent), that's the end of the experiment. This is not just my luck at my local stores; I used to work for the company and am fully aware of the flow of information that comes from Grapevine to the hourly associates.

Anything GI prints regarding Nintendo should be taken with a grain of salt.

NOA can't take many more shakeups! (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#19425123)

First Howard leaves Nester, [iodized.net] and now this...

Marketing (1)

rlp (11898) | more than 7 years ago | (#19426309)

Kind of makes business sense for a marketing office. NY is a center for old media and SF for new. On the other hand, maybe Reggie is getting tired of the rain and wants to live in NY or SF.

A lot of the NA people left NY to come to Seattle (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#19426871)

Not suprising they didn't want to go back.

We get a lot of refugees from there and Cali.

wouldn't leave without somewhere to go.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19428139)

across the street to microsoft...

Who else has a headquarters near Redmond? (1)

Torodung (31985) | more than 7 years ago | (#19428397)

Maybe the NoA black ops in Redmond have finished their job and they're bugging out to a more sensible location before the "Earth shattering KABOOM?"

Or perhaps it was the other way around? Did anyone else think it odd that Nintendo had named their box the "Revolution" and MS named theirs the "360?"

Think about it.

--
Toro

A Wii is not hard to come by (1)

Holy69 (938902) | more than 7 years ago | (#19465467)

I personally find this to be quiet intreging that many of you are still having trouble finding a Wii. In my area I can stop by any local BestBuy or Walmart and get a console easily. Reasons for Nintendo to move there Marketing to New York could be a bunch of things. Easy way of removing management hands, or changing there targeted geographic model towards a different market.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...