Topic: How to solve Nintendos 3rd party problem...

[Agent-X-]

I think a compelling case can be made for Nintendo to unify their resources and thereby unify their platforms. I believe we are seeing the results of platform cannibalization in the form of the Nintendo 3DS's more complex software requiring Nintendo's full focus. The Wii U game drought is in direct correlation to this, is it not? And didn't Nintendo already combine their handheld and console divisions?


Nintendo is different enough as a hardware competitor that consumers likely wouldn't blink twice if Nintendo's next great handheld included HDMI out and wireless gaming ports. Imagine the third party support now available for play on your TV?


I don't know the best way to unify the platforms, but I think Nintendo could do really well with this model.  Nintendo has really stunk it up this year because they had to focus on the 3DS and just did one of the ugliest Nintendo console launches to date. If they don't make some internal changes they are going to suck on both fronts when the 4DS (or whatever) is on par with the 360 and the home console gaming market is likewise similarly more complicated.


I don't see any way around the obvious: handheld games are catching up in complexity.

[Spak-Spang]

I think Nintendo does need to change how it does business and how it looks at this industry.  I agree with much of what you say Adrock.  I also agree that a handheld/console system would have to have some compromises from both sides.  At the same time, I do think that a compelling product could be made...and unifying their teams to support either one hardware device, or two hardware devices that can play the same games would be a great step in that direction.

The question is how to do it?  One simple idea would be to create a docking bay that is the system charger that is always plugged up to a TV.  This would make it a portable device that can play on your TV.  The docking device could hold additional USB ports for external hard drives and charging of extra controllers.  Even some of the controller communications hardware could be inside the dock so that you could have a more efficient portable device. 

Or you create two hardware devices that run the same operating system and have specs carefully designed so that games could be down scaled to the portable device easily.  You could still incorporate special touchscreen controls for the portable and designers could program that into the device.  This would also you to perhaps have less compromise for each individual system...but software optimization would be harder.  I think this would be the easiest form to do, but would also be the least beneficial in a sense. 

I think the first option is the better option.  Yes you would have to compromise power for a more efficient system...but that could be overcome by the benefits of buying a game and it being easily playable at home or on the go.  It would free up and allow Nintendo to create more games quicker.  It would provide an easy environment to combine the eshops and allow all purchases to be played on a Nintendo device.  Heck maybe have a plan like Apple and let purchases be playable on 2 to 3 devices if they are downloaded.  Perhaps the biggest problem with this is Nintendo would have to go back to either SD card disks for the home console...or whatever the 3DS is using because CD/DVD games would not be a good idea for the console...or downloaded games.  But then again...the industry is already moving that direction anyway. 

Another interesting thought is the idea of Nintendo getting multiple purchases out of a family like they do with the handhelds.  And the potential to bring all the fun and strange portable bonuses to the console....like street passes and such. 

3rd parties have never had a hard time supporting Nintendo's portable devices.  They know that is where the money is...and they don't care that the hardware is underpowered.  If Nintendo uses that knowledge to its advantage they could create an interesting system that can attract the 3rd parties back...and potentially revolutionize the console market again by creating a single device that takes care of all your gaming needs.

[Wah]

Nintedno should focus on their handhelds as NO_ONE can bet them at that!

[Agent-X-]

Nintedno should focus on their handhelds as NO_ONE can bet them at that!

For now.


What will the mobile/handheld gaming landscape look like in 4 years? Who can say confidently that the market for Nintendo handhelds won't shrink by 40%? Let me rephrase the question: how many current 3DS owners absolutely must have a new Pokemon game on a new handheld gaming system in 4 years?


I think it's possible that the market for dedicated handheld gaming devices could shrink significantly with the advancement of smart phones and tablets. When I put myself in the position of being a parent, and I consider what my hypothetical child's needs are I find that an Android tablet or phone plus a handheld gaming system seems redundant for anyone except the most ardent Nintendo or Pokemon fan.

Because I "get it" as a Nintendo gamer, I probably wouldn't present such an either/or choice, but if I didn't understand I would be telling the kids to knock it off and enjoy the tablet I bought them.

[toddra]

The world isn't changing so much as the world has changed. Nintendo is struggling to catch on to that fact and they continue to play catch up.

I think they will stay strong in the mobile market but they will do so by changing their hardware model, either like as suggested building some sort of hybrid or possibly making their own tablet app ecosystem that has more than just games and also has quality buttons and controllers, you know like an iPad mini meets the 2DS or something.

[Agent-X-]

The world isn't changing so much as the world has changed. Nintendo is struggling to catch on to that fact and they continue to play catch up.

In some aspects, I think I agree with you. Nintendo has been slow to embrace online gaming and integrated connectivity. However, Nintendo certainly recognized the mobile platform before anyone else did. I can recall them talking about new market competition from Apple going back to before the DS launch. I think they understood the iPhone and iPod Touch potential before smart phones even caught on... before Angry Birds and Temple Run. They met it with two screens and Touch Generation. And now 3D.


The problem is that mobile graphics technology is advancing at a pace that will approach but not quite meet desktop/console technology. How will Nintendo adapt to this environment? They're not just battling Sony, but Microsoft, Apple, and Google for mobile/portable gaming. The latter 3 don't even have to make a focused effort to be serious competition in that market space. It's not doom or gloom for Nintendo as much as it should be a sign that their business is going to have to change and adapt. There are still a lot of people who want Nintendo games.


My big concern (which should be Nintendo's big concern) is that they are going to come up short on their ability to deliver the content. Already, I'm looking across their portfolio and feeling like I invested in the wrong device because the 3DS is getting the content I wanted for the Wii U.

[Oblivion]

LOL, what are you saying? They understood the mobile platform because it was already big before they even "understood" it. The only reason they are big in the handheld market isn't because they're good at it. It's because they've been the only kid on the block for over 20 years.

[ThePerm]

the controls don't suck on their handhelds...like most other mobile devices.

[smallsharkbigbite]

I get in theory why a hybrid console/handheld would be nice. All games one system, system easy to transport, possibly more games, cost of just one system. I just think when you look at the economics of it, it falls apart.

1.  Would you get more games?  Not if you own both systems today. Maybe if you own only 1, but it's certainly not 2x without a massive increase in staffing by Nintendo. From looking at development costs, it is 3-4 times cheaper to make a 3ds game. A hybrid game would have to be console 1080p level to compete in that arena. This means scratch 3-4 3ds games and add 1 hybrid game. In reality, it's worse than that because your game now has to sell 3-4 times more units to make a profit which means fewer games greenlighted. Remember Fire Emblem Wii U?

2.  Excluding the Wii where everyone and their brother had one, typically the casual market was driven by the social gamer.  And this determined the winner of the generation. You know the people who play Madden with their friends and buy every years edition at launch, the people who only play COD online, the people who bought an expensive tv and want the best hd system to show to their friends how awesome their tv is. These people bring 2 problems. 1 they want mainstream games that just aren't on Nintendo consoles now. Same problem, different system. 2 they want a very powerful system because they want to be awed with their friends by the graphics. In short, you need to beat your competition in tech/features. The PS4 is 400, probably cost 500 to make. Assuming you could shrink the tech for nothing you still cost more than your competitor, who subsidizes hardware, and you haven't given the console market any reason to pick you over them.

3.  The handheld market. I'm 32, and love my 3ds. But lets get real here. The 3ds dominates the kid market which is a big reason why Nintendo prints money on the handheld side. That's why I don't think the 2ds is a big deal, because they already own that market. A coworker of mine has 4 daughters and they each have a Nintendo system. I thought this was strange at first, but he said when they travel in a car it is a cost effective way to keep them happy. Makes sense, when my kids are older they'll each have a Nintendo handheld unless they don't want one or Nintendo abandons the market. Thats what a hybrid would do. This market is really price sensitive. The Vita is powerful, but it can't do 1080p and it can't do what I want a console. The price of a hybrid is certainly too high to be viable alternative. And you that have kids know that you can't just buy one kid one. This is something that is an all or nothing proposition. Then there's 30 dollar games to 60 handheld games. At this point you're telling parents it's cheaper to just buy an ipad for each kid .

So in summary, I own both a Wii U and a 3ds and they do different things for me. I can't imagine a hybrid doing both things equally well. You're probably paying for both consoles as the cost to shrink Wii U power to 3ds size is probably at least the cost of a 3ds. I'll probably get fewer games than I do now as some of the awesome 3ds games take longer to make console games and others get whacked. I'll pay more for games as my 3ds games are now Wii U priced. I don't want this hybrid system, how is it going to make the market want it?

[ThePerm]

At the moment Nintendo supports 2 systems. If they only supported one then their output would not be divided between systems and we would probably have better overall games.  If you think about it there are always 2 versions of each game coming out.  They can always decide if they want the game to be more mobile designed or more home designed, but it wouldnt matter because you wouldn't have to buy 2 systems.

if you think about Vita. There is no reason it shouldn't be successful. This is one of the rare cases where something isn't successful because its not made by Nintendo. Hardware wise in about 4 years we could have something better than vita with 2 screens.

of course upon lookup for pictures of vita i found this news article

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2424181,00.asp

[Oblivion]

It isn't successful because of the supposed "lack of games" not because it isn't Nintendo. When the 3DS launched and it didn't have games, the Vita was looking to be the winner.


The Vita is superior in hardware and build quality. I just wish it would get a few more games. I already have a crap ton of PS+ and indie games that can be played on both my Vita and PS3, I just need a few more to round it off.

[NWR_insanolord]

Nintendo consolidating their console and handheld lines is something that gets talked about all the time, often with the assumption that it's an inevitability. The problem, though, is that it would result in Nintendo making less money and it wouldn't solve their biggest problem, the one that this thread is named after.

As bad off as the Wii U is right now, I guarantee you that it will be at least decently profitable over the course of its life, and in the meantime the 3DS is bringing in money hand over fist. Nintendo makes more money if they sell you two game systems than if they sell you one.

In addition to that, I don't see how this would help them in regard to third party support. Being a handheld might help with Japanese publishers, but as far as Western publishers go the 3DS is in even worse shape than the Wii U. You could argue for market share helping them, but the DS and Wii were far and away the biggest market shares last generation and had mediocre to awful support from Western publishers.

If it is possible for Nintendo to right the ship in regard to third parties, it can almost certainly be done with separate product lines. Nintendo will continue selling (at least) two different game systems until it becomes unprofitable for them, which I can't see happening anytime soon.

[Mop it up]

As bad off as the Wii U is right now, I guarantee you that it will be at least decently profitable over the course of its life, and in the meantime the 3DS is bringing in money hand over fist. Nintendo makes more money if they sell you two game systems than if they sell you one.

But they also make more money if they sell more copies of games, which they would if they released everything on one system instead of two. It is a tradeoff though and Nintendo would need to take careful consideration before going that route, but I think, considering Nintendo make a lot more money on software than hardware, that selling more games would make up for selling less systems.

I agree it wouldn't help third-party support of course, but it wouldn't hurt either, so it'd still be ideal for Nintendo and consumers alike.

[NWR_insanolord]

Not necessarily. They'd have fewer opportunities to milk their most lucrative franchises that way. If they stuck to the policy of one Mario Kart or New Super Mario Bros. per system they'd be missing out on potentially millions of sales. Unless they wanted to run their big name stuff into the ground even more, they'd have to spread out and make more obscure titles, which would be great for people like us because we'd likely get a new Star Fox and F-Zero, but would result in lower sales.

[Agent-X-]

LOL, what are you saying? They understood the mobile platform because it was already big before they even "understood" it. The only reason they are big in the handheld market isn't because they're good at it. It's because they've been the only kid on the block for over 20 years.

Were you replying to my claim that Nintendo understood the mobile platform before anyone else did? Let's clear up our terminology so there isn't miscommunication. I differentiate between mobile platforms (iOS, Android, Windows) and portable gaming platforms (3DS, PS Vita). When I said Nintendo understood mobile before anyone else did, I'm just saying that Nintendo was openly discussing a change in the industry that was coming. It didn't arrive for over two years, but they were proactive at addressing it. This isn't speculative. Some in the media were speculating that Apple was even toying with the idea of a game console offering, which seems just outrageous in hindsight. Look what arrived in 2007, though, and tell me that didn't become a viable portable gaming market.


Think about it. The DS was announced and released in 2004. There was a major marketing revolution within Nintendo at the time. Third Pillar? Blue Ocean strategy? Heavy focus on the general public? Sure, Nintendo wasn't faring well with the hardcore market, but they definitely dismissed the PSP in their conference and talked about external competition on the horizon.

[Agent-X-]

I get in theory why a hybrid console/handheld would be nice. All games one system, system easy to transport, possibly more games, cost of just one system. I just think when you look at the economics of it, it falls apart.

1.  Would you get more games?  Not if you own both systems today. Maybe if you own only 1, but it's certainly not 2x without a massive increase in staffing by Nintendo. From looking at development costs, it is 3-4 times cheaper to make a 3ds game. A hybrid game would have to be console 1080p level to compete in that arena. This means scratch 3-4 3ds games and add 1 hybrid game. In reality, it's worse than that because your game now has to sell 3-4 times more units to make a profit which means fewer games greenlighted. Remember Fire Emblem Wii U?

2.  Excluding the Wii where everyone and their brother had one, typically the casual market was driven by the social gamer.  And this determined the winner of the generation. You know the people who play Madden with their friends and buy every years edition at launch, the people who only play COD online, the people who bought an expensive tv and want the best hd system to show to their friends how awesome their tv is. These people bring 2 problems. 1 they want mainstream games that just aren't on Nintendo consoles now. Same problem, different system. 2 they want a very powerful system because they want to be awed with their friends by the graphics. In short, you need to beat your competition in tech/features. The PS4 is 400, probably cost 500 to make. Assuming you could shrink the tech for nothing you still cost more than your competitor, who subsidizes hardware, and you haven't given the console market any reason to pick you over them.

3.  The handheld market. I'm 32, and love my 3ds. But lets get real here. The 3ds dominates the kid market which is a big reason why Nintendo prints money on the handheld side. That's why I don't think the 2ds is a big deal, because they already own that market. A coworker of mine has 4 daughters and they each have a Nintendo system. I thought this was strange at first, but he said when they travel in a car it is a cost effective way to keep them happy. Makes sense, when my kids are older they'll each have a Nintendo handheld unless they don't want one or Nintendo abandons the market. Thats what a hybrid would do. This market is really price sensitive. The Vita is powerful, but it can't do 1080p and it can't do what I want a console. The price of a hybrid is certainly too high to be viable alternative. And you that have kids know that you can't just buy one kid one. This is something that is an all or nothing proposition. Then there's 30 dollar games to 60 handheld games. At this point you're telling parents it's cheaper to just buy an ipad for each kid .

So in summary, I own both a Wii U and a 3ds and they do different things for me. I can't imagine a hybrid doing both things equally well. You're probably paying for both consoles as the cost to shrink Wii U power to 3ds size is probably at least the cost of a 3ds. I'll probably get fewer games than I do now as some of the awesome 3ds games take longer to make console games and others get whacked. I'll pay more for games as my 3ds games are now Wii U priced. I don't want this hybrid system, how is it going to make the market want it?

You've changed my mind on this topic. Consolidating their platforms would only work if they just abandoned the home console experience and tacked it on to their handheld in some fashion similar to Vita TV. It just doesn't seem like a strategy that will work especially when you consider what the majority of home console gamers want versus what really drives the handheld market. I can see that now as having been the biggest barrier to Sony's handhelds (too costly $$$) early on and just not being a viable competitor to families who rely on having these devices in multiples to satisfy their kids. I simply hadn't really thought about it that way because I was looking at the advancement of tablets as something of a concern because so many 20-somethings have latched onto these devices, and these are the mothers of tomorrow's gamers. It's not likely to be the case that parents will supply tablets for every kid, though, and tablets aren't particularly durable or reliable for more than a couple of years. I can now why Nintendo will continue to hold the handheld market.

[Mop it up]

They'd have fewer opportunities to milk their most lucrative franchises that way. If they stuck to the policy of one Mario Kart or New Super Mario Bros. per system they'd be missing out on potentially millions of sales.

Or it could work the opposite way and those games would sell double the numbers they do now.

I can see it going either way but I think it'd be worth a try.

[Stogi]

I'm with Mop it up. A consolidated market means more exposure. Plus Nintendo, if they didn't run their franchises into the ground, would venture as you mentioned. They would venture and possibly find a foothold in a new iconic franchise. Nintendo's R&D shouldn't be limited to hardware after all.

They could also go the route of selling both a console and handheld that play the same games similar to the PS3 and Vita except with 100% parity. That way even if third parties aren't focused on the console market, consumers still have access to their games.

[Ian Sane]

I see the console/handheld as a inevitable for dedicated videogame systems PERIOD.  Console games are already ridiculously expensive to create and there is a limit on how far you can push videogame hardware before it is no longer practical to make use of the improving tech.  For example visually you could never exceed photo realism so there's an obvious cap there but really the cap is even sooner because the manpower involved in creating such a game is too great to be affordable.  The only way to exceed that cap is if there is a way to cut down on manpower.

We'll hit that cap and we'll hit it soon and then a console will have potentially decades of lifespan before some technological breakthrough improves the manpower needed.  During this time the hardware will become cheap enough to make portable so why not just make the handhelds use the same hardware and run the same games?  We're practically there NOW.  Dragon's Crown is on the PS3 and PS Vita and it seems completely arbitrary that if I want to play the game both at home and on the go I need to buy two versions.

This IS going to happen and someone is going to lead the way and it's up to Nintendo if they're the first.  I don't have any optimism about the Wii U.  I figure it will fail, not coast for five years while Nintendo props it up with the 3DS, but outright fail.  Nintendo is incapable of providing it with software in a timely manner.  So how does going to a handheld/console hybrid help third party support?  I think it's more just how Nintendo survives.  Being handheld-only seems like a real possibility for them and they might as well lead the way on the hybrid approach.  I think once the hybrid model takes off dedicated systems that are only one or the other will fall by the wayside.

[Spak-Spang]

It is a give and take.  And Nintendo would have to analysis its situation carefully. 

The problem isn't as simple as we are more successful in the handheld so lets combine the handheld and console into one and make a system that is more profitable.

The thing is looking at restructuring everything about Nintendo.  Putting teams to make bigger games and smaller games for a single system.  Not cannibalizing its sales of hardware and games by having two systems.  If I buy New Super Mario Wii U...I might not buy the 3DS version...because it is too much Mario. 

[smallsharkbigbite]

At the moment Nintendo supports 2 systems. If they only supported one then their output would not be divided between systems and we would probably have better overall games.  If you think about it there are always 2 versions of each game coming out.  They can always decide if they want the game to be more mobile designed or more home designed, but it wouldnt matter because you wouldn't have to buy 2 systems.

All the big companies support every platform available.  A team puts a game together and if the team isn't given enough resources or personnel then the game will suffer.  But make no mistake, software is highly profitable for Nintendo and they could have increased their studios at any point in the last 15 years when people have been harping on them on output.  They choose to develop highly profitable games and tend to skip releasing filler or unknown titles.  They do this partially because they are a child of the console demise of the 80's and they believe that "too many" releases were part of the reason of the collapse. 


I also think the premium of console in a handheld will result in you buying 2 consoles price wise.  By focusing on a handheld title versus a home designed game you are segregated your market into the two groups that you were trying to consolidate.


Ian, I don't know if we are going that direction.  Maybe, but I don't think we are close.  The Vita is simply not powerful enough to be a home console despite being a powerful handheld and that costs $250 which I think is above where a successful handheld can be.  I just read an article that CPU speeds will not be able to keep with Moore's law anymore because the cost to keep shrinking processors will far outweigh the gains.  Notwithstanding powerful GPUs have never been very small and would be an extreme limiting factor in powering a handheld.  Again, I don't know where the future goes, but I think a handheld will at least for the next 10 years disappoint if it's trying to replace one of the monstrous PS4/Xbox ONE boxes. 


I love Nintendo's approach to handheld.  While there is a Mario Kart for Wii/3DS they are completely different and I think both versions justify existence.  Other than older home console 3DS ports, I can't really think of a Nintendo game which is the essentially the same thing as the home console edition making the version redundant if you own both consoles.  SSB might be which is upcoming for both versions but all the Mario's have been very different. 


There will never be a console that lasts decades.  It doesn't fit the product life cycle.  Growth-Maturity-Decline.  Nobody would support a system in it's decline.  There's no money to be made on a product that they sell few systems of, and consumer interest generally drops after 3,000 shooters have been released for a system making it hard for even good games to sell much.  They will always find some reason to release a new console.  4K tv support is upcoming for sure.  3D may become standard if they can convince masses it's worth it (3D tech to play multiplayer fullscreen on the same TV?).  Integration with future TV features will be key.  Maybe integration with tablets or other devices.  Who knows, but consoles still have benefit from becoming stronger (even if it's marginal) and you're not going to be able to make a handheld PS4 in 5 years at a reasonable price.  That doesn't mean that people won't try but consoles are already under attack with all the android boxes and that doesn't seem to hurt them yet. 

[Spak-Spang]

Sorry, I am at work and didn't get to finish my post. 

As I was going to continue everything is give and take...and a company can only do so much with their resources.  Nintendo themselves have been talking about the need for smaller developed budget titles along with the big AAA titles.  However, I believe any company trying to support 2 systems struggles to truly support both properly.  Sony is suffering to support the PSP Vita properly, even with the recent push for PSP Vita TV.  The Vita hasn't gotten the love the PS3 received from Sony. 

I think there is something said for consolidating by either having two devices that have the same operating systems and ask developers to program one game for both units...have two clearly defined specs for both.  Or better yet, just have one system that is both portable and a console with one single set of specs.  Sure there will be compromises with design and power. 

But I think Nintendo could work out a balance...and the benefit gained by software support for just one system is huge.  Let's break it down.  How many games does Nintendo release for 3DS a year?  4-6 games?  How about Wii U?  4-6 games?  This is Nintendo's current output.  We can't just say Nintendo could buy or create more studios and release more games...because resources are limited.  Time, money, man-power are all costly resources, and Nintendo can't just throw more money out there.  Now, what if all those resources went to one single console.  Potentially Nintendo could release 12 games a year at current resource levels.

How could Nintendo use those 12 games releases a year?  They can't release 12 huge Mario, Zelda, or Pokemon level games a year.  But realistically they could shoot for 4-5 of the games to be the big epic games...with the other games being smaller budget titles to fill in the different genres, to give development teams abilities to create pet projects, artistic projects, innovative or risky projects. 

From a hardware point of view, Nintendo potentially has the ability to sell MORE systems not less.  If Nintendo went for a single system that was a portable and console...families would still potentially buy two systems for their kids on the go.  They could potentially buy one for each TV...knowing that their kids or themselves could take it on a car trip.  Families would be supportive of buying games for a single system and use it on the go or at home.  It provides additional value. 

Finally, it can create unity in infrastructure.  Virtual Console works for both console and handheld...and are not separated. 

I can only see benefit from this model for Nintendo's future and it would definitely differentiate itself from the competitors...but will it bring 3rd party support to Nintendo?

My question is simple...is 3DS 3rd party support lacking?  Did the DS have a lack of 3rd party support?  NO.  Because as of now, Nintendo's portable devices are still profitable for the developers to support.  This would not change with a change in infrastructure...and it could mean, 3rd parties just use their teams that develop portable games anyway, to focus on Nintendo. 

[Oblivion]

What's a PSP Vita?

[smallsharkbigbite]

I think there is something said for consolidating by either having two devices that have the same operating systems and ask developers to program one game for both units...have two clearly defined specs for both.  Or better yet, just have one system that is both portable and a console with one single set of specs.  Sure there will be compromises with design and power. 

But... people hate compromise.  Plenty of people that have smart phones, but there is still large demands for tablets that do essentially the same thing as a smart phone.  Why?  Because people hate small screens for touch screen apps.  The details always matter and one perceived inequity is generally enough to make a market hate a product.  If people could reasonable fit a 10" cell phone in their pockets tablets would be gone.  Who knows with OLED technology where the screen can fold, maybe we'll make it there and tablets will go extinct.  Devices that do alot things but nothing really well tend to fail in the market.  Remember the cell phone/handheld game console?  Good idea in theory, despite a few attempts has never amounted to much.  I'm actually having a hard time thinking of something that attempted to do a lot, wasn't really great at anything, yet became even a moderate success. 

The least powerful home HD console is the 360.  If you can't have at least that much power in a handheld it's not worth even trying a console/handheld hybrid.  That's going to cost a bunch probably $600+ to make a handheld that powerful.  If you cost that much you'll lose the handheld market.  Heck, if you cost half that you'll lose the handheld market.  Even then I don't see the home console market getting that excited over 10 year old tech and finding a reason to purchase the console especially with cheaper; more powerful alternatives available. 

But I think Nintendo could work out a balance...and the benefit gained by software support for just one system is huge.  Let's break it down.  How many games does Nintendo release for 3DS a year?  4-6 games?  How about Wii U?  4-6 games?  This is Nintendo's current output.  We can't just say Nintendo could buy or create more studios and release more games...because resources are limited.  Time, money, man-power are all costly resources, and Nintendo can't just throw more money out there.  Now, what if all those resources went to one single console.  Potentially Nintendo could release 12 games a year at current resource levels.

Maybe you are only interested in 4-6 Nintendo games a year, but I think through  1st/2nd parties you drastically underestimate how many games Nintendo comes out with.  This has been a tough year for the Wii U with Nintendo admitting they under-estimated HD development and delaying many games.  But they've still come out with Pikmin 3, NSLU, Game and Wario, DKC, Mario Land, Zelda WW, Wii Fit U, Yoshi Yarn, and Wii U party and that excludes games they've worked directly with third parties such SMT x FE, Mario and Sonic, Sonic Lost World, Bayonetta 2, etc.  I've missed some I'm sure but Nintendo has been the biggest software company in recent years and is usually at the top with EA/Activision with largest developer market share.  They release alot of games, people are generally hard on them because they miss some big third party games and want Nintendo to release even more games to make those losses seem insignificant.

Also, I never said you can snap your fingers and get a game created.  Nintendo has never been cash strapped and based on some of the indie games I've played recently, there are alot of talented developers out there that Nintendo could acquire.  Yes, it takes time and investment, but Nintendo has the management know how and the available resources to grow.  The only explanation for why they haven't is they don't see that growing and developing more software is a financially viable and they choose not to expand. 

How could Nintendo use those 12 games releases a year?  They can't release 12 huge Mario, Zelda, or Pokemon level games a year.  But realistically they could shoot for 4-5 of the games to be the big epic games...with the other games being smaller budget titles to fill in the different genres, to give development teams abilities to create pet projects, artistic projects, innovative or risky projects. 

Nintendo follows the Apple model.  They release highly profitable games and don't care too much for games that break even or make a small profit.  They occasionally throw a smaller project a bone(mainly because they think it could be a success), but their intent is never to get in a habit of releasing indie type games for the market so the market can have more games.  And even well liked games such as Eternal Darkness will never get sequels because they simply don't sell enough copies. 

From a hardware point of view, Nintendo potentially has the ability to sell MORE systems not less.  If Nintendo went for a single system that was a portable and console...families would still potentially buy two systems for their kids on the go.  They could potentially buy one for each TV...knowing that their kids or themselves could take it on a car trip.  Families would be supportive of buying games for a single system and use it on the go or at home.  It provides additional value. 

The 3DS is a fantastic system at a good value for families now.  I don't see how you reach any more people than the 3DS is reaching now except for releasing more games and eventually lowering the price.  Depending on the cost of this hybrid you will definitely not reach the full 3DS market.  Some people I'm sure have multiple PS3s but expecting to buy a several hundred dollar system for each kid seems to be a stretch to me. 

Finally, it can create unity in infrastructure.  Virtual Console works for both console and handheld...and are not separated. 

Sony does this now, Nintendo doesn't need a single system to do this.  I think too often we put the cart before the horse thinking Nintendo needs to consolidate to do certain things and they don't.  This could be done now, but won't because Nintendo knows they can sell the same game twice to somebody who really likes it and that is the model they are going with. 

Just like the comment of Nintendo restructuring and working with smaller teams on projects.  Great, why can't they do this now?  There was a good discussion on here one time about something just being wrong with companies that need games to sell millions of units to recover their investment and needed to re-org.  Nintendo suffers from this too.  The whole FE needs to sell 750,000 units topic was depressing.  Nintendo should be able to come to the market with good games that don't need to sell that much to make money.  But that re-org doesn't need to coincide with a hybrid model it can happen now (but probably won't). 

My question is simple...is 3DS 3rd party support lacking?  Did the DS have a lack of 3rd party support?  NO.  Because as of now, Nintendo's portable devices are still profitable for the developers to support.  This would not change with a change in infrastructure...and it could mean, 3rd parties just use their teams that develop portable games anyway, to focus on Nintendo.

Yes and no.  Clearly the 3DS does not have the 3rd party support of say a PS3/Xbox 360.  3rd parties still prefer to support tablets over the 3DS.  3DS 3rd party support is > Vita 3rd party support but saying it is great is a stretch.  3rd parties could support the Wii U now but they don't.  Not sure why a unified platform will solve anything on this front.

I just don't see how a unified platform benefits Nintendo financially.  I think people that prefer console gaming over handheld gaming see this as the solution to fix Nintendo's home console problem.  But Nintendo doesn't have a problem at all on the handheld front.  And they potentially destroy that market by making a high powered handheld that costs more than the Vita.  I don't know why they'd take that risk.  As a gamer that buys most consoles, I don't know what releasing another under-powered home console would accomplish in that market and that would have to be the compromise they make.  So I guess I still don't get it.  Yes, if processing power continues to increase it may be inevitable, but we are along way from even 360 power in a handheld.  Killing off the handheld cash cow that Nintendo has could actually lead to the demise of Nintendo I think.  That's a big bet to take that a hybrid could be as financially successful.

[Agent-X-]

I was getting behind the idea of unifying the platforms, but smallsharkbigbite has given ample reasoning as to why this would likely ruin Nintendo. I believe the argument is settled. Price and compromised experience are the two factors likely to prevent this type of thing over the next 10 years.


I've written and erased several paragraphs to basically arrive at this conclusion. The only way to solve the 3rd party problem is for the industry to collapse. Nintendo would survive it. Sony and MS would bail out. It would likely take a full successful generation for either to return.


I don't present this as a desired scenario but as an honest reflection on the situation. Nintendo is not in the business of providing the experience that enthusiast/social gamers are looking for. Nintendo makes toys. Nintendo is not going to create the game experiences that these consumers are looking for, and since these consumers exist on the other platforms there is little reason for these experiences to come to Nintendo's platform.


The answer for now is for the system to sell. Sell, and we'll see more third party games, but it will never match the experiences available on the other systems. It's pretty cut and dry.