Topic: Not a hater but... (future prediction)

[Agent-X-]

Knowing what an evidently greedy company they are

Other pessimism-preening aside, this sentiment never fails to inspire awe at how some people manage to view to world. Calling a company greedy is like calling a priest religious.

And yet Steam, Microsoft and Sony all manage to thrive and far exceed Nintendo when it comes to turning a profit precisely because they are not greedy. There is nothing naive in thinking companies should treat their customers fairly and offer them great value for money. It's what sells products.

Do you have any idea how far off you are? Valve isn't even in the same ballpark with Nintendo. Last year alone, Nintendo's revenue, which was at a low point, was $4.46 billion. In Valve's best year (2014) they were at about $1.5 billion. I know you said profit, but they're nowhere even close.

As far as Sony and Microsoft are concerned, it's still not very comparable. The Sony Playstation division was at about $6.6 billion in hardware revenue -- so, even at the best of times they're a couple billion more than Nintendo but $10 billion less than during the Wii era?? That's funny. Do we even need to talk about Xbox? Everyone knows that any profit from that division is a bonus in Microsoft's eyes.

So you're simply wrong. Maybe use a little less Amazon and a little more Google for your figures.

[Khushrenada]

I was wondering when someone was going to bring up the Steam/Valve comparison. I thought I might have to do it but that would require some Googleing and I'm too busy putting out hot takes with my gut.

[Evan_B]

This argument is deader than the Wii U!

[Soren]

But what about the Ouya?

[Agent-X-]

I think I get the sentiment with regard to these other gaming platforms, as the argument makes a lot more sense when you keep the financials out of it. As platforms go, Steam, Xbox Live, and PSN likely do see a lot more business. My Steam library has more than 500 games in it, so it would seem that the platform must be raking in the dough. This is where Nintendo as the mountain has managed to flex their traditional values and have never been anywhere close to "going third party" because... even when they lose they still profit from the first day till the last. This is the key difference for Nintendo versus those other guys.


Of course, as hungry consumers we ought to prefer those other platforms. They're a much better deal for us. As I said, I've got over 500 games to play at my fingertips with Steam, but how much money did Valve and the developers make from my purchases? On a majority of these, I would imagine less than $0.25. I would put money on the table Nintendo made more money off of my game purchases for the Wii U than my entire Steam library.


I give you: Nintendominance.

[ThePerm]

When we look at price we can see that unlike the Wii U, most likely Switch's price will go down as time goes on. Also, game prices will get cheaper.  2 years from now a $99 switch is going to be really appealing.

I think the Switch will have the exact same problem as the Wii U, in that the elaborate hardware makes it very difficult to significantly bring the price down even over many years. It's one thing for chips to get easier/cheaper to produce but when you start factoring in touch screens and what-not it becomes a lot harder.


You can take it to the bank that Nintendo's next "console" will be a glorified dongle that plays all Nintendo games and offers mass media and retails for $99.99. And guess what? It'll be another 100 million seller. Nintendo's just going to make some costly mistakes before they realise what makes money and what doesn't. But you'll have it by 2020. It's so obvious even Nintendo can't avoid it. Oh and just to repeat, the future of Nintendo portable gaming lies in an iOS/Android suite with optional bluetooth controls. Why spend hundreds of millions on R&D only to produce a product that is inferior to what is already available?

The Wii U and the Switch are different in terms of hardware. Wii U had far more custom stuff going on than the Switch does. Nintendo is able to lower the price on the DS line on a regular basis. The Wii U had a weird non standard resolution screen. The resolution was not a regular standard and was quite rare at the time. But capacitive touch 720p screens of it's size are much more common. Also, there is advantages with going the Tegra route. The chips are meant to be thrown in everything. nVidia puts these things in cars. Tegra chip manufacturing is going to keep things cheap.

Nintendo has said they were producing about 2 million consoles for launch. The pre-orders are already sold out. That means Switch has already done better than the Shield Line even before it was released.

So, in 2 years there is going to be a  portable console that is $150 to $99. It's going to be loaded with Nintendo games. It'll already be loaded with a bunch of RPG games from third parties. Virtual Console library will have tons of indy games, classic games from 8-bit to present. Any problems with storage will be solved by SDXC.

[Miyamoto]

I know you said profit...

Then why are you talking about anything else? Valve and Nintendo, although operating in a similar market are vastly different companies. One area where they do overlap is the digital distribution of games, so let's take a look at that shall we?


First of all, let's start with Steam. Valve are quite cagey on sales/revenue and being a private company, they are under no obligation to reveal exact sales figures/revenue/profit details (I would be very interested to read the article/press release that you site claiming that "in Valve's best year (2014) their revenue was 1.5 billion, please post a link), but Steam Spy puts the figure for 2015 at $3.5 billion.
http://gearnuke.com/steam-sales-2015-valve-generated-total-3-5-billion-paid-games/




Now let's take a look at Nintendo with regards to online distribution. according to this article from Nintendo Life, it states that in 2015 the Nintendo eshop generated a revenue of just over 3 Billion yen, or or $270 million
http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2016/04/nintendos_eshop_revenues_hit_a_new_high_driven_by_dlc_and_generation_i_pokemon


The article also states that 2016 was Nintendo's best year for online distribution but I don't have the Steam numbers for comparison.


So, going by 2015's numbers we have:


Steam revenue: $3.5 Billion
eShop revenue: $0.27 Billion


Also worth noticing is that some months on Steam eclipse the entire year of eShop. Also, GTA V alone accumulated half the revenue of the entire eShop.

As far as Sony and Microsoft are concerned, it's still not very comparable.

I'll just leave this little doozy here for anyone who may have forgot, courtesy of Eurogamer and many other outlets:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-04-28-sonys-psn-is-making-more-money-than-all-of-nintendo


Nintendo is a truly huge company and their revenue will reflect that, but good business management is what dictates profit... or lack thereof in Nintendo's case.

[Miyamoto]

Nintendo first party games don't go on sale that often because they don't have to.

Neither do Sony or Microsoft. They do it because they like money.

Games don't go on sale out of the goodness of developers' hearts, they go on sale because they stop selling. That's not Nintendo being greedy, that's Nintendo being in a better market position.

There are Nintendo games (Mario Kart, Splatoon, etc) that will sell incredibly well, and there are Nintendo games that will sell moderately/poorly. Nintendo could boost the sales of these games by lowering the price (like you suggest Sony and Microsoft do), but they choose not to. They would sooner sell a small number of units at a high price, than a larger number of units at a fairer one. sounds a bit like greed to me.

Other developers would keep things at full price if they still sold at that price.

Another important factor that we need to add to this is the rate of sale. Steam, PSN and Live are willing to go lower year on year to reach the widest audience possible.

You'll notice that there are lots of sales on the eShop for third party games.

]And they are noticeably less frequent and less favourable when compared with their PSN / Live equivalent.

Nintendo's prices are higher because people are willing to pay them.

Some people. Look at Nintendo's software sales over the last 10 years. They've been a lot a better. Grease the wheels, incentivise your audience with  generous offers/sales. There's a reason why the competition does it, it works!

[Miyamoto]

Miyamoto, I think you're underestimating the Switch's potential to attract attention and instantly provide fun. The ability to play two players anywhere is an incredible idea. Because...

Kids may have cell phones these days, but can you imagine a couple buddies playing MarioKart in the cafeteria? You could easily see other kids fighting over who's next because everyone wants to play. And soon enough, it'll be on everyone's wish list.

Dude, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But that price point? Those games... that aren't there? Times have changed, playing habits have changed. I just can't see this thing catching on.

[Agent-X-]

I know you said profit...

Then why are you talking about anything else? Valve and Nintendo, although operating in a similar market are vastly different companies. One area where they do overlap is the digital distribution of games, so let's take a look at that shall we?


First of all, let's start with Steam. Valve are quite cagey on sales/revenue and being a private company, they are under no obligation to reveal exact sales figures/revenue/profit details (I would be very interested to read the article/press release that you site claiming that "in Valve's best year (2014) their revenue was 1.5 billion, please post a link), but Steam Spy puts the figure for 2015 at $3.5 billion.
http://gearnuke.com/steam-sales-2015-valve-generated-total-3-5-billion-paid-games/




Now let's take a look at Nintendo with regards to online distribution. according to this article from Nintendo Life, it states that in 2015 the Nintendo eshop generated a revenue of just over 3 Billion yen, or or $270 million
http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2016/04/nintendos_eshop_revenues_hit_a_new_high_driven_by_dlc_and_generation_i_pokemon


The article also states that 2016 was Nintendo's best year for online distribution but I don't have the Steam numbers for comparison.


So, going by 2015's numbers we have:


Steam revenue: $3.5 Billion
eShop revenue: $0.27 Billion


Also worth noticing is that some months on Steam eclipse the entire year of eShop. Also, GTA V alone accumulated half the revenue of the entire eShop.

As far as Sony and Microsoft are concerned, it's still not very comparable.

I'll just leave this little doozy here for anyone who may have forgot, courtesy of Eurogamer and many other outlets:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-04-28-sonys-psn-is-making-more-money-than-all-of-nintendo


Nintendo is a truly huge company and their revenue will reflect that, but good business management is what dictates profit... or lack thereof in Nintendo's case.

Because revenue like it or not is our primary indicator of how much money is coming into a business.


As for that Valve source, I don't have it. I see that Gearnuke article at the top of my search results now, and there's also numerous other results from 2015 stating Valve earned $1.5 billion in 2014, so you ought to already have my sources.


Here's my counterpoint: Even at this latest rumored amount of $3.5 billion, that's Valve at their high point. Nintendo is at $4.46 billion at their low point. Have a look at Nintendo's revenues going back to 2008.


https://www.statista.com/statistics/216622/net-sales-of-nintendo-since-2008/


When I said they're (meaning Microsoft, Sony, and Valve) just not very comparable, it's because of where Nintendo is at in comparison with where they've been. If you were around for the Gamecube, then you know that you don't bet against Nintendo. We will see this play out again.


To conclude, you are basically only here to state unfavorable facts about Nintendo. I'm not a Nintendo fanboy, and I hate the gouging that they do. And I don't even really like their decisions. Go ahead and bet against Nintendo. We'll just sit back and watch. And we'll laugh at you if they sell more than 5 million units in the first 12 months.

[ThePerm]

n64 Release Price: $199.99 Adjusted for inflation $299.99
Gamecube Release Price $199.99 Adjusted for inflation $299.99
Wii Release Price $250.99 Adjusted for inflation 299.99
Wii U Release Price $299.99 Adjusted for Inflation $322.99
Wii U Deluxe Release Price $349.99 Adjusted for Inflation $376.83
Switch Release Price $299.99

"There are Nintendo games (Mario Kart, Splatoon, etc) that will sell incredibly well, and there are Nintendo games that will sell moderately/poorly. Nintendo could boost the sales of these games by lowering the price (like you suggest Sony and Microsoft do), but they choose not to. They would sooner sell a small number of units at a high price, than a larger number of units at a fairer one. sounds a bit like greed to me."

No, it is extremely rare for a Nintendo made game to do poorly. Nintendo rarely releases games that do under a million in sales. If they do, whatever loss they get is made up for by the sales of 10 other games. Nintendo games do not lose value. They just don't. Even old Mario Party games retain their value because the demand and supply are never at odds. If you go into any Gamestop and look at USED Nintendo game sales you'll see they are many times they are pretty much near their original MSRP. If a game doesn't sell well then they don't make more copies of the game, and it then becomes rare and its value goes up.

Playstation and Xbox games are usually following some fad. Lets compare it to the music industry. Certain acts have lasting value, and others are quickly forgotten. Also, other companies tend to oversupply. I remember when I was working at Gamestop San Andreas came out and they had 100s of copies of the game. Original retail price $49.99. Currently resalable on ebay for about $13.00. Now lets take and compare a Nintendo made(Atlus localized) game Cubivore. It's current value? $300. You just have to understand supply and demand. When the game came out Nintendo didn't even bring it to the states. They knew it would not sell here. It did but to only people like me. Nintendo is well aware how much their products are valued and sales them accordingly.  Even with in infinite digital supply they know what to charge people for their products. It's not greedy.

It's also a tool. Nintendo has a level of flexibility other companies do not have. If they wanted to they could change the price of any game and it would affect the value of their console. Nintendo didn't use this tool for Wii U. I'm pretty sure they estimated the longevity of the system. Not everything works out for Nintendo. To say Nintendo is greedy is to overlook that Nintendo has been the "Budget system" for 3 generations.

PSX price $299.99 AFI $492.76
ps2 price $299.99 AFI $418.60
ps3 price $499.99 AFI $610.71
ps4 price $399.99 AFI  $424.30  Current price $299.99

Also note, anyone worried about Launch need to remember that Spring and Summer are slow sales times. E3 is in June. I wouldn't expect most sales to pick up until Shopping season. Nintendo could very well have saved some stuff for e3. If not there is still Zelda. When Wii came out it only had two things going for it. Wii Sports and Zelda. Switch actually has more going for it than Wii did its first year.

Also, we should note. Wii U was the most Zelda deprived system. It had Hyrule Warriors, but so many people were waiting for Zelda to come out before they would buy a Wii U and it never did during its lifetime.

Also, lets put into perspective. NO MAINLINE FLAGSHIP TITLES CAME OUT FOR WII U. The closest to mainline games are Pikmin 3 and Star Fox, maybe DOnkey Kong but we know that in Nintendo's eyes those are B list titles. Nintendo has usually treated Zelda and Mario above all else. I'm not sure where Metroid fits in.

[Evan_B]

Well, I'll have more of a sensible chuckle.

And even if they don't, I'll just tell you you're wrong because it's easy to have the right opinion on the internet!

[Agent-X-]

Also, we should note. Wii U was the most Zelda deprived system. It had Hyrule Warriors, but so many people were waiting for Zelda to come out before they would buy a Wii U and it never did during its lifetime.

Also, lets put into perspective. NO MAINLINE FLAGSHIP TITLES CAME OUT FOR WII U. The closest to mainline games are Pikmin 3 and Star Fox, maybe DOnkey Kong but we know that in Nintendo's eyes those are B list titles. Nintendo has usually treated Zelda and Mario above all else. I'm not sure where Metroid fits in.

You don't consider Super Mario 3D World a mainline title?

[Evan_B]

Who is Super Mario?

[BranDonk Kong]

Pretty sure the SNES was actually the most Zelda-deprived console, with just one game. If you don't count Wind Waker HD and Twilight Princess HD, then they're tied with one...unless you then decide to count Hyrule Warriors. But, don't count Hyrule Warriors.

[Shaymin]

Hyrule Warriors was the only Zelda game on Wii U I finished, so it counts.

(Largely because I actually got seasick playing Wind Waker HD, so, uh, good job guys?)

[Khushrenada]

Them Nintendo water effects. The GameCube really knew how to handle water. Wave Race: Blue Storm, Super Mario Sunshine and Wind Waker. Even now, in HD, that water holds up!

[Soren]

Also, lets put into perspective. NO MAINLINE FLAGSHIP TITLES CAME OUT FOR WII U. The closest to mainline games are Pikmin 3 and Star Fox, maybe DOnkey Kong but we know that in Nintendo's eyes those are B list titles. Nintendo has usually treated Zelda and Mario above all else. I'm not sure where Metroid fits in.

??


Nintendo put out new 2D and 3D Mario games for Wii U, gave us an expansion DLC on the 2D Mario game, then doubled down and gave us another Mario game that allowed up to make new 2D Mario levels. What are you talking about?

[pokepal148]

Who is Super Mario?

Smash Brothers? That's a horrible way to treat your siblings.

[ThePerm]

Also, we should note. Wii U was the most Zelda deprived system. It had Hyrule Warriors, but so many people were waiting for Zelda to come out before they would buy a Wii U and it never did during its lifetime.

Also, lets put into perspective. NO MAINLINE FLAGSHIP TITLES CAME OUT FOR WII U. The closest to mainline games are Pikmin 3 and Star Fox, maybe DOnkey Kong but we know that in Nintendo's eyes those are B list titles. Nintendo has usually treated Zelda and Mario above all else. I'm not sure where Metroid fits in.

You don't consider Super Mario 3D World a mainline title?

No, Ultimately I enjoyed the game, but it was not terribly ambitious and it was a departure from existing lines. It is like a very good offshoot series though. If it wasn't such a departure in gameplay and perspective I would consider it a mainline game, but isn't it more or less a sequel to Super Mario 3d land?

Really, take a look at Super Mario Odyssey and you know what I mean. The game is big, and seems like a console effort. That is the mainline title I'm talking about. I really don't want to dismiss Super Mario 3d World because it was a really good game. However, I have to look at it like someone who hasn't played it. I held off on it for a very long time myself. I only bought it last summer. To any non Nintendo gamer it looks like Nintendo isn't putting much effort. Even if it was ACTUALLY really solid. Still, it seems like an offshoot series like NEW Super Mario Bros. Saying Mario 3d Land is a mainline title is like saying Final Fantasy Tactics is a mainline title. It's basically taking a mainline mario game and switching it to a mostly isometric 3d perspective like bomberman 64.

[Miyamoto]

Because revenue like it or not is our primary indicator of how much money is coming into a business.

...right? But so what? Revenue speaks more of the size of a company rather than how well it's run. You keep clinging to this revenue argument like it proves something. All it proves is that Nintendo is a larger company than Valve. Well who said otherwise?

As for that Valve source, I don't have it.

...OK.
 

Here's my counterpoint: Even at this latest rumored amount of $3.5 billion, that's Valve at their high point. Nintendo is at $4.46 billion at their low point. Have a look at Nintendo's revenues going back to 2008.

Again, this merely speaks of the size of the company. We will not argue that Nintendo is a bigger company than Valve. Nintendo, as a company, does so much more than Valve. IP licensing alone must be worth a fortune. Until very recently they owned a baseball team. They make toys and hardware and all sorts of things. I would be surprised if Valve's revenue was higher than Nintendo's. But when you directly compare the areas where they offer a similar service, Valve with Steam are clearly doing far better than Nintendo.

If you were around for the Gamecube, then you know that you don't bet against Nintendo. We will see this play out again.

I agree that Nintendo will eventually bounce back. I'm just pretty sure it won't be with the Switch. I think it'll come after.

To conclude, you are basically only here to state unfavorable facts about Nintendo.

Take a look at Nintendo over the last 5 or 6 years. They've gone from having a handheld console that sold 150m units to one that sold 60m units. They've gone from having a home console that sold in excess of 100m units to one that barely sold 13m units. Perhaps you and others here think this is acceptable. Maybe I hold Nintendo to a much higher standard than you and a lot of others do. If you want Nintendo to return to prosperity then you first have to identify the causes of their demise. Yes, this will involve bringing "unfavourable facts" to the forefront, but it is necessary to identify the problems before you can solve them. I believe Nintendo is repeating some of the poor practices that have caused their hardware sales to dwindle. I ultimately believe that one of the most important things a company can do is offer good value for money. I do not believe Nintendo are doing this with the Switch.

And we'll laugh at you if they sell more than 5 million units in the first 12 months.

Nintendo need to sell significantly more than 5 million in the first 12 months to be on a path to success. I know I predicted 5 mil, but if this thing sells 6 or 7 mil that's not exactly something to celebrate. Either way, I stand by what I predicted, a reasonable launch month and then it'll fall of a cliff.

[Evan_B]

Okay, but... are you a hater?

[pokepal148]

Okay, but... are you a hater?

I don't know man, I mean the title of the thread says he isn't but his custom title says he is.

[ThePerm]

Every time a new system is launched there is a sea of overwhelming negativity towards Nintendo. This happens whether it is warranted or not.  Even when sales were down in the Gamecube era Nintendo was still doing well. People keep thinking Nintendo will go the way of Sega, but Sega released failed SEGA CD, failed 32X, failed sega saturn, failed dreamcast, and spent an awful amount of money on Shenmue before Microsoft released Xbox and they needed to call it quits. Nintendo has historically done well and only had 4 bad years after it had 6 amazing years. With how the well Wii did, Nintendo could have like 5 failed consoles before they would have to call it quits.

Switch is a portable console that has Breath of the Wild and Mario Odyssey. Which, are games that look amazing. We're a long way from Mario 64 ds. Sony wishes they could have done so well with the Vita and PSP, but Nintendo has always been king of the handhelds. 

We shouldn't ask ourselves what Nintendo is doing. We should ask how is Sony and Microsoft going to compete with android and steam micro-consoles in the future? In 2 years there are going to be other companies with pretty attractive machines.

[King of Twitch]

Every time a new system is launched there is a sea of overwhelming negativity towards Nintendo. This happens whether it is warranted or not.  Even when sales were down in the Gamecube era Nintendo was still doing well. People keep thinking Nintendo will go the way of Sega, but Sega released failed SEGA CD, failed 32X, failed sega saturn, failed dreamcast, and spent an awful amount of money on Shenmue before Microsoft released Xbox and they needed to call it quits. Nintendo has historically done well and only had 4 bad years after it had 6 amazing years. With how the well Wii did, Nintendo could have like 5 failed consoles before they would have to call it quits.

Switch is a portable console that has Breath of the Wild and Mario Odyssey. Which, are games that look amazing. We're a long way from Mario 64 ds. Sony wishes they could have done so well with the Vita and PSP, but Nintendo has always been king of the handhelds. 

We shouldn't ask ourselves what Nintendo is doing. We should ask how is Sony and Microsoft going to compete with android and steam micro-consoles in the future? In 2 years there are going to be other companies with pretty attractive machines.

Look at the time's it's almost 3 o'clock.