Topic: Fanboyism, or Cutting off Your Nose to Spite Your Face

[Dasmos]

lol Silks.

I don't understand how people feel that Sony and Microsoft are somehow less invested in the video game arena than Nintendo.

Nintendo is 100% invested in videogames, Microsoft and Sony have other divisions outside their gaming ones. That automatically makes them less invested. They are not 100% invested in gaming. Therefore if I have done my calculations right, Microsoft and Sony are less invested in gaming.

[D_Average]

Then why the hell does a game like Wario Land Shake exist?  An old-school 2D platformer with hand-drawn characters (yes, a game with sprites costs much more than it does to just use 3D models) and outsourced anime cutscenes? (done by a well-known and renowned animation studio: Production I.G.)

If you think Nintendo is breaking the bank to develop Wario Land Shake It, you're crazy.  Nothing against that game, but I'm sure it was done by a pretty small team.  It's not the amount of work involved, it's the number of resources involved that drive development prices up.
[/quote]

Exactly.

[KDR_11k]

Besides, I'd argue that the industry needs those blockbuster "event" games to draw attention to itself.

Whose attention? I sure don't see the MSM reporting on the new GoW, MGS, etc. I do see them report about low budget games like Wii Sports or Fit. You mean the gaming press? Why do you need their attention, there's nothing else they can cover anyway.

[Flames_of_chaos]

I think Nintendo's whole "big-budget games are killing the industry" mantra is more a convenient way to justify their business strategy than anything else.  As a company, they want to make as much profit as possible, so it serves their business interests to promote a philosophy that has them spending as little money as possible to develop a game.  They aren't battling for technological superiority of your living room like Microsoft and Sony, so it makes sense that they're espousing the virtues of cheap development on older hardware.  But Mother Theresa they ain't.

If a game costs more money to make then the barrier of entry will be big. Indy games this generation are primarily stuck making downloadable games, sure there is nothing wrong with that but you have to bet that even small developers want to make a huge retail release even if it's not AAA. In a big way big budget IS killing the industry. While there are a lot of hardcore gamers with all 5 platforms, it's not cheap to get that setup and then factor in games. The PS3 and 360 got slaughtered by the amount of exclusives each console has because with the production costs that high it won't be feasible making an exclusive 99% of the time.

The PS3 is a true testament to how much an expensive product is a bad idea. According to NPD 19% of PS2 owners migrated to the Wii, 18% of PS2 owners migrated to the 360 and finally 10% of PS2 owners migrated to the PS3, the rest were divided on 2 or 3 multiconsole owners.. Just look at how much potential market share Sony lost to it's competition right there.

[Jonnyboy117]

Nintendo is the last console manufacturer that primarily makes money by selling video games.

At this point, I think Nintendo might be making more money off the systems than the games.

[DAaaMan64]

Nintendo is the last console manufacturer that primarily makes money by selling video games.

At this point, I think Nintendo might be making more money off the systems than the games.

I'm not so sure, is the appeal the Wii? Or the WiiSports pack-in?

Also if blue ocean games are getting simpler, wouldn't that widen the profit margin?

[GoldenPhoenix]

I don't understand how people feel that Sony and Microsoft are somehow less invested in the video game arena than Nintendo.  Yes, if the Sony and Microsoft gaming divisions ceased to exist, both of those companies would continue to operate.  But they have BILLIONS tied up in their game divisions, and are fighting tooth and nail to "win".  Sony's been in the space for 13 years, and Microsoft has been in it for what, 7 already?  That's not a short-term investment.  That's not a dalliance, it's not a fling with video gaming.  Playstation and Xbox are two of the most important brands in both of those companies' portfolios.  To say that they're somehow less invested in gaming based on the criteria that their competitor only does gaming is B.S. to me.

Microsoft is so non-invested and ready to turn their back on the industry, that they only stuck around 7 years before they even turned a profit.
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/10/25/microsoft-entertainment-division-turns-profit-thanks-halo/

And Sony was ready to totally bail on the PS3 too and dump their Games division, despite 13 years in the industry and massive success...oh wait, they just turned a profit too.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/31/sonys-game-division-turns-a-profit/

This claim that Sony and Microsoft are somehow going to pack up and go home at the first sign of trouble is a MYTH.  They're both here for the duration, and they're both making money so they aren't going to leave.

Then why the hell does a game like Wario Land Shake exist?  An old-school 2D platformer with hand-drawn characters (yes, a game with sprites costs much more than it does to just use 3D models) and outsourced anime cutscenes? (done by a well-known and renowned animation studio: Production I.G.)

If you think Nintendo is breaking the bank to develop Wario Land Shake It, you're crazy.  Nothing against that game, but I'm sure it was done by a pretty small team.  It's not the amount of work involved, it's the number of resources involved that drive development prices up.

All I have to say is you show a severe lack of understanding of what I was trying to say and business in general. Not ONCE did I say if they run into "a little trouble" they will bail, but there is a point where they WOULD cut their losses and move on far before Nintendo would because of the nature of their business. Nintendo does not have the option to quit and run if things get too tough, they have to whatever they can to continue the gaming industry money tree going which is why they have done far more innovation for the industry. In a way it is kind of like Apple, who was bleeding money and since their main business was computer electronics they had no choice but to stick it out and HAD to innovate someway or they would have disappeared. If you follow businesses, the companies that innovate the most are the ones whose life depends on survival not the big conglomerates who spread their tentacles out to capture another market. Sure they may be pushed to innovation but it is not a priority for them, their priority is sucking off a cash cow as long as they can.

There are many companies out there that have multiple divisions which have been up and running for a very long time but when the environment got too harsh, they cut off the now seemingly dead limb. Don't think MS and Sony won't do the same thing if gaming hits another depression. Sony's will fall back on their movie's division along with electronics while MS will go back to software development.

Think of it this way, MS and Sony, at least on the coorporate level see you, Lindy, as a nice fat cash cow that will help their overall business, but as soon as you become useless to them and become more cost than gain (along with every other gamer that sucks at their teat) they will, while reluctantly send you out to slaughter while they go on sucking off the teat of their other cows. Yeah there is one less cow teat to suck but they have others to rely on, and in the grand scheme of things they will do just fine. Nintendo on the other hand only has one cash cow to get nourishment on and their only choice is to get that cow nice and fat so they can get more nourishing money because they have no other choice. If that cow starts dieing they have to turn to paranormal sciences to try and revive it, because their life essence depends on it.

P.S. In regards to your Sony profits thing, was it the gaming division that rose 25% in profits or was it overall? Because that makes a huge difference. Also is this overall investment has been paying off for them, or just one single year they were profitable? What is the profit/loss ratio OVERALL for PS3? Sounds like this could potentially be yet another Sony spin of the numbers.

[KDR_11k]

On the subject of profitable game divisions...

[GoldenPhoenix]

On the subject of profitable game divisions...

Fascinating article. That really addresses what I mean by focus, if the shareholders are not happy with a division then all the dedicated people in the world within a decision will not save it for very long. Sony has been lucky in that they pretty much scored big time for two generations, but I don't see the stock holders putting up with another lackluster generation of gaming.

I don't want to use the term easy, but for big companies like Sony and MS to invest heavily in an industry that has been showing tremendous growth since the NES days is not what I'd call a mammoth risk. A risk is when you start losing money year after year with a division and continue to stick through it and innovate through very bad times. Neither MS or Sony have really experienced this because they are riding a very rich train at the moment. But wait until profit vs total expenses start kicking in and things don't look too hot, you may see these oh so dedicated companies start showing less interest. Sony has really only had 2 lackluster years so far,  just wait and see what happens when those two years become 5 years with minor return on investment (If that). Suddenly focusing more resources on TV, movies, and other electronic items won't look so bad anymore to the share holders. It is all about risk vs reward, and if you have a diverse lineup of services, you may be safer to cut your losses then to try and spend even more money into truly innovating a failing division.

Anyway this is already beginning to get boring, so let me ask an extremely simple question about this. Who has more to lose if the gaming industry struggles? MS, Sony or Nintendo? And I don't mean just monetarily but also the very foundation/core of the company? Now tell me who would have the biggest "interest" in the industry's future and health? Heck who is the LEAST likely to pull out or severely downscale in the game industry if things went south fast? Come on it isn't that hard.

[Deguello]

If you think Nintendo is breaking the bank to develop Wario Land Shake It, you're crazy.  Nothing against that game, but I'm sure it was done by a pretty small team.  It's not the amount of work involved, it's the number of resources involved that drive development prices up.

Since when did the antithesis to "minimal development budget" become "you have to nearly die and go bankrupt making this game?"  You seem to be a slave to dichotomies, Silks.

And as for the idea that MS and Sony have made oodles of profit, please be advised that there are several reports about their profitability, some from the company (which would be Kool-Aid for prospective fanboys and defenders to drink.  Remember, we can trust corporate suits when they are from huge conglomerates, but developers from Nintendo are corporate shills.) and some from independent sources, like so:



And as for passionate people, well I'm sorry to say, Silks, but most companies and divisions that do fail are chock full of passionate people, and have billions invested in them as well.  It's the business suits who look at long term that determine whether or not the company or division is profitable or viable.  You seem to be buying into the resources = strength equation, which so far this generation hasn't bore any fruit.

[NWR_Lindy]

Does that graph include Sony and Nintendo's massive R&D expenses?  That would be part of their games division's profit and loss statement, I would assume.  Of course Nintendo is making a ton of profit...they basically re-packaged the GameCube with a new controller.  There's minimal R&D expenses for Nintendo on the hardware side, aside from maybe Miyamoto sitting on the crapper thinking up the Wii Remote.

Now theoretically, yes, Sony and Microsoft could cut and run (GP: Yes, I realize that these companies have other divisions...I GET IT).  However, my point was that that is so remote a possibility that there's virtually no chance of that happening.  Both companies kept tossing money at their games division even when it didn't make "business sense" to do so.  And don't even bring up Sega...they were so mismanaged it isn't even funny.  You may disagree with what Sony and Microsoft do, but you can't accuse either company of being mismanaged **in a general sense**.

Sony and Microsoft have just as much interest in the game industry's health and future as Nintendo does.  Just because they aren't making Pikmin 3 and Wii Music doesn't mean that they're bloodsuckers parasitically feeding off the industry (which seems to be the general consensus around here).  Sony and Microsoft did much more for the game industry from 1995-2006 than Nintendo did, that's for sure.  Before the Wii, Nintendo was bordering on irrelevancy (a downslide which, by the way, could be attributed to their greedy move of going with cartridges over CD-ROMs for the N64, which was done to fatten their bottom line because they could charge developers a royalty fee for the cartridges.  So much for helping the industry).

[Deguello]

Does that graph include Sony and Nintendo's massive R&D expenses?  That would be part of their games division's profit and loss statement, I would assume.  Of course Nintendo is making a ton of profit...they basically re-packaged the GameCube with a new controller.

Condescending and inflammatory.  Are you sure you're a journalist and not some sort of GameFaqs denizen that took over Lindy's body?  And... if you HAD READ THE CHART, you'd see it was just for last fiscal year beginning April 1st 2007 to March 31st 2008, and has no bearing on any R&D that MS and Sony put into their respective current generation entries.

There's minimal R&D expenses for Nintendo on the hardware side, aside from maybe Miyamoto sitting on the crapper thinking up the Wii Remote.

Irrelevant, inflammatory.  Is this how to build trust with readers?

Now theoretically, yes, Sony and Microsoft could cut and run (GP: Yes, I realize that these companies have other divisions...I GET IT).  However, my point was that that is so remote a possibility that there's virtually no chance of that happening.

Funnily enough, Nintendo detractors from 5 years ago said Nintendo would pull out and "go the way of Sega", even when they were making $500 million a year.  Why is saying the same about divisions that are hemorrhaging money any less possible?  Because they say so?  (Hint: Corporate suits come equipped with Kool-Aid)

Both companies kept tossing money at their games division even when it didn't make "business sense" to do so.

Oh the business sense has little to do with games.  Microsoft was trying to defend against Sony's inroads into home computing and Sony was trying to get their media formats accepted.  Both have somewhat happened, at the expense of billions.  Good magazine reviews, though.  Notice how none of these missions have anything to do with the "Art" of "making games."

And don't even bring up Sega...they were so mismanaged it isn't even funny.  You may disagree with what Sony and Microsoft do, but you can't accuse either company of being mismanaged **in a general sense**.

Why not?  Up until 2001 every Sega news story was predicated on the fact that "they would never die!"  And then oh oops shock horror they left, after several quarters of losses.  And now they are a footnote in history, despite having made some of the best games ever.

Sony and Microsoft have just as much interest in the game industry's health and future as Nintendo does.  Just because they aren't making Pikmin 3 and Wii Music doesn't mean that they're bloodsuckers parasitically feeding off the industry (which seems to be the general consensus around here).

Not true.  Sony and MS, by default cannot care as much about an industry in which they only have relatively (to their parent companies) small videogame divisions as Nintendo, whose whole company is dedicated to the research, development, and marketing of video games.  That's true of, say, a day care specialist versus a parent.  they may even care equally, but if the child gets cancer, the day care specialist has other children to attend to.  And good job putting words into other peoples mouths.  Nobody said they were parasites.

Sony and Microsoft did much more for the game industry from 1995-2006 than Nintendo did, that's for sure.

Whew, spicy!  Hey, speaking of that period, do you know who you sound exactly like?  What with the claims of innovation and who "did more" for the industry instead of this new popular upstart?  Yep!  N64 fans!  And this can be objectively challenged, what with Nintendo basically inventing the very models of 3D Game design and unleashing Pokemon on the world, which is still the best selling and most recognizable RPG in existence.  But I digress, this usually boils down into "who did what first" and is basically pointless.

Before the Wii, Nintendo was bordering on irrelevancy (a downslide which, by the way, could be attributed to their greedy move of going with cartridges over CD-ROMs for the N64, which was done to fatten their bottom line because they could charge developers a royalty fee for the cartridges.  So much for helping the industry).

More Spice! I can't tell you how wrong you are about Nintendo's "irrelevancy" before Wii.  You were on this site then, right?  Didn't we cover this?  Unless of course the whole GBA platform didn't exist and the huge megahyped battle between the DS and PSP with the DS coming out the supreme victor and the PSP relegated to "second handheld mainly bought for media and PS2 ports" status.  (And most of NWR picking the PSP.  Oh deary dear, will they ever trust us again?) 

And humorously enough, the GameCube and the Xbox Sold about the same units, especially in comparison to the PS2.  So, readers please note:  The difference between 120 million PS2s and 24 million Xboxes is a rough fight for supremacy!  But the difference between 24 million Xboxes and 21 million GameCubes is the difference between relevancy and irrelevancy.

Also, if "Sticking with carts" was bad because of the refusal to accept an open standard and to charge royalty fees, how does one reject this and accept Blu-Ray, which is basically... the exact. same. thing.  Sony choosing their own format so they can charge royalties (and with the UMD on PSP too).  And what's the point of digging up this ghost of an old PS1 fan talking point anyway?  It doesn't seem relevant in 2008 how much impact a choice made in 1995.

[KDR_11k]

There's minimal R&D expenses for Nintendo on the hardware side, aside from maybe Miyamoto sitting on the crapper thinking up the Wii Remote.

Because a controller is just a controller and there's no way it could need any major amount of R&D while the box itself is the paragon of human technology, right?

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

And this concludes BeiNWRjing 2008.

[D_Average]

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

*o*

[vudu]

I don't understand how people feel that Sony and Microsoft are somehow less invested in the video game arena than Nintendo.  Yes, if the Sony and Microsoft gaming divisions ceased to exist, both of those companies would continue to operate.  But they have BILLIONS tied up in their game divisions, and are fighting tooth and nail to "win".

What exactly are they fighting to win?  Is it sales within the video game space?  Or are they simply fighting to a space in your entertainment center?

It's been argued that neither company really cares about video games.  They use them as a Trojan horse to get their media players into your house so they can sell you other services and content.  They don't care about game sales--they care about system sales.  I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if sometime during the next generation either company offers a non-gaming version of their platform.

The long-term plan is to take over your living room.  Microsoft wants you to use your Xbox to surf the Internet, download movies (for rent or purchase), play (and buy) your music, control your entire home theater system, and--if you feel like it--maybe play a game or two.

[GoldenPhoenix]

::sits back and watches::

Go Deg (Just don't get too nasty with Lindy).

[Halbred]

Christ, an anti-fanboyism article has quickly devolved into an argument dominated by fanboys.

Look, kiddies, neither Microsoft nor Sony could just up and DROP their games divisions. That would be an ENORMOUS financial loss, the ripples of which would not dissipate for years at Microsoft, and probably a decade at Sony. Microsoft is still bleeding money from the original Xbox, and Sony is just starting to patch the spurting green wound that was caused by the PS3.

Nintendo's got money in the bank. Nobody over there has to work another day in his/her life. The GameCube was a crapshoot, sure, but it made BANK. Nintendo made money hand over fist over hand with that little purple box. They made money on the N64, too, thanks mainly to their insistance on the cart format (more expensive to manufacture, more difficult to program). I continue to believe that Nintendo was paranoid about software pirates during the N64 and GC days, which led to radically different software mediums from the competition.

What would happen if Nintendo just closed shop right now? Lots of people would be laid off, sure, but they'd all be given fat severance packages with which to find a new job. The same can't be true for Sony and Microsoft. If they close their games divisions, they will lose tons of money, both in terms of revenue and spent coin they won't get back.

But I think it's silly to say that MS or Sony is "less invested" in the console war than Nintendo. Both companies have sunk BILLIONS of greenbacks in the 'Box and the 'Station. They continue to do so in the hopes of pleasing YOU, the consumer, and making more money. Nintendo's just as bad. I think there's a myth that Nintendo is all about the gamer. That's just not true--Nintendo is all about making money. Thus, the dearth of core games at E3 this year. Their Blue Ocean strategy is so ridiculously successful that they've changed their focus from Mario to Mii. That's great, it's a successful business strategy and it's making a lot of people rich as hell.

Nintendo is not committed to YOU. They're committed to MONEY.

And so are Microsoft and Sony. Look, they're all giant corporations with shareholders to please aand stocks to bolster.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Thanks for informing us all of your brilliant understanding of the business world and ability to insult everyone here without even addressing ANY of the points made ::rolls eyes::

[Nick DiMola]

Christ, an anti-fanboyism article has quickly devolved into an argument dominated by fanboys.

This is my favorite part of this thread. Somehow Nintendo's business strategy vs. that of Sony and Microsoft has something to do with fanboyism.

I think this gets back to my core point. Who cares? Seriously. They all make systems that play games, regardless of the reason why, that is what they do. Don't get caught up in the details and just play the games you like without passing judgment on the ones you don't.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Christ, an anti-fanboyism article has quickly devolved into an argument dominated by fanboys.

This is my favorite part of this thread. Somehow Nintendo's business strategy vs. that of Sony and Microsoft has something to do with fanboyism.

I think this gets back to my core point. Who cares? Seriously. They all make systems that play games, regardless of the reason why, that is what they do. Don't get caught up in the details and just play the games you like without passing judgment on the ones you don't.

But it is FUN. It is odd though that arguing about who will be willing to stick through tough times the most equates to personal feelings regarding the consoles as they stand now. At the moment I love my 360, and I do enjoy what MS has done with things like the online interface, but even I have to begrudgingly admit that they have less interest in the success of the industry than someone who's ONLY business is this industry. As long as things start to grow in the gaming industry though I think things will be fine unless MS continues to lose more money than it profits from.

I actually think of this whole argument as similar to a stock portfolio. MS/Sony have a diverse portfolio with some solid investments, but if one of those starts dropping in value while they will hang onto it as long as possible it will become more beneficial for them to sell it. Nintendo on the other hand has one stock, and it is doing amazingly well, they have their life savings in this, now if the stock starts rapidly losing value they have no real choice but to hang onto it because their future is all tied up in it. Their hope is that it will rebound.

P.S. Your avatar makes me smile so much!

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

I CARE.

Because this is the electronic interweb, and you've all been entertaining me.

This is electronic entertainment.  It's also a flipside to Nintendo's present business, also electronic entertainment.

[Nick DiMola]

P.S. Your avatar makes me smile so much!

LOL I love Mr. Pants! Glad you like him too

[Halbred]

Hey! Who edited my brilliant, Nobel-prize-winning post?

I didn't mean to insult anyone! I'm trying to bring arguments like this (which I see soooo often on these boards) to a sudden close.