Messages

176

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Wii U is the new PS3?

« on: January 02, 2014, 04:24:18 PM »

It's fair to say they haven't gotten the results they expected. I think that's different than saying they don't care about making profits on games.

177

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Wii U is the new PS3?

« on: January 02, 2014, 03:51:40 PM »

http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-earns-2-billion-per-year-from-android-patent-royalties-2013-11

As I've said before, you really need to take a good look at those books.

There is no way for me or anyone to look into the books because Microsoft doesn't publish them. A fun article to generate hits but can't be proven. I think the math is a little fuzzy too. The division is on track for 1B profit. Back out 2B in royalties and you are at 1 B loss. Yet somehow xbox is responsible for 2B loss?  Did the windows phone make 1 B profit? 

Mehdi has said the XBO will break even on day one and tear downs support that.

But it doesn't really matter if Xbox is a failure or not. You seem to be implying that because the competitors are wrong, Nintendo is right. Nintendo is losing money and the Wii U is being rejected by the market. They are not in a good position even if their main competitors are screwing up.

Besides, Nintendo didn't have any real 1st or 3rd party relations either when they started with the NES in what everyone was calling a dead industry. Didn't stop them from posting amazing profits from day one.

Do I need to explain competition?  NES had none, Xbox had strong competitors. The 2 situations are completely different. And Nintendo did have game development experience with arcades ( DK) and game and watch.
 

What it is is their actual goals have nothing to do with games. So their games systems are really their loss leaders until they get to where they really want to get, which is entrenched in your living room and you paying them for every bit of media that flows into your home. Why else would a company like MS be willing to loose so much over so many years with no sign of a return in sight?

That's speculative. Microsoft's biggest profits come from supporting businesses. I think dont think xbox is as unprofitable as you think and I dont think they'd be willing to support it indefinitely with losses. Apple/Amazon are their closest competitors in the cloud realm and they get by fine without dedicated gaming devices.

I never said the 3DS was unprofitable. I said that it's not making the kinds of profits that a lot of people seem to be assuming that it is. When they dropped the price they started selling at a loss, and it took them a while to make up that loss. We're now looking at 3 different 3DS versions on the market at one time ranging from $129 to $199. Nintendo is currently trying to scrape the market from both ends because it's not turning the kinds of profits that they were hoping it would by now. Hell, even Iwata himself stated that he's been disappointed with sales outside of Japan.

Yes, Iwata was disappointed in 3DS sales in 2011. I haven't heard him say he is now. 3DS hasn't dropped in price in 2.5 years and I can't believe it isn't raking in the dough. 2DS is just a good business move and not indicative that they are unsatisfied with the 3DS.

I understand that but Nintendo still holds most of their currency in Yen and any fluctuations in the market can still greatly impact their resources and profitability.

See when you say things like that it makes me think you dont understand. If Nintendo held 100% of their cash in yen they would never be subject to currency gains/losses. Yen holdings mitigate the risk, they dont expose them to more risk.

178

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Wii U is the new PS3?

« on: January 02, 2014, 01:56:22 PM »

The original XBox didn't have any major hardware problems and MS still managed to lose around a billion dollars ar on it, that we know of anyway, and people say that is was a success.

Microsoft had no first parties and no third party relations. They used an entrance strategy where they knew they were going to lose money initially. They are now fully entrenched in the industry and profitable.

Neither did the PS3 and yet Sony still managed to wipe out every bit of money that they've ever made on games, and then some. You don't need a hardware disaster to lose money.

Sony made the mistake of thinking people would pay $300 extra for a blue ray player. It was a bad plan. Bad plans can cause you to lose money, I don't see a bad plan this round.

They didn't try to lose money and I dont understand why people think Microsoft and Sony intentionally lose money other than the original Xbox.  These are investor owned companies who only evaluate executives based on profit. Read their financials and you'll get an idea of how important it is for these investments to turn a profit.

Nintendo isn't making money right now not just because of the Wii U but also because of the 3DS. It's selling great, yeah, but the hardware costs are still up there. That's one of the reasons the 2DS was released. They're really trying to get the costs down. I doubt they're making as much as you think on the 3DS even today. As the costs drop though, they'll make more. And the cost for the Wii U is dropping too. Shouldn't be too long before it becomes profitable as well.

Jigga what?  You think the 3DS is unprofitable?  You should read Iwata's quarterly comments. He clearly blames the financial struggles on the Wii U while having a 3DS love affair. He says fun comments like needing to see how the Wii U does over the holiday before deciding a long term plan for the Wii U. I'd think he'd be a little more upbeat about it if it were close to making a profit.

Currency conversion is always an issue though. Especially when you're a smaller company like Nintendo who keeps all of their resources in one country under one currency, and liquid to boot. A small shift can easily wipe out your profit margins. Which makes it even more amazing that Nintendo has seen so few losses over the years.

You don't understand currency conversion's impact on Nintendo. They keep a broad amount of cash in dollars and euros since they do business there. These get revalued back to yen and that change in value impacts Nintendo, not the money they hold as yen. The money held as yen will never have gains/loss associated with it since they report in yen.

179

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Wii U is the new PS3?

« on: January 02, 2014, 10:39:20 AM »

Yes, PS3 and 360 have been profitable for a while. Unless another RROD issue comes up, there is little reason to believe PS4 and XBO won't be profitable.

Gaug- Nintendo posted a 9/30 operating loss. Operating losses exclude currency adjustments. That means the Wii U wiped out all the 3DS and software development profits for the period. Ironically, Nintendo made a net profit for the period because of favorable currency adjustments. That info may be useful to you.

180

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Official Sales Thread

« on: January 02, 2014, 09:48:05 AM »

Has it been established?  From what I've seen Nintendo doesn't break down profits by product line. Nintendo may have been more profitable during the GameCube era but a great deal of that profit likely derived from GBA and DS profits.

As a software developer Nintendo drives much more revenue than Sony with first party titles which are highly profitable and would tip the scales in favor of Nintendo even if licensing revenue would be lower for the period since Sony sold more games overall.

It's pretty complicated and Nintendo doesn't release enough information to the support the conclusion you are trying to reach.

181

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Official Sales Thread

« on: January 01, 2014, 06:31:38 PM »

Their problem is the Wii U doesn't meet consumer needs and is thus unpopular.  If it met consumers desires, they could charge more and sell more.  Since it doesn't, they are going to chase their tail trying to make it appear to have more value (lower prices, make more games) and not fix the major issue which is the console isn't what people want in the first place.  Supply and demand sets price.  There is plenty of supply, but not much demand and the price will drop at a rate much faster than the Wii to try and gain demand but will likely fail.


Other than that, no, I don't think hardware profits have ever beaten software profits (outside of possibly a couple years of Wii).  Nintendo gives detailed revenue information, but they don't give enough cost information to come to a definitive conclusion.  However, the variable cost on hardware is always high, whereas the variable cost on software is near zero which leads to the conclusion.  The best reason for Nintendo needing their own hardware, is they cut out the approximate 20% licensing fee on their software that they would have to pay on other platforms. 


That person went though a lot of work, which I'm not going to recreate.  But there are a couple of wrong assumptions within his analysis, and I would be really surprised if Nintendo included royalties with their software division as opposed to their hardware division.  It's a usage payment for use of their hardware, and not a result of Nintendo creating software so mixing it with software seems odd to me.  I think that would be a reason why hardware would be higher than software as typically the amount of third party games typically dwarfs the number of Nintendo first party games even if Nintendo sells more.


Best case scenario on the hardware side is Apple with their hardware.  They get about 40% margin because people think they are superior and have superior apps.  Most of our arguments are about Nintendo being niche so I don't think 40% margin is a realistic goal for Nintendo on hardware (maybe 3DS).  But let's look at Mario Kart Wii.   We'll assume Nintendo received $40/game from the stores.  Wii games cost about $8M fixed cost to make and about $2/variable cost (disc/packing/shipping).  34 million were sold.


That means it produced 34M x $40 = $1,360M or $1.36B in revenue.  The costs were about $8M fixed + $2 x 34M ($68M) = about $76M.  So the profit was about $1,208M or $1.208B or a margin of about 89%.  Yes, Mario Kart sells very well, a game that bombs changes things significantly.  But Nintendo has several high profile games and rarely sells bombs.  I don't see how hardware can be any where near as profitable as software for them. 

182

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Official Sales Thread

« on: January 01, 2014, 01:23:18 PM »

Hardware is not remotely more profitable than software in most instances and these graphs prove nothing. 


These comments are on revenue, not profit.  Yes, selling hardware for $300/piece versus software at $50/piece makes it easier to generate more revenue from hardware, but we don't know about profit.  Most of the time providers are getting a small profit on hardware and a large percentage of profit on software.  For instance, Nintendo probably made <$20 for each Gamecube sold and >$20 for each item of software sold for it. 


There are unique situations.  The Wii was sold popular that they sold it for $250 for three years.  They were probably making a very healthy profit on it by the time they reduced the price.  Apple is known for pricing their hardware high and getting away with it because they are deemed to have a superior app store.  Most of the time in the console market people are just trying to recover the several billion they have in R&D and cover the overheads supporting the console side of the operations.  Oh yeah, and putting the product in as many peoples hands as possible so their very profitable software can multiply. 


I mean if hardware is the most profitable thing, the Wii U solution is easy.  Go license free and watch third parties flock to the Wii U.  Oh, they won't be willing to do that, because that is 100% profit and hardware isn't profitable?  Oh, well I guess.

183

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Nintendo Optimism

« on: December 30, 2013, 11:24:25 AM »

Man, Nintendo needs to start paying me commission.  I convinced a friend of mine who owns a PS4 to buy a 3DS XL.  He has to fly alot and I convinced him it was a better investment than the Vita and he really liked the 3D when I let him play mine. 

184

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Something Something Wii U Successor Somethng

« on: December 29, 2013, 08:14:49 PM »

I just pity the kids growing up in this day and age when playing a video game can be an exercise in patience rather than slamming a cartridge in and slapping the power switch on.

I'm 33, it's been awhile since someone called me a kid.  You forgot about cleaning the system and blowing on the cartridge and hoping it works .  I'm all for streamlining things if possible, but I can get most games to start within 30 seconds on my Wii U (which still has long load times compared to alternatives).  To me that is acceptable.  Would I like faster?  Of course, just like I'd like all games to be <$10, but it's not a deal breaker to me. 


The big benefit on modern tech, is starting a new game within the menu without changing discs or getting out of a chair or reloading anything.  As long as the game is on the Wii U harddrive it's like 5 seconds to get out of a game and into a new game.  It used to take me much longer to change NES or SNES games.

185

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Something Something Wii U Successor Somethng

« on: December 29, 2013, 08:05:32 AM »

I guess you and I want different things then.  In many ways, I'm not dissapointed where dedicated consoles are going from a hardware and media software perspective.  The PS3 is an awesome dedicated gaming (if only it had Nintendo software) machine that is also an awesome media device. 


Would it be nice if there was an auto load disc feature like the DS had?  Maybe, but the reality is that we are moving to a digital world where most if not all games with be accessed via an O/S on a hard-drive.  As that happens we either need the game console to be psychic to auto load the game I want or it will need to have an O/S that loads and I choose from that menu.  As such, I think that the games menu should auto load to highlight the games.  The fact that there are other media menus isn't a bad thing to me. 


That doesn't give Nintendo a pass for the Wii U menus being clunky and taking too long to load, but I think they know about those problems and are trying to address them within the constraints they created.  I don't see the games industry throwing all of it's flaws on the consumers more than any other industry asks its consumers to deal with economic hardware/software constraints. 

186

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Something Something Wii U Successor Somethng

« on: December 28, 2013, 09:08:29 PM »

I rest my case.

I'm not sure I said the same thing as you.  I said in games that controls were perfect and alternative controls made them less accurate Nintendo should have allowed the traditional controls as an alternative.  I'm not sure how that equates to fighting Nintendo tooth and nail because alternative controls exist.  Nobody was arguing that traditional controls should have been shoehorned in WiiSports.  If they had, that might have been the worse game ever invented.

6. And lastly, while gaming systems become more prevelant, dedicated gamers will decline.

I think this is a bit of a misnomer.  Dedicated gamers seems to imply that I want a system that only plays games.  Games are my biggest hobby, but I enjoy watching movies, listening to music, surfing the web.  My PS3 can do all these.  As a person who focuses mainly on gaming I just want the gaming element of the console to not suffer when they add all these other features.  And I think we are already there.  If I want to watch a blu ray on my PS3, I just pop that in the disc drive instead of the game.  If I go a couple of months without watching a blu ray, I literally don't have to do anything special to turn my PS3 into a dedicated games machine it just is.  As processing power has increased, it does all these multi-media things seamlessly and doesn't harm the game experience.  I don't think it takes alot of time either to add a MP3 program to the interface or a netflix app like the Wii U or whatever.  Focus is still on games even if these exist. 

QuoteAs for online, anything that makes the enjoyment of games better and safe guards them should be used. Miiverse, one centralized account, ratings, achievements etc. I am all for it. However bring back the seal of approval. Games that release early and require patches are simply not excepted for the sake of the consumer. DLC and free to play will not be allowed. Release your game as a whole. Again this is for thr consumers sake.

Again, Nintendo will just lose all support since they would be the only console maker making those demands. No one wants to deal with a bully. You say this is for the consumer's sake but only in a perfect world. In reality, this is an anti-consumer move because no third party is putting up with that crap resulting in a game console with far fewer games.

I agree with Adrock.  It's a good idea in theory, but the reality is game development is much more complicated than the NES days.  The reality is it's likely games will have bugs even if you've tested the game extensively.  Why not give developers opportunities to fix those bugs when they are found?  I think that's better for me to play a better/completed game. 

187

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Something Something Wii U Successor Somethng

« on: December 27, 2013, 02:47:30 PM »

I think around the time Sony released the dualshock is when the gaming population average age got old enough to lose the neuroplasticity that allowed them to adapt to new control schemes. It was just too much effort to learn beyond that.

"Core" gamers have fought any major revision to control schemes ever since.

I think as far as buttons/thumbsticks we've plateaued.  I've played games where I wasn't an expert in the controls after playing the game for 2 hours.  It's not that people can't learn new schemes, it's just most won't put in the time to get past extremely complicated controls.  And I don't think they should have to.  A fun game doesn't have to be needlessly complicated. 

The only two major control changes since that I can think of are touchscreens and motion controls.  I prefer traditional controls.  I can't speak for everyone who does, but for me the problem is going from a situation where I have near 100% accuracy to a situation where I have 90% accuracy.  If a game benefits from motion controls, then by all means have them.  I play lots of games with motion controls and their existence doesn't bother me and I actually enjoy them at times. 

The problem is Nintendo forcing untraditional control schemes into games that were essentially perfect with traditional controls and now they aren't with untraditional controls.  The biggest example is Mario.  2D Mario has always had spot on control and it didn't need to change.  If you died, you knew it was because you didn't perform the part properly.  NSMB Wii included motion controls that often made me spin jump unintended while playing leading to lots of deaths.  It was frustrating and it left a bad mark on an otherwise good game.  I died because I shifted in my seat, not because I didn't perform the part properly. 

I just don't get Nintendo.  SNES had custom controls why isn't that the norm now?  You want to play Mario completely with motion controls then fine.  You want to play with a traditional controller, then you can do that too.  If you want to hook up a steering wheel and play Mario then you should be able to do that.  Nintendo kind of used the same tactics with third parties on their consumers.  They treated us like our opinions didn't matter.  They kept saying, you don't understand motion controls, you just need to use them more and see them in action.  We understood all along, we just didn't like them in games that didn't need them.  And the point would have been moot if you could have at least opted out of them like in MK.  I actually expect that if Nintendo announced a new system and corresponding new control scheme that Mario/Zelda/Metroid would suffer because of the control scheme.  That's not to say it would be completely a loss or they wouldn't have new IPs that would take great advantage of it.  But I buy Nintendo for those series and if those series suffer, I'm more likely to be turned off to Nintendo in the future. 

188

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Something Something Wii U Successor Somethng

« on: December 26, 2013, 09:18:40 PM »

How would offering one device that gives consumers the best of both worlds shrink Nintendo's market?

How does Nintendo expand their market?  Most people in the home console market now choose PS4/XBO due to their more powerful systems, better third party support, better online infrastructure.  Do you believe that if the Wii U was in reverse, that it would significantly compete against the PS4/XBO?  It still lacks significantly in those areas so I don't see how those individuals that pick those consoles want a Nintendo hybird.  I'm actually curious to how many people that own a PS4/XBO own a 3DS that isn't for their kids.  I don't think the majority of the console consumer market really cares what Nintendo is doing. 


I don't think the home console market is waiting for Nintendo to release a hybrid to get excited about Nintendo.  I think people buy systems due to games.  If Nintendo is unwilling to get the third parties on their systems they have to come out with New IPs that excite the market. 

Something's gotta change. As a competitor in the Dewrito contemporary US-oriented console gaming world, Nintendo is kaput as anything other than a niche player.

Shouldn't the solution be to leave that market then, not invite Sony/Microsoft to bring hybrids to compete in their lucrative handheld market?  I'm just confused why Nintendo gets hammered in the console space with hardware, but then we expect them to be able to win on hardware with a hybrid? 


I think any Nintendo come back in the home console market is going to be a slow process that takes place one brick at a time.  A new IP that gets a few people to defect, better hardware that gets people excited to play Mario on, better relations with third parties that get some games back.  Maybe long term the market with mix handheld/home console, but I don't think it's in the best interest of Nintendo to rush that transition.  I don't see the hybrid as a way to flip the market and suddenly get Nintendo back to #1. 

189

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Nintendo Optimism

« on: December 26, 2013, 08:02:02 PM »

On Nintendo optimism, 3D world, Windwaker, NES remix, a a few others, have led to the biggest gaming month my Wii U has seen.  (According to the game tracker).  Not a bad way to end year one.

190

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Wonderful 101 matters in America

« on: December 25, 2013, 10:39:19 AM »

Go buy three $20 eShop cards at Best Buy for $54.

Three $20 eShop cards are $48 at Best Buy.  All eShop cards are 20% off.  I bought 2 50's for $80/total.  Best Buy throws in free shipping too, so you don't have to set foot in the store.

The demo is alright, it just felt shallow to me.  My impression is it's a button masher that places style way over gameplay.  I know it's on sale now for $30 at Amazon.com, but I just can't get myself to bite.  It's a game that's still on my radar, but at less than $15.  I think it will eventually hit that as poorly as its sold. 

191

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Something Something Wii U Successor Somethng

« on: December 17, 2013, 01:45:15 AM »

It is what it is and I think Nintendo is trying to find their slice of the overall pie now.  They currently are trying to look for a particular segment of the market they can lay claim too and build from there as apposed to trying to compete with the other 2 major players in the market they are dominating.

I disagree in the fact that I don't think Nintendo has to be dead in the home console market.  But that topic has been beat to death as we are doing to this one. 

I don't think there is ever a safe market sector.  If Nintendo finds a profitable market segment someone will attack it even if it's not Sony/Microsoft.  It's hard to stay at the top over a period of decades and it requires serious innovation.  There is no conservative button in business that guarantees success.  Tablets and smartphones will continue to get more powerful, cheaper, have better connectivity with TVs, and have a better selection of games.  If not that, Steambox is new to home consoles, how long until a handheld Steambox?  There's always someone trying to knock you off your block. 

Nintendo has had a few decades of really good handheld market share.  But that doesn't guarantee them a couple of more decades.  Especially as technology gets cheaper, it's going to be less risky for new players to compete and try to steal their "pie" as you put it.  You look at the Dow 500 from 1950 and look at it now and like 80% of the companies are gone.  They were all dominant big players in their respective industries that didn't adapt to the changing markets.  If Nintendo takes their ball home in the home console market, I'm less confident they'll be able to deal with a significant challenge in the handheld market and it will eventually come. 

192

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Something Something Wii U Successor Somethng

« on: December 17, 2013, 01:24:56 AM »

SmallSharkbigbite, I think where you're going wrong is in pitting this hybrid system as a competitor to the PS4 and XBone.  The Hybrid system will be in a funny place where you can't really compare it to the other home consoles.  My interpretation of BlackNmild's idea, and correct me if I'm wrong BnM, is that in its essence, its basically a portable which just happens to be powerful enough to be able to provide a home console experience when at home and when need be. 

I do live in the US where home consoles are king and I generally prefer the home console setting so I'd be personally disappointed if Nintendo went "handheld only".  I've also indicated that I think cost in the handheld market is particularly price sensitive due to competition with tablets.  Like I've said, agree to disagree, but I don't think a handheld can be successful if it has too much tech and enters the tablet range even though I've focused the majority of my arguments on the home console space.  I think Nintendo thinks the same way or they wouldn't have come out with a cheaper 2DS.  And if it's just a powerful handheld, what are we talking about hybrid for?  Vita-tv like functionality isn't much of a hybrid in my opinion. 

The Wii U is quite a bit bigger than the Wii because the GPU is much stronger and they don't make a profit on that at $350.  I just don't see a few years away from getting more power than that in a handheld at $200.  And if they could, I don't see the point of a hybrid because they could come out with a more powerful home console for $100-150 which would price it at a point to make a hybrid unnecessary. 

The bulk of its success will come from its handheld titles as the 3DS is now but it'll allow Nintendo a venue to release its few and far between home titles without the need of having an actual home console to develop and support.  It'll be more powerful than the WiiU but nowhere near a PS4/XBone.  Given we don't believe Nintendo will ever release a home console as powerful as their current gen counterparts, it stands to reason that they shouldn't bother with a home console for the time being as it'll never compete directly.

I think Nintendo needs to compete if they have a future in consoles and all these workarounds to competition just delay the inevitable retraction of Nintendo as a hardware company.  Steambox was brought up, but why doesn't Nintendo just go open-source (license free) if they just want a box for their own games? 

193

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Something Something Wii U Successor Somethng

« on: December 17, 2013, 12:54:51 AM »

I can't point counter point since I'm on a tablet, but I can't be the only one to think you aren't actually reading all of what I typed and/or are  just not fully grasping the concept.

Maybe I'm not very clear with my arguments then.  I thought I had countered many of the things you keep regurgitating.  I'm too tired with this discussion to try to be more clear so I'll just touch on the new topics you've brought up. 

The hybrid would be maybe a small step above natural progression NIntendo's handheld anyway. The Wii U in portable form is not a large jump past a Vita visually, so why are hung up on the hybrid (2yrs out) having some sort of unattainable level of power, I'm not really sure.

I thought this was an amazing handheld?  Your handheld to compete with the PS4 is Vita level power?  I wouldn't buy it, but maybe the market thinks differently. 

Nintendo is better off doing it first and doing it right the first time. Not pursuing a strategy that makes sense because the competition might copy it is probably the dumbest reason to not do it, and all the more reason to do it first and patent the **** out of the idea so that everyone that do it too will have to do some roundabout **** just to do something similar.

Doing it first is good for short term profits, but you have to keep doing it better than the competition to have long term success.  I have no confidence in Nintendo to be able to do hardware better than Sony/Microsoft long term. 

The problem Nintendo has and will have until they deal with it is a lack of third party support.  In my mind a hybrid doesn't nothing to turn that around (for reasons I've already gone over).  My point wasn't that they shouldn't do it because they will be copied.  My point was if it's actually successful (which I've listed many points why I don't think it will be) they still need to deal with the third party issue because Sony/Microsoft will come with better hardware and better third party relations leading to the same situation they are in now.  In my mind, a hybrid is an attempt to work around the third party issue and it'll come back regardless.  I've already gone over power not being competitive (Vita vs. PS4?) and third party software on 3DS as not being enough to compete in the console market as well as other issues which you've conveniently glossed over so you can call me dumb.

"The Wii U is a complete failure.  Are we still using that as a business reason to do anything?"

Ummm, yeah, we are salvaging the R&D from Wii U to create successor to the 3DS that will also help slowly phase out the failing Wii U during its natural lifetime while also extending its life through a hybrid portable. That is what we were talking about right?

Now my mind is just blown.  You want a Wii U portable to replace the 3DS and Wii U?  Okay, I know your gung-ho with your idea, but I'm just wondering how many other people that think the hybrid is a good idea think Wii U portable is a good idea.  Because I think that is a terrible idea to compete against the PS4/5 whatever.   

194

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Nintendo Optimism

« on: December 17, 2013, 12:32:33 AM »

The way I see it is Nintendo has 4M user base.  If each of us Wii U owners convinces one person to buy a Wii U in December, it'll do great.  I've done my part.  I showed a co-worker the $219 Skylanders Wii U deal today and they bit.  The rest of you just have to do your part and the Wii U will be a success. 

195

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Official Sales Thread

« on: December 17, 2013, 12:01:39 AM »

I think everyone's putting too much blame on Iwata in all this, especially Ian. I seriously doubt things would be all that different if Yamauchi were still alive and ruling the company with an iron fist. I really don't think who's at the top is the issue, but the culture of the company. Merely replacing Iwata won't change that.

Maybe but we'll never know.  Yamauchi got away with alot because Nintendo was the Walmart of video game consoles when he was there so third parties were forced to grin and take it.  Those things don't fly when you are the local store as Nintendo is now. 

The N64 main failure was the cartridge design.  Clearly he had a hand in that decision, but initially third party support was better for the N64 over the PS1.  Gamecube third party support was equal to Xbox even though it was less than the PS2.  I don't think Iwata took over at a time of disadvantage, but one exists now.  You can blame that on the corporate culture which Yamauchi was a part of, but I don't think you can blame Yamauchi's interactions with third parties directly for the situation we are in. 

Mannypon - I get your point and Nintendo is still my #1 developer.  But I don't like dealing in absolutes.  Nintendo shortcuts at times like most developers.  I know Windwaker is a port, but it's a $50 port and at times the graphical camera glitches are awful.  In the same token, there are several great games out there that stress gameplay over graphics developed by non-Nintendo developers.  I'd give you that with a Nintendo game, there is a higher percent chance that it's a great game than a random developer.  But there are alot more games by other developers and I'm not ready to say there are more great games developed by Nintendo than all other developers combined.  I think that's the issue the market is dealing with.  With the Wii MK, Mario, SSB all sold over 30 million.  People love their games.  I think when people compare Nintendo only to what else is going on in the market, they have trouble buying a Nintendo only console and forgoing those other great games. 

Luigidude-  If they go third party they absolutely should support phones/tablets.  I actually think Brain Age, Nintendogs, and Animal Crossing would be great cell phone titles. 

I guess I've become at a peace regarding Nintendo development.  What I mean is, If they can't make money making the games I enjoy then they shouldn't make them.  If I'm a niche gamer and there isn't enough market to support me then don't.  I love video games, but I realize the world doesn't revolve around me and I have less and less time to play games anyway.  I hate reality TV, but that is 80% of TV anymore so lots of people must like it. 

I lost one of my favorite games on PC Nascar Racing 2003 by Papyrus.  Most of you don't like sim racing, it's really niche.  They used to release an annual update.  Like most games the price dropped quickly and I picked up the last version for $16.99 off of Amazon.com.  The new version is Iracing.  It changed to a subscription model at $99/year.  Now cars and tracks cost money and they keep adding those and it's online racing only.  It's a niche product and they priced it at a level where they could make money off it.  I don't fault them but I haven't played it.  I'm not willing to support the game at that price level (it helps that I live in the country and have awful internet). 

My long point is niche games either don't serve a business purpose or they need to squeeze more $ out of those that actually use the service.  I'm not ready for $99/year Mario and I'm not willing to whine to those that don't like the games I do that they should.  So If Nintendo is out of date so be it.  There have been tens of thousands of games released over the years.  I'm sure there are lots of gems I haven't played.  And if there's not I'll survive. 

196

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Something Something Wii U Successor Somethng

« on: December 16, 2013, 10:43:38 PM »

This is where i feel the hybrid argument falls apart. Game development is highly profitable or should be highly profitable. Nintendo could have added development staff at any time, made more games and more money. They didnt add them because they dont want to flood the market with their games. They feel it waters down their brand. Nintendo never has wanted to be schedule filler. I dont know how cutting revenue producing opportunities will lead to more revenue.

Your argument makes no sense to me. How is streamlining all dev teams onto one development model where the Hybrid idea begins to fall apart? Nintendo hasn't added any staff for many reasons and one of those reasons are likely that it becomes cost prohibitive to have that many people working on a game that only expects so much in return. They also could have bought many studios to make games, but they can't enslave the labor to stay, so they may just end up buying names.

Nintendo hasn't added staff because it's cost prohibitive but they'll add staff under a hybrid model?  Please explain why the return model changes under a hybrid model.  There is no reason to extrapolate great sales for a hybrid console when no console exists now unless you count Vita TV.  And anyways Nintendo thought the Wii U was going to sell like hotcakes, so it's not like they were planning for imminent failure.  If I'm a third party I'm waiting for a Nintendo console (even a hybrid) to show it's successful before I allocate resources to it.  That's just good business, not personal.  It's costs about $28M to delevop a console title.  A 1080P hybird would cost this much.  You need 750,000 in sales to justify it.  The 3DS does not require this level of sales to be profitable. 

Truth is that Nintendo needs a steady stream of games and no one in the console space is either capable or willing to help fill in all those gaps for them. So if you took their handheld development and their console development and let them continue to create the exact same games they would have on their respective hardware, but release it all for 1 hardware, then all of a sudden we don't have a software drought anymore. Funny how that works.....

Handheld games are 3-4 times less resource intensive. You're likely to have fewer games on one hybrid console than the 3DS has right now.

Huh? less resource intensive = less games...? I'm not following you here either.

Obviously I meant more resource intensive.  Posting via my phone is pure torture and there is not a good way for me to proof read myself.  I guess this is where we have to agree to disagree.  I believe that you can take the 3DS games and divide by 4 and that's your best case scenario in hybrid support.  I think it will be much less than that as third parties leave due to the higher development costs and lower market share but nothing can be proven at this point. 

Notwithstanding it would probably bring fewer risks as Nintendo has indicated 750,000 copies sold is the 1080p magic profit # whereas 250,000 is the 3DS magic profit #.  The handheld market in general is much less risky, which is why I don't see them trying to consolidate and take more risk to get a market they are struggling with now.

There is obviously a market for both types of games, and no one is arguing that there should only be 1 type of game developed. The problem is that for Nintendo, at the moment and in the current market, there is only room for 1 type of Hardware, and it's not the home console. The Hybrid idea (I proposed, that most here seem to agree with) lets the Handheld still be a handheld, it just also allows it to act as a home console when at home.
Yeah, maybe all games won't be 1080p when displayed on the TV, but they aren't right now either. Yeah, maybe all games won't be suitable for TV play... well, they aren't right now either. This is about bringing both experiences into one connected hardware experience, not turning the handheld into the home console. There is still room for Nintendo to release a dedicated home console that would replace the "TVbox" portion of the hybrid when/if the time is right, then the "TVbox" portion of the Hybrid can be moved to another TV in another room.
This would be about Nintendo actually expanding into an emerging market by using the strengths of their current market.

Both types of games?  I'm a gamer. I want good games, hardware format is immaterial.  Inferior games for one system tend to perform poorly.  If games are smaller, less graphical they tend to perform poorly.  I'm not saying that handheld games are necessarily poorer than console games, but if there was the market for a $28M Layton game it would be made for the PS3.  There's not.  And are you inferring that your handheld would not have 1080P visuals?  I thought this was an amazing handheld?  That's really the only way that one would not be able to tell the difference on the handheld.  You also make the assumption that handheld mainly gamers will not turn their handheld into a TV experience at some point and be disappointed with the outcome.  We can argue gameplay/graphics all night, but the reality is the mass consumer will look at a poor graphical title and write it off as a worse game.     

Again, Nintendo has historically made lots of money on systems. R&D is revenue producing and 2 systems has been a boon to Nintendo in the past. 1 financial failure means to leave the market?  A 1080p console will cause some third parties that support the 3DS to not support the hybrid. I still don't see how the key third parties (EA ActivisionUbi, etc) will suddenly feel the need to support a hybrid. That's always been the issue and it will continue to plague them.

Historically.... in the past...
Let's talk about the present. No one is asking Nintendo to make a permanent exit from the console game. The Hybrid idea is actually more of a Trojan Horse to the livingroom game than it is an exit from the market. And just because the system is capable of 1080p does not mean that all games have to support it. I don't even want to get into how many games on PS360 didn't even natively support 720 even though the systems are capable of 1080p.

PS360 games were panned for not supporting 720P.  It's just reality of the market video games appeal to.  Now that PS4/XBO are likely to have most games support 1080P, I think trying to compete in their market without that level of graphical power will lead to failure and consumers will be able to tell the difference.  Maybe a handheld capable of 1080P where in reality most games were not would have worked last gen, I just don't see that as a true competitor going forward. 

and if anything, knowing Nintendo's marketshare for the handheld sector, more 3rd parties than are currently supporting the hardware will likely join in knowing that they can make the games they want to make and still reach an audience that match or surpass the PS4/XBO audience. So not only will we technically be able to get the Laytons and the quirky indie style handheld games that we are used to, but we will also get the real versions of the Assassins Creeds and Call of Duties and not the gimed handheld versions. We will also get the definitive versions of the Monster Hunters where you can pick up where you left off at home, becuase it's on the same system. no transfers needed. and maybe, just maybe we will FINALLY get that Pokekmon MMO that Nintendo should have had in eternal beta stage waiting for the moment when it is needed to make some waves.

So Nintendo makes an extremely risky business decision and third parties flock to Nintendo because they love them?  The reality I see is that third parties favor mobile phones and tablets over the 3DS.  If Nintendo were to make a business decision risking the handheld domination those third parties would be happy developing in the mobile/tablet arena until Nintendo proves themselves.  I'm not EA, I just disagree with your optimism surrounding Nintendo consoles. 
 

I'm only speaking for myself here but I think the home console market has left Nintendo, or Nintendo has refused to change to it, however you want to see it.  I don't think Nintendo will ever be spec to spec with the other 2 in any generation here on forward.

Nintendo has tried to avoid competition with gimmicks.  At best, a hybrid delays them competing.  The beauty of competition is competitors always catch on to why other competitors are doing better.  Sony/Microsoft will copy and without a plan to get and hold-on to 3rd party support, Nintendo will lose.  They have to compete.  They can't choose to not compete and be successful long term as a hardware manufacturer. 

It is a short term solution that just may solve their longterm problem. The hybrid is only a stopgap if Nintendo needs it to be. But ultimately what it does is finally bring connectivity to the level Nintendo should have figured by this gen yet they only teased with the release of the Wii U. After Nintendo irons the kinks out of connectivity once and for all with a Hybrid, they can actually release the updated console to replace the "TVbox" (that seems to be the part you keep ignoring) and go back on a 2 front attack.
The Hybrid basically allows Nintendo to keep supporting the Wii U through supporting the Hybrid. Same games work on both machines, only technically you no longer need the Wii U if you have the Hybrid. The Wii U can be phased out naturally over it's normal lifespan while the Hybrid takes over keeping the Wii U software development alive. It's a successor to the 3DS and a rebranding/rerelease of the Wii U all in one.

I'm not ignoring the TV box.  Maybe long term as power increases we are heading to a future where a TV box and handheld do the same thing.  But we've played this out before.  Maybe it's not one generation, maybe it's two or three.  Whatever Nintendo does that turns out successful, Sony and Microsoft will do.  History has shown Nintendo shies from competition and Sony/Microsoft succeed.  Without a comprehensive plan to work with third parties Nintendo eventually loses this game.  You're ignoring the real issue and pretending that Nintendo can do something hardwarewise that won't be copied. 

To Ian about other media being potable and home based:  You have to realize that those mediums havent been pushing processing power. They never spec up and they never were very resource intensive in the first place. As someone who edits with 1080p video, i grab as much power as i can get. A laptop can edit but it edits slower. Its just the reality of dealing with great graphics. I don't see the consumer benefit as I feel by paying a premium for shrinking the tech.

The Wii U is already a low powered small chip design for a reason. And I'm sure shrinking it down to portable size in a few years is not impossible. Might be expensive, but if it's successful, that won't matter in the long run. AMD/ATi might actually be excited about a Nintendo hardware again too, pushing limits on design and tech, unlike the last few systems....

The Wii U is a complete failure.  Are we still using that as a business reason to do anything?

Should Nintendo make a connector for the Wii U that plays 3Ds games?  Absolutely. The Game boy player on the GameCube got me into handheld gaming and obviously the Wii U has enough power to do that.

Who's to say that it wouldn't work in opposite? Get those dozens of millions of handheld gamers to start playing games on the TV? could get lots of handheld only gamers back into TV gaming too.

The TV is center of control in the household fair or unfair.  I think Nintendo dominates the handheld industry mainly because they control the kid market who each require a handheld and are less likely to have a console unless their parents allow it.  Most parents I know have Sony/Microsoft consoles because they like to dabble in console games but get their kids Nintendo consoles because they trust Nintendo games for their kids.  Maybe that's an unfair characteristic because I'm 30+ and enjoy Nintendo console games, but I don't think there is an untapped handheld market that hasn't had experience with Nintendo games waiting to pick up a Nintendo console.   

The price isn't really the issue if the demand is there.
A PS4 ($399), a Vita ($250) & 2 more DS4's ($60x2) gets pretty pricey too, and only allows you connectivity on the 1 TV and only 1 person with a handheld screen. (=$770)
2 Hybrids ($250/$299x2) & 2 wiimotes ($40x2 - assuming you don't own any) allows you connectivity on 2 TV's and 2 players have their own personal screen. (=$580/$680)

I could see the appeal for a $300(/$350) handheld that also came with a Roku like box for the TV.
Parents would love for each kid to be able to watch Netflix in their own room or just be able to shuffle around the smart devices to other unconnected TV's in the house. I think there is a market to cater to in there. Nintendo running at the same market as Sony/MS but from a different angle.
I think it makes too much sense to not consider. Not that I think Nintendo would actually do it, but they seem to be flirting with the idea in the slow roundabout way Nintendo like to do things.

Agree and disagree.  If Nintendo was able to hit the console market with exactly it's demands, it could charge a premium over the PS4/XBO.  Clearly they aren't at this point.  As far as the handheld market, I still believe it's dominated by children.  As a parent, no way I'm buying a $300/350 handheld for each kid.  Tablets just do more and if you are pushing up that much $ I might as well buy an Ipad for each kid (notwithstanding there are cheaper Android tablets than $300/350).  I mean certainly $2.99-9.99 apps will make up the difference compared to $50 games.  Parents see handhelds as mainly appeasers rather than true entertainment devices.[/quote]

197

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Official Sales Thread

« on: December 16, 2013, 10:35:09 AM »

Again, this will always vary depending on the company as some developers (Nintendo) choose to sacrifice some graphic fidelity for a better gameplay experience while others don't.

I disagree. They both sell you hardware experiences. SonyMicrosoft sell you powerful cpus and gpus. The most obvious benefit is great graphics. This can benefit gameplay with great physics engines or allowing you to place more items on screen. It doesn't ever hurt gameplay but doesn't necessarily get used by developers for gameplay items.

Nintendo sells you touch screens and motion controls. Their goal is to find the next big tech and make a profit on it before it becomes mainstream. Sometimes it benefits gameplay (Wii Sports Wii Fit) but most of the time it hurts traditional gameplay experiences(since that is the default setup) and the traditional market doesn't take Nintendo seriously anymore.

I believe giving credit to Nintendo prioritizing gameplay over graphics because of the Wii is false. It was a profit grab and it worked. I dont see how Mario or Zelda were better with motion controls. I think it's your bias that Nintendo is better for the game industry and thinking what they are doing is right.

198

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Official Sales Thread

« on: December 16, 2013, 10:17:34 AM »

Why does everyone have this ludicrous idea in their head that firing Iwata would be a good thing for us? I mean, it could be, if they replaced him with someone who understood Western markets and wanted the company to focus on them, but that's the exact opposite of who they'd pick. The Iwata successor we'd realistically get would take all the things we don't like about the company and amplify them. Whoever it would be would be far more likely to cave in to demands to develop for smartphones than to go after the Western console market.

I didn't say it would definitely be a good thing. It could certainly be worse. I just think the Gamecube was a more traditional console and did a lot of things right. Iwata, in my opinion, has led the gimmick over comparable hardware approach. The Wii and 3DS were successful. Though I'd argue a true GBA successor would have been successful anyway. So there is hope. I just think Iwata has burned the third party bridge and there is no hope to getting them back while he is here.

199

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Something Something Wii U Successor Somethng

« on: December 16, 2013, 09:58:46 AM »

A hybrid system will let Nintendo concentrate on supporting a single console as apposed to spreading themselves thing with 2. 

This is where i feel the hybrid argument falls apart. Game development is highly profitable or should be highly profitable. Nintendo could have added development staff at any time, made more games and more money. They didnt add them because they dont want to flood the market with their games. They feel it waters down their brand. Nintendo never has wanted to be schedule filler. I dont know how cutting revenue producing opportunities will lead to more revenue.

Handheld games are 3-4 times less resource intensive. You're likely to have fewer games on one hybrid console than the 3DS has right now. Notwithstanding it would probably bring fewer risks as Nintendo has indicated 750,000 copies sold is the 1080p magic profit # whereas 250,000 is the 3DS magic profit #.  The handheld market in general is much less risky, which is why I don't see them trying to consolidate and take more risk to get a market they are struggling with now.

They'll save money on R&D, and producing 2 systems.  Allowing them to concentrate on a single console, coupled with the vast amount of developers they have in house, they'll easy be able to fill out a release schedule without the help of 3rd parties. 

Again, Nintendo has historically made lots of money on systems. R&D is revenue producing and 2 systems has been a boon to Nintendo in the past. 1 financial failure means to leave the market?  A 1080p console will cause some third parties that support the 3DS to not support the hybrid. I still don't see how the key third parties (EA ActivisionUbi, etc) will suddenly feel the need to support a hybrid. That's always been the issue and it will continue to plague them.

I'm only speaking for myself here but I think the home console market has left Nintendo, or Nintendo has refused to change to it, however you want to see it.  I don't think Nintendo will ever be spec to spec with the other 2 in any generation here on forward.

I get that line of thinking. I think the computing power isn't quite there to do what you want. Lets say for instance that Nintendo came out with a hybrid and it was successful. Its a short term solution. Theyll do well for one generation and then what will happen?  Sonyand Microsoft will use the blueprint laid by Nintendo and come with their own hybrids. Based on past history, we can assume they come with better hardware and better policies to align with third parties. How do you see that ending if the PS5 XB2 were your competition in the hybrid market?

To Ian about other media being potable and home based:  You have to realize that those mediums havent been pushing processing power. They never spec up and they never were very resource intensive in the first place. As someone who edits with 1080p video, i grab as much power as i can get. A laptop can edit but it edits slower. Its just the reality of dealing with great graphics. I don't see the consumer benefit as I feel by paying a premium for shrinking the tech. Should Nintendo make a connector for the Wii U that plays 3Ds games?  Absolutely. The Game boy player on the GameCube got me into handheld gaming and obviously the Wii U has enough power to do that.

I just think the benefits from shrinking aren't there. Lets say you have a hybrid for $200  .  You probably could build a comparable home console for $100 and a decent handheld for $100. So you'll pay for both anyway in a hybrid. Notwithstanding a family of 4 owning 4 hybrids vs. 4 handhelds; the price discrepancy gets ridiculous.

200

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Official Sales Thread

« on: December 15, 2013, 06:43:25 PM »

It's kind of funny how the sales of the Vita never stopped japanese developers from supporting it. Here's the number of planned releases (not counting download-only stuff) for each platform in japan.

Vita 128
PS3 108
PSP 74
3DS 63
PS4 40
360 31
WiiU 16

And some people think a Super Handheld Hybrid from Nintendo sounds like a bad idea....

How's all that support working out for the Vita?  The Vita's also not 1080p console development, if they had to put that much work on it, it wouldn't have support. 


I just think 3rd party is a better business route than hybrid.  I think the home console is salvageable if Iwata gets fired.  To have a console successful in the US, it has to do all the things home consoles do well.  Then it has to have the top 10 NPD above, not just any 3rd party games.  It has to be the right third party games.  Then those games have to have the perception that they are at least equal to the other options.  I don't see how a hybrid does that or even entices those key third parties to get on board.  We'll see what Nintendo does.  I think we'll have an idea by May if they plan on riding the Wii U out or doing something drastic.