|
When you're the top publisher for your own console, everyone who owns your console is going to want your games, and the attach rate is incredibly high. And you pretty much never have to mark down your titles because you're essentially a monopoly in your own little sector. If you're a publisher for someone else's console, you're Just Another Publisher, and your fortunes rest a lot more heavily with the success or failure of each title. And you have to compete the way everyone else does, with permanent price markdowns and megasales. The latter is great for the consumer. But it makes no financial sense. Since the 3DS is working exactly to the former, it's clear they've still got the ability to dominate in whatever sized market they create for themselves. So even when the Gamecube 'failed', for example, they still sell a shitload of their own software because the near entirety of their install base is in their exact, specific demographic range. (So even with a tiny tiny install base, NSMBU has still sold 2.2 million units, according to Wiki, with only 3.6 million Wii Us sold to date.) That being said, I don't really get why they expect to go from 3.6m Wii Us to 9 million by spring 2014 when they're selling so few right now. They have 7 first/second party developed titles coming between now and then, so each one would have to boost hardware sales by 770,000 units. They can't seriously expect that, can they? I can't imagine what their pie in the sky scenario is. The 7th Guest fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Sep 4, 2013 |
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
Jumbled_Johnsons posted:I like their consoles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
Quest For Glory II posted:Since the 3DS is working exactly to the former, it's clear they've still got the ability to dominate in whatever sized market they create for themselves. So even when the Gamecube 'failed', for example, they still sell a shitload of their own software because the near entirety of their install base is in their exact, specific demographic range. (So even with a tiny tiny install base, NSMBU has still sold 2.2 million units, according to Wiki, with only 3.6 million Wii Us sold to date.) Yeah, I mean it's great to dominate the industry, but this isn't the olympics, coming in second or third can still be great. The N64 and Gamecube lost marketshare but they still made a lot of money, which is the company's goal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
Maybe I am not giving enough credit to how much remaining a first party benefits them. My logic is pretty much "everyone wants mario, so why not give everyone Mario and watch sales skyrocket?". I guess the cut that other companies would take and loss of brand control might not be worth the extra sales.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
NESguerilla posted:Maybe I am not giving enough credit to how much remaining a first party benefits them. My logic is pretty much "everyone wants mario, so why not give everyone Mario and watch sales skyrocket?". I guess the cut that other companies would take and loss of brand control might not be worth the extra sales. In the current set up they might sell individually less copies of Mario but they also get a cut of every third party game that comes onto their system and they, likewise, don't have to pay that fee. I don't know where the trade off point in your sales v 3rd party sales are but that sounds pretty cushy if you can keep it going.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
NESguerilla posted:I don't get why it's such a horrible idea to just make your games more accessible and profitable if you clearly can't keep up with the other consoles. Well... how is Sega doing these days? Not rhetorical, I honestly don't know. I do know I haven't been interested in a Sonic game since Sonic Adventure 2 on the Dreamcast if that means anything. Jumbled_Johnsons posted:I like their consoles. Well there obviously are a lot more factors than just licensing fees that are pros/cons for making the console you develop for (like R&D on a new console, making money off console accessories, sitting on a bunch of money in digital wallets they can invest, etc.), but if we looked at just licensing fees they'd have to roughly sell 25% more copies on a PS4/XBO to out perform a game that sold 2 million copies on a Nintendo console. That's of course if I'm doing my math correctly based on this chart. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
It sold less hardware than in the same quarter for 2012, in which as an overall year it sold worse than 2011. Why would you snark that hard without being correct?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
I love trashing on Wii U ineptitude but 3DS has sold 32 million units so far in 2 years. The Nintendo DS sold 35 million in that same span, for comparison, as it went on to sell 150 million handhelds in its lifetime. It's doing just fine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
Midee posted:But do you actually like their consoles or just the Nintendo brand? If it were, say, Sony hardware and didn't have the Nintendo franchises on it, would you still enjoy the console?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 21:15
|
|
|
Chaltab posted:Not sure that question makes sense. What does one 'enjoy' about a console if not the games on it? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
Quest For Glory II posted:When you're the top publisher for your own console, everyone who owns your console is going to want your games, and the attach rate is incredibly high. And you pretty much never have to mark down your titles because you're essentially a monopoly in your own little sector. My understanding of the projection is that they intended to ship 9M during this fiscal year, so the actual global total by April 2014 is around 12.5 million. I think as of July they hadn't actually sold through the initial 3.5M to customers (there are unknown elements regarding EU) , hence the miniscule quarterly shipment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
Quest For Glory II posted:I love trashing on Wii U ineptitude but 3DS has sold 32 million units so far in 2 years. The Nintendo DS sold 35 million in that same span, for comparison, as it went on to sell 150 million handhelds in its lifetime. It's doing just fine. The 3DS isn't doing badly but the notion that it's the DS all over again is false if you look at the trends of the DS. I also think total software sold is well below. The handheld market has shrunk, particularly outside of Japan. Iirc the June NPD, when compared to the same year in the ds/psp era, has the 3DS below the psp and that was like half of the ds. With the vita being a smoking crater the market has shrunk by over half. Basically the 3DS is and will remain successful but it's not remotely like the ds or likely even the gba (which had a very short life), and with the Wii U a wreck the "what happens in five years" question starts to get important.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
Chaltab posted:Not sure that question makes sense. What does one 'enjoy' about a console if not the games on it? In my opinion, the hardware sucks and is overpriced.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
Zachack posted:The 3DS isn't doing badly but the notion that it's the DS all over again is false if you look at the trends of the DS. I also think total software sold is well below. e: Also I always found the iOS comparisons to be relatively weak because the 3DS fills a space for a lot of third-party developers who would probably sink into the abyss if they had to put out 99 cent/F2P apps with the worlds worst margins. A mega publisher and two people programming in a basement can make that work on both ends of the spectrum, but most developers and publishers need much larger margins to survive. It's beneficial to more than just Nintendo to have a handheld console on the market. I don't think, for example, that Atlus would exist for very long if they had to publish on iOS. It would ruin them. Capcom/EA can make iOS work because they make a great deal of money now on making lovely games where half of the content is behind a DLC/IAP paywall. I guess if you want all handheld games to have loving Rechargable Energy Packs and terrible touch controls and $99 "unlock all content" IAP then go ahead and root for Nintendo to abandon 3DS. The 7th Guest fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Sep 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:You don't have to want to buy it! By all means, don't buy things you don't want! As opposed to the stellar business of the Wii U. It's bad business decisions, not to mention stubborn pride, that have led them to their current limbo. It's not my problem if it's inconvenient for Nintendo that people would prefer to play Zelda games on a thriving console rather than shelling out for a Nintendo-branded dust collector. I'm sorry to be so harsh, but with few exceptions the arguments against it in this thread have been made up of personal insults or tribal lash-outs against Sony and Microsoft. To add an example of a good argument against it, see John Siracusa's Nintendo In Crisis. I don't think Nintendo has a demonstrable advantage anymore in controlling its hardware, but at least it's an argument.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
Chaltab posted:Not sure that question makes sense. What does one 'enjoy' about a console if not the games on it? I don't know about that guy but I really liked the Gamecube. I liked the size/shape of it, the controller was my favourite of that generation except for that stupid Z button, the carry handle, 4 controller ports. The build quality seemed considerably better than the PS2 too. If you ignore games I think its the best console of it's generation, no gimmicks, not underpowered so if you port something to it wasn't going to be the worst looking version. For example I bought all that generations Prince Of Persia games for it rather than the PS2. These days though there's more reasons to enjoy one console's experience over the other excluding the games, how the online works, the dashboard software, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
Toady posted:As opposed to the stellar business of the Wii U. It's bad business decisions, not to mention stubborn pride, that have led them to their current limbo. Going third-party would be a worse decision. This isn't either-or. Current business decisions being poor doesn't make nutball alternative proposals better. Toady posted:I'm sorry to be so harsh, but with few exceptions the arguments against it in this thread have been made up of personal insults or tribal lash-outs against Sony and Microsoft. You keep taking this more personally than I think I've been phrasing it, and I don't really get why. Saying that this would be a tremendously bad call from Nintendo and can't be expected to happen is in no way a slight against Sony, Microsoft, or you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
Jimbo Jaggins posted:I don't know about that guy but I really liked the Gamecube. I liked the size/shape of it, the controller was my favourite of that generation except for that stupid Z button, the carry handle, 4 controller ports. The build quality seemed considerably better than the PS2 too. If you ignore games I think its the best console of it's generation, no gimmicks, not underpowered so if you port something to it wasn't going to be the worst looking version. For example I bought all that generations Prince Of Persia games for it rather than the PS2. The gamecube had a helluva lineup, especially if you don't need to wait for the games to come out. Eternal Darkness, Metroid Prime, Wind Waker, Rogue Squadron, plus most of the big games of the generation. I had one instead of a PS2 or XBox and was never really hurting for games. The controller owned, too, I liked the ergonomics of it and the different shapes for each button was a stroke of genius. Made it way easier to get into that sort of autopilot mode in a game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
The best part about the controller was only having 75% of the moves in SSX Tricky because Nintendo had to be special.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Going third-party would be a worse decision. This isn't either-or. Current business decisions being poor doesn't make nutball alternative proposals better. I'm not taking your posts personally. You replied to me when I was responding to accusations that those who talk about third-party development are whiners. I think it's a weird reaction to have when confronted with the notion that buying a console strictly for first-party Nintendo games isn't very appealing. I'm not convinced that it would be a bad decision for them to either target other consoles or focus on the handheld market where they still have a reasonably strong position. Clearly, their current strategy is doing them any favors, and it's just going to get worse as online services become more important--historically one of Nintendo's weakest areas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
What's the story behind this? I've been seeing it on the internet for years now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
A platform you don't own having an exclusive you want is a "problem" that is always going to happen in this industry, which is why repeatedly bringing it up comes off as a silly complaint. And although it might be easy to jump to the conclusion that it's caused by doing business badly, the strategy is self-evidently a staple of every console manufacturer, and it's broadly effective. No matter which company you are, every exclusive title is one more tick in the "reasons to buy our platform" column. The Nintendo-as-third-party argument is essentially that since the Wii U doesn't have enough draws to inspire a purchase right now, Nintendo should relinquish the draws it does have to other platforms. It doesn't make a lot of sense considering the long-term drawbacks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:A platform you don't own having an exclusive you want is a "problem" that is always going to happen in this industry, which is why repeatedly bringing it up comes off as a silly complaint. I don't think this is a correct way to look at it at all. You can't compare Nintendo's exclusives to Microsoft's or Sony's in this way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
AdmiralViscen posted:If other causes were not meaningful then the Wii U would have gotten ports of Tomb Raider, Bioshock, etc. since those games were being produces before anyone knew the Wii U was a gigaflop. Sales are not the only problem. Bethesda even said so out loud. Devs are running on 2-3 year cycles and if Wii U's only problem was its sales it would be getting releses for its first 2-3 years, like GameCube did. It's not. Those games were all in development since before the Wii U was a thing. Both Tomb Raider and Bioshock Infinite had notoriously long development cycles in fact. They could have pushed out a Wii U port later on (like Deus Ex is inexplicably doing despite the game being $9 basically everywhere) but they're not going to do that with the system being in the state it is. Even Director's Cut is going multiplatform because it isn't worth it to just put out a Wii U game. kater posted:It sold less hardware than in the same quarter for 2012, in which as an overall year it sold worse than 2011. Why would you snark that hard without being correct? Because that is ignoring the general state of the industry and looking at it out of context. The 3DS isn't doing as well as the DS but it is by no means stagnate and has a basically assured massive boost coming from Pokemon. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Sep 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
Fallom posted:I don't think this is a correct way to look at it at all. You can't compare Nintendo's exclusives to Microsoft's or Sony's in this way. I'm not sure I see why not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Jimbo Jaggins posted:I don't know about that guy but I really liked the Gamecube. I liked the size/shape of it, the controller was my favourite of that generation except for that stupid Z button, the carry handle, 4 controller ports. The build quality seemed considerably better than the PS2 too. If you ignore games I think its the best console of it's generation, no gimmicks, not underpowered so if you port something to it wasn't going to be the worst looking version. For example I bought all that generations Prince Of Persia games for it rather than the PS2. I had a gamecube too and I really liked it, but I also loved my PS2 to death not just for the games but for it's media capabilities; the DVD and later Blu-ray formats, and even on reflection just playing cds on my PS1, were a big part of why I purchased PS brand products, and it was fun experimenting with the more esoteric stuff that stared coming out like the early online games, homebrewing and the Linux OS. And nowadays you got all kinds of internet functionality and multi-device usage being built into consoles that I think really enhance the experience of owning one provided they're implemented well. Games are cool, but consoles have really evolved past the point where that's their only role for the most part. On that level, at least to me personally, it's kind lame when a console is released and it's entire purpose is simply "box wot play da games".
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:I'm not sure I see why not. Because Nintendo's platform is, effectively, nothing but a very small number of exclusives. That's why you get people asking "Why bother with the platform, then?" and it's not silly at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:A platform you don't own having an exclusive you want is a "problem" that is always going to happen in this industry, which is why repeatedly bringing it up comes off as a silly complaint. And although it might be easy to jump to the conclusion that it's caused by doing business badly, the strategy is self-evidently a staple of every console manufacturer, and it's broadly effective. No matter which company you are, every exclusive title is one more tick in the "reasons to buy our platform" column. The part where I'll never see eye-to-eye with you is the judgement that not seeing value in something is a "silly complaint". Unwillingness to buy a Wii U for $300 just to play one or two first-party games seems like an obvious reaction to have. I'm certainly not going to spend over $300 no matter how good the next Zelda is unless there is more value in the platform to justify it. You seem to be suggesting that first-party exclusivity should be adhered to even when nobody is buying the platform, and if customers are disappointed, they should keep quiet because they're not the ones running the business.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:What's the story behind this? I've been seeing it on the internet for years now. It was an actual thing that they used to advertise Achievements back when they were a new thing. A summary: http://ohinternet.com/360_Kid
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
Toady posted:The part where I'll never see eye-to-eye with you is the judgement that not seeing value in something is a "silly complaint". Unwillingness to buy a Wii U for $250 just to play one or two first-party games seems like an obvious reaction to have. I'm certainly not going to spend over $300 no matter how good the next Zelda is unless there is more value in the platform to justify it. You seem to be suggesting that first-party exclusivity should be adhered to even when nobody is buying the platform, and if customers are disappointed, they should keep quiet because they're not the ones running the business. You're free not to buy consoles you don't want! And to talk about why! This will always be true! I don't think anyone in this thread has made statements to the contrary! But a company is also free not to self-immolate to fulfill a suggestion that you would prefer better. There's all kinds of ways one can picture a gaming industry that collectively maximizes the bang the user gets for their buck, but most of them probably involve companies sacrificing elements of their operation that they have no reason to want to sacrifice. Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Sep 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:You're free not to buy consoles you don't want! And to talk about why! This will always be true! I don't think anyone in this thread has made statements to the contrary! When you write sarcastic things like "You can envision the perfect world of gaming all you like, but it's not in every company's interests to achieve that for you if it means setting an entire arm of their business on fire", you're implying that people who don't want to spend over $300 for a couple of first-party games are selfish or ignorant. You just keep repeating that any other strategy would be a bad thing as if it's self-evident.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
I wouldn't characterize anyone that way simply for not wanting to buy the console. Where it starts getting silly is when you keep advocating a pretty bad strategy on the grounds that you'd personally prefer it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
Well, you haven't explained why the current strategy of not selling console hardware OR software is somehow better than selling software for other platforms or focusing on handhelds where they're still successful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
Toady posted:Well, you haven't explained why the current strategy of not selling console hardware OR software is somehow better than selling software for other platforms or focusing on handhelds where they're still successful. Even if Nintendo stopped selling consoles and went developer only it's not like their established fanbase wouldn't stop buying their games. They'll justify it in their head that Nintendo going to X console makes the most sense because that console follows the same guidelines and/or spirit that Nintendo does because of X. This is the same poo poo that happened when Sega went developer only, having Sonic Games released on a Nintendo system made the most sense because Sega has the same business philosophy as Nintendo 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:
3DS sales have been falling for 1.5-2 years. That is the definition of stagnant, ignoring any competition or a shifting market. 2012 was worse than 2011, and 2013 so far is worse than 2012 (Pokemon will likely change that). 3DS fell short of Nintendo's fiscal 2012 goals as well as being behind 2011 http://www.shacknews.com/article/78879/wii-u-3ds-miss-targets-in-nintendo-annual-results http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-10-24-3ds-sales-weaker-than-expected-overseas-despite-japan-success http://www.dailytech.com/Nintendo+Revenue+Plummets+Posts+Annual+Loss+for+the+First+Time/article24556.htm Outside of Japan anyway AdmiralViscen fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Sep 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
There's a lot of bad assumptions about the future being made, and I'm thinking beyond even the PS4 and Xbox One. People are saying things Nintendo should do 3-4 years down the road taking into account an expectation of what you THINK the market will look like in 3-4 years, but there's nothing permanent about anything right now. There's a chance that just ONE of PS4 and Xbox One is super successful, for example. And I don't really know what iOS is going to look like both in featureset, in popularity, and in market share at that point. We need to be careful not to take the current landscape for granted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
Toady posted:Well, you haven't explained why the current strategy of not selling console hardware OR software is somehow better than selling software for other platforms or focusing on handhelds where they're still successful. Part of it is because it's a point of no return. Whether or not you think the original Wii was a pyrrhic victory, it does show that Nintendo is capable of putting out a successful platform when they strategize appropriately for the market. If they go third party, they're writing that future opportunity off entirely. And they don't even have to get all the way back up to Wii levels of success to be profitable in the console market- they've shown that they can turn a profit with more modest results than that. Temporary third-party publishing isn't an option either, because of the precedent it will set in consumers' minds. "I don't need to buy this newest Nintendo console, because as soon as it fails, the games will get ported to Playstation" is not a thought that Nintendo wants to have running through consumers' minds the next time they build a console. Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Sep 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
AdmiralViscen posted:3DS sales have been falling for 1.5-2 years. That is the definition of stagnant, ignoring any competition or a shifting market. 2012 was worse than 2011, and 2013 so far is worse than 2012 (Pokemon will likely change that). I notice you posted a bunch from prior to Animal Crossing coming out, which is basically the definition of cherry picking. The 3DS was the best-selling system for multiple months running and saw a 40% increase over the previous year after that release. Animal Crossing itself outsold literally everything but The Last of Us and Luigi's Mansion/Donkey Kong both got top 10 slots. According to Nintendo there was an 85% increase in 3DS sales over the same period in 2012. The last time a handheld was the top selling system for three months in a row was the Nintendo DS in 2010. Meanwhile, the 3DS has been the best selling system for the past three months in the US and has topped its previous years numbers by a significant degree. But no, it's totally stagnant! ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Sep 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
AdmiralViscen posted:3DS sales have been falling for 1.5-2 years. That is the definition of stagnant, ignoring any competition or a shifting market. I mean if we're going to talk about stagnant, the Wii U selling, what, 160,000 units worldwide in the last quarter, that's what I would consider stagnant. The 7th Guest fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Sep 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I notice you posted a bunch from prior to Animal Crossing coming out, which is basically the definition of cherry picking. Has Nintendo released a quarterly report since Animal Crossing came out 2 months ago? I posted articles indicating that Nintendo's 3DS was underperforming from early 2012, late 2012, and April 2013. That covers a good chunk of its life. It barely squeaked past Nintendo's 2011 projections as well despite a massive price cut. 3DS has seen a number of spikes surrounding the price cut, 3DS XL launch, and a few software releases, but it is in no way as consistent as the DS was (even if we accept that the magnitude could never be as high). It has many slumps, especially outside of the Japan, that prevent it from really growing from year to year. Animal Crossing, in the US, put the 3DS up 45%. A month later, it was up only 14% YoY. Not an especially good sign for a console in it's third year. I think stagnant is a fair word for it, we shall see if Pokemon and the 2DS will provide more lasting and consistent success. Quest For Glory II posted:3DS sold 15 million units from its Feb 2011 launch to Dec 2011, and it sold 15 million units from Jan 2012 to Dec 2012. I guess your definition of stagnant means a constant influx of sales? The fall and winter are where the 3DS brings home the bread and this year there's the Pokemon title and a new Zelda so it's going to do really well. Console sales generally look more like a bell curve than a flatline. Selling 15 million units in its first 10 months and selling the same number of units in its next 12 months is not great, no. That's a deceleration. Stagnant does mean constant, yes. AdmiralViscen fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Sep 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 23:42
|
|