H_Prestige
Banned
By how much? And wasn't that game initially an exclusive? That might have swayed some people to the Wii U side.
And again, if a mediocre platformer like LBP sold 4 million, Nintendo could easily exceed that.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Nintendo shares plunge 6% by Monday close after trading as low as -18%
- Thread starter GHG
- Start date
- Status
By how much? And wasn't that game initially an exclusive? That might have swayed some people to the Wii U side.
And again, if a mediocre platformer like LBP sold 4 million, Nintendo could easily exceed that.
This reminds me of the early days of Blackberry tanking.
Lots of denial going around. At least Nintendo has a product people still want (their games!), so it doesn't HAVE to be the beginning of the end. However, it DOES have to be a sea change in the way they do business.
Like Nintendo, Blackberry used to march to the beat of their own drummer, ignorant of marketplace realities.
The reality is that their hardware isn't competitive, their digital store/policies and approach to online is shit, and they are leaving obscene amounts of money on the table by not a) branching out into new markets, and b) not putting their games on platforms other than their own.
a) is required to grow the company, and b) is required to keep the cash flow positive to sustain a). If they don't do that, investors will continue to revolt/flee and they will end up exactly like Blackberry.
Lots of denial going around. At least Nintendo has a product people still want (their games!), so it doesn't HAVE to be the beginning of the end. However, it DOES have to be a sea change in the way they do business.
Like Nintendo, Blackberry used to march to the beat of their own drummer, ignorant of marketplace realities.
The reality is that their hardware isn't competitive, their digital store/policies and approach to online is shit, and they are leaving obscene amounts of money on the table by not a) branching out into new markets, and b) not putting their games on platforms other than their own.
a) is required to grow the company, and b) is required to keep the cash flow positive to sustain a). If they don't do that, investors will continue to revolt/flee and they will end up exactly like Blackberry.
At the very least we know the Wii name is not in their future.
I just don't know where they can be competitive. They refuse to play the power game with Sony and MS. They're not making an iPad or iPhone contender. They are resistant to building an online infrastructure. Apps are moving towards being device agnostic. Why stay in hardware when they have a huge IP catalog and they're strong at making great games?
I just don't know where they can be competitive. They refuse to play the power game with Sony and MS. They're not making an iPad or iPhone contender. They are resistant to building an online infrastructure. Apps are moving towards being device agnostic. Why stay in hardware when they have a huge IP catalog and they're strong at making great games?
It sold more on the Wii U than the 360 and PS3 combined,a t least last month. Still looking for complete figures
Wii U: 88k
PS3: 30K
360: 42K
b) is not required at all and a really stupid idea.
The only solution I see is:
* Discontinuing Wii U support this year
* Put all their strength behind a unified handheld/home console next gen product coming in late 2015
* Put their backcatalogue also on mobiles while attempting to use Android/iOS as an advertisement platform for their new games (ex: you liked the demo or this short-cut-down version? Buy the full version on our console!).
* Discontinuing Wii U support this year
* Put all their strength behind a unified handheld/home console next gen product coming in late 2015
* Put their backcatalogue also on mobiles while attempting to use Android/iOS as an advertisement platform for their new games (ex: you liked the demo or this short-cut-down version? Buy the full version on our console!).
Calamari41
41 > 38
I could see Nintendo releasing the "touch generation" type games for smart devices. Like Brain Age and Nintendogs type stuff. The games that sold tens of millions on DS and went on to sell tens of thousands (if that) on 3DS.
Under no circumstances should they release anything remotely mascot related, though.
Captain Smoker
Member
That's true, most comparable game should be Sunshine at the moment, I believe it sold 5.800.000 units (from my memory).
3D World should have legs, but they are hindered by the hardware base of course. I'm curious where it ends this generation (sales-wise).
@Other systems: They also need to sell more games due to royalties and so on.
Just an example: 3D World did 18.000 digital units in France. 100% of this money goes to them.
They already need to sell twice the amount on other systems. And as I already mentioned in other discussions, if 3D World manages to sell one Wii U hardware unit as a system seller, people probably buy more Wii U games + more eShop games, so the actual, financial impact per unit should be even higher than the game itself. That's how Nintendos eco-system works, but their biggest problem with this eco-system currently is that Wii U makes loss per unit and it doesn't sell well enough to shrink production cost fast.
There's much more to this discussion than just: 3D World would sell more units of PS4 & XBone. As you see, it's just short-term considering Nintendos eco-system, if it works like it should.
So, would you buy their console (even hybrid one) in 2015 at launch knowing that they dropped the last console after 2 years?
DoYouEvenLift?
Banned
Why?
There's another aspect of this that I think people are neglecting a bit: Nintendo is very Japan-oriented company. And the fact is, while they had to slash sales projections for the 3DS globally, they actually just about hit the mark on Japan 3DS sale projections (4.9 million vs 5 mil projected). Until the market for these handhelds start to falter in that region, I think they are going to continue to attempt to keep the dedicated handheld market going for the forseeable future.
That is if they keep the status quo in terms of their management. And yes I know they (or Iwata anyways) made comments about "keeping better track of foreign trends", but this is also Nintendo we're talking about here. Their actions don't tend to correlate with their words.
That is if they keep the status quo in terms of their management. And yes I know they (or Iwata anyways) made comments about "keeping better track of foreign trends", but this is also Nintendo we're talking about here. Their actions don't tend to correlate with their words.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
People said the same thing about Sega. The Wii phenomenon, as Pachter said, has given them enough money for this console failure as well as 1 or even 2 more. The very chance at that income is completely gone if they stick to games.
As stated earlier, Nintendo needs another system to bring in the casuals. They tried with Wii U and it failed. A tablet now is white noise in an overcrowded market. VR is the best shot at it, but can they do it?
Well, as nobody wants their hardware, what other choice do they have to keep cash coming in with a minimal R&D outlay?
The only valuable thing that Nintendo has is their IP and their games. Get that stuff out to as large an audience as possible to buy time while they explore and invest in new products and markets. They can't just stay insular, they are flushing insane amounts of money down the toilet with that approach. Leave the hardware and the associated infrastructure to companies who know what they're doing.
Laevateinn
Member
Why would anyone want to repeat the mistake Sega made with the Saturn? How can you trust a company if you don't know if they will support their product after 2 or 3 years?
Night Angel
Member
Cuz xBros would totes destroy the franchise, bruh. (Fanboyism)
I think Nintendo games would do fine on other hardware. They could keep their core teams working on game development, so there would be little change in terms of game design/quality. I don't understand the argument that their games would automatically change (for the worse) if they started development for PC, PS4, XB1, etc.
Another assumption that I don't understand is that Nintendo games wouldn't sell on other platforms (tablets included). Nintendo is a household name. Their games have high production values. Is there any reasoning behind the assumption that no one would buy their games on tablets?
MaximoffZero
Banned
I want Nintendo to either:
A. Make a kickass system that I could play almost anything on
or
B. Go third party so I don't have to pay for crappy overpriced hardware just to play a handful of exclusives.
I'm happy either way.
A. Make a kickass system that I could play almost anything on
or
B. Go third party so I don't have to pay for crappy overpriced hardware just to play a handful of exclusives.
I'm happy either way.
Mysterious
Banned
Offer some sort of bridge to make the jump to their next console less of a problem. What is that bridge? That's Nintendo's job and not my problem.
DoYouEvenLift?
Banned
Yeah, this is how I feel. Do people think Nintendo is going to phone it in if they make it for the PS4 or XB1? Why would they? It's still in their best interest to release the best game possible. I think it's highly likely that their games would sell better on other platforms (shit, it's GUARANTEED that they'd sell better than they do on the Wii U).
A tablet device is one of the worst mistakes Nintendo can possibly make. The thing with the success of Apple and Samsung's tablets is that the apps also work the smartphones, it's like an extension, what you carry on your smartphone can be "ported" to your tablet.
If Nintendo wants to release a successful tablet-like device, they need to start with a smaller, smartphone-like device, so that, in a few years, they can release a tablet. People want versatility, to play games in the devices they already use for other things. I'm pretty sure pulling a tablet to play on the bus or job breaks isn't viable or desired by consumers.
I say that, if Nintendo doesn't want to release their games on Android and iOS devices and alleviate pressure from shareholders, their next handheld needs to be smartphone-like. It needs to be a versatile device that can be useful to consumers besides providing high-quality game.
If Nintendo wants to release a successful tablet-like device, they need to start with a smaller, smartphone-like device, so that, in a few years, they can release a tablet. People want versatility, to play games in the devices they already use for other things. I'm pretty sure pulling a tablet to play on the bus or job breaks isn't viable or desired by consumers.
I say that, if Nintendo doesn't want to release their games on Android and iOS devices and alleviate pressure from shareholders, their next handheld needs to be smartphone-like. It needs to be a versatile device that can be useful to consumers besides providing high-quality game.
ElRenoRaven
Member
At this point they just won't ever get the 3rd party support back. They could make the most cutting edge console that is as easy to program for as a calculator and the 3rd parties would still not come. So I say go third party to either one or both consoles out there. Focus on doing what you do best which is make amazing games and reap the profits.
Being melodramatic, but I love their design philosophy and they would be forced to do become a Namco with that level of micro transactions. Ugh.
Bel_Air_Jeff
Banned
The best thing Nintendo could do at this point is bite the bullet and stick it out with the Wii U until 2016/2017.
Captain Tuttle
Member
I've been hearing this for a couple of years now, haven't seen anything amazing yet.
N64's hardware design flaws prevented it from topping the PS1.
GC's hardware design flaws prevented it from topping PS2 and Xbox.
Wii's hardware design flaws prevent a lot of PS3 and 360 games coming to Wii.
Wii U's hardware design flaw made it too weak and too expensive to grab the market.
Nintendo is unable to make hardware that the consumer and developers are happy with. They need to get out of the console business.
GC's hardware design flaws prevented it from topping PS2 and Xbox.
Wii's hardware design flaws prevent a lot of PS3 and 360 games coming to Wii.
Wii U's hardware design flaw made it too weak and too expensive to grab the market.
Nintendo is unable to make hardware that the consumer and developers are happy with. They need to get out of the console business.
Those are LTD, I'm pretty sure. Vita version sold 20k.
shinra-bansho
Member
If it's just going to be companion apps... then I don't think they should even bother.
Companion apps aren't going to keep Mario relevant over the next 5 years.
I've mooted before the idea of legacy titles being released on smart devices, to little detriment, imo. But also perhaps to little positive impact on the mindshare amongst billions of people who own smart devices and no Nintendo platform.
Late 2015 would be 3 years on the market. Out of curiosity, how much longer should they continue to support the languishing Wii U as it progressively nullifies any relevance the company has in the home console marketplace? Draw it out to 4 or 5 years as the system crawls its way to 15 million?
MaximoffZero
Banned
This. I recall exactly one time when panic made Nintendo do something right.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
The only thing that is going to get the third-parties back is a team effort.
If Nintendo teamed with somebody like Google or Apple for a console, they'd all come running.
ElRenoRaven
Member
I think that if anything their quality would remain intact. I think it's just that people are scared of change. I admit that Nintendo going third party scares the hell out of me. I saw what happened with Sega. However the difference is that Nintendo would be doing it while still doing ok financially. Sega was almost dead. For some though they can't imagine a life without a Nintendo console and it scares the hell out of them. It's understandable. Times are changing though. The smart companies will change with them or cease to exist. It's that simple.I for one hope that Nintendo decides to be a smart company.
SEGA mismanaged their IP years before and after going third party, as well as spent a lot of good will with failed hardware.
Isn't VR tech in development by Sony, Valve, MS, and others? It's likely going to become a red ocean before Nintendo gets to it.
Why couldn't they make a lot of money by going software only?
Yeah!! I have a 3DS and the idea of being able to play ALL Nintendo games on a single platform is a huge thing. Also being able to play on a HDTV and on the go using the same platform thus having the ultimate cross-platform solution is great in my opinion.
Also this would give Nintendo the best opportunity to streamline their internal development and release tons of games quickly while getting the best third party support they can.
About the Wii U...clearly it won't be discontinued officially like Dreamcast.
It's just that they will stop development of new titles this year and the console will be left on market until there's residual demand for it. It will die by itself.
People don't really care about those things.
Every company has failed products in their history and the market is perfectly accustomed to that. They have to go on.
If they can make a new appealing product with great contents people will buy it anyway, it's really that simple regardless of the butthurt minority who bought the previous dud.
Keep making Wii U games and wasting their money and resources is suicidal.
Now Nintendo as a company is basing its incomes on a combination of software and hardware and royalty fees. This allows them to develop more games than the regular big hitters (Zelda, Mario) as a bigger portfolio usually translates into more hardware which translates into more sales of the big hitter and also profit from hardware (starting at some point in its life).
If they would need to base their business just on games automatically any game that it is not profitable on its own doesn't get funded. And every game must sell at list 142% of current sales on Nintendo platform to provide the same income. Basing it just on games means also that they need to produce the big hitters even more often than currently to sustain themselves. So, there is quite a good chance that their quality will reduce either to cut costs or to produce them faster.
That might happen, but only if it is cheaper to do that than to support the console further. I have my doubts that this is the case. As I don't think they can afford a new console earlier than 2017.
Sorc3r3r
Member
Honestly i don't see how N can recover.
It's my opinion that simply the market they think to serve is no more, or is so little that cant sustain their whole business.
Even their next handheld in my opinion will sell severely less, there is not another moster hunter to pick up.
This is the time N should act with something really dispruptive, to shake away their niche and to aim where is still money.
Instead they are done.
It's my opinion that simply the market they think to serve is no more, or is so little that cant sustain their whole business.
Even their next handheld in my opinion will sell severely less, there is not another moster hunter to pick up.
This is the time N should act with something really dispruptive, to shake away their niche and to aim where is still money.
Instead they are done.
If it's a great product at a great price? Absolutely.
Killing a bad product is not an insurmountable hurdle.
Just checked the September NPD thread, and found this for the release month sales:
Rayman Legends < 70K; Wii U SKU 38.85K or less.
The Wonderful 101 < 20K > 360 or PS3 SKU of Rayman Legends
So LTD makes sense.
Duxxy3
Member
Royalty fees. They make more money when they don't have to pay them.
Calamari41
41 > 38
Very shocking, especially since I remember it sold something like 55-59k (edit: apparently it was closer to 35-40k, still very bad) in September on Wii U. Which means it sold basically nothing over the next three solid months, two of which are holiday months.
Yes. They would go from paying no royalties on their own games and receiving them for every game sold on the system to only getting x% of the sale price of only their own games. That is a massive, massive gulf.
ElRenoRaven
Member
You also though have to take in the savings of not having the hardware R&D costs and the manufacturing costs associated with creating their own hardware either.Granted I'm not saying they'll lose some money there. They will however if nobody is making games for your console you don't exactly get those royalties anyway.
dcx4610
Member
Very good comparison.
Also, everyone that tries to point out flaws with Nintendo gets jumped on and attacked. I love Nintendo. I grew up with them and have given them my business for almost 30 years. I criticize them because I've lived through their glory days and know they can do better.
Like the quoted post mentions, Blackberry, like Nintendo marched to their own drum. Blackberry thought they had people hooked on QWERTY phones and that would never change. Nintendo thinks all they have to do is bring out a good Mario game or create a good enough gimmick and they will win the console race. Iwata is to blame for this vision.
I don't however agree with all of this Smart Phone talk. The mainstream media keeps acting like Smart Phone gaming is a threat. It's a threat to portables, not consoles. Despite the PS4 and XBO outselling the PS3 and 360 when they first launched, there is still talk that Nintendo's failure is due to mobile gaming which is absurd.
Nintendo just doesn't understand the market living in their Mario bubble.
MaximoffZero
Banned
Probably because most of Nintendo's profit/success currently comes from the 3DS, a handheld.
gamergirly
Member
Thanks for the thread title change. Down 6% not 18%
You know, something that doesn't get talked about much is how the Wii U almost sold 500K last December in NA. The system was dropped down to $250 in almost every retailer but Best Buy. I'm curious as to how a Wii U with a redesigned Gamepad Lite would do at $250 as MSRP. While so much of the problem is Nintendo misreading the market, I almost feel the current MSRP price is as big a problem
You know, something that doesn't get talked about much is how the Wii U almost sold 500K last December in NA. The system was dropped down to $250 in almost every retailer but Best Buy. I'm curious as to how a Wii U with a redesigned Gamepad Lite would do at $250 as MSRP. While so much of the problem is Nintendo misreading the market, I almost feel the current MSRP price is as big a problem
Captain Smoker
Member
source: http://www.techinasia.com/nielsen-report-smartphone-adoption-gap-asia-pacific/
Considering the smartphone market, we're already in a phase where most people already have one, going by the current rate, we could see a 80% to 90% penetration in western & developed countries by 2017.
The average Game Price in the App Store is 0,75 $, that's literally nothing. And 30% goes to Apple, so it's actually 0,52 $ on average.
But as we know, the price deflation is the reason why mobile game companies spam the store with F2P-titles and get the money back with in-app-purchases. (just played Kingdom Rush, the heroes cost more than the whole game and you don't need them at all)
Actually, in-app-purchases account for the largest amount of revenues / income (statistics from February 2013):
source: http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/28/in...f-u-s-iphone-app-revenue-90-in-asian-markets/
Going by this report, games generate a huge chunk of the overall App Store revenue (even more on the Google Play store), depending on the country, it's 60% to 75% (average).
If Nintendo want's to earn big money with mobile games, they probably need to incorporate in-app-purchases and the question is how good this works with their franchises or how this is going to be percieved anyway.
We know that Apple payed out 13.000.000.000 $ to developers as of now. If 60% to 75% of this income was generated by games (see report), that's around 8.450.000.000 $ for games.
If we have 184.000 active games, then there're probably 50.000 to 100.000 developers. So the average income for all developers is 84.500 $ to 169.000 $.
Now you see what a hit and miss market this is when some companies earn millions and millions but the average is 84.500 $ for >7 years.
The thing is, Nintendo should still be one of those companies earning millions and millions, but even EA can't generate their biggest income on mobile devices (despite growing) with FIFA, Madden, Simpsons and whatever games they have on the store (+ Google Play Store).
On the other hand, you have to consider that global smartphone market should reach 50% in 2017, so there's still potential, but what should they do in western markets that already hit nearly 100%?
So, there are a lot of things to consider, I don't think that Mario on Smartphone = Instant Money or even more or better or secure money than their current strategy <- They need a better strategy anyway.
(S)He said that Nintendo should stop supporting Wii U this year.
I think that they can only do one thing.
* Keep supporting Wii U, but reduce the games prices and/or find other pricing models for both Wii U and 3ds as this is obviously their biggest issue now (Wii U games are selling poorly even compared to the small base and 3ds is the best selling platform in UK and US in 2013 but it doesn't have one game in the top 10 for 2013).
* Prepare the new handheld for 2015-2016 and a new console for 2017-2018. Unless they develop the two to have a compatible framework for software, then they can reduce the difference between the launches to 1 year.
* Find a 3rd pillar for their business, maybe VR.
They need to keep the costs under control in the next year, they need to be able to sell games enough to cover for the costs, they can't afford to develop two new hardware until 2015, they can't afford to let 3ds to die like they did with Wii without launching a successor. They can't launch a hybrid as they don't afford to put all the eggs in one basket, but they could try some Vita TV like device for the handheld (although that might sabotage their next console if it succeeds).
H_Prestige
Banned
If the alternative is selling Wii U numbers or even worse, then it's better to pay the 20% royalty. At least they'd be bringing in profits that way.
How much money have they earned from third party licensing on the Wii U?
People need to look at actual results. Yes, being a platform holder is lucrative in theory, hence why Sony and MS are still making consoles. But the Wii U platform is generating no profits. And that's because Nintendo is a shitty platform holder.
Bottom line is this right now, IMO- 3rd party developers aren't going to put their necks out for a console with no install base... Especially given the current state of game development.
It just doesn't make sense for Nintendo to invest in another home console, especially when the only games that sell are their own. Handhelds are a different animal all together, but why would Nintendo dump millions into R&D
I agree with the 'doom sayers', it's either mobile or 3rd party.
It just doesn't make sense for Nintendo to invest in another home console, especially when the only games that sell are their own. Handhelds are a different animal all together, but why would Nintendo dump millions into R&D
I agree with the 'doom sayers', it's either mobile or 3rd party.
They could leapfrog into it with an acquisition. Multiple cats could be put amongst the pigeons.
- Status