View Full Version : Some Nintendo What Ifs
Infinisearch
12-Oct-2005, 03:42
I was thinking about nintendo and thought up some scenarios and wanted opinions in regards to them.
1. Nintendo releases the revolution at $100-150, not near as powerful as either PS3 or X360. Its actual purpose is more like the DS, its not a GCN2, while it is marketed to more casual gamers and games, it also to help keep consumer faith in Nintendo while giving them more time to build a power console cheaper than its competitors while being late to the game and seeing its competitors cards.
2. Nintendo scraps revolution, decides to release a power console a year or two after PS3 releases. However in the interim (asap) releases the revolution controller as an addon for the PC, and GCN. (and maybe even the other consoles) At this time they become an addon, and software company that releases game using the revolution controller for the other consoles. This would allow them a period to truthfully test the waters for the controller and refine it for their power console release. (and it is my understanding that the addon market is where the money is, and it allows nintendo engineers to work with other hardware potentially reducing R&D costs. And it give devs more time to work with the revolution controller)
3. What Nintendo's PR is currently saying.
4. A combination of one and two. Releases revolution at $100 or $150, and the revolution controller for PC and maybe either the older generation (xbox ps2) or newer generation (360 ps3). The console is for those who want to play all the old nintendo titles, as well as newer ones but don't have the money for the other consoles but want something for the TV. And the controller and software is for those who already have or decided on getting a PC or other console and don't feel like. This could be more profitable then option two and still give them time to produce a power console more cheaply than sony or ms.
5. none of the above.
Which do you think would be the best option for Nintendo to follow in order to:
a. keep its current fan-base
b. bring more 'gamer's' back to nintendo
c. expand gaming to more audiences (as some have stated, will a controller bring non-gamers or cell-phone gamers to actually buy a console)
d. minimize losses in money, consumer confidence, and the press hype/attitude in case the controller doesn't sell as well as hoped?
I think 4 might be the best option even if it would potentially cut into revolution sales, both in regards to best case and worst case scenarios. What do you think?
Why would 2 ever happen ? I don't see a reason to scrap the rev . If it is very underpowered its not hard to delay it 6 months wait for 65nm and clock everything higher than it was and add on more ram. INstead of a late 2006 launch its an early 2007 launch.
Putting the controller on another system or on the cube with no products taking advantage of it is a pretty dumb thing imho to do .
Cornman
12-Oct-2005, 06:23
Why would 2 ever happen ? I don't see a reason to scrap the rev . If it is very underpowered its not hard to delay it 6 months wait for 65nm and clock everything higher than it was and add on more ram. INstead of a late 2006 launch its an early 2007 launch.
Putting the controller on another system or on the cube with no products taking advantage of it is a pretty dumb thing imho to do .
what if they make another middle console like GC?
what if they charge slightly more than GC at $249.99?
What if they are right and everyone flocks to them?
What if space aliens kidnap Hiroshi Yamauchi and then bring him back with some common sense?
Powderkeg
12-Oct-2005, 14:36
What if the Revolution fails, Nintendo drops out of console hardware, and goes 3rd party multiplatform with their games like Sega has?
Wouldn't they make even more profit, and any console gamer could play Nintendo games no matter what system they owned?
And would this be a bad thing?
Shifty Geezer
12-Oct-2005, 14:51
I agree with powderkeg on this one and have said so before. Nintendo are known more for their games than anything. Revolution is perhaps a bit of a departure and if it proves successful, kudos for Nintendo for sticking to their guns. But going by GC, if Nintendo had released the same software on PS2 they'd have sold a lot more and likely made a lot more money (though different takes on this have been discussed here before). If Nintendo worked with Sony as was the original idea, we'd have a Nintendo/Sony PS3 with Nintendo's games and Revolution controller
Sonintendo RevolutionStation
or Nintendony Playvolution.
:mrgreen:
london-boy
12-Oct-2005, 15:17
What if the Revolution fails, Nintendo drops out of console hardware, and goes 3rd party multiplatform with their games like Sega has?
Wouldn't they make even more profit, and any console gamer could play Nintendo games no matter what system they owned?
And would this be a bad thing?
Well look at what that move did to the quality of Sega's software.
I'm afraid a move like that would turn Nintendo in "just another 3rd party studio" who will care FAR less about the games they produce than they would if they were exclusives to their own consoles. And that shows in the games big time!
Might be just my paranoia, but it could happen. Happened to SEGA afterall.
This is a WHAT IF thread afterall so i can say whatever i want really. Like... APPLE PIE. LOTS OF PIE. AND DONUTS. NOW. ON MY DESK. AND COFFEE.
regarding the first post.
you still dont believe in that third pilar crap now dont you?
Readykilowatt
12-Oct-2005, 16:57
What if the Revolution (like the DS) outsells the PS3 in Japan?
Shifty Geezer
12-Oct-2005, 17:03
Then Nintendo will make lots of money. What else do you expect to happen? Elvis return and head Nintendo and buy out Sony and conquor the world and force everyone to eat mushrooms?
Guden Oden
12-Oct-2005, 17:31
" . . . . . "
I'd like to say something smart in this thread, but I just can't think of anything, so I guess I won't. There's just too much weirdness and noise here already.
Well look at what that move did to the quality of Sega's software.
I'm afraid a move like that would turn Nintendo in "just another 3rd party studio" who will care FAR less about the games they produce than they would if they were exclusives to their own consoles. And that shows in the games big time!
Might be just my paranoia, but it could happen. Happened to SEGA afterall.
This is a WHAT IF thread afterall so i can say whatever i want really. Like... APPLE PIE. LOTS OF PIE. AND DONUTS. NOW. ON MY DESK. AND COFFEE.
You hit it right on the head l-b
With sega its fans used to buy a system that sega made and get all sega games . Now though u need a xbox for pdz and some other games , you need a ps2 for vf and some other games and u need a game cube for sonic and some other games .
Gamers picked one system (esp early on ) and stayed with it , the sega games they couldn't get well they just couldn't get. This hurt sales .
The same thing will hpapen with nintendo . There will be 2 consoles and now nintendo fans will be split between the two. Now they need to make games that push diffrent systems that they didn't have acess to all through development .
Its a diffrent ball game when your 3rd party .
I think nintendo should open its bank account and buy a few small developers. nothing nuts just some developers that make more adult orientated games. Fold them into nintendo and produce more games .
They have shown that thier software sells extremely well even on a limited number of consoles . The main problem with the gamecube isn't its software quality , its the lack of a constant flow of games . Just look at this year , we had re4 and that was it . It would have been re4 and zelda , but that is still only 2 stand out games .
They need at least 4-8 stand out big named games a year that way ever 2-4 months you can go buy a new game anticapted game .
Shifty Geezer
12-Oct-2005, 18:59
They have shown that thier software sells extremely well even on a limited number of consoles . The main problem with the gamecube isn't its software quality , its the lack of a constant flow of games .Doesn't that go hand in hand though?With few titles to choose from, those titles will sell more. With lots of titles sales will be spread out. That is, if there's one fighter game, it sells to all fighter fans on GC, say 5 million gamers. That's a 5 million unit selling game. But if there were 3 fighters, that'd be more like 1.5 million units per game. With 20 different MarioKart clones and the like, the pool gets diluted.
I wonder if Nintendo aren;t deliberately keeping 3rd party support down a bit because of this, and promote a premium content idea? AFAIK they offer know incentives to attract more developers. They could have afforded to drop license fees years back and get more titles onto GC, but they didn't. I don't think that's because they idea didn't occur to them either.
For me, Nintendo is kinda the Apple of the console world. Less software than a PC, but everything's sleek and classy. Nintendo are the quality platform. Maybe.
What if the Revolution fails, Nintendo drops out of console hardware, and goes 3rd party multiplatform with their games like Sega has?
Wouldn't they make even more profit, and any console gamer could play Nintendo games no matter what system they owned?
And would this be a bad thing?
Nintendo are nothing like Sega so its pointless to compare them, going third party would not mean more profits either. Straight away they would make 33% less profit per game, on current generation game sales that would mean $700 million less profit. They would lose all licensing money that comes from third party game sales (around $1.5 billion this generation). They would also lose all their peripheral sales (controllers, memory cards ect), which again goes into the billions of dollars. Not to mention they would lose the ability to share technology between there console and handheld businesses. What would they gain?.. the possibility of selling some extra games? They would have to sell more then three times the amount of games just to recoup the money they would lose from losing the revenue streams I mentioned above. There's no way they would achieve that sort of increase in game sales by going third party. The fact is the majority of people who really want to play Nintendo games buy Nintendo consoles...
Nintendo have no reason to drop out of the console business, when will people stop bringing up this obsurd argument?
Just pull the #s from the GCN side (if possible) and then we could compare what Nintendo makes from the GCN and therefore what they would lose/gain were they to kill a home console.
Sure they made billions on their handheld side but was their GCN side that profitable?
Readykilowatt
12-Oct-2005, 19:48
Sure they made billions on their handheld side but was their GCN side that profitable?
Yes. Keep in mind that the Gamecube has not yet been discontinued.
PC-Engine
12-Oct-2005, 19:50
Yes. Keep in mind that the Gamecube has not yet been discontinued.
Yep and the hardware itself is profitable.
Sure they made billions on their handheld side but was their GCN side that profitable?
To be honest when you look at the game sales on the system and consider the costs the question then becomes how could it not be profitable?
Last time I checked Nintendo had sold around 60 million of there own games on GC ($30 profit per game) and around 140 million third party games were sold on the system ($10 profit per game for Nintendo). They also sold two controllers and two mem cards for every console sold (at around $10 profit on each at a guess). That comes to $4 billion in profit before taking R&D, hardware losses and advertising into account. Nintendo haven't spent much on GameCube advertising and I'd be suprised if they haven't come close to breaking even on GameCube hardware costs (at times they've made small losses on hardware but other times they've made small profits).
Shifty Geezer
12-Oct-2005, 20:20
Last time I checked Nintendo had sold around 60 million of there own games on GC ($30 profit per game) and around 140 million third party games were sold on the system ($10 profit per game for Nintendo). They also sold two controllers and two mem cards for every console sold (at around $10 profit on each at a guess). That comes to just under $4 billion in profit before taking R&D, hardware losses and advertising into account. Nintendo haven't spent much on GameCube advertising and I'd be suprised if they haven't come close to breaking even on GameCube hardware costs (at times they've made small losses on hardware but other times they've made small profits).Going by these figures, they'd get $20 per game sold on PS2 and XB. If they sold 60 million units with 20 million target consoles, one would extrapolate that they'd sell 5x as many games on 5x as many consoles. That'd be 300 million games sold at $20 a piece = 6 billion. Losing all the rest, losing 3rd party fees and hardware profits, they'd be 50% up on current earnings. Plus they'd lose the need for console RnD and marketting which isn't cheap.
That's completely flawed logic though Shfity.. If 100 million people wanted to buy loads of Nintendo's games then GameCube would not have sold only 20 million consoles. Sony/XBox only owners (people who didn't even bother to buy a $99 GC) would not buy anywhere near as many Nintendo games as Nintendo fans do.
Readykilowatt
12-Oct-2005, 21:12
Going by these figures, they'd get $20 per game sold on PS2 and XB. If they sold 60 million units with 20 million target consoles, one would extrapolate that they'd sell 5x as many games on 5x as many consoles. That'd be 300 million games sold at $20 a piece = 6 billion. Losing all the rest, losing 3rd party fees and hardware profits, they'd be 50% up on current earnings. Plus they'd lose the need for console RnD and marketting which isn't cheap.
^^ :lol:
Nintendo is presently in the hardware business (DS, GBA, GBMicro, GCN and the soon to be released Revolution) and yet they are still making bigger profits than EA (software only), Sony (the market leader in home consoles) and Microsoft (who didn't make a dime on the Xbox). That should tell you something.
Shifty Geezer
12-Oct-2005, 21:47
That should tell you something.A lot of handheld games are sold ;)
The Nintendo financials I've seen haven't differentiated between handheld and console spaces, so profitability of their console space is unclear.
Shifty Geezer
12-Oct-2005, 21:53
That's completely flawed logic though Shfity.. If 100 million people wanted to buy loads of Nintendo's games then GameCube would not have sold only 20 million consoles.Not if GC doesn't have the other games people want. I wouldn't mind playing some GC games, but not enough to warrant buying a console and having it sit around unused most of the time. Whereas if Nintendo released on PS2 I would buy their products as I only own the hardware to play other games.
You can't fairly assume everyone who wants to play Nintendo games is happy to buy a console (unless you have statistics that prove this ;) )
Readykilowatt
12-Oct-2005, 21:58
A lot of handheld games ;)
....and a very profitable home console business. ;)
london-boy
12-Oct-2005, 22:05
(Woah today i'm in a Nintendo loving mood!)
Personally i think Nintendo is in every position to become (one day maybe not too far away) the "Apple" of today.
Apple only needed one single item - and we all know what it is - and BOOM they're totally on top of their game.
Nintendo has already enough followers (much like Apple had "followers") to one day come up with some fantastic and very simple idea and BOOM they're on top again.
Sony will always be hovering around doing their thing, MS too. But i have this feeling that Nintendo is the Apple of the console market.
Ok maybe it's time to go to sleep. Nintendo love posts from me are quite a bad sign.
Then Nintendo will make lots of money. What else do you expect to happen? Elvis return and head Nintendo and buy out Sony and conquor the world and force everyone to eat mushrooms?
Why would Elvis force everyone to eat mushrooms?! It's much more likely that he would force everyone to wear white trousers with white shoes and white shirt. topped with a white jacket with lots of shiny things attached to it. http://members.lycos.co.uk/woody4mg/images/disbalief.gif
Shifty Geezer
12-Oct-2005, 22:06
Abnd going by Teasy's figures, that made Nintendo $4 billion. And by my calculations (assuming an even interest in Nintendo titles amongst non-GC owners) they'd make more money developing for their rivals. But of course they'd keep the handheld business.
Powderkeg
12-Oct-2005, 22:12
Nintendo are nothing like Sega so its pointless to compare them, going third party would not mean more profits either. Straight away they would make 33% less profit per game, on current generation game sales that would mean $700 million less profit. They would lose all licensing money that comes from third party game sales (around $1.5 billion this generation). They would also lose all their peripheral sales (controllers, memory cards ect), which again goes into the billions of dollars. Not to mention they would lose the ability to share technology between there console and handheld businesses. What would they gain?.. the possibility of selling some extra games? They would have to sell more then three times the amount of games just to recoup the money they would lose from losing the revenue streams I mentioned above. There's no way they would achieve that sort of increase in game sales by going third party. The fact is the majority of people who really want to play Nintendo games buy Nintendo consoles...
Nintendo have no reason to drop out of the console business, when will people stop bringing up this obsurd argument?
:lol:
That was a long reply for having completely ignored my first "What if"
What if the Revolution fails.
They won't be making a profit off their console if it fails, will they? they won't be selling enough games for that console if it fails, would they?
And they would have a reason to drop out of the console race if their console fails, won't they?
Your whole argument fell apart there, didn't it?
Powderkeg
12-Oct-2005, 22:14
(Woah today i'm in a Nintendo loving mood!)
Personally i think Nintendo is in every position to become (one day maybe not too far away) the "Apple" of today.
Apple only needed one single item - and we all know what it is - and BOOM they're totally on top of their game.
Nintendo has already enough followers (much like Apple had "followers") to one day come up with some fantastic and very simple idea and BOOM they're on top again.
Apple is not on top in the desktop workstation/home PC market, are they?
london-boy
12-Oct-2005, 22:16
Apple is not on top in the desktop workstation/home PC market, are they?
You know what i mean.
Powderkeg
12-Oct-2005, 22:17
You know what i mean.
Yes, but do you know what I mean?
london-boy
12-Oct-2005, 22:19
Yes, but do you know what I mean?
They know what she means.
Readykilowatt
12-Oct-2005, 22:22
Sony will always be hovering around doing their thing, MS too.
Not if they are making losses.
What if the Revolution fails.
Then Nintendo will release another home console prematurely and try never to repeat the mistakes they made with the Revolution.
The most important thing for a business corporation is making money with their products and/or services.
The idea of the new controller is simple, is a business strategy. Nothing more.
The key is that if you sell a console with the same games of PS3 and 360 and you are Nintendo you will die sooner or later, but if you can take a lot of exclusive games from the third parties the console could be a good complement of PS3 and/or 360.
The main reason is the software, but if you have a less powerful console and the same software you will die in the market, you need something exclusive that awakens the interest in the system from the people.
Readykilowatt
12-Oct-2005, 22:29
Abnd going by Teasy's figures, that made Nintendo $4 billion. And by my calculations (assuming an even interest in Nintendo titles amongst non-GC owners) they'd make more money developing for their rivals. But of course they'd keep the handheld business.
^^ :lol:
Let's put it this way, Nintendo doesn't want to make more money, that's why they are releasing the Revolution.
Not if GC doesn't have the other games people want. I wouldn't mind playing some GC games, but not enough to warrant buying a console and having it sit around unused most of the time. Whereas if Nintendo released on PS2 I would buy their products as I only own the hardware to play other games.
You can't fairly assume everyone who wants to play Nintendo games is happy to buy a console (unless you have statistics that prove this
No but what you can fairly assume is that most people who really want to play Nintendo games will buy a Nintendo console. The thing costs $99 for god sake, if you really want 3 or 4 Nintendo games then the console is worth buying. What you certainly can't assume is that people who didn't even buy a GC this generation would buy as many Nintendo games as the people who did buy a GC.
Powderkeg
12-Oct-2005, 22:38
No but what you can fairly assume is that most people who really want to play Nintendo games will buy a Nintendo console. The thing costs $99 for god sake, if you really want 3 or 4 Nintendo games then the console is worth buying. What you certainly can't assume is that people who didn't even buy a GC this generation would buy as many Nintendo games as the people who did buy a GC.
True, the ratio of non-Nintendo console owners who would by a Nintendo game is lower, but keep in mind just how many non-Nintendo console owners there are.
There are over 120 million non-Nintendo consoles sold this generation. If only 5% were to buy any single Nintendo game, it would still be the best selling Nintendo console game in the past 5 years. Even if only 1% bought a specific Nintendo game, it would still rank in their top 10 in sales.
And then of course, you can add in all of those Nintendo fans who currently own a Nintendo console. Certainly they would still buy Nintendo games as well.
That was a long reply for having completely ignored my first "What if"
What if the Revolution fails.
They won't be making a profit off their console if it fails, will they? they won't be selling enough games for that console if it fails, would they?
And they would have a reason to drop out of the console race if their console fails, won't they?
Your whole argument fell apart there, didn't it?
You asked if Nintendo would make more money from going third party. That is unanswerable within the "If Revolution fails" hypothetical. Therefore I assumed you meant it as a separate question, otherwise it makes no sense to ask. After all how can anyone answer "Would Nintendo make more money from being third party compared to failing with Revolution" when we have no idea what you mean by "failing"? We have no statistics or sales to use to make a judgment. So no my argument didn't fall apart ;)
BTW didn't GameCube fail in your opinion?
Powderkeg
12-Oct-2005, 22:52
You asked if Nintendo would make more money from going third party, that has to be seperate from the "if Revolution fails" hypothetical. After all how can anyone answer "Would Nintendo make more money from being third party compared to failing with Revolution" when we have no idea what you mean by "fails"? We have no statistics or sales to use to make a judgement.
What I mean by fails is Nintendo doesn't sell enough to make it profitable. They take a loss in the console market.
BTW didn't GameCube fail in your opinion?
No. The Dreamcast failed. The Gamecube just lost marketshare, but if the Revolution loses marketshare at the same rate as the Gamecube, it may very well fail.
Readykilowatt
12-Oct-2005, 22:53
You asked if Nintendo would make more money from going third party, that has to be seperate from the "if Revolution fails" hypothetical. After all how can anyone answer "Would Nintendo make more money from being third party compared to failing with Revolution" when we have no idea what you mean by "fails"? We have no statistics or sales to use to make a judgement. BTW didn't GameCube fail in your opinion?
Don't you understand, Nintendo is making a big mistake by NOT going third party even though the Gamecube made them money. :lol:
If they are going to the NES strategy they won´t fail.
Powderkeg
12-Oct-2005, 22:58
If they are going to the NES strategy they won´t fail.
I think they'll have a little trouble with the "We don't have any competition so anything we release will be a hit" strategy against the 360 and PS3.
What I mean by fails is Nintendo doesn't sell enough to make it profitable. They take a loss in the console market.
So your question was "If Nintendo somehow weren't profitable at all with there next console would it be more profitable for them to be a third party". Well yes obviously it would. Just like it would be more profitable for Sony if they somehow didn't make any money from PS3. But its kind of a silly question isn't it? Just about anything they wanted to do would be more profitable then no profit at all.
You asked if Nintendo would make more money from going third party. That is unanswerable within the "If Revolution fails" hypothetical. Therefore I assumed you meant it as a separate question, otherwise it makes no sense to ask. After all how can anyone answer "Would Nintendo make more money from being third party compared to failing with Revolution" when we have no idea what you mean by "failing"? We have no statistics or sales to use to make a judgment. So no my argument didn't fall apart ;)
BTW didn't GameCube fail in your opinion?
The key isn´t the third partie support.
The key is the exclusive third partie support.
Powderkeg
12-Oct-2005, 23:01
So your question was "If Nintendo somehow weren't profitable at all with there next console would it be more profitable for them to be a third party". Well yes obviously it would, just like it would be more profitable for Sony if they somehow didn't make any money from PS3. But its kind of a silly question isn't it?
The second question was rhetorical, made to make a point.
Think you misread my post Urian. I was talking about Nintendo becoming a third party, not third party support for a Nintendo console.
Readykilowatt
12-Oct-2005, 23:02
If they are going to the NES strategy they won´t fail.
Nothing is guaranteed, however if the Revolution fails to make money then Nintendo will just lick their wounds and try again.
There are over 120 million non-Nintendo consoles sold this generation. If only 5% were to buy any single Nintendo game, it would still be the best selling Nintendo console game in the past 5 years. Even if only 1% bought a specific Nintendo game, it would still rank in their top 10 in sales.
There are 90 million PS2 owners and 20 million XBox owners. But some of those people will own both a PS2 and XBox so the number is likely closer to 100 million. Also some of those PS2/XBox owners will already own a GC. So there's likely around 90 million current console gamers who don't own a GC (110 million current gen console gamers in total). That's a lot of gamers, but is it enough to sell 120 million extra Nintendo games? (on top of another 60 million from the Nintendo fans)? Because that's what would be needed to even match the profit Nintendo made from GC.
Yes. Keep in mind that the Gamecube has not yet been discontinued.
Definitely true and I would expect the next Zelda to do quite well. I don't know of other titles that will really bring in money though. Witness Nintendo downgrading because they admit GCN is dropping off rapidly. (Profits are still on target but due to other sectors for them).
Yep and the hardware itself is profitable.
Well we're comparing "Profit from GCN" to "Profit from going multiplatform" - not is the GCN profitable at all.
To be honest when you look at the game sales on the system and consider the costs the question then becomes how could it not be profitable?
That's not the question I asked though. We need to compare (as you are attempting to do later in your post) the total profits arrived from the GCN against going multiplatform.
Where did you get your figures from btw? Those are a good start at attempting to discover just how much the GCN added to Nintendo's bottom line.
Let's put it this way, Nintendo doesn't want to make more money, that's why they are releasing the Revolution.
They don't want to make more money? I hope their shareholders know this! ;)
Don't you understand, Nintendo is making a big mistake by NOT going third party even though the Gamecube made them money. :lol:
The question isn't, "Did the GCN make Nintendo a profit?". The question is, "Would Nintendo be better off profit-wise by selling their software multiplatform?"
After we consider the profit A vs. profit B argument, there are other less tangible benefits to having your own console. So if going 3rd party netted them more money, they might lose out on some other benefits.
Oh well, in the end I'm sure Nintendo has the real figures and have decided that as this juncture, the 3rd party route just isn't for them.
Cornman
12-Oct-2005, 23:46
I think they'll have a little trouble with the "We don't have any competition so anything we release will be a hit" strategy against the 360 and PS3.
nahh more like "we are going after untouched demographics, so in a indirect way we increase our marketshare and make make console and handheld exclusive genras while making a cheaper and easier developement enviroment to gain 3rd party support and not lock out smaller budget developers. all by turning video games back to video games NOT cinematic interactive computer entertainment" strategy.
Readykilowatt
13-Oct-2005, 00:30
They don't want to make more money? I hope their shareholders know this! ;)
I was being sarcastic.
The question isn't, "Did the GCN make Nintendo a profit?". The question is, "Would Nintendo be better off profit-wise by selling their software multiplatform?"
No, they would be less profitabe. For example, I've recently heard that the GBMicro costs about $44 to manufacture. I wouldn't be surprised if the GCN costs a little above that dollar amount to manufacture.
After we consider the profit A vs. profit B argument, there are other less tangible benefits to having your own console. So if going 3rd party netted them more money, they might lose out on some other benefits.
Nintendo is a very profit-driven company. If they believed that the third party route was better and more profitable for them, the Revolution would have not been created.
Oh well, in the end I'm sure Nintendo has the real figures and have decided that as this juncture, the 3rd party route isn't in their best interest.
Fixed. ;)
Powderkeg
13-Oct-2005, 01:46
There are 90 million PS2 owners and 20 million XBox owners. But some of those people will own both a PS2 and XBox so the number is likely closer to 100 million. Also some of those PS2/XBox owners will already own a GC. So there's likely around 90 million current console gamers who don't own a GC (110 million current gen console gamers in total). That's a lot of gamers, but is it enough to sell 120 million extra Nintendo games? (on top of another 60 million from the Nintendo fans)? Because that's what would be needed to even match the profit Nintendo made from GC.
Your math is really bad.
If there are 110 million Xbox/PS2 owners, and 90 million of them don't own a GCN, then that means that every single GCN owner also owns an Xbox or PS2. (It also means that more GCN's have been sold than Nintendo says they've sold.)
I would be surprised if 20% of GCN owners also owned another console.
And again who said anything about GCN profits? Unless the market trend reverses itself, which frankly I don't see happening, the Revolution will sell significantly less than the GCN. Now, if you've got some kind of really credible evidence that suggests Nintendo will reverse the market trend of them loosing marketshare, I would love to see it. If you don't, then you shouldn't use the GCN sales as the basis of your arguement.
Powderkeg
13-Oct-2005, 01:54
nahh more like "we are going after untouched demographics, so in a indirect way we increase our marketshare and make make console and handheld exclusive genras while making a cheaper and easier developement enviroment to gain 3rd party support and not lock out smaller budget developers. all by turning video games back to video games NOT cinematic interactive computer entertainment" strategy.
But that's not what they did. They simply capitalized on a lack of competition. There was already a very large video gaming market, made popular by the Atari 2600. What Nintendo did was capitalize on the fact that Atari was still selling the old 2600 ten years after it's introduction, and Nintendo had significantly newer tech.
And Nintendo lost many court cases due to their screwing over 3rd party developers. They most definitely were not friendly towards them.
OVERLORD
13-Oct-2005, 03:39
What if Marketing & Sales tried to earn their pay.
Nintendo may excel in innovation & have many talented people in game design but sadly the complete opposite applies to these departments.
The software/hardware promo's they keep churning out have run out of steam & has failed GC miserably due to lack of enough quality titles to keep things from stagnating!
Nintendo now make enough varied hardware both for home and portable @ descent prices to start bundling GC with GBA/SP, Micro or DS.
Leading up to XMAS, don't tell me another software/hardware tie up is forth coming! Now that Zelda TP's been delayed yet again. What other must have Nintendo games are on GC gamer's radar?
Unfortunately the answer is none.
If this lot were poker players they'd fail @ bluffing Ray Charles & Stevie Wonder!
There must be plenty of families like myself who would still benefit from Nintendo hardware bundles as I suggest.
There must be plenty of stock laying unsold. Stockpiled! Catching dust instead of the imagination of new gamers. You'd be able to afford 2 or more consoles for nearly the price of a PSP!
Now that I'm hopping on one limb! What if they were to buid new GC's with GBA player built in. No need to buy it as an option. This would also cover the lean GC software spell we keep experiencing with these cancellations & delays.
People moan GC is unable to play DVD's. One thing it can play with a little help is GBA games. Why stop there? I'd even further this idea later with built in DS gaming. Obviously later so as not to hurt sales there.
Some have likened Revoluion to Apples Ipod. What makes Ipod a success is not merely the fact that it plays MP3's (Many other companies do much the same, their batteries last longer and they support many more different formats) It's the many 3rd party add ons that extend IPOD's use.
GC could still be the gaming hub of Nintendo this generation if they put their mind to it. We could be looking @ 2007 before Revo release. GC could become the Swiss Army knife of Nintendo gaming. Not the spare wheel it appears to be now!
Just some of my radical ideas. They're better than Nintendo paralysis I see now!
I might even suggest with all these mobile phones out there that Nintendo attempt to capture some of the gaming market there! They have enough past IP for such a move. And it wouldn't hurt core business.
I was being sarcastic.
I was too, hence the smiley face. :)
No, they would be less profitabe. For example, I've recently heard that the GBMicro costs about $44 to manufacture. I wouldn't be surprised if the GCN costs a little above that dollar amount to manufacture.
It really doesn't matter what the GCN costs Nintendo to manufacture since we're really interested in the total profit the GCN has given Nintendo's bottom line - which takes into account the cost of making the GCN - in addition to R&D, marketing, etc.
Using Teasy's own #s, it would only take an attach rate of 1.8 titles over the lifespan of the console generation (5 years?) to be more profitable. (180 Million titles need to be sold total, 100 Million consoles)
Nintendo is a very profit-driven company. If they believed that the third party route was better and more profitable for them, the Revolution would have not been created.
I certainly don't have much evidence or thought to the contrary other than to say that it's quite possible they value other intangible benefits over short term profit gain. So even if becoming a 3rd party publisher would make them more profit in the short term, perhaps having their own console is part of their long term plan.
london-boy
13-Oct-2005, 10:36
Uhm there was very little "strategy" in the NES days. The NES was the only thing out for a long time (and the Sega Master System didn't matter much in these days, though it was quite successful in Europe IIRC), they didn't need "strategy". Well apart from the illegal competition-stumping contracts with some 3rd parties in the SNES days. Oh and the price fixing in Europe. Funny how the majority of the people still looks at Nintendo with pink goggles and see them as a saintly companies that is only in this "for our own good", when they have been just as sly and manipulative as anyone else.
As a matter of fact, when Nintendo had to start using a bit of strategy (when competition toughened up and Sega and then later on Sony came out), they struggled. And they still are, although many will shield themselves behind the "Ninty are making a profit!". So i don't have much faith in Nintendo's "strategy".
When competition came out, they started losing market share, which is natural, but they shouldn't have lost SO MUCH market share. With no sign of regaining it either, or of any interest in doing so anyway.
That's not the question I asked though. We need to compare (as you are attempting to do later in your post) the total profits arrived from the GCN against going multiplatform.
I missed out "that", the first line should have read:
To be honest when you look at the game sales on the system and consider the costs the question then becomes how could it not be that profitable?
Where did you get your figures from btw? Those are a good start at attempting to discover just how much the GCN added to Nintendo's bottom line
I got them from a top 250 current gen game sales chart sometime last year. I'm finding it very hard to find a good sales chart again though (had loads of links but lost them all when my PC crashed).
Your math is really bad.
If there are 110 million Xbox/PS2 owners, and 90 million of them don't own a GCN, then that means that every single GCN owner also owns an Xbox or PS2. (It also means that more GCN's have been sold than Nintendo says they've sold.)
I think you'll find that my math is fine, you simply can't read properly :D
I didn't say that there are 110 million XBox/PS2 owners. I said there are 110 million total current gen console owners. 90 million PS2's, 20 million XBox's and 20 million GC's owned by around 110 million gamers.
And again who said anything about GCN profits? Unless the market trend reverses itself, which frankly I don't see happening, the Revolution will sell significantly less than the GCN. Now, if you've got some kind of really credible evidence that suggests Nintendo will reverse the market trend of them loosing marketshare, I would love to see it. If you don't, then you shouldn't use the GCN sales as the basis of your arguement.
I need evidence to disprove your guess work do I? :lol: Tell me, how can I give you evidence on something that hasn't happened yet? You want to talk about Nintendo and console profits, well all we have is GC for that, everything else is nothing but conjecture.
london-boy
13-Oct-2005, 13:30
I think you'll find that my math is fine, you simply can't read properly :D
I didn't say that there are 110 million XBox/PS2 owners. I said there are 110 million total current gen console owners. 90 million PS2's, 20 million XBox's and 20 million GC's owned by around 110 million gamers.
Maybe it's just me but isn't that 130M...? :oops:
Teasy's assuming that some of them own more than one console, which is why he stated the 110 million number. :wink:
Maybe it's just me but isn't that 130M...?
Nope, though its understandable you'd think that if you didn't read my original post. I was assuming that 20 million of the 90 million PS2 owners also owned a GC or XBox.
EDIT: Ah Phil beat me too it :)
london-boy
13-Oct-2005, 13:44
Oh.
*legally blonde*
Using Teasy's own #s, it would only take an attach rate of 1.8 titles over the lifespan of the console generation (5 years?) to be more profitable. (180 Million titles need to be sold total, 100 Million consoles)
That's pretty much the same profit really, I'd say 225 million sold to be safe :), and that's only for a small increase in profit. Also my numbers were only for the first 4 years.
london-boy
13-Oct-2005, 13:47
*reading Teasy's previous posts here*
Teasy you stole my numbers! I made a post pretty much like yours last week!
You number stealerest!
As a matter of fact, when Nintendo had to start using a bit of strategy (when competition toughened up and Sega and then later on Sony came out), they struggled. And they still are, although many will shield themselves behind the "Ninty are making a profit!".
A company making profits is hardly merely an excuse to hide behind though, after all its the whole point of being in business.. If Nintendo were selling loads of consoles (as they could if they decided to subsidise everything heavily) and losing money hand over fist I certainly wouldn't be backing them long term. If I did by saying "well they're going down the drain financially but look at all the marketshare" then that really would be an excuse.
Which post?, which numbers? :)
london-boy
13-Oct-2005, 14:10
Which post?, which numbers? :)
Looky http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?p=585472&highlight=xbox#post585472 :grin:
Powderkeg
13-Oct-2005, 14:14
A company making profits is hardly merely an excuse to hide behind though, after all its the whole point of being in business.. If Nintendo were selling loads of consoles (as they could if they decided to subsidise everything heavily) and losing money hand over fist I certainly wouldn't be backing them long term. If I did by saying "well they're going down the drain financially but look at all the marketshare" then that really would be an excuse.
Profits have to be balanced with marketshare though.
If Nintendo only made 1 console, but sold it for $5 more than it cost to make it, it would be a profit. Even Nintendo admits that they are on the unfavorable side of that balacing act right now, having repeatedly blamed the Gamecube for lower than expected earnings over the past 4 years. They are already at the point where a further drop in marketshare will mean reduced profits in the long term.
And if supporting a console means their long term profits will be reduced, you have to begin to question if the bean counters at Nintendo accept that loss of profits or stop competing in what is for them an unprofitable market.
Looky http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showth...box#post585472
You mentioned the exact same numbers a week ago yet you didn't realise what I meant when I mentioned them :lol: You maniac you :D
london-boy
13-Oct-2005, 14:17
Yet you didn't realise what I meant when I mentioned the exact same numbers :lol: You so crazy :D
Errr ok u win.
I have a new What If.
What if Nintendo turns to porn?
Super Mario Bros and Princess Whatever would take a whole new meaning....
Wasn't trying to win anything, but now that I have what did I win? It isn't anything gay is it?
Shifty Geezer
13-Oct-2005, 14:27
Wasn't trying to win anything, but now that I have what did I win? It isn't anything gay is it?Yes. It's some Nintendo porn that LB's developing. Bet you're sorry you got involved now!
london-boy
13-Oct-2005, 14:27
Wasn't trying to win anything, but now that I have what did I win? It isn't anything gay is it?
:shock:
You win a whole troll all for you. To follow you around and bore you to death with Sony's FLOPS figures and MS's profit figures. And tell u that Nintendo are teh doomed.
Powderkeg
13-Oct-2005, 14:28
I think you'll find that my math is fine, you simply can't read properly :D
I didn't say that there are 110 million XBox/PS2 owners. I said there are 110 million total current gen console owners. 90 million PS2's, 20 million XBox's and 20 million GC's owned by around 110 million gamers.
91.62 million PS2s as of July 26th.
22 million Xboxes as of June 30th.
18.6 million Gamecubes as of June 24th.
Total = 132.22 Million
Of course, that's several months old. I don't know how much MS has added, but Sony averages about a million a month.
I need evidence to disprove your guess work do I? :lol: Tell me, how can I give you evidence on something that hasn't happened yet?
So you are saying that market trends have not reversed, correct? In that case, it would be wrong to assume that they will when you have absolutely no supporting evidence, correct?
You want to talk about Nintendo and console profits, well all we have is GC for that, everything else is nothing but conjecture.
mckmas8808
13-Oct-2005, 14:29
:shock:
You win a whole troll all for you. To follow you around and bore you to death with Sony's FLOPS figures and MS's profit figures. And tell u that Nintendo are teh doomed.
:lol: This is the funniest thread this week. Keep it up guys.
Powderkeg
13-Oct-2005, 14:30
I wish I could edit. :evil:
I forgot to say that you are still counting every single GCN owner as an Xbox or PS2 owner as well. There is no way that 100% of the GCN userbase owns one of the other current-gen consoles.
london-boy
13-Oct-2005, 14:36
I wish I could edit. :evil:
I forgot to say that you are still counting every single GCN owner as an Xbox or PS2 owner as well. There is no way that 100% of the GCN userbase owns one of the other current-gen consoles.
I don't think he said that.
Personally I think that *many people* own 2 consoles. Or have owned, which is the same thing cause it all shows in sales figures anyway, whether you still have the console or not.
Powderkeg
13-Oct-2005, 14:39
I don't think he said that.
Personally I think that *many people* own 2 consoles. Or have owned, which is the same thing cause it all shows in sales figures anyway, whether you still have the console or not.
Yeah, it's back to the non-editing problem. It's early, I haven't had enough caffine, and ddin't read his response correctly. That last post of mine was just wrong.
But my point stands. There are enough non-Nintendo system owners out there that even if just a fraction of them bought a Nintendo game, it would turn a profit for them, and a big-name game like Zelda could probably rake in GTA type sales figures.
I'll reply to the rest of your comments later Powderkeg:
I forgot to say that you are still counting every single GCN owner as an Xbox or PS2 owner as well. There is no way that 100% of the GCN userbase owns one of the other current-gen consoles.
I'm not, I'm assuming that there are 110 million total current gen console owners owning around 130 million consoles between them. With around 20 million of those PS2 owners owning a GC and/or XBox (and another 20 million owning only a XBox or GC).
london-boy
13-Oct-2005, 14:43
Yeah, it's back to the non-editing problem. It's early, I haven't had enough caffine, and ddin't read his response correctly. That last post of mine was just wrong.
System is there so newbies (or naughty boys) learn to think before posting! http://www.avforums.com/forums/images/smilies/znaika.gif (http://www.avforums.com/forums/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=41#)
:wink:
Powderkeg
13-Oct-2005, 14:45
System is there so newbies (or naughty boys) learn to think before posting! http://www.avforums.com/forums/images/smilies/znaika.gif (http://www.avforums.com/forums/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=41#)
:wink:
So.......... does that mean the editing system is there for long time members who don't?
:wink:
Powderkeg
13-Oct-2005, 14:46
I'll reply to the rest of your comments later Powderkeg:
I'm not, I'm assuming that there are 110 million total current gen console owners owning around 130 million consoles between them. With around 20 million of those PS2 owners owning a GC and/or XBox (and another 20 million owning only a XBox or GC).
I already said I was wrong on that post.
I didn't know that when I posted though..
london-boy
13-Oct-2005, 14:52
So.......... does that mean the editing system is there for long time members who don't?
:wink:
Basically YES! We earned it the right to post-first-think-later! :lol:
Powderkeg
13-Oct-2005, 14:52
I didn't know that when I posted though.. :)
I didn't either. :wink:
Powderkeg
13-Oct-2005, 14:56
Basically YES! We earned it the right to post-first-think-later! :lol:
Sweet. Wish my boss would feel the same way.
Think we've derailed this thread enough?
london-boy
13-Oct-2005, 15:12
Sweet. Wish my boss would feel the same way.
Think we've derailed this thread enough?
You don't know the meaning of the word "derail" :lol: It's like an art, ask me or Digi!!
Infinisearch
14-Oct-2005, 07:42
Wow four pages, thats what i get for not looking in a thread for a day. I like the revolution controller in concept, I like the fact that the revolution will play the whole Nintendo library, and finally if the revolution drops at the right price I think it will be profitable. However in the past few weeks or so three things caught my attention:
1. Alot of japanese developers seem to be flocking around X360, at least currently.
2. Nintendo admited that games will look as good on an SD TV set, but as of yet HD support is not planned. (but there was mention of looking into adding it)
3. Nintendo admits it might be alienating some developers with the revolution controller.
4. Alot of people while interested in the controller are taking a wait and see/play approach about it.
5. The question of "will a controller concept really bring non-gamers to actually buy a console" is a wait and see affair, so opening up new markets is a gamble of sorts.
So here's Nintendo with the GCN profitable but with steady marketshare declines in the home console market over the years, and a highly profitable, high volume portable market that has no real competition until recently with the PSP. There is no doubt that Nintendo's core customers will support Nintendo because their games, but if there third party support drops even further than GCN levels because developers don't find it profitable to port games to Revolution beyond ones specifically targeting the controller, the market beyond their core gamers will be solely dependent on the sucess of the controller. In addition while Nintendo IP is their big sell point, when was the last time Nintendo introduced new highly sucessful IP?
Sorry for the long post but essentially this is why I made the OP in the first place, to essentially see how many gamers would buy the Revolution controller as an addon to some other electronic gaming platform??? I shouldn't have posed it as a 'what if' but that is where my mind was miandering at the time I posted, so I just included all the options I was thinking about at the time in regards to a business strategy.
OP by hey69
"regarding the first post.
you still dont believe in that third pilar crap now dont you?"
Huh?
OP by london-boy
"Well look at what that move did to the quality of Sega's software.
I'm afraid a move like that would turn Nintendo in "just another 3rd party studio" who will care FAR less about the games they produce than they would if they were exclusives to their own consoles. And that shows in the games big time!"
I don't that would be true of nintendo, their attitude towards the games they make while business like also has an air pride and creativity but that is just my opinion.
OP by "jvd"
"I think nintendo should open its bank account and buy a few small developers. nothing nuts just some developers that make more adult orientated games. Fold them into nintendo and produce more games ."
Thats a good idea too, and thanks for sharing it.
__________________
Infinisearch
14-Oct-2005, 08:16
Doesn't that go hand in hand though?With few titles to choose from, those titles will sell more. With lots of titles sales will be spread out. That is, if there's one fighter game, it sells to all fighter fans on GC, say 5 million gamers. That's a 5 million unit selling game. But if there were 3 fighters, that'd be more like 1.5 million units per game. With 20 different MarioKart clones and the like, the pool gets diluted.
I wonder if Nintendo aren;t deliberately keeping 3rd party support down a bit because of this, and promote a premium content idea? AFAIK they offer know incentives to attract more developers. They could have afforded to drop license fees years back and get more titles onto GC, but they didn't. I don't think that's because they idea didn't occur to them either.
Good point, I agree with it to an extent and think I've seen the point been brought up in some other thread/threads, but what got me was the announcing of alot of japanese devs really warming up to the X360, as I stated in my last post. It seems to me that if the revolution doesn't push enough units initially, it is less likely to be profitable for third party developers to make games beyond the more simple ones that make use of the special controller, and if the revolution is not in the "power range" of its competitors there won't be as many ports possible as with the current generation. While original titles are nice I think that if titles made on movie IP and other cross console games don't get ported to the revolution then it potentially limits the popularity of the console beyond nintendo core consumer base even more than revolution. Its seems to me alot of the revolutions sucess might be dependent on its launch even more so than other consoles, but then again its all conjecture on my part.
Infinisearch
14-Oct-2005, 08:27
Nintendo are nothing like Sega so its pointless to compare them, going third party would not mean more profits either. Straight away they would make 33% less profit per game, on current generation game sales that would mean $700 million less profit. They would lose all licensing money that comes from third party game sales (around $1.5 billion this generation). They would also lose all their peripheral sales (controllers, memory cards ect), which again goes into the billions of dollars. Not to mention they would lose the ability to share technology between there console and handheld businesses. What would they gain?.. the possibility of selling some extra games? They would have to sell more then three times the amount of games just to recoup the money they would lose from losing the revenue streams I mentioned above. There's no way they would achieve that sort of increase in game sales by going third party. The fact is the majority of people who really want to play Nintendo games buy Nintendo consoles...
Nintendo have no reason to drop out of the console business, when will people stop bringing up this obsurd argument?
I'm assuming you made that last statement in regard to my OP, if its not by all means please ignore the following. I didn't mean for nintendo to drop out of the console market permenently but more or less as feint. They would stay profitable in the interim and have time to deliver a competetive or superior console at a potenially cheaper price while having time to 'beta-test' the revolution controller version 1.0, all while allowing developers to brain-storm with it on a platform they are already familiar with and allow them to profit from it if it bears fruit.
Infinisearch
14-Oct-2005, 08:42
BTW where do you go to get your worldwide console and games sales figures? If I start such discussions i really should look this stuff up instead of going off memory of some link I clicked.
rabidrabbit
14-Oct-2005, 09:00
You go to the... internet!
OVERLORD
14-Oct-2005, 11:12
:lol: This is the funniest thread this week. Keep it up guys.
So amusing are the responses.
Looks like my what if tripped up and fell below radar! A bit like some GC releases!
Maybe I should call myself Mario. Then I'll get noticed.
I wonder if Nintendo aren;t deliberately keeping 3rd party support down a bit because of this, and promote a premium content idea? AFAIK they offer know incentives to attract more developers. They could have afforded to drop license fees years back and get more titles onto GC, but they didn't. I don't think that's because they idea didn't occur to them either.
But Nintendo did drop licensing fee's for third parties on GameCube. They also actively went after third parties, making deals with Capcom and EA and also offering some developers (Sega, Namco ect) the chance to work on Nintendo franchise games such as Starfox, F-Zero and Mario. They didn't buy third party support on mass like MS, but its just not true to say that they offered no incentives at all.
I'm assuming you made that last statement in regard to my OP
No, I was responding to the person I quoted in the post, which was Powderkeg.
Shifty Geezer
14-Oct-2005, 16:24
But Nintendo did drop licensing fee's for third parties on GameCube. They also actively went after third parties, making deals with Capcom and EA and also offering some developers (Sega, Namco ect) the chance to work on Nintendo franchise games such as Starfox, F-Zero and Mario. They didn't buy third party support on mass like MS, but its just not true to say that they offered no incentives at all.Oh. I wasn't aware of this (though I rememebr something about an EA deal now I come to think of it. I guess Nintendo just aren;t as good at marketting their machine to third parties then :p
OVERLORD
14-Oct-2005, 16:30
See what I mean.
Even now folks ignore me.
Oh dear! Just like Mario.
I should've chosen Link!
Stop the press!
Sleeping Giant awakening http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=6828
Oh. I wasn't aware of this (though I rememebr something about an EA deal now I come to think of it. I guess Nintendo just aren;t as good at marketting their machine to third parties then
Didn't say that Nintendo offered anywhere near as many incentives to third parties as MS and Sony :) Just that they did offer some.
fearsomepirate
19-Oct-2005, 05:46
Wouldn't they make even more profit
*sigh*
No. People have this strange impression that Nintendo's major 1st-party games don't sell well, when in fact Smash Bros, Sunshine, Wind Waker, and Double Dash have all been multi-platinum titles. If they were released on PS2 (the Xbox demographic is simply disinterested in the Mario franchise, making ports to that system a potential financial disaster), they'd have to
a) Compete with the rest of the PS2 library.
b) Pay royalties to Sony.
c) Buy devkits from Sony and pay whatever other associated costs come with those.
d) Stop selling peripherals and hardware, all of which are quite profitable.
e) Lose any and all revenues from 2nd and 3rd party software.
So no, going 3rd-party wouldn't automatically translate into more profit. Sure, Twilight Princess might sell an extra 500,000 units, but do you honestly think Mario Party and Mario sports titles would do half as well as they do on GameCube? Would Pikmin have even been noticed, or Prime 2 sold more than 100,000 copies?
Shifty Geezer
19-Oct-2005, 10:18
noticed[/I], or Prime 2 sold more than 100,000 copies?Some people think yes, some think no. There's no rel evidence either way. some think that anyone interested in playing Mario (GC) games would buy a GC, but I don't think that's true. There's been plenty of game AFAIK launched on one console that eventually made the transition to another console and found a willing customer base there. Regards your other points,
a) Good title do well. Unless Nintendo games really aren't that great what have they to fear from other lesser titles?
b) Royalties is where they lose profit margins, but if they sell more games they make more money. Would they rather make $1 billion profit selling on their own hardware without paying royalties, or $2 billion profit selling on PS2 after paying Sony's royalties.
c) Negligable cost in the grand scheme of things
d) They'd lose some income like controller sales but they could still develop and sell custom peripherals like the Bongos could they not?
e) Yes, they'd lose these.
The point is whether the increase in user base would mean more software income for Nintendo than the sideline incomes like 3rd party royalties and peripheral profits. Numbers posted here suggest to me they would. Others disagree. But seeing how most of Nintendo's money seems to come from 1st party software sales, and publishing to other consoles will provide 5x the customer base, there's definitely a clear argument in favour of Nintendo being more profitable going 3rd party and the rest of this thread hasn't managed to find vital stats (like a survey of PS2 owners who'd buy Mario if available on PS2) to prove or disprove the theory.
a) Good title do well.
Very, very questionable.
There's been plenty of game AFAIK launched on one console that eventually made the transition to another console and found a willing customer base there.
A game being released on one system and then selling ok on another system 6 months later is hardly the same thing. Mario, Zelda, Metroid ect are only ever released on a Nintendo console. If you want those games on a console then you know from the start that there is only one place to get them. Having said that I have no doubt that these games would sell some copies on the PS2 and even some on XBox but the question would be how many. What you surely must agree on is that these games would sell nowhere near as well on PS2 or XBox as they did on GC.
Royalties is where they lose profit margins, but if they sell more games they make more money. Would they rather make $1 billion profit selling on their own hardware without paying royalties, or $2 billion profit selling on PS2 after paying Sony's royalties.
As I've mentioned before this generation Nintendo sold at least 60 million of there own games on GameCube. They've also made a couple of billion from licensing fees and peripheral sales. To beat Nintendo's profit this generation as a third party they would have to sell around 225 million games.
Now lets assume that the same 20 million people who bought a GC again buy 60 million Nintendo games (average of 3 games per person). That means that 80 million people who weren't even interested enough in Nintendo games to buy a $99 console would have to buy 165 million Nintendo games (just over 2 games per person on average for those 80 million people). How can you really say that you believe that would happen if Nintendo went third party?
fearsomepirate
20-Oct-2005, 23:11
There's no rel evidence either way. some think that anyone interested in playing Mario (GC) games would buy a GC, but I don't think that's true.
Obviously it's true of some people. While no one buys a GC for Mario Tennis, you do get two kinds of adopters regarding Mario:
1. People who buy the GC out of a general appreciation of the Mario franchise. These people then go on to buy a few Mario games later.
2. People who buy GC's for other reasons (Zelda, Mariokart, whatever), then buy Mario games because they're there.
The second type of adopter disappears if Nintendo goes 3rd-party. Mario Baseball was a top ten game last month in part due to the fact there weren't many other games on the Cube it had to compete with. Someone owning only a Gamecube isn't choosing between Mario Baseball and DMC3. Similarly, Metroid Prime 2 only had to compete with Halo 2 among people owning both Xbox and GC and people getting their first console. For people owning only a GC (such as me), Halo 2 wasn't even an option last Christmas, so MP2 was the "big" title. While 400K units isn't the greatest, if it had been an Xbox title, sales would likely have been lower, not higher.
The point is whether the increase in user base would mean more software income for Nintendo
No, the point is whether the increase in user base would mean more software income for Nintendo, period. You are completely overlooking the huge increase in competition they would have purely on the software front. Increasing usebase doesn't always mean increasing income. The classic examples are Sega (Xbox has a much larger audience than DC ever did, but they couldn't move sell copies of Jet Set Radio Future to save their lives) and the Viewtiful Joe 2. Nintendo as a software publisher has an effective near-monopoly on somewhere between a 10 and 18 million-person segment of the home console market. Has this worked? I'd say hell yeah; the only company on the planet that beats them in software sales is EA. #3 Activision trailed by a good 20% last month, and #4 THQ pulled around only half as much as Nintendo did.
You think it's because they make so many games? Guess again. In September, Nintendo published a grand total of four new games. Activision publsihed twelve.
DO NOT KILL THE GOOSE THAT LAID THE GOLDEN EGG.
What if Shigeru Miyamoto started *making* games again instead of leading projects.
What if 2D platform games became the killer app of next generation consoles?
What if only on Revolution there was this neat mode that allowed a sprite to be mapped and scaled over a large area creating the effect of 3D scaling?
What if...I didn't miss my SNES so much. :cry:
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.