I have a feeling this approach would divide the players even more and backfire on Ninty consequently. I believe people prefers a dedicated device more than something that's jack of all trades master of none, not to mention the hefty price.
Nintendo Switch Event 2017-01-12 and Switch Launch discussion
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
- Status
I see this wish for Nintendo to fail in order to get their games on Playstation (or MS) quite a lot. Nintendos contingency plan is not to become a third party developer for other console platforms, but to expand their development for iOS and probably Android. If they can't bring something unique to the table in terms of physical gameplay or utility, the mobile platforms suit their content well, and the audience is huge. Console gamers like to bring up that so far, Mario run on iOS has had 3.4% paying customers, but that still works out to thirty million dollar revenue already, and upwards of a hundred million downloads. For what is a pretty light title in terms of development for Nintendo. It looks to pull in at least between 50 to 100 million dollars during its life time, which should be quite good return on investment.
What would an iOS MarioKart revenue look like? Rest assured that Nintendo is considering the numbers.
To me it is bizarre not to realise that it would have been dead easy for Nintendo to commission a vanilla console box from AMD, and they have chosen not to.
By not doing so, they can adress and attract not only the existing core console audience, but a wider/different demographic. In essence, they grow the base audience for console titles, and the console business model even as they avoid competing directly with Sony/MS. Wishing them to fail, is wishing consoles to fail as a business model. (Which I can certainly relate to, but doesn't seem to be these posters intention.)
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Nintendo has stated many times that the largest reason for them to keep making hardware is to make sure the people playing their games are using a solid, predictable, QA-approved platform that won't get in the way of the gameplay experience.
The iphone works well enough for a super-simple game like Mario Run, sure. But trying to port a future Zelda, Metroid, 3D Mario, Pikmin or even a full 2D side-scrolling Mario would be impossible on that platform because battery is tiny on iphones and there aren't robust gamepads.
PC games would have to go through innumerable QA efforts which Nintendo is obviously not keen on doing.
What's left as the closest thing to Nintendo hardware, which they claim to be super important for solid gameplay, is Sony and Microsoft hardware.
Are you really convinced the Switch is going to attract the "core console audience"?
The only "core"-something they might be able to attract is the 3DS and hardcore Nintendo fanbase which as been steadily going down in the past 10 years. And for the 3DS crowd this is only going to happen if/when they drastically lower those prices.
Here's my logic:
- I would like to play games from Nintendo franchises. They never stopped being great as software developers.
- My desire to play their games is enough to be willing to pay for their software, but not enough to pay for a hardware that can't really play anything else. Same logic as me being willing to pay for a jacuzzi, but not for a whole new house that is worse than my current house in everything else just to fit said jacuzzi.
- I really do want more console makers to strive in the market as I don't think a duopoly is all that great for me or consumers in general (2001 was actually pretty great in that sense). For that reason, I've waited ~ 10 years for Nintendo to release a console that isn't a crappy house that fits a nice jacuzzi.
- Nintendo has proven yet again to be completely autistic regarding consumer demands, and their board of directors seem intellectually incapable of changing the company's direction. After ~5 years, they keep thinking many people will buy their overpriced crappy houses just to fit their universally acclaimed jacuzzis.
- Therefore, I have no more faith that Nintendo is ever going to release decent houses like they did 15 years ago. And my life demands that I have spacious rooms, as well as good thermal and sound isolation. So I'll keep buying my houses from Sony and/or Microsoft, and wish Nintendo stops their housing business so I can get one of their jacuzzis in my house.
How do you know that? There's not going to be any advertising of a plan to release Nintendo games on other consoles until it happens. They may already have a PlayStation contingency on the boards for all we know.
Not for the full gamut of Nintendo games. Mario Run works because it's a single button game designed for mobile. Mario platformers (Mario Galaxies etc) will be nigh impossible on mobile devices.
If it played well enough, let's say $100 million like your theoretical Mario run example. Now consider Mario Kart sold for $60 on 100 million PS4s and XB1s, at $30 a pop to Nintendo to 10% of the install base (probably higher because good kart games are few and far between, and of course all the Nintendo fans would buy into consoles. 36 million out of 120 million Wii owners bought MK). That's $300+ million.
If Nintendo have any sense, they'll release to all platforms. Mobile targeted games can generate revenue from that sector but mobile can also be incredibly fickle and unpredictable, and console targeted games for console gamers, meaning they aren't putting all their eggs in one basket. Each offers different ideal game styles and a different audience. Maximise the portfolio, maximise revenues and maximise stability. It's the only sane business option IMO. That's why Ubi and EA, with the same bazillion device audience for mobile games, still make and profit from console and PC games.
As I've commented frequently on this topic, I feel like companies lose their edge when they get out of hardware. The quintessential example being Sega.
Quick, name the greatly successful Japanese third parties. I cant really think of one that isn't struggling. Why should a 3rd party Nintendo be the exception?
Console software is increasingly an oligopoly dominated by a select few large western corps. EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Take Two. Even their future may be shaky.
I think Nintendo would achieve an initial burst of success, but then inexorably fade away from relevance. For that matter, I think the same is their destiny on phones, and I think they kind of know that, which is why they've always resisted.
I'm negative on Switch, dont get me wrong. Nintendo is kind of in a rock and a hard place. Which is where they've been for years and why they've seen plummeting profits and relevance. OTOH, they're still here and they're still relevant, in 2017 so, there's that.
Analysis:
- Hardware looks nice....looks well made and good quality.
- I thought we were finally getting away from the motion controls?....interesting to see them essentially double down on motion controls during the presentation...sigh.
- Price is too high and is the biggest issue with this thing succeeding
- Zelda: BoTW and Mario Odyssey look amazing and are the first Nintendo games I want to play in years...however the rest of the game lineup looks incredibly weak...I expect a massive drought after Odyssey releases.
- Pro controller is way to expensive especially when it seems like a must for people who are mainly going to play this in docked mode.
- Have concerns about joycon stick/button layout. Most asymmetric controllers have bottom right analog stick and left d-pad/buttons placed inward and not directly under the top xyab buttons and top left analog stick. This to ensure you don't have to bend your thumbs when moving between buttons and stick...looks like it could be uncomfortable...especially with that right analog stick.
In my opinion in order for this to be a success they are going to have to drop the price by $50USD in a years time after the hardcore Nintendo fans/early adopters/first-holiday-season-on-market buyers are out of the way. Either that or at least have sales on the system and the accessories and with games bundled in similar to Microsoft and Sony and not like they did with the Wii U. Also they need to get a Virtual Console up and running with hopefully NES->Gamceube support and start porting some big games from Wii U and 3DS. The value in a Nintendo console these days is being able to have access to and playing Nintendo games which includes the back catalog.
- Hardware looks nice....looks well made and good quality.
- I thought we were finally getting away from the motion controls?....interesting to see them essentially double down on motion controls during the presentation...sigh.
- Price is too high and is the biggest issue with this thing succeeding
- Zelda: BoTW and Mario Odyssey look amazing and are the first Nintendo games I want to play in years...however the rest of the game lineup looks incredibly weak...I expect a massive drought after Odyssey releases.
- Pro controller is way to expensive especially when it seems like a must for people who are mainly going to play this in docked mode.
- Have concerns about joycon stick/button layout. Most asymmetric controllers have bottom right analog stick and left d-pad/buttons placed inward and not directly under the top xyab buttons and top left analog stick. This to ensure you don't have to bend your thumbs when moving between buttons and stick...looks like it could be uncomfortable...especially with that right analog stick.
In my opinion in order for this to be a success they are going to have to drop the price by $50USD in a years time after the hardcore Nintendo fans/early adopters/first-holiday-season-on-market buyers are out of the way. Either that or at least have sales on the system and the accessories and with games bundled in similar to Microsoft and Sony and not like they did with the Wii U. Also they need to get a Virtual Console up and running with hopefully NES->Gamceube support and start porting some big games from Wii U and 3DS. The value in a Nintendo console these days is being able to have access to and playing Nintendo games which includes the back catalog.
Why would their software fade to obscurity if on other devices but not if on their own devices?
Simply put: Nintendo is able to get away with a lot by maintaining their own fully controlled ecosystem. By maintaining their own walled garden they are not subject to same market conditions they would be on other platforms.
Not to mention they still make a large portion of revenue on hardware...In fact the more I think about wanting to buy a Switch just to play Zelda: BoTW and Mario Odyssey I wonder if Nintendo's model is as much about using their franchises to sell overpriced hardware as it is about using hardware to sell software. I mean I bought a Wii on launch day just to play Zelda: Twilight Princess...
In some ways it's a bit of an illusion....but it's 2017 and they are still here.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Thinking of Atari and Sega, maybe the problem is that these companies didn't really decide to leave the hardware business, but were instead kicked out of it after nearly going bankrupt.
That's a very hard place to come out from, especially if they end up losing most of their talent in the meantime.
Is Capcom in a bad place? I thought they were doing well. Then ATLUS seems to be doing fine too. Square Enix is a western-japanese fusion, but their Japanese games are pretty successful AFAIK.
The only ones I know aren't doing so well are Sega after releasing like 5 terrible Sonic games in a row and Konami who are drowning in their management's own vomit.
I don't see any hard reason for Nintendo not to be a major 3rd party developer in the world.
Unless they wait until they're out of money and talent to do so.
I find these comments in contradiction. There's nothing stopping Zelda or Mario being just as good on a PlayStation as on a Nintendo console. What is it about Nintendo having a 'walled garden' that makes these franchises more valuable or compelling? Why wouldn't you want the same Zelda or Mario game on a different console? Or would these games be inherently different if they target a machine with a different badge on the front?
Your argument is from a consumer standpoint...mine is from a Nintendo standpoint..
Why do i have to buy a Sony console to play their first party games?
Rootax
Veteran
Come on it's BS, or Nintendo reps talk.
For 2 non gamer peoples they "get", how many gamer they loss, going to MS, Sony, or out of the gaming market all together (which is the worst) ? And do you think all the casual wii players are still gaming ? I don't believe so. They grow nothing, in my mind.
I think Nintendo Japan still believe they know better than the players what the players need. "Take this gimick, believe me, it's for your own good". And then they don't understand why it bombs, say "ok now we get it", and stiiiiiill produce a weird console concept. For me the last good nintendo console was the Gamecube. I hated the Wii with the weird control. I like the WiiU ok, but not enough games... And the gamepad was useless 95% of the time...
Last edited:
I still don't understand. What do they get away with?
We're talking a hypothetical situation where Nintendo becomes a 3rd party developer. Why/how would Nintendo's software suffer if released on a console not designed by them? I'm see no argument to think their software would change at all.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Sony "earned" that "right" when it made consoles that people want to buy.
Nintendo did not.
Didn't quite work with the WiiU, did it?
Guess we'll see how many 3DS folk eat their ball shatz* that is Switch.
*German
It'd need a quality mounting device and you'll still get no QoS on Android because Nintendo won't be able to control the hardware. So some people will have a crap Nintendo gaming experience because of their hardware. That's something Nintendo don't want (for their key franchises at least) which is where targeting consoles suits them. Not to mention questionable adoption - are mobile gamers, the sort happy to tap a screen, going to want to buy a $20 Nintendo controller?
Well the economic motivation for Nintendo would be to probably charge like $70 for these things.
Yeah I don't know if there's an easy way to do it so you can mount both halves around different phone designs and at the same time, let you latch both halves together if you want to use on a larger device like a tablet.
They'd have to introduce at least 4 or 5 games almost simultaneously to get people to pay that much. Maybe bundle a Mario game with it but it would work for other games available almost at the same time, like a Mario Kart game, Zelda, etc.
But unless they're selling some kind of console or handheld, they'd have to sell a ton of games on mobiles to make up for the level of revenues they'd expect. Though of course the margins might be better with selling games on other systems.
Yeah I don't know if there's an easy way to do it so you can mount both halves around different phone designs and at the same time, let you latch both halves together if you want to use on a larger device like a tablet.
They'd have to introduce at least 4 or 5 games almost simultaneously to get people to pay that much. Maybe bundle a Mario game with it but it would work for other games available almost at the same time, like a Mario Kart game, Zelda, etc.
But unless they're selling some kind of console or handheld, they'd have to sell a ton of games on mobiles to make up for the level of revenues they'd expect. Though of course the margins might be better with selling games on other systems.
- Status
