Does Nintendo have a chance next-generation?

[PC-Engine]

PC-Engine, SEGA reported a prfoit before the Sammy deal went through. It may have been a tiny little profit, but it was a profit. I may no longer be at SEGA but I still have contacts with many employees there.

Sure, but that was after they withdrew from the hardware business...

I guess they could've paid off their own debt without the help of Sammy but it would take them an incredibly LONG TIME. You also fail to mention the fact SEGA Chairman Isao Ohkawa donated about $700 million back to SEGA before he passed away.

Nintendo doesn't want to eventually withdraw from the hardware business so making lots of money to fund future hardware development is a necessary part in following that path.

 

[cthellis42]

You also fail to mention the fact SEGA Chairman Isao Ohkawa donated about $700 million back to SEGA before he passed away.

Yowza. Nice guy. I with I'd been on his Friends List.

 

[zurich]

Nintendo doesn't want to eventually withdraw from the hardware business so making lots of money to fund future hardware development is a necessary part in following that path.

Even if their market and profits shrink each generation?

 

[PC-Engine]

Nintendo doesn't want to eventually withdraw from the hardware business so making lots of money to fund future hardware development is a necessary part in following that path.

Even if their market and profits shrink each generation?

Why does it make any difference? Marketshare is gained lost like in any other business. It's a fact of life when there's more competition. If you're making loads of money you don't just stop what you're doing because some armchair expert says so...

 

[Readykilowatt]

To zurich

(1) Didn't Nintendo make bigger profits from the N64 than they did from the SNES?

(2) Doesn't Nintendo make an average of 500 million dollars in profits every fiscal year (even to this day)?

Additionally...

The report notes that in the past five years, Sony has emerged as the leading force in the video game industry. From fiscal 1995 to fiscal 2002, Sony has reported $36 billion in revenue from video games, compared with $32 billion for Nintendo. On the other hand, Nintendo has reported significantly higher operating income. Nevertheless, the momentum is clearly on Sony’s side. Nintendo has been consistently profitable, but their revenue has not significantly grown in the past ten years.

http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/c2675/

It seems that Nintendo's main problem is revenue stagnation.

 

[a4164]

Even if their market and profits shrink each generation?

Another "if" could be, what if Nintendo gains market share next gen by overcoming hurdles that GCN/N64 created.

- better third party support/better third party relationships (more exclusives)
- actual online support
- image

Once again I do not think Nintendo is doomed, only if trends continue and Nintendo does nothing about it. As an optimist, I believe Nintendo can change these things. I already see the above three weaknesses being somewhat addressed with their handling of the DS (Yamauchi's reign is over, Iwata's legacy has just begun).

SNES (49 million worldwide)
Sony enters market
N64 (32 million units worldwide)
MS enters market
GCN (currently about 16 million units worldwide - still 2 more years to go )

And if I remember Teasy's postings. Didn't Nintendo's war chest grow from $6 billion to $ 7 billion USD this gen (mostly from GBA I wager).

Nintendo is facing the strongest competition it has ever had. Their lack of competing is not helping, but (and this is my favorite "if") what if they started to compete.

 

[cthellis42]

Yowza. Looks like this place is pretty spot on after all. ^_^ (Just not useful for tracking anything active since March '03.) Certainly of the Nintendo numbers. (And thanks for the links. I was always wondering if they addressed total sales specifically.)

 

[Magnum PI]

Nintendo doesn't want to eventually withdraw from the hardware business so making lots of money to fund future hardware development is a necessary part in following that path.

Even if their market and profits shrink each generation?

they made more money from N64 than from snes, i would like to know how much this gen compared to N64..

if i understand you because they make less money than before they should quit hardware..

so nintendo wouldn't perceive royalties from 3rd parties anymore, and would have to pay royalties to sony and/or microsoft for each game they sell... do you really think this would help nintendo ? they would have to sell a lot more games to make the same profits, and it's unsure at least they would.

look at the financial history of publishers with a comparable number of releases as nintendo (i think they publish a lot less games than EA for example), and look at nintendo's one, it must be evident that the nintendo model isn't that bad.

 

[thop]

- better third party support/better third party relationships (more exclusives)
- actual online support
- image

#1 and #3 are linked. They can only change (i'd prefer to use the term widen) their image through 3rd party. Nintendo 1st party will never change. They make family games, games that Miyamoto can play with his kids. They also need more games, no matter what games, just more. PS2, like PSX before, has lots of games coming out. Most of them are crap, but it doesn't matter. All this can only be done with lots of 3rd party. However i don't really see that happening. I doubt developers are eager nowadays do develop for Nintendo instead of Sony/MS.

I think online support might be overrated, Nintendo certainly thinks so. Nintendo emphasizes on multiplayer with a few friends in the same room. I'm pretty sure the revolutionary feature of Revolution has sth. to do with it. It might actually combine online with traditional multiplayer, maybe it allows you to beam your friends to your room

 

[Evil_Cloud]

I am confused by Nintendo's recent statement...

"NES was a revolution, SNES was an evolution, N64 was a revolution, GameCube is an evolution, and revolution... well."

Something tells me that Nintendo has been furiously working on a couple of enormous projects for some time...

 

[GwymWeepa]

I've given it a lot of thought, since Nintendo is my favorite game company...and I think the last thing they need is a "revolutionary" concept, just an evolutionary one. The machine needs to be very similar to what the xbox and ps2 were this generation, something cool, mainstream, something Joe Gamer wants. I think it needs to somehow be much more powerful than its competition to give it some edge, I figure some sort of ATI MAXX style configuration of two GPU's may do the trick (naturally the launch price will be higher than the GCN's $199, but its not like the cheap price was that critical this generation), it needs an online service to compete with Live, and it needs a new franchise that will take advantage of the online multiplayer possibilities connectivity affords a game. I would love a counterstrike style game where with each mission you'd earn money and can equip yourself with better and better equipment. I know if Nintendo really set their mind to it, they could make a Halo killer, they desperately need one.

 

[thop]

So basically you want another PS2 clone. XBOX is already pretty much PS2ish ... no need for a third one. I think Nintendo realized they cannot win trying to play catchup with Sony (or imitating them) ... and they certainly cannot outcool them. So instead of adjusting to the current console world they wanna transform it instead. If the consumer is gonna follow them is still in the stars. And frankly i have my doubts what's gonna be so revolutionary about their next console that everyones jaw will drop and nobody will buy the PS3 or XBOX2 with the old fashioned gameplay anymore. And we don't know what SONY/MS have up their sleeves either, i doubt it's just beefed up graphics.

 

[Evil_Cloud]

So basically you want another PS2 clone. XBOX is already pretty much PS2ish ... no need for a third one. I think Nintendo realized they cannot win trying to play catchup with Sony (or imitating them) ... and they certainly cannot outcool them. So instead of adjusting to the current console world they wanna transform it instead. If the consumer is gonna follow them is still in the stars. And frankly i have my doubts what's gonna be so revolutionary about their next console that everyones jaw will drop and nobody will buy the PS3 or XBOX2 with the old fashioned gameplay anymore. And we don't know what SONY/MS have up their sleeves either, i doubt it's just beefed up graphics.

New systems have always been sold on the basis of better, beefed up graphics. I am curious if it will be different this time 'round.

 

[thop]

That's certainly true, but i don't think the gap between two generations has ever been so small as this time (and it will be getting smaller). Sure it's gonna be a nice gap but less average gamers will notice the difference. And especially a difference across the three systems, it will probably be neglectible. I think Nintendo is counting on that, and tries to bring sth. different to the table. IMO what Itawa said at E3 made sense, doesn't mean it'll also work out.

I think their (and Microsofts) biggest enemy is not gonna be the PS3's hardware or features anyway, but SONY's propaganda machine Whatever PS3 ends up being SONY is gonna play their cards nicely, thats for sure.

 

[GwymWeepa]

So basically you want another PS2 clone. XBOX is already pretty much PS2ish ... no need for a third one. I think Nintendo realized they cannot win trying to play catchup with Sony (or imitating them) ... and they certainly cannot outcool them. So instead of adjusting to the current console world they wanna transform it instead. If the consumer is gonna follow them is still in the stars. And frankly i have my doubts what's gonna be so revolutionary about their next console that everyones jaw will drop and nobody will buy the PS3 or XBOX2 with the old fashioned gameplay anymore. And we don't know what SONY/MS have up their sleeves either, i doubt it's just beefed up graphics.

I don't think Nintendo even bothered to ever play catch-up with Sony, they stubbornly refused to switch software mediums in the 32/64 bit age and they've gone fruity with their system design this age. I don't think Nintendo could provide anything revolutionary next-generation that consumers will clamour for. The only revolutionary gameplay dynamic we haven't seen yet in modern consoles that gamers may actually want is VR, not some kooky touch screen, or some simple mic, or webcam, those won't push systems. If they can pull that off, boy more power two them, hopefully the second time is the charm

I think Nintendo should mimic the sales leader, there's a reason why they are number 1. A cool new image coupled with some great games touched by that legendary Nintendo magic can catapult them to a STRONG number 2 slot in the next-generation IMO, anything less and I fear Nintendo is going to fall flat on their face.

 

[Fox5]

Nintendo may have made money on gamecube(though I think only a scant amount compared to nes, n64, or snes), but they also cut costs just about everywhere. They dropped rare, silicon knights, didn't really introduce any big budget projects to replace the games they lost, and the gamecube discs and hardware are probably much cheaper to produce than n64 carts and systems.