Eidos: Bye bye GC, you won't be missed
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
- Status
What I meant is that Nintendo would be worth more (market cap) as a multi-plat dev than as a console maker, reason being that their profits would increase. Increasing the share price is all the company board really cares about of course, being that it's their job and all. 
And Sega has FUBARed majorly these last two years. Putting each game onto one console and maybe a couple of games on two of the three consoles is a practice that most major 3rd parties abandoned for a reason. There's no justification why they should expect everyone to own all three devices, that's totally absurd. How many more copies could have JSRF, Panzer, Sonic, VF4 (or any other Sega title you can name) sold had they been multi-platform? We will never know.
And Sega has FUBARed majorly these last two years. Putting each game onto one console and maybe a couple of games on two of the three consoles is a practice that most major 3rd parties abandoned for a reason. There's no justification why they should expect everyone to own all three devices, that's totally absurd. How many more copies could have JSRF, Panzer, Sonic, VF4 (or any other Sega title you can name) sold had they been multi-platform? We will never know.
By being 1st party, nintendo does not have to pay royalties and get royalties from other devs on its console. imagine, for only the n64, EAD alone sold 45M software, counting 10$ for each game, you get almost 500M$, which is one year benefit for Nintendo, just by not paying royalties. Add other revenues (hardware, royalties from 3rd parties), that is a reason to stay in the hardware business.
The only reason you would like to get out : if you lose tremendous money on hardware like MS and have no prospect to recover from the future (which is what MS still hope). Sega was clearly in that position.
The only reason you would like to get out : if you lose tremendous money on hardware like MS and have no prospect to recover from the future (which is what MS still hope). Sega was clearly in that position.
Qroach:
> There's a lot of third parties that won't even bother coming out to say
> thier intentions.
Not sure what you're trying to say.
> Anyway, I just saw this posted this morning.
Why don't you post a Spong.com article while you're at it?
akira888:
I won't go into detail but being a 1. party has some significant advantages. One particular grave misconception is that sales would improve by going 3. party. There is simply no reason to believe that. Historically, sales go down once you start publishing for other platforms. Sega is a particularly good example. Massive support for three platforms yet sales are lower than they were in the DC days. And Sega is nowhere near the size of Nintendo.
> There's a lot of third parties that won't even bother coming out to say
> thier intentions.
Not sure what you're trying to say.
> Anyway, I just saw this posted this morning.
Why don't you post a Spong.com article while you're at it?
akira888:
I won't go into detail but being a 1. party has some significant advantages. One particular grave misconception is that sales would improve by going 3. party. There is simply no reason to believe that. Historically, sales go down once you start publishing for other platforms. Sega is a particularly good example. Massive support for three platforms yet sales are lower than they were in the DC days. And Sega is nowhere near the size of Nintendo.
akira888 said:What I meant is that Nintendo would be worth more (market cap) as a multi-plat dev than as a console maker, reason being that their profits would increase. Increasing the share price is all the company board really cares about of course, being that it's their job and all.
why do you think microsoft chosed to make their own hardware, despite the mandatory massive investment ? why do you think sega, nintendo, sony, microsoft battle(d) so hard for the console bizness ?
like others ppl said, when you are hardware manufacturer you earn royaltie$ from 3rd parties and as a 1st/2nd party publi$hing is way more profitable. you can make money from hardware, accessories (margins on a RGB cable or a 512 kB memory card..)..
you can design the hardware that suits you the best.
you can choose which software is released on the plateform and when, so you can make room for your own software reserve the best periods for them.
and in the same way you do not depend on the good will of a hardware manufacturer.
so maybe nintendo would sell more software units going multiplateform, but they probably still wouldn't make as much money, and would loose the precious advantages owning the plateform/medium provides.
I don't think anybody has really "left" the GCN for the PS2 or Xbox. They've already been doing PS2 (and had likely commited to Xbox) in the systems launched, and after releasing some titles have decided the lack of sales aren't worth the costs. Thus they're not leaving, rather just not continuing...
In anycase I don't see too it too much of a problem for Nintendo. AGB hardware and software sales would easily offset major losses on the GCN if they chose to do so, and they won't feel any pressure on that sector for at least 2 more years. Besides they've pretty much geared themselves towards not being a market share leader anyways...
akira, Evidence is showing the opposite happening. The GCN is finally catching on. Most everyone I know has stalled out on PS2 and/or Xbox and is finally discovering the world GCN has to offer. Also, I'll give you one guess as of which console's sales (besides GBA) are actually 'up' this year over last year. Gamecube. The other two are down.
*Bewilderment on face* Oh my goodness! That's a perfect definition of hyperbole. Nintendo may decide not to compete? Hell's bells, I may decide not to brush my teeth in the morning. Isreal and PLO may not decide to kill anyone else. WTF is she talking about? It may rain tommorrow. It may not! The jury's still out? Please someone email this lady and tell her to get off the weed. That shit will fry your brain.
EDIT: Misunderstood akira's post thought he meant players leaving Cube (my 1st paragraph)
*Bewilderment on face* Oh my goodness! That's a perfect definition of hyperbole. Nintendo may decide not to compete? Hell's bells, I may decide not to brush my teeth in the morning. Isreal and PLO may not decide to kill anyone else. WTF is she talking about? It may rain tommorrow. It may not! The jury's still out? Please someone email this lady and tell her to get off the weed. That shit will fry your brain.
EDIT: Misunderstood akira's post thought he meant players leaving Cube (my 1st paragraph)
Goldni said:
PS2 sales figures are down?
News to me. Weren't they at 30 million in May of last year and at 60 million now? Seems rather "up" to me.- Status
Similar threads
