tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
I assume you are being sarcastic?
Nintendo GOing Forward.
- Thread starter Wynix
- Start date
Exactly.The mildly amusing part is that core gamers can't see that when it comes to the typical games they play, but they generalize the games casuals play lumping them all into "puzzle and resource gathering" games.
That's true of people in general. eg. A wine connoisseur will find a great deal of difference between different red wines, but to me they all taste the same. If we're not interested in something, we don't develop the sensitivity to differentiate between qualities of that something.
Im not sure what to think about this either. Its not like they haven't done similar things before, such as the Gameboy Color and DS-I, but this is bound to create some confusion with consumers. I doubt to many games will make use of this. Perhaps some apps such as the internet browser will be much improved thanks to the upgrade, but I doubt to many developers will be willing to segregate their potential market by making New 3DS only games. Perhaps some games will make use of the extra power kind of like some N64 games used the expansion pak, but that's about it. The 3DS is still going strong, so perhaps this is a way to help keep it going strong for years to come, but I am still confused on their choice of the name, New 3DS? People are getting paid to come up with that, its pretty unbelievable.
That needs qualifying. It's hard to find nice data showing exactly how well 3DS is or isn't doing, but these few points suggest things aren't strong...
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/Matt...hardware_declines_leave_Nintendo_weakened.php
http://g.foolcdn.com/editorial/images/141725/3dsvds_large.JPG
http://image-cdn.gamnesia.com/13871/4__large.png
All data from The Internet, so it must be true,
That needs qualifying. It's hard to find nice data showing exactly how well 3DS is or isn't doing, but these few points suggest things aren't strong...
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/Matt...hardware_declines_leave_Nintendo_weakened.php
http://g.foolcdn.com/editorial/images/141725/3dsvds_large.JPG
http://image-cdn.gamnesia.com/13871/4__large.png
All data from The Internet, so it must be true,
Nintendo's official fiscal year 2013 sales show about 14 million units sold. Its the leader in the portable market by a large margin. I don't know why so many people feel they need to somehow discredit Nintendo, but selling 14 million pieces of hardware in a market that many people predicted to be completely taken over by smart devices is pretty darn good. It was under their estimates, but its still very good. Will they continue to see a decline year over year? Perhaps they will, but that could still mean 30 million units sold over the next 3 years, a success no matter how you look at it.
Correction, in the dedicated handheld console market. In the portable gaming market, it's a statistical blip.
Dunno if you're talking about me, but I wasn't trying to discredit Nintendo. 'Strong' is a relative metric. Compared to what Nintendo used to do, they aren't strong in handheld sales, whereas compared to absolutely nothing, they are. Using the term 'strong' is far less useful to the discussion than providing actual numbers.
Really, you want to go with a 'perhaps' there?
Yes, they will. As the years roll by, mobile becomes more and more capable of satisfying people's interests in portable gaming. The reason for the New 3DS is to try and alter the downward slope of the interest graph - if 3DS was still going strong, Nintendo wouldn't be taking this (pretty limited) action. Also, your phrase 'still going strong' is suggestive of a fairly static level of demand, analogous to someone or something working at the same rate now as they used to. A long distance runner who's still making a lap in a minute on their 10th lap is still going strong. A runner who's lap times are increasing each lap is not going strong but starting to fade.How's about looking at it in terms of whether Nintendo makes enough money to fund their operations? 3 consecutive annual losses and reducing handheld sales counts as a success?
Correction, in the dedicated handheld console market. In the portable gaming market, it's a statistical blip.
Dunno if you're talking about me, but I wasn't trying to discredit Nintendo. 'Strong' is a relative metric. Compared to what Nintendo used to do, they aren't strong in handheld sales, whereas compared to absolutely nothing, they are. Using the term 'strong' is far less useful to the discussion than providing actual numbers.
Really, you want to go with a 'perhaps' there?
How's about looking at it in terms of whether Nintendo makes enough money to fund their operations? 3 consecutive annual losses and reducing handheld sales counts as a success?
You can still be successful even if its not to the same degree that you once were. Microsoft has had far more annual losses in the Xbox division than Nintendo has had in the past decade, but most people would consider the 360 a success, so the hypocrisy there is nothing short of astounding to me. If the dedicated portable market becomes obsolete, then Nintendo can move into the smart device market if that would be more profitable for them. We aren't there yet, and its of no consequence for Nintendo to hold off until they see that market as being more profitable. I said perhaps because for all we know Nintendo could release a $99 New 3DS in 2015 that goes on to sell 15 million units that year. You don't "know" the future, you making an assumption, and while I agree with that assumption, it still an assumption just the same. As for your lap time reference, yes you can be losing time and still going strong. Nobody expect the same pace on lap 10 as they do lap one. Your pace is expected to fade. Just because your slowing down doesn't mean your not still in first place. Nintendo is in first place in the dedicated portable gaming market by a significant margin. I understand the grief Nintendo gets from its critics with the Wii U, but trying to place a product that will likely sell upwards of 80 million units in its lifetime just seems like hate to me. If I were to ask you two years ago if you though Nintendo would be able to sell 80 million 3DS units with the new competition from smart devices, I am sure you would have said no way.
steveOrino
Regular
Well that's the game of the entertainment industry. No one has cracked the code on what will/wont be successful because of the unpredictabilityof taste and how it changes over time. Plenty of people said mobile devices would swallow everything and anything gaming and (surprise surprise) it didn't happen because their chest were puffed out so far in front of their faces they couldn't see the issues with how software is consumed on those platforms. So, there is no guarantee that throwaway mobile gaming in its current form will survive either.
I think Nintendo is its own wost enemy right now. They have the potential to keep their hand held business alive and profitable but their execution is really head scratching to me.
Success is a relative term, measured against a target. In selling as many units as their rival, XB360 was a success. In securing the number one position with a huge advantage, 360 was unsuccessful. It all depends what you success criteria is. Measured against Vita install base, 3DS is very successful. Measured against DS, it's not.
How are they going to know if it's more profitable or not without testing it? They're losing money every year, and your recommendation is they carry on exactly as is for a while longer? What's the business, money making sense in that? How is not getting into the mobile space going to make Nintendo more money (keeping everything as it is now) then selling to a billion devices? There's a business argument either way, but 'there are no consequences in waiting' isn't one of them.
Sure, but this thread is about coming up with a future for Nintendo. That's going to require a degree of prediction...
Relative, not that it was a precise analogy. If you do the first lap in 1 minute and the fifth in two minutes, you're fading. If you do the first in one minute and the fifth in 1:05, you're still going strong.
OT, but an experienced runner should pace themselves and keep a pretty constant lap time.
Hate doesn't enter into it. I'm not emotionally attached to CE devices nor the companies that make them. I'm here to discuss the logical future of Nintendo and their choices. You said 3DS sales were strong. I Googled that assertion and found a question as to what constitutes 'strong' and is Nintendo achieving that. I'm still unconvinced by the 'strong' idea. Here's some more info just Googled. First quarter sales in 2012 grew the install base by 2 million units. First quarter sales in 2013 grew the install base by 1.25 million units. First quarter sales in 2014 grew the install base by only 0.59 million units. Sales are slowing down year after year.
Hence, I don't believe 3DS sales are still going strong. I don't believe Nintendo can think to themselves they've a good 3 years left in 3DS selling ~10 million a year, which is why they've made this change. Where you say, "keep 3DS going strong," I say, "make 3DS strong again where it presently isn't."
They've sold <45 million. If they go on to sell 80 million, that'll be quite the feat. I certainly don't think Nintendo should be relying on that or expecting that, and even if so, it means another 3 years of losing money if they don't add something else to the mix.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Maybe it is like wine tasting, but only because wine tasting is crap. A large amount of sommeliers can't even tell the difference between red and white wines when subjected to blind taste testing.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis
@Shifty
Im not going to respond to every single bullet point, seeing as how I don't see success being on some sort of variable scale like you do. Its like saying the SNES was not a success because it didn't sell as well as the NES. I just don't see it that way. If the PS4 only sells two thirds as many units as the PS2 did, does that make it a failure? I have always been a proponent of offering NES games on IOS. I don't think there would be a huge cost involved in moving Super Mario Bros, Excitebike, and Punch Out to IOS, and could potentially bring in a lot of revenue. I think they have to match the price they sell those games for on Wii U and 3DS, but even at $5 I think those titles would sell big numbers. I just think Nintendo sticking with their own dedicated gaming hardware for new games makes sense. I don't think anyone who plays Monster Hunter wants to try and play that game with touch screen controls. So yes, they are leaving the mobile market untapped, but its not like they will miss the boat by not getting on board this year. If that market is lucrative, then they will still be fine if they make a big move in a couple years when its time to make some decisions on how to approach their portable gaming business.
I to scratch my head at times with Nintendo, but its because of their oddities that the gaming market is blessed with new innovations. On the other hand they have largely ignored how popular and important online gaming is to the majority of gamers these days. They innovate in one area, but then fall way behind with features that gamers have come to expect. I would like to see Nintendo create something that is not only on par with the competition, but also has that something special that is purely Nintendo.
Im not going to respond to every single bullet point, seeing as how I don't see success being on some sort of variable scale like you do. Its like saying the SNES was not a success because it didn't sell as well as the NES. I just don't see it that way. If the PS4 only sells two thirds as many units as the PS2 did, does that make it a failure? I have always been a proponent of offering NES games on IOS. I don't think there would be a huge cost involved in moving Super Mario Bros, Excitebike, and Punch Out to IOS, and could potentially bring in a lot of revenue. I think they have to match the price they sell those games for on Wii U and 3DS, but even at $5 I think those titles would sell big numbers. I just think Nintendo sticking with their own dedicated gaming hardware for new games makes sense. I don't think anyone who plays Monster Hunter wants to try and play that game with touch screen controls. So yes, they are leaving the mobile market untapped, but its not like they will miss the boat by not getting on board this year. If that market is lucrative, then they will still be fine if they make a big move in a couple years when its time to make some decisions on how to approach their portable gaming business.
I to scratch my head at times with Nintendo, but its because of their oddities that the gaming market is blessed with new innovations. On the other hand they have largely ignored how popular and important online gaming is to the majority of gamers these days. They innovate in one area, but then fall way behind with features that gamers have come to expect. I would like to see Nintendo create something that is not only on par with the competition, but also has that something special that is purely Nintendo.
Like it or not, it's factually correct that 'success' is technically a relative measure, even though the vernacular uses it frequently for an unspecified average measure. Like 'power' when people try to compare two very different machines with different strengths and weaknesses. You are taking your standard definition (not explicitly described anywhere) and measuring against that. By your criteria, 3DS is a success. That's fine, but if challenged you need to explain your criteria, and should be able to evaluate 3DS against other criteria. In a business thread, very often the criteria for success is whether something makes lots of money or not. Xbox was a success in establishing MS in the console sapce. It was a failure in terms of turning a profit. That goes for strong too, which is what I was questioning. 3DS isn't making Nintendo enough money to break even year on year, and it's sales are decreasing year on year. Measured against profitability and sustainable, I don't see 3DS as going strong. Measured against average unit sales for portable game devices including things like Vita and Atari Lynx and Game Gear, 3DS is going strong.
Yes and no, depending on which target you measure it against. If the challenge is to sell as many as PS2, it'd be a failure. In general discussion, PS4 will be called a success because it (will probably) hit(s) a lot of averge landmarks used in a generalise measure of success - it's popular, makes money, and is growing.
I don't think anyone's proposing Nintendo try games like Monster Hunter on mobile as it's not a great fit for touch controls. MH also isn't made by Nintendo, but Capcom. MH is also available on iOS.
But how do they make money between now and then? Their handheld and console markets aren't big enough to make money. Are you suggesting they carry on losing money for a couple more years before changing anything?
Well, Nintendo just announced a mid-life kicker revision of the 3DS with improvements across the board, while keeping both full backwards compatibility and form factors pretty much constant. It is likely to extend and expand sales of the system.
Nintendo on mobile is a tricky proposition. setting up a scale for actions and a few hypothetical points on it:
1. They could dump old titles on mobile, but
a, they would be old stuff
b, they would be designed around the limitations and physical controls of GBA/DS which matches the iPhone6 like a glove on a foot.
Minimum effort, lowest possible appeal.
5. They could make new titles, tailored to abilities of the current mobile devices. Have new teams do new things, under Nintendo branding, but possibly without using Nintendo characters. (Or (6.) with, depending on market balancing).
10. They could drop their own hardware, and go pure software.
Or choose a level between these examples. It is NOT trivial to gauge what would be the best path forward, or the time scales in which to shift.
Personally, and this is not a prediction as much as a personal preference, I think it would be a good idea to do something along the middle alternative. This allows them to keep an area of full control of both hardware and software, which can be strongly curated and tailored exclusively to gaming. This is also where they can profit very nicely from their top in-house software as long as their user base is reasonably large. At the same time, they can build a name for themselves in mobile gaming, that doesn't need to/shouldn't follow the old IP patterns to the letter but be tailored to the mobile platforms. They would still profit from both their name, and know-how in game design.
The drawback of course is that anyone within the company that makes products for mobile, could be making products for Nintendos own platform instead, strengthening its appeal.
But how do they make money between now and then? Their handheld and console markets aren't big enough to make money. Are you suggesting they carry on losing money for a couple more years before changing anything?
I think you make too much of the financial consequences of the high cost of the WiiU development and launch, and its subsequent lack of market success. If it had sold a bit better, they would have been in the black, but their challenges going forward would have been essentially the same. Likewise, if they make a bit of profit the next year, which seems entirely possible, that doesn't mean that everything is alright, and they will keep on trucking along their old paths.
Nintendo is in the enviable position that they are financially solid enough to not only consider their options at length, but actually make experiments. They are far and away the most interesting of the platform holders to try to anticipate.
Like it or not, it's factually correct that 'success' is technically a relative measure, even though the vernacular uses it frequently for an unspecified average measure. Like 'power' when people try to compare two very different machines with different strengths and weaknesses. You are taking your standard definition (not explicitly described anywhere) and measuring against that. By your criteria, 3DS is a success. That's fine, but if challenged you need to explain your criteria, and should be able to evaluate 3DS against other criteria. In a business thread, very often the criteria for success is whether something makes lots of money or not. Xbox was a success in establishing MS in the console sapce. It was a failure in terms of turning a profit. That goes for strong too, which is what I was questioning. 3DS isn't making Nintendo enough money to break even year on year, and it's sales are decreasing year on year. Measured against profitability and sustainable, I don't see 3DS as going strong. Measured against average unit sales for portable game devices including things like Vita and Atari Lynx and Game Gear, 3DS is going strong.
Yes and no, depending on which target you measure it against. If the challenge is to sell as many as PS2, it'd be a failure. In general discussion, PS4 will be called a success because it (will probably) hit(s) a lot of averge landmarks used in a generalise measure of success - it's popular, makes money, and is growing.
I don't think anyone's proposing Nintendo try games like Monster Hunter on mobile as it's not a great fit for touch controls. MH also isn't made by Nintendo, but Capcom. MH is also available on iOS.
But how do they make money between now and then? Their handheld and console markets aren't big enough to make money. Are you suggesting they carry on losing money for a couple more years before changing anything?
I don't find success to be a moving target in the business world. You could compare a failing product with a bigger failure and claim its a success? For the gaming industry, a hardware manufacture should be selling enough units to create an ecosystem that can be profitable for the software released on the platform. The 3DS is a success right now, and I don't see it falling flat on its face over the next 2-3 years. Has the market shrunk for dedicated portable gaming devices? Yea, it probably has, but doesnt mean its not a viable product that can still be profitable. In business, Profit is the measure for success. At the end of the day, did you bring in more money than you spent on your expenses? The Wii U R&D and launch cost are what have put Nintendo in the red for the past couple years. Expect that to change for fiscal 2014. I am aware that Monster Hunter is a Capcom game, I chose that game as an example because of the popularity is has on the 3DS, and how impractical a game like that it to play on IOS devices. Just because they have a MH game on IOS doesnt mean the MH experience is retained. Why is everyone harping on Nintendo for not going after the mobile market, but its fine for all the other major publishers to largely ignore it? If its such a gold mine, then they are all morons? Capcom created a mobile division, and its been largely unsuccessful. The majority of mobile players only play demos or 99 cent software. Like I said before, I think Nintendo could test the waters with NES software and see how it goes, but the next Mario Kart and 3D Mario game need dedicated gaming hardware. Nintendo has been in business for 125 years, and I am confident they will exhaust all their options before going out of business.
