Nintendo GOing Forward.

[Shifty Geezer]

In business, Profit is the measure for success.

In business, growth is the more usual measure of success. Not that I agree with that, but a stupidly profitable company that isn't growing year on year is often considered less mipressive than a company seeing massive growth. Point being, success is measured against a criteria. I agree that a profitable platform is a good one to have. That said, if the investment in it yields less returns than could be had by investing in a different product/service, it's not necessarily the best option and not intrinsically one should stick with just because it's working okay.

Like I said before, I think Nintendo could test the waters with NES software and see how it goes.[/QUOTE]Which is a flawed test. "Let's try all our outdated, overplayed content. If it's not popular, that proves there's no interest in new content." You can only test a new business strategy by actually doing it. Create Mario Mobile Worlds or something, back it with the same investment you would a Wii U or 3DS title rather than treating it like the ugly stepchild (which would only have consumers treat similarly), and structure it around a business model that people like. If that's free to play with $10 gem packs, God forbid, that's what Nintendo should probably do as a pure business, although I hope they'd stick to just charging a flat fee for a proper game. Say $5 for the game, delivered in several episodes for people to spend $20 on it overall, just not in one up-front lump that'd put mobile users off. Local multiplayer seems a great place for Nintendo too, and that's a easy way to sell content. Nintendo aren't averse to selling highly priced add-ons like software content unlocked with a $13 plastic figurine, so a game like Mario Mobile Worlds with $5 characters to buy in game seems a good fit and very mobilisitic.

Nintendo has been in business for 125 years, and I am confident they will exhaust all their options before going out of business.

Sure, but one of Nintendo's problems is being so slow, and that has consequences. Notably, they risk their IP losing relevance and value if they wait too long to port it over (although I doubt that'd happen to a significant degree). When Mario et al hit mobile, it wants to be with fans of those IPs enthusiastically following them. That means kids who no longer play their DS because they play on their iPhone getting the latest Mario game. If they've lost touch with that DS/Mario experience, Nintendo will just be lost in the sea of impossibly numerous choices.

If they're not working on a top tier mobile game now, it'll be a delay-until-they-start plus one year+ to complete it before they have something on the market. If they wait two years and then decide to make a mobile game, it'll be three years from now distance between Nintendo and their old fanbase.

At the end of the day, what are the financial arguments for and against? The against is that mobile software would cannibalise their hardware sales. Ergo, they should not release mobile software if it would mean the profits from mobile are less than the profits from their hardware platforms. It comes down to a question of whether can monetise 1 billion mobile devices successfully or not in my mind. Something like Animal Crossing should be a beautiful fit for mobile. If it can sell over 7 million units to 40 million 3DS, I see no reason to doubt it could reach tens of millions of mobile gamers buying in game costumes and house improvements and such.

 

[Exophase]

Create Mario Mobile Worlds or something, back it with the same investment you would a Wii U or 3DS title rather than treating it like the ugly stepchild (which would only have consumers treat similarly)

But just about nobody puts that level of investment into a mobile game (where mobile just means phones/tablets), at least not for anything mobile exclusive. Few mobile games bring in revenue that's comparable to your typical first party Nintendo game, and the ones that do lucked out on a particular concept, and just about always with a very simple game. Nintendo can't just tack on some random F2P incentive to generate revenue on the side either, to make F2P work you really have to design your entire game around it, and even then it's not easy.

If Nintendo were to be serious about something like this maybe they should try charging comparable prices for their phone stuff and see if they can help people get over their mobile cost entitlement. If it's a serious Nintendo game they just might get away with charging $30+ for it.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

They've two options 1) either charge full dollar up front, which I think is workable (people who'd pay $40 for a game on 3DS should presumably be willing to pay $40 for a similarly high quality game on mobile, and of course it wouldn't need to be that high a price either thanks to download savaings)

2) Design something mobiley.

I'd be very much in favour of them trying something along either lines. That wouldn't harm their handheld in any way if it's a unique game specifically targeting mobile. They can run it parallel to their 3DS controller-based games and experience. There are plenty of other spin-offs testing the mobile waters (in a real weak-source, uncertain kind of way). Nintendo have the money at their disposal. Take a good wad of millions and invest in a really high-quality mobile title, a unique, new IP, and back it. It'd be far, far cheaper than trying to launch a new hardware platform (which they could do anyway) and would properly tap into the mobile sector.

What I'm very much against is a half-hearted effort with a pessimistic, self-fulfilling prophecy. Throwing some half-baked idea at mobile because you don't think it'll work anyway and then taking the lack of interest as proof would be unintelligent IMO. There's clearly a load of money in mobile for the right games. Nintendo, being reputedly the best game designers in the world, ought to have no trouble making the most of it.

 

[Goodtwin]

Revenue growth is critical because expenses go up yearly as well, but net profit is still the critical aspect of success. Growing your revenue as is great, assuming your not giving up profit margin or increasing expenses to do so. That's why net profit is the key thing to look for. I have watched companies grown their way right out of business.

I still think that releasing NES games, and perhaps even some DS games like Nintendogs might make sense on mobile to test the waters. NES games are popular on the Wii and Wii U's virtual console, why would they not do well selling to a billion potential customers? If you really believe that market is a gold mine, then this should be an acceptable way of entering the mobile market.

Nintendo is not in a desperate situation, but the way people talk you would think they were at the end of their rope. Check out Amazons charts right now. They have so many options on the table. They could enter the mobile market at any point, and with their resources, they could go from concept to market in the matter of months. They have Amibbo characters already tracking well on Amazon. They could release a subscription based Virtual Console. At some point you have to make decisions, and stay the course. Were all these same people clamoring for Sony to panic and make drastic changes when it was losing billions for the first few years of the PS3's life? Where is the public outcry for the Xbox division to make drastic changes? They have lost billions since its inception over a decade ago. I am confident that Nintendo is actively looking into their future after Wii U and 3DS, and there is little reason to panic or abandon your companies business model that has been successful for many many years.

 

[Sonic]

Revenue growth is critical because expenses go up yearly as well, but net profit is still the critical aspect of success. Growing your revenue as is great, assuming your not giving up profit margin or increasing expenses to do so. That's why net profit is the key thing to look for. I have watched companies grown their way right out of business.

I still think that releasing NES games, and perhaps even some DS games like Nintendogs might make sense on mobile to test the waters. NES games are popular on the Wii and Wii U's virtual console, why would they not do well selling to a billion potential customers? If you really believe that market is a gold mine, then this should be an acceptable way of entering the mobile market.

Nintendo is not in a desperate situation, but the way people talk you would think they were at the end of their rope. Check out Amazons charts right now. They have so many options on the table. They could enter the mobile market at any point, and with their resources, they could go from concept to market in the matter of months. They have Amibbo characters already tracking well on Amazon. They could release a subscription based Virtual Console. At some point you have to make decisions, and stay the course. Were all these same people clamoring for Sony to panic and make drastic changes when it was losing billions for the first few years of the PS3's life? Where is the public outcry for the Xbox division to make drastic changes? They have lost billions since its inception over a decade ago. I am confident that Nintendo is actively looking into their future after Wii U and 3DS, and there is little reason to panic or abandon your companies business model that has been successful for many many years.

Yes, there were many people clamoring for Sony to panic and make drastic changes when it was losing for the first few years of PS3's life. There were also many people that passed up the PS3 entirely due to Sony's arrogant business attitude. And the same goes for MS. We're seeing it happen to them this gen. It's just that MS and Sony are larger and more diversified than Nintendo so they're better able to absorb losses. Look how Sony's attitude changed and it can be seen that they absolutely wanted to be profitable early on in the console cycle.

And if they're not desperate now then they will be soon. They can't continue going on with Wii U the way it is when it's not even reached a tenth of Wii's userbase yet. This is reason enough to cause concern. They thought they could come into the market with another gimmick and think it will take off smashingly. Yet the opposite is happening and they're losing money. Sure they might get back on track to being profitable, but the shitty thing about the console industry is no matter how much growth one has during a generation it is essentially reset upon the launch of a new system. Nintendo isn't growing Wii U's user base even a quarter of Wii.

Again they have two good options as far as I'm concerned. Release a new console and handheld that are powerful or go software only. That's it. Releasing another shitty system isn't a good idea, and if their next handheld isn't up to par then I fear they will sell far less of that than the 3ds has. Going software only ultimately increases their user base by a number they are incapable of gaining on their own hardware. And again, test the waters with a great Pokemon game that utilizes touchscreen gameplay in a good way and sell it for $20.

 

[orangpelupa]

i agree with the discussion about making AAA mobile game and price it accordingly. Although it will be much more expensive than common bite-sized mobile games, people that usually buy normalconsole portable gamewill et it.

but how to make the consumer know that game is not their normal bite-sized game, but AAA game? My friend have iPhone and they did not realize ace attorney, ghost trick, are DS games. after i tell and show those game on my DS and tell that game also on Appstore. she instantly interested and get it. but yeah, just anecdotal evidence...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Marketing, the same way you inform consumers about any product. If Nintendo is willing to advertise their games on TV showcasing handheld games, they can just as readily show a AAA mobile game on TV and then say, "available now on iOS and Android."

 

[steveOrino]

AAA mobile gaming? I am not sure why anyone would want to invest AAA development money into the app space when there is no need to. Best save that up for the user acquisition.

 

[Goodtwin]

i agree with the discussion about making AAA mobile game and price it accordingly. Although it will be much more expensive than common bite-sized mobile games, people that usually buy normalconsole portable gamewill et it.

but how to make the consumer know that game is not their normal bite-sized game, but AAA game? My friend have iPhone and they did not realize ace attorney, ghost trick, are DS games. after i tell and show those game on my DS and tell that game also on Appstore. she instantly interested and get it. but yeah, just anecdotal evidence...

I think the consumer who is into the traditional full fledged games are not only willing, but would prefer to purchase dedicated gaming hardware to play those games. I think trying to force those types of games into the interface of smart devices will be a major turnoff to the core gamer, and the casual gamer that makes the mobile gaming market prefers the simpler games like Angry Birds and Candy Crush. The idea that all those 3DS, Vita, and even going back to DS and PSP would rather play games on a phone than a dedicated gaming device that offers are much more complete set of controls. Its not like we don't have these bigger types of games on IOS, but the success stories are much more limited in that market. Mobile games is a step backwards for the core gamer. Very few gamers would rather play games on their smart phone than their dedicated device. Yes the market is huge on mobile, but the percentage of people willing to pay even $20 for a game is very small.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I think the consumer who is into the traditional full fledged games are not only willing, but would prefer to purchase dedicated gaming hardware to play those games.

I think the disparity between handheld and console sales conveniently proves otherwise. I can also point to four people off the top of my head who I know, three console owners with smart phones who don't care for smart-phone games too much/at all and who would like proper games but who don't have a handheld because the desire for portable games isn't enough to satisfy the expense and inconvenience, and one who owned a DS who now plays mobile games who clearly would value DS-type games just as much as mobile games but not to the expense of buying a 3DS.

Also who says the games have to be traditional? Was Nintendogs traditional? Brain Training?

I think trying to force those types of games into the interface of smart devices will be a major turnoff to the core gamer

Yes, which is why the argument is for high calibre games that don't try to force D-pad controls onto a touch screen.

The idea that all those 3DS, Vita, and even going back to DS and PSP would rather play games on a phone than a dedicated gaming device that offers are much more complete set of controls.

1) They would rather play good quality games than mobile tap fests (which aren't the only games possible on mobile). 2) They would rather spend their HW money on a better smart phone than a dedicated handheld console.

2 is higher priority that 1, but that doesn't mean 1 isn't a factor. DS sold 150 million. PSP sold 80 million. 230 million people who wanted to game portably. They valued high quality portable games enough to buy a DS or PSP, but not to get a Vita or 3DS. However, those same people presumably still have the same tastes. The people who bought a DS for Nintendogs would value similar Nintendo IP on another device they own, no? Or has 2/3 of the previous portable gaming sector suddenly had a complete change of values and no longer care for core games?

In short, mobile gamers include console owning core gamers. That they don't spend $150+ on a dedicated handheld games machine doesn't mean they don't value core games in portable format. When smartphones didn't exist, 230 million 'core gamers' bought handheld gaming devices. Now smartphones do exist, 60 million have so far bought the next-gen handhelds. Most logical conclusion - there's a significant market for core games on mobile. Very worst case, tastes have changed and people are content to play mobile tap fests instead of core games, which just means core handhelds is a dead end for Nintendo. They can't win either way. Either they should get into mobile because that's where the core portable gamers are moving, or they should get into mobile because core portable gaming is a fading niche.

Alternatively, the operate as a small, bijou company servicing a specialist audience of a few tens of millions for as long as that lasts.

 

[Cjail]

What have MS and Sony done in therm of core games on mobile?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

No-one's done much at all regards core games on mobile, although MS and Sony, like Nintendo, aren't going to want to give people less reasons to buy their platform. MS also isn't really a renowned game development - they don't even make much by way of core games for their console platform. Sony have dabble with core gaming via PSMobile, but didn't really push it. Obviously with Sony's hardware doing as well as it is, the incentive to diversify to mobile isn't as strong as Nintendo who's home console has flopped and who's handheld monopoly of 25 years is finally being challenged by other portable machines. But I've heard that Sony are keen to leave the hardware sector and become a software provider if they can - it's where the real money is. How many games do Apple and Google make? None, but they make way more money than any developers. That's why these companies want to control the hardware. If you can do it, great. If you can't though, you have to adapt to the options the market presents you. Historically, most gaming hardware companies eventually buckled to change. As there's no need for Nintendo to be mobile exclusive while they still have hardware, it makes good business sense to prop up their Wii U and 3DS software revenues with some mobile revenues as well, no?

 

[idsn6]

What have MS and Sony done in therm of core games on mobile?

This is an SCEA game that was released just today on iOS. It is already available on PS4, PS3, and Vita.

 

[Goodtwin]

The only part of Shifty's logic that I can piece together at hand is that since Nintendo's primary business is games, they should be looking to capitalize on all potential game revenue opportunities available, in this case, mobile gaming, largely ignored by every major game publisher.

Now to break this down.

1.) The portable gaming market has shrank over the years with mobile coming into play. This is true. More and more kids are growing up with tablets and phones that have become their entertainment devices as well. Instead of millions of kids owning Gameboys to play Tetris and Alleyway on the car rides, they are now playing Angry Birds and Candy Crush on their parents phones or tablets.

2.) The revenue created on mobile is becoming very large, that is true, but the pie is also cut up into a far greater number of pieces than in the past. This creates equal opportunity, but also makes financial successes for larger games more risy.

3.) On one hand Shifty is promoting the idea of full fledged games on mobile, but do to the lack of control interface, games like Nintendogs should be of focus? Which is is? Should core gaming experiences being created on mobile or not? It seems like in one post, the argument is that core games like Monster Hunter and 3D Mario Land could be done just fine on mobile, but then the next post is centered around making games that fit mobile better. I cant tell if Shifty sees Mobile as a replacement, or as an alternative. In some post it seems like he thinks Mobile is the replacement, but then other post suggest that this is only the case with certain experiences.

4.) I think the dedicated portable gaming market has shrunk thanks to mobile/tablets, but not because they are better, but because they are more accessible to today's youth. The youth have always been a huge part of the portable gaming market. Time killers essentially. Got 30 minutes to burn in the car ride to grandmas house? In the past, a Gameboy was the answer, but these days 30 minutes on mom/dads phone/tablet with Angry Birds does the trick. I have nieces and a nephew, I have seen it first hand. More and more 99 cent software or even free demos is fulfilling the time killers void that $30-50 software previously occupied.

5.) In closing, Mobile is not a goldmine that will take any publisher to the promise land, but instead is an opportunity for low risk software. Full core gaming experiences are best on dedicated devices, and the consumer that is the most interested in that product is willing to pay for dedicated hardware. A shrinking dedicated portable gaming device market points to the idea that many consumers were buying those devices in the past as time wasters. A product no longer needed for such entertainment. Basically, the difference between the Tetris and Mario gamers. They were once on the same hardware, but now one of the two gets their experience for free on their phone or tablet.

 

[steveOrino]

5.) In closing, Mobile is not a goldmine that will take any publisher to the promise land, but instead is an opportunity for low risk software.

Risk is relative. IAP dominates mobile gaming right now and the only real way to generate money is to make a hamster wheel f2p game within a handful of genres and pump a lot of money into UA. There is a ton of risk involved which is why you need a big dog publisher to help you do that.

The app market is saturated with more apps then there exists users to actually download and use them for any length of time. This is directly shown in consumer habits when it comes to paid vs f2p. How is anyone going to convince people to buy 20-40 dollar games when there exists a metric ton of options that cost little to no upfront money?

This has created a quagmire of garbage software that users have to sift through (not that this doesn't happen on other platforms but for sheer quantity of crap, the app stores have no equal.) There are a ton of clones of clones in the app stores, any idea that looks remotely successful is copied and re-branded quickly. Low barrier to entry doesn't mean low risk, all it means is more competition ready to eat you alive. IF you have a great game idea and you want to actually charge money for it you are better off making it for the PC or game consoles because that is where the paying customers are.

This problem could be solved by the platform holders but there is currently no incentive to do so because Google (partners) & Apple sell phones/tablets and care little about game quality.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

3.) On one hand Shifty is promoting the idea of full fledged games on mobile, but do to the lack of control interface, games like Nintendogs should be of focus? Which is is? Should core gaming experiences being created on mobile or not? It seems like in one post, the argument is that core games like Monster Hunter and 3D Mario Land could be done just fine on mobile, but then the next post is centered around making games that fit mobile better. I cant tell if Shifty sees Mobile as a replacement, or as an alternative. In some post it seems like he thinks Mobile is the replacement, but then other post suggest that this is only the case with certain experiences.

It's not either/or. My argument all along has been primarily that core games can be made for mobile that don't work with DPads and buttons but still bring core gameplay, if we don't take core gameplay to mean just button controlled. I very much believe that Nintendo would be capable of utilising mobile's input options to provide great Pokemon, Zelda, Kirby and Mario games. There won't be SSB on mobile because it's not suited, but thankfully there are many more core game options out there.

In addition to that from Nintendo's POV, if non-core games is their future, as it has been a significant part of their recent past (Wii Sports, Nintendogs and Brain Training being runaway successes), they can always go with casual games, even if as a potentially lucrative aside. There's no harm in releasing casual games on mobile to help prop up the business and continue serving core Nintendo action franchises on proprietary hardware (or they change to software only on other people's machines )

And, if they get a decent mobile foothold, they can also consider dedicated gaming mobiles to support their core games. Sell 100 million Pokemon copies (more like download 100 million free Pokemon Breeder copies and gazillions in accelerator packs to speed up time to create Pokemon) on iOS and Android, and also sell 100 million Nintendo Phones to the old DS fanbase for arcade games on the go (alongside Pokemon Breeder). They could certainly use their games and their own software portal locked to their hardware to promote hardware sales. The difference would be people could play other people's games on that device without paying Nintendo royalties. That's something they'll just have to give up IMO. They can make more money without, certainly if their hardware presence keeps shrinking generation on generation.

4.) I think the dedicated portable gaming market has shrunk thanks to mobile/tablets, but not because they are better

Better's a relative term. Better in what way? Better in gaming? No-one's argued that. But certainly better in terms of functionality. An iPhone gets you Facebooking, Instagram, tweets, to connect you with your friends, maps and GPS, phoning and texting of course, and all the other functionality apps (on a better screen with more horsepower compared to Nintendo's hardwares), as well as those games. People bought smartphone first and foremost as a phone that adds usability. Gaming is an aside, despite being the biggest use of smartphones - you don't buy a phone to game, you buy it to text but then game on it more.

5.) In closing, Mobile is not a goldmine that will take any publisher to the promise land, but instead is an opportunity for low risk software. Full core gaming experiences are best on dedicated devices

Define core. Games that want lots of buttons need to be on a dedicated handheld. Games that don't, like Animal Crossing, old Zelda, Nintendogs, and reworked Marios and Yoshis and Kirbies, will work just fine. Putting it another way, if touch screens were invented before buttons and Nintendo started out with touch screens, do you think all their games would suck with crappy, unresponsive controls, or do you think their game designs would be ideally suited to the input options and work just as well, only differently? So you won't directly push left, right, jump and shoot in their mobile games (although that will come with improving controller support), but there's more to core gaming than just those controls.

and the consumer that is the most interested in that product is willing to pay for dedicated hardware. A shrinking dedicated portable gaming device market points to the idea that many consumers were buying those devices in the past as time wasters. A product no longer needed for such entertainment. Basically, the difference between the Tetris and Mario gamers. They were once on the same hardware, but now one of the two gets their experience for free on their phone or tablet.

Based on that assessment, what do you think Nintendo's future should be? They don't have a viable home console business and their major money turner is shrinking because they no longer sell profitable hardware to time-waster gamers. Should they make a new dedicated handheld for the core? Another console? Branch out into the mobile space? Importantly, why not the last option? What do they really stand to lose? Especially if, as you say, dedicated gamers are still going to buy a dedicated handheld, so Nintendo wouldn't cannibalise their own hardware sales.

 

[Cjail]

@Shifty Geezer

Ok , thanks but then what about EA, Ubi, Activison, and the other big publishers?
Are thy not targeting mobile too?
Now whether would be profitable to target mobile or not is out of question in my opinion but if the other big publishers too aren't going mobile then I do wonder if the hardware* is genuinely a true limiting factor, at least for certain kind of games/genre (FPS, H&S, RPG, AA)


*I am talking about mere controls/input.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

@Shifty Geezer

Ok , thanks but then what about EA, Ubi, Activison, and the other big publishers?
Are thy not targeting mobile too?

1) some of them are like EA's FIFA and >50 million download flagship racer Real Racing. There's also some that have embraced mobile like GameLoft and Modern Combat 4. £5 outright buy game, >500k buyers.

2) They tend not to be as innovative as Nintendo, so they'll have a lower chance of creating something that works well for core gamers. eg. Ubisoft's POP. First comment - terrible control scheme. Then there are others that prove more popular like Trials Frontier. > 1 million downloads.

3) They release on hundreds of core devices - consoles and PC, so it's not as necessary for them to adapt to the mobile market. They can go where the customer base most obviously is. Nintendo needs new customers, either by releasing cross-platform (already suggested), or targeting mobile, or coming up with some amazing new hardware that brings all the gamers back to them. Or they can stay niche and just be happy where they are, but that's not a typical business objective.

the hardware* is genuinely a true limiting factor, at least for certain kind of games/genre (FPS, H&S, RPG, AA)

FPS is likely a bad idea (though it exists, as MC4 testifies). RPGs are an ideal fit (tap to move, attack, etc) as are RTS (staples on core gaming PCs). God games, perfect fit. Platformers would need a somewhat different approach. Tap to jump still works fine, but you may want a drawn control system.

 

[Cjail]

Ok that controls/input surely are a limiting factor, probably the most "evident" one, but if the gameplay is too limited by the hardware then I sincerely doubt that "core gamers", would be interested to play on mobile.

 

[Entropy]

IF you have a great game idea and you want to actually charge money for it you are better off making it for the PC or game consoles because that is where the paying customers are.

You do realize that in 2013, iOS App Store games pulled in twice the revenue of all handheld gaming devices combined?
Oh, and in 2013 revenue doubled vs. 2012. Numbers for 2014 are not in yet, obviously, but the revenue growth in comparison to consoles is phenomenal.

Ok , thanks but then what about EA, Ubi, Activison, and the other big publishers?
Are thy not targeting mobile too?

A quick app store search for "Electronic Arts" show on the order of a hundred titles. "Ubisoft", some 30 odd, "Activision" roughly 20. Quite a bit of junk there.