Nintendo's future?

[mckmas8808]

As someone else mentioned there are good reasons for each drop in sales, its just silly to oversimplify it as if its some kind of downward spiral. I mean in the case of the SNES competition was really the only reason for it selling less then NES. And although competition isn't the sole reason for the other sales drops you can certainly see its effect. As I said NES had pretty much no competition while SNES had a solid competitor right through the generation in Sega. N64 had a solid competitor right through the generation in Sony and a partial competitor in Sega (Saturn started as a competitor but died before the end). GameCube had two solid competitors right throughout its life. Each generation has seen more and more competition, but now it seems that its reached a peak. I can't see a third big player entering the console market this generation and without that happening I don't see much chance of Nintendo losing marketshare.

No you are over simplfying the situation. Nintendo is not doing what they need to do to stay on top marketshare wise. The more things they abandon to stay different, I personally think it hurts them more and more. You make it seem that just because more companies are competing, that gives Nintendo a good reason to sell less than their previous entry.

Pretty weak if you ask me. If this is how Nintendo sees it, then I feel sorry for them.

 

[London Geezer]

No you are over simplfying the situation. Nintendo is not doing what they need to do to stay on top marketshare wise. The more things they abandon to stay different, I personally think it hurts them more and more. You make it seem that just because more companies are competing, that gives Nintendo a good reason to sell less than their previous entry.

Pretty weak if you ask me. If this is how Nintendo sees it, then I feel sorry for them.

Well, they are making money, they are making their fans happy, they are making what they want to make with regards to their business. Why should they stop? They seem perfectly happy the way they are. Just because Sony and MS fans love to talk about market shares, while their preferred companies make billions of losses, why should Nintendo stop what they're doing?

Was the Ico team meant to stop doing their own thing after Ico sold abysmally? Very similar situation. They made a masterpiece which sold like crap, but kept doing their thing and released another absolute masterpiece, which hopefully will sell enough to convince Sony to let the Ico team do their own thing for a long time.

Why do people put SO MUCH weight on market share alone!?

 

[Teasy]

No you are over simplfying the situation. Nintendo is not doing what they need to do to stay on top marketshare wise. The more things they abandon to stay different, I personally think it hurts them more and more. You make it seem that just because more companies are competing, that gives Nintendo a good reason to sell less than their previous entry.

Pretty weak if you ask me. If this is how Nintendo sees it, then I feel sorry for them.

I'm not oversimplifying the situation, just to be clear I didn't mean that competition is the entire reason for lower unit sales in every case. IMO compeition was pretty much the sole reason for the drop in sales between NES to SNES. There are a few different reasons for lower unit sales in the N64 and GC era (especially the N64 era). But even in those cases competition clearly had a big effect (especially GC IMO). That should be kept in mind when talking about this 'trend' and what it suggests for sales of Revolution, that's all I'm saying. To put it in a nutshell, with no new competition next gen (the first time that's happened since NES) I don't see much chance of Revolution continuing the trend Powderkeg speaks of.

 

[mckmas8808]

Well, they are making money, they are making their fans happy, they are making what they want to make with regards to their business. Why should they stop? They seem perfectly happy the way they are. Just because Sony and MS fans love to talk about market shares, while their preferred companies make billions of losses, why should Nintendo stop what they're doing?

Was the Ico team meant to stop doing their own thing after Ico sold abysmally? Very similar situation. They made a masterpiece which sold like crap, but kept doing their thing and released another absolute masterpiece, which hopefully will sell enough to convince Sony to let the Ico team do their own thing for a long time.

Why do people put SO MUCH weight on market share alone!?

I'm not putting super weight on market share alone by itself. It was part of the conversation we were having. Even Mr. Iwata said that if they sell one less Revolution that the GC, then the Rev. will be seen as a failure. Iwata said that his self.

IMO with no new competition next gen (the first time that's happened since NES) I don't see much chance of Revolution continuing this trend Powderkeg speaks of.

Oh ok cool. But I have to say this one thing. I swear that in 2001 nobody would have thought that the GC would have sold less than the N64. I understand things are looking a bit different, but really let's be honest. We don't even know what Nintendo will have next-gen. Hell we barely know what Sony will have next gen. It's really just too early to tell.

 

[London Geezer]

I'm not putting super weight on market share alone by itself. It was part of the conversation we were having. Even Mr. Iwata said that if they sell one less Revolution that the GC, then the Rev. will be seen as a failure. Iwata said that his self.

Well, i think it will be a failure for his pride, and that i can understand. But Nintendo won't be out of business (much like Sega) anytime soon, or at least until they start making heavy losses.
Sega went out of business because they were broke. They weren't selling enough and they finished their cash.
Nintendo are not selling like crazy, but hell they are making money! So they will stick around for quite a while.
I think if anything, their business model is working quite well.

Oh ok cool. But I have to say this one thing. I swear that in 2001 nobody would have thought that the GC would have sold less than the N64. I understand things are looking a bit different, but really let's be honest. We don't even know what Nintendo will have next-gen. Hell we barely know what Sony will have next gen. It's really just too early to tell.

I think we know a lot about what Sony will have next gen. :smile:

 

[darkblu]

Why do people put SO MUCH weight on market share alone!?

well judging from the fact that those people are mostly fanb@ys, it must have something to do with the dick size competition. same with flops ratings hanging in mid air - and basically anything that can be cluelessly quantified to somwhow show the opponent's inferiority.

 

[London Geezer]

well judging from the fact that those people are mostly fanb@ys, it must have something to do with the dick size competition. same with flops ratings hanging in mid air - and basically anything that can be cluelessly quantified to somwhow show the opponent's inferiority.

Well, it was a rethorical question afterall...

 

[mckmas8808]

Well, i think it will be a failure for his pride, and that i can understand. But Nintendo won't be out of business (much like Sega) anytime soon, or at least until they start making heavy losses.
Sega went out of business because they were broke. They weren't selling enough and they finished their cash.
Nintendo are not selling like crazy, but hell they are making money! So they will stick around for quite a while.
I think if anything, their business model is working quite well.

That's one thing that drives me crazy. Why do people think that if Nintendo is third place again with the Revolution that it will be their last console? They make so much profit that they could probably sell 10 to 15 million Revolutions and still probably pull profit.

 

[London Geezer]

That's one thing that drives me crazy. Why do people think that if Nintendo is third place again with the Revolution that it will be their last console? They make so much profit that they could probably sell 10 to 15 million Revolutions and still probably pull profit.

As we said before, Sony and MS boys will love to go around screaming about their console selling 2X more than Revolution, or PS3 having 30X more games, or X360 having teh aitchdee, or this and that...

In the end people will keep buying Nintendo hardware to play Nintendo software. As long as Nintendo make money out of them, they'll be happy. Let the competition's fan wave their victory banners, in the end who really cares?

 

[pc999]

Does their business model work?

NES = 62 Million users
SNES = 48 million users
N64 = 32 Million users
GCN = 19 million users

They lose 10-15 million customers every generation. If their business model works like that next generation then the Revolution will be the last Nintendo console they ever make.

BTW anyone have their proffits numbers

It is the only way to answer that.

 

[Fox5]

I don't have profit numbers, but I believe starting with the NES, Nintendo made more money each generation, until taking a dip with the GCN.

SNES saw the advent of better hardware design, more multimillion sellers, and higher game prices.
N64 saw continued high software sales....except they were now almost all 1st party. Gameboy sales also really took off during this time.
And gamecube saw big drops in software sales, I think nintendo had like 8 games on n64 that outsold the best selling game on gamecube, not to mention that even the worst 1st and 2nd party n64 games broke at least half a million, I think even conker did eventually, whereas many gamecube games just floundered.

 

[mckmas8808]

In the end people will keep buying Nintendo hardware to play Nintendo software. As long as Nintendo make money out of them, they'll be happy. Let the competition's fan wave their victory banners, in the end who really cares?

Well I can tell you why I personally care. I care because Nintendo likes to tell people what they want. They like to tell people that the current way of gaming is teh suck and a huge change needs to happen. That's when I go to the numbers and say, "Ok prove it Nintendo. Prove through numbers that the people really don't want something like online gaming. Prove it that HD gaming is not that important."

I want them to prove it trough numbers. Had it not been for them tell me that off the wall stuff I wouldn't have to feel like shouting their past numbers all the time.

 

[Powderkeg]

BTW anyone have their proffits numbers

It is the only way to answer that.

What good would that do, unless you can seperate the consoles profits from the rest of their products?

I mean sure the profits increased during the SNES generation. Can you say Gameboy?

 

[Powderkeg]

If ultimately they make money out of it, why should they quit?

The question is, how many more customers can they lose before they no longer make money?

Extend that trend through the Revolution. 19 million GCN owners - say 12 million customers = 7 Million Revolution owners at the end of it's life cycle.

Could Nintendo still make a profit with a userbase of only 7 million? Could they afford to lose another 5 million of those on the generation after?

I mean I suppose if they sold only 1 console, but made a profit on it, it would still be a profit, but would they still do the R&D and production work if all they sold was 1 console every 5-6 years?

 

[London Geezer]

Well I can tell you why I personally care. I care because Nintendo likes to tell people what they want. They like to tell people that the current way of gaming is teh suck and a huge change needs to happen. That's when I go to the numbers and say, "Ok prove it Nintendo. Prove through numbers that the people really don't want something like online gaming. Prove it that HD gaming is not that important."

I want them to prove it trough numbers. Had it not been for them tell me that off the wall stuff I wouldn't have to feel like shouting their past numbers all the time.

I don't think i'm getting your argument.
Nintendo wanting innovation has little to do with how many people want to play GTA games.

The people who want to play Halo and GTA (online or not) will keep playing those games and will probably not be interested in Nintendo games (gross generalisation but it's just for the sake or the argument). These people are quite a lot, i must admit, but they're not 100% or the gaming world.
Alongside those games, there are A LOT of people (i think i'm one of them, although i don't think i'll be buying a Revolution and the last Nintendo think i bought was a Gameboy - the original black and white one) who are very bored with the stagnant state of the videogaming market.
Nintendo needs to target the people who they know will have an interest in innovative styles of gameplay.
In the meantime Sony and MS will flash out their numbers, be it FLOP ratings to sales figures, to software sales of old rehashed games which still sell in the million cause people don't know any better.

It's too easy to generalise without going into the root of the problem.

 

[London Geezer]

The question is, how many more customers can they lose before they no longer make money?

Extend that trend through the Revolution. 19 million GCN owners - say 12 million customers = 7 Million Revolution owners at the end of it's life cycle.

Could Nintendo still make a profit with a userbase of only 7 million? Could they afford to lose another 5 million of those on the generation after?

I mean I suppose if they sold only 1 console, but made a profit on it, it would still be a profit, but would they still do the R&D and production work if all they sold was 1 console every 5-6 years?

Well you're basing you argument of assumptions and as such i can't really "prove you're wrong". Obviously if Nintendo keep losing market share, eventually it will hurt them, but no one can say at present time if they will sell as much as they did this past generation, more, or less. Obviously there will be a point where they will start making losses if they don't sell enough, that's true for anyone.
The 1 console scenario is... well it's a non-scenario really, as that will never happen.

 

[Powderkeg]

Well you're basing you argument of assumptions and as such i can't really "prove you're wrong". Obviously if Nintendo keep losing market share, eventually it will hurt them, but no one can say at present time if they will sell as much as they did this past generation, more, or less. Obviously there will be a point where they will start making losses if they don't sell enough, that's true for anyone.

But the "they are still making a profit" argument doesn't hold any weight in reference with the future without addressing that argument. At present time you can't say how well the Revolution will sell, or if Nintendo will continue to make a profit.

What I can do is show that with Nintendo's "current business model" they are losing millions of customers with each new generation. It certainly seems logical to me that if the model doesn't change, neither will the sales trend they've established with it.

 

[London Geezer]

But the "they are still making a profit" argument doesn't hold any weight in reference with the future without addressing that argument. At present time you can't say how well the Revolution will sell, or if Nintendo will continue to make a profit.

What I can do is show that with Nintendo's "current business model" they are losing millions of customers with each new generation. It certainly seems logical to me that if the model doesn't change, neither will the sales trend they've established with it.

In fact, if you go re-read my post, i said, word for word:

If ultimately they make money out of it, why should they quit?

Meaning that IF they make money, they can very well stay in business, whatever the sales figures are, and IF they do NOT make money, then they will start being in trouble.

 

[Magnum PI]

If nintendo go software, they will loose their creative freedom.

The console maker decide what it released on their console, so nintendo would depend on them agreeing their titles. They wouldn't be able to release some titles, or would have to modify their games.

They wouldn't make as much money and it could affect the quality of their output too.

 

[pc999]

What good would that do, unless you can seperate the consoles profits from the rest of their products?

I mean sure the profits increased during the SNES generation. Can you say Gameboy?

I dont know if we can/know how to seperate the consoles profits from the rest of their products, I would wait for the answer, if they arent separated I would ask for if it is possible to separate it.

Anyway in every new gen of consoles there is one think that happens a suprisse in the form of a new contender, this gen there isnt, they know everything (and bieng the last ones even more, they just cant wait to much) and by now they seems to have a very nice strategy which I think it will result.

Nice gfx, low price (>200) and a light saber (SW) game alone (and I really bellive this will happen in the lauch/near window) would be enought to sell a few millions at the first week, if they can put some really innovative (and good) games (1/2/3 partys) of the main genres like a FPS, racing... plus a Mario/LoZ and meybe a new genres I think it would sell very well very fast.

And all of this with 6-8 games, and nobody will say that its hard to be innovative, with this controler even a monkey can innovative.