Some Nintendo What Ifs
- Thread starter Infinisearch
- Start date
Powderkeg said:So.......... does that mean the editing system is there for long time members who don't?
Basically YES! We earned it the right to post-first-think-later!
Powderkeg said:
You don't know the meaning of the word "derail"
It's like an art, ask me or Digi!!Infinisearch
Veteran
Wow four pages, thats what i get for not looking in a thread for a day. I like the revolution controller in concept, I like the fact that the revolution will play the whole Nintendo library, and finally if the revolution drops at the right price I think it will be profitable. However in the past few weeks or so three things caught my attention:
1. Alot of japanese developers seem to be flocking around X360, at least currently.
2. Nintendo admited that games will look as good on an SD TV set, but as of yet HD support is not planned. (but there was mention of looking into adding it)
3. Nintendo admits it might be alienating some developers with the revolution controller.
4. Alot of people while interested in the controller are taking a wait and see/play approach about it.
5. The question of "will a controller concept really bring non-gamers to actually buy a console" is a wait and see affair, so opening up new markets is a gamble of sorts.
So here's Nintendo with the GCN profitable but with steady marketshare declines in the home console market over the years, and a highly profitable, high volume portable market that has no real competition until recently with the PSP. There is no doubt that Nintendo's core customers will support Nintendo because their games, but if there third party support drops even further than GCN levels because developers don't find it profitable to port games to Revolution beyond ones specifically targeting the controller, the market beyond their core gamers will be solely dependent on the sucess of the controller. In addition while Nintendo IP is their big sell point, when was the last time Nintendo introduced new highly sucessful IP?
Sorry for the long post but essentially this is why I made the OP in the first place, to essentially see how many gamers would buy the Revolution controller as an addon to some other electronic gaming platform??? I shouldn't have posed it as a 'what if' but that is where my mind was miandering at the time I posted, so I just included all the options I was thinking about at the time in regards to a business strategy.
OP by hey69
"regarding the first post.
you still dont believe in that third pilar crap now dont you?"
Huh?
OP by london-boy
"Well look at what that move did to the quality of Sega's software.
I'm afraid a move like that would turn Nintendo in "just another 3rd party studio" who will care FAR less about the games they produce than they would if they were exclusives to their own consoles. And that shows in the games big time!"
I don't that would be true of nintendo, their attitude towards the games they make while business like also has an air pride and creativity but that is just my opinion.
OP by "jvd"
"I think nintendo should open its bank account and buy a few small developers. nothing nuts just some developers that make more adult orientated games. Fold them into nintendo and produce more games ."
Thats a good idea too, and thanks for sharing it.
__________________
1. Alot of japanese developers seem to be flocking around X360, at least currently.
2. Nintendo admited that games will look as good on an SD TV set, but as of yet HD support is not planned. (but there was mention of looking into adding it)
3. Nintendo admits it might be alienating some developers with the revolution controller.
4. Alot of people while interested in the controller are taking a wait and see/play approach about it.
5. The question of "will a controller concept really bring non-gamers to actually buy a console" is a wait and see affair, so opening up new markets is a gamble of sorts.
So here's Nintendo with the GCN profitable but with steady marketshare declines in the home console market over the years, and a highly profitable, high volume portable market that has no real competition until recently with the PSP. There is no doubt that Nintendo's core customers will support Nintendo because their games, but if there third party support drops even further than GCN levels because developers don't find it profitable to port games to Revolution beyond ones specifically targeting the controller, the market beyond their core gamers will be solely dependent on the sucess of the controller. In addition while Nintendo IP is their big sell point, when was the last time Nintendo introduced new highly sucessful IP?
Sorry for the long post but essentially this is why I made the OP in the first place, to essentially see how many gamers would buy the Revolution controller as an addon to some other electronic gaming platform??? I shouldn't have posed it as a 'what if' but that is where my mind was miandering at the time I posted, so I just included all the options I was thinking about at the time in regards to a business strategy.
OP by hey69
"regarding the first post.
you still dont believe in that third pilar crap now dont you?"
Huh?
OP by london-boy
"Well look at what that move did to the quality of Sega's software.
I'm afraid a move like that would turn Nintendo in "just another 3rd party studio" who will care FAR less about the games they produce than they would if they were exclusives to their own consoles. And that shows in the games big time!"
I don't that would be true of nintendo, their attitude towards the games they make while business like also has an air pride and creativity but that is just my opinion.
OP by "jvd"
"I think nintendo should open its bank account and buy a few small developers. nothing nuts just some developers that make more adult orientated games. Fold them into nintendo and produce more games ."
Thats a good idea too, and thanks for sharing it.
__________________
Infinisearch
Veteran
Shifty Geezer said:
Good point, I agree with it to an extent and think I've seen the point been brought up in some other thread/threads, but what got me was the announcing of alot of japanese devs really warming up to the X360, as I stated in my last post. It seems to me that if the revolution doesn't push enough units initially, it is less likely to be profitable for third party developers to make games beyond the more simple ones that make use of the special controller, and if the revolution is not in the "power range" of its competitors there won't be as many ports possible as with the current generation. While original titles are nice I think that if titles made on movie IP and other cross console games don't get ported to the revolution then it potentially limits the popularity of the console beyond nintendo core consumer base even more than revolution. Its seems to me alot of the revolutions sucess might be dependent on its launch even more so than other consoles, but then again its all conjecture on my part.
Infinisearch
Veteran
Teasy said:
I'm assuming you made that last statement in regard to my OP, if its not by all means please ignore the following. I didn't mean for nintendo to drop out of the console market permenently but more or less as feint. They would stay profitable in the interim and have time to deliver a competetive or superior console at a potenially cheaper price while having time to 'beta-test' the revolution controller version 1.0, all while allowing developers to brain-storm with it on a platform they are already familiar with and allow them to profit from it if it bears fruit.
Infinisearch
Veteran
BTW where do you go to get your worldwide console and games sales figures? If I start such discussions i really should look this stuff up instead of going off memory of some link I clicked.
You go to the... internet!
But Nintendo did drop licensing fee's for third parties on GameCube. They also actively went after third parties, making deals with Capcom and EA and also offering some developers (Sega, Namco ect) the chance to work on Nintendo franchise games such as Starfox, F-Zero and Mario. They didn't buy third party support on mass like MS, but its just not true to say that they offered no incentives at all.
Oh. I wasn't aware of this (though I rememebr something about an EA deal now I come to think of it. I guess Nintendo just aren;t as good at marketting their machine to third parties thenTeasy said:
See what I mean.
Even now folks ignore me.
Oh dear! Just like Mario.
I should've chosen Link!
Stop the press!
Sleeping Giant awakening http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=6828
Even now folks ignore me.
Oh dear! Just like Mario.
I should've chosen Link!
Stop the press!
Sleeping Giant awakening http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=6828
Last edited by a moderator:
Powderkeg said:
*sigh*
No. People have this strange impression that Nintendo's major 1st-party games don't sell well, when in fact Smash Bros, Sunshine, Wind Waker, and Double Dash have all been multi-platinum titles. If they were released on PS2 (the Xbox demographic is simply disinterested in the Mario franchise, making ports to that system a potential financial disaster), they'd have to
a) Compete with the rest of the PS2 library.
b) Pay royalties to Sony.
c) Buy devkits from Sony and pay whatever other associated costs come with those.
d) Stop selling peripherals and hardware, all of which are quite profitable.
e) Lose any and all revenues from 2nd and 3rd party software.
So no, going 3rd-party wouldn't automatically translate into more profit. Sure, Twilight Princess might sell an extra 500,000 units, but do you honestly think Mario Party and Mario sports titles would do half as well as they do on GameCube? Would Pikmin have even been noticed, or Prime 2 sold more than 100,000 copies?
Some people think yes, some think no. There's no rel evidence either way. some think that anyone interested in playing Mario (GC) games would buy a GC, but I don't think that's true. There's been plenty of game AFAIK launched on one console that eventually made the transition to another console and found a willing customer base there. Regards your other points,fearsomepirateSo no said:
a) Good title do well. Unless Nintendo games really aren't that great what have they to fear from other lesser titles?
b) Royalties is where they lose profit margins, but if they sell more games they make more money. Would they rather make $1 billion profit selling on their own hardware without paying royalties, or $2 billion profit selling on PS2 after paying Sony's royalties.
c) Negligable cost in the grand scheme of things
d) They'd lose some income like controller sales but they could still develop and sell custom peripherals like the Bongos could they not?
e) Yes, they'd lose these.
The point is whether the increase in user base would mean more software income for Nintendo than the sideline incomes like 3rd party royalties and peripheral profits. Numbers posted here suggest to me they would. Others disagree. But seeing how most of Nintendo's money seems to come from 1st party software sales, and publishing to other consoles will provide 5x the customer base, there's definitely a clear argument in favour of Nintendo being more profitable going 3rd party and the rest of this thread hasn't managed to find vital stats (like a survey of PS2 owners who'd buy Mario if available on PS2) to prove or disprove the theory.
Similar threads
