What MS, Sony, Nintendo should be or are doing next

[iroboto]

Because they save their profit as a cash(at least money they can use), and that's a policy of Nintendo since quite a long time ago. They have said game business is like a gambling.

Thats good for them. I respect that deeply, but they cannot afford another set of losses with Switch. Pretty sure Switch failure will result in some camel's back breaking. You can only go so long with dismal profits. We have seen greater, larger, and more successful companies than Nintendo go down after 2 serial failures.

 

[618116]

Thats good for them. I respect that deeply, but they cannot afford another set of losses with Switch. Pretty sure Switch failure will result in some camel's back breaking. You can only go so long with dismal profits. We have seen greater, larger, and more successful companies than Nintendo go down after 2 serial failures.

Of course they need to success with Switch; at least not to fail. If Switch fail like Wii U, they might still have a lot of cash enough, but their brand image(at least i image about Nintendo HARDWARE)will be hurt seriously and it will cause critical problem for their next business.

 

[Globalisateur]

https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/library/historical_data/pdf/consolidated_pl_e1603.pdf
Operating income of 2009 was about 550000 million yens(= 5 billion dollars), and whole loss from 2012~2014 was only about 100000 million yen(= 1 billion dollars).
In fact, their best single year profit of Wii era is 5 TIMES of whole loss of Wii U era.

They maybe earned 5 billions dollars in 2009 thanks to the Wii but they surely lost brand reputation by burning consumers with it and become overly confident with their gimmick strategy. The result: They created the Wii U and lost 1 billion dollars and again lost brand reputation with many of their unambitious and formulaic games.

Of course they need to success with Switch; at least not to fail. If Switch fail like Wii U, they might still have a lot of cash enough, but their brand image(at least i image about Nintendo HARDWARE)will be hurt seriously and it will cause critical problem for their next business.

Their brand image has already being seriously damaged since the Wii cash grab strategy. It directly contributed to the Wii U failure.

 

[618116]

They maybe earned 5 billions dollars in 2009 thanks to the Wii but they surely lost brand reputation by burning consumers with it and become overly confident with their gimmick strategy. The result: They created the Wii U and lost 1 billion dollars and again lost brand reputation with many of their unambitious and formulaic games.



Their brand image has already being seriously damaged since the Wii cash grab strategy. It directly contributed to the Wii U failure.

I know what you mean, but no one cannot prove whether their brand is already damaged seriously now, until Switch will be released in the real world. And that is what we are talking about. I think making conclusion first is not a good way to discuss.

 

[Globalisateur]

Wii U resounding failure is proof enough that the Nintendo brand is dying.

 

[618116]

Wii U resounding failure is proof enough that the Nintendo brand is dying.

It seems you don't want to make a discussion.

 

[MrFox]

I think the WiiU argument supports the claim that the brand is in bad shape. They can no longer sell shitty hardware at high margin just because it plays nintendo games, or because it has some "novelty". They will have to do more if they want me to buy another nintendo product ever again, and I say this as someone who bought all of them since the gamecube, I bought around 50 GC games. Wii was short lived but fun, and now I have the wiiu with two games and it's not a healthy ecosystem. I'll need some serious convincing to touch Switch with a ten foot pole. Reputation, nintendo franchises, nostalgia, and their history made me buy a wii and wiiu. Those are not potent reasons anymore.

 

[BRiT]

Note to Self, split off the last few pages to its own thread when back at a PC.

Split off to the following thread https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/labeling-consumers-in-the-games-market-spawn.59739/

 

[one]

From the NVIDIA conference call
http://wwg.com/2016/11/11/nvidia-partnership-with-nintendo-will-likely-last-two-decades/

"I guess you could also say that Nintendo contributed a fair amount to that growth. And over the next – as you know, the Nintendo architecture and the company tends to stick with an architecture for a very long time. And so we've worked with them now for almost two years. Several hundred engineering years have gone into the development of this incredible game console. I really believe when everybody sees it and enjoy it, they're going be amazed by it. It's really like nothing they've ever played with before. And of course, the brand, their franchise and their game content is incredible. And so I think this is a relationship that will likely last two decades and I'm super excited about it."

The Semi Accurate blog before the revelation wrote that NVIDIA was desperate enough to take loss for themselves to shove their architecture into Nintendo, if it's true Nintendo will get a lot better financial results than Wii U by the Sheild-rebranded Switch, just like with Ingress-rebranded Pokemon Go.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Let's see if Nintendo manage to stick with Nvidia for more than one generation, or if they return to AMD.

 

[Nesh]

Of all the 3 I feel that MS has improved and continue to improve their value more than the rest.
Sony did have a better start with a better value proposal of course.
MS has managed to turn many things around towards the better.

• XBOX One shifted focus completely back into gaming,
• They managed to add backwards compatibility which often presents some performance improvement. PS4 even misses PS1 backwards compatibility.
• They now include 4k Blu Ray and 4K streaming with every new model
• Performance between the two platforms has been reduced in many cases. See BF1. Gears of War 4, an amazing game visually, manages to hit its desired 1080p res target 95% of the time and its multiplayer is 60fps with Dynamic resolution reaching as high as 1080p. Forza Horizon 3 also 1080p with superb visuals that are a match with Drive Club.
• The platform is open for some pretty sweet old school emulation
• Scorpio will be the most powerful console next year with more tangible improvements in gaming compared to Pro for those that want to take advantage of their 4k displays. The only advantage Pro will have against the Scorpio would be the only the price. Scorpio will be more suitable for premiu console gaming
• Scorpio is also expected to have performance improvements for standard XBOX One games too, but we will have to wait and see.
• I wouldnt be surprised if Scorpio will have an Oculus or Vive support and will have exclusive games. Star Citizen could be an awesome VR candidate for it.

MS is improving their value proposal quite significantly without the need for peripherals or compromises.

Sony's Pro does offer a good upgrade but performance and visual improvements are kinda mixed and inconsistent. PS VR is still trying to prove itself and is a substantial additional investment.

There is only one think Sony does better so far and thats games.

Regardless Sony hasn't done as much compared to MS because they are in the safe spot so far.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I agree that MS has improved their value more than the rest, and the value proposition is pretty good now in comparison to PS4 with little in gaming terms to differentiate and the added value of the XBOS features. I disagree with your Scorpio remarks because it's all speculation and you can't include Scorpio in discussions of 'value' when we've no idea how it's priced and what features it'll actually have!

Long term though, MS has the BC/FC/Xbox anywhere thing going and that's the greatest value proposition of all.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Of all the 3 I feel that MS has improved and continue to improve their value more than the rest.

Definitely. The same thing happened with Sony last generation, who also flopped out of the gate so the only way was up. By the end of the generation they'd sold as many consoles as Microsoft but unfortunately the juicy profits are in software where Sony was almost always second fiddle to Microsoft in sales (and therefore licensing revenue).

I think Microsoft's long term plan is pretty solid, nobody knows if Sony have a long-term plan but if they're going to cut lose PS4/Pro owners through no compatibility going forward that's only going to incentivise Sony users moving to Xbox.

 

[Globalisateur]

Yes Shifty but still not enough essential games on XB1 for me to buy the console (current gen games, not X360 games). Halo MCC & 5 + Forza aren't enough and I don't care about a UHD player.

I am still waiting for the Halo CE or Gears of War on XB1 (but not an actual new Gears of War, got fed up with the genre). Every consoles have generally at least one game making it an essential purchase for me. XB1 is very meh for me (as is Wii U) until now.

I hope that Zelda breath of the wild will be an essential purchase for me because I liked what I watched...but I will buy it on Switch. My fault.... I showed the Nintendo Switch trailer to my GF...It's probably for the best anyways.

Poor Wii U though.

 

[BRiT]

Why do Halo CE from Halo Master Chief or Gears of War Ultimate not count as being on Xbox One? Or do you not mean those games exactly but some new must play game that has yet to be named?

 

[Globalisateur]

Why do Halo CE from Halo Master Chief or Gears of War Ultimate not count as being on Xbox One? Or do you not mean those games exactly but some new must play game that has yet to be named?

Yep, this.

 

[function]

Of all the 3 I feel that MS has improved and continue to improve their value more than the rest.
Sony did have a better start with a better value proposal of course.
MS has managed to turn many things around towards the better.

• XBOX One shifted focus completely back into gaming,
• They managed to add backwards compatibility which often presents some performance improvement. PS4 even misses PS1 backwards compatibility.
• They now include 4k Blu Ray and 4K streaming with every new model
• Performance between the two platforms has been reduced in many cases. See BF1. Gears of War 4, an amazing game visually, manages to hit its desired 1080p res target 95% of the time and its multiplayer is 60fps with Dynamic resolution reaching as high as 1080p. Forza Horizon 3 also 1080p with superb visuals that are a match with Drive Club.
• The platform is open for some pretty sweet old school emulation
• Scorpio will be the most powerful console next year with more tangible improvements in gaming compared to Pro for those that want to take advantage of their 4k displays. The only advantage Pro will have against the Scorpio would be the only the price. Scorpio will be more suitable for premiu console gaming
• Scorpio is also expected to have performance improvements for standard XBOX One games too, but we will have to wait and see.
• I wouldnt be surprised if Scorpio will have an Oculus or Vive support and will have exclusive games. Star Citizen could be an awesome VR candidate for it.

MS is improving their value proposal quite significantly without the need for peripherals or compromises.

Sony's Pro does offer a good upgrade but performance and visual improvements are kinda mixed and inconsistent. PS VR is still trying to prove itself and is a substantial additional investment.

There is only one think Sony does better so far and thats games.

Regardless Sony hasn't done as much compared to MS because they are in the safe spot so far.

Definitely. The same thing happened with Sony last generation, who also flopped out of the gate so the only way was up. By the end of the generation they'd sold as many consoles as Microsoft but unfortunately the juicy profits are in software where Sony was almost always second fiddle to Microsoft in sales (and therefore licensing revenue).

I think Microsoft's long term plan is pretty solid, nobody knows if Sony have a long-term plan but if they're going to cut lose PS4/Pro owners through no compatibility going forward that's only going to incentive a bleed to Sony users to Xbox.

Just wanted to second these opinions.

I gained a lot of respect to the way Sony worked hard to turn the PS3 into a strong platform, from console price, to games, to tools to leverage the hardware. MS seem to be on a similar journey this generation. The X1S is a better refresh than I was expecting and being sold at the right price. First party games have been strong, and MS have worked hard to provide tools to leverage the hardware (e.g. DX12 and the documentations and profiling tools to really make sure that developers can leverage the juicy BW of the esram).

Earlier on this generation I said that MS was losing a large share of their customers to Sony. I still think that was true. I also think that they've done a lot to stem those defections. X1S is a really nice device, the 360 BC is an amazing achievement, and their plan for software continuity across devices adds a lot of certainty to investing in the platform.

While the momentum is still with Sony at this point, what we know of long term plans may currently favour MS. I suppose we'll find out when Sony decide what they're going to do with PS5 ...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yes Shifty but still not enough essential games on XB1 for me to buy the console

You already own a PS4 though. For consumers without either console, XB1 is more compelling now than at launch with the game delta being less such that it isn't too much worth bothering about.

 

[Nesh]

Definitely. The same thing happened with Sony last generation, who also flopped out of the gate so the only way was up. By the end of the generation they'd sold as many consoles as Microsoft but unfortunately the juicy profits are in software where Sony was almost always second fiddle to Microsoft in sales (and therefore licensing revenue).

I think Microsoft's long term plan is pretty solid, nobody knows if Sony have a long-term plan but if they're going to cut lose PS4/Pro owners through no compatibility going forward that's only going to incentive a bleed to Sony users to Xbox.

Yes I agree that Sony did improve a lot last gen, but MS kept improving the 360 as well despite having the upper hand. The thing with MS is that, regardless of their position, they continue to improve the product as much as possible. They dont think about current sales only. They are always thinking about the future I believe. They implement the steps gradually and constantly. Sony doesnt do that. Despite being a happy PS4 owner I can no longer see the platform as a more valuable offer. It is disappointing from a consumer perspective. Sony considers the strength of the brand is strong only based on current sales, but they should have been improving the image and the value regardless of userbase because it is what sets the groundwork for the future. They are more reactive than proactive.
Some of Sony's offers also feel like a rip off. Like PS Now. Why should someone want to pay for old PS3 games with the inconsistency of streaming and pay extra for games they already own or could own for example?
Why pay for PS2 games which are just emulated when someone might already own or could own these games? Not to mention the slow roll out of PS2 games.
In other occasions it feels like some features have been removed. Why not be able to play my PS1 games on my PS4 when it looks like all it needs is very basic emulation?
Also some conveniences we found in Vita and were expecting to see on PS4 havent moved on. Like the fact that we cant jump seamlessly between all apps and games. For example we can jump from Game to web browser fast, but from game to youtube this is impossible.
MS have thought better the console's multitasking functionality on the other hand.
If MS didnt sacrifice performance and better pricing for Kinect and the console had at least performance parity with the PS4 it could have been a better offer from the start. Sony was partly lucky.

 

[Pixel]

While Nintendo has 4.6 Billion in the bank I could unfortunately see they could burn through that quickly. They need to do several billion in revenue each year just to break even, if they don't because if 3DS sales really start to dry up and Switch does very poorly like the Wiiu, they could easily burn through that in a few years.