Reason #2623 why Rol will never be a mod. As if we really needed another one

Great job with the projection. My post isn't FUD just because you want it to be. My post isn't factually incorrect just because you want it to be. My post isn't unreasonable just because you want it to be. You can't actually countered any of the points i've made aside from repeating the same talking points which I already pointed out are absolutely irrelevant, and gave factual reasons why. There's nothing further to be said if you don't understand how publicly traded companies work. Everything I say hinges on people such as yourself having at the very least a basic understanding of economics. You appear to lack that understanding, and lash out at anyone who does because maybe it means Nintendo taking a direction you don't like.  Have a good day.

"We are going to use smartphones to increase awareness of our core gaming business"

Pokemon GO leads to 3DS hardware & software sales increasing.

"Psych!!!!!! We're going full mobile!!!!!"

I'm well versed in the Nintenbible and pray to Nintengod thrice a day

I would caution a bit about getting too carried away with the "mobile effect" stuff. 

Pokemon Go is probably the biggest game phenmenon of the last 10 years and Nintendo could make mobile games for another 10 years and never have a hit that big, and even so 3DS sales are in the 7-8 million yearly range even with the "bump" from Pokemon Go and Mario Run this year, not exactly record breaking numbers, they're just up a healthy bit from last year's poor shipments. 

For every 1 person that got a 3DS because of Pokemon Go there may well also be 1 or 2 other people that choose not to get a 3DS because they feel they are getting their Pokemon fix via mobile now through Pokemon Go as well, that is something that won't immediately show up in sales data either. 

You missed the point, if you have a strategy amd it works you dont change the strategy. If the strategy stops working then you adjust it.

True, the Wii was definitely a sign of change, however I think a major sticking point is that they refuse to change their IPs and focus on a more mature audience. As gaming is clearly moving this way, Nintendo needs to break away from its obsession with old Nintendo mascots and start finding a happy middle-ground between Japan and Western audiences e.g. Dark Souls. 

Personally though, I think Nintendo won't bother as they don't have the leadership needed for such a change in strategy. 

What's that you're getting on with about facts, and logic and reason?

https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/stock/information/index.html

On what planet does 15% of treasury shares represent a majority stake in the company? No one person owns a majority stake in Nintendo, which means its board of directors controls the executive. In fact, Nintendo's largest share holder is JP Morgan/ Chase Bank, who own 12% of the company. I'm not sure why you think that, but Nintendo's board of directors don't actually represent over 50% ownership of Nintendo's company.  Furthermore, just because Iwata wasn't fired doesn't mean that Iwata wasn't able to be fired. The board of directors chose not to do that, that doesn't mean they couldn't or wouldn't. I don't understand why on earth do you think Nintendo is special? Ohh right. Wishful thinking. It explains everything with you.

I also have never said that Nintendo's current situation means that Nintendo will go third party tomorrow, or next year, or even necessarily in the next 5. I'm not sure why you seem to think that because Nintendo is coming off of two devices and a combined 80 m in sales that means anything regarding whether it still makes sense to keep making hardware after the Switch. You wont find a single quote or anything inferring that I thought that Nintendo should stop making hardware before the announcement of the Switch. I never said it, because I've never thought it. But here you are arguing against a position I never took. They call that a "strawman argument". But hey, logical and reasonable people totally employ logical fallacies when arguing against others, right?

Let me paint a little picture for you to explain why you harping on Wii U + 3DS sales do not matter. Let's fast forward 5 years into the future to a hypothetical worst case scenario: 250m sales between WIi and DS -> 80 million in sales between WIi U and 3DS -> 25 million in sales for Switch. That's a 90% drop in hardware sales over what? a 17 year period between 2005 and  2022. So the Wii U and 3DS did 80 million in sales between 2011 and 2016? So what? Why does that matter at all in 2022? What does that have to do with Nintendo's profitability right then, or how profitable it'll be in 2022 or 2027? In 2022, 5 years after the Switch is released, if Nintendo is looking at 25 million in sales, what Nintendo's board of directors are going to think? "Well appears our marketshare in the console space is at a all time low, while our mobile sales is keeping our company in the black but hey, we sold 80 million consoles between 2012 and 2017 so let's make the Switch 2!  No. They won't do that. They'll do a post-mortem on the Switch, figure out what went right and what went wrong, maybe decide to make a new console, or maybe decide that there's more profit to be made making games for an install base of 150+ million on the PS4 (or PS5 or whatever) rather than sticking to their current install base of 25 million with yet another failed attempt to recapture past audiences. If the board of directors doesn't have the confidence its their executive to make the right decision, they will fire, and replace them with people that will.

I just painted an entirely plausible scenario. Care to refute it with some more wishful thinking?

Do I want that to happen? No. I don't. I don't want to play Nintendo games on my Playstation unless I have to. I have no problem with Nintendo making hardware, I have a problem with the hardware Nintendo makes.  I just don't want Nintendo hardware to be so unappealing that I would rather not play Nintendo games than be forced to buy their terrible hardware. Nintendo has failed me with the Wii, they failed me with the Wii U, and they have already failed me with the Switch (and even then I still might buy one anyways, because as a Nintendo fan, it feels wrong to me that my son might grow up without playing Nintendo games) I don't like the direction Nintendo has been headed in for quite some time. I've seen the direction they've headed in and I'm not surprised to see them continue to stumble as they have been. Nintendo doesn't want my money? That's fine. I'm quite happy with the gaming experiences I'm getting elsewhere. That doesn't mean I hate Nintendo, it doesn't mean I want them to fail. It just means that they currently suck horribly and continue to sucks far as my gaming needs are concerned. Understand?

Dude please.

Yes, it does matter. Considering that it's going to be combining Nintendo's home AND portable markets, and thus theoretically all the games you would typically have to buy two consoles for just to play. If they market it well enough, why WOULDN'T it matter for it to sell as much as it possibly can?

I've said in other threads that it likely won't sell on par with Wii, but that gen, as pointed out, was a special case. Having said that, and considering by all indications that Switch will at least be powerful enough to do respectable Xbone/PS4 ports, and that apparently everything in this fractured gen is getting to a "Scalable" point with all of of these "Pro" etc. releases, then IF Nintendo plays their cards right, markets it right, actually can get AND keep third parties on board, etc...there's no good reason at all why it couldn't still be more successful than 40-50 million units sold, lifetime. What they need are 1. THE GAMES, and 2. THE PEOPLE. People need to know about it, they need to be made aware of it, in an effective way, and they need to have games available for it that makes them want to own it. Period.



As for this "not unless Switch is the only new console you own" argument...honestly, not everyone is either willing or able to pour the kind of money it takes to have a decent PC gaming, rig, AND a PS4, AND an Xbox, AND a Nintendo system, AND a decent smartphone/tablet, etc. Not every adult gamer is a single or unmarried person, without kids to support, or major bills to pay, etc., and can just afford to pour money into a hardcore gaming habit. In fact, I'd wager most adults can't. Most adult gamers are probably lucky if they can afford a good gaming PC and ONE game console, or two game consoles. So it's 100% feasable that for some people, they might WANT Switch to be a viable "only new console I own" option. IF it can get solid third party support (big if), AND it has all those titles that Nintendo home console and portables usually get (IE both your major Mario/Zeldas AND your games like Pokemon), all on one system? Yes. That idea is very attractive.

And if you want that idea to actually take off, you want it to be as successful as possible. So it does matter. It always matters. Nintendo still has plenty of money, sure, but they took a major hit over how they mishandled Wii U, and they absolutely NEED Switch to be a huge success.

That "special" board of directors? Why? They're all on the same page? Well yes, that's how Board of Directors work.  They're all still beholden to the shareholders, they're all still driven by profits.  But, they all came up within the company?

Shuntaro Furukawa has only been with Nintendo since 2012. Katsuhiro Umeyama,Yoshio Mitamura, and Naoki Mizutani appear to have never worked for Nintendo. They are "Outside" directors after all. So that's half the board that doesn't appear to have "risen from within the company". Even Kimishima made a career in the banking industry and was brought in to be the CFO of the Pokemon Company in 2000 and worked his way up from there over 15 years.  But hey, keep moving those goal posts about why Nintendo is special. I'm sure you'll come up with something both equally unique and meaningless eventually.

So first it was economics, now I need to educate you on what a straw man is. See a straw man is when you argue against a point someone never actually made. I fail to see how showing you a plausible scenario that might have Nintendo seriously considering switching gears on the whole "hardware" thing to show you have current Wii U and 3DS sales are in fact irrelevant to when such a decision likely could be made, is in fact arguing against a point you never made? Are you are or you not arguing that Nintendo's 80 million in sales between the two is relevant? Because if you are, then there's no straw man to be seen here, at least, not by me.

See that's the thing. You don't need doom for Nintendo to stop making hardware, you just need more lucrative revenue streams that are more worthy of investment than Nintendo making hardware. That's why I keep harping on profits. That's why I keep pointing out that Nintendo is in fact beholden to its share holders. Nintendo, like any other publicly traded company is driven by profit. The only thing Nintendo needs in order to stop making hardware is to be convinced that it is more profitable not to. That's it.

As for me having a problem with Nintendo making hardware? First off, thanks for telling me what I think. You definitely know more about my thoughts than I do. Secondly, what? So the idea of Nintendo making hardware is directly related to the hardware they currently make? No. Not at all. I don't want Nintendo to stop making hardware, I just want them to start making hardware that I want to buy. I want them to make different hardware than what they are making. That is far and away different from wanting them to go third party.

But here you are saying my arguments are being driven by emotions, as if you're somehow being objective? Please. You just falsely argued that Nintendo was majority owned from within.  Now you're arguing that the Nintendo board of directors is somehow special and different from other corporations when you have absolutely no basis to make that claim. You just see Nintendo as a special company, and therefore the people within it are special people, and I get that, but surely you can admit that such a stance is a blatant and obvious bias.

Damn, this thread spurred way more interesting posts than I could've predicted.