By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales Discussion - Nintendo lying about third party dominance?

Nintendo doesn't do spin, they spend 15 minutes explaining to you that they make profit and how great their company is and how much profit they made then how much moe profit they intend to make all wraped in non-consumer this and new audience that and finish it all with profit.

Then they forget they had to talk about games, but when they do remember they remind you first that they profit off those games.

If you don't believe me check out E3, GDC, E3 and GDC as well as tuns of articles along the way where Iwata or Reggie are speaking.

I'm still waiting for the Sony one, it's been a while since this site got any official spin, and no ones rating them =(.



I'm Unamerica and you can too.

The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread: 



The Hunt Begins 4/20/2010 =D

Around the Network
FightingGameGuy said:
Viper1 said:
FightingGameGuy said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
scottie said:
There's only 1 way to make a fair comparison.

Wait about 10 years, until there are no 7th gen software sales

Anything put out before then is spin, accept it. Ninty published data for the first 19 months cos it showed them as winning, MS showed for the entire life of the console because that showed them as winning

 

 

Nintendo's graph wasn't spin.  It very clearly said exactly what it was: a comparison of the first 19 months of each system.

Microsoft's IS spin however, because it is saying that Nintendo is lying, and the evidence they supply has nothing to do with it.  Microsoft isn't discussing the first 19 months.  They're using their yearlong headstart and calling Nintendo liars.  Nintendo didn't lie.

And as usual, they're ignoring Japan.

Nintendo not spinning?  BS.

The graph Nintendo's VP pointed to first http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/nintendo-thirdparty-games-not-selling-on-wii-is-a-false-assumption/?biz=1, not the one used later by gamedaily itself as quoted by the source, absolutely is spin.

"We recently posted a story discussing the state of third-party software sales on Wii, which included a chart from Nintendo that inconveniently also lumped in first-party sales." (Quoted from the source's quote from Gamedaily -- sorry I don't know how to use multiple quotes on this site.)

Graphing 1st party + 3rd party sales while discussing 3rd party sales exclusively misleads the reader by throwing in superfluous, highly favorable information that is not relevant in any manner.

Nintendo might not have lied, but it did choose to display an irrelevant chart that portrays them as having a huge lead in place of the relevant chart where it has a much smaller lead.  Such behaviour defintely exudes questionable honesty, and certainly qualifies to be called spinning.

That's not spin.  That's an, "Oops, NPD sent us the wrong chart."    Notice later on the actual requested chart was presented and guess what....it coincided with exactly what Nintendo said to begin with.

Why is this so hard for you guys to understand?   It's really makeing some of you look logically challenged or intentionally disregarding fact for your own bias.

Gamedaily, never said anything about a mistake being made with the chart used, only that Nintendo will use another one at a later time.  If a mistake however, was made, I apologize and have been mistaken (though I'd say gamedaily had mislead me). 

However, if no mistake was made, then Nintendo made an argument with its only purpoted piece of evidence being a chart whose relevance was wholly ruined with irrelevant information (you can't even retrieve the relevant information from it alone).  In argumentation and logic, being right isn't enough (I'm not saying they don't have more 3rd party sales), you have to be right for the reasons you present, and having presented faulty evidence as its sole usable evidence in the case, Nintendo's attempt to set the "record straight" fails as an argument.  The whole press release in the case that there was no mistake, is spin because it never actually proves what it says, and makes it appear that Nintendo actually has a huge lead whereas whatever lead or loss it actually has is indecipherable from the information used in its argument.

It was a mistake.  Think about it.  Why would Nintendo ask NPD to provide a chart and then create a PR piece about it?   It happened the other way around.   Nintendo created an article first and asked NPD to provide the chart.....they received the wrong one.

 

This isn't even the first time Nintendo has used NPD charts to refute sales fallacies.   They did this same thing last year when people just assumed no software sold well on Wii.  Nintendo rebutted with some NPD provided data showing that they sold more software in the first X months than MS and Sony (this one included data regarding the PS2 as well).

 

 

 



The rEVOLution is not being televised

xbox 360 is still a smaller base.

and it sells software nicely.

both spin it get it done with it.

HD xbox360+ps3 its still a way bigger market considering its "easy" to port one game to other console.

and third parties are going that way.



Jo21,

Dead Rising is being ported to the Wii. This is only one game but there may be others. The Wii has shown that 3rd party titles sell well on the system. It is only a matter of time before third party developers and publishers take note.



If Nintendo is successful at the moment, it’s because they are good, and I cannot blame them for that. What we should do is try to be just as good.----Laurent Benadiba

 

not for long if you look at the World Wide Market.

US, ps360 is the way to go

world wide its a virtual tie between the ps360 and wii. by the end of 2008/early 2009 the wii Will control over half the market.

it Should be a nobrainer half the marketshare, lower budget, same sales Potential. should equate to the Wii getting Several AAA titles for 2009/2010..

ALL core Quality A titles for the wii have sold well -ports or otherwise with minimal marketing.

the Wii has yet to get an AAA title via 3rd parties. until that happens we can speculate what will happen, but until then...we'll never know





Around the Network
Jo21 said:
xbox 360 is still a smaller base.

and it sells software nicely.

both spin it get it done with it.

HD xbox360+ps3 its still a way bigger market considering its "easy" to port one game to other console.

and third parties are going that way.

You do realize you don't have to have 50% of the market to be condiered for AAA development, don't you?

Just look at last gen.   PS2 had 72% of the market to itself yet the GC and Xbox still received some AAA games despite their paltry 28% combined market share.

 



The rEVOLution is not being televised

@FightingGameGuy: Spin is when you try to spin negative to look it actually favours you. Regardless the reason why the 1st + 3rd party chart was there in the first place, it's not a spin because there's nothing to spin.
If M$ would comment the Nintendos chart, that they had the best 3rd party attach rate in the first 19 months, would be a spin.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

The only way to gauge effective 3rd party profits from the data provided by both companies is to look at average 3rd party investment per title and average 3rd party profit per title.

Microsoft spun the numbers to make themselves look good (by including their extra year's of data in their numbers), Nintendo spun the numbers to make themselves look good (by showing total numbers, instead of numbers per title).

This is how PR thinks, at a lot of companies. Anyone who thinks Nintendo and Microsoft aren't both spinning the numbers to suit themselves, is way off base.

3rd parties are interested in making profit (this should be obvious). The only relevant numbers in this matter are not displayed by either company's graph. Discussing anything else is meaningless, because the 3rd parties aren't investing for reasons other than profit.



I should add that you could assume that each title, when the costs/profits are distributed over all available titles, has approximately the same profit margin.

Thus, if the dev costs, relative to the profits (not overall -- there's an important distinction here), per title are the same across all three next-gen platforms (and I think this might be an incorrect assumption, but it is possible), then you could consider 3rd party success as a mere average number of 3rd party software units sold, per title -- which MS shows in their graph, and then pollutes it with their extra year lead (giving 1st-year releases up to an additional year of sales, as padding, in addition to a boost to the number of available hardware units, during that 1st year when MS didn't have next-gen competition).

Nintendo's graph is... pretty empty of relevant info, really. All it really shows is that more 3rd party software units have been produced for the Wii, which goes hand-in-hand with the Wii being the most numerous console for a large portion of this generation, and demonstrating a "sells like hotcakes" outlook for nearly its entire existance on the market. If anything, I think the overall 3rd party units sold on what is, by far, the most popular platform, is a little underwhelming.



@Groucho: Not that i'd disagree with you about the profit, but it's not that simple still.

One of the most important things, when reading something, is to comprehend the context.
The context in the announcement is to kill the public misconseption of "3rd parties don't sell on Wii". That's when you can't mix it with revenue or profit, or you'd be spinning it. Therefore we have only two, comparable, correct ways of look at it (in case of time period of lifetime sales), which are: compare number of units sold during the time newer has been on the market and compare number of units sold in a same timeframe since launch.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.