By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Seece on 07 February 2012
Edit Thread
RolStoppable said:
Seece said:
RolStoppable said:

(...)

Now Nintendo can't drop the price much more often anymore, but a business model that relies on starting out expensive and opening up new market segments over time via price cuts is flawed anyway. New market segments are better addressed by being priced reasonably from the start and then releasing varied software. Remember that the DS basically maintained its price of $150 through the majority of its lifecycle and had no trouble selling. The same is still perfectly feasible for the 3DS. Nintendo just needs to release the games instead of playing around with fancy stereoscopic 3D which the market really isn't interested in (aside from the obvious niche).

(...)

Not in all cases no, it's working out pretty well for PS360. The DS and Wii were special cases, they were the IT products of the time, something the 3DS and the WiiU will never be, they'll never come close to DS and Wii status in terms of popularity and casual attention, this is why Nintendo are suddenly turning to third parties and 'core' (use the term very lightly) games. You may think they should have carried on with the same path they were on, but I think Nintendo knew/knows that isn't possible. Not for a couple of generations anyway.

The cut was too drastic and didn't make any sense, I don't get Nintendo's need for the 3DS to bolt out of the gate, then again unlike Sony and MS they're not a company that applies long term strategy's to their products.

Sure, Seece. Are you really going to tell me now that the PS3 has made a net profit since it launched? You shouldn't include this system as an example where this strategy worked well. Nintendo turning to third parties has more to do with Nintendo developers wishing to make the games they want, something they could do if their systems were carried by third party support like the PS3 and 360. It's not that the Wii/DS strategy wouldn't work again, it's that Nintendo didn't want to take this path again, because it would mean that they have to make trash like Super Mario Bros.

The 3DS needed a big installed base quickly in order to secure third party support. The entire system was set up for this purpose. A rushed launch (the eShop came through a firmware update three months later) to get as much of a headstart over the PSV as possible, hardly any first party presence in the launch window with the expectation that it would lead to higher third party software sales and advertised in a way that conveys an image of a technology product, because third parties don't want to work with a toy or something.

I am pretty sure that Nintendo has some long term strategy, it's just that it never works as planned, so they start over again in hopes that it has to work eventually. The 3D Mario situation is a microcosm of Nintendo at large, although I think you aren't familiar with this battle that Nintendo is fighting.

Pretty sure Nintendo are ahead of you on this one. They're clearly not afraid of taking risks (although I always stand by my belief that they had little choice but to go with the Wii) If they thought they could have another Wii hit on their hands they would have gone the same route, but they know, and I think most other people realise that it just wasn't going to happen a second time around, it's not radically different enough to capture the casuals immagination, it's just never going to get that IT status whoever they target it at. Nintendo are courting third parties because it's a lot safer and a lot more predictable.

I don't know why you're using PS3 losses as an excuse as to why the strategy doesn't work, different company, different mindset.

I wouldn't be surprised to find Nintendo are worried about their future, every year they're going to have to fight that bit harder than they did last gen to keep 3DS relevent, even if you take games out of the equation, people are still choosing iPhones and the likes over dedicated handhelds.