Akvod said:
Now can you elaborate more? Can you give a convincing argument why total sales for a Mario or Zelda game will be less if it was sold under 3 or 2 consoles, as opposed to 1? Less enthusiasm/brand awareness? Mismatch between the segment that own a PlayStation/XBox and the segment that buy Mario/Zelda (that is, without a Nintendo console, parents won't buy their young children a console and old school Nintendo fans will refuse to buy a Nintendo game that goes 3'rd party?)
Pacther's saying that Nintendo will basically be able to sell to triple the number of people they could sell (assuming that the WiiU, PS4, and 720 have equal sales) if they were first party. You're arguing a combination of lower margins (due to royalties) and/or lower sales volume. And honestly, it doesn't sound that convincing. Will Nintendo fans really get that upset and refuse to buy a Zelda game that goes to the PlayStation or Xbox (so much for loyalty)? Will PlayStation and XBox owners not buy a Zelda game? Maybe you could argue that not many Xbox owners will buy a non-shooter game, but again, Pachter is saying that Nintendo will be selling X number of games to Xbox owners ON TOP of the number of games they would sell to WiiU. Again, Pachter's logic is basically you will sell roughly 3 times the number of games by you would sell by going multiplatform, as opposed to exclusive. You obviously need to adjust it here and there (not all three consoles will have equal market share, less potential buzz for non-exclusives, segment mismatch), but the logic is simple and sound. You're going to have show that the increase in game sales will actually have to be NEGATIVE. That Nintendo going 3'rd party will actually result in their games selling LESS than if they were first party. |
You're misunderstanding. Take a look at your own point #1. The hardware manufacturer makes significant money off royalties of third-party games. Scuttlebutt has it this is about $8 per copy, if memory serves.
Now, take Nintendo's software sales. Deduct the appropriate royalty fees from each copy they've sold, because they're now a third-party. In light of how they can make several games that sell 20 million+ copies, with several more selling 10 million+ and a whole bunch selling over a million each, the savings are significant, to say the least. Mario Kart Wii alone would have earned Nintendo roughly $240 million less (grossly simplified for illustration purposes, of course) had it not been on a Nintendo console. Similar astronomical figures would apply to NSMB Wii, Wii Fit/+, Wii Sports Resort, etc.
So that's my point #3.
On a broader note, I think you're being far too quick to dismiss the amount of third-party software that does sell on Nintendo's systems. The data don't support the idea that third-party games don't sell on Nintendo systems. That might be what the meme says, and that might be what Pachter says, but that's not what the figures say. Until the end, the Wii was consistently moving a higher volume of third-party titles than the rival systems. Some may grouse about the type of software that was sold, or that Hardcore Franchise X sold seven or eight times more on rival systems, but for purposes of this financial discussion that amounts to a hill of beans; Casual Franchises A-W combined sold more copies than Hardcore Franchises X-Z, which in terms of third party royalty fees means the Casual Franchises brought in more money for the hardware developer.
Moving on, it's nice that Pachter is throwing out hypothetical figures with nothing to back them up. I, however, have a great deal of difficulty believing that the audience size would magically triple (even he only said "double."). You point out that this idea presumes there's zero overlap in console ownership, for example, but the idea also ignores that the disappearance of the Wii destroys over a third of the console market in a single swoop. And make no mistake: without Nintendo's exclusives, Nintendo consoles would be doing backflips to reach Gamecube figures. If the whining goes that first-party software sales on Nintendo systems is nearly half the total software moved, what makes you think the public will pay for expensive hardware that plays only some of the games they want? If Mario's on a PS3, why on Earth would I get a Wii U? Put alternatively, I don't think it's a coincidence that hardware developers have historically kept their first-party software exclusive to their own console. And expended considerable energy and treasure to acquire third-party exclusives.
Oh yeah, and you're also either expending Nintendo's already stretched development resources thinner by forcing them to port the games to different hardware architectures, or trusting third-parties to maintain Nintendo's reputation by not delivering technically shoddy ports.
To summarize: as the only existing hardware maker whose first-party software shifts a ludicrous amount of units, Nintendo is saving more money in unpaid royalties each console generation than the GDP of some third-world nations. They also currently rake in significant royalties from third-parties as it is. There is not a shred of evidence I can see to indicate that going multi-platform would actually triple, or even double, Nintendo's software sales, but we can infer from the data that doing so would very likely lead to a notable decline in Nintendo hardware sales.
Simply put, I'm not at all burdened to show that going multi-plat would lead to their games selling less. On the contrary, Michael Pachter has the burden of giving some evidence that going mutli-plat will actually double (and you, triple) Nintendo's software sales, and that it will not significantly damage Nintendo's bottom line in the form of reduced hardware sales, higher royalty costs, and an even bigger decrease in third-party titles for its own systems.
