torok said:
N64 wasn't that bad in sales and after GC they got the Wii. With the longer gens, doing 2 bad ones in a row would actually mean 14 years (and that would be 3 of the shorter gens we saw before). I don't believe they would survive 14 years with that. 3DS helps, but it won't solve all the problems, Nintendo financials prove that (low tie-ratio and low profit margin on hardware are a problem). The 3DS problems are easier to solve, since they are more from a unit cost point and about software sales. Wii U is more about bad decisions at the concept. I think what Sony made with PS4 is a lesson for Nintendo. PS3 was a disaster because Sony tried to put things it shouldn't on it and because Sony actually believe that they were invencible after the PS2 and they could do whatever they wanted and every 3rd party would follow blindly. PS4 is basically what PS2 was, no gimmicks, a balanced gaming machine. And that's what everyone wants. Nintendo can compete in power. It's not necessary to make and underpowered console to sell it for a profit. Both One and PS4 sells at a low profit or low loss, being surelly profitable with one game purchase (or the PS+/Gold subscription). With a initial tie ratio of 2 games and these subscriptions, they are generating profit. Wii U is underpowered, but it was still launched at a little loss (profitable with one game), so the question here wasn't that Nintendo couldn't do a powerful console is that they just went with bad design decisions that generated a expensive product. I fear that they don't like to watch their competitors. It's actually a quality to prefer doing inovations in your own manner instead of trying to reply to anything you competitors bring, but somethings you have to look and include in your product simply because they are the next big thing. And what I see in Wii U is that they ignored both PS4 and One and lost a big opportunity. |
Actually, the big lesson to learn from PS4 is that consumers will accept an $800 console as long as you mask it with a pricing system that has $400 up front and then $50 a year for as long as you own it. In the past Nintendo has sold hardare at a profit because it needs to, as it is a games company. Sony (and MS) was OK with losing money on Playstation because it isn't really a games company. If DVD or Bluray took off, the system did its job. But now Sony is in a financially precarious posistion, and Kaz set forth that Playstation needed to be a pillar of the organization and make money. And with consumers willing to accept the subscription model, it is now possible to sell hardware that is both powerful and making a profit. This is the trend Nintendo missed out on, badly.
Nintendo should have made a more powerful system, made games that used online heavily and charged for online. They could have had a system that 3rd parties would support, consumers would want and they could make money on.
Going forward, Nintendo must learn this lesson and join this trend. ASAP.
