spemanig said:
Getting people to make an NNID alone wouldn't get someone to buy Nintendo hardware. I've already said that. But the connection with an account isn't some magical wonder. Apple does it with Apple IDs. Steam does it with their accounts. There's no magic. It's consumers with real, tangable connections to their accounts, and the software tied to it. It's why someone with an iphone is more likely to buy a Mac than a PC. That's not magic. It's basic consumer relations. You're making it out to be some magical complicated thing. It's not. It is straight forward. It's just something Nintendo hasn't done, and to this extent, no one has done successfully. I'm not proposing that this will "save the Wii U." It's not even remotely the same thing. The Wii U was asking for a $350 investment. This is a, likely free, mobile platform to play, free to cheap, games. There's almost no barrier to entry with the latter, and nothing to lose by signing up. And yes, it is a platform. It's not "just an account." The Facebook App is a platform. The Twitter app is a platform. Platforms "exist, everywhere." And even if you don't consider it a platform, those are merely semantics. The outcome is still the same and very real. They've literally flat out confirmed that these mobile games are meant to usher people into buying gaming hardware. They've already confirmed that the main goal of these mobile games are not to earn revanue, but to entice people to buy Nintendo hardware. They've already flat out said that they would use a platform which connects mobile and gaming hardware, to unify the Nintendo gamer. These aren't assumptions. These are quoted statements directly from Nintendo over the past year. A unified login and cross purchase system is not merely the minimum requirement for Nintendo to make mobile games, otherwise every mobile game would be part of an account requiring a login. All of Sega's games would need a Sega ID because it's the "minimum requirement." All of the GTA games would require a "Rockstar Plus" username, because it's the "minimum requirement." They don't do that, because they aren't trying to do what Nintendo's doing. What their strategy is definitely not is a transfer of their audience from handheld to mobile. Handhelds aren't going anywhere. As long as there's a new exclusive Pokemon game on a dedicated handheld, the thing is guaranteed to hit at least 15 million units on the back of that one game alone. Because handhelds clearly aren't in a bubble, and more games come out for them than merely Pokemon, they will always sell enough hardware to warrent selling more. Handhelds are declining; they aren't dead. They will ultimately plateau. |
I think you're being a bit naive here.
First of all they didn't say this at the DeNA conference, in fact Iwata said they are aiming to have several hit games on mobile. Mobile is a huge business, companies like Supercell make $2 billion in annual revenue, Nintendo is not in this to give away mobile profits to charity. It will likely become a core component of their business in short order, maybe even eclipsing consoles (not that that's a very high bar at the moment).
I'm actually kind of skeptical that just because people like a F2P or $1 app that they'll be willing to pay $200-$300 for a seperate piece of hardware for those games. I don't think there's a ton of people buying Final Fantasy XV who started playing the games on iOS.
These are seperate audiences, a lot of people who game heavily on mobile simply have no interest in a console or gaming handheld. Nintendo can now at least make money off them anyway.