potato_hamster said:
zorg1000 said:
Ya that's what I said, over 2/3 of the million sellers on Wii were 3rd party titles. It seems like ur trying to turn this into a cock fight, PS3 having more 3rd party million sellers is irrelevant, u said 3rd parties weren't successful on Wii and u were wrong so just move on.
Wait, I thought it wouldnt be cost effective to make a game for both variants of NX but not it's somehow more cost effective to make mutliplatform titles? See how ur kinda backtracking? But anyway, many 3rd parties still support Nintendo platforms, 3DS gets solid Japanese 3rd party support while both devices get their fair share of kid/family/casual friendly titles and indie support for Nintendo has been increasing. Individually 3DS/Wii U software output could be considered lackluster (Wii U more so than 3DS) but when combined they never face any droughts and that's the type of thing we could see with a unified ecosystem.
If it were really so simple to destroy a competitor through money than Microsoft would be dominating the console market now, they have invested and lost billions in an attempt to make the Xbox brand dominant. By ur logic Apple could just enter any market they want and eliminate any potential threats because they have the most money. Why are their still dozens of smartphone, tablet, PC, set-top box manufacturers, shouldn't Apple have knocked them all out of the market by now? No, because it's not that simple.
The new program only benefits Nintendo and the people who own Nintendo devices? Well no shit. That's like saying Xbox Live/Playstation Plus only benefit Microsoft/Sony and the people who own their devices. They are services that increase the value of a product. Also a few things to take into account, Iwata stated the service could include a referral program, the service will also include be compatible with mobile devices, and that the prime objective of their mobile initiatives is to act as marketing for their dedicated devices. So based on those three things, don't be surprised to see something like this, download Pokémon GO on ur mobile device and receive a discount on Pokémon NX, share and play Pokémon GO with X amount of friends and receive a further discount. Apply this to say 10 games, is this person more likely to buy a dedicated Nintendo device knowing that they have 10 games they can get at a sizable discount?
As for why would a parent buy such devices for their kids, maybe because said kids want such devices? That's where the IP licensing through things like theme park attractions and films/series fit in. Let's say a family goes to see the new animated film in theaters based on a Nintendo property or the family goes to Universal Studios on vacation and they visit the Nintendo section. Is it possible that kids who experience these things may want to play the games based on them? That doesn't sound farfetched at all.
Nintendo fans aren't a set group of people who all share the same opinions/tastes in games. Nintendo has a wide variety of IP that span multiple genres, not everybody who owns Nintendo hardware or likes certain Nintendo IP are "Nintendo fans", they are simply fans of that peticular hardware or those specific IP. A fan of Zelda isn't necessarily a Nintendo fan just like a Grand Theft Auto fan isn't necessarily a Rockstar fan. A fan of Fire Emblem may not be a fan of Kirby or a fan of Metroid may not be a fan of Donkey Kong, so to block all these people into a single group is illogical.
|
Holy crap man. I'm not wrong. How does selling 1 million on the Wii make a game successful if you needed to sell 2 million to break even? The 1 million sales mark in no way indicates that the game was successful. It's fine and dandy that Nintendo has japanese third party support, but considering Japan, like Nintendo, is representing a diminishing marketshare, that really isn't that effective or a point, is it?
Also, I'm not backtracking at all, you just don't seem to understand basic math. You can't see the difference in supporting an entirely new platform costing $X and supporting the NX and all its specs costing $X + Y dollars as a difference? For example let's take the new Tomb Raider game. It's a timed X1 exclusive. Let's say it costs Square Enix $30M to make it for X1. Then in the year after they're going to release on PS4. Let's say it will cost them $15M to port the X1 game over to PS4. Now let's just assume that it is just as easy to port the game over to NX as it was to port it to PS4. It will cost more than $15M to port the game to NX. It will cost more like $18M to $20M because it takes more time and effort developing and testing for those additional specifications. Does that make it clear for you? It will be more expensive to develop a multi-platform game for the NX than it will for any other single platform. If developers are going to spend the extra money to support that platform they will expect the sales on that platform to justfiy the additional expense.
How is that so hard for you to understand?
The fact of the matter is, Nintendo could announce an ipod touch-style NX tomorrow, and Apple could announce an iPod touch that's twice as powerful for a third of the price with thousands of free games the day after, and eat the cost of those devices until Nintendo gives up. Why hasn't Apple done that in the cell phone business? Because the Cell phone business is magnitudes bigger than the Video Game console business, and even Apple isn't big enough to drive companies like Samsung out. Nintendo is small potatoes compared to Samsung though.
The rest of it? Is simply wishful thinking bordering on blatant fanboyism. You have no idea how the Club Nintendo program will work. You have no idea if theme parks will generate new sales. You have no idea whether a Nintendo film will generate any more sales than the live action movie, or Mario TV show from the 90's did. You're practically praying that all these "new intitiatives" are going to generate new Nintendo fans. Maybe they will, but you actually don't have a clue whether or not it's going to make a shred of difference. Maybe more kids will want the NX, but maybe they'll stick to their iPads or Android tablets, since you know, free games, and cheaper hardware.
|
Who says those Wii games needed to sell 2 million to be profitable? Of course if a game isn't profitable than its not successful but that has nothing to do with ur original point which was that 3rd party games didn't sell on Wii.
How hard is it for u to understand that we aren't and never were talking about receiving PS4/XB1 ports. It feels like I've said this a dozen times by now, it's to unify the games that Nintendo handhelds get with the games Nintendo consoles get. We're not talking about games that with $50 million budgets that need to sell 5+ million to be profitable like Tomb Raider or Metal Gear Solid.
Why hasn't Apple done that in any business? Why does Roku still make streaming boxes? Why does Lenovo still make Smartphones? Why does Asus still make tablets? Why does Acer still make computers? Apple can't just snap their fingers and expect their competitors to drop dead, that's not how shit works.
It's not wishful thinking/fanboyism, I never once said any of these plans were determined to be successful, I'm simply coming up with some examples of how Nintendo's future plans could potentially be successful if executed properly. You on the other hand are basically saying, "Nintendo is doomed and nothing can save them!!!!"
All I'm saying is that the combination of a unified platform that makes the cost of entry cheaper and significantly reduces droughts, a rewards program that makes software more affordable, various means of marketing like mobile apps/theme parks/films can POTENTIALLY increase desire for Nintendo products.
