Does It Really Matter How Much Switch Sells?

[potato_hamster]

RolStoppable said:

potato_hamster said:

It's why they started making iOS games. They clearly weren't happy with the profitability of the Wii U and 3DS and started to look into other revenue streams. If for example, Super Mario Run generates far more profit for Nintendo than Super Mario Odyssey, you can bet your ass Nintendo's mobile game projects are going to see a larger investment than their console game projects. Nintendo's executive will start green lighting more mobile games, and less consoles games because that would be where the money is now. If Nintendo's executive believe that Nintendo's IP will generate more profit for the company on Sony or Microsoft consoles, rather than on Nintendo consoles, then that is the direction they will take.


Why can't people see that? Why are people acting like Nintendo is a privately owned company where the owners can just sit back on their IP and make whatever the fans want as long as it makes a profit? Is it wishful thinking? Did they never take an economics course? Do they not know how investments work? I gave up trying to figure that out.

You'd have more of a point if you displayed an understanding of business strategies. It's plain out in the open that Nintendo made smartphone games to increase sales of their core business. That's what Iwata said when he made the announcement that Nintendo would make smartphone games. Now, almost two years later, we can already see the proof that Nintendo's strategy is working.

You have repeatedly tried to spread FUD that Nintendo could shift priorities to smartphone games, but that's not going to happen because of the above outlined facts. Nintendo's smartphone games will continue to be clearly distinct from the mainline titles on dedicated Nintendo hardware because the intended synergy works and there's obviously a lot more money to be made from an ecosystem where Nintendo is in full control.

Hold up, you think I'm showing a lack of business understanding, when in reality, you think It's FUD because, and let's be frank here, you really don't want it to happen. You're just eating up marketing nothing-speak like "intended synergy" and diving headfirst into the kiddie pool. Is there still more money to be made from an ecosystem where Nitnendo is in full control vs investing in ecosystems that other companies have created? Says who? Sure it was true in 1997, but does that remain true in 2017?  It's only "obvious" to you because you can't imagine a world where Nintendo makes its own hardware. I can remember people making similar comments about Sega about the time the Dreamcast came out. You'd figure they'd have no trouble getting the investment dollars to keep creating their own ecosystems if theres"obviously a lot more money to be made from an ecosystem where Sega is in full control". Yet, here we are still waiting on that dreamcast 2, with Sega outsourcing its IP to third party vendors to make crappy Sega versions of NES Classic Minis. How the mighty have fallen.

Nintendo HAS shifted priorities to mobile games by the mere fact that they're now making mobile games, and last I checked, Nintendo doesn't make a smartphone. It's almost as if they're investing money into an ecosystem where Nintendo is not in full control. It remains to be seen how much of a shift has occurred or will continue to occur, but let's be clear - the times are changing. You can keep up the pearl clutching all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that in reality the only thing you really have to support what your saying is wishful thinking.

We get it, you don't want it to happen so you think anyone that believes it can happen is an idiot. That doesn't make what you think any truer.