RolStoppable said:
potato_hamster said:
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.
|
What I am talking about is not marketing speech, it's what Nintendo is telling their investors. There's a far higher level of responsibility for such statements. The smartphone games are intended to raise IP awareness; in other words, they are a form of marketing for Nintendo products. Not only is that working, this form of marketing actually earns money instead of being an expense like conventional forms of marketing.
Your comparison to Sega is asinine because Nintendo is not only in far better financial shape, they also have significantly more valuable IPs than Sega.
What I am posting here is grounded in reality. The one who is engaging in wishful thinking is you.
|
And the proof is kinda in the pudding. Pokemon, for example, has built greater momentum for Sun and Moon partly due to the phenomenon that was (and in a way still is) Pokemon Go. Sure, people will say S&M selling 14 million is within the baseline for most of the mainline games of the past. But to do that within 2 months? That's beyond anything Game Freak or Nintendo might've imagined (plus being the highest preordered Nintendo game ever). Some might excuse S&M because its a great game. But all of the mainline games (and remakes) were well received so that point is out. Plus, we also had reports of 3DS sales and previous Pokemon games (including Red, Blue, Green, and Yellow on VC) gain new life due to Go's success.
So imagine Nintendo's plan to expand exposure of their properties comes to full fruition. Theme parks, movies,TV shows, etc. to go along with mobile, amiibo, and other licensed merchandise.
