RolStoppable said:
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. |
... you know those investor briefings are public record, right?
"Given that the company is not currently running at a profit, I find it unpersuasive to define our targeted business size by, for example, giving a concrete figure for the operating profit, so I will not give a number to what I perceive to be the right business size for Nintendo. Our software business alone could achieve that business size in, say, one or two years if we are fortunate enough to have some hit titles. However, it has been 30 years since Nintendo started its business of dedicated video game systems, and if I want to maintain that size for the next 10, 20 or 30 years, leading a software-only business would only put us at a big disadvantage, which is another reason why we insist on our integrated hardware-software model. On the other hand, the integrated hardware-software model has a significant handicap today, as the traditional way of explicitly telling consumers the investment they need to put in to buy hardware and software now comes across as being relatively more expensive due to changes in our environment. Although people may actually be spending more money (to play games on other devices not dedicated to video games), it is less visible, so the hurdle we have to clear in order to encourage them to purchase dedicated game systems has comparatively become higher. As with games that are free-to-play, or “free-to-start” as we like to call it, there is a tendency within the entertainment industry to make gaming as easy as possible to start playing. Because our hardware and software are integrated, we first need consumers to purchase our hardware to get our business off the ground, a challenge I outlined when I talked about changing the way we sell our products. Our mid-term goal would be to give an answer to this question in a way that had never been seen before."
Iwata, 2014, during a Corporate Policy briefing. Please note, this was before Nintendo decided to invest in mobile games.
What part about that tells you that Nintendo is treating mobile as a marketing tool? It appears to me they're treating mobile as one of their fiercest competitors. It appears to me that while Iwata firmly believed in a "hardware-software model", Iwata recognized that making hardware in 2014 left Nintendo at a handicap (his words), and acknowledged advantages to going "software-only" as he liked to put it, but strongly felt that maintaining a "hardware-software model" was the best way maximize profit for the future. But see that's the key there - maximizing profit. The reason Nintendo continues to make both hardware and software is because they have their investor's confidence that this is the best opportunity to maxmimize profits. That's it. But whats to say that hasn't changed in the last 3 years considering Nintendo has funded multiple mobile projects since that time? What's to say that won't change further in the next 3? Going "software-only" is something Nintendo has been considering for some time now, they just don't believe it'll be the most profitable course of action right now.
Furthermore, my comparisons to Sega are not asinine. Again, why couldn't Sega continue to secure investment if making their own hardware was obviously the most profitable endeavour? In fact why would they even need an investment if making their own hardware was obviously the most profitable endeavour? Why was their first move to remain a software development company, and not a hardware development company when cuts had to be made? Sure Sega's IP were never as strong as Nintendo's but at the time it was a lot stronger than it is now (and I'd argue that Nintendo's IPs were stronger then than they are now). Sega was also a strong and proud Japanese company, that at that point, had been making game machines well before Nintendo ventured into it. So why again is it so ridiculous to you to considering that Nintendo might stop making hardware within the next decade?
Also, where have I ever said that I hope Nintendo stops making hardware? The opposite is true, in fact. I just see the reality before me and recognize it as the strong possibility it is. That doesn't mean I want it to happen.
