joeorc said:
why bother..it's not like it's going to matter... " It could possibly upset the 3ds." No because anything Sony make's can never disrupt anything Nintendo put's out because Sony never Innovates.:P |
LMAO
If people thought like this there would be ZEOR competition and markets wouldn't grow and go forward.
Its not a matter of can or can't.
Thank god SONY will definitely be making a PSP2.
PSP2 will be andriod based phone type thing.i ll compete with iphone with better graphics and ofcourse full fledge games like god of war ,....
i ll have the slide design to be both touch with buttons and analog sticks.
i ll have PSN store and Android market.
RolStoppable said:
Markets don't grow because of competition. In fact, competition can even make the market shrink. For example, if all competitors aim to satisfy the more demanding consumers, then the less demanding consumers possibly get overshot and won't buy any product. |
the whole reason your are posting on a forum today is because of competition in the tech industry.
Without processor competition back in the early days, you would probably be on IRC, and seece would be playing a MUD.
processors would not be in cars and other products, and videogames would still be in the nes era.
^^
Without competition we have a mainstream OS that still recycles obsolete code 10 or more years old without even removing its bugs until they get exploited in ways too critical for security to be furtherly ignored.
| Alby_da_Wolf said: ^^ Without competition we have a mainstream OS that still recycles obsolete code 10 or more years old without even removing its bugs until they get exploited in ways too critical for security to be furtherly ignored. |
lol..hehehehe
o'l man that was very funny.
I AM BOLO
100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...
ps:
Proud psOne/2/3/p owner. I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.
Smashchu2 said:
That's not even 1/4th of the market. How can we say that Apple is a threat? They obviously do not have anywhere near the strength to effect Nintendo. A few other misnomers. The distribution is not really "more profitable." What it really has is higher margins (Difference bewteen the slaes price and it's unit cost). Profitability is the end result. Let me take two products (and we'll say they are both softare titles on two diferent platforms) and show you how one is more profitable)
See how A, despiting having a weaker margin, would generate more revenue. This is because it has a higher potential to sell better. Game C was to show that higher price can mean better margin. The most the margin for A could be was $5 (this is with no cost). The most the Margin of product B and C could be is $40. There is a lot more wiggle room. Because the price is higher, it can meant the margin can be higher as well. Now, look at this.
Notice how iPhone has far more games. They have asmaller peice of the pie and it is spread across more games. This means they they are not a real gthreat to Nintendo as making a game on a Nintendo system has a higher chance of yeilding better profits. The 19% is more from shear bulk them from compeling software. So I still say that Apple is no threat to Nintendo. |
You're not understanding the bigger picture at least in my opinion anyway. 
The iPhone has a completely different business model to the DS which is why the device could be disruptive to Nintendo and which is why Nintendo pre-emptively defended themselves from it with the 3DS.
A 3DS game which is $40 has what? 20% retailer margins? Thats $32 to the publisher whom probably has costs of $6 to make/distribute the cartridge. Nintendo probably gets $6 and thats pretty much the best case scenario because if they have to discount it skews their profitability model even further. So the total margins as I figure roughly are $18/20 etc. Whereas an iPhone game could cost $15 in the store and the publisher margins are $12 because Apple only takes a 30% cut for everything. This means they can price their games lower, don't have to worry about distribution costs and take very little risk because aside from making the game all the costs are variable costs. They can sell many more games at $15 than they can at $40 but the margins for each game are closer because of the distribution models efficiency.
Nintendo cannot support a direct download model because their business model is mainly retail so they cannot continue to offer the same games for a lower price online as it would irk the retailers whom sell their games. The reason why there are so many iPhone games is that the cost of entry is much lower and it is a free(er) market compared to Nintendo whom hold their dev kits close to their chest. Also most of the games are very cheap $5-50,000 which is very easy to recoup on the app market.
The issue is that the iPhone is 'good enough' to be a game system. Its not able to take over the entirety of the market at first but just like GPS units the iPhone and similar are slowly moving into direct competition with Nintendo.
Tease.
RolStoppable said:
I was refering to non-essential products for human life, but of course my post was open for misinterpretation because I didn't mention that. Computers became a requirement for a lot of jobs, so that would make it possible for a lone company without any competition to keep selling flawed OSes for a long period of time. Video games on the other hand are forced to continually evolve, because if they don't, they run into the risk of becoming boring and that means they have no value for the consumer, hence they'll decide to not buy the products. On the other hand of the spectrum, if they push for cutting edge technology too much, they will become too expensive and likewise, consumers will also decide to not buy them. |
Well, actually what happens is that when competition is too harsh in a given genre (let's say the most used and abused, FPS), in the best case there can be a few that sell well and succeed, or at least decently and survive, and a lot others that bite the dust. In the worst case, as you say, the fragmentation can be so excessive that combined with higher costs and thinner profit margin, prevents every contender from breaking even. More than from competition itself, this negative effect comes more from mental laziness of too many publishers and developers wanting to exploit overused genres. Lack of competition would be worse, though, games wouldn't evolve and they'd stop selling for this.
When the worst happens, and it already did several times in the past, there are crises from which the best ones hopefully survive and new developers rise from the ashes of the defeated ones. Alas sometimes also immensely talented developers succumb, luckily nobody kills their members and they can go to work elsewhere, but there are always projects that suffer or are cancelled when this happens.
famousringo said:
All your post really does is highlight the fact that Apple has a very different business model than Nintendo in the handheld space. The fact that this completely new, and still rapidly evolving, business model has gone from 0% to 19% of US handheld software revenue in less than two years — and with no help from loss-leading hardware or 1st party development — would suggest to me that Apple really is a threat to Nintendo. Look, it's really simple. There are three notable platforms for mobile gaming. Currently, Sony's platform is in decline, Nintendo's is maintaining speed and about to change course, and Apple's is growing rapidly. If Apple isn't a threat to Nintendo, who is? Personally, I'm glad that Nintendo isn't as dismissive of Apple as you are. |
On bold: How do we know Nintendo cares about Apple? We just assume it.
So having less then a fourth of the total revenue is a different business model then? In fact, I'm not sure what business model has to do with anything? Also, going from 0 to anything is easy. This does not mean they are growing a lot. It means they just started.
Also, let's not forget that this is the tail end of the handheld market. The DS and the PSP were out for 5 years and have already hit their peak in terms of software and hardware. And Nintendo gave very little support to the DS in 2009. What did we have? Spirit Tracks and that's about it (and Fire Emblem). Considering the IPhone only mustered less then a fourth of the revenue, I would not say it's a serious competitor. Let's see how it fairs when the other two guys have bigger software titles coming out. And, let's not forget that that 19% is spread over a lot of games.
The thing I find the silliest about the whole "Apple invading gaming," is there is nothing new about it. Mobile games have been around for a while. Let's hear it from Miyamoto though. He talks about how it was said that Mobile games on cell phones would take over the Gameboy. Well, did it?
Spider-Man
Predators
Sonic 4: Ep. 1
Puzzle Agent
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=111746&page=1#6
lol..even IGN see's it as a Hand Held game platform
I AM BOLO
100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...
ps:
Proud psOne/2/3/p owner. I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.
Squilliam said:
You're not understanding the bigger picture at least in my opinion anyway. The iPhone has a completely different business model to the DS which is why the device could be disruptive to Nintendo and which is why Nintendo pre-emptively defended themselves from it with the 3DS. A 3DS game which is $40 has what? 20% retailer margins? Thats $32 to the publisher whom probably has costs of $6 to make/distribute the cartridge. Nintendo probably gets $6 and thats pretty much the best case scenario because if they have to discount it skews their profitability model even further. So the total margins as I figure roughly are $18/20 etc. Whereas an iPhone game could cost $15 in the store and the publisher margins are $12 because Apple only takes a 30% cut for everything. This means they can price their games lower, don't have to worry about distribution costs and take very little risk because aside from making the game all the costs are variable costs. They can sell many more games at $15 than they can at $40 but the margins for each game are closer because of the distribution models efficiency. Nintendo cannot support a direct download model because their business model is mainly retail so they cannot continue to offer the same games for a lower price online as it would irk the retailers whom sell their games. The reason why there are so many iPhone games is that the cost of entry is much lower and it is a free(er) market compared to Nintendo whom hold their dev kits close to their chest. Also most of the games are very cheap $5-50,000 which is very easy to recoup on the app market. The issue is that the iPhone is 'good enough' to be a game system. Its not able to take over the entirety of the market at first but just like GPS units the iPhone and similar are slowly moving into direct competition with Nintendo. |
There is no overshooting, so there is no disruption. You have to have the incumbent overshooting the market in order for the product to be disruptive. In order for there to be overshooting in what you are saying, the normal retail method of buying games from a store has to be overshooting customer values. Since people still go and shop at Wal-Mart, a retail model is not disruptive. The disruption writer refuses to say that Apple is a disruptive company. iPod and iTunes are disruptive, but nothing else they make is.
The whole point of the margin table was to show that just because you have a better margin per unit, it does not mean you are more profitable. Gross Margin is Sales*selling price-Returns-Gost of Goods Sold. if you sell more (which the DS does), than you'll be more profitable, even with a lower margin.
At bold: Cost of rent, utilities, and salaries and wages, and depriciation are all fixed cost, so that is not true.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
