By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Current vs Last, a Console Sales Story (COMPLETE!)

 

Final Smash: Should somone one do this at the start of every gen?

yes 65 75.58%
 
no 3 3.49%
 
show me the money! 7 8.14%
 
Total:75
Osc89 on 14 November 2013
RolStoppable said:
Osc89 said:

If what you say is true, and there is no business reason for third parties avoiding Nintendo, then they should do what they can to fix it. They would be a good backup to keep a decent marketshare if they don't manage to have a big hit in a generation. Without them they rely completely on having a "must have" console or peripheral every generation, which I personally think is a far riskier strategy.

How much more would power parity cost them? The PS4 sells for $399 at a small loss, so with XB1 hardware plus the cheaper Wiimote+ they could be comfortable around that price. That's only $50 more than the Wii U (or at least the version that sold). You don't think it would have done better? Also surely with all the consoles being so similar the cost of the hardware would drop faster, making it cheaper to produce in the long run.

There's a fundamental flaw in your line of thinking. Third parties can't be used as a backup plan, because third parties will abandon ship as soon as the Nintendo console isn't a hit.

A $400 Wii U to achieve hardware parity wouldn't have sold better than the actual Wii U. Third parties certainly wouldn't have invested into using this hypothetical Wii U's power at launch, nevermind that hardcore gamers would have still waited to see what Sony and Microsoft will bring to the table. Also, even with all things being equal between all three consoles, why would they not stick to the same brand as the last time around? The only reason why they would buy a Nintendo console would be exclusives, and with third party exclusives being a thing of the past (hence why Sony and Microsoft go after exclusive DLC nowadays) it comes down to first party games. If it comes down to Nintendo games anyway, Nintendo might as well make their console as cheap as possible to increase their chances to sell to those gamers. Nobody is going to pay $400 for what is going to be a secondary console at best. And good luck with convincing Nintendo-first gamers to pay $400 for a console.

As for manufacturing costs, consoles may be similar, but they are not identical. Savings for one console manufacturer don't translate to another.


With all the leaks the hardcore gamers would have known what Sony and MS were bringing pretty quickly. And things aren't equal if the Wii U is already out. You don't think they could have taken advantage of the mess of the XB1 reveal if they had the same powered box for $100-$150 less? There would be a lot more attention on the Wii U if it was considered even part of the same race. And given a big problem with the Wii U is people not knowing it exists, having it come up in every PS4/XB1 conversation would help.

I still don't understand why third parties would abandon Nintendo when they didn't for Sony and MS. If they are what saved the PS360, then why doesn't Nintendo create a similar situation for themselves?



PSN: Osc89

NNID: Oscar89

Around the Network
joora on 14 November 2013
Osc89 said:

I still don't understand why third parties would abandon Nintendo when they didn't for Sony and MS. If they are what saved the PS360, then why doesn't Nintendo create a similar situation for themselves?

 

Because of the sthrenght of Nintendo first party games?



.

superchunk on 14 November 2013
Osc89 said:

I still don't understand why third parties would abandon Nintendo when they didn't for Sony and MS. If they are what saved the PS360, then why doesn't Nintendo create a similar situation for themselves?


Because 3rd parties largely don't want Nintendo around. Which is why Rol argues with me that Nintendo can't trust 3rd parties and they need to simply expand their own offerings. Something I agree, but I think Nintendo should use 3rd parties and to do that they have to make hardware 3rd parties feel the must release on as its simply to simple/relatively cost-free to do so.



Osc89 on 15 November 2013
superchunk said:
Osc89 said:

I still don't understand why third parties would abandon Nintendo when they didn't for Sony and MS. If they are what saved the PS360, then why doesn't Nintendo create a similar situation for themselves?


Because 3rd parties largely don't want Nintendo around. Which is why Rol argues with me that Nintendo can't trust 3rd parties and they need to simply expand their own offerings. Something I agree, but I think Nintendo should use 3rd parties and to do that they have to make hardware 3rd parties feel the must release on as its simply to simple/relatively cost-free to do so.


I think we agree on that point then, because I think that if the hardware was very similar in architecture and power the third parties would release for Nintendo anyway. This is what I meant by having third parties as a backup, that they would stick around as long as long as porting to the Nintendo was really cheap and easy.



PSN: Osc89

NNID: Oscar89

Osc89 on 15 November 2013
RolStoppable said:

Osc89 said:

With all the leaks the hardcore gamers would have known what Sony and MS were bringing pretty quickly. And things aren't equal if the Wii U is already out. You don't think they could have taken advantage of the mess of the XB1 reveal if they had the same powered box for $100-$150 less? There would be a lot more attention on the Wii U if it was considered even part of the same race. And given a big problem with the Wii U is people not knowing it exists, having it come up in every PS4/XB1 conversation would help.

I still don't understand why third parties would abandon Nintendo when they didn't for Sony and MS. If they are what saved the PS360, then why doesn't Nintendo create a similar situation for themselves?

 

I don't think Nintendo could have taken advantage of the Xbox One reveal for several reasons. Firstly, the amount of people who would jump the gun and buy another $400 console out of spite is low. Secondly, Microsoft was quick to address many of the issues and solve them. Thirdly, 360 owners would rather switch to the PS4 because Sony's first party offerings are closer to Microsoft's than Nintendo's.

Third parties pursue their own goals and while it's not clear why exactly they want Nintendo to be a non-factor, it's certainly clear that they want a marketplace where Nintendo is a non-factor. I point you again to the examples of Toukiden and God Eater 2 which are deliberate decisions against Nintendo, even though everything third parties should want from a system is actually there. Or to make it more specific for Nintendo home consoles: Numerous Japanese third parties opted for PSP exclusive games, even though they could have easily made graphically improved ports for the Wii to have a worldwide market to sell to (the PSP software market outside of Japan was in a dire state from 2008 onwards). The fact that all those PSP games exist means that all the arguments about the Wii lacking the horsepower and/or software sales to justify third party support don't hold water, because the PSP was the worse platform in both aspects and there wasn't a significant difference when it comes to development costs either.

So yeah, it's pretty clear that Nintendo cannot create a situation for themselves where third parties come to the rescue. Nintendo has already trouble to attract support when their systems sell far and above the competitors'. In Japan it's perfectly possible that there will be the same or a greater amount of Vita titles in development than for the 3DS in the coming years.


I think Nintendo being part of the next-gen discussion still would have helped, and would have done closer to 360 first year numbers just for being first out. Instead it completely stalled with everyone waiting for the next-gen to start. The 360 benefited from people who weren't loyal to any particular brand, and negativity elsewhere with things like the PS3s price. Nintendo could have done the same in the gap between XB1 reveal and E3, would have got all the good publicity the PS4 got instead, and even could have pushed the PS4 in the same "anti-consumer" box as the XB1 by talking about the loss of free online. They can't do any of this while people view them as last-gen though.

And there has to be some reason they don't want Nintendo around. If this reason is anything other than they don't want Nintendo first parties around (which would be more of an issue if they went third party no?) then there must be something they can do on their end to fix it. If it isn't the hardware (which they normally say it is) then maybe their policies or poor third party relations teams? What is it that Sony and MS can do, and they can't?

If you are right however, and third parties will not touch a Nintendo console for absolutely no reason, then there is no point in going for hardware parity. This is a hard scenario to swallow, as a business will generally act in their best interest.



PSN: Osc89

NNID: Oscar89

Around the Network
retroking1981 on 18 November 2013

So early reports are putting PS4 sales at 1m for FIRST DAY SALES.

So yeah I voted PS4 in the new poll.

I wonder how long it'll take the PS4 to over take the Wii U in NA?

I think it'll breeze past it in EU and do it by the end of 2013 in NA. Only Wii U's Japan sales will keep it ahead WW.



superchunk on 18 November 2013
retroking1981 said:


I wonder how long it'll take the PS4 to over take the Wii U in NA?

I think it'll breeze past it in EU and do it by the end of 2013 in NA. Only Wii U's Japan sales will keep it ahead WW.

It'll take most of  2014 at the earliest. (assuming Wii U sells >3m more this nov/dec)



retroking1981 on 18 November 2013

Where? WW?



superchunk on 18 November 2013
retroking1981 said:
Where? WW?


Yes, WW is the only thing that really matters.



superchunk on 18 November 2013
RolStoppable said:

So yeah, it's pretty clear that Nintendo cannot create a situation for themselves where third parties come to the rescue.

I think that is the crux of the argument that pushes my desire to failure.

Been thinking about our convo a lot and in reality while I still think Nintendo's best foot would be a world where all their content and 3rd party content came to one Nintendo console, realistically you're right and it simply won't happen. The only way it *may* happen is if Nintendo sells a console for a significant loss and/or pays out large sums of money making any game royalties a loss.

So yea, their only real choice is to focus on Nintendo. Make that low-priced console with existing and many new IPs that Nintendo is best as delivering.

Though, I don't think they should completely ignore the possibility of 3rd party games. Just not at the expense of their games and profitable hardware.