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

Forums - Nintendo - Mr. Iwata comment on the idea of going multi-platform.

NightDragon83 on 10 August 2013
milkyjoe said:
NightDragon83 said:

That's because Nintendo was in a pickle back then, just as they were at the end of the GC's life, and just how (incredibly) they find themselves now after riding the huge wave of success that was the Wii only to crash headfirst onto the beach with the botched Wii U launch.

Back in 2000 the only thing keeping Nintendo afloat was Pokemon, as was the DS back in 2006.  So everytime Nintendo has had trouble on the home console side of things, people understandably want to know what they're going to do about it.

http://www.dorkly.com/article/51483/if-todays-internet-commenters-were-around-for-super-mario-bros-2

SMB2 wouldv'e bombed CONFIRMED!!!

Of course, if the internet was around back then, I can't even fathom how insane the arguments during the SNES-Genesis days would've been.



On 2/24/13, MB1025 said:
You know I was always wondering why no one ever used the dollar sign for $ony, but then I realized they have no money so it would be pointless.

Around the Network
MrUnagi on 10 August 2013

It's like asking Banjo-Kazooie, Halo, Conker, or Perfect Dark to come to Nintendo's platfroms. It's not going to to happen.



Proud gamer of Nintendo and Sony consoles since 2003.

MrUnagi on 10 August 2013
Screamapillar said:
Suke said:
MohammadBadir said:
Screamapillar said:
Nintendo can't do any worse than the GameCube, right? That system barely scraped out of the generation with 22 million consoles lifetime. It served only the very hardcore of the Nintendo loyalists, with sequels to N64 games.

Surely GameCube was the low point, and I very much doubt that Wii U will come close to doing that poorly in the market when we look back at Wii U's performance in 2017.


Fun fact:

Nintendo's GC (worst selling Nintendo home-console) and Nintendo's GBA (worst selling Nintendo handheld to be deemes as "successful" together made more money than Sony's PS2(best selling home console of all time) in the GC-PS2 era.

I'm pretty sure Nintendo is safe. even if the WiiU will never take off (I'm sure it will), they can rely on their huge amount of money in the bank, and the 3DS to keep them afloat for the gen.


O_o ....really....I never knew that :L


I'm well aware that GameCube was a profitable business for Nintendo.  Even though GameCube was sold at a loss for a certain period of time, they were selling enough software at $49 that they were making some money from it.  GBA was extremely successful, of course.  40 million install base just in the US.  GBA made NIntendo tons and tons of money.  Back then, NIntendo handhelds were cheap to make, and since their handheld games were so primitive back then, they made a lot more money on software as well.

They should be fine. Why don't we ask this question about the other two going multiplatform?



Proud gamer of Nintendo and Sony consoles since 2003.

Screamapillar on 10 August 2013
MrUnagi said:
Screamapillar said:
Suke said:
MohammadBadir said:
Screamapillar said:
Nintendo can't do any worse than the GameCube, right? That system barely scraped out of the generation with 22 million consoles lifetime. It served only the very hardcore of the Nintendo loyalists, with sequels to N64 games.

Surely GameCube was the low point, and I very much doubt that Wii U will come close to doing that poorly in the market when we look back at Wii U's performance in 2017.


Fun fact:

Nintendo's GC (worst selling Nintendo home-console) and Nintendo's GBA (worst selling Nintendo handheld to be deemes as "successful" together made more money than Sony's PS2(best selling home console of all time) in the GC-PS2 era.

I'm pretty sure Nintendo is safe. even if the WiiU will never take off (I'm sure it will), they can rely on their huge amount of money in the bank, and the 3DS to keep them afloat for the gen.


O_o ....really....I never knew that :L


I'm well aware that GameCube was a profitable business for Nintendo.  Even though GameCube was sold at a loss for a certain period of time, they were selling enough software at $49 that they were making some money from it.  GBA was extremely successful, of course.  40 million install base just in the US.  GBA made NIntendo tons and tons of money.  Back then, NIntendo handhelds were cheap to make, and since their handheld games were so primitive back then, they made a lot more money on software as well.

They should be fine. Why don't we ask this question about the other two going multiplatform?


Sometimes I ask, but no one ever answers me lol.  Apparently it's off-limits.  I have no idea, other than that it's clearly a double standard



The Screamapillar is easily identified by its constant screaming—it even screams in its sleep. The Screamapillar is the favorite food of everything, is sexually attracted to fire, and needs constant reassurance or it will die.

Proxy-Pie on 10 August 2013
MrUnagi said:

They should be fine. Why don't we ask this question about the other two going multiplatform?

http://playeressence.com/microsoft-and-sony-are-closer-to-going-third-party-than-nintendo-lets-get-the-facts-straight/



Around the Network
Osc89 on 10 August 2013
Screamapillar said:
MrUnagi said:
Screamapillar said:
I'm well aware that GameCube was a profitable business for Nintendo.  Even though GameCube was sold at a loss for a certain period of time, they were selling enough software at $49 that they were making some money from it.  GBA was extremely successful, of course.  40 million install base just in the US.  GBA made NIntendo tons and tons of money.  Back then, NIntendo handhelds were cheap to make, and since their handheld games were so primitive back then, they made a lot more money on software as well.

They should be fine. Why don't we ask this question about the other two going multiplatform?


Sometimes I ask, but no one ever answers me lol.  Apparently it's off-limits.  I have no idea, other than that it's clearly a double standard


Probably no one answers because it is a silly question. Sony and MS would sell off everything first party before getting rid of their hardware because it isn't worth as much to them. Playstation and Xbox are more hardware brands, and would stay afloat with cheaper timed exclusives. Nintendo is both, but the software is more valuable. They would be more likely to go third party than become a hardware only manufacturer.



PSN: Osc89

NNID: Oscar89

Screamapillar on 10 August 2013
Osc89 said:
Screamapillar said:
MrUnagi said:
Screamapillar said:
I'm well aware that GameCube was a profitable business for Nintendo.  Even though GameCube was sold at a loss for a certain period of time, they were selling enough software at $49 that they were making some money from it.  GBA was extremely successful, of course.  40 million install base just in the US.  GBA made NIntendo tons and tons of money.  Back then, NIntendo handhelds were cheap to make, and since their handheld games were so primitive back then, they made a lot more money on software as well.

They should be fine. Why don't we ask this question about the other two going multiplatform?


Sometimes I ask, but no one ever answers me lol.  Apparently it's off-limits.  I have no idea, other than that it's clearly a double standard


Probably no one answers because it is a silly question. Sony and MS would sell off everything first party before getting rid of their hardware because it isn't worth as much to them. Playstation and Xbox are more hardware brands, and would stay afloat with cheaper timed exclusives. Nintendo is both, but the software is more valuable. They would be more likely to go third party than become a hardware only manufacturer.


I don't agree.  Nintendo is only as successful as they've been because they marry their in-house software with their in-house hardware.  Sony and Microsoft, making so little on their consumer video game divisions as they do, would be more likely sell of their game divisions completely.  Hardware is expensive to make, and Microsoft's Xbox division makes almost nothing from games and hardware.  It's a tiny fraction of their company.  Sony makes more money on games and hardware, but they take huge losses compared to Nintendo, during hardware transitions.

If Nintendo were to dump hardware and only make software, like Sega, they would lose half of their business.



The Screamapillar is easily identified by its constant screaming—it even screams in its sleep. The Screamapillar is the favorite food of everything, is sexually attracted to fire, and needs constant reassurance or it will die.

MrUnagi on 10 August 2013
the-pi-guy said:
MrUnagi said:

They should be fine. Why don't we ask this question about the other two going multiplatform?

On the one hand, they kind of have.  They often want Halo on PS3/Uncharted on Xbox.  They do talk about it, I think they actually have said that they'd be up for it.  Nintendo is different though, they make games that few others do.  Plenty of studios make FPS games, few make games like Pokemon, or as classic/timeless as Mario.  

MS and Sony are kind of doing this.  MS has published games on portables, phones.  Sony recently had the PlayStation All Stars in iOS, even though they didn't really have anything to do with it.  They are having a hand in other systems, unlike Nintendo.  MS has one android game published by them, yet they have nothing to do with Android and everything to do with Windows phones.  

Nintendo doesn't need to get games onto other platforms but put non gmaing apps like Nintendo Network and eshop on phones.



Proud gamer of Nintendo and Sony consoles since 2003.

Osc89 on 11 August 2013
Screamapillar said:
Osc89 said:
Screamapillar said:
Sometimes I ask, but no one ever answers me lol.  Apparently it's off-limits.  I have no idea, other than that it's clearly a double standard


Probably no one answers because it is a silly question. Sony and MS would sell off everything first party before getting rid of their hardware because it isn't worth as much to them. Playstation and Xbox are more hardware brands, and would stay afloat with cheaper timed exclusives. Nintendo is both, but the software is more valuable. They would be more likely to go third party than become a hardware only manufacturer.


I don't agree.  Nintendo is only as successful as they've been because they marry their in-house software with their in-house hardware.  Sony and Microsoft, making so little on their consumer video game divisions as they do, would be more likely sell of their game divisions completely.  Hardware is expensive to make, and Microsoft's Xbox division makes almost nothing from games and hardware.  It's a tiny fraction of their company.  Sony makes more money on games and hardware, but they take huge losses compared to Nintendo, during hardware transitions.

If Nintendo were to dump hardware and only make software, like Sega, they would lose half of their business.


I wasn't saying it was at all likely, I was just saying Nintendo are the only ones who could (or would even try) to continue as third party. It isn't a good scenario for them at all.

If each console lost every first party game and had to rely only on third party games, which console would be most successful? Now if each stopped making hardware and released their own games only on the Steam Box or something, who would sell the most games? I can see Nintendo being answered for the second question far more than the first, so I still believe their software is worth more than their hardware.



PSN: Osc89

NNID: Oscar89