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

Forums - Nintendo - Positive Impacts From a Unified/Fusion Nintendo Platform

phaedruss on 08 July 2014
Soundwave said:


"Software sells hardware" is such a blanket statement that really it's not accurate anymore. Every gaming platform has software, and in most cases plenty of it (eventually anyway). 

Software variety and a healthy, continual flow of software are just as important if not moreso. 

I think in general the trend in electronics today is all about having less hardware too. People don't want to buy more crap than they need, it's all about having centralized devices that give people the entertainment they want, when they want it, how they want it, without making them jump through hoops. 

I believe they've said that their approach will be  similar to iOS except applied to a console and a portable gaming device rather than phones and tablets.



Around the Network
fatslob-:O on 08 July 2014
Soundwave said:

"Software sells hardware" is such a blanket statement that really it's not accurate anymore. Every gaming platform has software, and in most cases plenty of it (eventually anyway). 

Software variety and a healthy, continual flow of software are just as important if not moreso. 

I think in general the trend in electronics today is all about having less hardware too. People don't want to buy more crap than they need, it's all about having centralized devices that give people the entertainment they want, when they want it, how they want it, without making them jump through hoops. 

And sweet jeezus at the "Sony's idea" bit, you kids need to read up on gaming history. 

It is "quality" software that will reach to the masses rather than shovelware crap from failed systems. 

A continual flow of "quality" software maybe important however giving no differentiation between the two platforms just means that one will cannibalize the other and that's not exactly a good thing last time I checked and go look at the example that the Xbox One is setting up to see just how exactly your vision will end up.

Specialized > General 

Last time I checked it was Sony's idea based off this table ...



Soundwave on 08 July 2014
fatslob-:O said:
Soundwave said:

"Software sells hardware" is such a blanket statement that really it's not accurate anymore. Every gaming platform has software, and in most cases plenty of it (eventually anyway). 

Software variety and a healthy, continual flow of software are just as important if not moreso. 

I think in general the trend in electronics today is all about having less hardware too. People don't want to buy more crap than they need, it's all about having centralized devices that give people the entertainment they want, when they want it, how they want it, without making them jump through hoops. 

And sweet jeezus at the "Sony's idea" bit, you kids need to read up on gaming history. 

It is "quality" software that will reach to the masses rather than shovelware crap from failed systems. 

A continual flow of "quality" software maybe important however giving no differentiation between the two platforms just means that one will cannibalize the other and that's not exactly a good thing last time I checked and go look at the example that the Xbox One is setting up to see just how exactly your vision will end up.

Specialized > General 

Last time I checked it was Sony's idea based off this table ...


The Famicom was baically sold at cost. So was the Super NES and N64. And GameCube for that matter. 

The idea of selling hardware at cost and making money off the games has been around for a good decade before Sony even sniffed the game industry if not longer. It's why it's called the razor blade model, because it mimics the shaving industry. 

Yamauchi is famous for saying 'the console is just a box people have to buy to play Mario on'. In other words the game machine is a barrier to entry. 



fatslob-:O on 08 July 2014
phaedruss said:

It might cannibalize within a certain group of people, but with a console that gets more support than the usual nintendo console and/or handheld, you'll get more people to buy into the ecosystem as it will be more attractive.

Doubt it ... 



Soundwave on 08 July 2014
fatslob-:O said:
phaedruss said:

It might cannibalize within a certain group of people, but with a console that gets more support than the usual nintendo console and/or handheld, you'll get more people to buy into the ecosystem as it will be more attractive.

Doubt it ... 


Even if they don't having one 70-80 million size userbase for all their games to sell on beats having one 70-80 million size userbase just for the handheld games and then 15-20 million for the more expensive console projects. 



Around the Network
phaedruss on 08 July 2014
fatslob-:O said:
phaedruss said:

It might cannibalize within a certain group of people, but with a console that gets more support than the usual nintendo console and/or handheld, you'll get more people to buy into the ecosystem as it will be more attractive.

Doubt it ... 


More games, steady stream of content, possibly more new IPs, etc. etc. Assuming quality content of course, yes it will make the console side much more attractive and the mobile side as well as they really will be console games on a portable console.  If you take iOS as the model for this rather than a console perspective, I think it is a really good idea. Especially if they can have the added benefit of scalable engines that take advantage of each piece of hardware.



fatslob-:O on 08 July 2014
Soundwave said:

The Famicom was baically sold at cost. So was the Super NES and N64. And GameCube for that matter. 

The idea of selling hardware at cost and making money off the games has been around for a good decade before Sony even sniffed the game industry if not longer. It's why it's called the razor blade model, because it mimics the shaving industry. 

Yamauchi is famous for saying 'the console is just a box people have to buy to play Mario on'. In other words the game machine is a barrier to entry. 

Based off the table above I'm willing to bet that none of the systems you mentioned were sold at a loss. 

Really ? Then it must have been some Atari or some other gaming company that started it. 

The console maybe the barrier to entry however judging from that table I highly doubt that would attempt a loss leader model and it's not like the parts weren't cheap seeing as how the NES was already using old technology when it first debuted. The top of the line processor at that time was the Intel 80286 and not a 6502.



fatslob-:O on 08 July 2014
phaedruss said:

More games, steady stream of content, possibly more new IPs, etc. etc. Assuming quality content of course, yes it will make the console side much more attractive and the mobile side as well as they really will be console games on a portable console.  If you take iOS as the model for this rather than a console perspective, I think it is a really good idea. Especially if they can have the added benefit of scalable engines that take advantage of each piece of hardware.

What will make a product line more attractive is quality software last time I checked ... This will most likely end up hurting Nintendo consoles in general as there won't be any incentives to buy one since your favourite handheld already has those games. 



Soundwave on 08 July 2014
fatslob-:O said:
Soundwave said:

The Famicom was baically sold at cost. So was the Super NES and N64. And GameCube for that matter. 

The idea of selling hardware at cost and making money off the games has been around for a good decade before Sony even sniffed the game industry if not longer. It's why it's called the razor blade model, because it mimics the shaving industry. 

Yamauchi is famous for saying 'the console is just a box people have to buy to play Mario on'. In other words the game machine is a barrier to entry. 

Based off the table above I'm willing to bet that none of the systems you mentioned were sold at a loss. 

Really ? Then it must have been some Atari or some other gaming company that started it. 

The console maybe the barrier to entry however judging from that table I highly doubt that would attempt a loss leader model and it's not like the parts weren't cheap seeing as how the NES was already using old technology when it first debuted. The top of the line processor at that time was the Intel 80286 and not a 6502.


Reread my post, I said selling the game machine at cost, not at a loss. 



zorg1000 on 08 July 2014
fatslob-:O said:
Did you forget the negative impacts ?

Anyways, other than the benefit of sharing the same pool of games it will most likely end up being a negative in the long term seeing as how systems need to be differentiated in software in order to give a selling point for one system over another. A lot of people aren't very fond of Nintendo consoles compared to their handhelds in general so this only hurts Nintendo's business in general as it only gives more incentives for people to not buy a Nintendo console.


I will agree that Nintendo's handhelds are more popular than their consoles but I dont that its such a huge amount that its going to dominate the console.

Wii U, Nov 2012-June 2014 has sold about 6.5 million while In the same time frame 3DS has sold about 20 million.

Wii U is still $299-329 depending on bundle while 3DS is $129-199 and on top of that has a much much larger selection of games. If both devices cost the same and had the same games then I believe sales of the two would be much closer.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.