| uran10 said: Everything except the wii U has made a profit thus far. The Wii U is currently making a profit so it should be able to be profitable by the end of its life cycle as well. |
makes perfect sense
They need to keep trying but they have to get with the times. If they keep being stuck in their old ways (family centric) and going for the unpredictable casual market, it won't get them anywhere. That tablet did not hit the target audience.
"Trick shot? The trick is NOT to get shot." - Lucian
I think every console and handheld Nintendo has done has been profitable (except virtualboy and maybe the WiiU, we'll see). Even a low margain like the GC is better than abandoning the hardware market. Aiming for a bigger profit? Maybe, but if they abandon hardware to sell games on Tablets, PCs and other consoles and they go down... It's no crazy talk, the XBox brand has a lot of rumours about Microsoft wanting to sell it, the mobile market will hit its top soon, it has grown too big too fast. The safest bet would be PC and PlayStation, but Sony's finantial situation and PC being capable of flooding its market with cheaper clones...
amak11 said:
Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze Mario Kart 8 Fatal Frame V (I'm hoping this comes over) Smash Bros Hyrule Warriors Bayonetta 2 (with 1) Pokemon Professor Layton Ace Attorney (at least on the console side) Professor Layton vs Ace Attorney Mario Golf
Hell, I would argue they are showing the rest of the industry how to properly price DLC passes (20 dollars for a years worth of content for Hyrule Warriors, and 12 for Mario Kart 8). |
The bolded games are the ones I consider big excluesives. The rest are simply exclusives that supliment the lack of good 3rd party support. Notice how your list is split between two systems? Also keep in mind this list is not indicative of an average year for Nintendo.
If anything you cemented my stance that they can only support one system effectively. It is becoming more and more clear every year that if Nintendo truly wants to cling to this business plan of - "You must buy our inferior hardware if you want to play our specual games!"; then have to make it so Nintendo fans only need one console to play their "special" games.
So what if the GameCube was profitable (probably barely at that)?
Wii U development costs are likely 2-4x the GameCube for starters. Wii U R&D costs are probably higher too.
It's not 2002 anymore.
GameCube had like 100+ third party titles released for it in 2003, the Wii U has dramatically fewer titles meaning Nintendo also is making a ton less money off third party royalty fees to the point where next year they'll barely make anything at all (only like 7-8 third party retail titles planned for the entire year).
Beyond that the Wii U is selling considerably worse than the GameCube.
| Shadow1980 said: The NES utterly dominated the 8-bit era and brought console gaming back from the brink of death. The SNES did very well, coming in first overall in the 16-bit era and garnering just shy of 50% global market share (the Genesis/Mega Drive was at about 40% and the TG-16 at about 10%). The N64 did very well in North America (at least as well as the SNES) despite losing considerable market share and numerical sales in Japan. The GameCube, despite underwhelming sales, was supposedly profitable in the long run, not to mention it had by far the best software attach rate of any Nintendo system, which put software sales nearly on par with those of the N64 despite selling a third fewer hardware units. Finally, the Wii was for a while the fastest-selling system ever and is only the third system to sell over 100 million units. Even the Wii U, which is on track to be their worst-selling console, will likely be profitable over the course of its whole life cycle despite early losses. EDIT: Oh, and this rumored "Fusion" thing would be a bad idea. What's that old adage about putting all your eggs in one basket? If such an inconventional piece of hardware flops and is the only piece of hardware Nintendo has next generation, then maybe they will end up like Sega. Having separate console and handheld hardware has worked for them so far. No reason to change the status quo in that regard. |
Except it isn't working for them anymore ... they've lost money for 3 straight years now and probably will again this year.
Their eggs are in all in one basket whether they want to admit it or not ... they are so irrelevant in the console business that really all they have left is their portable side which is also under heavy assault from the rise of tablets/smartphones.
When you are in a war and you have two fronts, with the main front losing ground and the other front just getting slaughtered it makes more sense to combine your forces into one stronger front IMO. At least you have a chance then.
Besides "Fusion" doesn't literally mean 1 hardware device. Does Apple only make 1 hardware device? No, they have iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch. Some people only have one, some people have two. They have a central ecosystem though where you can play the same apps/games between them, you can't do that with a 3DS/Wii U ... if you want Mario Kart 8 and only have a 3DS, you have to pay another $300 to play that game. A lot of people are just not bothering.
zero129 said:
Exactly!, plus with the fusion mostly being a mobile platform they can use that as an excuse for why its not as powerful as the other consoles but is really powerful in the mobile space and people would be happy with that i think since it would solve the problem of Nintendo getting backlash for making such weak hardware. Lets face it when it comes to power they are never going to be able to catch up to their competitors now as they have been a gen behind for the last 2 gens and that would be acceptible for Handhelds but not home consoles.. |
Well there's nothing really special about high end hardware. There will be PC GPUs that wipe their rear end with a PS4 available soon especially as 20nm manufacturing takes over the newer GPU designs. If they wanted a chip that blows the PS4 out of the water, AMD could make one for them no problem for 2016/2017.
It's more that Nintendo doesn't have a real desire to go down this avenue. Higher end hardware just leads to higher development costs and really isn't even needed to make Nintendo's more colorful/cartoony style of games look "good". Of all the complaints about Wii U, Nintendo's own games not looking good enough are probably the least of them. Even over the Wii era where going from the PS3/360 to Wii was sometimes a jarring experience, that isn't the case really anymore.
zero129 said:
I know they could build a more powerful system if they wanted, but like you said this would cost Nintendo much higher dev costs something i dont think they can offered plus i dont think their own devs would be ready for such a fast jump since they have only now entered into the realm of HD development and the other 2 have been doing it for years now. So by Nintendo making the fusion like apples devices IE Fusion Handheld that can hook up to TV with a docking station or Fusion TV with a bit more powerful hardware they wont have to worry about competing with the other 2 in terms of powerful hardware just like apple doesnt today but yet they get lots of games from 3rd partys. But all this is pretty much what your saying too. |
Well a portable that runs graphics on par with the Wii U would be pretty damn powerful actually. It just means the TV dock/mini-console or whatever you want to call it won't be super-powerful but it'll have decent graphics and probably be very cheap (think under $200).
Zoombael said:
Then N64 and Gamecube are indeed failed prducts. Losing huge market shares is not in the interest of any company. And this doesn't look like "make money".
|
At least the N64 and Gamecube weren't huge money pits, Sony has lost 3.5 billion USD on Playstation over the last ten years.
Sony's Gaming Division, Profit over the last 10 years:
Sony's Game Division, FY 2004 (April 2004 - March 2005)
729.8 billion JPY in sales
+43.2 billion JPY in profit (+$397.5 million)
Sony's Game Division, FY 2005 (April 2005 - March 2006)
958.6 billion JPY in sales
+8.7 billion JPY in profit (+$80.0 million)
Sony's Game Division, FY 2006 (April 2006 - March 2007)
1,016.8 billion JPY in sales
-232.3 billion JPY in profit (-$2137.2 million)
Sony's Game Division, FY 2007 (April 2007 - March 2008)
1,284.2 billion JPY in sales
-124.5 billion JPY in profit (-$1145.7 million)
Sony's Game Division, FY 2008 (April 2008 - March 2009)
1,053.1 billion JPY in sales
-58.5 billion JPY in profit (-$538.1 million)
Sony's NPS Division (includes PlayStation), FY 2009 (April 2009 - March 2010)
1,575.8 billion JPY in sales
-83.1 billion JPY in profit (-$764.7 million)
Sony's NPS Division (includes PlayStation), FY 2010 (April 2010 - March 2011)
1,579.3 billion JPY in sales
+35.6 billion JPY in profit (+$327.5 million)
Sony's Game Division, FY 2011 (April 2011 - March 2012)
805.0 billion JPY in sales
+29.3 billion JPY in profit (+$269.5 million)
Sony's Game Division, FY 2012 (April 2012 - March 2013)
707.1 billion JPY in sales
+1.7 billion JPY in profit (+$15.6 million)
Sony's Game Division, FY 2013 (April 2013 - March 2014)
979.2 billion JPY in sales
-8.1 billion JPY in profit (-$74.5 million)
+$397.5 million
+$80.0 million
-$2137.2 million
-$1145.7 million
-$538.1 million
-$764.7 million (includes non-PlayStation segments)
+$327.5 milion (includes non-PlayStation segments)
+$269.5 million
+$15.6 million
-$74.5 million
= -$3570.1 million operating loss over the past 10 years
They don't have to be irrelevant in the console business. The Wii U's problems stem largely from poor and minimal marketing and a momentum-killing first year that had one of the worst droughts ever for a Nintendo system, with an 8-month gap between launch and Pikmin 3. Considering their reliance on first-party software that was not a good thing. Nintendo's problems with taking a leadership position in sales is largely due to them making hardware that third parties don't care to release their biggest and best games on. They hit it off with the Wii thanks to a relatively much lower price, slick marketing, a gimmick that resonated well with gamers, and just the right games it needed, but that's a nigh-impossible stunt to pull off twice. I still think a more conventional system could work for them.
I think Nintendo fans sometimes really understate the Wii U's problems. This isn't a "oh it just had a bad launch". The PS4/X1 didn't exactly have great software libraries from launch either, the difference is people actually wanted those systems. Pikmin 3 coming out 2-3 months earlier wouldn't have saved the Wii U.
Nintendo just made a system no one asked for. If they want to make a system third parties will develop for then they basically will have to swallow their pride and let third parties basically tell them which GPU/CPU/hardware features they want, something I think Nintendo is still too stubborn to do.
If they could release a Playstation 5 (as in FIVE, not FOUR) class system approved by 3rd parties and get a 1-2 year headstart, maybe they could gain some traction there, but I don't think they want to do this.
I don't think Nintendo has the capability to support two machines anymore. It's just blatantly obvious this generation. Having two distinct platforms especially with rising development costs (even for portables, the days when they could just port SNES games or use N64 level graphics are long over, handheld games require a lot of time and dev power now too) is an unworkable situation for Nintendo. Even Sony really can't make it work, they can't support the PS4 and Vita simultaneously, they basically need third parties to carry the Vita.
It's not 1989 anymore, it's not even 2006, supporting two hardware platforms today requires tremendously more resources.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
