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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - The financials behind Nintendo going 3rd party

Ka-pi96 said:
tak13 said:
Ka-pi96 said:
Good analysis of it. It really does look like a good option for them.


Come on don't call  your desire a good option mr ka-pi!You won't get pokemon on xbox and ps!:P

My desire is just to have achievements/trophies on Nintendo games. If they want to do that on their consoles great, if not 3rd party please


I forgot that!Yeah you're a nintendo fan when nintendo does what you want!:P

To be honest,I hope that they  will do it(I don't care but I really want you to play the nintendo diamonds mr kapi!) but not copying another company's system,just make it in its own standards!:P



Around the Network
Teeqoz said:
vkaraujo said:
Hard to say. There are 3 questionable points in your OP.

- You are assuming no Nintendo games would sell less. By stating this, you are ignoring loyalty effect toward the big 3, that no Third Party have to this day.
- You are assuming this wouldn't hurt their HH business.
- You are assuming there would be no brand damage.

But it is a good exercise, i will keep an eye.


I don't think Nintendo fans would just stop being loyal to Nintendo because they went multiplat.

Frankly, I see no possible way this could hurt their HH business more than them making mobile games is. Actually I'd argue that in the same way they wanna make mobile games to attract people to their other gaming devices, this could massively expand their audience, and attract people to their future handhelds.

But wouldn't it be better to reallocate those resource into making more content for their handheld? 3DS isn't teeming with games at the moment and chugging out games in a frequent maner will be harder as the future handheld games will be demand more time with the stronger hardware.

Hypothetically speaking, if home console market isn't viable for them anymore, dedicating their development resources into the handheld what be a better move than developing content for Sony and Microsoft consoles.



Anfebious said:
Teeqoz said:
Anfebious said:
So... what about the costs? Porting their games for three different platforms is more expensive than developing it for one. You didn't take that into account.

But I think it's a great idea anyway.


I assumed it wouldn't be to costly based on the fact that the systems are so similar in architecture these days. They wouldn't even have to optimize a lot for PC

Porting Xenoblade Chronicles X to the PS4 would be like making a new game. And we all know Nintendo and HD development don't go hand by hand.

Also you have to take account the time they would take to develop them game. If nintendo delays games when they develop for one platform what would happen when they develop for 3?


I don't think they should port their current games to other platorms, I think they should develop new games from the ground up on other platforms. They could continue making games with the type of graphics they currently do, just up the resolution and add some AA, and they wouldn't even struggle with it because of all the extra power they would have.



TBH.

If Nintendo would go third party they would probably have the power to get rid of the platform royalty.

I mean lets say Nintendo talks to Microsoft. It could be a "Nintendo games will be xbox only when we dont have to pay platform royalty" deal

Microsoft could care less about those peanuts because they would gain much more than just some dollars and Sony would have a serious problem.



Ka-pi96 said:
Anfebious said:

Porting Xenoblade Chronicles X to the PS4 would be like making a new game. And we all know Nintendo and HD development don't go hand by hand.

Also you have to take account the time they would take to develop them game. If nintendo delays games when they develop for one platform what would happen when they develop for 3?

This isn't 3 different platforms though, this is 3 very similar platforms. There may be some hiccups when they first started, but in the longer term they would get used to it.

But what about the quality? Nintendo is known for their high quality games. Can you really expect Nintendo to develop for 3 platforms and keep the same level of quality?



"I've Underestimated the Horse Power from Mario Kart 8, I'll Never Doubt the WiiU's Engine Again"

Around the Network
rolltide101x said:
tak13 said:

Very true!And this is why a price cut can be benignant(Not miraculous) for wii u and some are not expect it to be...Plus to your comment,''that some want it as a secondary console!:P

I just think Nintendo should shoot for 250$ at launch of all of their consoles (Nintendo gamers do not care about power). It also needs to use the x86/64 platform to make it as easy as possible for 3rd party devs. 

If they did both of those things then they would sell atleast 30ish million consoles and would profit

Nintendo games + some 3rd party + cheap system = profit

 

Anybody who thinks Nintendo needs to try and hit a "home run" is wrong, all it will do is cost Nintendo more money. Nintendo can not compete with MS and Sony on an even playing field

This is very logical. The Wii U went against some of Nintendo's own philiosiophies, which have been to create a unique inexpensive hardware for people to play games on. At $350 and $300 (with the Basic version with no gamed bundled), Nintendo really shot themselves in the foot; they priced out their system from more casual player and the system did not really have the steady stream of games and key features to appeal to a more core audience. 

Their next system needs to launch at between $200-$250 maximum with potentially a key game bundled. We do not need another system to compete at the higher-end of the console/home entertainment market at this point, the PS4 and Xbox One are already competing in that battleground (and the sales for Xbox One are showing that the market can barely support two consoles at that price point). Also, while I believe they need to do something unique to set them apart (this does not necessarily have to be the controller, it could be a software feature or something else) they have to avoid expensive things to bundle; for example, while I personally really like the Gamepad, it has been wighing the system down due to its added cost.



ihatefatkatz said:
Teeqoz said:


I don't think Nintendo fans would just stop being loyal to Nintendo because they went multiplat.

Frankly, I see no possible way this could hurt their HH business more than them making mobile games is. Actually I'd argue that in the same way they wanna make mobile games to attract people to their other gaming devices, this could massively expand their audience, and attract people to their future handhelds.

But wouldn't it be better to reallocate those resource into making more content for their handheld? 3DS isn't teeming with games at the moment and chugging out games in a frequent maner will be harder as the future handheld games will be demand more time with the stronger hardware.

Hypothetically speaking, if home console market isn't viable for them anymore, dedicating their development resources into the handheld what be a better move than developing content for Sony and Microsoft consoles.


Take Mario Kart. One of Nintendo's huge sellers. They already make one Mario Kart for their handhelds, if they then make one mulitplat Mario Kart they would get huge sales from both their HHs and the multiplat release. So instead of delegating the home console Mario Kart team to make another smaller than Mario Kart game, they make one multiplat Mario Kart.

10 million HH Mario Kart + 10 million (at least) multiplat Mario Kart > 10 million HH Mario Kart + 2 million HH smaller game.



Teeqoz said:

First of all, this is not a thread saying Nintendo will or should go third party. This is a thread to shed some light on what would change, and the goods and the bads of Nintendo going third party. I would also like to note that this is strictly about them going 3rd party on home consoles, but they would/should keep on making their own handhelds.

I'm basing it off this. As you can see, the publisher gets most of the revenue, while the platform owner gets a little bit in royalty. Currently, both of these are Nintendo, so Nintendo currently get 27+7 aka 34 dollars per 1st party 60 dollar video game sold.

However, if Nintendo we're to go third party, they would lose out on those extra 7 dollars per copy. To recoup that loss in revenue, they would have to sell 26% more copies (at the same price of course, 60 dollars). So If DKC TF sells 1 million on the Wii U, it would have to sell 1.26 million on XBO/PS4/PC to make the same amount of cash. Personally I think Nintendo will get a bigger increase in software sales than just 26%, but that's just speculation.

That's not the only thing Nintendo would lose though, as they would also lose 3rd party royalties. As I'm sure you realize though, those royalties are not likely to be too substantial for them (on the Wii U).  32.3 million (give or take) of the 45.64 million software units sold on the Wii U are first party games, meaning that a whopping 71% of the games sold on the Wii U are Nintendo published. If we assume the remaining 29%, or 13.34 million games sold on the Wii U cost on average 40$ (seems fair, right?) and that it follows the same ratio of the above chart (7/60 -> 12%), that that should be about 62.4 million in revenue for Nintendo, just from third party royalties so far this gen.

Back to the point, the Wii U's 1st to third party ratio is ~2.4, meaning that for every third party game sold on their syatem, 2.4 first party games are sold. I'll try and translate that into revenue:

1 third party game @40 (remember we assumed that was the average price?) = 4.8 dollars in revenue for Nintendo.

2.4 1st party games @60 = 81.6 dollars in revenue for Nintendo

Total=86.4 dollars in revenue for Nintendo, on average per 2.4 first party games sold.

To recoup that as a third party publisher, the would have to sell 81.6/27, or roughly 3 games, instead of 2.4 games. And 3/2.4 is 1.25, meaning that they would have to sell 25% more. Now you may remember that when I said even when ignoring third party royalties, they would have to sell 26% more, but here's why it's now 25%:

Third party royalties on the Wii U are so insignificant that my roundings from 3 to 3.02222.... and such have nullified it out. But to be kind, instead of 26% more, let's say 30% more, to be on the safe side.

Aka 1 million on Wii U = 1.3 million on XBO/PS4/PC

Then there are a few more things they'd lose out on, namely profits from hardware and accesories. This one is kinda iffy, because it's hard to predict what type of hardware Nintendo will go for and such, but it's also a sort of "risk vs reward" thing when it comes to hardware. First of all the research and development associated with launching a new platform costs money, which they wouldn't have to spend if they didn't make their own (home) consoles. They also wouldn't have to maintain the online infrastructure for the platform, but unfortunately I have nothing to go on to give any remotely precise numbers. It's risk vs reward, because on one side, you could make a decent chunk of money from hardware, let's say 30 dollars per game console, which if they sell 30 million consoles next gen means 90 million. All of this has to be recouperated through saving money and selling more games of course. They could also still make accesories, although they would no doubt sell as well as they do on their own systems. But the main thing is that they will no longer have to risk that a game is being held back (sales wise) from a platform selling below par. Amiibos would still sell great, and is a part of their business that would benefit greatly from Nintendo going third party, because Amiibos would certainly sell better if they did this, and Nintendo won't have to share the profit from Amiibos with anyone.

 

But there's also other ways you make money on as a third party publisher. There are marketing deals, which can benefit Nintendo in both that they will get help in their game marketing (which, let's be honest, has been lacking this gen) and they'll also get the marketing for free, in fact, they'll probably even be paid by both Sony and MS for exclusive marketing rights.

They also won't have to go through a lot of expensive R&D each time they develop a new system.

So, after reading this, what do you think? Would it be beneficial for Nintendo to go multiplat on the home console scene? Would they sell at least 30% more copies if they released on more platforms?


What I will say might be poor but Nintendo doesn't make more money on hardware than on software?I think the first is valid(I had seen it in a financial analysis!)...So,it's a no from me!:P



tak13 said:

What I will say might be poor but Nintendo doesn't make more money on hardware than on software?I think the first is valid(I had seen it in a financial analysis!)...So,it's a no from me!:P


There is basically zero chance Nintendo makes more profit from hardware than software. And I'm not just talking about in this gen, but in other gens like the DS/Wii gen.



Teeqoz said:
Metallox said:
What about the money that Nintendo makes with hardware? I'm aware that they may not be winning with Wii U, but they may be conscious that a profitable hardware can make much more money than just selling games.

I think I'll add a paragraph about that, although it's a bit difficult because it's very hard to predict what type of hardware they'll go for next. But I can assure you Nintendo makes much more money from their software than they do from their hardware.


Here is an extensive analysis made one and a half years ago:

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=740455