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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Prediction: "Cartridges" will return for the Nintendo home console

zorg1000 on 23 May 2015
noname2200 said:
RolStoppable said:
noname2200 said:
RolStoppable said:

Nintendo's dilemma is that handhelds are more popular than home consoles in Japan while in the rest of the world it is the other way around.

I'm not convinced this is actually true, to be honest, at least not for Nintendo. I know the media coverage in the West focuses almost exclusively on home consoles, but generation by generation Nintendo's handhelds have sold more than their home consoles. This is true even in North America, where home consoles are the strongest. Admittedly I don't have the profit figures of handhelds vs. home consoles at hand, so it's certainly possible that they still make more money off home consoles than handhelds, but I'm skeptical of that. I'm reminded of the GBA and Gamecube era, where even the GBA's brief era was sufficiently profitable to overwrite the Gamecube's pathetic existence. 

Let me put it another way.

If Nintendo decided that they will only make a handheld from now on, then Japan would be fine with that, but the rest of the world would not.

Or yet another and probably better way: If you look at tie ratios of video game systems, then in Japan they are similar between home consoles and handhelds which means that handhelds sell more software due to the higher amount of hardware they sell. But outside of Japan, tie ratios for home consoles significantly outpace the tie ratios for handhelds. Based on these buying patterns, it would be a mistake to not make a home console because it poses the risk that there are lot of consumers who would outright refuse to play games on a handheld. And of the people who game on both kinds of devices, we can quite safely conclude that they would prefer to play on a home console if presented with the choice.

For your information, the total amount of software sold worldwide is similar between the Wii and the DS, despite the latter selling approximately 50% more hardware.

If Nintendo is serious about pleasing as many consumers as possible, then they have to continu

 

The part about the Wii-DS tie ratios admittedly does shed some helpful light on the subject. I wonder though if that's an aberration: so much (about both systems) was.


NES

Hardware-61.91, software-500.01

SNES

Hardware-49.10, software-379.06

N64

Hardware-32.93, software-224.97

GC

Hardware-21.74, software-208.57

Wii

Hardware-101.52, software-906.95

GB

Hardware-118.69, software-501.11

GBA

Hardware-81.51, software-377.42

DS

Hardware-154.01, software-946.47

Console total

Hardware-267.20, software-2,219.65

Handheld total

Hardware-354.21, software-1,825.00



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

Around the Network
DélioPT on 23 May 2015

As it has been pointed out Fusion is the only real path for Nintendo.

The reason you aren't seeing 3DS games on Wii U it's because porting is really hard, as Nintendo already admitted. Otherwise you'd see, probably, several 3DS games on Wii U - thus sharing a library even if on a small level.
Fusion strategy noticable today because it just isn't feasible to port from 3DS to Wii U.

But, when both HH and HC have that share architecture, you can bet that a shared library will be the main focus in Nintendo's strategy.

Financially, it's almost impossible for Nintendo to have Nintendo-like-profits without this strategy: one game released on 2 platforms equals less financial resources for said game, one marketing budget and more people to sell it to.
If software sales really are the bulk of Nintendo's profits then it's very important to reach out to as many gamers as possible, whilst spending the least possible.

From a games perspective, it's not just Pokémon that will make it's way to home consoles, it's all those great japanese games that don't get released in the west.
A wider audience should help Nintendo fight Sony for the best console for japanese games.



DanneSandin on 24 May 2015
RolStoppable said:
DanneSandin said:

This could also simply mean that they'll make it a lot easier to port between the two consoles; you mention Smash Bros 3DS/Wii U, and that's almost two different games. I'm not even sure they're running on the same engine. Maybe they're aiming at using the same engine for both devices to shorten development time, but that doesn't mean you'll have the same game on both systems, or that you'll be able to actually continue your play session on either devices.

I hope you're right, I'd love for this concept to be true! But the question is, which scenario would Nintendo make the most money from? Make one game to switch between two devices, release one game on two different devices with no save transfer without double dipping (essentially porting the games between the devices), or have the same engine working on both consoles but developing different games for each device.

All three scenarios have their pros and cons, but which one makes Nintendo the most money?

Indeed, Super Smash Bros. 4 doesn't run on the same engine on both devices. But the two versions certainly share a lot of similarities; they aren't as distinct from one another as Mario Kart 7 and Mario Kart 8. In the next generation the gap in processing power between the home console and handheld will be smaller than between the Wii U and 3DS, and Nintendo is certainly aiming for a development environment where the same engine can be used for both devices, so Super Smash Bros. 4 in a more refined form is what we should expect. Like I said in the OP of this thread, I don't expect the games to be exactly the same on both systems, so assets, features and options will be accessed depending on which hardware you play on; an obvious example is that a game like Mario Kart wouldn't feature splitscreen multiplayer on both the home console and the handheld. However, when it comes to singleplayer content, it can be expected that you'll be able to continue your play session on the other device.

The first of your three scenarios is the one that will make the most money in the long run. It raises the chances for a steady flow of high quality releases significantly (scenario 3 fails here) which in turn makes the hardware more attractive to purchase; the more hardware Nintendo can sell, the more software will be sold. Nickling and diming potential double dippers (that's scenario 2) would make some extra money, but I don't think that the small pool of people who actually double dips on games is valuable enough to risk a negative impact on Nintendo's image; beyond that, if it's possible to purchase once and play on two devices, that's an incentive to entice non-double dippers to buy more software as the perceived value of games will be higher than otherwise.

I agree with both you and Wyrdness; this would be the smarter option to go for, for Nintendo. But will they? Just think about how many people how have bought BOTH ersions of SMash, Mario Kart or whatever else. That's a pretty big revenue Nintendo would loose; the double dippers. Is your argument that this would be made up for with more games being produced and thus sold? I think Nintendo would rather sell Mario Kart two times (one time for each system) and sell about 15m of that game, instead of selling 10m MK games and make a Kirby game that sells 2m.... That's the biggest concern I have with the Fusion concept. I'd love to just have ONE Mario Kart per gen, ONE Smash bros, ONE NSMB etc for BOTH consoles, but would Nintendo be happy with not selling as many games from their biggest franchises? Would the quantity of new/other games being made make up for those lost sales?



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

DanneSandin on 24 May 2015
Wyrdness said:
DanneSandin said:

Yes, I'm aware of the Fusion rumours, but except from that I don't think there's clear, strong indications that Nintendo's gonna make both devices play the same games; rather, it might be a lot more easier to port between the two devices.


The are strong advantages for Nintendo if it is executed well, more then just porting:

- One userbase to focus on with out having to balance focus on two platforms.

- Costs of manufacturing this one platform would be overall reduced from developing two platforms, the platform itself may cost a lot more to produce then any other individual platform Nintendo has made but the would not be any second platform costs.

- It would solve a major issue for Nintendo and that is the divide in taste between Japan and other regions, Rol touched on this before on how portables in Japan are dominating while consoles have declined while in the west it's vice versa, for a company like Nintendo who have to focus on both portables and consoles this is a problematic situation. A fusion platform helps in that all consumers whether handheld or console would be on the one platform.

- Migration of consumers from handheld to console and vice versa would be much easier, people would still get what they normally go for when they buy the platform only this time they'd have access to a console/handheld library as well.

- With Nintendo expanding and adding non gaming specific hardware like QOL it would make sense to reduce confusion by having a fusion platform handle all their gaming.

- A fusion platform would also have one indirect effect, they'd have to push it with everything as it would be their sole pillar for gaming, unlike the Wii U where they dilly dallied with no market for the first 2 years they'd would be forced to take things more seriously like they did when the 3DS had issues.

I doubt a fusion platform will show up next gen but I also have the feeling that the gen after that when the software platform and all is sort out that a fusion like platform could be a reality.

I agree tht this would be the smartesed way to go, but please have a look at my answer to Rol about my concerns. If I ran Nintendo I'd go with Rol's idea of sharing games, definetely



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

Wyrdness on 24 May 2015
DanneSandin said:

I agree tht this would be the smartesed way to go, but please have a look at my answer to Rol about my concerns. If I ran Nintendo I'd go with Rol's idea of sharing games, definetely


It's not a case of it just being the smarter option it's pretty much becoming the only option at this point, Rol highlight some key reasons why as did Soundwave earlier. Under the current approach Nintendo dominate in the handheld market but endure a rollercoaster ride in the console side of the fence and to top it off the handheld side is starting to require as much focus and resources as the console side of things.

In the bigger picture the advantages solve many issues hitting Nintendo and the whole unified vision they're going for hints that they recognize the problems ahead if the current approach continues. 



Around the Network
zorg1000 on 24 May 2015
DanneSandin said:

I agree with both you and Wyrdness; this would be the smarter option to go for, for Nintendo. But will they? Just think about how many people how have bought BOTH ersions of SMash, Mario Kart or whatever else. That's a pretty big revenue Nintendo would loose; the double dippers. Is your argument that this would be made up for with more games being produced and thus sold? I think Nintendo would rather sell Mario Kart two times (one time for each system) and sell about 15m of that game, instead of selling 10m MK games and make a Kirby game that sells 2m.... That's the biggest concern I have with the Fusion concept. I'd love to just have ONE Mario Kart per gen, ONE Smash bros, ONE NSMB etc for BOTH consoles, but would Nintendo be happy with not selling as many games from their biggest franchises? Would the quantity of new/other games being made make up for those lost sales?

Well let's take a look at some potential numbers

 

Mario Kart 7 potential numbers (currently 11.7 million)

13 million x $40=$540 million

 

Mario Kart 8 potential numbers (currently 5.11 million)

7 million x $60=$420 million

 

Total

20 million, $960 million, with DLC about $1 billion

 

Mario Kart 9 potential numbers (let's assume right between MK7 & MK7+8)

16.5 million x $50=$825 million, with DLC about $1 billion

 

To me this seems like a relatively realistic scenario, it's possible for Nintendo to make a similar amount of revenue with one title instead of two and u also have to consider that they are still free to make another game.



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

Soundwave on 24 May 2015

Just for the record I've been saying this for like a year now (Fusion platform, shared games, cartridge based + eShop, multiple hardware configs), so has zorg1000.

It's just the more I examine the situation the more it becomes obvious that Nintendo really doesn't even have an alternative at this point.

Mind you I don't think this solves all (or even the core) problems Nintendo has, but they just don't have an alternative. They can't support a distinct console and a handheld anymore, not when handheld has become far more resource consuming than it was in the past. 



DanneSandin on 25 May 2015
RolStoppable said:
DanneSandin said:

I agree with both you and Wyrdness; this would be the smarter option to go for, for Nintendo. But will they? Just think about how many people how have bought BOTH ersions of SMash, Mario Kart or whatever else. That's a pretty big revenue Nintendo would loose; the double dippers. Is your argument that this would be made up for with more games being produced and thus sold? I think Nintendo would rather sell Mario Kart two times (one time for each system) and sell about 15m of that game, instead of selling 10m MK games and make a Kirby game that sells 2m.... That's the biggest concern I have with the Fusion concept. I'd love to just have ONE Mario Kart per gen, ONE Smash bros, ONE NSMB etc for BOTH consoles, but would Nintendo be happy with not selling as many games from their biggest franchises? Would the quantity of new/other games being made make up for those lost sales?

I don't think the amount of people who buy both versions is high enough to be significant in the big picture. Your example of Mario Kart and Kirby is also a bit disingenious, because the development team that would be freed up by only making one Mario Kart wouldn't go on to make a Kirby game. I don't think Nintendo is happy with the current state of things where they have to make two separate games of the same IP because consumers expect to see certain IPs on every Nintendo system. Even if they wanted to make new IPs, their hands would be tied for the most part because there are several IPs that have to arrive early in a system's lifecycle in order to grow the installed base. And these games have to be made by the various EAD departments to guarantee a high enough level of quality, so a new IP like Splatoon is something that can only be done once or twice per generation. By the time Nintendo was done with making the important IPs for the 3DS, they had to immediately make the same ones for the Wii U; that's about four years of development which comes close to the average length of a generation, so not much time left to do something else.

The way Iwata has talked since his acceptance of the Wii U failure (early 2014) makes it quite clear that Nintendo will try to grow significantly in the next generation. They won't be able to grow if they can't make new IPs, so exploiting double dippers won't be of any importance because that would be the kind of thinking that drives companies further into a corner.

Really? You don't? I'll bet ya that 9 out of 10 people who own Mario Kart 8 also have Mario Kart 7, and that would mean 4m less sold games. Even if the numbers were 5 out of 10 that would still mean 2m less sold copies of the combined sales of 8 and 7. Although, zorg did show some interesting numbers indicating that the series wouldn't suffer all that much in forms of losses. Have a look at those numbers. But that made me think of something else; how would Nintendo go about and price these games? $40? $60? If you ONLY bought the handheld console, would you be willing to pay $60 for Mario Kart 9? Or would all games recieve different prices? I can understand NSMB being priced at $40 or $50, but the next Zelda would have to be $60, right?

So you're saying that this would free Nintendo up to make new IP's? I like that idea :D But if they ported the games from one platform to the other instead of making them compatable, that wouldn't cost them all that much time, effort or money since the consoles would share the same architecture. What would stop them from just porting games between the consoles? That way you can have exclusive games for ech system and get some double dipping.



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

DanneSandin on 25 May 2015
zorg1000 said:
DanneSandin said:

I agree with both you and Wyrdness; this would be the smarter option to go for, for Nintendo. But will they? Just think about how many people how have bought BOTH ersions of SMash, Mario Kart or whatever else. That's a pretty big revenue Nintendo would loose; the double dippers. Is your argument that this would be made up for with more games being produced and thus sold? I think Nintendo would rather sell Mario Kart two times (one time for each system) and sell about 15m of that game, instead of selling 10m MK games and make a Kirby game that sells 2m.... That's the biggest concern I have with the Fusion concept. I'd love to just have ONE Mario Kart per gen, ONE Smash bros, ONE NSMB etc for BOTH consoles, but would Nintendo be happy with not selling as many games from their biggest franchises? Would the quantity of new/other games being made make up for those lost sales?

Well let's take a look at some potential numbers

 

Mario Kart 7 potential numbers (currently 11.7 million)

13 million x $40=$540 million

 

Mario Kart 8 potential numbers (currently 5.11 million)

7 million x $60=$420 million

 

Total

20 million, $960 million, with DLC about $1 billion

 

Mario Kart 9 potential numbers (let's assume right between MK7 & MK7+8)

16.5 million x $50=$825 million, with DLC about $1 billion

 

To me this seems like a relatively realistic scenario, it's possible for Nintendo to make a similar amount of revenue with one title instead of two and u also have to consider that they are still free to make another game.

Very interesting! This made me think; how WOULD Nintendo price their games if they went this route? You usually pay $40 for a handheld game, but you pay $60 for a game on the home console. Would Nintendo price each game individually? Or would they all be set at $50? If you ONLY owned the HH would you buy a game for $60?

If Nintendo ported games instead of making them playable on both platforms they could price the HC game at $60 while the HH port would still be at $40.



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

DanneSandin on 25 May 2015
Wyrdness said:
DanneSandin said:

I agree tht this would be the smartesed way to go, but please have a look at my answer to Rol about my concerns. If I ran Nintendo I'd go with Rol's idea of sharing games, definetely


It's not a case of it just being the smarter option it's pretty much becoming the only option at this point, Rol highlight some key reasons why as did Soundwave earlier. Under the current approach Nintendo dominate in the handheld market but endure a rollercoaster ride in the console side of the fence and to top it off the handheld side is starting to require as much focus and resources as the console side of things.

In the bigger picture the advantages solve many issues hitting Nintendo and the whole unified vision they're going for hints that they recognize the problems ahead if the current approach continues. 

But why couldn't they simply port games between the two consoles? Would be cheap and fast, plus you could price the ports at different price points. Mario Kart 9 could be $60 on the HC with a few additions while the HH counter part would be $40. And that way you could have exclusive games for each console, making sure more people bought both consoles.



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.