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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nikkei: Nintendo ceasing Wii U production at the end of the year

ps4tw on 26 March 2016
RolStoppable said:
ps4tw said:

Apart from Nintendo had a string of financial loses while selling the Wii U. And 10 million almost certainly did not generate a net profit for Nintendo. 

There isn't a need to race to the next thing, but while their only console on the market is the Wii U, they are losing the market share to the competition. I guarentee that if they don't focus on VR, they are doomed. 

Right, VR. That sounds like a good plan.

Considering that VR has had billions invested into it while also having constant postitive feedback, there is no reason to think it is just a passing trend as every single possible bit of market analysis suggests otherwise...

SpokenTruth said:
ps4tw said:

Apart from Nintendo had a string of financial loses while selling the Wii U. And 10 million almost certainly did not generate a net profit for Nintendo. 

There isn't a need to race to the next thing, but while their only console on the market is the Wii U, they are losing the market share to the competition. I guarentee that if they don't focus on VR, they are doomed. 

They lost money before the Wii U too.  The majority of their fiscal impact is at the whim of the exchange rates since they trade on the US Dollar.  That said, they've had 3 straight quarters with profits with the most recent being quite nice.

Q1 2015 (ends 06/30/15) - $80 million net profit.
Q2 2015 (ends 09/30/15) - $27 million net profit.
Q3 2015 (ends 12/31/16 - $260 million net profit.

As for market share, if they jump to the NX, they start with 0 market share.

 

While Japan is very susceptible to currency changes, the Wii U's business model was not built on selling only 12.5 million units, as shown by the constant sales forecast revisions - in the 2014 FY they expected to ship 9 million units, which was revised down to 2.8m, and the amount of games from 38m to 19m. And lets not forget that in Jan 2013 sales were much lower than they had anticipated, showing that year on year, the Wii U drastically underperformed. Also, the entire of FY 2015 is only $150 mill: http://uk.ign.com/articles/2016/02/26/weak-3ds-sales-mean-even-lower-nintendo-profit-projections

There is no way in hell that having a product underperform by such a large margin will have covered it's expenses. 

Your thinking about the NX is also flawed/demonstrates a lack of market knowledge - 0% market share is only a problem if you are going into a saturated market with a product similar to existing ones, or have yet to find a market for a product. Both the Wii U and PS4 started with 0% market share; look at how it's turned out for both of them...



Around the Network
ps4tw on 26 March 2016
curl-6 said:

PS3 may have accrued a sizable userbase when all was said and done, but it lost Sony billions of dollars and still couldn't catch up to the Wii.
It's the lowest selling Playstation console, and the only one to lose its generation.

There's a reason Sony made PS4 nothing like PS3.

You make a lot of false assumptions. Firstly, while Sony was selling the PS3 initially at a loss, after the second interation that stopped. Secondly, it allowed Sony to determine the next-gen format, bluray, which their competition now has to use. Thirdly, Sony actually won the marketing segement - the Wii was not in the same market as the 360 or PS3 due to the utterly different audiences they catered for. No one compares Audi sales to Hyundai sales, and the same can be said for the Wii and PS/360 sales - the game lineup and marketing campaigns show that they were not selling to the same audience and therefore comparing their sales makes absolutely no sense at all. 



ps4tw on 26 March 2016
SpokenTruth said:
ps4tw said:

While Japan is very susceptible to currency changes, the Wii U's business model was not built on selling only 12.5 million units, as shown by the constant sales forecast revisions - in the 2014 FY they expected to ship 9 million units, which was revised down to 2.8m, and the amount of games from 38m to 19m. And lets not forget that in Jan 2013 sales were much lower than they had anticipated, showing that year on year, the Wii U drastically underperformed. Also, the entire of FY 2015 is only $150 mill: http://uk.ign.com/articles/2016/02/26/weak-3ds-sales-mean-even-lower-nintendo-profit-projections

There is no way in hell that having a product underperform by such a large margin will have covered it's expenses. 

Your thinking about the NX is also flawed/demonstrates a lack of market knowledge - 0% market share is only a problem if you are going into a saturated market with a product similar to existing ones, or have yet to find a market for a product. Both the Wii U and PS4 started with 0% market share; look at how it's turned out for both of them...

Are you serious?

What on earth is the point of vacuous rhetorcial questions on a forum? Please, tell me how I'm wrong and how currently accepted business logic is flawed according to you....



Soundwave on 26 March 2016
SpokenTruth said:
Soundwave said:

They have to move to NX at some point, the sooner they release, the sooner it can build a large (hopefully for Nintendo anyway) userbase. 

Beyond there are a lot of potential profits from new hardware -- accessorie sales, 3rd party licensing fees will likely spike hugely over the Wii U which basically earns Nintendo zero right now, potential profit from the hardware itself, etc. etc. 

Agreed they do.  But it's not wise to rush it to market if the software isn't ready to make it successful.  And if you can stay profitable in the mean time, you damn well do it that way.    And new launches also incur the most expenses.  So a new launch isn't always a major profit generator.  Revenue generator?  Yes.  Profit?  Depends on the new expenses.

ps4tw said:

While Japan is very susceptible to currency changes, the Wii U's business model was not built on selling only 12.5 million units, as shown by the constant sales forecast revisions - in the 2014 FY they expected to ship 9 million units, which was revised down to 2.8m, and the amount of games from 38m to 19m. And lets not forget that in Jan 2013 sales were much lower than they had anticipated, showing that year on year, the Wii U drastically underperformed. Also, the entire of FY 2015 is only $150 mill: http://uk.ign.com/articles/2016/02/26/weak-3ds-sales-mean-even-lower-nintendo-profit-projections

There is no way in hell that having a product underperform by such a large margin will have covered it's expenses. 

Your thinking about the NX is also flawed/demonstrates a lack of market knowledge - 0% market share is only a problem if you are going into a saturated market with a product similar to existing ones, or have yet to find a market for a product. Both the Wii U and PS4 started with 0% market share; look at how it's turned out for both of them...

Are you serious?

We have zero idea if the system is being rushed. For all we know Zelda NX is probably ready to go, Pikmin 4 might be there, and Mario NX may be deep into development. A Smash compilation/re-release should be ready early on too. All fairly plausible, I would be doubtful if they had supported the Wii U strongly down the stretch, but they clearly haven't, many of their big teams have been missing in action since 2014.  

How many freaking games do you need to launch a system? Every holiday that Nintendo decides to "sit it out" has damaging effects to Nintendo's long term brand too. 

You're a Nintendo fan so am I, we will naturally sit around for as long as Nintendo wants and be interested in whatever Nintendo does. 

But here's a cold, hard reality -- most gamers do not give a shit. Out of sight, out of mind, Sony/MS have already strengthened their grip on the core gamer market every day and Apple/Google do the same with casual players on the other end of the spectrum. The longer Nintendo allows this failed generation for them to go, the more damage is done to their brand. 

What is the game plan for a Nintendo even launch in 2017 supposed to be? Is it supposed to be a PS5 tier system? Because it will be far too late realistically to compete with the PS4/XB1, they'll have way too large of a head start. PS2 wrecked the GameCube with an 18 month head start ... a 4 year headstart for the PS4 would be ridiculous. 

While Nintendo is taking forever, setting the table, getting everything all together, Sony/MS are basically taking the market away, every day that goes by now is a day where Nintendo loses potential customers. 

Also the 3DS (remember that system that's outsold the Wii U 4:1?) is the one doing the heavy lifting for Nintendo and likely the only reason they are able to post a profit. The Wii U ain't carrying the company at all. But 3DS sales are declining at a rapid rate, they need something else to sell to maintain profitibility even in the short term, Wii U and its crappy 3 million/year shipments doesn't cut it. 



oniyide on 26 March 2016
Soundwave said:
SpokenTruth said:

Agreed they do.  But it's not wise to rush it to market if the software isn't ready to make it successful.  And if you can stay profitable in the mean time, you damn well do it that way.    And new launches also incur the most expenses.  So a new launch isn't always a major profit generator.  Revenue generator?  Yes.  Profit?  Depends on the new expenses.

Are you serious?

We have zero idea if the system is being rushed. For all we know Zelda NX is probably ready to go, Pikmin 4 might be there, and Mario NX may be deep into development. A Smash compilation/re-release should be ready early on too. All fairly plausible, I would be doubtful if they had supported the Wii U strongly down the stretch, but they clearly haven't, many of their big teams have been missing in action since 2014.  

How many freaking games do you need to launch a system? Every holiday that Nintendo decides to "sit it out" has damaging effects to Nintendo's long term brand too. 

You're a Nintendo fan so am I, we will naturally sit around for as long as Nintendo wants and be interested in whatever Nintendo does. 

But here's a cold, hard reality -- most gamers do not give a shit. Out of sight, out of mind, Sony/MS have already strengthened their grip on the core gamer market every day and Apple/Google do the same with casual players on the other end of the spectrum. The longer Nintendo allows this failed generation for them to go, the more damage is done to their brand. 

What is the game plan for a Nintendo even launch in 2017 supposed to be? Is it supposed to be a PS5 tier system? Because it will be far too late realistically to compete with the PS4/XB1, they'll have way too large of a head start. PS2 wrecked the GameCube with an 18 month head start ... a 4 year headstart for the PS4 would be ridiculous. 

While Nintendo is taking forever, setting the table, getting everything all together, Sony/MS are basically taking the market away, every day that goes by now is a day where Nintendo loses potential customers. 

Also the 3DS (remember that system that's outsold the Wii U 4:1?) is the one doing the heavy lifting for Nintendo and likely the only reason they are able to post a profit. The Wii U ain't carrying the company at all. But 3DS sales are declining at a rapid rate, they need something else to sell to maintain profitibility even in the short term, Wii U and its crappy 3 million/year shipments doesn't cut it. 

the market was taking years ago, hell probably since PS1 days. Now they have to figure out how to get some of it back.



Around the Network
ps4tw on 26 March 2016
RolStoppable said:
ps4tw said:

Considering that VR has had billions invested into it while also having constant postitive feedback, there is no reason to think it is just a passing trend as every single possible bit of market analysis suggests otherwise...

Ah yes, market analysis. If you put some thought into it, then you would have some doubts about a $400 peripheral (PS VR) having a longlasting impact. That's just a peripheral though. Applied to Nintendo and a VR-focused system like you suggested, their next console would cost around $800. You are saying that if Nintendo doesn't take that route, then they are doomed.

Think about it again.

If YOU had put some thought into it, you'd realise that VR also includes Samsung Gear VR, Occulus Rift, Vive and OSVR, not one measly headset. Again, with literally billions of dollars being pumped into VR (and AR) with continous positive feedback from veteran and casual gamers alike, as well as private industry, there is NO reason to think that there will not be a lasting impact from VR. 

Let's have a look at where the mere PS4 V peripheral is on amazon best seller lists:
USA
Germany
UK
Canada

Looks like people are happy to pay the price, eh? When people spend over $600 on their phones on a regular basis and over $100 on a customisable xbox pad, it's not much asking for more money for a peripheral that would replace a TV in the classic living room setup. 

Again, if YOU had put some thought into it, there is no reason to say Nintendo's next console would cost around $800. Want to break that figure down or is my assumption that you pulled it out of thin air correct?

So instead of being patronising, stop and think about what you are saying and how knowledgeable you are on the topic you're about to write about. 



zorg1000 on 26 March 2016
ps4tw said:
RolStoppable said:

Ah yes, market analysis. If you put some thought into it, then you would have some doubts about a $400 peripheral (PS VR) having a longlasting impact. That's just a peripheral though. Applied to Nintendo and a VR-focused system like you suggested, their next console would cost around $800. You are saying that if Nintendo doesn't take that route, then they are doomed.

Think about it again.

If YOU had put some thought into it, you'd realise that VR also includes Samsung Gear VR, Occulus Rift, Hive and OSVR, not one measly headset. Again, with literally billions of dollars being pumped into VR (and AR) with continous positive feedback from veteran and casual gamers alike, as well as private industry, there is NO reason to think that there will not be a lasting impact from VR. 

Again, if YOU had put some thought into it, there is no reason to say Nintendo's next console would cost around $800. Want to break that figure down or is my assumption that you pulled it out of thin air correct?

So instead of being patronising, stop and think about what you are saying and how knowledgeable you are on the topic you're about to write about. 

Oculus & Vive are $600-700 and require a high-end PCs. PS4+VR+Camera is about $800. Gear VR is only $100 but requires a $600+ phone and only plays mobile quality games.

What Rol said is valid, if NX is a PS4 level or above console than it will be $300-400 and if it has a VR headset on par with PSVR than thats another $400.

Care to explain how Nintendo can release a console on par with the competitors and a high-end VR headset for a mass market price?



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

curl-6 on 26 March 2016
ps4tw said:
curl-6 said:

PS3 may have accrued a sizable userbase when all was said and done, but it lost Sony billions of dollars and still couldn't catch up to the Wii.
It's the lowest selling Playstation console, and the only one to lose its generation.

There's a reason Sony made PS4 nothing like PS3.

You make a lot of false assumptions. Firstly, while Sony was selling the PS3 initially at a loss, after the second interation that stopped. Secondly, it allowed Sony to determine the next-gen format, bluray, which their competition now has to use. Thirdly, Sony actually won the marketing segement - the Wii was not in the same market as the 360 or PS3 due to the utterly different audiences they catered for. No one compares Audi sales to Hyundai sales, and the same can be said for the Wii and PS/360 sales - the game lineup and marketing campaigns show that they were not selling to the same audience and therefore comparing their sales makes absolutely no sense at all. 

The "different markets" argument is just an excuse used by those don't like that fact that Playstation lost a generation. Let me ask you this: do you consider it "different markets" when Sony wins a console race, or do you just make this one special exception to try to discount the time they lost?

And in the first 3 years of the PS3, Sony's Playstation division lost $4.7 billion. Again, there's a good reason nobody, even Sony, is trying to replicate their PS3 strategy. Nobody wants that kind of "success".

You should be thankful really; if you really do love your PS4 that much, as your username suggests, then you owe its mid-range price and accessibility to developers in part to the lessons learned from PS3's failings. 



OneKartVita on 26 March 2016
curl-6 said:

PS3 may have accrued a sizable userbase when all was said and done, but it lost Sony billions of dollars and still couldn't catch up to the Wii.
It's the lowest selling Playstation console, and the only one to lose its generation.

There's a reason Sony made PS4 nothing like PS3.

PSV and PSP are both consoles that sold less than the PS3. 

 

It may have lost billions but the worst thing to do was to not keep going with it.  After 3 years the big losses were already made.  Call it quits then and it's just shit all around.  They don't make a profit on the ps3 for the next few years and they don't win back gamers which sets them up to dominate with the ps4. 

 



curl-6 on 26 March 2016
OneKartVita said:
curl-6 said:

PS3 may have accrued a sizable userbase when all was said and done, but it lost Sony billions of dollars and still couldn't catch up to the Wii.
It's the lowest selling Playstation console, and the only one to lose its generation.

There's a reason Sony made PS4 nothing like PS3.

PSV and PSP are both consoles that sold less than the PS3. 

It may have lost billions but the worst thing to do was to not keep going with it.  After 3 years the big losses were already made.  Call it quits then and it's just shit all around.  They don't make a profit on the ps3 for the next few years and they don't win back gamers which sets them up to dominate with the ps4. 

Hence why I said Playstation "console", not "system".

And I never said they should have discontinued it. Sticking it out and suffering was their best option in the long run. But making it the way they did in the first place was a mistake that cost them dearly for years.