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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - I've changed my stance. Nintendo needs to go 3rd party

bdbdbd on 18 January 2017
fordy said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:

Can you quote me some empirical evidence that supports your argument? I'd be more than happy to entertain it. Show me with numbers how selling games on PC, PS4, and XOne (and paying royalties) would offset selling hardware, accessories and controllers (typically the items with the largest markup), and games just on Nintendo hardware, plus all the royalties, plus fees for online subscriptions, plus virtual console sales.

And then show me how selling as a third party would help the quality and diversity of Nintendo's software output, when we have clear examples in Sega and Atari of the opposite happening. And then tell me how any of this benefits a company fiercely dedicated to setting its own rules and going its own way.

Nintendo are pretty secret on their numbers between discernable hardware and software, but think about this, hardware is usually gauged by how many units of software would be needed in order to break even. What would you say is a reasonable amount of software sales profit to match a console sales profit. Controller? etc.

Selling as a third party doesn't have to have any impact on software quality, it merely opens up the potential sales. I already mentioned that Sega were in dire straits when they went 3rd party. The company was near bankrupt, and talent had either left or were leaving. In Atari's case, the talent was long gone way before they went 3rd party.

Nintendo have a healthy amount in the bank now, and as you can see, they are measuring their options. Pokemon Go and Mario Run didn't just happen under coincidence. If they wait until they are bankrupt, they will fall into a similar fate as Sega did.

Because you don't see them, is a proof they're following you while hiding. 

It doesn't really work the way that you cherry pick statictics that seemingly support your argument, while making excuses for statistics that do not.

The number of software sales needed depends on the profit margins on both, tha software and hardware. In order to answer your question, we would need a breakdown on the software and hardware costs and price it's sold.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

Around the Network
Hapuc12 on 18 January 2017
potato_hamster said:
Hapuc12 said:

Well if they went third party they would need to fire a lot of people to cover the costs and they would need to shut down few sectors and amibos came to my mind.

And if they went third party they would have to go all our or they will keep all there games on that handheld to support it so they still would be first party.

And i don't want them to go third party because i don't like Sony monopilzing the market even if i'm a Sony fanboy.

you know... they could lay off a large chunk of their hardware development division if they decided they weren't going to make hardware any more. There's no reason why their software development or accessory development divisions would be affected, as they would still be making games, and accesories.

Now if you want to call a case that does little to no processing itself, where its more or less a controller that may or may not be able to read data from a cartridge a "handheld" well be my guest, but it doesn't take much in my books. The case would still be able to be used as a controller for smartphone apps.

But you said they need to make a 3ds succesor as far as i understood it wouldn't they need to keep the hardware sector up.



fordy on 18 January 2017
Hapuc12 said:
fordy said:

Everything that you have mentioned has already been debunked in this thread. truth be told, it's people cheering for Nintendo to stay the course that is doing Nintendo the most damage.

No it wasn't that's just the way it is ,just because Nintendo has 5bil in bank they could transition easier you can't be serious even for a second and you say you are a old gamer yet you can't understand simple competition heh.

You should know who had the monopoly in 90s and then got destroyed mid to end and created a boom in gaming then we know what happened with ps2 best selling console of all time what happened with PS3 we all know that,Wii such a cool machine and sold 105 mill then what happened with Wii U.

But you know it's stupid for Nintendo to try to take a different approach then Sony and Microsoft it's so so stupid.

It cetainly is, if they both hold 85% of the console market. That locks Nintendo away from a LOT of potential customers.

I'm very confident in saying that the Switch is no Wii. Nintendo won't find their blue ocean with this device.



potato_hamster on 18 January 2017
Hapuc12 said:
potato_hamster said:

you know... they could lay off a large chunk of their hardware development division if they decided they weren't going to make hardware any more. There's no reason why their software development or accessory development divisions would be affected, as they would still be making games, and accesories.

Now if you want to call a case that does little to no processing itself, where its more or less a controller that may or may not be able to read data from a cartridge a "handheld" well be my guest, but it doesn't take much in my books. The case would still be able to be used as a controller for smartphone apps.

But you said they need to make a 3ds succesor as far as i understood it wouldn't they need to keep the hardware sector up.


I more of meant it as a transition away from making their hardware to becoming third party that was more or less a middle ground - a way to offer a uniquely Nintendo experience on hardware that isn't Nintendo's by using a capable Nintendo accessory.



fordy on 18 January 2017
bdbdbd said:
fordy said:

Nintendo are pretty secret on their numbers between discernable hardware and software, but think about this, hardware is usually gauged by how many units of software would be needed in order to break even. What would you say is a reasonable amount of software sales profit to match a console sales profit. Controller? etc.

Selling as a third party doesn't have to have any impact on software quality, it merely opens up the potential sales. I already mentioned that Sega were in dire straits when they went 3rd party. The company was near bankrupt, and talent had either left or were leaving. In Atari's case, the talent was long gone way before they went 3rd party.

Nintendo have a healthy amount in the bank now, and as you can see, they are measuring their options. Pokemon Go and Mario Run didn't just happen under coincidence. If they wait until they are bankrupt, they will fall into a similar fate as Sega did.

Because you don't see them, is a proof they're following you while hiding. 

It doesn't really work the way that you cherry pick statictics that seemingly support your argument, while making excuses for statistics that do not.

The number of software sales needed depends on the profit margins on both, tha software and hardware. In order to answer your question, we would need a breakdown on the software and hardware costs and price it's sold.

Okay, I'm going to make this very simple for you...What would the average return rate be (in number of games) to match the profit of a console? Think very hard now, because anybody who thinks that the majority of cash from a console with several games is on the console, are just playing with themselves. Even at a profit, Nintendo keeps their hardware prices minimal. It's why the WiiU never got a price cut; there wasn't any more to cut. 



Around the Network
Hapuc12 on 18 January 2017
fordy said:
Hapuc12 said:

No it wasn't that's just the way it is ,just because Nintendo has 5bil in bank they could transition easier you can't be serious even for a second and you say you are a old gamer yet you can't understand simple competition heh.

You should know who had the monopoly in 90s and then got destroyed mid to end and created a boom in gaming then we know what happened with ps2 best selling console of all time what happened with PS3 we all know that,Wii such a cool machine and sold 105 mill then what happened with Wii U.

But you know it's stupid for Nintendo to try to take a different approach then Sony and Microsoft it's so so stupid.

It cetainly is, if they both hold 85% of the console market. That locks Nintendo away from a LOT of potential customers.

I'm very confident in saying that the Switch is no Wii. Nintendo won't find their blue ocean with this device.

Well Switch is a wet dream to Japan And people who are traveling and a lot people.

If they sell 30-40 mil they have succeded they don't need to sell anymore because they are making money from every sale.



Renna Hazel on 18 January 2017
fordy said:
Renna Hazel said:
And before I go for the night, I just wanna say that Nintendo offers a nicer user experience in my opinion than Microsoft does. I really can't stand the updates and installs and UI lag on Xbox One. I don't think Nintendo should drop out to jump ship to that platform. Sometimes, specs in reality are different than on paper. For example, my 32 gigs of space on Wii U went much further than my 500 gigs on Xbox One, which can be used up with forced installs and 40+ gig game updates.

Nintendo certainly offers a different experience there. It's a give or take deal, but having the options is best.

My main worry about the 32GB is that, given my library, I used up a bit over half of that. It wouldn't be hard to assume that even the average enthusiast on the Switch might end up using up all that space. As games get bigger in size, so too do the fixes.

I agree with the Xbox one updates. If it weren't for my FTTN connection I got the day after I bought the console, I'd be swearing so much at it.

If you're going digital, 32gigs obviously wont be enough (Zelda alone will take up half of your usable space) which is why the option for expandable memory is nice (something PS4 struggles with). I buy games physical, so my 32 gigs on Switch will go a lot further than my 500 gigs on the other two machines. I prefer the way Nintendo has approached this, with options to expand if necessary. 

As for the joycons not being standard, do you think the system shouldn't come with a controller? I mean, the joycon covers all types of controller options. The type you want and the type I want. If Nintendo removed them, they'd have to bundle a controller and the system would likely be the same price. 

Now I'll admit the price of the controllers themselves is offputting, which is why I'm glad the pack in provides an option for 2 controllers or one full controller. 



Hapuc12 on 18 January 2017
potato_hamster said:
Hapuc12 said:

But you said they need to make a 3ds succesor as far as i understood it wouldn't they need to keep the hardware sector up.


I more of meant it as a transition away from making their hardware to becoming third party that was more or less a middle ground - a way to offer a uniquely Nintendo experience on hardware that isn't Nintendo's by using a capable Nintendo accessory.

Well they are coming out now with a new console who already is sold but we will see.



Renna Hazel on 18 January 2017
mountaindewslave said:
Renna Hazel said:

Well like I said, I like that Nintendo offers something different. I have a PS4 and Xbox One, so the Switch getting third party ports does nothing for me. 

To answer your question, the majority of developers do not use motion controls on either of those platforms. They did on the Wii, and I think the form factor on the Switch is more welcoming to motion controls. I don't really like using the gamepad as a motion controller, not nearly as nature as using the Wiimote was. Joycons are the evolution of the Wiimote. 

I was watching some footage of "Arms" earlier today and the Joycons do look like they work killer for that game. I am not usually a huge fan of motion controls, but the idea that its totally optional (something that wasn't the case for many Wii games) and simply conveniently the control pieces regularly connected to the normal main controller make it more convenient and handy to try. With a Wii Mote it was like "herre you go, you have to use this". with the Joycons they look intuitive in the hands and and are just detachable pieces that look to function well as just part of the normal assembled controller AND potentially on their own for optional types of games

gives gamers choices

I agree, I'm not a fan of the original Wiimote for two reasons. It didn't have enough buttons and the motion controls were not accurate (waggling the control was just a cumbersome way of pressing a button). In turn, I was turned off by things like Wii Sports and the sword controls for Twilight Princess. However I do think Motion + did a much better job. Wii Sports Resort and the sword controls in Skyward Sword were a huge improvement. Lack of buttons was still an issue, and odd commands were mapped to motion controls as a result, but I thought Nintendo was on the right path with the tech, then they dropped it for the gamepad :(

I really liked IR aiming on all of the Wiimote and I feel it's far superior to using an analog stick. My hope is that with the joycons (which now have a full set of buttons) I'll be able to use them Wii style (split joycons) and be able to use the gyro controls on the right joycon to mimick IR aiming. If I can have Zelda and Splatoon with normal controller inputs plus IR aiming, that would be fantastic. If not, I'll probably just opt for a pro controller and wonder why Nintendo didn't do something so obvious. 



fordy on 18 January 2017
Hapuc12 said:
fordy said:

It cetainly is, if they both hold 85% of the console market. That locks Nintendo away from a LOT of potential customers.

I'm very confident in saying that the Switch is no Wii. Nintendo won't find their blue ocean with this device.

Well Switch is a wet dream to Japan And people who are traveling and a lot people.

If they sell 30-40 mil they have succeded they don't need to sell anymore because they are making money from every sale.

Japan's userbase for portables has been shrinking for some time now. Unless there's a resurgence in portables (which probably wouldn't happen until smartphone companies got serious with courting 3rd parties), I don't see it happening.

40M is the absolute minimum to be considered any kind of success. Anything lower is a failure. Why? Because Nintendo would have destoryed one mediocre market and one good market to make one madiocre market total.