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
Hapuc12 said:
bdbdbd said:

Sold at retail? Taking out the tax and retail cut, you're closer to a half. That would be Nintendo's cut. 

Again they made shit ton of money and on that splatoon they make money.

And it's not the problem here with how much do they make money or this and that,problem here is that we are all acting like smartasses like we know what is happenening inside the company and acting like we know what is the best outcome for them.

Yes. You obviously got my point to fordy.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

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

It's been stated before, Nintendo make little profit on their hardware in order to promote their base. The real profit is in their software and IP. So tell me, why are you dead set against Nintendo expanding their software base at the expense of a barely profitable hardware base?

You do know that PS4/Xbox sales all come from third party just a little from Hardware

I am deadset Nintendo to not expand there base is because.

1 Competition:Everything relies on competition,no competition no industry to expand.

2 Broken/Expensive games:Without the first reason there would be no incentive to make amazing games and try new things because there would be no "first reason"

3: Jobs/Sectors that will be lost:Nintendo will have to fire of shit ton of people and close a lot of studios which would be terrible.

Nintendo has there own Software,hardware,accesories,amibos etc etc to make,and they have incentive to keep there software on there own hardware.

Uncharted 4 proved that exclusives are amazing if they are bundled right and  boom revenue 500 mil revenue to be precise.

1. Nintendo started off with no competition. By your logic between points 1 and 2, they'd have gone down with the rest of the game companies in the crash. Nintendo survived and thrived because of their business model, not because of competition.

2. See point 1. After the crash, that didn't stop Nintendo from producing quality games, despite no competition.

3. You can't argue for a bad business model because of redundancies. Do you ever expect Nintendo to be successful anymore, or slowly start to drift into debt from an abundance of redundant workers?

Correction, Nintendo have their own hardware THAT'S A SMALL PORTION OF THE MARKET. There's a NEGATIVE incentive to keep their software on it. I have explained this before.

Wrong. The fact that a game is limited to one console is not what constitutes it as being great. That's a very illogical statement right there.



potato_hamster on 18 January 2017
Hapuc12 said:
potato_hamster said:

What are you getting on with? The cost of the hardware itself is not directly related to the cost needed to develop that hardware. By your logic the PS4 Pro cost just as much R&D to develop it as it did the original PS4 because they both have the same price tag. This is of course ridiculous.

Nintendo spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing the technology in the switch, refining it, getting them mass produced etc. Then there's the cost that goes into the hardware itself, the cost that goes into developing the games, the amiibo etc. That means that for this whole Project NX, Nintendo currently sits at negative say, 350 million for the cost of the development, and manufacturing the release consoles, the games, the controllers accessories etc.

Nintendo isn't going to make that 350 million back on launch day. It's going to take them years to chip away at that cost while investing in other games, hardware revisions, firmware updates, etc that are also adding to the cost of the Switch's development and maintenance.

Like i said from software hardware is just icing on the cake.

One Mario kart 8 sold

8 mil * 59 =over 450 mil revenue

And it all depends on the software they sell.

Ohh yes, because they get all of the $59 a game retails for. The stores sell it at a 0% margin (they donate their employees labour and other overhead costs), the distrubutors warehouse and ship it at a 0% margin  (they also donate their employees labour and other overhead costs), the manufacturer of the phyical game itself does so at a 0% margin (they donate their employees labour, the materials to make the game and other overhead costs), and Nintendo themselves don't actually pay their employees to make the game, they make Mario Kart for free. Nintendo's overheard? Donated because the utility companies, the equipment manufacturers, etc all love Nintendo that much!

That $59 is going staight into Nintendo's pocket, paid for by the free labour and material of those who made that game happen, and got it out to the consumers simply out of the goodness of their hearts.



bdbdbd on 18 January 2017
fordy said:

1. Nintendo started off with no competition. By your logic between points 1 and 2, they'd have gone down with the rest of the game companies in the crash. Nintendo survived and thrived because of their business model, not because of competition.

2. See point 1. After the crash, that didn't stop Nintendo from producing quality games, despite no competition.

3. You can't argue for a bad business model because of redundancies. Do you ever expect Nintendo to be successful anymore, or slowly start to drift into debt from an abundance of redundant workers?

Correction, Nintendo have their own hardware THAT'S A SMALL PORTION OF THE MARKET. There's a NEGATIVE incentive to keep their software on it. I have explained this before.

Wrong. The fact that a game is limited to one console is not what constitutes it as being great. That's a very illogical statement right there.

1. Started WHAT without competition? And when?

2. Where there was no competition?

3. What is the bad business model you're talking about?



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

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

Nintendo's business model largely focuses on IP sales, mostly through software, but also through merchandise. Hardware is sold on a "per need" basis, therefore very little profit to be made from it. These will barely change in a 3rd party transition, the only difference will be the removal of the barely profitable hardware division to focus greater on where the profits are actually made, IP.

As I'm going to mention again, a platform with 5 times the userbase has a very fair chance of doubling the software sales. This will also in turn boost mechandise sales. Considering the majority of the profits already reside there, it would not take as much increase in software and merchandise to recoup the losses made from hardware.

Don't forget royalties fees. Nintendo does make money off of all third party games sold on their platform, and while those sales may not be great at the moment, I'm sure Nintendo would like to recapture what they had on Wii and DS (and 3DS has good third party sales).

And if we're now focusing on Nintendo making money, they are now (sadly) charging for their online service. I'm sure having 15-30 million subscribes to that service will make a nice amount of money for Nintendo. 

Royalties are for copyrights, but how much do you think Nintendo collects on that per game....on a system with very small 3rd party support? If Nintendo made, for instance, 5 times the amount of profit per Nintendo title than a 3rd party title, and given Nintendo's ability to sell their games in much larger quantities, wouldn't a much bigger user base make this fact more than irrelevant?

It would depend on how much they're willing to charge. If it's just enough to cover the costs of maintaining the network, then that's made irrelevant.



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

Actually if you include mobile and PC, the share becomes significantly lower.

Thanks for pointing that out.

your fantasy share without facts, I mean, Nintendo sold more hardware this gen than xbox cause you know, the 3ds counts, still selling, with the best selling exclusive of 2016. So thinking about that, I'm not sure if your data is correct.

A company should go third party after selling 60+ million portable devices and millions and millions of games, because fuck logic.

I'd appreciate it if you read the OP properly and not strawmanned this out of nowhere. I've already included facts about why the Switch is a terrible predecessor on BOTH fronts.

After a previous generation of over 140 million, yeah, 60 million pales in comparison. Sorry, your argument is terrible.



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

Don't forget royalties fees. Nintendo does make money off of all third party games sold on their platform, and while those sales may not be great at the moment, I'm sure Nintendo would like to recapture what they had on Wii and DS (and 3DS has good third party sales).

And if we're now focusing on Nintendo making money, they are now (sadly) charging for their online service. I'm sure having 15-30 million subscribes to that service will make a nice amount of money for Nintendo. 

Royalties are for copyrights, but how much do you think Nintendo collects on that per game....on a system with very small 3rd party support? If Nintendo made, for instance, 5 times the amount of profit per Nintendo title than a 3rd party title, and given Nintendo's ability to sell their games in much larger quantities, wouldn't a much bigger user base make this fact more than irrelevant?

It would depend on how much they're willing to charge. If it's just enough to cover the costs of maintaining the network, then that's made irrelevant.

It would, but I'm not seeing this much larger userbase. PS4, Vita and Xbox One barely have a larger userbase than Wii U and 3DS. Nintendo likely believes they can do better with Switch so it's worth giving it a try. 

It doesn't seem like we're ever really going to agree, but in the end I just feel that more hardware choices is better for me personally. If one of the console makers had to go, I'd prefer it not be the unique one of the 3. If you disagree, thats fine. 



fordy on 18 January 2017
bdbdbd said:
fordy said:

Nintendo's business model largely focuses on IP sales, mostly through software, but also through merchandise. Hardware is sold on a "per need" basis, therefore very little profit to be made from it. These will barely change in a 3rd party transition, the only difference will be the removal of the barely profitable hardware division to focus greater on where the profits are actually made, IP.

As I'm going to mention again, a platform with 5 times the userbase has a very fair chance of doubling the software sales. This will also in turn boost mechandise sales. Considering the majority of the profits already reside there, it would not take as much increase in software and merchandise to recoup the losses made from hardware.

Ok. But that's not business model.

Being successful would mean 5 times the userbase anyway.

No it wouldn't. I don't know if you cannot comprehend the mathematics of if you're just being very pessimistic about this, but in business sense, there is a very viable option for Nintendo to make this happen, and happen properly. You don't need the entire 5 times the userbase for this.



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

No, and this is why a lot of you cannot understand this. You have an "us vs them" mentality that isn't healthy, ESPECIALLY in sales and marketing. 

The fact is that other systems have 5 times the userbase. That's 5 times the amount of potential customers, ones that would happily buy one or two titles, but not an entire console just for those two.

That is simply not ture. 3DS has the highest install base at the moment. PS4 and Xbox One combined are not 5 times that....or even double that. 

The initial arguments related to the home console base, which was the main focus on Nintendo going 3rd party with.



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

That is simply not ture. 3DS has the highest install base at the moment. PS4 and Xbox One combined are not 5 times that....or even double that. 

The initial arguments related to the home console base, which was the main focus on Nintendo going 3rd party with.

Well if Wii U sales is the ceiling for Nintendo platforms going forward, I'll change my stance and agree with you. I think Switch will do far better than Wii U.