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

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

This is like my Splatoon thread, quite a lot of assumptions and points that don't really support your reasoning :/

A handheld is still a console, whether you like it or not, so it doesn't matter whether the Switch is the successor or for the Wii U, but even then, you can't just look at it as just a handheld or just a console because it's a bit of both

Pokemon on mobile for $40-50 won't do well as a on a console or even the 3DS and the Switch won't get a price drop because it hasn't even launched yet :/



NintenDomination [May 2015 - July 2017]
 

  - Official  VGChartz Tutorial Thread - 

NintenDomination [2015/05/19 - 2017/07/02]
 

          

 

 

Here lies the hidden threads. 

 | |

Nintendo Metascore | Official NintenDomination | VGC Tutorial Thread

| Best and Worst of Miiverse | Manga Discussion Thead |
[3DS] Winter Playtimes [Wii U]

Around the Network
fordy said:
onionberry said:

yours doesn't make any sense to be honest, some companies have best selling products and then they sell less, if that was the case then a lot of corporations and companies would be dead. If they're making a profit doesn't matter how much they sell. And your prediction and opinion about the switch are just that, not "facts" overall a terrible thread with bad arguments of why a very healthy company with no debts and owner of the majority of it shares should give up their core business model to please your uneducated point of view.

Fact: The Switch costs more than the 3DS' original price. You know...the one that Nintendo had to cut in panic and incur a loss in order to boost sales? How do you think that the Switch will get around that? 

Fact: There has been less reception from 3rd parties with the Switch than the WiiU. With 30 games released on the WiiU at launch, ony 5 Switch games are planned at launch. Lisensees have dropped too, if you look at the slide showing the 3rd party supporters for the WiiU at announcement vs 3rd party supporters for the Switch at announcement.

This is Nintendo's answer to two previous markets they've been in, and so far the results have been worse than their worst market. What's your argument to this? 

Actually, the number of shareholders that support 3rd party are growing ranks in Nintendo, and they wouldn't be requesting this out of nowhere, if everything was fine and dandy. At least one of Nintendo's markets has been propped up by the other for the majority of the past 15 years. Now that those markets have merged, what's going to happen if it fails? This isn't a smart move at all....it's in fact put Nintendo in a much more volatile position, cannibalising a market that they already had control of for the sake of leverage.

Sorry but there are no results so far. Switch has not been released yet. The only sales indicators we have right now are that the console has sold out in terms of pre-orders, which is hardly a negative sign. 

You're also making an awful lot of assumptions by saying lisensees have 'dropped' the platform. You...simply don't know that. 



fordy said:
Hapuc12 said:

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.

 Yes without competition.

And in monopoly Nintendo dictated how the games were made when to release them how much cut they can take,too much power for a company that no one should have which you seem to can't comprehend.

Crash i didn't say anything about the crash,Nintendo had the monopoly since 84 to about 95 when the PS1 was introduced did you see how much games were produced,PS1 got 4-5 games monthly while Nintendo got like 1-2 in 3-4 months.

Bad bussiness is when you have the monopoly like i said.

They make there own hardware and they make there own software for there hardware to support it.

It's not my problem it's not Nintendos Problem it's not Anyones problem,because you are from the looks of things Socialist and you would like everyone to play on anything which would kill the whole business and would render the industry reduntend.

What would motivate Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft to make games when all the games can be played on anything.

I like exclusivity because I know that the console or anything i bought is being supported by the Company and it gives the incentive for other costumers to buy that console.



Platina said:
This is like my Splatoon thread, quite a lot of assumptions and points that don't really support your reasoning :/

A handheld is still a console, whether you like it or not, so it doesn't matter whether the Switch is the successor or for the Wii U, but even then, you can't just look at it as just a handheld or just a console because it's a bit of both

Pokemon on mobile for $40-50 won't do well as a on a console or even the 3DS and the Switch won't get a price drop because it hasn't even launched yet :/

How about some points to support your reasoning?

I already mentioned that Pokemon Go demonstrated the potential market for a proper Pokemon game on mobile. Tell me why Pokemon on mobile won't attract those who would only buy a dedicated handheld just for Pokemon.



Again, I'll wait for E3 to make up my mind about this. As long as people buy Nintendo hardware and software, they'll remain developing hardware. Especially considering the Switch won't be sold at a loss. At least they'll be making money off of it. People like to say Nintendo is manufacturing a Dreamcast but what people don't know is Dreamcast was hemorrhaging money from Sega. And Sega wasn't worth 18 billion. The Wii U was a dreamcast situation however 3DS picked up where Wii U slacked.



Around the Network
Hapuc12 said:
potato_hamster said:

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.

i Said revenue was 452 milion i didn't say anything about Tax and Cuts for retailers in my sentences,read what i write don't interpret it like something else but what it is.

i said over 450 was revenue not for Nintendo but grand scheme of things Nintendo got like 250 to 300 mil of that.

Did they? So every copy was sold at $59? How much does Nintendo actually get per copy sold, and how does that quantity change over the age of the game (because it often does).  How much did they lose per copy as a pack in game vs a retail game, and what quantity of pack-in games did they sell? How much did Nintendo spend to make that game? How much did they spend marketing the game? How much does Nintendo spend to support the game via software updates, and server costs every month? How much profit did MK8 actually generate? The results might surprise you.

See it doesn't matter what revenue a game makes, it matters what kind of profit a game makes. Those are two totally different things. I guarantee you the actual profit that Mario Kart 8 generated Nintendo is a small fraction of the 250 million you think they receievd from it.




Renna Hazel said:
fordy said:

Fact: The Switch costs more than the 3DS' original price. You know...the one that Nintendo had to cut in panic and incur a loss in order to boost sales? How do you think that the Switch will get around that? 

Fact: There has been less reception from 3rd parties with the Switch than the WiiU. With 30 games released on the WiiU at launch, ony 5 Switch games are planned at launch. Lisensees have dropped too, if you look at the slide showing the 3rd party supporters for the WiiU at announcement vs 3rd party supporters for the Switch at announcement.

This is Nintendo's answer to two previous markets they've been in, and so far the results have been worse than their worst market. What's your argument to this? 

Actually, the number of shareholders that support 3rd party are growing ranks in Nintendo, and they wouldn't be requesting this out of nowhere, if everything was fine and dandy. At least one of Nintendo's markets has been propped up by the other for the majority of the past 15 years. Now that those markets have merged, what's going to happen if it fails? This isn't a smart move at all....it's in fact put Nintendo in a much more volatile position, cannibalising a market that they already had control of for the sake of leverage.

Sorry but there are no results so far. Switch has not been released yet. The only sales indicators we have right now are that the console has sold out in terms of pre-orders, which is hardly a negative sign. 

You're also making an awful lot of assumptions by saying lisensees have 'dropped' the platform. You...simply don't know that. 

I go by the data currently available. As I mentioned in another reply, 30 games on WiiU vs 5 for Switch on release, reduced supprted 3rd party list compared to the WiiU.

A few factors could save a potential disaster: first, they need to get the price under the original 3DS price, or encounter the same consumer backash. Any kind of falter with consumers will spook 3rd parties.

I would hope at the very least that pre orders have sold out. It would need a few months to see if sales are maintained, or if they plummet.



Renna Hazel said:
fordy said:

Fact: The Switch costs more than the 3DS' original price. You know...the one that Nintendo had to cut in panic and incur a loss in order to boost sales? How do you think that the Switch will get around that? 

Fact: There has been less reception from 3rd parties with the Switch than the WiiU. With 30 games released on the WiiU at launch, ony 5 Switch games are planned at launch. Lisensees have dropped too, if you look at the slide showing the 3rd party supporters for the WiiU at announcement vs 3rd party supporters for the Switch at announcement.

This is Nintendo's answer to two previous markets they've been in, and so far the results have been worse than their worst market. What's your argument to this? 

Actually, the number of shareholders that support 3rd party are growing ranks in Nintendo, and they wouldn't be requesting this out of nowhere, if everything was fine and dandy. At least one of Nintendo's markets has been propped up by the other for the majority of the past 15 years. Now that those markets have merged, what's going to happen if it fails? This isn't a smart move at all....it's in fact put Nintendo in a much more volatile position, cannibalising a market that they already had control of for the sake of leverage.

Sorry but there are no results so far. Switch has not been released yet. The only sales indicators we have right now are that the console has sold out in terms of pre-orders, which is hardly a negative sign. 

You're also making an awful lot of assumptions by saying lisensees have 'dropped' the platform. You...simply don't know that. 

You know, the Wii U also sold out in terms of pre-orders.



potato_hamster said:
Hapuc12 said:

i Said revenue was 452 milion i didn't say anything about Tax and Cuts for retailers in my sentences,read what i write don't interpret it like something else but what it is.

i said over 450 was revenue not for Nintendo but grand scheme of things Nintendo got like 250 to 300 mil of that.

Did they? So every copy was sold at $59? How much does Nintendo actually get per copy sold, and how does that quantity change over the age of the game (because it often does).  How much did they lose per copy as a pack in game vs a retail game, and what quantity of pack-in games did they sell? How much did Nintendo spend to make that game? How much did they spend marketing the game? How much does Nintendo spend to support the game via software updates, and server costs every month? How much profit did MK8 actually generate? The results might surprise you.

See it doesn't matter what revenue a game makes, it matters what kind of profit a game makes. Those are two totally different things. I guarantee you the actual profit that Mario Kart 8 generated Nintendo is a small fraction of the 250 million you think they receievd from it.


Yup about 200-300 mil in that area if they made about 40$ of of those games yeah about 200-300 mil i was right.



potato_hamster said:
zorg1000 said:

Shipments for the first 2 fiscal quarters this year are at 2.71 million compared to 2.28 million the year before. It needs to ship 4.08 million in the next two quarters to remain flat.

NPD leaks have said 3DS is up over 200k YoY in October+November add in December and that number could very well be 300k. According to Media Create, 3DS is down about 300k YoY in October December so USA & Japan pretty much cancel each other out. 3DS sales trends in Europe typically follow closer to USA than Japan and i believe we got confirmation that 3DS was up YoY in the UK so i would think its safe to assume Europe as a whole was up YoY during the holidays.

Based on that its likely that 3DS shipments in the last quarter were up YoY, extending the current lead it had in the first 2 quarters. Even if shipments werent as high, the 430k lead probably wasnt erased so either way its looking like 3DS shipments are equel to or greater than last years shipments in the first 3 quarters of the fiscal year.

The only way i see 3DS shipments being down YoY for the full fiscal year is if Nintendo is trying to reduce the amount of stock at retailers which is possible do to Switch releasing in March.

Very curious that you keep using the word shipments. But you could be right, but that could also be explained away by Pokemon.

The link you provided was shipment data............



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