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

fordy on 18 January 2017
Platina said:
fordy said:

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.

I'm good, I've only brought up 3 points out of your whole list because it would take too much of my time trying to argue over this.

Let's just say that many of your supporting arguments doesn't really point to your reasoning

...and your own supporting arguments are nonexistant.

GENIUS!



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

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.

If they made $40 per copy. Did they make $40 average per copy? And that still doesn't cover Nintendo's expensives for making, advertising, and maintaining support for the game. You need to know those numbers of will to dertermine the actual profit the game made Nintendo.  They could have grossed $200 million on MK8 and spent $198 million to develop, advertise and maintain it. That's not a big profit margin, is it?



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

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

So did the Wii and PS4. What's your point? Selling out of pre-orders is a bad thing?

That it doesn't actually indicate the success of the platform in any way.



Hapuc12 on 18 January 2017
potato_hamster said:
Hapuc12 said:

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.

If they made $40 per copy. Did they make $40 average per copy? And that still doesn't cover Nintendo's expensives for making, advertising, and maintaining support for the game. You need to know those numbers of will to dertermine the actual profit the game made Nintendo.  They could have grossed $200 million on MK8 and spent $198 million to develop, advertise and maintain it. That's not a big profit margin, is it?

Sure but we know they didn't spend 198 they didn't even spend 20 mil imo they have the models,they have everything so it didn't cost that much.

But they made money not matter how we try to spin it.



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

So did the Wii and PS4. What's your point? Selling out of pre-orders is a bad thing?

That it doesn't actually indicate the success of the platform in any way.

True, and I never suggested that it did. It's simply an immature suggest to say Switch is doing better or worse in the market than any previous machine. It's not out yet and the only information we have in relation to it's performace it's that it's sold out. Wii U also sold out, so we know it's not doing worse. 



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

If they made $40 per copy. Did they make $40 average per copy? And that still doesn't cover Nintendo's expensives for making, advertising, and maintaining support for the game. You need to know those numbers of will to dertermine the actual profit the game made Nintendo.  They could have grossed $200 million on MK8 and spent $198 million to develop, advertise and maintain it. That's not a big profit margin, is it?

Sure but we know they didn't spend 198 they didn't even spend 20 mil imo they have the models,they have everything so it didn't cost that much.

But they made money not matter how we try to spin it.

They spent $20 million on development, advertisement and maintenance. Based on what? Your own wishful thinking? Their advertising budget alone was definitely higher than that based on the advertising budgets of other contemporary games. EA says they spend 2-3 times their development budget on marketing, If Nintendo follows suit (and there's no real reason to think they don't) then you're essentially arguing that Nintendo spent between $5-8 million making MK8. Some indie games cost more than that to make.



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

That it doesn't actually indicate the success of the platform in any way.

True, and I never suggested that it did. It's simply an immature suggest to say Switch is doing better or worse in the market than any previous machine. It's not out yet and the only information we have in relation to it's performace it's that it's sold out. Wii U also sold out, so we know it's not doing worse. 

Of course. Very fair statement to make.



fordy on 18 January 2017
Hapuc12 said:
fordy said:

Now you're arguing against your initial argument. For starters, there's a very good number of people who believe that the games industry was at their MOST innovative during the NES/SNES area. Do you know why? Because 3rd parties were only allowed 2 games released per year, so they had to make those count. That changed when Sony started to pander more toward developers than consumers. This is why the PlayStation was successful, because they captured the developer base. It's nothing to do with competition at all. 

No. Exclusives are what ruin the industry, because they cause "tech bubbles" in the industry, where inferior hardware can survive just because of the games it has and others don't. Forbidding exclusives creates a proper separation between software and hardware. Your socialist statement is just disturbingly hilarious and irrelevant.

What would motivate them? The same thing that motivates all businesses. Money.

If exclusives didn't exist, you can pick the console to suit. You don't need the incentive, because everything is on everything. Your point is irrelevant.

Yup like i said it Socialst who doesn't understand simple business.

And watch this gaming was most inovative in 90s because maybe new technology came,gaming was litterally new thing it was small industry that couldn't turn over 5 bil yearly people thinking it will never become big so small things were inovative that time

Because in 90s we sure as hell didn't get games that told stories like for example Last of us and defying the genre forever.

But no in 90s inovation was anything from 2D to 3D from linear to open which was going to happen no matter what.

Your point is irrelavent and stupid and doesn't hold any water.

Mods i think it's time to close this thread it's turned in to Cesspool of idiocy.

You believe that tying people to a hardware purchase is considered good business? I could go to the same extreme as you and label you as a Corporate Fascist who argues for special protections for certain industries. It's funny because you advocate competition, but strictly insist that games be tied to consoles. Are you also a fan of cable companies and their monopolies, because it's the same thing.

Nope. In the 90s, we got games like Final Fantasy 6 and Chrono Trigger, which have won numerous "Best game of all time" awards. I don't know why you raised this point. There is no relevance to this whatsoever.

So you're saying that innovation will happen no matter what, yet you're trying to argue the fact that innovation can only happen with competition. You can't argue for both sides of this, you do realise that, right?

Try to stick to the case in point, and not diverge on some weird, abstract arc that contradicts itself, please.



Hapuc12 on 18 January 2017
potato_hamster said:
Hapuc12 said:

Sure but we know they didn't spend 198 they didn't even spend 20 mil imo they have the models,they have everything so it didn't cost that much.

But they made money not matter how we try to spin it.

They spent $20 million on development, advertisement and maintenance. Based on what? Your own wishful thinking? Their advertising budget alone was definitely higher than that based on the advertising budgets of other contemporary games. EA says they spend 2-3 times their development budget on marketing, If Nintendo follows suit (and there's no real reason to think they don't) then you're essentially arguing that Nintendo spent between $5-8 million making MK8. Some indie games cost more than that to make.

i Just said they spend 20 mil on the game not advertising and it's not that much of a wishwull thinking they have the Character models for everything already riged and done the only thing they had to create was tracks and few other things engine was in house.

No i don't know how much they spend on Ads and other stuff i just said how much they spend on the game development.



Hapuc12 on 18 January 2017
fordy said:
Hapuc12 said:

Yup like i said it Socialst who doesn't understand simple business.

And watch this gaming was most inovative in 90s because maybe new technology came,gaming was litterally new thing it was small industry that couldn't turn over 5 bil yearly people thinking it will never become big so small things were inovative that time

Because in 90s we sure as hell didn't get games that told stories like for example Last of us and defying the genre forever.

But no in 90s inovation was anything from 2D to 3D from linear to open which was going to happen no matter what.

Your point is irrelavent and stupid and doesn't hold any water.

Mods i think it's time to close this thread it's turned in to Cesspool of idiocy.

You believe that tying people to a hardware purchase is considered good business? I could go to the same extreme as you and label you as a Corporate Fascist who argues for special protections for certain industries. It's funny because you advocate competition, but strictly insist that games be tied to consoles. Are you also a fan of cable companies and their monopolies, because it's the same thing.

Nope. In the 90s, we got games like Final Fantasy 6 and Chrono Trigger, which have won numerous "Best game of all time" awards. I don't know why you raised this point. There is no relevance to this whatsoever.

So you're saying that innovation will happen no matter what, yet you're trying to argue the fact that innovation can only happen with competition. You can't argue for both sides of this, you do realise that, right?

Try to stick to the case in point, and not diverge on some weird, abstract arc that contradicts itself, please.

Mhmm defending AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH better to be a corporate fascist and want for your Company you like to succeede then to create industry with Monopoly and no inovation.

Try to stop being butthurt and try to come up with point till now your points don't hold candle to anything.

You came up with those points with those games holy shit dude.

Innovation happenes when companies have competition and when companies want to create better ecosystem for there costumers so they don't lose their costumers.

But you are a Socialst talking with people like you is like talking to a brick wall.