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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Does It Really Matter How Much Switch Sells?

RolStoppable said:
potato_hamster said:

That "special" board of directors? Why? They're all on the same page? Well yes, that's how Board of Directors work.  They're all still beholden to the shareholders, they're all still driven by profits.  But, they all came up within the company?

Shuntaro Furukawa has only been with Nintendo since 2012. Katsuhiro Umeyama,Yoshio Mitamura, and Naoki Mizutani appear to have never worked for Nintendo. They are "Outside" directors after all. So that's half the board that doesn't appear to have "risen from within the company". Even Kimishima made a career in the banking industry and was brought in to be the CFO of the Pokemon Company in 2000 and worked his way up from there over 15 years.  But hey, keep moving those goal posts about why Nintendo is special. I'm sure you'll come up with something both equally unique and meaningless eventually.

So first it was economics, now I need to educate you on what a straw man is. See a straw man is when you argue against a point someone never actually made. I fail to see how showing you a plausible scenario that might have Nintendo seriously considering switching gears on the whole "hardware" thing to show you have current Wii U and 3DS sales are in fact irrelevant to when such a decision likely could be made, is in fact arguing against a point you never made? Are you are or you not arguing that Nintendo's 80 million in sales between the two is relevant? Because if you are, then there's no straw man to be seen here, at least, not by me.

See that's the thing. You don't need doom for Nintendo to stop making hardware, you just need more lucrative revenue streams that are more worthy of investment than Nintendo making hardware. That's why I keep harping on profits. That's why I keep pointing out that Nintendo is in fact beholden to its share holders. Nintendo, like any other publicly traded company is driven by profit. The only thing Nintendo needs in order to stop making hardware is to be convinced that it is more profitable not to. That's it.

As for me having a problem with Nintendo making hardware? First off, thanks for telling me what I think. You definitely know more about my thoughts than I do. Secondly, what? So the idea of Nintendo making hardware is directly related to the hardware they currently make? No. Not at all. I don't want Nintendo to stop making hardware, I just want them to start making hardware that I want to buy. I want them to make different hardware than what they are making. That is far and away different from wanting them to go third party.

But here you are saying my arguments are being driven by emotions, as if you're somehow being objective? Please. You just falsely argued that Nintendo was majority owned from within.  Now you're arguing that the Nintendo board of directors is somehow special and different from other corporations when you have absolutely no basis to make that claim. You just see Nintendo as a special company, and therefore the people within it are special people, and I get that, but surely you can admit that such a stance is a blatant and obvious bias.

Given how high profits can be for Nintendo as a hardware and software maker, it is what the board of directors will continue to pursue even if there are setbacks. There are no indicators whatsoever that Nintendo is considering to bow out of the hardware business. Nintendo is absolutely convinced of their IP strength, so they will leverage that advantage to maintain an ecosystem where they are in full control, because that's the most profitable endeavor. You, however, continue to argue that Nintendo's leadership could be changing their strong stance on a whim. There's no basis to support this notion. Shareholders have asked for years that Nintendo puts their games on smartphones, but no matter how dire the 3DS and Wii U generation was, Nintendo kept insisting that they must think long term and can't harm their own core business. This still holds true today, hence why Nintendo's smartphone games are specifically designed to not hurt their core business, and why it took years until Nintendo made that move.

That's why it is a prerequisite to doom the Switch, because otherwise there's no way that Nintendo will decide to give up on making hardware. Switch selling only 25m units has no basis in reality though. It's a hybrid that works as home console as well as a handheld. There's no competition left in the handheld market, so that alone will make Switch pass 25m with ease. Switch is also going to be the only Nintendo platform going forward, so it will have Nintendo's games, it will absorb the 3DS's third party support and it has a good chance to absorb the Vita's third party support too. Switch is not going to suffer from extensive software droughts like the Wii U, for example.

Regardless of what you want to believe, you need a couple of big ifs to come true for Nintendo to quit making hardware. Since Switch isn't going to fail, Nintendo's profits will increase dramatically over the next few years. And since profits are the most important thing, all of your arguments will be rendered moot. It won't matter that you could score a point here and there against me, because you aren't going to win the game. You need Switch to fail to have a basis. That's not going to happen.

And the goalposts continue to move. No indicators? Apparently the Switch is a replacement for both the Wii U and the Switch. If that is the case, that means that five years ago, Nintendo was celebrating a time period when they sold a combined 250+ million units, and now they're supposed to be merging both of those into one unit where they *hope* it might sell 100 million units. That's only a forecast of 60% less units sold over a five year period.  In the past year they have released three of their biggest IPs on a non-Nintendo platform. Many well respected analysts view the Switch as Nintendo's last desperation move before giving up on producing dedicated video game consoles. Nintendo is so convinced of their hardware strength that their projected profit is less than half it was just a few years ago. No indicators they're considering bowing out of the hardware space? There's plenty. You're just ignoring them because, you guessed it! Wishful thinking.

The switch selling only 25 million units has no basis in reality? I remember when the Wii U was released. People on this site genuinely thought that there was no way it would sell less than 50 million units. Oops. In fact I wouldn't be surprised at all to go back to those threads and find posts you make arguing until you're blue in the face about Wii U sales, where you blast someone for daring considering the possibility that the Wii U would fail. If I did that everything you were saying was almost definitely dead wrong. I know. You think the launch of the Wii U was totally different because of this this and that whatever, my point is, there is precidence, and again, I said it was a worst case scenario.

Hilariously, again, the crux of your argument boils down to you not being able to imagine a world where Nintendo doesn't succeed. You can't imagine a world where the Switch doesn't sell dozens and dozens of millions of units. You can't imagine a world where Nintendo would release a seperate 3DS successor. You can't imagine a world where compelling games aren't coming out for the Switch everywhere you turned. This is the epitome of wishful thinking. It is motivated by nothing more than your hopes and dreams. Unfortunately for you, dreams and reality are often two seperate things.

There's no point in continuing this, because you refuse to actually consider that Nintendo is capable of not succeeding. Your blind trust in Nintendo has lead to blind arguments. You can go do that with someone else. I have no interest in engaging with someone that insults others for not sharing in their blind optimism.



Around the Network

Pretty sure how much Switch sells matters to Nintendo's business a lot. Switch games are going to cost more to develop than 3DS games, so I'm not sure people are evaluating how well Switch needs to sell.



My 8th gen collection

This thread is pure gold.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

potato_hamster said:

That "special" board of directors? Why? They're all on the same page? Well yes, that's how Board of Directors work.  They're all still beholden to the shareholders, they're all still driven by profits.  But, they all came up within the company?

Shuntaro Furukawa has only been with Nintendo since 2012. Katsuhiro Umeyama,Yoshio Mitamura, and Naoki Mizutani appear to have never worked for Nintendo. 

Shuntaro Furukawa has been with Nintendo since 1994.

Katsuhiro Umeyama has been an Auditor of Nintendo since 2012.

Yoshimi Mitamura has been an Auditor of Nintendo since 2012.

Naoki Mizutani has been an Auditor of Nintendo since 2003.

The Auditors have been chosen because of their excellence in their chosen field.



potato_hamster said:
Barkley said:

I agree, people seem to just say "But if they still make a profit they'll keep making hardware!". But in reality it doesn't work like that. If there is a MORE profitable avenue for them to go down, they may take it. It's about achieving the most success, not enough success to keep doing what you're doing.

It's why they started making iOS games. They clearly weren't happy with the profitability of the Wii U and 3DS and started to look into other revenue streams. If for example, Super Mario Run generates far more profit for Nintendo than Super Mario Odyssey, you can bet your ass Nintendo's mobile game projects are going to see a larger investment than their console game projects. Nintendo's executive will start green lighting more mobile games, and less consoles games because that would be where the money is now. If Nintendo's executive believe that Nintendo's IP will generate more profit for the company on Sony or Microsoft consoles, rather than on Nintendo consoles, then that is the direction they will take.


Why can't people see that? Why are people acting like Nintendo is a privately owned company where the owners can just sit back on their IP and make whatever the fans want as long as it makes a profit? Is it wishful thinking? Did they never take an economics course? Do they not know how investments work? I gave up trying to figure that out.

 Search for profit is only part of the equation.  What would Sony do if "search for profit" was all they cared about?

The chart is a little small but if I'm reading it correctly the lastest Forecast is for Sony Financial Services segment to produce a higher operating income than the sum of Mobile Communications (MC) +  Imaging Products & Solutions (IP&S) + Home Entertainment & Sound (HE&S) + Semiconductors + Components + Pictures + Music, total added operating income.

Financial Services [150M yen]

Vs.

5+45+53-19-51-83+69 = [19M yen]

Mobile Communications [5] + Imaging Products & Solutions [45] + Home Entertainment & Sound [53] + Semiconductors [-19] + Components [-51] + Pictures [-83] + Music [69]

 

Since most of Sony's other segments aren't doing as well as Financial Services would it make sense for Sony shareholders to demand Sony make the bulk of their employees Insurance salesmen*

*Insurance is a big part of Sony Financial Services and a big contributing factor to Sony's bottom line.



Around the Network
foxtail said:
potato_hamster said:

That "special" board of directors? Why? They're all on the same page? Well yes, that's how Board of Directors work.  They're all still beholden to the shareholders, they're all still driven by profits.  But, they all came up within the company?

Shuntaro Furukawa has only been with Nintendo since 2012. Katsuhiro Umeyama,Yoshio Mitamura, and Naoki Mizutani appear to have never worked for Nintendo. 

Shuntaro Furukawa has been with Nintendo since 1994.

Katsuhiro Umeyama has been an Auditor of Nintendo since 2012.

Yoshimi Mitamura has been an Auditor of Nintendo since 2012.

Naoki Mizutani has been an Auditor of Nintendo since 2003.

The Auditors have been chosen because of their excellence in their chosen field.

I may be wrong about Furukawa, but perhaps you should look up what an Auditor does. They were chosen as impartial third parties to keep the rest of the board of directors in check to prevent the exact scenario Rol has been describing as "special". It's to prevent "tunnel vision", if you will.



foxtail said:
potato_hamster said:

It's why they started making iOS games. They clearly weren't happy with the profitability of the Wii U and 3DS and started to look into other revenue streams. If for example, Super Mario Run generates far more profit for Nintendo than Super Mario Odyssey, you can bet your ass Nintendo's mobile game projects are going to see a larger investment than their console game projects. Nintendo's executive will start green lighting more mobile games, and less consoles games because that would be where the money is now. If Nintendo's executive believe that Nintendo's IP will generate more profit for the company on Sony or Microsoft consoles, rather than on Nintendo consoles, then that is the direction they will take.


Why can't people see that? Why are people acting like Nintendo is a privately owned company where the owners can just sit back on their IP and make whatever the fans want as long as it makes a profit? Is it wishful thinking? Did they never take an economics course? Do they not know how investments work? I gave up trying to figure that out.

 Search for profit is only part of the equation.  What would Sony do if "search for profit" was all they cared about?

The chart is a little small but if I'm reading it correctly the lastest Forecast is for Sony Financial Services segment to produce a higher operating income than the sum of Mobile Communications (MC) +  Imaging Products & Solutions (IP&S) + Home Entertainment & Sound (HE&S) + Semiconductors + Components + Pictures + Music, total added operating income.

Financial Services [150M yen]

Vs.

5+45+53-19-51-83+69 = [19M yen]

Mobile Communications [5] + Imaging Products & Solutions [45] + Home Entertainment & Sound [53] + Semiconductors [-19] + Components [-51] + Pictures [-83] + Music [69]

 

Since most of Sony's other segments aren't doing as well as Financial Services would it make sense for Sony shareholders to demand Sony make the bulk of their employees Insurance salesmen*

*Insurance is a big part of Sony Financial Services and a big contributing factor to Sony's bottom line.

First off, the bolded part is where I'm describing a hypothetical, and not a reality.

Secondly, there are many investors that are trying to push Sony to sell off divisions such mobile because it hasn't been a good investment for quite some time. Apparently Sony has been shoping around the sale of it's movie division (pictures), it's like as a corporation, they're doing exactly what I'm describing - streamlining their business to become more profitable. Unless the division exists mostly to provide internal services (and thus will never directly generate profit), then it's important to cut the dead weight if the division has been underperforming, and has no genuine prospects for improvement long term.

Should Sony invest more in financial services? I don't know, do you have any reason to expect that investing more in that division will see a larger return on investment?