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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Does anyone have a source of the budget of Nintendo games?

The_Liquid_Laser said:
curl-6 said:

I recall them saying that BOTW needed to sell 2 million copies to break even: https://www.forbes.com/sites/olliebarder/2016/06/30/zelda-breath-of-the-wild-needs-to-sell-2-million-copies-to-break-even/?sh=2a751ec1615f

Hahah!  This is why Nintendo is awesome.  They budget games so that they would be profitable even on a dud system like the Wii U.  And on a really successful system, like the Switch, they make crazy profits.

Of course, the real profit making potential on a game like BotW is it's ability to sell hardware.  The biggest profits come from multiplication and not addition.  Calculate the profits on 20m copies of BotW and that is thinking in "addition" terms.  But a bigger install base increases the sales of every new game that is released.  That is thinking in "multiplication" terms.  Also a bigger install base means more titles will come to the system.  That is also multiplication.  On a system like the Switch, it's profitable even if you only count revenue from third party royalties.  And then when you also count first party sales, hardware sales, subscriptions, etc... then it's ridiculously profitable.

The real measure of a first party game is not if it generated a profit.  The real measure is in how well it moves hardware.  Profits on a single game is money addition.  Having a bigger install base is money multiplication.  So Nintendo probably broke even or made a minor profit on systems like the Gamecube or Wii U, but they are still duds, because their games didn't move hardware.  Why break even when you can make mad, stupid profits?  This is the idea of opportunity cost.  Nintendo wastes time and money when they make games that don't move hardware.  Games that move hardware are a good investment.

So if a game makes a profit, that alone doesn't make it a good candidate for a sequel.  Almost every Nintendo published game makes a profit.  But there is still a big difference between a system like the Switch and a system like the Wii U.  They need to make games that move hardware so they keep having Switch-like sales instead of Wii U-like sales.

I'm a bit curious on the '1st party got to sell hardware to be worth it' part as I....have to question if Kirby or Yoshi, for example, really sell consoles the way Mario or Bayonetta do (and yes I intentionally used those two as they both do it despite one being VASTLY more mainstream). It honestly seems more like games like that are more about adding value to the console purchase than to sell the console....


Or maybe I'm vastly underestimating the power of Yarn Yoshi in selling stuff. Though there is the fact those games are likely a heck more cheap to make. 

...Though on a third thing the merchandise they make is also a factor. Real easy to make plushies of those guys than say, Marth or Shulk.



The Democratic Nintendo fan....is that a paradox? I'm fond of one of the more conservative companies in the industry, but I vote Liberally and view myself that way 90% of the time?

Around the Network
KrspaceT said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:
curl-6 said:

I recall them saying that BOTW needed to sell 2 million copies to break even: https://www.forbes.com/sites/olliebarder/2016/06/30/zelda-breath-of-the-wild-needs-to-sell-2-million-copies-to-break-even/?sh=2a751ec1615f

Hahah!  This is why Nintendo is awesome.  They budget games so that they would be profitable even on a dud system like the Wii U.  And on a really successful system, like the Switch, they make crazy profits.

Of course, the real profit making potential on a game like BotW is it's ability to sell hardware.  The biggest profits come from multiplication and not addition.  Calculate the profits on 20m copies of BotW and that is thinking in "addition" terms.  But a bigger install base increases the sales of every new game that is released.  That is thinking in "multiplication" terms.  Also a bigger install base means more titles will come to the system.  That is also multiplication.  On a system like the Switch, it's profitable even if you only count revenue from third party royalties.  And then when you also count first party sales, hardware sales, subscriptions, etc... then it's ridiculously profitable.

The real measure of a first party game is not if it generated a profit.  The real measure is in how well it moves hardware.  Profits on a single game is money addition.  Having a bigger install base is money multiplication.  So Nintendo probably broke even or made a minor profit on systems like the Gamecube or Wii U, but they are still duds, because their games didn't move hardware.  Why break even when you can make mad, stupid profits?  This is the idea of opportunity cost.  Nintendo wastes time and money when they make games that don't move hardware.  Games that move hardware are a good investment.

So if a game makes a profit, that alone doesn't make it a good candidate for a sequel.  Almost every Nintendo published game makes a profit.  But there is still a big difference between a system like the Switch and a system like the Wii U.  They need to make games that move hardware so they keep having Switch-like sales instead of Wii U-like sales.

I'm a bit curious on the '1st party got to sell hardware to be worth it' part as I....have to question if Kirby or Yoshi, for example, really sell consoles the way Mario or Bayonetta do (and yes I intentionally used those two as they both do it despite one being VASTLY more mainstream). It honestly seems more like games like that are more about adding value to the console purchase than to sell the console....


Or maybe I'm vastly underestimating the power of Yarn Yoshi in selling stuff. Though there is the fact those games are likely a heck more cheap to make. 

...Though on a third thing the merchandise they make is also a factor. Real easy to make plushies of those guys than say, Marth or Shulk.

I think Kirby is more popular in Japan (comparatively) than in other regions.  I believe it actually does sell hardware there.  Kirby games also tend to be on the easy side which actually makes them unique compared to other Nintendo games.  It's similar to Bayonetta in that, even though these games don't sell mega millions, they offer something that no other game on the system offers.  You can also put Xenoblade Chronicles and Fire Emblem in that same category.  None of these games sell a huge amount, but they are unique and don't have a huge budget, so they are worth offering. 

I kind of agree on Yoshi though.  I'm not convinced that Yoshi games really sell hardware.  Or at the very least they fill the same niche that Kirby games do.  Nintendo could probably make one of these games or the other, but I'm not convinced they need both.



The_Liquid_Laser said:
KrspaceT said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:
curl-6 said:

I recall them saying that BOTW needed to sell 2 million copies to break even: https://www.forbes.com/sites/olliebarder/2016/06/30/zelda-breath-of-the-wild-needs-to-sell-2-million-copies-to-break-even/?sh=2a751ec1615f

Hahah!  This is why Nintendo is awesome.  They budget games so that they would be profitable even on a dud system like the Wii U.  And on a really successful system, like the Switch, they make crazy profits.

Of course, the real profit making potential on a game like BotW is it's ability to sell hardware.  The biggest profits come from multiplication and not addition.  Calculate the profits on 20m copies of BotW and that is thinking in "addition" terms.  But a bigger install base increases the sales of every new game that is released.  That is thinking in "multiplication" terms.  Also a bigger install base means more titles will come to the system.  That is also multiplication.  On a system like the Switch, it's profitable even if you only count revenue from third party royalties.  And then when you also count first party sales, hardware sales, subscriptions, etc... then it's ridiculously profitable.

The real measure of a first party game is not if it generated a profit.  The real measure is in how well it moves hardware.  Profits on a single game is money addition.  Having a bigger install base is money multiplication.  So Nintendo probably broke even or made a minor profit on systems like the Gamecube or Wii U, but they are still duds, because their games didn't move hardware.  Why break even when you can make mad, stupid profits?  This is the idea of opportunity cost.  Nintendo wastes time and money when they make games that don't move hardware.  Games that move hardware are a good investment.

So if a game makes a profit, that alone doesn't make it a good candidate for a sequel.  Almost every Nintendo published game makes a profit.  But there is still a big difference between a system like the Switch and a system like the Wii U.  They need to make games that move hardware so they keep having Switch-like sales instead of Wii U-like sales.

I'm a bit curious on the '1st party got to sell hardware to be worth it' part as I....have to question if Kirby or Yoshi, for example, really sell consoles the way Mario or Bayonetta do (and yes I intentionally used those two as they both do it despite one being VASTLY more mainstream). It honestly seems more like games like that are more about adding value to the console purchase than to sell the console....


Or maybe I'm vastly underestimating the power of Yarn Yoshi in selling stuff. Though there is the fact those games are likely a heck more cheap to make. 

...Though on a third thing the merchandise they make is also a factor. Real easy to make plushies of those guys than say, Marth or Shulk.

I think Kirby is more popular in Japan (comparatively) than in other regions.  I believe it actually does sell hardware there.  Kirby games also tend to be on the easy side which actually makes them unique compared to other Nintendo games.  It's similar to Bayonetta in that, even though these games don't sell mega millions, they offer something that no other game on the system offers.  You can also put Xenoblade Chronicles and Fire Emblem in that same category.  None of these games sell a huge amount, but they are unique and don't have a huge budget, so they are worth offering. 

I kind of agree on Yoshi though.  I'm not convinced that Yoshi games really sell hardware.  Or at the very least they fill the same niche that Kirby games do.  Nintendo could probably make one of these games or the other, but I'm not convinced they need both.

Yet I suppose if the game is profitable and it technically isn't eating up development resources that could be better elsewhere....

(A lot of Yoshi Games are made by outside companies like Good Feel. So my assumption is that Nintendo offers up a little bit of whatever it needs to offer up to get the games made by other studios, they produce Yoshi games, and they can spice up their lineups with an extra title or two.)



The Democratic Nintendo fan....is that a paradox? I'm fond of one of the more conservative companies in the industry, but I vote Liberally and view myself that way 90% of the time?

The_Liquid_Laser said:
KrspaceT said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:
curl-6 said:

I recall them saying that BOTW needed to sell 2 million copies to break even: https://www.forbes.com/sites/olliebarder/2016/06/30/zelda-breath-of-the-wild-needs-to-sell-2-million-copies-to-break-even/?sh=2a751ec1615f

Hahah!  This is why Nintendo is awesome.  They budget games so that they would be profitable even on a dud system like the Wii U.  And on a really successful system, like the Switch, they make crazy profits.

Of course, the real profit making potential on a game like BotW is it's ability to sell hardware.  The biggest profits come from multiplication and not addition.  Calculate the profits on 20m copies of BotW and that is thinking in "addition" terms.  But a bigger install base increases the sales of every new game that is released.  That is thinking in "multiplication" terms.  Also a bigger install base means more titles will come to the system.  That is also multiplication.  On a system like the Switch, it's profitable even if you only count revenue from third party royalties.  And then when you also count first party sales, hardware sales, subscriptions, etc... then it's ridiculously profitable.

The real measure of a first party game is not if it generated a profit.  The real measure is in how well it moves hardware.  Profits on a single game is money addition.  Having a bigger install base is money multiplication.  So Nintendo probably broke even or made a minor profit on systems like the Gamecube or Wii U, but they are still duds, because their games didn't move hardware.  Why break even when you can make mad, stupid profits?  This is the idea of opportunity cost.  Nintendo wastes time and money when they make games that don't move hardware.  Games that move hardware are a good investment.

So if a game makes a profit, that alone doesn't make it a good candidate for a sequel.  Almost every Nintendo published game makes a profit.  But there is still a big difference between a system like the Switch and a system like the Wii U.  They need to make games that move hardware so they keep having Switch-like sales instead of Wii U-like sales.

I'm a bit curious on the '1st party got to sell hardware to be worth it' part as I....have to question if Kirby or Yoshi, for example, really sell consoles the way Mario or Bayonetta do (and yes I intentionally used those two as they both do it despite one being VASTLY more mainstream). It honestly seems more like games like that are more about adding value to the console purchase than to sell the console....


Or maybe I'm vastly underestimating the power of Yarn Yoshi in selling stuff. Though there is the fact those games are likely a heck more cheap to make. 

...Though on a third thing the merchandise they make is also a factor. Real easy to make plushies of those guys than say, Marth or Shulk.

I think Kirby is more popular in Japan (comparatively) than in other regions.  I believe it actually does sell hardware there.  Kirby games also tend to be on the easy side which actually makes them unique compared to other Nintendo games.  It's similar to Bayonetta in that, even though these games don't sell mega millions, they offer something that no other game on the system offers.  You can also put Xenoblade Chronicles and Fire Emblem in that same category.  None of these games sell a huge amount, but they are unique and don't have a huge budget, so they are worth offering. 

I kind of agree on Yoshi though.  I'm not convinced that Yoshi games really sell hardware.  Or at the very least they fill the same niche that Kirby games do.  Nintendo could probably make one of these games or the other, but I'm not convinced they need both.

Indeed, Kirby is one of the rare Nintendo IP's outside of the big busters that can sell more than a million there. Though, it is also relatively popular in NA. Really, it only falters in Europe and outside regions. 

Still, Kirby is the main mascot of Hal Lab and even in a strech is the face of Smash as a whole so there's no real reason why Nintendo shouldn't keep investing in the IP. Even more so since Star Allies was quite the success as well.

And for the sake of diversity in their librairy, let them keep making both. Yoshi and Kirby are from a financial standpoint worth keeping around since they produce good sales, simple as that. 



Switch Friend Code : 3905-6122-2909 

The_Liquid_Laser said:
KrspaceT said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:
curl-6 said:

I recall them saying that BOTW needed to sell 2 million copies to break even: https://www.forbes.com/sites/olliebarder/2016/06/30/zelda-breath-of-the-wild-needs-to-sell-2-million-copies-to-break-even/?sh=2a751ec1615f

Hahah!  This is why Nintendo is awesome.  They budget games so that they would be profitable even on a dud system like the Wii U.  And on a really successful system, like the Switch, they make crazy profits.

Of course, the real profit making potential on a game like BotW is it's ability to sell hardware.  The biggest profits come from multiplication and not addition.  Calculate the profits on 20m copies of BotW and that is thinking in "addition" terms.  But a bigger install base increases the sales of every new game that is released.  That is thinking in "multiplication" terms.  Also a bigger install base means more titles will come to the system.  That is also multiplication.  On a system like the Switch, it's profitable even if you only count revenue from third party royalties.  And then when you also count first party sales, hardware sales, subscriptions, etc... then it's ridiculously profitable.

The real measure of a first party game is not if it generated a profit.  The real measure is in how well it moves hardware.  Profits on a single game is money addition.  Having a bigger install base is money multiplication.  So Nintendo probably broke even or made a minor profit on systems like the Gamecube or Wii U, but they are still duds, because their games didn't move hardware.  Why break even when you can make mad, stupid profits?  This is the idea of opportunity cost.  Nintendo wastes time and money when they make games that don't move hardware.  Games that move hardware are a good investment.

So if a game makes a profit, that alone doesn't make it a good candidate for a sequel.  Almost every Nintendo published game makes a profit.  But there is still a big difference between a system like the Switch and a system like the Wii U.  They need to make games that move hardware so they keep having Switch-like sales instead of Wii U-like sales.

I'm a bit curious on the '1st party got to sell hardware to be worth it' part as I....have to question if Kirby or Yoshi, for example, really sell consoles the way Mario or Bayonetta do (and yes I intentionally used those two as they both do it despite one being VASTLY more mainstream). It honestly seems more like games like that are more about adding value to the console purchase than to sell the console....


Or maybe I'm vastly underestimating the power of Yarn Yoshi in selling stuff. Though there is the fact those games are likely a heck more cheap to make. 

...Though on a third thing the merchandise they make is also a factor. Real easy to make plushies of those guys than say, Marth or Shulk.

I think Kirby is more popular in Japan (comparatively) than in other regions.  I believe it actually does sell hardware there.  Kirby games also tend to be on the easy side which actually makes them unique compared to other Nintendo games.  It's similar to Bayonetta in that, even though these games don't sell mega millions, they offer something that no other game on the system offers.  You can also put Xenoblade Chronicles and Fire Emblem in that same category.  None of these games sell a huge amount, but they are unique and don't have a huge budget, so they are worth offering. 

I kind of agree on Yoshi though.  I'm not convinced that Yoshi games really sell hardware.  Or at the very least they fill the same niche that Kirby games do.  Nintendo could probably make one of these games or the other, but I'm not convinced they need both.

I've never really thought about that, but I agree. I say this as someone who doesn't play Yoshi or Kirby games because the lack of difficulty makes them unappealing to me, so it may be different for fans of one or both of those games, but it may make more sense if the Yoshi series branched out more than an "easy" 2D platformer. Maybe some type of RPG more akin to the Mario & Luigi series since that studio is now, sadly, dead.



Around the Network

If you have the number of employees a team has/ number of people who have worked on the game (credits) and multiply that by the average salary, then multiply that by the number of years the game spent in development, you then have a 75% estimate of the overall cost. Good luck! :)



Hey as it has been said Yoshi sells and Nintendo seems content to let other studios make games for it. If you want a causality of focus it is probably Advanced Wars but who knows maybe A.W will get adopted by some other studio someday.



The Democratic Nintendo fan....is that a paradox? I'm fond of one of the more conservative companies in the industry, but I vote Liberally and view myself that way 90% of the time?

KrspaceT said:
 If you want a causality of focus it is probably Advanced Wars but who knows maybe A.W will get adopted by some other studio someday.

Is Advance Wars owned by Inteligent Systems or Nintendo? If it is the former then i don't think it's very likely that they would just give away their IP to some other studio.



Otter said:
If you have the number of employees a team has/ number of people who have worked on the game (credits) and multiply that by the average salary, then multiply that by the number of years the game spent in development, you then have a 75% estimate of the overall cost. Good luck! :)

Otter said:
If you have the number of employees a team has/ number of people who have worked on the game (credits) and multiply that by the average salary, then multiply that by the number of years the game spent in development, you then have a 75% estimate of the overall cost. Good luck! :)

Neat!

Now someone please give me a lost of how many employees worked in each game and for how long 



If BOTW is their most expensive game ever and it only needed to sell 2 million, it puts in perspective how insanely profitable stuff like Animal Crossing or Pokemon or Smash must be.



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.