Should Nintendo Develop for iOS Devices?

[S.C.G]

Should Nintendo develop for iOS devices?

 

...

 

Should we even need to provide an answer to this question?

 

 

No on both counts, it's a moot point.

[Mokong]

"I'm concerned about the falling stock price. I own stock, but I don't own a single Nintendo product. I believe games are a waste of time. By the way, the reason I own Nintendo stock is because the name is nice, it's in Kyoto and it was listed in the year of my birth."

 

Investing: Not caring about the health of the company or staff. Just making more and more money.Investing: Not caring about the health of the company or staff. Just making more and more money.

 

Is that quote a real investor quote or is Aaron taking the piss?

[D_prOdigy]

Is that quote a real investor quote or is Aaron taking the piss?

 

Would I ever be disingenuous?

[Jamba]

My cousin and I were discussing this. For several reasons, especially in the handheld space, I personally think that the answer should be yes.

 

Firstly, Nintendo are pricing themselves out of the handheld space at a fantastic rate. 3DS games are too expensive as the value that the customer gets is rarely 8x that (or more) of some of the better iOS games.

 

Think about it from a customer point of view for the 3DS:

• Buy 3DS (now £120)
  
• Buy game (£25-40)
  
• Enjoy game
  

 

Compare with iOS:

• Buy mobile contract (that you are likely to buy anyway) which we will argue is £75 on top of what people would usually spend on a phone
  
• Buy game (FREE-£6)
  
• Enjoy game, enjoy all phone features, have on you at all times no questions asked.
  

 

From a value point of view alone, I think that financially an iOS device wins as a consumer option. I believe that the quality of games will continue to increase and that Nintendo will find itself in a position where it is charging 4x the price for the games alone of similar quality.

 

The business plan for the 3DS makes no damn sense in the current climate even with the price drop. And let's not even get onto mass market sales. Apple have deals going through to distribute in both Russia and China, 2 of the biggest countries in the world. One of the main reasons why Angry Birds and Cut the Rope and so on have made such a huge impact is that they are practically textless and have a global appeal that is easy to understand. I won't argue for their quality but they hit not even mass but a global market.

 

I know my post is likely to be unpopular and I really would like the 3DS to do well but Nintendo has made that very difficult this time around. I think that they should stick to their guns on the home console but handheld... well it doesn't matter what I say does it? Nintendo are completely obstinate and they can't really "pull out" of this generate anyway.

[Serebii]

The thing is, the games on iOS devices are very rarely the substantial games that you'll see on the 3DS. People pigeonhole games all together but the games on iOS are all games with little depth that are just used to kill 5 minutes. Games like Angry Birds, Doodlejump etc.

 

iOS systems are limited to what they can do game wise due to the lack of any buttons, as such, top-quality games are a pipe dream. Some get round it by superimposing a faux controlpad on the screen, but it covers half of it. Look at Infinity Blade. Looks great but it's just tapper tapper tapper.

 

Nintendo made games are almost always of top quality, with depth and substance and proper controls. Yes, £40 is a bit too much, I'd personally drop to £30, but that's because the games are in-depth big games

[Jamba]

The thing is, the games on iOS devices are very rarely the substantial games that you'll see on the 3DS. People pigeonhole games all together but the games on iOS are all games with little depth that are just used to kill 5 minutes. Games like Angry Birds, Doodlejump etc.

 

iOS systems are limited to what they can do game wise due to the lack of any buttons, as such, top-quality games are a pipe dream. Some get round it by superimposing a faux controlpad on the screen, but it covers half of it. Look at Infinity Blade. Looks great but it's just tapper tapper tapper.

 

Nintendo made games are almost always of top quality, with depth and substance and proper controls. Yes, £40 is a bit too much, I'd personally drop to £30, but that's because the games are in-depth big games

 

Oh I agree with the what you say about depth but you have to ask yourself what the majority of consumers want out of a handheld game. If you look at the software that made the DS really successful then you will see that the mass market software was suited to play for short periods of time or something that could be suspended.

 

Just got RAGE HD for free as well. Can't really complain about that, even if it is a light gun game.

[Pookiablo]

The thing is, the games on iOS devices are very rarely the substantial games that you'll see on the 3DS. People pigeonhole games all together but the games on iOS are all games with little depth that are just used to kill 5 minutes. Games like Angry Birds, Doodlejump etc.

 

iOS systems are limited to what they can do game wise due to the lack of any buttons, as such, top-quality games are a pipe dream. Some get round it by superimposing a faux controlpad on the screen, but it covers half of it. Look at Infinity Blade. Looks great but it's just tapper tapper tapper.

 

Nintendo made games are almost always of top quality, with depth and substance and proper controls. Yes, £40 is a bit too much, I'd personally drop to £30, but that's because the games are in-depth big games

 

There are a fair few decent experiences to be had on iOS. Rainbow Six: Shadow Vanguard is one of the best example. Also, 9mm, Sid Meier's Pirates, Dead Space, GTA: Chinatown Wars, and Osmos are all pretty good games. And the best thing is that they cost a fraction of the price.

 

I'll agree to some extent that Nintendo offer proper controls (although a second stick would be more beneficial) but there isn't always the depth and substance. Something like Nintendogs and even Pilotwings (minus the 3D) would be perfectly suited to iOS devices and neither deserves the ridiculous price tag of £30-£35.

 

In short, I suppose I'm not disagreeing as I do see the same distinction that you make. Nintendo do make more quality experiences than anyone else. It's more than Nintendo are charging far too much money for an experience that isn't worth 6 or 7 times the cost of an iOS game (with the major exception of OoT: 3D).

 

Of course, maybe my viewpoint will change somewhat when Mario Kart 7 and Super Mario 3D Land release!

[Fierce_LiNk]

The problem is that you can't really easily quantify something like gameplay by saying that x game isn't really worth 6 times the price of y game. For example, I paid about 12 quid or something along those lines for Monster Hunter Tri. A few weeks later, I also purchased Trauma Centre: Second Opinion for about 3 quid, preowned. Now, Trauma Centre is a single player and Monster Hunter Tri is a massive online-focused experience. If I spend 200 hours on Tri and only 10 on Second Opinion, does that mean that Second Opinion should cost 20times less?

 

(obviously, I'm being hypothetical, because these games are not recently released. Monster Hunter Tri was at a sale price and Trauma Centre was second hand, both games are in different genres. )

 

It's hard to quantify these sorts of things. I do think handheld gaming should be cheaper, something along the price of 20-25 quid is fair. But then, many people buy their games for that price anyway, new. If you pay 35.99 from hmv or something for a new handheld game, you're a mug.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Fierce_LiNk

[Derrick]

Nintendo can do whatever is best for them. But why not Android? Android has a bigger market share than iPhone and continues to grow at a much higher rate.

[Cube]

Nintendo can do whatever is best for them. But why not Android? Android has a bigger market share than iPhone and continues to grow at a much higher rate.

 

The problem with Android would be pride. I don't think Nintendo would want their franchises on Sony products.

[Pookiablo]

The problem is that you can't really easily quantify something like gameplay by saying that x game isn't really worth 6 times the price of y game. For example, I paid about 12 quid or something along those lines for Monster Hunter Tri. A few weeks later, I also purchased Trauma Centre: Second Opinion for about 3 quid, preowned. Now, Trauma Centre is a single player and Monster Hunter Tri is a massive online-focused experience. If I spend 200 hours on Tri and only 10 on Second Opinion, does that mean that Second Opinion should cost 20times less?

 

(obviously, I'm being hypothetical, because these games are not recently released. Monster Hunter Tri was at a sale price and Trauma Centre was second hand, both games are in different genres. )

 

It's hard to quantify these sorts of things. I do think handheld gaming should be cheaper, something along the price of 20-25 quid is fair. But then, many people buy their games for that price anyway, new. If you pay 35.99 from hmv or something for a new handheld game, you're a mug.

 

I think you need to look at it from a slightly different perspective. In the statement above you're equating cost to the length of a game, which is most certainly not the best way to look at it. It's difficult to quantify it specifically like you say, but I'd compare it with how much fun I get out of the game. Mercenaries 3D, for example, as fun as it was, wasn't fun enough for me to justify the £35 I paid for it. On the other hand, Rainbow Six: Shadow Vanguard on iPad was only £4.99 and I had an absolute blast with it. The production values, gameplay, etc. were in my view far superior to that of Mercenaries (ironically, it was also longer too).

 

Therefore, my original point was for £4.99, I had way more fun with RS than I did with Mercs 3D, which cost me 7 times more and my experience with Mercs 3D wasn't worth that.

 

However, comparing Ocarina with RS, I'd still say Ocarina is too much money (because it is just an updated port after all), but it was somewhat more justifiable to spend more money on it (which is a lie because I actually got given a free review copy, but I'm making a point, damnit!).

[Burny]

These discussions far too often degrade into this:

 

"I've paid X money for this game on [not game-dedicated mobile platform goes here], which was Y less than for that game on [dedicated game platform goes here], and I've had so-and-so much more quality time with this game than with that one."

 

And the (false) conclusion often is: games in general need to be cheaper. It's similar with Steam sales when PC-gamers mock console people for paying 60$ for a game that they (the master-race) got for a bit of spare cash during sales some months or years later.

 

What they ignore is that in an environment, where games are sold at release for 40-60$/€, games of an entirely different scope are possible. And by scope I don't necessarily mean length and definitely not quality. This includes things like varied, visually and mechanically complex levels, extensive voice work, and the acting in more cinematic games like Uncharted - which aren't that long. Simply things that require large teams and a lot of time to even create. And if they turn out to be quality games or not doesn't change that the upfront investment necessary for creating these games in the first place is immense. As for overpriced games with too little content: They simply happen. Reading up a bit on the game before buying it saves you the trouble.

 

 

 

Why are people even so obsessed with Nintendo developing for smartphones? Are they angry because they would have to buy a device they don't want to carry around in addition to their phone, but have to in order to play Nintendo games? Do they really think Nintendo would earn more money by putting their games on phones? Are people on crack to think that with current team sizes and development budgets devs like Nintendo would make a lot of money on app-stores if they had to sell these games for 10 bucks? Or do people want Nintendo to throw their whole development philosophy out of the window in order to be profitable with bite-sized games on smartphones?

 

If so, I'm sorry to say, but these people are selfish assholes. There's a sea of bite-sized games on smartphones already and they can drown in them for all I care. I don't buy many games, but I still prefer to pay 60€ + a dedicated console's price upfront and to get something with the scope of Mario Galaxy or Zelda for it.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Burny

[Jamba]

If so, I'm sorry to say, but these people are selfish assholes. There's a sea of bite-sized games on smartphones already and they can drown in them for all I care. I don't buy many games, but I still prefer to pay 60€ + a dedicated console's price upfront and to get something with the scope of Mario Galaxy or Zelda for it.

 

Firstly, calm down.

 

Secondly, don't confuse console and handheld games. The most successful handheld games are ones that are designed to be just that. Can be played for a short time, picked up and put down.

 

I don't think anyone here would entertain the idea that Nintendo should stop being a hardware manufacturer all together. But handheld? That's a different question.

[Burny]

Firstly, calm down.

*breathes in* Ok.

 

Secondly, don't confuse console and handheld games. The most successful handheld games are ones that are designed to be just that. Can be played for a short time, picked up and put down.

 

I don't think anyone here would entertain the idea that Nintendo should stop being a hardware manufacturer all together. But handheld? That's a different question.

 

The most successful handheld games include the likes of Mario Kart, Super Mario Games, Pokemon, Monster Hunter and in Japan tons of RPGs. While many of them have "pick-up-and-play"-qualitites - practically any Nintendo title has, including the home console ones - they're all also rather large in scope (including development costs) and could potentially profit from evolving into something larger. Meaning: a "handheld game design" absolutely doesn't imply a small game.

 

And going "third party" in the mobile space in the manner people are suggesting recently seems not to be the way for Nintendo to achieve this. What these people suggest is effectively for Nintendo to somehow squeeze their mobile game's business-model into the app-market. What I see is a market that's flooded with glorified Flash-games and "you-can't-go-wrong-for-six-bucks"-copies of game concepts for more dedicated platforms - with the occasional gem thrown in.

 

Why should Nintendo do that? What evidence is there to suggest that there is no market for dedicated handheld platforms besides the eventually ubiquitous smartphones? The 3DS is having a rough first year (out of probably six) and the dedicated handheld market might shrink somewhat - abandon the ship? And what evidence is there that app-markets are even a good fit for big mobile game projects like Nintendo does them?

 

With the determination some people show at arguing Nintendo should stop making handhelds and start to develop for phones, you'd think everybody in the world was euphoric at the idea of playing a thirty levels mobile SMB with butchered touch-controls. I for one am not and I'm rather sick of people believing I - or Nintendo - should be because they are in love with their phones.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Burny

[Jamba]

The most successful handheld games include the likes of Mario Kart, Super Mario Games, Pokemon, Monster Hunter and in Japan tons of RPGs. While many of them have "pick-up-and-play"-qualitites - practically any Nintendo title has, including the home console ones - they're all also rather large in scope (including development costs) and could potentially profit from evolving into something larger. Meaning: a "handheld game design" absolutely doesn't imply a small game.

 

And going "third party" in the mobile space in the manner people are suggesting recently seems not to be the way for Nintendo to achieve this. What these people suggest is effectively for Nintendo to somehow squeeze their mobile game's business-model into the app-market. What I see is a market that's flooded with glorified Flash-games and "you-can't-go-wrong-for-six-bucks"-copies of game concepts for more dedicated platforms - with the occasional gem thrown in.

 

Wow... you're getting pretty angry about the collection of games that made the DS the success it is right there. Brain training, countless Su Doku games and the Imaginez series are successful and probably more profitable than a lot of the games that you're suggesting and they are what people buy. You need to stop confusing your own game taste with market reality.

 

On top of this all of the games that you have mentioned could be put on an iOS device, even SMB. I mean look at Sonic and Sega Allstar Racing. That's on iOS and has reviewed very well.

 

And as far as going third party goes, Nintendo need to change their mobile business model. Period. For reasons I will explain below.

 

Why should Nintendo do that? What evidence is there to suggest that there is no market for dedicated handheld platforms besides the eventually ubiquitous smartphones? The 3DS is having a rough first year (out of probably six) and the dedicated handheld market might shrink somewhat - abandon the ship? And what evidence is there that app-markets are even a good fit for big mobile game projects like Nintendo does them?

 

I don't write the 3DS off completely. I think that anything that has Nintendo franchises on it will sell. But with what level of success?

 

3rd parties are more interested in mobile than they are in handheld with companies like EA making entire new sections of their company including new acquisitions to produce for that section of the market.

 

Now how well do you think the 3DS is going to do if it has little 3rd party support? What can you say to companies that go fishing for better revenue using modern business and pricing models that give the customer the value they want?

 

What can you say to companies that make great games like the Castlevania team, who see pretty poor sales in comparison with the quality of their games? Nothing... that's why Castlevania has gone to XBL and PSN.

 

With the determination some people show at arguing Nintendo should stop making handhelds and start to develop for phones, you'd think everybody in the world was euphoric at the idea of playing a thirty levels mobile SMB with butchered touch-controls. I for one am not and I'm rather sick of people believing I - or Nintendo - should be because they are in love with their phones.

 

Just because there is 1 example of a game who's control scheme would not perfectly port to PDA does not mean that the business decision to move to mobile isn't sound.

 

You will see increasing budgets and bigger scope mobile games coming out. So that may cure your worries about losing RPGs and what not. It's only a matter of time until S-E port over a couple of their RPGs and find out how much money there is to be made.

[darksnowman]

It's only a matter of time until S-E port over a couple of their RPGs and find out how much money there is to be made.

 

You can already get Final Fantasy's I-III and Tactics on iOS. As well as that original one S-E made. Any sales figures/ profit info so we can work out how worthwhile a market it currently is?

 

Personally, I've not played a GREAT game on iOS or Android. Atleast on my phone I have a keyboard so I don't have to use a touch screen d-pad etc if I don't want to, but it still doesn't feel right for me. Angry Birds is crap. Chu Chu Rocket on iOS is a classic game with pernickety controls, same goes for Shining Force, Mega Man, etc. I won't pretend I've played anywhere near everything on the iStore or Android Market but the stuff I have sucks and would never replace my DSi or Gameboy Micro. Its a minor distraction at best.

 

I'm sure there are examples of big budget EA ports or whatever already but I can't comment on those. Same goes for Sega Allstars Racing. The day a game like that becomes a "system seller" will be a sad day indeed.

 

For the time being, I just want a console for games. I'll see how the future develops.

[Grazza]

Why would we, the gamers, want Nintendo to stop making handhelds though? There has always been a general agreement that games need buttons and sticks, something the Wii was criticised for not having enough of (quite rightly, in my opinion). But smartphones don't have any! I'm not saying the games all control badly, but you couldn't have anything like, say, Wind Waker. It's just not possible.

 

The only thing I'd be happy about would be if Nintendo made games for the Sony Vita instead of their own machine (as that does actually look perfect), but obviously that's not going to happen. The 3DS is here and it's a bloomin' good handheld. It's not perfect and they've stumbled initially, but the core guts of the machine are impressive enough for it to get through.

[darkjak]

I've owned an android phone for 2 years now. And I NEVER play games on it. Why? Because motion controls and a touchscreen alone doesen't work. I LOATHE having to cover the gameplay with my fingers to play (which is why the DS has two screens), I hate waving my console about.

Sure, it works for games like Angry Birds, but for Nintendo games? How the eff would Pilotwings or Ocarina of Time work on a phone? Or even New Mario Bros? Or Starfox?

 

The Xperia Play is going to end up like the N-Gage: everyone's raving on about how amazing it is at first, but noone buys the proprietary games for it and the format quickly dies off. The N-Gage had it's stupid screen which was wide in the wrong direction and the surplus of buttons. The Xperia uses a damn D-pad, making it about as advanced as an SNES (does it even have shoulderbuttons) and it slides up like the epicly failed PSP Move.

 

I'm starting up a game company, and I've talked to a bunch of people about the Android. Firstly, sales for Android games are usually worse than for iPhone. Secondly, there are no set specs on what resolution or processor an Android Phone needs to have. So how demanding your games can be is a bit badly defined. Either you make your game look crap or you alienate many users.

 

Unlike Sony's Xperia Play, the 3DS has shifted milions of copies. Nintendo are giving people a dedicated games machine. Sorry, but as the cellphones are today, it's IMPOSSIBLE to give people the same experiences as a dedicated machine. Has ANYONE here ever played online multiplayer on a cellphone? Or even over local Wifi?

 

I mean, do any of you think that this is the first time this is happening? Don't you remember when Philips tried to sell a jack of all trades? When they tried to make a movie player that also plays games? Ever heard of the CD-i? Remember when someone tried to do the same thing a few later? When DVD's were going to get improved features and even fully fledged 3D games? The Nuon flopped even worse than the CD-i.

 

And you're also forgetting something: 3DS games cost about ten times as much to buy as Android games. Yet Android games don't sell ten times as much. I've talked with people whom have launched a game which ended up on the top 5 on the iPhone for a few months. They sold lots of copies, which they bragged on and on about, but didn't actually make that much money.

 

In the end of the day, Nintendo have sold milions of 3DS-machines and are still selling loads of DS's. Nintendo have allways made money and will continue to do so for a very long time. Even when their consoles were virtually unsellable, they made profit. The only time I know that they've made losses is during one QUARTER of 2004.

 

 

As a matter of fact, I don't know why Nintendo have any investors anymore. As they've earned millions every year for as far back as I'm aware, they could might as well have freshly printed Euro bills for toilet paper at the offices.

Edited August 25, 2011 by darkjak

[Burny]

@Jamba:

 

So, you foresee Nintendo's mobile market section shrinking (after a rather unforeseen explosion), now that some potent competition shows up. Small wonder. I must've missed how this led to the conclusion that Nintendo needs to abandon their very business model for another one though.

What you give aren't reasons why Nintendo should become an iOS dev, what you give are a lot of assumptions how Nintendo's business model isn't successful anymore and how everybody and their dog has moved on - which is simply not true. There isn't terribly more or less support than the DS had at this point - if anything the eShop might mean more support from smaller devs.

 

Where is you crystal ball? Mind asking it how much the market section for dedicated handhelds is going to shrink? You don't know, I don't know, Nintendo doesn't know and shareholders seem to know even less. The thing is, nobody will know "at what level of success" Nintendo will end up, if they don't try. Let's say the the 3DS ends up with a 70 million install base after 6 years. That's not worth being platform holder anymore?

 

As darksnowman already said: Square-Enix have been porting stuff over to iOS for some time now. They are even developing a dedicated FF for iOS iirc. Strangely, they haven't been singing the song about the death of gaming handhelds quiet yet. Neither have I heard the song about how iOS gaming saved Square-Enix. Or indeed any song about how a big-budget iOS game has made better revenue than any of the successful retail handheld titles.

 

Which 3rd parties with mobile teams developing for phones are so opposed to additional streams of revenue that they would not consider porting their mobile games to the eShop? Recently acquired PopCap, who even sold Plants vs. Zombies as DSiWare? When did they come to hate money? Gameloft, who already have a title on the eShop? Don't even start with one example of an unsuccessful but critically acclaimed niche game and point at Nintendo. You get those on any platform.

 

I agree with one thing though: Nintendo's mobile business model needs to evolve - into a business model that combines the retail business and a download platform that's also an attractive target for other mobile devs.

 

And yes, at this point in time - before even trying to defend or stabilize their position - the business decision to go for iOS gaming is not just not sound but would be an idiotic overreaction of colossal proportions. Just because the previously almost unchallenged market leader and platform holder Nintendo is finally meeting resistance, their business model doesn't suddenly need to "evolve" into licking Apples shoes.

 

When all else fails, they can still do that. And if they have sense, they won't limit themselves to a single manufacturer and their appstore then. :p

[Cube]

Has ANYONE here ever played online multiplayer on a cellphone?

 

Yes. The games themselves aren't great (mainly due to control methods) but the online systems can be pretty good (Better than any online system from Nintendo). Racing games seem to be the best ones.

 

I'm starting up a game company, and I've talked to a bunch of people about the Android. Firstly, sales for Android games are usually worse than for iPhone. Secondly, there are no set specs on what resolution or processor an Android Phone needs to have. So how demanding your games can be is a bit badly defined. Either you make your game look crap or you alienate many users.

 

I don't understand why they don't have a crap graphics version and a good quality version for better devices. Just follow trend and shove "HD" at the end of the name for the better version.

 

Edit: One thing Nintendo could do with the 3DS

 

- Allow more (and free) app-type stuff in the eShop. Have Facebook/Twitter and stuff.

- A 3G version really wouldn't hurt.

[Jamba]

I've owned an android phone for 2 years now. And I NEVER play games on it. Why? Because motion controls and a touchscreen alone doesen't work. I LOATHE having to cover the gameplay with my fingers to play (which is why the DS has two screens), I hate waving my console about.

Sure, it works for games like Angry Birds, but for Nintendo games? How the eff would Pilotwings or Ocarina of Time work on a phone? Or even New Mario Bros? Or Starfox?

 

The Xperia Play is going to end up like the N-Gage: everyone's raving on about how amazing it is at first, but noone buys the proprietary games for it and the format quickly dies off. The N-Gage had it's stupid screen which was wide in the wrong direction and the surplus of buttons. The Xperia uses a damn D-pad, making it about as advanced as an SNES (does it even have shoulderbuttons) and it slides up like the epicly failed PSP Move.

 

I'm starting up a game company, and I've talked to a bunch of people about the Android. Firstly, sales for Android games are usually worse than for iPhone. Secondly, there are no set specs on what resolution or processor an Android Phone needs to have. So how demanding your games can be is a bit badly defined. Either you make your game look crap or you alienate many users.

 

Unlike Sony's Xperia Play, the 3DS has shifted milions of copies. Nintendo are giving people a dedicated games machine. Sorry, but as the cellphones are today, it's IMPOSSIBLE to give people the same experiences as a dedicated machine. Has ANYONE here ever played online multiplayer on a cellphone? Or even over local Wifi?

 

I mean, do any of you think that this is the first time this is happening? Don't you remember when Philips tried to sell a jack of all trades? When they tried to make a movie player that also plays games? Ever heard of the CD-i? Remember when someone tried to do the same thing a few later? When DVD's were going to get improved features and even fully fledged 3D games? The Nuon flopped even worse than the CD-i.

 

And you're also forgetting something: 3DS games cost about ten times as much to buy as Android games. Yet Android games don't sell ten times as much. I've talked with people whom have launched a game which ended up on the top 5 on the iPhone for a few months. They sold lots of copies, which they bragged on and on about, but didn't actually make that much money.

 

In the end of the day, Nintendo have sold milions of 3DS-machines and are still selling loads of DS's. Nintendo have allways made money and will continue to do so for a very long time. Even when their consoles were virtually unsellable, they made profit. The only time I know that they've made losses is during one QUARTER of 2004.

 

 

As a matter of fact, I don't know why Nintendo have any investors anymore. As they've earned millions every year for as far back as I'm aware, they could might as well have freshly printed Euro bills for toilet paper at the offices.

 

Some interesting points. I have not ever stated in what I have said that Nintendo is not making profit or that they are doomed to make a loss anytime soon. But what about better profits?

 

You mentioned that 3DS games cost 4x as much but you are failing to address several issues in that. Firstly that Android/iOS games generally cost less to develop and that there are less parties to take a cut of your revenue in the digital market place.

 

And in terms of online, as Cube stated iOS has a better online system that supports VOIP, a friends list, achievements and so on...

 

I think a lot of people here are reading my thoughts (*cough* Burny *cough*) and think that I'm suggesting that Nintendo should abandon the 3DS. This generation I think they will be ok but by next generation (judging by the current trend) I genuinely think there will be massively less room for a dedicated handheld device.

 

Also I don't think that people understand the implications of these different business models for publishers and devs. That are lots of success stories concerning alternate revenue generating methods through advertising and microtransactions. Many of the devs for mobile would not make any money if it wasn't for them being smart about giving the customer value for money.

 

And I know that a lot of people here disagree with me but can we keep the "I am mortally offended by your opinion" to ourselves and also not interpret what you believe that I want to see happen to Nintendo. What I want to happen and what Nintendo should do are different things.

[Burny]

I think a lot of people here are reading my thoughts (*cough* Burny *cough*) and think that I'm suggesting that Nintendo should abandon the 3DS. This generation I think they will be ok but by next generation (judging by the current trend) I genuinely think there will be massively less room for a dedicated handheld device.

If the current gaming handheld generation survives six years with a decent install base - by which time probably even the most low-end phones will begin to out-power them - there is even less of a reason to abandon them. If it collapses within this timespan for good though (below Gamecube levels), then there is a point to be made for abandoning them.

 

And even then there are other options for Nintendo. Unifying their home-console and handheld systems into one platform somewhat might not be out of question with that kind of power. Before they divert their resources to two platforms, one of which is not theirs, this might even be preferable.

Releasing a proprietary phone might be another option - although Nintendo would have to learn a lot of lessons or acquire know-how from elsewhere for that.

 

Also I don't think that people understand the implications of these different business models for publishers and devs. That are lots of success stories concerning alternate revenue generating methods through advertising and microtransactions. Many of the devs for mobile would not make any money if it wasn't for them being smart about giving the customer value for money.

Or maybe people understand exactly what they mean and just don't see why these methods of generating revenue suddenly invalidate everything that has so far proven successful for Nintendo? Opening their own store for such business models so other devs and publishers can use them would actually be the most obvious consequence.

 

"Your princess is in another castle. To unlock world 5-1, please pay 0,99$"

 

?

Edited August 25, 2011 by Burny

[Jamba]

Or maybe people understand exactly what they mean and just don't see why these methods of generating revenue suddenly invalidate everything that has so far proven successful for Nintendo? Opening their own store for such business models so other devs and publishers can use them would actually be the most obvious consequence.

 

"Your princess is in another castle. To unlock world 5-1, please pay 0,99$"

 

?

 

Well the reason is that these alternate business models are more attractive and possible less risky than Nintendo's current model. Like I said, many of the newer, smaller developing community and even some of the big publishers think it's a better alternative. Even the PSN is moving in a big way to support these models.

 

It's not so much about dropping the current model but giving room to allow the others. Nintendo seems adamant to stop it happening.

 

And I know that you're probably exaggerating but that example of microtransaction gaming is hardly ever used. Freemium is one of the most common forms now but I don't think Nintendo could ever support it as their online structure isn't sophisticated enough.

[Burny]

Well the reason is that these alternate business models are more attractive and possible less risky than Nintendo's current model.

The reason for what? Abandoning Nintendo's model that has proven to be successful for Nintendo and is not proven to be unsuccessful in the future? Or for allowing other models beside that?

 

Freemium is one of the most common forms now but I don't think Nintendo could ever support it as their online structure isn't sophisticated enough.

 

There are tons of aspects where Nintendo's online structure (on the 3DS) could and should be accused of not being sophisticated enough. This however is not one of them. Supporting games financed by microtransactions isn't so much a matter of reinventing the wheel for Nintendo, it's more a matter of allowing regularly updated free downloadable software with paid DLC.

 

Either way, the prospect of many third parties moving to such models isn't a reason for Nintendo to abandon their status as platform holder - no matter at which point or in which form. And the thread title still reads "Should Nintendo Develop for iOS Devices?" - No. Releasing Nintendo games on other competing platforms is just a weaker form of abandoning their own platform or an early stage of it. The discussion must be about the need for Nintendo to ease their current constraints on their partners.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Burny

[Pookiablo]

These discussions far too often degrade into this:

 

"I've paid X money for this game on [not game-dedicated mobile platform goes here], which was Y less than for that game on [dedicated game platform goes here], and I've had so-and-so much more quality time with this game than with that one."

 

And the (false) conclusion often is: games in general need to be cheaper. It's similar with Steam sales when PC-gamers mock console people for paying 60$ for a game that they (the master-race) got for a bit of spare cash during sales some months or years later.

 

What they ignore is that in an environment, where games are sold at release for 40-60$/€, games of an entirely different scope are possible. And by scope I don't necessarily mean length and definitely not quality. This includes things like varied, visually and mechanically complex levels, extensive voice work, and the acting in more cinematic games like Uncharted - which aren't that long. Simply things that require large teams and a lot of time to even create. And if they turn out to be quality games or not doesn't change that the upfront investment necessary for creating these games in the first place is immense. As for overpriced games with too little content: They simply happen. Reading up a bit on the game before buying it saves you the trouble.

 

 

Gameloft's Modern Combat 3: Fallen Nation

 

Callum Rowley for Gameloft states:

 

"Featuring a brand new story campaign spanning 13 missions, which sees players fighting an apocalyptic battle for the U.S.’ freedom, a frantic multiplayer mode with 12 players (across 6 maps and 6 different modes w/ 90 experience ranks to earn) and brand new weapons, modifications and attachments – Modern Combat 3: Fallen Nation promises to be the most intense first-person shooter on the App Store to date".

 

I saw this trailer for an upcoming iOS game yesterday and it reminded me of the above quote. While I get what you're saying Burny (although I do think it's just an overly complex way of saying exactly the same thing I had said a post before), I think iOS/Android developers are definitely trying to aim for that same scope you're talking about. Gameloft have been trying it for some time now and in some ways they've succeeded. Their only problem is that they keep blatently ripping home console titles off, but at least they're aiming to provide as near an experience to it as possible. Oh, and the above game will retail for £4.99.

 

As someone who has (for the purpose of my website) invested a lot of time and money in smartphone/tablet gaming, the impression I get is that a lot of gamers only have a limited knowledge of mobile gaming (that goes little beyond Angry Birds) but yet they seem very against it. There are a lot of top efforts out there, and much like with the Wii, you just have to sift through a lot of shovel/shitware to find it.

 

In short, if Gameloft can pump something like this out for only £4.99, how can Nintendo justify charging 7 times as much for something like Pilotwings or Nintendogs? It's madness.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Pookiablo