david.dakota Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 Well it's good you cleared up that one. Nintendo are a business, ergo Nintendo wants to make profit. HD remakes make profit, else companies wouldn't commission them. Obviously. You are missing the point - deliberately or otherwise. Nintendo is a big business and therefore needs big profits to survive; rehashing old games in HD does absolutely need investment and, yes, they'll bring in a return - but at the high levels Nintendo needs and wants? Only Iwata can answer that for Nintendo but I doubt it. Sony's HD remixes do, to me at least, seem more of a labour of love, and ultimately a bit of a schedule filler than a serious business commitment. Even if your opinion was based on little more than hunch and guess, it makes no difference. These games make profit, and don't take up time of the company themselves. So from a business standpoint your argument is poor, even nonsensical. Either way, we're both speculating. You've provided no real evidence for your arguments either - and you can't. Maybe you can provide sales figures from some website (average around 5-600k to save you the bother) but they bare no relation to your argument - tell me what the actual cost of this HD port is? Including coding, testing, distribution, cut of retailers? So your argument is poor, you are nonsensical - at least I'm bothering to interpret other information. I can't buy this argument that they're that profitable. I'm not foolish enough to think that there is no business case behind these HD remixes, but I can't see that selling 500k units at £20 is actually worth doing as a business commitment. I suspect any business case lies in posturing, rather than profitability "we care about games as art, look what we can do". Sure, they're not going to release anything that's guaranteed to sell at a loss to the company. Aside from your dubious assertion that HD ports make worthwhile profit, I also see a finite amount of time in a year to release games and a desire from Nintendo and its third party publishers to make big money. The big money comes in the form of new games; releasing Ocarina of Time HD, Mario Galaxy HD will simply canibalise new content in the market. Throwing a couple of quid at an emulated VC game is quite different to asking £20 for a HD remix. In all fairness, I can't find any reference to how profitable these are - I guess neither can you since you'd have thrown some figures at me already... but your argument just does not sit well with me at all especially when I have already discussed some of the alternatives available to Nintendo - such as additional video processing built into WiiU (something like Dolphin Emulator) to simple blurring techniques (such as 3DS VC titles). I'll bet my hat that WiiU will include some form of Dolphin Emulator onboard, maybe compatible with VC titles too (Dolphin is not). Who said every game? Just the ones that people liked/would love to play again. Of which Nintendo have many. Are you reading and commenting on the right thread or indeed forum? I said if it were the case that they were just this big cash cow every game would be a HD port; ie. if its that cheap and reaps in the cash, we'd see far more of HD ports released. Please, take off the blinkers grandad and join the rest of us in 2012. It's surprising how little you think HD has caught on, I'd bet a significant proportion of gamers have HDTVs (at least gamers with HD consoles, which owners of the WiiU will be). You're not reading cached copy of Cube-Europe.com, are you? I ask because WTF... just WTF? At what point did I make the slightest suggest HD has hasn't caught on? For the past 2-3 years you'd struggle to buy an SD TV and, I have a sneaky suspicion that, most people replace their TVs every few years. I keep abreast of technology, I can assure you. HD has significant market penetration and I have not suggested otherwise (at least not since 2008); I did say that way back in 2006 I understood and agreed with Nintendo's reluctance to join the HD party, I also said that I felt some sort of WiiHD would come earlier than the normal life cycle. I did also state that Wii gets a hard time when displayed on HDTV's - and that's pretty unwarranted, a decent TV won't make it look crap (it won't make it look like a 360 admittedly, but its not as bad as people make out - it probably as much the fault of a cheap/under-specced TV than the Wii itself). My 36" CRT SD displayed Wii rather well despite needing to expand the picture more than Nintendo had planned, however my 42" inch plasma displays the imagine much better, it performs incredibly well with Wii thanks to some great video processing built into the TV. As I said earlier, I do not believe we will see any significant HD ports from Nintendo, maybe they'll have some snazzy video processing with their new emulator, probably booting into a slimlined OS like 3DS to allow additional resources for video processing. If you haven't done so already, search Dolphin Emulator on YouTube - it is exactly what you're asking for and comes with absolutely no risk to Nintendo. All you really have to do it look at Nintendo's attitude to VC and re-releases titles to understand why they won't even consider HD ports. They refused to update games to 480p for Wii, they refused to tinker with games to ensure they run smoothly (slowdown, flicker etc); heck, they refused to tinker with a re-release of Super Mario All-Stars for Mario's anniversary. Fair enough, you could argue 3DS has remakes of Ocarina of Time and StarFox - but Nintendo is famed for releasing old games on its handheld at launch. And to clarify, yes, I would love to play Nintendo's back catalogue in HD but I'm realistic and resigned to the fact that I see too many problems with the HD port business model I am not convinced of profitability and volume sales I see better uses for the investment (no matter how small you may argue it is) I believe it canibalises new releases and therefore pisses third parties off I believe there are better options to get back catalogue displayed on HD screens (video processing via software like Dolphin). Nintendo also has a history of adopting this with Wii and, as a better example, 3DS. Nintendo rarely remake their own games and when they do, they're accused of living off 20 year old games and not innovating. You're argument is that these HD ports bring in profit - which I am sure it does, but really - big, volume profit - the kind of profit shareholders like? Can't see it. The only thing you get right is that people do want it but Nintendo are sure to deliver it in a way you don't want. I think you're just setting up disappointment and a 'Nintendo are crap argument' for 12 months time.
tapedeck Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 My question would be: Why would Nintndo create, promote and distribute old titles as HD remixes when they could just release them online on WiiU which may have a wonderful 'upscalling' effect on older GCN/Wii titles. They'd make FAR more money FAR easier this way. it would encourage individuals to go online to the store and would mean Nintendo made more money (directly) from little to no effort. They could also have their 'codes' at retail idea ticking along nicely as well - thus keeping Mr. Shop owner happy.
Cube Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 I think most HD collections (on the PS3 anyway) have been released as both digital download and retail releases. Obviously there will be people who don't want to download large files, such as those in places with <512kb broadband.
Beverage Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 Are you reading and commenting on the right thread or indeed forum? + You're not reading cached copy of Cube-Europe.com, are you? + I ask because WTF... just WTF? = ...... I keep abreast of technology, I can assure you. You lucky bastard. I admire ya, I really do mate. @Sheikah you make some decent points, keep 'em comin' because I feed off of you guys' passion. It's just that D.D is one of the many that I love seeing in a good ol' friendly debate! But Beverage agrees that focusing heavily on being Wiimake-reliant isn't the most rewarding of strategies, so Nintendo should indeed do it in the most cost-effective and time-effect ways that they usually do. I just have a sincere dream that even if 2 or more (but under 6 games) got a 'perfect remake' treatment. Heck, even if just one game did:love: My question would be: Why would Nintndo create, promote and distribute old titles as HD remixes when they could just release them online on WiiU which may have a wonderful 'upscalling' effect on older GCN/Wii titles. They'd make FAR more money FAR easier this way. All you fuckers care about is moneeeeey. It's not about money, 'tis about sending a message: "Fans, we will demonstrate our appreciation for your long-time support and shall entertain you, who be our audience, with artful remakes of the classic shows which captured your interest, using it - your interest - as an conduit to channel joy into your spirits." Fuck the money, .. which I'm pretty sure they'd make some bread if they'd just put in maximum, loving effort.
Sheikah Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) You are missing the point - deliberately or otherwise. Nintendo is a big business and therefore needs big profits to survive; rehashing old games in HD does absolutely need investment and, yes, they'll bring in a return - but at the high levels Nintendo needs and wants? Only Iwata can answer that for Nintendo but I doubt it. Sony's HD remixes do, to me at least, seem more of a labour of love, and ultimately a bit of a schedule filler than a serious business commitment. Still doesn't make sense! Profit = better than no profit. HD remake = profit HD remake = done by another company, therefore not using up house resources. Why are you still not getting this? And you have absolutely no evidence, just opinion that these are 'not worth the effort'. Obviously Sony, who comission these, know a shedload more about business than you do or likely ever will. Either way, we're both speculating. No, just you are. Obviously the titles make profit else they wouldn't keep making them. You've provided no real evidence for your arguments either - and you can't. Maybe you can provide sales figures from some website (average around 5-600k to save you the bother) but they bare no relation to your argument - tell me what the actual cost of this HD port is? Including coding, testing, distribution, cut of retailers? So your argument is poor, you are nonsensical - at least I'm bothering to interpret other information. No...this stops now. Seriously. There have been enough HD remakes comissioned, which is all the evidence needed to state that these are profitable else why would they be continue to be made? Blah, it's like arguing with a brick wall here. Counter common sense. I can't buy this argument that they're that profitable. I'm not foolish enough to think that there is no business case behind these HD remixes, but I can't see that selling 500k units at £20 is actually worth doing as a business commitment. I suspect any business case lies in posturing, rather than profitability "we care about games as art, look what we can do". Sure, they're not going to release anything that's guaranteed to sell at a loss to the company. Really...so you now admit they're profitable, yet continue to push home the point about them being a bad idea? Perplexing... You're not reading cached copy of Cube-Europe.com, are you? I ask because WTF... just WTF? At what point did I make the slightest suggest HD has hasn't caught on? For the past 2-3 years you'd struggle to buy an SD TV and, I have a sneaky suspicion that, most people replace their TVs every few years. And yet, bemusingly, you continue to argue the flawed point that HD remakes would have little market/interest. I keep abreast of technology, I can assure you. HD has significant market penetration and I have not suggested otherwise (at least not since 2008); I did say that way back in 2006 I understood and agreed with Nintendo's reluctance to join the HD party, I also said that I felt some sort of WiiHD would come earlier than the normal life cycle. I think that's another naive opinion. The choice they made back then was to stay with the console for the rest of its life, one that has undeniably made the console appear aged before its time. A huge lack of foresight on Nintendo's behalf, in my opinion. I did also state that Wii gets a hard time when displayed on HDTV's - and that's pretty unwarranted, a decent TV won't make it look crap (it won't make it look like a 360 admittedly, but its not as bad as people make out - it probably as much the fault of a cheap/under-specced TV than the Wii itself). I'm sorry, but once you are used to HD it looks turd. There's no 'it's not so bad' to it, it's simply not the same standard and no amount of smoothing or gloss can raise it close to the level that the average PC, 360, or PS3 gamer is accustomed to. As I said earlier, I do not believe we will see any significant HD ports from Nintendo, As I don't believe they will have a decent, structured online system and amazing third party support. ie., I don't believe Nintendo will do a lot of things they should. But hey, that leaves a lot of room to be surprised. All you really have to do it look at Nintendo's attitude to VC and re-releases titles to understand why they won't even consider HD ports. They refused to update games to 480p for Wii, they refused to tinker with games to ensure they run smoothly (slowdown, flicker etc); heck, they refused to tinker with a re-release of Super Mario All-Stars for Mario's anniversary. Fair enough, you could argue 3DS has remakes of Ocarina of Time and StarFox - but Nintendo is famed for releasing old games on its handheld at launch. It's weird, you argued something at the beginning of this paragraph then completely destroyed said argument for me at the end, so I don't have to say anything. :p Thanks I am not convinced of profitability and volume sales Trust me, they make profit. They wouldn't continue to be comissioned otherwise (about the 7th time I have said this?) I see better uses for the investment (no matter how small you may argue it is) Rubbish, Nintendo are not spending above their means so they will always have cash to spend on something that will return profit. Plus they don't have to make the games themselves! Win win... I believe it canibalises new releases and therefore pisses third parties off Wait...you mean third parties will have to make great games to make us buy them instead of HD remakes? And hang on! You just said you weren't convinced of sales of HD remakes! How would games with little interest / sales potential annoy third party sellers or make them think their sales are being stolen? I think your argument has crumbled. ;-) I believe there are better options to get back catalogue displayed on HD screens (video processing via software like Dolphin). Nintendo also has a history of adopting this with Wii and, as a better example, 3DS. More money to be made releasing each game and charging £20 I'd say... Nintendo rarely remake their own games and when they do, they're accused of living off 20 year old games and not innovating. As long as they continue to make their own games, I don't see a problem. You're argument is that these HD ports bring in profit - which I am sure it does, but really - big, volume profit - the kind of profit shareholders like? Can't see it. The only thing you get right is that people do w It doesn't make sense, really, why shareholders would not like profit on something that the company are not making themselves. It's commission work, it brings in more money than is spent. Edited May 18, 2012 by Sheikah
Debug Mode Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) Let me use my fucking amazing skills of reasoning to sum this all up. Profit is profit. Every company likes profit. HD remakes of Nintendo games are pretty much 90% certain to happen because new fans who haven't bought said game will see more appeal in a HD remake than a used copy of the old version and old fans will most likely buy that shit any way because they're fickle as shit and fanboys.. are just gonna fanboy as hard as they can. Money is money. Digital distribution reduces the overhead cost of releasing a title by a lot so Nintendo would be refusing easy money. EDIT: Should probably add the fact they'll most likely do a limited run of physical copies. Edited May 18, 2012 by Debug Mode
Cube Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) The only HD remake I can think of at the moment is Tomb Raider Anniversary. Edit: - Tomb Raider Anniversary - Also Monkey Island 1 & 2 Special Edition - Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary - Earthworm Jim HD - Hydro Thunder Hurricane - Vigilante 8 Arcade Edited May 18, 2012 by Cube
Debug Mode Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 My bad, I worded that wrong. They wouldn't be full blown HD remakes, but they'll be handled sort of like how Wii emulators such as Dolphin can improve the visuals of the games. It's cheaply done, but they'll no doubt capitalize on it.
Cube Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 Aye, there is potential for lots of HD ports. The game game in a higher resolution, some bug fixes if needed, better colour balance/contrast and possibly better textures (that would probably depend on if they made larger textures during initial development). Although for N64 games I'd love Perfect Dark treatment, which is somewhere in between a simple port and full remake. They also could give Super Mario Bros or Super Mario World new, extremely fancy, HD graphics for a digital release.
Sheikah Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 The only HD remake I can think of at the moment is Tomb Raider Anniversary. Edit: - Tomb Raider Anniversary - Also Monkey Island 1 & 2 Special Edition - Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary - Earthworm Jim HD - Hydro Thunder Hurricane - Vigilante 8 Arcade For shame, how could you forget Banko Kazooie and Tooie? :p Metal gear solid HD collection ICO and SotC Sly Trilogy God of War Collection 1 God of War Collection 2 Prince of Persia trilogy Final Fantasy X I believe is being remade Certainly more, can't think of them off the top of my head.
Cube Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 For shame, how could you forget Banko Kazooie and Tooie? :p I was trying to point out how there are two very different kind of "HD remakes". There are complete remakes that update graphics, gmaeplay and can make significant gameplay. And there are ones which are basically the same game in HD and some minor improvements. The ones we are more likely to see are the latter.
Mandalore Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 ^ Hydro Thunder Hurricane isn't a remake, it's a completely new game. I'm not really sure whether I like the idea of Nintendo doing HD remakes or not. Depends how much effort they put into them I guess. Wind Waker HD with widescreen graphics, additional content (such as the rumoured missing dungeons), some sort of achievements and leaderboards would be quite a tempting prospect. If it's a lazy port like Sonic Adventure on XBLA/PSN with no widescreen and slowdown, then no thanks.
Sheikah Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 I was trying to point out how there are two very different kind of "HD remakes". There are complete remakes that update graphics, gmaeplay and can make significant gameplay. And there are ones which are basically the same game in HD and some minor improvements. The ones we are more likely to see are the latter. I would hardly call them very different kinds, most HD remakes fall in a level middle by including HD textures, some additional features like widescreen and perhaps some control changes and bonus content. Which to be honest, is all you need if the original game was very good.
Beverage Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 @david\.dakota I kinda understood his calculations, for he broke it down kinda dopely. Are you gonna take that?..[/size] But remakes just for HD and a few additions, hmmm probably. But I'd be up for something miles more grand, yet definitely completely original (not fiddling with something already good... but rather exaggerating/highlighting/expressing things more magnificent than when it couldn't be done. Adding in more ideas to that fits in naturally - almost like those ideas were always meant to be! Yessss, that is art )
Cube Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 I'd certainly re-buy the Metroid Prime Trology. Some suggestions for what they could do (this is for a simple port kind of HD version) - Wii Remote and Wii U Controller control options. - Wii U Controller can have weapon/visor options on the screen* - As this will free up the second stick, dual analogue controls will be implemented. - HD resolution, sharper graphics. - Doors open instantly. *How amazingly immersive would it be to have real time scanning in the next Metroid? Point the Wii U at the TV and hover it over an object/enemy, a short description (pretty much name and weak point) appears at on the controller and you have to read it without the gameplay pausing at all. There would be an option to go into the proper database which does pause the game. A system like this would be too complex for a simple HD version, but great for the next Metroid game.
david.dakota Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 Still doesn't make sense! How does it not make sense? Nintendo is a vast company, and will focus its efforts on the big prize and not sideline projects and small cash profits. Nintendo has not had massive successes with their ports, NPC series and even Metroid Prime Trilogy barely broke 500k, reasonable but not chart busting. Why are you still not getting this? And you have absolutely no evidence, just opinion that these are 'not worth the effort'. I still don't get it because I am questioning your opinion on how much cash these actually bring in. Perhaps they do bring in a couple of million, but in the grand scheme of things, I feel that cash value is to the detriment of sales elsewhere. Obviously Sony, who comission these, know a shedload more about business than you do or likely ever will. Clearly, because they're in a great position at the moment [comment not to be taken seriously] This is a company that's (not) selling Vita at a huge loss and are releasing fudge all software to claw back their losses and you accuse them of having business sense?! That's one business mistake I would not make. No, just you are. Obviously the titles make profit else they wouldn't keep making them. I suggest you check the definition of 'speculation'; for your convenience guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence. You've provided far less evidence than I have. You've provided fudge all evidence other than 'they keep making 'em' - that's not convincing enough for me, no matter how forcefully you say "trust me". No...this stops now. Seriously. There have been enough HD remakes comissioned, which is all the evidence needed to state that these are profitable else why would they be continue to be made? Businesses do take hits on their profits; Nintendo take a hit on the 3DS, Sony on Vita, Sainsburys on bread. I'm not suggesting for a moment the HD Classics make a loss, just that it could be part of a bigger game plan and profit less of an issue. Could they be brand awareness whilst making a modest profit? Could it be some fancy maneuvering to hit sales of new games from competitors? There could be any number of reasons they exist - beyond the simple profit argument. Blah, it's like arguing with a brick wall here. I know the feeling. I know the feeling. Really...so you now admit they're profitable, yet continue to push home the point about them being a bad idea? Perplexing... Not really... its such effort for, I guess, pretty small returns. My first post - where I don't say they're not profitable - I say pretty small profit. And yet, bemusingly, you continue to argue the flawed point that HD remakes would have little market/interest. How is this bemusing? I've purchased a brand new HDTV - what do I want to buy next? A 10 year old game with no jaggies or a brand new game that really shines on the TV? I still say the HD Classics are not mainstream, they're niche, they're for die hard fans. I think that's another naive opinion. The choice they made back then was to stay with the console for the rest of its life, one that has undeniably made the console appear aged before its time. A huge lack of foresight on Nintendo's behalf, in my opinion. 80,000,000+ units all sigh in disagreement. Again, I can't help but feel that you're the one being naive about this issue. Way back in 2006 there were some people, myself included (I recall jesting that Wii was an expensive Gamecube peripheral!), who were thinking that Wii was a short term product and that by 2010 they would be positioning themselves in the HD market. That's still my opinion, it was then and is now - in 2006 Nintendo were absolutely right not to join the HD arms race but their plan should have been to have some HD machine out in 2010. They've had issues in the past couple of years with sales slipping fast, but a 2010 HD machine would have solved the issue. I'm sorry, but once you are used to HD it looks turd. There's no 'it's not so bad' to it, it's simply not the same standard and no amount of smoothing or gloss can raise it close to the level that the average PC, 360, or PS3 gamer is accustomed to. No need to apologise. Honestly, I am not even trying to compare Wii with PC or the HD twins but on my plasma Xenoblade, The Last Story, Mario Galaxy, Metroid all truly look spectacular; they hold together nicely, have little in the way of jagginess to them (unless you're really close, of course!). Yes, they do lack the incredible, pin sharp detail of the other machines and yes, there is a clear difference between SD and HD games but I feel its more than acceptable if you make a decent investment with your AV kit. Yes, its "making do" but I would never say my enjoyment of Xenoblade was spoiled by 480p visuals. Interestingly, you don't seem to have given any thoughts on games being emulated in HD like Dolphin. Any reason for this? I am not convinced that when there is decent emulation available they'll take the time to remaster the back catalogue games (which does come at some expense). Whats so wrong with this technique, why are you so against it as a way to sharpen up games for the HD screen? As I don't believe they will have a decent, structured online system and amazing third party support. ie., I don't believe Nintendo will do a lot of things they should. But hey, that leaves a lot of room to be surprised. Agreed.
Debug Mode Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 How does it not make sense? Nintendo is a vast company, and will focus its efforts on the big prize and not sideline projects and small cash profits. Nintendo has not had massive successes with their ports, NPC series and even Metroid Prime Trilogy barely broke 500k, reasonable but not chart busting. I didn't even bother to read the rest of your post because this was, to incredibly be honest without any offence intended, so fucking stupid that it would have been painful to not reply to immediately. First you mention that they wouldn't particularly aim for a low return investment. Good point, although I said earlier that profits are profits, there's still a risk assessment with every idea and little profit may indicate there's no market for such collections and may not work in the future. But then you went on to say that the Metroid Prime Trilogy for Wii only sold half a million. Only? Yeah it's not chart bursting but chat bursting means nothing, there's no place that says "Oh. you reached this place in the top 20, here's your prize!". What matters is the fact it sold half a fucking million copies of a collection that required very little effort compared to that of a new game. Add that to fact a lot of games haven't reached 500,000 and you start to realise that half a million isn't "reasonable" sales, it's pretty fucking good for a collection of games that most of the fanbase have already bought previous versions of.
Beverage Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 Current score standing at david.dakota 15-15 Sheikah. I'm just watching the replay to see if dakota's return was in or out. Looks like a break point to me.... Sheikah still on service. I didn't even bother to read the rest of your post because this was, to incredibly be honest without any offence intended, so fucking stupid that it would have been painful to not reply to immediately. First you mention that they wouldn't particularly aim for a low return investment. Good point, although I said earlier that profits are profits, there's still a risk assessment with every idea and little profit may indicate there's no market for such collections and may not work in the future. But then you went on to say that the Metroid Prime Trilogy for Wii only sold half a million. Only? Yeah it's not chart bursting but chat bursting means nothing, there's no place that says "Oh. you reached this place in the top 20, here's your prize!". What matters is the fact it sold half a fucking million copies of a collection that required very little effort compared to that of a new game. Add that to fact a lot of games haven't reached 500,000 and you start to realise that half a million isn't "reasonable" sales, it's pretty fucking good for a collection of games that most of the fanbase have already bought previous versions of. SHIT THE FUCK DOWN AND SHULLUP WHILE I'M WATCHING THE GAME!! *gets ball collecting squad to stone you with tennis ballz*
david.dakota Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 But then you went on to say that the Metroid Prime Trilogy for Wii only sold half a million. Only? Yeah it's not chart bursting but chat bursting means nothing, there's no place that says "Oh. you reached this place in the top 20, here's your prize!". What matters is the fact it sold half a fucking million copies of a collection that required very little effort compared to that of a new game. Add that to fact a lot of games haven't reached 500,000 and you start to realise that half a million isn't "reasonable" sales, it's pretty fucking good for a collection of games that most of the fanbase have already bought previous versions of. We both also failed to identify that it was on a very limited run in the States. Actually, really poor example, but I don't think it discounts my point - there's not a huge return on them.
Sheikah Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) How does it not make sense? Nintendo is a vast company, and will focus its efforts on the big prize and not sideline projects and small cash profits. Nintendo has not had massive successes with their ports, NPC series and even Metroid Prime Trilogy barely broke 500k, reasonable but not chart busting. How do you think a 'vast company' makes money? Putting all their eggs in one basket - ie. with a Zelda title that is released, what, every 4-5 years? Of course not. They have already demonstrated this with the virtual console that they aren't just about one hit wonders. It's such a silly thing to say that Nintendo will or should focus only on 'big projects'. For a start, they wouldn't really be focusing on HD remakes as another company would be. Secondly, they can do both. They can make their games, and have others make games for them. Whatever way you spin it, my proposed outcome means more money in the bank for them, more happy shareholders, more happy customers. Nintendo are a big company, correct. Which is why it would be foolish to limit themselves to long turn around, high budget games. These sorts of games are cheaply made, don't eat into their resources, and definitely return profit. And because you're being belligerent about proof, here's some evidence that the metal gear solid HD collection sold over 1 million units (although this article is outdated): http://www.msxbox-world.com/news/article/18371/metal-gears-strong-sales-make-a-good-case-for-hd-collection-remakes.html Over 1 million units, let's say at £30 each (factoring in regions). £30 million. Now let's bear in mind that they have to publish the game and get someone to develop it, but really, all the content is the same and they simply need to give it a HD makeover. Not bad for £30 million turnover eh? And mark my words, they pump these games out like there's no tomorrow; they obviously don't take that long to put together. End of discussion regarding this as far as I'm concerned. I still don't get it because I am questioning your opinion on how much cash these actually bring in. Perhaps they do bring in a couple of million, but in the grand scheme of things, I feel that cash value is to the detriment of sales elsewhere. Just listen to what you're saying. It's ridiculous. It's absurd that you're even trying to value the impact of a 'few million' here or there, it's not a tangible amount of money that you are likely to ever appreciate and certainly you wouldn't know whether it is of value to them or not. Don't try to act like you know what you're talking about with sales, neither you nor I have the faintest clue. All we know is these games turn profit (at least in the case of MGS, good profit). Clearly, because they're in a great position at the moment [comment not to be taken seriously]This is a company that's (not) selling Vita at a huge loss and are releasing fudge all software to claw back their losses and you accuse them of having business sense?! That's one business mistake I would not make. Why say that if not to be taken seriously? Ok, let's take it semi-seriously as no doubt you wouldn't have said it otherwise. Vita's launch absolutely shattered the lacklustre 3DS launch. Without doubt. I actually enjoyed the games that came with the Vita, they were pretty good. Some awesome. As for what you think about the launch, it doesn't change the fact that they hire people that actually know marketing and sales, unlike you who is basically, without anything other than hunch, judging the games as 'not so great 'sales-wise'. I suggest you check the definition of 'speculation'; for your convenience guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence.You've provided far less evidence than I have. You've provided fudge all evidence other than 'they keep making 'em' - that's not convincing enough for me, no matter how forcefully you say "trust me". It's evidence in itself. Tell me, why would they continue to release games at a loss? After the first 1, maybe 2, they would realise that they are not making money, or at least not enough to be worth the trouble. Your evasion of this point is laughable, if not bizarre, as it really is so smack-in-your-face common sense that it's frankly shocking that I keep having to spell this one out to you. Businesses do take hits on their profits; Nintendo take a hit on the 3DS, Sony on Vita, Sainsburys on bread. I'm not suggesting for a moment the HD Classics make a loss, just that it could be part of a bigger game plan and profit less of an issue. Could they be brand awareness whilst making a modest profit? Could it be some fancy maneuvering to hit sales of new games from competitors? There could be any number of reasons they exist - beyond the simple profit argument. No. See above example. I'm sure they make a good profit just fine. How is this bemusing? I've purchased a brand new HDTV - what do I want to buy next? A 10 year old game with no jaggies or a brand new game that really shines on the TV? I still say the HD Classics are not mainstream, they're niche, they're for die hard fans. Why do you keep forcing strange choices? There is no choice. Nintendo wouldn't even handle the HD remakes, so you'd have both games to play. Your argument is to have a mainstream title, my argument is to have both mainstream titles and HD remakes. Oh, and mainstream can go fuck itself. A lot of mainstream games are pants. 80,000,000+ units all sigh in disagreement. My unit is one of them. Except it's not sighing in disagreement, it's sighing because it hasn't been used in ages. Ask yourself, would casual gamers have been put off if the console were it graphically comparable, and perhaps initially cost £50+ more? Absolutely not, as proven when it was released by people clamouring to get hold of it and paying over-the-top prices on Amazon and eBay. They undersold themselves by excluding certain features and losing a certain audience. Yes, it's a very successful console in that it broke into a new market. But in many respects, it lost a large number of previously Nintendo-dedicated followers (if not in console sales, as we all initially rushed out to buy the console, at least in long-term game sales) which in my eyes is part failure. The Wii has for the past few years dried up in terms of decent games, with the odd exception such as Xenoblade here and there. As I wouldn't consider myself a casual gamer, as should no one else on this forum realistically, its success with the casual market is neither here nor there. Interestingly, you don't seem to have given any thoughts on games being emulated in HD like Dolphin. Any reason for this? I am not convinced that when there is decent emulation available they'll take the time to remaster the back catalogue games (which does come at some expense). Whats so wrong with this technique, why are you so against it as a way to sharpen up games for the HD screen? Lack of HD textures would look bad, they really should remake the games. It wouldn't look very good for a lot of games - if you're not going to bother to do it properly, you may as well not bother at all. And you know Nintendo, they like to trickle feed content to you, so the time spent remaking games in HD wouldn't really be an issue. They can turn typical few pound sales into tens of pound sales with a decent job, and generally much greater appeal to gamers. You missed the part where I asked why you thought third parties would be peeved with HD remakes when you have called the remakes niche and not producing decent sales. Just interested, y'know. Edited May 18, 2012 by Sheikah
david.dakota Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 How do you think a 'vast company' makes money? Putting all their eggs in one basket - ie. with a Zelda title that is released, what, every 4-5 years? Of course not. They have already demonstrated this with the virtual console that they aren't just about one hit wonders. Have I said otherwise? Are you misreading my comments or making things up now - because I have never said that Nintendo should focus on single big projects. I referred to the big prize (as in the end result, not the act of getting there). It's such a silly thing to say that Nintendo will or should focus only on 'big projects'. Yes, it would be. Which is why I didn't. For a start, they wouldn't really be focusing on HD remakes as another company would be. Secondly, they can do both. They can make their games, and have others make games for them. Whatever way you spin it, my proposed outcome means more money in the bank for them, more happy shareholders, more happy customers. Nintendo are a big company, correct. Which is why it would be foolish to limit themselves to long turn around, high budget games. These sorts of games are cheaply made, don't eat into their resources, and definitely return profit. I believe your definition of 'resources' is far too narrow, you're just looking at staff and development surely? Manufacture, packaging, distribution simply doesn't change with HD Classics. You don't get more weeks in the year to release games because you've got some HD remakes coming out. And because you're being belligerent about proof, here's some evidence that the metal gear solid HD collection sold over 1 million units (although this article is outdated): http://www.msxbox-world.com/news/article/18371/metal-gears-strong-sales-make-a-good-case-for-hd-collection-remakes.html These figures take into account both PS3 and Xbox 360. Last time I looked at Nintendo's release schedule, they failed to release anything on these two platforms. These figures are meaningless; they take into account two platforms. Over 1 million units, let's say at £30 each (factoring in regions). £30 million. Now let's bear in mind that they have to publish the game and get someone to develop it, but really, all the content is the same and they simply need to give it a HD makeover. Not bad for £30 million turnover eh? And mark my words, they pump these games out like there's no tomorrow; they obviously don't take that long to put together. Turnover is absolutely meaningless. So what if their turnover was £30 million,£40 million or even £100 million if profit was £2 million, £4 million. That seems a pretty poor investment to me. You know as well as I do that you cannot prove the profitability of these HD classics - you're simply guessing. And you accuse me of having no business acumen. Pfft. End of discussion regarding this as far as I'm concerned. That's fine, because you're adding nothing to it. Just listen to what you're saying. It's ridiculous. It's absurd that you're even trying to value the impact of a 'few million' here or there, it's not a tangible amount of money that you are likely to ever appreciate and certainly you wouldn't know whether it is of value to them or not. Don't try to act like you know what you're talking about with sales, neither you nor I have the faintest clue. All we know is these games turn profit (at least in the case of MGS, good profit). You were not discussing profit. You were discussing turnover. Why say that if not to be taken seriously? Ok, let's take it semi-seriously as no doubt you wouldn't have said it otherwise. I said it for a wry smile. Please follow my clear instruction and do not take it sersiously. Oh, you did... Vita's launch absolutely shattered the lacklustre 3DS launch. Without doubt. I actually enjoyed the games that came with the Vita, they were pretty good. Some awesome. As for what you think about the launch, it doesn't change the fact that they hire people that actually know marketing and sales, unlike you who is basically, without anything other than hunch, judging the games as 'not so great 'sales-wise'. You're quite right; I do not have an army of (poor) marketeers and sales force behind me. I am not sure you have either. Vita, at the moment is struggling globally and Sony cannot seem to stem the hemorrhage - every unit looses Sony money, and they're not recouping it with games. Sure, Vita's launch was cracking - and I agree, far better than 3DSs; it had a pretty good launch lineup in my opinion and lots of promise. It is failing to deliver returns for Sony and if it does not have a strong presence at E3 it is doomed like its predecessor. Sony's marketing and sales teams are not doing their job with Vita. It's evidence in itself. Tell me, why would they continue to release games at a loss? After the first 1, maybe 2, they would realise that they are not making money, or at least not enough to be worth the trouble. I have not said they're sold at a loss. Can you move on from that; I have questioned how profitable they actually are but never referred to them being sold at a loss. Your evasion of this point is laughable, if not bizarre, as it really is so smack-in-your-face common sense that it's frankly shocking that I keep having to spell this one out to you. I have expressed my view on this already and have not evaded the point at all. I believe, as I have stated from my first post in the thread, they do offer some (small) profit, that's fine. I believe there are other factors involved in this business model - ensuring that a release schedule is full, reducing disposable income that maybe spent elsewhere. Good God, I could go on; out of respect for the 'art', brand awareness, keeping people employed... they're all possible. No. See above example. I'm sure they make a good profit just fine. Above example, where you discussed the turnover - and not profit - of MGS? Why do you keep forcing strange choices? There is no choice. Nintendo wouldn't even handle the HD remakes, so you'd have both games to play. Your argument is to have a mainstream title, my argument is to have both mainstream titles and HD remakes. No, you're missing my point - my argument is that there are other options available - like emulation. Oh, and mainstream can go fuck itself. A lot of mainstream games are pants. As a Nintendo fan, I'm happy they found a new audience this generation. I'm happy that they shifted 80+million units. I'm happy Nintendo sold 30+ units of Mario Kart. I'm happy people embraced a Nintendo product. Of course, I'm disappointed third parties failed to step up to the plate and I am a little frustrated that Nintendo restructured much of its lineup to the mainstream market. But I'm not arrogant or selfish enough to tell people to "go fuck yourself, Nintendo is mine". Loads - if not the vast majority - of mainstream games are pants but I did not buy them so, you know what, I don't care about them. My unit is one of them. Except it's not sighing in disagreement, it's sighing because it hasn't been used in ages.Is that due to it not being HD or due to a skeletal release schedule since 2010? Would Wii's final couple of years' have been considerably different if it was HD from the start? Gamecube says no. Ask yourself, would casual gamers have been put off if the console were it graphically comparable, and perhaps initially cost £50+ more? Absolutely not, as proven when it was released by people clamouring to get hold of it and paying over-the-top prices on Amazon and eBay. You're discussing launch, not the subsequent 4 years. I genuinely have little problem with Wii outputting 480p in 2006. It became a problem in 2010, which is when some people expected Nintendo to jump to HD with a new machine - a life cycle one year shorter than usual, rather than one year longer as we have now. They undersold themselves by excluding certain features and losing a certain audience. Yes, it's a very successful console in that it broke into a new market. But in many respects, it lost a large number of previously Nintendo-dedicated followers (if not in console sales, as we all initially rushed out to buy the console, at least in long-term game sales) which in my eyes is part failure. The Wii has for the past few years dried up in terms of decent games, with the odd exception such as Xenoblade here and there. As I wouldn't consider myself a casual gamer, as should no one else on this forum realistically, its success with the casual market is neither here nor there. Again, I'm not sure that the machine itself is at fault. Nintendo and, more so its third party "partners" failed with subsequent software; Ubisoft delivered utter crap at the door of Nintendo, EA half-heartedly delivered its key franchises late and in a form no one wanted, Activision didn't bother for three years, Sega just fumbled. Truly, Wii had some incredibly unique features in exchange for the HD. When Monolith, Tecmo and Mistwaker can deliver games as good looking as we've seen recently, you really have to question why scaled back versions of Dead Space, Assassins Creed and (at least in a timely fashion) Call of Duty did not appear in true form. Its games and publishers at fault, not Wii itself. Lack of HD textures would look bad, they really should remake the games. It wouldn't look very good for a lot of games - if you're not going to bother to do it properly, you may as well not bother at all. And you know Nintendo, they like to trickle feed content to you, so the time spent remaking games in HD wouldn't really be an issue. In my eyes its down to cost; Nintendo can optimise the Dolphin Emulator (or an in house variant) for WiiU and put absolutely anything on the system at minimal cost. Each HD remake comes at a cost, its selective and comes at some risk. From what I have seen of the Dolphin Emulator, I'm impressed and it serves as a great alternative to offering up a select few HD Classics. You missed the part where I asked why you thought third parties would be peeved with HD remakes when you have called the remakes niche and not producing decent sales. Just interested, y'know. Did I? I have argued that they're nice and picked up mainly by die hard fans - die hard fans that have the disposable income and time to play games. So, if they're playing HD Classic Super Mario Galaxy they're less likely to be going out and snapping up third party, second tier games (I'm not for a moment suggesting they'll not buy the next 'big' game) Lets be entirely honest, neither of us has the foggiest idea what HD Classics cost to develop. We disagree, that's for sure - you say there are too many HD classics for them not to be vastly profitable, I could argue that not enough are shipped to make them vastly profitable. I can't warm to the idea that HD Classics are anything more than a 'hobby' to coin a phrase by Steve Jobs'; yes, they'll bring in a little money but I think they're as much for bulking up the schedules and eating into our disposable income than a serious business proposition. You'll not convince me otherwise until you show me the cost of development. Its a nice little side line, that's it - but is it for Nintendo? Nope, I don't think so. I am aware that consumers - gamers and mainstream - all have a finite amount of time and a finite amount of money, so whatever the costs are of HD ports, I would rather that be handed to Nicalis or Skip or whoever else to make the brilliant WiiWare game. And honestly, with Virtual Console I think Nintendo has proved that it is unwilling to put much effort into re-releasing its back catalogue; Wii VC included all the old glitches, slowdown and flicker so we could 'enjoy the games exactly how we remembered them', as I recall Nintendo once saying. 3DS VC games clearly include some form of blurring effect within the emulator to hide the lower resolution of past console. Outside our discussions on cost, profit, resources, calendars and third party relations - the writing is on the wall as far as I am concerned; WiiU will feature an emulator with video processing for both Wii and VC titles.
Sheikah Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 (edited) Have I said otherwise? Are you misreading my comments or making things up now - because I have never said that Nintendo should focus on single big projects. I referred to the big prize (as in the end result, not the act of getting there). Bollocks! Look at what you said last time: How does it not make sense? Nintendo is a vast company, and will focus its efforts on the big prize and not sideline projects and small cash profits. "Will focus its efforts on the big prize and not sideline projects" That is clearly getting across that you think they shouldn't bother with smaller profit projects, and instead focus on bigger titles. Don't bother arguing with this one, no matter what you actually meant that is certainly what came across in your wording. I believe your definition of 'resources' is far too narrow, you're just looking at staff and development surely? Manufacture, packaging, distribution simply doesn't change with HD Classics. You don't get more weeks in the year to release games because you've got some HD remakes coming out. Come on. You really think this is so costly? Especially given these can have a limited print run and just pawn the rest off through digital downloads. If it dug so much into the profits, again, they wouldn't be comissioned. And do you really think there is one marketing team who can only focus on releasing one game at a time? Again, naive misconceptions. These figures take into account both PS3 and Xbox 360. Last time I looked at Nintendo's release schedule, they failed to release anything on these two platforms. These figures are meaningless; they take into account two platforms. Uh oh, backtracking time! Here come your excuses. :p You've been bleating on about how these 'in your opinion' have little profit potential and are therefore not worth it, and complaining about my lack of proof. I give you proof, and you've now got other problems. Have you forgotten that Nintendo were outselling PS3/360 by a long shot around when it was released? By that standard, you might expect the fact they only sell on their own console to be trivial given that they have great sales potential anyway. Either way, this is concrete proof of the old saying 'money for old rope'. You'd be mad to carry on arguing the potential for money to be made from these. Turnover is absolutely meaningless. Bwahaha. Sorry, do continue. So what if their turnover was £30 million,£40 million or even £100 million if profit was £2 million, £4 million. That seems a pretty poor investment to me. You know as well as I do that you cannot prove the profitability of these HD classics - you're simply guessing. And you accuse me of having no business acumen. Pfft. Ok, that's it. You are flagrantly either trolling or being stupid here, I am not sure which. To comment that a re-release that potentially has £30 million turnover might equate to a flop or mild success at best is...ridiculous. These are not big budget titles, they are low cost, high return outsourced projects (usually). They are turned around rapidly. From a business standpoint, they can be quite lucrative. Yes, I state turnover. This is because like with any game, we'll never know the profit they make because they aren't likely to tell us the costs. But you can easily work out that a game with £30 million turnover is going to make some serious profit, unless you hired the Queen herself to hand package the discs in 24 carat gold boxes for you. You were not discussing profit. You were discussing turnover. Of course, because we can't know how much profit they made unless they disclosed their costs. Is this a slow day for you? I said it for a wry smile. Please follow my clear instruction and do not take it sersiously. Oh, you did... Again, no sense being made. Why state a comment about the Vita having a poor launch and follow up with 'just a joke, really'. You either mean it or you don't. Do you retract it or stand by it? *reads on* You're quite right; I do not have an army of (poor) marketeers and sales force behind me. I am not sure you have either. Vita, at the moment is struggling globally and Sony cannot seem to stem the hemorrhage - every unit looses Sony money, and they're not recouping it with games. Sure, Vita's launch was cracking - and I agree, far better than 3DSs; it had a pretty good launch lineup in my opinion and lots of promise. It is failing to deliver returns for Sony and if it does not have a strong presence at E3 it is doomed like its predecessor. Sony's marketing and sales teams are not doing their job with Vita. Ah, ok, stands by it. 3DS was one of the worst launches I can actually remember. It gathered dust for a crazy amount of time before I really played anything that decent. And even now, it is severely lacking in titles. Sure, Vita may go down a dark path, and it wouldn't surprise me that it is losing money given its specification. The PS3 lost money for a while, but that is an excellent console technically speaking in contrast to the profit cash cow, the Wii. Long story short, the profit margins of a console mean fuck all to me as a consumer, I'm much more interested in the technology and future games potential. Both of which I feel the Vita has over the 3DS. Above example, where you discussed the turnover - and not profit - of MGS? I don't understand why you keep stressing this when it is usually impossible to know the profit of game sales without companies releasing costs (like they would). At best, we have sales, and 1 million sales for old games is brilliant. Yes, we know turnover (roughly), but you can extrapolate this somewhat, factoring in that profit would obviously be lower than this but obviously not massively less. Especially when these tend to have lower than normal print runs. As a Nintendo fan, I'm happy they found a new audience this generation. I'm happy that they shifted 80+million units. Can I ask why? This just seems like strange fanboy pride. I'm not interested in the achievements of a company, especially when the result of them tends to be a far lesser focus on the kinds of games that interest me. It'd be like me pretending I was happy that Microsoft have done well with Kinect, fianancially speaking, even though I hate Kinect. We're not financially invested in the company so this seems pretty bizarre. Is that due to it not being HD or due to a skeletal release schedule since 2010? Would Wii's final couple of years' have been considerably different if it was HD from the start? Gamecube says no. Look at the most popular games lots of people play. Call of Duty, GTA, Street Fighter, Final Fantasy, Mass Effect. Either they didn't come to the Wii or if they did, were heavily gimped. If they could have done because the Wii was on a level field, then theoretically there's no reason why third parties wouldn't have released on the Wii as well as every other console / PC that was up to running it. Equally, people may have then bought the games for the Wii. It's a two-way street. You can't blame third parties for not publishing the games people want on the Wii, when the Wii couldn't even handle them at a similar level to the other consoles. You're discussing launch, not the subsequent 4 years. I genuinely have little problem with Wii outputting 480p in 2006. I had a problem instantly as I already had a HDTV hooked up to a games console via HDMI. Different people, different observations. Either way, whether you were satisfied or not at launch is somewhat irrelevant, because the choice they went with meant no HD for the life of the console. Again, I'm not sure that the machine itself is at fault. Nintendo and, more so its third party "partners" failed with subsequent software; Ubisoft delivered utter crap at the door of Nintendo, EA half-heartedly delivered its key franchises late and in a form no one wanted, Activision didn't bother for three years, Sega just fumbled. Truly, Wii had some incredibly unique features in exchange for the HD. When Monolith, Tecmo and Mistwaker can deliver games as good looking as we've seen recently, you really have to question why scaled back versions of Dead Space, Assassins Creed and (at least in a timely fashion) Call of Duty did not appear in true form. Its games and publishers at fault, not Wii itself. Again, when companies can't port over games that they're already releasing on PS3, 360 and PC then the fault is clearly with Nintendo and their console. Why on Earth are you blaming publishers for not going heavily out of their way to adapt their games for Wii? Had Nintendo made a better console, there's every chance they would have seen a lot of decent titles we enjoy on the HD consoles. In my eyes its down to cost; Nintendo can optimise the Dolphin Emulator (or an in house variant) for WiiU and put absolutely anything on the system at minimal cost. Each HD remake comes at a cost, its selective and comes at some risk. From what I have seen of the Dolphin Emulator, I'm impressed and it serves as a great alternative to offering up a select few HD Classics. A lot of the titles are on the VC already. In order for there to be a big enough difference from the VC versions, I'd say a HD remake is required. Really, there wouldn't be much improvement I'll bet using emulation as you're really not doing anything about crappy non-HD textures. People may buy emulated versions but I'd wager there'd be a lot more appeal in properly remade titles. Did I? I have argued that they're nice and picked up mainly by die hard fans - die hard fans that have the disposable income and time to play games. So, if they're playing HD Classic Super Mario Galaxy they're less likely to be going out and snapping up third party, second tier games (I'm not for a moment suggesting they'll not buy the next 'big' game) Actually, these people with disposable income will likely buy both. Like you say, they have disposable income. If people really want certain games, they will probably buy them at some point. Lets be entirely honest, neither of us has the foggiest idea what HD Classics cost to develop. We disagree, that's for sure - you say there are too many HD classics for them not to be vastly profitable, I could argue that not enough are shipped to make them vastly profitable. If they weren't reasonably profitable they wouldn't keep be being made. Must have said that about 20 times now, but it still rings true. You don't know how much big titles cost to develop either relative to the profit they make. So how can you argue one type of game has poor profit margins relative to another while knowing nothing? I can't warm to the idea that HD Classics are anything more than a 'hobby' to coin a phrase by Steve Jobs'; yes, they'll bring in a little money 1 million sales. But ok. but I think they're as much for bulking up the schedules and eating into our disposable income than a serious business proposition. You'll not convince me otherwise until you show me the cost of development. Its a nice little side line, that's it - but is it for Nintendo? Nope, I don't think so. Show me the time, costs of development and profit generated for big titles. Edited May 19, 2012 by Sheikah
david.dakota Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 I'm really not looking at this as a project, I'm looking at it from a whole business perspective. Bollocks! Look at what you said last time: will focus its efforts on the big prize and not sideline projects and small cash profits That is clearly getting across that you think they shouldn't bother with smaller profit projects, and instead focus on bigger titles. Don't bother arguing with this one, no matter what you actually meant that is certainly what came across in your wording. Not really, I'm not insinuating that at all. In fact, I've previously said that they should - but it should be part of the business plan, it should bring added value to it, it should have a fucking purpose. I will argue, I cannot see how you can interpret the word 'prize' and anything other than profit. Nintendo's revenue - and profit - comes from a variety of places, notably, its own software and licensing fees from third parties. Business decisions have to support these revenue streams. Come on. You really think this is so costly? Especially given these can have a limited print run and just pawn the rest off through digital downloads. If it dug so much into the profits, again, they wouldn't be comissioned. As I have reiterated time and time again, neither of us really know. You speculate and I speculate - without any proof on either side we are simply speculating, neither of us are privy to budgets. My belief is that they will make only modest profit (which I have said from the start) but it is not enough to warrant disrupting the remainder of the business. And do you really think there is one marketing team who can only focus on releasing one game at a time? Again, naive misconceptions. Before moving into the public sector, I worked for 10 years in marketing, rather successfully I might add (and before you ask, I moved because the public sector pays more). So I think you know my answer to that. Uh oh, backtracking time! Here come your excuses. :p How on earth am I backtracking by presenting a different view to yours? You've been bleating on about how these 'in your opinion' have little profit potential and are therefore not worth it, and complaining about my lack of proof. I give you proof, and you've now got other problems. You've raised the problem and now I can't dispute it? My issue is profitability and not turnover - I don't care if a product has a turnover of £1bn, I want to know the profit of the release. You're stats are also represent a multiformat release, across single formats you confirm what I have said all along - and 500k units simply does not drive the business. Have you forgotten that Nintendo were outselling PS3/360 by a long shot around when it was released? By that standard, you might expect the fact they only sell on their own console to be trivial given that they have great sales potential anyway. Either way, this is concrete proof of the old saying 'money for old rope'. You'd be mad to carry on arguing the potential for money to be made from these. Hadn't forgotten at all, they were not far off 50% market share - thanks to the mainstream market you told to fuck off :wink: Its like I keep saying, they may make a profit but if that profit comes at the risk of limited sales elsewhere, they're not worth it. Not every game is Call of Duty, many publishers have - some survive - on second tier titles. If you're building good relationships with third parties, you support them by giving them breathing space. Ok, that's it. You are flagrantly either trolling or being stupid here, I am not sure which. Neither. I'm presenting a differing argument to yours. To comment that a re-release that potentially has £30 million turnover might equate to a flop or mild success at best is...ridiculous. These are not big budget titles, they are low cost, high return outsourced projects (usually). They are turned around rapidly. From a business standpoint, they can be quite lucrative. Yes, I state turnover. This is because like with any game, we'll never know the profit they make because they aren't likely to tell us the costs. But you can easily work out that a game with £30 million turnover is going to make some serious profit, unless you hired the Queen herself to hand package the discs in 24 carat gold boxes for you. I wasn't presenting that as fact though. I was illustrating that neither of us know what the profitability is. I think you know that and are just being picky. Of course, because we can't know how much profit they made unless they disclosed their costs. Is this a slow day for you? No you were relying on turnover to justify your point on profit. Again, no sense being made. Why state a comment about the Vita having a poor launch and follow up with 'just a joke, really'. You either mean it or you don't. Do you retract it or stand by it? *reads on* Ah, ok, stands by it. 3DS was one of the worst launches I can actually remember. It gathered dust for a crazy amount of time before I really played anything that decent. And even now, it is severely lacking in titles. I am not sure I did criticise the Vita lineup... I happen to agree that the launch line up was better with Vita than 3DS, and generally speaking - from the limited experience I have with Vita - I am pretty impressed (although as a business proposition, its in a really sticky position now). I made did make flippant remark on the state of Sony at the moment (with the caveat for you not to take it seriously), but I fully understand that Sony's gaming division is in rude health (Sony seems fine with its 'content' business, but technology businesses are definitely in crisis) Sure, Vita may go down a dark path, and it wouldn't surprise me that it is losing money given its specification. The PS3 lost money for a while, but that is an excellent console technically speaking in contrast to the profit cash cow, the Wii. Like any hardware, Vita had an impressive sales spike at launch. Personally speaking, I was impressed with Uncharted, Wipeout, Escape Plan and another game which escapes me (a little Geometry Wars over a sphere, for want of a better description), the AR stuff is better, the general UI is far better, the rear touch is great and, the screen, stunning. I could probably go on. In contrast, only PilotWings Resort captured my interest with 3DS; and even after launch decent releases were sporadic. Without the 3DS price cut, Nintendo would be struggling I fully appreciate that and in my view, there the 3DS has some hardware issues that also need addressing. Sure, Vita may go down a dark path, and it wouldn't surprise me that it is losing money given its specification. The PS3 lost money for a while, but that is an excellent console technically speaking in contrast to the profit cash cow, the Wii. The PS3 lost money for a long while, if I recall. Technically speaking, the PS3 reminds me of the N64 - some incredible hardware with really stupid bottlenecks. The difficultly for Vita as I see it is that its stuck between a rock and a hard place - Sony is said to loose money on each unit so they're not in a position to drop the price. Without the game launches I believe a price drop is what they need at the moment. Long story short, the profit margins of a console mean fuck all to me as a consumer, I'm much more interested in the technology and future games potential. Both of which I feel the Vita has over the 3DS. At the moment, I can't see that potential in Vita - and here's why: with slowing sales and limited releases they're approaching the tipping point where developers and publishers just say 'enough is enough' and abandon it. The 3DS, in that respect, has for more potential than Vita. I don't understand why you keep stressing this when it is usually impossible to know the profit of game sales without companies releasing costs (like they would). At best, we have sales, and 1 million sales for old games is brilliant. Yes, we know turnover (roughly), but you can extrapolate this somewhat, factoring in that profit would obviously be lower than this but obviously not massively less. Especially when these tend to have lower than normal print runs. I have said it myself, its nearly impossible. My issue with using turnover is that we can extrapolate nothing from it; it MGS HD has turned over £30m all we can really be sure of is that profit lies between £0 and £30m (unless they do sell at a loss, which we are both agreed they don't). Can I ask why? This just seems like strange fanboy pride. I'm not interested in the achievements of a company, especially when the result of them tends to be a far lesser focus on the kinds of games that interest me. It'd be like me pretending I was happy that Microsoft have done well with Kinect, fianancially speaking, even though I hate Kinect. We're not financially invested in the company so this seems pretty bizarre. I don't like the term 'fan boy' although I do (jestingly) use it to describe myself. Its not that strange, people are loyal to their football teams, people are loyal to their car manufacturer and people are loyal to their console makers- of course I am pleased that Nintendo have had such a successful generation. Is there anything wrong with that? There's loads of stuff Nintendo have failed to do this generation - and that's frustrating to me too. However, Nintendo have delivered a number of games that, you know what, have just been puerile fun but ultimately i've relished like a kid with candy; I lay some pretty heavy criticism on Skyward Sword for being so darn easy, I reserve criticism Galaxy 2 for being too casual - again, I could go on. Its why I got a PS3, to get my fix of Dead Space, Red Dead etc. Look at the most popular games lots of people play. Call of Duty, GTA, Street Fighter, Final Fantasy, Mass Effect. Either they didn't come to the Wii or if they did, were heavily gimped. If they could have done because the Wii was on a level field, then theoretically there's no reason why third parties wouldn't have released on the Wii as well as every other console / PC that was up to running it. Equally, people may have then bought the games for the Wii. It's a two-way street. You can't blame third parties for not publishing the games people want on the Wii, when the Wii couldn't even handle them at a similar level to the other consoles. Its like I said earlier, Nintendo is too late to the HD party. Nintendo could - and should - have been in HD by now, they could have introduced a 'third pillar HD machine' in 2010 and life would be merry for all. When Treyarch managed to get a pretty decent version of COD4 engine up and running on Wii that used to deliver the franchise on Wii, I see no reason why EA couldnt with Dead Space or Ubisoft with Assassins Creed. I'm not saying that life couldn't have been made easier for third parties, but it was lazy for them not to scale back their engines. I had a problem instantly as I already had a HDTV hooked up to a games console via HDMI. Different people, different observations. Either way, whether you were satisfied or not at launch is somewhat irrelevant, because the choice they went with meant no HD for the life of the console. I wouldn't say satisfied - making do is a better term. Like I said, I understood what they wanted to do back in 2006, for some considerable time they were the only platform holder to be making money on hardware and that sounded like a decent plan to me? Yes it did, but as I mentioned earlier, with the caveat that they took the HD plunge in 2010. If the choice was HD in 2006 or not, forced into a corner I would now say HD. But that's an unnecessary choice; a HD machine could have come in 2010. Again, when companies can't port over games that they're already releasing on PS3, 360 and PC then the fault is clearly with Nintendo and their console. Why on Earth are you blaming publishers for not going heavily out of their way to adapt their games for Wii? Had Nintendo made a better console, there's every chance they would have seen a lot of decent titles we enjoy on the HD consoles. Like I said before, getting a decent engine up and running was key and Treyarch proved it possible - and probably without any instruction from Activision. Doesn't Dead Space run off the Godfather engine - that appeared on Wii. It could have been done. A lot of the titles are on the VC already. In order for there to be a big enough difference from the VC versions, I'd say a HD remake is required. Really, there wouldn't be much improvement I'll bet using emulation as you're really not doing anything about crappy non-HD textures. People may buy emulated versions but I'd wager there'd be a lot more appeal in properly remade titles. Really, I do get this argument. Emulation is not perfect and leaves traces of the original quality, but its cheaper simply to emulate and the more ' Nintendo' thing to do. Actually, these people with disposable income will likely buy both. Like you say, they have disposable income. If people really want certain games, they will probably buy them at some point. I don't think disposable means infinite. There are people out there who would, granted, but still there comes a point where you loose that 'disposability' of your income. If they weren't reasonably profitable they wouldn't keep be being made. Must have said that about 20 times now, but it still rings true. You don't know how much big titles cost to develop either relative to the profit they make. So how can you argue one type of game has poor profit margins relative to another while knowing nothing? I don't think these decision have profit as an overiding factor. I think we're going to just have to agree to disagree on this one. Show me the time, costs of development and profit generated for big titles. Are you asking this to prove its impossible? Its clearly not from the Activision accounts, but its a good representation: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/18/business/fi-ct-duty18 Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 Cost $40 million to $50 million to produce Including marketing expenses and the cost of producing and distributing discs, the launch budget was $200 million Article mentions $550 equates to 8 million unit sales and since the game has since sold well over 20million units ergo that's $1375m revenue Retailers are suggested to take $15 per game (average) - that's £300m platform holder royalties - £140m Unsold games also account, apparently, for $140m (although I doubt this is the case with the COD franchise. Clear profit for Activition $545m (this takes into account unsold games which, in CODs case is probably a smaller figure) Thanks OnLive. You can't even show representative figures. If you stumped up some real data and proved me wrong, I'd happily concede that I was underguessing the profits.
Sheikah Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 Not really, I'm not insinuating that at all. In fact, I've previously said that they should - but it should be part of the business plan, it should bring added value to it, it should have a fucking purpose. Read it again, it's exactly what you said. Not to get sidelined with little projects. As I have reiterated time and time again, neither of us really know. You speculate and I speculate - without any proof on either side we are simply speculating, neither of us are privy to budgets. My belief is that they will make only modest profit (which I have said from the start) but it is not enough to warrant disrupting the remainder of the business. You forget though. Unlike with new games, HD remakes do not use up the original development team. Therefore they can be made in coexistence with new game development, whereas a new game may well stop another being made simultaneously (except huge developers). That's the massive flaw in your argument. Before moving into the public sector, I worked for 10 years in marketing, rather successfully I might add (and before you ask, I moved because the public sector pays more). So I think you know my answer to that. This is a stupid response and doesn't really add any information to prove your point. It would be like me telling you that because I am doing a PhD I am instantly smarter than you and therefore you are automatically wrong. Stick to the facts. How on earth am I backtracking by presenting a different view to yours? Because you complained about poor sales potential. I list 1 million sales, then you find fault with it. Not my issue if Nintendo don't wish to port out their games to other consoles to increase sales potential. Plus, third parties that commission HD remakes may opt to put it on Wii and other consoles. So it's perfectly relevant to list the MGS HD collection. You've raised the problem and now I can't dispute it? My issue is profitability and not turnover - I don't care if a product has a turnover of £1bn, I want to know the profit of the release. Then focus on sales. 1 million sales is good, better than some new games. Also focus on the fact that the game content remains static, that they need to redo textures and whatnot but not really much else. Sure, we have no other figures. But you're using the fact we have no profit figures to your advantage, even though you know if you used half your brain you could see it's going to made decent profit. You're a smart chap, you can see that a game that makes more sales than a new title, and requires far less production work and no use of the in-house devs, is going to make a decent profit in comparison. You're stats are also represent a multiformat release, across single formats you confirm what I have said all along - and 500k units simply does not drive the business. Again, blame Nintendo if they won't release titles multiformat. Or rely on third parties who will release on other consoles too. Not every game is Call of Duty, many publishers have - some survive - on second tier titles. If you're building good relationships with third parties, you support them by giving them breathing space. Which is why I find it odd you list CoD as your example lower down for profit margins. :p Sure, no other game series is going to make profit like it, making it a rather ridiculous example in my opinion. I have said it myself, its nearly impossible. My issue with using turnover is that we can extrapolate nothing from it; it MGS HD has turned over £30m all we can really be sure of is that profit lies between £0 and £30m (unless they do sell at a loss, which we are both agreed they don't). Extrapolate sales. If MGS HD collection has better sales than some games, it has done better. Because we categorically know it will have had lower costs because of the lower development cost of a game where you're simply visually improving. I don't like the term 'fan boy' although I do (jestingly) use it to describe myself. Its not that strange, people are loyal to their football teams, people are loyal to their car manufacturer and people are loyal to their console makers- of course I am pleased that Nintendo have had such a successful generation. Is there anything wrong with that? Very sad, in my opinion. They are a business, they care about your money. To have allegiance with them over their business strategy is kinda strange. Its like I said earlier, Nintendo is too late to the HD party. Nintendo could - and should - have been in HD by now, they could have introduced a 'third pillar HD machine' in 2010 and life would be merry for all. Should have been in originally. Like I said before, getting a decent engine up and running was key and Treyarch proved it possible - and probably without any instruction from Activision. Doesn't Dead Space run off the Godfather engine - that appeared on Wii. It could have been done. Devs should not have to make another engine to run Wii games. Wii should have made it easy for them. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/18/business/fi-ct-duty18 Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 Cost $40 million to $50 million to produce Including marketing expenses and the cost of producing and distributing discs, the launch budget was $200 million Article mentions $550 equates to 8 million unit sales and since the game has since sold well over 20million units ergo that's $1375m revenue Retailers are suggested to take $15 per game (average) - that's £300m platform holder royalties - £140m Unsold games also account, apparently, for $140m (although I doubt this is the case with the COD franchise. Clear profit for Activition $545m (this takes into account unsold games which, in CODs case is probably a smaller figure) Thanks OnLive. You can't even show representative figures. If you stumped up some real data and proved me wrong, I'd happily concede that I was underguessing the profits. Again, I would consider CoD and some other select titles a massive exception. Their games sell like probably nothing else. If we're talking standard fare, I think HD collections do pretty well in comparison.
Beverage Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 DING DING DING!!! Ok guys stop, stop. Stop. Just fucking stop. You lot are just circling a roundabout. You both have interesting opinions but rather that clash them together, you may as well just share your exciting viewpoints. Honestly, I think "Ooh shit, how is this one going to reply" and that one always makes a comeback and redeems. I love a good old debate But if Beverage may share his opinion on the 'supporting a company' topic: He doesn't see anything wrong with showing interest and following any company. It's no different from following music artists, or mangakas or actors/movies or what have you - they scratch their audiences back in entertainment and the audience scratches the entertainers back. Mind you, the entertainer can hustle their audience by giving a little tickle on the back (not providing a reasonably satisfyinging performance to leave them coming back for more - or rather 'hoping to be satisfied someday' ). That's when I'd find one quite weak-minded to be trapped under the illusions of false art. And @Sheikah, you're looking at the tree instead of the entire beauty of the forestry in regards to even considering that Nintendo should port their titles to the other consoles.
Recommended Posts