Sheikah Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 @Retro_Link is right in that they do need to adopt some industry standards (like the account stuff that is FINALLY coming) and use some of their legacy franchises more, but they cannot and should not compete with these massive corporations and their money because, frankly, they cannot. MS and Sony have lost so much money in their divisions, Sony has barely seen a profit overall (largely thanks to the mess of the PS3) and Microsoft hasn't at all. Nintendo cannot operate like that...they can't just take ridiculous losses to build up an audience with the hope of building money back later. It's not a possibility. I wasn't being irrelevant. Look at what you said, Serebii. Everything I've said is relating to that.
Mr-Paul Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 @Sheikah, I don't think he's said any of those things. Of course it's good to make profit. But would Nintendo make as much profit as they do if their console was identical to PS4/XB1? We don't know. It's all speculation. The path they are on now is making them a similar amount of profit as the Playstation division. Sony's sales across all its divisions dwarf Nintendo's, so if they are making a loss on one division, others can subsidise it and it doesn't put the future of the whole company on the line. At the moment, Playstation is one of their profitable divisions, but in the past, for example during the PS3 era, it hasn't been, and even then its current profits are not too different to struggling Nintendo. Nintendo is purely in the games industry - if sales drop (as they have) and losses are being made, it's a massive risk for the company, as there are no other divisions to subsidise the business. Nintendo have to make a profit on their games and their consoles. They have been making losses recently and the profits they have had are minuscule compared to the heydays of the Wii. But going down the path of high-cost, low profit/loss-leading hardware would be a massive risk for the future of the company. Of course, Nintendo need to do something to make their next console sell a lot better than the Wii U. Having a similar console to the competition isn't necessarily the way to go.
Serebii Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 [/b] I wasn't being irrelevant. Look at what you said, Serebii. Everything I've said is relating to that. What you said was irrelevant because revenue is irrelevant if it doesn't generate a craptonne of profit, which it did not do.
Sheikah Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 What you said was irrelevant because revenue is irrelevant if it doesn't generate a craptonne of profit, which it did not do. You proved they generate profit after saying they make losses. You proved yourself wrong, if anything!
Serebii Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 You proved they generate profit after saying they make losses. You proved yourself wrong, if anything! I said overall in the Playstation life, not just last year. Good grief. Give it up.
Sheikah Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 @Sheikah, I don't think he's said any of those things. Of course it's good to make profit. But would Nintendo make as much profit as they do if their console was identical to PS4/XB1? We don't know. It's all speculation. The path they are on now is making them a similar amount of profit as the Playstation division. Sony's sales across all its divisions dwarf Nintendo's, so if they are making a loss on one division, others can subsidise it and it doesn't put the future of the whole company on the line. At the moment, Playstation is one of their profitable divisions, but in the past, for example during the PS3 era, it hasn't been, and even then its current profits are not too different to struggling Nintendo. Nintendo is purely in the games industry - if sales drop (as they have) and losses are being made, it's a massive risk for the company, as there are no other divisions to subsidise the business. Nintendo have to make a profit on their games and their consoles. They have been making losses recently and the profits they have had are minuscule compared to the heydays of the Wii. But going down the path of high-cost, low profit/loss-leading hardware would be a massive risk for the future of the company. Of course, Nintendo need to do something to make their next console sell a lot better than the Wii U. Having a similar console to the competition isn't necessarily the way to go. With the Wii U they definitely would have made more profit. No point making an under spec console that is unpopular. They could have upped its specs and sold at a small loss. Anyway, I think it's obvious Serebii was going down the route of saying they don't make profit which I've seen him do before, and as you can see is not true at all. To look at what the PS3 did initially seems rather short-sighted given we have a more modern/relevant example in the PS4. I said overall in the Playstation life, not just last year. Good grief. Give it up. Oh really! So including the incredibly popular PS1, the best selling console of all time (PS2), the PS3 and PS4? Got another figure to say overall PlayStation has made. a loss for them? Seems odd they would stay in video games for so long if that was the case!
Serebii Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 With the Wii U they definitely would have made more profit. No point making an under spec console that is unpopular. They could have upped its specs and sold at a small loss. Anyway, I think it's obvious Serebii was going down the route of saying they don't make profit which I've seen him do before, and as you can see is not true at all. To look at what the PS3 did initially seems rather short-sighted given we have a more modern/relevant example in the PS4. Oh really! So including the incredibly popular PS1, the best selling console of all time (PS2), the PS3 and PS4? Got another figure to say overall PlayStation has made. a loss for them? Seems odd they would stay in video games for so long if that was the case! Do you know what cumulative means? -_- Now stop derailing this thread. I am no longer engaging your ridiculous backpedalling to try and find a hook so that you can be right.
Mr-Paul Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 With the Wii U they definitely would have made more profit. No point making an under spec console that is unpopular. They could have upped its specs and sold at a small loss. Anyway, I think it's obvious Serebii was going down the route of saying they don't make profit which I've seen him do before, and as you can see is not true at all. To look at what the PS3 did initially seems rather short-sighted given we have a more modern/relevant example in the PS4. Hence why I said in my last post that the Gamepad was a commercial mistake. Hindsight is a wonderful thing though. Rightly or wrongly, since the Gamecube, Nintendo have tried to be different from the competition. It worked tremendously for them with the Wii and DS, but Wii U has failed. Whatever they do next will be risky, but going for something that will make them profit is a sensible option. Of course, they need to make an effort to expand their business and audience, and can't just totally play it safe, but they don't want to drive themselves out of business if a console fails. Going for a loss-leading business model increases that risk.
Sheikah Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 @Serebii I am actually a little disgusted by the way you're behaving here. When challenged you start uttering absolute nonsense about backpeddling and 'you don't know what cumulative means'. Why can't you have a decent conversation without resorting to knee jerk retorts like that? One more time, I'd like to know, what was your initial point? I read it over again, and now you're trying to change the argument it seems. Do they make a loss, overall? No, they don't. We know that. The fact you keep focusing on just the PS3 out of 4 of Sony's consoles pretty much shows this. So how can you say they shouldn't adopt this tactic?
Grazza Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 I actually think it's much simpler than a matter of Nintendo vs. Sony vs. Microsoft. Regardless of competition, regardless of Nintendo's place in the market, surely the best way is to sell hardware at a very small profit (high profit would be optimum, but the public won't buy that)? That way, however successful or unsuccessful a particular console is, the company can stay in decent health. Since 2006, Nintendo's strategy has been to put a huge portion of the cost into a gimmick (for want of a better word). This worked with the Wii, but backfired spectacularly with the 3DS and Wii U. Despite both being good games machines, Nintendo put so much cost into the differentiating factor/gimmick, it was absolutely essential to their strategy that the public was enthused with it. In a world where Mario, NSMB and Mario Kart still have such draw amongst the general public (and they do - at the right price), combined with brilliant services such as StreetPass and Miiverse, not to mention the fact that the upcoming Zelda looks astounding, it's frustrating to me that Nintendo keeps exposing itself to such high risks because of unorthodox hardware.
Mr-Paul Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 It also seems we're discussing two things concurrently- overall profits, and profitable hardware. Discussions about the two separate things seem to have blended into one. As I said, loss-leading hardware is a bigger risk for Nintendo than Sony. It has overall been a successful method for Playstation, excluding the PS3 which was too expensive at launch. Where Nintendo have not been as successful as Playstation over the past twenty years, incurring massive losses to sell high cost hardware cheap would be massively risky without other divisions to subsidise these losses.
Wii Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 It's not a defeatist attitude, it's the state of the industry. This day and age, MS and Sony are throwing money to moneyhat exclusives (including with indies), exclusive content and so forth and Nintendo can't do that. @Retro_Link is right in that they do need to adopt some industry standards (like the account stuff that is FINALLY coming) and use some of their legacy franchises more, but they cannot and should not compete with these massive corporations and their money because, frankly, they cannot. MS and Sony have lost so much money in their divisions, Sony has barely seen a profit overall (largely thanks to the mess of the PS3) and Microsoft hasn't at all. Nintendo cannot operate like that...they can't just take ridiculous losses to build up an audience with the hope of building money back later. It's not a possibility. Thank God you're not a CEO of any company. Do you own a goldfish?
Ronnie Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 I actually think it's much simpler than a matter of Nintendo vs. Sony vs. Microsoft. Regardless of competition, regardless of Nintendo's place in the market, surely the best way is to sell hardware at a very small profit (high profit would be optimum, but the public won't buy that)? That way, however successful or unsuccessful a particular console is, the company can stay in decent health. Since 2006, Nintendo's strategy has been to put a huge portion of the cost into a gimmick (for want of a better word). This worked with the Wii, but backfired spectacularly with the 3DS and Wii U. Despite both being good games machines, Nintendo put so much cost into the differentiating factor/gimmick, it was absolutely essential to their strategy that the public was enthused with it. In a world where Mario, NSMB and Mario Kart still have such draw amongst the general public (and they do - at the right price), combined with brilliant services such as StreetPass and Miiverse, not to mention the fact that the upcoming Zelda looks astounding, it's frustrating to me that Nintendo keeps exposing itself to such high risks because of unorthodox hardware. Not sure how the 3DS backfired spectacularly. They've sold 50 million of them, and in an age that's all about 79p or freemium tablet and phone gaming, that's extraordinary.
Wii Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 What are peoples predictions for this weeks coming Direct? I thought it would happen sooner but with last weeks mobile/DeNA announcement I think they decided to feed off that for a bit. I think it'll be the usual subjects but I want to see new games announced for Wii U.
Serebii Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 What are peoples predictions for this weeks coming Direct? I thought it would happen sooner but with last weeks mobile/DeNA announcement I think they decided to feed off that for a bit. I think it'll be the usual subjects but I want to see new games announced for Wii U. Here are my thoughts Mewtwo Smash DLC (Available after this presentation) Mario Kart 8 DLC #2 - First trailer New Splatoon details + Release Date - May 29th 2015 Splatoon amiibo Smash Wave 5 & Mario Wave 2 amiibo announcements Pokémon Rumble World announcement New Mario Maker details Yoshi's Wooly Island dated - June 2015 New Fire Emblem if news Puzzle & Dragons Mario Edition European Launch details Indie Sizzle Trailer One last thing... Note: the above is speculation and not indicative of insider knowledge
Grazza Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 Not sure how the 3DS backfired spectacularly. They've sold 50 million of them, and in an age that's all about 79p or freemium tablet and phone gaming, that's extraordinary. I didn't say the 3DS backfired, I said the initial strategy backfired, which it did.
Ronnie Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 "I want to see new games announced for Wii U" Why would they announce new games for the Wii U when E3 is in three months, and Mario Maker, Splatoon, Yoshi, X and Zelda aren't out yet?
nekunando Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 Since 2006, Nintendo's strategy has been to put a huge portion of the cost into a gimmick (for want of a better word) I really wish there was a better word as I'm getting sick of hearing it being used to describe everything that isn't seen as conforming to tradition. Having a camera on a phone sounded bizarre over a decade ago but look at just how much stuff our phones do these days! If there's nobody introducing different concepts or ideas, where would we be? We all take things like rumble, d-pads and analogue sticks for granted but their place in gaming all had to start somewhere. There's obviously things which turn out to be more succesful than others but we shouldn't shoot down companies for trying to develop new ideas and push the industry in exciting ways. I've mentioned before that I'd be happy enough for Nintendo to take a more traditional approach in certain aspects in order to concentrate on letting their software do the talking, but I'm equally open to them revealing something which once again makes me view gaming in a different way. The DS Touch Screen & Stylus and the Wii Remote provided some outstanding experiences that just wouldn't have been possible without their creation. The Wii U Gamepad probably hasn't provided anything anywhere near as inventive but the concept certainly has some untapped potential.. Not everything new is a 'gimmick'
Serebii Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 I really wish there was a better word as I'm getting sick of hearing it being used to describe everything that isn't seen as conforming to tradition. Having a camera on a phone sounded bizarre over a decade ago but look at just how much stuff our phones do these days! If there's nobody introducing different concepts or ideas, where would we be? We all take things like rumble, d-pads and analogue sticks for granted but their place in gaming all had to start somewhere. There's obviously things which turn out to be more succesful than others but we shouldn't shoot down companies for trying to develop new ideas and push the industry in exciting ways. I've mentioned before that I'd be happy enough for Nintendo to take a more traditional approach in certain aspects in order to concentrate on letting their software do the talking, but I'm equally open to them revealing something which once again makes me view gaming in a different way. The DS Touch Screen & Stylus and the Wii Remote provided some outstanding experiences that just wouldn't have been possible without their creation. The Wii U Gamepad probably hasn't provided anything anywhere near as inventive but the concept certainly has some untapped potential.. Not everything new is a 'gimmick' Todays gimmicks are tomorrow's standards. Wii is a prime example of that. It popularised motion control, and now that's everywhere
Sheikah Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 (edited) I really wish there was a better word as I'm getting sick of hearing it being used to describe everything that isn't seen as conforming to tradition. Having a camera on a phone sounded bizarre over a decade ago but look at just how much stuff our phones do these days! Not everything new is a 'gimmick' Yeah, not everything new is a gimmick. But new things that die out after a short time and do not establish a standard usually indicate it was a gimmick rather than something that truly revolutionised gaming. The Wii Remote is a textbook example of a gimmick. Initially everyone went mad for it; it became hugely popular overnight and was very quickly replicated by the competition. Then by the end of that generation the 'gimmick factor' was gone and nobody really cared about it anymore. All those shovelware motion control games dried up. To top it off, it never became a standard like the analogue stick, which is on every controller today pretty much. Waggle 'features' may still be in controllers, and you might argue there is some legacy there, but the general point and click aspect of the Wii Remote (which is really what it's all about) is not something that stood the test of time, nor do people really care if it's there or not these days. Nintendo consoles may still work with Wii Remotes but the fact the primary input method is now a gamepad shows even they are moving away from it. Edited March 22, 2015 by Sheikah
Ronnie Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 Yeah, not everything new is a gimmick. But new things that die out after a short time and do not establish a standard usually indicate it was a gimmick rather than something that truly revolutionised gaming. The Wii Remote is a textbook example of a gimmick. Initially everyone went mad for it; it became hugely popular overnight and was very quickly replicated by the competition. Then by the end of that generation nobody really cared about it anymore and all those shovelware motion control games dried up. To top it off, it never became a standard like the analogue stick, which is on every controller today pretty much. Waggle 'features' may still be in controllers, and you might argue there is some legacy there, but the general point and click aspect of the Wii Remote is not something that stood the test of time, nor do people really care if it's there or not these days. Nintendo consoles may still work with Wii Remotes but the fact the primary input method is now a gamepad shows even they are moving away from it. Regardless of whether or not the Wii remote was a gimmick, it's still a piece of tech I'm very glad Nintendo introduced last gen. Great times were had with it (and continue to be had). Plus smaller innovations like a speaker in the remote was inspired, and subsequently copied.
Sheikah Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 Yeah, I don't argue that. It was very interesting at the time, that's for sure. My post was more or less a response to 'don't use the word gimmick', like it was a dirty word. Just because it was a gimmick it doesn't mean people didn't have fun with it.
nekunando Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 Nintendo consoles may still work with Wii Remotes but the fact the primary input method is now a gamepad shows even they are moving away from it. To be honest, I would probably have preferred the Wii Remote and Nunchuk to be standard for Wii U instead of the Gamepad and, as I've said before, would quite like a hybrid of Classic plus Wii Remote and Nunchuk in the future to cover both bases. Replacing the single A button of the remote with A, B, X and Y would possibly be enough
Grazza Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 Just to clarify, I didn't mean gimmick in an offensive way - I meant a differentiating factor that is both mandatory and expensive (so not the d-pad, rumble or analogue stick). It's not about what I like either. Personally, I found stereoscopic 3D very thrilling and find the GamePad very useful at times. I purely mean the business model since 2006 that can leave a console looking like a flop if the public don't get excited enough about the novelty to pay the initial price. It's hard to predict which ones will take off or not, but you can see in advance whether it's using this strategy.
dazzybee Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 Is there a direct this week or just people thinking its about time?
Recommended Posts