Naar Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 No, it's a dying thing if companies don't make money.True, but thats not the issue here. Companies do make money, more then enough. Im the kind of person who frowns upon the following: Company X makes a profit of 400 million in 2012. So pure profit. In 2013, company X makes 350 million dollars profit. So pure profit. Yet company x feels like cutting cost and firing lifelong employee's because they cost too much compared to younger staff. Only because 50 million less in PROFIT was made.
Retro_Link Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 True, but thats not the issue here. Companies do make money, more then enough. Im the kind of person who frowns upon the following: Company X makes a profit of 400 million in 2012. So pure profit. In 2013, company X makes 350 million dollars profit. So pure profit. Yet company x feels like cutting cost and firing lifelong employee's because they cost too much compared to younger staff. Only because 50 million less in PROFIT was made. What?... That profit then has to go into future development... they're not just sitting on it Scrooge McDuck style.
Naar Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 What?... That profit than has to go into future development... they're not just sitting on it Scrooge McDuck style. 400 million in profit or 350 million in profit will result in the exact same end product. The execs only get to have more time on the golf course.
Retro_Link Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 400 million in profit or 350 million in profit will result in the exact same end product. The execs only get to have more time on the golf course. Spend all 400 million and it wouldn't... but correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not like you sit on the board of directors at Nintendo and are qualified to talk about their finances.
Ronnie Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 True, but thats not the issue here. Companies do make money, more then enough. Im the kind of person who frowns upon the following: Company X makes a profit of 400 million in 2012. So pure profit. In 2013, company X makes 350 million dollars profit. So pure profit. Yet company x feels like cutting cost and firing lifelong employee's because they cost too much compared to younger staff. Only because 50 million less in PROFIT was made. You realise Nintendo made a huge loss last year right? At least in Q1 and Q2. The console gaming industry really isn't as lucrative as you think.
Naar Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) You realise Nintendo made a huge loss last year right? At least in Q1 and Q2. The console gaming industry really isn't as lucrative as you think.Yeah i should stay out of this discussion for real in stead of just saying i should stay out of this discussion. Edit: Nintendo is over 30 years old, not 2 quarters. Edit 2, the Final Edit: starting posts with "you realise", "you think that", "you -insert content-", is really aggressive. I keep coming back to this discussion because people have interesting things to say without trying to put words in my mouth. Yet i keep wanting to walk away because of your way of having a discussion. Edited February 3, 2017 by Naar
Pestneb Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 True, but thats not the issue here. Companies do make money, more then enough. Im the kind of person who frowns upon the following: Company X makes a profit of 400 million in 2012. So pure profit. In 2013, company X makes 350 million dollars profit. So pure profit. Yet company x feels like cutting cost and firing lifelong employee's because they cost too much compared to younger staff. Only because 50 million less in PROFIT was made. Does this apply to Nintendo though? I agree that profit margins can seem obscene, but it's more how a company uses the profit. For example in your company X, if they had a line that was no longer making money, would you approve more if company X kept all those employees, made a loss for a few years in a row and then laid off the entire staff and closed down because they were bankrupt? I agree it's not good if companies fire older employees just because younger staff are cheaper, but this is far more of a "general" board discussion than a Nintendo one....
Happenstance Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 To be fair, Company X sounds like something a supervillian would own so I would expect them to be a bit shifty.
Retro_Link Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 Yeah i should stay out of this discussion for real in stead of just saying i should stay out of this discussion. Edit: Nintendo is over 30 years old, not 2 quarters. Blockbuster would be 37 years old this year. What's your point? Make bad decisions and you'll go out of business. Want to remind me how Sega are doing?
Pestneb Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 Yeah i should stay out of this discussion for real in stead of just saying i should stay out of this discussion. Edit: Nintendo is over 30 years old, not 2 quarters. But Nintendo uses that money to provide security etc. Have you got evidence of Nintendo specifically laying off older staff? otherwise about why you bought up random economics
Ronnie Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 Nintendo is over 30 years old, not 2 quarters. They're in a precarious position at the moment, and need to get back to healthy finances. It makes no difference how much profit they were making thirty years ago.
Kav Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 I don't mean to slight Nintendo's past work, but I do feel the 'value' of NES/SNES games has greatly diminished by this stage. The amount of times Nintendo have given the same games away over consoles/promotions/NES classic over the years is in itself a joke these days. If the rental games were (as in my opinion they should be to add value) N64/Gamecube/Wii games... I think this would all be a much smaller issue. Knowing that I'll be receiving NES/SNES games for an online subscription almost turns me off the service more - because it's just the same old thing, and no one wants that in any aspect of life. I think it's fair to say the value of PS+ has diminished lately... however I still think there's something to be said for still providing experiences people haven't played, even if they're not the missed PS3 blockbusters they were 6 months/a year or so ago. The rental of NES/SNES games is a bit of an insult, even with online added, given that a lot of us will have paid for some of the games already on Virtual Console... more than once in some cases!
Naar Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 Does this apply to Nintendo though?Not yet, but if they follow Sony/Microsoft's path, then yes. I dont want a 4K zelda or mario every year with slight graphical updates. Let Nintendo be Nintendo. I often read comments like "Nintendo never learns". Because they dont deliver on hardware/high end graphics. It has kept them alive as a company for over 30 years.
Retro_Link Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 It has kept them alive as a company for over 30 years.The Wii U almost ruined them as a home console manufacturer, and is quite possibly why they are having to charge for online this gen.
Happenstance Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 I'd actually be interested to see the numbers for all of Nintendo's home consoles and hear if they were considered successes or not. I would only consider the NES, SNES and Wii to be successes personally.
Pestneb Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 The rental of NES/SNES games is a bit of an insult, even with online added, given that a lot of us will have paid for some of the games already on Virtual Console... more than once in some cases! while it wouldn't apply to me, it would be nice if they give Wii U owners a free months access to online if they own that months vc game already... I am hoping that they'll release 52 nes/snes games year 1, 52 snes/N64 games the following year, then N64/GC, GC/Wii and finally Wii/Wii U. It would be cool if they had demo versions of upcoming games as well. Not just 1st party titles, but each month have a focus on an upcoming game. A demo of the game, switch theme, discounts on any related vc titles along the lines of the zelda week etc. exclusive to online subscribers. that would be quite cool and would all be a promotion for that game too. It would be nice if they had enough big games to cover it, but look at shovel knight for example, they had that free theme for people who bought it early enough.. and several demo's have come out so... yeah.
Naar Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 The Wii U almost ruined them as a home console manufacturer, and is quite possibly why they are having to charge for online this gen.Ok, im just going to take this. I dont really have sources to counter this anyway, not interested in googling that. Nintendo has invented home console gaming. Maybe they, trough the decades, fell behind on the hardware department. But if you see through the kiddy theme's and happy colours, you get the most solid gameplay the entire industry has to offer. I think 4K/HDR gaming, mostly based on graphics, is one day going to fail. Not be satisfying enough for the gamer. But this is only based on personal future thoughts. Gaming is still centered around the word "game", wich is shit like kicking a ball in the yard. Who cares if the ball is worn and torn. As long as it provides fun you call it a game.
Retro_Link Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 I think 4K/HDR gaming, mostly based on graphics, is one day going to fail. Not be satisfying enough for the gamer. But this is only based on personal future thoughts.Gaming evolves hand in hand with technology and thus 4K/HDR gaming is going nowhere. But just because we have this technology it doesn't mean you can't play a Shovel Knight on it.
Naar Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 Gaming evolves hand in hand with technology and thus 4K/HDR gaming is going nowhere. But just because we have this technology it doesn't mean you can't play a Shovel Knight on it.When we have all this epic technology, why is Shovel Knight even a thing? Why is Minecraft so popular? Why wont World of Warcraft ever die? NES Classic mini, retro gaming, entire youtube channels dedicated to retro gaming.
Ashley Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 NES Classic mini, retro gaming, entire youtube channels dedicated to retro gaming. Same reason they still play episodes of Mash on TV. Nostalgia. Nintendo is an expert at making money off your nostalgia.
Clownferret Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 But how do you see that working? An individual subscription cost per game that you have to individually set up? An online account that verifies the online games you have, creates a (monthly? annual?) total that you're billed. What if you no longer play the games but have them on your system (either literally for digital games or a saved file for physical)? Or would the game itself be more expensive? If so, how expensive to balance the costs over the years? And what about resold games where Nintendo wouldn't get the money for that sale and thus no money for the online? Yes the game is just a few quid more expensive at retail, there is no subscription service. So people who buy more games and therefore use the online system more, will pay more towards it. Good point about resold games. I guess something similar to what Microsoft were suggesting, whereby if a disc is registered to a new NNID they have to pay the additional fee to Nintendo to access the online part of the game.
Ashley Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) Yes the game is just a few quid more expensive at retail, there is no subscription service. So people who buy more games and therefore use the online system more, will pay more towards it. Good point about resold games. I guess something similar to what Microsoft were suggesting, whereby if a disc is registered to a new NNID they have to pay the additional fee to Nintendo to access the online part of the game. But unless the game is made very expensive at retail, the costs are not going to last the lifecycle of the game. Look at something like Smash, which is still being played online years later. £5 extra on the RRP may have recouped some cost that year, but four years later they're not getting any income but still having the same amount of outgoings (for that individual user, obviously the number of users will diminish as years go by). And what 'level' of online would incur the cost and would it scale? Would an online leaderboard cost the same as a full online MMORPG? What about games that user player aggregated stats (Catherine, Life is Strange et al), would we pay extra for that? Would a game with voice chat cost more than one without even if they were both online? If Nintendo wants to be taken seriously when it comes to online (maybe they don't), then they do need to invest better than what they have done. Look at all the DS and Wii games we can't play online because they didn't have their own servers. Either they do that with their own money, or through charging consumers directly. I don't see how the increased RRP of a game is reliable in that regards. Edited February 3, 2017 by Ashley
Grazza Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 I think 4K/HDR gaming, mostly based on graphics, is one day going to fail. Not be satisfying enough for the gamer. But this is only based on personal future thoughts. Out of interest, have you tried VR yet? I actually thought that needed 8K.
Recommended Posts