Hardware What will happen with nintendo (?)

[VMM]

I don't know if they profit on each 360 sold, that very well may have changed over time. There are other expenses though, so it doesn't mean much one way or the other.

I have seen multiple sources, when I search the internet, that state that the Xbox brand has not made any money for Microsoft. Perhaps 360 by itself did, I am not sure, but overall xbox has not made money.

You can also find info that GameCube was profitable for nintendo.

Whether or not sales were good comparatively for its generation is not what matters as far as my point. I am simply saying nintendo made money that console generation.

I'm sorry but without any source this seems nothing but baseless assumptions.
Also, do not double post, that's against the rules.

If this thread was about just the wii u it's a different conversation. All I am saying is that the wii u struggling is not the end of the world for nintendo. Comparitively low sales is not either. Sure selling better is good, but even if by your standards those consoles were failures nintendo did well enough with them that it didn't kill the company or their ability to make games or future consoles.

I am only saying that Nintendo is not on the precipice of complete failure in the console industry the way all it's pre-sony competition failed.

In this point I agree with you.
Even if WiiU fails as hard as Virtual Boy(which I find hard to believe),
3DS been selling a lot, and it has plenty of well selling Nintendo games,
so Nintendo wouldn't crash, at least not yet.

Nintendo would survive like it did with N64 and Gamecube.
Having their handhelds making money and compensating for the loss of console.

Also all this nonsense about certain games not selling the console is nonsense. Overall sales is not the point. If a certain game convince 1000 people to buy a nintendo console than that is enough. It doesn't have to resurrect the console to the top in order for that to be true.

What you're talking is what is nonsense.
No developer is going to invest thoushands of dollars creating a game for such limited public.
That's waste of money, and as any enterprise, Nintendo will try to avoid it.

Considering this discussion came from the big failure of SM3DW sales,
and considering what Nintendo expected from such title, and how they invested a lot in it,
we can say it's launch was a total disaster, from sales point.

 

[blaisedinsd]

My point is with the exclusives coming to wii u I think the console will end up being profitable for Nintendo. I think Wii u owners will have plenty of great games to play to justify their purchase. I know I already have enough games to play on it to have justified my purchase.

Nintendo could continue putting out consoles as successful as the GameCube and make money, satisfy their fans and those who bought the console. Losing console wars and having comparatively low sales does not mean nintendo will abandon the console business. I have never met anyone who owned a GameCube that was bitter or regretted it. That nintendos profits were comparatively high compared to their more successful competition is something you should be paying attention to. Sure they have made mistakes like sticking with cartridges or refusing to have movie playing capabilities, but overall nintendo is the console maker that best knows how to make money in this business. They don't require every console to be as successful as the nes, snes, or wii in order to make money.

 

[Foxi4]

Nintendo could continue putting out consoles as successful as the GameCube (...)

Meaning "not successful" which is something I outlined earlier. The Gamecube's situation was tragic, only first-party titles sold on the system which caused major developers like Edios to cancel titles, withdraw support, scale titles down to minimize losses or release games originally planned as exclusive cross-platform to make up for the losses. Saying it was anything other than an embarrasment is ridiculous.

 

[blaisedinsd]

You're assuming that the aim is to make money selling hardware, which it is not. It's the licenses and services that are the money-makers, hardware is supposed to be cheap to be approachable to the End-User.

You only ever buy a console once, games you have to buy periodically. When you look at the matter from that perspective, it is beneficial for you to sell a ton of consoles even if you don't make any money on them for the sake of securing future profits.

Assuming that the royalties per title would be $5, chances are that in the next 5-10 years that one million of users will buy more than 10 games nullifying your loss completely. Anything beyond those 10 games is all profit and it keeps rolling in, and that's without even taking services into account.

Not really. I am not talking about profit per console sold at all, I am talking about overall profit of console itself. When I say Gamecube made money for nintendo I am not simply talking about that they made $5 per console sold while competitors were sold at a loss. When I say Xbox has not made money for microsoft I am not just talking about profits per console sold, I am talking about the entire business of xbox overall.

This post is nothing but an explanation of why a console make would sell any hardware at a loss. I don't think it is really relevant to the thread. I do think it is smart that Nintendo has not traditionally gone this route and maybe that's why they are better at making profit with their sales but whatever.

 

[Foxi4]

Not really. I am not talking about profit per console sold at all, I am talking about overall profit of console itself. When I say Gamecube made money for nintendo I am not simply talking about that they made $5 per console sold while competitors were sold at a loss. When I say Xbox has not made money for microsoft I am not just talking about profits per console sold, I am talking about the entire business of xbox overall.

This post is nothing but an explanation of why a console make would sell any hardware at a loss. I don't think it is really relevant to the thread. I do think it is smart that Nintendo has not traditionally gone this route and maybe that's why they are better at making profit with their sales but whatever.

The XBox didn't make a whole lot of money simply because it was both released late and it was Microsoft's first entry in the console business, it was expected to be less than inspiring.

What you're saying is that it's good Nintendo plays it safe, making third-party developers doubt the Wii U right out of the grate and completely turn their backs on it because nobody wants one. You're saying that it's perfectly fine that it's shaping up to be a Nintendo first-party box and aspires to nothing above mediocrity. Good, good.

My post is entirely relevant to the subject because it explains how consoles are supposed to be sold. It's to be expected to take initial losses, a system is like a long-term investment that brings in the dough later down the line. Your initial sales profits are going to slowly melt away as time passes when you have no games to support your system with, licensing keeps the money flowing at a constant.

 

[grossaffe]

You're assuming that the aim is to make money selling hardware, which it is not. It's the licenses and services that are the money-makers, hardware is supposed to be cheap to be approachable to the End-User. You only ever buy a console once, games you have to buy periodically. When you look at the matter from that perspective, it is beneficial for you to sell a ton of consoles even if you don't make any money on them for the sake of securing future profits.

I'm not making that assumption, but rather just eradicating the idea that selling more hardware is equivalent to more profit. If you look purely at number of units pushed as a measure for success and ignore that the company actually lost money on the brand, then your measurement of success is flawed. If you sell at a loss, you can get something to the consumer that they will more appreciate than if you sell at a profit or if you break even. To those customers (us), we may see that as a success when looking at the surface, and see the one with lesser sales but higher profit margins as a failure because we didn't enjoy it as much. It doesn't much matter how much happier your customers are than your competition's if you threw yourself into the red to accomplish that goal.

 

[Foxi4]

I'm not making that assumption, but rather just eradicating the idea that selling more hardware is equivalent to more profit. If you look purely at number of units pushed as a measure for success and ignore that the company actually lost money on the brand, then your measurement of success is flawed. If you sell at a loss, you can get something to the consumer that they will more appreciate than if you sell at a profit or if you break even. To those customers (us), we may see that as a success when looking at the surface, and see the one with lesser sales but higher profit margins as a failure because we didn't enjoy it as much. It doesn't much matter how much happier your customers are than your competition's if you threw yourself into the red to accomplish that goal.

"Those who don't play don't win" - as I said, in terms of consoles a product is an investment. Pushing millions of consoles to customers at a managable loss guarantees third-party support - developers are going to want "in" on this target audience and you are going to give it to them... at a price.

What you end up with is a system that sold a crapaton of units with a massive library of games and you gladly reap profits from each and every licensed title sold - you're in money-printing heaven.

Sure, you can invest a lot in a system and it might still fail, that's an option. It's called business - it has ups and downs.

 

[blaisedinsd]

I'm sorry but without any source this seems nothing but baseless assumptions.
Also, do not double post, that's against the rules.

http://www.neowin.net/news/report-microsofts-xbox-division-has-lost-nearly-3-billion-in-10-years

http://playeressence.com/rick-sherl...ut-microsoft-has-not-made-any-money-off-this/

Basically 360 has been profitable for that last few years but overall it has not been since it was a money pit for how many years since the launch of the first xbox.

In this point I agree with you.
Even if WiiU fails as hard as Virtual Boy(which I find hard to believe),
3DS been selling a lot, and it has plenty of well selling Nintendo games,
so Nintendo wouldn't crash, at least not yet.

Nintendo would survive like it did with N64 and Gamecube.
Having their handhelds making money and compensating for the loss of console.

From what I have been able to find Gamecube was not losing money while gameboy sustained Nintendo. Sure Gameboy made more money but Gamecube was profitiable in and of itself from everything I have been able to find.

And even if the Wii U never sold another console it would already be more successful than the Virtual Boy.....

What you're talking is what is nonsense.
No developer is going to invest thoushands of dollars creating a game for such limited public.
That's waste of money, and as any enterprise, Nintendo will try to avoid it.

This is only relevant as far as third party support, or to put it another way the ability of other companies to profit off Nintendos hardware business. Nintendo is not really in the business of trying to be the place where you will find all the best third party games. They do need some third party support but GTA V skipping Wii U is not really a big factor. As we know those games don't sell that well on Nintendo consoles anyway and people do not buy Nintendo consoles in order to play them.

Considering this discussion came from the big failure of SM3DW sales,
and considering what Nintendo expected from such title, and how they invested a lot in it,
we can say it's launch was a total disaster, from sales point.

I only think its a failure from the perspective of expecting it to completely and instantly turn around the Wii U. There are many ways you can spin the numbers to be pretty good, for instance the attach rate in Japan. Overall the game has been out a week so drawing sweeping conclusions right now is premature in my view.

 

[ShadowSoldier]

People are angry about Bayonetta 2 because they don't want to buy a new console for it. And they won't.

Then those people are incredibly stupid and have zero rights to be mad about the game. If you want the game, you buy the WiiU. If not, then you didn't want the game that much. People should be grateful that they even have a chance to play Bayonetta 2 thanks to Nintendo.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Then those people are incredibly stupid and have zero rights to be mad about the game. If you want the game, you buy the WiiU. If not, then you didn't want the game that much. People should be grateful that they even have a chance to play Bayonetta 2 thanks to Nintendo.

The thing is the Wii U is not compelling enough for that game alone.

 

[Foxi4]

Then those people are incredibly stupid and have zero rights to be mad about the game. If you want the game, you buy the WiiU. If not, then you didn't want the game that much. People should be grateful that they even have a chance to play Bayonetta 2 thanks to Nintendo.

At least here we can agree, considering the fact that if not for Nintendo's financing, the game wouldn't even exist.

The thing is the Wii U is not compelling enough for that game alone.

Practically no single game is compelling enough to buy a system for unless you're a long-term fan - it takes a library and the Wii U's is currently... lacking.

 

[grossaffe]

"Those who don't play, don't win" - as I said, in terms of consoles a product is an investment. Pushing millions of consoles to customers at a managable loss guarantees third-party support - developers are going to want "in" on this target audience and you are going to give it to them... at a price.

Sure, you can invest a lot in a system and it might still fail, that's an option. It's called business - it has ups and downs.

Pushing all those consoles does not guarantee third party support. If it did, people wouldn't be talking about Nintendo's rocky relationship with third parties after the Wii. Eating a ton of money to push hardware is a huge gamble that can bankrupt a brand that doesn't have a huge company supporting it that can afford to eat the losses from a failed gamble. Instead, Nintendo gambles through innovations trying to change the way we play. It's a cheaper gamble as that innovation costs less than eating a bunch of money on each console, and it targets a subset of potential buyers that Microsoft and Sony do not, so they aren't in a three-way fight with their gamble. If they "gambled" the exact same way Sony and Microsoft did, they'd be in a three-way battle at best for the same audience, and there's still no guarantee that the third parties would choose to support them (we all saw how EA's "unprecedented" relationship with Nintendo went).

 

[ShadowSoldier]

The thing is the Wii U is not compelling enough for that game alone.

Ya right now the WiiU isn't. But it still doesn't give those people a right to complain. Hell I'm willing to bet those same people who want the game, and Nintendo had the best lineup of games ever, still wouldn't buy a WiiU.

 

[calmwaters]

The thing is the Wii U is not compelling enough for that game alone.

Practically no single game is compelling enough to buy a system for unless you're a long-term fan - it takes a library and the Wii U's is currently... lacking.

How many games does it take for a game system to become worthy of buying? Three? Thirty? Three hundred? How many f* games does it take to convince people to buy a game system? Seriously, if you want to support Nintendo, buy their f* console, buy their f* games, quit complaining about the graphics engine, etc. You're not making any money for Nintendo, which is why they find themselves financially challenged right now. You complain about the U having no games. I can count 20 games the U has on store shelves right now. And this library is not likely to get bigger until you buy the games in their existing library.

 

[Foxi4]

Pushing all those consoles does not guarantee third party support. If it did, people wouldn't be talking about Nintendo's rocky relationship with third parties after the Wii. Eating a ton of money to push hardware is a huge gamble that can bankrupt a brand that doesn't have a huge company supporting it that can afford to eat the losses from a failed gamble. Instead, Nintendo gambles through innovations trying to change the way we play. It's a cheaper gamble as that innovation costs less than eating a bunch of money on each console, and it targets a subset of potential buyers that Microsoft and Sony do not, so they aren't in a three-way fight with their gamble. If they "gambled" the exact same way Sony and Microsoft did, they'd be in a three-way battle at best for the same audience, and there's still no guarantee that the third parties would choose to support them (we all saw how EA's "unprecedented" relationship with Nintendo went).

Okay, let's analyze what you're saying here:

Wii: 100.3 million units sold - 1222 games
PlayStation 2: 155 million units sold - 3870 games
PlayStation: 102.49 million units sold - 2418 games
Nintendo 64: 32.93 million units sold - 387 games

Damn, it's almost as if third-party developers supported well-selling platforms - who would've thought? Nintendo's rocky relationship with third-party developers as far as the Wii was concerned was caused by the fact that the Wii was simply weak and couldn't support multiplatform titles which made development difficult, that didn't stop developers from making games for it and supporting it though.

Releasing any product is a gamble because that's how business works, that's the whole point - you invest money with the promise of a future profit. You're not going to convince me that Nintendo gambles with innovation when the only "freaky-innovative" home consoles they released were the Wii and the Wii U, the latter of which is bombing big time. Hell, the Gamecube was even touted the least innovative system of its generation, so there you go.

You complain about the U having no games. I can count 20 games the U has on store shelves right now.

15 of which are available on last-generation systems anyways, 3 of which are crap and 2 are first-party titles, that's the whole issue.

The Wii U's problem is that the great majority of its games are not XBox One or PlayStation 4 multiplatform titles - they're PlayStation 3 and XBox 360 multiplatform titles. There's absolutely no reason for anyone to upgrade to a Wii U when he or she can play those games on the system they already own.

 

[ShadowSoldier]

How many games does it take for a game system to become worthy of buying? Three? Thirty? Three hundred? How many fucking games does it take to convince people to buy a game system? Seriously, if you want to support Nintendo, buy their fucking console, buy their fucking games, quit complaining about the graphics engine, etc. You're not making any money for Nintendo, which is why they find themselves financially challenged right now. You complain about the U having no games. I can count 20 games the U has on store shelves right now. And this library is not likely to get bigger until you buy the games in their existing library.

- Don't swear so much when... really, nobody else is (aside from Guild). People will actually read your post more.
- Nintendo is not financially challenged... where the hell did you get that notion from? Nintendo has been turning a profit for like 30 straight years. Their handhelds make them serious bank. Nintendo is far from being in any sort of financial trouble.

 

[calmwaters]

- Don't swear so much when... really, nobody else is (aside from Guild). People will actually read your post more.
- Nintendo is not financially challenged... where the hell did you get that notion from? Nintendo has been turning a profit for like 30 straight years. Their handhelds make them serious bank. Nintendo is far from being in any sort of financial trouble.

I'm sorry. I was just upset. Nintendo has been turning a profit for 30 years, but they haven't been turning one from the Wii U. I know this is business and that businesses go up and down in their money making, but I don't want them to lose money on the Wii U. They've turned a profit for 30 years (I keep coming back to this...); why can't they continue to do it? <<Not a rhetorical question, just something to think about.

*snip*
15 of which are available on last-generation systems anyways, 3 of which are crap and 2 are first-party titles, that's the whole issue.

The Wii U's problem is that the great majority of its games are not XBox One or PlayStation 4 multiplatform titles - they're PlayStation 3 and XBox 360 multiplatform titles. There's absolutely no reason for anyone to upgrade to a Wii U when he or she can play those games on the system they already own.

Well I didn't get a PS3 or a 360; never had any money for them. I reckon I could get a PS3 now, though. And who's fault is it that they're 360 and PS3 multiplatform titles? Does Nintendo have much of a choice, considering how game developers aren't releasing games made for the Xbone and PS4 on the Wii U? Why are we always getting the short end of the stick because we have a Nintendo? Is Nintendo doing this to us personally? I doubt it. They care about their consumers; notice how they released a Youtube app on the 3DS for the people who were clamoring for it; they changed the settings on the NN to try to prevent it from becoming the next Xbox Live. Hopefully they'll add more things to this list, like releasing KH3 on the U and removing region locks. (And adding Reggie as a playable character in Smash Bros. U)

 

[ShadowSoldier]

I'm sorry. I was just upset. Nintendo has been turning a profit for 30 years, but they haven't been turning one from the Wii U. I know this is business and that businesses go up and down in their money making, but I don't want them to lose money on the Wii U. They've turned a profit for 30 years (I keep coming back to this...); why can't they continue to do it? <<Not a rhetorical question, just something to think about.

Why can't they? Easy (and this is coming from one of the biggest Nintendo fans ever and someone who's defended Nintendo countless times on this site)

- Management is poor: Iwata doesn't know what to do. And there's no signs of things changing. Even E3 was disappointing. That's an important day for gaming companies. And everything Nintendo showed, we all expected (aside from the look of Smash Bros, Mega Man in it). We were all expecting a 3D Mario game, successor to Mario Galaxy, we got Mario 3d World (even though it's an amazing game). Even Reggie of Nintendo in a recent interview said that fan feedback and those petitions and such, Nintendo pays no attention to and it has no effect on their decisions. Which is bad considering looking at Sony and Microsoft, their fans speak up, they listen.

- Advertising is non-existent: Look at the Wii. There were ads for the console all over the place. For the WiiU? Practically none. Nintendo got this idea that if they just advertise on YouTube, and post pictures on Twitter or Facebook, they'll sell consoles. The problem is the people who follow them, already own a Nintendo console.

- They need to buy some companies: Capcom for example would be a great asset to Nintendo. Capcom has already stated that they can't make any next-gen games. They're opening a mobile department just so they can stay afloat. Nintendo would be smart in buying Capcom. They would get titles like Resident Evil, Monster Hunter, Devil May Cry to just name a few. That would be a great start and a huge win for both companies.

- They have 10 billion dollars in the bank: Put that money to some good use. Hire some studios to make new IP's. Nintendo has more money in the gaming division than Sony does, yet Sony gets titles like The Last of Us.

- Iwata needs to go, and so does Reggie. Those two have fulfilled their purpose, they're now the new Ken Kutaragi (boss of Sony before Kaz Hirai), where they're just screwing the company the longer they're staying. They need someone new, and one that won't just sell Nintendo as soon as he can.

- Get a new development team. There's no reason Nintendo should still use the outdated PPC architecture. Sony and Microsoft are getting this better hardware for close to dirt cheap, Nintendo is overpaying for poor quality hardware. I'm not saying give up on the WiiU now as that would be the worst decision Nintendo could choose, but for their next console, they need to step it up, and not just put out what Sony and Microsoft gave this generation.

 

[Foxi4]

Well I didn't get a PS3 or a 360; never had any money for them. I reckon I could get a PS3 now, though. And who's fault is it that they're 360 and PS3 multiplatform titles? Does Nintendo have much of a choice, considering how game developers aren't releasing games made for the Xbone and PS4 on the Wii U? Why are we always getting the short end of the stick because we have a Nintendo? Is Nintendo doing this to us personally? I doubt it. They care about their consumers; notice how they released a Youtube app on the 3DS for the people who were clamoring for it; they changed the settings on the NN to try to prevent it from becoming the next Xbox Live. Hopefully they'll add more things to this list, like releasing KH3 on the U and removing region locks. (And adding Reggie as a playable character in Smash Bros. U)

This has a lot to do with both Nintendo's licensing terms and with the specs of their systems. It's been said a number of times - Nintendo makes systems that play their games, not games that play on their systems and this is a problem. You have to give developers wiggle room - don't treat yourself as the ultimate common denominator.

Additionally you're assuming that "Nintendo" released a Youtube app for the 3DS when that's not true - Google did, Nintendo had nothing to do with it. Nintendo Network couldn't possibly become the next XBox Live because that would require it to have an account system and a sensible infrastructure - something it still doesn't have.

As for region locks, none of them are "going" since they were implemented for a very specific purpose - spreading the profits relatively equally across the three branches of the company because screwing customers over is easier to implement than company re-structuring. By "screwing over" I'm refering to the implementation of region locking on portables when there's literally nothing that calls for it - in fact, it doesn't make sense.

 

[grossaffe]

- Get a new development team. There's no reason Nintendo should still use the outdated PPC architecture. Sony and Microsoft are getting this better hardware for close to dirt cheap, Nintendo is overpaying for poor quality hardware. I'm not saying give up on the WiiU now as that would be the worst decision Nintendo could choose, but for their next console, they need to step it up, and not just put out what Sony and Microsoft gave this generation.

I have no idea where you're getting any of that from. How is the PPC architecture outdated when you're comparing it to the x86? I also don't know where you're getting numbers for how much Nintendo is paying for it's processor and how much Sony and Microsoft are paying for theirs.