Jump to content

Nintendo Versus Everyone: The Business Of Business


 Share

Recommended Posts

Missing the point maybe but his point is that the PS3 will still be the leading brand next generation. Just think as if you were a Japanese gamer for a second?

Would you buy the Xbox 360 on release? Probably not. Would you instead buy FFXII and or Zelda to tide you over until the PS3 launch? Of course. Will you buy a PS3 as soon as humanly possible? Yes. Will you also buy a Revolution? Definitely if you are a Nintendo fan and probably eventually down the line if not.

So in Japan the PS3 sells shed loads and the Revolution does ok, probably. The mere fact though that the PS3 is such a sure bet for success in Japan will more-or-less guarantee its success world wide, especially with backwards compatability and state of the art DVD.

Do you possess the ability to time travel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, i love Nintendo and i have grown up with it. But i do not really give a f#$@ if they are profitable or not. It is not logical to suggest that Nintendo is profitable and see this as some kind of big win, especially when they are profitable in the 1/10 of gross profit of what Microsoft or Sony operate. I could be a baker and, in analogy, be more profitable than Nintendo. Does that make me the big winner? Of Course not.

Game Boy Micro? Is that a genius bussiness move? Should I care? No. Why should i care if Nintendo decides to make money by selling the same product-technology it did 5 years ago to some people who find the new device more stylish? Sure, it is a genius move (and a way to drop the SP price as you will all see) but why should I, the gamer, care? What will i gain by seeing Nintendo profit and not giving me the software i want or the 3rd parties to support my dear old GameCube (which i spent my dear money on).

Should i care if Nintendo plays it safe and profits in the next generation, when all i will get is more Marios and Links and Smash Brothers? I am sorry no. Especially when they do not decide to upgrade the franchises and give me another SMS and WW. Don't get me wrong, i love those games, but speaking as a gamer, where is my next generation character development, mature themes presented in a meaningful way, some good directing, good stories, interactivity, physics based worlds, things that will, in the end, make my experience more complete? Sure, it is nice to have the DS or whatever the revolutionary controller brings, i love new ways to play. But is that trully the next step for videogames or a niche offering that will supplement the industry? By following the other road as Nintendo claims, isnt it true that it turns the back on the revolution that the other companies will bring? And by doing so, it is a way to play safe and, as the article above says, come on top as a company in ten years time... Should i care if the company is profitable and come on top in ten years time? Why should i? Because Reggie and Shiggy will bombard me with the 3121241234 Mario sequel?

I love Nintendo and i have followed it all my Life, the whole 30 years of it. But should i give a f@#@ if Game Boy Micro makes it more difficult for Sony to compete, making more and more money to Nintendo? I respect myself, so i really shouldn't... This money are not coming in my pockets... Maybe the analysts do not see the genius bussiness plan of Nintendo, but as it stands, they should... Aright. Do i care what the analysts say though? F#@$ no. Because i am not an analyst, i am a gamer.

Where are my games?

bloody hell that was a bit of rant wasn't it? from what i can make out of it you appear disillusioned by Nintendo. fair enough, but if it's new ideas you're after what about the DS ? and we still don't know enough about the Revolution yet. we have yet to see the controller or any games/demos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not logical to suggest that Nintendo is profitable and see this as some kind of big win, especially when they are profitable in the 1/10 of gross profit of what Microsoft or Sony operate. I could be a baker and, in analogy, be more profitable than Nintendo. Does that make me the big winner? Of Course not.

My problem with the article is that it doesn't have any figures to back up what it is saying, but it seems to imply that Nintendo make more gross profit than MS and Sony (not counting their other non-game related businesses).

Of course, they've made much more than MS but they doesn't take into account the "value" of the brand that MS have built up over this gen. Personally I don't think the Xbox brand will carry them very far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, i love Nintendo and i have grown up with it. But i do not really give a f#$@ if they are profitable or not. It is not logical to suggest that Nintendo is profitable and see this as some kind of big win, especially when they are profitable in the 1/10 of gross profit of what Microsoft or Sony operate. I could be a baker and, in analogy, be more profitable than Nintendo. Does that make me the big winner? Of Course not.

I made it that far two or three times before giving up in bemusement. I have literally no idea what you're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fairly inteseting although some of is theory is flawed... Specifically..

1.. Launch a competitive, low cast product. If the Revolution turns out to

be a $150 machine that generates graphics similar enough to the PS3 and the

360 that the layman can't easily tell the difference, then Joe and Jane

Casual Gamer will probably buy a Nintendo machine

The last launch proved this isnt the case. The Kidz want what is cool and that isn't a Nintendo unfortuantly.

4.. Don't do anything special with the hardware, just keep producing

triple AAA titles. If you want Mario, Metroid or Starfox, you'll have to buy

a Nintendo.

These titles sell to the converted, they don't actually convert anyone in significant numbers over to Nintendo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, i love Nintendo and i have grown up with it. But i do not really give a f#$@ if they are profitable or not. It is not logical to suggest that Nintendo is profitable and see this as some kind of big win, especially when they are profitable in the 1/10 of gross profit of what Microsoft or Sony operate. I could be a baker and, in analogy, be more profitable than Nintendo. Does that make me the big winner? Of Course not.

Game Boy Micro? Is that a genius bussiness move? Should I care? No. Why should i care if Nintendo decides to make money by selling the same product-technology it did 5 years ago to some people who find the new device more stylish? Sure, it is a genius move (and a way to drop the SP price as you will all see) but why should I, the gamer, care? What will i gain by seeing Nintendo profit and not giving me the software i want or the 3rd parties to support my dear old GameCube (which i spent my dear money on).

Should i care if Nintendo plays it safe and profits in the next generation, when all i will get is more Marios and Links and Smash Brothers? I am sorry no. Especially when they do not decide to upgrade the franchises and give me another SMS and WW. Don't get me wrong, i love those games, but speaking as a gamer, where is my next generation character development, mature themes presented in a meaningful way, some good directing, good stories, interactivity, physics based worlds, things that will, in the end, make my experience more complete? Sure, it is nice to have the DS or whatever the revolutionary controller brings, i love new ways to play. But is that trully the next step for videogames or a niche offering that will supplement the industry? By following the other road as Nintendo claims, isnt it true that it turns the back on the revolution that the other companies will bring? And by doing so, it is a way to play safe and, as the article above says, come on top as a company in ten years time... Should i care if the company is profitable and come on top in ten years time? Why should i? Because Reggie and Shiggy will bombard me with the 3121241234 Mario sequel?

I love Nintendo and i have followed it all my Life, the whole 30 years of it. But should i give a f@#@ if Game Boy Micro makes it more difficult for Sony to compete, making more and more money to Nintendo? I respect myself, so i really shouldn't... This money are not coming in my pockets... Maybe the analysts do not see the genius bussiness plan of Nintendo, but as it stands, they should... Aright. Do i care what the analysts say though? F#@$ no. Because i am not an analyst, i am a gamer.

Where are my games?

o/\o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, they've made much more than MS but they doesn't take into account the "value" of the brand that MS have built up over this gen. Personally I don't think the Xbox brand will carry them very far.

Really? I think the Xbox brand is actually quite strong. The days when my parents would refer to everything I owned as a Playstation are long gone; now everything is an Xbox. "Are you taking your Xbox with you?" "It's a GameCube, Dad." "Are you taking your GameBox with you then?" *Sigh*

I know that's pretty anecdotal, but I just hear more people saying Xbox these days than I do Playstation as a term for any old random console. Like I said, that's not particularly great evidence (if at all) of the brand being quite strong. But I do think it's going to serve Microsoft well over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? I think the Xbox brand is actually quite strong. The days when my parents would refer to everything I owned as a Playstation are long gone; now everything is an Xbox. "Are you taking your Xbox with you?" "It's a GameCube, Dad." "Are you taking your GameBox with you then?" *Sigh*

I know that's pretty anecdotal, but I just hear more people saying Xbox these days than I do Playstation as a term for any old random console. Like I said, that's not particularly great evidence (if at all) of the brand being quite strong. But I do think it's going to serve Microsoft well over the years.

It didn't help Sega. And they were in a House of Pain song.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last launch proved this isnt the case.

It did? I thought the whole point was to sell hardware in enough numbers to keep the platform afloat and thereby sell a load of software, which the GC did, and not to kick Sony's arse.

Your other point is completely correct though. Nintendo's first party output is a very strong asset (you just have to look at the software sales to see that - clearly these brands don't *only* appeal to nostalgists), but they need to complement that with strong third party support as well. More Resi 4's and Super Monkey Balls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fairly inteseting although some of is theory is flawed... Specifically..

The last launch proved this isnt the case. The Kidz want what is cool and that isn't a Nintendo unfortuantly.

These titles sell to the converted, they don't actually convert anyone in significant numbers over to Nintendo.

Hmmm but teh younger kidz don't buy consoles - mommy & daddy do - and cute friendly Nintendo games appeal far more to their delicate sensibilities then threatening bloody PlayStation titles. Also with a generation of gamers now having kids of their own - whose machine would you buy for your six year old?

Nintendo have a decent profitable marketshare from a younger audiance and older loyal fans - they have no interest in courting the teenage market which sneers at it - and why should they? They are doing quite nicely out of their current marketshare.

Interesting the Cube continues to be seen as a failure even though it has only been outsold a little by Xbrick and has been far more profitable for its parent company. Oh and the little matter that it has had some of the best games of this generation (debatable point I know but I loved WW/Sunshine/Luigi's Mansion etc).

The glory days of industry dominance may have gone, but Nintendo still know how to play the videogame market....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my opinion doesn't come into how many it's sold, and that's the only way of measuring a console's success. otherwise i could claim that the Jaguar was successful because Tempest 2000 is my favourite game.

this is a thread about figures and profit afterall.

yeah ?

> how many it's sold, and that's the only way of measuring a console's success

THAT is your opinion.

The metric.

Not the figures.

It's YOUR opinion that the only way of measuring success should be based on the volume units sold (or volume units shipped retail, or units manufactored - these are often mixed up).

In MY opinion, the QUALITY OF GAMES is the fairest way to decide which console was best from the viewpoint of a gamer.

So, I'll use a made-up example:

SONYBOX sold 100million units, and during the lifetime shipped 30 games that received an 8/10 or higher in CONSOLE Magazine out of a total of 1000 games.

SEGATON sold 10million units, and during the lifetime shipped 5 games that received an 8/10 or higher in CONSOLE Magazineout of a total of 100 games.

Nintendo 69 sold 30mill units, and during the lifetime shipped 85 games that received an 8/10 or higher in CONSOLE Magazine out of a total of 400 games.

By my metric, the success is ranked:

Nintendo 69 - 85

SONYBOX - 30

SEGATON - 26

Of course the argument then flows into "how do you define what a good game is", and there are a huge number of various methods for working that out, which will lead to different results..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't we talking about financial success though? A highly rated game by X Magazine gives you this much money - 0. Sure, for us, it's great, but Nintendo, or any company, doesn't care about giving us the best games if they aren't going to make money on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

trying to measure a console's success by how good you think the games are is too subjective. i could say to you that the Gameboy is the most unsuccessful ever, and that all the games are rubbish with crap sound etc. you might not agree but that doesn't make me wrong. however you could then turn around and say that the Gameboy has sold the most, and i can't argue with that.

it's 'fair' to conclude that the one which has sold the most hardware and software units is the one enjoyed by the majority and therefore the most successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if someone's said it already, but the GBM will be a big success in the same way the PSone raked in money for sony after they redesigned.

I might be wrong here but I think even a year after the PS2 came out the PSone was still their biggest selling console.

The GBA micro will be the same. If its cheaper to make, is cheap enough in the shops, and has a huge back catologue of games then it'll make them a stack. regardless of the fact there's a newer, better console available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In MY opinion, the QUALITY OF GAMES is the fairest way to decide which console was best from the viewpoint of a gamer.

So, I'll use a made-up example:

SONYBOX sold 100million units, and during the lifetime shipped 30 games that received an 8/10 or higher in CONSOLE Magazine out of a total of 1000 games.

SEGATON sold 10million units, and during the lifetime shipped 5 games that received an 8/10 or higher in CONSOLE Magazineout of a total of 100 games.

Nintendo 69 sold 30mill units, and during the lifetime shipped 85 games that received an 8/10 or higher in CONSOLE Magazine out of a total of 400 games.

By my metric, the success is ranked:

Nintendo 69 - 85

SONYBOX - 30

SEGATON - 26

That's all very nice and I approve of a system that stresses quality, but the video games business isn't about quality or review scores, it's about money. The only reason for a company making games is to make money and the only reason for making their games good is to make more money.

To quote Don Simpson: "The pursuit of making money is the only reason to make movies. We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. Our obligation is to make money."

"To make money, it may be important to win the Academy Award, for it might mean another ten million dollars at the box office."

Same applies to games. Review scores are otherwise entirely academic. You measure success in dollars and cents, not in opinions or perception. Of course, perception in the forum of image, review scores or internet buzz might impact your profits, but that's the only time it's an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't know where this idea that parents will buy Nintendo for their kids comes from.

I can only think that this gen the GC looks more 'kiddy' friendly than the PS2, and alot of negative (see manhunt) PS2 games stories have been going around.

Under the surface Sony and Nintendo share almost the same 3rd party 'kiddy' games, with Sony's 1st/2nd party support winning out with the rest (platformers, racers, party games).

To me Nintendo's output in it's trademark area has been weak this gen, and with all the next gen systems looking 'mature' in their outer stylings, when parents come to look at the depth of games available for Sony's machine, i can't see them choosing otherwise. Yes there's going to be gory games around, but they simply wont be letting their kids buy them (in theory).

Basically, i just think it's a myth that Nintendo is still the parent's champion and that Sony is all mature evil. Just look at all the platformers, party games, and music games on the PS2!

And if i can keep going, this is what i was meaning earlier when i said "Sony run the biz these days". Nintendo have lost their 'influence' over things because they're no longer the no.1 system seller. Especially when it comes to 3rd parties (and to me this is the best way to judge 'success' in a generation, the amount of Dev support you have), and this has left them trying to cover all genres themselves and becoming spread too thin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the Dev support, all the "quality" games, all the fanboys doesn't mean jack shit when it comes to the money. Its all about the money. Saying Nintendo don't have the market share is like criticising Ferrari for not selling as many cars as Ford.

The people who have a go at Nintendo do so because they have some kind of warped idea that they can dictate what is right and what isn't in the games industry. "I want to play the games I want and if Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony don't provide then they are shit/doomed/useless."

"Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony should move into the handheld/wireless market, where by working with 1st party/independent devs/little green aliens they can increase profits/market share/mindshare.."

It is ridiculous. You don't see fans of Band X saying "thats all well and good, but what their record label need to do is reach out more to the teen market. And quite frankly, the budget they gave to Band Y to make their latest video was ridiculous and ended up with a big pile of shit! That'll teach them. Teh d00med!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That other article he's linked to is quite good too ( http://nintendoinsider.com/site/EEEZuAypVuTuOJPzyb.php ) though it trails off a little in places.

Nintendo ended its most recent fiscal year with its net profit skyrocketing 163% over the previous year. Next year, it expects to pull in another 75 billion yen in net profit; in comparison, Sony as an entire company (including the electronics division, games division, etc) expects to bring in 80 billion yen. And Nintendo only makes video games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the Dev support, all the "quality" games, all the fanboys doesn't mean jack shit when it comes to the money. Its all about the money.  Saying Nintendo don't have the market share is like criticising Ferrari for not selling as many cars as Ford.

what? how the hell do you expect to get money if you don't have Devs on board and fans boys to buy your stuff? Nintendo would be screwed if it wasnt for us lot buying their stuff without question.

and the analogy is flawed too. it's more like a company the size (and influence) of ford deciding to down size and just make sports cars because another car company came along and kicked their ass. also calling the GC a Ferrari is taking the piss a bit.

Don't get me wrong, Nintendo are my favourite hardware AND software maker of all time, but to hear people on here read that article and come out with "woo Nintendo, it's all going well", is just utter crap. Yes the smart business sence has stopped the slide and they'll live to fight another day, but i honestly can't see how people can be happy with things considering the position Nintendo were once in.

anyway rant over for me, i'm starting to sound like a Nintendo basher :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm but teh younger kidz don't buy consoles - mommy & daddy do - and cute friendly Nintendo games appeal far more to their delicate sensibilities then threatening bloody PlayStation titles. 

That's simply not true. It might be if the parents played the games. In most cases, however, they don't. So what they'll get is their children saying "I want a playstation 2!", and then the parents brave a games shop, and ask for exactly that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's simply not true. It might be if the parents played the games. In most cases, however, they don't. So what they'll get is their children saying "I want a playstation 2!", and then the parents brave a games shop, and ask for exactly that.

Correct.

Most people buy a Playstation 2 because everyone else has one, the games are numerous and easy to find, and because it lets them share their media with said friends. Only the hardcore care or even acknowledge other options - for most of the world, the PS2 may as well be a standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what?  how the hell do you expect to get money if you don't have Devs on board and fans boys to buy your stuff?  Nintendo would be screwed if it wasnt for us lot buying their stuff without question.

and the analogy is flawed too.  it's more like a company the size (and influence) of ford deciding to down size and just make sports cars because another car company came along and kicked their ass.  also calling the GC a Ferrari is taking the piss a bit.

Don't get me wrong, Nintendo are my favourite hardware AND software maker of all time, but to hear people on here read that article and come out with "woo Nintendo, it's all going well", is just utter crap.  Yes the smart business sence has stopped the slide and they'll live to fight another day, but i honestly can't see how people can be happy with things considering the position Nintendo were once in.   

anyway rant over for me, i'm starting to sound like a Nintendo basher  :P

Yea, completely flawed analogy - for a start the car market is bigger than the games market by an order of magnitude and Nintendo aren't like Ferrari because they're not making up-market luxury products, they're making the same product as Sony and Microsoft.

The Neo Geo AES is more like the games industry Ferrari, but even then: :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Delorean-me-do, but I just found this :

"Satoru Iwata said the Nintendo Revolution will allow players to download playable demos of Revolution game titles from the Internet. These trial ware will be saved into the 512MB internal flash memory."

This is potentially very good for Nintendo, and to be honest... demo discs are something they should have done with the GameCube.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm but teh younger kidz don't buy consoles - mommy & daddy do - and cute friendly Nintendo games appeal far more to their delicate sensibilities then threatening bloody PlayStation titles.  Also with a generation of gamers now having kids of their own - whose machine would you buy for your six year old?

Sorry that's wrong - I know as I'm a parent. Peer group pressure is the be all and end all. Kids want what their friends already have or want themselves and that was and is a PS2 this time round. The GC needed to catch that wave in the UK but didn't even come close.

The funny thing is that Nintendo probably have no idea what will attract kids next time. On-line? Maybe. Another GTA clone? Maybe. A Pokemon rpg? Probably not but it could have done 3 years ago. Getting Zelda noticed again? Maybe the forthcoming Zelda could do that, who knows. Mario 128 - I don't think so. Its anybodies guess - I sort of hope that generic fps games have had their day but they probably haven't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe that console sales is the only way of measuring a systems success, nor do I believe that game 'quality' is a measurement either. Quality is relative, after all. The DC example has been said many times. Didn't sell many consoles, but had lots of high quality software for it.

Although the Cube is only minimally outsold worldwide than the Xbox, the Xbox has better 'brand status' over the Gamecube (not the Nintendo label itself tho') this generation. It's a more desired product by the masses.

What about using a games attached ratio? The xbox has the largest ratio of games owned per system owner. A while back I read that there were on average, 7 games owned by each Xbox owner, compared to say, 4 or 5 for each PS2. I have no idea what the Cube's is nor what the figures are for each system now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.