Do they really gain more in profit on that disappointing underpowered hardware than they lose by not having Mario Kart and Smash and Zelda selling a gazillion copies on the PS4/XBone?
The games wouldn't look good compared to others on the console because Nintendo's developers designed them for a PS3 power level and not PS4 quality.
The reason they're having a hard time sustaining the console as it is is because the cost of the jump to HD surprised them as much as it did everyone else last gen. They couldn't have jumped to a modern graphic level and still have the same output they are on Wii U, where they're probably only able to output as much as they are due to it being the same architecture they're used to.
In this hypothetical they don't need to maintain the same throughput. The only reason they're crunched now is that they have to make basically every single title to support an entire hardware platform. Oh no wait, I meant two platforms, since the 3DS still exists too.
Do you think the Wii U is profitable yet? I mean not just from an ongoing standpoint of making money, I mean factoring in initial R&D and all. Have they made money on it? If so then I think it was worth it, even if it wasn't a Wii-level success. It's not a Virtual Boy write-off.
Keep in mind that if they'd decided to forego the console and make games for another platform, the platform holder gets a huge cut of their sales.
We can talk doom and gloom about being their slowest selling console and all, but they've still probably sold 10 million units by now (it was nine-point-something as of a few months ago).
how to sell more Wii Us :
Here's a Zelda, a Metroid, and an Animal Crossing
Nintendo @ E3: Here's no Zelda, a not-metroid, and two not-animal crossings.
If you're including 3DS, there's a Zelda title there.
If you're not including 3DS, it's 1 not-AC, period.
So which is it? One can at least be precise with disappointment.
Side note: I continue to be surprised that anyone was surprised that Zelda U wasn't there. We had a heads-up about that a month ago? Earlier? I can't remember.
Oops- somehow I had gotten confused and thought Happy Home Designer was coming to Wii U as well.
Meh, if third parties complain about how they can't compete with Nintendo on Nintendo's platforms just imagine how they'd fair on another console. Who would they have left to blame then?
Meh, if third parties complain about how they can't compete with Nintendo on Nintendo's platforms just imagine how they'd fair on another console. Who would they have left to blame then?
I think the last time that complaint was expressed was in like the Game Cube era. It was just an excuse like all the rest. "Oh on the Wii we have to make a little test game to see if it sells well enough to make an actual good game for it." "Oh on Wii U we're going to put out some ports and see if anybody bites and if nobody wants a super late expensive version of Mass Effect 3 then we just won't bother with the console."
I don't know if 'excuse' is the right word, considering that the end result was that third party developers stopped developing for Nintendo platforms. If it doesn't make financial sense for developers to create and test a special version of their game for Nintendo's rather esoteric system, I can't really blame them for not bothering.
I thank Ubisoft for their delay of Watch_Dogs, though. If it had come out at the same time, I'd probaby have bought the game before I heard how not-great it is.
I don't know if 'excuse' is the right word, considering that the end result was that third party developers stopped developing for Nintendo platforms. If it doesn't make financial sense for developers to create and test a special version of their game for Nintendo's rather esoteric system, I can't really blame them for not bothering.
It's an excuse because it's something they say in lieu of the truth. They don't simply say, "it doesn't make financial sense for us to release games on that platform, we wouldn't recoup the cost of a port," etc. They have to come up with patronizing answers instead of being honest.
Do they really gain more in profit on that disappointing underpowered hardware than they lose by not having Mario Kart and Smash and Zelda selling a gazillion copies on the PS4/XBone?
The games wouldn't look good compared to others on the console because Nintendo's developers designed them for a PS3 power level and not PS4 quality.
The reason they're having a hard time sustaining the console as it is is because the cost of the jump to HD surprised them as much as it did everyone else last gen. They couldn't have jumped to a modern graphic level and still have the same output they are on Wii U, where they're probably only able to output as much as they are due to it being the same architecture they're used to.
In this hypothetical they don't need to maintain the same throughput. The only reason they're crunched now is that they have to make basically every single title to support an entire hardware platform. Oh no wait, I meant two platforms, since the 3DS still exists too.
Do you think the Wii U is profitable yet? I mean not just from an ongoing standpoint of making money, I mean factoring in initial R&D and all. Have they made money on it? If so then I think it was worth it, even if it wasn't a Wii-level success. It's not a Virtual Boy write-off.
Keep in mind that if they'd decided to forego the console and make games for another platform, the platform holder gets a huge cut of their sales.
We can talk doom and gloom about being their slowest selling console and all, but they've still probably sold 10 million units by now (it was nine-point-something as of a few months ago).
Profit off the hardware is certainly a good thing, but it's not everything. Vita was profitable day one, and.... yeah.
For a hardware maker, it's a mixture of things, namely hardware profitability, software sales, and audience size, along with other factors like R&D, system returns and the like. The Wii nailed everything. 3DS gave up profitability with a well-timed system price cut that's kept it going okay. PSP had audience size but little software sales. The PS3 had horrible money losses at the start of its life, but did better at the end of its life as the audience size grew.
It's hard to tell where Wii U is now in terms of moneymaking, but at least for a while it was doing badly enough to cause a couple years worth of losses and major changes to the company's strategy (that is, the quality of life thing and the mobile games).
I suppose the important thing is, do you think they would've been more profitable if they had released all their games on PS4 to begin with?
Keeping in mind the cut Sony would get, the lack of the cut Nintendo gets from third parties on their consoles, the inexperience of Nintendo's devs in the HD realm, potential troubles in maintaining an ecosystem across 3DS and PS4, etc.
Would they have done Amiibo without NFC built into the controller? Would they have made Nintendo Land without the asynchronous multiplayer modes? Would Miiverse exist?
I don't know if 'excuse' is the right word, considering that the end result was that third party developers stopped developing for Nintendo platforms. If it doesn't make financial sense for developers to create and test a special version of their game for Nintendo's rather esoteric system, I can't really blame them for not bothering.
It's an excuse because it's something they say in lieu of the truth. They don't simply say, "it doesn't make financial sense for us to release games on that platform, we wouldn't recoup the cost of a port," etc. They have to come up with patronizing answers instead of being honest.
Aren't the examples you gave just longer-winded versions of saying "it doesn't make financial sense for us to release on that platform?" As in "Our test game/ port sold poorly on the Wii U, which leads us to believe that it doesn't make financial sense for us to release games on that platform."
I think that companies are actually correct when they say they can't compete with Nintendo games on a Nintendo platform, mainly because of what the demographics look like for who actually owns a Wii U. So who does own a Wii U? Not a whole lot of people, unfortunately-- which right away limits the potential customers for a game released on that platform. If there's already a limited consumer base, you've got to hope for a phenomenally high attach rate in order to make a profit. Breaking it down further, how many of these households bought a Wii U as a second console? If a significant percentage of Wii Us are essentially a person's "Nintendo Machine" which was purchased as a supplement to another next gen console, a developer would have to assume that many of those consumers would buy a copy of a multi-platform release on the more-powerful Xbox or PS4 consoles. So the question then becomes 'Looking at the households which only bought one next gen console, and that console was a Wii U... why did they buy that console? And would they be interested in this release?' If (as I personally suspect) the majority of solely Wii U owning households are families with younger children, that would make more adult-oriented content a huge gamble to release on the system. Judging by the abysmal sales of, say, Zombie U, I'd say these conclusions aren't terribly off mark.
It's a shame, because I like the console (now that they support the pro controller).
Aren't the examples you gave just longer-winded versions of saying "it doesn't make financial sense for us to release on that platform?" As in "Our test game/ port sold poorly on the Wii U, which leads us to believe that it doesn't make financial sense for us to release games on that platform."
If you release a shitty little test game like a minigame compilation, of course nobody will buy that. You didn't put the same effort into the game that you would have on the other consoles, and it sold accordingly.
If you release a really late port of the third game in a series on a console that didn't get the other two games, at full price when the whole trilogy can be bought for cheaper than that, then of course nobody will buy that. It too sold accordingly.
Some developers and publishers have justified reasons for not releasing games on a platform, and that's laudable. They gave it a real try and it failed, and they get to confidently say it doesn't make financial sense.
Some developers and publishers put real effort into the Wii games they made last gen and reaped great rewards for it. Heck, that's still happening on 3DS. Make Monster Hunter 4 and they will come. Make Etrian Odyssey or Layton or Yo-Kai Watch.
Aren't the examples you gave just longer-winded versions of saying "it doesn't make financial sense for us to release on that platform?" As in "Our test game/ port sold poorly on the Wii U, which leads us to believe that it doesn't make financial sense for us to release games on that platform."
If you release a shitty little test game like a minigame compilation, of course nobody will buy that. You didn't put the same effort into the game that you would have on the other consoles, and it sold accordingly.
If you release a really late port of the third game in a series on a console that didn't get the other two games, at full price when the whole trilogy can be bought for cheaper than that, then of course nobody will buy that. It too sold accordingly.
Some developers and publishers have justified reasons for not releasing games on a platform, and that's laudable. They gave it a real try and it failed, and they get to confidently say it doesn't make financial sense.
Some developers and publishers put real effort into the Wii games they made last gen and reaped great rewards for it. Heck, that's still happening on 3DS. Make Monster Hunter 4 and they will come. Make Etrian Odyssey or Layton or Yo-Kai Watch.
That's fair enough, although I think the 3DS is the Nintendo console which is still very strong and a safe bet for third parties. It's the Wii U I'm mostly thinking of when speaking of abandonment by developers.
I guess I don't think a company has any obligation to give it a real try as you say, especially when they've watched other companies try and fail. It seems reasonable to conclude for themselves, based on those observations and their analysis of Wii U owner demographics, that it would not make financial sense. Companies don't have to play nice or give everything an equal chance-- their job is to make money in the surest way possible, and that's it.
Well at least I know I can get Bloodstained on the WiiU whenever it releases. Hopefully that is awesome and Nintendo takes notice and thinks about another Metroidvania instead of just another Metroidprimeia.
What was the original Prime trilogy if not Metroidvania in 3D? I don't think side-scrolling is an essential part of the genre.
And New Super Mario Brothers is just the same as Mario Galaxy.
And 2D Sonic is the same as 3D Sonic.
OK, so maybe not Sonic.
It's essential for the same reason there are both 2D and 3D Mario Games: the gameplay.
I suppose the important thing is, do you think they would've been more profitable if they had released all their games on PS4 to begin with?
Keeping in mind the cut Sony would get, the lack of the cut Nintendo gets from third parties on their consoles, the inexperience of Nintendo's devs in the HD realm, potential troubles in maintaining an ecosystem across 3DS and PS4, etc.
Would they have done Amiibo without NFC built into the controller? Would they have made Nintendo Land without the asynchronous multiplayer modes? Would Miiverse exist?
PS4 exclusives? No. Multi-platform Xbox AND PS4 releases? I do think they'd have sold a ridiculous number of copies of their games, yes.
I think people underestimate the market's general love of Nintendo games and franchises, even from those consumers who do not buy Nintendo home consoles. If the PS4 and Xbox crowd could have their Mario Kart on the same console as their Halos and Fallouts, I think they'd spring for it. Nintendo as a company offers a unique experience in gaming, and consumers like that even if some of them aren't willing to shell out 400 bucks just to play them on Nintendo's own console. The sales of the 3DS are testament to that, I'd say-- many 3DS owners have the competing HD consoles at home, but still have the 3DS for that unique Nintendo flavor.
I can't speak to development costs. Only Nintendo themselves can do that, really.
As to Amiibo, personally I despise them but the technology already exists for the other platforms in the form of Skylanders. Asynchronous play isavailable many games which do not utilize the Wii U game pad, for mobile games, PS4 and Xbox. Miiverse... personally I think that PS4 and Xbox offer vastly superior ways for players to communicate with each other already.
PS4 exclusives? No. Multi-platform Xbox AND PS4 releases? I do think they'd have sold a ridiculous number of copies of their games, yes.
I disagree that it would've been more profitable for them, short term or long term. Even leaving aside any potential profit, I think as a company they need that control over the hardware and what they do with it. They make constant changes to suit their needs, their brand, their ecosystem, and the corporate persona they present to the world. Nintendo is the hardware and the software, for good or ill.
Nintendo as a company offers a unique experience in gaming
As to Amiibo, personally I despise them but the technology already exists for the other platforms in the form of Skylanders. Asynchronous play isavailable many games which do not utilize the Wii U game pad, for mobile games, PS4 and Xbox. Miiverse... personally I think that PS4 and Xbox offer vastly superior ways for players to communicate with each other already.
You praise uniqueness on one hand and condemn it with the other. Half of their uniqueness is all tied to the hardware and how they use it. The streetpassing, the off-TV play...for every person like you who hates those features, there's another who can't live without them.
PS4 wasn't backwards compatible, yet Nintendo's games have a long sales tail. BC is a decision that would've been made for them that many people have appreciated and see as a huge selling point (again, even as others may not care).
EDIT: Wait what? Every game that includes Miiverse stuff is opt-in that I can recall and if you never interact with it that's basically as though it doesn't exist
I suppose the important thing is, do you think they would've been more profitable if they had released all their games on PS4 to begin with?
Keeping in mind the cut Sony would get, the lack of the cut Nintendo gets from third parties on their consoles, the inexperience of Nintendo's devs in the HD realm, potential troubles in maintaining an ecosystem across 3DS and PS4, etc.
Would they have done Amiibo without NFC built into the controller? Would they have made Nintendo Land without the asynchronous multiplayer modes? Would Miiverse exist?
PS4 exclusives? No. Multi-platform Xbox AND PS4 releases? I do think they'd have sold a ridiculous number of copies of their games, yes.
I think people underestimate the market's general love of Nintendo games and franchises, even from those consumers who do not buy Nintendo home consoles. If the PS4 and Xbox crowd could have their Mario Kart on the same console as their Halos and Fallouts, I think they'd spring for it. Nintendo as a company offers a unique experience in gaming, and consumers like that even if some of them aren't willing to shell out 400 bucks just to play them on Nintendo's own console. The sales of the 3DS are testament to that, I'd say-- many 3DS owners have the competing HD consoles at home, but still have the 3DS for that unique Nintendo flavor.
I can't speak to development costs. Only Nintendo themselves can do that, really.
As to Amiibo, personally I despise them but the technology already exists for the other platforms in the form of Skylanders. Asynchronous play isavailable many games which do not utilize the Wii U game pad, for mobile games, PS4 and Xbox. Miiverse... personally I think that PS4 and Xbox offer vastly superior ways for players to communicate with each other already.
I mean, the main reason people speculate the NX is something that is both a console and a handheld is because the 3DS remains strong while the Wii U is flagging.
Also, rather than a communication tool, like the PS4 and Xbox One have, I'd call the Miiverse a communication toy. Functionally it's not even trying to be anything like what the other consoles have, it's not a way to talk with friends or plan online stuff, but I can honestly say the Miiverse is fun in a way the tools of the other consoles are not and do not strive to be. The Miiverse is a value add to games that use it, even if it is just shaking my head at the nonsense that appears. And there's no way to mimic that in some other way on the other consoles but on the Wii U I just use my phone for chatting with friends and that's super convenient.
Sporky, we clearly value different things from Nintendo as a company. Which is perfectly valid, I'm absolutely not trying to tell you that you shouldn't value the things that you do.
I value Nintendo for the 'feel' of their games-- the happy bright colors, the fun atmosphere, the tight controls, the satisfying platforming. These are all things which either have nothing to do with or are actively harmed by some of the features Nintendo has been trying to push for the past few generations (touch screens, the huge gamepad, waggle and motion controls).
It sounds like you value Nintendo for their innovative hardware. You like the amiibo functionality, the gamepad's portability, the 3DS's 3D aspect, etc. I don't begrudge you that, and I'm glad you get enjoyment out of it. I do think that you may be in the minority of the gaming community though.
I'm sure Nintendo will continue trucking along as they always do, even if my guess is that they could do better as a software-only developer. You're more likely to get your wish though, as I doubt Nintendo will take that path any time soon.
Edit: If I may, I'd like to address this particular point:
PS4 wasn't backwards compatible, yet Nintendo's games have a long sales tail. BC is a decision that would've been made for them that many people have appreciated and see as a huge selling point (again, even as others may not care).
I think Nintendo would have had the opportunity to make a killing off of VC sales in this scenario.
Can't say I'd miss it. An opt-out would've been nice.
Splatoon has been incredible with its inclusion and has a great sense of general playfulness and mayhem every time I boot up the game. Some of the drawings are awesome, many of the quips are enjoyably weird. You don't get that without Nintendo creating the service, and you don't get the drawing aspect without the touch screen in the controller.
I say this more for everyone other than you, because I know your position, I don't expect you to agree.
Sporky, we clearly value different things from Nintendo as a company. Which is perfectly valid, I'm absolutely not trying to tell you that you shouldn't value the things that you do.
I value Nintendo for the 'feel' of their games-- the happy bright colors, the fun atmosphere, the tight controls, the satisfying platforming. These are all things which either have nothing to do with or are actively harmed by some of the features Nintendo has been trying to push for the past few generations (touch screens, the huge gamepad, waggle and motion controls).
It sounds like you value Nintendo for their innovative hardware. You like the amiibo functionality, the gamepad's portability, the 3DS's 3D aspect, etc. I don't begrudge you that, and I'm glad you get enjoyment out of it. I do think that you may be in the minority of the gaming community though.
I'm sure Nintendo will continue trucking along as they always do, even if my guess is that they could do better as a software-only developer. You're more likely to get your wish though, as I doubt Nintendo will take that path any time soon.
I wasn't speaking solely for myself, I was trying to explain that various aspects of what the company does appeals to different people in different ways. I don't need off-TV play because I'm not sharing my TV with others, but I've read countless accounts from people who say they literally have a hard time gaming at all without it. I think Amiibo functionality leaves quite a bit to be desired but it's a revenue stream for Nintendo that I couldn't be confident in saying would exist as it does without NFC built into the controller. The discussion was on the subject of how profitable Nintendo might be, and Amiibo is part of that, Miiverse is another (a marketing tool and positive echo chamber for only their own products). I hardly use Miiverse myself but I enjoy witnessing what results from it. I love the 3DS's 3D, and others did not, but like off-TV play I've seen a lot of turnaround in opinion of the 3D since the New 3DS launched with its stable 3D.
As easy as it is to say that appreciation of certain aspects of the hardware puts a person in the minority of the gaming community, remember that only a generation ago the hardware was appreciated by a majority. The people who appreciate the Vita, with its lack of all those Nintendo hardware touches (one of which is certainly the design resulting in an affordable price), are also in the minority of the gaming community.
I think a better way to put it is that you value some of what Nintendo does, and I value some of it, and everyone else values different parts of it as well...but without the unique blend of hardware and software I think all of us would lose out.
Assuming you spend nothing other than regular staff time on marketing (which is the case with Nintendo most of the time since they don't generally run tv ads and control what gets face time on their stores):
Nintendo tends to have small staff numbers (Monolith for example is split into two and has 123 employees): A staff of 62 each making $100k a year working for one year on a title: cost - $6.2mil
Assume the game is released at retail for $60, remember that retailers take a 30% cut (on average, it's sometimes a bit less sometimes a bit more). That's $40 per game in revenue. That's 155K sales to break even.
That's it.
They get 100% of the revenue from the eShop however. Which would mean 104K sales to break even. Right now I believe about 10-20% of total sales are currently digital (Smash was 20%, but I think that was the highest so far). That means as long as you sell ~10K copies on the eShop you'd only need to sell 140K retail copies.
So basically, with the way things currently function at the company they always make money. If you have to suddenly pay for a lot of marketing, licensing, and have additional revenue from things like digital always cut into then your margins get reaaaaally small.
I've gone and ignored the cost of printing discs! Someone do the math on it! I've also gone and ignored localization costs! But by being in a world market their potential sales increase by quite a bit so it should balance out and end up with a hefty profit.
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
Also props to the guy weilding the E-liter 3K custom and dropping beakons for his team. No wonder they won (as much as Judd doesn't like being hugged).
Well at least I know I can get Bloodstained on the WiiU whenever it releases. Hopefully that is awesome and Nintendo takes notice and thinks about another Metroidvania instead of just another Metroidprimeia.
What was the original Prime trilogy if not Metroidvania in 3D? I don't think side-scrolling is an essential part of the genre.
And New Super Mario Brothers is just the same as Mario Galaxy.
And 2D Sonic is the same as 3D Sonic.
OK, so maybe not Sonic.
It's essential for the same reason there are both 2D and 3D Mario Games: the gameplay.
I completely agree that a 2D Metroid game plays and can feel different than 3D ones, and that having both is important.
But, I'd consider both to be part of the Metroidvana (we need a better word. Sprawl? Upgrade Hunt? I'll sleep on it) genre, as surely as NSMB and Mario Galaxy are both part of the platformer genre.
- must be able to go the "wrong" direction and discover something preventing passage in that direction that requires coming back later
- must collect upgrades that significantly add to your mobility options such as double jump in order to traverse aforementioned obstacles
- combat?
- probably a good idea to be a Metroid or a Vania
They focused more on combat and platforming instead of exploration, which ends up providing a much more linear experience. Castlevania: Order of Ecclesia did so as well. I think that is fun in its own right.
But definitely want the exploration, the sense of discovery, and those eureka moments where you get crafty and sequence break into an area you shouldn't normally get to yet.
0
Options
Ov3rchargeR.I.P. Mass EffectYou were dead to me for yearsRegistered Userregular
I feel like I'm alone, but I don't really want a gimmick for Nintendo's next console; just give it some solid power and let the games speak for themselves. Oh, and make sure they advertise the fucker properly.
Posts
Do you think the Wii U is profitable yet? I mean not just from an ongoing standpoint of making money, I mean factoring in initial R&D and all. Have they made money on it? If so then I think it was worth it, even if it wasn't a Wii-level success. It's not a Virtual Boy write-off.
Keep in mind that if they'd decided to forego the console and make games for another platform, the platform holder gets a huge cut of their sales.
We can talk doom and gloom about being their slowest selling console and all, but they've still probably sold 10 million units by now (it was nine-point-something as of a few months ago).
Oops- somehow I had gotten confused and thought Happy Home Designer was coming to Wii U as well.
3DS: 0447-9966-6178
I think the last time that complaint was expressed was in like the Game Cube era. It was just an excuse like all the rest. "Oh on the Wii we have to make a little test game to see if it sells well enough to make an actual good game for it." "Oh on Wii U we're going to put out some ports and see if anybody bites and if nobody wants a super late expensive version of Mass Effect 3 then we just won't bother with the console."
It's an excuse because it's something they say in lieu of the truth. They don't simply say, "it doesn't make financial sense for us to release games on that platform, we wouldn't recoup the cost of a port," etc. They have to come up with patronizing answers instead of being honest.
Profit off the hardware is certainly a good thing, but it's not everything. Vita was profitable day one, and.... yeah.
For a hardware maker, it's a mixture of things, namely hardware profitability, software sales, and audience size, along with other factors like R&D, system returns and the like. The Wii nailed everything. 3DS gave up profitability with a well-timed system price cut that's kept it going okay. PSP had audience size but little software sales. The PS3 had horrible money losses at the start of its life, but did better at the end of its life as the audience size grew.
It's hard to tell where Wii U is now in terms of moneymaking, but at least for a while it was doing badly enough to cause a couple years worth of losses and major changes to the company's strategy (that is, the quality of life thing and the mobile games).
Keeping in mind the cut Sony would get, the lack of the cut Nintendo gets from third parties on their consoles, the inexperience of Nintendo's devs in the HD realm, potential troubles in maintaining an ecosystem across 3DS and PS4, etc.
Would they have done Amiibo without NFC built into the controller? Would they have made Nintendo Land without the asynchronous multiplayer modes? Would Miiverse exist?
Aren't the examples you gave just longer-winded versions of saying "it doesn't make financial sense for us to release on that platform?" As in "Our test game/ port sold poorly on the Wii U, which leads us to believe that it doesn't make financial sense for us to release games on that platform."
I think that companies are actually correct when they say they can't compete with Nintendo games on a Nintendo platform, mainly because of what the demographics look like for who actually owns a Wii U. So who does own a Wii U? Not a whole lot of people, unfortunately-- which right away limits the potential customers for a game released on that platform. If there's already a limited consumer base, you've got to hope for a phenomenally high attach rate in order to make a profit. Breaking it down further, how many of these households bought a Wii U as a second console? If a significant percentage of Wii Us are essentially a person's "Nintendo Machine" which was purchased as a supplement to another next gen console, a developer would have to assume that many of those consumers would buy a copy of a multi-platform release on the more-powerful Xbox or PS4 consoles. So the question then becomes 'Looking at the households which only bought one next gen console, and that console was a Wii U... why did they buy that console? And would they be interested in this release?' If (as I personally suspect) the majority of solely Wii U owning households are families with younger children, that would make more adult-oriented content a huge gamble to release on the system. Judging by the abysmal sales of, say, Zombie U, I'd say these conclusions aren't terribly off mark.
It's a shame, because I like the console (now that they support the pro controller).
If you release a shitty little test game like a minigame compilation, of course nobody will buy that. You didn't put the same effort into the game that you would have on the other consoles, and it sold accordingly.
If you release a really late port of the third game in a series on a console that didn't get the other two games, at full price when the whole trilogy can be bought for cheaper than that, then of course nobody will buy that. It too sold accordingly.
Some developers and publishers have justified reasons for not releasing games on a platform, and that's laudable. They gave it a real try and it failed, and they get to confidently say it doesn't make financial sense.
Some developers and publishers put real effort into the Wii games they made last gen and reaped great rewards for it. Heck, that's still happening on 3DS. Make Monster Hunter 4 and they will come. Make Etrian Odyssey or Layton or Yo-Kai Watch.
That's fair enough, although I think the 3DS is the Nintendo console which is still very strong and a safe bet for third parties. It's the Wii U I'm mostly thinking of when speaking of abandonment by developers.
I guess I don't think a company has any obligation to give it a real try as you say, especially when they've watched other companies try and fail. It seems reasonable to conclude for themselves, based on those observations and their analysis of Wii U owner demographics, that it would not make financial sense. Companies don't have to play nice or give everything an equal chance-- their job is to make money in the surest way possible, and that's it.
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
And New Super Mario Brothers is just the same as Mario Galaxy.
And 2D Sonic is the same as 3D Sonic.
OK, so maybe not Sonic.
It's essential for the same reason there are both 2D and 3D Mario Games: the gameplay.
PS4 exclusives? No. Multi-platform Xbox AND PS4 releases? I do think they'd have sold a ridiculous number of copies of their games, yes.
I think people underestimate the market's general love of Nintendo games and franchises, even from those consumers who do not buy Nintendo home consoles. If the PS4 and Xbox crowd could have their Mario Kart on the same console as their Halos and Fallouts, I think they'd spring for it. Nintendo as a company offers a unique experience in gaming, and consumers like that even if some of them aren't willing to shell out 400 bucks just to play them on Nintendo's own console. The sales of the 3DS are testament to that, I'd say-- many 3DS owners have the competing HD consoles at home, but still have the 3DS for that unique Nintendo flavor.
I can't speak to development costs. Only Nintendo themselves can do that, really.
As to Amiibo, personally I despise them but the technology already exists for the other platforms in the form of Skylanders. Asynchronous play isavailable many games which do not utilize the Wii U game pad, for mobile games, PS4 and Xbox. Miiverse... personally I think that PS4 and Xbox offer vastly superior ways for players to communicate with each other already.
It would be funnier if it was a squid in 3284
I disagree that it would've been more profitable for them, short term or long term. Even leaving aside any potential profit, I think as a company they need that control over the hardware and what they do with it. They make constant changes to suit their needs, their brand, their ecosystem, and the corporate persona they present to the world. Nintendo is the hardware and the software, for good or ill.
You praise uniqueness on one hand and condemn it with the other. Half of their uniqueness is all tied to the hardware and how they use it. The streetpassing, the off-TV play...for every person like you who hates those features, there's another who can't live without them.
PS4 wasn't backwards compatible, yet Nintendo's games have a long sales tail. BC is a decision that would've been made for them that many people have appreciated and see as a huge selling point (again, even as others may not care).
Can't say I'd miss it. An opt-out would've been nice.
I mean, the main reason people speculate the NX is something that is both a console and a handheld is because the 3DS remains strong while the Wii U is flagging.
Also, rather than a communication tool, like the PS4 and Xbox One have, I'd call the Miiverse a communication toy. Functionally it's not even trying to be anything like what the other consoles have, it's not a way to talk with friends or plan online stuff, but I can honestly say the Miiverse is fun in a way the tools of the other consoles are not and do not strive to be. The Miiverse is a value add to games that use it, even if it is just shaking my head at the nonsense that appears. And there's no way to mimic that in some other way on the other consoles but on the Wii U I just use my phone for chatting with friends and that's super convenient.
3DS: 2019-9671-8106 NNID: RamblinMushroom
Twitter/Tumblr
I value Nintendo for the 'feel' of their games-- the happy bright colors, the fun atmosphere, the tight controls, the satisfying platforming. These are all things which either have nothing to do with or are actively harmed by some of the features Nintendo has been trying to push for the past few generations (touch screens, the huge gamepad, waggle and motion controls).
It sounds like you value Nintendo for their innovative hardware. You like the amiibo functionality, the gamepad's portability, the 3DS's 3D aspect, etc. I don't begrudge you that, and I'm glad you get enjoyment out of it. I do think that you may be in the minority of the gaming community though.
I'm sure Nintendo will continue trucking along as they always do, even if my guess is that they could do better as a software-only developer. You're more likely to get your wish though, as I doubt Nintendo will take that path any time soon.
Edit: If I may, I'd like to address this particular point:
I think Nintendo would have had the opportunity to make a killing off of VC sales in this scenario.
Splatoon has been incredible with its inclusion and has a great sense of general playfulness and mayhem every time I boot up the game. Some of the drawings are awesome, many of the quips are enjoyably weird. You don't get that without Nintendo creating the service, and you don't get the drawing aspect without the touch screen in the controller.
I say this more for everyone other than you, because I know your position, I don't expect you to agree.
I wasn't speaking solely for myself, I was trying to explain that various aspects of what the company does appeals to different people in different ways. I don't need off-TV play because I'm not sharing my TV with others, but I've read countless accounts from people who say they literally have a hard time gaming at all without it. I think Amiibo functionality leaves quite a bit to be desired but it's a revenue stream for Nintendo that I couldn't be confident in saying would exist as it does without NFC built into the controller. The discussion was on the subject of how profitable Nintendo might be, and Amiibo is part of that, Miiverse is another (a marketing tool and positive echo chamber for only their own products). I hardly use Miiverse myself but I enjoy witnessing what results from it. I love the 3DS's 3D, and others did not, but like off-TV play I've seen a lot of turnaround in opinion of the 3D since the New 3DS launched with its stable 3D.
As easy as it is to say that appreciation of certain aspects of the hardware puts a person in the minority of the gaming community, remember that only a generation ago the hardware was appreciated by a majority. The people who appreciate the Vita, with its lack of all those Nintendo hardware touches (one of which is certainly the design resulting in an affordable price), are also in the minority of the gaming community.
I think a better way to put it is that you value some of what Nintendo does, and I value some of it, and everyone else values different parts of it as well...but without the unique blend of hardware and software I think all of us would lose out.
Assuming you spend nothing other than regular staff time on marketing (which is the case with Nintendo most of the time since they don't generally run tv ads and control what gets face time on their stores):
Nintendo tends to have small staff numbers (Monolith for example is split into two and has 123 employees): A staff of 62 each making $100k a year working for one year on a title: cost - $6.2mil
Assume the game is released at retail for $60, remember that retailers take a 30% cut (on average, it's sometimes a bit less sometimes a bit more). That's $40 per game in revenue. That's 155K sales to break even.
That's it.
They get 100% of the revenue from the eShop however. Which would mean 104K sales to break even. Right now I believe about 10-20% of total sales are currently digital (Smash was 20%, but I think that was the highest so far). That means as long as you sell ~10K copies on the eShop you'd only need to sell 140K retail copies.
So basically, with the way things currently function at the company they always make money. If you have to suddenly pay for a lot of marketing, licensing, and have additional revenue from things like digital always cut into then your margins get reaaaaally small.
On either the MIIverse or the handheld
Splatoon has sold a million units worldwide!
Brand new IP.
Genre Nintendo's never really done before.
Console with a smaller install base.
ONLINE game.
To sell 1 mil worldwide is mind blowing. To do it in less than a month is insane.
I completely agree that a 2D Metroid game plays and can feel different than 3D ones, and that having both is important.
But, I'd consider both to be part of the Metroidvana (we need a better word. Sprawl? Upgrade Hunt? I'll sleep on it) genre, as surely as NSMB and Mario Galaxy are both part of the platformer genre.
I've tried to forget Prime 3, but it probably qualifies as well.
Certainly not. Nintendo Power doesn't have any issues anymore!
- must be able to go the "wrong" direction and discover something preventing passage in that direction that requires coming back later
- must collect upgrades that significantly add to your mobility options such as double jump in order to traverse aforementioned obstacles
- combat?
- probably a good idea to be a Metroid or a Vania
plus maybe
-a labyrinth that focuses on exploration/secrets
But definitely want the exploration, the sense of discovery, and those eureka moments where you get crafty and sequence break into an area you shouldn't normally get to yet.
amiibo is always lower-case no matter what context or placement in the statement.
Legends of Runeterra: MNCdover #moc
Switch ID: MNC Dover SW-1154-3107-1051
Steam ID
Twitch Page
I couldn't have made that statement correctly with it being lower case. Boom, checkmate, etc.
Also the plural of amiibo is amiibo; they're not Legos, they're Lego bricks; and they're not copiers, they're MFDs.
That info is worth a lot of bitcoins.