So to me DOOM looks great on Switch. It's a fucking handheld. That it can run it at all is some kind of astounding.
So it's 30fps. So what? It might get choppy if you turn quickly? Big deal. Unless you are trying to twirl through the whole game like a goddamn demon slaying figure skater this really shouldn't be an issue.
Sometimes I think people are just determined to be disappointed.
While I agree it'll be fine, um..that's kinda the point of the latest doom/how its meant to be played. It's at it's best when you're spinning around in every direction and it turns into a ballet of death
i dunno.... people get hung up on fps.
its a smaller screen... but its D-O-O-M.... a game that literally is about frantic movement in combat.
Ill wait and see.... but what an age!
Chief Wiggum: "Ladies, please. All our founding fathers, astronauts, and World Series heroes have been either drunk or on cocaine."
+1
Options
DemonStaceyTTODewback's DaughterIn love with the TaySwayRegistered Userregular
Playing in portable mode isn't worth the headache that comes from playing a FPS with a shitty framerate.
30 isn't a shitty framerate, though. It's industry standard and perfectly usable and serviceable. I would even call it great.
I notice 60 being smoother but I don't notice 30 not feeling playable, or fun, or anything like that. I don't recoil in horror. I can't imagine being so sensitive to framerate that it matters that much. Missing out on so many good experiences because that's the one thing you just can't get over...that would suck so much.
For a surprising amount of people 30 IS a shitty framerate.
Those people probably aren't frequently purchasing a Switch. But there are a whole horde of people that avoid consoles like the plague with framerate being one of the big reasons. Like if you talk positively about 30fps on a more larger and general gaming board... beelzebub help you. They will swarm you.
"As we look at the overall business, we're constantly looking to do the right thing for the consumer," Fils-Aime said. He brought up the Switch, Nintendo's newest console, as an example. The company made 2 million units available at launch, despite, Fils-Aime said, analyst recommendations that demand would be much lower.
"We actually sold through almost 2.8 million units, so we dramatically over delivered. And yet, demand outpaces supply," he said. "So what do some of the consumers on Reddit say? 'Gosh, Nintendo, if you would've made more you would've sold more.' Well, we did make more! And certainly we're on a pace to supply in the current fiscal year 10 million units."
Playing in portable mode isn't worth the headache that comes from playing a FPS with a shitty framerate.
30 isn't a shitty framerate, though. It's industry standard and perfectly usable and serviceable. I would even call it great.
I notice 60 being smoother but I don't notice 30 not feeling playable, or fun, or anything like that. I don't recoil in horror. I can't imagine being so sensitive to framerate that it matters that much. Missing out on so many good experiences because that's the one thing you just can't get over...that would suck so much.
For a surprising amount of people 30 IS a shitty framerate.
Those people probably aren't frequently purchasing a Switch. But there are a whole horde of people that avoid consoles like the plague with framerate being one of the big reasons. Like if you talk positively about 30fps on a more larger and general gaming board... beelzebub help you. They will swarm you.
There are people who buy 10k sound cables for their digital stereos as well, and they are dumb. People bitching about things online isn't a great metric for how actually impactful something is.
"As we look at the overall business, we're constantly looking to do the right thing for the consumer," Fils-Aime said. He brought up the Switch, Nintendo's newest console, as an example. The company made 2 million units available at launch, despite, Fils-Aime said, analyst recommendations that demand would be much lower.
"We actually sold through almost 2.8 million units, so we dramatically over delivered. And yet, demand outpaces supply," he said. "So what do some of the consumers on Reddit say? 'Gosh, Nintendo, if you would've made more you would've sold more.' Well, we did make more! And certainly we're on a pace to supply in the current fiscal year 10 million units."
There's a certain point where it doesn't matter how big a company you are or what the consumer demand is, it's just foolish to produce even more units. It's a highly unpredictable business, what if sales crash through the floor in a month? And now there are 4 million units you've got rotting in warehouses. Massive loss. So I think they're doing alright at this time, they're in a pretty good place where it's like, can't quite walk into any store and grab one immediately, but people are seeing them in the wild.
Playing in portable mode isn't worth the headache that comes from playing a FPS with a shitty framerate.
30 isn't a shitty framerate, though. It's industry standard and perfectly usable and serviceable. I would even call it great.
I notice 60 being smoother but I don't notice 30 not feeling playable, or fun, or anything like that. I don't recoil in horror. I can't imagine being so sensitive to framerate that it matters that much. Missing out on so many good experiences because that's the one thing you just can't get over...that would suck so much.
For a surprising amount of people 30 IS a shitty framerate.
Those people probably aren't frequently purchasing a Switch. But there are a whole horde of people that avoid consoles like the plague with framerate being one of the big reasons. Like if you talk positively about 30fps on a more larger and general gaming board... beelzebub help you. They will swarm you.
There are people who buy 10k sound cables for their digital stereos as well, and they are dumb. People bitching about things online isn't a great metric for how actually impactful something is.
Obviously it's dumb to act like 30fps is awful and ruins any game.
But I don't doubt that for some people they notice it enough that it impacts the experience for them if they are really used to 60fps so it feels goosey to act like they are making it up and it doesn't affect them.
I can't personally even tell what the difference is at all. So mind you I'm not in that camp. It feels super weird though as outside a nintendo thread when I say I can't tell the difference and thus don't care the 60fps purists tend to jump on me. Inside a nintendo thread I say that some people actually put a lot of weight into 60fps and it's important for their gaming and then it's called dumb.
Bizarre! As far as I know though twitch shooters are some of the most important games to have 60fps on and those that really notice it WOULD probably hate paying something like Doom at 30FPS as you are always frantically swinging your view back and forth and all over in that.
"As we look at the overall business, we're constantly looking to do the right thing for the consumer," Fils-Aime said. He brought up the Switch, Nintendo's newest console, as an example. The company made 2 million units available at launch, despite, Fils-Aime said, analyst recommendations that demand would be much lower.
"We actually sold through almost 2.8 million units, so we dramatically over delivered. And yet, demand outpaces supply," he said. "So what do some of the consumers on Reddit say? 'Gosh, Nintendo, if you would've made more you would've sold more.' Well, we did make more! And certainly we're on a pace to supply in the current fiscal year 10 million units."
There's a certain point where it doesn't matter how big a company you are or what the consumer demand is, it's just foolish to produce even more units. It's a highly unpredictable business, what if sales crash through the floor in a month? And now there are 4 million units you've got rotting in warehouses. Massive loss. So I think they're doing alright at this time, they're in a pretty good place where it's like, can't quite walk into any store and grab one immediately, but people are seeing them in the wild.
That's the root of it - Nintendo is conservative and so is more likely to underproduce than over. It's odd to call them a conservative company though when you look at them constantly pushing new things in hardware though.
Handsome CostanzaAsk me about 8bitdoRIP Iwata-sanRegistered Userregular
edited September 2017
Nintendo could show up to everyones doorstep simultaneously with a Nintendo Switch wrapped in a bow and people would still accuse them of purposefully limiting stock.
"As we look at the overall business, we're constantly looking to do the right thing for the consumer," Fils-Aime said. He brought up the Switch, Nintendo's newest console, as an example. The company made 2 million units available at launch, despite, Fils-Aime said, analyst recommendations that demand would be much lower.
"We actually sold through almost 2.8 million units, so we dramatically over delivered. And yet, demand outpaces supply," he said. "So what do some of the consumers on Reddit say? 'Gosh, Nintendo, if you would've made more you would've sold more.' Well, we did make more! And certainly we're on a pace to supply in the current fiscal year 10 million units."
This just confirms to me that Nintendo really needs to hire new analysts.
He says they "dramatically over delivered." Did they ever give a target number originally? I don't recall seeing that.
And yeah, they just need to be better about meeting demand and realistically understanding what the demand actually is. I don't think Nintendo values their own stuff as much as the fans do.
"As we look at the overall business, we're constantly looking to do the right thing for the consumer," Fils-Aime said. He brought up the Switch, Nintendo's newest console, as an example. The company made 2 million units available at launch, despite, Fils-Aime said, analyst recommendations that demand would be much lower.
"We actually sold through almost 2.8 million units, so we dramatically over delivered. And yet, demand outpaces supply," he said. "So what do some of the consumers on Reddit say? 'Gosh, Nintendo, if you would've made more you would've sold more.' Well, we did make more! And certainly we're on a pace to supply in the current fiscal year 10 million units."
This just confirms to me that Nintendo really needs to hire new analysts.
He says they "dramatically over delivered." Did they ever give a target number originally? I don't recall seeing that.
And yeah, they just need to be better about meeting demand and realistically understanding what the demand actually is. I don't think Nintendo values their own stuff as much as the fans do.
So, you knew exactly what Switch demand was going to be at launch? Remember, Switch was a crazy experiment that, on paper, had no guarantee of success. Would people embrace the console/portable combo, or would the portable perception cause people to ignore it for smartphones? It turns out it was very much the first one, but there was no reasonable way of knowing since there was never really a product like it before. Same with the Wii U -- hindsight is everything, but on paper it seemed like it could tap into the interest for the tablet market. But we didn't know, because there was no precedent. And the Wii surprised everyone, including Nintendo, partially because... you guessed it.
No company can predict demand 100 percent of the time. It's all guesswork, and there are plenty that guess wrong and have either supply shortages (bad but temporary) or rotting stock (worse).
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
+5
Options
Handsome CostanzaAsk me about 8bitdoRIP Iwata-sanRegistered Userregular
edited September 2017
recalling that bit in the leaked sdk manual for indies:
"This company is yours to steer......away from risks"
There are lots of products like the switch, like the NVIDIA Shield. The Wii U is a very similar thing and I'm sure market research could have given them lots of information about how people would have liked to see that improved. For one, a name that is clearly a new console and not an addon for the Wii, like the balance board.
But it seemed extremely obvious to me that this thing would be a success, just like the NES Classic, or Amiibo. In fact, for the NES Classic Nintendo admitted to using existing similar machines (Like those crap ass atari 300 in one things) as the basis for their research, instead of understanding how much better an official Nintendo product with good games and a cute "tiny nintendo" design would do. I think they have bad analysts if this is how they're approaching stuff.
Nintendo has access to way more data than I do, but they continue to do this. They're still producing tiny runs of amiibo for instance, but they should have tons of data on how well certain characters and stuff sell.
Nintendo has the capital to take some risks and to overproduce a little bit. I think they're eroding some customer goodwill by focusing on mitigating risk rather than focusing on getting the console to consumers. Take a bit of a hit, overproduce some. Make it back with software sales and customers who are happy they can get the stuff you're making. It would be one thing if this was a one time event, but it happens a lot and has been for a while now. It's still hard to find a switch and those have been out how long? It's getting better sure, and I don't think Nintendo is deliberately trying to build hype with low stock, I just think they've made some poor planning decisions because of some analysts that don't seem to understand Nintendo's huge appeal.
SniperGuy on
0
Options
Handsome CostanzaAsk me about 8bitdoRIP Iwata-sanRegistered Userregular
edited September 2017
I don't know about you but it is NOT still hard to find a Switch in my area. It is literally the exact opposite of hard. Every single retailer that I've visited in the past month or so has had at least 2 or 3 systems in stock. Some had over 10.
edit: and we're talking about the very heart of DFW TX here, not exactly a rural area.
Portability is nice but since I don't care about playing Switch on the go Doom is kind of a losing proposition. I can pick it up the PS4 version on Amazon for $20 right now, get it delivered in two days, play it at 60 fps with better graphics and earn some trophies. Doom on Switch will probably be full price and won't be able to claim any of those other things. I'm sure having it running on Switch will be impressive but I hope it has more to offer.
Portability is nice but since I don't care about playing Switch on the go Doom is kind of a losing proposition. I can pick it up the PS4 version on Amazon for $20 right now, get it delivered in two days, play it at 60 fps with better graphics and earn some trophies. Doom on Switch will probably be full price and won't be able to claim any of those other things. I'm sure having it running on Switch will be impressive but I hope it has more to offer.
Not everyone has a PS4 or an Xbox or a pc. For a hardcore Nintendo gamer (as in someone who only plays Nintendo consoles) it's a dream come true, for everyone else.. hey it's doom on a handheld!
Best Buy says there are some available in my area, but none available online. eBay still showing lots of recently sold listings for more than the list price. None on amazon for the right price, but they do have a history of bad relationship with Nintendo. Glad to hear it is readily available in your area. Things are clearly improving in that regard, but I don't think it is that way everywhere yet.
Apparently they're doing a Mario Odyssey bundle? There's a listing for one on Best Buy's site with red joycons, hadn't seen that one yet.
0
Options
Handsome CostanzaAsk me about 8bitdoRIP Iwata-sanRegistered Userregular
edited September 2017
Yes yes, its anecdotal of course, but I have a hunch that it's that way or is starting to become that way across most of the US. No solid facts, just a hunch.
and yes they're doing a Mario Odyssey bundle, the red joycons will probably be for sale seperately as well as they're up for pre-order by themselves in Japan.
Honestly, I have never seen a shortage of Switches here? The NES classic disappeared in seconds, but the Switch supply in my area seems about reasonable with the demand.
There are lots of products like the switch, like the NVIDIA Shield. The Wii U is a very similar thing and I'm sure market research could have given them lots of information about how people would have liked to see that improved. For one, a name that is clearly a new console and not an addon for the Wii, like the balance board.
But it seemed extremely obvious to me that this thing would be a success, just like the NES Classic, or Amiibo. In fact, for the NES Classic Nintendo admitted to using existing similar machines (Like those crap ass atari 300 in one things) as the basis for their research, instead of understanding how much better an official Nintendo product with good games and a cute "tiny nintendo" design would do. I think they have bad analysts if this is how they're approaching stuff.
Nintendo has access to way more data than I do, but they continue to do this. They're still producing tiny runs of amiibo for instance, but they should have tons of data on how well certain characters and stuff sell.
Nintendo has the capital to take some risks and to overproduce a little bit. I think they're eroding some customer goodwill by focusing on mitigating risk rather than focusing on getting the console to consumers. Take a bit of a hit, overproduce some. Make it back with software sales and customers who are happy they can get the stuff you're making. It would be one thing if this was a one time event, but it happens a lot and has been for a while now. It's still hard to find a switch and those have been out how long? It's getting better sure, and I don't think Nintendo is deliberately trying to build hype with low stock, I just think they've made some poor planning decisions because of some analysts that don't seem to understand Nintendo's huge appeal.
If Nintendo had used the NVIDIA Switch as a precedent for Switch they would have REALLY underproduced. That thing sells modestly at best.
And no, they don't have bad analysts. Remember, the Wii U was also an official Nintendo product with good games and an interesting design, but it sold horribly. And I mean HORRIBLY. You may have guessed that Nintendo would do well, but we're far from the true target market. This board more or less pooh-poohed the original Wii, but it was a ginormous seller.
While it's true that Nintendo is horribly allergic to overproducing, overproducing doesn't necessarily mean success. Take, again, the Wii U. Nintendo had huge amounts of those machines that simply wouldn't sell, and it didn't lead to fantastic money. It just lead to molasses-slow sales and giant losses. The Wii U is also why I'd disagree that Nintendo faces supply shortages "a lot."
Besides, Reggie literally just said Nintendo is overproducing. It's a fact that, compared to analyst estimates, they produced twice as much. And these are independent analysts whose job it is to estimate this stuff. For your scenario to be true there would have to be no such thing as a good analyst.
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
+1
Options
Handsome CostanzaAsk me about 8bitdoRIP Iwata-sanRegistered Userregular
Wait a second... Xenoverse 2 is out today? bwuuuh?!? And Pokken Tournament?! I WAS NOT PREPARED FOR THIS.
There are lots of products like the switch, like the NVIDIA Shield. The Wii U is a very similar thing and I'm sure market research could have given them lots of information about how people would have liked to see that improved. For one, a name that is clearly a new console and not an addon for the Wii, like the balance board.
But it seemed extremely obvious to me that this thing would be a success, just like the NES Classic, or Amiibo. In fact, for the NES Classic Nintendo admitted to using existing similar machines (Like those crap ass atari 300 in one things) as the basis for their research, instead of understanding how much better an official Nintendo product with good games and a cute "tiny nintendo" design would do. I think they have bad analysts if this is how they're approaching stuff.
Nintendo has access to way more data than I do, but they continue to do this. They're still producing tiny runs of amiibo for instance, but they should have tons of data on how well certain characters and stuff sell.
Nintendo has the capital to take some risks and to overproduce a little bit. I think they're eroding some customer goodwill by focusing on mitigating risk rather than focusing on getting the console to consumers. Take a bit of a hit, overproduce some. Make it back with software sales and customers who are happy they can get the stuff you're making. It would be one thing if this was a one time event, but it happens a lot and has been for a while now. It's still hard to find a switch and those have been out how long? It's getting better sure, and I don't think Nintendo is deliberately trying to build hype with low stock, I just think they've made some poor planning decisions because of some analysts that don't seem to understand Nintendo's huge appeal.
They are overproducing though. That's what Reggie just said. They're looking at all their models and analyst predictions and making more than that to try to cover demand, and they keep selling out. They're following your advice exactly. "Well, then they needed to overproduce a little bit more" is so easy to say with hindsight. For all they knew they could've had another Wii U situation on their hands. All their analysts and studies didn't show them that Wii U wasn't going to sell great, and they now know exactly what happens when you produce too many units. And yet they're still doing their best now to make more than they think they reasonably should, risking more stock rotting on shelves as with Wii U.
Heck they even had a good excuse earlier this year when they were competing for physical components with Apple. They didn't have much choice at the time.
Besides, Reggie literally just said Nintendo is overproducing. It's a fact that, compared to analyst estimates, they produced twice as much. And these are independent analysts whose job it is to estimate this stuff. For your scenario to be true there would have to be no such thing as a good analyst.
That's true too, I didn't even think of that. A bunch of external analysts, not on any sort of payroll for Nintendo, failed at their one job. You could say given that they overproduced anyway that there's a good chance Nintendo's internal data is actually better.
There are lots of products like the switch, like the NVIDIA Shield. The Wii U is a very similar thing and I'm sure market research could have given them lots of information about how people would have liked to see that improved. For one, a name that is clearly a new console and not an addon for the Wii, like the balance board.
But it seemed extremely obvious to me that this thing would be a success, just like the NES Classic, or Amiibo. In fact, for the NES Classic Nintendo admitted to using existing similar machines (Like those crap ass atari 300 in one things) as the basis for their research, instead of understanding how much better an official Nintendo product with good games and a cute "tiny nintendo" design would do. I think they have bad analysts if this is how they're approaching stuff.
Nintendo has access to way more data than I do, but they continue to do this. They're still producing tiny runs of amiibo for instance, but they should have tons of data on how well certain characters and stuff sell.
Nintendo has the capital to take some risks and to overproduce a little bit. I think they're eroding some customer goodwill by focusing on mitigating risk rather than focusing on getting the console to consumers. Take a bit of a hit, overproduce some. Make it back with software sales and customers who are happy they can get the stuff you're making. It would be one thing if this was a one time event, but it happens a lot and has been for a while now. It's still hard to find a switch and those have been out how long? It's getting better sure, and I don't think Nintendo is deliberately trying to build hype with low stock, I just think they've made some poor planning decisions because of some analysts that don't seem to understand Nintendo's huge appeal.
If Nintendo had used the NVIDIA Switch as a precedent for Switch they would have REALLY underproduced. That thing sells modestly at best.
And no, they don't have bad analysts. Remember, the Wii U was also an official Nintendo product with good games and an interesting design, but it sold horribly. And I mean HORRIBLY. You may have guessed that Nintendo would do well, but we're far from the true target market. This board more or less pooh-poohed the original Wii, but it was a ginormous seller.
While it's true that Nintendo is horribly allergic to overproducing, overproducing doesn't necessarily mean success. Take, again, the Wii U. Nintendo had huge amounts of those machines that simply wouldn't sell, and it didn't lead to fantastic money. It just lead to molasses-slow sales and giant losses. The Wii U is also why I'd disagree that Nintendo faces supply shortages "a lot."
Besides, Reggie literally just said Nintendo is overproducing. It's a fact that, compared to analyst estimates, they produced twice as much. And these are independent analysts whose job it is to estimate this stuff. For your scenario to be true there would have to be no such thing as a good analyst.
The Wii U didn't have enough good games and had a terrible name, especially since Nintendo had done a whole bunch of weird peripherals so that the general public assumed the gamepad was an addon for the Wii, not a whole new system. It also didn't launch with any particularly stellar games, unlike the Switch with Breath of the Wild. The switch has better games, is distinctly different in name and design, has portability features, etc.
Where are you getting the "twice as much" number from? I'm glad they are overproducing and ignoring their analysts! I think they absolutely have bad analysts. I mean, look at the NES Classic thing. They compared their quality product with great classic games to a shitty 30-in-one atari thing that is sold at walgreens checkout counters and expected it to sell similarly? I think any one of us would look at those two products and say the Nintendo one would clearly sell better. Even if you didn't show the hardware and JUST gave a list of games, it would sell better.
I don't think the Wii U is a good comparison to make because it had plenty of other problems that kept it from selling. It wasn't as appealing as amiibo, the NES/SNES Classic, or the Switch. But maybe it is a good example of Nintendo approaching things with a very different mindset.
edit: Wait are their analysts internal or external now? Where are you getting this info?
There are lots of products like the switch, like the NVIDIA Shield. The Wii U is a very similar thing and I'm sure market research could have given them lots of information about how people would have liked to see that improved. For one, a name that is clearly a new console and not an addon for the Wii, like the balance board.
But it seemed extremely obvious to me that this thing would be a success, just like the NES Classic, or Amiibo. In fact, for the NES Classic Nintendo admitted to using existing similar machines (Like those crap ass atari 300 in one things) as the basis for their research, instead of understanding how much better an official Nintendo product with good games and a cute "tiny nintendo" design would do. I think they have bad analysts if this is how they're approaching stuff.
Nintendo has access to way more data than I do, but they continue to do this. They're still producing tiny runs of amiibo for instance, but they should have tons of data on how well certain characters and stuff sell.
Nintendo has the capital to take some risks and to overproduce a little bit. I think they're eroding some customer goodwill by focusing on mitigating risk rather than focusing on getting the console to consumers. Take a bit of a hit, overproduce some. Make it back with software sales and customers who are happy they can get the stuff you're making. It would be one thing if this was a one time event, but it happens a lot and has been for a while now. It's still hard to find a switch and those have been out how long? It's getting better sure, and I don't think Nintendo is deliberately trying to build hype with low stock, I just think they've made some poor planning decisions because of some analysts that don't seem to understand Nintendo's huge appeal.
If Nintendo had used the NVIDIA Switch as a precedent for Switch they would have REALLY underproduced. That thing sells modestly at best.
And no, they don't have bad analysts. Remember, the Wii U was also an official Nintendo product with good games and an interesting design, but it sold horribly. And I mean HORRIBLY. You may have guessed that Nintendo would do well, but we're far from the true target market. This board more or less pooh-poohed the original Wii, but it was a ginormous seller.
While it's true that Nintendo is horribly allergic to overproducing, overproducing doesn't necessarily mean success. Take, again, the Wii U. Nintendo had huge amounts of those machines that simply wouldn't sell, and it didn't lead to fantastic money. It just lead to molasses-slow sales and giant losses. The Wii U is also why I'd disagree that Nintendo faces supply shortages "a lot."
Besides, Reggie literally just said Nintendo is overproducing. It's a fact that, compared to analyst estimates, they produced twice as much. And these are independent analysts whose job it is to estimate this stuff. For your scenario to be true there would have to be no such thing as a good analyst.
The Wii U didn't have enough good games and had a terrible name, especially since Nintendo had done a whole bunch of weird peripherals so that the general public assumed the gamepad was an addon for the Wii, not a whole new system. It also didn't launch with any particularly stellar games, unlike the Switch with Breath of the Wild. The switch has better games, is distinctly different in name and design, has portability features, etc.
Where are you getting the "twice as much" number from? I'm glad they are overproducing and ignoring their analysts! I think they absolutely have bad analysts. I mean, look at the NES Classic thing. They compared their quality product with great classic games to a shitty 30-in-one atari thing that is sold at walgreens checkout counters and expected it to sell similarly? I think any one of us would look at those two products and say the Nintendo one would clearly sell better. Even if you didn't show the hardware and JUST gave a list of games, it would sell better.
I don't think the Wii U is a good comparison to make because it had plenty of other problems that kept it from selling. It wasn't as appealing as amiibo, the NES/SNES Classic, or the Switch. But maybe it is a good example of Nintendo approaching things with a very different mindset.
edit: Wait are their analysts internal or external now? Where are you getting this info?
I'm talking about external analysts, whose jobs are to look at companies from afar and make predictions. (I say "afar" but they tend to get all kinds of market and company information we mere mortals will never see.) These are the analysts that truly matter, because they predict how much money a company will make each quarter. And they (as a whole) are very respected -- if a company makes less than the average analyst prediction in a quarter, they're in trouble. If they make more, they're golden.
It's these analysts that predicted Nintendo would sell half as many Switches as Nintendo actually did, not Nintendo's analysts. Not even external analysts were able to predict how much of a success the Switch would be.
Looking ahead, Pachter told investors that Nintendo should sell 1 million Switch units in its current fiscal year ended March, and another 4 million units in its next full fiscal year. He cautioned, however, that Nintendo might have some difficulty look further ahead."Sales beyond the first year will be affected by third party software support; the underpowered Switch is unlikely to attract much," he said.
We currently forecast 4 million Switch sales in 2017 although this may be revised in the coming days based on the earlier than expected launch date and likely stock availability through the year.
And compare with Reggie's quote above:
"We actually sold through almost 2.8 million units, so we dramatically over delivered. And yet, demand outpaces supply," he said. "So what do some of the consumers on Reddit say? 'Gosh, Nintendo, if you would've made more you would've sold more.' Well, we did make more! And certainly we're on a pace to supply in the current fiscal year 10 million units."
In Xenoverse 2, can I re-make my first game character to put on the statue? I'd like the continuity, but I played XV1 on PS3 (and XV1 didn't exist on Nintendo stuff)
There are lots of products like the switch, like the NVIDIA Shield. The Wii U is a very similar thing and I'm sure market research could have given them lots of information about how people would have liked to see that improved. For one, a name that is clearly a new console and not an addon for the Wii, like the balance board.
But it seemed extremely obvious to me that this thing would be a success, just like the NES Classic, or Amiibo. In fact, for the NES Classic Nintendo admitted to using existing similar machines (Like those crap ass atari 300 in one things) as the basis for their research, instead of understanding how much better an official Nintendo product with good games and a cute "tiny nintendo" design would do. I think they have bad analysts if this is how they're approaching stuff.
Nintendo has access to way more data than I do, but they continue to do this. They're still producing tiny runs of amiibo for instance, but they should have tons of data on how well certain characters and stuff sell.
Nintendo has the capital to take some risks and to overproduce a little bit. I think they're eroding some customer goodwill by focusing on mitigating risk rather than focusing on getting the console to consumers. Take a bit of a hit, overproduce some. Make it back with software sales and customers who are happy they can get the stuff you're making. It would be one thing if this was a one time event, but it happens a lot and has been for a while now. It's still hard to find a switch and those have been out how long? It's getting better sure, and I don't think Nintendo is deliberately trying to build hype with low stock, I just think they've made some poor planning decisions because of some analysts that don't seem to understand Nintendo's huge appeal.
If Nintendo had used the NVIDIA Switch as a precedent for Switch they would have REALLY underproduced. That thing sells modestly at best.
And no, they don't have bad analysts. Remember, the Wii U was also an official Nintendo product with good games and an interesting design, but it sold horribly. And I mean HORRIBLY. You may have guessed that Nintendo would do well, but we're far from the true target market. This board more or less pooh-poohed the original Wii, but it was a ginormous seller.
While it's true that Nintendo is horribly allergic to overproducing, overproducing doesn't necessarily mean success. Take, again, the Wii U. Nintendo had huge amounts of those machines that simply wouldn't sell, and it didn't lead to fantastic money. It just lead to molasses-slow sales and giant losses. The Wii U is also why I'd disagree that Nintendo faces supply shortages "a lot."
Besides, Reggie literally just said Nintendo is overproducing. It's a fact that, compared to analyst estimates, they produced twice as much. And these are independent analysts whose job it is to estimate this stuff. For your scenario to be true there would have to be no such thing as a good analyst.
The Wii U didn't have enough good games and had a terrible name, especially since Nintendo had done a whole bunch of weird peripherals so that the general public assumed the gamepad was an addon for the Wii, not a whole new system. It also didn't launch with any particularly stellar games, unlike the Switch with Breath of the Wild. The switch has better games, is distinctly different in name and design, has portability features, etc.
Where are you getting the "twice as much" number from? I'm glad they are overproducing and ignoring their analysts! I think they absolutely have bad analysts. I mean, look at the NES Classic thing. They compared their quality product with great classic games to a shitty 30-in-one atari thing that is sold at walgreens checkout counters and expected it to sell similarly? I think any one of us would look at those two products and say the Nintendo one would clearly sell better. Even if you didn't show the hardware and JUST gave a list of games, it would sell better.
I don't think the Wii U is a good comparison to make because it had plenty of other problems that kept it from selling. It wasn't as appealing as amiibo, the NES/SNES Classic, or the Switch. But maybe it is a good example of Nintendo approaching things with a very different mindset.
edit: Wait are their analysts internal or external now? Where are you getting this info?
I'm talking about external analysts, whose jobs are to look at companies from afar and make predictions. (I say "afar" but they tend to get all kinds of market and company information we mere mortals will never see.) These are the analysts that truly matter, because they predict how much money a company will make each quarter. And they (as a whole) are very respected -- if a company makes less than the average analyst prediction in a quarter, they're in trouble. If they make more, they're golden.
It's these analysts that predicted Nintendo would sell half as many Switches as Nintendo actually did, not Nintendo's analysts. Not even external analysts were able to predict how much of a success the Switch would be.
I think it looks promising for the game roster for the holidays. Those who have yet to purchase a switch will have a pretty good selection during the holidays. Crazy with all the demand for a march system release!
There are lots of products like the switch, like the NVIDIA Shield. The Wii U is a very similar thing and I'm sure market research could have given them lots of information about how people would have liked to see that improved. For one, a name that is clearly a new console and not an addon for the Wii, like the balance board.
But it seemed extremely obvious to me that this thing would be a success, just like the NES Classic, or Amiibo. In fact, for the NES Classic Nintendo admitted to using existing similar machines (Like those crap ass atari 300 in one things) as the basis for their research, instead of understanding how much better an official Nintendo product with good games and a cute "tiny nintendo" design would do. I think they have bad analysts if this is how they're approaching stuff.
Nintendo has access to way more data than I do, but they continue to do this. They're still producing tiny runs of amiibo for instance, but they should have tons of data on how well certain characters and stuff sell.
Nintendo has the capital to take some risks and to overproduce a little bit. I think they're eroding some customer goodwill by focusing on mitigating risk rather than focusing on getting the console to consumers. Take a bit of a hit, overproduce some. Make it back with software sales and customers who are happy they can get the stuff you're making. It would be one thing if this was a one time event, but it happens a lot and has been for a while now. It's still hard to find a switch and those have been out how long? It's getting better sure, and I don't think Nintendo is deliberately trying to build hype with low stock, I just think they've made some poor planning decisions because of some analysts that don't seem to understand Nintendo's huge appeal.
If Nintendo had used the NVIDIA Switch as a precedent for Switch they would have REALLY underproduced. That thing sells modestly at best.
And no, they don't have bad analysts. Remember, the Wii U was also an official Nintendo product with good games and an interesting design, but it sold horribly. And I mean HORRIBLY. You may have guessed that Nintendo would do well, but we're far from the true target market. This board more or less pooh-poohed the original Wii, but it was a ginormous seller.
While it's true that Nintendo is horribly allergic to overproducing, overproducing doesn't necessarily mean success. Take, again, the Wii U. Nintendo had huge amounts of those machines that simply wouldn't sell, and it didn't lead to fantastic money. It just lead to molasses-slow sales and giant losses. The Wii U is also why I'd disagree that Nintendo faces supply shortages "a lot."
Besides, Reggie literally just said Nintendo is overproducing. It's a fact that, compared to analyst estimates, they produced twice as much. And these are independent analysts whose job it is to estimate this stuff. For your scenario to be true there would have to be no such thing as a good analyst.
The Wii U didn't have enough good games and had a terrible name, especially since Nintendo had done a whole bunch of weird peripherals so that the general public assumed the gamepad was an addon for the Wii, not a whole new system. It also didn't launch with any particularly stellar games, unlike the Switch with Breath of the Wild. The switch has better games, is distinctly different in name and design, has portability features, etc.
Where are you getting the "twice as much" number from? I'm glad they are overproducing and ignoring their analysts! I think they absolutely have bad analysts. I mean, look at the NES Classic thing. They compared their quality product with great classic games to a shitty 30-in-one atari thing that is sold at walgreens checkout counters and expected it to sell similarly? I think any one of us would look at those two products and say the Nintendo one would clearly sell better. Even if you didn't show the hardware and JUST gave a list of games, it would sell better.
I don't think the Wii U is a good comparison to make because it had plenty of other problems that kept it from selling. It wasn't as appealing as amiibo, the NES/SNES Classic, or the Switch. But maybe it is a good example of Nintendo approaching things with a very different mindset.
edit: Wait are their analysts internal or external now? Where are you getting this info?
I'm talking about external analysts, whose jobs are to look at companies from afar and make predictions. (I say "afar" but they tend to get all kinds of market and company information we mere mortals will never see.) These are the analysts that truly matter, because they predict how much money a company will make each quarter. And they (as a whole) are very respected -- if a company makes less than the average analyst prediction in a quarter, they're in trouble. If they make more, they're golden.
It's these analysts that predicted Nintendo would sell half as many Switches as Nintendo actually did, not Nintendo's analysts. Not even external analysts were able to predict how much of a success the Switch would be.
There are lots of products like the switch, like the NVIDIA Shield. The Wii U is a very similar thing and I'm sure market research could have given them lots of information about how people would have liked to see that improved. For one, a name that is clearly a new console and not an addon for the Wii, like the balance board.
But it seemed extremely obvious to me that this thing would be a success, just like the NES Classic, or Amiibo. In fact, for the NES Classic Nintendo admitted to using existing similar machines (Like those crap ass atari 300 in one things) as the basis for their research, instead of understanding how much better an official Nintendo product with good games and a cute "tiny nintendo" design would do. I think they have bad analysts if this is how they're approaching stuff.
Nintendo has access to way more data than I do, but they continue to do this. They're still producing tiny runs of amiibo for instance, but they should have tons of data on how well certain characters and stuff sell.
Nintendo has the capital to take some risks and to overproduce a little bit. I think they're eroding some customer goodwill by focusing on mitigating risk rather than focusing on getting the console to consumers. Take a bit of a hit, overproduce some. Make it back with software sales and customers who are happy they can get the stuff you're making. It would be one thing if this was a one time event, but it happens a lot and has been for a while now. It's still hard to find a switch and those have been out how long? It's getting better sure, and I don't think Nintendo is deliberately trying to build hype with low stock, I just think they've made some poor planning decisions because of some analysts that don't seem to understand Nintendo's huge appeal.
If Nintendo had used the NVIDIA Switch as a precedent for Switch they would have REALLY underproduced. That thing sells modestly at best.
And no, they don't have bad analysts. Remember, the Wii U was also an official Nintendo product with good games and an interesting design, but it sold horribly. And I mean HORRIBLY. You may have guessed that Nintendo would do well, but we're far from the true target market. This board more or less pooh-poohed the original Wii, but it was a ginormous seller.
While it's true that Nintendo is horribly allergic to overproducing, overproducing doesn't necessarily mean success. Take, again, the Wii U. Nintendo had huge amounts of those machines that simply wouldn't sell, and it didn't lead to fantastic money. It just lead to molasses-slow sales and giant losses. The Wii U is also why I'd disagree that Nintendo faces supply shortages "a lot."
Besides, Reggie literally just said Nintendo is overproducing. It's a fact that, compared to analyst estimates, they produced twice as much. And these are independent analysts whose job it is to estimate this stuff. For your scenario to be true there would have to be no such thing as a good analyst.
The Wii U didn't have enough good games and had a terrible name, especially since Nintendo had done a whole bunch of weird peripherals so that the general public assumed the gamepad was an addon for the Wii, not a whole new system. It also didn't launch with any particularly stellar games, unlike the Switch with Breath of the Wild. The switch has better games, is distinctly different in name and design, has portability features, etc.
Where are you getting the "twice as much" number from? I'm glad they are overproducing and ignoring their analysts! I think they absolutely have bad analysts. I mean, look at the NES Classic thing. They compared their quality product with great classic games to a shitty 30-in-one atari thing that is sold at walgreens checkout counters and expected it to sell similarly? I think any one of us would look at those two products and say the Nintendo one would clearly sell better. Even if you didn't show the hardware and JUST gave a list of games, it would sell better.
I don't think the Wii U is a good comparison to make because it had plenty of other problems that kept it from selling. It wasn't as appealing as amiibo, the NES/SNES Classic, or the Switch. But maybe it is a good example of Nintendo approaching things with a very different mindset.
edit: Wait are their analysts internal or external now? Where are you getting this info?
I'm talking about external analysts, whose jobs are to look at companies from afar and make predictions. (I say "afar" but they tend to get all kinds of market and company information we mere mortals will never see.) These are the analysts that truly matter, because they predict how much money a company will make each quarter. And they (as a whole) are very respected -- if a company makes less than the average analyst prediction in a quarter, they're in trouble. If they make more, they're golden.
It's these analysts that predicted Nintendo would sell half as many Switches as Nintendo actually did, not Nintendo's analysts. Not even external analysts were able to predict how much of a success the Switch would be.
There are lots of products like the switch, like the NVIDIA Shield. The Wii U is a very similar thing and I'm sure market research could have given them lots of information about how people would have liked to see that improved. For one, a name that is clearly a new console and not an addon for the Wii, like the balance board.
But it seemed extremely obvious to me that this thing would be a success, just like the NES Classic, or Amiibo. In fact, for the NES Classic Nintendo admitted to using existing similar machines (Like those crap ass atari 300 in one things) as the basis for their research, instead of understanding how much better an official Nintendo product with good games and a cute "tiny nintendo" design would do. I think they have bad analysts if this is how they're approaching stuff.
Nintendo has access to way more data than I do, but they continue to do this. They're still producing tiny runs of amiibo for instance, but they should have tons of data on how well certain characters and stuff sell.
Nintendo has the capital to take some risks and to overproduce a little bit. I think they're eroding some customer goodwill by focusing on mitigating risk rather than focusing on getting the console to consumers. Take a bit of a hit, overproduce some. Make it back with software sales and customers who are happy they can get the stuff you're making. It would be one thing if this was a one time event, but it happens a lot and has been for a while now. It's still hard to find a switch and those have been out how long? It's getting better sure, and I don't think Nintendo is deliberately trying to build hype with low stock, I just think they've made some poor planning decisions because of some analysts that don't seem to understand Nintendo's huge appeal.
If Nintendo had used the NVIDIA Switch as a precedent for Switch they would have REALLY underproduced. That thing sells modestly at best.
And no, they don't have bad analysts. Remember, the Wii U was also an official Nintendo product with good games and an interesting design, but it sold horribly. And I mean HORRIBLY. You may have guessed that Nintendo would do well, but we're far from the true target market. This board more or less pooh-poohed the original Wii, but it was a ginormous seller.
While it's true that Nintendo is horribly allergic to overproducing, overproducing doesn't necessarily mean success. Take, again, the Wii U. Nintendo had huge amounts of those machines that simply wouldn't sell, and it didn't lead to fantastic money. It just lead to molasses-slow sales and giant losses. The Wii U is also why I'd disagree that Nintendo faces supply shortages "a lot."
Besides, Reggie literally just said Nintendo is overproducing. It's a fact that, compared to analyst estimates, they produced twice as much. And these are independent analysts whose job it is to estimate this stuff. For your scenario to be true there would have to be no such thing as a good analyst.
The Wii U didn't have enough good games and had a terrible name, especially since Nintendo had done a whole bunch of weird peripherals so that the general public assumed the gamepad was an addon for the Wii, not a whole new system. It also didn't launch with any particularly stellar games, unlike the Switch with Breath of the Wild. The switch has better games, is distinctly different in name and design, has portability features, etc.
Where are you getting the "twice as much" number from? I'm glad they are overproducing and ignoring their analysts! I think they absolutely have bad analysts. I mean, look at the NES Classic thing. They compared their quality product with great classic games to a shitty 30-in-one atari thing that is sold at walgreens checkout counters and expected it to sell similarly? I think any one of us would look at those two products and say the Nintendo one would clearly sell better. Even if you didn't show the hardware and JUST gave a list of games, it would sell better.
I don't think the Wii U is a good comparison to make because it had plenty of other problems that kept it from selling. It wasn't as appealing as amiibo, the NES/SNES Classic, or the Switch. But maybe it is a good example of Nintendo approaching things with a very different mindset.
edit: Wait are their analysts internal or external now? Where are you getting this info?
I'm talking about external analysts, whose jobs are to look at companies from afar and make predictions. (I say "afar" but they tend to get all kinds of market and company information we mere mortals will never see.) These are the analysts that truly matter, because they predict how much money a company will make each quarter. And they (as a whole) are very respected -- if a company makes less than the average analyst prediction in a quarter, they're in trouble. If they make more, they're golden.
It's these analysts that predicted Nintendo would sell half as many Switches as Nintendo actually did, not Nintendo's analysts. Not even external analysts were able to predict how much of a success the Switch would be.
Playing in portable mode isn't worth the headache that comes from playing a FPS with a shitty framerate.
30 isn't a shitty framerate, though. It's industry standard and perfectly usable and serviceable. I would even call it great.
I notice 60 being smoother but I don't notice 30 not feeling playable, or fun, or anything like that. I don't recoil in horror. I can't imagine being so sensitive to framerate that it matters that much. Missing out on so many good experiences because that's the one thing you just can't get over...that would suck so much.
For a surprising amount of people 30 IS a shitty framerate.
Those people probably aren't frequently purchasing a Switch. But there are a whole horde of people that avoid consoles like the plague with framerate being one of the big reasons. Like if you talk positively about 30fps on a more larger and general gaming board... beelzebub help you. They will swarm you.
There are people who buy 10k sound cables for their digital stereos as well, and they are dumb. People bitching about things online isn't a great metric for how actually impactful something is.
Obviously it's dumb to act like 30fps is awful and ruins any game.
But I don't doubt that for some people they notice it enough that it impacts the experience for them if they are really used to 60fps so it feels goosey to act like they are making it up and it doesn't affect them.
I can't personally even tell what the difference is at all. So mind you I'm not in that camp. It feels super weird though as outside a nintendo thread when I say I can't tell the difference and thus don't care the 60fps purists tend to jump on me. Inside a nintendo thread I say that some people actually put a lot of weight into 60fps and it's important for their gaming and then it's called dumb.
Bizarre! As far as I know though twitch shooters are some of the most important games to have 60fps on and those that really notice it WOULD probably hate paying something like Doom at 30FPS as you are always frantically swinging your view back and forth and all over in that.
My point about the cables is that there are lots of people who THINK they can tell a difference about something like that but really can't - especially if their hobby enjoyment is wrapped up in telling the difference. Even if some people can tell, it's an extremely minor difference, and nobody should be getting worked up about it. Someone said earlier that people only really notice framerate when it changes, and that's exactly right.
At any rate the point I'm arguing is with people who say that 30 is a SHITTY framerate, which is obviously ridiculous.
Posts
i dunno.... people get hung up on fps.
its a smaller screen... but its D-O-O-M.... a game that literally is about frantic movement in combat.
Ill wait and see.... but what an age!
For a surprising amount of people 30 IS a shitty framerate.
Those people probably aren't frequently purchasing a Switch. But there are a whole horde of people that avoid consoles like the plague with framerate being one of the big reasons. Like if you talk positively about 30fps on a more larger and general gaming board... beelzebub help you. They will swarm you.
There are people who buy 10k sound cables for their digital stereos as well, and they are dumb. People bitching about things online isn't a great metric for how actually impactful something is.
There's a certain point where it doesn't matter how big a company you are or what the consumer demand is, it's just foolish to produce even more units. It's a highly unpredictable business, what if sales crash through the floor in a month? And now there are 4 million units you've got rotting in warehouses. Massive loss. So I think they're doing alright at this time, they're in a pretty good place where it's like, can't quite walk into any store and grab one immediately, but people are seeing them in the wild.
Obviously it's dumb to act like 30fps is awful and ruins any game.
But I don't doubt that for some people they notice it enough that it impacts the experience for them if they are really used to 60fps so it feels goosey to act like they are making it up and it doesn't affect them.
I can't personally even tell what the difference is at all. So mind you I'm not in that camp. It feels super weird though as outside a nintendo thread when I say I can't tell the difference and thus don't care the 60fps purists tend to jump on me. Inside a nintendo thread I say that some people actually put a lot of weight into 60fps and it's important for their gaming and then it's called dumb.
Bizarre! As far as I know though twitch shooters are some of the most important games to have 60fps on and those that really notice it WOULD probably hate paying something like Doom at 30FPS as you are always frantically swinging your view back and forth and all over in that.
That's the root of it - Nintendo is conservative and so is more likely to underproduce than over. It's odd to call them a conservative company though when you look at them constantly pushing new things in hardware though.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
This just confirms to me that Nintendo really needs to hire new analysts.
He says they "dramatically over delivered." Did they ever give a target number originally? I don't recall seeing that.
And yeah, they just need to be better about meeting demand and realistically understanding what the demand actually is. I don't think Nintendo values their own stuff as much as the fans do.
He's comparing it to analyst expectations, which were lower than what Nintendo delivered.
So, you knew exactly what Switch demand was going to be at launch? Remember, Switch was a crazy experiment that, on paper, had no guarantee of success. Would people embrace the console/portable combo, or would the portable perception cause people to ignore it for smartphones? It turns out it was very much the first one, but there was no reasonable way of knowing since there was never really a product like it before. Same with the Wii U -- hindsight is everything, but on paper it seemed like it could tap into the interest for the tablet market. But we didn't know, because there was no precedent. And the Wii surprised everyone, including Nintendo, partially because... you guessed it.
No company can predict demand 100 percent of the time. It's all guesswork, and there are plenty that guess wrong and have either supply shortages (bad but temporary) or rotting stock (worse).
"This company is yours to steer......away from risks"
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
But it seemed extremely obvious to me that this thing would be a success, just like the NES Classic, or Amiibo. In fact, for the NES Classic Nintendo admitted to using existing similar machines (Like those crap ass atari 300 in one things) as the basis for their research, instead of understanding how much better an official Nintendo product with good games and a cute "tiny nintendo" design would do. I think they have bad analysts if this is how they're approaching stuff.
Nintendo has access to way more data than I do, but they continue to do this. They're still producing tiny runs of amiibo for instance, but they should have tons of data on how well certain characters and stuff sell.
Nintendo has the capital to take some risks and to overproduce a little bit. I think they're eroding some customer goodwill by focusing on mitigating risk rather than focusing on getting the console to consumers. Take a bit of a hit, overproduce some. Make it back with software sales and customers who are happy they can get the stuff you're making. It would be one thing if this was a one time event, but it happens a lot and has been for a while now. It's still hard to find a switch and those have been out how long? It's getting better sure, and I don't think Nintendo is deliberately trying to build hype with low stock, I just think they've made some poor planning decisions because of some analysts that don't seem to understand Nintendo's huge appeal.
edit: and we're talking about the very heart of DFW TX here, not exactly a rural area.
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
Not everyone has a PS4 or an Xbox or a pc. For a hardcore Nintendo gamer (as in someone who only plays Nintendo consoles) it's a dream come true, for everyone else.. hey it's doom on a handheld!
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
Apparently they're doing a Mario Odyssey bundle? There's a listing for one on Best Buy's site with red joycons, hadn't seen that one yet.
and yes they're doing a Mario Odyssey bundle, the red joycons will probably be for sale seperately as well as they're up for pre-order by themselves in Japan.
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
If Nintendo had used the NVIDIA Switch as a precedent for Switch they would have REALLY underproduced. That thing sells modestly at best.
And no, they don't have bad analysts. Remember, the Wii U was also an official Nintendo product with good games and an interesting design, but it sold horribly. And I mean HORRIBLY. You may have guessed that Nintendo would do well, but we're far from the true target market. This board more or less pooh-poohed the original Wii, but it was a ginormous seller.
While it's true that Nintendo is horribly allergic to overproducing, overproducing doesn't necessarily mean success. Take, again, the Wii U. Nintendo had huge amounts of those machines that simply wouldn't sell, and it didn't lead to fantastic money. It just lead to molasses-slow sales and giant losses. The Wii U is also why I'd disagree that Nintendo faces supply shortages "a lot."
Besides, Reggie literally just said Nintendo is overproducing. It's a fact that, compared to analyst estimates, they produced twice as much. And these are independent analysts whose job it is to estimate this stuff. For your scenario to be true there would have to be no such thing as a good analyst.
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
They are overproducing though. That's what Reggie just said. They're looking at all their models and analyst predictions and making more than that to try to cover demand, and they keep selling out. They're following your advice exactly. "Well, then they needed to overproduce a little bit more" is so easy to say with hindsight. For all they knew they could've had another Wii U situation on their hands. All their analysts and studies didn't show them that Wii U wasn't going to sell great, and they now know exactly what happens when you produce too many units. And yet they're still doing their best now to make more than they think they reasonably should, risking more stock rotting on shelves as with Wii U.
Heck they even had a good excuse earlier this year when they were competing for physical components with Apple. They didn't have much choice at the time.
That's true too, I didn't even think of that. A bunch of external analysts, not on any sort of payroll for Nintendo, failed at their one job. You could say given that they overproduced anyway that there's a good chance Nintendo's internal data is actually better.
There is a really nice eShop thread that is updated every Thursday:
https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/38307462/#Comment_38307462
It's where I keep up to speed.
The Wii U didn't have enough good games and had a terrible name, especially since Nintendo had done a whole bunch of weird peripherals so that the general public assumed the gamepad was an addon for the Wii, not a whole new system. It also didn't launch with any particularly stellar games, unlike the Switch with Breath of the Wild. The switch has better games, is distinctly different in name and design, has portability features, etc.
Where are you getting the "twice as much" number from? I'm glad they are overproducing and ignoring their analysts! I think they absolutely have bad analysts. I mean, look at the NES Classic thing. They compared their quality product with great classic games to a shitty 30-in-one atari thing that is sold at walgreens checkout counters and expected it to sell similarly? I think any one of us would look at those two products and say the Nintendo one would clearly sell better. Even if you didn't show the hardware and JUST gave a list of games, it would sell better.
I don't think the Wii U is a good comparison to make because it had plenty of other problems that kept it from selling. It wasn't as appealing as amiibo, the NES/SNES Classic, or the Switch. But maybe it is a good example of Nintendo approaching things with a very different mindset.
edit: Wait are their analysts internal or external now? Where are you getting this info?
I can't see the whole interview because that ft.com site needs a subscription I guess.
I'm talking about external analysts, whose jobs are to look at companies from afar and make predictions. (I say "afar" but they tend to get all kinds of market and company information we mere mortals will never see.) These are the analysts that truly matter, because they predict how much money a company will make each quarter. And they (as a whole) are very respected -- if a company makes less than the average analyst prediction in a quarter, they're in trouble. If they make more, they're golden.
It's these analysts that predicted Nintendo would sell half as many Switches as Nintendo actually did, not Nintendo's analysts. Not even external analysts were able to predict how much of a success the Switch would be.
And again, before the Wii U launched there was no true way to accurately suss out how much it would actually sell. In fact many external analysts predicted it would do as well or better than the Wii.
http://fortune.com/2017/01/17/nintendo-switch-sales/
https://venturebeat.com/2017/01/13/nintendo-switch-draws-mixed-reactions-from-analysts/
And compare with Reggie's quote above:
Can you link me these external analysts you're talking about? I'm not seeing the data you're referencing.
But this basically boils down to I think Nintendo can do a better job than they're doing with the information available to me.
I still don't understand Reggie's "over delivered" quote. How much did Nintendo claim they were going to deliver originally?
peep the arrow, people are saying this could be the island from Super Mario Sunshine. image is from a japanese ad that went up today
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
Selling Board Games for Medical Bills
It's the same link I posted at the very beginning of this discussion. And Reggie's saying they delivered more Switches than analysts thought they would.
Link requires subscription to read.
Yessss, as I was hoping/guessing, the Switch will indeed be the Atelier platform going forward.
PS4, PC, and Switch 2018
D'oh. Well, Sporky did a better job of assembling quotes and links anyway, so just read his last post.
I received a cancellation e-mail earlier this morning
Yeah they cancelled mine too
My point about the cables is that there are lots of people who THINK they can tell a difference about something like that but really can't - especially if their hobby enjoyment is wrapped up in telling the difference. Even if some people can tell, it's an extremely minor difference, and nobody should be getting worked up about it. Someone said earlier that people only really notice framerate when it changes, and that's exactly right.
At any rate the point I'm arguing is with people who say that 30 is a SHITTY framerate, which is obviously ridiculous.