The best solution for a Nintendo thinking about going third-party would be just to make their own variant Steam Machines and Android-based devices, as well as supporting PCs (Windows, Mac & Linux) and Android with Nintendo eShop Apps. Other than their own dedicated hardware, Nintendo would support Windows, Mac, & Linux PCs and Android devices exclusively, even pointing out that they will not support a platform unless they get full control and 100% of the profits off of their games.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Lets talk about Nintendo going 3rd party (from an economics perspective)
- Thread starter MercuryLS
- Start date
TheRedSnifit
Member
Sony could really use those royalties, guys. Might do something about that $1 billion loss they're predicting.
Slim to none nowadays.
Exploratory
Banned
They should just make a steambox and work out a deal with Valve. Then they get instant third party support a bunch of new eyeballs for their games etc.
Anyone point out the downside to this plan?
Anyone point out the downside to this plan?
thesolidshark
Member
A lot of suggestions made here are still being made by gamers, especially those who "like Ninteno software and dislike/hate its hardware." As fickle as it can be, Nintendo not being in the business of gaming could be a smarter decision.
Compared to now, what solutions have been presented so far that are long-term advantages to 3rd party? Seems like everything suggested so far has been trend-following, and it's sad to ask an often trend-setter of that, despite current troubles. Over time, their risk-taking has left them in a better position than not, which would probably end when they go 3rd party. The things they control within their own space I think are a big list of advantages they'd lose on against the unsure stability of software-only.
JordanN
Banned
It's PR.
Nintendo has to make software if they have no hardware. That's their only business*.
*Not counting Hanafuda cards and the Seattle Mariners.
Nintendo should just leave gaming then, and focus purely on the $1.668 Trillion Health Industry then. They wouldn't lose any money on hardware manufacturing, and the opportunities presented are far better than such a niche industry such as gaming! From an economic perspective, this is the best. Sony and Microsoft would never follow them into this, thus leaving their competitors behind and opening up a Blue Ocean for them.
Jokes.
I have a myriad of reasons why Nintendo shouldn't go 3rd party, and the overarching scenario of events that most people seem to be overlooking. It's a very volatile market, and I don't know whether or not Nintendo can truly keep paced with the way the industry is heading. We are very much in the era of cinematic games, that are meant to emulate a mature product such as books or cinema. When we see E3, many of the games focus on building plot, and less about gameplay. The Last of Us is cinematic, Tomb Raider is cinematic. Mario is very much the antithesis of that, and reflects the older age of game-play. Even Zelda, which was one of their most lore heavy games, is being outpaced left, right, and center. For that reason, I can't see Nintendo doing well on consoles that are reflective of the 30 yr old gamer. Their sales would be heavily marginalized, the development process would become difficult, and they'd be forced to spend more money on creating these experiences because the console demand more power.
In reality, I think Nintendo should toy with the idea of a strong console that is cheap. Incredibly cheap. And simply focus on putting their IP's on it. It's a low entry level barrier, gives us access to their games, and doesn't bleed our wallets dry. This then allows us to pursue another console for those "mature" experiences.
Jokes.
I have a myriad of reasons why Nintendo shouldn't go 3rd party, and the overarching scenario of events that most people seem to be overlooking. It's a very volatile market, and I don't know whether or not Nintendo can truly keep paced with the way the industry is heading. We are very much in the era of cinematic games, that are meant to emulate a mature product such as books or cinema. When we see E3, many of the games focus on building plot, and less about gameplay. The Last of Us is cinematic, Tomb Raider is cinematic. Mario is very much the antithesis of that, and reflects the older age of game-play. Even Zelda, which was one of their most lore heavy games, is being outpaced left, right, and center. For that reason, I can't see Nintendo doing well on consoles that are reflective of the 30 yr old gamer. Their sales would be heavily marginalized, the development process would become difficult, and they'd be forced to spend more money on creating these experiences because the console demand more power.
In reality, I think Nintendo should toy with the idea of a strong console that is cheap. Incredibly cheap. And simply focus on putting their IP's on it. It's a low entry level barrier, gives us access to their games, and doesn't bleed our wallets dry. This then allows us to pursue another console for those "mature" experiences.
Night_Trekker
Member
*golf clap*
Sony or MS fuck up, they can always try again, they're making the real gamer's console or the best hardware, sales be damned, etc.
Nintendo fucks up, time for "third party" talk again.
I really do think this is because Nintendo refuses to start churning out the "mature" games the other two platforms make, and because of that, a lot of gamers think of Nintendo--as a development house--as outdated and irrelevant. (Their aversion to full online gaming isn't helping that perception.)
Nintendo's profit margins right now are a long way away from it being a good idea to drop 60% of its revenue stream to abandon hardware. It would only begin to make sense when the the company starts losing maybe 20 or 30 percent of its worth year over year or something like that. So far Nintendo's been seeing YoY losses of maybe five percent of that worth (off the top of my head).
To go third party Nintendo would probably have to chop off at least half of its staff. A lot of its game design structure also probably depends on having hardware revenue as a bedrock, not to mention static hardware to work on. I'm not even sure I can imagine Nintendo developing games for a user interface Miyamoto & co didn't design. Basically, Nintendo would have to become a different company than it is today. As for how long it can hold out in its current state, I think Nintendo, with it's current money reserves, can survive at least one more console failure.
As for potential third party sales, I for one think people actually would follow Nintendo's games to PlayStation or Xbox. I think the one thing a lot of console gamers have desperately wanted for at least a decade now is essentially a PlayStation or Xbox that plays Nintendo games, whether that meant Nintendo making a successful console that's like a PlayStation or Xbox, or Nintendo going third party. I think a lot of PlayStation and Xbox owners, especially the hardcore ones, are still fans of Nintendo games and would be more likely to buy them if they didn't have to buy a whole other console to do so.
On top of this, Sony and Microsoft I think both admit they don't do as well as Nintendo when it comes to games for the younger market, and they'd both like to have the younger market in addition to their existing markets. Sony sees Nintendo's younger audience as gamers who'll potentially graduate to its own games. If there was even a whisper a third party Nintendo was into the idea of exclusivity deals, Sony and Microsoft would both be at Kyoto sucking copious amounts of dick to get Nintendo on board. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft offered to front the entire budget for a Mario platformer, Mario Kart, or most likely Pokemon. If the possibility for any exclusivity deal occurred and Sony still had a handheld, Kaz would pray to the heavens for Nintendo to put Pokemon on it.
But the ultimate question is how much more would those games sell? It might be worth it if Mario, Mario Kart, and Pokemon could sell the Call of Duty numbers they used to, but that would only be after Nintendo incurs far, far more losses than it already has.
The thing is, Nintendo is aware of this shift in how everybody else, especially western developers, makes games, and they seem to be actively disinterested in it. Miyamoto has expressed awareness of the western consumer desire for increasingly complex games. But Nintendo has always been the company of accessibility and relative simplicity in game design. Nintendo doesn't like using hardware for the sake of using hardware, but rather taking advantage of hardware when its games might actually need it.
In some ways that kind of explains Japanese game development in general. Outside the big AAA fare, most Japanese developers don't seem to care about pushing hardware to the limit. Just look at most Japanese PS3 games right now -- the majority don't look anywhere close to the likes of Uncharted or GTA V. With the exception of Zelda, Nintendo has never really behaved like a AAA developer.
As for that affecting software sales, I don't think it does. Not in a world where Pokemon can still sell 12 million copies, Animal Crossing can sell eight million, and Mario Kart can sell upwards of five million. And that's on Nintendo's own hardware with few other games to justify it.
If you're talking about Nintendo getting more complex and "hardcore" games to draw people to its hardware, I think that'll only happen when Nintendo get's into bed with more western developers the way it has with Platinum. Maybe, MAYBE if Nintendo came up with another Zelda or Metroid-like franchise, but it's really impossible to tell when or if that'll happen again. X?
To go third party Nintendo would probably have to chop off at least half of its staff. A lot of its game design structure also probably depends on having hardware revenue as a bedrock, not to mention static hardware to work on. I'm not even sure I can imagine Nintendo developing games for a user interface Miyamoto & co didn't design. Basically, Nintendo would have to become a different company than it is today. As for how long it can hold out in its current state, I think Nintendo, with it's current money reserves, can survive at least one more console failure.
As for potential third party sales, I for one think people actually would follow Nintendo's games to PlayStation or Xbox. I think the one thing a lot of console gamers have desperately wanted for at least a decade now is essentially a PlayStation or Xbox that plays Nintendo games, whether that meant Nintendo making a successful console that's like a PlayStation or Xbox, or Nintendo going third party. I think a lot of PlayStation and Xbox owners, especially the hardcore ones, are still fans of Nintendo games and would be more likely to buy them if they didn't have to buy a whole other console to do so.
On top of this, Sony and Microsoft I think both admit they don't do as well as Nintendo when it comes to games for the younger market, and they'd both like to have the younger market in addition to their existing markets. Sony sees Nintendo's younger audience as gamers who'll potentially graduate to its own games. If there was even a whisper a third party Nintendo was into the idea of exclusivity deals, Sony and Microsoft would both be at Kyoto sucking copious amounts of dick to get Nintendo on board. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft offered to front the entire budget for a Mario platformer, Mario Kart, or most likely Pokemon. If the possibility for any exclusivity deal occurred and Sony still had a handheld, Kaz would pray to the heavens for Nintendo to put Pokemon on it.
But the ultimate question is how much more would those games sell? It might be worth it if Mario, Mario Kart, and Pokemon could sell the Call of Duty numbers they used to, but that would only be after Nintendo incurs far, far more losses than it already has.
The thing is, Nintendo is aware of this shift in how everybody else, especially western developers, makes games, and they seem to be actively disinterested in it. Miyamoto has expressed awareness of the western consumer desire for increasingly complex games. But Nintendo has always been the company of accessibility and relative simplicity in game design. Nintendo doesn't like using hardware for the sake of using hardware, but rather taking advantage of hardware when its games might actually need it.
In some ways that kind of explains Japanese game development in general. Outside the big AAA fare, most Japanese developers don't seem to care about pushing hardware to the limit. Just look at most Japanese PS3 games right now -- the majority don't look anywhere close to the likes of Uncharted or GTA V. With the exception of Zelda, Nintendo has never really behaved like a AAA developer.
As for that affecting software sales, I don't think it does. Not in a world where Pokemon can still sell 12 million copies, Animal Crossing can sell eight million, and Mario Kart can sell upwards of five million. And that's on Nintendo's own hardware with few other games to justify it.
If you're talking about Nintendo getting more complex and "hardcore" games to draw people to its hardware, I think that'll only happen when Nintendo get's into bed with more western developers the way it has with Platinum. Maybe, MAYBE if Nintendo came up with another Zelda or Metroid-like franchise, but it's really impossible to tell when or if that'll happen again. X?
I always wonder why "the handheld sector is shrinking" turns into "Nintendo shouldn't make handhelds". It's like people forget they're still making a good profit even with sales less than the Gameboy Advance, and there will always be an audience for games like Mario Kart and Pokemon (I'd say Monster Hunter too but I have a feeling Capcom might try to force that series into the mobile phone sector... I don't think it's a good long-term strategy for a game as controls-dependent as Monster Hunter, but that won't stop them from trying). There's no reason to believe the handheld downward spiral is an irreversible trend either; it's perfectly possible for Nintendo to find another perfect storm like they did with the Wii with the right advertising.
Well that's an interesting simile.
If they are smart they will go third party. If they are not smart they will rack up enough losses to be acquired/broken up within five years.
Unless you think they have a hardware strategy, or that their competitive landscape is going to change for the better, or that QOL is going to keep the whole company afloat. I don't see any of those things happening.
Unless you think they have a hardware strategy, or that their competitive landscape is going to change for the better, or that QOL is going to keep the whole company afloat. I don't see any of those things happening.
I think I've seen like 5 or 6 posters in this topic (?) cite the loss of revenue as a reason not to abandon hardware. That's so dumb it makes my head hurt.
Revenue doesn't mean anything. It's all about profit today or potential profit in the future. There's an old joke that goes, "we lose money on every sale but make it up in volume." Think about it.
There are really three questions to answer:
1) If Nintendo made games for other consoles, would there be a significant drop in quality?
2) If Nintendo made games for other consoles, would their sales be significantly higher?
3) How many more generations will the traditional console market survive? (By this I mean, will there be a PS5, or will it just be pure streaming? Will micro consoles from Amazon, Google, Apple etc. destroy the traditional console market? I doubt I'll be buying my grand kids a PS12)
Revenue doesn't mean anything. It's all about profit today or potential profit in the future. There's an old joke that goes, "we lose money on every sale but make it up in volume." Think about it.
There are really three questions to answer:
1) If Nintendo made games for other consoles, would there be a significant drop in quality?
2) If Nintendo made games for other consoles, would their sales be significantly higher?
3) How many more generations will the traditional console market survive? (By this I mean, will there be a PS5, or will it just be pure streaming? Will micro consoles from Amazon, Google, Apple etc. destroy the traditional console market? I doubt I'll be buying my grand kids a PS12)
I wish they did. Looking at their current software lineup, I doubt they could take an even safer route. However, as a third party they could reach a wider audience as sales for Nintendo platforms (and subsequently for Nintendo software) have been rather sluggish.
I'm currently laughing about people saying that projects such as Fire Emblem would not be made anymore. Why? If they were profitable? Even Ubisoft creates smaller niche titles. That argument seems to be rather driven by emotions: "I don't want them to go third party, so let's think about something bad". Similarly, people bring up Sega, when that company had far more issues. Of course, Iwata is one of the worst leaders right now and he's show how to mismanage Nintendo. But a good CEO could make a good transition to becoming a 3rd party (again, I also doubt that the inept Iwata could do that).
And why do some people bring up revenue? It's about profit and loss, which is more important, and I'm not sure whether we have data for that.
I'm currently laughing about people saying that projects such as Fire Emblem would not be made anymore. Why? If they were profitable? Even Ubisoft creates smaller niche titles. That argument seems to be rather driven by emotions: "I don't want them to go third party, so let's think about something bad". Similarly, people bring up Sega, when that company had far more issues. Of course, Iwata is one of the worst leaders right now and he's show how to mismanage Nintendo. But a good CEO could make a good transition to becoming a 3rd party (again, I also doubt that the inept Iwata could do that).
And why do some people bring up revenue? It's about profit and loss, which is more important, and I'm not sure whether we have data for that.
flatearthpandas
Member
It's like you have ESPN or something.
JordanN
Banned
This is what I was trying to get at.
Hell, if Nintendo followed my advice of keeping handhelds but going third party for home consoles, Mario and Zelda could be on PS4/XBO/PC whereas Metroid and Star Fox could still show up on the 3DS with smaller budgets. Make them eShop games even.
So, the games that sell are on consoles where they'd not get all the money, and the games that don't sell will be on their devices.
Yeah, that's good business.
Seriously, Nintendo is fine. If it wasn't for some sudden expenditures (one time extra injection of 15bn yen in R&D and 8bn yen in Marketing) in Q4 of FY3/2014, they'd likely be at a profit again. Sony is the company you should be worried about due to their need to layoff thousands and sell buildings to stay afloat. That isn't a sign of health.
For Christ's sake, Nintendo has been expanding, which is where a lot of their money has gone.
jeremy1456
Junior Member
Nintendo going third party would be catastrophic for Sony/MS.
Third party support for whichever system they started releasing their games for would completely dry up because third parties claim they can't compete with Nintendo.
Third party support for whichever system they started releasing their games for would completely dry up because third parties claim they can't compete with Nintendo.
This was not a serious post.
Also, becoming a third party will probably not help Nintendo's image for stockholders.
You say that, but Nintendo has had one financial year of loss. Last year, they were at a profit and added to their assets. Sure, they still had an operating loss but overall the company came up in the black. They did not lose money.
The projected loss for this fiscal year that has just passed is largely due to a one-time expenditure (as noted above). When you compare Q1 through Q3 from the last three fiscal years, the one that just passed is far ahead.
None of these really make sense. Smash Bros. can still be a Nintendo crossover fighter without Nintendo consoles. We still have Sega crossovers, don't we?
Game Freak "going independent" would mean they would have to say goodbye to their billion dollar franchise. They wouldn't do that.
MisterHero
Super Member
Each of them could have a profitable hardware division if they weren't in a dickwaving contest over graphics. They produce expensive consoles and undercut the margins so they can brag about "better value". Yes, graphics net exclusive games which drive HW sales. They aren't the only way though.
Expecting consoles to keep up with PC goes against the original purpose of consoles. It's nonsense.
Oh God, I forgot about Pokemon. The franchise will definitely go mobile; the Pokemon Company is already testing the waters in that area. Expect microtransactions for things like event legendaries, battle frontier points, shiny charm, etc.
it just keeps on going, doesn't it? if you're so desperate to "analize" the anti-fan fiction's what if's of Nintendo going 3rd party I'm sure there have been dozens of threads before you can read and read and re-read about the same old arguments with the same shallow insight of what really happens inside a foreign company and the consequences a change so radical would mean to the industry.
it's like GAF is full of unpaid Michael Pachters.
it's like GAF is full of unpaid Michael Pachters.
Nope. Even if Nintendo goes third party and lets Game Freak go (both never going to happen), the heads of GameFreak are FIRMLY against having to make kids pay for extra content in the game, especially paying for Pokémon.
Lets call it becoming a software company instead of 3rd party.
And I think its ineviteble, even if that means a struggle. Selling games on a tiny install base just because you started with hardware 30 years ago doesn't make any sense.
And Nintendos main audience is kids, those play games on phones and tablets now. By ignoring that Nintendo is risking irrelevance in 10 years.
And I think its ineviteble, even if that means a struggle. Selling games on a tiny install base just because you started with hardware 30 years ago doesn't make any sense.
And Nintendos main audience is kids, those play games on phones and tablets now. By ignoring that Nintendo is risking irrelevance in 10 years.
StreetsAhead
Member
What difference does that make?
And what if their next system(s) go on to sell like the Wii/DS did? Even if you think it's unlikely, it's still a possibility.
HaterIsHating
Member
There's also two other options:
- Nintendo is acquired by another company that wants to join the "console wars" (e.g. because they have a service that would allow them to generate additional revenue through a console)
- Nintendo merges with another gaming-company and continues their work with even more exclusives (e.g. Square-Enix, Sega, Capcom, ...)
WIth the already discussed options:
- Nintendo going third party
- Nintendo continuing business as usual and going bankrupt
- Nintendo continuing business as usual and making profits again
I honestly think that "going third party" is _by far_ the least likely options of all of them. Nintendo going third party is Nintendo's death. Sure, it will be a much slower death, but hell, it would be inevitable.
- Nintendo is acquired by another company that wants to join the "console wars" (e.g. because they have a service that would allow them to generate additional revenue through a console)
- Nintendo merges with another gaming-company and continues their work with even more exclusives (e.g. Square-Enix, Sega, Capcom, ...)
WIth the already discussed options:
- Nintendo going third party
- Nintendo continuing business as usual and going bankrupt
- Nintendo continuing business as usual and making profits again
I honestly think that "going third party" is _by far_ the least likely options of all of them. Nintendo going third party is Nintendo's death. Sure, it will be a much slower death, but hell, it would be inevitable.
Aquamarine
Member
How Nintendo makes money (their revenue streams) are relevant insofar as the health and dynamics of the company. It's a complicated puzzle that you can't just exclusively dilute into profit now or profit later.
If you drop Nintendo's major revenue streams (hardware + royalties), what changes? How many losses do you incur? How costly is it to rebuild / reorient your business? Can it be done? Does a major culling of employees benefit the company? Is the company acting inefficiently by throwing away decades of history in this business? Can Nintendo still find growth in the console market through different tactics? How would a major restructure effect company culture / employee morale? Would the integrity of Nintendo products suffer? Is there really any money to be made in high margin mobile games? Would entering into the mobile market be more detrimental than helpful? Would shareholders think that a massive reduction in revenue / employees is negative growth? Would Nintendo become more volatile if it shrunk dramatically? How effectively would Nintendo absorb losses without diverse revenue streams? Could Nintendo still treat shareholders in the same way if it shrunk so much?
Iwata has to juggle all of those questions when thinking about decisions like this.
Nintendo is a business that pursues profit, yes. But on the other hand, Nintendo is a centuries-old culture with a unique blueprint and nuances that may affect profit-seeking decisions in ways that may be more contrary to other conventional methods.
Sure, but what exactly are we debating? "Because 60% of their revenue would vanish" isn't a good reason. I could make a company selling $1 bills for $0.90 and do a lot of revenue, but I wouldn't stay in business for very long.
As I outlined in my three questions, it really comes down to this: Is the money-losing hardware side of the business necessary to prop-up the money-making software side of the business? Could you "transplant" Nintendo's games to other platforms with minimal quality loss? If so, you drop the hardware in a second. If not, you continue to lose money on hardware and try to produce more attractive platforms/games.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Nintendo consoles sell nintendo games. And not because of hardware but because it allows concentration of a userbase that buys nintendo games.
they wouldn't sell the same number of games on another console.
Smaller games like fire emblem would not be worth making.
they wouldn't sell the same number of games on another console.
Smaller games like fire emblem would not be worth making.
Aquamarine
Member
No it really doesn't "come down to this." Nintendo is a 5,000 person company with subsidiaries all over the world. They're a culture filled with thousands of very loyal, dedicated employees. Iwata was a game developer. He's been in this culture for decades...he knows and respects everyone. He knows how to treat employees correctly...that empathy is a fantastic trait I wish more CEOs would employ.
We are discussing the nuances that make it a tad more complicated than "Can we make third-party games? Well let's just slash and burn the whole hardware division overnight!" And in this "situation," Nintendo's revenue streams are an important part of the company that needs to be carefully approached.
The whole point about being a good CEO is being able to juggle all unique facets of the company and suggest a direction that can carefully maneuver the 5,000-pound behemoth towards profitability without ruining the culture. You HAVE to look at more than just a cut-and-dry approach to profitability, because one wrong move can have catastrophic consequences for a company like this.
Radical, instantaneous decisions that slice off half of the company can't just instantly solve Nintendo's problems just like that. Why do you think shareholders re-elected Iwata to the Board in 2012 and 2013 despite the company posting record losses? Because the ones who have leverage understand the situation more acutely.
Revenue isn't a good reason to keep something, but it does indicate that the hardware forms a major part of the company's structure.
Cutting costs generally means you initially spend money, and the more restructuring you have to do, the more money you have to spend. Dropping the hardware portion of Nintendo requires major restructuring: Mass layoffs, complete rebranding, changes to the software segment who are used to working on Nintendo architecture, etc. That is not free or easy. Doing so would be hedging bets that the difference between cost and revenue is enough to quickly make back those expenses.
This reminds me of how Games Workshop (A miniatures company) switched its casting material from pewter to a much cheaper resin-plastic mixture called Finecast. From your perspective, this would mean more profit because they're slashing costs. However, Games Workshop actually had to raise prices on Finecast miniatures. Why? Because they had to recuperate losses from making new moulds, switching material suppliers, etc. And in the long run, their gamble ended up costing them even more money because Finecast was wildly unpopular.
Yeah...it really does. Businesses are ultimately about profit maximization -- if not today, then a greater profit tomorrow. I suppose you could argue that laying off half the company would destroy its culture and thus poison its ability to make quality games in the future (maybe Miyamoto would get depressed that his friends in hardware design are getting laid off) -- that's a reasonable argument to make. But by making that argument, all you're saying is that the hardware side of Nintendo is necessary to facilitate its game creation. It's not some wishy-washy delicate situation.
JordanN
Banned
Who cares about SEGA? Seriously.
If SEGA had anywhere the IP's of Nintendo, then it would be a relevant comparison (but they would also be rich/better off).
SEGA would represent if Nintendo literally released their next console and it bombed entirely. Skewing any chances of being a good third party developer.
I think the advantage Nintendo has now is they can plan this stuff in advance. SEGA barely had any time for that once Dreamcast wrecked them from the inside out.
Neff
Member
Neither Sony nor MS' current market is buoyant or secure enough to make such a move remotely logical. Nintendo's near fully-internalised business, extremely high level of control, and exclusivity in the market is paramount to their profitability.
It's profitable after a specific number of software sales, we don't know how many. But it's becoming more and more likely that owners, particularly new adopters, are going past three, which sounds about right post-price drop. And, each Wii U sold is now an established unit ready to consume future software. It does add up.
The 3 years of operating losses in no way even begin to negate the losses that will be incurred by going third party.
It's profitable after a specific number of software sales, we don't know how many. But it's becoming more and more likely that owners, particularly new adopters, are going past three, which sounds about right post-price drop. And, each Wii U sold is now an established unit ready to consume future software. It does add up.
The 3 years of operating losses in no way even begin to negate the losses that will be incurred by going third party.
aquamarine's sort of going out of her way to present a fairly well-reasoned argument. you're basically shooting it down with little to back it up. i think that sucks.
simple answers are rarely the right answers to complex problems. and what aquamarine is saying is that this is a complex problem. this isn't flicking on and off a light switch. this is a corporation with thousands of people. people with special skills that the company has cultivated over a period of decades. you can wind down a massive team, lay off countless more because the revenue they brought in cannot be counted on any longer, and do it all in the name of restructuring, and maybe in about three or four years, you'll find some footing, but was it worth what amounted to a gamble?
there are better, more reasoned approaches. i believe their qol ideas are rooted in the belief that their hardware division may not succeed on games alone in the somewhat near future. if video games become more of a digital service, and nintendo's software division is forced to make their own digital platform, then their hardware division can at least still focus on bringing in revenue. it's adapting them to a new market. it's using their strengths to a benefit instead of cutting them off entirely.
The shock & awe when Sony go before Nintendo will be immense. Shock & awe.
AntiFacebook
Member
They can release their games on the pc and avoid paying royalties completely.
unless you have some sort of insider trading info, i don't see sony going anywhere.
timetokill
Banned
From an economics perspective, much like from nearly every other perspective, Nintendo going third-party doesn't make any sense. They lose revenue, they lose control over their software, they lose control over their ecosystem. They would have to shed a massive amount of their workforce, and so on. Going third-party isn't a strategy to grow a company, it's to salvage a dying one. Nintendo isn't dying.
The only perspective it makes sense from is a fanboy perspective. I haven't heard a rational argument as for why, especially the completely absurd ones like "they could keep making handhelds and just put their big games on my PS4!"
The only perspective it makes sense from is a fanboy perspective. I haven't heard a rational argument as for why, especially the completely absurd ones like "they could keep making handhelds and just put their big games on my PS4!"
Sony are a company circling the drain. Yes, the PS4 is doing well, but the company as a whole is collapsing, and fast.
Hell, even within the Playstation division they recently let go thousands of staff. Things like that are not signs of a healthy company.
Joe_Incognito
Banned
Never going to happen no matter how much you force the topic.
Meanwhile, I do feel another company is going to expand their presence to include tablets and mobile devices. On the day it's announced I expect quite a bit of chaos.
Meanwhile, I do feel another company is going to expand their presence to include tablets and mobile devices. On the day it's announced I expect quite a bit of chaos.
circling the drain is something reserved for a company like thq in its final moments. sony may be in some financial danger, but the situation isn't that dire.
sony's software divisions have never produced the string of supersellers that nintendo and even microsoft are capable of, and they have a lot of them. it makes sense to cut certain teams, although i certainly wouldn't have made the same choices they did. i think management is a huge issue for their game studios.
it sounds like you know more than you believe. who is it? snk? it's snk, isn't it.