Sure, because they'll only be releasing a couple a year, both starring mascots and both sequels to titles that made them money the previous year. Assasin's mario of duty, basically.
-
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
Sure, because they'll only be releasing a couple a year, both starring mascots and both sequels to titles that made them money the previous year. Assasin's mario of duty, basically.
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
I'm not saying that the Wii/DS were lucky. They both seized markets that hadn't been established yet, and ultimately those markets moved on or became disinterested.
I'm saying that having the opportunity that the Wii/DS had isn't easily replicable, and may not ever be replicable for Nintendo again. Their next big investment appears to be QoL, and I have a very difficult time believing they will find much success in this deeply entrenched market. I also believe VR may be the next big thing, but they won't have the first mover advantage in that space if they are even considering entering that market (which I doubt, given how expensive the hardware would need to be).
Wii U / 3DS are not bad Nintendo systems. Both have good software libraries that appeal to their dedicated fanbase. They certainly have bad gimmicks, which is a reflection of Nintendo not really having a clue as to how to capture an expanded market again. Perhaps you could claim they're bad systems for this reason, but I can't envision Nintendo really doing much differently that would have had a superior outcome. They needed to differentiate as much as possible.
Releasing Wii U without the gamepad, or 3DS without the 3D, would have likely seen both systems suffer the same fate they do now.
Which all boils down to Nintendo not being able to reliably replicate an expanded market success, due to how incredibly rare those opportunities are. And now they are forced to compete with more traditional competitors that are far better positioned. And that's exactly why they should go third party.
TC McQueen
Member
Isn't that more or less what they're doing now on the Wii U? At this point, their first party games that have tons of iterations are the only thing propping the console up between sparse third party releases.
JordanN
Banned
???
The two can co-exist. It's never been heard of before and that's exactly why they should do it.
Say a Mario game was met with extreme success on the home consoles and PC. This could motivate the handheld team to want to keep up with that. Nintendo games would be at their highest quality ever because the competition would finally be equal.
i think the thinking behind qol is solid, but i don't really have a way to judge it either way considering we haven't seen a single actual thing about it yet.
well yes, i think they are bad for that reason. it's the thinking that the public is stupid and they like gimmicks so just make more because it's all the same. what nintendo needed, if they were going to try and go after the same market, is something else to stimulate imagination the way the wii and ds did. i'm not sure what that would be, but i also wouldn't have tried to force creativity (note how nintendo barely ever came up with a justification for the gamepad or 3d).
what? no. nooooooo. the gamepad and 3d ballooned the costs of their respective systems and gobbled battery power. imagine the 3ds launched at $150 in 2011, or the wii u hitting under $200 in 2012 (or a system more comparable to the two other consoles this gen at a higher price and better third-party support). it wouldn't have been a cure-all, but in the 3ds's case, it wouldn't have turned the kid-friendly handheld device into a premium product, and in the wii u's case there would have been a better chance to reach families on one end and more traditional gamers on the other.
the wii u and 3ds only work with nintendo creating compelling reasons to own the system through software and proper messaging. they failed completely on this with the wii u and maybe hit just one of two with the 3ds.
i feel like there's a giant leap from one point to another here. nintendo's competing with other first-party developers so they should become a third-party developer to compete with other third-party developers.
yeah because nintendo's problem is that their development studios are lazy and lack motivation.
Apophis2036
Banned
Yes that's exactly what I'm saying - keep their handheld business as hardware and software and simply make software for Sony and/or MS's home consoles. It would be Nintendo sticking to their strengths while having two very strong revenue streams (three if the company was restructured like this and older games were also made available on iOS/Android).
I really don't understand peoples problem with them stopping making home consoles, it seems to be pride more than anything else. Do they actually understand how awful WiiU is selling ?.
20 - 30k per month in Japan, 50 - 80k per month in North America and 30 - 50k per month in the EU = at best 160 000 per month which is 9.6 million consoles over a five year generation. That is less than Dreamcast, the biggest failure of all time outside the Virtual Boy...
People actually think that unifying hardware architectures for the handheld and home console while making an account system that isn't from pre 2006 is going to suddenly make the masses buy a Nintendo console again ?. Those people are in for a rude awakening.
Why not go handheld only? The risks and benefits far out weigh being a third party on a platform that isn't conducive to the types of software you produce anyway, demographic wise. Or is that because you still want to play Nintendo games on the level on a console? (Ie personal reasons that make no market sense whatsoever)
TheRedSnifit
Member
This would probably just motivate the execs to cut funding to their mobile division, since according to you their multiplat games would sell wildly more than their exclusives. Unless you're going to argue that making games multiplat would drive hardware sales.
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
Price isn't really a huge factor in why these systems are failing. Wii U and 3DS are both substantially cheaper than their competitors. Being even cheaper may potentially increase sales, but its offset by not having anything to really differentiate themselves with. Even if it did increase sales, it wouldn't be spectacular. Selling more than the Wii U for instance isn't a great feat. 20-50% more sales of a system doing incredibly poorly is still poor. You're still left with a system doing about GameCube levels of performance rather than just a notch above Virtual Boy levels of irrelevance.
Nintendo's competing with entertainment dollars in general. It doesn't matter if they're on one platform versus another or that they would now be competing with other third party developers.
You still haven't given me solid examples of how they're going to turn their business around and return to robust growth. Releasing a cheap console without gimmicks and with a better online infrastructure isn't going to suddenly make them competitive, or beat the alternative potential of becoming a third party.
Garrett Hawke
Member
That revenue could be made up by the fact that many people want to play Nintendo games but don't want to buy a Nintendo console.
TheRedSnifit
Member
Do you actually have evidence that there are sufficiently massive amounts of people who want Nintendo games but are unwilling to buy one of their consoles?
Boomstick (Coffee Crazy)
Banned
I would be utterly shocked if that number wasn't absolutely tiny. The only people who I've seen who like Nintendo games who refuse to buy a Nintendo console are people here on Gaf. I have yet to meet one IRL.
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
Wii --> Wii U software sales.
Unless you somehow think their Wii U offerings are substantially inferior to their respective releases on the Wii, resulting in the decrease in sales due to lack of quality (which I don't agree).
JordanN
Banned
It's hard to imagine a scenario where a handheld would take more resources away from multiplat development. To begin with, these games don't cost as much as home console ones to fund. These same games are also pretty popular.
Pokemon is perhaps Nintendo's second biggest franchise. No one in their right mind would attempt to kill it or mess with it in some way.
Garrett Hawke
Member
That's a bit ridiculous. Really guys? I'm sure there are TONS of both core and non-core gamers who would LOVE to play Smash, Zelda etc on their non-Nintendo consoles. Even excluding current console games, I'm sure there are also a lot of people who would pick up old Nintendo games if they made them legally available via the App Store. Nostalgia does a lot for Nintendo.
Apophis2036
Banned
Maybe because their handheld market is shrinking and because releasing larger budget home console games aswell as a handheld console and handheld games would mean more money ?...
Father_Brain
Banned
Well, yeah, that's the essential disagreement here.
If you think Nintendo has a viable path back to relevance in the gaming hardware market, or that the QOL platform has a good chance to succeed, then yeah, it makes sense to conclude that they should definitely stay in the hardware business. Me, I think that the combination of the explosive growth of all-in-one smart devices and the Western shift in the console sector has transformed the market in a way that a traditionally insular, Japan-centric manufacturer of dedicated devices is fundamentally ill-positioned to adapt to.
While I'm not going to definitively say that Nintendo should go third-party, I think there is a very good chance that they'll end up exiting the hardware market in a few years, after QOL and their next gaming platforms land with a thud, and in an even more painful manner than if they had begun prepping an exit strategy in 2014.
Think of all the money Sony leaves on the table by not porting TLOU, the Order, and Infamous:SS to PC and Xbone, and they need the money more than Nintendo does.
Garrett Hawke
Member
Those are different. They're system sellers that are actually selling systems. Nintendo's are great, great games that clearly aren't selling systems. Nintendo has a massive bank account but if they keep posting annual losses it will eventually run out. The Wii U looks beyond help at this point, but the 3DS is doing great. If Nintendo prioritised the 3DS and first party 3DS support, while becoming a 3rd party console publisher and porting OLD, retro games onto mobile, they'd be in a really good place. Virtual Console is a great feature as so many people want to play retro Nintendo games, but it is so limited by the fact that it is only on their consoles.
Darkangel
Member
From a consumer standpoint I can't think of any downsides to Nintendo going 3rd party. We would get Nintendo games with better graphics and online functionality.
Let's be honest, the Gamepad (and arguably the Wiimote) haven't really added much to Nintendo's gameplay. If anything the inclusion of motion controls has made a lot of games worse (shake to roll in DKCR for example). They would still have things like Move and Kinect to mess around with if they wanted to.
Let's be honest, the Gamepad (and arguably the Wiimote) haven't really added much to Nintendo's gameplay. If anything the inclusion of motion controls has made a lot of games worse (shake to roll in DKCR for example). They would still have things like Move and Kinect to mess around with if they wanted to.
JordanN
Banned
This is like porting PS2 games to the Gamecube.
There's no doubt PS2 can make a lot of money on its own. Vice versa isn't true.
I've stated many times Nintendo isn't losing much by giving up their home consoles. Their handhelds can stay put because they're not a detriment.TheRedSnifit said:
TheRedSnifit
Member
This directly contradicts the logic you've been using throughout this entire thread. PS4/Xbone will almost certainly have a larger userbase than 3DS, so why not simply put would-be 3DS games on PS4/Xbone as downloadable titles? Why not put them on smartphones?
But following your current logic, wouldn't it be best for them to ditch consoles completely and go handheld-only? After all, their mobile games don't cost much and are pretty popular.
Port it to iOS.
I suspect that the logic behind this "multiplat + handheld" reasoning isn't founded so much on logic as it is on an obsessive aversion to smartphones.
This is circular. The question is "how do you know that the Wii audience is on PS4", and "because they aren't on Wii U" isn't an answer.
That's nice, but in practice "that's ridiculous" means "I can't back up my claims."
NotMyRealName
Banned
Nothing about this post makes sense. Less revenue? Where is your mind? If more consumers can now buy your product that gives Nintendo access to more revenue. Have you heard of Minecraft? Angry Birds? Candy Crush? And who gives the fuckingest shit if it costs money, so does developing a new console. Welp, guess Wii U and 3DS will be the last hardware from Nintendo since it'll cost -gasp- money to invest in new hardware
What's the difference between porting ps2 games to GameCube or porting ps2 games to Wii? (Ie ps4 to PC). They're still a way for me to play infamous and killzone with better everything (including online infrastructure as previously mentioned) without having to pay for online and with only advantages. Right? That's the logic proposed so what would be the downside to that?
Hasn't Nintendo made more than all those companies combined at its peak?
This entire topic relies on the fairly short cited assumption that Nintendo can never be profitable again as a first party.
NotMyRealName
Banned
Hmmm, well I'm certainly not arguing that. They can be profitable both ways. Anyone who says otherwise is a loon.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
How often do anyone resigns from NCL?
Has anyone left NCL because they don't agree with they're business practices?
If Nintendo were to go third party, who will stick around?
Will Nintendo design philosophy stay the same, or will we get a new smash bros every 2 yrs?
Has anyone left NCL because they don't agree with they're business practices?
If Nintendo were to go third party, who will stick around?
Will Nintendo design philosophy stay the same, or will we get a new smash bros every 2 yrs?
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
It actually is an answer.
And they're split up on multiple devices and platforms, not just PS4, but that is certainly an important platform given the insane hardware sales since launch.
Unless you somehow think that audience no longer plays games at all or is simply not interested anymore in Nintendo games? My argument is that they're still interested in Nintendo games, but not enough to justify buying another separate device when they're already actively using other platforms that do the same thing but vastly better.
The mass market picked up a Wii to play Wii Sports primarily, and because they already had the system, were enticed to also pick up popular Nintendo software like NSMB and Mario Kart in droves.
The mass market does not have an "in" for the Wii U, and are already content on other platforms that provide a much better ecosystem. These audiences would certainly embrace Nintendo software, and I don't know how anyone could say otherwise unless you somehow believe that Wii's high quality first party output, like the Wii hardware itself, was simply a fad....which is absurd, imo.
JordanN
Banned
You're losing me man.
The Wii U happens to be the worst selling home console right now. Just as how Gamecube went on to sell far less than PS2.
The post I quoted said Sony giving up money is equatable to Nintendo's situation. There's not a scenario Wii U will sell more copies than PS4/XBO/PC.
I remember an article. Didn't launch PS4 pre-orders of COD outsold the entire Wii U versions? Wii U got outsold before a new console was even on shelves.
Edit: My brain never forgets. It's real.
TheRedSnifit
Member
Your assumption that the Wii audience went to other platforms is correct. The problem is which platform they went to, and the conventional wisdom says it isn't a home console.
it's a big part when nintendo tries targeting families and kids.
virtual boy released and was discontinued in less than a year. the entire lifespan was july 1995-march 1996. for comparison's sake, the wii u would have been done, totally done back in september 2013. and i mean there would be not even one game released for the platform after that month. like the virtual boy was around for a blink of an eye. there wasn't even any overlap with the n64. the virtual boy only had 22 games out for it. that's less than the vita's launch month in america. take the vita's launch month, stretch it out over 10 months, and that's the virtual boy. take the wii u's launch day and stretch it out over 10 months, and that's the virtual boy. the disgaea franchise has outsold the virtual boy. bayonetta sold twice as many units as the virtual boy.
i guess you missed it when i gave you several solid examples, so here they are again in tl;dr form:
-drop backwards compatibility to increase freedom and decrease cost in hardware development
-make hardware architecture similar to each other to improve ease of software development between handheld and console teams
-get everyone on the same page. marketing, producers, and designers all need to know who their audience is and what their platform is supposed to be. this way, they create software for that audience on hardware that is tailored for that audience and the messaging from marketing will specifically target that audience.
*and one thing real quick: i don't know if families are the target they should be reaching. i don't know if it's the elderly or kids or depressed 30somethings. that's the problem nintendo has to solve and what they need to figure out for themselves.
-rework online network so that it's more like steam and less like every digital platform from the wii/360/ps3 generation.
-keep their hardware division working on other products to help diversify their revenue streams and expand business, even if it's outside the video game industry.
essentially, nintendo needs to increase their options while retaining their freedom. i think these are realistic ways to do so in order to actually expand, and not shrink their business.
and to be while we're on the subject of examples, you never provided any sales data or surveys to back up your point that there is a fanbase on non-nintendo platforms that would raise nintendo's sales to new heights.
it seems to be working for sony.
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
A lot of them went to mobile, especially for casual titles. And that's something Nintendo absolutely should pursue, without question.
For other games that are more core focused on their consoles, they would benefit releasing them on PS4/XB1/PC.
That's why I said notch above the Virtual Boy
Wii U is an absolute disaster in terms of sales and is trending horrifically for a main Nintendo console.You still haven't specifically laid out a vision that would turn Nintendo's business around. Again, a cheaper, bare bones consoles with features that are equal to their competitors, and with more platform synergy, with a uniform and improved marketing strategy isn't going to make a lick of difference when their competitors are already doing all of those things and have already locked in consumers who are expecting and seeking those things.
What they need to do is provide something that their competitors aren't, and that's compelling enough for mass market consumers to adopt their hardware. I don't think this exists for them, hence why a third party strategy will be vital to salvaging their business. The longer they take to make the transition, the worse it will be for Nintendo.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
Actually they are content with just having Wii's. I'm a satellite dish installer and see Wii's all the time with no accompanying console. Sometimes I see all three Wii, PS3 and 360. PS4 sales are all gamer sales, sports, fps, racing...really aren't Wii Sports like titles.
Aaronrules380
Member
I'd like to point out that only one game on the ps3 and 360 combined that targeted a similar audience as Nintendo's core titles sold more than 2 million copies and that was LBP at 3 million. New Super Mario Bros U sold more than that on the Wii U that has a significantly lower install base. So if there is a Nintendo audience that exists on other platforms (but not the wii u, since they need to sell more games than the wii u audience can provide), can someone explain why almost no games similar to Nintendo ones sell even a million copies? Why the Wii U has a more million selling Nintendo games than the ps3 and 360 had million selling similar games combined?
That's why I said notch above the Virtual Boy
i think it might prove problematic if they went after microsoft and sony's increasingly narrow market, but why do they have to do that? can't they make video games appealing to a completely different demographic? they've done it a couple of times before.
again, i don't know which market nintendo should go after. i think you can make a case for a couple different ones. that's sort of the problem where it leads more into hypothetical situations that i'm not particularly fond of. however, you can apply all of what i said to work towards a particular goal. i never said they should make a barebones console, or that it should be cheap. maybe it should if they're trying to reach a family market. it's really all about reducing risk on development (on all fronts) and increasing focus on the people you want to reach.
you haven't specifically laid out in numbers (which is what really matters here), where nintendo is going to profit from. what other games signify nintendo's fanbase is on the ps4 and xbox one? show me surveys that indicate they're made up of a large chunk of the former wii userbase. back up your point.
we were talking about culture a little bit ago and it's something i want to bring up one more time. i think for nintendo to go third-party and make games for other hardware manufacturers (ignoring all the real danger and the bad idea it is to do so financially), it would be admitting defeat. not in the way that there are no longer nintendo first-party platforms, but that the market nintendo needs in order to thrive in is no longer in existence. while they're a first-party developer, they still have the power to create this market. they can forge deals with third-parties and indies to make the games that foster their own ecosystem.
the less developers like nintendo, the worse the market is for nintendo. what does that mean if they go third-party? sony and microsoft aren't cultivating this market. all the work is left for nintendo to carve out a niche, hope that their games will be well-received on these platforms, or have to adjust to what the market is. it's just a constant string of adjusting until they find a hit. one piece of hardware not making money? gotta go third-party. mario's not making enough to cover the costs of the new zelda? maybe zelda should be a paywall game with online play. the sort of thing encourages homogenization and discourages companies from trying to stand out.
that's the nice thing about competition. the video game industry lost a lot of soul when the dreamcast was discontinued. there's a trickle of stuff like pso2, hero bank, and shining fill-in-the-blank, but where are their arcadey games like house of the dead and crazy taxi? what about their long line of non-sonic platformers? they make idol games for japan and shooters for america. they've been transformed by the market around them and no longer influence it themselves.
TheRedSnifit
Member
The revenue they'd lose both to and from the other manufacturers on royalties would be incredibly significant. The Wii U is falling, but the Wii sold more third party software than the other two I believe and probably outsold them 3 or 4 to 1 at least on first party software. Losing $10-$12 per title is a bitch.
JordanN
Banned
This may sound hypocritical, but I believe it's due to the lack of AAA "cartoony" developers.
Look back at the PS1 and you still had Crash Bandicoot in the top 10. The next generation after that, GTA took off and the support for platformers started to drop off.
It's hard to think of a developer who still rivals Nintendo that were making games on the PS3/360. There were no Mario or Zelda equivalents with high production values.
Aaronrules380
Member
Nintendo games really appeal to two groups: Kids and gaming enthusiasts (and I don't mean hardcore gamers, I mean the people who put game design and gameplay above all else and who love a large variety of genres). The problem Nintendo faces is that a lot of the young market has moved to smartphones because that's what their parents raise them with, and the enthusiast market is and has always been very niche. There's a reason investors have been putting a ton of emphasis onto wanting Nintendo on phones, but pretty much none about Nintendo on the other consoles
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
They've done it a couple of times before by introducing novel ways to play games that are compelling to mainstream consumers. Again, I don't think there's anything out there, other than VR which is being invested in heavily by competitors, that could potentially recapture the wider audience for Nintendo by leveraging their talents to provide new and compelling experiences.
I don't have numbers other than seeing traditional Nintendo titles do substantially worse on hardware that's not appealing for the mass market. It's all strictly hypothetical, but it's certainly not a stretch to imagine Nintendo software selling better than they are now if they took a completely third party stance.
Who cares if they admit defeat by going third party? I'd rather have a thriving Nintendo that admitted defeat and turned their business around than one that is languishing in the past. I'm sure their shareholders would, too. If Nintendo announced they were going third party tomorrow, releasing games on mobile/tablets/consoles, their stock price would soar. It's already had hints of that when there's been mere speculation of that happening.
I don't think the market isn't in existence, it's just not on Nintendo platforms -- again, because competitors are providing more compelling, all-in-one ecosystems that Nintendo really can't compete with. That doesn't mean, however, that they can't profit from this simply by moving development to where their consumers now are.
Sega's precedent as a third party is in no way analogous to what would happen to Nintendo, especially if they are smart and start the transition early before it's too late. Nintendo's IP's are far too strong, and they're not nearly as financially strained.
Aaronrules380
Member
And why were there no Mario or Zelda equivalents? If there was truly a huge market for them on those consoles, I'm sure developers would've seized the chance. Especially since they wouldn't have to compete with Nintendo in that arena on the other consoles. And I'll point out that there are equivalents and that almost none of them did all that well. Or did you forget that stuff like the Rayman and sonic games haven't done amazingly on ps3, 360?
ShockingAlberto
Member
I genuinely can't imagine how Nintendo keeps all its designers without the revenue from hardware and licensing. Can someone explain to me how that works?
JordanN
Banned
Rayman was never going to match Mario, considering it sold like 50,000 copies in the beginning and that was on all 3 platforms (Wii included).
Sonic games were troubled as well. 2006 was terrible and Sonic Unleashed was also bad. SEGA really didn't get it right till Generations.
I'm looking for a game like Mario Galaxy or Ocarina of Time being made last gen by another developer. That would be a better comparison.
I'm still saying these games aren't up to Nintendo quality. Rayman was 2D and had a shoestring budget.
I don't think people would care even if they are starved.
Edit: These games also came out pretty late into the gen too. Nintendo had all their time to build up a platformer audience.
It was originally an exclusive and it launched when GTA V did. Rayman was always being sent to die.
Aaronrules380
Member
But again, what reason do you have to believe that there is this huge audience for titles like Nintendo's on those consoles and that EVERY GODDAMN DEVELOPER on those consoles just completely ignores them. Rayman on the Wii had to compete with Mario. Rayman on the 360 and ps3 did not have that competition, so if there was this huge market starved for Nintendo's style of titles, please explain why it didn't do better there with so little competition?
Rayman on Wii u outsold all of the other platforms. Even the ones with the 160 million base. Should tell you something.
Aaronrules380
Member
Thank you for helping me illustrate my point
all right. thank you.
i think that's about as far as we'll get with each other.
What revenue from hardware?