Support NeoGAF

[Shikamaru Ninja]

They have enough problems supporting their own systems with content when 3rd parties don't show up like on WiiU - further reducing the people working on Nintendo hardware doesn't seem like a good idea at all, at least as long they don't have a major shift in their product philosophy.

Expanding the consumer base by 50000% kind of gives you incentive to spend money as a publisher. Especially when mobile games cost next to nothing to make.

Unfortunately, they have a very small niche market this generation and expensive development costs compared to last generation.

 

[Nintentoast]

If Katsuhito doesn't want to run it, they should give it to Banjo!

I have a good feeling about him.

 

[Log4Girlz]

That's such a misnomer. Their output between 3DS and Wii U the last few years has been higher in quantity than ever before, and quality is still up there. The issue is just the gaps due to lack of third party support.

Wii U does not have enough first party games, and yeah third party support is in the shitter.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

Sony said that they'll never have as good of games as Nintendo. I'm not going to give you the link, but believe me, it's out there.

Citation needed.

Sony's huge conglomerate is failing. PlayStation is one of its only profitable businesses at the moment. People in this thread be acting like three years of losses means Nintendo has no money to ever do anything again...

Really?

Good Q for Sony.

Game division posted 4.3B yen ($42m) opt profit.

Finance division doing fantastic as usual ($430 opt profit)

Company as whole posted $260m net profit.

 

[unbias]

I keep asking the question because you keep dodging it.

Why would anyone pay for a console and game is they can get the same IP for a dollar on mobile?

The average consumer gets Mario on their phone, why would they care about buying a home console and a game? I'm not talking about the core, I'm talking about the soccer mom playing Candy Crush or the 3 year old playing Temple Run. They won't care about the quality of the game, they just want the recognizable IP.

Huh? Why buy consoles or handhelds at all if you can get games on mobile? For different experiences...

Why would he be dodging such a question? He probably didnt think it was serious. Also, if you think your soccer mom playing candy crush or temple run would all the sudden stop buying a console they apparently already bought because they bought a mobile version, then your soccor mom must of only bought it because she has kids and now that they are out of the house she doesnt need one anymore. I mean judging by your scenario my explanation makes just as much sense. Demand for one thing doesn't dry up because a different consumer good is available. Why would it?

 

[K-A-Deman]

This all just reads in bad taste, since (as far as I know) Iwata is still recovering from surgery. So whoever started this (whether it be nonsense or true) is essentially kicking him while he's down and getting applause for it. I agree that thankfully, Iwata's vision is what's thankfully keeping us from Nintendo Mobile; and it would be a severe blow to lose the sole remaining hardware-focused gaming system.

 

[JoeInky]

I think the idea they cant compete and make money in the mobile market is crazy talk. They have more then enough money to either port really old games over to mobile or make very specifc mobile games while still making handheld and console games. I have not really seen any arguments against it other then "it doesn't guarantee success". Well obviously, but Vegas odds would be heavily in the favor of making money. I think people are being disengenous when they try and infer that Nintendo wouldnt make money long or short terms in the mobile space.

Why would people pay for old games that aren't even designed to be controlled on a smartphone when they could just get it for free with an emulator?

Why would they want to give people a bad impression of an old game by officially releasing it with a shit control scheme?

The people who don't know about emulators? If we're going that casual why would they be interested in a games that's years old and isn't aimed towards them whatsoever?

If they start making specific mobile games then they're taking away developers - that they don't exactly have loads of - from working on actual games and giving a false impression of what that brand is by releasing some watered down, gimmick version using recognizable characters.

 

[Mik317]

If/when Iwata gets fired and Nintendo goes the way of Square Soft w/ mobile games overload, I don't want to hear any complaining.

 

[Draxal]

Citation needed.

I do recall Yoshida saying that Nintendo makes critical games for the youth market and that Sony couldn't replicate it. It's hard to pull up these at times, because their volume of talk around them is so voluminous.

 

[Regiruler]

I don't think Nintendo needs to go mobile or third party, but they do need a change at the top. Iwata has signed off on some terrible, stupid decisions over the last 3-4 years that have sunk Nintendo and destroyed the good will and success they build up with Wii/DS. That shit would be unacceptable in any other business. Nintendo needs a fresh thinker at the helm.

I do admit they've made some poor decisions, but we're pretty much in a last man standing scenario. I don't know of anyone in a feasible position to take over iwata's responsibilities who is interested in maintaining Nintendo as a traditional hardware and software company.

 

[Shikamaru Ninja]

I'm going to use your other post, but I think those other games that you listed would be a drop in the bucket and would amount to nothing on the IOS. The games that are doing well in IOS in Japan are the ones that entice the whales, and none of those IPS you listed would get whales to do anything.

Okay. Hypothetical here.

1. Nintendo enters mobile market
2. Nintendo hires small subcontractors like Camelot, AlphaDream, Arika, Tose
3. Nintendo releases Dr. Mario, Pokemon Pinball, Brain Age, Kirby Star Stacker

Does Nintendo make money? Does Nintendo harm sales of Mario Galaxy 4? Pokemon Rainbow? and Kirby Dreamland 34? Does Nintendo expend valuable R&D in doing so?

It's a win-win if done in a certain manner. I think anyway.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

I do recall Yoshida saying that Nintendo makes critical games for the youth market and that Sony couldn't replicate it. It's hard to pull up these at times, because their volume of talk around them is so voluminous.

That is not the same thing as Yoshida saying that Nintendo games are better than Sony.

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

Citation needed.

Don't think Sony ever said "Nintendo makes better games" but Yoshida definitely said within the past year that gaming needs Nintendo, voicing his support to their recent struggles.

That is not the same thing as saying that Nintendo games are better than Sony.

Yes, of course. That dude you quoted just got very... um... creative with his memory.

 

[Mysterious]

If Katsuhito doesn't want to run it, they should give it to Banjo!

I have a good feeling about him.

Nintendo isn't a private family business anymore (i.e. when Yamauchi became President).

Reed Jobs (or maybe Lisa Jobs) should've become CEO of Apple and Rory Gates should become CEO of Microsoft when he turns 18.

 

[JoeM86]

Wii U does not have enough first party games, and yeah third party support is in the shitter.

Ok. Past 3 gens

Amount of Nintendo published GameCube games in first 18 months (September 2001 - March 2003): 14
Amount of Nintendo published Wii games in first 18 months (November 2006 - May 2008): 21
Amount of Nintendo published Wii U games in first 18 months (November 2012 - May 2014): 24


I may have missed a couple. Apologies if so, but I think that's a complete numeration.

 

[Hibiki Kurosawa]

This kind of stuff sickens me. I strongly believe in Iwata's vision for Nintendo, as roughly as it's doing right now, and would absolutely hate for them to crack and develop crappy smartphone games to appease some whiny shareholders

Agreed.

This was discussed ad nauseum in the Nintendo "profit" thread. General consensus is that it's an inaccurate report.

I sure hope so.

 

[rjinaz]

Ok. Past 3 gens

Amount of Nintendo published GameCube games in first 18 months (September 2001 - March 2003): 14
Amount of Nintendo published Wii games in first 18 months (November 2006 - May 2008): 21
Amount of Nintendo published Wii U games in first 18 months (November 2012 - May 2014): 24


I may have missed a couple. Apologies if so, but I think that's a complete numeration.

You're right. It only appears that way because 3rd party support is so barren. Nintendo is releasing games.

 

[unbias]

Why would people pay for old games that aren't even designed to be controlled on a smartphone when they could just get it for free with an emulator?

The people who don't know about emulators? If we're going that casual why would they be interested in a games that's years old and isn't aimed towards them whatsoever?

If they start making specific mobile games then they're taking away developers - that they don't exactly have loads of - from working on actual games and giving a false impression of what that brand is by releasing some watered down, gimmick version using recognizable characters.

Nintendo has a lot of money, they could easily have developers make an ice climbers game that works perfectly fine on the mobile space. They could release an up to date version of donkey Kong(the original) on the mobile space that would work perfectly fine, punch-out would work pretty easily on a mobile, F-Zero would work fine in the mobile space, they could rerelease all the super scope games, and pokemon would work amazing in the mobile space.

That is just off the top of my head. Again, it is clear you have an opinion that mobile games are watered down gimmicks, it explains your stance fine.

 

[JoeM86]

You're right. It only appears that way because 3rd party support is so barren. Nintendo is releasing games.

They're supporting the handhelds well at the same time. Though, this year is actually a bit barren for first party 3DS titles, because they shifted more developers to Wii U projects.

 

[120v]

not sure i really buy management is "scheming" to oust Iwata but there's no doubt it's the elephant in the room.

I think the company has a sort of "you broke it, you fix it" philosophy with management. Iwata's responsible for the company's decline, yet he's also responsible for the transition from the Yamauchi decline and bringing nintendo into it's most successful era ever, so it's not too off the mark to suggest he could bring things back on course again. and when and if that happens, then he should step down

as for whether they need to bite the bullet and go mobile or whatever, that's another can of worms

 

[Night_Trekker]

Why?

Almost certain dilution of their brands. (People love Nintendo? Maybe not so much when what "Nintendo" is becomes defined by their mobile phone output or by touchscreen-ports of controller-based classic titles.) No guarantee they'd be picked by a fickle "casual" audience interested in cheap F2P games for minutes at a time before moving on to something else, displaying no loyalty to companies/IPs. The destruction of their hardware/software model--a model inextricable to their game design philosophy--for something that is in no way a guaranteed success.

Nintendo makes mostly pure games, not modern cinematic experiences. But that doesn't mean they can be a success on just any hardware. Especially not mobile gaming. So many people are thinking about this like hardcore gamers, believing mobile gamers hunger for "legitimate" game developers to make great games on mobile phones. They don't. Mobile gamers are looking for the next big, cheap thing, and when they're done with that, there's no telling where they'll go. (And the non-gamers calling for Nintendo games on mobile phones are just chasing their next big thing, which is "smartphone games." They don't think beyond that.)

Nintendo going third-party on other consoles makes more sense than this idea. I also think that would likely be a disaster in the long run, but it would be more sensible than putting Mario on smartphones.

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

Agreed.

The problem is, i think people saying "Iwata should gtfo!" in this thread are of two minds. First group of people don't like smartphone gaming, and don't think Nintendo should go down that route, but even so, think Iwata is just not cut out to be a leader of any kind. These people are really optimistic that if Iwata is removed, an executive with a passion for traditional gaming, with more understanding of the western market will appear to take up role.

The second group, is probably more realistic, and they know that the second Iwata is removed, a corporate "yes" man will be given the title, and they'll start redirecting towards mobile development. This group is ok with this, as long as Nintendo can stay relevant and keep its neck above the water.

 

[ElRenoRaven]

Ok while I don't care for Iwata I sure as hell would rather him over crazies wanting to go to phone development.

 

[To Far Away Times]

Ugh. The smartphone thing again. Nintendo's evergreen $50 games are too valuable to be moved to smartphone. Why are we trying to diminish their value?

 

[Enlil]

When the time comes the news report should read: Iwata resigns instead of Iwata gets fired. That way he can go with honour. something he deserves. untill then nothing to worry.

 

[Shikamaru Ninja]

They're supporting the handhelds well at the same time. Though, this year is actually a bit barren for first party 3DS titles, because they shifted more developers to Wii U projects.

It's not about resources, but their evaluation of the market. Nintendo has Japanese games they can still localize, or subcontractors begging them for work. They feel the 3DS market really only has money to buy Smash Bros. and Pokemon for the second-half. Thus, they feel anything else would be a waste of money. Well, they are releasing that STEAM game, which is going to BOMB i'm sure.

 

[JoeInky]

Nintendo has a lot of money, they could easily have developers make an ice climbers game that works perfectly fine on the mobile space. They could release an up to date version of donkey Kong(the original) on the mobile space that would work perfectly fine, punch-out would work pretty easily on a mobile, F-Zero would work fine in the mobile space, they could rerelease all the super scope games, and pokemon would work amazing in the mobile space.

That is just off the top of my head. Again, it is clear you have an opinion that mobile games are watered down gimmicks, it explains your stance fine.

What world do we live in where the casual audience would care about Ice-Climbers or F-Zero, franchises that have little to no brand recognition.

And Punchout? A hardcore boxing game that requires precise inputs and timing doing well on smartphones?

All three of those would do better as an eshop title and pokemon on smart phones would definitely eat into handheld sales, pokemon practically sells their handhelds by itsself.


The thought of an F-Zero mobile title alone is insulting enough, considering we haven't had an entry in the franchise for years.

 

[unbias]

Ugh. The smartphone thing again. Nintendo's evergreen $50 games are to valuable to be moved to smartphone. Why are we trying to diminish their value?

And they say PC elitism is over the top.

What world do we live in where the casual audience would care about Ice-Climbers or F-Zero, franchises who have little to no brand recognition.

And punchout? A hardcore boxing game that requires precise inputs and timing doing well on smartphones?

All three of those would do better as an eshop title and pokemon on smart phones would definitely eat into handheld sales, pokemon practically sells their handhelds by itsself.

Whatever, it is clear it wouldnt matter what I say, you will just say it cant work, clearly you dont like mobile. The fact that you act like those wouldnt work well on the mobile market, to me, isnt your issue with nintendo going mobile, but mobile itself.

 

[Draxal]

Okay. Hypothetical here.

1. Nintendo enters mobile market
2. Nintendo hires small subcontractors like Camelot, AlphaDream, Arika, Tose
3. Nintendo releases Dr. Mario, Pokemon Pinball, Brain Age, Kirby Star Stacker

Does Nintendo make money? Does Nintendo harm sales of Mario Galaxy 4? Pokemon Rainbow? and Kirby Dreamland 34? Does Nintendo expend valuable R&D in doing so?

It's a win-win if done in a certain manner. I think anyway.

Honestly, I think that's thinking small time.

To piggyback off your Pokemon Pinball example. If you were to make it f2p with IAP gatcha to unlock exclusive shiny skins that are cross compatible with the mainline Pokemon Rainbow is how I would do it.

 

[To Far Away Times]

And they say PC elitism is over the top.

As a profit seeking company, do you believe they would be better torpedoing their console buisness in favor of the smartphone market?

 

[cws]

Okay. Hypothetical here.

1. Nintendo enters mobile market
2. Nintendo hires small subcontractors like Camelot, AlphaDream, Arika, Tose
3. Nintendo releases Dr. Mario, Pokemon Pinball, Brain Age, Kirby Star Stacker

Does Nintendo make money? Does Nintendo harm sales of Mario Galaxy 4? Pokemon Rainbow? and Kirby Dreamland 34? Does Nintendo expend valuable R&D in doing so?

It's a win-win if done in a certain manner. I think anyway.

Of course they would make money, but it would only be beginning and if investors see how much money can already be made by these smaller experiences they will force more and more content to be developed for mobiles. That's the reason there isn't a single Nintendo game at all on other systems, they know once they open that door it can't be closed again. It's the same reason we don't have high end Nokia Android phones, they would vastly outsell their Windows Phones and make it more difficult for MS to establish their brand.

Bigger games coming over as well will be seen as inevitable and the software might loose it's system seller qualities.

 

[Shikamaru Ninja]

Honestly, I think that's thinking small time.

To piggyback off your Pokemon Pinball example. If you were to make it f2p with IAP gapcha to unlock exclusive shiny skins that are cross compatible with the mainline Pokemon Rainbow is how I would do it.

Well. Let's enter the market first. Then let's get crazy. But I think your example is exactly what Iwata hinted at, but we haven't seen the execution yet.

 

[Nintentoast]

That is not the same thing as Yoshida saying that Nintendo games are better than Sony.

Yes, of course. That dude you quoted just got very... um... creative with his memory.

I encourage you to read the conversation I was having with the person to whom I said that. There is a reason context is important.

 

[unbias]

As a profit seeking company, do you believe they would be better torpedoing their console buisness in favor of the smartphone market?

Could they survive as a mobile only company? I have no idea, I'm not talking about getting out of a market, I'm talking about getting in one.

 

[Kai Dracon]

Don't think Sony ever said "Nintendo makes better games" but Yoshida definitely said within the past year that gaming needs Nintendo, voicing his support to their recent struggles.

Yoshida has voiced his concerns about degeneration of game content for a while including in context of Sony's own platforms. Yoshida has a background more similar to Iwata; he's not a business droid from the ranks of undifferentiated toaster salesmen. He's done games since the early 90s.

 

[Mik317]

Nintendo has a lot of money, they could easily have developers make an ice climbers game that works perfectly fine on the mobile space. They could release an up to date version of donkey Kong(the original) on the mobile space that would work perfectly fine, punch-out would work pretty easily on a mobile, F-Zero would work fine in the mobile space, they could re-release all the super scope games, and pokemon would work amazing in the mobile space.

That is just off the top of my head. Again, it is clear you have an opinion that mobile games are watered down gimmicks, it explains your stance fine.

Nintendo isn't as big as you think.

also it is really weird to see people clamoring for F-Zero and Punch Out Mobile when every Square or Sega thread gets super bummed out when they release their old dead franchises on mobile. People cry bloody murder when Capcom revealed BOF6.

As for Pokemon, it would be insanely stupid to release is for IOS because no one will pay the 40 dollars they pay now for it...so any "extra" profit is probably loss due to the lower price and lack of hardware sales to go w/ it. 2 Million people pay for remakes of Pokemon..that goes away if they can just get it for their phone.

The whole mobile idea WILL make Nintendo money...but only in the short term. Capcom, Square, Sega profits from it because they don't need to move hardware at all. Nintendo does. All it takes it people going "oh I can play Mario on my phone, I don't need to buy a console for it" It is the same shit that happened w/ the Wii. That audience is satisfied most of the time w/ one game...especially if they don't have to buy new hardware to play it. It is why Sony won't release Uncharted 4 on PC or MS releasing Halo 6 on PC...they need to also move their home console. Both also support mobile because they also have HARDWARE in that sector too. So unless Nintendo wants to get into that Hornets net, I don't know if long term it is the best for the company. I hate the 3rd party idea but that is better than going mobile..

I think regardless they get one more shot at it and hopefully will learn from their mistakes for once (you can argue the Wii/DS takeoff made them dillusional and since the 3DS kinda sorta rebounded they figured the Wii U would do the same...it is not. Now it's time to see what they got)..

Mobile isn't a long term answer for a hardware company...not right now

 

[JoeInky]

Whatever, it is clear it wouldnt matter what I say, you will just sayyou clearly dont like mobile. The fact that you act like those wouldnt work well on the mobile market, to me, isnt your issue with nintendo going mobile, but mobile itself.

If Gunman Clive can do better on 3DS' than on mobile, what on earth would make you think that Ice Climbers, F-Zero and Punchout, three hardcore franchises (Ice Climbers less so) that very niche and only popular with the hardcore Nintendo fans would do well on mobile and not hurt the brand in the long run?

I'm really struggling to understand how those examples could be a good idea, you'd be screwing over fans of F-Zero, for example, to chase a casual market that will not care about the franchise and will not support it in the long run.

 

[Elija2]

For the record, Minecraft Pocket Edition sold 21 million on both iOS and Android and it costs $7 (it's been on sale a few times though). It's been the highest grossing paid app on both app stores for what seems like forever so it shows that there is a market for mobile games that cost more than a dollar. I'm sure that if Nintendo put out small games on mobile phones it would make them more money than their WiiWare/3DSWare stuff.

 

[To Far Away Times]

Could they survive as a mobile only company? I have no idea, I'm not talking about getting out of a market, I'm talking about getting in one.

$50 titles are not going to coexist when you are selling similar content for $0.99. The perceived value of the games would plummet. Why spend $50 on Mario when I can get it for $0.99 on the app store? Even if it's not quite as good. And what are the long term implications of this?

 

[SeanR1221]

If Gunman Clive can do better on 3DS' than on mobile, what on earth would make you think that Ice Climbers, F-Zero and Punchout, three hardcore franchises (Ice Climbers less so) that very niche and only popular with the hardcore Nintendo fans would do well on mobile and not hurt the brand in the long run?

I'm really struggling to understand how those examples could be a good idea, you'd be screwing over fans of F-Zero, for example, to chase a casual market that will not care about the franchise and will not support it in the long run.

Gunman Clive on 3DS is like a whale in a pond compared to a krill in the iOS ocean.

I don't think it makes for the best comparison.

 

[Shikamaru Ninja]

If Gunman Clive can do better on 3DS' than on mobile, what on earth would make you think that Ice Climbers, F-Zero and Punchout, three hardcore franchises (Ice Climbers less so) that very niche and only popular with the hardcore Nintendo fans would do well on mobile and not hurt the brand in the long run?

I'm really struggling to understand how those examples could be a good idea, you'd be screwing over fans of F-Zero, for example, to chase a casual market that will not care about the franchise and will not support it in the long run.

There are a lot of extreme arguments here, but I would imagine e-shop and mobile would be multi-platform for Nintendo. There is no reason why mobile games would be exclusive. Thus, Gunman Clive benefited from both mobile and 3DS sales, just like certain small potential Nintendo properties could.

 

[Chindogg]

Huh? Why buy consoles or handhelds at all if you can get games on mobile? For different experiences...

Why would he be dodging such a question? He probably didnt think it was serious. Also, if you think your soccer mom playing candy crush or temple run would all the sudden stop buying a console they apparently already bought because they bought a mobile version, then your soccor mom must of only bought it because she has kids and now that they are out of the house she doesnt need one anymore. I mean judging by your scenario my explanation makes just as much sense. Demand for one thing doesn't dry up because a different consumer good is available. Why would it?

Umm mobile took the Wii and handheld audiences. That's exactly what happened.

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

I encourage you to read the conversation I was having with the person to whom I said that. There is a reason context is important.

Ahhh... my bad. You were poking fun at the guy you were quoting, sorry.

 

[unbias]

Nintendo isn't as big as you think.

also it is really weird to see people clamoring for F-Zero and Punch Out Mobile when every Square or Sega thread gets super bummed out when they release their old dead franchises on mobile. People cry bloody murder when Capcom revealed BOF6.

As for Pokemon, it would be insanely stupid to release is for IOS because no one will pay the 40 dollars they pay now for it...so any "extra" profit is probably loss due to the lower price and lack of hardware sales to go w/ it. 2 Million people pay for remakes of Pokemon..that goes away if they can just get it for their phone.

The whole mobile idea WILL make Nintendo money...but only in the short term. Capcom, Square, Sega profits from it because they don't need to move hardware at all. Nintendo does. All it takes it people going "oh I can play Mario on my phone, I don't need to buy a console for it" It is the same shit that happened w/ the Wii. That audience is satisfied most of the time w/ one game...especially if they don't have to buy new hardware to play it. It is why Sony won't release Uncharted 4 on PC or MS releasing Halo 6 on PC...they need to also move their home console. Both also support mobile because they also have HARDWARE in that sector too. So unless Nintendo wants to get into that Hornets net, I don't know if long term it is the best for the company. I hate the 3rd party idea but that is better than going mobile..

I think regardless they get one more shot at it and hopefully will learn from their mistakes for once (you can argue the Wii/DS takeoff made them dillusional and since the 3DS kinda sorta rebounded they figured the Wii U would do the same...it is not. Now it's time to see what they got)..

Mobile isn't a long term answer for a hardware company...not right now

They are as big as they are. I dont think they are any bigger then that, but they do have money, and they can spend it. Also, people get pissed at Capcom and ect because they dont produce quality in the console sphere and their mobile games are, for the most part, bad. Nintendo still makes high quality games with their current market, there is nothing that infers that them releasing quality mobile games would effect the other side of their business(outside of releasing pokemon on mobile). I agree releasing pokemon would be a mistake, simply because of how well that game would work on tablet. Other then that though there isn't anything that would say that their other games would suffer if they made mobile versions of titles that would work in the mobile space.

Umm mobile took the Wii and handheld audiences. That's exactly what happened.

Mobile took Wii shovelware audiences maybe, and ya the smartphone audience is taking over the handheld market, but that doesnt mean there is no demand for either things, it just means the demand is smaller. I mean, unless you are suggesting that not releasing mobile would increase the growth of Nintendo, I'm not sure what you were trying to get out of such a question. You just admitted they are losing market share, so either they do something different or they get more niche.

 

[jblank83]

Totally reputable report, right

 

[Krejlooc]

You really think a Mario game would be good and sell well on a buttonless platform??

So after 10 years and 3 devices with heavy focus on touch screen controls, you don't think enough of Nintendo to be able to design a game solely around touch input?

 

[BinaryPork2737]

The thought of an F-Zero mobile title alone is insulting enough, considering we haven't had an entry in the franchise for years.

F-Zero on mobile would be one of the most infuriating games ever because anyone that's played any of the F-Zero games knows how much potential quality it has on the Wii U.

 

[Arc Christelle]

as a consumer I feel as Iwata's delivered the most through his position at Nintendo. But then again I'm just a fuckin consumer.

 

[Cmagus]

Why would people pay for old games that aren't even designed to be controlled on a smartphone when they could just get it for free with an emulator?

Why would they want to give people a bad impression of an old game by officially releasing it with a shit control scheme?.........................

Well I doubt most younger people/soccer moms are using emulators. Many people would buy these games at a low price as an impulse buy. I hardly doubt many people who aren't Nintendo enthusiasts are flocking to the VC to buy Mario Bros for $5.00 I hardly doubt that. I'm willing to bet that selling Mario at $.99 -$1.99 would bring in far more sales then the game sitting for $5.00 on VC.

Nintendo has a lot of money, they could easily have developers make an ice climbers game that works perfectly fine on the mobile space. They could release an up to date version of donkey Kong(the original) on the mobile space that would work perfectly fine, punch-out would work pretty easily on a mobile, F-Zero would work fine in the mobile space, they could rerelease all the super scope games, and pokemon would work amazing in the mobile space.

That is just off the top of my head. Again, it is clear you have an opinion that mobile games are watered down gimmicks, it explains your stance fine.

Pretty much agree with this.

I don't see why they couldn't take a game like Mario Maker and offer a stripped down mobile version that works alongside the game as a companion app. Release a mobile version that lets you create and play the 2D version on your tablet but without the 2D/3D portion and the ability to share. If you own the game you could somehow upload what you created on your tablet to use in the real game, this would also give you the ability to share and download new maps to your mobile version making the actual Wii-U product important and worth more value.

If people don't own a Wii-U then let them have the mobile version for a price. Put something like that up for $10-15 they would make good returns and money on it.

I often wonder how relevant Nintendo's franchises are today. I always think very but then again I grew up with it but nowadays there are just so many kids walking around with tablets and phones and all I see is stuff like Angry Birds and Minecraft. Hell I gave my niece a 3DS with some Mario stuff and she almost always uses her tablet instead.

 

[JoeM86]

As for Pokemon, it would be insanely stupid to release is for IOS because no one will pay the 40 dollars they pay now for it...so any "extra" profit is probably loss due to the lower price and lack of hardware sales to go w/ it. 2 Million people pay for remakes of Pokemon..that goes away if they can just get it for their phone.

I agree with you, but your numbers are off

Pokémon FireRed/LeafGreen, remakes of the original Pokémon Red & Green(Blue), sold 11.82 million
Pokémon HeartGold/SoulSilver, remakes of the Pokémon Gold & Silver games, sold 12.72 million

Pokémon Omega Ruby & Alpha Sapphire are likely to sell 2 million in their first weekend.

Now, let's do some maths.

Pokémon HeartGold & SoulSilver were $40 a pop. For the sake of argument, let's just assume that price is a worldwide constant (it isn't). Those games brought in $508,800,000 to Nintendo alone in their life. Similar calculations can be done for Pokémon X & Y, which have sold over 12 million since October alone.

Now, let's say Nintendo release a $1 Pokémon game. They'd have to sell 508 million copies of that to make the same amount, and that's not counting the 30(?)% that Apple takes.. Yes, IAP are a possibility, but the director of Pokémon, Junichi Masuda, is vehemently against the concept of paid DLC and in app purchases, because he believes kids shouldn't have to pay or ask parents to pay beyond the initial price, so that won't happen with Pokémon.