-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Iwata implies he may resign over poor business performance
- Thread starter Cheesemeister
- Start date
FinalFanXtreme
Member
Yes because Microsoft did great with Rare. Nintendo would go out of business before ever going third party.
JordanN
Banned
I think you missed this part.
"preserve Nintendo's integrity"
Nintendo will still have all their creative freedom in such agreement. It would be almost no different to how they operate now but instead they work together on the same platform as Microsoft.
No, never, because 3rd parties drive a volatile business model (compare VG crash of 80ies).
Edit: totally wrong comparison, I love making mistakes
What I wanted to point out is:
Why would you want to cater to 3rd parties if you don't know whether they can sustain their business and still exist tomorrow when on the other hand you bet the fortune of your company on the software being produced in-house?
Why should Nintendo care if these companies die in one year, five years, or a decade from now? Each sale they generate helps to line Nintendo's pockets, and none of them competes directly with Nintendo's own software, while helping to drive platform adoption.
Nintendo produced a system in the Wii U that is costly to manufacture and gives them seemingly no in-market, current benefits (ie. 'current' means 'over the next five years'). They likely could have produced something more powerful, sans all the custom technology and fancy streaming tech, that would have gotten them a chance at new-gen ports.
Which they should want, as they do nothing but help them. They're gravy on top of the dish that is Nintendo filled.
Starfish Hero
Member
It's very naive to think that is possible.
JordanN
Banned
Not really. I see it as the beginning of a Blu-ray Disc Association but for consoles.
Having two platform holders that do exactly the same thing isnt really benefitting anyone either
And if ms doenst pay their part of the deal nintendo is out of the picture. Great deal you have thought of there
Jokes and Riddles
Neo Member
Sega's integrity wasn't well preserved when they
independently went 3rd party on thier own.
Plus there isnt any major evidence that a merger or buyout ever keeps quality of games.
JordanN
Banned
A buy-out/merger goes completely against what I'm talking about.
Nintendo is independent, but they share a platform with Microsoft. It's just like the blu ray disc. It's one format used by many yet Sony doesn't own Samsung and vice versa.
Microsoft has to work with them. That's the point of the partnership.
SONY and Nintendo would make more sense. PS4, Move, PS Vita, PS Vita remote play, decent brand power in Japan. It makes much more sense for a future SONY-Nintendo parner up than Microsoft-Nintendo.
Microsoft would make no sense, it would kill their software sales in Japan. If they ever do enter some sort of partnership it would be with Sony.
There is no way in which this would work or is even conceivable. Microsoft's and Nintendo's business cultures are completely at odds.
Despite whatever claims to the contrary about preserving "integrity," this arrangement would only lead to Nintendo being contractually obligated to pump out boring updates to their franchises (more than they already are) and act as Microsoft's requisite "kiddie" game developer.
I'd rather have Nintendo fade away into obscurity than this outcome.
JordanN
Banned
How? Do you think Nintendo's games will stop selling for some magical reason? Because that's what it will be at the end of day. Nintendo's games.
Microsoft is more financially stable plus I see them needing the help more so I went with them but my idea allows for all manufacturers to join in anyway.
Bob Coffee
Member
Nintendo just needs to contiune to be Nintendo. They'll be fine the first batch of real games that push the system hasn't even came out yet. :/ but then again nintendo is always doomed.
JordanN
Banned
Grrr. You guys are missing it.
MICROSOFT WOULD NOT OWN NINTENDO
They'll only be partners.
And I'm saying that there's no way this fantasy scenario exists. The only way that they'd be partners is if Nintendo was so powerless they'd have no one else to turn to and they bargain this arrangement out of a position of weakness, in which case they'd be taken advantage of.
Starfish Hero
Member
Nintendo wouldn't enter a partnership if all they had to do was be Nintendo. They can do that on their own.
JordanN
Banned
It's not about weakness it's about thinking of the future.
Consoles are already looking highly similar to each other. PS3/360 are proof of this.
This is just making it one step easier for manufacturers and even publishers. Everyone makes the same hardware. They license it.
The partnership is for benefits Nintendo doesn't have or could have. Same for Microsoft.
Some people will never get past the specs on GAF. No matter how many times you repeat Gamecube was more powerful than ps2 and on par with Xbox and look what happened. Nintendo is absolutely doing the right thing going for moderate specs. The problem is that the controller made it impossible to sell Wii U cheap (something a toy should be). And of course countless of other mistakes (abandoning Wii, horrible prep for Wii U, terrible namechoice, rushed launch, lack of VC, bad marketing, dropping motion control for something completely different and so on). IF Iwata is responsible for all those mistakes he simply has to go. He did great with DS and Wii and the guy is awesome, but you cant make so many mistakes without consequences.
Good thing there are more than two. I think Nintendo could create some very innovative software on iOS, and they could certainly take advantage of PC as well.
no they dont. They have enough third party support to live without nintendo. They can break any deal they have made with nintendo. Sure nintendo can sue them for damages but thats about it (and it will take time and effort)
It would be a very bad deal for nintendo once they have abandoned their next platform and released the first game on a ms platform as they would have a hardtime to go back to the hardware business again.
It was still the best thing they could have done at the time
Yeah only that they wont. Getting paid one dollar per game and having to share 30% of the revenue with apple surely sounds like a great deal for nintendo
Not true. There is a massive in-market, current benefit in owning their own platform. It's possible for them to sell the console at a small loss and still make more money on license fees from everyone else's software than if they had to give up all third-party license profits AND a huge amount of profit per box sale of their own games in license fees to other platform holders.
It's the difference between making £20 on every copy of their games from their two-dozen most popular IPs sold to making £5 a copy, plus losing the money from third parties that costs them nothing.
The reason the WiiU is underpowered is that it's cheap to make- Nintendo might not make much money on hardware sales, but they don't lose much either, and coin it in on software- when you have several of the most popular IPs around like Mario, Mario Kart and Pokemon all in one place you can do that. Their software also sells at a high price year after year rather than being bargain-binned after six months. This ensures they will still be around for another go in five years time rather than going for the high-end, shit-or-bust Sony approach.
I'd love to only have to buy one console for all the games I love, but I think it would mean the end of financial security for Nintendo, which would mean more Mario-spamming, and less Fire Emblem, Kid Icarus, Advance Wars, those kind of second-tier in-house games.
The Wii didnt really need those type of games though. The casuals wouldnt buy them and the shooter/action game fans had a ps360 anyway. Nintendo seperated itself from the others with Wii and that was brilliant. They lost that momentum though. Either by their own fault or because people moved on to mobile.
JordanN
Banned
This is not a MS platform. This is a joint MS/Nintendo one. If they leave, they can only take what they actually owned.
Then why play consokes at all? You can have a high end pc with a controller and hook it up to your hdtv. I do it it looks amazing. I still buy nintendo hardware.
I think moderate specs would have been the perfectly logical choice for Nintendo, and to be fair I don't think anyone expected more than that.
The problem arises when you look at what the Wii U is capable of versus the two HD consoles that are already out, AND take into consideration the amount of power being packed into the PS4/Durango. It becomes harder to make the case that Nintendo went for moderate power. Their gamble with the tablet controller and bullheaded insistence on low power consumption means they've put out a console that is bare-minimum, and may cause it to get ignored just like the Wii did when next-gen development begins to take precedence over PS360 development.
So, add that the pile of Iwata mistakes.
equippedwithtowel
Member
Nintendo being forced to follow larger industry trends is the day I'll quit console gaming (Unless Sony bucks the more unappetizing trends going on these days). MS has proven that games are just a disposable part of their entertainment vision and not an end product.
JordanN
Banned
They wouldn't buy them because the console was never in the environment for it.
It's like saying if Sony rigged every PS3 to explode when played, it's somehow the gamers fault when they were already at a serious disadvantage from the start.
Yes, the magical reason of no one in Japan buys Microsoft systems, and on top of that its a weak brand everywhere outside of the US. Nintendo would not benefit from this bizarre fantasy partnership.. If they eventually step out of the hardware game it will be to go completely independent not shack up with some other gigantic corp.
Then there's no way this deal will be negotiated.
I can come up with all sorts of partnerships in my head, where the outcome is "EVERYBODY IS BETTER OFF THE END" but few of them are feasible or have economically-realizable outcomes.
I don't know why you're so vested in this being a legitimate possibility.
There's a reason why it didn't happen with Sony/Nintendo/Philips, why it hasn't happened since, and why it never will. It exists in forum-goers' brains, nothing more.
Oh for shoot/race/kill games Wii U definately will not get ports, but Wii is proof that is no problem. I think a problem with Wii U is that it doesnt have some of the strenghts of the Wii.
Nothing1016
Member
In all honesty, I think Nintendo should weather the storm by doing what they do best, which is making great games. I understand that there is other problems with Nintendo such as online and mediocre specs, but Iwata and Nintendo have survived this industry for 30+ years and know what it takes to turn this around. They survived the abysmal Virtual Boy, the underwhelming sales of the 64 and GC, and the absolute atrocious start of the 3DS. Each and everytime they came back with stellar software to drive profits and hardware. I don't expect that to change.
Also, as Alan Kay said best, "People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware".
Also, as Alan Kay said best, "People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware".
JordanN
Banned
I'm sure Microsoft systems have more than just a brand problem there.
Nintendo's brand would be left untouched regardless because they're not being dictated to by another company.
As part of a well developed publishing multi platform strategy, iOS can generate some nice income for a company.
That's the point, really. All of their eggs are in their own basket, and the basket isn't selling like it used to.
First off, visually speaking wii was one gen behind too and it didnt affect its sales as mich. If nintendo can get their software out in time they are going to have a sustainable platform.
Secondly, visual jump does not seem to be happening this gen. Even on gaf people are arguing and are trying to find nuances to prove or disprove the jump. Do you expect the mass market to realize that ps4 has rendered the leather texture in a racing game more realistically compared to ps3? I actually think ps360 will still be on the market for a long time and games will get made for those platforms too. That doesnt guarantee wiiu ports of course
JordanN
Banned
I'm not sure if that's a comparable example for both because of the time it took place and the actual relations.
Again, for consoles this makes sense because the identity is waining. Exclusives outside of first party are nearly dead. It's all about conforming in the future.
If you can get mario for 99 dollars on ios people will not pay 60 dollars on other platforms on it. Its the best way to destroy your brand.
Throwing their games on the iOS pile is a last resort Nintendo doesnt even have to remotely think about. In 5-6 years they will release their console/handheld hybrid and they will continue to make money.
Azelover
Titanic was called the Ship of Dreams, and it was. It really was.
Slightly differently from Sega at the time, Nintendo's biggest advantage is the fact they are a software/hardware producer, with both sides being developed in unity.
The analog sticker and entire N64 controller was made after Super Mario 64, the rumble pack was made together with Starfox 64. The Wii was made after Wii Sports, and the nunchuck was made with Metroid Prime 3. The Balance Board was made for Wii Fit.
Unlike Microsoft and Sony, Nintendo isn't just a software company and a hardware company. They're both at the same time and in the same space. Sony makes a lot of games, but they are SEPARATE from their hardware development. Most of the time theirstudios are oceans apart. So it's very different.
Nintendo would never be the same as a software or hardware company, they need to do both to really function successfully.
The analog sticker and entire N64 controller was made after Super Mario 64, the rumble pack was made together with Starfox 64. The Wii was made after Wii Sports, and the nunchuck was made with Metroid Prime 3. The Balance Board was made for Wii Fit.
Unlike Microsoft and Sony, Nintendo isn't just a software company and a hardware company. They're both at the same time and in the same space. Sony makes a lot of games, but they are SEPARATE from their hardware development. Most of the time theirstudios are oceans apart. So it's very different.
Nintendo would never be the same as a software or hardware company, they need to do both to really function successfully.
Why? Because you say so?
You're creating conditions in your hypothetical that make it impossible for Nintendo to lose, when in fact the very condition that brings about the existence of a Nintendo/Microsoft partnership is one where Nintendo has already lost and is in a position of puppet.
You're bulletproofing your plan by making an unrealistic scenario, where Nintendo can negotiate freely... but if they could, then they sure as hell wouldn't be working with Microsoft.
You can't then go back on this already unrealistic scenario and act like everybody is magically better off, can do whatever they want under this arrangement, and nobody tries to take advantage of one another. Because that's not how business works. Or the real world even.
JordanN
Banned
Consoles are heading down that road anyway unless something major happens that keeps them all separate.
I think it's good Nintendo does this now so they can have a big say on how consoles should be run before it gets flooded by other manufacturers (how ironic).
The thing is that they have an awful lot of eggs, and more big ones than anyone else, and controlling the entire profit from each egg is better than only getting peanuts. (Abandon analogy, it's out of control!)
A Nintendo console that sells GameCube numbers and retains all the profit from each of their games plus a cut of third party sales is far more profitable and still leaves a more stable company than if the games sold twice as much on other people's platforms (probably not possible in the case of the top tier) but had to give away 30% of the cut, it's that simple.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
The thing about price and moderate specs is that Nintendo may have been faced with the following two choices:
1. Create a console that was nothing more than a Core Game Box (tm) which consists of a deck and a generic dual-shock style gamepad. Give it "modest" specs by PS4/Xbox 720 standards, so that it's not killing Nintendo on every sale. But it's still in the neighborhood.
Possible result: Nintendo's box has nothing going for it unless you have to have Nintendo games. By still having the weakest specs, 3rd party ports will be inferior even if it gets all the ports. With nothing 'special' about the box, there's no reason for anyone besides Nintendo fans to buy it. And Nintendo loses a lot of money on each one.
2. Create a console with genuinely mid-range specs, meaning a GPU between the 360 and next-gen, decent ram, decent if not spectacular CPU. Engineer it to be low temp, reliable (meaning low maintenance), and as close to breaking even as possible. Use the savings to give it something 'extra'. A primary feature that makes the experience unique, beyond just having Nintendo games, period. And at least offers the potential for 3rd parties to make unique games on it, or give 3rd party ports unique features.
Possible result: Nintendo fans will still buy it, and you might be able to figure out how to do something with it software wise (thanks to a unique feature) which will attract a wider audience. If it ends up being nothing more than another Gamecube, at least they're not eating it on every system sold. And it's cheap enough they can probably get the cost below the break even point by a fair margin.
Of course, I still can't shake the feeling one of the true reasons for the engineering of the console in terms of power and what's in the case, is that it's a conscious attempt to start down the path to an eventual console-in-a-U-pad design. Iwata held up his hands up and reassured investors that no no, they're not abandoning their popular (in Japan) handheld line... even though they're doing all this work to bring hardware and software development from console and mobile in synch... it's a smokescreen. Of course he wouldn't want to scare them... by making it seem as if they were going to mess with the zen of their handheld with a crazy experiment.
1. Create a console that was nothing more than a Core Game Box (tm) which consists of a deck and a generic dual-shock style gamepad. Give it "modest" specs by PS4/Xbox 720 standards, so that it's not killing Nintendo on every sale. But it's still in the neighborhood.
Possible result: Nintendo's box has nothing going for it unless you have to have Nintendo games. By still having the weakest specs, 3rd party ports will be inferior even if it gets all the ports. With nothing 'special' about the box, there's no reason for anyone besides Nintendo fans to buy it. And Nintendo loses a lot of money on each one.
2. Create a console with genuinely mid-range specs, meaning a GPU between the 360 and next-gen, decent ram, decent if not spectacular CPU. Engineer it to be low temp, reliable (meaning low maintenance), and as close to breaking even as possible. Use the savings to give it something 'extra'. A primary feature that makes the experience unique, beyond just having Nintendo games, period. And at least offers the potential for 3rd parties to make unique games on it, or give 3rd party ports unique features.
Possible result: Nintendo fans will still buy it, and you might be able to figure out how to do something with it software wise (thanks to a unique feature) which will attract a wider audience. If it ends up being nothing more than another Gamecube, at least they're not eating it on every system sold. And it's cheap enough they can probably get the cost below the break even point by a fair margin.
Of course, I still can't shake the feeling one of the true reasons for the engineering of the console in terms of power and what's in the case, is that it's a conscious attempt to start down the path to an eventual console-in-a-U-pad design. Iwata held up his hands up and reassured investors that no no, they're not abandoning their popular (in Japan) handheld line... even though they're doing all this work to bring hardware and software development from console and mobile in synch... it's a smokescreen. Of course he wouldn't want to scare them... by making it seem as if they were going to mess with the zen of their handheld with a crazy experiment.
This is a good example of the shortsightedness that is hurting Nintendo.
The users buying software on iOS in high volume aren't going to buy Nintendo hardware to then spend $60 on software anyway.
Besides, it wouldn't be the same investment and product. Low risk, low ROI product for the casual audience, higher risk higher ROI product for the core audience.
You tailor product to the audience and increase the size of the overall market, and enhance the value of your brand.
JordanN
Banned
In all honesty, I think it's better Nintendo negotiates now with whatever power they have left in the market.
Wii U would have to skyrocket in popularity to keep Nintendo from going another gen without considering this agreement. Because what's more fearful is if Sony/MS get in on the act making Nintendo look even more insignificant.
They don't have the third party support to bail them out when making games takes longer to do.
Some of the strengths of the Wii? Wii U's major problem right now is that it doesn't have the Wii's BIGGEST strength: an appealing gimmick big enough to compensate. It's been said before, but a lot of the reasons the Wii U is failing right now were present with the Wii, but the Wii was spared by the brilliance of motion controls convincing people to see past its shortcomings in other areas. In the Wii U's case, without that hook, the other areas where Nintendo is lagging are brought to the forefront.
No, I don't think the visual jump will be as big this time around. You're not going to be able to sum up PS4/Durango with a simple screenshot that people will be able to immediately discern as better than the previous gen. However, that's NOT where the jump is this gen. Bigger worlds, more seamless worlds, VASTLY more intelligent AI (that can be produced in larger number), unprecedented (in console gaming) levels of social interactivity and, yes, in later years vastly improved visuals. With the Wii U's current specs it might be the case that it just can't keep up on any number of these areas. The hardware will improve more than just the visuals.
I do agree that PS360 will continue to be viable platforms going into the future, though. Iwata better hope that a large audience sees the worth in buying a Nintendo console for last-gen 3rd party ports and new Nintendo games. Hey, stranger things have happened.
Freezie KO
Banned
The hybrid has to be the end goal here. Aside from the moves they've made recently by unifying their development, it makes too much sense for Nintendo. They can put all their teams on a single platform that you can take with you or plug into your TV.
Your strategy sounds way more short sighted and screams ios cash in to me.
Similar threads
- Locked