Support NeoGAF

[Baki]

Just to be quick:

Nintendo has never been in the same position as MS, even when its hardware sales were lot great, bc they have an unrivalled collection of IPs, which they know how to manage.

MS only got back into gaming (having previously abandoned it bc it was non-core to their business & Gates hated it) because Gates started fretting about the success Sony had with PS1 & Ken K talking up Sony's ability to put simple PCs in living rooms. You have to remember Sony prior to the mid-00s was a powerhouse of a corporation that quite literally had more money than it knew what to do with, which is why it's still a bit of a weird conglomerate in todays corporate world.

In 2000, Sony was valued at $130B and Microsoft was over $300B, so MS certainly felt that Sony was a company in a similar weight class to them. That's not remotely the case today.

Virtual Boy is the only exception. Then the 3DS had a rough start. Everything else was pretty great though.

Rough start but ended up with a great run.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Rough start but ended up with a great run.

Never said it failed. Just that for a Nintendo handheld it wasn't doing incredible in the beginning. Which is unusual for Nintendo handhelds since they usually start off extremely strong.

 

[Aloy's Bad Hair Day]

In 2000, Sony was valued at $130B and Microsoft was over $300B, so MS certainly felt that Sony was a company in a similar weight class to them. That's not remotely the case today.



Rough start but ended up with a great run.

It wasn't just that they were (sort of, kinda) in the same ballpark on valuation - PS' success was viewed at MS as a very real threat to Gates 'windows pc in every home' vision.

 

[systemr123]

People wont change platforms because they wont leave behind the digital libraries tjey made surring last years and the confort and familiarity of the platform they are in for few years…And also the friendlists. No exclusivity will do that.

Exclusivities might have a chance for people new in gaming with few games in their library.

I have ~1500 games on Steam…I wont move to any other storefront even if they have 10% of their games exclusive.Not even subscribe to gamepass, for the same reasons.

It's not like you can not use your old storefront if you move somewhere else. I think this is a critical reasoning fault a lot of people make. It's even better to vary store fronts if you look at it scientifically. If one goes broke you still have the other games from the other platforms.

 

[geary]

It's not like you can not use your old storefront if you move somewhere else. I think this is a critical reasoning fault a lot of people make. It's even better to vary store fronts if you look at it scientifically. If one goes broke you still have the other games from the other platforms.

I can invest in other storefronts because is the same hardware, but on consoles is different bacause there is also a hardware investment. Not many people want to invest in 2 consoles and if you had gather a significant library in one of them, there has to be a hell of an offer to change ecosistem.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

In 2000, Sony was valued at $130B and Microsoft was over $300B, so MS certainly felt that Sony was a company in a similar weight class to them. That's not remotely the case today.

One of the problems with market cap valuation being a measure of a company's "weight class" is that Sony is traded on the Japanese stock market, which only in the past few days of 2024 finally surpassed the old ATH set back in 1994. This is a symptom of Japan's decades long economic stagnation after their glory years in the early 1990's. MS is of course traded on the American stock market which only goes up, has only ever gone up, and will only ever go up until the fall of Western civilization. If you look at the aggregate value of the JP stock market versus the US stock market over the past 30 years, it's easy to see why Sony was worth $130B in 2000 and is still worth $130B today in 2024 but MS is now valued at $2.9 Trillion ($2,900B).

 

[SportsFan581]

Seeing how gleeful you are about the "MS wanting to take Sony out" (by wrecking the console market), I am not sure you should be the one calling others fanboys .

?

I'm going to need to see a quote where I said I thought they could actually accomplish that or where that was something I was aligned with. It's a simple statement of fact that they are a lot more bullish in their internal emails than they are in their public facing statements, there is still some fire there. That was my only point.

 

[Heisenberg007]

?

I'm going to need to see a quote where I said I thought they could actually accomplish that or where that was something I was aligned with. It's a simple statement of fact that they are a lot more bullish in their internal emails than they are in their public facing statements, there is still some fire there. That was my only point.

I'm not pointing fingers at you (I'm not even a part of this conversation), but my two cents are that anybody who supported Microsoft's acquisition of Bethesda and Activision after those emails surfaced, became a part of that group.

 

[SportsFan581]

I was actually thinking about this more, if you really step back and think about it, if thier goal is really to fuel an exclusive box, they really shouldn't be releasing anything at all on PC.
I mean if you could only buy Call of Duty (contracts deals might prevent this for what, 10 years?), Doom, Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Wolfenstein, Starfield, Forza, Gears, Halo, Overwatch 3, Psychonauts, Diablo, Flight Simulator, and more only on xbox that would drive a lot of players over to xbox.
I know people hate to read this, and MS lose a ton of PC revenue, would be evil, etc, but do they want to win or not? People here would revolt, it would last 2 weeks, then they would buy an xbox series Z.

Ok but fantasy above is over, since MS wouldn't want to hurt windows as the main PC gaming platform, which keeps people buying windows, thier bread and butter, but if not for that.........

I don't think their goal is to have the most successful console ever released. I think they want to be one of the most successful gaming companies overall.

The subscriptions are a big part of that, and having a console box is important there because a lot of users like to have that option. And GP on a Nintendo or Sony platform might have too many strings attached to it to be viable. MS releasing 4 games a year is great for GP in its current format, but would be next to nothing if the service was more like an EA play service with just MS games. The games like Stalker 2 and Plague Tale add a lot of value to the service as do the smaller games that launch and the older AAA games from third parties. I can't see Sony or Nintendo allowing a service that broad, that overlapped with content they sell in their store. Especially in Sony's case where they run a competing service. If there was going to be some kind of groundbreaking partnership that was more reciprocal it would probably be with Nintendo, but it seems doubtful.

I think they'll continue to push Xbox just to maintain a console platform that they have enough control over to run the subscription service the way they want. The easiest growth for the GP subs will likely come from PC, mobile, streaming, etc. I think GP will certainly still see growth on console though, just because a certain percentage of the customers buying the consoles will be new to Xbox and a certain percentage of those will get the Subs. Same for Sony and their subs.

 

[SportsFan581]

I'm not pointing fingers at you (I'm not even a part of this conversation), but my two cents are that anybody who supported Microsoft's acquisition of Bethesda and Activision after those emails surfaced, became a part of that group.

Oh sure, I'm certainly a Xbox fanboy on here, my post history lends itself to that. But, I don't want Sony extinguished because I enjoy some of the things they put forward also.

I don't think that anything MS is saying internally will be much different than what is being said internally at Sony or Nintendo either. I'm sure both of those companies formulate their evil plots for total domination, that's just part of business. The nice guy shtick most of these companies put forward is for PR. If they didn't have fight in them they wouldn't be major corporations to start with. It's true that you can win without anyone else loosing, but at the same time you do want to steal customers, position or whatever from your competitors. Nintendo and Sony have been doing a better job of it, but MS is still hatching their plans. Ultimately these companies, no matter how differentiated their products, are all competing for the same $ and more importantly the same "time" which I believe is the most limited resource in the entertainment business, consumers simply only have so much of that, rich or poor.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

. I think most older people would rather spend $200 a year and their free time on 3-6 games of their choosing per year rather than having a buffet of 300 titles that may or may not have something to pique their interest.

This is absolutely my case which is why I don't have a single game subscription service. With family your gaming time is insanely limited unless you make it a single hobby, and I don't want that. The only gaming I get nowadays is on Switch, will be there Day 1 for Switch 2.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

More console sales = more players and more subscribers.

Shhh! This kinda common sense is completely lost on someone as clueless as Phil Spencer.

 

[Astray]

 

[reinking]

well the objective of every big publisher is to get a monopoly, it's not reduced to gamepass

Monopoly? I wasn't talking about becoming a monopoly. I was talking about cannibalizing the console market by taking games from it and putting them in Game Pass.

 

[bitbydeath]

Something being announced in the direct?

 

[demigod]

The real question is, who the F follows him?

 

[Heisenberg007]

Having an existential crisis?

 

[Bernardougf]

The real question is, who the F follows him?

Check this thread.. you probably will find some

 

[DenchDeckard]

OK, lets throw a wild what if out there.

So, say Microsoft goes down this route quite consistently and shock horror, it ends up really working for them.

Games like sea of thieves start selling 30 million copies including switch and playstation and Microsoft become first place by a healthy margin, can invest more in their studios and they finally find balance and an extremely healthy arm of Microsoft in Xbox. What message does that bring?

Of course there will be the " they had to start releasing games on nintendo and playstation to finally find success" which will absolutely be true, but what about when you get beyond that. If they end up making excess bank and become number one by a large margin. What message does that send to shareholders and the industry? Surely, Microsoft will then be even more of a behemoth in all areas and their strategy will allow them to purchase more studios and more consolidation because there will be no argument if they are releasing games everywhere.....

I think the first half will be good for them and all of us as everyone can play the next gears of War...and it could sell multiple tens of millions...but I don't like the consolidation part.

I dunno, just brainstorming.

 

[Ar¢tos]

OK, lets throw a wild what if out there.

So, say Microsoft goes down this route quite consistently and shock horror, it ends up really working for them.

Games like sea of thieves start selling 30 million copies including switch and playstation and Microsoft become first place by a healthy margin, can invest more in their studios and they finally find balance and an extremely healthy arm of Microsoft in Xbox. What message does that bring?

Of course there will be the " they had to start releasing games on nintendo and playstation to finally find success" which will absolutely be true, but what about when you get beyond that. If they end up making excess bank and become number one by a large margin. What message does that send to shareholders and the industry? Surely, Microsoft will then be even more of a behemoth in all areas and their strategy will allow them to purchase more studios and more consolidation because there will be no argument if they are releasing games everywhere.....

I think the first half will be good for them and all of us as everyone can play the next gears of War...and it could sell multiple tens of millions...but I don't like the consolidation part.

I dunno, just brainstorming.

The message will be "we don't even need to bother with hardware to make more profit".
Hardware is there to create install bases, not the main source of profit (it usually means big losses in r&d and subsidising).

 

[MasterCornholio]

The message will be "we don't even need to bother with hardware to make more profit".
Hardware is there to create install bases, not the main source of profit (it usually means big losses in r&d and subsidising).

With each of the three. I guess they have an idea of how much hardware they need to sell in order for it to be viable. Sure they can always keep selling hardware but it doesn't make sense if it's a big money sink.

As for going third party there's definitely an impact to revenue to due the platform holders getting a cut. But accessing a much larger install base can be immensely beneficial to them. Especially an install base that actually buys their games.

 

[PeteBull]

Where are all the suckaz with "i believe in phil spencer" avatars now, the guy is literally undertaker who put whole xbox brand into the grave, permanently, so expecting huge parashoot WWE constract for him, even bigger from what mattrick got in zynga

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I dunno, just brainstorming

I think is too soon to think about that.

if MS is indeed putting their games on PS/Nintendo is not coming from a strategic place. it would be from a place of desperation.

their console is basically dead alongside sells on it.

Xbox has become Game Pass and Game Pass is stronger on PC but it pales in comparison against Steam.

I think MS/Xbox are in "crisis mode", the decision they are about to make (or not) could save them or royally fuck them.(more)

 

[MrTired]

OK, lets throw a wild what if out there.

So, say Microsoft goes down this route quite consistently and shock horror, it ends up really working for them.

Games like sea of thieves start selling 30 million copies including switch and playstation and Microsoft become first place by a healthy margin, can invest more in their studios and they finally find balance and an extremely healthy arm of Microsoft in Xbox. What message does that bring?

Of course there will be the " they had to start releasing games on nintendo and playstation to finally find success" which will absolutely be true, but what about when you get beyond that. If they end up making excess bank and become number one by a large margin. What message does that send to shareholders and the industry? Surely, Microsoft will then be even more of a behemoth in all areas and their strategy will allow them to purchase more studios and more consolidation because there will be no argument if they are releasing games everywhere.....

I think the first half will be good for them and all of us as everyone can play the next gears of War...and it could sell multiple tens of millions...but I don't like the consolidation part.

I dunno, just brainstorming.

It's a very fine line they need walk to be able to get that extra revenue from the other platforms without causing the degradation of the Xbox console. If it was as simple as you stated all platforms holders would have gone this route Microsoft/Xbox is going.

Because make not doubts about it on the presentation about the road to market leadership, it was still predicated on selling consoles and more than there currently selling. On growing Gamepass both on and off the console which they are failing to do.

However if they do achieve market leadership as you said by releasing there games on there competitors platform then absolutely you'll see Sony/Nintendo reassess whether they need to do the same.

I just don't like this is likely.

 

[T-0800]

Phil Spencer has been Phil Harrison all this time. Didn't even bother to change his first name.

 

[bitbydeath]

OK, lets throw a wild what if out there.

So, say Microsoft goes down this route quite consistently and shock horror, it ends up really working for them.

Games like sea of thieves start selling 30 million copies including switch and playstation and Microsoft become first place by a healthy margin, can invest more in their studios and they finally find balance and an extremely healthy arm of Microsoft in Xbox. What message does that bring?

Of course there will be the " they had to start releasing games on nintendo and playstation to finally find success" which will absolutely be true, but what about when you get beyond that. If they end up making excess bank and become number one by a large margin. What message does that send to shareholders and the industry? Surely, Microsoft will then be even more of a behemoth in all areas and their strategy will allow them to purchase more studios and more consolidation because there will be no argument if they are releasing games everywhere.....

I think the first half will be good for them and all of us as everyone can play the next gears of War...and it could sell multiple tens of millions...but I don't like the consolidation part.

I dunno, just brainstorming.

I think they're going to end up cannibalising their own Xbox userbase as i'm sure many wouldn't be happy with streaming as an only option and would rather / have no other option (due to internet limitations) and switch.

MS might be happy leaving Xbox behind in that instance, but that's only if the games sell on other platforms, if they don't sell then i'm not sure what options will remain.

 

[C2brixx]

More console sales = more players and more subscribers.

All the raw materials, and man power it takes to manufacture and ship consoles around the world when as a business consoles sales are either a loss or small profit later on in the life cycle. If Gamepass is the end game for Microsoft its more financially beneficial for consumers to access Gamepass on devices they already have.

 

[jm89]

Once we hear that pc gamepass subs have also dried up.

Let's see what the new narrative will be.

 

[jroc74]

OK, lets throw a wild what if out there.

So, say Microsoft goes down this route quite consistently and shock horror, it ends up really working for them.

Games like sea of thieves start selling 30 million copies including switch and playstation and Microsoft become first place by a healthy margin, can invest more in their studios and they finally find balance and an extremely healthy arm of Microsoft in Xbox. What message does that bring?

Of course there will be the " they had to start releasing games on nintendo and playstation to finally find success" which will absolutely be true, but what about when you get beyond that. If they end up making excess bank and become number one by a large margin. What message does that send to shareholders and the industry? Surely, Microsoft will then be even more of a behemoth in all areas and their strategy will allow them to purchase more studios and more consolidation because there will be no argument if they are releasing games everywhere.....

I think the first half will be good for them and all of us as everyone can play the next gears of War...and it could sell multiple tens of millions...but I don't like the consolidation part.

I dunno, just brainstorming.

Like other have inferred, first place in what?

If you mean console sales, thats highly unlucky to happen. And as of today MS is one of the biggest 3rd party publishers on the planet. They also happen to sell consoles. So any first place metric they get outside of selling consoles, thats probably gonna happen anyway.

IF....releasing single player games on PC day one is effecting console sales, if releasing games on Game Pass day one is effecting consoles.....how would releasing games on other platforms increase console sales?

MLB The Show, that didnt effect PlayStation sales. And that game launches on Game Pass day one. That game still sells the most on PlayStation. All releasing games on other platforms will do is help increase sales of that game.

 

[Astray]

MLB The Show, that didnt effect PlayStation sales. And that game launches on Game Pass day one. That game still sells the most on PlayStation. All releasing games on other platforms will do is help increase sales of that game.

I mean no shit, the ppl who buy it on PS kept buying it just fine.

The real question here is whether the sales increase has been substantial enough to say that a new audience for the game on Xbox has been built or not.

I.e. if the next MLB game comes out on Xbox as a purely b2p basis, will it be a sales hit or not?

 

[DForce]

All the raw materials, and man power it takes to manufacture and ship consoles around the world when as a business consoles sales are either a loss or small profit later on in the life cycle. If Gamepass is the end game for Microsoft its more financially beneficial for consumers to access Gamepass on devices they already have.

Those cloud servers are built on Xbox consoles. If the console is selling well, then they're going to make that money back from third-party sales. I don't know why people keep pushing the narrative that console sales aren't important. They always fail. lol

 

[DenchDeckard]

Like other have inferred, first place in what?

If you mean console sales, thats highly unlucky to happen. And as of today MS is one of the biggest 3rd party publishers on the planet. They also happen to sell consoles. So any first place metric they get outside of selling consoles, thats probably gonna happen anyway.

IF....releasing single player games on PC day one is effecting console sales, if releasing games on Game Pass day one is effecting consoles.....how would releasing games on other platforms increase console sales?

MLB The Show, that didnt effect PlayStation sales. And that game launches on Game Pass day one. That game still sells the most on PlayStation. All releasing games on other platforms will do is help increase sales of that game.

They will never be first place in hardware. They never have been.

I mean first place for xbox in revenue and profits. Across the whole xbox business.

 

[MasterCornholio]

They will never be first place in hardware. They never have been.

I mean first place for xbox in revenue and profits. Across the whole xbox business.

That's asking a lot. It's better to hope they are close to the other two than completely dominating the market. Sooner people accept this the easier it will be.

 

[jroc74]

They will never be first place in hardware. They never have been.

I mean first place for xbox in revenue and profits. Across the whole xbox business.

Well, with ABK IMO that was gonna happen anyway regardless of what they do with their exclusives.

 

[Ronin_7]

One of the problems with market cap valuation being a measure of a company's "weight class" is that Sony is traded on the Japanese stock market, which only in the past few days of 2024 finally surpassed the old ATH set back in 1994. This is a symptom of Japan's decades long economic stagnation after their glory years in the early 1990's. MS is of course traded on the American stock market which only goes up, has only ever gone up, and will only ever go up until the fall of Western civilization. If you look at the aggregate value of the JP stock market versus the US stock market over the past 30 years, it's easy to see why Sony was worth $130B in 2000 and is still worth $130B today in 2024 but MS is now valued at $2.9 Trillion ($2,900B).

Bill Gates has already dismissed the significance of market cap, jokingly stating it means little when questioned about Microsoft surpassing Google's cap and the loss in the phone wars.

While Google is valued 1 trillion less than Microsoft, their revenue is significantly higher. Market cap, it's argued, is irrelevant and won't determine the outcome between Xbox and Playstation. It's over.

 

[Fake]

I remember after that Xbox One reveal fiasco, Bill Gates told that if he was the ceo he would sell the Xbox division to Samsung.

 

[poppabk]

In 2000, Sony was valued at $130B and Microsoft was over $300B, so MS certainly felt that Sony was a company in a similar weight class to them. That's not remotely the case today.

Because MS are morons who don't know what they are doing and Sony are business geniuses?

 

[MasterCornholio]

Because MS are morons who don't know what they are doing and Sony are business geniuses?

Well let me ask you one thing.

Does Microsoft know what they are doing when it comes to selling consoles?

Or are console sales just not relevant anymore?

Sorry it was two questions in the end but you know what i mean.

 

[poppabk]

Well let me ask you one thing.

Does Microsoft know what they are doing when it comes to selling consoles?

Or are console sales just not relevant anymore?

Sorry it was two questions in the end but you know what i mean.

I think consoles sales matter now and MS doesn't want to be in the business of selling consoles so they are trying to help steer it towards a hardware agnostic future. I think it is both because they arent good at selling hardware but also because it isnt a stable business, look at the crests and troughs nintendo have had, and it isnt that profitable unless you are Apple. We are heading there already - fortnite has become a gaming platform rather than a game, and it dominates play time.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I think consoles sales matter now and MS doesn't want to be in the business of selling consoles so they are trying to help steer it towards a hardware agnostic future. I think it is both because they arent good at selling hardware but also because it isnt a stable business, look at the crests and troughs nintendo have had, and it isnt that profitable unless you are Apple. We are heading there already - fortnite has become a gaming platform rather than a game, and it dominates play time.

Seems like Sony and Nintendo are doing fine when it comes to hardware.

Hardware being a problem just seems like an Xbox thing that shouldn't be applied to the others.

 

[poppabk]

Seems like Sony and Nintendo are doing fine when it comes to hardware.

Hardware being a problem just seems like an Xbox thing that shouldn't be applied to the others.

Nintendo said that they would have gone bankrupt if the Switch hadn't been a success - 130 year gaming history, the biggest gaming IPs and they were one poor launch away from disappearing. Sega - gone. Commodore, Philips, Atari etc etc. Having your entire software business reliant on a subsidized hardware launch every 6 or so years is a pretty dangerous business, I am sure Nintendo are shitting their pants right now.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Nintendo said that they would have gone bankrupt if the Switch hadn't been a success - 130 year gaming history, the biggest gaming IPs and they were one poor launch away from disappearing. Sega - gone. Commodore, Philips, Atari etc etc. Having your entire software business reliant on a subsidized hardware launch every 6 or so years is a pretty dangerous business, I am sure Nintendo are shitting their pants right now.

I'm pretty sure Microsofts failure with hardware doesn't translate to the other two. Still doesn't mean they need to abandon the market because its certainly possible to be successful in it. Something that Sony and Nintendo have demonstrated.

 

[Topher]

Nintendo said that they would have gone bankrupt if the Switch hadn't been a success - 130 year gaming history, the biggest gaming IPs and they were one poor launch away from disappearing. Sega - gone. Commodore, Philips, Atari etc etc. Having your entire software business reliant on a subsidized hardware launch every 6 or so years is a pretty dangerous business, I am sure Nintendo are shitting their pants right now.

Just shows you people want simple, cheap consoles and handhelds and not overly complex devices like Wii U, Xbox One or even PS3. Only reason Nintendo would be "shitting their pants" is if they were moving in a dramatically different direction away from Switch. Everything suggests that is not the case. Xbox learned the hardware, but unlike Nintendo, they didn't have first party games to elevate their business back to the top.

 

[jroc74]

Nintendo said that they would have gone bankrupt if the Switch hadn't been a success - 130 year gaming history, the biggest gaming IPs and they were one poor launch away from disappearing. Sega - gone. Commodore, Philips, Atari etc etc. Having your entire software business reliant on a subsidized hardware launch every 6 or so years is a pretty dangerous business, I am sure Nintendo are shitting their pants right now.

Pretty sure only MS are shitting their pants right now ...because of low hardware sells.

Why would companies actually being able to sell hardware at a decent clip be worried?

We will see what happens with a next gen Switch and PlayStation before declaring either of them are shitting their pants.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Just shows you people want simple, cheap consoles and handhelds and not overly complex devices like Wii U, Xbox One or even PS3. Only reason Nintendo would be "shitting their pants" is if they were moving in a dramatically different direction away from Switch. Everything suggests that is not the case. Xbox learned the hardware, but unlike Nintendo, they didn't have first party games to elevate their business back to the top.

Pretty sure only MS are shitting their pants right now ...because of low hardware sells.

Why would companies actually being able to sell hardware at a decent clip be worried?

We will see what happens with a next gen Switch and PlayStation before declaring either of them are shitting their pants.

Both of you make excellent points.

What people need to learn is that Xboxs failures are their own. How they perform with hardware sales doesn't necessarily translate to the other two.

Just annoying to see people say the hardware market isn't viable because Microsoft can't handle it properly.

 

[poppabk]

Pretty sure only MS are shitting their pants right now ...because of low hardware sells.

Why would companies actually being able to sell hardware at a decent clip be worried?

We will see what happens with a next gen Switch and PlayStation before declaring either of them are shitting their pants.

Nintendo president - On the other hand, our major concern is whether we will be able to smoothly transition from one generation to the next when new hardware is released in the future.

 

[Topher]

Nintendo president - On the other hand, our major concern is whether we will be able to smoothly transition from one generation to the next when new hardware is released in the future.

That was a bad translation. This is what he said:

"On the other hand, looking back on past experiences of generational change such as the change from the Wii and Nintendo DS eras, we recognize that one of our tasks is ensuring the transition to future generations of hardware is as smooth as possible. To that end, we are focusing on building long-term relationships with our consumers (through Nintendo Accounts).

"While continuing to release new Nintendo Switch software for consumers to enjoy, we aim to maintain relationships across hardware generations through services that utilize Nintendo Accounts and by providing opportunities for them to experience our IP through other non-gaming channels."

Nintendo says the transition to its next console is ‘a major focus for us’ | VGC

The company wants to alleviate the risk of resetting its userbase…

www.videogameschronicle.com

 

[geary]

Nintendo said that they would have gone bankrupt if the Switch hadn't been a success - 130 year gaming history, the biggest gaming IPs and they were one poor launch away from disappearing. Sega - gone. Commodore, Philips, Atari etc etc. Having your entire software business reliant on a subsidized hardware launch every 6 or so years is a pretty dangerous business, I am sure Nintendo are shitting their pants right now.

Switch 2 is not a sure bet for Nintendo. Switch 1 got its success in an era with non-existent or minimal competition on handheld devices…Now with Steamdeck and the other handhelds, they wont be the so successfuk as with Switch 1

 

[Snake29]

Once we hear that pc gamepass subs have also dried up.

Let's see what the new narrative will be.

We all know it already.

Microsoft/Xbox is smart releasing their games on compatitive platforms like PS and Nintendo, so they can make more money selling their biggest games and bringing more people in their eco system. Something something with "win win"....

 

[poppabk]

That was a bad translation. This is what he said:

To that end, we are focusing on building long-term relationships with our consumers (through Nintendo Accounts).

we aim to maintain relationships across hardware generations through services that utilize Nintendo Accounts

I would definitely be shitting myself if I was relying on Nintendo accounts to drive adoption of the Switch 2.