Support NeoGAF

[numble]

Not sure if anyone else replied to this, but you are correct, it is LTD:



"In aggregate" == in summation, in total.

Nintendo made more revenue this year than the app store has made it's entire life.

1) Split out Nintendo's software revenue from hardware revenue, unless you want to include Apple's hardware revenue.
2) You are working from mid-2011 data, they paid $4 billion as of January 2012 ($5.7 billion revenue). And the iTunes Store (apps and media) had $1.9 billion of revenue in the January-March 2012 quarter.

 

[Wiktor]

1) Split out Nintendo's software revenue from hardware revenue, unless you want to include Apple's hardware revenue.
2) You are working from mid-2011 data, they paid $4 billion as of January 2012 ($5.7 billion revenue). And the iTunes Store (apps and media) had $1.9 billion of revenue in the January-March 2012 quarter.

To be fair, he would also need to remove all non-gaming revenue from iTunes, which would be a huge part of overall revenues.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

1) Split out Nintendo's software revenue from hardware revenue, unless you want to include Apple's hardware revenue.

Why would you split out Nintendo's hardware revenue though? They're a hardware company that ties in their software as much as they can. It's all one big messy thing of hardware supporting IP's which support the hardware and it's all interconnected.

This discussion is about what Nintendo should do. They're not trying to attack Apple's hardware business on a grand scale, so Apple's hardware revenue has no relevance to the situation. Should Nintendo publish games on the app store? The idea seems ludicrous when you consider just how Nintendo works.

 

[magash]

It's an oldschool, megaman-inspired 2.5D platformer with a funky artstyle set inte the old west

here's a review http://toucharcade.com/2012/04/13/gunman-clive-review

I like what I am seeing. I will definitely pick it up tomorrow.

 

[Minsc]

"In aggregate" == in summation, in total.

Nintendo made more revenue this year than the app store has made it's entire life.

Why are we excluding apple hardware / including Nintendo hardware again? Wouldn't it be a better comparison to stick with Nintendo's revenue on software only when comparing to the app store only? And more importantly, not compare the two in a bubble? I think it's also relevant to consider future revenue trends if it's expected to be significantly different. How did the two compare in 2009, 2010, and what change does 2012 look to bring?

Edit: beaten, but the way the comparison is being used was confusing me a little.

 

[Cipherr]

Why would you split out Nintendo's hardware revenue though? They're a hardware company that ties in their software as much as they can. It's all one big messy thing of hardware supporting IP's which support the hardware and it's all interconnected.

This discussion is about what Nintendo should do. They're not trying to attack Apple's hardware business on a grand scale, so Apple's hardware revenue has no relevance to the situation. Should Nintendo publish games on the app store? The idea seems ludicrous when you consider just how Nintendo works.

Even if you humor him and split out the hardware, as mentioned before, you would need to then remove all the other sort of media included in the Appstore ecosystem, which leaves you right back where you started, with nowhere else to spin.

Its a losing argument right now.

Why are we excluding apple hardware / including Nintendo hardware again? Wouldn't it be a better comparison to stick with Nintendo's revenue on software only when comparing to the app store only? And more importantly, not compare the two in a bubble? I think it's also relevant to consider future revenue trends if it's expected to be significantly different. How did the two compare in 2009, 2010, and what change does 2012 look to bring?

Edit: beaten, but the way the comparison is being used was confusing me a little.

If we truly break that bubble we would also need to look at the rate of software revenues growth a company like Nintendo has from a year holding a transition to a new console (DS to 3DS) compared to the growth in software revenues it sees in its later years as the userbase grows.

And to go another step further, we would need to address the fact that we are comparing just Nintendos software revenues to the revenues of that of every single iOS developer ever on the Appstore which further makes the comparison in favor of the Appstore rather than Nintendo. Then remove books, media, all of that and include only Appstore gaming, and not everything on the Appstore.

I mean, we can break this down, but it wont ever swing in the other direction. Itll just favor Nintendo more and more the deeper you dive. Things can change, but it seems pretty obvious that theres nothing to be said here at the moment.

 

[Wiktor]

Relative to what?

To whole society. That what you were refering to.

Also one thing I think your missing is most iOS gamers have ZERO interest in having AAA type games on their devices like you said cut the rope, angry birds shit like that is probably what most of these people want

Considering that's exactly what I claimed I don't see why you would assume I'm missing anything here

yet larger AAA "like" games seem to do just fine(realtive to the rest of the gaming market)

Not really. They do badly compared to Angry Birds type games and very badly to AAA like games for PC/consoles

 

[magash]

1) Split out Nintendo's software revenue from hardware revenue, unless you want to include Apple's hardware revenue.
2) You are working from mid-2011 data, they paid $4 billion as of January 2012 ($5.7 billion revenue). And the iTunes Store (apps and media) had $1.9 billion of revenue in the January-March 2012 quarter.

To be fair you also need to extract all non gaming related revenue.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

Even if you humor him and split out the hardware, as mentioned before, you would need to then remove all the other sort of media included in the Appstore ecosystem, which leaves you right back where you started, with nowhere else to spin.

Its a losing argument right now.

The problem with the numbers is that people think they're being used for very different arguments.

The reason why I posted them was because it showed that Nintendo will not go onto the App Store. Nothing more. I'm not trying to do a direct 1:1 comparison between the two, because Apple and Nintendo are very different companies and their revenue would not be directly comparable.

I can't speak for anyone else in this thread though.

 

[diffusionx]

I think a big part of the problem is that a lot of these analysts and other people of this opinion don't see the difference in value and content between your average iOS game and your average traditional game. I wonder if a lot of them even play games at all. Even then, they're analysts, they should at least be looking at the goddamn numbers.

My brother got converted over to this opinion when he bough Soul Calibur on his iPad and it played just as it did on the Dreamcast. After that he seriously asked me why they wouldn't just sell Modern Warfare 3 on iOS. I had to remind him that Soul Calibur originally came out 13 years ago.

No, they don't play games. They look at it from a numbers POV.

I don't see why MW3 can't come out in some form on iOS. It won't be as good as the home version (although resolution is not really a problem /sickburn) and it's not like Activision cares where the game is. The whole reason Gameloft is doing what they are doing is because people want to play these games on the platform, it's just the real developers aren't making them. They should.

Obviously Nintendo is in a different situation because the software drives hardware sales. Nintendo is like Apple in that regard, and these analysts have not figured out Apple even after 30 years so I don't expect them to figure out Nintendo now. These guys still think Apple should license OS X so Dell can put it on their shitboxes. So obviously they will say that Mario should be on iOS.

 

[Wiktor]

Yeah, Nintendo probably cannot sustain itself at their budgets selling games at $1 but lots of smaller developers have been able to do so.

That's the problem, appstore is for small devs who would be satisfied making little money. You've named N.o.v.a. The whole gameloft's revenue for first half of 2011 was 76 mln dollars and out of that the actual profit was merely 5 mln dollars. Of course it;s great for smaller developers, but as you've said Nintend wouldn't be able to sustain itself with such little money.

 

[Jokeropia]

When Nintendo is generating several times the revenue per year what all App Store developers combined has gotten lifetime, you know these analysts aren't so keen on the facts.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Apple-Has-Paid-Out-4-Billion-to-iOS-Developers-256737.shtml

 

[Vinci]

Because there's money to be made? Dunno. Ask Netflix, Collecting Smiles, Nnooo, Flat Black or Cinemax.

But in what amounts and across how many different functions? I'm not saying that it's impossible to make money using apps on Nintendo hardware - I'm just saying that it seems as if these companies could likely find other avenues for growth and investment that would pay off more relative to userbase size. Gaming apps are a different story: People bought the hardware to play games; it kind of goes hand in hand with Nintendo's own goals.

The reason why Netflix is on every device is rather different from how other firms behave: They're there to ensure that they aren't undercut by a potential competitor. It's a defensive maneuver. They want to be on everything with a screen because they don't want to leave something open, have a competitor gain a foothold there and then perhaps move from that platform to somewhere else. That's the sort of thing you do when you control a segment of the market.

When Nintendo is generating several times the revenue per year what all App Store developers combined has gotten lifetime, you know these analysts aren't so keen on the facts.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Apple-Has-Paid-Out-4-Billion-to-iOS-Developers-256737.shtml

Keep in mind, their analysis is based upon the imaginary world in which Nintendo hardware and software sales have dried up to nothing. So yeah, might as well jump on-board the iOS train before it's too late!

Part of me believes analysts want the most successful gaming company of all time to move to iOS just to see how much Apple's stock goes up upon the announcement.

 

[grimshawish]

Nintendo won't make money from Apple Hardware, what have people been taking today?

 

[jcm]

When Nintendo is generating several times the revenue per year what all App Store developers combined has gotten lifetime, you know these analysts aren't so keen on the facts.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Apple-Has-Paid-Out-4-Billion-to-iOS-Developers-256737.shtml

Several equals less than two? Nintendo did $8B in revenue in the year that just ended. Apple already had $4B as of January. Not only is this comparison meaningless, it's being exaggerated. And, of course, the app store revenues are growing fast, unlike Nintendo's revenues, which haver fallen precipitously.

 

[Dave Long]

I guess what really gets me is how these analysts just don't seem to run the numbers. What are they basing all their arguments on? Hope? Fear? What is it that drives them to demand Nintendo abandon their hardware when it's clear that Nintendo hardware is a major reason for their success given how they build their hardware and games to be so intertwined?

EDIT: Another thing I don't get... Nintendo is in business to make money for Nintendo. Why would they want to bolster Apple's bottom line if they don't have to? They've been successful since the late 1800's. If you're an analyst, wouldn't you look at the company's longevity and kind of realize that part of that success is due to how they managed their own portfolio of products and made sure the Nintendo name was all you associated with all those things? Put a Mario game on an Apple device and help Apple make a name for themselves on the back of your great game? Why would you do that if you're NINTENDO?!

 

[Alexios]

Several equals less than two? Nintendo did $8B in revenue in the year that just ended. Apple already had $4B as of January. Not only is this comparison meaningless, it's being exaggerated. And, of course, the app store revenues are growing fast, unlike Nintendo's revenues, which haver fallen precipitously.

I don't even know what you're trying to argue anymore. People aren't saying Nintendo is bigger than Apple. But Nintendo also wouldn't suddenly get all that App Store revenue to themselves, leaving the rest with 0, nor would they get their hands on Apple's hardware revenue. At least your graph shows that a decline after peaks isn't uncommon so not necessarily fueled by whatever Apple does, or necessarily something that will keep happening with no more peaking possible. So, yeah, even "less than two" would be pretty important when it's one company vs what every other software developer together could accumulate on iOS.

 

[numble]

I guess what really gets me is how these analysts just don't seem to run the numbers. What are they basing all their arguments on? Hope? Fear? What is it that drives them to demand Nintendo abandon their hardware when it's clear that Nintendo hardware is a major reason for their success given how they build their hardware and games to be so intertwined?

Investors think in the near-term. In the near-term, Nintendo loss 43 billion yen in 2011 selling the 3DS at a loss. They are projecting to make a 20 billion yen profit this year. Having hardware take you into the red and requiring 3 years to climb out is not very attractive to investors. Especially if they think the same might happen with Wii U.

 

[diffusionx]

EDIT: Another thing I don't get... Nintendo is in business to make money for Nintendo. Why would they want to bolster Apple's bottom line if they don't have to? They've been successful since the late 1800's.

It really doesn't matter what they have done from 1884 to yesterday. That goes for all companies. Ask Pan-Am how they are doing now. I don't even think this is a bad thing - any company should be called out for resting on its laurels.

 

[Ulairi]

It's articles like this that drive me nuts: http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/26/2976735/nintendo-sales-stats-handheld-gaming-report

A lot of graphs to push a narrative that they want to push. We here on GAF can use graphs to push the opposite narrative. I listen to the Verge Mobile cast and the writer of that article doesn't game, especially on a portable device that isn't a mobile phone. Even if if you believe that traditional handheld gaming is going to become a niche in the future, it is still a multi-billion dollar niche that can be highly profitable for Nintendo. Nintendo has been doomed for hundreds of years.

 

[salpa]

1) Split out Nintendo's software revenue from hardware revenue, unless you want to include Apple's hardware revenue.
2) You are working from mid-2011 data, they paid $4 billion as of January 2012 ($5.7 billion revenue). And the iTunes Store (apps and media) had $1.9 billion of revenue in the January-March 2012 quarter.

That's not the point at all.

Nintendo thrives on software selling hardware. The two in combination is what makes Nintendo the most money.

If they suddenly put their games on iOS, that value is lost and their hardware might dive to nothing. Nintendo, using their software to sell their hardware, has made more money just this year than the entire appstore has made ever. It would make no sense for them to put their games on iOS. This is not a revenue battle between Apple and Nintendo, it is a battle between analysts living in a fantasy world and the actual reality of the situation - a company like Nintendo developing for iOS or Android is not only devaluing to the Nintendo brand, but the most ridiculous business move any hardware manufacturer could ever make.

And I would not dare compare hardware revenues between a company who sells their devices at a tiny bit of a premium versus a company who sells their devices for three or four times what they are worth. A $180 phone being sold for nearly $700 is asinine, even if I am not the direct victim of that transaction. But that is another topic for another day.

 

[jcm]

I don't even know what you're trying to argue anymore. People aren't saying Nintendo > Apple. But Nintendo also wouldn't suddenly get all that App Store revenue to themselves, leaving the rest with 0, nor would they get their hands on Apple's hardware revenue. At least your graph shows that a decline after peaks isn't uncommon so not necessarily fueled by whatever Apple does, or necessarily something that will keep happening with no more peaking set to occur. So, yeah, even "less than two" would be pretty important when it's one company vs what every other software developer together could accumulate on iOS.

I'm arguing that Jokeropia was exaggerating, and that nintendo revenues are not several times the lifetime revenues of the app store. And the numbers posted on the first page are wrong, too. And if people are going to point to this ridiculous comparison as if it's meaningful, they ought to at least use accurate numbers. Especially when they are using them to prove that other people "aren't so keen on the facts."

 

[numble]

I listen to the Verge Mobile cast and the writer of that article doesn't game

He certainly sounds like a gamer--he wasted tons of minutes on the last podcast talking about how Samsung used the Mass Effect theme for their teaser, and theorizing some connection between a Mass Effect planet and the name of the next Galaxy S phone.

 

[diffusionx]

And I would not dare compare hardware revenues between a company who sells their devices at a tiny bit of a premium versus a company who sells their devices for three or four times what they are worth. A $180 phone being sold for nearly $700 is asinine, even if I am not the direct victim of that transaction. But that is another topic for another day.

Any company on the planet would do the same if people still found value in the product. It's not asinine if only one company could actually do it. Nintendo would sell their systems for the same price in a second if they could get away with it. I mean, I could just as easily say that it is asinine that Nintendo still charges $50 for 5 year old games, but they do it and people buy them.

 

[Version 3.0]

Investors think in the near-term. In the near-term, Nintendo loss 43 billion yen in 2011 selling the 3DS at a loss. They are projecting to make a 20 billion yen profit this year. Having hardware take you into the red and requiring 3 years to climb out is not very attractive to investors. Especially if they think the same might happen with Wii U.

Investors can keep wishing, because the reality of the situation - and Nintendo's view of it as well - is that the near-term results of making iOS games would be making a small fraction of their current revenue, and the long-term result would be a swift demise.

 

[Version 3.0]

I'm arguing that Jokeropia was exaggerating, and that nintendo revenues are not several times the lifetime revenues of the app store. And the numbers posted on the first page are wrong, too. And if people are going to point to this ridiculous comparison as if it's meaningful, they ought to at least use accurate numbers. Especially when they are using them to prove that other people "aren't so keen on the facts."

By all means, post the accurate data.

 

[numble]

Nintendo, using their software to sell their hardware, has made more money just this year than the entire appstore has made ever. It would make no sense for them to put their games on iOS.

Nintendo didn't make any money this year. They went into the red on the 3DS and they themselves project they won't make that money back until at least 2013. So analysts may worry that the same thing happens for the Wii U. In the near term at least, hardware doesn't look too attractive for investors. They don't want to wait 3 years for Nintendo to earn back what it lost, and they are afraid a similar cycle will occur for the Wii U.

 

[Glass Joe]

Such fucking nonsense. Microsoft should release Halo on the Playstation! They'd make a killing!

Why buy a 3DS if you can get Nintendo games on a competing platform? Yeah Nintendo would surely get some short term cash and they games would sell well, but it would destroy consumer confidence in Nintendo systems.

Plus, touch screen controls suck compared to a pad & buttons on a game like Super Mario Bros.

 

[Version 3.0]

To be fair, his seems to be backed by some evidence whereas yours is more of a personal opinion. I can say this because I'm reasonably sure that more people game on touchscreen nowadays than they do anything with buttons, so I imagine the numbers are on his side - not 50/50 as your comments seem to allege.

The head count may be on the touch screen side - maybe - but the dollars are not.

 

[Jburton]

Right, because comparing hardware + software revenue to software revenue is very illuminating. How about you throw a margin comparison in there, too?

It is a valid comparison because if Nintendo went solely third party on ios and other platforms as some idiots have stated they should the revenue drop would be phenomenal.

To release games on their own hardware and other simultaneously (or soon there after) would devalue their hardware and cause a loss in revenue.

Going to ios / mobile markets only or releasing on mobile platforms as well as their own would seriously shrink the company and its revenues.

 

[Version 3.0]

Nintendo didn't make any money this year. They went into the red on the 3DS and they themselves project they won't make that money back until at least 2013. So analysts may worry that the same thing happens for the Wii U. In the near term at least, hardware doesn't look too attractive for investors. They don't want to wait 3 years for Nintendo to earn back what it lost, and they are afraid a similar cycle will occur for the Wii U.

Not accurate - Nintendo stock is still trading, so "investors" are not of a single mindset on the issue. Only the ignorant ones believe that making iOS games would be good for the company.

Aside from that, Nintendo has no responsibility towards potential investors who dislike the company's direction. Maybe said investors should invest elsewhere - which they are free to do.

 

[ScreenSplitter]

Not accurate - Nintendo stock is still trading, so "investors" are not of a single mindset on the issue. Only the ignorant ones believe that making iOS games would be good for the company.

Speaking of ignorant investors, here's a quote from one of the (surely Harvard educated) shareholders;

""I own stock, but I don't own a single Nintendo product. I believe games are a waste of time. By the way, the reason I own Nintendo stock is because the name is nice, it's in Kyoto and it was listed in the year of my birth.""

Nintendo should make all their business desicions based on these guys... seriously...

 

[Vinci]

The head count may be on the touch screen side - maybe - but the dollars are not.

Never argued that they were. Just stating that his 'matter of preference' does not reflect anything upon the mainstream market, which clearly has no problem playing games on a button-less platform. That's immaterial to the point of this thread regardless, IMO.

It really doesn't matter what they have done from 1884 to yesterday. That goes for all companies. Ask Pan-Am how they are doing now. I don't even think this is a bad thing - any company should be called out for resting on its laurels.

Please explain to me how Nintendo has been 'resting on its laurels.' They are more responsible for the growth of this industry than either of their two principal competitors.

 

[numble]

Not accurate - Nintendo stock is still trading, so "investors" are not of a single mindset on the issue. Only the ignorant ones believe that making iOS games would be good for the company.

Aside from that, Nintendo has no responsibility towards potential investors who dislike the company's direction. Maybe said investors should invest elsewhere - which they are free to do.

They have gone and invested elsewhere, and they have sold their Nintendo stock--its down 43% in the past year.

 

[Hero]

The fact is, it did catch on.

Look at MvC2. Released to no fanfare, many iOS gamers panned it and yet it went straight to number 1. Do I think Capcom will port more titles? Yes, yes I do. Do I think they'll sell well, possibly regardless of quality? Why yes, yes I do.



So disingenuous. That figure is ancient and includes every fart-app, wallpaper browser etc..

Using MvC2 isn't really a good indicator other than 'Hey people remember MvC2 and are willing to pay 3 bucks to play it on their iPhone.' Capcom, like many other Japanese publishers are only porting existing games from older systems to iPhone because a small team can do it to the point where the costs of doing so are pretty negligible. Square-Enix loves the fact that they can port their existing SNES/PSX library to the iOS because they have already paid the price to make these games years ago, the only price they need to pay now is to port them to iOS. For now, it's a great strategy and definitely easy money because these companies only make software.

No, it's not relevant. If I sell a trillion dollars worth of widgets for a profit of $1M, and you sell a million dollars worth of software for a profit of $500K, how are our businesses in any way comparable?

Looking at gross revenue doesn't tell you anything. I'm not even saying Nintendo necessarily should sell their games on ios, I'm just saying that comparison is stupid. Nintendo spends a ton of money to create that $12B in revenue.

Why are we excluding apple hardware / including Nintendo hardware again? Wouldn't it be a better comparison to stick with Nintendo's revenue on software only when comparing to the app store only? And more importantly, not compare the two in a bubble? I think it's also relevant to consider future revenue trends if it's expected to be significantly different. How did the two compare in 2009, 2010, and what change does 2012 look to bring?

Edit: beaten, but the way the comparison is being used was confusing me a little.

The point of the argument is that Nintendo develops their software specifically to sell their hardware. If this Nintendo software is made available on non-Nintendo devices like iOS ones, it devalues their ecosystem that they've established since the NES. By contrast, Apple has no incentive and has shown little effort into supporting video games on their device. For Nintendo to make or port a Mario or Zelda game to iOS they would definitely sell a lot of copies but the profit margin would be a lot lower due to the lower pricing of the App Store in addition to taking a smaller cut because they have to pay Apple a portion but most importantly now there's less incentive for average consumers to spend money on the Nintendo hardware version of the game and in tune lessen the demand or need to purchase the Nintendo hardware altogether.

There's no doubt the App Store has cemented itself into the marketplace but I think it's going to exist as a different target audience than traditional consoles and handhelds for quite a while.

 

[jman2050]

Nintendo didn't make any money this year. They went into the red on the 3DS and they themselves project they won't make that money back until at least 2013. So analysts may worry that the same thing happens for the Wii U. In the near term at least, hardware doesn't look too attractive for investors. They don't want to wait 3 years for Nintendo to earn back what it lost, and they are afraid a similar cycle will occur for the Wii U.

That's the investor's problem, not Nintendo.

 

[Lonely1]

Why are we excluding apple hardware / including Nintendo hardware again? Wouldn't it be a better comparison to stick with Nintendo's revenue on software only when comparing to the app store only? And more importantly, not compare the two in a bubble? I think it's also relevant to consider future revenue trends if it's expected to be significantly different. How did the two compare in 2009, 2010, and what change does 2012 look to bring?

Edit: beaten, but the way the comparison is being used was confusing me a little.

This is not an Apple vs Nintendo discussion, we are talking about the premise that Nintendo would be better of as an iOS developer rather than a hardware and software developer. AKA, the suggestion made by many analysts that Nintendo should become and app developer and drop their hardware business.

So, it makes perfect sense to discuss Nintendo overall revenue vs the App store revenue, since a share of the App store revenue is what Nintendo would be after in such scenario. It makes no sense to include Apple hardware revenue since Nintendo isn't going to touch that as an app developer....

 

[Jburton]

In the interest of transparency it was noted that figure is from the store's launch to July 2011, LTD, not a single year (or half).

Well that is even worse.

 

[RedSwirl]

No, they don't play games. They look at it from a numbers POV.

I don't see why MW3 can't come out in some form on iOS. It won't be as good as the home version (although resolution is not really a problem /sickburn) and it's not like Activision cares where the game is. The whole reason Gameloft is doing what they are doing is because people want to play these games on the platform, it's just the real developers aren't making them. They should.

Even if they could make something gameplay-identical to MW3 on iOS (could they even get the whole multiplayer infrastructure on there?), at what price would Activision want to sell it? I don't think they'd even want to sell a game that recent for $10. Maybe relatively soon you might see COD1 show up on iOS. Other than that, maybe a companion game that got you extra XP might work, but not the same game that they're selling for $60 on consoles and PC. Plus, would those sales have any kind of impact at all on top of the billion dollar sales Activision already gets outside of iOS?

Edit: So wait, Apple's $4billion revenue number is 2008-last year right? And Nintendo's $12billion is just 2011 right?

 

[jcm]

By all means, post the accurate data.

I did. $8B in revenue last year for Nintendo, $4+B lifetime revenue for app store developers.

It is a valid comparison because if Nintendo went solely third party on ios and other platforms as some idiots have stated they should the revenue drop would be phenomenal.

To release games on their own hardware and other simultaneously (or soon there after) would devalue their hardware and cause a loss in revenue.

Going to ios / mobile markets only or releasing on mobile platforms as well as their own would seriously shrink the company and its revenues.

Who cares? I don't think maximizing revenue is Nintendo's goal, nor should it be. That's why the comparison is so dumb. Nintendo had $8B in revenue and lost money. I don't think anyone at Nintendo HQ is pleased with that result, even though $8B is a hell of a lot of money.

 

[tinfoilhatman]

Even if they could make something gameplay-identical to MW3 on iOS (could they even get the whole multiplayer infrastructure on there?), at what price would Activision want to sell it? I don't think they'd even want to sell a game that recent for $10. Maybe relatively soon you might see COD1 show up on iOS. Other than that, maybe a companion game that got you extra XP might work, but not the same game that they're selling for $60 on consoles and PC. Plus, would those sales have any kind of impact at all on top of the billion dollar sales Activision already gets outside of iOS?

Edit: So wait, Apple's $4billion revenue number is 2008-last year right? And Nintendo's $12billion is just 2011 right?

You do realize Modern Combat 3(Modern Warfare clone) is on iOS and plays and looks great?

 

[RedSwirl]

You do realize Modern Combat 3(Modern Warfare clone) is on iOS and plays and looks great?

That still doesn't answer the question of how Activision would be willing to sell the game.

 

[Lonely1]

Who cares? I don't think maximizing revenue is Nintendo's goal, nor should it be. That's why the comparison is so dumb. Nintendo had $8B in revenue and lost money. I don't think anyone at Nintendo HQ is pleased with that result, even though $8B is a hell of a lot of money.

So, is becoming an App developer is the solution to that? Which is why this discussions spawned of in the first place.

Would Nintendo be profitable as a 5 man team porting legacy code to iOS? Sure! Perhaps even more profitable per head than almost all other companies! But Nintendo as we know it would be dead, the gaming giant we all knew and some love would be no more. And I'm sure their shares would be worth a lot less.

You do realize Modern Combat 3(Modern Warfare clone) is on iOS and plays and looks great?

It looks nothing like MW3 and plays much worse.

 

[tinfoilhatman]

So, is become an App developer is the solution to that? Which is why this discussions spawned of in the first place.

Would Nintendo be profitable as a 5 man team porting legacy code to iOS? Sure! Perhaps even more profitable per head than almost all other companies! But Nintendo as we know it would be dead, the gaming giant we all knew and some love would be no more. And I'm sure their shares would be worth a lot less.


It looks nothing like MW3 and plays much worse.

Not sure if you expect to look like the PS360 versions but it looks dam good on ipad3(after the retna upgrade) and plays just fine to me ~shrugs~

 

[starmud]

theres a few ways to monetize a f2p game on the app store. i've seen some of the studios claim they've made 50k a day when you factor in advertising/data and item/currency sales. i've seen some smaller app makers claim they've been lucky to make 50k in lifetime sales.

with smart cookies coming and so many firms poping up to specialize in game data gathering for mining to make in game monetizing easier/more fool proof, the possibility of making money in the space is increasing. especially with how over zealous advertisers are to get into mobile ad space, the amount their willing to overpay already is amazing to me.

it changes constantly. some developers claim to be making a killing with a game in the top 250. i've seen others say they earn dismal amounts and have a app in the top 150 or 100.

(a facebook game, but its interesting to read and fits the app store for many, to give an idea: http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/18/kixeye-lucrative-dark-horse-facebook-gaming/)

the app store is really about pricing and how you choose to monetize your type of game for maximum results. many don't seem to hit the right mix and falter in the end. it isn't as easy as throwing your app up for a dollar or going f2p with IAP purchasing.

many of the fp2 developers are trying to hit a certain number of products in the store at the same time. if they all don't break out to mega hits, fine. if you build a small, loyal audience, say 100k+. multiply that by 7 or 10, you can make money. its based on a model of inflation though with advertising that completely unsubstantial. its also based on whoring your loyal players for every dime you can get, in the turn, alienating most new players.

ad colony is selling a offline player where the developer can roll preinstalled videos into the app to play. usually with the player giving free currency for watching. the few apps rolling this out claim to be making a killing with ad dollars, yet... why? most of the apps are lucky to have 100k players listed on gamecenter. its usually the same 3 ad's repeating. kids watch the videos 300 times a day to get free items. whos really making money here? are advertisers being serviced?

as the technology gets better on the marketers end to monitor the activity of whats really going on with the ad space in game; i cant imagine prices not coming down. its a dollar bubble now.

this is why nintendo would be a disaster on the app store. they aren't built for the marketplace in any way possible.

they've never built a product from the ground up with the idea that it will be data/IAP/currency sales based. a good game on the app store that makes bank was built around those ideas. they can't even evolve animal crossing, the father to much of what we have now, to match the innovations that have been made in the genre. other than mario and pokemon, how many titles would be angry birds level. look at rovio's size/bank. how would nintendo take these titles over the top versus anything rovio has done with angry birds?

look how long its taken zynga to get a hold of the marketplace on iOS. even with well known IP from facebook. moneybags. they've just now been getting to a stride on the app store thanks to buying developers and studios who have had success on it. future success is unknown. there is little loyalty due to the size of the marketplace and the type of consumer your dealing with. i consider this THE wii audience so many on here love to bitch about.

the biggest success stories on facebook/iOS right now are smaller studios, with more niche titles serving an active but loyal membership. who will buy 30-50 dollar items. nintendo could have more success here with many of their games, they have an insta fan club who would download and play. yet at the same time, to attract these players who know the franchise and going this route, you risk turning off newer players/large exposure.

hopping into the app store for nintendo wouldn't be free money. you can have the best IP in the world, if you cant execute it properly, if your not built for the platform (something nintendo is very dependent on), it wont work.

seeing these japanese developers slap well known IP on the app store for 10+ dollars makes me laugh, how much do you REALLY think their making on that game? it isn't suited for the marketplace at ALL. yeah, it might make easy money. cheap port. usual the game is awful in turn. it also shows you how little they understand whats going on in the space. they have good IP and yet don't know how to build it on this platform for success. (eg, where the hell is my harvest moon iOS sim with IAP and currency whoring...)

this is with me excluding the fact that the app store is not mature enough to support someone the size of nintendo. they wouldn't be able to support that large of a development force on iOS. they'd have to get leaner and focus on more core titles. that alone would be a mess for them given the size of their catalog. they'd leave money on the table and not be able to service every franchise in a way they can on their own hardware.

this is REALLY why i do NOT want to see nintendo on the app store. it'd be a disaster for sometime. its better to nintendos own future to let them build and experiment with these newer ideas in their own setting. iOS future overlords or not, they have to.

 

[jcm]

So, is become an App developer is the solution to that? Which is why this discussions spawned of in the first place.

Would Nintendo be profitable as a 5 man team porting legacy code to iOS? Sure! Perhaps even more profitable per head than almost all other companies! But Nintendo as we know it would be dead, the gaming giant we all knew and some love would be no more. And I'm sure their shares would be worth a lot less.


It looks nothing like MW3 and plays much worse.

Well, I don't think anyone thinks Nintendo would become an App developer per se. I assume the idea is for them to go full third party, and release stuff for ios, android, facebook, ps4, xbox 3, PC, and whatever else comes along.

I think Nintendo would be the largest, most profitable third party game developer in the world. The question is, would third party Nintendo be more profitable than first party Nintendo? And the answer depends on whether the last 6 years were an aberration or not. They could never have a 3 year stretch like 07-09 as a third party. On the other hand, is Nintendo going to have two of the hottest electronics products at the same time again?

 

[axisofweevils]

There's now a Forbes article wanting Nintendo to go to Apple.
"Will Nintendo's Pride Be Their Downfall?" *sigh*

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/04/26/will-nintendos-pride-be-its-downfall/

 

[diffusionx]

They could never have a 3 year stretch like 07-09 as a third party. On the other hand, is Nintendo going to have two of the hottest electronics products at the same time again?

I've been gaming for a long time, and I have heard that Nintendo's death is inevitable pretty much nonstop from about 1997. Even from 2007-2009.

Now, obviously, it's a different situation now, since Nintendo actually is losing money. But how many people predicted that the DS would beat the PSP and the Wii would beat both the PS3 and 360? Let me tell ya - not many! And even fewer in the gaming community. I didn't. So, while I will say that I doubt that Nintendo will strike gold like the DS/Wii anytime in the near future, it's not inconceivable.

They are like Disney - even when Disney was going through rough patches (late 1980's, etc.), they still had enormously popular and valuable brands and a loyal fanbase. I always say that Nintendo will be fine until they aren't. I can't predict Nintendo's decline and fall because the past 15 years have taught me that is a mug's game.

 

[Glass Rebel]

There's now a Forbes article wanting Nintendo to go to Apple.
"Will Nintendo's Pride Be Their Downfall?" *sigh*

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/04/26/will-nintendos-pride-be-its-downfall/

Yeah, it's about pride.

A game like Angry Birds is everything a Nintendo game should be – colorful but not cloying, accessible but not simple, fun for five-year olds and difficult enough for anyone.

*barf*

 

[Always-honest]

There is a big difference between " how much money do i think a regular iOS game make?" and "how much money would Nintendo games on smartphones and tablets make?".