Is there? Perhaps if they could get away with selling $39.99 games on smartphones and tablets. I don't see how the company would sustain its current size otherwise.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
How Much Money Do We Think iOS Games Actually Make?!
- Thread starter RedSwirl
- Start date
Is there? Perhaps if they could get away with selling $39.99 games on smartphones and tablets. I don't see how the company would sustain its current size otherwise.
Version 3.0
Member
Yes, because of the ridiculous gold rush mentality of the Wii and DS booms. Nintendo's valuation was laughably inflated. The people who bought into that are just as dumb as the people who think them making iOS games is a good idea.
The answer to both questions is "Nowhere near enough"
They would have had to sell nearly 1.3 billion copies of New Super Mario Bros on iOS at 99 cents to make back what they made revenue-wise for NSMB DS (this is including 30% taken off by Apple). At 2.99, they would have to sell over 430 million copies. There's your revenue comparison.
Now; the best idea I've heard in these threads is bringing the Virtual Console to iOS. Nintendo could sell games for 2.99-4.99 like that, without cannibalizing sales of their new titles on the 3DS. Games like the Kirby series (or Advance Wars, as mentioned previously) would work fantastically. They could also make partner apps or lite games that introduce other games that are about to release, to build up interest and hype. Many developers do that today, releasing iOS tie-ins shortly before their new console game.
The main problem is the media doesn't want that, but wants the flagship mario game on there. That just won't happen any time soon.
I must have missed the post that suggested doing that. You should quote it so we can all point and laugh. Or you should quit making up ridiculous straw men.
charlequin
Banned
I know it's important to compare apples to apples (*snrk*) in general and you guys think you're making a good point when you bring this up, but cutting out Nintendo's hardware actually obfuscates the point that this comparison is intended to raise.
If you wanted to compare Apple and Nintendo to one another, you're right: you would have to compare overall revenues of both companies. That's because both Apple and Nintendo build their business around vertical integration of their software and hardware (although their actual pricing models are very different; Apple is way more hardware-tilted.)
That's not what we're trying to do here at all, though. Instead, we're trying to determine if Nintendo would be better off as a third-party of Apple than they are as a first-party. What we can establish with a quick examination of the issue:
- Nintendo can't easily go in just a little bit on such a move. The nature of their vertical integration means that their exclusive software is what drives hardware sales (as you can see from all the people saying "man I wish Nintendo games were on iOS, then I wouldn't need to buy Nintendo hardware for them.") Breaking from this pattern would cause devaluation of their hardware way out of proportion to how much actual development they did for another platform. (Apple had to learn this lesson the hard way when they listened to similar "analysts" and let people sell their software on other companies' computers.)
- Nintendo could expect to be a very successful developer overall on a platform like iOS, but there's still a limit to how successful that could be. Nintendo certainly isn't going to generate sales equal to the entirety of existing App Store revenue. In likelihood, they're not going to swallow up even, say, 1/6th of it; the market's the size it is and there's lots of entrenched competition in the space already.
- Nintendo's ability to position and market their products, to increase the scope of their products, and to keep their products selling over time would all be significantly reduced operating in someone else's sandbox than they are now.
With all that stuff on the table, making the financial case for Nintendo to move into iOS support just isn't possible, even though iOS can be a very lucrative platform for many other developers with different needs -- it's talking about throwing away a historically profitable business for a chance at success in a business that, at very best, would provide far lower revenues than they're earning now. The only time this could ever make sense is in a situation where Nintendo's own hardware is beyond the slightest hope of salvating and literally every other dedicated gaming hardware company was abandoning the industry as well; we're not anywhere close to such a situation today.
But this sabotages your own point. People don't buy smartphones to serve as phones, because phone service is basically irrelevant; they buy them as portable 3G internet/app devices. The pull of the existing ecosystems on iOS and Android is so strong that even powerful brands like Blackberry and Windows Phone can't get any traction in today's smartphone market -- it literally doesn't matter how good these devices are because they aren't tapped into the ecosystems that fuel the market leaders.
If Sony or Nintendo made their own phone platform... it's not going to have Instagram, or Read It Later, or a wealth of Twitter clients, or any of the other stuff that people actually use on their phones. Its ability to move the needle on the mobile phone market will be basically zero, and none of the people like SmokyDave who are excited to play games on their phone will trade in their current phones for these ones just because they've added phone support.
I was posting a more direct and obvious, software revenue comparison since you disliked the one posted that included hardware. I was not claiming you made that argument. I could've worded the last sentence of the paragraph more nicely, but I believe my following sentences make it clear that I'm not here to say it should never happen in any way, shape or form.
charlequin
Banned
Yeah, I could at least see the argument that correctly handled, this could be to Nintendo as Windows support for iPod was to Apple -- a calculated brand extension that could serve as a useful way to draw people into their own ecosystem.
It'd involve a far cannier handling of their back catalog than they're doing now, though. You'd need an account-based "Virtual Console" service, with a huge range of titles, priced to move (i.e. most titles cheaper than they are now); buying once would have to give you access to the same game on every supported system, ideally with cloud saves (so you could start playing on your iPhone, then pick it up on 3DS or Wii U seamlessly.) With an approach like that, you might be able to tap an element of the casual phone market while still pushing consumers towards their own hardware.
I'm not sure this'd really even be a good idea, and it'd be hard to pull off even if it was, but it's the closest thing to a viable iOS strategy (that doesn't undermine their hardware business) I can think of.
Yea it would require them to do a lot of overhaul to their current VC strategy which currently is overpriced, not really well curated and very fire and forget. If they could tie them together in a meaningful way, like you say, then it may be possible. Especially the cloud save idea. If handled properly it could be an effective gateway strategy, or at least capitalize on some nostalgia and offer experiences a lot of us remember as we get older.
Well, doesn't Nintendo also make a percentage of non-Nintendo games sold on their systems? I'm sure that's something they would have to consider.
People are trying to use specifics to help their argument, when there's so much more that we have no idea about.
App developers make money on their game, that's it (unless you can get away with selling plush dolls). Nintendo makes money on hardware, 1st party games, 3rd party games, etc.
And Nintendo going to ios, and keeping their current lineups would have an adverse effect on their bottom line.
Not counting the gogo years, they have been ~$1B a year company (profit, not revenue). Could they be the same thing as a third party? I say absolutely. They couldn't be a $5B a year third party, though, so if that's really the upside (rather than an aberration) then third party is a bad choice.
On the other hand, if smartphones are stealing share from Nintendo handhelds, they might not be able to be a ~$1B a year first party, in which case third party would be the better choice. They lost half a billion this year, and they forecast earning a quarter billion next year. Are they going to do 4x the following year?
This is like the best thing you've ever posted. Awesome.
So well articulated. Much better than any of us have done. That should be very easily understood by everyone.
The bolded is the rub though isn't it. You don't actually have a clue whether or not they could. So all of your following calculations about whether or not they could do 1 billion a year at least is pointless. Because 1 billion a year itself is just a figure you are pulling out of thin air. Something you think they could sustain. Needless to say, no business makes company restructuring decisions like that. And for good reason.
Well, of course I don't. I also don't have a clue whether they can ever make $1B a year again, period. Neither do you, and neither does Nintendo. All business makes decisions without knowing, because fortune tellers don't exist. So you do your research and you take your best guess.
For the record, Nintendo has had to revise and/or missed earnings for something like 12 straight quarters, so clearly they don't have clue either.
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
Yeah, he pretty much definitively stated what I've been trying to say in the entire thread since the first post. At least now we have a single post to point at now.
Yes, and one is shrinking and the other is growing. How long until they cross? A year? Two? It won't be long.
Actually, Nintendo doesn't make any money now. You're conflating revenue with profit.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Only this year for the first time in 30 years.
And considering that 3DS is actually selling better than the DS at the same point in its lifecycle, there's no reason to attribute this loss to any real change in market demand for Nintendo consoles.
No "shrinking" has even been demonstrated yet.
Warm Machine
Member
I still maintain that there is a massive market for a Nintendo branded, youth focused, smartphone.
A piece of tech that doesn't seem as extravagant as an iPhone but has good application and gaming capabilities. Parental supervised contact lists as well as always on GPS so a parent can track their child or recover the phone if lost.
This isn't a machine for teens or adults, but a device that services children that parents are comfortable buying them. Like a Firefly phone but much better. It is a matter of a scant few years before every family member from as young as 5 will have a cell in the developed world.
Nintendo is positioned better than Apple to build such a device because of the companies family friendly branding. The cell infrastructure can be supplied by RIM or Samsung or HTC or whoever.
A piece of tech that doesn't seem as extravagant as an iPhone but has good application and gaming capabilities. Parental supervised contact lists as well as always on GPS so a parent can track their child or recover the phone if lost.
This isn't a machine for teens or adults, but a device that services children that parents are comfortable buying them. Like a Firefly phone but much better. It is a matter of a scant few years before every family member from as young as 5 will have a cell in the developed world.
Nintendo is positioned better than Apple to build such a device because of the companies family friendly branding. The cell infrastructure can be supplied by RIM or Samsung or HTC or whoever.
You mean other than the fact that Nintendo needed a 40% panic price cut on the 3DS, and were forced to sell them at a loss? Oh, and the missing of the forecasted sales for the DS, 3DS and Wii? Probably none of that has anything to do with the loss, or the smaller-than-expected profit forecast for this year, and none of that demonstrates softening of demand for Nintendo consoles.
Dreamwriter
Member
GoingGreen
Banned
Most likely it's a combination of both...that what percentage is what, that we don't know. Kids are growing up with iPod Touches and iPhones and that should present a scary reality for Nintendo.
I haven't exactly read through this thread in any real detail, but to answer the question posed in the OP...
A good iOS game (top 100 grossing - the only chart that really matters) is making tens of thousands of dollar a day and can make back its budget in its first week. Advertising is so cheap on mobile that a good free-to-play game on iOS prints money, as you make significantly more money per user than it costs to acquire them and you're literally unable to dump people into the game fast enough.
A good iOS game (top 100 grossing - the only chart that really matters) is making tens of thousands of dollar a day and can make back its budget in its first week. Advertising is so cheap on mobile that a good free-to-play game on iOS prints money, as you make significantly more money per user than it costs to acquire them and you're literally unable to dump people into the game fast enough.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
The price cut of the 3DS brought it back in line with the pricing of previous Nintendo handhelds.
The only thing different this generation is that Nintendo thought it could get away with a more expensive handheld than before, and with none of its flagship games available. That was a miscalculation... But as soon as the price was corrected, and Mario games showed up, it sold like hotcakes.
And DS and Wii are ancient. In any other console generation, you would fully expect sales to drop off 5+ years. There is nothing out of the ordinary there compared to previous lifecycles. At that age, consoles like GBA, GameCube and even Xbox were already put to sleep.
Nothing has changed in terms of market demand for Nintendo consoles, or handhelds in particular (aside from normal end of generation hardware decline). Their financial loss is due to several decisions within the company ... Once Mario Kart 7 and 3D Land were on shelves with a 3DS priced like previous handhelds, we immediately witnessed an "it prints money" situation for software and hardware, so any talk about smartphones causing Nintendo's 2011 woes suddenly seems very inaccurate.
They're also growing up with Mario and Pokemon.
When you miss your forecast then sales are not as expected, pretty much by definition. And when you are losing money then you are not n an "it prints money" situation, also by definition.
test_account
XP-39C²
Looks really cool! Music is really cool too!
Version 3.0
Member
Mega Man is on iOS. How well has it sold? Most people probably still think of Mega Man as a "Nintendo" game.
Yes.
Nintendo going third party for hardware in general is a whole other, very old discussion.
If Nintendo went all in and I mean all in on iphone development I bet they could double the entire rest of the marketplace in two or three years. People would go nuts buying all the old Mario and Pokémon and zelda titles.
This of course, is just as pie in the sky as saying Nintendo would ever go for such a method and I'm not sure even then that they'd make as much money as they do with the current route.
charlequin
Banned
This is really kind of a silly point. The 3DS was overpriced at launch, pretty straightforwardly. Having to move quickly to fix that situation doesn't speak to an innate loss of demand, any more than Sony's struggles early on with the PS3 mean that "nobody wanted" that system.
The performance of the system in Japan post-drop pretty strongly indicates that there, at least, the actual core demand for a system like this is basically unchanged. If you want to argue that the slower uptake (even after the pricedrop) in the US suggests that this market has gotten permanently hostile to Nintendo's offerings, then sure, do that, but just citing the pricedrop out of context is pretty useless.
Haha, eventually the lifetime revenues of all iOS developers combined will of course match what Nintendo does in a single year. That is still a far cry from any single iOS dev matching what Nintendo does in one year, which would be the ultimate comparison.
I'm aware of the difference, but you cannot hope to be comparably profitable in the long term with revenues a smidgen of your current.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
I think way too many of you are thinking about this irrationally.
You can look at the 3DS in Japan and see that handheld console gaming isn't going to go away. With the way the system is selling there currently it is guaranteed support. On the other end I think some are fooling themselves if they don't think phones have had a significant impact on the industry particularly in western markets.
They have. Now does that mean all hope is lost for handheld console gaming in the western world? Nope. In another thread I made the point that all it takes is a Tetris or Pokemon... or an Angry Birds to catch that market. The fact that it's just an app away from your phone is icing.
The games are cheap, and more than a few are "iffy" but you can say the same for any home or handheld console out there. You always look to the best of the output to see the potential, never the worst.
In the end I have no clue what Sony or Nintendo can do to keep that market in their grasps. I don't think Nintendo in particular is going to be hurting in the American market, but I can definitely see the handheld console market being a good bit smaller this generation. In America... which also happens to be pretty much the largest market.
Just do what you did. Give people a reason to care. If the wares they want are there they will flock.
You can look at the 3DS in Japan and see that handheld console gaming isn't going to go away. With the way the system is selling there currently it is guaranteed support. On the other end I think some are fooling themselves if they don't think phones have had a significant impact on the industry particularly in western markets.
They have. Now does that mean all hope is lost for handheld console gaming in the western world? Nope. In another thread I made the point that all it takes is a Tetris or Pokemon... or an Angry Birds to catch that market. The fact that it's just an app away from your phone is icing.
The games are cheap, and more than a few are "iffy" but you can say the same for any home or handheld console out there. You always look to the best of the output to see the potential, never the worst.
In the end I have no clue what Sony or Nintendo can do to keep that market in their grasps. I don't think Nintendo in particular is going to be hurting in the American market, but I can definitely see the handheld console market being a good bit smaller this generation. In America... which also happens to be pretty much the largest market.
Just do what you did. Give people a reason to care. If the wares they want are there they will flock.
Neon_Icarus
Member
Going thirdparty made a lot of sense for Nintendo during the PSX/PS2 days too. I think we can all agree that it would have been a mistake though.
Well done. A post that should be required reading for all who enter threads and especially comment in threads or write op-eds/articles about the demand for Nintendo going to iOS/Android.
I think VC titles or game demos on iOS might be something, but nothing more than that.
Bingo. My kids have access to gaming on many platforms. They much prefer dedicated handhelds and consoles, but when you are unexpectedly waiting somewhere, the iPhone is there and so is Angry Birds (barf) and Skylanders Cloud Patrol. There is room for all with marketshare, mindshare, revenue and profit for each company involved to fluctuate over time.