while they might welcome any and all sorts of games on their system, they aren't willing to bend so far that their platform resembles a ps4 or an xbox one. i think they prefer making their own franchises popular enough so that people copy those- to build their own ecosystem and predictable and lucrative fanbase versus hoping sony's or microsoft's will suddenly be interested in the kinds of games nintendo makes.
-
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.
Nintendo FY14 Q1: 0.82M 3DS, 0.51M Wii U, MK8 2.82M shipped, 10 billion yen loss
- Thread starter 1st Course
- Start date
while they might welcome any and all sorts of games on their system, they aren't willing to bend so far that their platform resembles a ps4 or an xbox one. i think they prefer making their own franchises popular enough so that people copy those- to build their own ecosystem and predictable and lucrative fanbase versus hoping sony's or microsoft's will suddenly be interested in the kinds of games nintendo makes.
Hmm. I've heard some compelling arguments that Nintendo moving to mobile could devalue the brand. I personally disagree, but I can see their viewpoint. Personally I think Nintendo would be the first big game company capable of demanding $20-$30 for iOS and Android games. But the idea of Nintendo releasing their games on other platforms just feels like such an impossibility.
Smartphone gaming & steam sales have already devalued the industry. Now, people want things for free or for ridiculously cheap prices. On Steam, people seldom don't buy the games at standard price, but instead just wait for steam sales. Apple are apparently getting frustrated because people are not willing to spend money on games as much as they had hoped.
Hell, I run arguably the most popular Pokémon fan community. When Pokémon Battle Trozei was announced/released, a small £8 game but with a decent amount of content, there were so many ridiculous posts on my site's facebook saying "It should be free". Hell, there were even comments akin to this for the full retail title, Pokémon Art Academy. The industry has been devalued and it is getting worse.
If Nintendo put their titles on smartphones, it would absolutely devalue their brands. People would think "Why should I spend £40 on this new Mario for the Wii U when I can get this Mario for £0.99 on the iOS store".
it's kind of odd and astounding to see katsuhito yamauchi being propped up. the dude has only been doing pokemon anime stuff (although now i guess he's a planning manager?), and he's in his mid-50s. not sure what qualifications he'd have for president other than being hiroshi yamauchi's son.
Phone games struggle even at 99c now. Nintendo won't change that.
Bony Manifesto
Member
Well, Hiroshi Yamauchi had absolutely no qualifications other than family ties when he took over Nintendo...
boviscopophobic
Member
My fanfiction explanation is that he makes a good figurehead for this rumored cabal of anti-Iwata management. He will garner support just because of his lineage. At the same time, having little gaming cred of his own, he is weak and will therefore not get in the way of the plans to bring us New New Super Mario Bros. on iOS with microtransactions.
I will wait for more informed and credible speculations from our Nintendo experts.
Chittagong
Gold Member
I fear the lack of understanding and culture for development and online services runs too deep in the company. You don't simply decide to make better developer tools, they are rooted on developers being in charge of thr console architecture, the OS, the tool chain, the API, the documentation, the policies - like Cerny. And you don't just simply do online services when you haven't even understood game licenses that are tied to account instead of hardware, you have to build a culture of online services.
In that sense Nintendo's competences are better aligned to creating excellent gaming experiences rather than creating developer and service platforms. When their lack of skills in platform building actively hinder the success of their franchises, it's worth questioning whether the tail is wagging the dog.
shinra-bansho
Member
Waiting for the "mobile gaming bubble to burst" - good luck with that.
No, they posted a net loss as well as an operating loss. Also, iirc, the Wii U hardware is still produced at a loss, however most of the inventory they expect to sell this year was impaired in the last fiscal year so they expect "almost no loss" on the sale of hardware units.
About 3rd parties in general, right now Sony seems to be one most interested in changing the business modell, games as some kind of service with monthly or yearly fees. The interesting part at least to me is that also some 3rd parties have something like this in mind, case in point EA Access, there goal in future will likely be to have such a service on their own.
That´s something they are really working on and it will be interesting to see how this will affect the amount of royalties there actually will be to get, and what implication this will have on the current business-modell (heavy on 3rd party royalties) especially Sony and Microsoft seem to rely on. This is something that I doubt will have any major affect in the next few years, but the end goal will likely be to become as autonomous as possible. Especially EA, who actually dwarf Sony when it comes to market relevant software releases/sales peerformance could cause a big hole in future when it comes to 3rd party royalties, at the very least they´ll likely push this kind of service (in general be it console, smart devices, PC, and maybe even on "smart" TVs in future) to have to pay as little as possible going on.
That´s something they are really working on and it will be interesting to see how this will affect the amount of royalties there actually will be to get, and what implication this will have on the current business-modell (heavy on 3rd party royalties) especially Sony and Microsoft seem to rely on. This is something that I doubt will have any major affect in the next few years, but the end goal will likely be to become as autonomous as possible. Especially EA, who actually dwarf Sony when it comes to market relevant software releases/sales peerformance could cause a big hole in future when it comes to 3rd party royalties, at the very least they´ll likely push this kind of service (in general be it console, smart devices, PC, and maybe even on "smart" TVs in future) to have to pay as little as possible going on.
About the time when we could see the new systems appearing, this has been said in May's Investor Briefing.
This is what has been discussed back in January
And this is what Iwata said in May about it.
http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/library/events/140508qa/index.html
So, the two main things coming from both answers:
- some of the mid-to-long-term projects will become more clear in the next FY, to the point they'll be offered to the public.
- the redefinition of systems will require approximately two years
Let's see the goals discussed at the January Briefing:
We know next FY will be when QOL launches (more precisely, during next FY and withing 2015, so between April 1st 2015 and December 31st 2015).
Using smart devices will be seen in the current and next FYs, and we already started seeing this with Mario Kart TV
amiibos are using their IPs in a different way, and they're coming this Holiday, so this FY.
Since they talked about some of the goals becoming offerable to the public in the next FY (between April 1st 2015 and March 31st 2016), and QOL is one of them, what else are we going to see in the next Fiscal Year? I suppose seeing the first console under the new guidelines (console being more like brothers, etc.etc.) could be among them. Especially if we combine that with how Iwata said it'll be about two years before we see the redefinition. Since that was said in May, around 2 years and being out in the FY ending March 2016 can perfectly match under the theory that next handheld releases between January and March 2016, which would be almost two years from May, while Holiday 2016 would be 2 years and 6-7 months since the statement.
This is what has been discussed back in January
And this is what Iwata said in May about it.
http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/library/events/140508qa/index.html
So, the two main things coming from both answers:
- some of the mid-to-long-term projects will become more clear in the next FY, to the point they'll be offered to the public.
- the redefinition of systems will require approximately two years
Let's see the goals discussed at the January Briefing:
We know next FY will be when QOL launches (more precisely, during next FY and withing 2015, so between April 1st 2015 and December 31st 2015).
Using smart devices will be seen in the current and next FYs, and we already started seeing this with Mario Kart TV
amiibos are using their IPs in a different way, and they're coming this Holiday, so this FY.
Since they talked about some of the goals becoming offerable to the public in the next FY (between April 1st 2015 and March 31st 2016), and QOL is one of them, what else are we going to see in the next Fiscal Year? I suppose seeing the first console under the new guidelines (console being more like brothers, etc.etc.) could be among them. Especially if we combine that with how Iwata said it'll be about two years before we see the redefinition. Since that was said in May, around 2 years and being out in the FY ending March 2016 can perfectly match under the theory that next handheld releases between January and March 2016, which would be almost two years from May, while Holiday 2016 would be 2 years and 6-7 months since the statement.
Narpas Sword0
Member
Substitute Nintendo for blackberry, in house library for BBM, multiplat for apps
Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
Im sure Nintendo will do mobile games but it'll be on their watch. That means on their own shit. Redefining the industry is going to be done by them and they will be the first to reap the rewards obviously. I dont know what they got planned especially gaming hardware wise but whatever is will be completely unpredicted by anyone here.
I don't know if that's a good analogy. Blackberry was an enterprise product and focused on that despite market trends, really a different beast in terms of tech, industry, product design, and focus. If Nintendo had never branched out and remained focused on motion controls at the expense of everything else then I could see that. But they innovated a great deal after the Wii, moved onto HD, and while not having the most diverse marketplace in terms of publishers it is pretty robust (they're netting tons of indie titles).
Mobile gaming is vulnerable because it relies on a minute subset of gamers who actually pay into free to play games. What would happen if that minute subset decide to just stop paying into those free to play games especially as more and more regulations against the nasty practices F2P games generally have start popping up? Could mobile gaming be as successful as it currently is without F2P?
The Maverick
Member
This is quite a lot of faith to put in a company that has mismanaged just about every transition to modern day gaming possible. Account systems, HD development, region locking, user interfaces, digital storefronts, etc. They've made missteps on every single one. They have not earned the confidence to claim that they will redefine anything.
I think this is a valid point to consider. The market has seen the alternative and spoken their preference. There's no going back. This is the new norm, and is what people would have chosen if it was an option.
In the face of this current mobile gaming climate where the value of games are this low, how do you propose that Nintendo fight back? As I understand it, you are staunchly against them going mobile. So you think they should try to weather the mobile storm and wait for the fad to pass? Lower the prices of their games, right as game development costs have hit an all time high? Switch to Quality of Life stuff permanently?
Nikodemos
Member
Where is that infographic showing that 10% 'whale' users support the entire current mobile gaming market?
Answer to second question: no, it would definitely shrink. Answer to first question: after the collapse of the F2P market due to those sorts of games getting reclassified as online gambling, the mobile dev environment will reorient itself to the $5-10 tier. There will be fewer new game releases, though thankfully fewer copycats as well.
That reclassification that is going on is seriously going to damage the F2P market. It's why I see a crash, especially with so many developers putting all their eggs into it.
Nintendo can plod along as it nears. They don't have to switch to QoL permanently or lower prices (though flexible pricing is a great idea)
It's actually a bit more drastic than that, according to several studies: 0.15% of the whole mobile devices owners provide the 50% of F2P revenue. ...Yep.
When there is too much on offer or the balance between supply and demand is getting skewed, prices go down, margins get smaller, studio's go out of business and the market looses its appeal. Only the best/strongest survive and the balance restores itself after a while.
No? This goes for both console games and mobile games i think. And there will always be enough people wanting a Zelda/Metroid experience, and no number of Angry birds is going to change that, i think.
No? This goes for both console games and mobile games i think. And there will always be enough people wanting a Zelda/Metroid experience, and no number of Angry birds is going to change that, i think.
Fourth Storm
Member
This past year was a net loss as well but in the FY ending March 2013 it was a 7,099 yen net income gain. They got lucky due to exchange rate basically, whereas as in prior years it had been eating into their profits. Still poor business as the operating loss shows, but the bleeding of money was temporarily stopped.
http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2013/annual1303e.pdf
You're right about Wii U production. It still boggles my mind they would devise a console that is so costly.
theprodigy
Member
Hahaha
I don't care for mobile games, but I do get a kick out of people desperately claiming it will collapse any day now.
I don't care for mobile games, but I do get a kick out of people desperately claiming it will collapse any day now.
I can't wait for the whole video game bubble to burst and people to go back to tabletop RPGs.
Can't say I understand why people wanting to pay less for things that they feel have limited or less value than other things should a) be frowned upon or b) upset you. You indict steam sales and "mobile games" despite all evidence pointing to digital distribution, F2P, and for a while Facebook and browser games growing the PC market to new heights. It is a healthy, sustainable market now that is growing annually instead of declining.
The reality is that there are multiple tiers of the market-- there are people who would be satisfied with F2P, there are people who would be satisfied with $29.99, and there are people who would be satisfied with full price, console experiences.
Nintendo used to serve the people who wanted simplicity, accessibility, and cost in addition to people who wanted core Nintendo experiences. The smartphone revolution has made it such that Nintendo is no longer the cheapest, the easiest, or the most accessibly way to play games. Hence, those people left.
This is not a devaluing of the market. This is the market more in tune with what people actually want. That you would suggest this is a "devaluing" is little more than someone stamping their feet and saying, "Stop liking what I don't like."
shinra-bansho
Member
Mobile gaming could change, certainly. And certain games will come and go.
But the fanciful notion that people playing games on their phones and tablets is some sort of passing fancy is nonsense.
And the willing of its demise as if it will bring some sort of mass return of consumers to the Shangri-La of dedicated devices again, equally so.
Oh, I misread your statement; I thought you were talking about the last year ended. Yes, you're right there was a net income in FYE3/13. The operating loss/income is the more pertinent part anyway.
Pancakes R Us
Member
Except the number of people wanting that experience is getting smaller and smaller, as evidenced by sales numbers.
SerTapTap
Member
Square seems to do okay at $15 for some FF games, though people bitch endlessly about that fact, and they're guilt of some FTP garbage as well, like the swiping game that shall not be named.
Nintentoast
Banned
They would make money, sure. And maybe even the brand would become stronger. But then nobody would ever buy Nintendo hardware again, and we'd all be forced to play what were once some of the best franchises in gaming on touch screens. So if it's true that Iwata is staving off upper management on this, then kudos to him. (But PS, I don't believe that rumor)
SenatorBot
Member
I wonder if there is any credence towards this report on how there's turmoil between Iwata and the management.
GOGOheadray
Member
Nintendo is going to have no choice but to play with the major ballers in the industry if they are intent on maintaining a home console presence. Most games that are sold today are of the third party variety and the fact that nintendo has ignored this fact is haunting them . Nintendo's way is no longer working and only appeals to a rapidly shrinking market.
GOGOheadray
Member
Where there is smoke there is fire. I'm sure stockholders and investors have the same information we have and even more to be exact; just with the limited info we have we know things aren't looking good. Imagine what the stockholders and others in nintendo are seeing
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
Consumers might not want to pay more for a videogame than they do for a single song on iTunes but it is really difficult to justify that price as being 'its true worth'.
Nintentoast
Banned
Well the stock holders had their chance to do something about it back in June, and we all know what happened there.
WHen Hiroshi Yamauchi took over Nintendo, Nintendo was still a fairly small company focusing on Hanafuda cards. He was also a ruthless businessman, something that Katsuhito Yamauchi isn't. There's a reason why Katsuhito is producing Pokemon movies, he doesn't want to to run the company like his father did, so to hear his name being bought up as a potential successor is a bit odd.
That's fundamentally not a belief held by capitalists. There is a tremendous amount of information given to us by prices. Things are worth what people are willing to pay.
That is, mind you, that if the market doesn't support a $34.99 price point for Pokemon Trozei, then...well, you can finish the sentence.
I don't know how you would arrive at some game's intrinsic value. Seems like a completely subjective measure based on how much you like something.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
No, market equilibrium is the place where costs and pricing align that a sustainable market can occur.
Right now neither the AAA market nor the mobile market are at anything close to sustainability; mobile has gone insane with a race to the bottom (and due to a discovery problem, you have seen market leaders doing the equivalent of price dumping to push others out) and AAA has gone insane with development budgets.
Mobile now is where facebook gaming was a few years back; it is just not sustainable.
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
Its nice to prefer things but the problem is that "ecosystem" that they don't appeal to is pretty much 90% of the hardcore gaming market. They can't appeal to casual customers and they can't appeal to the dedicated gamers.
This makes no sense. Where are you pulling these terms from? Market equilibrium is the price that "clears" a market; the "competitive price" in which the amount of goods that buyers want to buy is exactly equal to the amount of goods sellers want to sell is when a market is said to be in equilibrium.
There's no measure of cost in market equilibria. There are a number of reasons why a market would be stuck out of equilibrium, like natural monopoly for one or patent protection for another, but this isn't a function of cost (ok, lying here about natural monopolies, but only indirectly).
I am not sure what you are talking about. You just don't seem to like mobile gaming.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
Competitive market equilibrium is entirely about costs and benefits as the end result is pareto efficiency.
I have no problem with mobile gaming, I have a problem with the current mobile market.
metalslimer
Member
I bet a good chunk of the people complaining about mobile gaming were right there defending the wii line as people were wishing it would crash. And I laugh at people expecting some mobile gaming crash as if people will suddenly not want to play games on their phone or tablet.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
I must have missed that part where Wii games were maximum retail price $0.99.
Wii sports is quite a bit different than the current mobile landscape, sorry. I don't recall having to buy a bowling ball after my third throw, or taking the option of waiting 24h to finish the match.
And last I recall, 30+ million copies of Mario kart weren't sold for a buck a pop.
metalslimer
Member
Yes because it was so much better to spend 50 bucks on some of that crap. The games market can crash if they can't find a sustainable way to compete against mobile games.
Its quite confusing that people seem to be suggesting artificially inflating the price of games to prevent some devaluation of the market. I dont think I've ever seen consumers argue the price of something should be higher before.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
Mobile is facebook gaming made more convenient, in the same way that market jumped from Wii before that. Those users aren't dissapearing, they are just going elsewhere. Your claims about sustainability are laughable, since is not based on facts, just clear prejudice.
Fourth Storm
Member
Mobile gaming is a bit of a "Wild West" situation as of now, but that's only because the big boys haven't devoted their full resources to development for it yet. Like every market, I am sure a few will begin to dominate, and customers will end up paying more than "free" or "99 cents" either up front or little by little.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
Likewise the games market can crash if all titles produced are price-capped at a sub-$1 threshold because people keep seeing how much money a few titles rake in, and expect to sell 10 million copies of their $0.99 game and stay in business after they've spent their $5 million venture capitalist investment on production budget, then end up selling 200 copies.
It is mental for the 'traditional' gaming market to expect every game to be COD and set production budgets accordingly.
It is just as mental for the mobile gaming market to expect every game to be candy crush saga and set pricing accordingly.
EDIT:
Relaxed Muscle
Member
You wouldn't have to spent 60$ to get a Wii Sports game on mobile, only 5$, that's why people are jumping ship from Wii to smartphones.
And yeah, the company making the game for 5$ makes a profit, because is a game that can be made by 4 people on a garage instead of 30 people on a Nintendo building.