You're saying that the 3DS did no worse than the DS or GBA and can thus not be called a failure at $250.
But if it wasn't a failure at $250, then why did Nintendo choose to cut the 3DS' price by 33%~ when the other two systems had apparently been in the same boat?
Does that make it clearer? If the GBA, DS, and 3DS were all doing roughly the same at launch, why is it that Nintendo only panicked with the 3DS?
It's a horrible move. Nintendo is a hardware company as well as a software company. What sense does it make for them to make software that will appear on another companies hardware? Nintendo software only appears on Nintendo hardware is apart of what makes then Nintendo. It is what makes people buy their hardware because they have content that can not be gotten anywhere else. To put their software on another companies hardware is for them to basically destroy their entire business strategy. For what? To sell $1 games? Why when one game can make them more then the entire iOS market combined?
Expect a lot of that, not just from these types either. I think a lot of people are going to be confused by WiiU(unless the name is changed). yes they built a brand with Wii but the message of what its suppose to be does not come through with that name, people are not going to understand its a whole new system, imo. Also WiiU at $350 is a no go for me, in fact its going to take something amazing to get me in a launch line at $300.
Still most of what was said in that article is not very well thought out but what do you expect from people that don't really understand the industry or its consumers.
They would lose the same thing Apple would if they licensed iOS for other smartphone makers. An exclusive feature that gets people to buy their hardware and partake in their software ecosystem.
Wrong.The only difference is people think it's sacreligious for a Nintendo game to appear on a non Nintendo platform, that's all. Not that it's a bad move.
I certainly wouldn't want Nintendo to release new titles on phones...but would releasing a few NES games hurt them?
Couldn't they use them as a way to rake in some easy cash and as a marketing tool for the new Wii U/3DS games in the franchises? I wouldn't think that would harm their hardware sales.
Or "Sony's anticipated launch of its PlayStation 4 and Microsoft's updated Xbox at the end of 2013" :/well I cannot believe anything from that report after reading $350 for WiiU
The revenue stream comes from selling hardware via software people can't get anywhere else. A Wii U library with X number of Wii U exclusive titles, Y SNES titles, and Z NES titles is more compelling than one with X+Y titles. Those old games make the platform more valuable, and that makes Nintendo more money than the paltry sum of revenue they'd get by selling those titles elsewhere.They've sold Super Mario Bros on a console for years now, and those titles in all likelihood are going to transfer over to Wii U. What revenue stream is going to come then from Wii U with these games? Everyone has had years with the Wii to buy it who wanted it. The novelty has peaked.
Yet again: it's far less about the games themselves, and more about the IPs as a whole and their relationship to hardware.Who says it has to be $1 games? They could price them the same across all platforms. It's not a horrible move, because they've already used all the value of these games on their own hardware. No one is going to think Nintendo is less Nintendo or their hardware is less Nintendo because someone can go buy Super Mario Bros or Ice Climbers on a phone as well.
There's no arguments outside of "well this is the way it's always been and should always be stuff because I can't imagine it happening so its horrible." That kind of thinking is ridiculous.
Wrong.
I don't care about an absurd supposed "sacreligious" perception of the idea of Nintendo abandoning their exclusivity over their vital brands.
I do however assert that such a strategy would be bad bad business, and would dilute their most vital resource: their strong IPs. These franchises sell more Nintendo hardware more than any other criteria you could mention.
Appealing to these analysts would be a short sighted attempt to gain some profit from selling megacheap Nintendo games to make some meagre immedieate profit. The consequence would be diluted IPs, devalued brands, the loss of the most vital selling point of the Wii and DS hardware families, and a considerable risk to the long term profitability of the company.
It's just a bad bad idea.
It's a horrible move. Nintendo is a hardware company as well as a software company. What sense does it make for them to make software that will appear on another companies hardware? Nintendo software only appears on Nintendo hardware is apart of what makes then Nintendo. It is what makes people buy their hardware because they have content that can not be gotten anywhere else. To put their software on another companies hardware is for them to basically destroy their entire business strategy. For what? To sell $1 games? Why when one game can make them more then the entire iOS market combined? Regardless of what is said Nintendo is not in any financial trouble which makes talk about then going to be need to put games on the iOS in the future ignorant talk at best (they have not seen or bothered to look at Nintendo's financials and assets) or outright lies by the writers at worse.
It wouldn't dilute shit, that's ridiculous. You're making a hell of a lot of rash overgeneralizations over a handful of 30 year old games being available elsewhere. No one in their right mind would say "holy shit Mario Wii U just lost it's value because gollee, I can play Super Mario Bros on a whole now!"
iOS is Apple's current major product, it's not the same AT ALL.
Who says it has to be $1 games? They could price them the same across all platforms. It's not a horrible move, because they've already used all the value of these games on their own hardware. No one is going to think Nintendo is less Nintendo or their hardware is less Nintendo because someone can go buy Super Mario Bros or Ice Climbers on a phone as well.
There's no arguments outside of "well this is the way it's always been and should always be stuff because I can't imagine it happening so its horrible." That kind of thinking is ridiculous.
so who is paying for this agenda you guys are talking about? I mean I can see the bias but not sure who is leading this?
Is it just pro-USA company vs a Japanese company?
Being able to play Nintendo games only on Nintendo hardware is a principle. Those IPs are the most valuable thing they have and THE reason why people buy their hardware.
Making a few million dollars selling one dollar NES and SNES games on iOS is really not worth risking their hardware appeal.
Yes it IS. Its exactly the same.
Who says it has to be $1 games? They could price them the same across all platforms. It's not a horrible move, because they've already used all the value of these games on their own hardware. No one is going to think Nintendo is less Nintendo or their hardware is less Nintendo because someone can go buy Super Mario Bros or Ice Climbers on a phone as well.
There's no arguments outside of "well this is the way it's always been and should always be stuff because I can't imagine it happening so its horrible." That kind of thinking is ridiculous.
The fuck it is. Stop making ridiculous comparisons.
The fuck it is. Stop making ridiculous comparisons.
It's a horrible move. Nintendo is a hardware company as well as a software company.
Anyone who knows anything about Nintendo knows that they will fall on their own sword before they make games for other company's hardware.
The fuck it is. Stop making ridiculous comparisons.
Nintendo sells hardware too. The less exclusive software they have, the less reason people have to buy their hardware.
Want to use iOS or OSX? Buy Apple hardware! Want Nintendo games? Buy Nintendo hardware!
Like they did in 82 for Atari?
Nintendo does not need to put any of their games onto mobile platforms.
What they need to do is drastically rethink their current software pricing model.
I want iOS and on my droid.
Surely that would expand the market for iOS. Why does apple not allow its beloved operating system to be on other hardware?
It wouldn't dilute shit, that's ridiculous. You're making a hell of a lot of rash overgeneralizations over a handful of 30 year old games being available elsewhere. No one in their right mind would say "holy shit Mario Wii U just lost it's value because gollee, I can play Super Mario Bros on a whole now!"
It is.
I want iOS and on my droid.
Surely that would expand the market for iOS. Why does apple not allow its beloved operating system to be on other hardware?
Yup that's why these games have been available on emulators for years. Wouldn't want to sacrifice the "sacredness" of an old ass Nintendo game being available only on a Nintendo platform. That ship sailed long ago.
Any drastic strategy shift that would dispatch the Mario brothers into the realm of Android and Apple's iOS operating system would likely require a change at the top of Nintendo, said Macquarie's Gibson. And that likely won't happen for a couple of years until the Wii U is shown to be a clear failure, he added.
What if they start expecting the next New SMB game to be on iOS? I think you're drastically underestimating the impact that divorcing Nintendo software from Nintendo hardware would have.
Emulators or not, old Nintendo games are still worth a pretty penny.
You think if Nintendo released Pokemon Red/Blue on the eShop they wouldn't make any money?
You don't notice how everyone wants Apple to "win" in gaming? They blatantly ignore facts to put a negative spin on a story to make it seem like everyone's doomed if they don't pump out games on ios.
This on the other hand is something they should do. Release one of the older Pokemon games on the eShop and hack in Wi-Fi. They would make a killing off it, and it wouldn't take away a single cent from the new releases.ScreenSplitter said:You think if Nintendo released Pokemon Red/Blue on the eShop they wouldn't make any money?
We're not talking about Pokemon Red/Blue. We're talking about 30 year old games, some of which were actually available on other platforms LONG ago at that! Hell, you can play Donkey Kong in the arcades for God's sake, I did just a few weeks ago.
You think all the "Nintendo starts releasing games on iPhone!" headlines wouldn't have any potential effects on people's thoughts about Nintendo hardware? Remember that masses only see the headlines.Because the iOS is CURRENT. If Apple had something they developed 30 years ago worth value they've exhausted all revenue streams for on their own hardware platforms, that would make them money on something else, then hell yeah it would be worth it.
You're talking about the equivalent of making Super Mario 3D Land available on phones, when I'm arguing the equivalent of making Marathon or Oregon Trail available. Big difference.
Because the iOS is CURRENT. If Apple had something they developed 30 years ago worth value they've exhausted all revenue streams for on their own hardware platforms
Yup that's why these games have been available on emulators for years. Wouldn't want to sacrifice the "sacredness" of an old ass Nintendo game being available only on a Nintendo platform. That ship sailed long ago.
so who is paying for this agenda you guys are talking about? I mean I can see the bias but not sure who is leading this?
Is it just pro-USA company vs a Japanese company?
Like they did in 82 for Atari?
1.5 billion smartphones and tablet are projected to be sold in the year 2015. Nintendo on mobile platforms is a total inevitability.