Buddha Beam
Banned
I bought a refurbed 3DS XL from Nintendo's website. It's seriously as good as new. You really won't regret it, I promise you. I don't know why I wasn't looking at Nintendo's refurbed stuff years ago, honestly.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
How many console games would Nintendo sell if they went strictly third party?
- Thread starter brigadeer
- Start date
- Status
TitusGroan
Banned
Guys, guys, we're missing out the real question here:
We've established that family games like Sonic and Skylanders sell better on Nintendo hardware. We've seen Sony invest in games like Puppeteer, only for them to bomb despite the PS3's 80 million+ userbase. Microsoft tried investing in games like Kameo, yet they flopped compared to other 360 games available at the time. No matter what they do, Sony and Microsoft can't seem to consistently get their family games to sell in big numbers.
So, should Sony and Microsoft sell their family-friendly games on Nintendo hardware? It's obvious that Puppeteer couldn't bomb any harder on Nintendo platforms than it did on PS3, and there's clearly an appeal for gamers who already buy games like Mario and Donkey Kong. Put Tearaway on the Wii U, market it is a spiritual successor to Mario 64, and the Nintendo fans would buy it in droves, right? Get Viva Pinata, sell it alongside Animal Crossing, and Microsoft would be laughing al the way to the bank, yes?
Microsoft and Sony on Nintendo platforms. Let's discuss.
We've established that family games like Sonic and Skylanders sell better on Nintendo hardware. We've seen Sony invest in games like Puppeteer, only for them to bomb despite the PS3's 80 million+ userbase. Microsoft tried investing in games like Kameo, yet they flopped compared to other 360 games available at the time. No matter what they do, Sony and Microsoft can't seem to consistently get their family games to sell in big numbers.
So, should Sony and Microsoft sell their family-friendly games on Nintendo hardware? It's obvious that Puppeteer couldn't bomb any harder on Nintendo platforms than it did on PS3, and there's clearly an appeal for gamers who already buy games like Mario and Donkey Kong. Put Tearaway on the Wii U, market it is a spiritual successor to Mario 64, and the Nintendo fans would buy it in droves, right? Get Viva Pinata, sell it alongside Animal Crossing, and Microsoft would be laughing al the way to the bank, yes?
Microsoft and Sony on Nintendo platforms. Let's discuss.
I'm actually half-serious. There's a genuine incentive for Sony and MIcrosoft to put their family bombas on a platform where they could sell better, rather than Nintendo bring their games to platforms with no guarantee of better sales.
Where did you get the 45% figure from? I'm pretty sure the Wii U is still being sold at a loss, and I'm skeptical as to how much money Nintendo is making off royalties from 3rd parties right now.
You could also make the argument Nintendo would save money not having to spend money on R&D for hardware, and thus not required to take a large risk. I'd also bet Nintendo would be one of the few publishes both Sony and MS would ask for a wishlist when creating their new system.
So why is it fair to look at Banjo Nuts n Bolts and Viva Pinata to extrapolate how Nintendo would do on xbox/ps4?
Instead of first parties releasing their content on only one console, more people would be able to buy their titles if they released them on all platforms. Right? More profit for everyone! Why keep your exclusives on your own platform when you could be making even more money by releasing on all of them!
zackmorris
Member
No way. By just adding PS4 and Xbox one they would triple there install base. Not everyone wants to buy a console to play a handful of games. I would bet they could almost double their sales numbers on a major title by going on just the PS4 XBO. Add the PS3 and 360 and it would only go up from there.
They don't triple their instal base at all.
They triple the number of people who could buy it. Not will buy it.
Just because people could buy something doesn't mean they will, and we have no indication that people with a XBox or PS will buy Nintendo's games outside of minor anecdotal stories.
zackmorris
Member
Do you know what install base means?
TitusGroan
Banned
Name me a single family platformer on PS3 or 360 that has sold as much as Mario Galaxy. Heck, name me one that has sold as much as 3D Land. The 3DS has got around a quarter of the combined userbase of the PS3 and 360, yet Mario 3D Land has sold more than any similar platformer on those systems that I can think of.
If user base was all it came down to, then LBP Karting would have handily outsold Mario Kart 7.
Install Base (Or: Installed Customer Base):
The installed customer base are those customers who are currently using a company's products. For example, if your company sells computer printers, your installed customer base describes only those customers who have one or more of your products in operation in their home or business. The term installed customer base derives from "installed base," which is used to describe the number of a company's products that are currently in use.
The people that are buying Playstations and XBoxes are not buying Nintendo's games.
They are not Nintendo's install base.
At best, they could potentially become their install base on those platforms, but that is not a guarantee.
SkeptiMism
Member
Not arguing for Nintendo going 3rd party at all, but as has been said that comparison isn't really good. Mario Kart as insane brand recognition compared to LBP Karting.
Buddha Beam
Banned
A better comparison then would be Smash Bros vs PS All Stars. You still wind up with a similar outcome.
SkeptiMism
Member
Slightly better maybe, but just slightly. The characters in the game really didn't make the game brand known.
zackmorris
Member
First, Mario Galaxy was a wii game. The Wii had a huge install base.
Second, You can't compare a game like LBP Karting to a franchise like Mario Kart. It's like comparing how Halo sold on the 360 to how Resistance sold on the PS3 and then saying no one would buy Halo on the PS3. That's just false. Resistance didn't sell as well as Halo because it's not Halo. If Halo was on the PS3 in addition to the 360 they would have sold more copies.
A large install base will result in more game sales, plain and simple. Anyone who was already buying the game will still buy it, but now you have millions of more people who gave the opportunity to buy your game.
zero shift
Banned
The difference is that with Sega it happened pretty much instantenously. How many popular games (especially outside of Japan) have they had since they left the console business? Sega went from being one of the most relevant companies in the industry to completely irrelevant over the course of two years.
geordiemp
Member
I am agreeing with you.
CrimsonCommie
Member
Why are these topics always only about Nintendo. Has the Xbox brand ever made a profit?
Canis lupus
Member
Puppeteer wasn't marketed, it came out the worst possible time, a few days before GTA V, a few months before PS4 launch. Same goes for Beyond and GT6, games that didnt do too well due to multiple factors other than "this genre dont sell on this platform". LBP1 alone sold 5 million units.
zackmorris
Member
Do you understand the question posed in this thread? If Nintendo was to become a third party publisher, like the question in this thread implies, then anyone with a PS and Xbox would become part of Nintendo's install base.
geordiemp
Member
Jeesh, I am saying I agree with you in hindsight.
If you think that's condescending and rude then you are just out for an argument, I just bowed out of this thread and said sorry. Calm down
Which is exactly why I would like to play Sony's games on my high end gaming PC and so would many others. Therefore their game sales would go up and it's a win for Sony. Lbp karting should have released on the Wii as well. Why isn't sony porting their games to other places for extra profit?
Little big planet would have made a killing on the Wii, and a game like uncharted wouldn't run like shit on a gaming PC. It would be a win for Sony, who hasn't been profitable as a gaming entity in a long time anyway. It's just more money for them!
No, they wouldn't.
They could potentially become part of their install base, but because Nintendo doesn't own either platform, they wouldn't automatically be buying Nintendo's products.
And this is the problem.
People automatically assume that if Nintendo goes to the PS4 or XBox One that everyone there will want to buy their games. When we have absolutely no evidence for that at all.
A small fraction might. And they might become Nintendo's install base. But would that be enough to offset the increased R&D and the lack of income from hardware?
The answer is a resounding no.
Gucci Messiah
Banned
Reading this on the website scared me:
Source
Now, I have never had an issue with a Nintendo product I have purchased brand new. I would rather just buy the system brand new than take a chance on getting a banged up or defective product; it's just a personal preference of mine. I'm sure the majority consumers have no issues with refurbs from Nintendo but I've gotten burned in the past with other things from other companies and am soured on the experience. Why can't we just let people spend their money how they want?
not saying you aren't, but there have been some pushy people in this thread
EDIT: Just saw this post
Obviously you are taking a pot shot at me and still trying to make the claim that I am 'moving goalposts' just because I don't want a refurbished unit. Myself and another poster asked this before and you failed to answer, but how exactly is not wanting to spend MY money on a refurbished console moving goalposts? I haven't read every comment of yours in this thread but from what I can tell over the last couple of pages, all you have done is complain about port begging (thread whining is bannable by the way), try to tell people how to spend their money, get aggressive when somebody doesn't agree with you, and fail to post anything remotely productive. If you are so damn tired of this thread topic or find it offensive, don't post in it. The thing will fall off the front page like the site creators designed Neogaf to work.
zackmorris
Member
Because right now, Sony is in a competition with Microsoft and only Microsoft. They need to have their exclusives games to give people a reason to buy their console over the competition, it's the same thing for Microsoft. Could they sell more copies of Halo if they put it out on the PS4? Of course, but by keeping it exclusive, they are trying to up their console sales numbers.
It would make zero sense for Sony to let their exclusives go on other platforms, especially if the competition isn't planning on doing the same.
SkeptiMism
Member
I don't need to calm down thank you. I'm not enraged. I was simply saying that what you said seemed to be very rude. And no I'm not looking for an argument.
Here you seemed to be saying that Wii U owners get offended at this question and thus it's not possible to have a good conversation (and seeing your previous posts in the thread it certainly strengthened the image). Surely you can see how it can easily be perceived as such?
If you genuinely meant that you think it's offensive to Wii U owners (honestly, with all due respect, I fail to see any logic in that though - why would it be offensive at all? It doesn't imply the console is dead either as Wii U isn't the only thing relevant to the question) then I apologize.
I'm also still not sure where that post came from as you quoted me there. I don't care about the question in any negative way. I think it's a perfectly valid question to think about. I was simply saying that the post I quoted was very unproductive to the topic at hand.
TitusGroan
Banned
Not saying this to be pushy, and I only bring this up because I worked briefly in customer services: companies have to say that refurb products may have blemishes. It's a legal requirement or something, not an indicator of the actual state of the products. Most of the refurb products we sent out were literally good as new.
Everything I've heard about Nintendo's refurbs is that they're pretty much identical to brand new units. And you also get the 1 year warranty. So if you did buy a refurb, and it turns out to have scratches, just send it back and say the power button isn't working or something funky, they'll send you another.
zackmorris
Member
I don't think you really grasp the term install base. If Nintendo starts to manufacture PS3 games, then anyone with a PS3 would become a part of that install base. There is nothing else to it, wether people actually buy the games or not is irrelevant to the term install base.
As far as wether people would buy the game or not? Your argument is based on nothing, just an assumption. All your saying is that you don't believe people would buy them, therefore it's not worth it for Nintendo. I'm saying that I think they will sell more, based purely on an increased number of people who would then have the chance to buy their games.
I believe that if it was during the Wii era, it wouldn't have been worth it, because everyone has wii's. I don't know one person who actually owns a Wii U, but I know a ton of people who want MK8, myself included.
Lol at Sony only being in competition with Microsoft.
I'm sorry but if you want to justify your logic your logic has to be consistent and not fractured in this manner.
You're also making assumptions. Please display, with facts, how many copies of nintendo's generally family friendly software would sell on other platforms. Keep in mind that about half of nintendo's profit margins are from their hardware iirc, so you'd have to make up for that (after the initial losses are dealt with with their recent launches) as well as the 20-30 percent or so royalty they'd have to pay on each copy. Ok, go. Facts please. Not anecdotes like "my friend and I would totally buy Mario kart".
Also, answer my post about ps4 software on PC from the previous page while you're at it.
Hyperactivity
Banned
The 30% royalty Ninty would need to pay
I took 10 million sales, then subtracted 30% of that down to 7 million
If Nintendo sold 7 million on their consoles, it would be equal to 10 million on the other two consoles
7 million back up to 10 million is close to a a 45% increase, although my math was a little off and a 45% increase would be a little above 10 million sales
zackmorris
Member
How is that fractured? If you want to make a point, maybe try to actually make that point?
93xfan
Banned
Please don't compare horrible sequels to the great software Nintendo puts out. Games like Little Big Planet do sell well, so there is a market for less "adult themed" games. I would 100% support and but Nintendo games on a PS4. I don't own a WiiU, but I would love to have their software, especially without buying into their terrible digital ownership policy.
Darth Ghandi
Banned
And what Nintendo games are comparable with those titles?
"Games would sell more if they were ported everywhere. But not games made by Sony or Microsoft". Read the rest of my edit please.
zackmorris
Member
Read my un-edited post above, because I never said that the Sony and Microsoft games wouldn't sell more if they were ported else where. Actually the opposite, I said pretty clearly that they would sell more. What I also said is that for Sony, it is more important to have an exclusive game that will draw users towards their console rather than an xbox. It's the same thing Microsoft does.
As far as your edit, I'm going to back and try and to find that, I replied to your original post, I don't really care how you tried to change your argument after the fact.
Chinpoko_Master
Member
I find the question of "Why don't Sony or MS go third party?" disingenuous and it's really not hard to understand why.
No-one asks for them to go third-party because of numerous reasons. For one, Sony and Microsoft can justify the purchase of their console off of more than just first-party releases or exclusives like Nintendo. Both have great third-party support, and most people don't buy a PS4 or an Xbox One solely to play their exclusives. They buy them to play their exclusives and other third-party games.
Meanwhile, the primary reason people buy Nintendo home consoles is to play Nintendo games and that's it. It's part of the reason why third-party sales on Nintendo home consoles are notoriously bad. Some people are tired of buying a Nintendo console and dusting it off for every new Nintendo game that comes out. Regardless of how good Nintendo's first party is, it's hard for ANY company to justify the purchase of their hardware solely off of first party releases and exclusives. But Sony and Microsoft don't have to, while NIntendo does, and as evidenced by the sales of the Wii U, it's becoming increasingly difficult for them, hence why this question continues to come up for Nintendo.
In an ideal world, all of these console exclusive games would be on PC. But it's nice to want things.
No-one asks for them to go third-party because of numerous reasons. For one, Sony and Microsoft can justify the purchase of their console off of more than just first-party releases or exclusives like Nintendo. Both have great third-party support, and most people don't buy a PS4 or an Xbox One solely to play their exclusives. They buy them to play their exclusives and other third-party games.
Meanwhile, the primary reason people buy Nintendo home consoles is to play Nintendo games and that's it. It's part of the reason why third-party sales on Nintendo home consoles are notoriously bad. Some people are tired of buying a Nintendo console and dusting it off for every new Nintendo game that comes out. Regardless of how good Nintendo's first party is, it's hard for ANY company to justify the purchase of their hardware solely off of first party releases and exclusives. But Sony and Microsoft don't have to, while NIntendo does, and as evidenced by the sales of the Wii U, it's becoming increasingly difficult for them, hence why this question continues to come up for Nintendo.
In an ideal world, all of these console exclusive games would be on PC. But it's nice to want things.
Spectral Entity
Member
If they were to go third party, I would definitely pick up new Zelda games.
Hell, I'd probably pick up a new Nintendo console if they ever revived StarTropics!
Hell, I'd probably pick up a new Nintendo console if they ever revived StarTropics!
geordiemp
Member
I just put myself in others shoes, for example I just bought a VITA or my 11 yr son (H still plays 360/ps4 mainly anyway, don't know why I bothered)....
But If there was a long thread about shutting down Vita and transferring all portable software to 3DS I would be a bit miffed at having wasted a few hundred...Bit miffed is better word tha offensive, but you get my point maybe
So, N should support WiU for next 5 years otherwise it would be a betrayal to their fans and nobody would ever trust them.
SkeptiMism
Member
Ok fair enough I guess, though the question isn't that should Nintendo stop Wii U support immediately and go 3rd party. I don't think anyone sensible is saying that.
Requiring Nintendo to support Wii U for the next 5 years (assuming you mean actively instead of some very basic support such as online servers and customer support) is a bit too much though. Until like 2016 is certainly enough. I don't think anyone can complain that they didn't get their money's worth at that point.
GifGafIsTheBestGaf
Member
i think they would sell millions, i know i wouldnt have to buy a wiiu now and just buy all the exclusives i wanted to get for the console when it gets cheaper
zackmorris
Member
I disagree with a few points though. First off, I'm a Vita owner so I'll use that as an example. I bought a vita about a year ago, and I love it. But before buying my Vita, I knew that the hardware wasn't selling well. Yet I still bought it. Now if they come out and say, we are no longer going to produce Vita's and we will be selling the IP's to a new company, I would be disappointed, but it's a risk I took by buying hardware I knew was struggling. No one forced me to buy a Vita, and Sony didn't lie to me to trick me into buying it. Now for example if Sony said we guarantee to support this hardware for the next 5 years and then can it, well in that case I'm with you and you have every reason to be mad.
Also I bought a Vita based on the software that existed, plus what was already announced to be coming out soon. Same with the Wii U, if you bought one or plan on buying one, I say do so based off the software that exists now or is confirmed to be coming out soon (I would say smash is a safe bet). But if you buy a Wii U for a Zelda game they didn't officially announce, and they never end up producing that game for whatever reason, it's not Nintendo's fault. Just like I wouldn't fault Sony if there is never a Infamous game for the Vita.
Mario Kart Wii was an anomaly. How many of those were bought as packin games or by soccer moms or kids who've moved to mobile phones? Look at the sales numbers of Double Dash, 7, 64 and Super Mario Kart for a more accurate look at the size of the fan base for the franchise.
10 Wii U exclusives is not enough for you to just buy the console?
There aren't as many people like you as you think. Outside of the internet echo chamber, the average consumer doesn't know or care much about Nintendo games.
That's my thought. The more accurate number of Nintendo fans are probably the 22 million that bought the GameCube or 34 million that bought the N64.
I was saying Xbox and PlayStation was aimed at adolescent boys, not pubescent. Adolescence = 15-19.
For someone that has no idea of what Nintendo does and doesn't follow the news related to Nintendo geordiemp surely posts a lot in the Nintendo related threads. Maybe it's a love-hate thing.
Is there any example of a game similar with the ones Nintendo does that have good sales on other consoles? No, Minecraft is not a good example, it's a cheap indie game which is more similar to mobile games than with Nintendo games. Nintendo doesn't sells even the 3ds games with $20. No, Skylanders is not a Nintendo-like game. Nintendo doesn't have anything similar, but they try now to exploit this market with the NFP. Anything else?
Edit: not all games for kids are similar with Nintendo games. And not all Nintendo games are for kids.
Is there any example of a game similar with the ones Nintendo does that have good sales on other consoles? No, Minecraft is not a good example, it's a cheap indie game which is more similar to mobile games than with Nintendo games. Nintendo doesn't sells even the 3ds games with $20. No, Skylanders is not a Nintendo-like game. Nintendo doesn't have anything similar, but they try now to exploit this market with the NFP. Anything else?
Edit: not all games for kids are similar with Nintendo games. And not all Nintendo games are for kids.
this is just insane.
I fixed that for you, see the difference?
I fixed that for you, see the difference?
there is non, makes just as much sense as before, but apparently you can't or refuse to see that.
Same reason Nintendo systems sell so poorly to GAFers in general, they only claim they want to buy Nintendo. When the opportunity presents itself they can always drum up an excuse.
zackmorris
Member
No that doesn't make sense at all actually. As far as home consoles go Sony is competing with Microsoft and Microsoft is competing with Sony, it's that simple. Look at the Xbox one and PS4 launches, you really think either of those companies were truly concerned with what Nintendo was doing with the Wii U? Sony and Microsoft are concerned about losing their base to each other not to Nintendo. Because at the end of the day for the majority of gamers, owning a Wii U is not enough. You simply miss out on too many big titles for that to be your only console. Sure there are some exceptions, people who truly only care about Nintendo first party titles and nothing else, but that is the exception not the rule. Sony and Microsoft care about selling 17 million copies of GTA 5 on their console versus 13 that the rival sold or trying to sell 8 million copies of Ghosts versus 7 million of the competition. If you think they are really concerned about the 200,000 copies that were sold on the Wii U, then you are pretty clueless.
Even thought the argument can be made that Nintendo would sell more games by going third party, it's tough to argue that they would be anywhere near as profitable as they have been historically. We have to keep in mind that they would have to pay licensing fees in addition to forsaking platform holder revenue from third parties buying games on their system. Prior to the Wii U, Nintendo only sold hardware at a profit, so it is easy to see why this business model worked because not only were they making money on hardware sales but also on their exclusive games, which in turn drew people in to buying their hardware while making money on both hardware and software. Even with the Wii U, they were initially turning a profit after selling one additional game with the Wii U. Obviously when the Wii U did not catch on as much as they had hoped this model broke down when they started selling the Wii U at a loss, which has led to Nintendo's current financial problems.
I just don't see how Nintendo could successfully pivot into a a software only company without having to massively reduce the size of the company. They are much more likely to try and return to their older business model, and if they can successfully launch a newer console that they can sell at a profit and thus return to their previous model turning a profit through hardware sales, I see no reason why Nintendo would even entertain the idea of going software only.
I just don't see how Nintendo could successfully pivot into a a software only company without having to massively reduce the size of the company. They are much more likely to try and return to their older business model, and if they can successfully launch a newer console that they can sell at a profit and thus return to their previous model turning a profit through hardware sales, I see no reason why Nintendo would even entertain the idea of going software only.
CrimsonCommie
Member
You can't understand why Xbox should go 3rd party? The reason these products are released are to make money. The Xbox brand hasn't been making money. Sony has also lost a lot of money during some years. Was the PS3 profitable? Was everybody saying they should go 3rd party and put all their games on the only truly successful console last gen? Yes I know it was a weaker console but the argument for Nintendo going 3rd party is just as weak. Nintendo just announced that they were no longer taking a loss selling the Wii U so no matter how few they sell as long as it makes them a decent profit it will be a success for their business.
If everybody went by the logic in this thread Nintendo would be the only video game console company left.
- Status