Support NeoGAF

[StuBurns]

No, in no possible way is the Wii U a 'success for their business', no, and it never will be, even Nintendo expect it to do nothing in the next year, no one thinks they're going to turn the ship around.

 

[Chinpoko_Master]

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.

I never said that, I was simply explaining why no-one ever asks for them to go third-party. Besides, the decision of them going third-party is more than just whether or not they are making money. Even if it were, the Wii U is probably losing Nintendo more money than either of Sony or Microsoft's consoles right now.

It's also worth pointing out that both Microsoft and Sony have released their games on other platforms. Sony has SoE which makes games for PC. They also have PS Mobile and plan on making PS Now available on mobile devices. Microsoft have released some of their games on PC as well, like Halo and Fable. And both Sony and MS have dabbled in making mobile games based on their IPs. It's not quite going third party, but they're still branching out to other platforms.

 

[zackmorris]

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.

The difference is Nintendo's hardware is it's weak point. No one is blown away by Nintendo's hardware, and no one is buying a Wii U because of how great the hardware is. They are buying a Wii U to play the software. So it's reasonable to at least ask the question, if you could allow people to play the software without them needing to buy the hardware would it be better in terms of sales alone for Nintendo.
Assume they are breaking even on console sales, what would the downside be to publishing software on other consoles? The game sales numbers wouldn't drop, that's for sure. There is no way they could. Everyone who bought MK8 still would have bought it, there would be no issue there. The only question would be, would more people buy it if it was available on wider selection of platforms. Based of a very small sample size here, I would say yes. Is that small sample enough evidence, of course not. But it's enough the ask the question.

 

[StevieP]

The difference is Nintendo's hardware is it's weak point. No one is blown away by Nintendo's hardware, and no one is buying a Wii U because of how great the hardware is. They are buying a Wii U to play the software. So it's reasonable to at least ask the question, if you could allow people to play the software without them needing to buy the hardware would it be better in terms of sales alone for Nintendo.
Assume they are breaking even on console sales, what would the downside be to publishing software on other consoles? The game sales numbers wouldn't drop, that's for sure. There is no way they could. Everyone who bought MK8 still would have bought it, there would be no issue there. The only question would be, would more people buy it if it was available on wider selection of platforms. Based of a very small sample size here, I would say yes. Is that small sample enough evidence, of course not. But it's enough the ask the question.

Sony and Microsoft's hardware are both their weak points in comparison to my gaming PC. I'm not blown away by their hardware either, as mine was superior 4 yeArs ago now.

I'd say that playing infamous, killzone, uncharted and TLOU on high end hardware that allows me to supersample and garner > 60fps and where I'm not paying for an online would allow me to purchase these titles. Thereby garnering a sale for Sony that they wouldn't have had otherwise. There are others like me (hell this thread operates almost entirely on anecdotes like yours rather than providing data). It would, in fact, open their titles to a bigger market and allow for more software sales. Thus the crux of this thread. So, again, win win right?

Again, read my posts from 2 pages back. I'm on mobile otherwise i would poSt excerpts for you.

 

[Sandfox]

Sony and Microsoft's hardware are both their weak points in comparison to my gaming PC.

I'd say that playing infamous, killzone, uncharted and TLOU on high end hardware that allows me to supersample and garner > 60fps and where I'm not paying for an online would allow me to purchase these titles. Thereby garnering a sale for Sony that they wouldn't have had otherwise. There are others like me (hell this thread operates almost entirely on anecdotes like yours rather than providing data). It would, in fact, open their titles to a bigger market and allow for more software sales. Thus the crux of this thread. So, again, win win right?

Again, read my posts from 2 pages back. I'm on mobile otherwise i would poSt excerpts for you.

Gaming would be easier to deal with if everything was on PC lol. No exclusives or moneyhats.

 

[Gucci Messiah]

I was saying Xbox and PlayStation was aimed at adolescent boys, not pubescent. Adolescence = 15-19.

People mature at different rates, there's no point in turning this into a semantics debate. Outside of picking apart one small section of my post, can you give an answer to any of the other points I made? These consoles are being marketed towards gamers in general and even if you wanted to pigeon hole an age group, it would most likely be the 18-35 year old male that they are targeting considering these people spend the most money on video games.

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.

You do realize that the proportion of neogaf users who own a Wii U is higher than that of the general population, right? I know plenty of gaffers that have the console but nobody in real life. This is a hardcore video game centered discussion board that is not representative of the market at large, I think people forget that sometimes. You seem upset that the Wii U isn't selling very well, try to separate personal feelings from your opinions because the 'people are out to get Nintendo and just making excuses to not buy a Wii U' argument is not only silly, but played out. Accept the fact that not everyone is going to like what you like, or be willing to pay the same price for it that you are.

 

[zackmorris]

Sony and Microsoft's hardware are both their weak points in comparison to my gaming PC.

I'd say that playing infamous, killzone, uncharted and TLOU on high end hardware that allows me to supersample and garner > 60fps and where I'm not paying for an online would allow me to purchase these titles. Thereby garnering a sale for Sony that they wouldn't have had otherwise. There are others like me (hell this thread operates almost entirely on anecdotes like yours rather than providing data). It would, in fact, open their titles to a bigger market and allow for more software sales. Thus the crux of this thread. So, again, win win right?

Again, read my posts from 2 pages back. I'm on mobile otherwise i would poSt excerpts for you.

Stop trying to bring up your PC, it has no relevance to this thread. The thread title itself mentions consoles games, how powerful your PC is irrelevant. If all you want to do is play games on your PC that you think are far superior then so be it, but this thread has nothing to do with you.
This thread as mentioned in the OP "How many people out there with Xbox's and Playstation's only would buy Nintendo games?" is about the current landscape of console gaming and how Nintendo selling their games as a third party rather than a first party would effect them as a business.
What you personally play games on is irrelevant. In the console market Sony's hardware is what gives it the edge in the console market. How much of an edge and what that actually means has been debate that has been going on since before the consoles launched and still happens in every thread about third party and first party games.

As far as Sony selling their games third party, I will repeat this for the third time since clearly you are not reading things all the way through. Sony (The PS brand) is in competition with Microsoft(The Xbox brand). Just like last gen, neither of them is in direct competition with Nintendo (I explained why in the last post). In order for them to draw sales away from each other they need to offer first party exclusive titles that can not be bought anywhere else, thus drawing people in to buy their console versus the competition. As long as Microsoft has exclusives, Sony would also need to keep exclusives, preventing Microsoft from being able to offer every console game on the market and vice versa. The reason Nintendo doesn't factor in here, is because the Wii U will not get all of the third party content anyway, so if you want to play that, as a large number of gamers do, you would still need to own and Xbox or a PS. So in the race between Microsoft and Sony, if say for example Sony lets their first party content go to the Xbox, then the xbox would offer all of that content, plus the other third party plus the Xbox exclusives that you can only get on an Xbox. Then the choice would be clear, you would buy the Xbox over the PS because you can play everything.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

The difference is Nintendo's hardware is it's weak point.

Stop trying to bring up your PC, it has no relevance to this thread. The thread title itself mentions consoles games, how powerful your PC is irrelevant.

You get how laughably hypocritical this makes you, right?

 

[StevieP]

Stop trying to bring up your PC, it has no relevance to this thread. The thread title itself mentions consoles games, how powerful your PC is irrelevant. If all you want to do is play games on your PC that you think are far superior then so be it, but this thread has nothing to do with you.
This thread as mentioned in the OP "How many people out there with Xbox's and Playstation's only would buy Nintendo games?" is about the current landscape of console gaming and how Nintendo selling their games as a third party rather than a first party would effect them as a business.
What you personally play games on is irrelevant. In the console market Sony's hardware is what gives it the edge in the console market. How much of an edge and what that actually means has been debate that has been going on since before the consoles launched and still happens in every thread about third party and first party games.

As far as Sony selling their games third party, I will repeat this for the third time since clearly you are not reading things all the way through. Sony (The PS brand) is in competition with Microsoft(The Xbox brand). Just like last gen, neither of them is in direct competition with Nintendo (I explained why in the last post). In order for them to draw sales away from each other they need to offer first party exclusive titles that can not be bought anywhere else, thus drawing people in to buy their console versus the competition. As long as Microsoft has exclusives, Sony would also need to keep exclusives, preventing Microsoft from being able to offer every console game on the market and vice versa. The reason Nintendo doesn't factor in here, is because the Wii U will not get all of the third party content anyway, so if you want to play that, as a large number of gamers do, you would still need to own and Xbox or a PS. So in the race between Microsoft and Sony, if say for example Sony lets their first party content go to the Xbox, then the xbox would offer all of that content, plus the other third party plus the Xbox exclusives that you can only get on an Xbox. Then the choice would be clear, you would buy the Xbox over the PS because you can play everything.

I'm sorry I'm going to call you out again. The PC is just as much of a gaming platform as any of the consoles. In fact, it's a better gaming platform than any of them but that's a seperate discussion. You can't just dismiss it because reasons. You can't also cite hardware as a reason why nintendo's games should sell on other consoles and then dismiss the same point when it's made in regards to gaming grade pcs. You're being entirely hypocritical. I would like to play infamous on my PC. It's a lost sale if I can't, so sony would sell more copies if they offered it. It's the same discussion. Hence "win win" in the eyes of those like you that argue that Mario kart should be on the ps4.

 

[TheSlySoul]

Pokemon on iOS and Android would sell hotcakes. Mario Kart would do well. I am not sure about anything else. The appeal of most Nintendo games he gone away.

 

[zackmorris]

You get how laughably hypocritical this makes you, right?

No actually not at all. At what point did I say the Wii U was bad because it was underpowered? When did I mention the Wii U's frame rate and resolution? I said the hardware was the weak point, don't put words in my mouth.
Maybe don't pull quotes out of context or at least read the relevant surrounding information before doing so.

I'm sorry I'm going to call you out again. The PC is just as much of a gaming platform as any of the consoles. In fact, it's a better gaming platform than any of them but that's a seperate discussion. You can't just dismiss it because reasons. You can't also cite hardware as a reason why nintendo's games should sell on other consoles and then dismiss the same point when it's made in regards to gaming grade pcs. You're being entirely hypocritical. I would like to play infamous on my PC. It's a lost sale if I can't, so sony would sell more copies if they offered it. It's the same discussion. Hence "win win" in the eyes of those like you that argue that Mario kart should be on the ps4.

Read the points I clearly made then
"As far as Sony selling their games third party, I will repeat this for the third time since clearly you are not reading things all the way through. Sony (The PS brand) is in competition with Microsoft(The Xbox brand). Just like last gen, neither of them is in direct competition with Nintendo (I explained why in the last post). In order for them to draw sales away from each other they need to offer first party exclusive titles that can not be bought anywhere else, thus drawing people in to buy their console versus the competition. As long as Microsoft has exclusives, Sony would also need to keep exclusives, preventing Microsoft from being able to offer every console game on the market and vice versa. The reason Nintendo doesn't factor in here, is because the Wii U will not get all of the third party content anyway, so if you want to play that, as a large number of gamers do, you would still need to own and Xbox or a PS. So in the race between Microsoft and Sony, if say for example Sony lets their first party content go to the Xbox, then the xbox would offer all of that content, plus the other third party plus the Xbox exclusives that you can only get on an Xbox. Then the choice would be clear, you would buy the Xbox over the PS because you can play everything."

If you don't see why that's not an issue for Sony, than I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

No actually not at all. At what point did I say the Wii U was bad because it was underpowered? When did I mention the Wii U's frame rate and resolution? I said the hardware was the weak point, don't put words in my mouth.
Maybe don't pull quotes out of context or at least read the relevant surrounding information before doing so.

Here's your full quote in context;

The difference is Nintendo's hardware is it's weak point. No one is blown away by Nintendo's hardware, and no one is buying a Wii U because of how great the hardware is. They are buying a Wii U to play the software. So it's reasonable to at least ask the question, if you could allow people to play the software without them needing to buy the hardware would it be better in terms of sales alone for Nintendo.

If you still can't see the hypocrisy, let me change some words;

The difference is the Xbox Ones and PS4s hardware is it's weak point. No one is blown away by the Xbox One and PS4's hardware, and no one is buying a Xbox One or PS4 because of how great the hardware is. They are buying a Xbox One or PS4 to play the software. So it's reasonable to at least ask the question, if you could allow people to play the software without them needing to buy the hardware would it be better in terms of sales alone for Microsoft and Sony.

Do you see?

 

[zackmorris]

Here's your full quote in context;


If you still can't see the hypocrisy, let me change some words;


Do you see?

Well you misquoted him as well.

Sony and Microsoft's hardware are both their weak points in comparison to my gaming PC. I'm not blown away by their hardware either, as mine was superior 4 yeArs ago now.

I'd say that playing infamous, killzone, uncharted and TLOU on high end hardware that allows me to supersample and garner > 60fps and where I'm not paying for an online would allow me to purchase these titles.

He is talking about hardware from a strictly performance sense. Saying the PC is more powerful i.e. better framerate, resolution etc.
I was not referring to that when I made mention about the Wii U's hardware being the weak point. Just like I would say the Wii hardware was a strong point, even if it was "underpowered" compared to the PS3 360. You are drawing a connection that isn't there. If I said the Wii U is weak and that's why the hardware is worse, then fine you would have a point. I never said that.

 

[Zeyphersan]

Seven.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

I was not referring to that when I made mention about the Wii U's hardware being the weak point.

How are you defining the WiiU as 'weak hardware' in such a way that no corrollary can be drawn from WiiU to PS4 / Xbone, and from PS4 / Xbone to the PC?

 

[zackmorris]

How are you defining the WiiU as 'weak hardware' in such a way that no corrollary can be drawn from WiiU to PS4 / Xbone, and from PS4 / Xbone to the PC?

I didn't call it weak hardware. I said the hardware is the weak point. Those are not the same thing at all

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

I didn't call it weak hardware. I said the hardware is the weak point. Those are not the same thing at all

Okay; again, how are you defining your terms that makes the PC not part of the equation?

 

[zackmorris]

Okay; again, how are you defining your terms that makes the PC not part of the equation?

The reason I said PC has nothing to with this thread is because the OP asked specifically about selling nintendo games on the Playstaion and Xbox. Factoring the PC in doesn't change my argument at all, I was just annoyed that he kept mentioning his PC when that had nothing to do with my post, but again my argument is still valid.

 

[Competa]

Much more than what they're selling now that's for sure.

It will never happen though. Never ever.

Why not ? It happened to SEGA ?

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

The reason I said PC has nothing to with this thread is because the OP asked specifically about selling nintendo games on the Playstaion and Xbox. Factoring the PC in doesn't change my argument at all, I was just annoyed that he kept mentioning his PC when that had nothing to do with my post, but again my argument is still valid.

It might be, but you can see that any validity of the argument can also be extended to every platform exclusive, right?

Like, right now the Xbone has less sales than the WiiU does. You could argue that maybe all of MSs titles should be avaialble on the WiiU as it would double their userbase.

 

[zackmorris]

It might be, but you can see that any validity of the argument can also be extended to every platform exclusive, right?

Like, right now the Xbone has less sales than the WiiU does. You could argue that maybe all of MSs titles should be avaialble on the WiiU as it would double their userbase.

And if you read the rest of my post I addressed that exact issue and why it is different for Microsoft/Sony versus nintendo.


Edit: Also xbone has been out for a fraction of the time the wii u has. Comparing sales isn't really a fair point. Last I heard it's selling faster than the wii u did.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

And if you read the rest of my post I addressed that exact issue and why it is different for Microsoft/Sony versus nintendo.


Edit: Also xbone has been out for a fraction of the time the wii u has. Comparing sales isn't really a fair point. Last I heard it's selling faster than the wii u did.

Sorry, I really can't see any meaningful distinction between who is in competition with who; wiiu is in competition with ps4 is in competition with xbone is in compeition with pc is in competition with tablets is in competition with tv is in competition with reading is in competition with leisure time in general

 

[deltatheta]

Wow, this thread got heated since last night.

From the pages I've read, I don't think anyone mentioned the fact that (aside from the Wii U until recently) Nintendo's hardware has cost $2-300 less than the competition. Which is weird because the only way that Nintendo software could sell better on other platforms is if they can attract the same demographic. Not really sure if there's tons of overlap between people who are willing to pay $4-500 for a game machine vs. people who are willing to pay $200 for a game machine.

 

[zackmorris]

Sorry, I really can't see any meaningful distinction between who is in competition with who; wiiu is in competition with ps4 is in competition with xbone is in compeition with pc is in competition with tablets is in competition with tv is in competition with reading is in competition with leisure time in general

No they aren't. Different markets are not in direct competition with each other. That's just common sense. We are talking about console competition. The PS4 is in direct competition with the Xbox one for that exact market share. No one else is competing for that exact share other than those two

 

[StevieP]

No they aren't. Different markets are not in direct competition with each other. That's just common sense. We are talking about console competition. The PS4 is in direct competition with the Xbox one for that exact market share. No one else is competing for that exact share other than those two

Lol this is as short sighted as the rest of them. Even if you want to believe your own narrative here, the PC still factors in as the overwhelming majority of third party titles release there. And they generally look and play better. And they're cheaper. And I don't have to pay an extra fee to play them online. And there is an overwhemingly large exclusive presence there (one which dwarfs what Sony and MS both offer as their first party portfolio). So again, even under your own stringent twisted rules, the same set of variables applies there.

 

[zackmorris]

Lol this is as short sighted as the rest of them. Even if you want to believe your own narrative here, the PC still factors in as the overwhelming majority of third party titles release there. And they generally look and play better. And they're cheaper. And I don't have to pay an extra fee to play them online. So again, even under your own stringent twisted rules, the same set of variables applies there.

Yes except you keep ignoring my earlier point as to why Sony and Microsoft who are in direct competition can not concede exclusives.
Edit: I'm not ignoring the PC. If it makes you feel better nintendo can put there games on there too.

 

[KtSlime]

You do realize that the proportion of neogaf users who own a Wii U is higher than that of the general population, right? I know plenty of gaffers that have the console but nobody in real life. This is a hardcore video game centered discussion board that is not representative of the market at large, I think people forget that sometimes. You seem upset that the Wii U isn't selling very well, try to separate personal feelings from your opinions because the 'people are out to get Nintendo and just making excuses to not buy a Wii U' argument is not only silly, but played out. Accept the fact that not everyone is going to like what you like, or be willing to pay the same price for it that you are.

Whhhaaat? The percentage of people owning a console on a video game enthusiast forum is higher than that compared to the general population? This is quite a revelation.

Someone earlier said that it was estimated that there is only a 30-35% overlap of people owning a Nintendo and a playstation or Xbox, I wonder how that compares to the overlap of a person with a playstation also owning an Xbox.

No they aren't. Different markets are not in direct competition with each other. That's just common sense. We are talking about console competition. The PS4 is in direct competition with the Xbox one for that exact market share. No one else is competing for that exact share other than those two

PS4 and Xbox One are not in direct competition as far as I'm concerned, Xbox just does not have the games I want. PS4 and Wii U are barely in competition, as the Wii U has better (suited to my needs) hardware and software.

 

[zackmorris]

PS4 and Xbox One are not in direct competition as far as I'm concerned, Xbox just does not have the games I want. PS4 and Wii U are barely in competition, as the Wii U has better (suited to my needs) hardware and software.

But that is purely opinion. If you really don't think the PS4 and xbox are in direct competition go into any thread for a third party game and see the arguments. Go back to last years E3. Everything about those conferences was two companies in direct competition. Wether they have games that interest you doesn't really effect how the companies view who they are in competition with. Sony made a video bashing xbox's policy's on the spot. Sony pays tons of money to get 60 minutes of extra gameplay in AC4. Microsoft spends millions to get DLC a few weeks before it's out on the Playstation. Everything about these companies shows that they are both fighting for the same market share and are in direct competition.

 

[KtSlime]

But that is purely opinion. If you really don't think the PS4 and xbox are in direct competition go into any thread for a third party game and see the arguments. Go back to last years E3. Everything about those conferences was two companies in direct competition. Wether they have games that interest you doesn't really effect how the companies view who they are in competition with. Sony made a video bashing xbox's policy's on the spot. Sony pays tons of money to get 60 minutes of extra gameplay in AC4. Microsoft spends millions to get DLC a few weeks before it's out on the Playstation. Everything about these companies shows that they are both fighting for the same market share and are in direct competition.

I live in Japan, so they really aren't. My point is it depends on context. My particular context is they are not in direct competition.

It's really convenient that people get to frame their narrative to their particular context and experience. Nintendo is not in competition with MS and Sony when it suits me, but then when I say I don't want yet another console taking up space or to spend money on a Nintendo all of a sudden it is...

 

[Y2Kev]

Awful.