Support NeoGAF

[Boss Mog]

Nintendo should definitely go 3rd party at least for home consoles. They've clearly shown that they believe the console itself isn't important to them so why bother making it at all, especially an underpowered one. Nobody says they have to stop making hardware altogether for home consoles, they could easily make their gimmicks for PS4, like a balance board, gamepad, vitality sensor, whatever... I'm sure they could come to an agreement with Sony that would let them make hardware peripherals for the PS4 in exchange for software exclusivity. Nintendo games could finally have robust online via PSN too. Maybe Sony can just give on on portables and just leave that to Nintendo, cause seeing how they're doing nothing to get good games on the Vita , there's really no point. It seems like it would be win/win for everyone including consumers. I certainly wouldn't mind owning just one home console and one portable and them having all the games. Maybe that's just me though.

 

[Canon]

^ Sony will likely go bankrupt before Nintendo so that makes no sense.

 

[AniHawk]

What revenue from hardware?

oh i like the way you think.

 

[Shiggy]

I genuinely can't imagine how Nintendo keeps all its designers without the revenue from hardware and licensing. Can someone explain to me how that works?

Well, they are even kept without the profits from hardware and licensing right now. That should actually be a sign for a good leader (not Iwata) to reduce staff count in that department and soft to accessories or handhelds only.

Still wondering why the guys wanting Nintendo to stay in the hardware business are so obsessed with revenues. Would you keep all your hardware designers when that division amounts for 70 percent of the revenue, costs are twice as high as revenues and the other division does not depend on this department at all? (Nobody can tell me Wii U games use the Gamepad in a meaningful way)

 

[TheRedSnifit]

What revenue from hardware?

Okay, let's go over our terminology:

Revenue is the total amount of money gained. Expenses are the total amount of money spent. Profit is the difference between revenue and expenses.

 

[timetokill]

Nintendo should definitely go 3rd party at least for home consoles. They've clearly shown that they believe the console itself isn't important to them so why bother making it at all, especially an underpowered one. Nobody says they have to stop making hardware altogether for home consoles, they could easily make their gimmicks for PS4, like a balance board, gamepad, vitality sensor, whatever... I'm sure they could come to an agreement with Sony that would let them make hardware peripherals for the PS4 in exchange for software exclusivity. Nintendo games could finally have robust online via PSN too. Maybe Sony can just give on on portables and just leave that to Nintendo, cause seeing how they're doing nothing to get good games on the Vita , there's really no point. It seems like it would be win/win for everyone including consumers. I certainly wouldn't mind owning just one home console and one portable and them having all the games. Maybe that's just me though.

It would certainly be a win for Sony, but a huge loss for Nintendo.


Nobody ever has given a sane reason why Nintendo would go third-party on consoles while still supporting a first-party handheld. Why wouldn't they just put all of their games on handheld and support the shit out of it? It doesn't make sense to go and make more expensive, less-profitable games on a competitor's console.

 

[Chie Satonaka]

It would certainly be a win for Sony, but a huge loss for Nintendo.


Nobody ever has given a sane reason why Nintendo would go third-party on consoles while still supporting a first-party handheld. Why wouldn't they just put all of their games on handheld and support the shit out of it? It doesn't make sense to go and make more expensive, less-profitable games on a competitor's console.

This will happen before Nintendo goes third party. In fact, I could see this, combined with some sort of mobile strategy before Nintendo goes third party and makes software for Sony and Microsoft.

I always feel like these threads are just wish fulfilment fanfiction, especially considering the first part of the bolded. "It makes sense because reasons!"

 

[DrWong]

Todomatchi 3rd Party Life: your console war, your drama.

 

[A Twisty Fluken]

shiggy's first-year-econ-student schtick is cracking me up, right down to accusing other people of not understanding how business works. did you just suggest firing like half the hardware engineers

we're like 2 pages away from a random demand curve graph at this rate

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Well, they are even kept without the profits from hardware and licensing right now. That should actually be a sign for a good leader (not Iwata) to reduce staff count in that department and soft to accessories or handhelds only.

Still wondering why the guys wanting Nintendo to stay in the hardware business are so obsessed with revenues. Would you keep all your hardware designers when that division amounts for 70 percent of the revenue, costs are twice as high as revenues and the other division does not depend on this department at all? (Nobody can tell me Wii U games use the Gamepad in a meaningful way)

I wonder why businesses pay millions of dollars to executives when they can just go on GAF and be lectured on how they should axe everything not making a profit.

I want you to think about what your philosophy means. Sony would've cut their electronics division long ago. Microsoft would've given up gaming after the Xbox. Smart business leaders don't just look at financial reports and then fire half the company.

 

[JordanN]

It would certainly be a win for Sony, but a huge loss for Nintendo.


Nobody ever has given a sane reason why Nintendo would go third-party on consoles while still supporting a first-party handheld. Why wouldn't they just put all of their games on handheld and support the shit out of it? It doesn't make sense to go and make more expensive, less-profitable games on a competitor's console.

Because they can't?
3DS can't handle any of their Wii U projects. Unless you're in favor of them scrapping those games completely, porting them to the other consoles should be a no brainer (easy to port, far more copies likely sold).

Nintendo makes more money supporting 2 platforms and not letting their HD training go to waste.

 

[AniHawk]

Because they can't?
3DS can't handle any of their Wii U projects. Unless you're in favor of them scrapping those games completely, porting them to the other consoles should be a no brainer (easy to port, far more copies likely sold).

no, not literally port wii u games to 3ds, but put all the people who make games into teams that make games for handheld hardware. they would probably be able to publish a good 20-24 games a year.

edit: in such a scenario, we would be looking at the year 2021 or some far-off date like that.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Because they can't?
3DS can't handle any of their Wii U projects. Unless you're in favor of them scrapping those games completely, porting them to the other consoles should be a no brainer (easy to port, far more copies likely sold).

I somehow imagine that they wouldn't have many Wii U games in the middle of development when they decide to go third-party. You'd get, like, five games.

Unless you're suggesting that they'd port over the entire library, but that's wishful thinking at best. The idea that they'd go third-party on consoles while maintaining a hand-held isn't grounded in logic, and doesn't warrant discussion at all.

Nintendo makes more money supporting 2 platforms and not letting their HD training go to waste.

Sunk costs like "HD training" would not have any impact on future profits.

And I'm still waiting on evidence that there's a sizeable number of Nintendo fans on other consoles. That's the core of this entire argument, yet it seems completely baseless.

 

[Sandfox]

Because they can't?
3DS can't handle any of their Wii U projects. Unless you're in favor of them scrapping those games completely, porting them to the other consoles should be a no brainer (easy to port, far more copies likely sold).

I think you interpreted his post wrong.

 

[JordanN]

I think you interpreted his post wrong.

I disagree.

Everything about Nintendo should be considered when asking what platforms to support. They'll still carry their Wii U library with them even if the platform dies. Why should Nintendo support just their handhelds forever, when they can use their already existing HD games and leverage them elsewhere? The only cost at that point would be publishing them (assuming they're not taken up with deals).

And I'm still waiting on evidence that there's a sizeable number of Nintendo fans on other consoles. That's the core of this entire argument, yet it seems completely baseless.

I don't think I ever made that claim.
I've always said the audience for buying games is bigger on PS4/XBO/PC.

 

[Mael]

And yet, those two bumbling companies somehow managed to both outsell the entire Wii U LTD in a matter of weeks. It's doubly embarrassing for Nintendo coming of the astronomical sales of the Wii.

No argument there, although that's more an effect of the dismal work done by the software departments rather than the hardware.

Do you actually know what revenue is? Hint' It's completely unrelated to costs.

Revenue is important because you won't improve your margin if you have fixed cost and decreasing revenue.
How is that not clear for you if you have any idea of how a company is run?

You also seem to have the incorrect assumption that their hardware and software division are entirely hermetic and a change in 1 side would have no effect on the other side.
You should probably inform yourself on how this company is run.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

I disagree.

Everything about Nintendo should be considered when asking what platforms to support. They'll still carry their Wii U library with them even if the platform dies. Why should Nintendo support just their handhelds forever, when they can use their already existing HD games and leverage them elsewhere? The only cost at that point would be publishing them.

Why should they spend money porting games when they can just support their lucrative handheld business? Why not make a device capable of handling Wii U games?

]
I don't think I ever made that claim.
I've always said the audience for buying games is bigger on PS4/XBO/PC.

You have no argument if Nintendo lacks an audience on PS4/XBO/PC.

 

[AniHawk]

I disagree.

Everything about Nintendo should be considered when asking what platforms to support. They'll still carry their Wii U library with them even if the platform dies. Why should Nintendo support just their handhelds forever, when they can use their already existing HD games and leverage them elsewhere? The only cost at that point would be publishing them (assuming they're not taken up with deals).

well if we're looking at a handheld-only situation, we're definitely talking after the next-generation (since they're making another console and handheld). by then, i'm sure handhelds would be powerful enough to run wii u-level games at affordable prices if there's still a market for dedicated video game systems.

 

[Sandfox]

I disagree.

Everything about Nintendo should be considered when asking what platforms to support. They'll still carry their Wii U library with them even if the platform dies. Why should Nintendo support just their handhelds forever, when they can use their already existing HD games and leverage them elsewhere?

If Nintendo were to go that method they could just put out a device that could handle those games. You're saying they can't do it but that's not really true.

 

[Mael]

well if we're looking at a handheld-only situation, we're definitely talking after the next-generation (since they're making another console and handheld). by then, i'm sure handhelds would be powerful enough to run wii u-level games at affordable prices if there's still a market for dedicated video game systems.

According to the last investor (or was it the one before?) they're also pooling the resources to make asset sharing between their hardware possible.
So clearly even if they drop one side, the other side could still use the assets used for the dead platform.
Which means that if they ever drop their consoles they're not going to join the other multipurpose publishers

 

[LAA]

As a consumer, totally for Nintendo going 3rd party. Their hardware hasn't impressed me for 3DS/Wii U. I do think the Game pad has potential, just starting to realise the games that use it well are quite few in number. I anticipate Zedla U possibly blowing our minds with it making it totally worth it alone.

Hardware wise though I just can't see nintendo catching up. I love their unique twists, but it needs power to back it up, they should have really gone all out for Wii U in that department.
Only thing I worry about Nintendo going 3rd party is whether the controllers will take that magic away... probably somewhat, but the DS4 has a touch pad so I'm sure they'd use that up for sure.

With Nintendo though, they don't really aim at core gamers hardware wise, it seems they're not bothered about gamers wants for hardware and hope their software will bring them along, which has worked, but I don't think that is a good attitude to have for their most loyal fans and it seems even Nintendo games aren't enough to boost Wii U numbers significantly high. (I think Mario Kart 8 is their best chance and will be most telling if this is the case anyway)

 

[JordanN]

Why should they spend money porting games when they can just support their lucrative handheld business?

Risk vs returns. I already mentioned publishing deals would reduce the cost to next to nothing. It would be losing out on free money at that point.

You have no argument if Nintendo lacks an audience on PS4/XBO/PC.

"if".
Edit: For future reference, I acknowledged I was wrong here.

well if we're looking at a handheld-only situation, we're definitely talking after the next-generation (since they're making another console and handheld). by then, i'm sure handhelds would be powerful enough to run wii u-level games at affordable prices if there's still a market for dedicated video game systems.

That's assuming Nintendo wants to go through with that (a handheld that powerful). They're just now getting to 240p.
I also don't see this situation as fair. I never set a time frame for going third party. Using the distant future requires totally different arguments I've made so far.

 

[AniHawk]

Risk vs returns. I already mentioned publishing deals would reduce the cost to next to nothing. It would be losing out on free money at that point.

i'm going to hazard a guess that you don't actually know what those costs are, or that it's guaranteed that a publishing deal would be in the works, and that nintendo would actually go through with it.

"if".

let's see some numbers.

That's assuming Nintendo wants to go through with that (a handheld that powerful). They're just now getting to 240p.

i mean they got a wii game onto the 3ds just last year with dkcr. i don't think they'll have problems in doing the same for wii u when it's the handheld after the next one.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Risk vs returns. I already mentioned publishing deals would reduce the cost to next to nothing. It would be losing out on free money at that point.

Have you ever noticed how much of your argument is based on unfounded hypotheticals? You're just willing away their costs.

"if".

Your entire argument is built around that claim. There's no room for discussion if you can't substantiate your base argument.

That's assuming Nintendo wants to go through with that (a handheld that powerful). They're just now getting to 240p.

It would make sense, given how their entire business would revolve around that handheld.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

i think the thinking behind qol is solid, but i don't really have a way to judge it either way considering we haven't seen a single actual thing about it yet.

How do you know that the thinking behind QOL is solid if we barely know anything about? It could be a huge money sink hole and a waste of time. I think we should wait for more details before making an opinion about this investment , if its a good idea or not.

 

[Mael]

Do we have any data supporting that the kind of software Nintendo does having any kind of success on the other platforms?
Mobile it's clear there is at least some interest but not at the pricepoint Nintendo is willing to sell them.
On MSFT's or Sony's platform?
any example?

 

[StevieP]

Risk vs returns. I already mentioned publishing deals would reduce the cost to next to nothing. It would be losing out on free money at that point.


"if".


That's assuming Nintendo wants to go through with that (a handheld that powerful). They're just now getting to 240p.
I also don't see this situation as fair. I never set a time frame for going third party. Using the distant future requires totally different arguments I've made so far.

If? You know, even the sonic racing game sold better on the dismal Wii u userbase than the other consoles with massive userbases. Anihawk would like some evidence that enough of a market exists for the types of games Nintendo makes to buy them in the millions as suggested.

Frankly, for the same reason third parties are continually narrowing their focus and contracting the market and foregoing Nintendo system ports (ie "demographics", "opportunity cost") the same argument can be made for nintendo's family friendly software on the other platforms for the most part.

 

[Interceptor]

Nintendo should definitely go 3rd party at least for home consoles. They've clearly shown that they believe the console itself isn't important to them so why bother making it at all, especially an underpowered one. Nobody says they have to stop making hardware altogether for home consoles, they could easily make their gimmicks for PS4, like a balance board, gamepad, vitality sensor, whatever... I'm sure they could come to an agreement with Sony that would let them make hardware peripherals for the PS4 in exchange for software exclusivity. Nintendo games could finally have robust online via PSN too. Maybe Sony can just give on on portables and just leave that to Nintendo, cause seeing how they're doing nothing to get good games on the Vita , there's really no point. It seems like it would be win/win for everyone including consumers. I certainly wouldn't mind owning just one home console and one portable and them having all the games. Maybe that's just me though.

Much to learn you have young Padawan.

 

[Sandfox]

How do you know that the thinking behind QOL is solid if we barely know anything about? It could be a huge money sink hole and a waste of time. I think we should wait for more details before making an opinion about this investment , if its a good idea or not.

I think the idea of them trying to expand and find other sources of income is good, but as for the QOL idea, I agree with you.

 

[JordanN]

i'm going to hazard a guess that you don't actually know what those costs are, or that it's guaranteed that a publishing deal would be in the works, and that nintendo would actually go through with it.

It's an educated guess.

Publishing isn't always guaranteed. At least they can try.
They could also spend their own money, and hope whatever little investment is enough to bring back more profit.

i mean they got a wii game onto the 3ds just last year with dkcr. i don't think they'll have problems in doing the same for wii u when it's the handheld after the next one.

A 2D sidescroller that runs at half the FPS of the original. Other Wii games would have a harder time. There's a bigger difference going to Wii U level hardware than between Gamecube and Wii ones. Development costs and battery life also spring to mind.
But this is all far away so I want to avoid arguing this. I want to talk about the Nintendo of now.

If Nintendo were to go that method they could just put out a device that could handle those games. You're saying they can't do it but that's not really true.

Going by Nintendo's tech history, I have no reason to believe they'll make a Wii U level handheld anytime soon.

 

[AniHawk]

How do you know that the thinking behind QOL is solid if we barely know anything about? It could be a huge money sink hole and a waste of time. I think we should wait for more details before making an opinion about this investment , if its a good idea or not.

i guess my statement was confusing. regarding the qol ... things, i did say it's too early to judge it one way or another. i like the thinking behind it though, that the hardware development team is a resource that doesn't have to just make video games. i'm a big fan of using every piece of the animal.

 

[MDX]

Nintendo is a bank that major third party publishers want to rob.

A big giant beast they want to take down to feed off a carcass of IPs and patents that
Nintendo will have to sell off if they go third party.

Except, Nintendo will probably outlast them.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Nope. You have to find the post where I said I know the numbers of the Nintendo audience is. It doesn't matter how you skew it, I'm not answering something I did not claim to begin with.

They would definitely see more success in a PS4/XBO/PC ecosystem then just holding themselves back with Wii U and whatever successor they have planned

They would definitely not see more success in a PS4/XBO/PC ecosystem if there's nobody willing to buy their games on those systems.

Going by Nintendo's tech history, I have no reason to believe they'll make a Wii U level handheld anytime soon.

And going by their porting history, I have no reason to believe they'll port their games to other consoles, ever.

 

[GhostTrick]

Nintendo going 3rd party would mean Nintendo being less significant. While Wii U is having a really harsh time, they've sold like 45 millions of 3DS. Why would they want to pass on that money ? And get far less royalties ?

 

[JordanN]

They would definitely not see more success in a PS4/XBO/PC ecosystem if there's nobody willing to buy their games on those systems.

That was my first post. I later followed up on it:

"The argument from third party is that the games they currently make, would see more success when that audience is either doubled or tripled."

 

[TheRedSnifit]

"The argument from third party is that the games they currently make, would see more success when that audience is either doubled or tripled."

. . . and this is the part you have to back up. For going third-party to work, they would have to move enough software to get in the general ballpark of current revenue. You haven't provided any evidence that this would happen beyond "the install base is larger," which is invalid given how poorly similar games have done on those systems.

 

[JordanN]

. . . and this is the part you have to back up. For going third-party to work, they would have to move enough software to get in the general ballpark of current revenue. You haven't provided any evidence that this would happen beyond "the install base is larger," which is invalid given how poorly similar games have done on those systems.

Edit: Ok, fine. I'll have to back it up.

I also got to say I'm sorry for dragging this on for so long. I'm usually better at remembering my own quotes.

So since 3rd parties don't see an audience for it you expect Nintendo to actually open that magical avenue when they can't see to find an audience large enough to support them in a less competitive market?

Sorry, that's the old quote.

 

[Mael]

I still don't believe the latter is what I was arguing but I'll give it a go anyway. I've said these games ran into trouble that basically doomed them. I've also said no AAA developer has made the same games like Nintendo since Crash Bandicoot which did post higher numbers.

So since 3rd parties don't see an audience for it you expect Nintendo to actually open that magical avenue when they can't see to find an audience large enough to support them in a less competitive market?

 

[BratmanDu]

"if".

There are many lists of sales out there and you can do your own googlework and find multiple sources, but of the top 10 best selling ps3 games of all time, you've got two GTAs, two Fifas, FOUR call of dutys, a Battlefield, and a gran turismo. That does not indicate to me at least, that Sony gamers want Pikmin, w101, DKTF, ZombiU, 3D World, Kart, Smash, Zelda or Metroid.

360 top ten sellers also has two GTAs, also has four call of dutys, two halos, a kinnect and a minecraft. The kinnect crowd might take to some Wii Sports, and the minecraft crowd might take to some of the exclusive wiiU indies, but I wouldn't say it would be worth it.

I've been xbox for 10 years, and was growing tired of games in general, but after consideration of value for money, quality, finished products and great games, I went wiiU. You just don't get what Nintendo has anywhere else and even their consoles that do badly financially produce some of the greatest games of all time.

 

[KratosEnergyDrink]

Even though I put Sony and MS in the OP, I think they're best bet would be to partner with Sony and get a favorable royalty deal as Sony's PS brand has worldwide appeal.

Everyone on gaf should already know that Sony is practically bankrupt. To go together with Sony would be the worst move Nintendo could make. Sony is making continuos loss. And there seems nothing that can recover this company. The success of the PS4 is only a drop of water in an ocean of loss.

So the most possible scenario would be that Nintendo buys the last remains of Sonys gaming division in two years.

 

[mo60]

Well, they are even kept without the profits from hardware and licensing right now. That should actually be a sign for a good leader (not Iwata) to reduce staff count in that department and soft to accessories or handhelds only.

Still wondering why the guys wanting Nintendo to stay in the hardware business are so obsessed with revenues. Would you keep all your hardware designers when that division amounts for 70 percent of the revenue, costs are twice as high as revenues and the other division does not depend on this department at all? (Nobody can tell me Wii U games use the Gamepad in a meaningful way)

Most smart companies utilize their strengths to get as much profit as possible and not to lose money by finding new ways to make profit or by finding ways to compete in the market they are in currently.Nintendo has probably never been interested in going third party because it's a lot more riskier than just creating a new business model like the QOL(they will actually lose some of the potential revenue/profit they will make in the long run if they stayed in the console/handheld business) as described by other users in this thread. In nintendo's case they can usually gain most of their profit by utlizing one of their strengths which is to develop console or handheld hardware that they can sell their games on it even though this fails at times. A company does not pull radical moves unless they have and they usually learn from some of their mistakes.Now is not the time for nintendo to pull a radical move.Nintendo probably views the WiiU as failed product that may not be connected to any of their future products.

 

[Mael]

Ok I get how the discussion here is so lopsided, the OP himself talked about Nintendo going 3rd party with the other console makers and NOT mobile/pc/others.
Going 3rd party by making products for platforms that are not in direct competition (and doesn't undermine your current core product line) is interesting to discuss.
Going 3rd party by basically putting fire in all your warehouses....

 

[MDX]

Most smart companies utilize their strengths to get as much profit as possible and not to lose money by finding new ways to make profit or by finding ways to compete in the market they are in currently.Nintendo has probably never been interested in going third party because it's a lot more riskier than just creating a new business model like the QOL(they will actually lose some of the potential revenue/profit they will make in the long run if they stayed in the console/handheld business) as described by other users in this thread. In nintendo's case they can usually gain most of their profit by utlizing one of their strengths which is to develop console or handheld hardware that they can sell their games on it even though this fails at times. A company does not pull radical moves unless they have and they usually learn from some of their mistakes.Now is not the time for nintendo to pull a radical move.Nintendo probably views the WiiU as failed product that may not be connected to any of their future products.

I agree, but I dont know if Nintendo sees the WiiU as a failed product. Its barely two years old, and it will most likely be around for another 3 and half years. Plenty of time to rake in money from it.

Nintendo probably started to see the writing on the wall long before the WiiU regarding
game consoles. They knew graphics would hit a point of diminishing returns, game development would become more expensive and alternative forms of entertainment was on the rise. The Wii success probably extended their plans with consoles, but they probably have been researching alternative sources of revenue for their company since the gamecube. Theme parks, QoL, etc.

Nintendo's philosophy is probably not to be dependent on other companies.
Either do it yourself or don't do it at all. So I dont see how they would simply
place their IPs on other platforms they are not in control of as a third party. They would quicker mothball all their IPs and bring them out on some future technology they can capitalize on.

 

[StevieP]

I think what's happening with these GAF and industry discussions constantly popping up has something to do with how insular and out of touch with market reality we generally tend to be on the hardcore end of the spectrum. For example, while many here say they want to buy nintendo's colourful platformers/adventure games on ps4, the increasingly narrower demographics purchasing the other new xonsoles (and the folks that purchased the ps3, etc) shows they don't actually want that. The existing data doesn't support a third party Nintendo.

 

[jcm]

I think what's happening with these GAF and industry discussions constantly popping up has something to do with how insular and out of touch with market reality we generally tend to be on the hardcore end of the spectrum. For example, while many here say they want to buy nintendo's colourful platformers/adventure games on ps4, the increasingly narrower demographics purchasing the other new xonsoles (and the folks that purchased the ps3, etc) shows they don't actually want that. The existing data doesn't support a third party Nintendo.

The existing data doesn't support a first party Nintendo either. Guess they're fucked.

 

[StevieP]

The existing data doesn't support a first party Nintendo either. Guess they're fucked.

I would say there is more data to show that working to the level of profitability than as a third party in their history. The ecosystem on the other side doesn't really buy those kinds of games at the moment

 

[Mael]

I would say there is more data to show that working to the level of profitability than as a third party in their history. The ecosystem on the other side doesn't really buy those kinds of games at the moment

Fun part is looking at 3rd parties behaviour, they seem to agree

 

[jcm]

I would say there is more data to show that working to the level of profitability than as a third party in their history. The ecosystem on the other side doesn't really buy those kinds of games at the moment

No, there isn't. There is literally zero data as to how Nintendo would do as a third party. They've never done it. Nintendo owns the most valuable IP in the gaming business, and is the most successful publisher in the business. Judging the market for Nintendo games by looking at Rayman is like judging the market for Toy Story 3 by looking at the sales for Flushed Away.

Meanwhile, we can look at the earnings releases to see how first party is working out for them.

 

[Toxi]

That's a bit ridiculous. Really guys? I'm sure there are TONS of both core and non-core gamers who would LOVE to play Smash, Zelda etc on their non-Nintendo consoles. Even excluding current console games, I'm sure there are also a lot of people who would pick up old Nintendo games if they made them legally available via the App Store. Nostalgia does a lot for Nintendo.

Do you have any hard numbers?

Because people have been saying this a lot without posting any evidence for it.

 

[Shiggy]

Revenue is important because you won't improve your margin if you have fixed cost and decreasing revenue.
How is that not clear for you if you have any idea of how a company is run?

I guess I need to make it easier for you: How does revenue matter when costs are higher than the revenue? To judge whether a business unit should be continued, revenue is not a good measure and I've never seen anyone using that for business valuations unless the company was a startup.

You also seem to have the incorrect assumption that their hardware and software division are entirely hermetic and a change in 1 side would have no effect on the other side.
You should probably inform yourself on how this company is run.

The games for both 3DS and Wii U don't indicate that the divisions are closely connected or that they even have cross-functional teams. Nobody is saying that they should not create accessories like the Balance Board either.

Just because you want them to continue producing consoles, you should not imagine arguments which are unreasonable. Downsizings do happen, and with a proper head at the company it can be done very well. I do see where you are coming from, a person such as Iwata is probably the worst person to manage that job as he can't even see issues that NeoGAF saw coming (for example, he said Wii Fit U was going to sell well in last September lol).