Media Create Sales: Week 10, 2015 (Mar 02 - Mar 08)

vinnygambini

Why are strippers at the U.N. bad when they're great at strip clubs???
Aug 7, 2013
8,548
0
0
I just realized, all management decision in regards to mobile DeNA partnership, licensing ventures, QOL, etc. were all made after the death of Yamauchi? Simple coincidence or no?
 
Mar 13, 2013
12,412
3
0
I just realized, all management decision in regards to mobile DeNA partnership, licensing ventures, QOL, etc. were all made after the death of Yamauchi? Simple coincidence or no?
You mean in the sense that Yamauchi was blocking it or that Iwata is feeling more pressure without Yamauchi backing him up?
 
Sep 11, 2013
1,490
0
0
Absolutely, but also one that is contracting and not very profitable. I'm not saying I'd want to abandon consoles, but I'd certainly want to make sure I had other avenues of expansion at this point, if I had Sony-like overhead. Hopefully they can expand on Sony/Playstation mobile.
The problem is that Sony as publisher doesn't really hold the same power punch that Nintendo does, their strengths comes from their third party offerings (and they make money from fees on every sale of those offerings) and that is why the PS mobile initiative was mostly a framework for games from 3rd party devs with added compatibility with a dualshock 3. The initiative is now dead and will be buried in July as far as I know.

It seems that Sony was only interested in the mobile business as a platform holder rather than a publishing game company and it make sense their business model isn't the same as Nintendo.
 
Sep 7, 2006
5,854
0
1,020
Rotterdam
A free to play, Animal Crossing mobile game will probably do huge numbers for Nintendo. Put some in game advertising in there for their premium console/handheld titles and I could see it boosting their hardware business significantly. This is a smart move by Nintendo.
 

vinnygambini

Why are strippers at the U.N. bad when they're great at strip clubs???
Aug 7, 2013
8,548
0
0
You mean in the sense that Yamauchi was blocking it or that Iwata is feeling more pressure without Yamauchi backing him up?
Both really. I mean it's either Yamauchi didn't support the vision or Iwata is backed-up against the wall and needed a change of strategy in place. Just odd timing really.
 

heidern

Junior Member
Jun 7, 2004
2,288
0
0
I agree, the nature of the deal seems to be that Nintendo bought 10% of DeNA and DeNA is now owner of 1.2% of Nintendo in a way that both parties bought the similar amount of money in stock from the other.
Good way for Iwata to increase his vote at the elections :)

What do people expect from this in the long run? To me, it seems more like the big deal is about Nintendo crossing a boundry (to put it like that) rather than some big change is going to happen in the gaming market overall just because Nintendo make this decision. But it remains to be seen exactly how big the mobile game output will be (as in how many games that will be made).
They said they want to limit the number of games, and then build the audience for those games and keep them engaged with the same game. So it might only be one per franchise.
 
Sep 11, 2013
1,490
0
0
A free to play, Animal Crossing mobile game will probably do huge numbers for Nintendo. Put some in game advertising in there for their premium console/handheld titles and I could see it boosting their hardware business significantly. This is a smart move by Nintendo.
I don't think is that obvious. To contrast take the example of Madden and FIFA and Ultimate Team (which is making a killing on both), the model is already there and proven, people are currently paying $60 and then expending a lot of money on UT on both games. There is a case to be made here that UT revenue could increase if you take away the barrier of the $60 price tag, and it makes some sense to make a F2P UT mode as a stand alone product. But on Nintendo's case there isn't a case were you have a revenue generator in your game that has a $60 wall that works as an impediment for other players to trow money at you.

I don't think there is an obvious answer or obvious game to make mobile, it is interesting to conjecture but I doubt we will find an obvious answer into how monetize Nintendo games on mobile and push the sales of their traditional games.
 
Sep 2, 2014
16,385
0
0
Both really. I mean it's either Yamauchi didn't support the vision or Iwata is backed-up against the wall and needed a change of strategy in place.
I wouldn't say that the DeNA change is so much him backed into a corner. This is a move that makes a lot of sense: Nintendo gives their IP increased exposure with small/light tie-in games and apps, they get an infrastructure they've been struggling to modernize for a long time, and they are partnering with a strong company on the mobile front.

Mobile on its own still isn't much more than an alternate, additional revenue stream. It doesn't really have the throughput all on its own to fuel a company of Nintendo's size.
 
Mar 13, 2013
12,412
3
0
Both really. I mean it's either Yamauchi didn't support the vision or Iwata is backed-up against the wall and needed a change of strategy in place. Just odd timing really.
Fair enough, I can see what you mean. The fact that DDP and Club Nintendo are/were coming to an end this year possibly means the account aspect was being planned in some form though.
 
Sep 7, 2006
5,854
0
1,020
Rotterdam
I don't think is that obvious. To contrast take the example of Madden and FIFA and Ultimate Team (which is making a killing on both), the model is already there and proven, people are currently paying $60 and then expending a lot of money on UT on both games. There is a case to be made here that UT revenue could increase if you take away the barrier of the $60 price tag, and it makes some sense to make a F2P UT mode as a stand alone product. But on Nintendo's case there isn't a case were you have a revenue generator in your game that has a $60 wall that works as an impediment for other players to trow money at you.

I don't think there is an obvious answer or obvious game to make mobile, it is interesting to conjecture but I doubt we will find an obvious answer into how monetize Nintendo games on mobile and push the sales of their traditional games.
You're right in a sense that Nintendo IP does not equal free money in the mobile space but I think if they act smart, they will be able to boost profits by mobile game sales and increase profit in the dedicated hardware market. I don't think they will succeed if they just produce half complete or demo type applications for smartphones. They should go all out and produce high budget games for mobile that can attract consumers to their premium offerings as well.
 

vinnygambini

Why are strippers at the U.N. bad when they're great at strip clubs???
Aug 7, 2013
8,548
0
0
I wouldn't say that the DeNA change is so much him backed into a corner. This is a move that makes a lot of sense: Nintendo gives their IP increased exposure with small/light tie-in games and apps, they get an infrastructure they've been struggling to modernize for a long time, and they are partnering with a strong company on the mobile front.

Mobile on its own still isn't much more than an alternate, additional revenue stream. It doesn't really have the throughput all on its own to fuel a company of Nintendo's size.
I understand the move; however, this is a far cry from the Iwata back in 2012 where he said Nintendo's IPs would not appear on mobile offerings

Nintendo has bought themselves a platform and hopefully will reap the rewards from this patnership.
 
Sep 2, 2014
16,385
0
0
I understand the move; however, this is a far cry from the Iwata back in 2012 where he said Nintendo's IPs would not appear on mobile offerings

Nintendo has bought themselves a platform and hopefully will reap the rewards from this patnership.
Iwata in 2012 also wasn't looking at a contracting handheld market, and a dead console. :p

Market realities have changed a lot over the last five years for everyone, and even if Nintendo could survive in its niche for years, it really doesn't make sense to not expand into the growing markets and pretend that they don't exist. The key, though, is expansion at a wise and reasonable clip and not going balls-to-the-wall and expecting instant success.
 
Feb 5, 2009
9,008
62
715
But NIntendo isn't probably wining 100% of licensing fees with this startegic alience with Dena. This should have not happened. XD

Just like stated in this very thread, it was about time they leaved their comfort zone. The market is just too different to keep with the old ways.
 

vinnygambini

Why are strippers at the U.N. bad when they're great at strip clubs???
Aug 7, 2013
8,548
0
0
Iwata in 2012 also wasn't looking at a contracting handheld market, and a dead console. :p

Market realities have changed a lot over the last five years for everyone, and even if Nintendo could survive in its niche for years, it really doesn't make sense to not expand into the growing markets and pretend that they don't exist. The key, though, is expansion at a wise and reasonable clip and not going balls-to-the-wall and expecting instant success.
I know I know, I'm just entertaining the thought :p

Listening to the conference call as we speak, I'll report any other breakthroughs.

Edit:DeNA CEO: The partnership was made to strengthen our position in Japan, and also be a major player worldwide due to Nintendo's vast array of IP's and popularity (mentions China & USA as growth markets).

DeNA CEO: Mentions Final Fantasy: Record Keeper app as an example of utilizing popular IP's on a worldwide scale.
 
Sep 2, 2014
16,385
0
0
But NIntendo isn't probably wining 100% of licensing fees with this startegic alience with Dena. This should have not happened. XD

Just like stated in this very thread, it was about time they leaved their comfort zone. The market is just too different to keep with the old ways.
Its a 50/50 split in revenue after the loss to the OS holder. But this is coming in conjunction with them maintaining their 100% earning on their own hardware from their own software and continuing to get royalties for platform holding, not in lieu of it.
 

heidern

Junior Member
Jun 7, 2004
2,288
0
0
I understand the move; however, this is a far cry from the Iwata back in 2012 where he said Nintendo's IPs would not appear on mobile offerings
Iwata announced that they had a mobile development team and that they might make mobile games last January. So basically a year after the Wii U began failing. He didn't have the foresight before launching this current hardware generation but he's reacted about as quickly as he could.

Pretty much he's decided to shift the company from being exclusive to trying to be fully mainstream. So you have Amiibo giving visibility in stores, smart device software and licensing characters out. He also said the existing business model needed to change so I expect the next dedicated hardware will have lower hardware and maybe lower software prices. They'll probably give up on the big western AAA publishers and instead make more but smaller first party games and try to get smaller developers on board(indie, mobile developers etc) as well as the Japanese developers that don't want to make high budget AAA games.
 
Feb 5, 2009
9,008
62
715
Its a 50/50 split in revenue after the loss to the OS holder. But this is coming in conjunction with them maintaining their 100% earning on their own hardware from their own software and continuing to get royalties for platform holding, not in lieu of it.
There is a huge difference between making your flagship products and maintain your high profit on your own platform and a mobile adventure which we still don't know how they are going to tackle on. Mobile Nintendo games are basically a new revenue generator rather than a new model replacing an old one. I think both situations aren't comparable at all.
50/50?, even more interesting. They gave quiet a bit to make this deal happen because they consider it worth it. That's what you do some times to expand a busyness.

They didn't chose to make their own platform to target mobile devices, but took a loss in the licensing fees part of their busyness to take advantage of a more robust and stablished one going with DeNA. Take a look some posts back to see that i was talking about in such terms with one of my examples. XD
 
Sep 11, 2013
1,490
0
0
But NIntendo isn't probably wining 100% of licensing fees with this startegic alience with Dena. This should have not happened. XD

Just like stated in this very thread, it was about time they leaved their comfort zone. The market is just too different to keep with the old ways.
There is a huge difference between making your flagship products and maintain your high profit on your own platform and a mobile adventure which we still don't know how they are going to tackle on. Mobile Nintendo games are basically a new revenue generator rather than a new model replacing an old one. I think both situations aren't comparable at all.

You're right in a sense that Nintendo IP does not equal free money in the mobile space but I think if they act smart, they will be able to boost profits by mobile game sales and increase profit in the dedicated hardware market. I don't think they will succeed if they just produce half complete or demo type applications for smartphones. They should go all out and produce high budget games for mobile that can attract consumers to their premium offerings as well.

That is the discussion, I doubt that a mobile player base would care about your other offerings regardless of how well made your killer app is. I think the current mobile market has ton of this, for example King, the publishers of Candy Crush have TONS of games and they aggressively advertise them on Candy Crush but while that advertising works in some sense (their other games do get more spotlight) as far as I know none of their other games is even close to Candy Crush. I would bet that the same holds true for most mobile publishers.

I don't think there is a gold path to follow for Nintendo since they are in a unique position, other publishers like EA that has found success in a mobile market didn't found success in using their core IPs or expanding their core audience with the use of the mobile games (rather their success was based on games suited to mobile market needs and wants) not that Nintendo can't do it but precedence of working before isn't there.
 
Jul 28, 2012
26,651
0
0
Absolutely, but also one that is contracting and not very profitable. I'm not saying I'd want to abandon consoles, but I'd certainly want to make sure I had other avenues of expansion at this point, especially if I had Sony-like overhead. Hopefully they can expand on Sony/Playstation mobile or find a way to attract "casual" gamers back to consoles.
I agree on the general notion of branching out but still believe that Sony should stay focused on home consoles. They just posted $4B revenue from PS4 with 5% margin and its PS4's first year. I'm sure both figures will go up in the coming years. I also recall Kaz saying he expected PS4 profits to exceed PS2's, which at its peak made $1B+ profit iirc. I'm sure PS+ adoption is a big factor in that.

With Nintendo, I think mobile adoption was due to their waning core business ( declining handheld + dead home console) and thats why I don't see Sony jumping on mobile with heavy investment anytime soon. Although like you said, they should certainly think about it and prepare for the future. Its just something that does not need to be executed with as much immediacy as in Nintendo's case.
 
Sep 11, 2013
1,490
0
0
50/50?, even more interesting. They gave quiet a bit to make this deal happen because they consider it worth it. That's what you do some times to expand a busyness.

They didn't chose to make their own platform to target mobile devices, but took a loss in the licensing fees part of their busyness to take advantage of a more robust and stablished one going with DeNA. Take a look some posts back to see that i was talking about in such terms with one of my examples. XD
Again it is different, if I remember correctly you wanted Nintendo to stop selling consoles and sell a peripheral that would be tie with the ability to play their games on PC/PS/XBOX/Whatever. It is no where near what Nintendo is doing with DeNa, and while we know that they are going to share 50/50 over the revenue of the IP nintendo choose to put on the mobile market (and that most likely DeNA is going to develop) Iwata thought it was important to point out that they aren't going away from proprietary hardware with the NX system (whatever that may be).

So it seems that the current situation is that Nintendo has build a partnership in order to add a new business model rather than completely replace the existing one. I can't see the correlations at all with what you suggested (that was basically for Nintendo to go 3rd party).
 

vinnygambini

Why are strippers at the U.N. bad when they're great at strip clubs???
Aug 7, 2013
8,548
0
0
My question during DeNA's call:
Nintendo has many IP’s that are valuable from the likes of Mario, Donkey Kong to The Legend of Zelda; however my question is in relation to the Pokemon IP as it is owned by three copyright holders, Nintendo included. Thus, is Pokemon included in this joint-partnership?
Response: We can't comment if Pokemon is included or not in this partnership.

Well damn.
 
Feb 5, 2009
9,008
62
715
Again it is different, if I remember correctly you wanted Nintendo to stop selling consoles and sell a peripheral that would be tie with the ability to play their games on PC/PS/XBOX/Whatever. It is no where near what Nintendo is doing with DeNa, and while we know that they are going to share 50/50 over the revenue of the IP nintendo choose to put on the mobile market (and that most likely DeNA is going to develop) Iwata thought it was important to point out that they aren't going away from proprietary hardware with the NX system (whatever that may be).

So it seems that the current situation is that Nintendo has build a partnership in order to add a new business model rather than completely replace the existing one. I can't see the correlations at all with what you suggested (that was basically for Nintendo to go 3rd party).
i have posted various examples of possible busyness paths for Nintendo to take, this includes the path that they have just taken with DeNA. My post stroy is there. Now what i said in this thread.

i didn't say that Nintendo should stop selling consoles, i said they should keep their hardware mobile busyness but aproach the home gaming part the peripheral way. It's worth a shot because how poorly is performing and how the consumer views the home console as a necesary evil to enjoy NIntendo games. Since the most distinctive feature of their hardware is the input device, the proposed scenario allowed NIntendo to keep that special part of their games.

On to how the above example correlates to the DeNA deal:

These days one should refrain to talk in "hardware" terms and more in platform ones. Nintendo making an input device and putting their content in PC/PS4/X1 is them searching the strenghts of other platforms to expand their market. Which is exactly what they are making with DeNA. If we subscribed to the notion of the people that were bringing refutations agaisnt the example, it would make sense for those people if Nintendo entered the mobile market by launching a platform themselves.

Now about been different because they are adding a "new" busyness model instead or replacing the old one. You should really, REALLY consider what we are witnessing here. We are talking about the company that kept implying in each meating that this wouldn't happen. And NIntendo had strong reasons to keep saying that. Because this will impact the old aspect of their buseness no matter what. Let's hope, they find away to make them co exist.
 
Sep 11, 2013
1,490
0
0
My question during DeNA's call:


Response: We can't comment if Pokemon is included or not in this partnership.

Well damn.
Pokemon seems like the elephant in the room right now alongside with Animal Crossing for the japanese market, I doubt that either will go mobile in a way that would hurt the sales of the traditional games but it seems interesting that Nintendo can't talk about the use of the Pokemon IP on their mobile strategy.
 

heidern

Junior Member
Jun 7, 2004
2,288
0
0
In China, it costs about 50 to 100 million yen to develop one title. In Japan, the cost is currently about 100 to 200 million yen. We may spend additional time on certain titles to further polish game quality.

China’s smartphone gaming market is rapidly growing and is comparable in size with Japan, with numerous titles generating over 1 billion yen per month.
Good way to expand into emerging markets as well.
 
Jun 7, 2004
114,759
1
0
36
Look for Konami to make even fewer consumer games, as key staff behind the Tokimeki Memorial and Love Plus franchises have left the company: https://twitter.com/RyougaSaotome/status/577305368264474625 https://twitter.com/RyougaSaotome/status/577305613060812802
This news apparently got so scandalous that Konami has officially put out a press release to address the issue: http://www.konami.jp/osirase/150318/

They confirm that the two producers behind Love Plus and Tokimeki Memorial have left the company, but that both franchises are still very important to Konami and will continue to be supported. Damage controllllllllllllllll.
 

Scum

Junior Member
Jun 8, 2004
23,430
0
0
London, England
This news apparently got so scandalous that Konami has officially put out a press release to address the issue: http://www.konami.jp/osirase/150318/

They confirm that the two producers behind Love Plus and Tokimeki Memorial have left the company, but that both franchises are still very important to Konami and will continue to be supported. Damage controllllllllllllllll.
Konami, pls. You're not fooling anyone.
 
Jan 25, 2012
22,624
0
0
This news apparently got so scandalous that Konami has officially put out a press release to address the issue: http://www.konami.jp/osirase/150318/

They confirm that the two producers behind Love Plus and Tokimeki Memorial have left the company, but that both franchises are still very important to Konami and will continue to be supported. Damage controllllllllllllllll.
I'm sure Konami has their brightest minds trying to figure out how they can cross the two series over with Metal Gear.
 
Jun 7, 2004
114,759
1
0
36
What were the opening week numbers for Demon Souls and Dark Souls.?

Wandering how much should Bloodborne do to be considered on par.
Demon's Souls opened at like 39k because it was undershipped, there was zero confidence in the game, but somehow word of mouth kept going and it sold more and more and more. Eventually between the original release and the budget re-release, it sold about 365k.

When Dark Souls came out, it sold 279k in the first week.
 
Aug 16, 2008
2,295
0
0
www.facebook.com
Demon's Souls opened at like 39k because it was undershipped, there was zero confidence in the game, but somehow word of mouth kept going and it sold more and more and more. Eventually between the original release and the budget re-release, it sold about 365k.

When Dark Souls came out, it sold 279k in the first week.
thank you

what about Dark Souls 2?
 
Mar 13, 2013
12,412
3
0
Obviously Level 5 will sign with GREE instead.
Am I misremembering or did Level 5 have their own mobile platform at some point?

Demon's Souls opened at like 39k because it was undershipped, there was zero confidence in the game, but somehow word of mouth kept going and it sold more and more and more. Eventually between the original release and the budget re-release, it sold about 365k.

When Dark Souls came out, it sold 279k in the first week.
Clearly Bloodborne will be somewhere between 39k and 279k! Science!
 

Aostia

El Capitan Todd
Sep 2, 2011
18,552
3
0
so, could we say after yesterday that Nintendo unveiled their response to the shifting market, keeping their dedicated devices business while putting aside the toy-to-life business also the mobile one, right?
what about Sony, in your opinion? It's pretty obvious that they will stay in the home segment considering how successfull they have always been and how PS4 is setting the (Western) world on fire; but what about portable and or mobile?
I'm asking this because we often compare Wii U and Vita struggling sales worldwide in terms of: what will they do next?
 
Nov 13, 2011
16,595
0
0
so, could we say after yesterday that Nintendo unveiled their response to the shifting market, keeping their dedicated devices business while putting aside the toy-to-life business also the mobile one, right?
what about Sony, in your opinion? It's pretty obvious that they will stay in the home segment considering how successfull they have always been and how PS4 is setting the (Western) world on fire; but what about portable and or mobile?
I'm asking this because we often compare Wii U and Vita struggling sales worldwide in terms of: what will they do next?
Their [appropriate] response is to divest.

It's an unattractive market and they have low differential advantage.