Media Create Sales: Week 15, 2015 (Apr 06 - Apr 12)

Mar 22, 2007
23,613
2
1,000
I think it's the service that's going to replace Club Nintendo. I think it will be a mishmash of Club Nintendo and the digital promotion that was in place for WiiU Deluxe owners.
Ah ok, i see. I didnt think about that since it said "compatible with PC". Would be strange if you couldnt use a PC for that kinda service, like registering your games (assuming that would still be a part of the service).
 

Scum

Junior Member
Jun 8, 2004
23,430
0
0
London, England
Ah ok, i see. I didnt think about that since it said "compatible with PC". Would be strange if you couldnt use a PC for that kinda service, like registering your games (assuming that would still be a part of the service).
Yeah. I'm actually hoping that we end up with an eShop with an account/membership service that's all accessible via handheld, console, mobile, tablets and PC.

Fingers crossed.
 
Mar 9, 2012
3,567
0
445
Spain
First Day Sell-Through {2015.04.16}

[3DS] Style Savvy 3: Kira Kira Code <ETC> (Nintendo) (¥5.076) - 30% long term sales expected

[PS4] Dying Light <ADV> (Warner Entertainment Japan) (¥8.208) - more than 70% western games selling more than expected

[3DS] Future Card Buddy Fight: Yuujou no Jounetsu Fight! <TBL> (FuRyu) (¥5.378) - 50% TCG players seem to grow

[PSV] [PS3] [360] [WIU] Monster Hunter Frontier G7: Premium Package <ACT> (Capcom) (¥6.264) - one of this versions the sell-through is dead
 
Jul 29, 2010
4,242
68
655
First Day Sell-Through {2015.04.16}

[3DS] Style Savvy 3: Kira Kira Code <ETC> (Nintendo) (¥5.076) - 30% long term sales expected

[PS4] Dying Light <ADV> (Warner Entertainment Japan) (¥8.208) - more than 70% western games selling more than expected

[3DS] Future Card Buddy Fight: Yuujou no Jounetsu Fight! <TBL> (FuRyu) (¥5.378) - 50% TCG players seem to grow

[PSV] [PS3] [360] [WIU] Monster Hunter Frontier G7: Premium Package <ACT> (Capcom) (¥6.264) - One of this versions the sell-through is dead
For the last one I assume the dead one is WiiU? I'm surprised that it's not 2 (360 + WIU).
 
Apr 4, 2010
9,787
0
595
Belgium
For the last one I assume the dead one is WiiU? I'm surprised that it's not 2 (360 + WIU).
Well it was exclusive to the 360 for a while so I guess there's still a "decent" about of people playing that version?

Sales will be low across all versions anyway. Still never understood why they bothered with the Wii U version though.
 
Jul 29, 2010
4,242
68
655
Well it was exclusive to the 360 for a while so I guess there's still a "decent" amout of people playing that version?

Sales will be low across all versions anyway. Still never understood why they bothered with the Wii U version though.
b/c DQX Wii U still is pretty strong, and MH3U was on Wii U? Not really sure, but they keep releasing them so it must be fine for them.
 
Oct 10, 2007
4,117
0
0
www.wiitalia.it
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking that doesn't have an exceedingly obvious answer. No traditional player has transitioned to rely solely on the mobile market; no traditional player is configured to do so. But there are players operating solely or predominantly in the mobile space successfully.

I'm going to assume you mean if and when they no longer have viable brands on dedicated platforms, since I don't even know whether Sonic is still considered a viable brand. Or the market conditions become [even more] untenable such they can't operate in that space at all. The answer is yes, or no.

Yes, they restructure whatever video game assets and resources they have towards producing mobile content, and do so successfully. They may need to restructure or reduce their workforce. They may need to develop competencies.

Or no, they fail to reorganise and divest from gaming completely.
The original argument was "even if the 4DS is a catastrophic failure, Nintendo will have a stream of revenues coming from another market, i.e. mobile gaming". What I was arguing is that we cannot be sure, at this point, how "good" revenues in the mobile market would be since: a. we don't actually know what is Nintendo's strategy in this market; b. there don't exist big companies that could offset huge losses from their traditional market by gains in the mobile market. Of course, if you consider re-organization and downscaling then you might want to consider keeping releasing handheld in only one territory (i.e. Japan); going third party; and so on. The assumption here is that Nintendo would like to keep growing, or at least staying flat in terms of size, manpower, dividends, and so on.

Okay so let's start with this line:

"As already discussed, for example, fidelization is pretty low in the mobile market (and this is because of inherent different entry barriers for consumers), and the quality of the experience is typically a secondary element."

I see this claim forwarded a lot, but where exactly is the evidence of there being no brand loyalty on mobile? Let's go through some of the options.
My claim is based on the fact that the mobile market is fundamentally different from the market on dedicated devices. It's hard, if not impossible, to have the same outcomes when the two markets are so inherently different. There must be some differences, and cons, across the line, otherwise all firms entering the mobile market would be successful, which is not clearly happening. And we still don't know how, in the long-term (let's say 5-6 years) successful companies will perform in the same market. Since the birth of this social & mobile gaming market, we have witnessed plenty of stories about fast and irreversible declines; e.g., Zynga was the biggest company outhere, and now it's becoming less and less relevant.

Option 1: Sequels to paid apps don't do that well compared to the earlier games, especially in 2015.

Well, yes, it's a fundamentally outdated business model. Just look at the 60-80%+ gen over gen drops for the Wii U and associated games and we'll see that when your business model is viewed as archaic, you lose a bunch of customers. Now, are Nintendo's brands useless these days? No, a quick jump over to 3DS will show that much. The problem is that people in Japan don't want dedicated consoles, and we can look at the other two dedicated consoles in the market to help reinforce that. Now, if you're Idea Factory and only need a few sales to make a good business, then something like the PS4's audience size is fine. Similarly small indie games can do fine on the paid charts relative to costs. However, it isn't functional for large titles like Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, or Resident Evil, and the only reason titles like that even show up on dedicated consoles anymore is due to the West. On mobile, on one buys paid apps anywhere, so they've largely dried up along with their sales.
I think that in the example of Wii U what you call "archaic business model" is actually a wrong strategy in an otherwise possibly successful business model. You cannot, of course, compare a pricing strategy on a specific platform, that becomes obsolete on the same very platform, with developing a new product in a specific market, in another "generation". A fairer comparison would be sequels to paid apps with expansions sold on the same platform at retail. As you can see, many companies transitioned towards a different business model, for example by keeping the retail release but allowing for a discounted price for those who already played the original game.

Therefore, the fact that sequels of paid apps cannot enjoy the same success of previous entries shows exactly what I was referring to: the unpredictability of the mobile market is huge, and even if your game was pretty big, a sequel on the same platform is likely to perform way worse, unlike the traditional market, where if your game is big, the sequel might be even bigger (it might also decline, of course, but it seems a rarer event). If you talk about transition over a new generation, than other factors enter the equation, which abstract from the comparison you were trying to make.

Furthermore, you talk about dedicated devices, but I think a distinction should be stressed. The market is overall down with respect to the previous generation, but it's not notably down with respect to the before-than-previous generatin (PS2 and GBA). Total number of platforms in the market at the same point in time has increased; handheld platforms have a larger share of the market. So, Japan still wants dedicated consoles, but differently than before, and less than previous generation, which actually represented more an anomaly than a trend.

Finally, by following your reasoning, Idea Factory can do good business on PS4, but it might do even better on mobile, so why not going there?

Option 2: There aren't sequels to things like Monster Strike and Puzzle & Dragons.

This is true. There also aren't sequels to League of Legends or World of Tanks because the f2p business model revolves around continually updating one game instead of making a series of games. There's no real benefit to making League of Legends 2 unless the base game becomes so incredibly outdated that it makes sense to replace it 10 years down the road, and even then it might make more sense to just replace the engine.
True, and that's why people keep saying these aren't games anymore, but services. On the other hand, those games have yet to prove of being able to resist at the top of their markets in the long-run as, for example, World of Warcraft (similar business model). Why shouldn't they? Because, in my opinion, entry barriers for consumers are nihil. Even if a consumer is financially invested in those games, the perception is that they are actually free. There are plenty of studies in Psychology stating that when you don't materially own something (even if you've bought it) your valuation is lower, and doesn't reflect the actual price. On top of that, mobile players don't have ay sunk cost to begin with, because smartphone are bought anyway, and therefore a-priori entry barriers are even more lax.

Option 3: Some branded titles don't do well.

Definitely true. There are also branded titles that do incredibly well. This is very similar to the console market where we have major hits like branded Musou games and anime tie-ins that sell 50K or less. People pay lots of money to use brands in mobile though because they're very helpful in user acquisition. DeNA and GREE floated their entire companies off of using other people's brands. Namco Bandai is the 5th largest mobile publisher in Japan by revenue and basically every last successful game they have is either based on a manga/anime brand like Dragon Ball, Gundam, One Piece, and Hunter x Hunter or video game brands like Tales and Idolmaster.
Sometimes, the aim of branded titles in the mobile market is different with respect to the traditional market. Oftentimes, publishers develop F2P tie-in games in order to directly promote the brand, instead of serving a specific part of the population that already knows the brand itself. This is another fundamental difference between the two markets, since mobile gaming is used as a marketing and promotional device.


Option 4: Not every game in the same brand does well.

True, but again, I'd point to the console market. Compare how major Final Fantasy titles do relative to minor spin-offs, or if you prefer outside media brands, how One Piece Musou did compared to lower end titles. What matters is what the fundamental product is both in terms of quality and whether it reflects what fans of the brand want. I don't think it's a giant mystery why the Dragon Quest game that plays like Monsters or the Final Fantasy game with something resembling an ATB system are by far the most popular titles in their brand on mobile. The two titles I mentioned though? Huge hits.
The comparison with the console market should also look at how often this happens, and why. Are good games in popular franchises more often successful in the dedicated devices market with respect to the mobile market? At a first glance, I would say so. You should abstract from different generations (as before, Wii vs. Wii U: if the successor of a platform sells way less, consequently games also sold less), from the quality (assuming the game has a similar quality to the other entries in the franchise) and from the genre (so similar genre or genre aimed at the same fanbase).

Option 5: Not every brand from the same publisher does well.

I can't think of a market this isn't true in. No one expects Grand Theft Auto V and Rockstar Table Tennis to have sales within the same galaxy. I don't think it's hard to imagine why various mobile games would have different expectations and sales results, especially when they're only related by publisher.
Another problem with your comparison: of course Table Tennis could have not sold as well as Grand Theft Auto V. A more apt comparison would Grand Theft Auto with Red Dead Redemption: the latter sold less but was anyway one of the best-selling games last generation (quite surprising if we think that it is not from a tentpole IP such as Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed). Another problem with your comparison is the fact that since fidelization is stronge in the traditional market, a company such as Rockstar could "afford" minor titles, because the next title in its biggest franchise to date will likely sell a lot (indeed, Grand Theft Auto V sold A LOT). Is this true for, say, King? I mean, King is developing and releasing plenty of rip-offs of its popular Candy Crash Saga. When Candy Crash Saga will eventually decline, will King have a safe game to bet on in order to keep growing (or staying flat) without laying-off and downsizing? That's hard to say. So far, the biggest companies in the market have shown to not have enough staying power (Zynga and Rovio). Supercell is doing better but I wonder whether they could even replicate Clash of Clan success.

Option 6: Not every hit is a hit forever.

Well, yes, that's also true. Some games burn out over time when people either get tired of them or feel there's nothing interesting left for them to do. It can be hard to run a great service. On the flip side, Puzzle & Dragons passed its third anniversary two months ago and is still on top of the top grossing charts. It's had a grand total of one real competitor for that spot in the form of Monster Strike, which has traded with it from time to time. That game has been around since August 2013.

Looking over that list, it's also self evident that the quality of the experience is important to people who play on mobile or we wouldn't have games that review differently from users or have vastly different lifetimes relating to how long they stick around. Hell, we're even halfway through OT3 on NeoGAF about Puzzle & Dragons, so this is even working among people who are really heavy core gamers.
Is Puzzle & Dragons strong as it was two years ago? It doesn't seem so by looking at the rankings. Still going really well, but it seems that attention is slowly migrating elsewhere; problem is, will GungHo able to repeat the success of this game with subsequent titles? The point here is that even if you're the biggest company in the market, nothing will assure players will follow you in subsequent projects. This is true in the traditional market as well, but the mobile market is a lot more unpredictable because of inherent differences, such as low entry barriers.

Now let's skip over to this line:

"Same goes for amiibo: in the short term, they seem a good stream of revenues, but will they be in a few years? Will they be able to help the company, or will they be deemed as useles money-maker?"

This is true. You know what also might stop making them money? Video game hardware and traditional video games. Nintendo's relevance faded from the NES era all the way to the GameCube era until they revived themselves with the Wii, and now they're even worse off than the GameCube with the Wii U. The 3DS is not doing nearly as well as the DS either. There's serious decay here, and huge game over game declines in brand. They even lose money from time to time now, which was incredibly rare for them before. If this was some ragingly successful market for Nintendo, then yeah, maybe we'd sit here and go "Do these accessory businesses make sense?" the same way people sit around and tell Microsoft to stop working on Bing because Windows, Office, and Cloud Services make them all their money. With Nintendo however, the issue is that their core business is decaying and there's no obvious slam dunk revival coming for them to ever show generation over generation growth again. They're going to try a wide gamut of options until they find things that work because that's what you do when your business model isn't working anymore and you're not too bankrupt to try anything else.
On the one hand, you have a business sector Nintendo knows really, really well. On the other hand, you have a business sector where Nintendo is entering again after many years. Also, dedicated video game devices offer a long-term view unlike interactive toys; young boys and girls eventually move somewhere else, also because toys are moderately cheap and their lifecycle is short (nothing new here). Dedicated devices have a longer lifecycle and offer different stream of revenues (games, royalties, digital). So the comparison doesn't make sense at all, unless you would want to say also "You know what also might stop making them money? Mobile games.". Furthermore, when you say "there's no obvious slam dunk revival coming for them to ever show generation over generation growth again" you're really replicating what people were saying during the GC-era: nothing could have "saved" Nintendo, at least in the home market (well, people also thought PSP was going to kick DS' asses). It might true, it might be not. Wii U is more a mistake than a sign that Nintendo's core business is making less and less sense; if PS4 is an indicator of anything, it's that home consoles might well be alive for a long time.

Do you mean traditional publishers? There are tons of successful mobile only publishers in Japan. Assuming you mean traditional publishers, well yes, there's no incentive for them to drop the last few series that are working for them. Konami doesn't gain anything dumping Metal Gear off a cliff even if they spend almost all their other resources on mobile.

For Sega, Sonic is already largely dead. The last game shipped 490,000 copies between the Wii U and 3DS versions. This is an irrelevant part of their income even though they're a smaller company game wise. Even Football Manager does better these days. These days the company is acquiring mobile studios and signing new mobile contracts while having layoffs at their traditional games business. You're right, they didn't touch their PC stuff, as that's a functional and successful part of their digital strategy. Sega Networks itself (their mobile division) now exists as a separate entity from Sega Games however and is judged on its own P&L sheet, and they put out annual reports on their notably growing success. You can read that one here: https://www.segasammy.co.jp/english/pdf/release/sgn_presentation_e_20150220.pdf
Going by your reasoning, why should MGS be working for Konami? Are costs really covering revenues coming from the game? Why not moving on mobile with this IP? As for Sega, well, Sonic is still a valuable IP; do you know how much money is the IP bringing to SegA? It's reducing to solely think of the sales of the last game, when Sonic is also a cartoon (revenues from licensing), a merchandise and so on. Anyway, my point still stands: Sega is not completely moving towards mobile.
 
Oct 10, 2007
4,117
0
0
www.wiitalia.it
First Day Sell-Through {2015.04.16}

[3DS] Style Savvy 3: Kira Kira Code <ETC> (Nintendo) (¥5.076) - 30% long term sales expected

[PS4] Dying Light <ADV> (Warner Entertainment Japan) (¥8.208) - more than 70% western games selling more than expected

[3DS] Future Card Buddy Fight: Yuujou no Jounetsu Fight! <TBL> (FuRyu) (¥5.378) - 50% TCG players seem to grow

[PSV] [PS3] [360] [WIU] Monster Hunter Frontier G7: Premium Package <ACT> (Capcom) (¥6.264) - one of this versions the sell-through is dead
I wonder whether Girl' Mode 3 could debut better than the previous entry. If so, that'd be quite surprising.
 
Nov 13, 2011
16,595
0
0
The original argument was "even if the 4DS is a catastrophic failure, Nintendo will have a stream of revenues coming from another market, i.e. mobile gaming". What I was arguing is that we cannot be sure, at this point, how "good" revenues in the mobile market would be since: a. we don't actually know what is Nintendo's strategy in this market; b. there don't exist big companies that could offset huge losses from their traditional market by gains in the mobile market. Of course, if you consider re-organization and downscaling then you might want to consider keeping releasing handheld in only one territory (i.e. Japan); going third party; and so on. The assumption here is that Nintendo would like to keep growing, or at least staying flat in terms of size, manpower, dividends, and so on.
The original discussion seemed to centre around how it's a good thing that Nintendo are diversifying and developing new question mark product lines. Which it is.

That's the point of diversification, and that which they're engaging in is low cost, low risk, being done in what I think is the appropriate manner (partnership) and has high upside as already noted.

The alternative is to what exactly? Keep pretending the market isn't changing? Persist in unfavourable markets through sheer force of will? Nintendo have taken their heads out of the sand, and that's a good thing.

Sure, they could also avoid diversifying into attractive markets, dramatically restructure their costs, and become a niche localised company in the contracting dedicated market. But I don't see how that's an attractive proposition as opposed to seeking new growth opportunities.
 
Jan 25, 2014
9,210
0
0
I wonder whether Girl' Mode 3 could debut better than the previous entry. If so, that'd be quite surprising.
Why would that be surprising? First Girls Mode released before Animal Crossing; Tomodachi; Disney Magical Castle, all of which probably had a hand in expanding the female audience of the console.

I'd be more surprising if it didn't debut better than the previous entry.
 
Oct 10, 2007
4,117
0
0
www.wiitalia.it
Why would that be surprising? First Girls Mode released before Animal Crossing; Tomodachi; Disney Magical Castle, all of which probably had a hand in expanding the female audience of the console.

I'd be more surprising if it didn't debut better than the previous entry.
Because sequels of games targeted towards that userbase are likely to performe worser, and also Girl's Mode 3 wasn't really a title one would have bet on at the beginning of the year to be a good seller.

The original discussion seemed to centre around how it's a good thing that Nintendo are diversifying and developing new question mark product lines. Which it is.

That's the point of diversification, and that which they're engaging in is low cost, low risk, being done in what I think is the appropriate manner (partnership) and has high upside as already noted.

The alternative is to what exactly? Keep pretending the market isn't changing? Persist in unfavourable markets through sheer force of will? Nintendo have taken their heads out of the sand, and that's a good thing.

Sure, they could also avoid diversifying into attractive markets, dramatically restructure their costs, and become a niche localised company in the contracting dedicated market. But I don't see how that's an attractive proposition as opposed to seeking new growth opportunities.
Nope. The discussion mainly originated from this statement: "3.) Beyond this, Nintendo already announced plans to go mobile, and do so in a big way. Even if the 4DS is a complete catastrophe in Japan (which is pretty unlikely) they at least have a foot on a lifeboat.". It's not about diversification per se, but a diversification that ultimately would be a lifeboat... which is impossible to say at the moment. And even if successful, that might imply downsizing and other structural changes that could have been achieved anyway.

Furthermore, diversification per se is not necessarily the best option. There are some factors you seem to not consider, for example direct competition between mobile output and traditional gaming, and long-term consumer fidelization.

The market is changing, but the market can also be changed (something that Nintendo actually did in the past a few times). It is also not true that the market changes are those that ultimately benefit some companies. Indeed, some companies benefitted from staying in their stronghold.

What I find amusing is how people think that mobile market means an automatic and instant success. This is not necessarily true, and it is not the ultimate answer to Nintendo's problems.
 
Nov 13, 2011
16,595
0
0
I'm not particularly sure how that differs significantly. It's a foot in an alternative market. You don't always get to take all your valuables into the lifeboat.

Your argument is that it's not a lifeboat? That it may not offset their failure in their current lines?

It's a high growth market, which they should be aiming for success in, as their established products either have low market share, low competitive advantage, exist in severely contracting markets being substituted, or a combination of the prior. Even if it doesn't ultimately offset any declines in their traditional lines it's a worthwhile pursuit.

Mobile is not going anywhere and Nintendo, nor Sony nor Microsoft, are going to change anything about that. That sort of wishful thinking isn't particularly conducive to having a meaningful discussion.

There is no assumption that the mobile market means automatic success. Success in the mobile market is earned, competencies need to be developed, consumer understanding needs to be gained. Nintendo could fail in the mobile realm. But the answer to Nintendo's problems is not to simply ignore the problems.
 
Oct 10, 2007
4,117
0
0
www.wiitalia.it
I'm not particularly sure how that differs significantly. It's a foot in an alternative market. You don't always get to take all your valuables into the lifeboat.

Your argument is that it's not a lifeboat? That it may not offset their failure in their current lines?

It's a high growth market, which they should be aiming for success in, as their established products either have low market share, low competitive advantage, exist in severely contracting markets being substituted, or a combination of the prior. Even if it doesn't ultimately offset any declines in their traditional lines it's a worthwhile pursuit.

Mobile is not going anywhere and Nintendo, nor Sony nor Microsoft, are going to change anything about that. That sort of wishful thinking isn't particularly conducive to having a meaningful discussion.

There is no assumption that the mobile market means automatic success. Success in the mobile market is earned, competencies need to be developed, consumer understanding needs to be gained. Nintendo could fail in the mobile realm. But the answer to Nintendo's problems is not to simply ignore the problems.
A foot in an alternative market does not mean much when we do not even know how Nintendo is going to enter in this very market. We have witnessed how big traditional publishers needed some time to start finding some hits in the mobile market; if the 4DS is a catastroph, then being in an alternative market is not automatically ensuring Nintendo a stream of revenues such that the company can keep going without any structural change. That is a naif view in my opinion, that does not take into account plenty of factors. Indeed, when talking about the traditional market, the idea is that it will fade sooner or later, and nothing could prevent a further decline of Nintendo's market shares; when talking about the mobile market, instead, there is a lifeboat, the only possible alternative, and a place where revenues are there, and the compan just needs to enter.

The fact that it is a high growth market is not relevant per se; in fact, being a high growth market means also being overcrowded and highly unpredictable. These two factors are not considered much, but are important for companies that have specialized in businesses that are fundamentally different. Until a couple of years ago, paid apps were going well, then F2P business models became popular and now it is either F2P or nothing; well, this repentine change is difficult to digest when you are a company that typically dealt with other business models, and also for new companies that actually were born and / or grew themselves in the mobile market. The race-to-the-bottom is a real dynamic in the mobile market, and might be highly dangerous for everyone.

The fact that the mobile market is a worthwhile pursuit is fine: after all, has not Nintendo taken a lot of risks in the past as well? To be honest, Nintendo has always been the riskiest hardware manufacturer, for the good and for the bad. The fact, instead, that mobile is not going elsewhere is disingenous. You cannot deny that market changes quickly, and PC gaming is there as a witness. Within the mobile market itself you have huge changes in the span of a few years; the introduction of tablets, for example; social networks played a different role in history of mobile gaming. Not saying that the mobile market will not exist in 5 years, but that completely refusing to introduce into the debate its high volatility and its existence (as it is) is not the right wat to discuss, in my opinion.

Finally, the fact that mobile success must be earned and so on... Well, it is half true in my view. The fact that there are no entry barriers (for both consumers and companies, the latter to a less extent of course) creates a completely different environment where fidelization is hard to obtain and quality is not necessarily rewared. If this is true in the dedicated market, it is even more true when people can download an app for free. The huge numbers of hits that were trash / rip-offs / low quality efforts is astonishing, and that is simply a characteristics of the market.
 
Nov 13, 2011
16,595
0
0
I'm not sure why you keep repeating that quality is not rewarded or quality is secondary, when more aptly it's that facets that you, or consumers in the dedicated market, consider quality are not always rewarded.

There is no likely scenario going forward where Nintendo doesn't need to engage in some sort of restructuring or reorganisation. At a fundamental level they are ill-aligned with the modern global home console market, they have no substantive enough competitive advantage to attract sizeable audiences. The Wii U reflects this, there is nothing to suggest a successor won't also reflect this.

Meanwhile the market forces causing dedicated handheld contraction are not abating. So a future Nintendo is going to need alternative revenue streams, even if they aren't primary revenue. It's going to need to monetize the users it has more. It's going to need success in markets that aren't stagnant. Or it's going to need to reduce its cost structure to reflect diminished relevance and/or a contracted market space. I can only presume since you seem to oppose the former, that you think the latter is more appropriate.

I don't find it worthwhile entertaining that Nintendo will happen upon some sort of unicorn to revitalise their traditional businesses any more than it's worthwhile entertaining that Sony and Sharp are going to magically uncommodotize the TV market or Eastman Kodak is going to get everyone buying disposable cameras and film again. If that's the crux of your dissent, that anything can happen, then it seems a rather pointless tangent. I'm more interested in the probable, than wild possibility.

No one is denying that changes can occur within the mobile market, in terms of business models, in terms of major players, but its existence in any useful projection period is not in question. Smart convergent devices are not going anywhere and people are not going to arbitrarily stop using them for digital interactive entertainment. It is not going to weaken as a force of substitution.
 
Jun 22, 2012
3,280
0
0
In an interview with Famitsu, Square Enix's Shinji Hashimoto said that they have a considerable number of releases and announcements planned for PS4 this year. Please be excited!
http://www.famitsu.com/news/201504/17076020.html
&#8213;&#8213;&#12473;&#12463;&#12454;&#12455;&#12450;&#12539;&#12456;&#12491;&#12483;&#12463;&#12473;&#12373;&#12435;&#12363;&#12425;&#12371;&#12428;&#12363;&#12425;&#12418;&#12356;&#12429;&#12356;&#12429;&#12392;PS4&#29992;&#12398;&#12479;&#12452;&#12488;&#12523;&#12364;&#20986;&#12390;&#12367;&#12427;&#12392;&#12290;PS4&#12399;&#36023;&#12356;&#26178;&#12391;&#12377;&#12397;&#12290;

&#27211;&#26412;&#12288;4&#26376;23&#26085;&#12395;&#12399;&#12302;&#12488;&#12525;&#12500;&#12467;5&#12303;&#12289;5&#26376;14&#26085;&#12395;&#12399;&#12302;&#12501;&#12449;&#12452;&#12490;&#12523;&#12501;&#12449;&#12531;&#12479;&#12472;&#12540;X/X-2 HD &#12522;&#12510;&#12473;&#12479;&#12540;&#12303;&#12418;&#30330;&#22770;&#12373;&#12428;&#12414;&#12377;&#12290;&#12373;&#12425;&#12395;&#20170;&#24180;&#12399;&#12289;&#30330;&#34920;&#12377;&#12427;&#12418;&#12398;&#12418;&#21547;&#12417;&#12289;&#30456;&#24403;&#12354;&#12426;&#12414;&#12377;&#12398;&#12391;&#12372;&#26399;&#24453;&#12367;&#12384;&#12373;&#12356;&#12290;
 

L~A

Member
Jan 19, 2013
12,188
0
0
This year's Golden week goes from Wednesday 29th (byebye MC thread on that day) until Wednesday 6th (no MC thread either lol), both included.

Moderate releases 29-30th of April

[3DS] Puzzle & Dragons: Super Mario Edition
[WiiU] Xenoblade Cross
[WII] [WiiU] Dragon Quest X: Version 3

Plus
[3DS] Bravely Second (second week lol)
[3DS] Style Savvy 3 (legs)
[PSV] Minecraft (legs)

VS last year

[3DS] Mario Golf: Princess Tour

Plus
[PSV] Sword Art Online (second week)
[3DS] Theathrythm FF: Curtain Call (second week)
[3DS] Yo-kai Watch (legs)

There's no comparison
Ah yeah, I see. I knew about those games, but having them listed like that made it clear for me. Thanks :)

Curious about the HW numbers too.


By the way, I've been checking the official website, and... maybe they haven't updated it? I mean, there's one 3DS XL Colour left, and it's been on "production stopped" for a while, but it's not marked as discontinued yet. As for the OG 3DS, still in full production.... that's weird.

My guess is they'll stop OG 3DS production in autumn, just before the holidays.
 
Oct 10, 2007
4,117
0
0
www.wiitalia.it
I'm not sure why you keep repeating that quality is not rewarded or quality is secondary, when more aptly it's that facets that you, or consumers in the dedicated market, consider quality are not always rewarded.
There is a wide debate over what quality is, and this is true in all types of market. The definition of quality largely depends on consumers' perception, and since consumer bases are likely to differ across markets, it is not unexpected that consumers in the traditional market would consider mobile games lower quality products. Note that I am not saying low quality is bad: it is not. In particular when it is prices accordingly. Indeed, one among the devices that signal quality is the price. Price is typically composed of many elements: production costs, distribution costs, marketing, IP value and, of course, quality. It is also worth noticing that what quality is in the mobile market is different with respect to the traditional market, and vice versa.

There is no likely scenario going forward where Nintendo doesn't need to engage in some sort of restructuring or reorganisation. At a fundamental level they are ill-aligned with the modern global home console market, they have no substantive enough competitive advantage to attract sizeable audiences. The Wii U reflects this, there is nothing to suggest a successor won't also reflect this.
Maybe... or maybe not. First of all, big firms such as Nintendo often undergo big re-organizations, even if they are succeeding in what they are doing. Secondly, there are scenarios in which Nintendo might re-gain relevance in the worldwide market, e.g. if the next traditional platform is very successful. I do not know how it should be (e.g. VR, hybrid), but it should not be discarded as an option. After all, Wii and DS were more than unexpected successes, and they were not long time ago. Market has changed, this is true, but are we sure Nintendo is not able to interpret it and propose something new that becomes popular? I do think we should at least be partially confident that Nintendo might turn things around in its core business. Then, if we talk about Japan, Nintendo has a much stronger position with respect to Western markets. As for attracting a sizeable audience, well, believe or not, but Nintendo is still wildly popular among kids. There are also plenty of other factors to consider; just think about those kids (many kids) that were raised by DS and Wii... Do you think that will never return to Nintendo hardware? Now, they are in their adolescence, and probably playing Minecraft or League of Legends; who knows what will happen when they will grow as adults. This already kind of happened before (Iwata was mentioning how Super Smash Bros. and Pokémon sold well also because nostalgia factor from around 2003).

Meanwhile the market forces causing dedicated handheld contraction are not abating. So a future Nintendo is going to need alternative revenue streams, even if they aren't primary revenue. It's going to need to monetize the users it has more. It's going to need success in markets that aren't stagnant. Or it's going to need to reduce its cost structure to reflect diminished relevance and/or a contracted market space. I can only presume since you seem to oppose the former, that you think the latter is more appropriate.
Nintendo will need alternative revenue streams if the market is really shrinking, and there are no ways to battle against external forces. Before PS4 and Xbox One launched, there were many people predicting a decline of the home console market as well; well, worldwide numbers are better than PS3 and Xbox 360. Japan is, instead, still quite strong in the handheld market, and 3DS is just there to show that it is true (3DS had 5 multi-million seller in the span of 6 months, an unprecedent result). That is why, perhaps, many are predicting Nintendo going hybrid, or at least going with a shared ecosystem that might tackle the West and Japan with just one platform.

Other streams of revenues might be useful, especially in the short run, but as long as they do not damage the core business. The most dangerous situation would be having people migrating from Nintendo hardware (or do not buying Nintendo hardware to begin with) because they can play Nintendo games on phones they already have. Would Nintendo be able to deal with this situation? As a hardware manufacturer, no: Nintendo would need to downsize to the level that going mobile might not have made sense to begin with.

I don't find it worthwhile entertaining that Nintendo will happen upon some sort of unicorn to revitalise their traditional businesses any more than it's worthwhile entertaining that Sony and Sharp are going to magically uncommodotize the TV market or Eastman Kodak is going to get everyone buying disposable cameras and film again. If that's the crux of your dissent, that anything can happen, then it seems a rather pointless tangent. I'm more interested in the probable, than wild possibility.
It is not a matter of unicorn. There still exists a market where people are willing to buy a dedicated device where to play game, both worldwide and in Japan. It seems disingenous to think that Nintendo should not try to concentrate their efforts in this core business just because Wii U is not doing well and 3DS is not selling as well as DS. Your examples are not correct because in those cases the market has changed and nothing might bring demand back; in the video game market? PS4 sales are there to show that a market exists, and 3DS is selling well enough in Japan to show that Japan is still willing to have a dedicated device market as well.

No one is denying that changes can occur within the mobile market, in terms of business models, in terms of major players, but its existence in any useful projection period is not in question. Smart convergent devices are not going anywhere and people are not going to arbitrarily stop using them for digital interactive entertainment. It is not going to weaken as a force of substitution.
"Smart convergent devices are not going anywhere" - you could have said the same thing about handheld last generation, right? I do not think you can say that and being 100% certain. And the fact that there exists a similar market does not mean that every player should dip in, otherwise we would have seen all players jumping in social gaming on Facebook and this is not the case (even though that market is huge).
 
Nov 13, 2011
16,595
0
0
You seem to simply be repeating again that these are "low quality products" succeeding, while concurrently paying lip-service to dimensions of quality differing. If these were low quality products, they would not succeed.
I do think we should at least be partially confident that Nintendo might turn things around in its core business.
Why exactly? Elaborate on what concrete strategy Nintendo can employ in the immediate or near term to counteract the substitution forces, the contracting markets their core operations are in, their core misalignment with the nature of the modern home console market, all while soliciting no competitive response. When do they launch a successor home console, what differentiating value does it offer such that it presents an order winning product. Similarly for a successor handheld, what exactly about it prevents the ebbing tide? What drives demand back to the dedicated market over their convergent devices?

The core Western home console market has not, as yet, been impacted [as severely] by convergent substitution. The home console market will suffer a major contraction regardless. They show that in Western markets a sizeable core demographic market exists. But pointing to PS4 sales does nothing to show that a substantial market exists for the type of system Nintendo produces with its brands, capabilities and relationships.

Nothing plausibly presents itself as a substitute for the smart device, it is a device that converges a myriad functions. That doesn't mean it's irreplaceable, obviously. Should a substitute arise for the smartphone as a convergent device, it will not be a regression towards the dedicated device it substituted. I'm not sure why anyone would have said handhelds aren't going anywhere when they're a highly specialist device.

Your entire premise, as previously noted seems to be "anything is possible," as well as "the market isn't really changing."

And again, I have no interest in discussing wild possibility with no underlying substance, while ignoring existing market realities and plausible outcomes of those trends.
 
Oct 10, 2007
4,117
0
0
www.wiitalia.it
You seem to simply be repeating again that these are "low quality products" succeeding, while concurrently paying lip-service to dimensions of quality differing. If these were low quality products, they would not succeed.
Low-quality products can succeed, and to a great extent even. Just think about shovelware that was selling a lot on PS1, PS2, Wii and DS (and many other successful platforms). Then one can debate on what quality actually is. Furthermore, I have not said that all mobile games are of low-quality; as you have huge hits, in terms of size and player base, you also had huge pile of shovelware; that is just what happens when the installed base is big, entry barries are nihil and consumers are, on average, less informed. The fact that consumers are less informed on mobile is not something unexpected or difficult to assess.

Why exactly? Elaborate on what concrete strategy Nintendo can employ in the immediate or near term to counteract the substitution forces, the contracting markets their core operations are in, their core misalignment with the nature of the modern home console market, all while soliciting no competitive response. When do they launch a successor home console, what differentiating value does it offer such that it presents an order winning product. Similarly for a successor handheld, what exactly about it prevents the ebbing tide?
To be honest, I am not an engineer or someone who would come out with some innovative ideas to reinvigorate the core business of a large company as Nintendo. I just said that given past events one might be at least slightly confident that Nintendo might find out how to improve its business in the traditional gaming sector. There are, though, some elements that Nintendo should consider to succeed again in the market, for example a low entry point, compelling software right after the launch, and a shared ecosystem such that handheld and home console can play the same games, and therefore target different territories.

The core Western home console market has not, as yet, been impacted [as severely] by convergent substitution. The home console market will suffer a major contraction regardless. While PS4 sales do nothing to show that a substantial market exists for the type of system Nintendo produces with its capabilities and relationships.
The PS4 will show that a substantial market will exist as long as price point will decrease and compelling software will be released, exactly as PS360 became hugely popular among young and casual gamers at the end of their lifecycles. Minecraft sold millions on 360 and PS3 last year, and it was not thank to those who are making PS4 a success.

Nothing plausibly presents itself as a substitute for the smart device, it is a device that converges a myriad functions. Should a substitute arise for the smartphone as a convergent device, it will not be a regression towards the dedicated device. I'm not sure why anyone would have said handhelds aren't going anywhere when they're a highly specialist device.
What I do not like about this is the absolute certainty that "nothing will substitute smart devices". You might be right, but this was the same reasoning people were bringing up when discussing about handheld (in particular in light of the huge success of DS and PSP) or other consumer products in the past years. Furthermore, dedicated devices might still exist as a separate market as cameras exists.

Your entire premise, as previously noted seems to be "anything is possible," as well as "the market isn't really changing."

And again, I have no interest in discussing wild possibility with no underlying substance, while ignoring existing market realities and plausible outcomes of those trends.
I am deeply sorry you think I am not bringing any substance but on the other hand I cannot say the same.
 
Nov 13, 2011
16,595
0
0
You're still only viewing quality through the subjective lens of the traditional enthusiast. So once again, I'm not speaking of quality with regard to the metrics that you deem of value. The quality of a product is in how well it meets target consumer needs.

I didn't say nothing will substitute smart devices, I said nothing plausible presents itself as a viable substitute. But once again, the consumer desires behind convergent smartphone adoption show no indication of suddenly reversing to generate growth in the markets for devices they have supplanted.

If you take issue with there being no substantive basis for the hunky dory scenario you posit - where dedicated devices resurge as smartphones wane, where Nintendo recaptures significant share through some unknown and unknowable, where the demography of the global market shifts to align with Nintendo's strengths, or where the changes wrought by shifting technology are just a temporary blip, where all this occurs such that they can achieve growth rather than need to reduce cost structure, all while they forgo diversifying into attractive markets or increased userbase monetization - then provide some basis.

Perhaps further, beyond simply saying how all these diversification efforts are terrible awful very bad things you can specify what exactly Nintendo should do. Thus far I can only surmise that you think they don't need to do anything.
 
Jul 29, 2010
4,242
68
655
Perhaps further, beyond simply saying how all these diversification efforts are terrible awful very bad things you can specify what exactly Nintendo should do. Thus far I can only surmise that you think they don't need to do anything.
To be honest, I didn't have enough patience to read through all of Pennywise's text, but I thought he was (at least initially) just saying that mobile isn't a surefire bet that everyone thinks it is. It needs to be done properly, and if so, can supplement/take over their traditional business. Obviously diversifying, if done properly, can reduce risk, especially w/ a market that seems to be growing though.
 
Oct 10, 2007
4,117
0
0
www.wiitalia.it
You're still only viewing quality through the subjective lens of the traditional enthusiast. So once again, I'm not speaking of quality with regard to the metrics that you deem of value. The quality of a product is in how well it meets target consumer needs.
I am not a traditional enthusiast, and therefore it is not correct to say that I view quality through the subjective lens of the traditional enthusiast. I have not defined what I meant for quality either! In fact, I said that it is difficult to define quality. Your definition is only partial, and might not be the correct, or the only, one to use in this debate. There is an interesting paper by Bednar and Reeves on the matter, among the others. Another paper which might be worth a reading is What does product quality really mean? by Garvin; quoting from the paper: "A product that maximizes satisfaction is certainly preferable to one that meets fewer needs, but is it necessarily better as well? The implied equivalence often breaks down in practice. A consumer may enjoy a particular brand because of its unusual taste or features, yet may still regard some other brand as being of higher quality. In the latter assessment, the product's objective characteristics are also being considered.". For example, considering the product-based approach, one might define a video game of high-quality if and only if it can be played using a controller; is it too reaching? Well, if we think of fighting games, this is certainly true. But even if we want to stick to the consumer-based approach (which is the only one to follow according to your post), then how would you measure satisfaction, which signals the quality of the product? Downloads? A bit deceptive, since most apps are free. Revenues? We know that most of the revenues comes from "whales", that is few consumers that spend a lot. In this case, you might also want to argue that the vast majority of mobile games is of low quality because only a tiny fraction of consumers are actually willing to pay for contents! You see, the issue is very complex, and what I initially said was not aimed at downplaying the quality of mobile games.

I didn't say nothing will substitute smart devices, I said nothing plausible presents itself as a viable substitute. But once again, the consumer desires behind convergent smartphone adoption show no indication of suddenly reversing to generate growth in the markets for devices they have supplanted.
The fact that something is implausible does not mean one should not concerned about the potential consequences. There is a theory by Taleb, summed up in the book The Black Swan, stating that unpredictable events might have a huge impact, and understating them might not be the correct approach. After all, we are talking about a market that went through extreme changes, to the point that the biggest companies until five-six years ago are now irrelevant (e.g. Nokia) and companies no one would have expected to be in the market are now extremely important (e.g. Apple, Google). The fact that you cannot think of any viable substitutable does not mean there will not be. Of course we cannot think of viable substitutes: those probably have yet to be invented (or they will not be as they exist now). Just think about tablets, MP3 players, GoPro...

As for consumers, until a few years ago they were buying the Wii for Wii Fit: basically the most unexpected thing ever happened to the video game industry. But it happened, and it was huge.

If you take issue with there being no substantive basis for the hunky dory scenario you posit - where dedicated devices resurge as smartphones wane, where Nintendo recaptures significant share through some unknown and unknowable, where the demography of the global market shifts to align with Nintendo's strengths, or where the changes wrought by shifting technology are just a temporary blip, where all this occurs such that they can achieve growth rather than need to reduce cost structure, all while they forgo diversifying into attractive markets or increased userbase monetization - then provide some basis.
I do not have to. My original point (which you can read a few pages ago) was only related to Nintendo having mobile gaming as a lifeboat for a potential handheld failure ("catastrophe", ipse dixit). I do not think it is simple as that, and I explained why. As for what you are saying, my simple and humble opinion is just that, at this point, we cannot say whether this will occur or not. Since Nintendo was able to reinvent itself a few times before, I would just give some confidence to the company. I might be wrong, of course, but I am not discussing to be right or wrong; I just discuss to express my opinion on the issue. In this regard, I just went against a common opinion that mobile is an automatic success for video game companies. I do not think it is true. For example, when Rovio was stopping to grow, why no one said that it should have moved from its core business (i.e. mobile games) to start developing in other businesses (i.e. traditional video games)? Why, for example, have many people saluted Level-5's strategy to go mobile as the right move, when the company have yet to find an hit in that market, and it has been struggling to find one for years? And so on. It would be interesting to discuss all this issues without rose-tinted glasses, from both sides.

Perhaps further, beyond simply saying how all these diversification efforts are terrible awful very bad things you can specify what exactly Nintendo should do. Thus far I can only surmise that you think they don't need to do anything.
Nope. I am not an engineer nor a businessman, but I said that, for example, a shared ecosystem such that it can offer an home console in the West along with an handheld in Japan might fit different needs in different territories; also, I talked about a very low entry point. I am also saying no expensive gimmicks such as the GamePad. For example, I can see Nintendo entering big ways into the VR market, which is growing and might be promising in the future. This is another topic, though, from my original point.
 
Nov 13, 2011
16,595
0
0
I'm not sure why you keep pointing out that a substitute may arise when no contrary claim is made. The pertinent part is that the smartdevice market is not going to regress towards consumers en masse returning to carrying a myriad devices with them instead of the one that meets a myriad needs.

Similarly, no one is claiming that the mobile market is surefire success. The opposite has been stated, Nintendo could make no headway. However, diversification serves to provide more avenues for success and failure, more question marks, more potential lifeboats in the event of current product line failure. Do you think it preferable to have catastrophic failure in current lines and no diversification attempts?

If you're really operating under the premise that the string of implausibility I detailed, so unlikely to concurrently occur that it can essentially be considered impossibility, is an outcome worth contemplating because Nintendo, and therefore no diversification is needed anyway, then we may as well be discussing how BlackBerry is going to retake 50% of the handset market and Eastman Kodak is going to drive a digital camera resurgence. Because it has as much basis in reality.
 
Oct 10, 2007
4,117
0
0
www.wiitalia.it
I'm not sure why you keep pointing out that a substitute may arise when no contrary claim is made. The pertinent part is that the smartdevice market is not going to regress towards consumers en masse returning to carrying a myriad devices with them instead of the one that meets a myriad needs.
The fact that a substitute might arise was just a quick reply to something you said; that was not the primary topic of the debate. It was just to specify that implausibility does not mean impossibility. Also, the issue is wider and more complex, since if it is true that consumers will not likely carry a myriad devices, it is also true that some markets for dedicated devices have continued to exist, and in fact some of them are growing, e.g. reflex camers. It all bodes down to what the consumer wants and to what extent. The fact that 3DS sold well in North America during the first three months of the year might be a signal that under some conditions Western video gamers might welcome an handheld device.

Similarly, no one is claiming that the mobile market is surefire success. The opposite has been stated, Nintendo could make no headway. However, diversification serves to provide more avenues for success and failure, more question marks, more potential lifeboats in the event of current product line failure. Do you think it preferable to have catastrophic failure in current lines and no diversification attempts?
No one is claiming that, but every time I read that company X should go mobile, being mobile the only option, I think the actual meaning is really "mobile market is surefire success", or at least that in the mobile market it is easy to achieve success (which is quite false; Rovio itself found a huge hit after tried more than 30th times).

I do think diversification might be good. Nintendo is already diversifying: toys, QOL devices, licensing (e.g. animation industry). I am not sure mobile is an easy answer, as long as mobile is a direct competitor to their core business.

If you admit that the mobile market is stealing consumers to the market for dedicated video game devices (in particular, handheld in Western countries), then you implicitly admit that by going mobile, Nintendo will compete with itself in the traditional market; this is a situation Nintendo would prefer to avoid, unless the long-term plan is going fully mobile. Given the fact that it still has an hardware R&D unit, this is unlikely.

If you're really operating under the premise that the string of implausibility I detailed, so unlikely to concurrently occur that it can essentially be considered impossibility, is an outcome worth contemplating because Nintendo, and therefore no diversification is needed anyway, then we may as well be discussing how BlackBerry is going to retake 50% of the handset market and Eastman Kodak is going to drive a digital camera resurgence. Because it has as much basis in reality.
I have not said diversification is not needed. I have said that going mobile is not an easy way to open a new stream of revenues, and might not be the good strategy in the long-term, for all the reasons I already mentioned in the previous posts.

As for the examples you are mentioning, well, you have to know the history of those companies before. Has RIM ever been able to reinvent itself after a decline? I do not know Kodak much to say something about it. But if we were in late Nineties, you could have well mentioned Apple, and probably the common idea was that no, you could have not said that the company would have been able to be relevant again.

The point is, I do not think Nintendo will capture lightning in a bottle again, because I do not think previous successes were lightning in a bottle. And if people think that Nintendo should go mobile to have a lifeboat, then it means that they do believe Nintendo will capture lightning in a bottle (in the mobile market), since it seems the only way to succeed big way.
 

Chris1964

Sales-Age Genius
Dec 17, 2008
11,738
0
0
21./14. [PS4] One Piece: Pirate Warriors 3 <ACT> (Bandai Namco Games) {2015.03.26} (¥8.424)
22./23. [3DS] Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS <FTG> (Nintendo) {2014.09.13} (¥5.616)
23./22. [PS4] Battlefield: Hardline <ACT> (Electronic Arts) {2015.03.19} (¥7.884)
24./24. [3DS] The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask 3D # <ADV> (Nintendo) {2015.02.14} (¥5.076)
25./31. [PS4] Final Fantasy Type-0 HD # <RPG> (Square Enix) {2015.03.19} (¥7.344)
26./16. [PS3] Sword Art Online: Lost Song <RPG> (Bandai Namco Games) {2015.03.26} (¥7.690)
27./25. [PS3] Yakuza 0 <ADV> (Sega) {2015.03.12} (¥8.845)
28./20. [PSV] Senran Kagura Estival Versus # <ACT> (Marvelous) {2015.03.26} (¥7.538)
29./28. [3DS] Animal Crossing: New Leaf # <ETC> (Nintendo) {2012.11.08} (¥4.800)
30./26. [PS3] Battlefield: Hardline <ACT> (Electronic Arts) {2015.03.19} (¥7.884)
31./19. [3DS] Kuroko's Basketball: Ties to the Future <SLG> (Bandai Namco Games) {2015.03.26} (¥6.145)
32./30. [PS3] Dragon Quest Heroes <RPG> (Square Enix) {2015.02.26} (¥7.344)
33./39. [3DS] Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate # <ACT> (Capcom) {2014.10.11} (¥6.264)
34./35. [PS4] Senran Kagura Estival Versus # <ACT> (Marvelous) {2015.03.26} (¥8.618)
35./33. [3DS] LEGO City Undercover: The Chase Begins <ADV> (Nintendo) {2015.03.05} (¥5.076)
36./42. [3DS] Mario Kart 7 <RCE> (Nintendo) {2011.12.01} (¥4.800)
37./41. [WIU] Super Smash Bros. for Wii U # <FTG> (Nintendo) {2014.12.06} (¥7.776)
38./00. [PSV] Hyakka Ryouran Elixir: Record of Torenia Revival <ADV> (Kaga Create) {2015.04.09} (¥7.344)
39./43. [3DS] Mario Vs. Donkey Kong: Tipping Stars <PZL> (Nintendo) {2015.03.19} (¥3.024)
40./34. [PS4] Resident Evil: Revelations 2 <ADV> (Capcom) {2015.03.19} (¥5.389)
41./46. [3DS] Kirby Triple Deluxe <ACT> (Nintendo) {2014.01.11} (¥4.800)
42./45. [3DS] Yo-kai Watch 2: Ganso / Honke <RPG> (Level 5) {2014.07.10} (¥4.937)
43./44. [PSV] God Eater 2: Rage Burst <ACT> (Bandai Namco Games) {2015.02.19} (¥6.145)
44./40. [PS4] Yakuza 0 <ADV> (Sega) {2015.03.12} (¥8.845)
45./49. [3DS] Doraemon: Nobita no Uchuu Eiyuuki <ADV> (FuRyu) {2015.03.05} (¥5.378)
46./37. [PS4] Disgaea 5: Alliance of Vengeance # <SLG> (Nippon Ichi Software) {2015.03.26} (¥7.776)
47./48. [3DS] Etrian Mystery Dungeon <RPG> (Atlus) {2015.03.05} (¥7.538)
48./00. [PS3] Yakuza 1 & 2 HD Edition <Yakuza \ Yakuza 2> [PlayStation 3 the Best] <ADV> (Sega) {2014.12.11} (¥1.944)
49./00. [PS4] Grand Theft Auto V # <ACT> (Take-Two Interactive Japan) {2014.12.11} (¥7.992)
50./00. [3DS] Mario Party: Island Tour <ETC> (Nintendo) {2014.03.20} (¥4.800)

Top 50

3DS - 18
PS4 - 11
PS3 - 9
PSV - 9
WIU - 3

SOFTWARE
Code:
+-------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
|System | This Week  | Last Week  | Last Year  |     YTD    |  Last YTD  |
+-------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
|  ALL  |    383.000 |    817.000 |    699.000 | 10.722.000 | 13.007.000 |
+-------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
 

Chris1964

Sales-Age Genius
Dec 17, 2008
11,738
0
0
YSO predictions

Week 17, 2015 (Apr 20 - Apr 26)

[3DS] Bravely Second: End Layer < 130k
[PS4] Hyperdimension Neptunia Victory II < 35k
[PS4] Toukiden: Kiwami < 10k
 
Jun 26, 2006
6,265
0
0
In a Dream
SOFTWARE
Code:
+-------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
|System | This Week  | Last Week  | Last Year  |     YTD    |  Last YTD  |
+-------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
|  ALL  |    383.000 |    817.000 |    699.000 | 10.722.000 | 13.007.000 |
+-------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
Woah is that correct, the weekly software? That's really low. Do you know off the top of your head when software was that low?

And the YTD is not that great either... :/
 
Jan 25, 2014
9,210
0
0
YSO predictions

Week 17, 2015 (Apr 20 - Apr 26)

[3DS] Bravely Second: End Layer < 130k
[PS4] Hyperdimension Neptunia Victory II < 35k
[PS4] Toukiden: Kiwami < 10k
That'd be quite a result for Neptunia, given how anything similar on the platform has pretty much cratered (Disgaea; Omega Quintet etc.)

Neptunia fanbase sure is dedicated.
 
Apr 5, 2006
46,932
1
0
The success of hunting games revolves around it being portable, a lesser game is not gonna do well, especially when it's coming so much later than the handheld releases.
EDIT - Plus it's PS4 (thought it was PS3 initially, so I was kind of surprised by such a low showing as well, but on PS4, it isn't surprising).
 
Mar 19, 2009
51,003
0
0
Toronto, Canada
The success of hunting games revolves around it being portable, a lesser game is not gonna do well, especially when it's coming so much later than the handheld releases.
I know, but PSP Kiwami wasn't exactly a beast:

PSP : Toukiden Kiwami ( Koei Tecmo ) { 2014-08-28 } - 13,518 / 33,503

Since that was simultaneous with Vita, a more appropriate comparison for Kiwami PS4 would be the DW Strikeforce games:

PS3 : Dynasty Warriors: Strikeforce ( Koei ) { 2009-10-01 } - 30,070 / 88,472
PS3 : Dynasty Warriors: Strikeforce 2 HD Version ( Koei Tecmo ) { 2012-07-26 } - - / 7,940

Worse than the first, potentially better than the second?
 
Apr 5, 2006
46,932
1
0
85k isn't well for an expansion to massively grow an IP like some were expecting.
The 1st week had less than 60% sellthrough, and going by the LTD, it probably never got a 2nd shipment, or a really small one.
The digital number was less than 20k (going by Famitsu estimates).

Some were expecting a potential 500k seller, which was completely outrageous.