Bruce Springsteen
Member
Embracing it means you're putting your most valued IP's on mobile, not some Mii social game that quickly fizzles away
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Nintendo Shares Plunge 17% After Saying Pokemon Gos Impact Is Limited
- Thread starter hongcha
- Start date
Embracing it means you're putting your most valued IP's on mobile, not some Mii social game that quickly fizzles away
Turin Turambar
Member
Why didn't Nintendo develop Call of Dutuy? I heard CoD sells a ton!
Well, because another company got the idea of doing CoD, not Nintendo. Same as Pokemon GO, the idea of doing a game like that wasn't from Nintendo.
That's not what it means, that's what you've decided it means.
"Wii Series" is Nintendo's most successful IP in recent years. Just saying.
axisofweevils
Holy crap! Today's real megaton is that more than two people can have the same first name.
The relationship between Nintendo and Pokemon has always been kinda weird. The Pokemon amiibo don't work in Yoshi's wooly world, for example.
Bruce Springsteen
Member
We all have a different perceptive
But if Nintendo thinks "fully embracing" mobile doesn't include it's biggest IP's which they would reserve for their NX console, they will be in for a rude awakening
If mobile games could make much money in the first place...
Davey Cakes
Member
Also, Animal Crossing mobile is coming. That's definitely one of Nintendo's more valuable properties as it still sells bucket loads on handheld.
Tomodachi Life, Animal Crossing and Fire Emblem are some of their most recent hits, especially the first two among the "expanded" crowd and they've been quite the success as far as "social gaming" goes. Embracing mobile gaming doesn't mean they have to jump in head first and just throw everything on cellphones immediately. The chances we won't see Mario in some form at some point on mobile are pretty low.
Whoops, I misread a analyst estimate as official PR. However, I still don't think that they'll be too far off the actual figure.
Bruce Springsteen
Member
Mario, Zelda, those are the names I'm waiting for
Animal Crossing and Fire Emblem aren't big for you? Ok...
Zelda isn't bigger than the others title mentioned, especially for the casual audience
Don't expect main entries of those series on mobile. They won't do that. They said they won't do that. They'll make experiences designed for mobile with the hope it'll bring people to the dedicated devices.
Also, Animal Crossing is bigger than Zelda.
Yeah but those aren't new. Once people are on a bandwagon, they don't look back, they look forward. Same goes for press outlets. The instant Nintendo would publish a new Pokémon app, no matter how small or shitty, and the press release goes out, the word would spread like wilfire.
Past Pokémon apps are dead and gone. Nobody will pick them back up because there'll be no press release > news outlet > audience informing loop.
an ownership of 10-13% of Niantic for 30M dollars is surreal. that would put the equity in like 300M territory and I don't even know how the company would get that bulky since it would've had to leave Google with that much, since the split and investment occurred alongside production of this game
I would imagine a 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 split evenly between Google, TPC, Nintendo, and employees. I just won't believe Nintendo would have settled for less than 50%.
I would imagine a 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 split evenly between Google, TPC, Nintendo, and employees. I just won't believe Nintendo would have settled for less than 50%.
I'm sure you are, but that really doesn't mean much as far as how much Nintendo embracing or committing to mobile gaming. They need to play it smart, not just dump big names in a hurry to appease core gamers.
Well that's a lie
Bruce Springsteen
Member
I've never played either of those games, so no
Zelda isn't a "casual" game but's well known, they could make a causal game for that IP if they wanted to
No it isn't. It hasn't been relevant for half a decade.
Also he said most valuable not most successful.
The guy I'm responding to (Busaiku) said that nobody buys or cares about previous Pokémon apps. You can ask him for evidence. I'm just arguing based on what he said.
You should read Nintendo´s statement. I guess most here have no understanding of accounting. TPC keeps the profits because of taxes and dividends. Nintendo´s profits indirectly because their investment grows in value but this is something that is not reflected on their consolidated income statement.
Nintendo´s share is probably just the trademark licensing.
Nintendo said:
I agree.
"Relevant" is relative. Miis are fundamental to both 3DS and Wii U, are still used for Miiverse etc., and Tomodachi Life, that used Miis and can be considered an offshoot of the Wii Series was very popular, so Miitomo as the first app wasn't a stretch
Well he has a point. Past Pokémon apps have done terribly even with promotion. The idea that just because it's Pokémon it'll do well is a massively erroneous one.
GregLombardi
Member
It doesnt jive though. Even an analyst said Nintendo were being disingenuous at best with their statement. The statement doesnt even include the information required to make a sound judgment because it effectively clarifies that the income will be kept off the books in the pokemon company, a company that Nintendo controls (regardless of their 30% public ownership of it, they control the cash floes apparently). So just because you put the pokemon go cash in one bucket (TPC) rather than your publicly traded one (NTDOY) doesnt mean you arent benefitting massively from the cash in take from pokemon go. All it takes is one transfer from TPC to nintendo and suddenly they are doing gangbusters.
Like i said, the more i look into the statement and the situation, the more leery I am of the truth they are trying to paint. It just doesnt jive. There is more than meets the public eye going on here.
You represent the whole market? Good to know.
That's not exactly how it works
Animal Crossing has been one of their most successful franchises in recent years, Fire Emblem has been on the rise. Both are coming to mobile in the next year.
Animal Crossing is probably their 3rd biggest property at this point, far bigger than Zelda.
And there are 3 more unknown games.
You're not following me.
My point is that Pokémon has been in a slump for years. The whole brand. Perhaps 'slump' is an exaggeration, but it's not what it was. Thus all the apps they created went nowhere. In Busaiku's words, "nobody cares".
Today, Pokémon Go has come along and totally rejuvenated the brand - beyond even its historic peak.
My point is that if Nintendo released one or more new paid apps now, those apps would do infinitely better than those pre-Go apps, because now the brand has got insane momentum.
I'm essentially saying that while Pokémon Go may not add up to much for Nintendo revenue-wise, it has increased the brand's potential energy so much that smaller products will probably grow huge legs.
Lot of my friends have already deleted the app.
Short shelf life with the masses unlike Candy Crush/Game of War etc.
As someone who said something to this effect in one of the original market reaction threads, this news isn't a surprise. Nintendo is really going out of their way to keep expectations in line, which is a continued sign of their corporate responsibility.
I disagree. Pokémon hasn't been in a slump. If a slump is what most other franchises aspire to, then gaming is screwed.
You are severely overestimating how "low" Pokémon was.
Shikamaru Ninja
任天å ã® å¿è
Well the trump card for Nintendo here might be their internally developed Pokemon Go Plus (which by the way is kind of an example of QoL products - though this is still video game related). This is essentially Nintendo's direct method of profiting from Pokemon Go's success aside from their ownership cuts. How successful it is - or the company predicts it will be is an interesting question.
It's a great little app but it's definitely missing some higher-level progression. You can tell quickly that you're not really going anywhere, just building dat Pokédex
DeuceGamer
Member
We are to believe that Nintendo invested money into a company they hadn't previously worked only to get a trademark licensing fee? I fail to believe Nintendo would do that. I think they wanted to point out that they aren't getting all of the profits out of Pokemon Go but I also don't think they are getting only a licensing fee out of it. Doesn't make sense to me.
Problem is that it seems it has been delayed :/ If the GO Plus had been available when the game just started, they'd probably have made a mint, but the longer they leave it...
What's Go Plus?
Absolutely, I even said 'slump is an exaggeration'; I'm not saying it was dead in the water, of course it wasn't and isn't dead.
Regardless of the whole 'was it in a "slump"' argument – my point is that, brand-wise, Pokémon Go is going to generate loads of revenue for them because it thrust Pokémon back into being a global cultural phenomenon. Nintendo specifically can harness this by putting out small phone apps alone. Indeed, apps which didn't do much for them in recent history (as noted by Busaiku).
Absolutely, I even said 'slump is an exaggeration'; I'm not saying it was dead in the water, of course it wasn't and isn't dead.
Regardless of the whole 'was it in a "slump"' argument – my point is that, brand-wise, Pokémon Go is going to generate loads of revenue for them because it thrust Pokémon back into being a global cultural phenomenon. Nintendo specifically can harness this by putting out small phone apps alone. Indeed, apps which didn't do much for them in recent history (as noted by Busaiku).
Quadraphonic
Member
Sure. And Animal Crossing games came to the 3DS and Wii U with Amiibo support and those went over like a fart in church.
Just because it's an IP doesn't mean it'll be a good title.
Pokémon sales have been increasing the last 3 years, that's not a slump.
It made $1.5 billion in 2013 and $2 billion in 2014.
And it was $2.1 billion in 2015, with no mainline release.
You can't believe that Pokémon Comaster or Shuffle Mobile, if released now, would be huge hits.
That's great, thanks for letting me know - forget I ever said it. Again, it has nothing to do with my argument.
My point in this thread is: Pokémon Go has boosted the brand into being an unprecedented global phenomenon again, and while Nintendo might not get much/any revenue directly out of the app, they will be able to capitalise on this massive popularity if they play their cards right (e.g. by publishing new paid apps or Pokémon games on other platforms - though the latter are higher risk). Basically: The massive share sell-off could be dumb because Nintendo may still get a lot of revenue from it in the long run if they play their cards right.
They don't need to be good, or be hits, to make money off the back of something like Pokémon Go. You don't seem to understand how mainstream audiences work. Once something enters popular culture with force, people will consume anything/everything they can about it. And apps are such a low-cost and low-risk venture it's much easier to make money with them.
Like imagine how much the toy merchandise companies are making off it. Nintendo need to get on that.
LordRaptor
Member
Given the nature of videogames as a business, I am sure it is also very much in their interest to retain longer term institutional investors rather than short-termist cash and run investors, which this kind of announcement will dissuade.
formasymphonic
Member
This only means anything (from shareholder perspective) if people become willing to further invest in Pokemon merch / media and Nintendo's main business of selling the consoles that those games are played on.
The alternative is if Pokemon GO somehow becomes a consistent Candy Crush/Clash of Clans-type earner and Nintendo absorbs/buys Nicalis and takes that reinvented directly. Or they release other 100% in-house apps that they get all the revenue for, this is worth more (again from shareholder perspective) than only 13% from their ownership in Nicalis.
.
Edit: so are Nintendo still worth more than Sony now or what?
It´s problably not a lot. I think it´s something like this.
30% Apple/Google
5-10% Google Maps
10-15% Niantic (Ingress data + development)
~50% TPC/Nintendo (I list them together, lol)
Niantic´s share is quite low, first they need to get their development cost back. Second just because you have a 30% share, does not actually mean you get 30% of the whole profits. It depends on the contracts and this is something no one outside the involved parties know.
I´m not saying Nintendo screwed up, this is simpy how they decided to handle the Pokemon IP when they set up the Pokemon Company 20 years ago.
vinnygambini
Why are strippers at the U.N. bad when they're great at strip clubs???
Picture from Forbes:
blame space
Banned
jesus
vinnygambini
Why are strippers at the U.N. bad when they're great at strip clubs???
From 13%, to similar percentage to TPC in Niantiac (even other facts from the articles are wrong)
Mess.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/nintendo-shares-plunge-16-percent-914091
hydragonwarrior
Member
I more or less have the same harsh level of thinking - like, there had to be a more strategic way to put out their statement which essentially cost them 6 billion.
A lot of people in this thread seem to be downplaying this as a small amount, and I know little about stocks so I guess it's still pocket change, but I think anyone higher up who sees this loss will immediately begin to fire the PR team lol.
GiantBreadbug
Member
I guess if you live in a world where hyperbolic statements are true, yeah.