Support NeoGAF

[gerg]

I think the bigger issue is that they failed to deliver being Nintendo. Mario kart Wii was for the multiplayer/party crowd, yet the first follow up to this is New Super Mario Bros. Wii. When people say that Super Mario Galaxy is the most recent 'big/AAA/whatever' release on the Wii, they might actually be right. Nintendo started out great and late 2007/early 2008 were great times to be a Nintendo Wii owner. Luckily the third parties picked up the pace in 2009, but overall Nintendo needs to step up their game.

And NSMB Wii isn't a big AAA game?

*calls AniHawk*

In a sense, I can understand that NSMB won't appeal to GAF in the same way that SMG does. But then we get into demanding that Nintendo produce a new, AAA IP with high production values, squared exactly at the 18-35 male demographic, which is a pretty unreasonable demand. It's not what Nintendo does, and I don't expect them ever to do so.

 

[[Nintex]]

And NSMB Wii isn't a big AAA game?

*calls AniHawk*

It isn't out yet, New Super Mario Bros. Wii is actually what 'Nintendo' is and fits the bill but it's been 2 years since Super Mario Galaxy.

 

[Grant DaNasty]

Does NOA seem much less competent since it moved from Redmond to Frisco/New York?

American releases are often third behind Europe, and they can't even get official box art for major games like NSMB Wii and Wii Sports Fit available until a couple months (or less) before release.

NOA lost 2/3rds of its employees in that move, and no one seems to make a deal about it.

(Do I have to mention the horrible E3?)

 

[[Nintex]]

Does NOA seem much less competent since it moved from Redmond to Frisco/New York?

American releases are often third behind Europe, and they can't even get official box art for major games like NSMB Wii and Wii Sports Fit available until a couple months (or less) before release.

NOA lost 2/3rds of its employees in that move, and no one seems to make a deal about it.

(Do I have to mention the horrible E3?)

NOA hasn't really recovered since the Rare buy-out(and before you go lol wut, explain to me how Ken Lobb and other ULTRA 64 Dream Team members suddenly ended up on the Microsoft payroll :lol )

 

[gerg]

It isn't out yet, New Super Mario Bros. Wii is actually what 'Nintendo' is and fits the bill but it's been 2 years since Super Mario Galaxy.

In the end, I can understand what you're saying. What I may find less understandable is this sense of entitlement, in that Nintendo "owes" it to you to make games, and that they have not been fulfilling their end of a bargain. I guess if you only own a Wii, not using it for a while may be pretty frustrating, but is not buying games really that bad?

But yeah, it's been a long time since SMG.

 

[legend166]

Well there are actually more and deeper problems;

• Failing to Develop the Wii's online beyond freind codes is total fail, barely passable games like "The CONduit" (urg) were made all the worse by this total lack of any development even into the functionallity of late 90's pcs.
• Lack of expoltation of proiferals, "Wii fit plus"? Seriously? It actually practially says "Rehash" on the box. Consumers are also confused about Wii motion plus, to be fair i was. It's pretty daming that they have to fix the Wiimote because all their promises of precision with the original were BullShit

This against the backdrop of an almost non existant library for 2009.

I'm sorry, but I lol'd.

 

[Jocchan]

I'm sorry, but I lol'd.

I lol'd for expoltation too.

 

[[Nintex]]

In the end, I can understand what you're saying. What I may find less understandable is this sense of entitlement, in that Nintendo "owes" it to you to make games, and that they have not been fulfilling their end of a bargain. I guess if you only own a Wii, not using it for a while may be pretty frustrating, but is not buying games really that bad?

But yeah, it's been a long time since SMG.

They don't owe it to me but is the reason why people buy Nintendo consoles. Games like Mario Kart Wii for example, 4 player split screen fun. 4 player tennis is the most popular part of Wii Sports by far. Anyway, with Wii Sports Resort they missed the mark a bit because most people will only have one or two Wii MotionPlus's.

I have enough games to play on Xbox 360, DS and PC, but it just seems to stupid to ignore your fanbase for months. Nintendo has sold more systems than ever, you'd think that they'd release more games too.

 

[legend166]

I lol'd for expoltation too.

Well, I could have bolded a few more, but that made me lol the most.

 

[Stumpokapow]

So anyone gonna hit up the no doubt fat short sale this morning or what? I'm considering margin shorting a little. Let the kids piss and moan about the little stuff, let's talk about making some loot!

 

[Pachael]

So, are they still making more than the rest of the industry or not? ;p

 

[caligula13]

Nintendo goes Sega...again!

 

[gerg]

So anyone gonna hit up the no doubt fat short sale this morning or what? I'm considering margin shorting a little. Let the kids piss and moan about the little stuff, let's talk about making some loot!

I don't understand this.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I don't understand this.

Nintendo just bombed their expectations and revised them down. I'm looking to, for a small period of time, sell Nintendo shares I don't own with money I don't have, in order to make a profit at Nintendo's expense. I believe doing this over a very short term (say, market open today to market close today) will result in profit.

This thread, so far, has not been particularly enlightening. That's not to say that there haven't been some posts here that have been reasonable and analytic, but there's also been a lot of trash, so I was expressing my preference for shifting the topic of conversation towards that, since it might be more productive.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

I don't understand this.

Selling stock that you don't own at the current price, then buying it later to cover your half of the transaction (hopefully at a lower price than you sold it for).

Yesterday would have been the time to do it. The pinksheets will react quickly once the market opens.

 

[Tom_Cody]

Have the new software numbers been released yet (individual titles)?

 

[gerg]

Nintendo just bombed their expectations and revised them down. I'm looking to, for a small period of time, sell Nintendo shares I don't own with money I don't have, in order to make a profit at Nintendo's expense. I believe doing this over a very short term (say, market open today to market close today) will result in profit.

This thread, so far, has not been particularly enlightening. That's not to say that there haven't been some posts here that have been reasonable and analytic, but there's also been a lot of trash, so I was expressing my preference for shifting the topic of conversation towards that, since it might be more productive.

Selling stock that you don't own at the current price, then buying it later to cover your half of the transaction (hopefully at a lower price than you sold it for).

Yesterday would have been the time to do it. The pinksheets will react quickly once the market opens.

Ah, I see. It sound strangely illegal, though. Then again, I know nothing about shares.

 

[VAIL]

Nintendo simply can't win...

Nintendo releases a good stream of software: 3rd parties grumble because "only Nintendo titles sell"

Nintendo scales back releases: Lol where are the games...

 

[DefectiveReject]

Massive Profits
Million sellers galore
Head of the Market

yet Massive Fail

And I have a retarded tag!

 

[Stumpokapow]

Ah, I see. It sound strangely illegal, though. Then again, I know nothing about shares.

No, shorting is a perfectly normal, healthy market process.

When you buy a share, you pay money equal to the current value of the share. If the share value goes up, you can then sell it for the value of the share at that point, and you'll make more money than what you had to begin with. Buying shares necessarily raises the price of the share. If more volume is bought than sold, the price will go up.

When you short a share, you agree to buy a share at some point in the future, but take the cash value of the share NOW. If the share goes up, the amount of money you'll have to pay to buy the share you're legally obligated to buy goes up, and so you will lose money. If the share goes down, you will have to pay less than you received when you did the short.

Shares, depending on the market, have certain rules about when you can short (basically to prevent massive runs from collapsing companies). Outside of shares, shorting is very common in commodities and futures. Short selling significantly increases market liquidity, and so beyond being personally motivated by making money, it's a useful market process.

Now, margin; let's say I short ChumpSoft at $50. I short 100 shares. I am given $5000 for selling shares I don't have! Hell yes. Unfortunately, I miscalculated, because ChumpSoft is releasing Skullbuster 6: Duty of War. ChumpSoft goes up to $60. I now need to buy $6000 worth of shares, because I have agreed to do that. But I only have $5000 in my account. Depending on your short and your account size, your broker will require you to have available trading money in your account to deal with this contingency. There are also margin calls; where a broker says "You need to deposit more money because I don't think you can handle the position you have" and if you don't comply, your position is liquidated.

I might not actually short Nintendo though because my EV (expected value) is going to be lower than buying Intrade contracts on the NJ Gubernatorial race.

 

[BGBW]

European interest in the DS has really died down this year.

Guess that means we must scrap Mario Galaxy 2 and Other M and make way for Nintendogs 2 and Even More Brain Training.

 

[FoneBone]

Demand for Nintendo products like the Wii has cooled as rival Sony has bolstered its line-up of console games, and as Apple Inc's (AAPL.O) iPhone has become a popular platform for handheld games.

Am I the only one skeptical of there being an actual cause-effect relationship there?

 

[gerg]

I might not actually short Nintendo though because my EV (expected value) is going to be lower than buying Intrade contracts on the NJ Gubernatorial race.

Is it alright if I just nod at this with a vacant stare? :lol

Thanks for explaining this, anyway. I get most of it: shorting is when you agree to buy a share in the future for its current price. (Or, equally, to sell a share in the future for its current price.) If the price of the share falls, you can then buy the stock that you agreed to sell for less than the price at which you agreed to sell them, thus making lots of money.

I guess the idea of being able to sell something you don't actually have is foreign to me.

 

[Windu]

not too surprised. They were insanely high to begin with and they had to come down at some point. Also, their game lineup has been pathetic lately.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Is it alright if I just nod at this with a vacant stare? :lol

Yes.

Thanks for explaining this, anyway. I get most of it: shorting is when you agree to buy a share in the future for its current price. (Or, equally, to sell a share in the future for its current price.) If the price of the share falls, you can then buy the stock that you agreed to sell for less than the price at which you agreed to sell them, thus making lots of money.

You have the outcome right here but not quite the process, at least as you just explained it.

When you short, you "borrow" a share (don't worry about from where--let's just say that there are shares out there for the borrowing) and immediately sell it at the current price. You get to take the full value of the current price. Short a company at $100, 1 share, means you're borrowing one share, selling that at $100, and pocketing $100.

The only downside to a short is that you also promise to give the share you borrowed back. At some point in the future--the time frame is not important--you agree to buy a share to give it back. If the share price goes up, you'll have to spend more than what you just pocketed, so you'll lose money. If the share price goes down, you'll only need to spend a percentage of what you just pocketed, so you'll gain money relative to your original position.

The other thing you need to remember is that because you're promising to buy something, the brokerage can force you to prove that you're able to buy it. If you can't prove that, you're fucked.

I guess the idea of being able to sell something you don't actually have is foreign to me.

It's one of those things like the first time you learn about negative, irrational, or imaginary numbers and you kinda say "... uh... what?!"

My recommendation if you want to learn more, beyond formal education, is to sign up for a virtual stock exchange. Investopedia and Motley Fool are both adequate resources (I'm endorsing only their educational content, not necessarily any given editorial stance) for learning more and both can hook you up with a game stock exchange.

 

[donny2112]

 

[AColdDay]

Yes.



You have the outcome right here but not quite the process, at least as you just explained it.

When you short, you "borrow" a share (don't worry about from where--let's just say that there are shares out there for the borrowing) and immediately sell it at the current price. You get to take the full value of the current price. Short a company at $100, 1 share, means you're borrowing one share, selling that at $100, and pocketing $100.

The only downside to a short is that you also promise to give the share you borrowed back. At some point in the future--the time frame is not important--you agree to buy a share to give it back. If the share price goes up, you'll have to spend more than what you just pocketed, so you'll lose money. If the share price goes down, you'll only need to spend a percentage of what you just pocketed, so you'll gain money relative to your original position.

The other thing you need to remember is that because you're promising to buy something, the brokerage can force you to prove that you're able to buy it. If you can't prove that, you're fucked.

I think that the stock will drop (duh) and without an uptick rule, that it would a great idea to short the stock.

To the other people who are interested in shorting, normal trading is a zero sum game, where somebody "wins" a set amount, while someone "loses" a set amount depending on the stocks value. However, shorting, like the derivatives market has an unlimited loss potential, so don't think that it is ever a riskless proposition.

In the old days of trading, they had what I mentioned earlier the "uptick rule", where you could only short a stock after the previous stock price close was a positive gain. I wish that this was still in effect, because people shorting stocks wildly is one of the reasons that we had such a ridiculous drop off in the stock market for a period of time. In fact, at one point, they either banned or restricted stock shorting for a while and is still trying to recover.

Anyways, Nintendo should have been more conservative in their projections, and this all could have been avoided.

 

[Cygnus X-1]

serves them right for having such a weak lineup and bad advertising.

hopefully this makes them go back to 2007 levels of output and quality.

Yeah, I second that.

Nintendo really should have thought that, sooner or later, the crazy (because, it was out of the normality, i.e. extraordinary) demand would have cooled down. It was just a matter of time and if you ask me, it lasted way more then every single analyst would have guessed.

So, what's happening is just normal for the DS after 110 millions systems sold in just 5 years.

Different matter for the Wii, who is suffering because of the bad release schedule due to the fact that Wii's games require much ore time to be developed then DS games. And third parties...Lol. Nintendo has really to make their internal organization somehow more efficient.

Of course the unfavorable change due to a strong yen is making the entire thing worse. Well, I suppose that as long as they're doing profits, no problems for them.

And anyway: how much money did they accumulate in these last 3 crazy years after all?

 

[Stumpokapow]

In the old days of trading, they had what I mentioned earlier the "uptick rule", where you could only short a stock after the previous stock price close was a positive gain. I wish that this was still in effect, because people shorting stocks wildly is one of the reasons that we had such a ridiculous drop off in the stock market for a period of time. In fact, at one point, they either banned or restricted stock shorting for a while and is still trying to recover.

Yeah, I didn't want to get in to the intricacies of historical regulation of short selling or the uptick rule! Hell, not to mention that Nintendo trades as an ADR so from a regulatory POV you'll have to deal with the messes associated with that!

Anyways, Nintendo should have been more conservative in their projections, and this all could have been avoided.

or they could have actually released product to merit their stated projections

 

[Cygnus X-1]

YAY SALES NUMBERS

Wii: 56.14m
Japan: 8.68m
Americas: 25.99m
Other: 21.48m

DS: 113.48m
Japan: 28.12m
Americas: 39.35m
Other: 46.01m

Wii Software: 429.23m
Japan: 39.32m
Americas: 234.41m
Other: 155.50m

DS Software: 638.07m
Japan: 162.69m
Americas: 237.06m
Other: 238.32m

software to system ratios:

Wii: 7.65
Japan: 4.53
Americas: 9.02
Other: 7.24

DS: 5.62
Japan: 5.79
Americas: 6.02
Other: 5.18

Average title sales

Wii:
Japan: 309 titles | 127,249
Americas: 669 titles | 350,388
Other: 636 titles | 244,497

DS:
Japan: 1,445 titles | 112,259
Americas: 1,129 titles | 209,734
Other: 1,417 titles | 168,186

Drop or not, these are some serious crazy achievement for Nintendo. The Gamecube sold 21.8 millions. The N64 33 millions. The SNES 49 millions (and it was the SNES!). Well, I suppose that to beat the NES (62 millions) some more time is required.

 

[CTLance]

Ouch, that left a mark, I'm sure.

Oh, to be a fly on the wall at Nintendo when these figures became apparent.... I hope tables were upended. Good things happen whenever someone at Nintendo HQ does that.

 

[gkryhewy]

I think that the stock will drop (duh) and without an uptick rule, that it would a great idea to short the stock.

.....

Anyways, Nintendo should have been more conservative in their projections, and this all could have been avoided.

a) this is already priced into the share price (for analyst opinions from early october, read this). It will dip a bit (say 1-2%), but that's it.
b) their new forecast is fairly conservative. As the Citi rating on October 8th suggested, the worst seems to be behind them.

 

[Cygnus X-1]

Can't live off the casuals forever, Nintendo. Give the core gamers more love.

No. Nintendo needs simply to remove these shitty empty quarters they have due to their development's times. In order to do this, they have to increase efficiency of their teams or/and increase their teams or number of teams. They're still so conservative on this.
It's just a matter of workforce and organization.

 

[Biff]

So anyone gonna hit up the no doubt fat short sale this morning or what? I'm considering margin shorting a little. Let the kids piss and moan about the little stuff, let's talk about making some loot!

Buy on rumour, sell on news, foo.

My rule I've developed over the years is if you have an idea 90% of investors in your situation could also easily think of, your idea usually won't work.

IMO a quick Nintendo short probably wouldn't work, but then again I'm just another e-Buffett who knows as little as the next forum poster, so good luck if you go with it

 

[Sohter.Nura]

I don't think anybody should be surprised.

We saw the peak of the Wii last year, from here on is downhill, unless they do something magical like the PS3 Slim, which is hard to come by.

I mean, if anybody expected the Wii to continue selling 600,000 units in America alone for the whole generation... not even the PS2 reached that feat

I think it will be interesting though, 5 years from here, all the kids that grew up on Nintendo DS / Wii, it's gonna be a major thing for Nintendo.

 

[gerg]

I don't think anybody should be surprised.

We saw the peak of the Wii last year, from here on is downhill, unless they do something magical like the PS3 Slim, which is hard to come by.

Wii sales have already stabilised in America, and gone up due to the price cut.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Buy on rumour, sell on news, foo. My rule I've developed over the years is if you have an idea 90% of investors in your situation could also easily think of, your idea usually won't work.

IMO a quick Nintendo short probably wouldn't work, but then again I'm just another e-Buffett who knows as little as the next forum poster, so good luck if you go with it

Well if you're going to get efficient market hypothesis up in this bitch then the market has probably known at least since last Christmas that Nintendo sales was on a downswing. I didn't take the trade in the end, but I'll probably post over the next couple days what the result would have been.

 

[Sohter.Nura]

Wii sales have already stabilised in America, and gone up due to the price cut.

Really?

I honestly don't think so! I could be wrong, obviously, but I'm pretty positive by February / March of next year we'll see sales of Wii go around the 300k again, which is by no means terrible numbers. The same thing happened to the Japanese market, although the interest in console gaming over there has faded away, which is obvious looking at the rest of the console market. Only time will tell.

The awkward part is that this year has been pretty much been the best for me as a Wii owner, despite it not being the most popular.

 

[Cygnus X-1]

Nintendo and Co. were not able to take advantage of their initial success, they are a small company after all and the first 2 Wii years caught them unaware.

so instead of going with the initial plan of devoting effort to attract consumers with different colors, models, prices, games, etc, they found themselves for the first 2 or 3 years trying to figure out how to satisfy an initial demand they were not counting on.

Now demand is just o.k. and they don't know what to do, milking mario to death with galaxy 2 and NSMB wii doesn't address the Wii's problems.

.- have different colors,
.- have different bundles,
.- make co-founded games with the big guys ( SE, capcom, konami, etc )
.- have at least ONE new, hardcore, innovative IP.
.- Build some hype for your games outside of the "Wii ____" series, dammit.
.- stop pretending people care for lesser IPs like animal crossing or bullshit games like Wii music.
.- If they are absolutely decided to stick to their casual stuff, then release games more often. Crappy demo games like Wii sports or Wii play DO NOT need a 3 year space to get a sequel. Make new minigames, be more innovative with them, try wacky stuff, do something!.

Dude. I agree on almost everything, but Animal Crossing a lesser IP is just a dumb affirmation since it sold on DS in Japan almost 5 millions and 10 millions WW. The problem is that City Folk and Wii Music were bad. It's simple as that. And bad games did not sell like crazy after all.

The rest I agree. Particularly with bundles and invest much more on new IPs.

I think the problem with the Animal Crossing series is not its popularity, I think the problem is that Katsuya Eguchi ported Animal Forest 64 for the fourth time.

So true.

 

[gkryhewy]

Well if you're going to get efficient market hypothesis up in this bitch then the market has probably known at least since last Christmas that Nintendo sales was on a downswing.

Which is why NTDOY has hovered near 52-week lows for about..... 52 weeks (exaggeration, but still, this is already priced in - shares are below their value from before the Wii lauch, actually).

You'll be glad you didn't make this trade.

 

[GDGF]

Maybe I'll get my fucking Starfox Wii now.

 

[Blackbird|]

Dude. I agree on almost everything, but Animal Crossing a lesser IP is just a dumb affirmation since it sold on DS in Japan almost 5 millions and 10 millions WW. The problem is that City Folk and Wii Music were bad. It's simple as that. And bad games did not sell like crazy after all.

The rest I agree. Particularly with bundles and invest much more on new IPs.

City folk is almost a port of WW that is the same shit of the original,how can it be a bad game ?

 

[gerg]

Really?

Well, they have so far. All of what I have said is true for now.

I honestly don't think so! I could be wrong, obviously, but I'm pretty positive by February / March of next year we'll see sales of Wii go around the 300k again, which is by no means terrible numbers.

It all depends on how effective the price cut and NSMB Wii are in drumming up interest.

 

[Vilix]

"So we only made half the money in the world."

 

[Jocchan]

City folk is almost a port of WW that is the same shit of the original,how can it be a bad game ?

It's the fourth port of basically the same game, and it still sold 3+ millions.

 

[Cygnus X-1]

I actually don't think Animal Crossing City Folk + Wii Music was such a big mistake for 2008. They had Wii Fit, Mario Kart Wii and Brawl from earlier in the year. It's the lack of followup in early 2009 that really began to slow things down.

Right, but I'm sure that if City Folk and Wii Music were just slightly better, momentum would have kept for a quite longer, as I'm sure Nintendo hoped. The hole would have appeared thus much smaller. Look at the DS: somebody has the impression that the line-up was empty in last years? I don't think so, but it was not only because of the better support by third parties, but even because some games like NSMB and Animal Crossing and Brain Training kept selling for years like crazy. This has to be considered as well.

 

[JKBii]

All I read from this is they set their original forecast way too high and they were probably pressured to do so by convention since there really is no precedence for the Wii's sellthrough rate. They still make far more money than any other company from video games. Their real potential problem is getting casual gamers to stay with Wii ____ games instead of Guitar Hero or Natal Tennis or whatever their opponents are cooking up. They are in absolutely no immediate danger.

 

[Jaruru]

and they realized the lack of softwares, right...
they need to keep the momentum even when they're on top

 

[Cygnus X-1]

City folk is almost a port of WW that is the same shit of the original,how can it be a bad game ?

It's bad exactly because it was almost a straight port. After all, how much did the franchise improve after the original on the Gamecube? It looks almost exactly the same, with some additions in every sequel. The best thing it was added so far was the online with the DS: that's also why it sold so well after all.
But the Wii Speak really was a useless gimmick and the content improvement was near to zero. These things make a game bad even if originally is was not.

I'm convinced that the concept still is great. Way better then Home and co. But shit, just re-editing the same game like that is really a waste.

and they realized the lack of softwares, right...
they need to keep the momentum even when they're on top

Nintendo has also to realize that when you're on top, momentum is much more difficult to keep. I think that somehow even Nintendo was taken off guard with the sequentially success of DS, resp. the Wii. And Nintendo is so conservative that they had not the time to change their internal pace.
Sure, it was a difficult task, but Nintendo also reacted too late; that's why NSMBWii, Galaxy, Zelda and Metroid are coming out almost sequentially. Moreover, Galaxy 2 IS finished, but it's kept quiet for next year in order to permit New super mario bro to find its audience. Again, it's lack of a decent organization.

 

[Ranger X]

That was bound to happen. It's impossible to keep 2 platforms in the 600k + per month for more than a couple of years.
This is simply the nouveauté feeling wearing off. Now instead of leading the industry with ridiculously high sales, they will only lead.

.