-
Introducing NeoGAF Gold
NPD Sales Results for August 2014 [Up4: PS4 #1, XB1 last week sales 2x last Jul week]
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
- 3203
Well I'm sure all 11 of us would enjoy that 
Outside of Media Creates there really aren't that many gaffers that get into such discussion unfortunately
Outside of Media Creates there really aren't that many gaffers that get into such discussion unfortunately
I'll contribute $1000 a month.
Lol, how money are you swimming in to offer 1K a month Aqua ?
Anyways, was just talking to a colleague at work and had yet another example of how badly Nintendo has marketed the Wii U. Despite owning the N64, GC and Wii, he didn't want the Wii U. He asked about mature games, and I mentioned Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed were on it.
Friend: "Without online right"?
Me: Nope it has online, voice chat, etc.
Friend: But there's probably still that friend code stuff?
Me: Not with the Wii U.
Friend: A fairly unenthused "ah".
When even your former fanbase from the GC days doesn't even know about what should be basic Wii U stuff, why should the average consumer?
?Anyways, was just talking to a colleague at work and had yet another example of how badly Nintendo has marketed the Wii U. Despite owning the N64, GC and Wii, he didn't want the Wii U. He asked about mature games, and I mentioned Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed were on it.
Friend: "Without online right"?
Me: Nope it has online, voice chat, etc.
Friend: But there's probably still that friend code stuff?
Me: Not with the Wii U.
Friend: A fairly unenthused "ah".
When even your former fanbase from the GC days doesn't even know about what should be basic Wii U stuff, why should the average consumer?
Yep. One of Nintendo's largest problems I think. Assuming Nintendo truly wants to change their ways and get much better 3rd party support for their home consoles which I think they need, Nintendo will have to suck it up and do quite a lot of co-marketing with some of the big franchises I think [COD, GTA etc.] Be featured first in adverts instead of not at all, for years to change their image
Would be expensive but it doesn't help to have ports of big 3rd party games if no one thinks to play them on your console
Would be expensive but it doesn't help to have ports of big 3rd party games if no one thinks to play them on your console
I love that his article has a section titled NUMBERS DONT LIE, and then goes on to cherry pick numbers ridiculously in order to make his point. Choosing revenue per employee to compare Nintendo and Apple is silly. Comparing LTDs of the DS and 3DS without mentioning the current trajectory is downright deceptive. Here's two ways those comparisons could have been done differently:
Apple
Net Income (2013): 37.037B
Employees: 98,000
Profit per employee: 377,928USD
Nintendo
Net Income (2013): -23,222 million JPY (or -213M USD)
Employees: 5,213
Loss per employee: 40,859USD
DS vs 3DS SALES
TTM after 14 quarters on sale:
3DS Hardware: 11.66
NDS Hardware: 30.31
3DS Software: 65.45
NDS Software: 185.62
Apple
Net Income (2013): 37.037B
Employees: 98,000
Profit per employee: 377,928USD
Nintendo
Net Income (2013): -23,222 million JPY (or -213M USD)
Employees: 5,213
Loss per employee: 40,859USD
DS vs 3DS SALES
TTM after 14 quarters on sale:
3DS Hardware: 11.66
NDS Hardware: 30.31
3DS Software: 65.45
NDS Software: 185.62
Co-marketing deals would be a lot cheaper than trying to produce comparable titles to compete with such 3rd Party offerings as COD or GTA or Saints Row or Skyrim or Fallout etc. At the end of the day, Nintendo needs to try and increase the demographics that find their console appealing. Clearly high quality Nintendo-focused exclusives aren't cutting it. I don't necessarily think Nintendo would be successful with my strategy of co-marekting but I think it's the best shot at it. Nintendo has already had significant trouble trying to fill the Wii U's calendar with games and add diversity. I think the best solution to that problem is to somehow get the 3rd parties back on board and more importantly somehow convinced consumers to buy them on their console.
No, I don't disagree, I just think they would be better off getting involved early on in production on 'unknown' products rather than getting in bidding wars with known qualities.
MS and Sony will bleed themselves dry to get associated with a CoD or a GTA or a FIFA or a Madden - Nintendo should focus on the new IPs that could become the next GTA or CoD. Whether that's marketing deals, or letting third parties use their IP within the product to help offset the "nintendo fans only buy nintendo" stigma.
The sort of money MS or Sony would burn through to grab a CoD or GTA in a three way bidding war could probably singlehandedly fund a couple of 3DS titles instead.
MS and Sony will bleed themselves dry to get associated with a CoD or a GTA or a FIFA or a Madden - Nintendo should focus on the new IPs that could become the next GTA or CoD. Whether that's marketing deals, or letting third parties use their IP within the product to help offset the "nintendo fans only buy nintendo" stigma.
The sort of money MS or Sony would burn through to grab a CoD or GTA in a three way bidding war could probably singlehandedly fund a couple of 3DS titles instead.
Ooooooh my bad. Totally misunderstood what you were getting at. Thought you meant fund more Nintendo made games instead but yeah I could see your approach bearing fruit assuming they foster a hit of some kind among gamers.
Oh man. Nintendo should fund Obsidian for a WRPG of some kind.
Oh man. Nintendo should fund Obsidian for a WRPG of some kind.
It would probably be an impressive bomb though of course
Ooooooh my bad. Totally misunderstood what you were getting at. Thought you meant fund more Nintendo made games instead but yeah I could see your approach bearing fruit assuming they foster a hit of some kind among gamers.
Oh man. Nintendo should fund Obsidian for a WRPG of some kind.
Oh man. Nintendo should fund Obsidian for a WRPG of some kind.
It would probably be an impressive bomb though of course
This is my favourite way:
DS Worldwide Shipments:
1) 1st Holiday (LTD through 12/31/04) - 2.84 million (DS launched in this quarter)
2) 1st Spring (LTD through 03/31/05) - 5.27 million
3) 1st Summer (LTD through 06/30/05) - 6.65 million
4) 1st Fall (LTD through 09/30/05) - 8.83 million
5) 2nd Holiday (LTD through 12/31/05) - 14.43 million
6) 2nd Spring (LTD through 03/31/06) - 16.73 million (DS Lite launched in this quarter)
7) 2nd Summer (LTD through 06/30/06) - 21.27 million
8) 2nd Fall (LTD through 09/30/06) - 26.82 million
9) 3rd Holiday (LTD through 12/31/06) - 35.61 million
10) 3rd Spring (LTD through 03/31/07) - 40.29 million
11) 3rd Summer (LTD through 06/30/07) - 47.27 million
12) 3rd Fall (LTD through 09/30/07) - 53.64 million
13) 4th Holiday (LTD through 12/31/07) - 64.79 million
14) 4th Spring (LTD through 03/31/08) - 70.60 million
15) 4th Summer (LTD through 06/30/08) - 77.54 million
16) 4th Fall (LTD through 09/30/08) - 84.33 million
17) 5th Holiday (LTD through 12/31/08) - 96.22 million (DSi launched in this quarter)
3DS Worldwide Shipments:
1) 1st Spring (LTD through 03/31/11) - 3.61 million (3DS launched in this quarter)
2) 1st Summer (LTD through 06/30/11) - 4.32 million
3) 1st Fall (LTD through 09/30/11) - 6.68 million
4) 1st Holiday (LTD through 12/31/11) - 15.03 million
5) 2nd Spring (LTD through 03/31/12) - 17.13 million
6) 2nd Summer (LTD through 06/30/12) - 19.00 million
7) 2nd Fall (LTD through 09/30/12) - 22.19 million (3DS XL launched in this quarter)
8) 2nd Holiday (LTD through 12/31/12) - 29.84 million
9) 3rd Spring (LTD through 03/31/13) - 31.09 million
10) 3rd Summer (LTD through 06/30/13) - 32.48 million
11) 3rd Fall (LTD through 09/30/13) - 34.98 million
12) 3rd Holiday (LTD through 12/31/13) - 42.74 million (2DS launched in this quarter)
13) 4th Spring (LTD through 03/31/14) - 43.33 million
14) 4th Summer (LTD through 06/30/14) - 44.14 million
I like visual charts that clearly show the trajectory.
DS had incredible momentum whereas the 3DS seems to be slowing down.
It is indeed deceptive to make statements like "the 3DS's sales were similar to the DS at the same time period" without talking about trajectories. They really weren't...at all.
Yeah I noticed that too.
Not only did that guy mislabel his data (e.g. DS sales from 2004-June 2007 mislabeled as "DS sales from 2004-2007"), but he also forgot to account that they launched in different time periods.
I bet his thought process was something like this:
2004
2005
2006
June 2007
compared to:
2011
2012
2013
June 2014
...and just called it a day.
But it really doesn't work like that.
The equivalent period to June 2014 for 3DS is March 2008 for DS because of how they launched.
This is the second time in a couple of days that the media has messed up on a sales article...I don't know why it's so prevalent.
Not only did that guy mislabel his data (e.g. DS sales from 2004-June 2007 mislabeled as "DS sales from 2004-2007"), but he also forgot to account that they launched in different time periods.
I bet his thought process was something like this:
2004
2005
2006
June 2007
compared to:
2011
2012
2013
June 2014
...and just called it a day.
But it really doesn't work like that.
The equivalent period to June 2014 for 3DS is March 2008 for DS because of how they launched.
This is the second time in a couple of days that the media has messed up on a sales article...I don't know why it's so prevalent.
That's certainly one way to do it...
But it's a method that uses known techniques and lacks that innovative touch that skyrocketed the Wii to success in the first page. If Nintendo is going to be relevant again they'll achieve it much sooner than a few years and it'll happen because of something we never even considered. They won't and shouldn't compete by doing the exact same things the competition is. Things we already consider standard. Fresh new ideas will solve this but they're much harder to consider in a discussion because they're inherently so amorphous.
But it's a method that uses known techniques and lacks that innovative touch that skyrocketed the Wii to success in the first page. If Nintendo is going to be relevant again they'll achieve it much sooner than a few years and it'll happen because of something we never even considered. They won't and shouldn't compete by doing the exact same things the competition is. Things we already consider standard. Fresh new ideas will solve this but they're much harder to consider in a discussion because they're inherently so amorphous.
Personally I don't think Nintendo is going to find success trying to take the Wii innovation approach to the market. For one it clearly isn't easily repeatable if repeatable at all, for another it's not something that you can continue to build off of from what we've seen unlike 3rd party support and perception by consumers of said 3rd party support which Nintendo could continue to improve in the coming years.
Third parties (the kind we discuss here - major publishers that do AAA) won't come back whether Nintendo has a successful device or not. Whether that device is powerful or weak. There is plenty of data to support this. It's a waste of time and money to do what you suggest, especially when the market is going in the direction it is (ie entirely unsustainable in the AAA space).
What data exists that shows the effects of Nintendo co-marketing deals with major AAA games? Yes the Wii U had some big 3rd party ports but they were lackluster in their delivery and worse in their marketing. Hell the Wii U version of ghosts wasn't even advertised as existing. The fact the ports existed means little if no one knows about them or thinks to play them on that console. Again though I don't know if it would be successful but it seems more rational an approach to me then trying to hedge your bets on some unknown innovation changing gaming.
You should ask Activision why they deny the existence of call of duty ports, even in official press releases and advertising. Nintendo doesn't have online subs to give a percentage to the company, perhaps?
Every port you saw at launch had some kind of incentive to exist on the Wii u, from Nintendo, if Mr. Harker is to be believed, iirc. So it's not surprising that once the launch deals ended that the ports did too. It's simply a waste of money because those "traditional aaa" third parties aren't going to stick around. As I said, plenty of data to support that fact, successful or not. As one example: Nearly 2/3 of the 900 million Wii software sales were third party, and yet overwhelmingly budgets and focus were devoted to making sure the other consoles got the lion's share of AAA. Unlike Wii U owners, Wii owners were hungry. In the beginning, core software sold. This discussion has been made many times in NPD, though, so I don't think it needs to be done again.
Spending major money to get half assed ports that won't sell was and still is fruitless
Every port you saw at launch had some kind of incentive to exist on the Wii u, from Nintendo, if Mr. Harker is to be believed, iirc. So it's not surprising that once the launch deals ended that the ports did too. It's simply a waste of money because those "traditional aaa" third parties aren't going to stick around. As I said, plenty of data to support that fact, successful or not. As one example: Nearly 2/3 of the 900 million Wii software sales were third party, and yet overwhelmingly budgets and focus were devoted to making sure the other consoles got the lion's share of AAA. Unlike Wii U owners, Wii owners were hungry. In the beginning, core software sold. This discussion has been made many times in NPD, though, so I don't think it needs to be done again.
Spending major money to get half assed ports that won't sell was and still is fruitless
If there is absolutely no way for Nintendo to engender at least reasonable 3rd party support for their next home console then I have no idea what their plan of attack should be. Knowing how Nintendo tends to be fairly conservative with everything but hardware innovation, I expect they would try to make their next hardware extremely value-focused. Maybe start at $200 on it because they have to convince a larger demographic then whatever they are attracting at present and clearly their own software output doesn't seem large enough to change that.
That being said I still think there is probably more to be done behind closed doors between Nintendo and 3rd parties. MS and Sony offer technical help, early access to dev kits, co-marketing deals to benefit both parties among other things. I severely doubt Nintendo offered quite so much to 3rd parties even near launch. Wii doesn't sound like a great example to me because what I'm talking about is not about the health of an ecosystem [Wii versus Wii U] but the health of 3rd party relations and support which I'm sure was not at all a priority of Nintendo's in the Wii years.
And the point is Nintendo would absolutely need to make sure they don't get bad ports, and do get advertised. All things I think Nintendo could accomplish if they truly applied themselves to solving the problem [Tech support for all major 3rd parties, early access to dev kits and so on] Although again I'm not sure that would be enough to change the perception of buying 3rd party games on a Nintendo system
That being said I still think there is probably more to be done behind closed doors between Nintendo and 3rd parties. MS and Sony offer technical help, early access to dev kits, co-marketing deals to benefit both parties among other things. I severely doubt Nintendo offered quite so much to 3rd parties even near launch. Wii doesn't sound like a great example to me because what I'm talking about is not about the health of an ecosystem [Wii versus Wii U] but the health of 3rd party relations and support which I'm sure was not at all a priority of Nintendo's in the Wii years.
And the point is Nintendo would absolutely need to make sure they don't get bad ports, and do get advertised. All things I think Nintendo could accomplish if they truly applied themselves to solving the problem [Tech support for all major 3rd parties, early access to dev kits and so on] Although again I'm not sure that would be enough to change the perception of buying 3rd party games on a Nintendo system
I honestly think it goes to show how great marketing and high budgets can oftentimes trump actual quality in games. As far as I can tell so far, the three big budget titles so far for the XB1 & PS4 (Titanfall - XB1 only, Watch Dogs, and Destiny) have sold quite well, but underwhelmed in terms of promise and quality. I generally get the feeling Titanfall was good, but not revolutionary (which is fine), Watch Dogs was fairly disappointing (kind of like a poor man's GTA with some hacking) and Destiny can be fun but has lots of issues and is really grindy.
Maybe Nintendo just needs some big company with huge pockets to market for them lol. Nintendo has ridiculously high quality games, but honestly their marketing has generally sucked since the GC days at least except for little patches of brilliance (early Wii/DS days).
I suspect that Nintendo is super conservative with their money and that's why they never really have good relationships with their third parties. MS and Sony somehow seem to work things out when things don't go well. In comparison, third parties seem to end their relationship with Nintendo almost at a drop of a hat. I assume Nintendo sometimes leverages good sales of one franchise to try to get ports, etc. of another (great sales of Just Dance helps get Ubisoft support, etc.) but they apparently can't get any of the marketing dollars associated with their platform. Honestly how many third party ports were made for the Wii U without even putting the Wii U logo in their commercials? It seems like the company was willing to spend money on title development but wanted them to fail sometimes. Then again, when Criterion approached EA & Nintendo for marketing help for the Need for Speed Wii U game, Nintendo even rebuffed them. While it might be a lost cause, it seems like even a small good-will gesture wouldn't hurt. "We can't afford TV commericals, but we'll do smaller X, Y and Z instead." On one hand they are still in business since they are so conservative but I think that hampers their success a lot.
Saying that, maybe Nintendo could partner with companies that share whatever kind of philosophy they have. That could entail fostering smaller development studios, and making good partnerships outside of the usual suspects in addition to trying to patch things with at least Ubisoft & Activision (EA seems like a lost cause these days, but I think there's more to it than sales). Maybe this could be going into universities and providing programs kind of like Microsoft's ImagineCup as a part of outreach.
Maybe Nintendo just needs some big company with huge pockets to market for them lol. Nintendo has ridiculously high quality games, but honestly their marketing has generally sucked since the GC days at least except for little patches of brilliance (early Wii/DS days).
I suspect that Nintendo is super conservative with their money and that's why they never really have good relationships with their third parties. MS and Sony somehow seem to work things out when things don't go well. In comparison, third parties seem to end their relationship with Nintendo almost at a drop of a hat. I assume Nintendo sometimes leverages good sales of one franchise to try to get ports, etc. of another (great sales of Just Dance helps get Ubisoft support, etc.) but they apparently can't get any of the marketing dollars associated with their platform. Honestly how many third party ports were made for the Wii U without even putting the Wii U logo in their commercials? It seems like the company was willing to spend money on title development but wanted them to fail sometimes. Then again, when Criterion approached EA & Nintendo for marketing help for the Need for Speed Wii U game, Nintendo even rebuffed them. While it might be a lost cause, it seems like even a small good-will gesture wouldn't hurt. "We can't afford TV commericals, but we'll do smaller X, Y and Z instead." On one hand they are still in business since they are so conservative but I think that hampers their success a lot.
Saying that, maybe Nintendo could partner with companies that share whatever kind of philosophy they have. That could entail fostering smaller development studios, and making good partnerships outside of the usual suspects in addition to trying to patch things with at least Ubisoft & Activision (EA seems like a lost cause these days, but I think there's more to it than sales). Maybe this could be going into universities and providing programs kind of like Microsoft's ImagineCup as a part of outreach.
In fairness, the author of that article is just a blogger rather than Gamasutra staff (of who JVM consistently does excellent write-ups and takes Sales-Age importantly).
It's a symptom of a wider malaise; early adopters are desperate for titles that justify their early adoption, and are getting titles that not only could have been done on their old consoles, they're getting titles that are actually getting released on their old console.
It's a symptom of a wider malaise; early adopters are desperate for titles that justify their early adoption, and are getting titles that not only could have been done on their old consoles, they're getting titles that are actually getting released on their old console.
They don't work with Nintendo because the perceived demographics of Nintendo's audience don't match with their output for the most part. There's no premise to disagree with, because that's what's been happening for a long time. Young males is what the entire AAA market is putting all of their eggs into, for better or worse. I personally believe it's for the worse, due to the whittling down of the market as a result of it. Expansion only occurs when you appeal outside of young western males (see: every other gaming market)
The Gamecube had much poorer support than the Xbox (again, demographics). It just seems a lot better in retrospect because, you know, it got SOME stuff. Unlike the mostly nothing Nintendo's current console gets.
The Gamecube had much poorer support than the Xbox (again, demographics). It just seems a lot better in retrospect because, you know, it got SOME stuff. Unlike the mostly nothing Nintendo's current console gets.
sega dropped their sports line from it pretty early on, games became ps2/xbox exclusive, and others were released months after the ps2/xbox version, guaranteeing low sales and in some cases the end of the franchise (whatever it would be) on the platform.
gamecube third-party support was an improvement over the n64, but it was pretty shoddy. this was before the ps360 era of day and date same content, back when each platform had its own identity based mostly on its library and less on its features.
gamecube third-party support was an improvement over the n64, but it was pretty shoddy. this was before the ps360 era of day and date same content, back when each platform had its own identity based mostly on its library and less on its features.
The effort to port is never close to zero.
You have porting costs, but then you also have opportunity costs. If you put people to work on a port, they cannot work on some other project.
So even if it only cost $500k and 8 months to port a game, that's 8 months not being used to create another project that could have significantly more potential.
Development is a zero sum game. Making thing A sometimes means you can't make thing B.
You have porting costs, but then you also have opportunity costs. If you put people to work on a port, they cannot work on some other project.
So even if it only cost $500k and 8 months to port a game, that's 8 months not being used to create another project that could have significantly more potential.
Development is a zero sum game. Making thing A sometimes means you can't make thing B.
Just saw that Madden XBO is currently $40 directly from Amazon and selling quite well. Madden PS4 is $50, and not selling as well.
Gamestop has both at $60, though Bestbuy has both at $50 -- though 360 version is still at $60.
Unannounced price drop? Also, wonder if/how this will affect September Madden rankings.
Gamestop has both at $60, though Bestbuy has both at $50 -- though 360 version is still at $60.
Unannounced price drop? Also, wonder if/how this will affect September Madden rankings.