And you're suggesting they should've been happy with the third straight generation of decline, and go for a fourth and fifth.
Edit:
You're either expanding or contracting. There is no steady state. No stable Lagrange points in this scenario. :lol
-
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.
Wordpress Blog Created Today rumor: Activision pissed with BLOPS 2 Wii U sales
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
And you're suggesting they should've been happy with the third straight generation of decline, and go for a fourth and fifth.
Edit:
You're either expanding or contracting. There is no steady state. No stable Lagrange points in this scenario. :lol
Little Green Yoda
Member
Weren't the bulk of their profits in the GCN era from the GBA? And that was with one (really) strong competitor instead of two strong competitors in the console space.
And I'm sure the investors/stockholders would be pleased to hear that the company is going to abandon the philosophy that begot the Wii phenomena just so they could go back to the modest profits that the GCN brought in.
Even during the GameCube years when Nintendo was in third place, if you think of Nintendo as a software publisher rather than a hardware seller, Nintendo's first party GameCube games still sold well enough that Nintendo were still one of the top game publishers in the industry. Instead of say comparing GameCube hardware sales with PS2 and Xbox sales, if you compare Nintendo's first party GameCube game sales with say Square Enix's, Capcom's, or Konami's published game sales, Nintendo was still doing quite well. Combine that with the higher profit margins from first party game sales, that's why GameCube still managed to be fairly profitable for Nintendo.
Absolutely, it is less predictable right now, just as we didn't really know what the "hardcore" wanted in the early 1980s. Companies rose and fell rapidly trying to figure it out, both on the hardware side (Atari, Colecovision, etc.) and software side (Acclaim, Tradewest, etc.)
Eventually we did, though. Patterns emerged and reliability set in. Successful franchises began to reach their third, then their fifth, then their tenth iterations.
The same thing will happen with casuals. It isn't like they are magical humans inherently incapable of being predicted; they're just a new market. Like any other, we don't have a good idea of what they want yet, and so there is a lot less consistency and a lot more turnover.
IrishNinja
Member
seeing opiate teach phoenician about econ made this thread worth revisiting
man, i wish that was a new trend - it's been around for quite a while, i'd argue we're just hearing it more now
again, while it's convenient that it fits your narrative of choice, it's still a rumored conversation cited so poorly as to not have happened at all.
for example: a segment of GAF enjoys discussing the Vita as a dead platform. if I post a story i heard on a plane with riccitiello's weed carrier that EA/others have canceled all projects etc, would that be a troll thread? i mean, it's what some on GAF would seemingly like to hear, would this not then "fuel discussion" as well as being "clearly anecdotal and possibly relevant?"
man, i wish that was a new trend - it's been around for quite a while, i'd argue we're just hearing it more now
again, while it's convenient that it fits your narrative of choice, it's still a rumored conversation cited so poorly as to not have happened at all.
for example: a segment of GAF enjoys discussing the Vita as a dead platform. if I post a story i heard on a plane with riccitiello's weed carrier that EA/others have canceled all projects etc, would that be a troll thread? i mean, it's what some on GAF would seemingly like to hear, would this not then "fuel discussion" as well as being "clearly anecdotal and possibly relevant?"
Nintendo also has branding/image problem that can't be quickly resolved by throwing money at it. They can't go chasing after all markets and demographics willy-nilly because they might fall flat on their face. Trying to be more conservative, strategic and methodical is the only route for them, and success depends on 1) avoiding big mistakes and 2) how many "correct" decisions they make along the way.
darkistheway
Member
Next generation Nintendo machine is released in 2016 with, say, 5 Tflops, 16 core, 24 gigs of fast RAM. They launch with an absolutely gorgeous open-world platformer starring Mario... and every one of you who says Nintendo needs to 'keep up' will complain about yet another Mario game.
Why do people want Nintendo to be a clone of the other two? It is not a very good business idea to compete with people who can outspend you into oblivion. Nintendo's M.O. is taking considered risks with innovative technology while maintaining a decent profit margin. It doesn't always pan out but it keeps them in the game long enough to score Wii-sized hits. The Wii U is clearly not going to be a Wii 2 but it will still produce a) some amazing games and b) generate enough revenue to buy Nintendo another generation.
Why do people want Nintendo to be a clone of the other two? It is not a very good business idea to compete with people who can outspend you into oblivion. Nintendo's M.O. is taking considered risks with innovative technology while maintaining a decent profit margin. It doesn't always pan out but it keeps them in the game long enough to score Wii-sized hits. The Wii U is clearly not going to be a Wii 2 but it will still produce a) some amazing games and b) generate enough revenue to buy Nintendo another generation.
Aquamarine
Member
Yes. The GBA's explosive popularity propped up the mediocre-at-best lifecycle of the Gamecube.
Interestingly enough, the Gamecube, sold at dirt cheap $99 prices, actually was sold for a LOSS during much of its lifecycle. Its 1st-party lineup sold decently, but its 3rd-party lineup was relatively sparse, stripping Nintendo of a lot of royalty money.
Therefore, its "profitability" for Nintendo is definitely suspect.
It's a difficult thing to gauge. I would imagine the early adopters for the Wii U own the rival consoles, both of which have better versions of BlkOps2, with larger player bases. This is one game I would expect to sell practically nothing. Of course that's a very 'armchair' analysis, and I'm sure Activision have lots of professional guessers on staff, but this really seems like a strange game to have even bothered with. I imagined Nintendo would have had to heavily court Activision for this, because it can't have made much sense otherwise.
No, I'm not suggesting that at all. I was responding to the post suggesting that Nintendo is unfailingly conservative and won't take any risks. I'm pointing out that quite the opposite is true, they've placed some very big bets and I admire them for having the chutzpah to do so.
shinra-bansho
Member
Hmm, but presumably the homogeneity of the "core" market in terms of demographics aids in the creation of predictability. As noted earlier, publishers make games for males aged 16-35.
The casual market is really a number of more disparate demographic markets, is it not? Children, teenage females, 18-35 females, the middle aged, the elderly - a motley coalition to try and string together on a single premise?
Of course, I suppose capturing one of those demographics could be very lucrative in itself.
Did no patterns emerge in the "core" market after a decade? Have any patterns emerged now after nearly a decade of Facebooks, iOSs, NDSs and Wiis?
Also, somewhat random question as I recall you posting that list before:
Did SEGA actually make no money over the course of over a decade? And was SEGA really razor-blading with the Saturn at $399?
Those games are completely different, beyond they both have guns and are played from the first person perspective.
IrishNinja
Member
i wanna say they have, but their last fiscal report wasnt very promising. as for Saturn, i don't know that one either but if they weren't, i imagine they were when they slashed the price to nearly half that in the coming years, before abandoning it before the DC was even ready.
is the assumption here that EA doesn't put its stuff on non-Origin DD services?
Little Green Yoda
Member
I wasn't saying Nintendo doesn't take risks at all. Every major business decision (i.e. a console launch) is a risk. I'm just saying that Nintendo doesn't see the benefit in taking the same risks as Sony/MS due to their financial disadvantage.
TaroYamada
Member
Every single piece I've seen on the subject says Genesis was rather profitable. The downfall for SEGA's profits started in 95 or 96 IIRC.
Absolutely, but that doesn't make pattern recognition impossible; the casual market will just take more time because it's more complex.
Look at TV, as another example (I'm trying to use as many different examples as possible to show how ubiquitous this process is). Virtually every demographic watches TV, but over the course of 6 decades television companies have gained a very strong grasp of what people want and the market is now fairly predictable and stable.
I think some have. iOS, for example, is not losing steam the way the Wii did; it continues to charge forward. While some F2P practices have been abandoned, others have only grown more popular and now F2P is even infiltrating the "core" market.
The only way to find out what works and what doesn't is to try. Some things have long faded away and been forgotten; other "casual" techniques have latched on and seem to reliable and effective.
Give it another couple decades, and we'll see where we are.
Yes and yes. The only profitable system they ever had was the Genesis.
And that would have been -1 NPD sale.
InsaneZero
Member
Nintendo takes the risks that you mentioned because it's a necessity for survival. If they don't innovate continuously, then they will stagnate and die, a lesson that they learned from the Gamecube.
TaroYamada
Member
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the Master System also mildly profitable? Albeit not a resounding success.
Well, their games are on Microsoft and Sony's shop. I think I saw the Mass Effect Trilogy on the PSN the other day. No idea why they don't have those games up on Nintendo's shop. Especially considering that (in theory) they get a lot of flexibility there.
Aquamarine
Member
Sega posted record FY losses from FY 1998 to FY 2002. Disastrous, disastrous losses. Its gaming division was unprofitable for a very long time in the '90s. I assume any residual profits from the Genesis were eaten up.
I don't like to pick on people and I hope I didn't sound insulting (again, not everyone knows economics, I understand it's not really a "natural" thought process), but this is a fairly straightforward idea.
If two companies fight over the same market and same demographics using the same general strategy, the much bigger company is going to be able to bully the much smaller company around. The smaller company does not win by playing by the big company's game plan.
While I'm certainly open to discuss more nuanced economic concepts -- which I freely admit I may misinterpret, as no one is perfect -- this is a fairly basic concept that I'm confident I have a grasp on.
My understanding is no. It was a revenue generator that brought in a lot of capital through a boosted stock value, but it was not itself profitable.
It was like, let's say, dot coms. It wasn't profitable yet, but people saw the potential and invested. That's how Sega built most of its empire, frankly; people saw the potential, and were willing to invest because they expected the market to grow and provide profits in the future.
Regarding the Master system in particular -- that could absolutely be wrong, though. Sega's FR's from back then are off the net, and they don't have to legally supply them any longer because of the SegaSammy merger.
I don't play any first-person games. I develop motion sickness. So if I were to have to pick between the 2 of these high-profile games, I'm picking the one that matches my DD-only future. If there's other people like me (and I'm sure there are), I don't feel bad for Activision leaving money on the table.
Today I learned:
uPlay is a store.
EA has their games on another publisher's store
I thought uPlay was just Ubi's universal cross game player investment system
It's difficult to tell fucking awful publishers apart, perhaps? I KID I KID
No I don't, fuck them and their normalizing of annualizing franchises.
shinra-bansho
Member
Using TV as an example though, don't network executives generally create shows tailored towards a specific demographic? Tween girls, 18-25s, etc. Because patterns have emerged regarding what attracts these particular viewers.
I should note, I don't disagree that patterns can emerge - but I do see it as difficult bringing them all under one house. I suppose there are broad strokes that do enable some shows and some games to transcend demographic taste disparities.
Wouldn't that make it the fourth system to have been profitable using a razor-blade model?
Yes, and that may end up being how casual markets break down. There's no way to know, yet. It may end up being dominated by Pixar like projects; truly ubiquitous entertainment. But I dobut it.
Yes, absolutely, I expect some divisions to occur. I think they already have, frankly. I think the "casual" umbrella is already a large one meant for people who want to sort of do a hand-wavey dismissal of all the games on iOS and Facebook without actually knowing much about them.
I expect more than one platform to emerge. I expect more than one company to emerge. I expect more than one genre to emerge. It would be very unusual if it didn't work out that way. The "hardcore" market is very stable, and yet has multiple competitors on the hardware front, and on the software front, and several top tier genres that produce very high sales.
So yes, there will be divisions, but that doesn't mean there won't be patterns and reliability.
Yes it would, and I am wrong. Thank you.
I assumed they were remotely connecting this to "EA hates the Wii U because it doesn't have Origin." somehow, but yeah, the jump from that comment to the other doesn't quite make sense.
darkistheway
Member
I think you could even make an argument that this is what happened to Sony against Microsoft. Of course, Sony had some internal mistakes that cost them but Microsoft's moneyhatting bought them major mindshare in the west to the point that most multiplatform franchises sell greater numbers on the 360 and cost Sony some very significant third party exclusives, especially out of Japan as those developers needed to port to the 360 in order to reach a worldwide install base large enough to justify development costs.
I know some of the numbers make it seem like a neck-in-neck tie but from PS2 and OG Xbox to now... that is big change.
There would've been less risk to stick with a traditional model and play along with the other guys, but that's because they'd be resigning themselves to their fate and most likely be out of the console business in another generation or two. There really wasn't a choice that they had to do something transverse to the other two, as playing along left them with GameCube results. Now they could've hedged their bets both ways and made the platform easily portable to with more power and go off in their own direction, but coming off of the GameCube, there didn't seem to be much hope in that direction so why bother.
They placed big bets but not bigger bets that could've netted them much more in hindsight.
DS was the same way. They had to do something orthogonal to PSP or they'd be swept under the waves. When faced with the choice of rolling over and dying or giving it a fight, they decided to give it a fight. 3DS price drop last year with preparation for holiday retail space coming up might've been another example. You say it was a risk what they did, but the alternative is that "marginalizing and die" scenario, which makes the risk not seem so bad. They were pretty conservative going from NES to SNES to N64 to GameCube, and it just led to lower and lower sales.
It's not so courageous to take the road less traveled, when you keep getting knocked down on the road with everyone else.
Nintendo just isn't ready to go quietly into the night. *resists urge to post Independence Day picture*
Usually the ultimate goal of these kinds of systems is to serve as a giant recommendation engine, so a store eventually gets appended.
Battle.net and Steam technically serve as both as well, and I wouldn't be surprised if someday the former starts selling more than Blizzard games.
I have no knowledge of what kinds of lectures, presentations or developer events Microsoft or Sony do. Can you expand upon that exactly? And with tools and technology, isn't them providing Unity to all Wii U developers a step in that direction?
IsntChrisL
Member
I have the Wii U version on BLOPS 2. I love the offcreen play. Of course the major draw of the Wii U was NSMBU though. It reaches a much wider audience. Plus you need to account for the fact that these people already bought an expensive console- lots of games aren't necessarily in the budget.
That said, I do wish it sold more, myself. I hope they bring the next COD to the Wii U.
That said, I do wish it sold more, myself. I hope they bring the next COD to the Wii U.
This will never change. And even if Nintendo made inroads in those areas, as they should, MS and Sony will go two or three steps further to ensure preferential attention from 3rd parties. The two will do everything in their power to make certain that Nintendo never reaches parity with them in areas that 3rd parties care about.
John Harker
Definitely doesn't make things up as he goes along.
I said early on that software sales were far below expectations... Publishers are currently evaluating profitability on the platform now. Its not looking too good. Its just the grim reality a lot of people on this board don't want to accept. I love the Wii u personally and understand its potential better than most... But facts are facts and the console has no momentum now and poor attach rates and lagging digital adoption on core console titles.
The general feeling is wait to see how first party software does, see if Nintendo can curate demand and software sales or... Well, little to no support. Here's hoping!
The general feeling is wait to see how first party software does, see if Nintendo can curate demand and software sales or... Well, little to no support. Here's hoping!
darkistheway
Member
There would've been less risk to stick with a traditional model and play along with the other guys, but that's because they'd be resigning themselves to their fate and most likely be out of the console business in another generation or two. There really wasn't a choice that they had to do something transverse to the other two, as playing along left them with GameCube results. Now they could've hedged their bets both ways and made the platform easily portable to with more power and go off in their own direction, but coming off of the GameCube, there didn't seem to be much hope in that direction so why bother.
They placed big bets but not bigger bets that could've netted them much more in hindsight.
DS was the same way. They had to do something orthogonal to PSP or they'd be swept under the waves. When faced with the choice of rolling over and dying or giving it a fight, they decided to give it a fight. 3DS price drop last year with preparation for holiday retail space coming up might've been another example. You say it was a risk what they did, but the alternative is that "marginalizing and die" scenario, which makes the risk not seem so bad. They were pretty conservative going from NES to SNES to N64 to GameCube, and it just led to lower and lower sales.
It's not so courageous to take the road less traveled, when you keep getting knocked down on the road with everyone else.
Nintendo just isn't ready to go quietly into the night. *resists urge to post Independence Day picture*
Gorgeous post - just really beautiful... OK, I may have a bit of an Achilles obsession.
Edit:
Ugh, I really want to say something very mean about people blaming tools on Nintendo devices. It's hard to get into without getting into specifics that are probably not appropriate though. The gist of it is that no competent developer is going to be held back by the tools on any platform at this point.
The Wii was incredibly easy to develop for. It's well documented, the tools are fine (the profiler was the best of the 3 IMO), the API is very clean, the technology is easily understandable. There is middleware available for the kinds of things you want middleware for (sound, physics, etc)
While I suppose it's true that more is always better the baseline now at all 3 companies is at the level where any developer has bigger fish to fry than tool support. Maybe that's not true of DS/3DS (I have no idea) but it was certainly true of the Wii.
Ugh, I really want to say something very mean about people blaming tools on Nintendo devices. It's hard to get into without getting into specifics that are probably not appropriate though. The gist of it is that no competent developer is going to be held back by the tools on any platform at this point.
The Wii was incredibly easy to develop for. It's well documented, the tools are fine (the profiler was the best of the 3 IMO), the API is very clean, the technology is easily understandable. There is middleware available for the kinds of things you want middleware for (sound, physics, etc)
While I suppose it's true that more is always better the baseline now at all 3 companies is at the level where any developer has bigger fish to fry than tool support. Maybe that's not true of DS/3DS (I have no idea) but it was certainly true of the Wii.
Microsoft and Sony are fairly prolific with the number of events they present at, as well as putting on their own specific developer events in different territories. The content of these includes engineering best practise, deep dives into the architecture and component chipsets, optimization/performance topics, outlining and streamlining submission processes, first party dev team post mortems and techniques/process talks, and even general talks on content creation, production, usability, QA etc.
My casual observation is that Nintendo rarely match that level of engagement that Microsoft and Sony have. I just went through planning my GDC schedule yesterday and noted multiple helpful talks from Microsoft and Sony, but didn't spot anything from Nintendo.
Well, free/cheap Unity licenses is a start, but again Sony and Microsoft also offer a range of discounted or free middleware options.
An engine is also one thing, but providing tools to support content creation, optimization, debugging, and production are all not only useful for game development but crucial in order to reach higher quality standards. To my knowledge, Nintendo lags in this area in terms of the range, maturity and robustness of tools.
Not disagreeing because I know little about this stuff, but I know Wii U developers get Havok and Autodesk stuff. Don't know if that's any different to MS and Sony.
I don't think anyone is saying they want Nintendo to be clones of the other two. The real issue here is that Nintendo have made a platform that, on a fundamental level, doesn't jive with what third parties want, whilst at the same time phoning in their own software and failing to find an appealing gimmick preventing the Wii effect where you have so many consoles in people's homes that you' be happy to take a risk putting games on the machine.
I think this is wrong. It's the first time 3rd parties develop their next gen games with a cross gen expansion. And Wii U fits pefectly in this equation.
All it needs is to build a sizable userbase, which once again relies on upcoming first party titles (and a price drop).
I find this interesting because it's something that I noticed during my time with Microsoft and even NCSoft. The generally "techieness" of developers at those companies is fairly high. However, at Nintendo it just doesn't seem to be the case. They may be interested in game design discussion, but tech things just doesn't seem like something they get into. Tech is a necessary evil to develop games. Though, having chatted with people at Retro, I get the feeling they're into that side of technology. Just my observation having worked at those companies for a stint.