Nintendo needs to get out its Wii U games ASAP - sales dropping fast

[Taskmaster99]

Not having Madden is gonna hurt big time!!!

[cimerians]

now the company is paying the price for tapping that "blue ocean" and turning its back on the not-so-casual gamers.

 

 

Yep

[Atariboy]

No Madden or Call of Duty? That sure isn't a good sign.

 

I don't feel sorry for them with the naming confusion. Gamers at every forum I visited including here predicted that they were going to confuse customers with the name and the similarity of the console's appearance with its predecessor

 

Plus didn't the 3DS already have a bit of trouble in this area with some thinking it was a revision of the DS with the addition of 3D capabilities rather than an entirely new handheld? Then they proceed with a system name that is even less obvious to the consumer along with mostly just showing the controller off itself and then act surprised that many don't understand the true nature of the product?

 

I hope they can survive on their own product alone since I'm sure we're in for some amazing games. Would be a shame to lose Nintendo in the console world or see them go multiplatform. There's going to be little incentive to do something like a Metroid game which is traditionally a modest seller if they don't have console owners to please.

 

If they merely become a PC/360/PS3 publisher with no stake other than maximizing their game sales, they're just going to be pumping out the guaranteed big sellers like Mario Kart.

 

2. VC compatibility on the gamepad. Playing NES and SNES titles on it would be sweet. It could also be a portable GBA/DS. Why is this not being done already.

 

3. User accounts like the competition. This would be difficult to do at this point, but it is what the market demands.

 

If I'm not mistaken, they're already doing both of these although at this point your DLC is still tied to your console rather than your account which defeats most of the reason why people wanted accounts in the first place.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Atariboy

[Pixelboy]

I hope they can survive on their own product alone since I'm sure we're in for some amazing games. Would be a shame to lose Nintendo in the console world or see them go multiplatform. There's going to be little incentive to do something like a Metroid game which is traditionally a modest seller if they don't have console owners to please.

 

Actually, if Nintendo does eventually go multi-platform, Metroid would be a great ambassador for such an uncertain endeavour, since it's clear that the franchise is not strong enough to survive (sales-wise) on Nintendo consoles alone.

 

 

If they merely become a PC/360/PS3 publisher with no stake other than maximizing their game sales, they're just going to be pumping out the guaranteed big sellers like Mario Kart.

 

I think Nintendo is more likely to move towards smartphones, tablets and the Ouya rather than whoring out to their direct console competitors.

[toptenmaterial]

Actually, if Nintendo does eventually go multi-platform, Metroid would be a great ambassador for such an uncertain endeavour, since it's clear that the franchise is not strong enough to survive (sales-wise) on Nintendo consoles alone.

 

 

 

 

I think Nintendo is more likely to move towards smartphones, tablets and the Ouya rather than whoring out to their direct console competitors.

 

Most of their woes are self-inflicted through shitty management. Why heads aren't rolling yet is beyond me.

[cimerians]

Actually, if Nintendo does eventually go multi-platform, Metroid would be a great ambassador for such an uncertain endeavour, since it's clear that the franchise is not strong enough to survive (sales-wise) on Nintendo consoles alone.

 

 

 

 

I think Nintendo is more likely to move towards smartphones, tablets and the Ouya rather than whoring out to their direct console competitors.

 

Totally agree.

 

For me personally and as much as I hate to see classic consoles disappear (starting with Atari), I'm getting rather tired of buying a console just to play Metroid (or Zelda).

[Atariboy]

Other than the original Metroid Prime which was a legitimate sales hit, the series has been best described as modestly successful in the past. Would selling on two different platforms suddenly make it a successful enough series for them to develop an entry for it instead of a better selling Nintendo franchise? It would likely sell significantly more copies and boost its fortunes, but it would do likewise with the more successful franchises in Nintendo's portfolio. So something like a Mario Kart entry is still going to be more popular and I'm about to argue why it would be even less likely something like Metroid would be selected under such a future.

 

If that were to happen, they could simply focus on developing the biggest hits and play it safe. They don't have to keep in mind that in order to sell software they also have to first sell the hardware to play it on and then maintain that hardware in the homes of gamers. With Nintendo as the console manufacturer, pleasing a smaller but very dedicated segment of their customer base with such an effort makes sense even if it's in the place of another project that might perform better in the sales department. Maintaining those long-time customers on your hardware where they're going to also be buying a range of other products from you is what's most important and lucrative to their business. There's much more at stake and to gain with such a franchise when Nintendo is the platform holder.

 

But if they're merely a 3rd party publisher, they would play the same role any 3rd party publisher would and select what games to develop and/or publish that will perform the best on the sales charts. Maybe Metroid would occasionally make the cut and maybe it wouldn't. But I would expect them to take significantly less risks if they were to go 3rd party. And I would except some beloved franchises to all but disappear.

 

They have a reason the way it is to invest millions in a project that will be a modest success or perhaps even have to be subsidized since it can benefit their bottom line in many ways beyond just the sales of the game itself. But if they're 3rd party, their only concern will be the sales of the game. They won't have something like thousands of fans finally buying their hardware in the wake of game announcement in a beloved franchise and then buying accessories and other software afterwards entering into their equation.

 

They'd just be selling a game.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Atariboy

[Pixelboy]

Other than the original Metroid Prime which was a legitimate sales hit, the series has been best described as modestly successful in the past. Would selling on two different platforms suddenly make it a successful enough series for them to develop an entry for it instead of a better selling Nintendo franchise? It would likely sell significantly more copies and boost its fortunes, but it would do likewise with the more successful franchises in Nintendo's portfolio. So something like a Mario Kart entry is still going to be more popular and I'm about to argue why it would be even less likely something like Metroid would be selected under such a future.

 

If that were to happen, they could simply focus on developing the biggest hits and play it safe. They don't have to keep in mind that in order to sell software they also have to first sell the hardware to play it on and then maintain that hardware in the homes of gamers. With Nintendo as the console manufacturer, pleasing a smaller but very dedicated segment of their customer base with such an effort makes sense even if it's in the place of another project that might perform better in the sales department. Maintaining those long-time customers on your hardware where they're going to also be buying a range of other products from you is what's most important and lucrative to their business. There's much more at stake and to gain with such a franchise when Nintendo is the platform holder.

 

But if they're merely a 3rd party publisher, they would play the same role any 3rd party publisher would and select what games to develop and/or publish that will perform the best on the sales charts. Maybe Metroid would occasionally make the cut and maybe it wouldn't. But I would expect them to take significantly less risks if they were to go 3rd party. And I would except some beloved franchises to all but disappear.

 

They have a reason the way it is to invest millions in a project that will be a modest success or perhaps even have to be subsidized since it can benefit their bottom line in many ways beyond just the sales of the game itself. But if they're 3rd party, their only concern will be the sales of the game. They won't have something like thousands of fans finally buying their hardware in the wake of game announcement in a beloved franchise and then buying accessories and other software afterwards entering into their equation.

 

They'd just be selling a game.

 

All you say is very true. But I made my comment on the basis that Nintendo is nowhere near ready to do like Sega (i.e. abandon hardware and go software-only for other platforms). They have enough money in the bank to try something else if the Wii-U is deemed "officially" as a failure.

 

The point I was making is that if Nintendo eventually decides to start listening to industry experts and spread their franchises over a few non-proprietary platforms (tablets, smartphones) just to increase their revenues while still being active as a console manufacturer, then I would expect Nintendo to keep the main Mario and Zelda titles as proprietary console exclusives, while letting some of their "lesser" franchises spread their wings on other platforms. For example, I can easely imagine WarioWare or Dr Mario being successful on the iPad. Metroid and Kirby would be logical choices as multi-platform franchises under these conditions. And if this multi-platform strategy works in Nintendo's favor, a boomerang effect could happen where future installments of such franchises as Metroid would actually sell better on Nintendo's own consoles in the long run.

 

But the underlying question remains: Would it be a profitable venture for Nintendo to spread out their franchises this way? If it has a good chance of succeeding as a marketing vehicle, then any delay on Nintendo's part can only be seen as illogicially stubborn by both gamers and investors alike.

[godslabrat]

I don't feel sorry for them with the naming confusion. Gamers at every forum I visited including here predicted that they were going to confuse customers with the name and the similarity of the console's appearance with its predecessor

 

Plus didn't the 3DS already have a bit of trouble in this area with some thinking it was a revision of the DS with the addition of 3D capabilities rather than an entirely new handheld? Then they proceed with a system name that is even less obvious to the consumer along with mostly just showing the controller off itself and then act surprised that many don't understand the true nature of the product?

 

IIRC, the controller was shown LONG before the console itself. When it had its first reveal, the console wasn't even ready for display. That was a huge mistake, and the genesis of the whole "WiiU is just a tablet controller for the existing Wii" misconception.

 

What Nintendo should have done was what they did in the transition from GameCube to Wii. Make a whole new system, whole new strategy, whole new image, but say "Oh, yeah, it plays the old games too, and works with the old controllers." Doing that, they would have maintained 99.9999% of the sales that backwards compatibility would have earned them, and at the same time excited people who were tired of the old Wii.

[Atariboy]

I imagine their marketing department was just naive. They saw this brand that had been a huge success for several years that had sold nearly 100 million consoles and wanted to carry it over so badly that they instead allowed it to cripple the name of their new console by not recognizing that there would be confusion created due to the similaritiy (Not to mention a good bit of negativity since the Wii didn't exactly make everyone a fan of it).

 

They have enough money in the bank to try something else if the Wii-U is deemed "officially" as a failure.

 

Their bank account is fairly small these days actually. I posted the figures elsewhere a while back for the past 10 years. I'll go grab those later and update them with the 2013 information.

 

They've had to spend a good bit of cash getting the 3DS established and bringing the Wii U to market. And they never really had the amount some mistakenly think they do. They see 100 million Wii's and such and then just assume that Nintendo must have a bankroll of 50 billion when in fact it's always just a tiny fraction of that.

 

Not that I think they're going away or in severe trouble. This is just going to be a minor bump I'm sure when they look back at right now years from now.

[Osgeld]

Ubisoft which has traditionally embraced being the multiplatform company

 

look how well thats been working for EA recently (the original multiplatform company)

[Atariboy]

Still enough where they're hardly in danger, but here's the size of their bank account in recent years if anyone is curious.

 

2002: 7.2 billion USD

2003: 6.2 billion

2004: 6.9 billion

2005: 7.4 billion

2006: 5.3 billion

2007: 5.8 billion

2008: 9.0 billion

2009: 7.7 billion

2010: 9.5 billion

2011: 9.8 billion

2012: 5.6 billion

2013: 469,395 Yen (USD amounts not shown with what Nintendo has released so far, but it's an increase of about 60,000 Yen)

 

So somewhere around 6 billion cash in the bank today. For a comparison to reflect just how small that figure would stretch for a major console manufacturer, Microsoft spent half a billion for just launch marketing of the Kinect accessory. So it's not really insurance for a disaster but rather a short-term pool for them to draw from in slack times. I think if they can't make things work over the next 3 or 4 years, they're possibly going to be facing a bit of a financial problem as a new generation of hardware approaches.

 

But I still think the Wii U will be fine. Some major Nintendo releases are what it needs most and I'm sure they're hard at work in remedying that situation for this Fall.

 

Edit: If true, this will sure help.

 

http://www.gamespot....october-6407909

Edited May 4, 2013 by Atariboy

[onlysublime]

financially, Nintendo is in better shape than Sony, just for perspective... the only difference is Sony is diversified across multiple industries so it can change business strategy more easily.

[akator]

2013: 469,395 Yen (USD amounts not shown with what Nintendo has released so far, but it's an increase of about 60,000 Yen)

 

At today's exchange rates:

 

469,395 Yen = $4739.48 US

60,000 Yen = $605.82 US

 

???

[Atariboy]

Yeah, I screwed up. It's 469 billion Yen. The figure was in millions and I forgot to make that clear.

 

Furthermore, I was looking at the wrong figure. Double checking just now, it's actually 479 billion Yen. While Nintendo themselves won't provide the USD equivalent until their full annual report is released, according to your conversion, that should be approximately 4.83 billion USD.

 

So with differences in exchange rates, even though the Yen value is up slightly compared to 2012, the USD value is down significantly.

[Mendon]

It really seems more and more that any financial success that the Wii U might achieve is going to rest completely in 1st party Nintendo software as 3rd party support continues to dwindle. Activision won't release Black Op's II DLC for the Wii U; it looks like WB won't release DLC for the Wii U version of Injustice; Madden 25 is skipping the Wii U; many major 3rd party titles releasing this year (such as Grand Theft Auto) have no Wii U version planned; and now EA announces that the upcoming Star Wars games are skipping Wii U completely:

 

http://www.ubergizmo...nintendo-wii-u/

 

Lack of 3rd party support is understandable in some regards because companies like EA release an excellent title... Need for Speed Most Wanted... and sales are low because Wii U gamers won't purchase the title. But then 3rd parties also release ports of very poor games (Activision with 007 Legends) or ports of older games that gamers already played on another system (Activision with Spiderman or EA with Mass Effect 3 or WB with Batman) and then wonder why sales are low for these Wii U ports.

 

It also seems like there are times the 3rd party companies think like this:

 

"Lets release a port with less features, no patches/updates, and no DLC for the Wii U".

....two months later....

"Our port sold like crap compared to the PS3 & Xbox360 versions. To hell with the Wii U."

 

Take Injustice, for example...... no friend invite in lobby, no DLC, no iOS support and then WB complains of low Wii U sales as gamers pick the full featured & supported PS3 & Xbox versions over the Wii U version.

 

If the $60 Wii U version and the $60 Xbox/PS3 version had the same features and support, I might very well buy the Wii U version. But right now, with the mindset of most companies, if I want CoD DLC or full featured Injustice gameplay then I'll buy the PS3/Xbox versions.

 

The saddest part of all, IMO, is the fact that while this is all happening, Nintendo sits back and does nothing to give an incentive for 3rd parties to fully support the Wii U. At the last E3, Reggie and Nintendo promised full 3rd party support for the Wii U....now it seems like Nintendo is thinking "We don't need these 3rd party guys as we'll make our money when Zelda, Mario, Pikmin, Luigi, Metroid, and Kirby are on the shelves."

 

Oh well.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Mendon

[Pixelboy]

The saddest part of all, IMO, is the fact that while this is all happening, Nintendo sits back and does nothing to give an incentive for 3rd parties to fully support the Wii U. At the last E3, Reggie and Nintendo promised full 3rd party support for the Wii U....now it seems like Nintendo is thinking "We don't need these 3rd party guys as we'll make our money when Zelda, Mario, Pikmin, Luigi, Metroid, and Kirby are on the shelves."

 

Oh well.

 

Nintendo build their own golden cage, now they have to live in it.

[cimerians]

I think languishing is a good term for what Nintendo has been doing the last 2-3 years.

 

I'm starting to think that another Mario game won't help...its getting a bit tiresome.

 

I think Zelda and Metroid can still sell systems. Although there is a big question mark on Metroid. I just hope they don't pick Team Ninja to do another.

Edited May 8, 2013 by cimerians

[toptenmaterial]

IIRC, the controller was shown LONG before the console itself. When it had its first reveal, the console wasn't even ready for display. That was a huge mistake, and the genesis of the whole "WiiU is just a tablet controller for the existing Wii" misconception.

 

What Nintendo should have done was what they did in the transition from GameCube to Wii. Make a whole new system, whole new strategy, whole new image, but say "Oh, yeah, it plays the old games too, and works with the old controllers." Doing that, they would have maintained 99.9999% of the sales that backwards compatibility would have earned them, and at the same time excited people who were tired of the old Wii.

 

Also what they could have done is milk the old Wii for everything it was worth. The hardware is powerful enough to handle modern 3D (not on a PS3/360/PC level, but look at A+ games like Galaxy). They could have let the Wii ride for a long time unstead of killing it off with a man-made draught.

[onlysublime]

ummm... they have milked Wii for as long as possible. beyond possible since it's a non-HD console... in 2013.

 

and it's still outselling the Wii U right now.

[Pixelboy]

I think Zelda and Metroid can still sell systems. Although there is a big question mark on Metroid. I just hope they don't pick Team Ninja to do another.

 

Metroid Other M is currently resting in bargain bins at 19.99$ or less, while the other first-party franchises (Mario, Zelda, Kirby, etc.) still carry pricetags that are being kept high artificially (New Super Mario Bros Wii for 50-60$? Please...). Add to that the limited release that Metroid Prime Trilogy saw, and that's all the proof you need to see that Nintendo doesn't believe in Metroid anymore. They didn't even bother to make a 2D Metroid Wiiware title, which would have raised quite a few eyebrows given the popularity of Super Metroid on the Virtual Console. The series was never big in Nintendo's homeland anyhow.

 

The only way we'll see a new Metroid title is if an american developer takes the WiiWare development kit (whatever form that takes on the Wii-U) and makes a Metroid demo that wows Nintendo execs. And we know it's possible, since VonRichter wowed crowds with his Metroid SR388 demo years ago.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba6-DtjuZ8E

[cimerians]

The series was never big in Nintendo's homeland anyhow.

 

The only way we'll see a new Metroid title is if an american developer takes the WiiWare development kit (whatever form that takes on the Wii-U) and makes a Metroid demo that wows Nintendo execs. And we know it's possible, since VonRichter wowed crowds with his Metroid SR388 demo years ago.

 

 

Very interesting! I kind of always wondered why Nintendo (Japan) didin't seem to care what happened with the series.

 

I mean its really pulling teeth to get them to release games out here that people want sometimes. (Mostly RPG's and I think a Fatal Frame sequel)

[boog]

Still enough where they're hardly in danger, but here's the size of their bank account in recent years if anyone is curious.

 

2002: 7.2 billion USD

2003: 6.2 billion

2004: 6.9 billion

2005: 7.4 billion

2006: 5.3 billion

2007: 5.8 billion

2008: 9.0 billion

2009: 7.7 billion

2010: 9.5 billion

2011: 9.8 billion

2012: 5.6 billion

2013: 469,395 Yen (USD amounts not shown with what Nintendo has released so far, but it's an increase of about 60,000 Yen)

 

So somewhere around 6 billion cash in the bank today. For a comparison to reflect just how small that figure would stretch for a major console manufacturer, Microsoft spent half a billion for just launch marketing of the Kinect accessory. So it's not really insurance for a disaster but rather a short-term pool for them to draw from in slack times. I think if they can't make things work over the next 3 or 4 years, they're possibly going to be facing a bit of a financial problem as a new generation of hardware approaches.

 

 

Where are those 2012/2013 numbers coming from?

 

The data on this site shows that Nintendo still has nearly 1 trillion yen in cash reserves, 1.5 trillion in total assets, and no debt:

 

http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Financials?s=7974:TYO

 

http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Financials?s=7974:TYO&subview=BalanceSheet

 

 

Regardless, they've already covered the R&D and manufacturing startup costs for both 3DS and Wii U over the last couple years and will be in the 'profit' phase of those systems for the next few years. How much or little profit is unknown, but the startup losses are behind them and their financials still look solid.

[Atariboy]

2012 number is from their 2012 annual report. All the earlier figures come from their respective annual reports as well. The 2013 figure comes from their 2013 financial report issued a week or so ago. I'm looking at cash & deposits on their balance sheets. I admit that despite having my MBA I'm far from the strongest with the financial/accounting side, but I believe I'm looking at the correct item. And I can't even locate that 2012 figure in their 2012 annual report despite Nintendo always providing the corresponding USD amount in their annual reports.

 

And considering that we know that the Wii U is being sold at a loss, that it covers its direct manufacturing cost with the sale of a single game, and that sales have flat lined since Christmas with little software trickling out since then to beef up its small library, I very much doubt that it has already recovered things like its associated R&D expenditures and other costs.

 

If anything, Nintendo is putting the Wii U program further into the red right now trying to turn it around after a miserable past 4 months.

 

Metroid Other M is currently resting in bargain bins at 19.99$ or less, while the other first-party franchises (Mario, Zelda, Kirby, etc.) still carry pricetags that are being kept high artificially (New Super Mario Bros Wii for 50-60$? Please...). Add to that the limited release that Metroid Prime Trilogy saw, and that's all the proof you need to see that Nintendo doesn't believe in Metroid anymore.

 

For further evidence of the standing the series has at Nintendo, consider that the series disappeared for an entire generation not all that long ago (And the one project that did get into development, a colorization of Metroid II for the GBC akin to Link's Awakening DX, was cancelled during development), that a major 2D entry in the series was cancelled for the GBA or DS after Zero Mission's soft sales, and perhaps most of all, look at the huge drop in sales with the Metroid Prime series after the first. And Metroid Prime 3 was one of the first $20 1st party Wii games and that was well before Metroid Prime Trilogy appeared. Not to mention that the entire Metroid Prime series was outsourced to a new American development studio rather than done in-house in Japan (of course it worked out for the fans, but it shows you the status of the series).

 

Sadly the sales performance of this series doesn't match its reputation among long-time Nintendo fans or its review scores. And while I don't know off hand how it has performed in areas like Europe, it's well known that Metroid has never been a huge success with Japanese gamers. So that's another strike against it.

 

I have a feeling we'll be lucky just to get Metroid Prime Trilogy HD along the lines of what the PS3 has seen with many of its HD collections (Unlike Wind Waker HD that appears almost as a remake judging by the concept images they showed off). I suspect that most likely Metroid will just live on the Virtual Console this generation.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Atariboy

[boog]

2012 number is from their 2012 annual report. All the earlier figures come from their respective annual reports as well. The 2013 figure comes from their 2013 financial report issued a week or so ago. I'm looking at cash & deposits on their balance sheets. I admit that despite having my MBA I'm far from the strongest with the financial/accounting side, but I believe I'm looking at the correct item. And I can't even locate that 2012 figure in their 2012 annual report despite Nintendo always providing the corresponding USD amount in their annual reports.

 

I think you have to total both cash and short-term investments (cash equivalents) to get their true cash-on-hand. If you add both line items from their financial reports the total matches the data in the link that I posted.

 

 

And considering that we know that the Wii U is being sold at a loss, that it covers its direct manufacturing cost with the sale of a single game, and that sales have flat lined since Christmas with little software trickling out since then to beef up its small library, I very much doubt that it has already recovered things like its associated R&D expenditures and other costs.

 

If anything, Nintendo is putting the Wii U program further into the red right now trying to turn it around after a miserable past 4 months.

 

I wasn't implying that the Wii U product line has reached profitability, but I think revenue from Wii/DS/3DS over the last couple years was enough to offset most of the R&D and manufacturing losses while launching two new platforms. They've made it past the initial expense without decimating their reserves and future profits will be determined by how well they build customer base and software sales... low risk.

Edited May 9, 2013 by boog