Who will be the next hardware maker to exit the market?

[Andromeda Stardust]

 

The NX shouldn't be designed to compete with the PS4 or XB1, it should blow them away. Samsung isn't making the next Galaxy phone to compete with the 3 year old IPhone 4, it wants to beat the IPhone 7.

Anyone calling the specs card knows that Nintendo cannot compete with MS/Sony and is destined to fail. Nintendo is the only company still innovating on the home console front.

 

Look at the ads from Sony showing The guy playing a game on PS3 then pausing and taking it to go on the Vita. Yet very few games, even those that were dual released on the PS3/Vita support this play mode.

 

I see the NX as the perfect marriage between the console and portable. Have multipe SKUs with tablet and mobile sized units, an a docking station that functions as a home console. You get local multiplayer as well as on the go gaming, and sync your progress in games between two units in case you have multiple systems.

 

In order for such a system to work, the console will have to share architecture with the portable, which will rule out the use of x68 CPU which is too power hungry for portables. ARM tech is cheap enough that Nintendo could place a truly monster ARM CPU in the NX, which could operate in a "turbo" mode when plugged in. We have quad core 2+ Ghz ARM CPUs which already rival many mobile x86 chipsets in terms of power.

 

Assuming Nintendo fixes their account system for the new platform, it will make the console amazing. I can imagine using 3DS style cards for retail games in addition to download. Discs only create a huge cost markup and without the disc drive, they can create an affordable system with decent specs. 8Gbyte or larger game cards can easily be a reality. But if the NX has anything less than 128Gbytes storage or a per console account system, they are screwed next gen.

 

Nintendo has got to streamline accounts and not skimp on CPU or storage. They had better put a powerful ARM into the NX, on the order of whatever the latest Apple tablets use. Sure Apple tablets are $600 but over half of that price tag is for branding. Androids are just as strong for half the price. Aim for a $200 price point for the portable SKU, $300 for the console SKU. Nintendo should just break even on the hardware.

[Starscream]

Nintendo is the only company still innovating on the home console front.

 

Not true by any stretch of the imagination.

 

What good is innovation if it sucks or adds nothing to the experience? The wii motion control thing was a gimmick, which, as motion controls are pretty much non existent again like for so many decades, proves. Oddly, achievements that MS brought mainstream, are more than likely here to stay. I'd say achievements were way more creative and innovative than motion controls. Nintendo claims the trophy/achievements are a gimmick. So....where are the motion controls again? For decades everyone claims Nintendo is innovative, yet they all end up gimmicks, save for say, analog sticks(which they didn't even originate the use of).Biggest problem is, they strive to be different, basically mimicking Apple, but offer nothing appealing to a broad range of people in the home console market. Sure the wii sold great, it was a fluke. Meanwhile, Sony has almost dominated the home console market since they decided to play in it and has not done anything "innovative". Sure, blame Sonys success on the "average, uneducated gamers", but, we aren't elite here. We ARE the average gamers.

 

Everything Nintendo has deemed gimmicky - online play, homebrews, HD games - have ALL become standards. I wouldn't bet the farm on them blazing any new trails that matter this time either.

[bretthorror]

Not true by any stretch of the imagination.

 

What good is innovation if it sucks or adds nothing to the experience? The wii motion control thing was a gimmick, which, as motion controls are pretty much non existent again like for so many decades, proves. Oddly, achievements that MS brought mainstream, are more than likely here to stay. I'd say achievements were way more creative and innovative than motion controls. Nintendo claims the trophy/achievements are a gimmick. So....where are the motion controls again? For decades everyone claims Nintendo is innovative, yet they all end up gimmicks, save for say, analog sticks(which they didn't even originate the use of).Biggest problem is, they strive to be different, basically mimicking Apple, but offer nothing appealing to a broad range of people in the home console market. Sure the wii sold great, it was a fluke. Meanwhile, Sony has almost dominated the home console market since they decided to play in it and has not done anything "innovative". Sure, blame Sonys success on the "average, uneducated gamers", but, we aren't elite here. We ARE the average gamers.

 

Everything Nintendo has deemed gimmicky - online play, homebrews, HD games - have ALL become standards. I wouldn't bet the farm on them blazing any new trails that matter this time either.

 

Except for the fact that the Wii nor the motion controls were a gimmick. I laugh at the idea of achievements being better than the experience of Wii Sports. That's insanity. The Wii had dozens and dozens of amazing games and you just don't like those types of games, I'm assuming. That's why Nintendo doesn't need to put $1000 into a console and sell it at $500. Because you're probably not going to buy it anyways. Anything Nintendo does, you will likely shit on. I guarantee that. No one gave two shits about the Gamecube, Nintendo drastically changes course, makes billions, fanboys who never would have bought a "Gamecube 2" traditional console cry regardless. It's the same story I've heard for over a decade now. No matter what Nintendo does, it gets no credit. Oh, sure, there's PS Move and Kinect and PS Vita with the touch screen, all copying Nintendo, but that's ok.

 

Again, how do you people all argue about how successful Sony or Microsoft is when their gaming divisions don't make money? Nintendo messes up, no question about it, but the fact is people like you don't want their stuff anyways, so why should they listen to you and why should their fans care what you say is right for them? Nintendo can make billions being Nintendo or lose billions being MS and Sony... just like MS and Sony's gaming divisions have done historically. The average gamer simply does not want what Nintendo has to offer. No one said the average gamer is stupid, we said the average gamer wants violent shooter/action games. Nintendo doesn't make them and thus has to be an alternative. It's really as simple as opening a hamburger stand on a street filled with pizza joints. You're dissing Nintendo because they won't do what you want them to do and get crushed in the process.

[Starscream]

 

Except for the fact that the Wii nor the motion controls were a gimmick. I laugh at the idea of achievements being better than the experience of Wii Sports. That's insanity. The Wii had dozens and dozens of amazing games and you just don't like those types of games, I'm assuming. That's why Nintendo doesn't need to put $1000 into a console and sell it at $500. Because you're probably not going to buy it anyways. Anything Nintendo does, you will likely shit on. I guarantee that. No one gave two shits about the Gamecube, Nintendo drastically changes course, makes billions, fanboys who never would have bought a "Gamecube 2" traditional console cry regardless. It's the same story I've heard for over a decade now. No matter what Nintendo does, it gets no credit. Oh, sure, there's PS Move and Kinect and PS Vita with the touch screen, all copying Nintendo, but that's ok.

 

Again, how do you people all argue about how successful Sony or Microsoft is when their gaming divisions don't make money? Nintendo messes up, no question about it, but the fact is people like you don't want their stuff anyways, so why should they listen to you and why should their fans care what you say is right for them? Nintendo can make billions being Nintendo or lose billions being MS and Sony... just like MS and Sony's gaming divisions have done historically. The average gamer simply does not want what Nintendo has to offer. No one said the average gamer is stupid, we said the average gamer wants violent shooter/action games. Nintendo doesn't make them and thus has to be an alternative. It's really as simple as opening a hamburger stand on a street filled with pizza joints. You're dissing Nintendo because they won't do what you want them to do and get crushed in the process.

1 gimmick play

noun gim·mick \ˈgi-mik\

Simple Definition of gimmick

Popularity: Bottom 40% of words

• : a method or trick that is used to get people's attention or to sell something

Where are the motion controls now? What standard did they set? For the wii, they were fine. They did not translate well for many games, just ask Sony and MS and countless developers. How was public reaction after the wii, demanding motion controls? Traditional, improved controllers are the mainstream still. Sure, Nintendo gets credit for wii motion control but they did indeed copy all of the motion controls that were part of video games for decades before, but improved upon it. Just Like Sony, who I guess copied Nintendo (that copied), tried to improve on the wii controls, then MS, who copied Sony, who copied Nintendo, who copied those before them, tried to improve upon all of the copycats with Kinect. Aaaaannnnnndddd, they all pretty much realized, it just doesn't really work out too well.So they stick with what works. Even touchscreen interfaces for controls fall short. Let's put it this way......a steering wheel works, it's what has always worked, and logically looking at it, there isn't anything that is going to work as well. We did go from joysticks to thumbsticks and a few more buttons, but a traditional controller still gets the job done best. The wii motion controls lasted as long as baseball bat controllers, dance pads, impact vests, and the few other specialty controllers. All of those were gimmicks by definition. Don't take it so negatively.

 

There are dozens of amazing and unique games on every system, please don't imply that Nintendo holds an exclusive on that. While the wii controls did immerse the player into a game on a different level, a great game doesn't need a controller to make or break it. Unless it's Steel Battalions, which would be considered a gimmick.

 

Great, Nintendo makes money. That's what business' do. So does MS, so does Sony....at least a few dollars. Actually, I don't see any of them going anywhere but the fact is, Nintendo is backed into a corner to do something with their billions of dollars, while poverty stricken Sony and MS aren't. Being a one trick pony business and losing market share on all fronts is NOT a good position to be in.

 

I'm not a creative person for the most part. I mean, I can be but obviously only in areas I excel or understand in great length. So for me to even guess what Nintendo could do to gain some attention would be silly. I do think they would be on to something if they decided to do a VR system. Ya know, strap it on your head anywhere, any time. VR is almost ready and doesn't seem as though it will be cost prohibitive. That would be 2 uphill battles at the same time, but could be a path worth traveling.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Starscream

[Andromeda Stardust]

 

The average gamer simply does not want what Nintendo has to offer. No one said the average gamer is stupid, we said the average gamer wants violent shooter/action games. Nintendo doesn't make them and thus has to be an alternative. It's really as simple as opening a hamburger stand on a street filled with pizza joints. You're dissing Nintendo because they won't do what you want them to do and get crushed in the process.

QFT.

[Unbeliever]

I'm really not sure what we expect Nintendo to do at this point in their history of gaming. Most of us were wowed when we first saw Super Mario Bros 3 on the NES, weren't we? Less impressed with SMB 2..but still, SMB 3 was just an awesome game. It's moments like that in Nintendo's history that stand out. And yes, their glaring failures also stand out for the general gaming population (such as the Virtual Boy). But Nintendo has gone places and tread in areas where the other gaming companies do not. Those two seem to tend to play it safe and cater to the crowds wanting another FPS, or whatever the case may be at the time. And that seems very effective for them.

 

I know that some of Nintendo's franchise is getting stale to a point. After reading some reviews on the new Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam, it's "more of the same" but still refreshing enough to be very enjoyable, and the game seems to have scored pretty well. I mean, I love Paper Mario...who better to team up with than Mario & Luigi? So Nintendo stayed with the same formula for the series and again, it's worked. The game will sell really well for fans of this particular series.

 

I'm sure when all is said and done and the NX is released, it will be another sharp right turn for the company that will have a loyal fanbase behind it. Microsoft and Sony probably won't lose their spots over Nintendo's new console, but I believe Nintendo will still be a viable company in the near future. I'm just hoping (personally) that they don't lose sight of their 3DS gaming system and still manage to focus on releasing some good games for it alongside the NX games.

 

I'm not trying to tout Nintendo's innovative changes over the decades, just saying that it certainly has it's place among certain gamers and probably always will.

Edited January 26, 2016 by wolfpaw1966

[Raticon]

Nintendo is profitable now but remember that they have had some really rough years behind them. They lost some 5 billion dollars in 2012, it's the first time Nintendo ever went into the red and they did it big time, and they continued into the red for some years until being back in the black again just last year (fiscal year 2014), and the numbers for 2015 isn't out until spring but so far it appears to be going fine, but not great. This is quite a challenge for a company that has hardly ever, if ever, went into the red before and always have had money to spend. They didnt even pay out dividends to their investors for 2 years from what i can tell, and we all know how those suited up investor business types become when they don't get their dividends...
One of the reasons they managed to stay so massively profitable in the last generatiuon is that every game they sold brought profit, and every Wii sold was profitable due to cheaper and weaker hardware used. Both Sony and Microsoft lost money for each console due to powerful and expensive hardware, money that had to be recuperated in software and PSN-plus and Xbox-live like services alone.

As a comparison, Sony computer entertainment is their gaming division and they also went into the black last fiscal year, But Sony is a big company and the company as a whole is doing losses that people attribute to poor sales of mobile phones and other stuff, but saying that their gaming division is "constantly making losses" is a misinformed statement. They have even aquired some more IP of their own in the last years, and although not massively exciting it does contain some gems as "The last of us" and the long-standing "Gran Turismo"-franchise among others.

The gaming company/division that are arguably doing worst of the three is Microsoft. They have the gaming division that is making the least amount of money right now, together with a company that is for the moment not doing so well. Xbone is selling too slowly and Microsoft as a whole has lost money on their poorly performing phones and some other stuff but hey also happen to have some IP on their own of which the most exciting is Minecraft, Halo, Gears of War and Forza Motorsport, but they also have a crapload of IP hardly worth anything in my opinion too.

Conclusion? Neither of the three is on the brink of ruin or disaster, but Sony got the big monster-selling Ps4 that will keep them going for quite some time i believe, Microsoft got a good system in the Xbone but seems to fall short on expectations.
Nintendo is the company that got the poorest selling console of the three by a massive margin, which also happens to be the worst selling console in Nintendo history (excluding virtual boy of course). The biggest challenge here clearly is theirs, as their current system can't go on like it does and with everyone here seeming to agree that Nintendo won't be the market leader again like they were back in the day they will have do niche themselves. I think that the demographic they target and how well they do it will be paramount to their success, as i can't see Nintendo resurrecting the DS/3DS-line, i can't see them continue with the Wii U and i definetly cannot see them surviving on their mobile games venture.

I don't know about you, but i for one feels kinda sad to see the company that once were the friggin' industry standard of console gaming with the NES, the SNES and the Game Boy being so far behind that people really expect them to venture deep into - and staying in - the niche market.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Raticon

[Bilnick]

The average gamer simply does not want what Nintendo has to offer. No one said the average gamer is stupid, we said the average gamer wants violent shooter/action games. Nintendo doesn't make them and thus has to be an alternative. It's really as simple as opening a hamburger stand on a street filled with pizza joints. You're dissing Nintendo because they won't do what you want them to do and get crushed in the process.

 

The average gamer would buy plenty of Nintendo games if they did not have to buy a Nintendo console to play them. Beleive it or not, many people like Mario, Zelda, CoD, Forza, Uncharted, and Halo. Liking a Mario or Zelda game does not exclude someone from liking CoD or Destiny. The reverse is also true.

 

What the average gamer will not do is spend $400 for a PS4 or XB1 that plays 90% of the games he or she likes and then another $300 for a Wii U to play the 3-4 Nintendo exclusives he or she likes. I am lucky enough to afford all 3 of the major consoles so I can play everything I like. If I could afford to buy only one console the truth is that the Wii U would be a distant 3rd choice.

[Flojomojo]

I don't know about you, but i for one feels kinda sad to see the company that once were the friggin' industry standard of console gaming with the NES, the SNES and the Game Boy being so far behind that people really expect them to venture deep into - and staying in - the niche market.

It seems like the way of all things, don't you think? This is ATARI AGE, after all, where we are the only ones who care about the Video Computer System, Intelligent Television, the COnnecticut LEather COmpany, SErvice GAmes, and so many other graveyard toys. Nintendo started out as a niche player, too.

[bretthorror]

 

The average gamer would buy plenty of Nintendo games if they did not have to buy a Nintendo console to play them. Beleive it or not, many people like Mario, Zelda, CoD, Forza, Uncharted, and Halo. Liking a Mario or Zelda game does not exclude someone from liking CoD or Destiny. The reverse is also true.

 

What the average gamer will not do is spend $400 for a PS4 or XB1 that plays 90% of the games he or she likes and then another $300 for a Wii U to play the 3-4 Nintendo exclusives he or she likes. I am lucky enough to afford all 3 of the major consoles so I can play everything I like. If I could afford to buy only one console the truth is that the Wii U would be a distant 3rd choice.

 

IGN BREAKING NEWS: NINTENDO ABANDONS FANS, GOES THIRD PARTY SO SELF-CENTERED SCHMUCKS CAN PLAY THE 3-4 NINTENDO EXCLUSIVES HE LIKES, COMPANY LOSES BILLIONS

 

We all have to buy 3 dumb ass consoles to play what we want, but it's been like that for years now.

Edited January 26, 2016 by bretthorror

[Bill Loguidice]

 

IGN BREAKING NEWS: NINTENDO ABANDONS FANS, GOES THIRD PARTY SO SELF-CENTERED SCHMUCKS CAN PLAY THE 3-4 NINTENDO EXCLUSIVES HE LIKES, COMPANY LOSES BILLIONS

 

We all have to buy 3 dumb ass consoles to play what we want, but it's been like that for years now.

 

I think the argument is a valid one. If a platform consists of primarily first party titles, there wouldn't be a substantial difference for that company to become platform agnostic with its games, going software only. You'd mostly just lose the overhead costs associated with hardware development. A company like Nintendo could quickly move into a dominant market position as one of the top, if not the top, software publisher. Nintendo's value and options are distinctly different from that of Sony's and Microsoft's, and that's not a bad thing. It would be a far harder path for Sony or Microsoft to maintain a dominant position in videogames without thriving platforms of their own creation.

 

In any case, if the NX fails to catch on like the Wii U, then I think the answer is clear. Money in the bank or not, Nintendo will almost certainly become a third party, platform agnostic software publisher. The investors will demand it. They've already made the types of moves (mobile game development, leveraging their valuable IPs with things like Amiibo, etc.) that foreshadow this should it become necessary. (It's no slight, either. Almost every company has to evolve their business model at some point in response to market conditions.) One way or the other, it's clear the NX will ultimately determine Nintendo's future.

[Raticon]

 

I think the argument is a valid one. If a platform consists of primarily first party titles, there wouldn't be a substantial difference for that company to become platform agnostic with its games, going software only. You'd mostly just lose the overhead costs associated with hardware development. A company like Nintendo could quickly move into a dominant market position as one of the top, if not the top, software publisher. Nintendo's value and options are distinctly different from that of Sony's and Microsoft's, and that's not a bad thing. It would be a far harder path for Sony or Microsoft to maintain a dominant position in videogames without thriving platforms of their own creation.

 

In any case, if the NX fails to catch on like the Wii U, then I think the answer is clear. Money in the bank or not, Nintendo will almost certainly become a third party, platform agnostic software publisher. The investors will demand it. They've already made the types of moves (mobile game development, leveraging their valuable IPs with things like Amiibo, etc.) that foreshadow this should it become necessary. (It's no slight, either. Almost every company has to evolve their business model at some point in response to market conditions.) One way or the other, it's clear the NX will ultimately determine Nintendo's future.

Word! Imagine the market they will open up for themselves if they released games on the PS4 and Xbox one, There is 50+ million PS4's and Xboxes out there and growing, and many of us who own any of these systems also happen to like Nintendo games without having bought the U, as someone said some of us don't have the money or the will to buy an entire new system for 300$ to play a handful of games we like when we spent that plus more on one system already, and the PS4 and the Xbox can handle anything from the U without breaking a sweat. And as Bill stated, investors want to see results. They don't care if a game released on the U is the best game ever if it only reaches 1/6th of the potential console customerbase or less. They want to earn money and they won't earn money if the product they are investing in are selling way below everyone else.

 

A Zelda game with the power from a PS4 would truly be awesome and somethink at least i would like to see.

 

It seems like the way of all things, don't you think? This is ATARI AGE, after all, where we are the only ones who care about the Video Computer System, Intelligent Television, the COnnecticut LEather COmpany, SErvice GAmes, and so many other graveyard toys. Nintendo started out as a niche player, too.

 

Indeed they did, but coming from a niche market, emerging on top, fading back into the niche market and then go under, we have all seen before in Atari and none of us want to add Nintendo to that "graveyard" list anytime soon and to avoid that Nintendo need to step up the ante in my opinion. Nintendo games will always be around, methinks, but Nintendo consoles? Well, that depends on how good the NX does and you know it.

[bretthorror]

I'm gonna call Domino's head office and ask them to please cease operations and let Pizza Hut have their bread stick recipe as I prefer Pizza Hut's pizzas and would prefer to have Domino's sticks rather than the Hut's own. I'll tell 'em Bill sent me.

Edited January 26, 2016 by bretthorror

[Bill Loguidice]

I'm gonna call Domino's head office and ask them to please cease operations and let Pizza Hut have their bread stick recipe as I prefer Pizza Hut's pizzas and would prefer to have Domino's sticks rather than the Hut's own. I'll tell 'em Bill sent me.

 

So your best attempt at a rebuttal is an oversimplified and not-quite-there analogy?

[godslabrat]

 

 

We all have to buy 3 dumb ass consoles to play what we want, but it's been like that for years now.

 

 

I dunno about that... It seems like each generation, there's less and less reason to own both a Sony AND a Microsoft console, you can get the bulk of either library owning just one. And this generation in particular, I opted to get neither and I don't feel as if I'm missing much (my experiences admittedly not typical).

 

Buying 3 consoles will amount to at least $1,000 in hardware alone. 10 years ago, that would have felt like money well spent. Now I'm saying to myself, "I can get one console, $300 in games, and still have $400 sitting in my bank account." and it sounds like a far better proposition.

[Bill Loguidice]

 

 

I dunno about that... It seems like each generation, there's less and less reason to own both a Sony AND a Microsoft console, you can get the bulk of either library owning just one. And this generation in particular, I opted to get neither and I don't feel as if I'm missing much (my experiences admittedly not typical).

 

Buying 3 consoles will amount to at least $1,000 in hardware alone. 10 years ago, that would have felt like money well spent. Now I'm saying to myself, "I can get one console, $300 in games, and still have $400 sitting in my bank account." and it sounds like a far better proposition.

 

Certainly an advantage with typical consoles is that their lifecycles of active, thriving support is usually about five years. Investing $300 - $500 per console for at least five years of regular usage is not necessarily a terrible investment, and it's not like you can't turn around and sell the system at the end for at least a small monetary return on said investment.

 

In any case, I do agree it IS a lot of money, and there should be a good reason for being a current multi-console home (getting games or features that the other(s) don't offer is part of that). Ultimately, it does of course also depend on how you want to spend your discretionary income. A large portion of mine goes to videogame and computer stuff (and technology in general), new and old, so it's a given I get everything as soon as possible, "worth it" at the time or not. I imagine if I had other hobbies that required monetary investments that might take away from that pool of funds, I'd certainly reconsider my stance, but I don't, so it's not really an issue.

 

There's also a compelling alternative in the PC these days, which really wasn't there in quite the same way in previous generations. I can totally understand someone wanting to eschew the PS4 and Xbox One and have a high powered PC that can play many of the same games (and more, of course, and often at bargain basement pricing), and having a Wii U for just the Nintendo stuff that's not available anywhere else. Of course, despite PC fanatics' protestations, there's still something to be said about the console experience you get from the PS4 and Xbox One. I know for me, I usually like to play multi-platform games on the PS4 or Xbox One so I don't have to spend even more time in front of a computer, etc.

[Flojomojo]

Splitting time between so many forms of entertainment is what kills me, it's the paralyzing paradox of choice -- with so much to choose from, it's hard to decide how to spend your entertainment hours, to say nothing of money. I've got more to choose from in any given month than I would have played on a year back in the old days. Music and movies and tv and books and comics and other things are in the same boat.

 

I would think that hooking the youngest set (and their parents) will remain Nintendo's priority. Does anyone have recent numbers about the demographics of American gamers? I'll bet there are many older people than in generations past.

[Bill Loguidice]

Splitting time between so many forms of entertainment is what kills me, it's the paralyzing paradox of choice -- with so much to choose from, it's hard to decide how to spend your entertainment hours, to say nothing of money. I've got more to choose from in any given month than I would have played on a year back in the old days. Music and movies and tv and books and comics and other things are in the same boat.

 

That is indeed the plight of the modern adult into this stuff. We have access to more stuff than we probably ever thought possible as kids, with precious little time to truly enjoy it all. I wouldn't want to go back to "having less," but it does suck that we can't fully enjoy this golden age we're in.

 

I would think that hooking the youngest set (and their parents) will remain Nintendo's priority. Does anyone have recent numbers about the demographics of American gamers? I'll bet there are many older people than in generations past.

 

I'd argue that Nintendo lost out on a good portion of the kids market thanks to the rise of smartphones and tablets, and there is likely no way of ever getting them back in sufficient numbers. I'm also not sure if the idea of "hooking them early" leads to life-long fans. I think people will go where the games they want to play are, period. We've seen enough lead changes in videogame console sales over the years to see that first-hand.

The average gamer age has gone up fairly steadily and reliably over the past few decades. I don't see that changing, but that's probably more due to more people gaming (and fewer people stopping gaming) than it is necessarily due to any type of age bias. I definitely think it was probably more common in the past for child gamers to grow up and stop gaming as adults. I'm sure that percentage has gone down dramatically and will only continue to go down as gaming itself becomes ever more entrenched as a daily part of our lives and any outdated stigmas about adults and videogames continue to fade away into irrelevance.

[Flojomojo]

I suspect that's all true too, but I'd love to see (current, well-sourced) data.

[Bill Loguidice]

I suspect that's all true too, but I'd love to see (current, well-sourced) data.

 

There's plenty of data out there: http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ESA-Essential-Facts-2015.pdf

[bretthorror]

So your best attempt at a rebuttal is an oversimplified and not-quite-there analogy?

It's no more over simplifying than having Nintendo become third party and neglecting the fact they have to pay licensing fees, more advertising fees and split revenue with Sony/MS in doing so when they could just make the same money even if they sell significantly less games by keeping all their profits.

 

Nintendo has gone on record and said they aren't competing with the others and are an alternative. You think they'll make more money if they sell their souls, but maybe they are happy with what they are doing. Of hey have gone third party after GC imagine the tens of billions of dollars they'd have lost out on. It's only a bad move if they flop. Unfortunately the Wii U flopped. I'm not certain they need to push the panic button yet. Why would they until absolutely necessary ala Sega?

[Raticon]

What Nintendo itself is saying is almost irrelevant if their investors say something else. No bucks = no buck rogers, and you know that.

I just hope the NX manage to appeal to the masses, and not just a niche group of gamers i don't belong to. That way we will have more games to play, as developers will se there is a market.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Raticon

[Starscream]

It's no more over simplifying than having Nintendo become third party and neglecting the fact they have to pay licensing fees, more advertising fees and split revenue with Sony/MS in doing so when they could just make the same money even if they sell significantly less games by keeping all their profits.

 

Nintendo has gone on record and said they aren't competing with the others and are an alternative. You think they'll make more money if they sell their souls, but maybe they are happy with what they are doing. Of hey have gone third party after GC imagine the tens of billions of dollars they'd have lost out on. It's only a bad move if they flop. Unfortunately the Wii U flopped. I'm not certain they need to push the panic button yet. Why would they until absolutely necessary ala Sega?

So how do Activision and EA do it?

 

Why would they be selling their souls? They make great games. If they focused on games only instead of underpowered, gimmick controlled, feature stripped, cheap hardware, they could potentially do amazing things. Imagine how much they could do with awesome hardware for a change or an outstanding social online environment. They not only limit their own market with this gimmicky stuff, they limit their appeal. It's difficult to argue they excel at games, suck at hardware, at least in the last 15 years or so when gaming started embracing technology and it's evolving advancements.

 

3DS sales are strong but even at that, it has seriously declined in sales from it's predecessors. The handheld market has been their cash cow for years.....and it's declining. So they have what?....20 billion? Yup, lets just cater to less people and continue to sell less product and lose marketshare consistently because pom poms can keep us going, not money.

 

And in case you don't keep up with Nintendo news....they have stated numerous times in the past year, that they are planning a new business model in direct connection with the wiiu failure and declining sales. Guess they aren't happy being niche. Guess they aren't happy with what they are currently doing.

[Andromeda Stardust]

 

We all have to buy 3 dumb ass consoles to play what we want, but it's been like that for years now.

I wish it was just 3 consoles we had to buy to play every game. Every system out there has some kind of must have exclusive game to get me addicted to it. The only relevant system I've never felt a need to invest into was Microsoft Xbox. The RROD fiasco with 360 and Microsoft's diarrhea-of-the-mouth regarding Xbone DRM further proved to me that I wanted nothing to do with the company.

 

It all started with a complete-in-box NES Action set I found in the garage circa 2002. I got hooked on Nintendo. Then I had to buy an SNES, N64, and ultimately got a Game Cube. Then Wii launched and being a Nintendo Fanboy, it was a required purchase. Then I had to buy PS3 for Little Big Planet and 3D Dot Heroes (and BluRay), a Genesis for the four Sonic games. Later I got an Atari just to see what the fuss was about, knowing full well I could sell it all off of at a small loss I didn't like it. Doing so opened Pandora's box of AtariAge and homebrew. I later had to get a 7800 for PMP's excellent homebrew games. I bought an AV Famicom to play all those whacky Japanese imports the western world missed out without dealing with fugly pin adapters. Speaking of pin adapters, the Powerbase Mini lets me play SMS games on my Model 1 Genesis. Two consoles in one! Wii's Virtual Console service got me hooked on Turbografx games back in 2007, so nostalgia forced me to get the real thing seven years later.

 

Since I don't have shelf space or money to buy every stupidly rare game out there, I needed fully loaded flash carts for every system. NES Powerpak, 2600 Harmony, and Everdrives for Famicom, SNES, Genesis, Turbografx, N64, and Game Boy. I probably have accumulated about $1000 worth of flash carts by now. As a bonus, because collecting arcade machines is totally impractical, I had to build a Raspberry Pi MAME cab. And I do not regret any of it...

 

Indeed they did, but coming from a niche market, emerging on top, fading back into the niche market and then go under, we have all seen before in Atari and none of us want to add Nintendo to that "graveyard" list anytime soon and to avoid that Nintendo need to step up the ante in my opinion. Nintendo games will always be around, methinks, but Nintendo consoles? Well, that depends on how good the NX does and you know it.

This! Nintendo puts such pride into their games, however they run the risk of going stale if they drop out of the console race, much like Sega did post Dreamcast.

[bretthorror]

So how do Activision and EA do it?

 

Why would they be selling their souls? They make great games. If they focused on games only instead of underpowered, gimmick controlled, feature stripped, cheap hardware, they could potentially do amazing things. Imagine how much they could do with awesome hardware for a change or an outstanding social online environment. They not only limit their own market with this gimmicky stuff, they limit their appeal. It's difficult to argue they excel at games, suck at hardware, at least in the last 15 years or so when gaming started embracing technology and it's evolving advancements.

 

3DS sales are strong but even at that, it has seriously declined in sales from it's predecessors. The handheld market has been their cash cow for years.....and it's declining. So they have what?....20 billion? Yup, lets just cater to less people and continue to sell less product and lose marketshare consistently because pom poms can keep us going, not money.

 

And in case you don't keep up with Nintendo news....they have stated numerous times in the past year, that they are planning a new business model in direct connection with the wiiu failure and declining sales. Guess they aren't happy being niche. Guess they aren't happy with what they are currently doing.

 

You and everyone else here basically wants Nintendo to blow every dime they have on an uber powerful console and hope for the best without any assurance whatsoever and if it fails, they go the way of Sega. What would their investors think if they did that?

 

Nintendo is gonna do what they've done for over a decade. Put out something new for their customers and adjust their business according to the success or failure of it. I guarantee you, you are absolutely out to lunch if you think Nintendo's statements makes you think the NX is gonna be a mainstream shooter console. Nintendo is always going to be Nintendo.