Nintendo should go software-only

[Kylo Ken]

That is great information. But it does not talk about profits. Revenue is nice but if you can't generate profits, then it's all for naught. Sony's gaming division only started making profit shortly after Nintendo did again. Sure you give good info there but it is not the whole picture. How much profit is this generating Sony? And how much is the Sony gaming division making in profit these days? That is the more important questions to be asking.

That's a good point. Unfortunately I have no clue what their yearly expenses are since I don't do their taxes, ha. What I do know is that CD's don't cost that much to make, their biggest expense is man-power. But it's hard for me to believe that they didn't make their money back plus more. I mean, take a game like Splatoon for example, they made around 60 Million dollars off of that game, they probably didn't spend half that amount making it. Which means the rest is profit, baby.

 

[A Link In Time]

I understand why people are saying this. I actually disagree. If by normal you mean a plain controller with buttons and control sticks and nothing else fancy on it then I hope that is not the controller that is shipped with the NX. Nintendo since the Wii have shipped different controllers with their consoles. Both with differing levels of success. The Wiimote succeeded overall whereas the gamepad did and did not in different ways. The main difference is that the Wiimote was advertised right from day 1 and Wiisports was the perfect game to show off the Wiimite's capabilities. Also the other games at Wii launch really showcased the Wiimote's capabilities too. The gamepad on the other hand is only getting games now that show off it's capabilities. Almost nothing on launch (apart from a few good ways to use off TV play) was showcased for the gamepad. Nintendoland was nice but the game was too hard, not accessable enough for people to learn about the gamepad and more importantly there was no games at launch that really showed off the gamepad.

I believe the NX needs:
A unique way to interact with the console
Nintendo advertising the hell out of this control scheme and why it is amazing
Good first party games that really show off this new control scheme very well.

The different control schemes are one of the ways modern Nintendo controls differentiate themselves from it's competition. (Sony and MS are indirect competition). If this was lost it'd be a serious blow to Nintendo and what it stands for as being an innovator in the console hardware space.

How sustainable is the "blue ocean" strategy for Nintendo in the long run? They struck gold with the Wii and DS last generation, but it can be argued that gamers lost confidence in Nintendo overall this generation for trying something new. This didn't happen so much on the handheld side, but it's very pronounced with the Wii U. The Wii had few games to appeal to the gamers who liked the dark and gritty games available on the competing consoles and PC. Ironically, while the Wii Remote translated very well to shooter games, more fans of the genre preferred to stick with the dual analog or mouse and keyboard control schemes they had become used to.

The two best selling consoles of all time, the PS2 and PS1, didn't take major risks with their controller. Instead they delivered with a huge variety of games, especially RPGs, that weren't available on other systems. Nintendo also does this well with their handhelds. They understand that hardware changes should be incremental while the innovation should be in the software and encouraging third party developers to release as wide a variety of games as possible on their portable.

Even if we look at the Xbox brand, which hasn't quite reached the numbers of Playstation, the 360 was able to comfortably glide past 80 million consoles sold after the system amassed an impressive library of games, and the Xbox One is selling at a faster rate than its predecessor.

I understand wanting Nintendo to continue innovating in the console business, but the key word here is business, and that means Nintendo should try to maximize its profits for the long term instead of operating on a series of unpredictable booms and busts. Yes, the NES, SNES, N64, and GameCube controllers were all unique in their own ways, but once Nintendo lost major third party support after the SNES, their console sales took a nose dive even if their hardware was powerful and had a unique controller design. It's a bit ironic that some Nintendo fans are now speaking as though a stronger CPU and GPU will solve all of Nintendo's problems when the opposite has proven true not only for Nintendo in the past but also for Sega and Sony.

 

[the8thark]

They struck gold with the Wii and DS last generation, but it can be argued that gamers lost confidence in Nintendo overall this generation for trying something new. This didn't happen so much on the handheld side, but it's very pronounced with the Wii U. The Wii had few games to appeal to the gamers who liked the dark and gritty games available on the competing consoles and PC. Ironically, while the Wii Remote translated very well to shooter games, more fans of the genre preferred to stick with the dual analog or mouse and keyboard control schemes they had become used to.

Firstly of cause many of the Wii customers did not move over to the WiiU. Nintendo is ok with that as they do not want those casual customers. That is evidenced with Nintendo saying thay want the hardcore Nintendo market back. The Wii and DS had all of the casuals and grandmas hooked. But Nintendo realised that casual market is not sustainable long term. It's the low end customer, someone who rides the hype train and is not really loyal to the console. The WiiU was Nintendo basically saying to all the long term Nintendo fans - we have not forgotten you. It's not about losing customers, it's about who you lost. Nintendo needed a way to steady up it's core customers, keep them on board as the move forward into the future. Took Nintendo 4 years with the WiiU to do this but I believe they ahve finally done it. Nintendo now have enough of a base to launch the NX and usher in the next generation of Nintendo.

The two best selling consoles of all time, the PS2 and PS1, didn't take major risks with their controller. Instead they delivered with a huge variety of games, especially RPGs, that weren't available on other systems. Nintendo also does this well with their handhelds. They understand that hardware changes should be incremental while the innovation should be in the software and encouraging third party developers to release as wide a variety of games as possible on their portable.

Innovation is risky. It always has been. It almost bankrupted Apple in the around 1997. But look at Apple now, They have more money (take away debts) than many countries in the world. Nothing is guaranteed. One very bad console can destroy you (like Sega) but also you can rebound from a bad (but not distasterous) console too, like Nintendo did with the not so successful N64. Also of cause the more innovation you have, the less potential sales you have as gamers like what is familar. It takes a while for gamers to accept anything really new en mass. But without the innovation, the industry stagnates and we have the same things (only prettier) released decade after decade.

Even if we look at the Xbox brand, which hasn't quite reached the numbers of Playstation, the 360 was able to comfortably glide past 80 million consoles sold after the system amassed an impressive library of games, and the Xbox One is selling at a faster rate than its predecessor.

This is amazing for Sony and MS. I do tip my fedora in respect to those kind of sales. But sales revenue is not everything. Profofits at the end of the day is what keeps business going. Something Nintendo and thr SOny gaming division only recently started to do (make profit again that is). The end customer does not look at sales the same way as businesses to.

I understand wanting Nintendo to continue innovating in the console business, but the key word here is business, and that means Nintendo should try to maximize its profits for the long term instead of operating on a series of unpredictable booms and busts. Yes, the NES, SNES, N64, and GameCube controllers were all unique in their own ways, but once Nintendo lost major third party support after the SNES, their console sales took a nose dive even if their hardware was powerful and had a unique controller design. It's a bit ironic that some Nintendo fans are now speaking as though a stronger CPU and GPU will solve all of Nintendo's problems when the opposite has proven true not only for Nintendo in the past but also for Sega and Sony.

I am very glad you say that a more powerful NX is not the magic wand to solve all Nintendo's issues. Not many people understand this. To me, as long as the NX is powerful enough to port enough of the current gen games over that's enough. It's more what innovations the NX has and selling them well (something Nintendo failed early on with the WiiU). Properly selling what the NX is, that is key for Nintendo moving forward. Most of the core Nintendo fans don't care at all about the speed of the internal hardware in Nintendo consoles. Can they play their favourite Nintendo IPs in an innovative fun way? If yes then they are happy.

I seriously think Nintendo cares more about staying in the profit side fo the account books and creating it's own eternal legacy. Iwata certainly embodied this. I am pretty sure many others in Nintendo do as well too. Each company (of the big 3) need to play to their strengths and carve out their own niche in the market. Each will have more popular and less popular consoles. All they need to do is ensure their not so popular consoles are not a devistating loss and provide a platform upon which to bounce back on.

Nintendo also have another issue to deal with that Sony and MS do not. The fact that many of their earliest customers (from the NES days) are slowly leaving Nintendo. For no other reason than they are getting too old to play games anymore. Either they are dying or are retired now or just past the whole video game playing stage. I can feel this personally as I am probably in the youngest group of people what was able to experience the NES before the SNES came out (in the 1980's). Nintendo needs to replace these customers with new ones somehow. The PS and Xbox simply have not been around long enough for this to be an issue. It will be for them too in the 2020's and 2030's though. I do think it's possible (without Sony and MS dealing with all this now) they might experience in the 2020's what Nintendo is facing now in the 2010s.

In short I think the saying "short term pain for long term gain" applies here. The WiiU is that short term pain. We all just hope that long term gain comes with the NX and into the future. I do also hope Sony and MS do well too. Even though Nintendo does not directly compete with them, having other successful players in the industry does keep everyone from becoming complacent. To this end I think the SOny VR project is a good thing. I do not think it will do all that well initially but it's Sony finally deciding to take a major step towards inovation. This can only be good for the industry. Nintendo tried the same thing in the 1990's and failed because the tech was simply not there at the time. But today I think there is enough tech out there to make Sony's VR experience at least half decent.

I always watch all of the big 3's E3 presentations. Even though I have little interest in purchasing a PS or Xbox I like to see what (if any) innovations they have lined up. If everyone is innovationg, it makes for a healthier more copetitive industry.