Is Nintendo becoming irrelevant?

[Church185]

Except that they still are.

Jesus... I cannot comprehend how people keep repeating the line that Nintendo's handhelds are doomed, when even the most basic Google search will show you that the 3DS is selling incredibly well at the minute.

Let me repeat: The 3DS has sold around 35 million units in around two and a half years. If you were to average it out, that's roughly 1 million units per month since launch. That is a phenomenal figure. As long as the 3DS keeps selling and keeps getting more games released for it, Nintendo will be able to compete.

I don't mind people arguing Wii U sales figures, but when you're trying to argue the 3DS as an example of Nintendo's lack of success, then you're just not following reality. The 3DS is not likely to stop selling anytime in the near future. Not with the momentum it's got going currently. As long as it keeps making a profit for Nintendo, they'll be able to compete in the handheld market, no matter how many new smartphones Apple may throw onto the market.

You may want to adjust your numbers a little, because for 6-8 months after the price drop Nintendo was selling the console at a loss, which they reported was nearly $460 million. I can't seem to find a figure on how many of those 35 million consoles were sold during that period of time, but I know I personally was waiting for the price drop.

Your numbers relating to big box console hardware are also skewed. While it is true that the 3DS may have started outselling the PS3 and XB360, it's sales aren't being affected by the incoming console generation. It's sad that it took a huge price drop and the end of a console generation for the system to start winning in sales.

 

[Doom972]

That graph pretty much proves my point. The gaming handhelds sales are declining, while in those same years (2010+) smartphone and tablet sales are rising.

So? Why compare smartphone sales to console sales? Of course more people are buying smartphones; THEY'RE PHONES. People may play games on them but that's not why they buy them. People will always want a phone, not everyone wants a console- handheld or otherwise. Also, bear in mind that the 3DS isn't that far behind the DS original, and that's WITHOUT an exclusive Pokemon game at launch. What do you want to bet that, come October, the 3DS's start flying out of stores so fast that they have to start handing out padded clothing?

I'm talking about handhelds in particular in that post.

Well, my point still stands. Phone =/= Console and consumers know it.

Yes, and the PC is also not a console. All of the above are gaming platforms. There is a subgroup called handhelds, which includes smartphones, tablets and gaming handhelds. Consumers get smartphones and tablets due to their multipurpose functionality, which includes gaming.

Most people don't care about the arbitrary definition of console (which doesn't make sense anymore, anyway).

 

[Terramax]

For the first time in my 20 years of gaming, I dont really see much point in spending $600+ dollars to fully outfit a console (extra controllers, service plan, multiplayer access, etc) when I can spend $200 or so to upgrade my computer.

I'm not going to disagree that nintendo has made some missteps, but I think we are more likely to be buying nintendo products in 10 years than Xbox.

Honestly, I think you're the minority. People buy Sony and MS consoles for the games. Bottom line is, that's what it's all about. Most people couldn't care less that you could buy a decent PC for the same price, or less. Not everyone want a HUUUUUUUGGGGEEEE machine in their room. That fact that most people own a laptop, or are even swapping them just for touchpads, is proof that nobody cares about PCs anymore (if the decreasing sales figures of PCs weren't proof enough).

People bought the PS3 and 360 for their exclusive games, and I'm quite sure a lot of people will do the same for the next generation. Furthermore, there are plenty of 3rd party titles coming out for those two system that you can't get on the Wii U and, supposing you can get them on the PC, a great many people prefer to buy on home consoles anyway, from what I can see.

As for 10 years time, I honestly couldn't hazard a guess as to whether people will still be buying Call of Duty, Halo, and Gears of War games 10 years from now. That remains to be seen.

I think a question we also want to ask ourselves is 'do we really WANT Nintendo to be relevant anymore? I mean, their games stopped being truly groundbreaking back in the N64 era (although I much prefer the underrated Gamecube). If they are going to continue making nothing but Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon games, are they really deserving of relevance (please bare in mind this isn't me saying those franchises should stop. Merely questioning whether they should be as successful as other video games which are more entertaining and original from other devs).

 

[J-meMalone]

To the 'hardcore gamers'? Sort of.

To gaming as a whole? No.

The Wii U isn't doing well, but the 3DS has seen its sales increase, especially after the price cut and all Nintendo made games do predictably well on their respective consoles.

I wouldn't want Nintendo failing either. I'm not a huge fan of most of their games, but it sometimes feels like they are the only triple-A developer/publisher that makes games aimed at children, which I feel is a niche that needs to be filled.

 

[Ishal]

You may not personally enjoy them, but both those games broke new ground when they came out. There's a reason Mario Galaxy is one of the highest rated games ever.

For games like that, yes. But are you honestly going to tell me that compared to the galaxy games Nintendo wasn't phoning it in with the New Super Mario Bros. titles? C'mon Jeffers.

As for the CoD games, you have a point. But I don't think those games are out to break new ground. Activision doesn't want any tampering done with its huge money maker. It'll change eventually though, or the crowd will move onto something different.

 

[Ishal]

snip

Subjective, NSMB games don't stack up to the 3d versions. I can't blame Ninty for making them, but I'd much rather see them wait and make something better than Galaxy instead of pumping out side scrollers like mcdonalds pumps out big macs.

So why isn't there a thread asking whether Activision is becoming irrelevant? Why isn't there a thread asking if EA's tendency to boil all its properties down into the same AAA soup will lead to its irrelevancy?

When the number of CoD games (modern warfare and BLOPS games) starts to come close to the number of Mario and Zelda games maybe then you can look for some threads like that. Activision has no stake in the creation of consoles, they are just a publisher. Nintendo does both, thus they exert influence where Activision does not.

As for EA, you do post here, right? The top most hated things on this site are Feminist/Gender issues, Bioware, Nintendo (apparently), and EA.

 

[mariosonicfan5]

But:

Kids don't care about nintendo anymore.

Imma stop you there.

If kids don't care about Nintendo anymore, let's just have a look at the sales figures for Mario 3D Land. Oh would you look at that? It's currently at over 8 million copies sold, and is selling faster than either of the Galaxy games. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's more than any Metal Gear Solid, Uncharted or Gears Of War game. How exactly are the kids not caring about Nintendo anymore if games like 3D Land still sell absolute gangbusters?

This isn't 1980.
This isn't 1990-2000 when Pokemon dominated everything.

This is an age where Call of Duty is big for kids.

The average age of your typical COD gamer is around 33 years old. A lot of kids play COD, sure, but the majority of COD players are adult gamers.

This is an age of Minecraft, which is now competing with the likes of Mario and Angry birds for attention from kids.

Minecraft has gotten 12 million total sales. That's good, sure, but that's not a figure stratospherically ahead of Nintendo's big hitters. Brawl hit a similar sales figure, as did Mario Galaxy.

This is an age where kids have tablets and phones that make handhelds obsolete due to the mobile devices almost required nature.

Everyone keeps saying this, and yet the 3DS is still selling incredibly well. If handhelds are so obsolete, why are the PS3 and 360 getting continually outsold by the 3DS on a monthly basis? Why do 3DS games regularly sit near or at the top of the sales charts? Why is the 3DS currently dominating Japan to an embarrassing level? If that's what you count as obsolete, I'd hate to see what you see as being up-to-date.

Its the DC comics syndrome. It is sitting there expecting its fan base to refresh itself without any actual work.

...seriously? Have you seen the lineup of games Nintendo managed to get for this year? have you seen the amount of Wii U exclusives they're putting out the latter half of this year? When the 3DS had more exclusives this year than the 360 or PS3 combined, then I say you're completely wrong in saying Nintendo hasn't done any work. Putting out games of the quality of Fire Emblem Awakening, Pikmin 3, Luigi's Mansion 2 and more would earn any other developer or publisher collective blowjobs from the gaming community.

And that's Nintendo's big problem: Its stuck in stasis. Its the same thing every time expecting everyone to come running based on what they had 10-30 years ago.

How is a 3D-enabled handheld and a console with a touchscreen gamepad the same thing as what they've always done? And before you retort with "But they keep rehashing Mario": Xenoblade, Sin And Punishment 2, X, Wonderful 101, Pushmo, Crashmo, Kid Icarus Uprising, Endless Ocean, The Last Story, Pandora Tower... all games that were either developed by Nintendo or financed and published by them. They're currently financing W101 and Bayonetta 2 from Platinum, X from Monolith Soft, a Fire Emblem/SMT crossover... how in the seven hells is that doing the same thing they've always done? I wasn't aware the Gamecube had a Fire Embem/SMT crossover?

Its stuck using 90s business practices in an age when that's no longer feasible. Its not biting back, its just sitting there watching its foundations being eaten away by the sands of time.

Funny how those 90s business practises keep Nintendo making a profit, yet all those 'modern' business practises are losing other publishers money hand over fist. It's almost as if the AAA industry as it is currently is inherently unsustainable, and Nintendo knows it. How has abandoning 90s business practises worked out for Square Enix? They made quite a lot of money in the 90s. Are they doing so now? The news article that's just popped up saying "Square Enix: Disc Based Sales Are Killing Us" would seem to suggest not.

And this is why I love you jeffers, if ever there was a shining force of Nintendo defense you are the prime example of it! Sorry all you haters out there, but Nintendo's characters/games/franchises will be here and be more memorable than anything AAA that has come out in the last ten or so years. I thoroughly believe that Mario will outlive us all especially all those "ALPHA BRAVO ROMERO DOWN AT CRASH SITE TEN MINUTE ETA FOR CARPET BOMBING FUCK YEA!!!!!!

And one thing I've noticed is that people harp on Nintendo for rehashing old franchises and not coming up with new ones, but all I notice is that every time Nintendo actually odes come up with a new one, People harp on them for not working their established franchises its an endless cycle of whining that I just can't stand. Oh but its ok for activision to give Call of Duty a new bit of make up every damn year, or EA setting absolutely ridiculous sales figures for their games, "Oh looks like Dead Space 3 didn't sell 47 billion units is the first 3 hours of it release, looks like we'll have to cancel the series,"

Its times like this that make me wish Microsoft had never bought Rare, because I'm pretty sure Nintendo would have let them make games and not whatever the hell Microsoft makes them do. "Hey let's take out everything that was fun about Banjo-Kazooie and make it some kind of Half-Assed lego racing game that doesn't really fit within the game world itself,"

In all honesty its the consumers fault really. Why should any company, not just Nintendo make new stuff when their old stuff sells huge amounts and makes them crap tons of money? I feel that time wil ltell with the Wii U once developers see just how ridiculously expensive all these "Absolutely beautiful" next gen games will cost on a consistant basis, the cheaper easier to develop for Wii U will start looking a little bit better. All they have to get over is making something for the touch pad controller, which in and of it self is simply a controller with a built in map screen for most games.

People have said that nintendo was doomed when the Playstation and the Sega CD and the Sega Saturn and the Dreamscast came out with their format of Cd and nintendo stuck with cartridges. People said Nintendo was doomed when the (sarcastically) "Superior" Playstation 2 came out and would trounce the Gamecube hands down, People said Nintendo was doomed when they went with a strategy to get a wider audience to play their weird new motion controlled system becuase it had no where near the graphics capability of the 360 or the PS3 and yet the Wii outsold the 360 and PS3 combined. AS someone who has stuck by nintendo since the beginning it just drives me crazy to read topics like this, without Nintendo there would be no video games today, Mario revived video games back in the eighties and he will be the one to carry it out of this period of increasing costs and lackluster blockbuster games. Oh yes and to Ultratwiinkie DC comics syndrome huh? Pretty sure DC hasn't gone anywhere since the the 1930's so if that's any indication Nintendo still has somewhere around about 45 more years before they even start toeing the line of irrelevancy. Thank you good night!

 

[Lightknight]

You may not personally enjoy them, but both those games broke new ground when they came out. There's a reason Mario Galaxy is one of the highest rated games ever.

For games like that, yes. But are you honestly going to tell me that compared to the galaxy games Nintendo wasn't phoning it in with the New Super Mario Bros. titles? C'mon Jeffers.

I think it's important to try an separate out Nintendo's software publishing business vs Nintendo's home console hardware business. Saying that Nintendo is quickly losing ground as a huge console publishing house is accurate whereas their IPs are still very strong and wildly enjoyable.

As for the CoD games, you have a point. But I don't think those games are out to break new ground. Activision doesn't want any tampering done with its huge money maker. It'll change eventually though, or the crowd will move onto something different.

A realistic shooter isn't supposed to break new ground. It is supposed to be as realistic as possible with fine tuning along the way. Any step away from that, "ground breaking changes" as they're called, that's taking a step away from realism and would weaken their brand. It is, frankly, ridiculous to hold "ground breaking" or "innovation" as a requirement of success or quality. The COD games are hugely popular, there's a reason for that even if some people don't get it. It's cute for Nintendo fans to complain about FPS titles being less than their Mario games, but beyond nonsensical "you don't enjoy the games I enjoy" rants it doesn't have a place in the discussion.

COD: MW3 sold 6.5 million copies in its first day. It sold more than Super Mario Galaxy did (11.72 million) on both the 360 and ps3, each (15 million and 13 million respectively with 1.6 million on pcs and no accounting for digital downloads).

Clearly breaking new ground isn't the only game in town as far as most gamers are concerned.

 

[DrOswald]

That graph pretty much proves my point. The gaming handhelds sales are declining, while in those same years (2010+) smartphone and tablet sales are rising.

So? Why compare smartphone sales to console sales? Of course more people are buying smartphones; THEY'RE PHONES. People may play games on them but that's not why they buy them. People will always want a phone, not everyone wants a console- handheld or otherwise. Also, bear in mind that the 3DS isn't that far behind the DS original, and that's WITHOUT an exclusive Pokemon game at launch. What do you want to bet that, come October, the 3DS's start flying out of stores so fast that they have to start handing out padded clothing?

I'm talking about handhelds in particular in that post.

Well, my point still stands. Phone =/= Console and consumers know it.

Yes, and the PC is also not a console. All of the above are gaming platforms. There is a subgroup called handhelds, which includes smartphones, tablets and gaming handhelds. Consumers get smartphones and tablets due to their multipurpose functionality, which includes gaming.

Most people don't care about the arbitrary definition of console (which doesn't make sense anymore, anyway).

But what people do care about are games. You get a different gaming experience, a better one, with a dedicated handheld. The machines have a different purpose and a different audience.

I will grant you that some people who would have purchased a 3DS will not because they have a phone, but comparing smart phone sales to 3DS sales is about as meaningful as comparing milk sales to bottled water sales; there is an underlying overlap in the consumer group and they even compete on some level, but they really don't have the same goals.

Lets instead compare things that are similar to the 3ds. Like, say, the Nintendo DS.

After 2 years (plus 1 month due to reporting cycles) the Nintendo DS sold 35.61 million units.

After 2 years (plus 1 month for the same reason) the Nintendo 3DS sold 31.09 million units.

The 3DS is about 13% behind its predecessor. Now consider that this comparison heavily favors the DS. The DS had 3 holiday seasons in that 2 year time frame compared to the 2 holiday seasons the 3DS has had so far. In both of the years the 3DS has been out it sold more units in Q4 than the rest of the year combined. With the release of high profile games in Q3 and Q4 of this year and the 2DS it is probable that this will be the best Q4 for the 3DS yet.

The 3DS is lagging behind the DS in terms of sales, but the difference really is not that much. The chart being thrown around in this thread is a ridiculous manipulation of data designed to prove a point. It actually only measures sales of the handhelds in Q1 and Q2 of each year - when the 3DS does its absolute worst. It is designed to make the 3DS look as bad as possible when compared to the DS, which did not have a sales cycle nearly as lopsided.

 

[Doom972]

That graph pretty much proves my point. The gaming handhelds sales are declining, while in those same years (2010+) smartphone and tablet sales are rising.

So? Why compare smartphone sales to console sales? Of course more people are buying smartphones; THEY'RE PHONES. People may play games on them but that's not why they buy them. People will always want a phone, not everyone wants a console- handheld or otherwise. Also, bear in mind that the 3DS isn't that far behind the DS original, and that's WITHOUT an exclusive Pokemon game at launch. What do you want to bet that, come October, the 3DS's start flying out of stores so fast that they have to start handing out padded clothing?

I'm talking about handhelds in particular in that post.

Well, my point still stands. Phone =/= Console and consumers know it.

Yes, and the PC is also not a console. All of the above are gaming platforms. There is a subgroup called handhelds, which includes smartphones, tablets and gaming handhelds. Consumers get smartphones and tablets due to their multipurpose functionality, which includes gaming.

Most people don't care about the arbitrary definition of console (which doesn't make sense anymore, anyway).

But what people do care about are games. You get a different gaming experience, a better one, with a dedicated handheld. The machines have a different purpose and a different audience.

I will grant you that some people who would have purchased a 3DS will not because they have a phone, but comparing smart phone sales to 3DS sales is about as meaningful as comparing milk sales to bottled water sales; there is an underlying overlap in the consumer group and they even compete on some level, but they really don't have the same goals.

Lets instead compare things that are similar to the 3ds. Like, say, the Nintendo DS.

After 2 years (plus 1 month due to reporting cycles) the Nintendo DS sold 35.61 million units.

After 2 years (plus 1 month for the same reason) the Nintendo 3DS sold 31.09 million units.

The 3DS is about 13% behind its predecessor. Now consider that this comparison heavily favors the DS. The DS had 3 holiday seasons in that 2 year time frame compared to the 2 holiday seasons the 3DS has had so far. In both of the years the 3DS has been out it sold more units in Q4 than the rest of the year combined. With the release of high profile games in Q3 and Q4 of this year and the 2DS it is probable that this will be the best Q4 for the 3DS yet.

The 3DS is lagging behind the DS in terms of sales, but the difference really is not that much. The chart being thrown around in this thread is a ridiculous manipulation of data designed to prove a point. It actually only measures sales of the handhelds in Q1 and Q2 of each year - when the 3DS does its absolute worst. It is designed to make the 3DS look as bad as possible when compared to the DS, which did not have a sales cycle nearly as lopsided.

Read my other comments on this topic. I already replied to a similar comment earlier.

 

[DrOswald]

That graph pretty much proves my point. The gaming handhelds sales are declining, while in those same years (2010+) smartphone and tablet sales are rising.

So? Why compare smartphone sales to console sales? Of course more people are buying smartphones; THEY'RE PHONES. People may play games on them but that's not why they buy them. People will always want a phone, not everyone wants a console- handheld or otherwise. Also, bear in mind that the 3DS isn't that far behind the DS original, and that's WITHOUT an exclusive Pokemon game at launch. What do you want to bet that, come October, the 3DS's start flying out of stores so fast that they have to start handing out padded clothing?

I'm talking about handhelds in particular in that post.

Well, my point still stands. Phone =/= Console and consumers know it.

Yes, and the PC is also not a console. All of the above are gaming platforms. There is a subgroup called handhelds, which includes smartphones, tablets and gaming handhelds. Consumers get smartphones and tablets due to their multipurpose functionality, which includes gaming.

Most people don't care about the arbitrary definition of console (which doesn't make sense anymore, anyway).

But what people do care about are games. You get a different gaming experience, a better one, with a dedicated handheld. The machines have a different purpose and a different audience.

I will grant you that some people who would have purchased a 3DS will not because they have a phone, but comparing smart phone sales to 3DS sales is about as meaningful as comparing milk sales to bottled water sales; there is an underlying overlap in the consumer group and they even compete on some level, but they really don't have the same goals.

Lets instead compare things that are similar to the 3ds. Like, say, the Nintendo DS.

After 2 years (plus 1 month due to reporting cycles) the Nintendo DS sold 35.61 million units.

After 2 years (plus 1 month for the same reason) the Nintendo 3DS sold 31.09 million units.

The 3DS is about 13% behind its predecessor. Now consider that this comparison heavily favors the DS. The DS had 3 holiday seasons in that 2 year time frame compared to the 2 holiday seasons the 3DS has had so far. In both of the years the 3DS has been out it sold more units in Q4 than the rest of the year combined. With the release of high profile games in Q3 and Q4 of this year and the 2DS it is probable that this will be the best Q4 for the 3DS yet.

The 3DS is lagging behind the DS in terms of sales, but the difference really is not that much. The chart being thrown around in this thread is a ridiculous manipulation of data designed to prove a point. It actually only measures sales of the handhelds in Q1 and Q2 of each year - when the 3DS does its absolute worst. It is designed to make the 3DS look as bad as possible when compared to the DS, which did not have a sales cycle nearly as lopsided.

Read my other comments on this topic. I already replied to a similar comment earlier.

In the process of writing my post I read everything you have already posted in this thread. You didn't seem to address much of anything I said in my post in any of them. Maybe you misunderstood my points; I will clarify.

You said that people are not buying 3DS's because they have tablets and smart phones. I pointed out that a dedicated handheld is a different type of machine than a tablet or a smart phone. They have a different purpose, different strengths and weaknesses, and do not directly compete. Maybe I should have been more robust in my explanation, but I felt confident you could fill in the details yourself. My mistake, I was not clear. In any case, my point is that a tablet or smart phone is an imperfect substitute for a dedicated handheld, a point which you have yet to address.

I backed up this claim with sales data. You have pointed to the fact that handheld sales are on the decline, and draw the conclusion that handheld gaming is irrelevant (or at least significantly less relevant) in the world of smart phones and tablets. I counter that by pointing out that the 3DS is keeping step with the DS in terms of sales since release. In fact, if you compare the first 21 months of sales for the consoles (giving both consoles the same amount of holiday seasons to sell in but also giving them both the same amount of actual time) then the 3DS actually has performed better than the DS. If the 3DS, in a world of tablets and smartphones, can do roughly as well as the DS did pre tablets and smart phones then the data strongly suggests that the substitutability of a tablet or smart phone for a dedicated gaming platform is low. As a consequence, this also demonstrates that your theory that the tablet/smart phone is pushing the dedicated handheld out of the market is incorrect. Another point which you have not yet addressed.

I also demonstrated that the chart that you said "proves my point" is a deliberate misrepresentation of data in the most biased manner possible, though I recognize you were not the one to bring it into this thread. I didn't have much of a point here other than that chart should be ignored.

And just to head off a particular point, the overall decline in handheld console sales is primarily due to the decline of DS sales since 2010. The reason for this is easily explained: Everyone interested already has a DS and fewer and fewer games are being created for the console. If the 3DS follows the same long term sales pattern as the DS, a sales goal which it has matched (as demonstrated above,) then we can expect an increase in handheld sales as the 3DS enters its golden years and people begin to replace their old DS with the newer console.

 

[Raika]

To ask the question 'is Nintendo becoming irrelevant?' implies that Nintendo is currently relevant. Nintendo ceased to be relevant years ago when it became very much apparent that they'd rather make Wii Fit than anything else. Constant remakes of New Super Mario Bros. will not change that.

 

[Mudokon]

when the new Zelda title comes out (Zelda U) this thread will look like irrelevant and yes im a fan (boy) but not Nintendo's i am a fan of good games.

 

[wulf3n]

gaming-only handhelds become irrelevant due to the popularity of smartphones and tablets, which can provide gaming along with many other features.

That's like saying consoles are irrelevant because PC's can provide gaming along with many other features.

I'm not saying smartphones haven't/aren't making gaming-only handhelds irrelevant just that there's little evidence to say that it is.

the image posted by Dexter111 arguably shows that the popularity of gaming-only handhelds is merely steadying itself out to Pre-DS levels.

That graph pretty much proves my point. The gaming handhelds sales are declining, while in those same years (2010+) smartphone and tablet sales are rising.

The graph doesn't "prove" anything, that was my point.

Yes they are declining but there's not enough evidence to say why. Smartphone sales were already in the +100 million sales mark by 2008, but gaming handhelds didn't decline until 2010. There's no direct correlation. That's the problem with devices that are multipurpose and those that are specific a sale in one doesn't mean a lost sale in the other.

It's just as likely that the DS was a freak occurrence, and that sales are not likely to reach that level again, and will slump for a while after as people are reluctant to upgrade because the DS still has a an easily accessible games library.

edit: Image removed as it was a prediction not a record of sales.

edit:
Captcha - "A box has 4 sides a Top and a _____"
My answer - "Bottom"
Captcha - "WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!"

 

[Raikas]

To ask the question 'is Nintendo becoming irrelevant?' implies that Nintendo is currently relevant. Nintendo ceased to be relevant years ago when it became very much apparent that they'd rather make Wii Fit than anything else.

Providing a game for an untapped market hardly makes them less relevant - maybe to your interests specifically, but as business decisions go, that's not a weak one. Hanging on to that less traditional market may be more of a challenge, but it remains to be seen how that's going to turn out.

I pointed out that a dedicated handheld is a different type of machine than a tablet or a smart phone. They have a different purpose, different strengths and weaknesses, and do not directly compete. Maybe I should have been more robust in my explanation, but I felt confident you could fill in the details yourself. My mistake, I was not clear. In any case, my point is that a tablet or smart phone is an imperfect substitute for a dedicated handheld, a point which you have yet to address.

This might be a minor point in the discussion that you're having here, but I think the question of indirect competition between dedicated handheld gaming devices and smartphones/tablets is actually one of the most interesting ones in terms of looking at the future of the industry (although I suspect there's an argument to be made that some of that competition is more direct than you give it credit for, at least when it comes to tablets vs. handhelds). I quite honestly haven't seen any hard numbers that support one side or the other, but I certainly do see a lot of anecdotal stories along those lines (watching people on the train, what people are or aren't buying as entertainment for their kids), so it would be interesting to hear more discussion with that focus.

 

[Doom972]

gaming-only handhelds become irrelevant due to the popularity of smartphones and tablets, which can provide gaming along with many other features.

That's like saying consoles are irrelevant because PC's can provide gaming along with many other features.

I'm not saying smartphones haven't/aren't making gaming-only handhelds irrelevant just that there's little evidence to say that it is.

the image posted by Dexter111 arguably shows that the popularity of gaming-only handhelds is merely steadying itself out to Pre-DS levels.

That graph pretty much proves my point. The gaming handhelds sales are declining, while in those same years (2010+) smartphone and tablet sales are rising.

The graph doesn't "prove" anything, that was my point.

Yes they are declining but there's not enough evidence to say why. Smartphone sales were already in the +100 million sales mark by 2008, but gaming handhelds didn't decline until 2010. There's no direct correlation. That's the problem with devices that are multipurpose and those that are specific a sale in one doesn't mean a lost sale in the other.

It's just as likely that the DS was a freak occurrence, and that sales are not likely to reach that level again, and will slump for a while after as people are reluctant to upgrade because the DS still has a an easily accessible games library.

edit: Image removed as it was a prediction not a record of sales.

edit:
Captcha - "A box has 4 sides a Top and a _____"
My answer - "Bottom"
Captcha - "WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!"

You're the one who brought up the graphs, not me. They seem to support what I said. If you changed your mind about them, that's fine with me.
I'd say they really became popular in 2010, once many there were enough different models with different prices, for different needs.

 

[wulf3n]

You're the one who brought up the graphs, not me. They seem to support what I said. If you changed your mind about them, that's fine with me.
I'd say they really became popular in 2010, once many there were enough different models with different prices, for different needs.

The graphs can support a lot of positions, but none are truly proven, is what I was trying to show.

 

[Dragonbums]

It seems that the Escapist is kind of wrapped up in their own little bubble where they assume just because the majority of the community is no longer into a specific thing, it means it's no longer "relevant" to the gamer community as a whole.

Nintendo still has a lot of relevancy in today's market.

However people keep bringing in smartphones as the sword that will slay Nintendo.

Which is silly.

Because again, smartphones are phones first and foremost.
I have a smartphone, and despite me having Angry Birds on it, I use it more or less to browse the internet and watch Youtube videos.

That is basically it.
I still went out of my way to get a 3DS because of the upcoming Pokemon and the host of other games that I have enjoyed immensely like Fire Emblem: Awakening.

The reason why smartphones are selling at 75 million is because once again- they are phones. Everybody needs a phone. Everybody wants the best coolest phone. The coolest phones are Iphones. Second to that are Android/smartphones. However like I stated above, people don't buy smartphones for games. They buy them because they are phones.

I mean, that's like saying consoles will be killed by PC's.

There are way more PC's out there than consoles. But of all the people who have a computer, how many people game on them. Let alone use it for playing video games extensively or with the highest rigs.

The fact that they can co exist should probably tell all of you that smartphones and handhelds compete, but they don't butt heads with each other.

 

[Dragonbums]

Minecraft has gotten 12 million total sales. That's good, sure, but that's not a figure stratospherically ahead of Nintendo's big hitters. Brawl hit a similar sales figure, as did Mario Galaxy.

Your numbers are a little off. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/127420-Minecraft-Lifetime-Sales-Reach-33-Million] Kids who aren't even that interested in gaming are playing Minecraft now, because they can play it on nearly any platform. These numbers are also before they release the game on PS3, PS4, and Vita. It's the same reason that games like angry birds became so popular with kids. Parents don't need to fork over $299 for a Wii U or $129 for a 2DS to play popular kid friendly games anymore. They can simply pay ~$0.99 to play a game on a device they may already have for other purposes.

Nintendo can't continue to try and compete with that.

Kids just don't buy two games and call it a day.
They are going to want more games to play.

There is only so much enjoyment one can get out of a single game before they go for something else.

My sister plays Minecraft religiously. Yet it didn't stop her from asking my parents to get her a 3DS just so she can play Animal Crossing.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

No, and just because the WiiU is having a rough time doesn't mean they're becoming irrelevant. If they were irrelevant then why did the Wii sell like hot cakes? Granted that was their previous console, but just because the newest one isn't doing as well as the previous one doesn't mean they're screwed.

However, in terms of relevance to me, it's pretty damn low. I'm having a hard time caring about the WiiU and I barely touch the 3DS, but I do my DS. Always will.

The only thing about Nintendo that is irrelevant to me is Mario and most of their first party stuff. I just don't care anymore.