Nintendo Failures seem exaggerated

[Saltyk]

Because barring the Wii U, Nintendo consistently makes a profit on hardware.

We debunked that one a couple times for you, up to and including sources.

I believe that Nintendo makes 60% of its profits on hardware.

[citation needed]

To be fair, they made massive profits off the Wii. Though, I'm not one to suggest that those profits should be seen as an get out of jail free card for the current debacle with the Wii U.

Of course, if 60% of their profits DID come from the hardware sales, that would actually be unhealthy. Other console developers always sold the console at a loss and tried to make it up in software. If 60% of Nintendo profits came from hardware, that would suggest that software sales were very poor. Even with the profitability of the Wii.

 

[Something Amyss]

To be fair, they made massive profits off the Wii. Though, I'm not one to suggest that those profits should be seen as an get out of jail free card for the current debacle with the Wii U.

Of course, if 60% of their profits DID come from the hardware sales, that would actually be unhealthy. Other console developers always sold the console at a loss and tried to make it up in software. If 60% of Nintendo profits came from hardware, that would suggest that software sales were very poor. Even with the profitability of the Wii.

His claim was that they consistently make profits on hardware. This goes further with his 60% claim. I know the Wii made money, and I know their hardware is sometimes sold at a profit. It's not true of the Wii U or 3DS (at least, it hasn't been true of the 3DS; that may have changed), and for a while wasn't true of some DS models. I can't remember which ones. The Gamecube fluctuated, etc. etc.

This isn't the mark of consistency. And more to the point, he knows better because we've been around on this before. I'd go quote myself if I could remember the threads in question.

"Nintendo sells their hardware at a profit" is basically a meme Nintendo fans use to justify their underpowered consoles. Ironically, to defend why a company with more solvent assets than the other manufacturers cant afford to take a loss. Except they can and sometimes do.

Incidentally, taking a bigger hit on the Wii U might have been a smarter move. Or they could have just skipped out on trying to capture the tablet market entirely, since tablet gaming has its own base and thousands of devices....

 

[VG_Addict]

To be fair, they made massive profits off the Wii. Though, I'm not one to suggest that those profits should be seen as an get out of jail free card for the current debacle with the Wii U.

Of course, if 60% of their profits DID come from the hardware sales, that would actually be unhealthy. Other console developers always sold the console at a loss and tried to make it up in software. If 60% of Nintendo profits came from hardware, that would suggest that software sales were very poor. Even with the profitability of the Wii.

His claim was that they consistently make profits on hardware. This goes further with his 60% claim. I know the Wii made money, and I know their hardware is sometimes sold at a profit. It's not true of the Wii U or 3DS (at least, it hasn't been true of the 3DS; that may have changed), and for a while wasn't true of some DS models. I can't remember which ones. The Gamecube fluctuated, etc. etc.

This isn't the mark of consistency. And more to the point, he knows better because we've been around on this before. I'd go quote myself if I could remember the threads in question.

"Nintendo sells their hardware at a profit" is basically a meme Nintendo fans use to justify their underpowered consoles. Ironically, to defend why a company with more solvent assets than the other manufacturers cant afford to take a loss. Except they can and sometimes do.

Incidentally, taking a bigger hit on the Wii U might have been a smarter move. Or they could have just skipped out on trying to capture the tablet market entirely, since tablet gaming has its own base and thousands of devices....

No, they sold the NES, the SNES, the N64, and the Gamecube at a profit.

Nintendo's consoles being underpowered only started with the Wii.

 

[Something Amyss]

No, they sold the NES, the SNES, the N64, and the Gamecube at a profit.

Already been addressed.

Nintendo's consoles being underpowered only started with the Wii.

Of course, they did other things before that. Like stick to expensive carts when disc media was cheaper, or minidiscs that spin backwards because reasons....

 

[VG_Addict]

No, they sold the NES, the SNES, the N64, and the Gamecube at a profit.

Already been addressed.

Nintendo's consoles being underpowered only started with the Wii.

Of course, they did other things before that. Like stick to expensive carts when disc media was cheaper, or minidiscs that spin backwards because reasons....

Except even then, the Gamecube was more powerful than the PS2, and the N64 was on par with the PSX.

 

[IceForce]

Of course, if 60% of their profits DID come from the hardware sales, that would actually be unhealthy. Other console developers always sold the console at a loss and tried to make it up in software. If 60% of Nintendo profits came from hardware, that would suggest that software sales were very poor. Even with the profitability of the Wii.

That "60%" claim is highly dubious. And I notice the poster in question STILL hasn't provided a source for it.

Of course, if 60% of their profits DID come from the hardware sales, that would actually be unhealthy.

Exactly.

Not only that, but presumably people purchase a Nintendo console, and then purchase a number of Nintendo games to play on it.
So one would expect, by simple numbers alone, the games themselves would make up the lion's share of the profit Nintendo receives.

If not, it means a significant number of people are buying Nintendo consoles, and then not buying any games to play on them.

Maybe they're using them as paperweights or doorstops, or something.

 

[Saltyk]

SNIP

I can't help, but feel we've gone as far as we can on this. I won't convince you this claim of "Nintendo Hate" is overblown, and you'll never convince me it isn't.

I was actually more curious about if it would reach 1080p and 60 FPS.

The game's PC version is, by a large margin, superior graphically.

Interesting. But I was literally wondering if the PS4 would have been able to produce 1080p at 60FPS. I doubt it would manage the high end graphics, but I also kinda doubt most PCs will either.

To be fair, they made massive profits off the Wii. Though, I'm not one to suggest that those profits should be seen as an get out of jail free card for the current debacle with the Wii U.

Of course, if 60% of their profits DID come from the hardware sales, that would actually be unhealthy. Other console developers always sold the console at a loss and tried to make it up in software. If 60% of Nintendo profits came from hardware, that would suggest that software sales were very poor. Even with the profitability of the Wii.

His claim was that they consistently make profits on hardware. This goes further with his 60% claim. I know the Wii made money, and I know their hardware is sometimes sold at a profit. It's not true of the Wii U or 3DS (at least, it hasn't been true of the 3DS; that may have changed), and for a while wasn't true of some DS models. I can't remember which ones. The Gamecube fluctuated, etc. etc.

Honestly, I'm not sure of a case by case basis. I'm well aware that most consoles, especially at launch are not sold at a profit. In fact, I was thinking that the Wii was special because it was sold at profit at launch. Which would lend credence to your claim of consistency or lack thereof.

This isn't the mark of consistency. And more to the point, he knows better because we've been around on this before. I'd go quote myself if I could remember the threads in question.

I believe you. You made similar statements alluding to previous encounters with each other.

"Nintendo sells their hardware at a profit" is basically a meme Nintendo fans use to justify their underpowered consoles. Ironically, to defend why a company with more solvent assets than the other manufacturers cant afford to take a loss. Except they can and sometimes do.

To be fair, several Nintendo consoles were rather powerful. The SNES was superior to the Genesis. The N64 was a very powerful system as well. More powerful than the Playstation, but held back by storage issues with the cartridge system. Even the Gamecube was a powerful machine. In fact, the PS2, the best selling console of all time, was the weakest system of it's generation. It's really only in more recent years that the Nintendo consoles have been weaker.

Incidentally, taking a bigger hit on the Wii U might have been a smarter move. Or they could have just skipped out on trying to capture the tablet market entirely, since tablet gaming has its own base and thousands of devices....

I will admit that if the Wii U was cheaper, it would be more appealing. But, as I said earlier, I'm not willing to pay $300 for the few games that do interest me. Not sure how much I would be willing, but $300 is too much.

And the tablet controller seems like a waste as the system only supports one controller at a time. Supporting multiple controllers could make for some interesting games. Like a Four Swords style game on the Wii U. As is, they limited the tablet and that seems like a weakness.

 

[VG_Addict]

OT: I have had faith in Nintendo all the time, and laugh at people when they go all joy-joy about Nintendo's shortcomings. CriticKitten's posts are on point about MS and Sony's losses and peeps tend to look the other way. Nintendo's reports a loss? Well, they should just give up entirely, go 3rd party and then they can make a profit off their Mario and Zelda and others. They can even get a bigger fanbase!!

Which I always found funny. If they hate Nintendo so much, why would they want Nintendo to go third party?

The answer, of course, is because a lot of those "haters" really just want to play Nintendo's games (because they're generally some of the highest quality games on the market in their respective genres), but don't want to be associated with the negative stigma of owning a Nintendo console because "they're for babies". Well, tough. Part of being grown up means you stop caring about whether or not something is considered "for children", and you just enjoy what you choose to enjoy.

Who says they hate Nintendo? Why does stating that Nintendo is failing with the Wii U mean that you hate Nintendo? Since when is this a situation where you are either for or against Nintendo? No, being a grown up means you understand that a person can state that something was done poorly without meaning that you hate it and those associated with it.

Personally, I don't care about Nintendo. And there are more threads talking about how people hate Nintendo than threads hating on Nintendo. When the Escapist runs an article talking about something that Nintendo is struggling with, the NDF jumps up and claims that it's because the Escapist hates Nintendo and is trying to push an agenda that is "anti-Nintendo". This is despite the fact that several contributors on the site are very fond of Nintendo, such as MovieBob.

But when they run an article stating that Sony or Microsoft are having some issue, no one claims they are pushing an "anti-Sony" or "anti-Microsoft" agenda. And comments run the gambit of worry, support for the company, and commendation for them on each article. But only Nintendo fans seem to think there is some bias against Nintendo. That says a lot about the fans, if you ask me.

The Wii U is struggling. Yes, it has sold about as well as either of the consoles that Sony and Microsoft have released. But with a year head start, it should be outpacing them by much more. As is, I bet PS4 will overtake the Wii U in Worldwide sales as soon as we hear Japanese says numbers for the system. And the Xbox One is doing pretty well, too. Having Worldwide sales that outstrip the Wii U at this same point in it's life cycle.

I have no interest in the Wii U. I had no interest in the Wii (I really hate motion controls). And I can count the number of Wii games that caught my interest on one hand. Currently, the only game on the Wii U that looks good to me is X. Damn, does X look good. I'd love to see it on PS4. But there are plenty of games that won't come to Wii U that I am even more excited for.

With limited income, I can only afford one console. Sorry, but I'm not buying the Wii U for X. Mario holds no sway over me. The only classic Nintendo franchise that interests me is Zelda. Still not enough to warrant a Wii U. So, if Nintendo went third party like Sega, I would be happy. I'm not holding my breath, though.

Here's the deal, I think they messed up with the Wii U. Badly. I talked to someone, who owned a Wii, and didn't not know the Wii U was a new console. He thought it was an add on. When he asked me what the console looked like, I had to admit that I didn't even know. (I now know it looks about like a car CD Player) That is not a good thing. It's a sign of a failure in advertisement when people don't know what you are selling or what it looks like.

For the record, Microsoft failed with it's initial announcement. And their PR since then has been abysmal. Sony has had issues with some of the launch consoles messing up. My own console fried on me within a half hour (Admittedly, Sony was very good about the customer support by all accounts).

Every company makes mistakes. Reporting and commenting on it does not equate hate!

The XB1 isn't doing well right now. It only sold 143k units last month.

And you only need to look at the comments section of news articles or forum topics about said articles to see people claiming that Nintendo needs to go third party, calling them kiddy, or even expressing outright glee at their misfortunes.

 

[Something Amyss]

Except even then, the Gamecube was more powerful than the PS2, and the N64 was on par with the PSX.

Nobody actually said they weren't. Did you even read what I wrote?

 

[Saltyk]

Of course, if 60% of their profits DID come from the hardware sales, that would actually be unhealthy. Other console developers always sold the console at a loss and tried to make it up in software. If 60% of Nintendo profits came from hardware, that would suggest that software sales were very poor. Even with the profitability of the Wii.

That "60%" claim is highly dubious. And I notice the poster in question STILL hasn't provided a source for it.

Of course, if 60% of their profits DID come from the hardware sales, that would actually be unhealthy.

Exactly.

Not only that, but presumably people purchase a Nintendo console, and then purchase a number of Nintendo games to play on it.
So one would expect, by simple numbers alone, the games themselves would make up the lion's share of the profit Nintendo receives.

If not, it means a significant number of people are buying Nintendo consoles, and then not buying any games to play on them.

Maybe they're using them as paperweights or doorstops, or something.

Don't forget other sources of income. Pokemon is going strong as a show. They have to be making money off that. I would think it would be more than 1% if Nintendo is still making it or has licensed it to be made. I'm sure they make little Nintendo licensed toys and such, too. I'm sure I could list plenty of things that should be making Nintendo a profit. The more you think about it, the less likely the 60% number is factual.

My own company has major contracts with customers and no one customer, branch, or section of our business makes 60% of the profit. That would be a sign that you need to restructure and cut some fat. Something isn't pulling it's weight.

 

[Something Amyss]

[
To be fair, several Nintendo consoles were rather powerful. The SNES was superior to the Genesis. The N64 was a very powerful system as well.

We're also not talking an era where they were trying to sell at a profit.
I will admit that if the Wii U was cheaper, it would be more appealing. But, as I said earlier, I'm not willing to pay $300 for the few games that do interest me. Not sure how much I would be willing, but $300 is too much.
[/quote]

I was thinking more same price point but more power, since that's one of the things that seems to have driven off the third party devs and limited the reason to buy one.

But a cheaper one might work, too.

 

[nuttshell]

As soon as I heard that EA isn't going to make any more games for the Wii U, I got interested. That's really all I gotta say. EA isn't making games for something = that something is going to be good.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

No, they sold the NES, the SNES, the N64, and the Gamecube at a profit.

Already been addressed.

Nintendo's consoles being underpowered only started with the Wii.

Of course, they did other things before that. Like stick to expensive carts when disc media was cheaper, or minidiscs that spin backwards because reasons....

Except even then, the Gamecube was more powerful than the PS2, and the N64 was on par with the PSX.

In power yes. But the software was better on the PS consoles. You could put more game on a PSX Disc than an N64 cartridge. You could also have more discs to have even more game thanks to the memory card. FF7 on 9-13 cartridges would be stupid.

And the GC disks held less than the PS2 disks. Had memory cards but still, multiple disks are a bother and if you can't put that much onto a disk, you can't utilize he consoles power to its fullest. When you refer to a consoles "power" that's one thing, but looking at all aspects of consoles side by side and there's a reason why GC games didn't run as powerfully as PS2/Xbox games.

And to your earlier post/point on how Nintendo has always made a profit on hardware. You are aware that Nintendo's hardware per generation has sold millions less with every generation barring the Wii right?
NES:61 million
SNES:49 million
N64: 32 million
GC:21 million

The Wii U's sales numbers actually make a lot of sense considering the hardware decline of Nintendo's home console sales barring the Wii. If Nintendo made hardware profits off of every console they made (which they didn't), they'd be in a lot of trouble anyways. The profits per console aren't astronomically huge anyways compared to software sales. Keep in mind that most of Nintendo's consoles were made in the days were there was no such thing as a standard price for software, so game went for anything from $40-$100, so it's hard to eyeball Nintendo's software profits as some random schmuck on the internet. Too much misinformation.

Kinda like how some people to this day think Nintendo owns Sega because reasons.

 

[KazeAizen]

How will they bounce back? I don't see how they can after the Wii U. It will ruin their brand name.

Same way they bounced back after the Virtual Boy, which while the Wii U is doing bad, the Virtual Boy is still known as one of the biggest gaming blunders in the history of the gaming industry. It's always possible for them to be unable to bounce back, but that's only if they don't fix anything at all, and it seems at least they are trying now.

Nintendo honestly needed this humility to bring them back to reality, because they probably felt on top of the world with both the Wii and DS, just like how Sony thought they were pretty much invincible after the PS1 and PS2's success. Eventually though reality comes crashing down on you when you think that way. It happened big time with Sony when it came to the PS3, and it's happened with Nintendo for both the 3DS from when it launched and it's happening to Nintendo with the Wii U right now. It's also similar with what happened with the N64 because Nintendo was riding on the SNES' success and made some pretty big mistakes when it came to the design of it and how development on the console would go. In the end that completely bit them in the butt as it just helped Sony out more. For another parallel, Sony made the same sorta mistakes when it came to the PS3, looking at you Cell architecture, and it just helped the Xbox 360 more when it came to how multiplatform games would perform better on the 360 than the PS3.

Both companies learned after that though, with Nintendo's GameCube making many right choices (ignoring the fact that the PS2 eclipsed it, but that was the case for many things), and now with the PS4 it seems that Sony learned from it's mistakes it made with the PS3. Now if only Sony would learn to stop using proprietary memory cards that cost too much and perhaps the Vita would do at least a little better.

I follow Nintendo's twitter and honestly they do seem to learning things. I mean every other day I'm seeing games they are putting on the eshop. GBA games, old school nostalgia trip games that haven't seen the light of day in years. Several on the Wii U. Even reaching out to indies which that can only be a long term strategy. If we've learned nothing about Nintendo over the years we can at least take away this. They are one of the most resilient suns of guns in the industry. In terms of football I like to view them in this light. Its the end of the second quarter and they are down by 14-21. Hard to win but not impossible. They don't need their hail marry pass just yet. When and if they have to use it though I'm sure we'll know it when we see it.

 

[Saltyk]

To be fair, several Nintendo consoles were rather powerful. The SNES was superior to the Genesis. The N64 was a very powerful system as well.

We're also not talking an era where they were trying to sell at a profit.

Valid point. Actually, this is odd to look back on Nintendo's past. They usually waited to enter the market and did so with more impressive hardware than their competition. This generation they entered it a year earlier then their competition and with weaker hardware.

I will admit that if the Wii U was cheaper, it would be more appealing. But, as I said earlier, I'm not willing to pay $300 for the few games that do interest me. Not sure how much I would be willing, but $300 is too much.

I was thinking more same price point but more power, since that's one of the things that seems to have driven off the third party devs and limited the reason to buy one.

But a cheaper one might work, too.

I was thinking of how they could help the Wii U. No sense looking back and saying if they could go back in time. The Wii U is here.

Another thing would be better advertising. And getting some games and actively courting third party support. Sort of like Sony did with Indie studios. As you said, though, the weaker system is probably not going to make too many third party devs want to make cross platform games for the system. But trying to get some exclusives that take advantage of the tablet controller would be wise.

 

[VG_Addict]

No, they sold the NES, the SNES, the N64, and the Gamecube at a profit.

Already been addressed.

Nintendo's consoles being underpowered only started with the Wii.

Of course, they did other things before that. Like stick to expensive carts when disc media was cheaper, or minidiscs that spin backwards because reasons....

Except even then, the Gamecube was more powerful than the PS2, and the N64 was on par with the PSX.

In power yes. But the software was better on the PS consoles. You could put more game on a PSX Disc than an N64 cartridge. You could also have more discs to have even more game thanks to the memory card. FF7 on 9-13 cartridges would be stupid.

And the GC disks held less than the PS2 disks. Had memory cards but still, multiple disks are a bother and if you can't put that much onto a disk, you can't utilize he consoles power to its fullest. When you refer to a consoles "power" that's one thing, but looking at all aspects of consoles side by side and there's a reason why GC games didn't run as powerfully as PS2/Xbox games.

And to your earlier post/point on how Nintendo has always made a profit on hardware. You are aware that Nintendo's hardware per generation has sold millions less with every generation barring the Wii right?
NES:61 million
SNES:49 million
N64: 32 million
GC:21 million

What does that have to do with it? They still made money on those consoles, even if they didn't sell the most of their generations.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

Some very good replies to this thread. For me, Nintendo made its presence known in the arcades first, then on consoles. The fact that the NES was able to bring Super Mario Brothers, Excitebike, Hogan's Alley, and Castlevania into my home, virtually unchanged, was a major deal. Mike Tyson's Punch out, Zelda, Kid Icarus, Metroid, Ninja Gaiden, Bionic Commando, RC Pro-Am, and several other games were really solid. It was a different time in the 80's, more 3rd party support, more risk.

The SNES was everything that people expected it to be. There weren't as many games for it that did as well, but it was a great system.

I had an N64 and Gamecube for a time, but it was after those consoles had debuted. I wasn't that impressed with them, except for the franchise games like Ocinara, and Metroid Prime. I never finished either of those games, and I stopped playing the Mario games after spending time with Super Mario 64.

The Wii was definitely an exciting idea, but I've never owned one. Nintendo still has me for a fan, but the 3rd party diversity and originality outside of their "go-to" franchises that produced games like F-Zero seems missing from this modern Nintendo era.

The most frustrating thing is that they seem to be holding back. I thought that the PS1 was crap until the PS2 came along. The PS2 was what the Gamecube should have been. To be honest, when I think of console gaming, Nintendo really defined it. The PS1 games really felt like PC games...anyways, I think Nintendo is holding back for some reason,and it annoyed the fans. They lost "steam" after the SNES in my opinion...mind you, I was around to experience the transition from Atari to Nintendo. It was a big deal. There's a huge outcry when they do poorly because we all know that Nintendo can do better!

 

[bluegate]

The PS1 games really felt like PC games...anyways,

Here is an interesting statement that I haven't come across often. What made them feel like PC games, if you don't mind me asking?

 

[gamernerdtg2]

The PS1 games really felt like PC games...anyways,

Here is an interesting statement that I haven't come across often. What made them feel like PC games, if you don't mind me asking?

PC games often feel like your character is stuck to the center of the screen in a 3D world, and they are better played with a keyboard and mouse. Console games are way more varied in terms of the game genre, and they work better with a controller.

I know that sounds narrow, but I see PC gaming as a thing unto itself, whereas console gaming was designed to be in people's living rooms from day one. The PS1 kind of melded PC and console gaming onto one system, and the PS2 seemed like the perfect balance to me.

So, Dark Souls - PC game. Dragon's Dogma - console game. Anything side scrolling is a console game (in my mind). Diablo III is a PC game, but it feels like a console game to me. Skyrim is 100% a PC game, especially with the option to modify the gameplay...the modification thing was actually happening on the NES with the Game Genie, but I never got into it because you couldn't modify arcade games. I see console gaming as related to arcade gaming.

I do realize that PC gaming is very broad these days, I think I'm talking about the way these games tend to feel when you play them...the actual gameplay.

 

[Roxas1359]

I follow Nintendo's twitter and honestly they do seem to learning things. I mean every other day I'm seeing games they are putting on the eshop. GBA games, old school nostalgia trip games that haven't seen the light of day in years. Several on the Wii U. Even reaching out to indies which that can only be a long term strategy. If we've learned nothing about Nintendo over the years we can at least take away this. They are one of the most resilient suns of guns in the industry. In terms of football I like to view them in this light. Its the end of the second quarter and they are down by 14-21. Hard to win but not impossible. They don't need their hail marry pass just yet. When and if they have to use it though I'm sure we'll know it when we see it.

GBA games on the eShop? I don't know what country you live in, but I was just on the 3DS eShop and there aren't any GBA games that's for sure. The last time there were GBA games on the eShop were from the Ambassador Program back when no one was buying the 3DS (I have Metroid Fusion, Minish Cap, and Amazing Mirror on my 3DS). Which begs the question, why don't they release more GBA games on the eShop, or even release the ones that were in the Ambassador program for like $5 or something because there are a load of people who would want to play Minish Cap or Fusion on the 3DS, especially since those games have already been coded for the 3DS already. Then on the Wii U front, why aren't there any GameCube titles on the eShop, I mean the Wii U technically can play GameCube games since Nintendo's disc drives are only slightly modified, but the Wii U's OS locks out the ability to read the discs (also there isn't a slot to plug in the controllers). I mean if someone can hack the Wii U to actually play those games just fine then it shouldn't be a problem for Nintendo at all.

And really in times like this they really should be releasing their hail marry, because they need more Wii U sales in general. Many people were saying that 3D World was gonna be a killer app, but it really didn't drive sales figures up as much as they hoped. Not to mention that after Tropical Freeze releases this Friday, the next big game coming out on the Wii U by Nintendo is all the way in May (Mario Kart 8), and that's a huge gap to leave. Finally, I've seen Nintendo constantly say how they need to increase advertising, but I've not seen it at all. The Tropical Freeze commerical has only played 3 times in my area, and I leave my TV on children's network's like Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon pretty much all day for white noise. The Tropical Freeze commercial has only played on Cartoon Network at the end of the day which isn't that good because I'm seeing people constantly say that Nintendo only needs to do a good marketing campaign to get people to know how the Wii U is. If that were the case then Nintendo needs to fire their main advertising person because they are definitely not doing a good job. *glares at Cammie Dunaway*

The Wii U can easily bounce back, but it honestly seems like Nintendo isn't even trying in the slightest when it comes to advertising at all. I don't know how well the advertising is in Japan, but I also know that Wii U ads are non-existent in Europe pretty much. It's just really frustrating really because everyone knows Nintendo can do better, especially with advertising because the Wii Would Like to Play ads were great.