Nintendo Shares Drop the Most in Two Years

[Doom972]

If it's an older game that you can't buy anymore, I'd say that it's legitimate. Getting it for a bloated price on eBay without any sort of warranty doesn't count. If Nintendo had made their older games available for Android devices for $0.99, maybe they wouldn't be in the mess that they're currently in. If they don't make their games available, how do they expect people to buy them?

A lot of them are being made available, they're on Nintendo's eShop. Unless you're going to go after Sony too about putting PS1 games on smartphones/tablets instead of their dedicated store, I don't see a reason to criticize Nintendo for that.

Besides, I can't imagine playing any of those games with just a touchscreen. Most of the games I play on my phone are a little iffy on their controls, how can you play platformers effectively like that? Or anything that requires quick reflexes for that matter? It would be such a chore to get through any of them that it wouldn't be worth your time.

But to get to Nintendo's eShop, you'll need to have a Nintendo device. People don't want to carry different handhelds for different purposes when on the go. Having to carry another handheld just for some extra games makes it pointless. That means that people either play these games via emulators, or not at all. I'd like to remind you that I'm discussing handheld gaming - not home gaming.

As for Sony: This discussion isn't about Sony. I don't want to go off-topic.

Not all games work well on a touchscreen. Some android devices do support USB/bluetooth controllers, and there are android devices that are made especially for gaming (with proper buttons, D-Pad and analogue sticks). Turn based games like the Fire Emblem series work very well on touchscreen devices.

 

[Doom972]

They are an argument, because like it or not, people use them to play older games. Many have already surpassed these games. I played Fire Emblem for the GBA and I have enjoyed many indie games on my smartphone much more than that game. Some of them were even free. Don't know much about Shin Megami Tensei.

Emulated games are not an argument because, in this specific instance, they are emulated Nintendo games that were designed for Nintendo systems. It's like trying to argue the benefit of a Warner Bros film for Disney, not Warner Bros.

And again, emulating games on smartphones is illegal unless you already own a physical copy of the game. That is not a pro-argument, for the same reason Piracy is not an argument for PC gaming.

Emulators are an argument because they are used. Why are they used? Because there are no proper alternatives to it. As I said people don't want multiple handhelds, when they already have a multipurpose one.

As for your WB and Disney argument: Go watch Who framed Roger Rabbit and tell me that is wasn't awesome. It's amazing what can be done with cooperation.

That argument however, makes no sense, because you are confusing Nintendo as a console maker and Nintendo as a publisher. As a publisher, releasing certain games (especially the classics) on other devices could prove very profitable.

Best selling at its own market? Yes, the 3DS is the leading system in the 3DS market. It's bought by 100% of its consumers.
At the handheld market, which includes smartphones and tablets, it's only a fraction bought by a devoted niche.

The 3DS is the best selling games system. Meaning it is selling more, on a monthly basis, than the Vita, PS3, 360, or any other gaming device. It is selling the most out of any game system, meaning that if you think the 3DS is doing bad, by default you must thing the entirety of the games industry is doing bad.

Yes, more people buy smartphones. You know why? Because phones are pretty much a necessity in modern life. Everyone needs a phone, and that means phones will always sell in higher quantities than luxury items like handhelds.

My point is that more people by smartphones with gaming in mind, than people getting a 3DS.

Having to buy a seperate system for that purpose makes it useless.

No, actually, it makes it the very opposite of useless. It means it has a use.

A use that a device that most people already own (smartphone/tablet) can perform - making it useless.

People already invested in multi-purpose handheld devices and don't want to carry another one around for certain games. Remember that we're talking about gaming on the go.

Once again, your argument is negated by the very real sales data on the 3DS: it is currently selling incredibly well. If it isn't quite matching the original DS, it is tracking close behind.

How can you say that people don't want to buy handheld devices when all the evidence shows that they do still want to buy handhelds? How can you say the 3DS is failing when it is selling more than any other console? Where is the ogic in your argument?

My evidence? Read the article that we're commenting on here.

Best selling games system? As in, not just handhelds? Compare those sale prices to PCs and Macs (desktops and laptops) or tablets and smartphones and it'll look much different. Not all of them are used for playing games, but the sheer difference between the numbers assures that they easily surpass the 3DS even after subtracting the large non-gaming portion of the sales.

PC sales are actually on a downward slide. That is a market which has been impacted by tablets. But yes, PCs sell more than handhelds. Because more people need a PC or laptop than need a handheld gaming device. As with phones, computers are pretty much a necessity of modern life.

Here's a comparison that's easier to make: Steam accounts. Steam is the top dog in PC gaming, dominates the PC software market, so I think it's fair to look at Steam as a rough metric of PC gamers. There were, last time I checked, 50 million Steam accounts. That's 50 million people who've used Steam since it launched in 2004, nearly ten years ago.

Now, let's look at the 3DS. It's been around two and a half years since it launches, and it's now sitting somewhere around the 35 million mark. That's 3/5 of the total number of Steam users, in a mere two-and-a-half years as opposed to Steam's ten years. If the 3DS carries on as it does, it'll overtake the number of Steam users within the next two years.

How does that equal to PC gaming easily surpassing the 3DS? How can you honestly sit there and argue that the 3DS is doing bad when it's not only outselling every other console, it's tracking to reach more people than Steam in the near future?

As popular as Steam is, there is a huge number of PC gamers who don't bother with it. Maybe even most PC users. Not all PC gamers can get good, unlimited, fast broadband. Also, since we're talking about handhelds, which mostly contain casual games, going only for core gaming doesn't make much sense.

 

[Allspice]

If it's an older game that you can't buy anymore, I'd say that it's legitimate. Getting it for a bloated price on eBay without any sort of warranty doesn't count. If Nintendo had made their older games available for Android devices for $0.99, maybe they wouldn't be in the mess that they're currently in. If they don't make their games available, how do they expect people to buy them?

A lot of them are being made available, they're on Nintendo's eShop. Unless you're going to go after Sony too about putting PS1 games on smartphones/tablets instead of their dedicated store, I don't see a reason to criticize Nintendo for that.

Besides, I can't imagine playing any of those games with just a touchscreen. Most of the games I play on my phone are a little iffy on their controls, how can you play platformers effectively like that? Or anything that requires quick reflexes for that matter? It would be such a chore to get through any of them that it wouldn't be worth your time.

But to get to Nintendo's eShop, you'll need to have a Nintendo device. People don't want to carry different handhelds for different purposes when on the go. Having to carry another handheld just for some extra games makes it pointless. That means that people either play these games via emulators, or not at all. I'd like to remind you that I'm discussing handheld gaming - not home gaming.

As for Sony: This discussion isn't about Sony. I don't want to go off-topic.

Not all games work well on a touchscreen. Some android devices do support USB/bluetooth controllers, and there are android devices that are made especially for gaming (with proper buttons, D-Pad and analogue sticks). Turn based games like the Fire Emblem series work very well on touchscreen devices.

I carry around my phone and my 3DS everywhere. It's not that hard.

Even though it's not about Sony, it's still the same situation so it's pertinent to the discussion. They have their own store that requires you to have their consoles and so does Nintendo. If you want legal access to those games, buy a 3DS/PSV.

You'd need to be a gamer to want those kind of extras though. You wouldn't expect a non gamer to go out of their way to make sure their phone has those things to play games they'd never play, would you? Not to mention the last time I went to get a new phone, I looked specifically for a smartphone that had buttons and none of them did. I don't know if it's just my local store didn't stock them or what but there weren't any.
And yes, you can play turn based games with touchscreens fairly easily, but there is not much else that works very well.

Also, are you saying that carrying around a controller for your phone is easier than having a 3DS/PSV with you? That's not what you're saying, right?

 

[xPixelatedx]

Yup, and they are going to continue to drop..... Until Smash comes out. Hell, Pokemon might do it. So buy Nintnedo stock now while the buying is good, haha.

I would if I had the money, but I am too busy buying video games.

 

[Dragonbums]

They are not releasing enough Mario/Zelda titles fast enough, that's why. I can't believe Nintendo is in such a position despite having some of the most guaranteed-to-print-money franchises/IPs in the world. The production of those games needs to be sped up.

So you would rather they make shit Mario and Zelda games for the sake of speed as opposed to taking 5 years to make a quality addition to the series?

Remind me why people here on the Escapist complain about CoD and Assassins Creed again?

 

[Yuuki]

They are not releasing enough Mario/Zelda titles fast enough, that's why. I can't believe Nintendo is in such a position despite having some of the most guaranteed-to-print-money franchises/IPs in the world. The production of those games needs to be sped up.

So you would rather they make shit Mario and Zelda games for the sake of speed as opposed to taking 5 years to make a quality addition to the series?

Remind me why people here on the Escapist complain about CoD and Assassins Creed again?

Complaints about CoD/AssCreed are irrelevant to their sales, those games will continue to sell as long as the formula keeps working. Ubisoft even stated they hope to reach AssCreed 10 [http://www.computerandvideogames.com/353193/ubisoft-hopes-to-reach-assassins-creed-10/] as long as the franchise can keep it's annual release cycle up. CoD is in a similar position.

But Treyarch/Activision/Ubisoft aren't in deep shit at the moment, they can afford to take their time. Nintendo have to so something quickly because the further their stocks decline, the harder it becomes to recover. Mario/Zelda is an easy way to recover. They don't have to aim for the stars with those franchises, they just need to utilize their power to print money for now. It's a quick solution to give them a little boost with Wii U sales. Once their stock is in the green, they can start taking more time with higher quality Mario/Zelda reboots & sequels, it'll be just like ol' times.

If you have such an insanely devoted fanbase who will buy anything from your franchise regardless of quality (at this point), you have to put them to use in case of an emergency. This is that emergency.

 

[Saltyk]

Don't get me wrong I love some Nintendo franchises, but I'm just tired of buying a console and accessories just to play this 3 or 4 franchises.

I'm inclined to agree with this. I would love to play some Zelda. But I am not buying an entire console for one game. Buying one console is about all I can do. So, which am I going to buy? The one with dozens/hundreds of great games that I want to play? Or the one with one game that I want to play? It's not a hard choice.

Still not holding my breath. I don't think Nintendo is going the way of Sega anytime soon. If ever. Doesn't mean I can't dream. I also dream of Scarlet Johansson, that girl from this store I frequent (you know the one), and Taylor Momsen going on a sexy adventure through space and time to save the world. I can dream.

 

[WeepingAngels]

The company has "struggled to adapt to a consumer shift to smartphones and tablet computers," Bloomberg reported.

How can anyone say that Nintendo has struggled to adapt to smartphones and tablets with a straight face, when the 3DS (Nintendo's product most in competition with smartphones and tablets) has been the best selling games system for months now, and is getting close to 40 million units sold. And still has a new Pokemon game on the horizon to explode sales even further.

You must be shameless if you can say this with a straight face. You know damn well you should be comparing 3DS sales to other mobile gaming devices, which includes smartphones and tablets.

 

[wulf3n]

The company has "struggled to adapt to a consumer shift to smartphones and tablet computers," Bloomberg reported.

How can anyone say that Nintendo has struggled to adapt to smartphones and tablets with a straight face, when the 3DS (Nintendo's product most in competition with smartphones and tablets) has been the best selling games system for months now, and is getting close to 40 million units sold. And still has a new Pokemon game on the horizon to explode sales even further.

You must be shameless if you can say this with a straight face. You know damn well you should be comparing 3DS sales to other mobile gaming devices, which includes smartphones and tablets.

Comparing something with many purposes to something with a single purpose doesn't really provide meaningful data.

For example 355.2 Million Personal Computers [http://www.statisticbrain.com/computer-sales-statistics/]were sold in 2011 compared to 374,400 PS3 units [https://www.google.com.au/#q=PS3+sales+figures+2011&safe=off],438,000 XBox360 [https://www.google.com.au/#q=PS3+sales+figures+2011&safe=off] units and 240,000 Wii [https://www.google.com.au/#q=PS3+sales+figures+2011&safe=off] units.

That doesn't mean PC is a more popular gaming platform than consoles.

 

[EvilRoy]

I imagine the statement has to do with how well Nintendos numbers match up. The 3DS is doing really well for a device that can only play games, but it is not even close to competing with the numbers for smartphones, and WiiU is not doing great either when compared to tablets.

Which, not to direct this at you personally, is kind of irrelevant. Sure, the 3DS is selling less than smartphones.

And I made note of that and gave some rough estimates of what kind of smartphone-for-game numbers might be expected, and at 1/16th of the total smartphones sold Q2, I feel I was being extremely generous to the 3DS.

Android tablets sold 28 million in 2Q2013, while the WiiUs sales sat at 4 million over its lifetime. This is doubly damning as while smartphones are conceivably used primarily for phone-stuff, and therefore we can argue down how much of their sales count as competition to the 3DS, tablets are primarily designed and used for internet and games placing them firmly into a competitive position with any gaming system.

Tablets are not designed primarily as game devices. As with smartphones, that is an ancillary feature which has managed to gain traction. Tablets are designed primarily to make general computer tasks easier and more mobile- browsing the internet, checking emails, updating Facebook, etc. If tablet sales should be compared to anything, it is home computers. At which point you'll notice that sales of home PCs have gone down as the sales of tabets have gone up. And yet, is anyone arguing that PC gaming is doomed? Have the shares of PC-dominant gaming companies like Valve gone down as a result?

Tablets and smartphones are designed primarily as mobile multi-use devices, with casual gaming being one of the more readily touted functions. Though one might compare home PC performance to tablet performance, that comparison doesn't extend to smartphones. The comparison to valve is somewhat misleading as valve does not produce hardware, and that is what is credited with causing the stock dip.

This entire comparison of handheld systems with smartphones and tablets is an illusion. Will smartphones and tablets have some knock on effect on handheld gaming? Sure they will. We'll probably never get another situation similar to Tetris selling the Gameboy to casual gamers en masse again. But will smartphones ever kill off handheld gaming? Nope. If the 3DS is able to track even closely behind the original DS (second most successful game system ever, remember) then that would suggest that the dominance of smartphone gaming has been somewhat overstated. And that the constant naysaying about how Nintendo needs to make iOS games in order to be relevant is somewhat tedious and un-needed. Square-Enix make plenty of iOS games. Doesn't seem to have done them much good.

On the contrary. The failure of the 3DS to outsell the DS is something of a cause for concern, as the number of people who are able to afford a handheld gaming device should have increased since the effective lifetime of the DS. It indicates that not only have those people who originally purchased the DS not upgraded, but that the 3DS is not attracting new customers.

Besides, the smartphone gaming market is heading for a crash soon. The circumstances are near identical to '83: an overabundance of cheap third-party cash-in games with little in the way to separate the quality stuff from the overwhelming amount of crap. As happened with consoles, so will happen with smartphone games, just you wait and see...

I don't see this as happening. Apple has a stranglehold on their app market effectively guaranteeing the longevity of that service as applicants are carefully (and obsessively) screened.

The Android market is somewhat more susceptible to this problem, but with the advent of internet reviews, top ten lists, and games priced at under a dollar it is unlikely smartphone gaming sees a mass exodius of customers, especially since we all need a phone anyway and who cares if a game is crap when it only costs a dollar.

 

[WeepingAngels]

You must be shameless if you can say this with a straight face. You know damn well you should be comparing 3DS sales to other mobile gaming devices, which includes smartphones and tablets.

No, you shouldn't. Smartphones and tablets are an entirely different market. Sure, there is some overlap, but as I have said time and time again in this thread, the fact that the 3DS is still tracking close to the original DS shows that the effect of smartphone gaming on the handheld market has been greatly overstated.

Most people do not buy smartphones specifically to game. They just happen to play some games on the phones they already own. Just like how most people don't sign up to Facebook specifically to pay games, they just dabble in it once they already have an account. People who buy the 3DS specifically do so to pay games, and that is a completely different market to the sort of market smartphones are selling to.

If you're going to demand that handhelds must be compared to smartphones, then by your logic, every handheld ever is a failure, given that no handheld, not even the DS, has reached the same sort of sales figures that the iPhone has. Which is absolutely ludicrous, and just goes to show how different the two markets are. People said that smartphone gaming would kill the 3DS at birth, its now tracking to do better than even the Gameboy Advance, and is making Nintendo plenty of money.

The DS didn't compete against smartphones and tablets and I never said the 3DS is a failure. I object to you saying that the 3DS is outselling it's competition, even though you admit it is competing against smartphones and tablets.

Your words:

How can anyone say that Nintendo has struggled to adapt to smartphones and tablets with a straight face, when the 3DS (Nintendo's product most in competition with smartphones and tablets) has been the best selling games system for months now

 

[Something Amyss]

How can anyone say that Nintendo has struggled to adapt to smartphones and tablets with a straight face, when the 3DS (Nintendo's product most in competition with smartphones and tablets) has been the best selling games system for months now, and is getting close to 40 million units sold. And still has a new Pokemon game on the horizon to explode sales even further.

I like how the next paragraph has you criticising unsubstantiated info, but you're assuring an explosion based on Pokémon games.

Still, Nintendo are in the mobile games market, and they're not doing well compared to the mobile market. Sorry.

The stock market is such a shitty way to gauge success nowadays, given how it runs off hearsay, rumour and generally unsubstantiated info. It's like basing a company's financial success on tarot cards, or tea leaf readings, without the plus side of a decent cup of tea/some pretty pictures.

The stock market is based in large part on consumer (and investor) confidence. As such, it's a great way to measure success. Not necessarily financial success, but still.

Honestly, you could say the same thing for reviews.

 

[Doom972]

If it's an older game that you can't buy anymore, I'd say that it's legitimate. Getting it for a bloated price on eBay without any sort of warranty doesn't count. If Nintendo had made their older games available for Android devices for $0.99, maybe they wouldn't be in the mess that they're currently in. If they don't make their games available, how do they expect people to buy them?

A lot of them are being made available, they're on Nintendo's eShop. Unless you're going to go after Sony too about putting PS1 games on smartphones/tablets instead of their dedicated store, I don't see a reason to criticize Nintendo for that.

Besides, I can't imagine playing any of those games with just a touchscreen. Most of the games I play on my phone are a little iffy on their controls, how can you play platformers effectively like that? Or anything that requires quick reflexes for that matter? It would be such a chore to get through any of them that it wouldn't be worth your time.

But to get to Nintendo's eShop, you'll need to have a Nintendo device. People don't want to carry different handhelds for different purposes when on the go. Having to carry another handheld just for some extra games makes it pointless. That means that people either play these games via emulators, or not at all. I'd like to remind you that I'm discussing handheld gaming - not home gaming.

As for Sony: This discussion isn't about Sony. I don't want to go off-topic.

Not all games work well on a touchscreen. Some android devices do support USB/bluetooth controllers, and there are android devices that are made especially for gaming (with proper buttons, D-Pad and analogue sticks). Turn based games like the Fire Emblem series work very well on touchscreen devices.

I carry around my phone and my 3DS everywhere. It's not that hard.

Even though it's not about Sony, it's still the same situation so it's pertinent to the discussion. They have their own store that requires you to have their consoles and so does Nintendo. If you want legal access to those games, buy a 3DS/PSV.

You'd need to be a gamer to want those kind of extras though. You wouldn't expect a non gamer to go out of their way to make sure their phone has those things to play games they'd never play, would you? Not to mention the last time I went to get a new phone, I looked specifically for a smartphone that had buttons and none of them did. I don't know if it's just my local store didn't stock them or what but there weren't any.
And yes, you can play turn based games with touchscreens fairly easily, but there is not much else that works very well.

Also, are you saying that carrying around a controller for your phone is easier than having a 3DS/PSV with you? That's not what you're saying, right?

Most gamers invest mostly into their home platform, since for most, this is where they spend most of their gaming time, as opposed to just killing time while on the go.

An outside controller is a hassle, but there are some that actually wrap around tablets and smartphones of standard sizes, making them a but more bulky, but still mobile enough.

If you want to get such a gaming android device, I suggest checking at online stores.

I'm a gamer, and my smartphone seems to do just as well my PSP, GBA, and GBC used to do, so I don't see what extras does a 3DS give me, except eye-strain.

 

[seditary]

Thanks to this thread I can now confidently proclaim that console gaming is dead and Microsoft and Sony should just forget about releasing those new ones because PCs sell hundreds of millions more systems.

Thanks Escapist, my PC Gaming Master Race thanks you!