Rumor: "Nintendo Fusion" Is Nintendo's New Next-Gen System

[Lightknight]

No, it wasn't successful because it was easy to develop on.

It was very much a factor; but it was a factor from the Production side of things.
While Popularity was a factor stemming from the consumer side.

They're both very very relevant to the Wii's financial success. No doubt about it.

Nintendo gets the same royalty from a quality game sale as a shovelware game sale, and boy did they exploit the shit out of that with the Wii.

Just looking at the sheer amount of quick cash-in garbage that came out on the Wii there is no doubt that being familiar and simple to program for made it appealing, because it enabled STUPIDLY FAST, DIRT CHEAP development schedules that still turned a good profit.

I mean, even Nintendo got their hands dirty doing that with crap like Wii Music.
NINTENDO. The company who is obsessed over their 1st party titles and image.

While I'll agree that it was easy to program for. I'm still not seeing how it was a significant factor to its success. It still didn't get major ports and it's not like the other consoles don't have their variety of garbage games. It's just that Nintendo has always had a much more open policy towards shitty developers.

Well, it was a rhetorical question given the answer snipped.
I 100% agree that the Wiimote was a major factor in making the Wii successful.
But it's not the only factor because of that.

I'd say it was THE major factor without any qualifications. The other contributing factors are just Nintendo not stepping on their own feet rather than additional contributions. I mean, there's the fact that they had a game right out of the gate that people raved about (WiiSports) that really sold the wiimote. Nintendo Land isn't all that well recieved. So I'd give that a lot of weight too. But ease to program on? Nah. Games were still made on the ps3 and Sony made that console hard to program for on purpose (quote from the now CEO of Sony)

Hardcore gamers...hah! Nintendo all but gave core gamers the middle finger with the Wii.
There was no fucking way the hardcore crowd was coming back after that.

Agreed, as we seem to agree on most points here. But I think WiiU's purpose was to get them back, and that was the biggest mistep of all. The Wii had found one of the best niche markets in the world. A way to cater to the vast sea of casual gamers. Any console that tries to cater to both (as this does) would fail. Jack of all, master of none and all that rubbish.

1) It gets a large surge in quality 1st party games (the latest Smash Bros has been in development for at least 3 years now)
2) A price cut to make it more affordable for casuals running on a tighter income, and to also undercut the new Xbone and PS4.

1) Like you seem to know, they'd already have had to be in production for that possibility. Or, they could rush out things too early and make games that would have been gold into crap.
2) They're already taking a couple hundred dollars in damage. Compare to both the ps4 and XBO who both come in a bit underneath the price point ($10-25) and likely lose just a few bucks after shipping. If only Nintendo's software is going to sell on these machines then it makes little difference where they sell Nintendo games as the console market will be a huge negative this time as they continue going. Might as well cut off the head of the beast early rather than just taking unnecessary hits to continue losing money per console.

It's going to be supremely costly no matter what Nintendo does at this point.
WiiU is a sunk cost, I know.

Not entire, all the loss up to this point is a sunk cost. Every WiiU manufactured and sold beyond this point is a new and avoidable loss. In any event, yes, this console appears to be a bad generation for them. If they do go ahead and release a new one, history may see the WiiU as a 7th gen or 7.5 gen system.

But how much does a competitive next-gen console like the Xbone or PS4 actually cost to develop?
I don't know; Sony and M$ aren't sharing that info, probably for good reason.

At this point it actually isn't the cash that is costly so much as the time it takes.

If I had to guess blindly, I'd place the total development and initial production at around $4 billion.
(more for advertising, which I'd place at 200 million at Christmas season premiums)

So, the question becomes: Can Nintendo add costs of that magnitude onto their budget after slashing their annual projections so sharpy?

Sure. They have $50bil in cash from the Wii. They can afford it. The question is should they. There are several paths they could walk down including sitting on the WiiU this generation and trying again next time. But don't forget, the gamecube failed despite being the most powerful console of its generation and the cheapest. So unless they change their other practices then it won't save them.

They do have a lot of capital from the Wii nest egg, so they could probably absorb the hit.
But their investors aren't going to be happy at all chasing a major loss with another major loss. That loss of confidence and investor support could cripple Nintendo, since Nintendo is also a 1st party developer.

Their investors already aren't happy with them. The question is if a console reboot would succeed if it were able to get 3rd party support? I'd think a console reboot would alienate what faithful Nintendo fans they have who already purchased the WiiU. Now, they could go another way. They could develop a console that is cheaper/weaker and own their niche market while allowing those games to be playable on the WiiU. That would be interesting. I'd really have to evaluate their line of thinking. Additionally, they could bid on Microsoft's gaming division which they are interested in selling and that could be REALLY interesting.

If Nintendo starts development on a new console now, they have to rush or shitcan whatever WiiU titles they have in the works to ready software for the new console; lest they repeat the failure of the WiiU.

They'd hopefully go x86 like everyone else to make it easier. If they went with my weaker/cheaper console idea then they wouldn't be compatible with the WiiU, likely.

There is no choice here where Nintendo wins out, not even in the long run.
Which is why I said Nintendo made their bed, now they have to lay in it, one way or another.

This is perhaps their best option. They bide their time, change their faulty business practices, and then come back in full force in five years or so while continuing to soften the blow of the WiiU generation with software sales if possible. There's also the option of dropping this generation altogether but that may do damage to their consumer base as well. But wouldn't a half-hearted rest of the generation do that too?

Sony's doing the right thing in the long run by courting new talent. PC gaming has undergone a sort of Renaissance while consoles have badly stagnated. Nothing unusual about that; all markets go through that cycle of growth, stagnation, erosion an regrowth.
I'm seeing more buzz for them from indies than the others.

Hopefully the future will also allow for some modding on consoles in a controlled and curated way like Steam Workshops do (to sidestep the issues of letting people mod consoles in whatever way they want).

That's because most of what goes through R&D gets scrapped. That applies to any industry, ESPECIALLY the electronics industry (I don't presume to guess what you know about the business, but the amount of trial-and-error that goes into developing new chipsets and circuits is mind-boggling.)

I wouldn't doubt it if these figures were based real concept models just to test a grab bag of tech at once, but there is no way these would see ANY sort of mass-production.

That's not what I mean. I mean these specs are nonsensical. The person who wrote them isn't a tech who understands hardware. Anyone in the hardware industry could put together a legitimate possible list of components but this isn't one of them.

I think they're stuck between multiple rocks and multiple hard places. The best action may just be to ride the generation out.

 

[Atmos Duality]

While I'll agree that it was easy to program for. I'm still not seeing how it was a significant factor to its success. It still didn't get major ports and it's not like the other consoles don't have their variety of garbage games. It's just that Nintendo has always had a much more open policy towards shitty developers.

Well, this is going in circles. I have many other reasons why I consider cost significant (it has to explain the discrepancy between the Wii's revenue and that of its competition; and I find "It was just the Wiimote" to be a gross oversimplification).

So, I'm just going to agree to disagree here.

The Wii had found one of the best niche markets in the world. A way to cater to the vast sea of casual gamers. Any console that tries to cater to both (as this does) would fail. Jack of all, master of none and all that rubbish.

Absolutely.
It's funny; a few months ago I had come to grips with the fact that Nintendo is just going to be the "kiddie console maker".
And now, it appears that they've really screwed the pooch.

Their schizophrenic behavior towards core gamers like me has left me with no confidence in them.

1) Like you seem to know, they'd already have had to be in production for that possibility. Or, they could rush out things too early and make games that would have been gold into crap.
2) They're already taking a couple hundred dollars in damage. Compare to both the ps4 and XBO who both come in a bit underneath the price point ($10-25) and likely lose just a few bucks after shipping. If only Nintendo's software is going to sell on these machines then it makes little difference where they sell Nintendo games as the console market will be a huge negative this time as they continue going. Might as well cut off the head of the beast early rather than just taking unnecessary hits to continue losing money per console.

At this point it actually isn't the cash that is costly so much as the time it takes.

Time is money. How much of either you get out of something is all a matter of efficiency.

Sure. They have $50bil in cash from the Wii. They can afford it. The question is should they. There are several paths they could walk down including sitting on the WiiU this generation and trying again next time. But don't forget, the gamecube failed despite being the most powerful console of its generation and the cheapest. So unless they change their other practices then it won't save them.

That's...literally what I've been saying all along.

Their investors already aren't happy with them. The question is if a console reboot would succeed if it were able to get 3rd party support? I'd think a console reboot would alienate what faithful Nintendo fans they have who already purchased the WiiU. Now, they could go another way. They could develop a console that is cheaper/weaker and own their niche market while allowing those games to be playable on the WiiU. That would be interesting. I'd really have to evaluate their line of thinking. Additionally, they could bid on Microsoft's gaming division which they are interested in selling and that could be REALLY interesting.

Heh. That would be wild. Ballmer's departure from Microsoft creates a very interesting opportunity after all...
I wonder...if Nintendo were to buy the Xbox would they start tripping anti-trust laws?
(I'm thinking they should, but won't. At least not in the US.)

They'd hopefully go x86 like everyone else to make it easier. If they went with my weaker/cheaper console idea then they wouldn't be compatible with the WiiU, likely.

It'd be nice, but Nintendo loves being different. Like when they went with those stupid mini-DVDs on the Gamecube because they thought it would secure the system.

This is perhaps their best option. They bide their time, change their faulty business practices, and then come back in full force in five years or so while continuing to soften the blow of the WiiU generation with software sales if possible. There's also the option of dropping this generation altogether but that may do damage to their consumer base as well. But wouldn't a half-hearted rest of the generation do that too?

Not an easy question to answer.
All I do know, is that this generation, Nintendo is fucked, and (IMO) should refocus efforts on the strong 3DS.

Hopefully the future will also allow for some modding on consoles in a controlled and curated way like Steam Workshops do (to sidestep the issues of letting people mod consoles in whatever way they want).

Doubtful.
Publishers are trying every single year to ADD more restrictions and costs to gaming to cope with their growing inefficiencies. The attitude at the top of all the major AAA players (sans Valve, but they create games with a period similar to the orbit of some comets) leans heavily towards Bait->Attach->Control->Repeat rather than complete games.

That's not what I mean. I mean these specs are nonsensical. The person who wrote them isn't a tech who understands hardware. Anyone in the hardware industry could put together a legitimate possible list of components but this isn't one of them.

*shrugs*
It's a rumor. I can only guess at the mess I'm looking at.
My experience with R&D in the tech world has taught me to expect the unexpected.

I think they're stuck between multiple rocks and multiple hard places. The best action may just be to ride the generation out.

Yeah...I think they should stick to pushing software sales onto other platforms and emphasizing the 3DS.
The biggest fear for Nintendo should be an investor walkout, which could cascade into a VERY costly power struggle if someone decides to snap up their shares on the cheap.

 

[Kittyhawk]

Heard about this yesterday, and while it would be right to call it hoax until E3 2014 sheds some truth on it, I think it might hold some weight. Nintendo know they have to do something and this is certainly something. A strong base home console with a strong portable linked unit that you can take anywhere and everywhere. It'd also put Nintendo in line with where Sony are going with PS3/PS4/Vita etc. Sony announcements of Vita TV and Playstation Now must also have Nintendo really rattled, because everyone likes them, but not the ideas Nintendo come up with.

Even if this is a fat hoaxy, I'd like to see Nintendo do this. They'd have to go x86 and Blu Ray because Power PC is old stuff. IBM? You need to be chatting to Nvidia, Nintendo. No more proprietary rubbish either. It could fix a lot of their problems if true.

So yeah, roll on E3 and we will find out. True or false, we will find out soon enough.

 

[Jon Choi]

They'd have to go x86 and Blu Ray because Power PC is old stuff. IBM? You need to be chatting to Nvidia, Nintendo. No more proprietary rubbish either. It could fix a lot of their problems if true.

Power 8 is pretty new, and it is good processor architecture to make game on, and no. You should never chat with Nvidia if you are making console, Just like Intel - They don't make custom chip. (Thus was the reason why both PS4 and Xbox One went to AMD.)

As far as spec goes, Fusion DS has to have Snapdragon if they want Adreno Graphics, This should already give you some warning, spec wise, it's Modern, 3GB ram is a lot for mobile device.

Reason why this is blatant false is Fusion Terminal spec, Let's say it's developer only device for developing both Wii U and new thing, so they had to put 'HAMMER' because, who knows what is different in architecture level.

But based on this thing, this 'HAMMER' processor has 2GB of DDR3 ram on die, instead of putting it on the board.

Not only I don't see ANY advantage that can be gained from putting that much DDR3 ram on die, it will also increase the price of chip ridiculously high. Probably more expensive then Wii U, and even possibly more expensive then PS4.

No, they definitely have no reason to use it.

 

[Jadedvet]

I think this story is only getting as much traction as it is because releasing a new console that trumps the PS4 and Xbone in power is Nintendo's best, or perhaps only, course of action at this point.

As others have pointed out, the reported specs are more than a little fishy - A monster GPU but they cant afford a reasonable amount of system RAM to feed it?

 

[Lightknight]

Well, this is going in circles. I have many other reasons why I consider cost significant (it has to explain the discrepancy between the Wii's revenue and that of its competition; and I find "It was just the Wiimote" to be a gross oversimplification).

No, it doesn't need cost of software development to justify the discrepency. All you need to know is that they made a profit on every Wii sold, ever. At launch, that $250 price tag was giving them money in their pocket. PS3 was losing HUGE amounts of money and sold very few consoles at their highest price tag. The 360 was losing a lot of money but not nearly as much. Then they hit the $1Billion problem that is the RROD. It took both companies years to merely start breaking even on console sales.

It being cheaper or easier to develop for would only impact the cost of software production itself. The difference isn't even a million bucks.

Then, the Nintendo software sold HUGE numbers of software. They sold 9 games on the Wii that sold more than 10 million units (8 if you dismiss Wii Sports which I do since it sold with nearly every 100 million units). Several sold over 20 and a few sold over 30 million. Compare that with Sony who only has one title in the 10 million range for the PS3 (Gran Turismo 5) and Microsoft who only has two but a close third (Kinect Adventures! and Halo 3 with Halo: Reach being the close one at 9.5 million). So, first party content is the most software profit a console manufacture makes. They all had a lot of titles over 1 million (profit range for AAA budgets). But Nintendo had the huge blockbusters.

That being said, it looks like I was off on the $50b, it's actually $10b which is significantly more in line with where a reasonable profit should be at the numbers they sold. That's money in the bank, not assets. Mario itself could be assessed at worth more than what they have in the bank.

$10b is still a ton of cash. They could post huge losses for decades and not have to sell a single asset. They could lose $257 million every year until 2052 at that number. That's without accounting for interest either. If they make even 3% on interest then that'd cover $257 million in losses each year (assuming they can write off the losses). So... indefinitely sustainable. Except I'm betting that they lost a whole lot more than that over the past year since they took a significant hit with every one of their 5 million consoles sold without much software sales to show for it. A $100 hit would mean 250 million itself (they were already at 3.5 million units by the end of the previous fiscal year in march or may or whatever month it was when we first learned of how poorly they were performing (they don't end in December).

http://www.gamesradar.com/nintendo-doomed-not-likely-just-take-look-how-much-money-its-got-bank/

Absolutely.
It's funny; a few months ago I had come to grips with the fact that Nintendo is just going to be the "kiddie console maker".
And now, it appears that they've really screwed the pooch.

Their schizophrenic behavior towards core gamers like me has left me with no confidence in them.

Exactly. They had a wildly lucrative niche that didn't even require the latest hardware and they decided to alienate them. Really weird move. I wouldn't call it Kiddie though. I'd just call it family friendly. While yes, that does mean good for kids, the games are meant to be fun for the whole family and generally pull it off. I vastly prefer maturer themes in games and FPS titles and all that, but damn if I didn't love playing Mario Party with friends.

1Time is money. How much of either you get out of something is all a matter of efficiency.

It's a nice cliche but functionally untrue. You can have all the time in the world but no money and can't do shit. You can have all the money in the world but not enough time and can't do shit. Both are necessary to accomplish most business tasks but both are not equivalent. Both are just assets. Time is no more money that cars are, or an office chair. Yes, they do have a value, but they do not equal money. You can make money over time, but you cannot make time with money. You can only save time with money and sometimes not even that.

A business sees time as money because most businesses have expenses by hour. So a lost hour is lost money because you're still paying your salaried employees regardless and if your hourly employees are there you're spending money on them to retain them. Add that to the possibility of spoiled goods and missed opportunities and time is "money" in that way. But it doesn't apply here. I have often taken offense to such cliches. Don't get me started on No Free Lunch and that's with me still understanding opportunity costs.

That's...literally what I've been saying all along.

I've considered most of our discussion to be a conversation rather than debate. We do seem to agree on most points. Sorry if you thought otherwise. I suppose it doesn't help when our posts start with a disagreement in the area of why they made so much money off the Wii. But some of my statements have been in agreement and to bounch my ideas off of you or whoever may view them and have a valid contradiction or addition to make to it.

Heh. That would be wild. Ballmer's departure from Microsoft creates a very interesting opportunity after all...
I wonder...if Nintendo were to buy the Xbox would they start tripping anti-trust laws?
(I'm thinking they should, but won't. At least not in the US.)

Not as long as PCs, MACs, smart phones, tablets, handheld gaming devices and Sony exist. Computers alone basically just make consoles one of many types of computers that consumers can choose from. Anti-trust requires a market to be cornered and the gaming platform market is surprisingly diverse. The console market is not strictly a distinct market from the other platforms legally speaking. If the government did step in, it would be out of the utmost ignorance on their part which I will grant you isn't outside of the realm of possibility. However, considering Nintendo's incredibly small market share in the home console arena it would be hard to argue that they would constitute any kind of monopoly.

It'd be nice, but Nintendo loves being different. Like when they went with those stupid mini-DVDs on the Gamecube because they thought it would secure the system.

Different when it comes to standard programming languages and hardware translates directly into additional costs for developers/publishers. It was acceptable when everyone was different. But standardization makes them look bad when different in this area.

Not an easy question to answer.
All I do know, is that this generation, Nintendo is fucked, and (IMO) should refocus efforts on the strong 3DS.

I think Nintendo considers their handheld market to be the primary market anyways. Often times I'll see Nintendo churning out gold on the handhelds but taking a nap on the home console.

Doubtful.
Publishers are trying every single year to ADD more restrictions and costs to gaming to cope with their growing inefficiencies. The attitude at the top of all the major AAA players (sans Valve, but they create games with a period similar to the orbit of some comets) leans heavily towards Bait->Attach->Control->Repeat rather than complete games.

Well, take Skyrim. I think Bethesda would have been ok with allowing modifications that didn't blow up the game or console just like they have on the pc for every game they've made since the 90's. But they didn't have the option on consoles. I'd like to see it be something that a studio can allow if they want to even if it will be discouraged or under utilized. We saw Portal 2 force a connection to Steam which I think was interesting.

*shrugs*
It's a rumor. I can only guess at the mess I'm looking at.
My experience with R&D in the tech world has taught me to expect the unexpected.

Perhaps, but usually only the people who are actual experts are the ones to even take a whack at making a proposed target spec sheet. Maybe the CEO's nephew was sitting in on the meeting and he drew these specs in crayon to make daddy proud? or, and this is the scarier option, maybe the entire team has no idea what they're doing. Some of the specs are so high as to be insane this generation (which could indicate that they're looking for an early next-gen entry several years down the road rather than in the next couple years) but they aren't really good enough for 9th gen if the advancement of technology remains anything similar to previous years and some of the other specs are archaic or nonsensical. It's like someone understood that 4+ TFLOPs was higher than the PS4's <2 TFLOPs and then wrapped incorrect specs around that number and slapped it first in line. Afterall, the TFLOPs of the PS4 were pretty much the core of discussion on disparity of power.

Yeah...I think they should stick to pushing software sales onto other platforms and emphasizing the 3DS.
The biggest fear for Nintendo should be an investor walkout, which could cascade into a VERY costly power struggle if someone decides to snap up their shares on the cheap.

Well, interestingly enough, Nintendo actually has a remarkable financials unit that makes consistently good investments. With the amount of money they have on hand, it's possible that Nintendo could survive as an investment firm alone with this as their gaming pet project. There have been some years where the only profit they've had was thanks to good investments.

 

[Lightknight]

As others have pointed out, the reported specs are more than a little fishy - A monster GPU but they cant afford a reasonable amount of system RAM to feed it?

Right, especially with RAM being the more affordable option by far.

 

[Atmos Duality]

That being said, it looks like I was off on the $50b, it's actually $10b which is significantly more in line with where a reasonable profit should be at the numbers they sold. That's money in the bank, not assets. Mario itself could be assessed at worth more than what they have in the bank.

It is an insane sum of profits.
Though after the exchange rate fallout they suffered in 2011 - 2012, I wonder how much of that was banked before the loss.

Exactly. They had a wildly lucrative niche that didn't even require the latest hardware and they decided to alienate them. Really weird move. I wouldn't call it Kiddie though. I'd just call it family friendly. While yes, that does mean good for kids, the games are meant to be fun for the whole family and generally pull it off. I vastly prefer maturer themes in games and FPS titles and all that, but damn if I didn't love playing Mario Party with friends.

Some folks prefer a euphemism to elevate a work as being "more/less" mature. Maybe it's just my insensitivity, but I don't see much need for a different phrase anymore. Not in an age where Bronies exist and nostalgic exploitation is common. (and where Poe's Law rules, but that's never going to change)

A great story (or game here) is one that a child can understand and appreciate into their adult life for non-ironic reasons.

It's a nice cliche but functionally untrue.

Whatever you say.

Not as long as PCs, MACs, smart phones, tablets, handheld gaming devices and Sony exist. Computers alone basically just make consoles one of many types of computers that consumers can choose from.

Yeah...probably.
Though that's a scary precedent to be working under, considering it's consoles and their AAA companies that steer the practices of a large portion of the market. (the only larger force is the MMO market)

However, considering Nintendo's incredibly small market share in the home console arena it would be hard to argue that they would constitute any kind of monopoly.

On its own, probably not a big deal.
But then I remembered how Sony was shitting the bed. Not their console division, but everything else.

Different when it comes to standard programming languages and hardware translates directly into additional costs for developers/publishers. It was acceptable when everyone was different. But standardization makes them look bad when different in this area.

Agreed. Though Nintendo is old and slow to adapt to new trends.
It took them half a decade to get in on that whole "Online" thing in proper, and even then their efforts have been laughably behind.

I think Nintendo considers their handheld market to be the primary market anyways. Often times I'll see Nintendo churning out gold on the handhelds but taking a nap on the home console.

I dunno.
Twilight Princess, Smash Bros Brawl and the Mario Galaxy games had a lot of effort sunk into them.
While their DS counterparts (where applicable) kinda languished. Or at least, that's my impression from playing Phantom Hourglass, Spirit Tracks and New Super Mario Bros on my DS last gen.

Well, take Skyrim. I think Bethesda would have been ok with allowing modifications that didn't blow up the game or console just like they have on the pc for every game they've made since the 90's. But they didn't have the option on consoles. I'd like to see it be something that a studio can allow if they want to even if it will be discouraged or under utilized. We saw Portal 2 force a connection to Steam which I think was interesting.

Bethesda is an anomaly in that regard. Probably because Zenimax lets Bethesda do what they want as it usually produces results. (Hey, I remember Brink.)
The next closest contemporary in that regard is probably 2K Games.

But the other big fish: especially Activision, EA and Ubisoft have made it no secret that they clamor for more restrictions and DRM. They've all forbid mods on their games without some ludicrous claims system, and have all made attempts at Always-Online at least once for their flagship properties.

Perhaps, but usually only the people who are actual experts are the ones to even take a whack at making a proposed target spec sheet. Maybe the CEO's nephew was sitting in on the meeting and he drew these specs in crayon to make daddy proud?

That fits in with the reality of what goes to production.
Which leads me to believe the specs shown are from a dummy system (probably emulated or bashed and scaled up).
Specs that someone dug up and shat out onto the internet. I don't see anyone from Nintendo coming out to deny these specs, nor would I expect them to based on their implausibility.

Well, interestingly enough, Nintendo actually has a remarkable financials unit that makes consistently good investments. With the amount of money they have on hand, it's possible that Nintendo could survive as an investment firm alone with this as their gaming pet project. There have been some years where the only profit they've had was thanks to good investments.

That would be a sad day if they had to depart for the money market.

 

[Lightknight]

It is an insane sum of profits.
Though after the exchange rate fallout they suffered in 2011 - 2012, I wonder how much of that was banked before the loss.

The article I linked was from June 2012. Probably shortly after their end of the fiscal year announcements so that's what they likely had then. But why would they exchange the money? They're a multinational corporation, they don't exchange cash unless they need or want to since they have an American headquarters with American bank accounts. Heck, if the exchange rates were bad going to them, they'd likely have exchanged more money here before they'd arbitrarily transfer it to their Japanese headquarters since it's all in the same books.

Some folks prefer a euphemism to elevate a work as being "more/less" mature. Maybe it's just my insensitivity, but I don't see much need for a different phrase anymore. Not in an age where Bronies exist and nostalgic exploitation is common. (and where Poe's Law rules, but that's never going to change)

Hah, I understand. I try to be upbeat about it but I feel like my childhood friend (aka Nintendo) just failed to grow up along with me or the rest of the gaming industry. They're trying to show me they're still cool and relevant to me with the WiiU but failing. It's a shame because there's no reason why they couldn't also develop games geared for our generation rather than only courting the children demographic. After all, the average console gaming age is above 30 years old (the latest numbers only dipped back into the 20's because they included smart phone and tablet gamers which is not part of the console gaming demographic except where the two overlap).

Whatever you say.

Time is not money, time is opportunity. Axiomatic cliches are often functionally false. Tell you what, you figure out how to give me 24 hours of my life back and I'll pay you $300 for it. $5,000 if I can decide which 24 hours.

Yeah...probably.
Though that's a scary precedent to be working under, considering it's consoles and their AAA companies that steer the practices of a large portion of the market. (the only larger force is the MMO market)

Not really, if the market as a whole starts to get overly controlled by one party then the government can step in. We also have new entrants into the console market with the likes of steam boxes which may make computers and even more viable option for home console gaming.

On its own, probably not a big deal.
But then I remembered how Sony was shitting the bed. Not their console division, but everything else.

Well, yes. But divisions can be detatched if the overall parent dies. Either way, if Sony did die completely then Microsoft would still be the powerhouse in the home console market with Nintendo currently being almost nothing by comparison (it's back to tracking as poorly as it was last year this time with the other consoles doubling and tripling its weekly numbers even in this slow season after the holidays). So it's a monopoly as is in that way as is if that happened already. If you add Nintendo to the mix then you're really only talking about an alliance with a really powerful publisher. Sony currently strikes that kind of mix. From games like iNfamous and Uncharted to Little Big Planet and Journey with the best hardware. So I'm not sure it would be all that unequal because I do not feel like Microsoft is doing very much on the original IP front. First person shooters and third person shooters is about all they bring to the table at the moment. A combination of IPs would be amazingly compatible. That being said, now that I know Nintendo has $10.5b and not $50b this purchase would be a significant risk. I think they could do it, but I'm not sure.

Agreed. Though Nintendo is old and slow to adapt to new trends.
It took them half a decade to get in on that whole "Online" thing in proper, and even then their efforts have been laughably behind.

Yeah, this generation could have been a lot better. If that article on the developers not being aware of how PSN and Live work is true, then shame on them but that would explain it. So arrogant as to not even look at the competition. I guess it's because with the Wii they really weren't competing with the PS3/360 as much as those two were competing against eachother. But now, with the hardware changes they made, they are in direct competition so everything stands out so much more. Had the WiiU being a similarly powered $250 console then it would have made since. But launching at $350 with PS4's launch at $400? Wow... every stat that is weaker than the other consoles stands out like a sore thumb.

I dunno.
Twilight Princess, Smash Bros Brawl and the Mario Galaxy games had a lot of effort sunk into them.
While their DS counterparts (where applicable) kinda languished. Or at least, that's my impression from playing Phantom Hourglass, Spirit Tracks and New Super Mario Bros on my DS last gen.

I'm not talking about the quality of games released, I'm talking quantity/regularity of release. The first few years of the Wii were glorious. The last few years? Eh...? Yet the handheld market gets slammed with high quality and much beloved games regularly.

Bethesda is an anomaly in that regard. Probably because Zenimax lets Bethesda do what they want as it usually produces results. (Hey, I remember Brink.)
The next closest contemporary in that regard is probably 2K Games.

But the other big fish: especially Activision, EA and Ubisoft have made it no secret that they clamor for more restrictions and DRM. They've all forbid mods on their games without some ludicrous claims system, and have all made attempts at Always-Online at least once for their flagship properties.

DRM doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be legally modded. All I want is the capability. Want a mod on a console version of Skyrim? Nope, not going to happen. On pc? You can't avoid them.

That fits in with the reality of what goes to production.
Which leads me to believe the specs shown are from a dummy system (probably emulated or bashed and scaled up).
Specs that someone dug up and shat out onto the internet. I don't see anyone from Nintendo coming out to deny these specs, nor would I expect them to based on their implausibility.

Interesting.

That would be a sad day if they had to depart for the money market.

There's little reason why they can't do both. Several corporations have money pit side projects. Google being a prime example of a company with a lot of highly lucrative businesses coupled with several high cost/loss but with socially beneficial results. As long as they learn to make a profit then there's no reason to drop it. The handheld industry is still great for them. But as smart phones become more and more capable and more regularly developed for then that too may end their reign. Did you hear that Nintendo is going to start releasing demos of their games on smartphones? They may already be testing the waters. I mean, Hell, the Playstation Now is actually a hugely scary product for Nintendo to look at. With streaming, you're talking about the capability of processing ps4 games on a server and streaming the feed to a cell phone. It basically makes any device that is streaming capable also gaming capable.

 

[Atmos Duality]

The article I linked was from June 2012. Probably shortly after their end of the fiscal year announcements so that's what they likely had then. But why would they exchange the money? They're a multinational corporation, they don't exchange cash unless they need or want to since they have an American headquarters with American bank accounts. Heck, if the exchange rates were bad going to them, they'd likely have exchanged more money here before they'd arbitrarily transfer it to their Japanese headquarters since it's all in the same books.

I only bring it up because one of the biggest cited contributors to Nintendo's first posted loss back in 2011 was loss from currency exchange (the second of course was over-production).

The losses impacted the entirety of the Japanese game scene, not just Nintendo.
Since then, I've noticed that ALL the Japanese publishers have been EXTREMELY conservative about what games they localize outside of Japan. (their whining about how games are becoming more western? A good part of that is THEIR FAULT. They refuse to localize on anything but consoles, while retreating further into their domestic market. It's a vicious cycle THEY started.)

This bit Nintendo in ass in the waning years of the Wii, and even harder on the WiiU.

Hah, I understand. I try to be upbeat about it but I feel like my childhood friend (aka Nintendo) just failed to grow up along with me or the rest of the gaming industry. They're trying to show me they're still cool and relevant to me with the WiiU but failing. It's a shame because there's no reason why they couldn't also develop games geared for our generation rather than only courting the children demographic. After all, the average console gaming age is above 30 years old (the latest numbers only dipped back into the 20's because they included smart phone and tablet gamers which is not part of the console gaming demographic except where the two overlap).

True. Nintendo tries to maintain an almost Disney-like public reputation, for better or worse.

Not really, if the market as a whole starts to get overly controlled by one party then the government can step in. We also have new entrants into the console market with the likes of steam boxes which may make computers and even more viable option for home console gaming.

They can, but I'm unsure if they ever will. There are bigger, more important cartels and monopolies in the states that need busting up (ISP market is deadlocked by design, to my continued aggravation) but the government is unwilling to take action on. Gaming is still something of a boogeyman and scapegoat as far as politics is concerned, and though that's slowly changing it isn't changing fast enough to be relevant.

I'll grant that if the Steambox takes off, it's going to make some companies sweat (especially EA, whose Origin is going to become an even bigger joke). But apart from Valve, I really don't see ANYONE who could challenge the big three, let alone Microsoft, if either Sony or Nintendo fell.

The only other recent contender was the Ouya, which failed badly.
Either because it turned out to be a scam, or was just extremely incompetently designed (I didn't back it, I didn't follow it much. That's just what I've heard incidentally).

So it's a monopoly as is in that way as is if that happened already.

"As is", it's a duopoly between Sony and Microsoft.
If Sony somehow left the market or was bought out, then it would be a virtual Monopoly for Microsoft.

So I'm not sure it would be all that unequal because I do not feel like Microsoft is doing very much on the original IP front. First person shooters and third person shooters is about all they bring to the table at the moment. A combination of IPs would be amazingly compatible. That being said, now that I know Nintendo has $10.5b and not $50b this purchase would be a significant risk. I think they could do it, but I'm not sure.

Microsoft would benefit IMMENSELY from owning Nintendo if it came down to that; Nintendo knows how to make GAMES above all else and scoring a firm to target the "Family Friendly" market would be a boon for Microsoft's "All Inclusive Entertainment" pitch for the Xbone.

Though then there's the subject of how Nintendo would operate solely as a software developer/publisher.

Until the WiiU, they've also enjoyed the benefit of being able to work at their own pace thanks to royalties.

Outside of some obvious quick cash grabs on the Wii, I can scarcely remember Nintendo rushing games. So if they did get bought out or otherwise go Software-Only, I wonder how they would fare in "the wild" like everyone else, with more stringent deadlines and tighter operating margins. Would the quality remain?

Though if M$ actually threatened either the Nintendo or Sony, I am pretty sure the Japanese government would get involved (based on what I've heard from contacts in Japan and what I know about Japanese business and their culture. They're FAR more protective of their domestic companies than we are here in the states. Probably because they have a proximity market with China, whom they hate and rightly fear economically.)

I think best news in all of that (for consumers) is that Microsoft doesn't really take gaming seriously as a business.
They're in a far stronger financial position than either of their competitors by default and could easily outlast Nintendo if they wanted to, 10 bil in savings or not.

But the Xbox gaming division is such a tiny blip on M$'s bottom line each year, that they barely pay it any heed.
One of Ballmer's hopeful successors (Elop) said he would sell off the Xbox division entirely if appointed and he isn't the only one who shares that opinion within the company (I think it would be a move of unparalleled idiocy, but I don't make 7+ figures a quarter).

Yeah, this generation could have been a lot better. If that article on the developers not being aware of how PSN and Live work is true, then shame on them but that would explain it. So arrogant as to not even look at the competition. I guess it's because with the Wii they really weren't competing with the PS3/360 as much as those two were competing against eachother. But now, with the hardware changes they made, they are in direct competition so everything stands out so much more. Had the WiiU being a similarly powered $250 console then it would have made since. But launching at $350 with PS4's launch at $400? Wow... every stat that is weaker than the other consoles stands out like a sore thumb.

Yup. WiiU had one year to establish a stable base, and it completely blew it.
Nintendo saw the approaching storm of the PS4 and Xbone, and in a absolutely baffling move decided to give third parties an opportunity to NOT compete with their games for the first year on the WiiU. But the sick irony is that the first year of a console is the BEST POSSIBLE TIME for a slew of first party titles. It front loads the initial risk onto the first party, which is inherently far less risky for anyone who follows third parties.

Given Nintendo's track record with supporting 3rd parties, it's no surprise that virtually nobody came to help them with games to move the WiiU. It's the "3rd-press" port system, at best (1st press being Gen7 originals, and 2nd being PC).

When EA claimed that they weren't developing anything for the WiiU and how Nintendo was "dead to them", I legitimately believed it, and I legitimately believe that is still the case despite EA's backtracking.
Because as a game publisher, one would have to be an idiot to develop anything new for the WiiU now.

I'm not talking about the quality of games released, I'm talking quantity/regularity of release. The first few years of the Wii were glorious. The last few years? Eh...? Yet the handheld market gets slammed with high quality and much beloved games regularly.

Well, the handhelds get Pokemon while the home consoles don't (apart from meh spinoffs).
I think that overall, that accounts for the install rate and support bias. Pokemon still prints money.

Everything else from Nintendo really comes down to what their stable of studios is doing at the moment.
Right now, I have no idea what's going on with two of their best:

A new Smash Bros was announced over three years ago for both the 3DS and later the WiiU.
Though I also recall the head of HAL saying he didn't want to do another Smash Bros after Brawl. Maybe he revolted. I dunno.

Retro Studios had been handling Donkey Kong Country (brilliantly, I might add). Now, I don't know what they're tied to.
A pity that they weren't working on Metroid as of 2010, since Other M was a disaster.
Metroid wasn't exactly the most popular of Nintendo's "traditional IPs" in Japan to begin with, and with the new hyper-conservative domestic-first model taking over Japan's AAA publishers, I wouldn't doubt it if Other M is the last Metroid game we see for many years to come.

Oh, then there's Intelligent Systems, who surprised Nintendo with Fire Emblem Awakening's stronger than expected performance last year. I still wish they would get around to making a new Advance Wars, but Japan apparently doesn't like it as much as Fire Emblem, so...yeah. The domestic-first model strikes again. (Bah!)

DRM doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be legally modded. All I want is the capability. Want a mod on a console version of Skyrim? Nope, not going to happen. On pc? You can't avoid them.

Both new consoles easily have the technical capability to allow mods. No question.

Hell, last gen had the technical capability for minor mods to most titles.
(Not Bethesda's games mind you, but that's largely due to how brutally inefficient the Gamebryo engine is on consoles. Just look at Skyrim on the PS3. Yikes.)

The only big barrier are the publishers.
They sell information, and to them, a MAJOR appeal of consoles hinges on control of information.
(the Pre-180 Xbone was no coincidence. It was tailor made for AAA publishers.)
Allowing modding capability requires them to relinquish some of that control.

To get a taste of the paranoia they possess about modding, just look at EA's recent patch to SimCity and the attached list of conditions for modding the game. It's FAR more restrictive than anything Bethesda asks.
And I doubt they would have bothered with it at all if EA wasn't trying to win back public approval.

There's little reason why they can't do both. Several corporations have money pit side projects.

Well, it's almost a given for companies of that size. Certainly any corporation whose structure innately requires the ownership of several smaller companies, just for the cost-efficiency that comes with internal banking at that scale.

But if the grass starts looking much greener in the money market...well, the company comes first.

 

[Lightknight]

I only bring it up because one of the biggest cited contributors to Nintendo's first posted loss back in 2011 was loss from currency exchange (the second of course was over-production).

The losses impacted the entirety of the Japanese game scene, not just Nintendo.
Since then, I've noticed that ALL the Japanese publishers have been EXTREMELY conservative about what games they localize outside of Japan. (their whining about how games are becoming more western? A good part of that is THEIR FAULT. They refuse to localize on anything but consoles, while retreating further into their domestic market. It's a vicious cycle THEY started.)

This bit Nintendo in ass in the waning years of the Wii, and even harder on the WiiU.

Wow... that's extremely poor accounting. It's like trying to shift a weapon from your main hand to your weak hand despite the unnecessary loss of power. There should be no functional difference between assets held in American banks vs Japanese banks. Unless they're avoiding American taxes somehow?

True. Nintendo tries to maintain an almost Disney-like public reputation, for better or worse.

Well, sure, but Disney also puts out a large number of movies that cater to adults as well. Some are very successful (Pirates of the Carribean). But the big difference here is that you don't have to buy a $300 console to watch disney movies on and the movie theater of your choice likely caters to your grown-up movie needs as well. In the same day I can watch "The Lion King" and whatever latest action flick is out. On the WiiU, there's family friendly Nintendo games and then F-you if you want anything else. You know?

Seems like we're mostly in the exact same boat. Nice to talk with someone who has the same opinion and greviences on the matter.

They can, but I'm unsure if they ever will. There are bigger, more important cartels and monopolies in the states that need busting up (ISP market is deadlocked by design, to my continued aggravation) but the government is unwilling to take action on. Gaming is still something of a boogeyman and scapegoat as far as politics is concerned, and though that's slowly changing it isn't changing fast enough to be relevant.

You do remember when the government took on Microsoft for monopolistic practices in the 1999, right? Bill gates getting pied in the face and all that? Something about requiring their software to be on pcs... kinda similar to requiring your software to be on one console...

<youtube=iK6SS8CXYZo>

I'll grant that if the Steambox takes off, it's going to make some companies sweat (especially EA, whose Origin is going to become an even bigger joke). But apart from Valve, I really don't see ANYONE who could challenge the big three, let alone Microsoft, if either Sony or Nintendo fell.

I don't know if anyone would necessarily need to. Again, PCs are getting more and more userfriendly all the time. Steam machines are just pcs for the living room.

The only other recent contender was the Ouya, which failed badly.
Either because it turned out to be a scam, or was just extremely incompetently designed (I didn't back it, I didn't follow it much. That's just what I've heard incidentally).

Nah, IP pirates loved it. Everything you need to illegally download and play android games in one small convenient place.

"As is", it's a duopoly between Sony and Microsoft.
If Sony somehow left the market or was bought out, then it would be a virtual Monopoly for Microsoft.

Well, sure. But Sony being bought out wouldn't mean that the ps4 line would cease to exist. It would only be bought out by someone with enough money to do so and with the belief that they can profit on the purchase. Sony's game division buying Microsoft's game division or vice versa? That may very well raise government flags. A merger with Nintendo at the moment? Not so much. I thought we were talking about the latter and not the former though.

Microsoft would benefit IMMENSELY from owning Nintendo if it came down to that; Nintendo knows how to make GAMES above all else and scoring a firm to target the "Family Friendly" market would be a boon for Microsoft's "All Inclusive Entertainment" pitch for the Xbone.

Though then there's the subject of how Nintendo would operate solely as a software developer/publisher.

Until the WiiU, they've also enjoyed the benefit of being able to work at their own pace thanks to royalties.

Outside of some obvious quick cash grabs on the Wii, I can scarcely remember Nintendo rushing games. So if they did get bought out or otherwise go Software-Only, I wonder how they would fare in "the wild" like everyone else, with more stringent deadlines and tighter operating margins. Would the quality remain?

Look at Sega. They took nothing but red for the Dreamcast and the Saturn but the moment they turned to software development they immediately went into the green.

Nintendo doesn't need to be controlled by people. It wouldn't benefit them to tie their cart to one horse. No, if it's going to be worth their time to produce games on other machines then it'll have to be available on everything from pc to the XBO to PS4. I think one of the reasons they don't consider this as much is because their games already sell insanely on their own console. As long as all the other sales eventually even out as far as console cost then it works for them. This time though, it'll be loss.

Yup. WiiU had one year to establish a stable base, and it completely blew it.
Nintendo saw the approaching storm of the PS4 and Xbone, and in a absolutely baffling move decided to give third parties an opportunity to NOT compete with their games for the first year on the WiiU. But the sick irony is that the first year of a console is the BEST POSSIBLE TIME for a slew of first party titles. It front loads the initial risk onto the first party, which is inherently far less risky for anyone who follows third parties.

Given Nintendo's track record with supporting 3rd parties, it's no surprise that virtually nobody came to help them with games to move the WiiU. It's the "3rd-press" port system, at best (1st press being Gen7 originals, and 2nd being PC).

When EA claimed that they weren't developing anything for the WiiU and how Nintendo was "dead to them", I legitimately believed it, and I legitimately believe that is still the case despite EA's backtracking.
Because as a game publisher, one would have to be an idiot to develop anything new for the WiiU now.

Yeah, I believe that EA really does consider them dead this generation. Backtracking or not. I mean, who would want to burn bridges with the legend that has been Nintendo. The veritable Phoenix of the gaming universe? But if Nintendo had another failure of a console after this one we'll see people step on Nintendo's throat publicly.

Well, the handhelds get Pokemon while the home consoles don't (apart from meh spinoffs).
I think that overall, that accounts for the install rate and support bias. Pokemon still prints money.

Yep, this is making me have to buy Ni No Kuni. If I am away from home, I'm either driving or doing something. I no longer have the luxury I had as a kid where I had significant bus time to play handhelds or sitting in a boring class where my attention isn't needed. So when I'm home, I play console games or pc games. I would love a console pokemon game if done right. None of the shenanigan spinoffs you mention.

Oh, then there's Intelligent Systems, who surprised Nintendo with Fire Emblem Awakening's stronger than expected performance last year. I still wish they would get around to making a new Advance Wars, but Japan apparently doesn't like it as much as Fire Emblem, so...yeah. The domestic-first model strikes again. (Bah!)

Yes, their development studios are really disorganized at the moment and many of their IPs are bottlenecked by the attention of only one man or a few people. Really bad for an international corporation.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Wow... that's extremely poor accounting. It's like trying to shift a weapon from your main hand to your weak hand despite the unnecessary loss of power. There should be no functional difference between assets held in American banks vs Japanese banks. Unless they're avoiding American taxes somehow?

I have no idea how it happened myself.

Taxes could be it (I am unfamiliar with the import tax code and tariffs myself), but they would have to be HORRIFYINGLY HUGE increases in tax rates to account for such a sharp drop in overseas revenue.

My best guess, is that the bulk of their operating costs are centralized on the Yen, while their revenue is split across several currencies (the Yen obviously, along with the USD and Euro).

So if they were paying for operations from Japan directly with Yen (as you said: Extremely Poor Accounting) they would be losing value on their overseas investments as the currency value of said overseas investments fell. Paying good money for bad money, as it were.
Either that, or they had a LOT of cash socked in investments in their overseas banks that just evaporated for some reason.

Well, sure, but Disney also puts out a large number of movies that cater to adults as well. Some are very successful (Pirates of the Carribean). But the big difference here is that you don't have to buy a $300 console to watch disney movies on and the movie theater of your choice likely caters to your grown-up movie needs as well. In the same day I can watch "The Lion King" and whatever latest action flick is out. On the WiiU, there's family friendly Nintendo games and then F-you if you want anything else. You know?

I should have been more clear: I meant purely in terms of public image based on what they personally produce.
Which is somewhat confusing since Nintendo owns the system they produce for and sets the limits on what is allowed, while Disney has no equivalent analog there.

Pirates of the Caribbean is a little more adult oriented than say, Hannah Montana (or whatever awful Disney teeny-bopper they're pushing today), but my point is that in analog, Disney doesn't produce anything like a Tarantino grindhouse film because that's just not the kind of film that's "Disney".

Nintendo produces Mario and Pokemon; not Gears of War. Not because they wouldn't allow something like Gears of War on their system flat out, but because they personally don't produce games like that. (Nintendo's limit seems to be anything that could offend religiously; as I learned from their refusal to put The Binding of Isaac on the 3DS)

But I understand your frustration regardless. Since the Gamecube, it's mostly Nintendo games that have moved Nintendo systems with dwindling 3rd party support. This bit me hard in the arse with the Wii.

Seems like we're mostly in the exact same boat. Nice to talk with someone who has the same opinion and greviences on the matter.

Differences aside of course, but our differences provide some perspective.
So yeah. It's good to chat with someone else who pays attention to this sort of stuff as well.

You do remember when the government took on Microsoft for monopolistic practices in the 1999, right? Bill gates getting pied in the face and all that? Something about requiring their software to be on pcs... kinda similar to requiring your software to be on one console...

Oh I remember that.
But at the same time, Microsoft was trying to take the reigns of one of the largest and fastest growing industries in the world at the time; one which impacted EVERYBODY.

Game Consoles are small potatoes compared to that. If Microsoft attained a monopoly and leveraged it, I'm unsure what the mass-consumer response would initially be, let alone the government. (Incidentally, the terms for the Microsoft anti-trust suit expired last year, including those that forbid the web browser from being integrated directly into the OS Kernel. Which means we will probably see IE and, oh fuck me, BING, integrated directly into the Kernel for Windows 9.)

I don't know if anyone would necessarily need to. Again, PCs are getting more and more userfriendly all the time. Steam machines are just pcs for the living room.

They are getting friendlier...but a lot is also hinging on SteamOS being a stable viable alternative to Windows as a replacement game platform.

That is one realm where Microsoft has an uncomfortable stranglehold on.
DirectX and their API suites were used in an enormous number of previous gen games that were ported to PC.

Then again, Valve is comprised of folks who were largely game modders and coders first, suits second.
If there's any game firm I'd have confidence in being able to solve that problem, it's Valve.

Nah, IP pirates loved it. Everything you need to illegally download and play android games in one small convenient place.

Hah! Figures.
Well, let them enjoy their Android games then. It all but ensures nobody serious will back it in the future.

Well, sure. But Sony being bought out wouldn't mean that the ps4 line would cease to exist. It would only be bought out by someone with enough money to do so and with the belief that they can profit on the purchase.

Hmm. What big tech firm has a fuckton of money, interest in gaming, and isn't based in China...Nexon?

Sony's game division buying Microsoft's game division or vice versa? That may very well raise government flags. A merger with Nintendo at the moment? Not so much. I thought we were talking about the latter and not the former though.

M$ buying Sony would unquestionably raise flags with the Japanese government.
Vice versa..I dunno. The US government could get involved.
Though it's is still clogged with political blowhards that treat game consoles as the devil or as toys.

Look at Sega. They took nothing but red for the Dreamcast and the Saturn but the moment they turned to software development they immediately went into the green.

Well, Sega's situation was a little different.
They went for something like 6 straight years overspending on hardware R&D, crapping out console after console, while Nintendo has just had one really bad year for their flagship console.

For Sega, going Software Only meant shedding those insane R&D costs; which was like tossing the 2 ton anchor out of their life boat.

Nintendo doesn't need to be controlled by people. It wouldn't benefit them to tie their cart to one horse. No, if it's going to be worth their time to produce games on other machines then it'll have to be available on everything from pc to the XBO to PS4. I think one of the reasons they don't consider this as much is because their games already sell insanely on their own console. As long as all the other sales eventually even out as far as console cost then it works for them. This time though, it'll be loss.

Nintendo would benefit from self publishing more than being owned obviously.
I'm just wondering that if in either case (software only either solo or as another's *****) their release schedule would be as ponderous as it is now, and if their game quality as high without the cushion of royalties to keep their developers comfy.

Yeah, I believe that EA really does consider them dead this generation. Backtracking or not. I mean, who would want to burn bridges with the legend that has been Nintendo. The veritable Phoenix of the gaming universe? But if Nintendo had another failure of a console after this one we'll see people step on Nintendo's throat publicly.

True...that, and it's EA year to be extra wishy washy, since they're supposedly trying to become a nicer, gentler, EA.

Yes, their development studios are really disorganized at the moment and many of their IPs are bottlenecked by the attention of only one man or a few people. Really bad for an international corporation.

Apparently, the "one or few creators" studio method is the main Japanese developer model.
So, to do otherwise would be to adopt "Western" standards of game development, which many Japanese publishers have openly decried in the last few years.

 

[Lightknight]

Wow... that's extremely poor accounting. It's like trying to shift a weapon from your main hand to your weak hand despite the unnecessary loss of power. There should be no functional difference between assets held in American banks vs Japanese banks. Unless they're avoiding American taxes somehow?

I have no idea how it happened myself.

Taxes could be it (I am unfamiliar with the import tax code and tariffs myself), but they would have to be HORRIFYINGLY HUGE increases in tax rates to account for such a sharp drop in overseas revenue.

My best guess, is that the bulk of their operating costs are centralized on the Yen, while their revenue is split across several currencies (the Yen obviously, along with the USD and Euro).

So if they were paying for operations from Japan directly with Yen (as you said: Extremely Poor Accounting) they would be losing value on their overseas investments as the currency value of said overseas investments fell. Paying good money for bad money, as it were.
Either that, or they had a LOT of cash socked in investments in their overseas banks that just evaporated for some reason.

Interesting. This could also just be an accounting exchange rate loss rather than an actual loss (on paper). For example, say they report their financials in Yen and that the Yen was particularly strong that year against the dollar. Well, the functional result of reporting in Yen demands the exchange in what the value would be even if you don't actually exchange it. Then, if the dollar goes up next year it will be reported as a financials gain in capital investemnt or whatever they'd call it.

Either way, that report indicates that they had $10.5 in the bank at the time of the report and that $10.5 isn't going to be smaller due to exchange rates except where stated in another currency ($1 is always $1 but $1 is not always X Yen. Sometimes it can be X-Z yen and sometimes it can be X+Z yen. So they're not hurting.

I should have been more clear: I meant purely in terms of public image based on what they personally produce.

Agreed.

Nintendo produces Mario and Pokemon; not Gears of War. Not because they wouldn't allow something like Gears of War on their system flat out, but because they personally don't produce games like that. (Nintendo's limit seems to be anything that could offend religiously; as I learned from their refusal to put The Binding of Isaac on the 3DS)

Interesting. In many ways I respect them for not just being all about the money. But if it's because they think blocking these games will solidify their image and then make them more money then I guess they're still doing it for the money but in a way that makes me less catered to as a customer.

But I understand your frustration regardless. Since the Gamecube, it's mostly Nintendo games that have moved Nintendo systems with dwindling 3rd party support. This bit me hard in the arse with the Wii.

Yeah, that was unfortunate. If the Wii had even been anywhere close to the processing power of the other systems then it would have seen those games on it too (as evidenced by the most popular ones immediately showing up on the WiiU). But, at least they were still successful.

Oh I remember that.
But at the same time, Microsoft was trying to take the reigns of one of the largest and fastest growing industries in the world at the time; one which impacted EVERYBODY.

Right, there's no doubt that the scale was bigger. But I've seen the courts rule on monopolies in all kinds of areas including regional aluminum to satellite radio. Even small regional monopolies achieved by cable companies. There is a chance that the government still doesn't view the video game industry as a worthwhile industry to legislate when necessary, but I can't count on ignorance.

They are getting friendlier...but a lot is also hinging on SteamOS being a stable viable alternative to Windows as a replacement game platform.

I don't know if they are intended to fill the full range of a computer so much as being being a console that gives access to the full range of games available on pc. As opposed to word processing and such. Though there's no reason why dual booting wouldn't be feasible and it is still linux at the end of the day.

That is one realm where Microsoft has an uncomfortable stranglehold on.
DirectX and their API suites were used in an enormous number of previous gen games that were ported to PC.

Sure, but this is Linux. They've had workarounds for all of that. It's just that Linux is incredibly frustrating for non-linux experienced users (and many linux experienced users like myself who gladly sell off the freedom of linux for the stability and simplicity of a windows OS), but this is an OS designed to be user friendly. If it succeeds, then people may never even know it's linux.

Hmm. What big tech firm has a fuckton of money, interest in gaming, and isn't based in China...Nexon?

I don't know if Sony would be willing to sell at this moment. They've actually managed to match Microsoft sales in the US which was supposed to be Microsoft's #1 market while widening the gap in the international markets. Hell, Microsoft isn't even launching the XBO in Japan. They actually just gave up that market. So Sony is stronger than they've ever been and their console is breaking even cost-wise at launch (it costs $381 to manufacture a ps4, so the remaining $19 goes to packaging and shipping and the retailer barely makes anything off of consoles. So they may be losing less than $20 per console compared to several hundred dollars like the WiiU or the ps3 did, the XBO is also around $471 which puts them in a similar range at $500). For all Sony knows, this could very well be their third 100 million unit console and a return to the staggering leaderpoint they were in for the 5th and 6th generations of consoles that even outsold the Wii.

Well, Sega's situation was a little different.
They went for something like 6 straight years overspending on hardware R&D, crapping out console after console, while Nintendo has just had one really bad year for their flagship console.

For Sega, going Software Only meant shedding those insane R&D costs; which was like tossing the 2 ton anchor out of their life boat.

Sega went two bad console generations in a row. The Saturn actually lost them their market share and the dreamcast merely failed to win it back from Sony. But they never amassed as much cash as Nintendo has now.

Nintendo would benefit from self publishing more than being owned obviously.
I'm just wondering that if in either case (software only either solo or as another's *****) their release schedule would be as ponderous as it is now, and if their game quality as high without the cushion of royalties to keep their developers comfy.

If they relied more on releasing software, then yeah, they'd have to organise around more regular launches. Even their most quality games don't really take this long to develop. They're being intentionally subborn while they can because Nintendo bends to their star developers who gum up the works by bottlenecking the dev cycle through them and them only.

Apparently, the "one or few creators" studio method is the main Japanese developer model.
So, to do otherwise would be to adopt "Western" standards of game development, which many Japanese publishers have openly decried in the last few years.

Ok... as long as they're going to only try to compete in the Japanese markets and assuming the Japanese markets themselves prefer fewer games (they don't, Japanese gamers want more regular releases too, just like us), and as long as there's no other Japanese company (*coughSonycough*) that is using a different format to develop games more regularly then they'll do fine. (note that the WiiU is selling less than half the units the PS Vita sells in Japan and the PS4 doesn't launch there until )

 

[Atmos Duality]

This could also just be an accounting exchange rate loss rather than an actual loss (on paper). For example, say they report their financials in Yen and that the Yen was particularly strong that year against the dollar. Well, the functional result of reporting in Yen demands the exchange in what the value would be even if you don't actually exchange it. Then, if the dollar goes up next year it will be reported as a financials gain in capital investemnt or whatever they'd call it.

That makes more sense, though this is still going to shake investor confidence in Nintendo's overseas operations.
(and why they and the rest of Japan have been hesitant to do more business here)

Either way, that report indicates that they had $10.5 in the bank at the time of the report and that $10.5 isn't going to be smaller due to exchange rates except where stated in another currency ($1 is always $1 but $1 is not always X Yen. Sometimes it can be X-Z yen and sometimes it can be X+Z yen. So they're not hurting.

Not yet anyway. The 3DS will sustain them, barring an investor walkout (which given how Japan's economy is starting to feel the global aftershocks, a walkout may happen within a couple of years anyway if Nintendo doesn't turn their flagship business around).

Interesting. In many ways I respect them for not just being all about the money. But if it's because they think blocking these games will solidify their image and then make them more money then I guess they're still doing it for the money but in a way that makes me less catered to as a customer.

In some ways they are backwards for consumer benefit. But their volume and variety of games is...lacking.
Until Fire Emblem Awakening, they still games as complete titles and not just interactive DLC advertisements.
(and even the Fire Emblem DLC didn't cordon off huge swaths of content)

I think after the Gamecube, they learned how futile it is to compete with mainstream gaming.
One common theme I've picked up on during my informal case study of Nintendo and their company history last year is that they do not take to new competition very well, largely because of their "First party titles first" business model.

Their best years were always in markets where they had a virtual (or literal) monopoly, and their worst were always when they tried to compete in the larger market. Sega bloodied their nose and broke their monopoly, but Sony took that breach and tore it wide open.

Which in some ways has resulted in all of their current problems.
You're correct in how their development model is bottlenecked by finicky producers. Well, that stems from an older model that worked during Nintendo's earlier golden years.
Their aversion to collaboration and "Nintendo first" arrogance is nothing new. They bullied publishers and developers around (to supreme hypocrisy, "Nintendo Seal of Quality" indeed) in the NES and SNES era, and have been extremely hostile in collaborations.

Best example I could find was Super Mario RPG (still an awesome game).
Nintendo collaborated with Squaresoft, whom they didn't own. Made a great game late into the SNES's life aaand...went straight into a squabble with Square over ownership of IP.
A squabble so vile that it caused Squaresoft to snub Nintendo entirely while they went on to make megabucks on Sony's Playstation. (and wow, was Square's support a MASSIVE loss for Nintendo's system in hindsight)

They need to learn some humility and fast. The world is changing without them, and I don't think they're ever going to get lucky again like they did with the Wii.

Right, there's no doubt that the scale was bigger. But I've seen the courts rule on monopolies in all kinds of areas including regional aluminum to satellite radio. Even small regional monopolies achieved by cable companies. There is a chance that the government still doesn't view the video game industry as a worthwhile industry to legislate when necessary, but I can't count on ignorance.

Well, I wish the anti-trust folks would get around to busting up my region's ISP duopoly.
100 USD a month for a 20MBPS cable line is robbery. The only good news is that my township was ripping up turf and laying fiber optic lines everywhere this last summer and fall.

I don't know if they are intended to fill the full range of a computer so much as being being a console that gives access to the full range of games available on pc. As opposed to word processing and such. Though there's no reason why dual booting wouldn't be feasible and it is still linux at the end of the day.

Well, SteamOS is slated as a PC release as well as being the OS of the console. Drivers and other hardware handlers aside, they're supposedly going to be the same.

Sure, but this is Linux. They've had workarounds for all of that.

Kind of. I actually used to use Linux as part of my day to day operations for work and a bit of play.

From personal experience, most issues arise from the need to emulate a lot of Microsoft proprietary components (DirectX, Direct3D, DSound, etc) if an alternative isn't available. (OpenGL is a great direct substitute for D3D, but it has to be supported by the program)

The real ***** comes from the Xbox 360 to PC ports, which are extremely numerous. Most often it's just easier to ditch Linux and go for a copy of Vista, W7 or XP than to set up emulation or some other handler (unless someone has already done the work for you).

It's just that Linux is incredibly frustrating for non-linux experienced users (and many linux experienced users like myself who gladly sell off the freedom of linux for the stability and simplicity of a windows OS), but this is an OS designed to be user friendly. If it succeeds, then people may never even know it's linux.

Most distros of Linux are plenty user friendly already and either possess compatibility with the daily essential programs or have an equivalent (often superior) version available. At least, until you run into something requiring emulation.

It's getting better every year, admittedly, but right now the average user doesn't want to do any more than "Download -> Play".

I don't know if Sony would be willing to sell at this moment.

Well, if push came to shove and Sony didn't have any real say in the matter. Publicly traded companies are like that.
But right now, if I were Sony I'd be clinging to that beautiful Playstation division with both arms.
(to be frank, I think the PS4 is probably the only device they sell I know of that isn't grossly overpriced. Maybe the Vita too, but there's not really anything on the Vita I want, or couldn't get elsewhere)

They actually just gave up that market.

Japan doesn't like foreign goods. Or, at least those that compete with their main industries (ie, electronics).
The Xbox never had a chance in Japan from start to today.

For all Sony knows, this could very well be their third 100 million unit console and a return to the staggering leaderpoint they were in for the 5th and 6th generations of consoles that even outsold the Wii.

Oh easily. Thanks to Microsoft's bumbling of the Xbone reveal and higher price point. Along with, well, Nintendo. (*glares at pages of discourse*)

Sega went two bad console generations in a row. The Saturn actually lost them their market share and the dreamcast merely failed to win it back from Sony. But they never amassed as much cash as Nintendo has now.

Honestly, I'm surprised they still exist today even in a diminished capacity.
There's probably an analog to draw between the Dreamcast and the timing of the PS2, but I'm not the one to make it.

If they relied more on releasing software, then yeah, they'd have to organise around more regular launches. Even their most quality games don't really take this long to develop. They're being intentionally subborn while they can because Nintendo bends to their star developers who gum up the works by bottlenecking the dev cycle through them and them only.

Already addressed above, briefly.

Ok... as long as they're going to only try to compete in the Japanese markets and assuming the Japanese markets themselves prefer fewer games (they don't, Japanese gamers want more regular releases too, just like us), and as long as there's no other Japanese company (*coughSonycough*) that is using a different format to develop games more regularly then they'll do fine. (note that the WiiU is selling less than half the units the PS Vita sells in Japan and the PS4 doesn't launch there until )

Tradition is a fickle *****. When it works, it works marvelously. When it fails, it tries its damnedest to curtail all new solutions.

 

[Lightknight]

That makes more sense, though this is still going to shake investor confidence in Nintendo's overseas operations.
(and why they and the rest of Japan have been hesitant to do more business here)

I don't think so. Even losing a few hundred million out of hte bucket that is $10.5 billion isn't going to shake much of anyone. Not when the Wii was pure and huge profit. This WiiU debacle is scary though. It placed the future of the company on uncertain grounds. If they can't have another Wii generation (and I contest that they cannot unless they do something as remarkable as the introduction of intuitive motion controls was) then they have nowhere to go but back down from here. Not down to the bottom necessarily, but perhaps back down to their Gamecube days but hopefully profitable instead (the GBA saved their asses).

Not yet anyway. The 3DS will sustain them, barring an investor walkout (which given how Japan's economy is starting to feel the global aftershocks, a walkout may happen within a couple of years anyway if Nintendo doesn't turn their flagship business around).

Well sure, if they continue to make bad decisions then an investor walkout wouldn't be impossible. In fact, it would be warranted. However, they have so much money in the bank that it wouldn't really be likely to ruin them at all. They have so many assets that a walkout would eventually hit a price that new investors would be excited about. Hell, there are numbers that I would immediately snatch up Nintendo stock if they dropped because I know they can always pull a Sega at the last moment and bump back up enough for me to sell later at a profit. I wonder how much of Nintendo stock is Nintendo owned? That amount won't go away.

Hmm, from researching the company on Etrade, did you know that the WiiU is considered to be the largest product flop of 2013? That's above (worse than) healthcare.gov, blackberry Q10, and The Lone Ranger. But with quarterly losses of $81 million then I guess that makes sense.

I think after the Gamecube, they learned how futile it is to compete with mainstream gaming.
One common theme I've picked up on during my informal case study of Nintendo and their company history last year is that they do not take to new competition very well, largely because of their "First party titles first" business model.

Well yeah, if you're not going to market to 3rd party developers like Sony and Microsoft do (and do well), then of course it is futile to try and compete with them. It's like saying it's futile to compete in a leg race in which everyone is using a prosthetic but you decide to do without.

Their best years were always in markets where they had a virtual (or literal) monopoly, and their worst were always when they tried to compete in the larger market. Sega bloodied their nose and broke their monopoly, but Sony took that breach and tore it wide open.

Yeah, but as you know, being poor at competition makes companies a bad business.

[/quote]You're correct in how their development model is bottlenecked by finicky producers. Well, that stems from an older model that worked during Nintendo's earlier golden years.
Their aversion to collaboration and "Nintendo first" arrogance is nothing new. They bullied publishers and developers around (to supreme hypocrisy, "Nintendo Seal of Quality" indeed) in the NES and SNES era, and have been extremely hostile in collaborations.[/quote] Yeah, it'd be better if they were just bad at negotiations rather than the hostile, "Come to us on your knees begging to develop for us if you want to." mentality. It makes 3rd party actively not want to work with Nintendo unless there's a clear profit in doing so.

Best example I could find was Super Mario RPG (still an awesome game).

You just got five gold stars in my book. Anyone who remembers that game and liked it is someone I'm happy to hang out with any time.

Nintendo collaborated with Squaresoft, whom they didn't own. Made a great game late into the SNES's life aaand...went straight into a squabble with Square over ownership of IP.
A squabble so vile that it caused Squaresoft to snub Nintendo entirely while they went on to make megabucks on Sony's Playstation. (and wow, was Square's support a MASSIVE loss for Nintendo's system in hindsight)

Yeah, that was a huge loss. I'm not going to lie, it was specifically FFVII that got me to buy a playstation 1 back in the day. From what I gather, there's a lot of people with the same reason.

They need to learn some humility and fast. The world is changing without them, and I don't think they're ever going to get lucky again like they did with the Wii.

That pay cut of the execs is pretty humbling I'd think. If that humility doens't result in change though, it'll availeth naught.

Well, I wish the anti-trust folks would get around to busting up my region's ISP duopoly.
100 USD a month for a 20MBPS cable line is robbery. The only good news is that my township was ripping up turf and laying fiber optic lines everywhere this last summer and fall.

A product that is over-priced doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing. But at some point the government may take the stance that the internet is necessary to life now and as important as newspapers or free speech. It'll interesting to see if they start to legislate it then.

But regional monopolies are a lot lower priority than market-wide monopolies.

The real ***** comes from the Xbox 360 to PC ports, which are extremely numerous. Most often it's just easier to ditch Linux and go for a copy of Vista, W7 or XP than to set up emulation or some other handler (unless someone has already done the work for you).

Well, if anyone has the means and motivation to work around these things, it's Valve and all the modders that make up the steam community. This has a potential to become a crowd sourced OS and could be made better than anything a single corporation could put out. There's a lot to be hopeful for here. Linux hasn't really had this kind of big fund corporate backing until now.

Most distros of Linux are plenty user friendly already and either possess compatibility with the daily essential programs or have an equivalent (often superior) version available. At least, until you run into something requiring emulation.

Yes, until you run into a problem like you said. Then the learning curve shoots off into the distance.

It's getting better every year, admittedly, but right now the average user doesn't want to do any more than "Download -> Play".

Right, and considering that's what Windows offers, it isn't entirely unreasonable for them to want to do that and that's coming from a guy who logs into huge companies every day to explain to Network/System/Database administrators what their problem is so I already think people are relatively lazy with what they're willing to do to accomplish a goal.

Well, if push came to shove and Sony didn't have any real say in the matter. Publicly traded companies are like that.
But right now, if I were Sony I'd be clinging to that beautiful Playstation division with both arms.
(to be frank, I think the PS4 is probably the only device they sell I know of that isn't grossly overpriced. Maybe the Vita too, but there's not really anything on the Vita I want, or couldn't get elsewhere)

There would have to be a board take over. Incredibly rare. The vast majority of Sony investors will never unify as with every other corporation with so many investors. Boards generally made decisions unchallenged.

Oh easily. Thanks to Microsoft's bumbling of the Xbone reveal and higher price point. Along with, well, Nintendo.

Yeah, if Microsoft goes down in price then Sony is in a prime position to go lower too. It's a fun place for them to be in where one competitor is out of the race by most accounts and the big competitor has pegged themselves at two steps behind. Sony has even started to outsell the XBO in the US for a few weeks now. If they even outstrip them in the US then Microsoft will be on the sad end of an interesting case study.

(*glares at pages of discourse*)

Yes, it is rather lengthy. I've deleted several lines of discussion where the agreement was simply "correct". Feel free to do the same. I've enjoyed this thoroughly but you're by no means obligated to continue. There will always be more threads on these things.

Honestly, I'm surprised they still exist today even in a diminished capacity.
There's probably an analog to draw between the Dreamcast and the timing of the PS2, but I'm not the one to make it.

In unsure what you mean. I've studied those two generations quite thoroughly. The Dreamcast itself didn't hurt Sega at all. It merely failed to win back the market share that the Saturn lost.

The Saturn, however, has all kinds of comparisons with the WiiU. From failed marketing to launching with almost no games.

I'm not sure why Sega continues to exist either. Sega hasn't produced a game I've liked since the gamegear. Maybe Yakuza? But I haven't played that one. They produce a bulk of garbage software.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I don't think so. Even losing a few hundred million out of hte bucket that is $10.5 billion isn't going to shake much of anyone. Not when the Wii was pure and huge profit. This WiiU debacle is scary though. It placed the future of the company on uncertain grounds. If they can't have another Wii generation (and I contest that they cannot unless they do something as remarkable as the introduction of intuitive motion controls was) then they have nowhere to go but back down from here. Not down to the bottom necessarily, but perhaps back down to their Gamecube days but hopefully profitable instead (the GBA saved their asses).

Probably worse than Gamecube levels.
At least back then, the global economy wasn't nearly as shaky. The gaming business has grown by billions, but it's a bit less impressive when one realizes that the currency is worth less than a third of what it was ~12 years ago.

Hmm, from researching the company on Etrade, did you know that the WiiU is considered to be the largest product flop of 2013? That's above (worse than) healthcare.gov, blackberry Q10, and The Lone Ranger. But with quarterly losses of $81 million then I guess that makes sense.

I'm not even remotely surprised at the WiiU topping that list.
Honestly, I'm more surprised by the Lone Ranger and that movie was total ass AND built on Hollywood levels of excess.

Well yeah, if you're not going to market to 3rd party developers like Sony and Microsoft do (and do well), then of course it is futile to try and compete with them. It's like saying it's futile to compete in a leg race in which everyone is using a prosthetic but you decide to do without.

Yeah, but as you know, being poor at competition makes companies a bad business.

That's kind of my point. There's some real bad business in Nintendo, and it drives me nuts when people jump to their defense on account of ANY negative criticism. I get it; the Nintendo Defense Force exists because folks are tired of naysayers blindly spewing their hatred and antagonism, but some of us are actually trying to make valid points beyond that crap.

It's like Frank Drebbin in that scene in the Naked Gun where he's standing in front of a burning fireworks store yelling "NOTHING TO SEE HERE! GO ABOUT YOUR BUSINESS!"

Yeah, it'd be better if they were just bad at negotiations rather than the hostile, "Come to us on your knees begging to develop for us if you want to." mentality. It makes 3rd party actively not want to work with Nintendo unless there's a clear profit in doing so.

I am reminded of a comment from my old Cisco class.
"It doesn't matter how good you think it is, a proprietary model (system) only works if your pitch is inclusive, not exclusive."

Meaning: Just because you're selling or making an exclusive system doesn't mean you should overtly act like you're excluding others.

You just got five gold stars in my book. Anyone who remembers that game and liked it is someone I'm happy to hang out with any time.

Well, glad to meet another fan of that classic.

Yeah, that was a huge loss. I'm not going to lie, it was specifically FFVII that got me to buy a playstation 1 back in the day. From what I gather, there's a lot of people with the same reason.

Won't lie. My best friend had FF7, and it blew my mind. Later that year, I got a Playstation for Christmas and wow was that an amazing gaming investment.

That pay cut of the execs is pretty humbling I'd think. If that humility doens't result in change though, it'll availeth naught.

I read about that after I sent my reply. Go figure.

A product that is over-priced doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing. But at some point the government may take the stance that the internet is necessary to life now and as important as newspapers or free speech. It'll interesting to see if they start to legislate it then.

It's undoubtedly a bad thing here. Service outages are common, back end hardware is horribly subpar (I did freelance network and computer servicing for a few years after graduating, and I've seen some of the garbage they're running first hand.) and I strongly suspect there's an awful lot of kickbacks being doled out to those who could fix it. (city and state level planners who keep denying business licenses or legal backbone connections for smaller ISPs)

But regional monopolies are a lot lower priority than market-wide monopolies.

That's the sick part, at least in the United States. The 4 largest ISP networks (Time Warner Cable & Comcast especially) have divvied up and re-organized their holdings into consolidated regions, and have abjectly REFUSED to compete now.

I was on dial up until 2009 entirely due to it being the only ISP that wasn't ridiculously overpriced cable since I moved here in 1998. In that time, I've watched no fewer than THREE DIFFERENT CABLE COMPANIES move in an out of my area.

Most of Europe had my current internet connection equivalent in 2004. Yes, we're nearly TEN YEARS behind the them in throughput (but not price; we pay more). And I'm not even including places like Japan and South Korea in the comparison.

Well, if anyone has the means and motivation to work around these things, it's Valve and all the modders that make up the steam community. This has a potential to become a crowd sourced OS and could be made better than anything a single corporation could put out. There's a lot to be hopeful for here. Linux hasn't really had this kind of big fund corporate backing until now.

I'm just glad there will be an escape plan should Microsoft stop playing "Big Neutral Guy" and start trying to "regulate" the software industry internally in Windows. There's a big, big push right now to try and get them to do just that.
Hell, the pre-180 Xbone was just a small taste of what they're capable of.

Right, and considering that's what Windows offers, it isn't entirely unreasonable for them to want to do that and that's coming from a guy who logs into huge companies every day to explain to Network/System/Database administrators what their problem is so I already think people are relatively lazy with what they're willing to do to accomplish a goal.

Preaching to the choir on that one...ugh.

Yeah, if Microsoft goes down in price then Sony is in a prime position to go lower too. It's a fun place for them to be in where one competitor is out of the race by most accounts and the big competitor has pegged themselves at two steps behind. Sony has even started to outsell the XBO in the US for a few weeks now. If they even outstrip them in the US then Microsoft will be on the sad end of an interesting case study.

I really hope Sony "wins" this round more than Microsoft.
Sony is currently in a position where the strong performance of their gaming division (and little to nothing else) is providing incentive for them to improve their offering. Compared to Microsoft who could literally just sell the Xbox division tomorrow and not really care much.

Yes, it is rather lengthy. I've deleted several lines of discussion where the agreement was simply "correct". Feel free to do the same. I've enjoyed this thoroughly but you're by no means obligated to continue. There will always be more threads on these things.

Looking forward to March...
Wonder why there's always some horrible controversy in gaming every March? (and I don't just mean EA, though they've been the butt of a good chunk of controversy for every March in the last 3 years)

In unsure what you mean.
...
I'm not sure why Sega continues to exist either. Sega hasn't produced a game I've liked since the gamegear. Maybe Yakuza? But I haven't played that one. They produce a bulk of garbage software.

That's kinda what I was pondering here. What has Sega produced that keeps them going? How is their reputation so deeply in the red, but their margins in the black?

Or are Sonic fans just that dedicated (or the largest population of Stockholm Syndrome since...well, Star Wars fans, or the actual Stockholm citizenry)?

 

[Lightknight]

Probably worse than Gamecube levels.

I don't know if they actually made money off of the gamecube. I know the GB advanced saved that generation for them.

I'm not even remotely surprised at the WiiU topping that list.

It's just interesting to see something from the video game industry topping finance charts in any area (good or bad).

That's kind of my point. There's some real bad business in Nintendo, and it drives me nuts when people jump to their defense on account of ANY negative criticism. I get it; the Nintendo Defense Force exists because folks are tired of naysayers blindly spewing their hatred and antagonism, but some of us are actually trying to make valid points beyond that crap.

Yes, exactly. I don't want Nintendo to get crushed into the ground. I want the nearly 150 year old company to learn from their mistakes and be great again. No one suffers from more greatness from Nintendo but people do suffer from their failures.

I am reminded of a comment from my old Cisco class.
"It doesn't matter how good you think it is, a proprietary model (system) only works if your pitch is inclusive, not exclusive."

Meaning: Just because you're selling or making an exclusive system doesn't mean you should overtly act like you're excluding others.

Always nice to see fellow tech head who understands customer service.

Won't lie. My best friend had FF7, and it blew my mind. Later that year, I got a Playstation for Christmas and wow was that an amazing gaming investment.

I mean, to play it now it's nothing special. Entirely outdated even. But back in the day it came with a VHS tape explaining it's technical accomplishments and they were stunning. From the graphics to the new ability to play more involved music (not everyone knows that Mario games didn't have simplistic music because they didn't invest in music, it was because the technology wasn't there yet). "Blew my mind" is right. It ushered in a new era of gaming with a BOOM.

I read about that after I sent my reply. Go figure.

You know, the more I think about the execs taking a pay cut, the more I realise that in other companies people would be stepping down or fired over this. Maybe it's humbling but it's also a slap on the wrist in a lot of ways.

It's undoubtedly a bad thing here. Service outages are common, back end hardware is horribly subpar (I did freelance network and computer servicing for a few years after graduating, and I've seen some of the garbage they're running first hand.) and I strongly suspect there's an awful lot of kickbacks being doled out to those who could fix it. (city and state level planners who keep denying business licenses or legal backbone connections for smaller ISPs)

That's pretty bad. We used to have only comcast here in town and now century link is entering the market. The competition has really benefitted us. I've only gone down twice in the past two years that I know of.

Most of Europe had my current internet connection equivalent in 2004. Yes, we're nearly TEN YEARS behind the them in throughput (but not price; we pay more). And I'm not even including places like Japan and South Korea in the comparison.

Yes and I'd consider this all to be a massive price setting scandal. Sure, they aren't necessarily setting the price, but I think there has been significant work to set the product being sold. You see what happens when google fiber so much as breaths a word about opening shop in a new city. Instantly the local ISPs start offering the 1gb up/down service for the same price. It's an outright shame.

But look at the other player's response to google fiber:

http://www.webpronews.com/kansas-bill-would-stop-further-google-fiber-expansion-in-the-state-2014-01

They literally try to make laws that prevent competition. Typical monopolistic behavior. That articl is only a couple days old though. But this has been the biggest and best hope we've had of upsetting the monopoly with the government remaining suspiciously quiet on the matter.

I really hope Sony "wins" this round more than Microsoft.
Sony is currently in a position where the strong performance of their gaming division (and little to nothing else) is providing incentive for them to improve their offering. Compared to Microsoft who could literally just sell the Xbox division tomorrow and not really care much.

What a novel concept that a company with the best product at a competitive price that is also consumer friendly would outperform the competition. So ditto, I really hope they win because these over-priced, under-performing, anti-consumer products really need to get put in their place (on shelves in warehouses collecting dust). Nothing can explain it better to businesses than them not getting our money in mass.

Looking forward to March...
Wonder why there's always some horrible controversy in gaming every March? (and I don't just mean EA, though they've been the butt of a good chunk of controversy for every March in the last 3 years)

Many major software and publishing companies have their end of fiscal year around march for some reason. Nintendo too, right? Or is that later?

That's kinda what I was pondering here. What has Sega produced that keeps them going? How is their reputation so deeply in the red, but their margins in the black?

I guess they keep production costs low and produce shovelware that is a quick impusle buy for the less informed. They also have a bunch of Sonic products that they keep milking. Additionall, their games aren't controversially bad like some of EA's stuff.

EDIT: Ew, colonial marines was Sega? Ugh.

Or are Sonic fans just that dedicated (or the largest population of Stockholm Syndrome since...well, Star Wars fans, or the actual Stockholm citizenry)?

They have a few low budget high popularity games it looks like. Total Rome, The Cave, Company of Heroes.

So maybe it's not quite as much shovelware as I thought. But getting there. I loved the cave though. So I have to take back what I said about them not having put out anything I liked since game gear days. It's publishing only but I think it counts.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I don't know if they actually made money off of the gamecube. I know the GB advanced saved that generation for them.

Small wonder they tried to link the Gamecube and GBA together so much.
Though, it wasn't really a bad thing...just pricey.

It's just interesting to see something from the video game industry topping finance charts in any area (good or bad).

Point taken. It's grown very very large. Though I suppose this shouldn't surprise me when Call of Duty is regularly butting heads with record revenue figures for all of MEDIA, and not just games.

Yes, exactly. I don't want Nintendo to get crushed into the ground. I want the nearly 150 year old company to learn from their mistakes and be great again. No one suffers from more greatness from Nintendo but people do suffer from their failures.

I want to see Nintendo survive if it means keeping stronger competition in the market.
Entering the console market has rarely if ever been "easy"; I'd argue it's never been easy since Nintendo essentially rebooted the entire market back in the 80s. The loss of a major competitor in that field would hurt gaming overall I think.

Well..at least some of the elements I care about. Help me if it ever became a bunch of Always Online crap..

I mean, to play it now it's nothing special. Entirely outdated even. But back in the day it came with a VHS tape explaining it's technical accomplishments and they were stunning. From the graphics to the new ability to play more involved music (not everyone knows that Mario games didn't have simplistic music because they didn't invest in music, it was because the technology wasn't there yet). "Blew my mind" is right. It ushered in a new era of gaming with a BOOM.

I know. And when I used to bring it up, I would be greeting with a hail of "NOSTALGIA, THEREFORE IRRELEVANT".

And I don't think those folks understand just how big of a game changer FF7 was for the entire games industry.
FF7's success and Square's departure from Nintendo (they didn't cooperate again for a solid 5 years or something), was *the* tipping point for Sony; the point where EVERYONE stopped questioning them for entering the game business, and started questioning Nintendo's more openly.

You know, the more I think about the execs taking a pay cut, the more I realise that in other companies people would be stepping down or fired over this. Maybe it's humbling but it's also a slap on the wrist in a lot of ways.

I was expecting Iwata to be flat out sacked for this, but I once again underestimated just how incredibly "conservative" Nintendo is.

Incidentally, this happened:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-03/nintendo-s-founding-family-to-sell-shares-as-buyback-terms-set.html

So, looks like Nintendo is going to sink a tenth of that 10B nest egg into shares. Yikes.

That's pretty bad. We used to have only comcast here in town and now century link is entering the market. The competition has really benefitted us. I've only gone down twice in the past two years that I know of.
...
Yes and I'd consider this all to be a massive price setting scandal. Sure, they aren't necessarily setting the price, but I think there has been significant work to set the product being sold. You see what happens when google fiber so much as breaths a word about opening shop in a new city. Instantly the local ISPs start offering the 1gb up/down service for the same price. It's an outright shame.

Wow. They not only goose you hard for years, but the moment someone else even breaks into the market, ISPs are suddenly willing to increase bandwidth by TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE???

I knew the US ISP market was bent over a barrel, but not by that much!

But look at the other player's response to google fiber:

http://www.webpronews.com/kansas-bill-would-stop-further-google-fiber-expansion-in-the-state-2014-01

They literally try to make laws that prevent competition. Typical monopolistic behavior. That articl is only a couple days old though. But this has been the biggest and best hope we've had of upsetting the monopoly with the government remaining suspiciously quiet on the matter.

I'd love to hear the representative who proposed it just try to pitch it. And I'd love to hear the public's Q&A response.
It'd be like a rape victim asking their perpetrator why they're suddenly lubing up a gerbil. They both know the real reason already, but the victim wants to hear them explain it anyway just to understand the future insanity plea.

What a novel concept that a company with the best product at a competitive price that is also consumer friendly would outperform the competition.

Hypothetically, AAA could try to bully Sony and MS into compliance with threats of giving their other exclusivity; and in exchange pressure them into inserting crap like Always Online and...pretty much all the schemes we saw during the Xbone reveal.

But thankfully, the Xbone reveal resulted in an overwhelmingly damning public backlash.

That, and I don't think AAA is anywhere near stable enough to risk cleaving their preferred market space in half for such a gambit; or how it puts AAA into a sort of Prisoner's Dilemma, where those who stick with Sony would profit immensely over those only sticking with MS.

Or perhaps I have it backwards, and it's MS who approached AAA publishers first; I mean, there's rumors of MS trying to pay off developers for exclusivity for several major upcoming games (or paying others to promote games as Xbone exclusive, even when they aren't). I will note how a couple of major AAA releases for the Xbone were delayed from their original Christmas releases to March immediately following the 180 decision. (HMMMM.)

Either way, I'm really really glad Sony is still here, and I wished Nintendo would get their head back in the game to further pressure MS (mostly so they all keep each other honest); I keep repeating this, but the pre-180 Xbone was bar none, the SCARIEST anti-consumer development I've seen in the history of the gaming industry.

This wasn't some expendable nobody proposing this; it was one of the largest firms in the entire business.

Many major software and publishing companies have their end of fiscal year around march for some reason. Nintendo too, right? Or is that later?

I'm unsure if Nintendo follows that entirely, but I know their US office does.

It would explain why Nintendo holds off until Feb and March for some big 3DS title. Last year it was Fire Emblem: Awakening, and the year before that it was Kid Icarus Uprising.

And this would also explain the timing of obviously rushed crap like Simcity 13' and Aliens: Colonial Marines last year..
Speaking of A:CM.

I guess they keep production costs low and produce shovelware that is a quick impusle buy for the less informed. They also have a bunch of Sonic products that they keep milking. Additionall, their games aren't controversially bad like some of EA's stuff.

It must be dirt-cheap costs, because I literally cannot think of anything else Sega has going for them.
Well...Total War was doing well until the last two games (especially this last one).

EDIT: Ew, colonial marines was Sega? Ugh.

There's a small list of developers that A:CM belonged to. Sega is just one of many.
I just chalk it up as another game in the vein of Daikatana; overly ambitious game with a long development Hell where nobody wants to work on or finish it. (and then Gearbox made it worse by pulling some bait and switch shit with their demo)

 

[Lightknight]

I want to see Nintendo survive if it means keeping stronger competition in the market.
Entering the console market has rarely if ever been "easy"; I'd argue it's never been easy since Nintendo essentially rebooted the entire market back in the 80s. The loss of a major competitor in that field would hurt gaming overall I think.

The thing is, in their current state they aren't a competitor. Any "competition" is pretty much null. At this point, losing the Nintendo console would just be losing Nintendo as a publisher and that's assuming they wouldn't then start releasing on other consoles anyways which means we may lose nothing but the mildest form of competition. The Wii's competition at least pushed the envelope of peripheral gaming. But this is just sad.

And I don't think those folks understand just how big of a game changer FF7 was for the entire games industry.
FF7's success and Square's departure from Nintendo (they didn't cooperate again for a solid 5 years or something), was *the* tipping point for Sony; the point where EVERYONE stopped questioning them for entering the game business, and started questioning Nintendo's more openly.

Certainly, and Sony didn't stop. Sony is at its best when it's competing. I think the only reason the PS3 failed was because they felt like they were top dogs, which they were, but it meant they did things that they likely wouldn't have if they were afraid of losing our business.

Incidentally, this happened:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-03/nintendo-s-founding-family-to-sell-shares-as-buyback-terms-set.html

So, looks like Nintendo is going to sink a tenth of that 10B nest egg into shares. Yikes.

It isn't necessarily a bad thing. I mean, it is. But Nintendo is planning on a buy-back anyways and their shares haven't been this low for some time. If they have a bright future, this will vastly increase their equity when the remaining shares increase in value. If they have a crappy future, then this will be touted as the start of the fall.

As for the family, the same goes for them. If they are looking at this like an investment, then Nintendo is about to have three or more bad years. As such, selling now just means they can buy low in a few years when stocks are lower and they can obtain a larger share. More likely, they just got it as inheritance and are cashing out.

Wow. They not only goose you hard for years, but the moment someone else even breaks into the market, ISPs are suddenly willing to increase bandwidth by TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE???

I knew the US ISP market was bent over a barrel, but not by that much!

It's basically a legislative scam. Surely everyone recognises this as an ogliopoly but no one is going to say crap about it. I want them tackled by the government on this so badly.

I'd love to hear the representative who proposed it just try to pitch it. And I'd love to hear the public's Q&A response.

Actually, the outcry about it has been so immense that they've already filed for an extension to "reword the bill" to not impact google. They say the bill is designed for the consumers! HAHAHA.

It's so sad if you think about it.

Hypothetically, AAA could try to bully Sony and MS into compliance with threats of giving their other exclusivity; and in exchange pressure them into inserting crap like Always Online and...pretty much all the schemes we saw during the Xbone reveal.

Pressure? Microsoft has already primed the barrel. What people haven't quite grasped is what it really means when Microsoft's response to the lesser power of their console is that they intent to augment games with cloud computing. I'm still amazed people haven't figured out that this means processing heavy games will all be always online out of necessity to keep up with the ps4.

Or perhaps I have it backwards, and it's MS who approached AAA publishers first; I mean, there's rumors of MS trying to pay off developers for exclusivity for several major upcoming games (or paying others to promote games as Xbone exclusive, even when they aren't). I will note how a couple of major AAA releases for the Xbone were delayed from their original Christmas releases to March immediately following the 180 decision. (HMMMM.)

Either way, I'm really really glad Sony is still here, and I wished Nintendo would get their head back in the game to further pressure MS (mostly so they all keep each other honest); I keep repeating this, but the pre-180 Xbone was bar none, the SCARIEST anti-consumer development I've seen in the history of the gaming industry.

Sony really held the line for us. Things would have gone bad fast. Now I think console manufacturers are afraid of it, which is good, because they shouldn't get to be anti-consumer and get a lot of consumers.