Why should Nintendo go third party?

[VG_Addict]

Sega and Atari only left the console market because they were bleeding money from consecutive failures.

Worth pointing out that were it not for them managing to turn the 3DS around and make it a sales success, both of their consoles right now would be bleeding money. The Wii U is actually a complete and utter failure so far and they broke their once cardinal rule by selling it at a loss so they can't even just drop the price to try and boost sales. If I'm not mistaken, the 3DS may still be losing them money on every unit sold.

The reality is that the Wii was a fluke of a console and since they haven't been able to replicate that success they're back to Gamecube level sales (or actually, probably a bit worse than that lately), and they no longer sell the machines at a profit.

It's hard not to argue for them at least ditching home consoles and bringing their software third party when they clearly have no clue what they're doing in that market.

Do you think this will be their last home console?

Like I said, they have enough money to give it another go.

 

[VG_Addict]

Making software available on more than one platform = Wider userbase and more customers
More customers = More money

Seems simple enough.

So where are the threads demanding that Microsoft and Sony go third party? Where are the threads demanding that Valve make stuff for consoles?

More customers = more money, after all.

Valve DOES make things for consoles...?

I mean, sure, DOTA2 wasn't on console, but that's for the same reason Age of Empires wasn't.

And Microsoft/Sony don't have a wide array of highly desirable exclusives. Nintendo does.

Why should Nintendo give up their exclusives? Exclusives have ALWAYS been a major selling point for consoles.

Because they aren't selling consoles, as shown by Wii U's lack of sold units.

Here's a better question: Between the blasted height threads and these threads, why do you have to make the same thread over and over and over and over and over and over and over?

I only made one height thread on here.

The games have nothing to do with it. I already said that Nintendo would be doing better if they made a competitive console.

No, you made at least six.

And yes, they would be doing better. Sadly, that's not where they are now. Therefore, it would be smart if they dropped exclusivity.

You mean drop the only advantage they have over their competition: Having great exclusives you can't get anywhere else? Are you serious? It's a good thing you're not in charge of a business.

 

[SidheKnight]

Because I want Nintendo games on PC.

 

[Racecarlock]

Because I want Nintendo games on PC.

Not that I'm defending either side here, but you HAVE heard of emulators, haven't you?

 

[Olas]

Because they want to throw their hardware platforms even further under the bus and lose the revenue they make from them?

The only reason we're even having this discussion is a bunch of people want to be able to play Nintendo games on their current systems.

Because I want Nintendo games on PC.

Not that I'm defending either side here, but you HAVE heard of emulators, haven't you?

I think he's talking about new games, not games from before 2005 that are glitchy, crashy, and poorly optimized, not to mention illegal unless you've actually bought the game in which case you probably already have the console to play it on.

 

[VG_Addict]

Making software available on more than one platform = Wider userbase and more customers
More customers = More money

Seems simple enough.

So where are the threads demanding that Microsoft and Sony go third party? Where are the threads demanding that Valve make stuff for consoles?

More customers = more money, after all.

Valve DOES make things for consoles...?

I mean, sure, DOTA2 wasn't on console, but that's for the same reason Age of Empires wasn't.

And Microsoft/Sony don't have a wide array of highly desirable exclusives. Nintendo does.

Why should Nintendo give up their exclusives? Exclusives have ALWAYS been a major selling point for consoles.

Because they aren't selling consoles, as shown by Wii U's lack of sold units.

Here's a better question: Between the blasted height threads and these threads, why do you have to make the same thread over and over and over and over and over and over and over?

And why? Because I'm skeptical of the idea that going software only will automatically make Nintendo more money. I think pretty much any argument in favor of it can be summed up as "I want to play their games, but not enough to buy their consoles".

 

[Redflash]

Could someone tell me why people want them to go software only? And could someone actually make a case, from a business perspective, why it would be better for them? No "Their games would be better on other hardware" or "I want to play their games, but not enough to buy their consoles". From an objective business standpoint, how would it be a good idea?

Well, erm, there you are, the 'I want to play their games' part. From an objective business standpoint, it's a good idea. You can't just ban a point from the discussion when it's patently legitimate.

You have an untapped market in people who want to play Nintendo games and would do so if they weren't shut out by what is essentially an entry-fee for doing so: having to shell out for a Nintendo console. You can't just dismiss that market by saying that people who play on Xboxes and PS3s want different things. There's definitely a good deal of folks out there who would appreciate being able to whip out Super Smash Bros or Mario Kart when they've got a group over, and I'd be willing to bet that there's plenty of people who'd want to play Nintendo games solo too. A fondness for GTA V or CoD or just about any damn thing out there doesn't rule out the possibility of someone liking a Nintendo game.

It's not like they'll even be risking much as far as their present audience goes, either. Nintendo fans want to play Nintendo games. They'll play them on whatever Nintendo puts them out on. That lot are pretty much a guaranteed market. Going third-party doesn't hurt that market, at least not if they do it tastefully and respectfully by letting people know well in advance of the next console generation so everyone feels they've gotten their money's worth out of their wii-Us.

 

[VG_Addict]

Could someone tell me why people want them to go software only? And could someone actually make a case, from a business perspective, why it would be better for them? No "Their games would be better on other hardware" or "I want to play their games, but not enough to buy their consoles". From an objective business standpoint, how would it be a good idea?

Well, erm, there you are, the 'I want to play their games' part. From an objective business standpoint, it's a good idea. You can't just ban a point from the discussion when it's patently legitimate.

You have an untapped market in people who want to play Nintendo games and would do so if they weren't shut out by what is essentially an entry-fee for doing so: having to shell out for a Nintendo console. You can't just dismiss that market by saying that people who play on Xboxes and PS3s want different things. There's definitely a good deal of folks out there who would appreciate being able to whip out Super Smash Bros or Mario Kart when they've got a group over, and I'd be willing to bet that there's plenty of people who'd want to play Nintendo games solo too. A fondness for GTA V or CoD or just about any damn thing out there doesn't rule out the possibility of someone liking a Nintendo game.

It's not like they'll even be risking much as far as their present audience goes, either. Nintendo fans want to play Nintendo games. They'll play them on whatever Nintendo puts them out on. That lot are pretty much a guaranteed market. Going third-party doesn't hurt that market, at least not if they do it tastefully and respectfully by letting people know well in advance of the next console generation so everyone feels they've gotten their money's worth out of their wii-Us.

People were asking them to go third party since the Gamecube. The Gamecube had decent third party support, so that "paying to play only Nintendo games" thing didn't work.

Is there any reason they shouldn't?

 

[lacktheknack]

Making software available on more than one platform = Wider userbase and more customers
More customers = More money

Seems simple enough.

So where are the threads demanding that Microsoft and Sony go third party? Where are the threads demanding that Valve make stuff for consoles?

More customers = more money, after all.

Valve DOES make things for consoles...?

I mean, sure, DOTA2 wasn't on console, but that's for the same reason Age of Empires wasn't.

And Microsoft/Sony don't have a wide array of highly desirable exclusives. Nintendo does.

Why should Nintendo give up their exclusives? Exclusives have ALWAYS been a major selling point for consoles.

Because they aren't selling consoles, as shown by Wii U's lack of sold units.

Here's a better question: Between the blasted height threads and these threads, why do you have to make the same thread over and over and over and over and over and over and over?

I only made one height thread on here.

The games have nothing to do with it. I already said that Nintendo would be doing better if they made a competitive console.

No, you made at least six.

And yes, they would be doing better. Sadly, that's not where they are now. Therefore, it would be smart if they dropped exclusivity.

You mean drop the only advantage they have over their competition: Having great exclusives you can't get anywhere else? Are you serious? It's a good thing you're not in charge of a business.

AND YET THEY'RE NOT SELLING. Their "advantage" is doing not very much right now.

If you want to run a business, you need to know when to let go of your advantages. Holding onto an "advantage" that's killing you is terrible business sense.

And why? Because I'm skeptical of the idea that going software only will automatically make Nintendo more money. I think pretty much any argument in favor of it can be summed up as "I want to play their games, but not enough to buy their consoles".

Why do you quote the same post again?

Also, if enough people argue that they don't wanna pay for a console but want to play Nintendo games, then there's your audience right there. There's no downsides at the moment to going multiplatform beyond a miniscule drop in Wii U sales (which weren't selling anyways).

The only way holding onto exclusivity would be good for them is if they put out a killer app that single-handedly generates demand for the console as well as the game. And, quite frankly, I don't think the new Super Smash Bros. game is going to be that.

 

[VG_Addict]

Making software available on more than one platform = Wider userbase and more customers
More customers = More money

Seems simple enough.

So where are the threads demanding that Microsoft and Sony go third party? Where are the threads demanding that Valve make stuff for consoles?

More customers = more money, after all.

Valve DOES make things for consoles...?

I mean, sure, DOTA2 wasn't on console, but that's for the same reason Age of Empires wasn't.

And Microsoft/Sony don't have a wide array of highly desirable exclusives. Nintendo does.

Why should Nintendo give up their exclusives? Exclusives have ALWAYS been a major selling point for consoles.

Because they aren't selling consoles, as shown by Wii U's lack of sold units.

Here's a better question: Between the blasted height threads and these threads, why do you have to make the same thread over and over and over and over and over and over and over?

I only made one height thread on here.

The games have nothing to do with it. I already said that Nintendo would be doing better if they made a competitive console.

No, you made at least six.

And yes, they would be doing better. Sadly, that's not where they are now. Therefore, it would be smart if they dropped exclusivity.

You mean drop the only advantage they have over their competition: Having great exclusives you can't get anywhere else? Are you serious? It's a good thing you're not in charge of a business.

AND YET THEY'RE NOT SELLING. Their "advantage" is doing not very much right now.

If you want to run a business, you need to know when to let go of your advantages. Holding onto an "advantage" that's killing you is terrible business sense.

And why? Because I'm skeptical of the idea that going software only will automatically make Nintendo more money. I think pretty much any argument in favor of it can be summed up as "I want to play their games, but not enough to buy their consoles".

Why do you quote the same post again?

Also, if enough people argue that they don't wanna pay for a console but want to play Nintendo games, then there's your audience right there. There's no downsides at the moment to going multiplatform beyond a miniscule drop in Wii U sales (which weren't selling anyways).

The only way holding onto exclusivity would be good for them is if they put out a killer app that single-handedly generates demand for the console as well as the game. And, quite frankly, I don't think the new Super Smash Bros. game is going to be that.

But why should they go third party after ONE bad console? I keep saying that they have enough money for another console.

 

[lacktheknack]

Making software available on more than one platform = Wider userbase and more customers
More customers = More money

Seems simple enough.

So where are the threads demanding that Microsoft and Sony go third party? Where are the threads demanding that Valve make stuff for consoles?

More customers = more money, after all.

Valve DOES make things for consoles...?

I mean, sure, DOTA2 wasn't on console, but that's for the same reason Age of Empires wasn't.

And Microsoft/Sony don't have a wide array of highly desirable exclusives. Nintendo does.

Why should Nintendo give up their exclusives? Exclusives have ALWAYS been a major selling point for consoles.

Because they aren't selling consoles, as shown by Wii U's lack of sold units.

Here's a better question: Between the blasted height threads and these threads, why do you have to make the same thread over and over and over and over and over and over and over?

I only made one height thread on here.

The games have nothing to do with it. I already said that Nintendo would be doing better if they made a competitive console.

No, you made at least six.

And yes, they would be doing better. Sadly, that's not where they are now. Therefore, it would be smart if they dropped exclusivity.

You mean drop the only advantage they have over their competition: Having great exclusives you can't get anywhere else? Are you serious? It's a good thing you're not in charge of a business.

AND YET THEY'RE NOT SELLING. Their "advantage" is doing not very much right now.

If you want to run a business, you need to know when to let go of your advantages. Holding onto an "advantage" that's killing you is terrible business sense.

And why? Because I'm skeptical of the idea that going software only will automatically make Nintendo more money. I think pretty much any argument in favor of it can be summed up as "I want to play their games, but not enough to buy their consoles".

Why do you quote the same post again?

Also, if enough people argue that they don't wanna pay for a console but want to play Nintendo games, then there's your audience right there. There's no downsides at the moment to going multiplatform beyond a miniscule drop in Wii U sales (which weren't selling anyways).

The only way holding onto exclusivity would be good for them is if they put out a killer app that single-handedly generates demand for the console as well as the game. And, quite frankly, I don't think the new Super Smash Bros. game is going to be that.

But why should they go third party after ONE bad console? I keep saying that they have enough money for another console.

You horribly underestimate how fast money vanishes if you spook your investors.

And yes, riding out a bad console generation without doing anything will spook your investors. A lot.

I mean, you propose that they sit on their thumbs and operate at loss on purpose for years!?

Now who's making awful business decisions?

 

[VG_Addict]

Making software available on more than one platform = Wider userbase and more customers
More customers = More money

Seems simple enough.

So where are the threads demanding that Microsoft and Sony go third party? Where are the threads demanding that Valve make stuff for consoles?

More customers = more money, after all.

Valve DOES make things for consoles...?

I mean, sure, DOTA2 wasn't on console, but that's for the same reason Age of Empires wasn't.

And Microsoft/Sony don't have a wide array of highly desirable exclusives. Nintendo does.

Why should Nintendo give up their exclusives? Exclusives have ALWAYS been a major selling point for consoles.

Because they aren't selling consoles, as shown by Wii U's lack of sold units.

Here's a better question: Between the blasted height threads and these threads, why do you have to make the same thread over and over and over and over and over and over and over?

I only made one height thread on here.

The games have nothing to do with it. I already said that Nintendo would be doing better if they made a competitive console.

No, you made at least six.

And yes, they would be doing better. Sadly, that's not where they are now. Therefore, it would be smart if they dropped exclusivity.

You mean drop the only advantage they have over their competition: Having great exclusives you can't get anywhere else? Are you serious? It's a good thing you're not in charge of a business.

AND YET THEY'RE NOT SELLING. Their "advantage" is doing not very much right now.

If you want to run a business, you need to know when to let go of your advantages. Holding onto an "advantage" that's killing you is terrible business sense.

And why? Because I'm skeptical of the idea that going software only will automatically make Nintendo more money. I think pretty much any argument in favor of it can be summed up as "I want to play their games, but not enough to buy their consoles".

Why do you quote the same post again?

Also, if enough people argue that they don't wanna pay for a console but want to play Nintendo games, then there's your audience right there. There's no downsides at the moment to going multiplatform beyond a miniscule drop in Wii U sales (which weren't selling anyways).

The only way holding onto exclusivity would be good for them is if they put out a killer app that single-handedly generates demand for the console as well as the game. And, quite frankly, I don't think the new Super Smash Bros. game is going to be that.

But why should they go third party after ONE bad console? I keep saying that they have enough money for another console.

You horribly underestimate how fast money vanishes if you spook your investors.

And yes, riding out a bad console generation without doing anything will spook your investors. A lot.

I mean, you propose that they sit on their thumbs and operate at loss on purpose for years!?

Now who's making awful business decisions?

They can't just drop the Wii U. That will piss off customers. I'm starting to think YOU'RE the one who doesn't know anything about business.

And they ARE doing something. I already listed what they're doing. It's not my fault you didn't listen.

 

[lacktheknack]

Making software available on more than one platform = Wider userbase and more customers
More customers = More money

Seems simple enough.

So where are the threads demanding that Microsoft and Sony go third party? Where are the threads demanding that Valve make stuff for consoles?

More customers = more money, after all.

Valve DOES make things for consoles...?

I mean, sure, DOTA2 wasn't on console, but that's for the same reason Age of Empires wasn't.

And Microsoft/Sony don't have a wide array of highly desirable exclusives. Nintendo does.

Why should Nintendo give up their exclusives? Exclusives have ALWAYS been a major selling point for consoles.

Because they aren't selling consoles, as shown by Wii U's lack of sold units.

Here's a better question: Between the blasted height threads and these threads, why do you have to make the same thread over and over and over and over and over and over and over?

I only made one height thread on here.

The games have nothing to do with it. I already said that Nintendo would be doing better if they made a competitive console.

No, you made at least six.

And yes, they would be doing better. Sadly, that's not where they are now. Therefore, it would be smart if they dropped exclusivity.

You mean drop the only advantage they have over their competition: Having great exclusives you can't get anywhere else? Are you serious? It's a good thing you're not in charge of a business.

AND YET THEY'RE NOT SELLING. Their "advantage" is doing not very much right now.

If you want to run a business, you need to know when to let go of your advantages. Holding onto an "advantage" that's killing you is terrible business sense.

And why? Because I'm skeptical of the idea that going software only will automatically make Nintendo more money. I think pretty much any argument in favor of it can be summed up as "I want to play their games, but not enough to buy their consoles".

Why do you quote the same post again?

Also, if enough people argue that they don't wanna pay for a console but want to play Nintendo games, then there's your audience right there. There's no downsides at the moment to going multiplatform beyond a miniscule drop in Wii U sales (which weren't selling anyways).

The only way holding onto exclusivity would be good for them is if they put out a killer app that single-handedly generates demand for the console as well as the game. And, quite frankly, I don't think the new Super Smash Bros. game is going to be that.

But why should they go third party after ONE bad console? I keep saying that they have enough money for another console.

You horribly underestimate how fast money vanishes if you spook your investors.

And yes, riding out a bad console generation without doing anything will spook your investors. A lot.

I mean, you propose that they sit on their thumbs and operate at loss on purpose for years!?

Now who's making awful business decisions?

They can't just drop the Wii U. That will piss off customers. I'm starting to think YOU'RE the one who doesn't know anything about business.

And they ARE doing something. I already listed what they're doing. It's not my fault you didn't listen.

Locate the part where I said they should drop the Wii U.

Alternatively, tell me how "do something" means "drop the Wii U".

If you can't do that, consider that "doing something" might include "boost revenue by going multiplatform".


Unless, of course, you refuse to view that as valid. If this is the case, please never make another Nintendo thread again. You know our answer, and there's no earthly reason to keep asking beyond purposefully trying to piss people off and be antagonistic.

 

[IceForce]

I think pretty much any argument in favor of it can be summed up as "I want to play their games, but not enough to buy their consoles".

You keep suggesting this is a bad argument.
If this is a popular complaint (which it would seem to be, going by this thread), then why is it a bad argument?

You can't just dismiss and hand-wave away a common argument like this.

 

[IceForce]

But why should they go third party after ONE bad console? I keep saying that they have enough money for another console.

Because making the same mistakes again and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity?

They can't just drop the Wii U. That will piss off customers. I'm starting to think YOU'RE the one who doesn't know anything about business.

And they ARE doing something. I already listed what they're doing. It's not my fault you didn't listen.

You really need to stop strawmanning and putting words into people's mouths, if you want people to take you seriously.

 

[VG_Addict]

But why should they go third party after ONE bad console? I keep saying that they have enough money for another console.

Because making the same mistakes again and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity?

They can't just drop the Wii U. That will piss off customers. I'm starting to think YOU'RE the one who doesn't know anything about business.

And they ARE doing something. I already listed what they're doing. It's not my fault you didn't listen.

You really need to stop strawmanning and putting words into people's mouths, if you want people to take you seriously.

They could make a better console next time. They seem to at least be learning from one mistake; they plan an on-demand service tied to IDs across software.

http://www.joystiq.com/2014/01/29/nintendo-envisions-on-demand-service-tied-to-ids-across-hardware/

And being popular doesn't make something right.

 

[st0pnsw0p]

You again? Didn't you get your answer in any of the last 5 or so Nintendo-related threads you made? Well, whatever.

I don't think it would be good for Nintendo to go 3rd party at this point (not until they really start losing money) because they're still making money from their games and the 3DS, but I would like it if they did, because then I wouldn't have to pay $300 (in addition to the full $60 per game because their games don't drop in price for freaking years) just to play the handful of console-exclusive 1st party franchises I'm still interested in.

 

[SidheKnight]

Because I want Nintendo games on PC.

Not that I'm defending either side here, but you HAVE heard of emulators, haven't you?

I think he's talking about new games, not games from before 2005 that are glitchy, crashy, and poorly optimized, not to mention illegal unless you've actually bought the game in which case you probably already have the console to play it on.

Pretty much what Olas said.