The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
It always puzzled me as to why Nintendo have yet to go multi-format. Truth be told everyone loves Mario, even if the general public no longer wish to buy a console to play his latest outings. You see if Nintendo went multi-format and they released their games on the X-box and PS2 then you will see a dramatic chance in the multi-format European charts (Nintendo tend to dominate the Japanese chart anyway).
Pokemon Coliseum will not only be sitting nicely at the top of the charts when it was released, it will still be sitting nicely at the top of the charts, it’s only competition coming from Mario Golf. Whilst dear old Driv3r will be situated at number 3. Games such as Pokemon channel will be getting hundreds of thousands of sales instead of just thousands. Zelda would have sat at the top of the charts for months and months on end and sold multiple millions of copies. With the sad fact that the Gamecube is selling crap and that the console is not making dividends for Nintendo, why don’t they just give it up and start making a mint as the worlds biggest third party developer?
Once upon a time I would have said the gaming industry needs Nintendo. Nintendo drive the industry, innovations with analogue sticks, D-pads, rumble packs and other hardware related tomfoolery all mean Nintendo are needed in keeping gaming fresh. But I’m no longer so sure. Microsoft are the brave ones launching its super online service, Nintendo are floundering around with Bongo drums and GBA connectivity whilst Sony are proving they can still make hardware with their ingenious Eye-Toy device. I’m not saying Nintendo have lost it with innovation, look at the DS, but all I’m saying is that Sony can do things by themselves now.
So is it time for Nintendo to pack up their bags, keep their development team solely concentrating on DS and GBA development whilst Nintendo’s superior teams make multiple millions on multi-format games?
Well no.
This argument may seem valid, it makes sense right? The thing is I hear these arguments day in, day out… Nintendo should go multi-format because they’d make so much more. You’d be surprised how wrong that could be. You see a third parties has to pay companies like Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo to produce the games. The price Capcom, EA, Activision etc… have to pay means they have everything straightened out and released by Nintendo’s teams but it also makes Nintendo a bit of extra money in the long run. Nintendo do not have to pay Nintendo to have their games printed, coded and released, this saves Nintendo a bucket load of money. Exclusivity deals are often based around the fact that there are massive cuts in what third parties have to pay. Soul Calibur 2 was published by Nintendo, which allowed Namco to make far more money on that title than the X-box and Playstation 2 edition.
GTA 3 and Vice City may have sold in similar quantities as Pokemon Yellow, but Nintendo made more money on Pokemon Yellow than Rockstar did on their franchise. I am fed up about all this third party nonsense talk. It may be true that the difference in what Nintendo earn is minimal, and that looking at it Nintendo may make a little more money than they do. But SEGA is evidence on how going third party can prove disastrous, SEGA are essentially the slaves to the other systems. If SEGA want a game released in November say then Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo need the game by mid-late October. If there is a delay SEGA are screwed, they can beg the first parties to speed up development, but that’ll cost more. Not a situation Nintendo suffer.
Also SEGA have split development between all 3 formats because of this “cost”. If you are going to release a game on a system it needs to do well. For example it would be a catastrophe for SEGA to release House of the Dead 3 on the Gamecube, no one will buy it and after paying Nintendo money to produce the game it would make a loss! Therefore SEGA have to release certain games on certain formats, they look at their games and judge the user base it would work best for. They tend to have got it right (although Phantasy Star should be more X-box exclusive and Jet Set Radio would work better as a Gamecube game), Super Monkey Ball appealed to the Nintendo market just as Virtual Fighter has to the Playstation one. But you see by doing this SEGA have split their fan base, if you are a SEGA fan you either need all 3 formats or just pick your favourite games and see which console houses them. As a SEGA fan you will be missing some games you previously would not have missed.
Imagine if Metroid Prime was an X-box title along with F Zero, 1080, Wave Race, Pilotwings, Kirby and Advance Wars… whilst Zelda, Mario, Pokemon, Animal Crossing etc… were Playstation software (the likes of Smash Brothers and Mario Kart multi-format). Which console would you choose? I mean I’d obviously opt for Sony but I’d be gutted at the amount of games I’d have lost. Nintendo may be able to make ALL their titles multi-format but then they’d almost certainly make a loss of some description. Microsoft don’t have a children fan base at all and Pokemon, Mario and Animal Crossing would almost certainly do badly meaning the money Nintendo invested into the Microsoft editons would be a loss.
If Nintendo went multi-format they’d lose some control over when they release games; they would lose control over their content due to the different market appeal of Sony and Microsoft, their all important die-hard fan base (us) would crumble and all for a more regular profit.
This is why Nintendo have not gone multi-format, this is why Nintendo will not go multi-format.
If they are forced out of the console race then (as long as the PSP doesn’t do too much damage) Nintendo will more likely than not concentrate on handheld development. And if the PSP does do too much damage, then expect a “Nintendo-Microsoft” partnership that er-no discusses so much to emerge. After all with a kiddy appeal and a Japanese fan base, Nintendo are exactly what Microsoft need.
Here’s to the future.
Dringo.
Pokemon Coliseum will not only be sitting nicely at the top of the charts when it was released, it will still be sitting nicely at the top of the charts, it’s only competition coming from Mario Golf. Whilst dear old Driv3r will be situated at number 3. Games such as Pokemon channel will be getting hundreds of thousands of sales instead of just thousands. Zelda would have sat at the top of the charts for months and months on end and sold multiple millions of copies. With the sad fact that the Gamecube is selling crap and that the console is not making dividends for Nintendo, why don’t they just give it up and start making a mint as the worlds biggest third party developer?
Once upon a time I would have said the gaming industry needs Nintendo. Nintendo drive the industry, innovations with analogue sticks, D-pads, rumble packs and other hardware related tomfoolery all mean Nintendo are needed in keeping gaming fresh. But I’m no longer so sure. Microsoft are the brave ones launching its super online service, Nintendo are floundering around with Bongo drums and GBA connectivity whilst Sony are proving they can still make hardware with their ingenious Eye-Toy device. I’m not saying Nintendo have lost it with innovation, look at the DS, but all I’m saying is that Sony can do things by themselves now.
So is it time for Nintendo to pack up their bags, keep their development team solely concentrating on DS and GBA development whilst Nintendo’s superior teams make multiple millions on multi-format games?
Well no.
This argument may seem valid, it makes sense right? The thing is I hear these arguments day in, day out… Nintendo should go multi-format because they’d make so much more. You’d be surprised how wrong that could be. You see a third parties has to pay companies like Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo to produce the games. The price Capcom, EA, Activision etc… have to pay means they have everything straightened out and released by Nintendo’s teams but it also makes Nintendo a bit of extra money in the long run. Nintendo do not have to pay Nintendo to have their games printed, coded and released, this saves Nintendo a bucket load of money. Exclusivity deals are often based around the fact that there are massive cuts in what third parties have to pay. Soul Calibur 2 was published by Nintendo, which allowed Namco to make far more money on that title than the X-box and Playstation 2 edition.
GTA 3 and Vice City may have sold in similar quantities as Pokemon Yellow, but Nintendo made more money on Pokemon Yellow than Rockstar did on their franchise. I am fed up about all this third party nonsense talk. It may be true that the difference in what Nintendo earn is minimal, and that looking at it Nintendo may make a little more money than they do. But SEGA is evidence on how going third party can prove disastrous, SEGA are essentially the slaves to the other systems. If SEGA want a game released in November say then Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo need the game by mid-late October. If there is a delay SEGA are screwed, they can beg the first parties to speed up development, but that’ll cost more. Not a situation Nintendo suffer.
Also SEGA have split development between all 3 formats because of this “cost”. If you are going to release a game on a system it needs to do well. For example it would be a catastrophe for SEGA to release House of the Dead 3 on the Gamecube, no one will buy it and after paying Nintendo money to produce the game it would make a loss! Therefore SEGA have to release certain games on certain formats, they look at their games and judge the user base it would work best for. They tend to have got it right (although Phantasy Star should be more X-box exclusive and Jet Set Radio would work better as a Gamecube game), Super Monkey Ball appealed to the Nintendo market just as Virtual Fighter has to the Playstation one. But you see by doing this SEGA have split their fan base, if you are a SEGA fan you either need all 3 formats or just pick your favourite games and see which console houses them. As a SEGA fan you will be missing some games you previously would not have missed.
Imagine if Metroid Prime was an X-box title along with F Zero, 1080, Wave Race, Pilotwings, Kirby and Advance Wars… whilst Zelda, Mario, Pokemon, Animal Crossing etc… were Playstation software (the likes of Smash Brothers and Mario Kart multi-format). Which console would you choose? I mean I’d obviously opt for Sony but I’d be gutted at the amount of games I’d have lost. Nintendo may be able to make ALL their titles multi-format but then they’d almost certainly make a loss of some description. Microsoft don’t have a children fan base at all and Pokemon, Mario and Animal Crossing would almost certainly do badly meaning the money Nintendo invested into the Microsoft editons would be a loss.
If Nintendo went multi-format they’d lose some control over when they release games; they would lose control over their content due to the different market appeal of Sony and Microsoft, their all important die-hard fan base (us) would crumble and all for a more regular profit.
This is why Nintendo have not gone multi-format, this is why Nintendo will not go multi-format.
If they are forced out of the console race then (as long as the PSP doesn’t do too much damage) Nintendo will more likely than not concentrate on handheld development. And if the PSP does do too much damage, then expect a “Nintendo-Microsoft” partnership that er-no discusses so much to emerge. After all with a kiddy appeal and a Japanese fan base, Nintendo are exactly what Microsoft need.
Here’s to the future.
Dringo.
Page:
Isn't the loss on the Gamecube quite small though?
I mean I know the Gamecube is losing money but not massivly not with the profits made on the software.
I read an interview with George Harrison who insisted that even though Nintendo seem to lose a lot of money at times they tend to make up for it with a big release.
And that Nintendo's fan base and childish appeal means it has a niche market all to itself... even if it isn't enough to stay afloat.
Oh and NB I don't think there has been a hit on Nintendo's fan base. Wind Waker sold not as well as expected not because the fan base was reduced but because it had no mass market appeal like previous Zelda games.
Nintendo fans who bought an X-box for RARE tends to have a Gamecube too.
I mean I know the Gamecube is losing money but not massivly not with the profits made on the software.
I read an interview with George Harrison who insisted that even though Nintendo seem to lose a lot of money at times they tend to make up for it with a big release.
And that Nintendo's fan base and childish appeal means it has a niche market all to itself... even if it isn't enough to stay afloat.
Oh and NB I don't think there has been a hit on Nintendo's fan base. Wind Waker sold not as well as expected not because the fan base was reduced but because it had no mass market appeal like previous Zelda games.
Nintendo fans who bought an X-box for RARE tends to have a Gamecube too.
Double post.
Dringo wrote:
> Of course NB you are aware that Nintendo have a $6.4 billion in liquid
> profits?
Not profits Dringo, cash reserves. This is mainly the money they made from the days of the SNES and NES. They had $5.3 billion of it five years ago.
>
> Even if there was no Gameboy at the moment (which would of course
> mean more Gamecube software) and Nintendo still made a loss on the
> Gamecube they would be doing fine. Of course the Gameboy franchise is
> money and no money going into that would free up more liquid profits
> but whose counting.
I don't really follow you here. You seem to be saying that if Nintendo's biggest single asset was not around than Nintendo would make more money on the Gamecube? They would only be doing fine for as long as they still had cash reserves. Without the Gameboy Nintendo would be losing money fast.
No money going into the Gameboy would of course reduce costs, but would also of course reduce profits. It wouldn't free up anything.
>
> Nintendo don't spend much money. The staff that turn over the games
> themselves are just under half that of Sony and Microsoft's, they
> have cut ties with almost all their second party developers meaning
> there is less people requiring Nintendo's support.
Nintendo spend as it were 11.3% of their revenues.
it.
> Where'd you get the 7.2 average from?
The sales figures are accurate. The 7.4 average comes from the 107.87 million Gamecube games sold divided by the 14.57 million Gamecubes sold.
> Of course NB you are aware that Nintendo have a $6.4 billion in liquid
> profits?
Not profits Dringo, cash reserves. This is mainly the money they made from the days of the SNES and NES. They had $5.3 billion of it five years ago.
>
> Even if there was no Gameboy at the moment (which would of course
> mean more Gamecube software) and Nintendo still made a loss on the
> Gamecube they would be doing fine. Of course the Gameboy franchise is
> money and no money going into that would free up more liquid profits
> but whose counting.
I don't really follow you here. You seem to be saying that if Nintendo's biggest single asset was not around than Nintendo would make more money on the Gamecube? They would only be doing fine for as long as they still had cash reserves. Without the Gameboy Nintendo would be losing money fast.
No money going into the Gameboy would of course reduce costs, but would also of course reduce profits. It wouldn't free up anything.
>
> Nintendo don't spend much money. The staff that turn over the games
> themselves are just under half that of Sony and Microsoft's, they
> have cut ties with almost all their second party developers meaning
> there is less people requiring Nintendo's support.
Nintendo spend as it were 11.3% of their revenues.
it.
> Where'd you get the 7.2 average from?
The sales figures are accurate. The 7.4 average comes from the 107.87 million Gamecube games sold divided by the 14.57 million Gamecubes sold.
Of course NB you are aware that Nintendo have a $6.4 billion in liquid profits?
Even if there was no Gameboy at the moment (which would of course mean more Gamecube software) and Nintendo still made a loss on the Gamecube they would be doing fine. Of course the Gameboy franchise is money and no money going into that would free up more liquid profits but whose counting.
Nintendo don't spend much money. The staff that turn over the games themselves are just under half that of Sony and Microsoft's, they have cut ties with almost all their second party developers meaning there is less people requiring Nintendo's support.
Nintendo do not advertise prime time, do not spend much money on anything and therefore even when their profits slide... they still have money. And lots of it.
As for your "average" totals are they even remotely acurate? 2003 sales era of course was disrupted, the console was not avalible worldwide for a third of it and Nintendo launched 10 games that year. The following year Nintendo launched 3 AAA titles (Mario Kart, Metroid Prime and Zelda) which generates a very large amount of sales (not normal for Nintendo). They also published Soul Calibur 2, Wario World, Mario Party 5, 1080, F Zero which makes 8 titles (there maybe more I cannot remember)...
This year so far we have Kirby, Final Fantasy, Mario Golf, Channel and Colesium... which is 5 in half a year.
Where'd you get the 7.2 average from?
Even if there was no Gameboy at the moment (which would of course mean more Gamecube software) and Nintendo still made a loss on the Gamecube they would be doing fine. Of course the Gameboy franchise is money and no money going into that would free up more liquid profits but whose counting.
Nintendo don't spend much money. The staff that turn over the games themselves are just under half that of Sony and Microsoft's, they have cut ties with almost all their second party developers meaning there is less people requiring Nintendo's support.
Nintendo do not advertise prime time, do not spend much money on anything and therefore even when their profits slide... they still have money. And lots of it.
As for your "average" totals are they even remotely acurate? 2003 sales era of course was disrupted, the console was not avalible worldwide for a third of it and Nintendo launched 10 games that year. The following year Nintendo launched 3 AAA titles (Mario Kart, Metroid Prime and Zelda) which generates a very large amount of sales (not normal for Nintendo). They also published Soul Calibur 2, Wario World, Mario Party 5, 1080, F Zero which makes 8 titles (there maybe more I cannot remember)...
This year so far we have Kirby, Final Fantasy, Mario Golf, Channel and Colesium... which is 5 in half a year.
Where'd you get the 7.2 average from?
To be perfectly honest, that'd be terrific. I'm a true Ninty, but a union with MS would mean secured future, and the greatest console ever. And Nintendo would still be the leading game company ever. EVAH
Nintendo should be MS's second party for TV based hardware and MS Nintendo's second party for handheld software.
And maybe market the MS machine's as Nintendo's in Japan...
The best bit - Rare and Nintendo get re-united! :-)
And maybe market the MS machine's as Nintendo's in Japan...
The best bit - Rare and Nintendo get re-united! :-)
Not really as much as you would think. The overall markup for everything Nintendo sells is that 25%. Memory cards and other peripherals are rather low volume really. Although they do make more money on them. Besides, the revenues from them are assimilated into the accounts. And yes Whitestripes, maybe I do need a hobby. But whilst I have shares in them, I'm going to read the company accounts.
NB what about Memory card sales, extra controller sales, and the sales of merchandise based around their franchises (such as themed GCs). Those are all sold at a considerable mark up and make Nintendo a bucket load, I'd suspect, and they are all things that Nintendo would lose out on if they went 2nd/3rd party
I think you need a hobby.
Dringo wrote:
> NB, do you honestly think Nintendo would just hold up their hands if
> they lose the handheld market and go "fine lets close our
> doors" despire the fact that have a massive software group of
> teams?
I never said they would, I said Nintendo as we know it would end if they lost the handheld market. That is because Nintendo would cease as a home console maker for good, and would probably be bought out by a larger company.
>
> Rubbish that's just stupid, if I owned the company with that amount
> of software I'd have Sony and Microsoft begging for them.
>
Of course you would, which is why if Nintendo screw up again, Sony or MS or EA etc WILL be after Nintendo.
> NB you are mistaken Nintendo make A LOT out of Gamecube software,
> they always have and they always will. True True the hardware sales
> don't match it but you see every Gamecube owner doesn't own a
> Gamecube for EA or Capcom.
Seemingly then Nintendo themselves are mistaken.
I would estimate that 60% of all games sold on the Gamecube are published by Nintendo. Now if we take an average of £30 per game (bearing in mind that there are vast sales from Players Choice ranges and that games are cheaper everywhere else in the world, then that figure should really be lower) and from Nintendo's figures for every GC there is 7.4 games. That gives £222 worth of games sold per Gamecube. £133 of that will be Nintendo published games and 15% royalties on the other 40% of games gives an extra £13.35. Grand total Nintendo make on games per Gamecube is £146.35. Except, it isn't really, because that is retail prices. GAME, HMV, Virgin, SR et al don't buy games at retail prices off of Nintendo. Trade prices will be half that or there abouts. So the reality is that Nintendo have income of around £75 on the software for every Gamecube sold.
That means that the actual bottom line is that the Gamecube will only break even about now. Nintendo will have made a total of approx £1.1 billion (not adjusted for differing currencies) on ALL Gamecubes sold. Nintendo after cost of sales; selling, general and administrative expenses have a margin of 25.6%. Which would mean if that had been constant (which it isn't, up from 17.7% a year ago) then Nintendo would have made £250 million roughly over the Gamecube. There are other things as well, such as development costs etc. I could ramble on for a bit longer, but there is no point.
The conclusion is that the Gamecube is only now breaking even really for Nintendo. This is no doubt due in part to the 5 million sales the Gamecube racked up between the 2003 and 2004 accounts. That was an over 50% increase in Gamecube hardware out there. However it was the 78% rise in software for the Gamecube that made the difference. This of course is logical that software sales grew more than hardware sales since otherwise it would mean that owners before accounts 2003 had stopped buying games.
What I'm saying Dringo is that without the GBA, Nintendo would have not survived this long. And yes, the fundamental market share issues that affect the Gamecube also affect the Xbox, and with the added cost of the hard drive. But MS budgeted only losing billions first time around.
>
> Why do I own a Gamecube? Nintendo! Why do 90% of every other Gamecube
> owner own a Gamecube? Nintendo. This is why third party sales are so
> poor, even the good third party games are ignored because us Gamecube
> owners own a Gamecube for Nintendo and there is little room for
> anyone else.
>
> If Nintendo lose this fan base it would be a catastrophie and
> Nintendo will have no one to fall back on.
Nintendo ARE losing that fanbase. Otherwise Zelda WW et al would be selling the same sort of numbers, or at least percentages, as their N64 incarnations. But they aren't.
>
> Microsoft have two problems against Sony. No appeal for Children
> unlike the PS2 and no Japanese market share. Nintendo can sort both
> of that out.
The children point is not entirely true. Sure it doesn't have that many kiddie games, but it does not mean that there are few children that own an Xbox. Many do, but instead of just having Crash Bandicoot, Vexx and the Simpsons Road Rage; they have games like Halo, Project Gotham Racing and Rainbow Six 3. Think of the amount of 12 year olds with Grand Theft Auto etc.
The Japanese point stands of course, though that may slightly change the next time round.
>
> They won't go first party, oh no, but second party. Maybe.
That hinges on the success on Nintendo in the next home console generation and their ability to keep a stangle hold of the handheld market.
> NB, do you honestly think Nintendo would just hold up their hands if
> they lose the handheld market and go "fine lets close our
> doors" despire the fact that have a massive software group of
> teams?
I never said they would, I said Nintendo as we know it would end if they lost the handheld market. That is because Nintendo would cease as a home console maker for good, and would probably be bought out by a larger company.
>
> Rubbish that's just stupid, if I owned the company with that amount
> of software I'd have Sony and Microsoft begging for them.
>
Of course you would, which is why if Nintendo screw up again, Sony or MS or EA etc WILL be after Nintendo.
> NB you are mistaken Nintendo make A LOT out of Gamecube software,
> they always have and they always will. True True the hardware sales
> don't match it but you see every Gamecube owner doesn't own a
> Gamecube for EA or Capcom.
Seemingly then Nintendo themselves are mistaken.
I would estimate that 60% of all games sold on the Gamecube are published by Nintendo. Now if we take an average of £30 per game (bearing in mind that there are vast sales from Players Choice ranges and that games are cheaper everywhere else in the world, then that figure should really be lower) and from Nintendo's figures for every GC there is 7.4 games. That gives £222 worth of games sold per Gamecube. £133 of that will be Nintendo published games and 15% royalties on the other 40% of games gives an extra £13.35. Grand total Nintendo make on games per Gamecube is £146.35. Except, it isn't really, because that is retail prices. GAME, HMV, Virgin, SR et al don't buy games at retail prices off of Nintendo. Trade prices will be half that or there abouts. So the reality is that Nintendo have income of around £75 on the software for every Gamecube sold.
That means that the actual bottom line is that the Gamecube will only break even about now. Nintendo will have made a total of approx £1.1 billion (not adjusted for differing currencies) on ALL Gamecubes sold. Nintendo after cost of sales; selling, general and administrative expenses have a margin of 25.6%. Which would mean if that had been constant (which it isn't, up from 17.7% a year ago) then Nintendo would have made £250 million roughly over the Gamecube. There are other things as well, such as development costs etc. I could ramble on for a bit longer, but there is no point.
The conclusion is that the Gamecube is only now breaking even really for Nintendo. This is no doubt due in part to the 5 million sales the Gamecube racked up between the 2003 and 2004 accounts. That was an over 50% increase in Gamecube hardware out there. However it was the 78% rise in software for the Gamecube that made the difference. This of course is logical that software sales grew more than hardware sales since otherwise it would mean that owners before accounts 2003 had stopped buying games.
What I'm saying Dringo is that without the GBA, Nintendo would have not survived this long. And yes, the fundamental market share issues that affect the Gamecube also affect the Xbox, and with the added cost of the hard drive. But MS budgeted only losing billions first time around.
>
> Why do I own a Gamecube? Nintendo! Why do 90% of every other Gamecube
> owner own a Gamecube? Nintendo. This is why third party sales are so
> poor, even the good third party games are ignored because us Gamecube
> owners own a Gamecube for Nintendo and there is little room for
> anyone else.
>
> If Nintendo lose this fan base it would be a catastrophie and
> Nintendo will have no one to fall back on.
Nintendo ARE losing that fanbase. Otherwise Zelda WW et al would be selling the same sort of numbers, or at least percentages, as their N64 incarnations. But they aren't.
>
> Microsoft have two problems against Sony. No appeal for Children
> unlike the PS2 and no Japanese market share. Nintendo can sort both
> of that out.
The children point is not entirely true. Sure it doesn't have that many kiddie games, but it does not mean that there are few children that own an Xbox. Many do, but instead of just having Crash Bandicoot, Vexx and the Simpsons Road Rage; they have games like Halo, Project Gotham Racing and Rainbow Six 3. Think of the amount of 12 year olds with Grand Theft Auto etc.
The Japanese point stands of course, though that may slightly change the next time round.
>
> They won't go first party, oh no, but second party. Maybe.
That hinges on the success on Nintendo in the next home console generation and their ability to keep a stangle hold of the handheld market.
Page: