Look on the same site at the price tag to download the full PDF report. It's basically aimed at shareholders and others with an interest in the financial state of these companies.
This is why earlier in the year there was such pressure on Nintendo to get into mobile games. Candy Crush Saga makes up something like 90% of King's revenue. That game alone has made more money this year than all Nintendo games put together! And it will have been much cheaper to produce in the first place than all those Nintendo games.
Of course, it's just one data point. King is vulnerable to that one game losing popularity, but equally, if they do come up with another hit game, they have a potential audience of billions of smartphone users, where Nintendo has self-limited itself to the tens of millions that own a Nintendo device.
Look on the same site at the price tag to download the full PDF report. It's basically aimed at shareholders and others with an interest in the financial state of these companies.
This is why earlier in the year there was such pressure on Nintendo to get into mobile games. Candy Crush Saga makes up something like 90% of King's revenue. That game alone has made more money this year than all Nintendo games put together! And it will have been much cheaper to produce in the first place than all those Nintendo games.
Of course, it's just one data point. King is vulnerable to that one game losing popularity, but equally, if they do come up with another hit game, they have a potential audience of billions of smartphone users, where Nintendo has self-limited itself to the tens of millions that own a Nintendo device.
Just to throw this out there and play devil's advocate:
One of the most famous attacks against Nintendo from the gaming media and the console war trenches was that Nintendo captured "lightning in a bottle" with Wii, and that it was a fluke, and it will never happen again.
Well, whether you believe that or not, that's essentially what these mobile game crazes are, and to an extent, Minecraft. You just have to have the right product at the right place and time, and a whole lot of luck. For every Candy Crush, Minecraft, or Angry Birds, there are a thousand developers of every size and nationality trying to win that lottery. Sometimes, like in the case of Minecraft....it's by actually creating something new that people will love and get addicted to, and sometimes it's ripping off an existing game, putting goofy birds and cartoon pigs in it, and striking it big in the overnight sensation lottery.
Look on the same site at the price tag to download the full PDF report. It's basically aimed at shareholders and others with an interest in the financial state of these companies.
This is why earlier in the year there was such pressure on Nintendo to get into mobile games. Candy Crush Saga makes up something like 90% of King's revenue. That game alone has made more money this year than all Nintendo games put together! And it will have been much cheaper to produce in the first place than all those Nintendo games.
Of course, it's just one data point. King is vulnerable to that one game losing popularity, but equally, if they do come up with another hit game, they have a potential audience of billions of smartphone users, where Nintendo has self-limited itself to the tens of millions that own a Nintendo device.
Just to throw this out there and play devil's advocate:
One of the most famous attacks against Nintendo from the gaming media and the console war trenches was that Nintendo captured "lightning in a bottle" with Wii, and that it was a fluke, and it will never happen again.
Well, whether you believe that or not, that's essentially what these mobile game crazes are, and to an extent, Minecraft. You just have to have the right product at the right place and time, and a whole lot of luck. For every Candy Crush, Minecraft, or Angry Birds, there are a thousand developers of every size and nationality trying to win that lottery. Sometimes, like in the case of Minecraft....it's by actually creating something new that people will love and get addicted to, and sometimes it's ripping off an existing game, putting goofy birds and cartoon pigs in it, and striking it big in the overnight sensation lottery.
It's always easy to look back in hindsight and try to pick apart examples like the ones you mention. More often than not, the people involved in those success stories weren't consciously aware of what they were doing at the time, or that particular decisions would work as spectacularly well as they do. (Equally, you need to avoid survivor bias, by not only looking at the successes, but also the failures).
Having said that, luck is when opportunity meets preparedness. It is about being in the right place at the right time, but you've got to work hard to be ready to take opportunities (anticipated or otherwise) when they arrive, and not every one will click.
Angry Birds was Rovio's 50th game (or something like that). King changed directions completely as a company twice before hitting gold with mobile.
Clearly, after Wii, Nintendo went back and did some analysis of why they were successful: They tapped into the casual games market. They also correctly worked out that casual audience was all going mobile. So they shipped a mobile tablet with every Wii U (the gamepad). It goes to illustrate that even if you can anticipate where things are going, trying to catch those opportunities is difficult to say the least.
To suggest it's a fluke or a lottery though, is just lazy analysis
There is no way the Microsoft numbers are accurate either. The devices and services part has loads of stuff other than Xbox in it. Even if you are a shareholder Microsoft won't give you that information. It will become even harder to get any idea when the entirety of Nokia's handset part is in the same division. Probably the patent revenue from Android is put under mobile as well.
Microsoft spends loads on basic research and stuff that they expect to pay off after a long time. (They weren't even hoping Xbox to pay off until 2020). That sort of timescale is when a nuclear power station starts paying off for comparison.
“30fps Is Not a Good Artistic Decision, It's a Failure”
Freedom of the press is for those who happen to own one.
Look on the same site at the price tag to download the full PDF report. It's basically aimed at shareholders and others with an interest in the financial state of these companies.
This is why earlier in the year there was such pressure on Nintendo to get into mobile games. Candy Crush Saga makes up something like 90% of King's revenue. That game alone has made more money this year than all Nintendo games put together! And it will have been much cheaper to produce in the first place than all those Nintendo games.
Of course, it's just one data point. King is vulnerable to that one game losing popularity, but equally, if they do come up with another hit game, they have a potential audience of billions of smartphone users, where Nintendo has self-limited itself to the tens of millions that own a Nintendo device.
Just to throw this out there and play devil's advocate:
One of the most famous attacks against Nintendo from the gaming media and the console war trenches was that Nintendo captured "lightning in a bottle" with Wii, and that it was a fluke, and it will never happen again.
Well, whether you believe that or not, that's essentially what these mobile game crazes are, and to an extent, Minecraft. You just have to have the right product at the right place and time, and a whole lot of luck. For every Candy Crush, Minecraft, or Angry Birds, there are a thousand developers of every size and nationality trying to win that lottery. Sometimes, like in the case of Minecraft....it's by actually creating something new that people will love and get addicted to, and sometimes it's ripping off an existing game, putting goofy birds and cartoon pigs in it, and striking it big in the overnight sensation lottery.
It's always easy to look back in hindsight and try to pick apart examples like the ones you mention. More often than not, the people involved in those success stories weren't consciously aware of what they were doing at the time, or that particular decisions would work as spectacularly well as they do. (Equally, you need to avoid survivor bias, by not only looking at the successes, but also the failures).
Having said that, luck is when opportunity meets preparedness. It is about being in the right place at the right time, but you've got to work hard to be ready to take opportunities (anticipated or otherwise) when they arrive, and not every one will click.
Angry Birds was Rovio's 50th game (or something like that). King changed directions completely as a company twice before hitting gold with mobile.
Clearly, after Wii, Nintendo went back and did some analysis of why they were successful: They tapped into the casual games market. They also correctly worked out that casual audience was all going mobile. So they shipped a mobile tablet with every Wii U (the gamepad). It goes to illustrate that even if you can anticipate where things are going, trying to catch those opportunities is difficult to say the least.
To suggest it's a fluke or a lottery though, is just lazy analysis
If Nintendo did make that analysis, I think they came about a completely wrong conclusion for that. Casual gaming on phones predated the iPhone or Tablet, as Breakout was a common game of many phones that people played to pass time. And home casual gaming is still going strong, as games in the likes of the Just Dance and Wii Party series still sell very well. The way I see it there is a clear divide between casual gaming in the living room, which fills more of a "family game night" role, and casual gaming on a phone or tablet, which fills an individual role. Can you honestly tell me that casuals played Wii Sports and Wii Party alone even when the Wii was hot? It was clearly a group multiplayer experience.
Now at the same time, interest in the Wii did wane, partly because it didn't get any sort of update that kept people interested. If Apple never introduced an iPhone 5, and stuck with the 4 forever, interest in that would wane too. Nintendo made a mistake with Wii Motion + as they introduced it as a peripheral, something that won't pull the traction of a brand new console with a brand new idea. All Nintendo needed to do with their 8th Gen console is update what the Wii was. Simply advertising it as an HD Wii may have even done the trick, as upgrades to HD are popular in everything nowadays.
Currently Playing: Steamworld Heist, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Tales of Graces F
If Nintendo did make that analysis, I think they came about a completely wrong conclusion for that. Casual gaming on phones predated the iPhone or Tablet, as Breakout was a common game of many phones that people played to pass time. And home casual gaming is still going strong, as games in the likes of the Just Dance and Wii Party series still sell very well. The way I see it there is a clear divide between casual gaming in the living room, which fills more of a "family game night" role, and casual gaming on a phone or tablet, which fills an individual role. Can you honestly tell me that casuals played Wii Sports and Wii Party alone even when the Wii was hot? It was clearly a group multiplayer experience.
Now at the same time, interest in the Wii did wane, partly because it didn't get any sort of update that kept people interested. If Apple never introduced an iPhone 5, and stuck with the 4 forever, interest in that would wane too. Nintendo made a mistake with Wii Motion + as they introduced it as a peripheral, something that won't pull the traction of a brand new console with a brand new idea. All Nintendo needed to do with their 8th Gen console is update what the Wii was. Simply advertising it as an HD Wii may have even done the trick, as upgrades to HD are popular in everything nowadays.
Firstly, I'd suggest casual games on console have suffered badly as a result of players switching to mobile. Just Dance does not sell anything like as well as it used to. MS dropping Kinect is another good, clear indicator that those sort of motion-controlled, casual games just aren't shifting consoles any more.
Secondly, I think the advent of smartphone gaming represented a step change in the acceptability of playing games to the mass general public who previously (still) don't consider themselves as "gamers". The groundwork for that shift in attitudes was laid by Wii, but also by facebook games such as farmville. Yes, prior to that, there was breakout or snake on phones, but take a look at a subway train full of people playing games on their phones today, and tell me that 10 years ago, all those people were all playing games on their feature phones...
The games themselves will come and go, and in 5 or 10 years time we'll laugh at how crap Angry Birds or Candy Crush Saga was compared to <insert game> that everyone is playing now. You might not like the idea, but casual-mobile gaming is here to stay, and it represents, and will continue to represent, the much larger part of the games market (versus traditional "core" console and PC gaming)
The core gamer market is also expanding, as globalization makes people richer in China and other developing nations. That's why Tencent is top of the list with League of Legends and their casual mobile offerings. PS4 has been such a success because it was hyper-focused on the hardcore gamer end of the market. Nintendo just need to decide whether they want to recapture their casual Wii market or their earlier core-gamer followers. Right now they're in some confused middle ground that just isn't working
I understand what you're saying, but again...for every Candy Crush there are hundreds of game companies making the same "right" decisions and offering the same "right" product, while working hard and anticipating trends. Nine hundred and ninety nine will fail, or make modest profits and fade into the background of mobile gaming spam, only one shall be the chosen one.
To say there isn't a large element of dumb luck in some of these cases is a bit naive. Angry birds is probably the best example, because it was one of many blatant rip offs of Crush the Castle.
I'm not begrudging those few who manage to become overnight sensations or catch the zeitgeist and become the one out of a thousand that catch on and blow up into massive success. I'm not saying they didn't work hard or anticipate trends. However, I really do believe this is one reason why classic video game enthusiasts look down on mobile gaming.
If Nintendo did make that analysis, I think they came about a completely wrong conclusion for that. Casual gaming on phones predated the iPhone or Tablet, as Breakout was a common game of many phones that people played to pass time. And home casual gaming is still going strong, as games in the likes of the Just Dance and Wii Party series still sell very well. The way I see it there is a clear divide between casual gaming in the living room, which fills more of a "family game night" role, and casual gaming on a phone or tablet, which fills an individual role. Can you honestly tell me that casuals played Wii Sports and Wii Party alone even when the Wii was hot? It was clearly a group multiplayer experience.
Now at the same time, interest in the Wii did wane, partly because it didn't get any sort of update that kept people interested. If Apple never introduced an iPhone 5, and stuck with the 4 forever, interest in that would wane too. Nintendo made a mistake with Wii Motion + as they introduced it as a peripheral, something that won't pull the traction of a brand new console with a brand new idea. All Nintendo needed to do with their 8th Gen console is update what the Wii was. Simply advertising it as an HD Wii may have even done the trick, as upgrades to HD are popular in everything nowadays.
Firstly, I'd suggest casual games on console have suffered badly as a result of players switching to mobile. Just Dance does not sell anything like as well as it used to. MS dropping Kinect is another good, clear indicator that those sort of motion-controlled, casual games just aren't shifting consoles any more.
Secondly, I think the advent of smartphone gaming represented a step change in the acceptability of playing games to the mass general public who previously (still) don't consider themselves as "gamers". The groundwork for that shift in attitudes was laid by Wii, but also by facebook games such as farmville. Yes, prior to that, there was breakout or snake on phones, but take a look at a subway train full of people playing games on their phones today, and tell me that 10 years ago, all those people were all playing games on their feature phones...
The games themselves will come and go, and in 5 or 10 years time we'll laugh at how crap Angry Birds or Candy Crush Saga was compared to <insert game> that everyone is playing now. You might not like the idea, but casual-mobile gaming is here to stay, and it represents, and will continue to represent, the much larger part of the games market (versus traditional "core" console and PC gaming)
The core gamer market is also expanding, as globalization makes people richer in China and other developing nations. That's why Tencent is top of the list with League of Legends and their casual mobile offerings. PS4 has been such a success because it was hyper-focused on the hardcore gamer end of the market. Nintendo just need to decide whether they want to recapture their casual Wii market or their earlier core-gamer followers. Right now they're in some confused middle ground that just isn't working
I'd argue the drop in sales for Just Dance are more because of Market saturation and the transition between console gens. Just Dance really isn't a game you need to buy every iteration of, as it has heavy replay value, and unless you are a hardcore fan of the series, you aren't going to buy a new game just for new songs. And consider this, the best selling entries in the series were from 2012 and 2011, well after the iPhone and iPad launched.
Microsoft dropped Kinect because:
1. Kinect didn't work well
2. They didn't support it well.
The system was never successfully aimed at casuals in the first place.
Imagine if the Wii launched without Wii Sports, or if Wii Sports was a horrible game. It would have been a disaster.
Like I said mobile and home console still dwell in completely different realms. If we were talking about handheld consoles, I'd agree that mobile is definitely taking over, but casual gaming on home consoles has always been about local multiplayer, and that is something phones and tablets really don't do.
I wouldn't say the PS4 is successful because it focused on hardcore gamers. I'd say there are 30M of those max. It certainly focused on a non-casual market, people who enjoy and actively seek out games when they can, but that's much larger.
Now that all said, I agree the casual-mobile market is here to stay, but I don't think it makes any sense for Nintendo to enter it with their current type of games. I think we have seen time and time again that it's not a sustainable path for traditional game development. Hence the trouble Squeenix and Capcom run into. However, if Nintendo were to create more phone/tablet friendly games, I think they would find more success (they really should have bought PopCap before EA did).
Currently Playing: Steamworld Heist, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Tales of Graces F
@iKhan For sure, Nintendo (or anyone for that matter) need to design games from the ground up when targeting mobile: Both the touch screen, and the mode of being used in short 5 minutes or less periods. If they're worried about diluting their brand, just release the games under a different name and with new (or licensed from someone else) IP. Reworking existing games won't work
I understand what you're saying, but again...for every Candy Crush there are hundreds of game companies making the same "right" decisions and offering the same "right" product, while working hard and anticipating trends. Nine hundred and ninety nine will fail, or make modest profits and fade into the background of mobile gaming spam, only one shall be the chosen one.
To say there isn't a large element of dumb luck in some of these cases is a bit naive. Angry birds is probably the best example, because it was one of many blatant rip offs of Crush the Castle.
I'm not begrudging those few who manage to become overnight sensations or catch the zeitgeist and become the one out of a thousand that catch on and blow up into massive success. I'm not saying they didn't work hard or anticipate trends. However, I really do believe this is one reason why classic video game enthusiasts look down on mobile gaming.
The other part of "preparedness" is having the marketing strategy / budget in place. There are plenty of good mobile games out there that might have blown up and gone huge had the company making them had the budget to push installs off the back of initial strong organic growth around launch. Or you can simply play the numbers game as EA does, and just pump out a whole bunch of titles cheaply, cross promote, factor in the brand name recognition and/or existing IP to take those games over the break-even sales barriers. Then if one takes off in a truly big way, it is simply a case of having bought lots of lottery tickets. But EA's a little unique in that regard.
Also, recently someone was telling me about why Angry Birds succeeded where Crush the Castle didn't. The example they gave is that in the first level of Angry Birds, there is a cliff behind the structure you're trying to destroy. You basically can't fail the first level of Angry Birds, whereas Crush the Castle will just land you in a field if you overshoot. This isn't about dumbing down games either. The first level is really just a tutorial in disguise. Having the bird always hit is actually to give feedback, to teach the player what these birds do, and that you're supposed to use them to knock stuff down.
The first level of Super Mario Bros is usually cited as the gold standard for this style of teaching the player through gameplay and clever level design
I rather fancy console/pc gamers look down on mobile because mobile games are shallow; both in theme (kiddy stuff, no violent shooters), and immersion (gameplay loops lasting 2 minutes, not two hours). Plus they see them as a threat. Fear of change and tribalism.
Also, recently someone was telling me about why Angry Birds succeeded where Crush the Castle didn't. The example they gave is that in the first level of Angry Birds, there is a cliff behind the structure you're trying to destroy. You basically can't fail the first level of Angry Birds, whereas Crush the Castle will just land you in a field if you overshoot. This isn't about dumbing down games either. The first level is really just a tutorial in disguise. Having the bird always hit is actually to give feedback, to teach the player what these birds do, and that you're supposed to use them to knock stuff down.
The first level of Super Mario Bros is usually cited as the gold standard for this style of teaching the player through gameplay and clever level design
To defend one of my favorite Flash games, Crush the Castle's first level is a tutorial as well. It gives you 5 shots, and relatively simple targets. The difference is that CTC is a lot more challenging than Angry Birds, as controlling the Trebuchet involves careful timing. Also you have to consider that the basic idea of the game is in the title of Crush the Castle. If Super Mario Bros were called "Run Forward, Collect Powerups, and Jump on Enemies", the first level wouldn't be as necessary.
Currently Playing: Steamworld Heist, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Tales of Graces F
Forums
Topic: Nintendo 10th Biggest Games Company
Posts 21 to 33 of 33
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.