Topic: Why can't Nintendo make their own mobile phone instead of releasing games on IOS & Android?

I think the biggest problems with the idea of a portable system using a phone signal is who wants to pay for another data plan? Also there are no unlimited high speed data plans. You are going to have to pay more and you are going to have to limit how much you actually play. It just makes it too complicated, especially if it is not going to replace your current mobile device. If it does try to replace your mobile device then there are too many features people will expect and missing them will be hurtful to Nintendo. GPS, Facebook, Twitter, decent cameras, etc. All things people expect for their mobile devices and Nintendo would have to support those features. This idea just keeps getting more and more complicated to the point where there really is no place for Nintendo to win.

Mobile devices do a lot of things good enough for the normal users. People that want deeper experiences for certain features will spend the money for dedicated equipment. Do you want Nintendo to continue to focus on the experiences they are good at or try to make machines that don't really have a focus? I would rather Nintendo continue to make machines for the dedicated.

Nintendo making mobile apps is about trying to lure people that want those deeper experiences but don't know where to turn, towards Nintendo. Basically those Mobile apps will basically advertise Nintendo's dedicated gaming market.

@DefHalan:
I think most providers allow you to buy an extra sim. My provider charges $5/mo for a second sim (data only) which isn't too bad. Even so, tethering generally makes more sense because it's free. Not only free but it also means you don't have to buy the more expensive SKU either.

Thanks for engaging with me on this topic, but it seems you either haven't read my post very closely, or didn't understand it.

I'm not saying Nintendo should or shouldn't make a phone. I'm saying Nintendo should stick phone-capability in their next handheld console.

So they wouldn't be trying to "get their phone in the market" - they'd be getting their phone-call capable handheld in the market, which they've done ok at in the past if we ignore the phone-call bit (Gameboy and DS sales figures say 'hello' btw). Do you own a Nintendo portable? Would you not have bought it if it could make/receive phonecalls but cost 5-10% more? I would have bought mine.

All your talk of high-end/middle-end is irrelevant to my point as it wouldn't be directly competing with the standard smartphones.

Smartphone / Portable Gaming Device

• Touchscreen / Touchscreen
• Battery / Battery
• Speakers / Speakers
• Microphone / Microphone
• Micro/SD card slot / Micro/SD card slot
• Circuitboard / Circuitboard
• Camera / Camera
• Gyroscope / Gyroscope
• Operating system / Operating system

All of the above (I tried to make it a simple table but don't know how to format it here) are shared components. There's very little in a mobile phone that isn't already in the handhelds on the market today. I'm convinced it really wouldn't cost much at all to add telephony.

@Skywake: Most gadgets that offer a wifi-only SKU and a 3G/cell SKU are priced differently, with the 3G/cell being more expensive. This is a premium because it is a desirable function. It doesn't reflect the cost of manufacture, it's purely a marketing differentiation. Often you see different SKUs of phones etc. differentiated only by in-built memory (e.g. 16gb/32gb/64gb options) with a price difference between them that does not reflect the actual cost of manufacturing an extra few gbs of storage. It's because the market tends to work better when different budgets appear to be catered for. tl;dr - it wouldn't actually cost much at all, I don't think, to add the functionality, it would just be a case of deciding on whether Nintendo wanted to push it as a feature and therefore charge a premium, or throw it in charge it at close to cost price. In my head they should throw the functionality in as an extra and only increase the price in proportion with what the extra functionality costs.

Ok, so making a Nintendo phone is simply not possible and at the same time not feasible for Nintendo.

Thousands of developers and publishers fail to make profits when releasing their games on mobile. Recent Europe laws have forced developers to rethink about their microtransactions methods for making free to play games and even if done right, they end up going out of business.

Many developers instead of making original games end up reskinning existing games with different assets to give the illusion that its an original game. Bejeweled is a ripoff of Columns( Sega Genesis) and Candy Crush is a rip off of Bejeweled. Despite this, Candy Crush ended up making billions and is now under the ownership of Activision.

So where am I going here? Well the question now is this....How is Nintendo going to market their games?

Before some say that this is a stupid question, I assure you that marketing a mobile game is a nightmare compared to a traditional console game/PC game. Infact, Dedicated gaming is healthier than what Mobile gaming will ever be thanks to the marketing being more flexible unlike Mobile gaming.

The mobile marketing suffers for a few reasons.

Only the top downloaded games appear on the stores. The unlucky ones either have to rely on publishers or from rare to find reviewers.
Consumers who are into mobile gaming are not interested in original games. This means that those on Mobile won't know something like Advance Wars something which @skywake seems to believe otherwise. And finally.
Unlike Console gaming where the search engine is friendly, the mobile gaming forces developers to try to simplify their game titles while at the same time, use existing keywords known to mobile users. This means that developers can't use original game titles like Deii for example. How is this bad? Because there are a zillion apps out there that use the exact same keywords that unless you have an agency/Publisher, its incredibly hard to market your game on your own. I have experienced this when making my first mobile game and Its barely thousand downloads and its only popular in China.
While Nintendo has a division called Business Development, One division alone won't make profit for them marketing their games on mobile

i can't see Nintendo leading the Mobile market better then Google and Apple is now. it be better if they just release there mobile games for Android/iOS. then trying make there own Mobile Phone

@Socar: to determine if Nintendo can be successful in the mobile you have to look at how they are entering the market. Nintendo is not giving up on the Home Console or Portable Console market. They are going to continue to make games for dedicated gaming machines. Nintendo is not making big budget games for mobile. They are making smaller games and releasing fairly frequently. A lot of developers that fail in the mobile market make only 1 game and expect it to be a hit and make them money for longer than a few months. Nintendo is using the mobile market to reach a wider audience and try to get people interested in Nintendo's Consoles and other software. A lot of other mobile developers, even EA and such, don't do this. They treat mobile as its own separate market and very rarely reference things outside of it except for advertisments. Also you keep mentioning the Child Protective stuff about Micro Transactions, those have had little effect on a lot of devs. Sure, some have shut down but most were able to get around those laws pretty easily. I don't think Nintendo, who normally puts children first, has anything to worry about.

Nintendo is actually being very cautious about entering the mobile market and is on the right path in my opinion. The mobile market can be a crazy place and there are things to be worried about, but there is no reason to believe that Nintendo is going to be hurt that much if their mobile strategy completely fails. The idea behind Nintendo's mobile strategy seems to be minimum investment and long term planning, which is a very safe way to approch the market and most big companies that fail on mobile do the opposite. Large investments expecting a quick turn around. I think Nintendo is doing exactly what they need to be successful, not just in their mobile area but as a business.

Let me know when you have some evidence to prove these facts you clearly pulled out of your rear end and then we'll talk.

@gcunit
From what I can tell from a quick googling it's about $20-30US for the mobile chip itself. About half of what the WiFi/Bluetooth module costs. Obviously they charge even more than that over the top because they can. But even so, that misses my point. Unless it's a phone most people don't really care about the mobile connectivity anyway. The people who do care will pay that premium but the vast majority don't care.

@Socar
It's really quite simple. They're entering into the mobile space because it's a different platform entirely. There is content they can release that will work better on mobile than it ever could on a traditional portable or home console. So when you suggest they release their own thing? You're missing the point. Because how would their own thing not just be another portable?

You also put a comment in there about my view on what Nintendo could do. My suggestion that Advance Wars would be a nice fit for iOS/Android. I know you think that this is insane for whatever reason. But consider this, Hearthstone has 40mill accounts. It has been downloaded over 10mill times on Google Play. It's very much a "gamers" mobile game. So why do you assume that only sub-par content is worthwhile?

Really, you're not making much sense here.

But that's not much different from saying "Unless it's a camera people don't care about the photographic capabiliy anyway", and yet the quality of a camera on a smartphone very much does make a difference to people's buying choices.

Take an average parent of an average 8 year old kid. Are they going to drop $$$ on a smartphone for the kid? Maybe. Are they going to drop $$$ on a handheld gaming device for the kid? Maybe. Are they going to buy both? Perhaps, but I bet they'd prefer to just buy one. At the moment the smartphone is the obvious choice for most, for security purposes primarily (can I phone Jonny? can Jonny phone me?) but give a gaming device the same basic feature and suddenly the scales are much more balanced.

Nintendo desperately needs to maintain strong links with the 5-15 market. If they're not going to produce a kid-friendly mobile phone (which I doubt many people would think is a good idea currently), how else are they going to prevent all that cash from parents only willing to fork out on one device going to the smartphone industry? At the moment parents don't really have a credible alternative choice from the smartphone. My idea creates that credible alternative, plusit also becomes attractive to the parents that might have bought both devices but can see the sense in saving money and pocket space and just buying one instead.

Who seriously wants to carry (and maintain battery charge for) two devices - one for gaming, one for phone etc. - when you could just carry one?

What is the 'mobile chip' you mention (I'm not being sarky, I honestly don't know what components a mobile phone needs that are different to a 3DS other than the antenna and sim card bits and bobs)? Do you mean the CPU - cos a 3DS has one of them too.

Because the tech stack dictates environment > architecture > platform > ecosystem > software.

Nintendo has the platform thing almost down - cross platform in their own ecosystem, hopefully within reach from nx onwards - and is, at points, crossing into architecture, or at least trying to.

The mobile space has environment all set up, so they'd always have a lesser experience in the long run.

@Aviator: http://www.polygon.com/2015/10/19/9567017/the-mobile-games-ma...

http://gamasutra.com/blogs/MartinChamrad/20160204/265173/The_...

Proof enough?

How does that apply to Nintendo...those are about indy games.

@arronishere: Because companies like SEGA and Capcom are also suffering as well.

Infact Sonic Runners is a flop according to SEGA.

http://segabits.com/blog/2016/02/08/sega-considers-sonic-runn...

@DefHalan: Look, I'm just saying that its just impossible for Nintendo to reach their "Nintendo profits" because Mobile is something that is simply difficult to compete in and I still have doubts whether it will bring those users to dedicated game consoles or not.

When Pokemon Go is out, what would make those users move to Nintendo's main hardware when they are just fine with Go? Why would those users want to get the main pokemon series on the main systems? It just to me doesn't make any sense since people often complain about how expensive games for dedicated game systems are and yet neither Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft have any plans to reduce their price for the games they have released. To make those users pay more for the main hardware unlike in mobile where you don't pay a LOT just can't motivate them to move to their main hardware.

With this in mind, many seem to believe that sooner than later, Nintendo will eventually betray its hardware division and just focus on mobile which is bad for both Nintendo and for us consumers since we would mostly end up not playing their games anymore because of them not being as engaging as dedicated systems.

That's why I'm saying that Nintendo could invest a little more on a mobile system which has its own OS. That way, it looks like a dedicated system and at the same time, is affordable (even though their consoles are still affordable).

@skywake: Heartstone is basically a card game and putting digital cards on a phone is even riskier because those people might as well play actual cards. Again, that still doesn't change the fact that its sheer luck that it made it big.

You know that Rovio's Angry Birds like is the 53rd game Rovio made? Its just a reskin of Crush the Castle and that's that. It does nothing different than the others.

Content better on Mobile? What is better on Mobile that isn't on a portable gaming system like the 3DS?

If anything, the content is just plain cheap and its not even worth any penny. Unless the game is something like Temple run where money isn't forced on you, content is more of you spending money to get actual items that neither benefits your progress nor does it benefit you either because you spent so much to get so little on it.

Heck, its bad enough that people rant about Fates being a cash grab when its clearly not and yet, If Nintendo would supposedly do the same thing on Mobile, that makes sense all of a sudden because putting its more suitable for mobile because it'll be cheap?

You do realize that SE releases quality games at high prices and yet somehow, they still make profit.

If at all Nintendo is going to make huge content on a phone game, there is no way that it will be better than making a dedicated smartphone because it will reach the same amount as it will take for making a phone.

@Socar: It is impossible for Nintendo to make Profit on the Mkbile market which will lead Nintendo to leaving the dedicated gaming market and making nothing but mobile games where they will continue not to make profit... that doesn't make any sense.

Also people will play Pokemon Go, and enjoy it but the limitations of the game will hold back some players. Those players will want a deeper experience, they will look at other Pokemon games and want to try them out. That is how Nintendo will most likely use the mobile market.

This.

And don't forget, their presence on Android and iOS alone might not always result in more of their own hardware and software sales, but brand awareness will definitely improve, which also lead to more merchandise sales and such. There are more ways to make money than just selling hardware and software alone. Brand awareness; however, is the most important thing right now.

I asked for facts. Not opinions.

It's a false comparison because as you said people do care about the quality of the camera in a smartphone. What I was saying was that people generally don't care about mobile connectivity in anything that's not a smartphone. That's something reflected in the sales.

A better comparison would be to say that people generally don't care about Netflix playback on consoles. Not because Netflix isn't something they want but more because they can live without it. Everything does Netflix these days, odds are most people can already play it on their TV. If it was a $50-100US premium for the Netflix SKU? Nobody would buy it.

I suspect most parents give their kids a hand-me-down phone and lock it down so they can only really make/receive calls. You can get <$50AU fairly basic phones for new that'll do this. They'll likely disable things like data and purchases just to keep everything in check.

If I was a parent I certainty wouldn't be buying the mobile SKU of a gaming system for them. If anything I'd get the more basic SKU and tell them not to take it to school so it doesn't get lost/stolen/broken. A cheap phone I couldn't care less, a portable gaming system? Especially a higher tier model? Bugger that.

Most of those features on any electronic devices are also physically chips. But rather than explaining it I'll show you. This is the teardown of the 3G version of the Vita:
https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/PlayStation+Vita+Teardown/7872

Step 10 & 11 show all of the mobile hardware, the WiFi only model doesn't have this
Step 20 shows a bunch of other components including the WiFi/Bluetooth module

@Aviator: Those aren't opinions, those are facts coming from actual developers themselves, especially from gamasutra.

@Octane: If its brand awareness that is the key problem here, all Nintendo has to do for that is give license to various studios and comic writers to produce Shows, Movies, Comics and board games. Infact, Fire Emblem has a trading card game but its just not localized here that's the problem.

Mobile will be the least problem for having brand awareness. Infact like I said, its just a cheap way of users getting access to the IP that's it. I am still not convinced that them making apps on mobile will make those users come to the main hardware one bit.

Odds are that those who own the games on the phone will most likely not want to buy the main hardware because of the sheer fact that its cheaper than the software on the main hardware.

@DefHalan: It doesn't look like there will be any limits of the game seeing as how you can use the main game series to get more pokemon. How will that limit the players? whatever Game Freak does it on the main systems is easy for them to do it in mobile.

Infact, because Pokemon doesn't rely so much of the controls, the series can easily work on the phone so why would those players want to get the main hardware when they develop the illusion of patience that Game Freak will abandon Pokemon on main hardware and just focus on mobile? Come to think of it, what is it that requires pokemon to be on the main hardware when RPG's work terrifically on mobile?

@Socar: Again, you have this belief that Nintendo is going to enter the mobile market, fail, stop making dedicated gaming hardware and devote more effots towards mobile, continue to fail, and there is no stopping this because once Nintendo releases a mobile game that is the only place they are allowed to release software.

This is crazy. We know almost nothing about Pokemon Go or Nintendo's other mobile projects. All we know about these projects is that Nintendo has said tome and time again that they are not leaving the dedicated gaming market. We have also heard that Nintendo wants to leverage the mobile market to promote other areas or their business. Your arguments are based on companies that were in trouble before entering the mobile market and then they bet big on that market, which is not Nintendo's situation. Rather than continuing pushing your point, look outside of your point of view and think about what you are saying. Nintendo is not going to run itself into the ground, they are being very cautious and aren't rushing into anything.

''its just a cheap way of users getting access to the IP that's it.''

''its just a cheap way of users getting access to the IP that's it.''

''its just a cheap way of users getting access to the IP that's it.''

And that's why it's a great way to expand brand awareness; It's cheap and almost everybody has access to it. Localising a Fire Emblem card game isn't going to solve that problem, because the only people buying that game is the FE fanbase.

Not sure if you've been paying attention, but they are looking to expand in other directions as well: movies and theme parks for example. Mobile; however, is the most logical choice. Since they are game developers themselves, they know how to make great games. I don't see your issue with this. If you're not interested, don't buy the mobile games, they aren't going to replace their home and handheld console games. There's no loss.