Gearbox's Randy Pitchford caused a bit of a stir recently when he stated that the chances of Borderlands 3 coming to Nintendo Switch were slim, and that negotiations between his company and Nintendo had apparently stalled.
Responding to a question on Twitter, Pitchford appeared to suggest that Nintendo wasn't interested, and had "other priorities" - a comment which predictably generated quite a bit of interest and debate not only on this site but many others across the web.
Pitchford has spoken to Glixel about this exchange and has clarified his statements. He says that his comment about Nintendo having its focus elsewhere wasn't meant as a negative:
Somebody asked me, "Hey, is there any chance of Borderlands coming to the Switch?" and I said "Probably not." I don't remember my exact words, but [I said] we were talking to them, but I think they have other priorities. And it's not a slight, they've got to drive their business. Nintendo tends to be at their best when they're giving us their best experiences with their properties. I think there might be some scenarios where if the Switch becomes a place where there's a huge number of customers, and it doesn't compromise the experience that we're making – there could be a scenario where us or Take-Two and 2K decide to take the effort to make it happen. But we can't really think about that right now. And Nintendo, I think wisely, can't prioritize forcing that to happen. I think they're better off. What it would take for them to guarantee that we exist on the Switch would be better spent by them doing the things they're best at. It wasn't meant as a slight, it's just the reality of priorities.
Nintendo, in my opinion... they're more awesome toward third parties than I've ever experienced them, so I'm afraid anything I say here's going to sound like a slight. But it's still not enough of an engagement to force things to happen, that wouldn't happen just naturally. If that makes sense.
He also gave the opinion that Borderlands 3 is perhaps the wrong type of game for Switch, in that most people who will want to play it on Nintendo's hybrid will probably also buy the PS4 or Xbox One version, making a Switch edition somewhat redundant. He asserts that for Switch to be a success, Nintendo needs to focus on bringing experiences to the system which cannot be obtained elsewhere:
There's probably a handful of people that would really love to have a great Borderlands experience that you can have on a screen about that size, that you can carry around with you. But most of the people that want the kind of big stuff that we're doing are totally happy to do it on their television with their PlayStations and their Xboxes. And Nintendo's not going to win by trying to take people away from that. They're going to win by offering something that those guys can't offer, which is exactly what they're doing and should be doing. That's where they should dedicate their resources. And I think they're really smart for doing it, and it's kind of what I want from them as a gamer.
The Gearbox boss then went on to voice his disappointment at how his comments had been misconstrued as an attack on Nintendo and its current strategy:
I don't know if I'd call it a mistake, but sometimes, I'll let people in on a little point of view, and then somehow everything gets misconstrued as this, like, horrible competition, or this Game of Thrones scenario. It's like Jesus, man, we're all just trying to entertain the world and everybody's just doing the best they can. Everybody tends to get along on the industry level, especially when we have means of collaborating. It bugs me that I can make a random reply to a random guy when, I'm just saying, "No, they have other priorities." And they should. Anyone who's smartly looking at it thinks that makes a lot of sense. But as a consequence of folks reading into that, somebody probably distracted some people that are probably pretty busy at Nintendo for a minute to think about this and wonder what I meant by it. We shouldn't be spending our mindshare on that. That's what f**king politicians should be doing. Not gamemakers. We should be focused on what matters, which is creating good experiences for people.
Pitchford also expresses his love and adoration for Nintendo, and explains why he's so excited for Switch:
I love Nintendo and I think the Switch is awesome. I can't wait. I've been a Nintendo fan my entire life, and literally the first game my wife and I played together when we were teenagers was on the NES. One of the things I've struggled with with Nintendo is I've always loved their portable experience, but I've always hated that the best Nintendo has to offer goes on their console. From the moment I had a Game Boy up through the most recent iterations of the DS, I've loved having that Nintendo portable with me that I can game with, with a really high quality game experience wherever I go. But I've hated that it's always felt a little compromised compared to the big bets Nintendo would make on their console platform.
Well, now that's one and the same. The very best that Nintendo has to offer as creators will exist simultaneously in console and portable versions, which I think is amazing and exciting. A bunch of people mentioned to me that I've gotten some attention for something. Sometimes, when I go to the bathroom, I'll get on Twitter and I'll just kind of look at what people are tweeting at me and I'll sometimes respond to some of them.
Twitter isn't the best place to explain yourself given the almost crippling character limit, but it's good to hear that Pitchford is a fan of the Switch concept. Do you think he has a point when he says that Nintendo shouldn't be chasing ports of games that can already be enjoyed on rival systems, and should instead focus on making sure that Switch has something that no one else can offer? As ever, we want to hear your point of view so be sure to post a comment below.
[source glixel.com]
Comments 89
I remember people saying the same thing about the Wii U......
His reasoning is sound. If you want to play a flashy graphic fps, chances are you aren't going to want to play it on a six inch screen. The Switch IS really a super enhanced handheld, even if I'll primarily play it on the tv.
Shame that cos I would of snapped that up day 1. Borderlands on my lunch break?! Yes please!
Glad to hear that he is twitting in the bathroom
Dude comes across well. I think the Indies Nindies will be a big thing for the switch early on. Games on the go that don't drain battery but are a cut above iPhone ipad.
Well the rule is, "never touch anything in the bathroom that will get you into trouble. Wait until you're in the bedroom."
This all makes sense, the Vita found that FPSs didn't sell as well as Sony thought they would. I remember a friend saying he'd buy Call of Duty to play anywhere... and I had to ask if he really wanted to play a competitive game like that in poor light & on the bus? That would be a pretty crappy game experience. Plus getting headshotted due to a pothole is the worst!
@Antray1984 I've been using mobile chargers for a while, you can get good quality battery packs upward of 30,000mAh for under £50 if you know where to look. What's that... an additional 18hrs on BoTW?
I DO DISAGREE, to an extent.
I think once people have tried playing a game like Borderlands in local co-op anywhere, anytime, they'll love it.
I strongly disagree with this notion that some games are 'portable' games and some games are 'home' games. I like gaming, and the more places and more conveniently I can do it, the better. The fact that I can also dock the portable experience to blow it up on a big tv when practical is even better.
If Borderlands 3 came to Switch, why the heck would I bother buying the Xbox/PS/PC version as well? Price would be the only thing to sway me. Slight graphical/performance differences wouldn't.
Though admittedly, as each joy con only had one thumbstick, there would be control compromises to be overcome, but I'm sure most games could use the gyros to work around it.
@DanteSolablood You can't dock the Vita. And you can't play 2 player local co-op with one system on Vita.
This is why Switch is a different proposition and developers are daft for dismissing it if you ask me.
@gcunit I had considered that & agree with you that developers are missing a trick in treating the home console aspect seriously. I can see a lot of people buying it to play at home... with the portability being a deciding factor when buying.
The opposite of why I'd buy it basically.
I wonder whether it's developers or Nintendo that is driving the mindset of "has to work in portable".. this pov seems a bit too common to simply be Lyin' Randy Pitchford.
The issue here is that Nintendo are selling this a home console not a handheld so FPS games from 3rd parties should be ok.
We, as Nintendo fans need to realise that the Switch, in the eyes of many Devs, is still a Wii U. Yes it has the option to be used as a handheld, but it's still a Nintendo console not a mainstream system like PlayStation or Xbox. 3rd parties will not bring their big franchises to it unless it sells well.
BUT it's going to be a great Nintendo console and that's what really matters to us.
I would like a port of Tomb Raider and I guess some PlayStation folk would like a port of a Mario game.
1) this statement is crisis management following the initial Tweet
2) Didn't they bring aBorderlands port to Vita?
3) You can chuck around all the platitudes in the world but they don't really matter if you don't put your money where your mouth is...
I agree that Nintendo should prioritise doing their own thing, but also having games that you COULD play on PS & Xbox is a good thing too. Why get it for Xbox when I could get it for Switch and play it wherever I go?
I guess he thinks there's not much of a market for his games on Nintendo just yet. I, for one, would give Borderlands another go if it were on Nintendo. I'm sure lots of people here would love to have it 'on the go', as well.
I'll be getting Sonic Mania on the Switch so I can play that bad boy everywhere. My point being - from now on, any multi-plat that comes to Switch - I'll be getting the Switch version!
But most of the people that want the kind of big stuff that we're doing are totally happy to do it on their television with their PlayStations and their Xboxes. And Nintendo's not going to win by trying to take people away from that.
Randy Pitchford understands Nintendo (and the market) much better than some fans, it seems.
I think The devs should develop to as many platforms as possible, and let The gamers decide If they'll play Their games on a Nintendo, PlayStation, Xbox or PC.
I understand The "I won't develop for the Wii U because It is underpowered" chat, but as long as I know, NS ports are very easy to do, so, no excuses, please.
It seems that Borderlands would sell Very Well on the Switch, so this kind of statement is Just dummy.
@MadJay1664
Love your avatar pic!
@Moon I'm as excited for a traditional Sonic game as I am for Zelda.
This quote:
"The very best that Nintendo has to offer as creators will exist simultaneously in console and portable versions, which I think is amazing and exciting. "
Me too buddy, me too!
@MarcelRguez agreed.
"Nintendo, in my opinion... they're more awesome toward third parties than I've ever experienced them, so I'm afraid anything I say here's going to sound like a slight. But it's still not enough of an engagement to force things to happen, that wouldn't happen just naturally. If that makes sense."
Translation: They made more powerful hardware but it's still not powerful enough.
I'm pretty sure they said the same thing about the Wii U
You can get it with PlayStation, it's just slightly less comfortable to carry with you...
@Monkeyofthefunk same here, buddy! It's been way too long.
@Moon it has mate. 3d Sonic just doesn't work.
You certainly can't get anything like 1-2-Switch on other consoles. And that's why they sell.
@BionicDodo Haha, I saw that build. Shame it doesn't have a battery.
Yes I totally get what this guy is saying!
I never understand the "they said that about Wii U too..." comments. Of course game makers said optimistic things about Wii U. A Nintendo sales rep also said it would sell 100 million. Nintendo is a serious player in the industry and the people know it.
Even though I'm not a fan of FPS's or Borderlands at all, I really think nintendo needs them to come to the Switch...if not, they have most of those consumers backing away from it. His statement is very true about people owning the Switch and also a PS4 or XBONE...I'd have the Switch and PS4, but there's other reasons why I'd rather play on PS4 than the Switch...trophies and better graphics are two things, but also...I like the PS4 controller better...and this is myself looking at the Switch's controllers, which one looks like a big dreamcast controller and the classic controllers never felt right in my hands...now, if nintendo gets me the controller that truly is my favorite, then we'll have a deal...PS, it's the Gamecube that felt right and what I would call the best controller...sometimes I wish nintendo would keep the same controllers like Sony does, but that will never happen.
@gcunit "I strongly disagree with this notion that some games are 'portable' games and some games are 'home' games. I like gaming, and the more places and more conveniently I can do it, the better. The fact that I can also dock the portable experience to blow it up on a big tv when practical is even better."
I completely agree with this. If I want to play Borderlands 3 as it stands now, I will ONLY be able to play it on my PS4 on my TV in my family room. If it came to Switch, I could play it there if I chose, or in my bedroom, or in the bathroom, or at work, or anywhere else I choose. I could even play it on the couch while I watch a football game on the TV, etc. I think devs are missing the fact that the versatility is what sells this. Give me the choice at launch between 4k graphics (which I can't use) or portability, and I'll buy the Switch version without question.
@BinaryFragger personally, I think Sony's cross-play, cross-save (and cross-buy) model between the Vita and its home console brethren is more ideal setup for people who like to switch between portable and couch play. It covers all the bases. It kept home consoles as powerful as they could be, and the handheld still pretty much portable. I'm really sad that it didn't click. Even the remote play concept, on paper, is really good: use the power of the home console while you play on the go.
@gcunit no, i think he actually is spot on. All the times I played my games Off TV on my Wii U, unless they were a virtual console game, i kept wanting it back on the TV and surround sound to get the full experience. He nailed it with this quote, and is why Switch's appeal will not be one that is mainstream:
"There's probably a handful of people that would really love to have a great Borderlands experience that you can have on a screen about that size, that you can carry around with you. But most of the people that want the kind of big stuff that we're doing are totally happy to do it on their television with their PlayStations and their Xboxes. And Nintendo's not going to win by trying to take people away from that."
Just swap out the word Borderlands with AAA.
@bonham2 dude, there's already been an entire generation now, called the Wii U, where people have had this ability (save for the playing at work part) and the mainstream largely shrugged their shoulders at it. It's not an appeal the masses share with you. Basically, it's not something to base your system's entire gimmick around and yet, Nintendo did just that.
@gcunit actually, what I've played of Resident Evil Revelations so far has left me convinced that gyro aiming is where it's at in FPS. But do home consoles offer that control option much even when they haave gyro tech in the controllers?
Yeah but are you going to release a game on Switch/
You're a fool if you take anything Randy Pitchford says seriously.
I agree with Randy, I also want exclusive experiences on from Nintendo and third parties on the Switch. Or any Nintendo console/handheld really because I have a PS4 and PC so why would I get a whole other machine just for a third chance to play the same exact content?
@BionicDodo man, if these were sold here, I wouldn't care about lesser comfort. As long as it fits in a laptop-size shoulder bag...
I find it hysterical that the Kool-Aid drinkers are taking his PR spin so seriously. I suppose that's because most of you were on the Wii U you that you weren't subject to the Colonial Marines debacle. Most of us that were wouldn't believe Pitchford if he said that sky was blue. By all means though, continue to believe the Switch will be a smash success because of all of the games it won't be able to offer to the preponderance of consoles gamers that are used to a certain experience.
I wouldn't have expected such a coherent and genuine commentary from Pitchford of all people. But overall well said.
But as with others, I'd disagree the Borderlands wouldn't fit well on Switch. Local lan party either with split screen local play or multiple Switches would in many ways be the ideal way to play a group ARPG like that. It's a missed opportunity for Borderlands fans, though I can't disagree with Pitchford that I don't know how much business potential it would have in general. OTOH, Bordlerlands made it to the Vita.....if it could go on Vita and make business sense, how could it not make business sense on the Switch that even in worst case should sell better than Vita and should sell many times better in markets where Borderlands actually matters (read: anywhere but Japan.)
Reading his wording and reading between the not so thin lines, it seems to me like the talks were about Nintendo funding the project, and that they have other priorities [for that money] than paying 2K to port Switch as Sony and XBox have. Nothing wrong with Gearbox/2K working that way as it's normal for 3rd parties, and nothing wrong with Nintendo not paying for it, as even Pitchford said, they have other pariorities. But taking the context and wording here, my take-away is that this wasn't "hey N, we wan't to port our game to Switch" "ohh, we're not sure if we want it but we'll call you." It sounds more like "Hey N, would you be willing to pay $xxxxx.00 for us to bring Borderlands to Switch" "Ohh, we're not against it and we're considering it, however, that's not a priority for us at the time and we'll let you know in the future if the situation becomes favorable."
@ULTRA-64 I don't know who you remember saying that but it sounds like they didn't know what they were talking about, and it certainly wasn't a common opinion at the time. Wii U didn't offer anything PS4 and Xbox One didn't do except for a screen on the controller which is a meaningless gimmick. One that can be fun sure, (I loved my Wii U) but not a game changer. Switch is not comparable to that at all, handheld, tabletop and console in one, right out of the box? Motion controls, pointer controls, touch controls, or traditional controller right out of the box? Massive game changer and not comparable to Wii U at all.
I lost a lot of respect for Pitchford after all of the ALIENS: COLONIAL MARINES back and forth. My cousin in-law knows him and says that he's a really nice guy, but it seems to me like he says what needs to be said in the moment. Very business minded, for sure. I will say this for the guy, he is a wonderful front-man for Gearbox.
@DanteSolaBlood best words of wisdom I've heard in a while. That's what you get for tweeting and multitasking.
To me this was part covering his self, part honest opinion of how the switch can do well. I think he's hesitant to scale a game down for Tegra X1, wondering if it's worth the money to port if people want better graphics elsewhere...I think he's wrong but we'll see. Indies will definitely dominate if big players stay back.
@gatorboi352 (a) The Wii U is not the same thing as the Switch. One is 'take anywhere, with 2 controllers built in', the other isn't.
If you had a PS3 and a Vita, and Sony sold two versions of the same game, which would you choose: the version that could only run on the PS3, or the version that cold run on your PS3 and your Vita?
(b) Maybe I'm just one of the handful, but the majority of my Wii U hours were off-tv.
I think he's pretty much right. Even if the Nintendo Switch provided a comparably powerful experience to PS4 and Xbone, there are 70 million + players already invested in those systems with the generation set to continue for the foreseeable. I think Switch does need to provide something different.
I'd not thought about it before, but I've already managed to sustain 2 consoles in the WiiU and 3DS. Having the Switch and PS4 or PC isn't that much of a leap.
I have $300 burning a whole in my pocket. I have a Wii U, 2 Xbox Ones, PS3, 3DS XL, PS Vita, Vita TV and a Gaming PC.
For that $300 if I could find one I could get a Switch that would be useless because I only have $300.
Or, for $300 I can get a PS4 Slim with Uncharted 4, Final Fantasy XV and a 2nd controller.
I think it is a no brainer. Maybe I will consider a Switch come Black Friday 2018.
its nice to know that theyre is no bad blood between the 2 and its still a possibility
Yeah they offer a weak console,over priced garbage,toys,no third party support,awful droughts and much much more.Randy you're right Nintendo offers something you can't get on Playstation and Xbox.
@gcunit
Nailed it in one. The switch begs for games like this. I love borderlands and I'm a sony guy with all their consoles, and I would buy borderlands 3 for my Switch first and foremost.
I do understand that isn't everyone's opinion, and I make that statement assuming the switch version wasn't gimped beyond playability. Borderlands is the type of game that would be great to play both local co-op and solo. I hope there is shooter that makes its way to the switch(I can't really do splatoon, I need a shooter with an offline single player)
So why ANY 3RD party game PERIOD?? From FPS to platformers to every genre under the sun.. it's a STUPID comment.. Gamers want games!! You don't grow your company by shutting out potential customers who don't own either of those consoles or a PC.. This is stupidity at it's finest. And trust me I don't need it on Switch, I have plenty of alternative ways to play, however I would purchase a Switch version of just about ANY 3rd party game for the fact I can bring it with me ANYWHERE and I will NEVER EVER have to rely on OLD TV input technology so my chances of playing them at a later point in time is higher. It's just a better value proposition for the entirety of ownership.
Man, I disagree on several levels...
1) Maybe if they invested in building a Switch port of Borderlands, it would boost the switch audience and they'd have more people buying the next release. It's the same chicken-and-egg conundrum we had with the Wii U: fewer people buy it because there are few great games, but developers of great games wait till there are more people buying the console!
2) He treats the Switch solely as a handheld. First, it's not. Nintendo treats it as a home device. And second, even if it is a handheld, why would he assume people don't want to play big games on the go? Just look at the major launch title! Legend of Zelda is not your typical 'pick up and play for 5 minutes' titile!
This attitude just makes me sad, when I think other developers might think the same.
Yes, and Nintendo has learned a lot about being different. On DS and Wii, they learned how it can be strengths; on 3DS and Wii U they learned how badly it can go if they don't execute well.
Wasn't the Wii U also supposed to succeed because of that?
@BiasedSonyFan right. Of course they are. Just like they did with Wii U.
@AVahne exactly.
Look, as long as developers and Gamers and really anybody keeps coming out with a narrative that X game isn't suited for X Nintendo platform, Nintendo is never going to succeed. Nintendo is gaming. Any and all games should, in theory, be on any Nintendo platform. There is no reason any type of games should skip a Nintendo platform.
Granted, Nintendo decided at some point in the last decade to shoehorn themselves into a corner, so they really only have themselves to blame.
Im pretty sure most devs would like their games to come out on every system if possible. I dont think there is any negative here at all. But Nintendo has been known for doing it their way in the past. They have also been known for bringing the exclusive titles to their systems. I dont think that has necessarily been great for Nintendo the last few years. I think people want to see some of those games from other systems now. I hope Switch will change all that and bring in more of those games on other systems we normally dont see.
I like him.
My problem is that the Switch is being explained by so many as supplemental to your XBox or your PS4; which, might be OK and I hope it thrives. But it's not what I want and it's not priced like a supplemental system at all (especially considering peripherals) so I have to make a choice.
This is made further baffling because Nintendo is trying to sell it as a powerful home console that can travel if you want and they are holding back on the "portable" rhetoric. Well, if they plan on delivering huge HD experiences that can also be carried over to a small screen then games like Borderlands should be there and not be gimped. I still fear that Switch is a Jack of all Trades, Master of None.
@bonham2 I agree, but 4K aside, do you think that the Switch versions of multiplatform titles will at least be on par with those currently being released on first edition PS4s or XBoxOnes?
Skyrim has been graphically and technically surpassed on those systems so it is a poor example of whether or not the Switch can keep up with current releases. If it can't I don't think devs will bother because people won't buy a gimped version of a AAA title.
It is a big problem for my decision making.
I don't want my switch to be a port machine of old games.... I want developers to make games from scratch on it. New games please.
@MrGawain to be honest I play first person shooters better on a small screen than a large screen. The different in how I do in Destiny during pvp matches is pretty significant. Maybe not for everyone but for me playing on a 55" my reaction time and aim is must worse than when I play on a much smaller screen. I'd welcome the opportunity to play shooters on the switch screen, I'd go as far as considering that an advantage.
@gatorboi352
I think you have a point, nintendo has shoehorned themselves. On the other hand they have created a fantastic gaming experience. To me their games are about fun. Some people say they are for kids, to me they are for everybody. Its not about kids games but about games that everyone can enjoy and have fun.
When it comes to third parties I must say that not all games (that get great reviews) are fun to play, they are mostly about graphics, gore and violence. Nintendo is like safehaven for a different gamer, one who values different aspects in gaming and is willing to pay for a game that ps4 or xb1 gamers wouldnt spend a dollar on and maybe vice versa. I like that nintendo didnt follow trends but set trends themselves, sometimes they succeed, sometimes not. They make a lot of mistakes with marketing and their approach to their fans is not always spot on. But their games are still great to me, and thats why I will eventually buy the switch even though its gonna be more expensive than I thought.
The thing is, and he doesn't think this is true I guess, Borderlands 3 would look just fine on a big screen tv with the Switch as the console. It may have a few less bells and whistles but unless Nintendo and Nvidia really really cheaped out on the GPU it should be fine especially since now Nintendo is finally using the correct architecture and libraries that all the other consoles use.
It's like all of these 3rd party developers are saying that the Switch is going to be successful as way of saying that it will be fine without their help, as an excuse not to develop for it.
According to this article, Switch has already succeeded.
@gcunit A game like Animal Crossing is best as a mobile game. You need to be able to play the game at any time to find time for certain events or activities, which works the best in a portable setting.
Something like Overwatch is going to be limited to home consoles or PC because of it's always online nature. The possibilities of playing such a game away from home are quite limited.
@BiasedSonyFan
Nintendo lost money on the Wii U. They may may have made money on the Gamecube but we'll never know for sure because they didn't break out profits between the Gamecube and GBA.
@BiasedSonyFan
https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2016/annual1603e.pdf
2012-2016 Operating Profit (millions Yen)
2012 -37,320
2013 -36,410
2014 -46,425
2015 27,770
2016 32,881
Cumulative -59,504,000,000 Yen
This shows the bind 'Nintendo is in with third-party support these days. Pitchford has a point about a few things. Switch needs to be different from the other two consoles to succeed. New AAA games probably aren't going to sell the system. Having all Nintendos games (after they finish with 3DS) on one system is one of the exciting things about the Switch.
Third-party publishers have more than enough evidence that third-party games (exclusives, bad ports, good ports) struggle to sell on Nintendo platforms. Lots of them struggle. Putting something like Borderlands 3 on Switch would be a gamble and while we'll never know how it would have sold (making it hard to judge whether they've made the right decision or not) its understandable they're not bothering.
Maybe what it needs is Nintendo to incentivise such games. They're putting out things like 12Switch to see if the Wii market still exists, why not help fund and advertise Borderlands 3? See how a fully-featured Switch version sells? They also have reasons for not doing so. The belief (rightly or wrongly) that their console doesn't need it. The worry that the Switch version will underperform compared to other systems creating a stigma around what they seem determined to market as a home console first and foremost.
This is why anybody expecting AAA support in Switch would be advised to look elsewhere. Nintendo have contributed a lot to a situation where their platforms are seen as hostile to third-party games (along with some of the publishers and the users). It would, in harsh reality, take a lot of effort and cash to change that perception. Doesn't mean Switch isn't exciting for the reasons Pitchford mentions.
@BiasedSonyFan
@cleveland124
We have no idea whether Wii U has made a profit or not. Nobody can claim they lost money on it or that 'Nintendo has managed to make a profit with every console release' as since Wii U was released they've not.
@BiasedSonyFan @electrolite77
I didn't claim to "know" how much was lost directly from Wii U, but Nintendo financials show the Wii U era lost money. An argument that Wii U made money would have to have two components. A. 3DS lost money since that was their only other core system at the time. B. Iwata is a liar since he said multiple times the Wii U hardware was a money loser.
While an exact number is hard to come by there is actually a lot of information in the investors relations tab.
https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/library/events/140508qa/index.html
"Satoru Iwata (President):With respect to the impact of Wii U hardware sales on profit and loss, in order to sell 3.60 million units, we have to produce some more hardware units on top of our current hardware inventory. However, since the loss arising due to the hardware production costs being higher than our trade price was taken into account in the previous fiscal year, you could assume that there will be almost no loss this fiscal year for the sales of the 3.60 million hardware units. "
Question was in regard to FY ending 3/2015 "almost no loss" means they will have a loss on Wii U production.
"hardware production costs being higher than our trade price was taken into account"
I mean he says exactly that the Wii U cost was higher than the sales price there. The loss that was recorded from the Wii U inventory was already recorded and is a number in the financial statements. The reports always lead with the 3DS indicating it's a more important system to Nintendo. When asked about returning to profitability, he mentions 3DS penetration and doesn't mention the Wii U at all.
So please tell me where your competing information is that Nintendo made money on the Wii U? It's simply not an explanation grounded in reality to think that Iwata constantly lies to investors or that the 3DS was a money losing machine that they want to keep alive longer and bury the Wii U for the Switch.
@BiasedSonyFan I'd argue being in last place and only being able to trump the "we make a profit on every console sold" card isn't exactly being "half good" at this video game business.
But hey, I also own a non-Nintendo console so I'm good on games.
@cleveland124 "So please tell me where your competing information is that Nintendo made money on the Wii U?"
He doesn't have any.
I prefer that either we get AAA games at the same time as Sony and Microsoft or we don't get them.
Also, I agree with the fact that there are some experiences that are better played on a handheld than on a home console and vice versa. I love, for example, what they did with Ghost Recon for the 3DS: they tailored it for a fun, portable RPG.
Still, I'll love Borderlands 3 on the Switch. That's a game that will surely get me to buy a Switch or Dead Red Redemption 2.
@BiasedSonyFan if Nintendo's whole goal is to simply never take a loss on hardware, then I'd say that's probably got a lot to do with why Sony and Microsoft have both left them in the dust. You should know this already though, being a biased sony fan and all.
I will not be purchasing Switch until at least Mario Odyssey or later. As a (jaded) day 1 Wii U owner I have very little incentive to "upgrade".
Eww...I actually find myself agreeing with Randy Pitchford on something. I just got done taking a shower and now I feel like I need another one...
@BiasedSonyFan by not buying the Switch? Interesting way of them generating a profit off of me...
Either way, I want Nintendo to be great again. They just, for whatever reason, choose not to be. If simply making a profit is all they're after, then they will continue not being great.
EDIT: Sony, for instance, takes a loss on all hardware. Certainly hasn't hurt them from being great and rising to the top of the industry.
@BiasedSonyFan I honestly don't even know at this point. I went from "of course" before the teaser trailer to "ehhh let's hold off on more info" after the trailer to "no thanks until....???" after the presentation to "I literally have no reason to get one of these things" in the weeks after.
@BiasedSonyFan
I quoted right from Nintendo's investor releases. Pretty obvious your analys misquoted Iwata.
Nintendo wrote off $225 million US dollars in 2014 and his quote was they didn't have 3.2 million units. So a guess would be they were losing $70 each. But you are right. We are looking at COGS which doesn't take into consideration the Wii U portion of the $2 billion US in selling and administration expense.
I said may on the Gamecube. If you have proof it made a profit please provide.
@BiasedSonyFan
Well he must be a genius to know more than Iwata. I didn't analyze anything. But thanks for personally attacking my credibility on an inane thing. Here's his quote again. It's in contrast to your analyst. It's irrational to think your analyst got it right and Iwata was wrong.
"Satoru Iwata (President):With respect to the impact of Wii U hardware sales on profit and loss, in order to sell 3.60 million units, we have to produce some more hardware units on top of our current hardware inventory. However, since the loss arising due to the hardware production costs being higher than our trade price was taken into account in the previous fiscal year, you could assume that there will be almost no loss this fiscal year for the sales of the 3.60 million hardware units. "
It's true, that I only claimed to have proof that hardware lost money. But to infer the Wii U software made up for the loss on hardware and the loss in the financial statements, you'd have to wager the 3DS lost money. Is that your argument? That the 3DS has been the big loser for Nintendo? I proved they lost money over the 5 year period. Either both are losers or one is a loser and dragging the other down.
I'm not sure your article really says anything of value. But assuming it's true, it would seem to question the profitability of the Gamecube.
"On August 31st, 2001, one month before GameCube’s launch, Peter Main told an interviewer, “We expect to incur a small loss on the GameCube hardware initially, and you’re right that it hasn’t been our habit in the past but we expect it to turn okay early next year.”
So we have it lost money initially.
"One year later, the sales of GameCube would reach a new low, and they were cutting into Nintendo’s profitability. On November 2003, Nintendo reported a $26 million loss in the first half of its fiscal year due to weak sales of its GameCube console."
We have the Gamecube division caused a loss in 2003 in total (hardware and software).
"In 2004, Nintendo’s Perrin Kaplan confirmed to IGN that GameCube’s sales have improved, but it was still losing money on each unit sold. I would say that our losses are really negligible. It’s such a small amount. Plus with the amount of software that’s being sold we’re still definitely in a solid profit situation."
So maybe they are making a small amount at the end of the generation. But it's really a vague statement. Is it Nintendo that is in the solid profit position? Yes, they definitely were. Or is she saying the Gamecube division was making a profit? I don't see that there, but if that's what you are hanging your hat on, you've shown the Gamecube may have added to the bottom line for one year of its operation.
@BiasedSonyFan
Also, just to clarify your argument. Iwata is a liar and the 3DS was the 2nd handheld to lose money for Nintendo along with the Virtual Boy? Because those 2 things have to be true for me to be wrong.
@BiasedSonyFan
"Iwata wasn't a liar"
Great, then we don't have to look at your meaningless Gibson quote.
Iwata "you could assume that there will be almost no loss this fiscal year for the sales of the 3.60 million hardware units."
Let's use comprehensive reading. What does "almost no loss" mean?
I'm looking at total operational profitability which includes hardware and software. We can scratch 2012 if that makes it easier. You really have to include 2013 since it was Nintendo's main home console for that year and most of the advertising and R&D related to the Wii U would have hit then and Wii software efforts came to a halt to focus on Wii U profitability. FY2013 was also the year that that the Wii U sold the most consoles 3.45 million. As Wii U sales have declined profit has increased.
2013 -36,410
2014 -46,425
2015 27,770
2016 32,881
Cumulative Loss ($22,184)
So why did Nintendo lose money the entire Wii U life?
A. Wii U product line lost money (Hardware and Software)
B. 3DS product line lost money (Hardware and Software)
C. Both Wii U and 3DS product lines lost money (Hardware and Software.
@BiasedSonyFan
The Gibson quote doesn't add anything. He's merely relaying the same things the Iwata quote says except he says no loss whereas Iwata says small loss and he provides no reason for his departure from Iwata said.
You're the hung up on semantics. I provided a quote with no analysis and you have spent alot of time calling me an idiot for the "analysis". I have no data to know whether it's 1 penny or $30 a Wii U. So I had no further comment on the loss. If you have proof give it. You have to realize though that this is only component/hardware cost and does not include a fully costed model that includes corporate overhead. Corporate overhead was about $2 billion US dolars on $6 billion in revenue. To truly break even it has to cover the corporate overhead. If we allocated overhead based on revenue that would mean that approximately $90 in overhead for each Wii U was not being covered.
It may have only been on store shelves for 4 months, but it was the highest selling year for the Wii U, and the gross sales of the Wii U more than doubled Wii sales for that fiscal year. I said originally Nintendo doesn't break out product line financials. If that was your requirement for proof, you should have copied that line and left it at that. Your claim was the Wii U and Gamecube were profitable. I've provided data that sheds doubt on that claim even if limited in some ways. I mean it's just common sense that the Wii U didn't do well and Nintendo was losing money so it was part of the problem. Nintendo commented the 3DS was profitable on hardware in mid 2012 after their big price decrease. If you have proof the Gamecube and Wii U were profitable than please provide.
@BiasedSonyFan
I paraphrased. A small loss is factually the same thing as almost no loss. No loss is not factually the same thing as almost no loss.
You can review Nintendo's finacials I've linked them before. Thier COGS and SG&A expense is there for you to see.
Nintendo 3DS XL launched in 2012 and was confirmed by Iwata to sell at a profit.
So nothing to prove profit? Just more semantics arguments?
@BiasedSonyFan
If your source paraphrased than it was irrelevant to the discussion. A paraphrase doesn't add anything to the original quote yet you argue it does bring more and is important. For instance, you are arguing about my word choice, but if "small" bothers you so much, replace it with "almost no" and my point doesn't change so I don't care because it doesn't affect my point. So is your source different or does it say the same thing? Look up the words in a dictionary and look up synonyms and let's stop wasting our time on English.
I've pointed to parts within the financial statements many times and you've ignored it. If you aren't willing to familiarize yourself with the things we are talking about and financial statement concepts than I'm not really willing to help you further.
Here's a source on the 3DS source not being sold at a loss. https://www.engadget.com/2012/07/12/iwata-3ds-xl-to-be-sold-at-a-profit-3d-likely-a-minor-element/
@BiasedSonyFan
I have pointed to many times Iwata blamed profitability woes on Wii U poor performance and I've pointed you to operational losses. The last time I mentioned it you asked me to prove what COGS and SG&A and the Lower of Cost or Market write off that Nintendo posted look. These are financial terms. Nintendo doesn't use them any differently than others. Look them up.
Is tiny not a synonym for almost no? Is nothing not a good synomym for no things? These are, tiny and nothing are not synonyms and don't mean the same thing. Plus you are arguing dichotomies. Either it means the same thing and you didn't need to bring in the external quote, or it means something different and isn't applicable to the discussion.
Iwata was 3 months from selling the 3DS XL. He was several months into producing the 3DS XL and those contracts had probably been signed for a year. The MSRP price had been set.
There was only 2 ways he would sell at a loss and neither happened. Scenario A, Japanese yen strengthened against the US dollar and Nintendo ended up having a price cut via exchange rate. What actually happened. In 2012 $199 the 3DS XL was priced $16,602 yen. In 2015, the $199 3DS XL was $25,182 yen. So he actually was receiving a lot more $ for the 3DS towards the end of life. Which makes that 2015 quote about the Wii U concerning because towards the end of life he was actually receiving a bunch more money for it and he still said Wii U wouldn't sell at a profit. You can actually attribute the entire operating profit for Nintendo to the weak Yen.
Scenario 2, the 3DS XL was so unpopular, they immediately had to have a large price decrease like the original 3DS leading them to take a loss on each one. They didn't do this. The 3DS XL was the best selling 3DS model and didn't receive a price cut until it was replaced by the new 3DS XL.
If the 3DS XL hardware wasn't profitable after he said it was he'd have given an update to the shareholders on why it wasn't. But he didn't he let them to continue to believe it was profitable. That's what I'm talking about. Instead of just blanketing denying everything with no indication of how things work, why not indicate a reasonable theory on why the 3DS XL profitable on day 1, caused a loss for Nintendo.
@BiasedSonyFan
Lol, that liar thing really got to you. Maybe if you didn't insist that two things that were clearly not the same were the same we wouldn't have had to talk about it.
"That quote was made in 2014, genius."
For the fiscal year ending 2015.
What we know. Nintendo never said Wii U was profitable. Not once. They did say they lost money a bunch of times on it. All we don't have is a number. Nintendo's operating profit is tiny. We already know they made a bunch of money on the 3DS and Pokémon company. The rest of the loss has to fall out somewhere.
@BiasedSonyFan
I didn't dodge anything. Nintendo never said they made money on Wii U once.
I read the Iwata Q&A from FY end 2015. The only time he mentions Wii U at all is when he talks about the NX replacing Wii U. That's the only time. Wii U missed targeted sales every year except they will probably beat it this year since they only forecasted 800,000. I mean the fact that Nintendo stopped producing Wii U this year should show you it's not profitable. Sure the Switch is upcoming, but it's not backward compatible and Nintendo has never stopped making a system before a replacement before.
Already proved above Iwata said 3DS was profitable in 2012. Here's his comment from FYE2014 blaming Wii U only for lack of Nintendo-profits.
"Iwata:
Regarding the profitability of any video game business, there is no basic demand for games, so it greatly depends on changes in the business environment. Just as it was difficult to forecast the performance of Nintendo DS or Wii before their respective launches, which both proved to greatly exceed our expectations, at other times, our products do not meet our expectations, as is the case with Wii U. This is inevitable in the entertainment business. Currently, Nintendo has both the home console and handheld platforms, and we would see great results if both of these platforms performed very well; however, our business would become mediocre if one of them faltered, and if both of them were to falter, it would very negatively affect our business."
The reality is this started with a statement of you saying the Wii U made money and you haven't brought anything to the table to support this.
@BiasedSonyFan
I read the annual report too. It says MK8 and SB were hits for the Wii U and mentions total Wii U sales. Whereas they specifically say New 3DS sales are very good and mention several hit 3DS titles. They don't mention Wii U console sales in a favorable way at all.
What we can agree on is Wii U lost money through 2014. I claimed there is doubt the Wii U was profitable. I've established doubt by proving they lost money for a good portion of its life. You claimed the Wii U made Nintendo money. You've provided no proof of this.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...