Yeah, I think that's a pretty extreme take. I think there are few stable companies (Apple, Walmart, Amazon, etc) and they rewarded well from investors. Apple hasn't had any revenue or profit growth in the last few years. But I don't see investors trying to throw them into bankruptcy.
"Eventually a company reaches stability. That should be a valued trait in a business, but in investment that's seen as a negative thing. "
Stability is actually pretty rare in an ever changing market. I got to see Jim Collins speak once (Good to Great author). I don't remember the exact statistics because it's been a few years. But he looked at companies over a prolonged period of about 20 years. And over that 20 years something like 80% of those companies fell out of major indexes such as the S&P 500 and many ended up in bankruptcy. There is even a follow up book because several of the companies he picked as the top performers have already declared bankruptcy. Past returns aren't indicative of future returns and few companies exhibit sustained success over time.
"WiiU hardware did not take a loss, it was selling at a profit with a 1.2:1 attach rate, which it achieved."
If you have to include software profits, that's not what I'd call selling at a profit. But either way, it's complete speculation on your part. Nintendo never indicated that Wii U made money but Wii U software lost money. Reggie only clarified later that he was wrong saying it only took 1 piece of software for Wii U to become profitable. He never gave it a specific number. And really if you are fully allocating costs (overheads), you couldn't. Because poorer sales would mean each sale has to cover more overhead.
"If you're going to think like a short-term trader then sure you'll look at that 4-year window and think there were losses and general negative outlook."
I was talking about a 20 year window where they didn't perform great in the market. The first 5 years of the Wii and here with the Switch are the only times that really show great growth potential for Nintendo. A small profit doesn't get investors excited. But you keep clinging to the fact that they were profitable 16 years out of 20 as a reason the losses don't matter.
"how it's losses were re-purposed into new revenue streams, "
That's not really a thing. The Wii U drained Nintendo resources for the 4 years they sold it, it didn't transform into the Switch. Nintendo is always working on the next console so I fail to see how them using some operational overhead during the Wii U era for the Switch makes the Wii U a success. Nintendo also learned during the Wii U era and applied some of those things to the Switch. But again, that's not mutually exclusive. They didn't need a failure to bring about the Switch. It would have been ideal if they took the lessons from the N64/Gamecube, and late life Wii and put those into the Wii U making that a success. Then continue to learn during the Wii U generation and put those things into the Switch and have it be even better than it is today.
I think you are the only person that thinks Nintendo dropping from $15.4 billion in revenue in 2010 to $4.4 billion in 2016 is an expense issue. If you'd read the financial reports Iwata continually blames poor Wii U sales and unsustained 3DS sales as the culprit.
Most of the items you mentioned wouldn't have had a negative effect on the financials. Qol was mentioned in 2017 financials as still in development. Theme parks are a licensing arrangement by Nintendo so they aren't actively purchasing capital but are getting paid for the use of their copyrights . Dena shouldn't have been a loss either. Dena partnership wasn't announced until 2015 which was the first year in the Wii U era they made a profit. They wouldn't have had any losses on that until 2016 when Miotomo dropped. New headquarters operations would should up in SG&A which dropped after the Wii era. Most of that would wind up in capital anyways, which affects cash, but wouldn't create a loss.
In the IT industry things move quickly. Think blackberry. They were the king of phones and then they were nowhere. Plus, if you look back to N64, Gamecube Nintendo had a period of about 5 good years (Wii) out of the last 20. Yeah, they made money during N64 and Gamecube but the returns weren't great. When you only have 1 flagship product and it fails to the extent of the Wii U it throws up major red flags.
Plus, Nintendo never said they were making money on the Wii U hardware so I don't know where you are pulling that idea from. This is the last I can find which is about a year after launch where Nintendo confirmed they are losing money on hardware. https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/08/nintendo-wii-u-still-being-sold-at-a-loss/%3famp=1
They literally had no Wii U's on shelves from mid November 2016 until the Switch launched in March of 2017 which leads me to believe they never turned a profit on hardware. Literrally the only time I've seen this was with the original Xbox. But back then it was because Microsoft had a dispute with the GPU vendor and couldn't actually get the parts to produce more. I remember when they made there hardware forecast for 2016 many people thought it was very conservative. But it was actually just how many Nintendo approved for production. They killed it early.
Im interested in this. Price is cheap and lack of dpad sucks portable. I have other controllers for docked. Yeah, wish there was matching cons but based on the Japanese product there will be a plain color available.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say exactly. If you are trying to say sales general and admin expenses was the reason for the loss you are wrong. SGA expense was about 1.76 billion in 2013 and 1.88 billion in 2016. That change didn't even keep with inflation and was relatively minor for a company hoping for $1 billion in profit. It was the worst 4 year period in the company history and it was due to the Wii U failing in the market. For comparison, in 2010 their SGA expense was $2.2 billion. So it seems the only reason they were close to break even during that period was their ability to shrink their overhead.
Acquisition and software development costs would be capitalized as well so that shouldn't affect the annual financials other than if they had nothing to sell for 4 years.
They had an operating loss of about $6 million over the 4 years. Either way though their best year during that time was $32 million operating income which is peanuts to a company the size of Nintendo. When asked at the board Iwata said the target annual profit should be at least $1 billion.
They weren't profitable during the Wii U era. So yeah it's a bit simplistic to say marketshare is everything. But for Nintendo's profit it has been. Plus I don't know how many times Iwata emphasized that the needed to return to Nintendolike profits in the financials. So a small profit isn't enough.
Let's be honest here. If Nintendo had the brand loyalty that Apple did the Wii U would have been a huge success as people would have said I can't do without the next Nintendo system. I get that they wish they were Apple and could over charge you for everything but history has proven they can't. I mean back to my example. Do you think Nintendo could convince the market to buy a $600 Switch? Apple probably could. If they could reach that they would become a market unto their own. But given the competition I don't see that happening.
Another reason Nintendo isn't like Apple is they don't have an integrative account . Some people won't leave Apple because all their games, movies, music is attached to their account which is accessed through new hardware. Can you imagine if your entire Nintendo games library back to the Nes was connected and playable on your Switch through an account? I might pay $600 for a Switch if that was the case.
Profit follows marketshare though even if there isn't a 1:1 correlation. Nintendo barely made money during the Gamecube era and they lost money during the Wii U era. They made money hand over fist with the Wii/DS//Switch. So you can't ignore it and just continue to charge your existing base more in a declining market. For instance, if the Switch was only selling half as much you'd have to sell it for $600 to drive the same profit. That will lead to people leaving you faster and a quicker decline. Also your Android/Apple comparison isn't perfect. Because Apple locks their ecosystem to their own hardware and they are largely a hardware company. Android is a software system that runs on many different hardware solutions by many different manufacturers.
How many car manufacturers are there? How many places you can buy milk? I think the market can support Nintendo and two other manufacturers. It has thus far. The bigger risk is android/apple/pc as the reality is it's not a big 3 anymore and it hasn't been for some time. Nintendo's competitive advantage is there games and they use it as a crutch to not get third parties.
They have lots they could do to get third parties onboard and it would benefit them but won't because their culture isn't built that way. Pokemon go will be an interesting test case. From a profit standpoint it's likely that Go will beat the Pokemon coming for the Switch. It'll also be interesting to see how many Switch sales that game drives. With more competitors I can't see how Nintendo can have success ignoring the features the market demands. More likely though we'll start to see more of a shift to them supporting mobile more and that will be how they phase out the importance of their hardware.
The problem with the model of creating hardware for 1st party and a few select 3rd parties is fewer and fewer people people are willing to pay the Nintendo premiun each generation. Unique hardware Wii/DS/Switch have been the only generations to increase Nintendo's marketshare. We are a ways from Switch 2, but if it's largely the same but with a stronger processor, I think it will continue the train of losing marketshare. Nintendo has put themselves in a position where their success hinges on innovation while their competitors can get away with a couple of generations of status quo. I'm not a fan of Nintendo's reliance on innovation because true innovation each generation is unlikely and they have a model where some generation failures like the Gamecube/Wii U are likely.
The problem to me is that while 3rd party/indie games are better on the Switch than previous Nintendo consoles, they are still relatively poor compared to the other consoles. So for somebody who only owns a Switch, this could be a good library. But you likely wouldn't buy a Switch over the competition unless you were a big Nintendo fan or needed portability. Others like myself have multiple consoles and have had access to most of these games for a while and don't think it's worth the double dip for portability.
If someone loves the upcoming lineup, great. I don't try to convince someone what they should like. But to me this lineup isn't great and I'll likely spend more $ on the other systems this year.
Insider information? Nintendo will soon be releasing the quarterly results. If they are lower than target as a few analysts are predicting it will drop.
It's true that Nintendo has many anti-consumer policies. But I think you overshot the response on this one. At the heart of the online policy is a price increase. Consumers obviously hate price increases. But Nintendo is not necessarily unethical for wanting more $.
"Without charging for it, any effort they do is purely a cost. Adding the paywall makes it a profit."
Multiplayer has always been included in the price of the game before. Pulling it out and charging more is simply a way to charge extra. Nintendo's models show that the way to maximize profit is to charge us more for the same game so they made this business decision. But it's certainly not been a pure cost to them in the past just because they've decided to take a core item out of the game and charge separately for it.
I mean where does that logic stop? Some digital Switch games cost $19.99 and the physical variance costs $29.99. Have they always been providing the cartridge and box at a cost to themselves? So the only way for them to make money on a boxed game is to charge more for those in the future? What about DLC? Did Nintendo give us an end boss at a pure cost to themselves? Gotta expect to pay for that final boss fight in the future, lucky they've given it to you free all these years.
"I just wish so many people weren't complaining. "
This is providing less value than you were getting before for the $ you were paying Nintendo. So I think it was pretty obvious why people would be more negative on this topic than something like free DLC for Mario Kart, Odyssey or an instance where Nintendo is providing more value to their games.
I'm sure the executives knew what they bought and what the lawyers worked out in the deal. Whoever they sent to visit rare must have seen the posters and got excited for a moment because those are great games. But I'm sure Bill Gates didn't suddenly think he got hoodwinked.
I'm actually worried Nintendo might let Retro go. Much like rare they seem to have had difficulty transitioning.
I had the Donkey Kong Country VHS. This was prior to having internet and it hyped me to the max for the game.
Not VHS related, but my parents bought me a SNES for Christmas. Mario All Stars was like a mail in game. We got a package prior to Christmas and I asked my dad if I could open it. He said yes. Whoops.
There's always a first for everything, but no Nintendo console has ever had 2 Mario Karts. I think you'll have to wait till Switch 2 to get Mario Kart 9.
Never thought of it from that perspective but it makes sense to highlight the online service by updating all the Switch multiplayer games to bring them to the forefront again.
A poor launch really hurt it. Tablet didn't seem innovative to the ipad market and the hardware was more expensive than the comparable PS3/360 at the time. Also the first 6 months didn't really have alot of compelling games. Nintendo wasn't able to change peoples mind after that first impression was out there. When you have a hot product like the Switch it almost seems to sell itself without new games. But the opposite is also true. The Wii U was cold and even when compelling games showed up it couldn't convince people the Wii U was worthwhile.
Having said that, I just bought a 2nd one. I feel like the Wii U was great from a historical perspective. It played so many systems via VC, played the Wii U/Wii libraries and could play Gamecube if you were willing to mod the Wii mode. All with a convenient HDMI out. It was almost a greatest hits console from Nintendo.
VC could have been better supported with more games and VC could have supported more third party systems like the Wii VC. But from my point of view the sheer breadth of what it can do is amazing. Now with the retro subscription and Nintendo seemingly giving up on VC for different models I don't think we'll see another system that similarly pays homage to their history.
@Agent_Mike I mean, nobody cares about Urban Champion ever. It could be the only VC game ever released for Switch and it would bomb. But I think the Mario's, MegaMans, Contras, Ducktales, etc. are all great games and would be welcomed when they release. I think the biggest problem with the VC and what I assume will happen with this is the drip feed from Nintendo. Between all the handheld options, home console options, both first and third party there is a potential library in excess of >10,000 games. Sure licensing issues will prevent some from coming, but at least get better than the Wii service which was at 3 releases a week during it's heyday. If they release a steady amount and within a couple of years there is >100 games available and the fee is still just $20/year for a rental service this would be incredible. But if 20 NES (of which most suck) is what they are planning for all of year 1 this is going to be rough.
@Link506
The Switch is a downclocked Tegra X1. Should still be able to do Gamecube VC, but it may not be able to do Wii the way the Shield can.
It was mentioned online that MW2 was a pre-order 10% off sale. But you are correct in that the store did not indicate it as so. I couldn't get past the fact that it was $14.99 on steam and actually $11.24 onsale for the recent steam sale.
"This comment section really just makes me wonder what in the world are some of these folks doing with their lives, in that they can’t find joy in all the video games available to them nowadays "
Everybody has bad days. I try to give people the benefit of doubt. And it's not bad to have varying opinions on a messageboard. I mean the Breath of Wild forum replies were all love fest. Which doesn't really add alot of value either to have 200 replies saying "Best Game Ever!!". Part of having a healthy mental state is being able to look past negative responses and realize that you don't have to (nor should you) reply to every one. Because you can't make someone see things the same way. If a message board is ruining your day or making you upset, it's probably time to take a break from that message board and get outside or play some games and enjoy your time.
My drift is an item being cheap is not a reason for purchasing. You are answering a question nobody is asking when you are trying to help them save $20 a year. It's possible to both have the means to buy the service and not think the service is worth the means. How long the service was free for is really irrelevant to whether you should pay for it in the future.
Buying things just because they're cheap is a terrible point. According to Nintendo there are 2,537 games under $20 on the eshop. Do you own all them because they are cheap? In fact $60 isn't alot of money. On the eshop it says there are 6,697 games available. Do you own all of those since they are cheap? Or do you make decisions based on the value you get out of them to spend your money? Some people will see the value in the online program and some won't. It's a fact it's cheap. Still doesn't mean it's worth it to everybody and people shouldn't be shamed because they don't want to spend $20 (more realistically $35 assuming you aren't the only one that plays your Switch).
I'm pretty sure nobody is arguing they can't afford it or that they need advice on how to save $20 a year. But since you brought it up. Here's a way to save $20 a year. Don't pay for Nintendo Online. And since it's more about the point than providing a realistic example, don't buy that Yacht this year. That'll save you $10 million. You're welcome for the advice.
Are you the person that writes all those online finance articles on how to take better care of your finances? They always start with #1, cut Starbucks, save a bajillion dollars a year. If only I drank overpriced coffee so I could cut it from my budget. (Spoiler, I don't drink coffee at all.)
Nintendo previously stated that 5% of users purchased the full version. While not an exact number, on 200 million downloads, around 10 million purchases is a pretty good estimate. It's pretty clear Nintendo didn't put alot of resources into the game and it didn't sell well either. I correlate the two, but others apparently think people will pay $5 per level instead of the $5 I paid for the full unlock when it was onsale.
The game was decent, but short. My takeaway is not many people actually thought it was worth $10, not that "premium" games don't work on mobile. 200 milllion people tried it out, and only about 5% paid for it. If Pokemon Go had a premium fee, it would have done gangbusters because people wanted that comment. My buddies kid buy $10-15 skins for fortnite all the time. Anymore $10 isn't alot for a mobile transaction. The market just thought their $10 was better spent elsewhere.
Most Nintendo first party games don't come with 3d anymore. I also think they are focusing on the 2ds because they are trying to segregate the 3ds and switch markets by showing a sizable price difference without actually dropping the 3ds price.
Pretty disappointed in the MK7 one. It's basically the current version but red. No special graphics or art design to differentiate it as a limited edition.
I guess I don't know why companies don't just include both versions. Like with NES remix. Where you had the Japanese version and the American version and you could just switch between them. It didn't add much, but was does a text patch take up in space anyways? I just like the little add-ons like that when I'm collecting.
Not that I'm a believer, but if all the promises of 5G come true alot of the world would be alot closer. That could conceivably fall in line with a 5-10 year prediction. 5G promises gigabit extremely low lag connections. But it'll probably be oversold and slow to get to many markets.
"Calling people's opinions out is nothing new. Why should I "respect" an opinion on something that is utterly pointless to begin with?"
I mean I guess if you want to make a general comment that an option in your opinion isn't a big deal that would be fine. But you haven't brought anything new to this thread beyond that. If I really thought something was pointless I wouldn't spend time calling out people who didn't think it was pointless. I guess I think my time is too valuable to engage in pointless internet flame wars. But keep being an internet hero random web poster.
Arcade/sim in this regard means realistic vs. over the top gameplay. Arcade in general doesn't imply shortened gameplay as arcades are designed to get you hooked for hours so you keep pumping money into the machine. Do you own the game? I'm asking because you don't seem like a sport fan in general if you can't see how this could impact someones enjoyment.
Mario tennis certainly falls on the arcade side instead of sim gaing side. But NFL Blitz had 4 quarters just like a real NFL game. NBA Jam has 4 quarters just like an NBA game. NHL Hitz has 3 periods just like an NHL game. Mario Tennis til now matched a tennis game length. It seems like an odd oversight and I hope it gets patched in. I'm not sure you are into sports but I can see how it would lower enjoyment. To me I think of say a football game where your only option is first to two touchdowns. That game could still be fun, but the overall loungevity would be severly hampered for me.
I think entitled gets thrown around too much. People have opinions and the purpose of this forum is to express one's opinion. If it's negative, then so be it. Nobody likes everything going on in video games and this is the appropriate place to discuss that.
Entitled used to mean an expectation of deserving something. I don't really see people here arguing they deserve to play RE7 on their Switches. Some say they'd like the ability, but that's not the same as saying I deserve to be playing.
Competition is never easy. I think the problem is this puts Nintendo in a box where their hardware has to be interesting enough (or innovative enough) to draw consumers to it despite having fewer games and less power. They were able to pull it off with the Wii/Wii Sports and DS/Nintendogs. Switch has gotten consumers interest, but will a Switch 2 hold their same interest or will people tire of the concept like Wii U? The warning signs were there that people were tiring of the Wii concept. And while 2.92 million in sales for the quarter end 3/31 isn't bad. It shows a softening of the market for Switch and makes 20 million in sales for this fiscal year seem like a stretch. Hardware innovation is harder in my opinion than a focus on creating solid games and partnering with 3rd parties to make sure the release schedule is full. But that's where they are putting themselves is they need to have innovative hardware to be noticed by the market.
Thanks for stating the obvious. Though with the large share drop and the negative reaction from many who get paid to analyze their business, I'd say I'm not the only one who was disappointed. I'm sure Nintendo's just not catering to them either. But that's okay, life goes on with or without Nintendo wanting to sell me games.
My comment was leaks weren't a problem with Nintendo's poor showing, a lack of games were. And that was that. I was simply saying I disagreed with the premise that leaks led to a bad E3 and gave an alternative reason. You're the one who is trying to take over the thread trying to convince me that there are enough games on the system. Why would you continue to push something the article doesn't talk about? And why do you care so deeply what games I'm interested in?
"and there are more than enough games coming to the console this year."
You continually repeating yourself doesn't make it so.
"We do have to look outside the core forum posting mentality"
I don't really care about other peoples gaming habits. I'm sure some people out there would be happy with BotW and nothing else. Nothing you said changes the games coming and you aren't very persuasive that there are enough games coming out. I'm glad the Switch has a lot of overpriced small games that are on everything under the sun including my phone. But outside of Smash, it doesn't have anything that excites me this year. Thus I will be playing games on other systems this fall.
@zool Nintendo should expand their internal studios. They don't want to release a ton of games and prefer 3rd parties fill the schedule, but they don't take time to work with those third parties to actually fill the schedule. Having said that, cutting 3DS games isn't a magic bullet. Switch games take alot more effort to develop/produce. They'd probably have to kill 4-5 3DS games to have the development power to have 1 Switch game. Their current 3DS production is relatively minimal in the grand scheme of things.
Why don't you let my comment lie? You saying there are enough ports doesn't make more games appear on the schedule. As a multi console gamer, most of my gaming is going to be on other systems this fall. I didn't make the comment because I'm not hyped enough. I'm comparing upcoming release schedules and Switch is worse.
In the internet age, leaks are to be expected. I think the bigger problem is the lack of games on the system front. Fortnite and Pokémon aren't my types of games. So if I was completely surprised by them it would have still been a meh E3 for me. I was interested in Madden which was rumored to be Switch bound prior. But with the success of the Switch, I would have thought that was coming anyway. I hope Reggie is being truthful that is more unannounced goodness coming up. Because E3 was just lacking to me and it had nothing to do with the leaks.
Comments 1,281
Re: US Trader Rubs Salt Into Nintendo's Share Drop Wounds With $400 Million Bet Against The Company
@NEStalgia
Yeah, I think that's a pretty extreme take. I think there are few stable companies (Apple, Walmart, Amazon, etc) and they rewarded well from investors. Apple hasn't had any revenue or profit growth in the last few years. But I don't see investors trying to throw them into bankruptcy.
Re: US Trader Rubs Salt Into Nintendo's Share Drop Wounds With $400 Million Bet Against The Company
@NEStalgia
"Eventually a company reaches stability. That should be a valued trait in a business, but in investment that's seen as a negative thing. "
Stability is actually pretty rare in an ever changing market. I got to see Jim Collins speak once (Good to Great author). I don't remember the exact statistics because it's been a few years. But he looked at companies over a prolonged period of about 20 years. And over that 20 years something like 80% of those companies fell out of major indexes such as the S&P 500 and many ended up in bankruptcy. There is even a follow up book because several of the companies he picked as the top performers have already declared bankruptcy. Past returns aren't indicative of future returns and few companies exhibit sustained success over time.
Re: Nintendo Has Sold 19.67 Million Switch Consoles To Date
@zool
"A clever marketing move. Replace the flawed Wii U with a new console and then reissue all the Wii u games for the new console."
But what's going to happen with the Switch 2? Big droughts? Or are they going to re-release Switch games and hope nobody notices?
Re: US Trader Rubs Salt Into Nintendo's Share Drop Wounds With $400 Million Bet Against The Company
@NEStalgia
"WiiU hardware did not take a loss, it was selling at a profit with a 1.2:1 attach rate, which it achieved."
If you have to include software profits, that's not what I'd call selling at a profit. But either way, it's complete speculation on your part. Nintendo never indicated that Wii U made money but Wii U software lost money. Reggie only clarified later that he was wrong saying it only took 1 piece of software for Wii U to become profitable. He never gave it a specific number. And really if you are fully allocating costs (overheads), you couldn't. Because poorer sales would mean each sale has to cover more overhead.
"If you're going to think like a short-term trader then sure you'll look at that 4-year window and think there were losses and general negative outlook."
I was talking about a 20 year window where they didn't perform great in the market. The first 5 years of the Wii and here with the Switch are the only times that really show great growth potential for Nintendo. A small profit doesn't get investors excited. But you keep clinging to the fact that they were profitable 16 years out of 20 as a reason the losses don't matter.
"how it's losses were re-purposed into new revenue streams, "
That's not really a thing. The Wii U drained Nintendo resources for the 4 years they sold it, it didn't transform into the Switch. Nintendo is always working on the next console so I fail to see how them using some operational overhead during the Wii U era for the Switch makes the Wii U a success. Nintendo also learned during the Wii U era and applied some of those things to the Switch. But again, that's not mutually exclusive. They didn't need a failure to bring about the Switch. It would have been ideal if they took the lessons from the N64/Gamecube, and late life Wii and put those into the Wii U making that a success. Then continue to learn during the Wii U generation and put those things into the Switch and have it be even better than it is today.
Re: US Trader Rubs Salt Into Nintendo's Share Drop Wounds With $400 Million Bet Against The Company
@NEStalgia
I think you are the only person that thinks Nintendo dropping from $15.4 billion in revenue in 2010 to $4.4 billion in 2016 is an expense issue. If you'd read the financial reports Iwata continually blames poor Wii U sales and unsustained 3DS sales as the culprit.
Most of the items you mentioned wouldn't have had a negative effect on the financials. Qol was mentioned in 2017 financials as still in development. Theme parks are a licensing arrangement by Nintendo so they aren't actively purchasing capital but are getting paid for the use of their copyrights . Dena shouldn't have been a loss either. Dena partnership wasn't announced until 2015 which was the first year in the Wii U era they made a profit. They wouldn't have had any losses on that until 2016 when Miotomo dropped. New headquarters operations would should up in SG&A which dropped after the Wii era. Most of that would wind up in capital anyways, which affects cash, but wouldn't create a loss.
In the IT industry things move quickly. Think blackberry. They were the king of phones and then they were nowhere. Plus, if you look back to N64, Gamecube Nintendo had a period of about 5 good years (Wii) out of the last 20. Yeah, they made money during N64 and Gamecube but the returns weren't great. When you only have 1 flagship product and it fails to the extent of the Wii U it throws up major red flags.
Plus, Nintendo never said they were making money on the Wii U hardware so I don't know where you are pulling that idea from. This is the last I can find which is about a year after launch where Nintendo confirmed they are losing money on hardware.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/08/nintendo-wii-u-still-being-sold-at-a-loss/%3famp=1
They literally had no Wii U's on shelves from mid November 2016 until the Switch launched in March of 2017 which leads me to believe they never turned a profit on hardware. Literrally the only time I've seen this was with the original Xbox. But back then it was because Microsoft had a dispute with the GPU vendor and couldn't actually get the parts to produce more. I remember when they made there hardware forecast for 2016 many people thought it was very conservative. But it was actually just how many Nintendo approved for production. They killed it early.
Re: Hori's Working On A Fix For Its D-Pad Joy-Con Controller That Gobbles Battery Life
Im interested in this. Price is cheap and lack of dpad sucks portable. I have other controllers for docked. Yeah, wish there was matching cons but based on the Japanese product there will be a plain color available.
Re: US Trader Rubs Salt Into Nintendo's Share Drop Wounds With $400 Million Bet Against The Company
@NEStalgia
I'm not sure what you are trying to say exactly. If you are trying to say sales general and admin expenses was the reason for the loss you are wrong. SGA expense was about 1.76 billion in 2013 and 1.88 billion in 2016. That change didn't even keep with inflation and was relatively minor for a company hoping for $1 billion in profit. It was the worst 4 year period in the company history and it was due to the Wii U failing in the market. For comparison, in 2010 their SGA expense was $2.2 billion. So it seems the only reason they were close to break even during that period was their ability to shrink their overhead.
Acquisition and software development costs would be capitalized as well so that shouldn't affect the annual financials other than if they had nothing to sell for 4 years.
Re: US Trader Rubs Salt Into Nintendo's Share Drop Wounds With $400 Million Bet Against The Company
@Pod
They had an operating loss of about $6 million over the 4 years. Either way though their best year during that time was $32 million operating income which is peanuts to a company the size of Nintendo. When asked at the board Iwata said the target annual profit should be at least $1 billion.
Re: US Trader Rubs Salt Into Nintendo's Share Drop Wounds With $400 Million Bet Against The Company
@NEStalgia
They weren't profitable during the Wii U era. So yeah it's a bit simplistic to say marketshare is everything. But for Nintendo's profit it has been. Plus I don't know how many times Iwata emphasized that the needed to return to Nintendolike profits in the financials. So a small profit isn't enough.
Re: US Trader Rubs Salt Into Nintendo's Share Drop Wounds With $400 Million Bet Against The Company
@NEStalgia
Let's be honest here. If Nintendo had the brand loyalty that Apple did the Wii U would have been a huge success as people would have said I can't do without the next Nintendo system. I get that they wish they were Apple and could over charge you for everything but history has proven they can't. I mean back to my example. Do you think Nintendo could convince the market to buy a $600 Switch? Apple probably could. If they could reach that they would become a market unto their own. But given the competition I don't see that happening.
Another reason Nintendo isn't like Apple is they don't have an integrative account . Some people won't leave Apple because all their games, movies, music is attached to their account which is accessed through new hardware. Can you imagine if your entire Nintendo games library back to the Nes was connected and playable on your Switch through an account? I might pay $600 for a Switch if that was the case.
Re: US Trader Rubs Salt Into Nintendo's Share Drop Wounds With $400 Million Bet Against The Company
@NEStalgia
Profit follows marketshare though even if there isn't a 1:1 correlation. Nintendo barely made money during the Gamecube era and they lost money during the Wii U era. They made money hand over fist with the Wii/DS//Switch. So you can't ignore it and just continue to charge your existing base more in a declining market. For instance, if the Switch was only selling half as much you'd have to sell it for $600 to drive the same profit. That will lead to people leaving you faster and a quicker decline. Also your Android/Apple comparison isn't perfect. Because Apple locks their ecosystem to their own hardware and they are largely a hardware company. Android is a software system that runs on many different hardware solutions by many different manufacturers.
How many car manufacturers are there? How many places you can buy milk? I think the market can support Nintendo and two other manufacturers. It has thus far. The bigger risk is android/apple/pc as the reality is it's not a big 3 anymore and it hasn't been for some time. Nintendo's competitive advantage is there games and they use it as a crutch to not get third parties.
They have lots they could do to get third parties onboard and it would benefit them but won't because their culture isn't built that way. Pokemon go will be an interesting test case. From a profit standpoint it's likely that Go will beat the Pokemon coming for the Switch. It'll also be interesting to see how many Switch sales that game drives. With more competitors I can't see how Nintendo can have success ignoring the features the market demands. More likely though we'll start to see more of a shift to them supporting mobile more and that will be how they phase out the importance of their hardware.
Re: US Trader Rubs Salt Into Nintendo's Share Drop Wounds With $400 Million Bet Against The Company
@NEStalgia
The problem with the model of creating hardware for 1st party and a few select 3rd parties is fewer and fewer people people are willing to pay the Nintendo premiun each generation. Unique hardware Wii/DS/Switch have been the only generations to increase Nintendo's marketshare. We are a ways from Switch 2, but if it's largely the same but with a stronger processor, I think it will continue the train of losing marketshare. Nintendo has put themselves in a position where their success hinges on innovation while their competitors can get away with a couple of generations of status quo. I'm not a fan of Nintendo's reliance on innovation because true innovation each generation is unlikely and they have a model where some generation failures like the Gamecube/Wii U are likely.
Re: US Trader Rubs Salt Into Nintendo's Share Drop Wounds With $400 Million Bet Against The Company
@Syrek24
The problem to me is that while 3rd party/indie games are better on the Switch than previous Nintendo consoles, they are still relatively poor compared to the other consoles. So for somebody who only owns a Switch, this could be a good library. But you likely wouldn't buy a Switch over the competition unless you were a big Nintendo fan or needed portability. Others like myself have multiple consoles and have had access to most of these games for a while and don't think it's worth the double dip for portability.
If someone loves the upcoming lineup, great. I don't try to convince someone what they should like. But to me this lineup isn't great and I'll likely spend more $ on the other systems this year.
Re: US Trader Rubs Salt Into Nintendo's Share Drop Wounds With $400 Million Bet Against The Company
Insider information? Nintendo will soon be releasing the quarterly results. If they are lower than target as a few analysts are predicting it will drop.
Re: Pre-Orders For Nintendo Switch Online Subscriptions Go Live On Amazon
@ninty
It's true that Nintendo has many anti-consumer policies. But I think you overshot the response on this one. At the heart of the online policy is a price increase. Consumers obviously hate price increases. But Nintendo is not necessarily unethical for wanting more $.
Re: Pre-Orders For Nintendo Switch Online Subscriptions Go Live On Amazon
@Heavyarms55
"Without charging for it, any effort they do is purely a cost. Adding the paywall makes it a profit."
Multiplayer has always been included in the price of the game before. Pulling it out and charging more is simply a way to charge extra. Nintendo's models show that the way to maximize profit is to charge us more for the same game so they made this business decision. But it's certainly not been a pure cost to them in the past just because they've decided to take a core item out of the game and charge separately for it.
I mean where does that logic stop? Some digital Switch games cost $19.99 and the physical variance costs $29.99. Have they always been providing the cartridge and box at a cost to themselves? So the only way for them to make money on a boxed game is to charge more for those in the future? What about DLC? Did Nintendo give us an end boss at a pure cost to themselves? Gotta expect to pay for that final boss fight in the future, lucky they've given it to you free all these years.
"I just wish so many people weren't complaining. "
This is providing less value than you were getting before for the $ you were paying Nintendo. So I think it was pretty obvious why people would be more negative on this topic than something like free DLC for Mario Kart, Odyssey or an instance where Nintendo is providing more value to their games.
Re: Microsoft Execs Thought They Owned Donkey Kong After Acquiring Rare
I'm sure the executives knew what they bought and what the lawyers worked out in the deal. Whoever they sent to visit rare must have seen the posters and got excited for a moment because those are great games. But I'm sure Bill Gates didn't suddenly think he got hoodwinked.
I'm actually worried Nintendo might let Retro go. Much like rare they seem to have had difficulty transitioning.
Re: Random: Return To The '90s With This Super Mario All-Stars VHS Released By Nintendo UK
@RandomDave
I had the Donkey Kong Country VHS. This was prior to having internet and it hyped me to the max for the game.
Not VHS related, but my parents bought me a SNES for Christmas. Mario All Stars was like a mail in game. We got a package prior to Christmas and I asked my dad if I could open it. He said yes. Whoops.
Re: Latest Mario Kart 8 Deluxe Update Adds Free Breath Of The Wild Content
@mailman
There's always a first for everything, but no Nintendo console has ever had 2 Mario Karts. I think you'll have to wait till Switch 2 to get Mario Kart 9.
Re: Latest Mario Kart 8 Deluxe Update Adds Free Breath Of The Wild Content
@Euler
Never thought of it from that perspective but it makes sense to highlight the online service by updating all the Switch multiplayer games to bring them to the forefront again.
Re: The Good Old Wii U Lives On As A Virtual Boy Replacement In WarioWare Gold
@NEStalgia
A poor launch really hurt it. Tablet didn't seem innovative to the ipad market and the hardware was more expensive than the comparable PS3/360 at the time. Also the first 6 months didn't really have alot of compelling games. Nintendo wasn't able to change peoples mind after that first impression was out there. When you have a hot product like the Switch it almost seems to sell itself without new games. But the opposite is also true. The Wii U was cold and even when compelling games showed up it couldn't convince people the Wii U was worthwhile.
Having said that, I just bought a 2nd one. I feel like the Wii U was great from a historical perspective. It played so many systems via VC, played the Wii U/Wii libraries and could play Gamecube if you were willing to mod the Wii mode. All with a convenient HDMI out. It was almost a greatest hits console from Nintendo.
VC could have been better supported with more games and VC could have supported more third party systems like the Wii VC. But from my point of view the sheer breadth of what it can do is amazing. Now with the retro subscription and Nintendo seemingly giving up on VC for different models I don't think we'll see another system that similarly pays homage to their history.
Re: Nintendo Still Has More To Share On Switch Online Before Launch
Paid online mandatory to get game patches. So if you don't you don't get additional added characters/levels like Arms and Smash Bros will add.
Re: Hackers Have Now Found A Way To Emulate Nintendo 64 Games On Switch
@Agent_Mike
I mean, nobody cares about Urban Champion ever. It could be the only VC game ever released for Switch and it would bomb. But I think the Mario's, MegaMans, Contras, Ducktales, etc. are all great games and would be welcomed when they release. I think the biggest problem with the VC and what I assume will happen with this is the drip feed from Nintendo. Between all the handheld options, home console options, both first and third party there is a potential library in excess of >10,000 games. Sure licensing issues will prevent some from coming, but at least get better than the Wii service which was at 3 releases a week during it's heyday. If they release a steady amount and within a couple of years there is >100 games available and the fee is still just $20/year for a rental service this would be incredible. But if 20 NES (of which most suck) is what they are planning for all of year 1 this is going to be rough.
@Link506
The Switch is a downclocked Tegra X1. Should still be able to do Gamecube VC, but it may not be able to do Wii the way the Shield can.
Re: Pre-Orders For Banjo-Kazooie Statue By First 4 Figures Can Be Validated On 10th July
Does it come with a free Switch for that price?
Re: Nintendo Download: 5th July (North America)
@rjejr
It was mentioned online that MW2 was a pre-order 10% off sale. But you are correct in that the store did not indicate it as so. I couldn't get past the fact that it was $14.99 on steam and actually $11.24 onsale for the recent steam sale.
https://steamcommunity.com/games/457730/announcements/detail/1676911120114747843
Re: Review: Mushroom Wars 2 (Switch eShop)
I enjoyed the first one on PS3 a lot. Is it worth grabbing 2, or is there not much new?
Re: Nintendo's Share Price Falls Yet Again With A Lack Of Game Announcements Possibly To Blame
@HobbitGamer
"This comment section really just makes me wonder what in the world are some of these folks doing with their lives, in that they can’t find joy in all the video games available to them nowadays "
Everybody has bad days. I try to give people the benefit of doubt. And it's not bad to have varying opinions on a messageboard. I mean the Breath of Wild forum replies were all love fest. Which doesn't really add alot of value either to have 200 replies saying "Best Game Ever!!". Part of having a healthy mental state is being able to look past negative responses and realize that you don't have to (nor should you) reply to every one. Because you can't make someone see things the same way. If a message board is ruining your day or making you upset, it's probably time to take a break from that message board and get outside or play some games and enjoy your time.
Re: New Nintendo Switch Bundle Includes 90 Day Free Trial Of Switch Online Service
@Grant007
My drift is an item being cheap is not a reason for purchasing. You are answering a question nobody is asking when you are trying to help them save $20 a year. It's possible to both have the means to buy the service and not think the service is worth the means. How long the service was free for is really irrelevant to whether you should pay for it in the future.
Re: Nintendo Still Confident It Can Ship 20 Million Switch Consoles This Financial Year
@ramu-chan
This year does feel very Wii U like.
Re: New Nintendo Switch Bundle Includes 90 Day Free Trial Of Switch Online Service
@Grant007
Buying things just because they're cheap is a terrible point. According to Nintendo there are 2,537 games under $20 on the eshop. Do you own all them because they are cheap? In fact $60 isn't alot of money. On the eshop it says there are 6,697 games available. Do you own all of those since they are cheap? Or do you make decisions based on the value you get out of them to spend your money? Some people will see the value in the online program and some won't. It's a fact it's cheap. Still doesn't mean it's worth it to everybody and people shouldn't be shamed because they don't want to spend $20 (more realistically $35 assuming you aren't the only one that plays your Switch).
I'm pretty sure nobody is arguing they can't afford it or that they need advice on how to save $20 a year. But since you brought it up. Here's a way to save $20 a year. Don't pay for Nintendo Online. And since it's more about the point than providing a realistic example, don't buy that Yacht this year. That'll save you $10 million. You're welcome for the advice.
Re: New Nintendo Switch Bundle Includes 90 Day Free Trial Of Switch Online Service
@Grant007
Are you the person that writes all those online finance articles on how to take better care of your finances? They always start with #1, cut Starbucks, save a bajillion dollars a year. If only I drank overpriced coffee so I could cut it from my budget. (Spoiler, I don't drink coffee at all.)
Re: Super Mario Run Has Made Just Over $60 Million To Date
@Killak-00
Nintendo previously stated that 5% of users purchased the full version. While not an exact number, on 200 million downloads, around 10 million purchases is a pretty good estimate. It's pretty clear Nintendo didn't put alot of resources into the game and it didn't sell well either. I correlate the two, but others apparently think people will pay $5 per level instead of the $5 I paid for the full unlock when it was onsale.
Re: Super Mario Run Has Made Just Over $60 Million To Date
The game was decent, but short. My takeaway is not many people actually thought it was worth $10, not that "premium" games don't work on mobile. 200 milllion people tried it out, and only about 5% paid for it. If Pokemon Go had a premium fee, it would have done gangbusters because people wanted that comment. My buddies kid buy $10-15 skins for fortnite all the time. Anymore $10 isn't alot for a mobile transaction. The market just thought their $10 was better spent elsewhere.
Re: Nintendo Announces New 2DS XL Minecraft, Mario Kart 7 And Animal Crossing Consoles For Japan
@Romeo-75
Most Nintendo first party games don't come with 3d anymore. I also think they are focusing on the 2ds because they are trying to segregate the 3ds and switch markets by showing a sizable price difference without actually dropping the 3ds price.
Re: Nintendo Announces New 2DS XL Minecraft, Mario Kart 7 And Animal Crossing Consoles For Japan
Pretty disappointed in the MK7 one. It's basically the current version but red. No special graphics or art design to differentiate it as a limited edition.
Re: New Nintendo Switch Bundle Includes 90 Day Free Trial Of Switch Online Service
Darn. I assume this means they are actually going to release the online pay system. I was hoping they'd delay into perpetuity.
Re: Mega Man X Legacy Collection Removes The Guns ‘N’ Roses Naming From Mega Man X5
I guess I don't know why companies don't just include both versions. Like with NES remix. Where you had the Japanese version and the American version and you could just switch between them. It didn't add much, but was does a text patch take up in space anyways? I just like the little add-ons like that when I'm collecting.
Re: Ubisoft CEO Believes Future Of Games Industry Is Streaming, With Potential To Reach 5 Billion Players In Ten Years
@Tyranexx
Not that I'm a believer, but if all the promises of 5G come true alot of the world would be alot closer. That could conceivably fall in line with a 5-10 year prediction. 5G promises gigabit extremely low lag connections. But it'll probably be oversold and slow to get to many markets.
Re: Mario Tennis Aces Won’t Let You Play A Regular Game Of Tennis, And Players Aren't Happy
@Shade_Koopa
"Calling people's opinions out is nothing new. Why should I "respect" an opinion on something that is utterly pointless to begin with?"
I mean I guess if you want to make a general comment that an option in your opinion isn't a big deal that would be fine. But you haven't brought anything new to this thread beyond that. If I really thought something was pointless I wouldn't spend time calling out people who didn't think it was pointless. I guess I think my time is too valuable to engage in pointless internet flame wars. But keep being an internet hero random web poster.
Re: Mario Tennis Aces Won’t Let You Play A Regular Game Of Tennis, And Players Aren't Happy
@Shade_Koopa
Arcade/sim in this regard means realistic vs. over the top gameplay. Arcade in general doesn't imply shortened gameplay as arcades are designed to get you hooked for hours so you keep pumping money into the machine. Do you own the game? I'm asking because you don't seem like a sport fan in general if you can't see how this could impact someones enjoyment.
Re: Mario Tennis Aces Won’t Let You Play A Regular Game Of Tennis
@Shade_Koopa
Mario tennis certainly falls on the arcade side instead of sim gaing side. But NFL Blitz had 4 quarters just like a real NFL game. NBA Jam has 4 quarters just like an NBA game. NHL Hitz has 3 periods just like an NHL game. Mario Tennis til now matched a tennis game length. It seems like an odd oversight and I hope it gets patched in. I'm not sure you are into sports but I can see how it would lower enjoyment. To me I think of say a football game where your only option is first to two touchdowns. That game could still be fun, but the overall loungevity would be severly hampered for me.
Re: Capcom Could Release More Cloud-Based Games On Nintendo Switch
@nhSnork
I think entitled gets thrown around too much. People have opinions and the purpose of this forum is to express one's opinion. If it's negative, then so be it. Nobody likes everything going on in video games and this is the appropriate place to discuss that.
Entitled used to mean an expectation of deserving something. I don't really see people here arguing they deserve to play RE7 on their Switches. Some say they'd like the ability, but that's not the same as saying I deserve to be playing.
Re: Random: This 'Joy Boy' Hardware Concept Could Be The Virtual Console Solution We Need
@Razzy
True. If you are going to have to have different hardware a switch joycon is not ideal. Bring the dpad.
Re: Splatoon Producer Reveals How The Art Style In Yoshi’s Island Was Conceived
Yoshi's Island was different and a nice lookoing game. Just didn't feel like a Mario game to me.
Re: Nintendo's Reggie Fils-Aimé Talks About His Feelings On Leaks In Gaming
@johnvboy
Competition is never easy. I think the problem is this puts Nintendo in a box where their hardware has to be interesting enough (or innovative enough) to draw consumers to it despite having fewer games and less power. They were able to pull it off with the Wii/Wii Sports and DS/Nintendogs. Switch has gotten consumers interest, but will a Switch 2 hold their same interest or will people tire of the concept like Wii U? The warning signs were there that people were tiring of the Wii concept. And while 2.92 million in sales for the quarter end 3/31 isn't bad. It shows a softening of the market for Switch and makes 20 million in sales for this fiscal year seem like a stretch. Hardware innovation is harder in my opinion than a focus on creating solid games and partnering with 3rd parties to make sure the release schedule is full. But that's where they are putting themselves is they need to have innovative hardware to be noticed by the market.
Re: Nintendo's Reggie Fils-Aimé Talks About His Feelings On Leaks In Gaming
@johnvboy
Thanks for stating the obvious. Though with the large share drop and the negative reaction from many who get paid to analyze their business, I'd say I'm not the only one who was disappointed. I'm sure Nintendo's just not catering to them either. But that's okay, life goes on with or without Nintendo wanting to sell me games.
Re: Nintendo's Reggie Fils-Aimé Talks About His Feelings On Leaks In Gaming
@johnvboy
My comment was leaks weren't a problem with Nintendo's poor showing, a lack of games were. And that was that. I was simply saying I disagreed with the premise that leaks led to a bad E3 and gave an alternative reason. You're the one who is trying to take over the thread trying to convince me that there are enough games on the system. Why would you continue to push something the article doesn't talk about? And why do you care so deeply what games I'm interested in?
"and there are more than enough games coming to the console this year."
You continually repeating yourself doesn't make it so.
"We do have to look outside the core forum posting mentality"
I don't really care about other peoples gaming habits. I'm sure some people out there would be happy with BotW and nothing else. Nothing you said changes the games coming and you aren't very persuasive that there are enough games coming out. I'm glad the Switch has a lot of overpriced small games that are on everything under the sun including my phone. But outside of Smash, it doesn't have anything that excites me this year. Thus I will be playing games on other systems this fall.
Re: Dedicated Handheld Systems Are Still A Key Business Driver For Nintendo
@zool
Nintendo should expand their internal studios. They don't want to release a ton of games and prefer 3rd parties fill the schedule, but they don't take time to work with those third parties to actually fill the schedule. Having said that, cutting 3DS games isn't a magic bullet. Switch games take alot more effort to develop/produce. They'd probably have to kill 4-5 3DS games to have the development power to have 1 Switch game. Their current 3DS production is relatively minimal in the grand scheme of things.
Re: Nintendo's Reggie Fils-Aimé Talks About His Feelings On Leaks In Gaming
@johnvboy
Why don't you let my comment lie? You saying there are enough ports doesn't make more games appear on the schedule. As a multi console gamer, most of my gaming is going to be on other systems this fall. I didn't make the comment because I'm not hyped enough. I'm comparing upcoming release schedules and Switch is worse.
Re: Nintendo's Reggie Fils-Aimé Talks About His Feelings On Leaks In Gaming
In the internet age, leaks are to be expected. I think the bigger problem is the lack of games on the system front. Fortnite and Pokémon aren't my types of games. So if I was completely surprised by them it would have still been a meh E3 for me. I was interested in Madden which was rumored to be Switch bound prior. But with the success of the Switch, I would have thought that was coming anyway. I hope Reggie is being truthful that is more unannounced goodness coming up. Because E3 was just lacking to me and it had nothing to do with the leaks.