What approach should Nintendo take with their new console?

[cmdrdredd]

Choosing to not buy third-party DLC deals isn't the same as being too broke to pay off publishers. Microsoft's managed just fine to partner with Remedy for Quantum Break, Platinum for Scalebound, Crystal Dynamics/Square Enix for Rise of the Tomb Raider, and a decent number of indie studios. Plus, they've already brought forth similar deals through Capcom's Dead Rising 3, Respawn's Titanfall, Crtyek's Ryse, Harminx' Dance Central and Fantasia, Frontier's Screamride, and Insomiac's Sunset Overdrive. Oh, and they bought Mojang/Minecraft, plus they purchased Gears of War from Epic to keep it off of competing platforms. They also just partnered with Creative Assembly (Total War) for Halo Wars 2.

Honestly, I don't know how you can draw those conclusions. To me, it looks more like Sony's been securing these third-party deals (Destiny, CoD, Battlefront, etc.), in part, because their holiday first-party stuff doesn't stack up quite as well against Microsoft's. They've got Until Dawn, Uncharted's remastered collection, and not a whole lot else, in way of major releases.

Your comparison to Sony doesn't work for one reason. Sony gets the deals because their platform is selling the best and has the largest install base. That's why they have some exclusive stuff from activision and others. If the Xbox had that luxury then it would be the other way around. Activision specifically likes big launch day numbers and to be able to announce "x amount of games sold" or "x amount of games played" on the first week of sales.

 

[Fulle]

Choosing to not buy third-party DLC deals isn't the same as being too broke to pay off publishers. Microsoft's managed just fine to partner with Remedy for Quantum Break, Platinum for Scalebound, Crystal Dynamics/Square Enix for Rise of the Tomb Raider, and a decent number of indie studios. Plus, they've already brought forth similar deals through Capcom's Dead Rising 3, Respawn's Titanfall, Crtyek's Ryse, Harminx' Dance Central and Fantasia, Frontier's Screamride, and Insomiac's Sunset Overdrive. Oh, and they bought Mojang/Minecraft, plus they purchased Gears of War from Epic to keep it off of competing platforms. They also just partnered with Creative Assembly (Total War) for Halo Wars 2.

Honestly, I don't know how you can draw those conclusions. To me, it looks more like Sony's been securing these third-party deals (Destiny, CoD, Battlefront, etc.), in part, because their holiday first-party stuff doesn't stack up quite as well against Microsoft's. They've got Until Dawn, Uncharted's remastered collection, and not a whole lot else, in way of major releases.

Basically, what I'm saying is that Microsoft is going to have a lot harder time paying for deals like the Square-Enix Tomb Raider timed exclusivity now, because to the 3rd party publishers the loss in sales for not releasing on PS4 is too great. MS is getting outsold roughly 2:1 PS4s to XBO, right now. And given that weak position, how are they possibly going to payoff Nintendo?

Nintendo is the player people often think is the weakest, on the Sony vs MS vs Nintendo console wars, but if Playstation division and Xbox division were separate companies from their mommies, they would have filed bankruptcy by now and be past news. The PS3's losses pretty much cancel out anything the PS2 made, and Xbox division has lost billions of dollars. Nintendo has like 10 billion USD in the bank, and when they post losses, it's like 100 million USD losses, not 2 billion+ crazy stuff Xbox division has had during mid 360 era.

On that thought, Nintendo probably made a slight profit off the Wii U, despite the system being labeled a "failure" everywhere. They only needed to sell 1 game for the launch systems to be profitable, and the current ones sell for a slight profit. First party game sales have actually been pretty good.

On the "if anyone would exit the market, it would be MS" comment I made, I was referring to how MS Shareholders get frustrated investing billions into Xbox to get such low returns on investment.

 

[Lil Frier]

Your comparison to Sony doesn't work for one reason. Sony gets the deals because their platform is selling the best and has the largest install base. That's why they have some exclusive stuff from activision and others. If the Xbox had that luxury then it would be the other way around. Activision specifically likes big launch day numbers and to be able to announce "x amount of games sold" or "x amount of games played" on the first week of sales.

You say that like Microsoft didn't just do it for several games last year, and like they weren't the ones to show off Ubisoft titles this year (Siege, The Division). Heck, after Bloodborne went PS4-only, Dark Souls III has been headed by Microsoft, despite being from the same developer. Phil Spencer's come out and said they want to avoid such deals in the future, instead focusing on actually giving folks games. Maybe that's a statement to cover his behind, but I don't necessarily think that's the case.

Basically, what I'm saying is that Microsoft is going to have a lot harder time paying for deals like the Square-Enix Tomb Raider timed exclusivity now, because to the 3rd party publishers the loss in sales for not releasing on PS4 is too great. MS is getting outsold roughly 2:1 PS4s to XBO, right now. And given that weak position, how are they possibly going to payoff Nintendo?

Nintendo is the player people often think is the weakest, on the Sony vs MS vs Nintendo console wars, but if Playstation division and Xbox division were separate companies from their mommies, they would have filed bankruptcy by now and be past news. The PS3's losses pretty much cancel out anything the PS2 made, and Xbox division has lost billions of dollars. Nintendo has like 10 billion USD in the bank, and when they post losses, it's like 100 million USD losses, not 2 billion+ crazy stuff Xbox division has had during mid 360 era.

On that thought, Nintendo probably made a slight profit off the Wii U, despite the system being labeled a "failure" everywhere. They only needed to sell 1 game for the launch systems to be profitable, and the current ones sell for a slight profit. First party game sales have actually been pretty good.

On the "if anyone would exit the market, it would be MS" comment I made, I was referring to how MS Shareholders get frustrated investing billions into Xbox to get such low returns on investment.

Microsoft, like I mentioned above, already said they aren't keen to the Tomb Raider-esque deals going forward as it is. Plus, it's not like the Xbox One's in a worse position now than when it secured the deal in the first place for RotTR, so I don't think it's the problem you claim. If they wanted to make those deals, they could. Now, if they WANTED to pay off Nintendo, the company's got cash for days. I'm sure they don't WANT to do that, especially after writing down the Surface's initial launch and the Nokia acquisition, but you say that like Microsoft couldn't afford it, if they actually wanted to. The price would just be extremely high and probably not worth the investment.

I agree, Nintendo's not going anywhere. They're not losing money on the consoles, they never have. We all get that, our comments are mostly selfishness for not wanting to buy a separate console just for Nintendo exclusives. The other part is that Nintendo could potentially do BETTER by going third-party. They'd more than triple the potential customer base if they put their games on the One and PS4 (One has a bit more sales than the Wii U, PS4's more than double it).

 

[artemicion]

IMO, Nintendo should:

1) Switch architecture to x86 to ease the cross-platform developing burden on third parties. Wouldn't be a bad idea to match PS4/XB1 specs to make it easier to port games without tweaking the graphical settings.

2) Unify their home console and mobile console platforms. It'd be badass if the next gameboy/DS was essentially an underclocked console/NX and games worked on both platforms with the necessary graphics setting tweaks. And mulitplayer worked across both the portable platform and home console.

3) Game license purchases should be tied to user accounts and not consoles.

Overriding theme would be creating an environment for local co-op/multiplayer. It'd be awesome if you could have LAN parties with everyone playing on their own portable screen or TV in the same room. As someone who co-ops with the wife a lot, I think a co-op Zelda game where one person plays Link and the other person plays Zelda (like Hyrule Warriors) would be badass.

Edit - I'd also explore going all digital next generation. Continue selling box copies with discs and license codes to appease collectors. Allow license transfers to allow people to sell "used" games. Hell, I'd explore the idea of maintaining their own online used licensed market and take a % cut from all sales. Cut-out Gamestop's line of profit and keep it for yourself, Nintendo.

 

[Fulle]

You say that like Microsoft didn't just do it for several games last year, and like they weren't the ones to show off Ubisoft titles this year (Siege, The Division). Heck, after Bloodborne went PS4-only, Dark Souls III has been headed by Microsoft, despite being from the same developer. Phil Spencer's come out and said they want to avoid such deals in the future, instead focusing on actually giving folks games. Maybe that's a statement to cover his behind, but I don't necessarily think that's the case.



Microsoft, like I mentioned above, already said they aren't keen to the Tomb Raider-esque deals going forward as it is. Plus, it's not like the Xbox One's in a worse position now than when it secured the deal in the first place for RotTR, so I don't think it's the problem you claim. If they wanted to make those deals, they could. Now, if they WANTED to pay off Nintendo, the company's got cash for days. I'm sure they don't WANT to do that, especially after writing down the Surface's initial launch and the Nokia acquisition, but you say that like Microsoft couldn't afford it, if they actually wanted to. The price would just be extremely high and probably not worth the investment.

I agree, Nintendo's not going anywhere. They're not losing money on the consoles, they never have. We all get that, our comments are mostly selfishness for not wanting to buy a separate console just for Nintendo exclusives. The other part is that Nintendo could potentially do BETTER by going third-party. They'd more than triple the potential customer base if they put their games on the One and PS4 (One has a bit more sales than the Wii U, PS4's more than double it).

Phil making the comment that they wouldn't go after future deals like Tomb Raider was part positive spin, but probably also part business reality of their market position. MS might have "money for days", with their, what? 70 billion in the bank, but that's not "lets just give 3rd party publishers hundreds of millions of dollars" money. Xbox Division has to at least TRY to look like they can break even or MS shareholders are going to get their pitchforks out. MS couldn't possibly convince shareholders that they should "buy Nintendo", as something like that would cost like 20 billion dollars, or something absurd like that, and is out of reach for even MS to do.

I've thought the same on the idea that "maybe Nintendo would do better if they stopped making hardware". They'd make a lot more on software sales right now, if they were selling stuff like Smash 4 on PS4+XBO+PC. But, sometimes they make a killing on console hardware. Like with the DS and the Wii... and then there's accessories sales, and all the perks of being the platform holder.... So, eh... they'd actually be giving up a lot on that idea.

 

[cmdrdredd]

You say that like Microsoft didn't just do it for several games last year, and like they weren't the ones to show off Ubisoft titles this year (Siege, The Division). Heck, after Bloodborne went PS4-only, Dark Souls III has been headed by Microsoft, despite being from the same developer. Phil Spencer's come out and said they want to avoid such deals in the future, instead focusing on actually giving folks games. Maybe that's a statement to cover his behind, but I don't necessarily think that's the case.

What I am saying is the reason Sony is getting these exclusivity stuff isn't money, it's numbers. Like I said, activision loves to post numbers about how many people buy their game. Getting exclusive content on the market leading system is advantageous for them.

 

[futurefields]

IMO, Nintendo should:

1) Switch architecture to x86 to ease the cross-platform developing burden on third parties. Wouldn't be a bad idea to match PS4/XB1 specs to make it easier to port games without tweaking the graphical settings.

2) Unify their home console and mobile console platforms. It'd be badass if the next gameboy/DS was essentially an underclocked console/NX and games worked on both platforms with the necessary graphics setting tweaks. And mulitplayer worked across both the portable platform and home console.

3) Game license purchases should be tied to user accounts and not consoles.

Overriding theme would be creating an environment for local co-op/multiplayer. It'd be awesome if you could have LAN parties with everyone playing on their own portable screen or TV in the same room. As someone who co-ops with the wife a lot, I think a co-op Zelda game where one person plays Link and the other person plays Zelda (like Hyrule Warriors) would be badass.

Edit - I'd also explore going all digital next generation. Continue selling box copies with discs and license codes to appease collectors. Allow license transfers to allow people to sell "used" games. Hell, I'd explore the idea of maintaining their own online used licensed market and take a % cut from all sales. Cut-out Gamestop's line of profit and keep it for yourself, Nintendo.

Nintendo's doesn't need third parties and x86 is terrible for pure raw gaming.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Nintendo's doesn't need third parties and x86 is terrible for pure raw gaming.

That just shows how ignorant you are to the industry. Nintendo NEEDS as much 3rd party support as possible. It's obvious...I mean the whole reason their console isn't selling is there are very few 3rd party games available. Madden, Fifa, CoD etc those games sell tons of copies. People will never buy a WiiU as a primary system (some people only buy one console to begin with) if it doesn't have those titles. Hell they don't even have GTA 5.

As for x86, it's the best decision MS and Sony could make. It's well understood and known from an architectural standpoint and it offers relatively easy porting to PC platforms. You think it's in Nintendo's interests to use a chip that is harder to work with and offers less compatibility? Geeze...

 

[futurefields]

Nah man Nintendo doesn't need Call of Duty on their system and it wouldn't benefit gamers any to have multiplayer pool divided by yet another system.

The CPU's in the PS4/XB1 are a joke.

 

[Sulaco]

Nah man Nintendo doesn't need Call of Duty on their system and it wouldn't benefit gamers any to have multiplayer pool divided by yet another system.

The CPU's in the PS4/XB1 are a joke.

You can argue Nintendo doesn't "need CoD", or any specific IP.

What Nintendo inarguably needs though, is actual 3rd party support of some consequence.
You can debate until you're blue in the face about which IPs would make the difference, but its clear what they've had simply isn't good enough. The sales numbers have shown that month after month.

 

[purbeast0]

 

[Lil Frier]

Phil making the comment that they wouldn't go after future deals like Tomb Raider was part positive spin, but probably also part business reality of their market position. MS might have "money for days", with their, what? 70 billion in the bank, but that's not "lets just give 3rd party publishers hundreds of millions of dollars" money. Xbox Division has to at least TRY to look like they can break even or MS shareholders are going to get their pitchforks out. MS couldn't possibly convince shareholders that they should "buy Nintendo", as something like that would cost like 20 billion dollars, or something absurd like that, and is out of reach for even MS to do.

I've thought the same on the idea that "maybe Nintendo would do better if they stopped making hardware". They'd make a lot more on software sales right now, if they were selling stuff like Smash 4 on PS4+XBO+PC. But, sometimes they make a killing on console hardware. Like with the DS and the Wii... and then there's accessories sales, and all the perks of being the platform holder.... So, eh... they'd actually be giving up a lot on that idea.

I agree, it's not going to happen where Microsoft just craps money at the problem. However, that's a matter of "shouldn't," not a matter of "couldn't." I don't totally agree that Spencer's just spinning some P.R. crap about not wanting to throw money at short-term exclusives, either. I don't believe that they end up worth the investment, because I doubt an extra strike in Destiny secured a bunch of hardware sales. I also think that those who like Tomb Raider and have a PS4 probably like Uncharted just as much, if not more, and they'd rather miss out on Rise of the Tomb Raider than Uncharted 4. I just don't see that deal dragging folks across the line, either.

Instead, Microsoft's clearly still pushing forward with a lot of true exclusives, like Quantum Break, ReCore, Gears of War 4, Halo 5, Forza, Gigantic, Sea of Thieves, Crackdown, Scalebound, and the ID@Xbox exclusives they're secured. I don't think they're anything close to hurting for software offerings.

Nintendo, I don't know that I agree. I wasn't even considering PC, nor did my statements mean giving up the handheld consoles on their end, just the home ones that aren't selling all that well. They most likely turn a profit on their hardware, but I'm guessing not by some massive number that would make up for potentially selling 3-5 times as much software. They'd also get out from under having to do R&D and setup for an XBL/PSN competitor. I'd imagine Nintendo would also have the leverage in such deals to provide skinned controllers (maybe even consoles, like CoD and Destiny have) and make a licensing profits on such stuff. I think they'd do better financially, if they went fully third-party. If they were to go only one way, I'd say Microsoft would be better for the PC angle, but that could end up not being true.

Whatever Nintendo does, they need their own version of PokeMMO, that's for sure.

What I am saying is the reason Sony is getting these exclusivity stuff isn't money, it's numbers. Like I said, activision loves to post numbers about how many people buy their game. Getting exclusive content on the market leading system is advantageous for them.

I don't think that's entirely the case. Microsoft got Ghosts and Advanced Warfare, maybe that was related to a multi-year agreement, maybe not. Either way, CoD having DLC first on one console or the other is moving the needle for either hardware company, and they're still having a simultaneous launch of the actual game on both platforms, so I don't see where overall numbers come into play, unless you want to talk about early access to the beta and DLC numbers. The former really means nothing, and the latter is only a short-term thing that also happens well after opinions of the game are already formed.