The Shrine

Gray sent me this article by a middleware designer. He uses basic business strategy theories and shows why Nintendo needs to innovate and why it makes them the most profitable company even though they sell far less numbers. It's very well written and makes perfect sense when you think about it

http://lostgarden.com/2005/09/nintendos ... ategy.html

Is that true? Irrespective of who's selling the most, are their profit margins the highest?

Mental wrote:Is that true? Irrespective of who's selling the most, are their profit margins the highest?

Oh, it's not even close. As Tort posted before and reiterated in the other Revolution thread, Nintendo makes more money than the entire Sony corporation. Just to put that in perspective, Sony is one of the largest electronics companies in the world and is at least 10 times the size of Nintendo.

Whether they're first or last, they make the most profit and sell the most games as a publisher year after year.

Nintendo is the best company in the world at getting new gaming concepts very wide exposure. Harvest Moon for example, it wasn't even their game, but the first one for SNES they had a huge part in marketing it. Then there are obscure conepts like Animal Crossing which sold millions, Pokemon and Mario Party which have sold tens of millions. Even games like Zelda and Mario Brothers which were originally very obscure concepts, and they became the most popular games in history.

They have been doing this for decades, they have a golden strategy.

Again, like Apple, they have a keen ability of shaping themselves to be the "different" or "rebel" company.

I'm sure innovation was really important to all the Pokemon games on GB that I'm sure is vastly more profitable than anything else they have had?

Do Nintendo pay a dividend to GC/Revolution owners? Do you get enjoyment of your system knowing that the one who makes it is profitable? All that means is that your system won't be discontiued while it's at 3rd place as opposed to say the Sega Dreamcast, but that's about all.

And what the heck is Harvest Moon doing here? It's like one of those failed dating sim concepts that even the Japanese don't care about much less here.

Don Wang wrote:Do you get enjoyment of your system knowing that the one who makes it is profitable? All that means is that your system won't be discontiued while it's at 3rd place as opposed to say the Sega Dreamcast, but that's about all.

As a matter of fact, I do. While their console may be behind in the running, at least I know that they'll be able to fund the next generation Nintendo franchises. Their innovative developments are icing on the cake.

Don Wang wrote:Do Nintendo pay a dividend to GC/Revolution owners? Do you get enjoyment of your system knowing that the one who makes it is profitable? All that means is that your system won't be discontiued while it's at 3rd place as opposed to say the Sega Dreamcast, but that's about all.

You really need to drop this argument because it's just stupid and it's making you look the same, man.

[in monotone voice]No, Nintendo does not pay dividends to GC/Revolution owners.

Of course, that question is irrelevant to why people mention it and I think your last statement that I quoted answers shows why. Like Torgo said, this information means that I don't have to worry that Nintendo will stop putting out fun, innovative games and products so I can feel secure in giving them my money the next time around. They've provided in the past and until their track record starts to show that they won't continue then I will support their games with my money. Yes, I will probably get a PS3 at some point, but I will definitely get a Revolution.

The games are what matters. The fun is what matters. I think most of us get that except for you.

Don Wang wrote:I'm sure innovation was really important to all the Pokemon games on GB that I'm sure is vastly more profitable than anything else they have had?

Do Nintendo pay a dividend to GC/Revolution owners? Do you get enjoyment of your system knowing that the one who makes it is profitable? All that means is that your system won't be discontiued while it's at 3rd place as opposed to say the Sega Dreamcast, but that's about all.

And what the heck is Harvest Moon doing here? It's like one of those failed dating sim concepts that even the Japanese don't care about much less here.

1) Pokemon is a perfect example, it is a fairly obscure title which Nintendo was able to expose to a large audience. Its gameplay is very appealing to a fairly large audience. It's also, like the sims, a very popular game among girls.

2) A) Do Nintendo pay a dividend to GC/Revolution owners?

Obviously not with money. but in more interesting game software, yes.

B)Do you get enjoyment of your system knowing that the one who makes it is profitable?

Yes, when the gaming company, that releases games that I like, is successful, it means that there will be more games coming from that company later.

C) All that means is that your system won't be discontiued while it's at 3rd place as opposed to say the Sega Dreamcast, but that's about all.

Which is a much more important point than you make it out to be.

3) You are incorrect about Harvest Moon, it has been a very successful series that has sold millions of copies. It is also a perfect example of a highly obscure gaming concept that has been well marketed so that the people who will find those sorts of games fun, will learn of there existance. Fior example, I would have never known that I liked the game unless I would have played it.

It's the game that matters and yet you blindly support a system that prodominently has only Nintendo games when the number of people that prefers non Nintendo games (every person who has ever bought a non Nintendo system) vastly outnumbers those who prefers Nintendo games.

All you're saying is that I want to play Nintendo games so Nintendo will do well. Except that's never actually worked since the N64 era unless by well you mean 3rd place. I guess if that's all you ever aim for it's not hard to achieve.

This whole conversation should be changed to "Why I think Nintendo will continue to make games if we feed them money." Which, by the way, is of course true.

Don Wang wrote:It's the game that matters and yet you blindly support a system that prodominently has only Nintendo games when the number of people that prefers non Nintendo games (every person who has ever bought a non Nintendo system) vastly outnumbers those who prefers Nintendo games.

I think Nintendo makes excellent games, and I want to play them. What's so hard to understand about that?

Kupek wrote:

Don Wang wrote:It's the game that matters and yet you blindly support a system that prodominently has only Nintendo games when the number of people that prefers non Nintendo games (every person who has ever bought a non Nintendo system) vastly outnumbers those who prefers Nintendo games.

I think Nintendo makes excellent games, and I want to play them. What's so hard to understand about that?

He's just mad that he has to buy another system, which he can't or won't do, to play some of the games Nintendo makes, which he likes. That's what I think.

I mean, if Nintendo had the third party support like Sony, would there even be a reason to buy a PS2? Or even Xbox? Well, Halo and Project Gotham, for Microshaft, since they own them directly. But other than the occasionally strong Sony first party game (like God of War), the main strength of the Xbox and Sony is the support. If Nintendo were to ever get that back, they'd have their own strength and that of their competitors. And it's a helluva lot more likely that they'll get third party support than them becoming a developer only, as per our previous discussion. Then it would be the SNES days all over again :-)

Otherwise, we're all going to have to purchase multiple systems or pick and choose. And if I think I had to choose just one system, I'd have to go with the PS2 and get the GC and/or Xbox later when they drop. At the end of the day, they have the most good games. As good as the Nintendo products and Halo and PGR are, it's more bang for the buck for the PS2.

Actually I haven't liked Nintendo games in a long time (Wind Waker is an exception) because they seem to be all about gimmick 'gameplay' and 'innovation' these days.

I simply don't understand how people liking Nintendo games translates it being a succesful console. Nintendo consoles have been anything but successful it terms of marketing share since N64. The fact they're profitable means they can continue to finance console failures and that's good for the people who like Nintendo games but it is not relevant to the vast majority of gamers. I mean yeah I'd have liked Sega to continue finance the failure that DC was because there are some genuinely cool games on DC but even if they had the money and keep on make great titles like Skies of Arcadia, the DC was never going to be anything but a forgotten system. I guess it works out for me as a DC owner but that doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things.

Don Wang wrote:It's the game that matters and yet you blindly support a system that prodominently has only Nintendo games when the number of people that prefers non Nintendo games (every person who has ever bought a non Nintendo system) vastly outnumbers those who prefers Nintendo games.

Blindly? Did you read what I wrote? I can lay my reasons out in a logical argument. Yours makes no sense. Let me lay it out for you again:
I, in general, like Nintendo's games.
If Nintendo makes a profit on their games then they will continue making games.
Nintendo makes a profit on their games.
Therefore, they will continue making games.
So, there will be more Nintendo games for me to like.

This is why Nintendo's profitability is a happy thing for me.

Don Wang wrote:All you're saying is that I want to play Nintendo games so Nintendo will do well. Except that's never actually worked since the N64 era unless by well you mean 3rd place. I guess if that's all you ever aim for it's not hard to achieve.

I never said that. I'd love to see how you got that out of what I posted. I said I will continue giving Nintendo my money as long as I am confident that they will continue providing the games which they will do as long as they make money. It's basically win-win. I get fun games, they get money.

Don Wang wrote:This whole conversation should be changed to "Why I think Nintendo will continue to make games if we feed them money." Which, by the way, is of course true.

Well, duh. The same can be said for Sony, for Microsoft. If a company makes money, it's going to continue doing the thing that makes them money. What we are saying is that the fact that they make money is important because it gives us confidence that we will continue seeing fun Nintendo games in the future.

Well, often the innovation improves the gameplay mechanics quite a bit over traditional mechanics. For example, the Nintendo DS has made strategy games and RPG's MUCH easier to navigate than ever before on any system.

Don Wang wrote:Actually I haven't liked Nintendo games in a long time (Wind Waker is an exception) because they seem to be all about gimmick 'gameplay' and 'innovation' these days.

"Gameplay" and "innovation" are the very cornerstone of all industry; gaming is no exception. Most of these "gimmicks" are what have lead to everything you take for granted, including the D-Pad, more than one button, shoulder buttons, rumble, analog movement (done well and cheaply), levels connected into worlds, action RPGs, 3D gaming (done well), and lots more.

Basically, what's happening is that you're getting left behind. You're stuck with the old games, liking only what you've played before. You're the consumer who likes the refinement of a known product; the guy who buys games from id and other companies that are genre leaders, as in that article I posted before. I love evolutionary gaming as much as anyone (which is why I'm a big Mega Man fan), but it's the revolutionary games - and NO ONE can argue that Nintendo isn't the leader in this category - that has kept us from having a bunch of Pac-Man clones for the last 20 years.

It doesn't always work (see Kirby's Air Ride), but it's because of these few companies, lead by Nintendo and in the past Sega, that keep games interesting and fresh. Failure is the price of revolution, it's going to happen. There are companies that both revolutionize and milk the golden cow - Capcom is a great example, as is Nintendo themselves - but it's the revolutionary ones that keep things from getting stale.

Not giving props to Nintendo for helping revolutionize games is like saying Babe Ruth didn't revolutionize the game of baseball or that Wayne Gretzky was just another good hockey player. Give credit where credit is due, man.

And never forget, any change that comes about in any of the games you made comes from companies that do the very same thing Nintendo does, actually make games better for everyone rather than just doing the same thing over and over again.

I havent owned a Nintendo system since SNES and have not played one of the new Nintendo games since then either, i dont count the half an hours i might have seen at a friend's.

Do the new Zelda and Marios look interesting? I guess, but i still get my gaming satisfaction from what i am able play. There are still so many 'must play' games for the systems i own that i have never needed to turn to Nintendo.

The point? I dont know if i really have one, but i wanted to point out that just because i get turned off by the 'innovation' (which is debatable in itself) and the new path Nintendo has decided to take, that doesnt mean i, and people like me, arent having fun without Nintendo. I like fun games, too, Nintendo's gimmicky crap isnt my kind of fun. You think Nintendo is fun, good for you, you stand in the minority, so what. I dont want to have to turn my controller, i dont want to have to yell at my handheld, i dont want to laser point at the screen, i want to play a video game, i dont want to be the game itself.

I dont know where this rant is going, i've had a half a bottle of wine, but Nintendo is going some place that i am not going to follow. I was hoping the new system would go back to their roots and be more about the games, not how you play them.

Zeus wrote:

Don Wang wrote:Actually I haven't liked Nintendo games in a long time (Wind Waker is an exception) because they seem to be all about gimmick 'gameplay' and 'innovation' these days.

"Gameplay" and "innovation" are the very cornerstone of all industry; gaming is no exception. Most of these "gimmicks" are what have lead to everything you take for granted, including the D-Pad, more than one button, shoulder buttons, rumble, analog movement (done well and cheaply), levels connected into worlds, action RPGs, 3D gaming (done well), and lots more.

Basically, what's happening is that you're getting left behind. You're stuck with the old games, liking only what you've played before. You're the consumer who likes the refinement of a known product; the guy who buys games from id and other companies that are genre leaders, as in that article I posted before. I love evolutionary gaming as much as anyone (which is why I'm a big Mega Man fan), but it's the revolutionary games - and NO ONE can argue that Nintendo isn't the leader in this category - that has kept us from having a bunch of Pac-Man clones for the last 20 years.

It doesn't always work (see Kirby's Air Ride), but it's because of these few companies, lead by Nintendo and in the past Sega, that keep games interesting and fresh. Failure is the price of revolution, it's going to happen. There are companies that both revolutionize and milk the golden cow - Capcom is a great example, as is Nintendo themselves - but it's the revolutionary ones that keep things from getting stale.

Not giving props to Nintendo for helping revolutionize games is like saying Babe Ruth didn't revolutionize the game of baseball or that Wayne Gretzky was just another good hockey player. Give credit where credit is due, man.

And never forget, any change that comes about in any of the games you made comes from companies that do the very same thing Nintendo does, actually make games better for everyone rather than just doing the same thing over and over again.

I dont think games themselves are so perfect that companies need to turn to other ways to get people to play them yet. I'm still waiting for the perfect game and i dont think pointing at the screen with my controller is going to be part of the formula.

Nintendo has copped out, they are focusing so far away from the game itself and are rechurning out their old dusty crap with only a new way to play it, while other comapnies are making thigs with amazing gameplay like Katamari and improving storylines like FFX to near perfection.

Nintendo constantly spews out propaganda that would make you think we're at the limit of gaming and the only way to go forward is innovation because, surprise surprise, Nintendo's claims to be the leader in innovation.

I'll take a game that is at the limit of gaming in every possible way with absolutely no innovation over a game that's nowhere near the limit of gaming but is pretty innovative. I don't think we're even close to the limit of gaming, but I'll take a game with the best parts of every great game that's ever made, since that is obviously still within the limit of gaming. Until we have about 200 of these titles so that you got bored playing with the best current gaming has to offer, I wouldn't worry about expanding the frontiers of gaming just yet.

Don Wang wrote:Nintendo constantly spews out propaganda that would make you think we're at the limit of gaming and the only way to go forward is innovation because, surprise surprise, Nintendo's claims to be the leader in innovation.

I'll take a game that is at the limit of gaming in every possible way with absolutely no innovation over a game that's nowhere near the limit of gaming but is pretty innovative. I don't think we're even close to the limit of gaming, but I'll take a game with the best parts of every great game that's ever made, since that is obviously still within the limit of gaming. Until we have about 200 of these titles so that you got bored playing with the best current gaming has to offer, I wouldn't worry about expanding the frontiers of gaming just yet.

Amen, there is the point i was trying to make.

Don Wang wrote:Nintendo constantly spews out propaganda that would make you think we're at the limit of gaming and the only way to go forward is innovation because, surprise surprise, Nintendo's claims to be the leader in innovation.

Actually, you're the one who's always whining that we're at the limit of gaming, claiming that all games are the same and just copies of each other.

I don't understand why people are complaining about improvement. The new controller by Nintendo obviously will imrpove gameplay signficantly by adding many new ways to play games while maintaining the abilities to do everything that could be done before. The factor which I am interested in is the price, and whether or not everything in the controller is sold separately, or if every controller comes with the face plate and analog extensions. Price is an important factor.

It's fairly clear that the innovations will certainly lead to improvements in gameplay. Some are much more valuable than others obviously; the motion sensors and pointer is something quite major which will become a standard in gaming as clearly there is a lot that they will improve. Nearly every genre can be improved drastically with this feature.

I don't know how I find some of your posts so well-informed and intelligent, Seek, when some of the others make me want to lose my mind.

Generally, though...

*applause*

Mental wrote:I don't know how I find some of your posts so well-informed and intelligent, Seek, when some of the others make me want to lose my mind.

Generally, though...

*applause*

He's talking about Nintendo. I don't think in the 7 years or whatever I've been here I've EVER heard Seeker say a negative thing about Nintendo.

Well, it still doesn't mean I think the actual statements he made are wrong.

The Seeker wrote:I don't understand why people are complaining about improvement. The new controller by Nintendo obviously will imrpove gameplay signficantly by adding many new ways to play games while maintaining the abilities to do everything that could be done before.

If this were the case, that the controller is an 'improvement', then the power glove and vitual boy wouldnt be dead and burried or they would have atleast lead to this sooner. The market has made clear they dont like this form of input in video game playing. Nintendo is the only one continuing these ideas that noone has accepted...

The factor which I am interested in is the price, and whether or not everything in the controller is sold separately, or if every controller comes with the face plate and analog extensions. Price is an important factor.

I'm sure it will be standard and probably at an easy to swallow price. The only way Nintendo can get the mass public to accept their 'innovation' is to force it, much like buying a computer forces you to use Windows.

It's fairly clear that the innovations will certainly lead to improvements in gameplay. Some are much more valuable than others obviously; the motion sensors and pointer is something quite major which will become a standard in gaming as clearly there is a lot that they will improve. Nearly every genre can be improved drastically with this feature.

There is a big difference between improvements in gameplay and alternative gameplay. To me, waving my controller around is not an improvement in the slightest, just another way of doing something, not better, just different. Pressure sensative analog buttons? Now that is an improvement.

I think back to my fondest memories of slouching on the couch with a soda and a bag of chips like a lump on a log and lazily playing RPG's with minimal physical, but maximum mental attention. That was great, i wanted to be entertained and lazy and enjoyed it. Now i think of what Nintebdo wants me to do, sitting at attention directly in front of the tv (which you probably need to be for the sensors) turning my body/controller, yelling, and pointing... if i wanted to be that engaged in an activity i'd go play catch with a friend. Video games werent meant for this.

Flip wrote:The market has made clear they dont like this form of input in video game playing. Nintendo is the only one continuing these ideas that noone has accepted...

What about Wario Ware: Twisted? That employs similar, though not as advanced, motion technology and uses it in a way that adds a lot of fun and variety to the game. Without the motion sensor, it'd have been the exact same game as the first with different mini-games. This one was definitely more interesting to play and it worked perfectly. I disagree that the market has made it clear that this form of input is disliked. They've never had a well made form to try it out with. I don't think they've made it clear one way or the other actually.

Flip wrote:Video games werent meant for this.

I disagree again. You have no idea what video games were meant for. I don't either. Why? Because they are meant for whatever someone wants them to be and there will be people who like this type of game. Maybe they weren't meant to be this way for you, but that's you, and that's fine.

One more thing: you make it sound like all videogames were meant to be played lazily sitting on the couch without any physical activity. Haven't you ever played a game where it was so intense you couldn't help but sit right in front of the TV? Haven't you ever played a sports game against a friend where you were so animated because you just kicked their butt and were jumping out of your seat everytime you scored a TD on them? Heck, my friend and I just drive around in GTA, purposefully dodging police cars, and are jumping from our seats.

My point is that video games have a lot more to do with being energized and physical than we think sometimes. It's just that now, some of that physical activity is related to playing the game as well.

Plus, you'll still have the normal controller shell to sit lazily on the couch and not move. I know I enjoy that as well.

You're right that Nintendo is going to offer plenty of games that dont require the new features, which is a good thing, and that it ultimately comes down to taste and preference. That being so, i guess arguing over the whole thing is pointless. I can dislike Nintendo's motives and their direction, but shouldnt fault those who agree with the company.

Oh, and i've defenitely had active gaming moments (i credit the amazing game for these), and they are great, hopefully with the new Nintendo when you jump from your seat you wont end up killing yourself.

Flip wrote:That being so, i guess arguing over the whole thing is pointless.

Probably, but it's still fun.
I understand your point and the Revolution probably won't be the console for you. I have a feeling that I will really enjoy it though. Gotta love the freedom to choose gaming systems though, eh?

Flip wrote:Oh, and i've defenitely had active gaming moments (i credit the amazing game for these), and they are great, hopefully with the new Nintendo when you jump from your seat you wont end up killing yourself.

haha. Actually, one time, my friend and I were playing GTA3. We were purposefully giving ourselves 5 stars and then seeing who could make it through the tunnel from Shoreside Vale to the other city without dying. At one point, my friend was actually going to make it, pulling around tanks, dodging trucks, driving down hills, etc. He turned a corner and drove straight into a tank that was just sitting there. I jumped up so fast that I banged my head on his bookshelf above his couch. I actually left a mark on it, I hit it so hard. So, even with non-motion-sensitive games you can kill yourself. haha

For me, a major thing are two of my favourite genres of strategy and simulation games. due to controller limitations in the past the console versions of games were always inferior to their PC counter-parts. The controller finally allows for very easy and accurate navigation through these types of games. This is something I have been waiting for since playing Sim City and Civilization back on SNES over 10 years ago. RTS games will finally be playable as the reaction times will be quick enough. Direct ports from PC shooters will be possible due to the fact that it's just aim and click while moving your character around with the analog.

Eric: I don't complain much about Nintendo for the same reason I don't complain about Namco, Rockstar/DMA, Ubisoft, Sega (since the early Saturn days), Enix, Bioware, or several other video game companies; they have given me little to complain about and much to praise them for.

The new craze with the Dance Dance and other similar games also is more than just sitting lazily in front of your TV.

My entire point before was that innovation is necessary for us to enjoy what we enjoy now. Like I mentioned before, when the NES controller had a D-pad and no stick, there were a TON of gamers at that time that said "how the hell am I supposed to us THIS?". Same with more than one button. It's things we take for granted nowadays 'cause we used them and got used to them. Nintendo has done as much as anyone in both hardware and software to give us the stuff we take for granted.

Don't forget, i'm not completely sold on the Revolution, mostly because I think most people are going to react like you: too different to care. Unlike back in 1985, we have options now and it's a more mature market, people, most of whom dislike change (as an accountant, i expect you to be one of those, Flip :-) ), can stick with what they know. But in 5-10 years, we may take that controller for granted.

Right now, most of the praise is coming from developers. If they like it, it might become more and more a part of our gaming and might even become a part of the other consoles as a feature we take for granted, much like the analog stick and rumble pack from the N64.

I can totally see where you're coming from and I can't imagine myself owning only the Revolution. I was just trying to counter the argument that Nintendo's innovations are "gimmicks". Our gaming life has been so influenced by them it's ridiculous. They're not the only ones, that's for sure, but they have been the most influential and prominent, as I mentioned before.

The Seeker wrote:For me, a major thing are two of my favourite genres of strategy and simulation games. due to controller limitations in the past the console versions of games were always inferior to their PC counter-parts. The controller finally allows for very easy and accurate navigation through these types of games. This is something I have been waiting for since playing Sim City and Civilization back on SNES over 10 years ago. RTS games will finally be playable as the reaction times will be quick enough. Direct ports from PC shooters will be possible due to the fact that it's just aim and click while moving your character around with the analog.

Eric: I don't complain much about Nintendo for the same reason I don't complain about Namco, Rockstar/DMA, Ubisoft, Sega (since the early Saturn days), Enix, Bioware, or several other video game companies; they have given me little to complain about and much to praise them for.

NEVER!

Eric wrote: NEVER!

Don't make me FIGHT you Eric, I will FIGHT you!!!!!!!

(cue tekken 5 fight music from the "cage" level)