Tamrok

I don't think he's claiming quality had nothing to do with it. Are you claiming that a lack of selection also had nothing to do with the high sales? Many gamers can only afford to buy so many games in a given timeframe. So, it seems quite obvious that if you limit the choices, you increase your odds of having greater sales since many gamers will not have already spent their money on a different game.

YujiNaka

Thanks for the defense Tamrok.

I do think Nintendo has quality titles.. but that has nothing to do with my point I was making.

They had simply less to choose from. When you put out 2 games in a month versus 20, on two systems with good sell through rate, guess which 2 are most likely going to be on the top 10 list.

-Jim

Kellehair

Some people seem to think Nintendo's games would sell just as well on the PS2 despite the competition. So which is it?

Groucho

Nintendo goes after a certain niche of gamers. Those gamers look for particular titles, so naturally they sell well: Mario, Zelda, etc. I would venture that MOST Gamecube owners will buy Mario Sunshine, whereas smaller groups can buy the various PS2 games and still have a top seller (since there are so many more PS2s out on the market).

The question is that would they sell as well if Nintendo had no console of their own? Would they sell better?

Probably a little better. The current Nintendo fans will follow Mario wherever he goes, and the other owners of that system that don't want to buy an entire new console just to play a few games may also pick up the title.

joltaddict

I hear you Kellehair, you cant have it both ways. If the big Ns titles are so strong that they can single handedly prop up a console on their own they would sell a ton on the PS2.

And as for the vague insinuations that Im biased in some way you should probally know Ive had a Cube since launch and I have never bothered to pick up a PS2. So shoot down my arguements on their own merits (or lack of ) but dismissing my valid concerns as fanboy type rantings is completely offbase.

YujiNaka

Mind you, that the top selling game that was posted for N64, where this argument originated, was Pokemon something.

A great game, I am sure.

-Jim

zig

Pokemon Stadium. Has an average rating of 77.8% from 41 reviews on Game Rankings.

joltaddict

English major?

It is profitable? Yes?!?!? Are you sure? Not Nintendo, but the Gamecube? Are you guessing? Unless youre an exec at Nintendo youre guessing.

I do know that the industry model has used the console as a loss leader for a couple of generations now. Thats a fact. And thats just the hardware. Thats not even factoring in R&D, marketing, etc. The console is the carrot on a stick. Everybody takes a loss on the hardware and hopes to make it up and then some on the software.The best third party seller was RE and they at least waived the licensing fees to get exclusivity on it.

Im speculating on the margins with the cube but its simple math to say the business model that reduces costs and at the same time sell more product is the better of the converse.

Trigger

People have been mentioning licensing revenue and/or fees in their arguments. Could someone explain where the money goes and who has to pay it? If Nintendo owns the Mario franchise, the name, the exclusivity and so on - let's say they went multiplatform with him. Wouldn't Sony have to pay Nintendo money to have Mario help sell their PS3? Wouldn't Sony have to pay Nintendo money to get rights to use the Mario likeness? I don't see why it would work the other way. I guess I had my own ideas about licensing and some of the comments seem to conflict with what I thought so maybe someone can explain it to me the way they see it.

joltaddict

The deveolpers pay to have their properties on a propietary system. Thats why the original Playstation and Gameboy were such revenue generators.

Kellehair

jolt: I don't think I insinuated any such thing. I was just pointing out an inconsistency in the arguments against Nintendo.

joltaddict

Not you. I was agreeing with your last post. The rest was about comments like this...
What a great rebuttal!

Josh H

The lower selection of games available on their console is a huge plus for Nintendo as a software publisher.

Their games are always going to sell well on reputation, and the fact that they don't have as much to compete against on the gamecube as they do on the PS2 helps them sell more copies.

Gamecube only owners are going to buy almost every Nintendo game because otherwise they aren't going to have a whole lot ot play.

Say Nintendo is third party and is releasing Mario Sunshine for the PS2.

Which scenario is Mario going to sell more copies? The current one, coming out to the gamecube with little competition, or the proposed one of releasing it for the PS2, where gamers will also have to chose from buying it, or saving money for Socom, Tekken 4, Kingdom Hearts and other big games coming out around it's release.

My point is Nintendo probably would sell more games if they went third party, but probably not as drastically as everyone thinks as the games will be up against more competion for casual gamers dollars.

There's a good chance the additional sells wouldn't be enough to make up for not having to pay licensing fees, and any profits made off of hardware sells.

I just don't see them going third party unless they end up in a distant third place in worldwide console sells, which isn't likely as most projections show them having a sizable lead in world wide sells by the end of the year.

Shawn

Exactly. Lower number of games available on the N64 than on the PSX meant that games on the N64 sold more than they would have if they had been on the PSX. But, I think that the next Mario game would sell better on the PS3 and Xbox2 than it would if it were just on Nintendo's next console, but that's just my opinion.

Josh H

How the next Mario game would fare will depend on how the GCN does this generation.

Projection have the GCN getting a good lead over the X-box in worldwide sells by the end of the year. So Nintendo could be in better shape heading into next generation than MS and could still have enough of a base to sell a enough Mario games on their platform only to justify not going multiplatform and losing hardware profits and having to pay licensing fees.

Shawn

I doubt that Microsoft counts worldwide sales as much as the ones in North America, because I think they've know that Japan is basically a dead market for them. So, I think Microsoft cares more about the other two major markets, NA and Europe. And, aren't there markets in which the Xbox hasn't even been released yet? (Korea, China, etc.)

joltaddict

Im telling you hardware is not a profit center for any of these companies. Some lose less than others but they are all loss leaders.
http://www.credit-to-cash.com/market...s_leader.shtml

http://www.investorwords.com/cgi-bin/getword.cgi?2898

Josh H

But Nintendo doesn't lose much, if any, and probably makes money on controllers and memory cards.

joltaddict

Youre basing this on what? Pyschic vibes? Remember the videocards you were mocking us for paying so much for? Whadda ya thinks in our Cubes?

And the R&D alone to get all that power into such a little box that is soundless and doesnt overheat? Amazing. The not-cheap kind of amazing. They lose money. There is no freaking way they aint. Less than Sony or MS Ill give ya that but you cant buy that kind of tech for

Trigger

[QUOTE]Originally posted by joltaddict
[B]And the R&D alone to get all that power into such a little box that is soundless and doesnt overheat? Amazing. The not-cheap kind of amazing. They lose money. There is no freaking way they aint. Less than Sony or MS Ill give ya that but you cant buy that kind of tech for

joltaddict

Got me.

Kellehair

This is the craziest thing I've ever heard.

Outsourcing has probably increased their profit margins. Nintendo has never been a hardware manufacturer like Sony so I doubt they manufactured their previous consoles as efficiently as someone else could have but they still turned a profit even then.

Trigger

Dude - it's cheaper for a console company to make the machines themselves rather than have to pay other companies for their technology and whatnot. I'm not talking about assembly - I'm talking about manufacturing.

Shawn

Yeah, Microsoft (probably) pays a ton to Flextronics, i think.

Kellehair

I'm talking about manufacturing too. My contention is that Nintendo was never good at manufacturing like Sony is for example. Nintendo still managed to make a profit on their hardware though. Now that they've shifted the manufacturing onto someone who's really good at it, they might be seeing better profit margins than with previous consoles.