Your reaction if Nintendo went third party?

[EvilRoy]

Oh look. Iwata himself said that that's not gonna happen:

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2014/01/29/nintendo-president-iwata-firm-that-nintendo-won-t-go-third-party-no-wii-u-price-cut.aspx

Great. Take a look at their ticker symbol following that announcement. Just because you think it's a good move does not mean that anyone else agrees. The stock price wouldn't even be THAT high if they hadn't just dropped a billion dollars on a buyback to drive the price up.

 

[VG_Addict]

Are we seriously still trying to say Nintendo would make more money going third party? Because that seems to rest on the assumption that PS/XBOX/PC owners would be interested in their games. Let's face it, Nintendo doesn't cater to the same people as they do. Sure there may be a bunch of people on forums who say they would buy them on other consoles/PC, but they don't even come close to making up the majority of gamers.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I find it kind of selfish on how people only want Nintendo to go third party because they can't be assed to buy their console.Personally I don't want any of the AAA publishers touching Pokemon and Zelda because they will turn them into shit.Micro-transactions and tons of Day 1 Dlc for Pokemon and dumbing down the battle mechanics of the competitive online play so that it can "appeal to a broader audience".Dumbing down Zelda and turning into a gritty game where Link is given a darker personality while dumbing down the dungeons and bosses because we can't have gamers being challenged in any way or required to think outside the box.No fucking thank you.

Uhm, isn't Nintendo already appealing to the broader audience? They're not the king of handhelds because of niche appeal, you know.

As for a gritty Zelda game where Link is given a darker personality... Twilight Princess says hello.

 

[VG_Addict]

Also, for those who want Nintendo to go third party: Hope you like Mario and Zelda, because that's all they'll be making. Sega focused almost solely on Sonic after they went third party.

 

[Casual Shinji]

They may appeal to a wider audience but they don't radically alter their franchises in order to do it,I would be pissed off if Pokemon became a simple turned based game and all the things like EVs and IVs were taken out,or if Zelda became a action game where dungeons were simply corridors and all of the puzzles were so simple a dog could do it.

That's exactly what would happen if any of the other AAA publishers got their hands on those franchises.And Twilight Princess is my second least favorite Zelda precisely for the fact that all of the bosses were simple and the puzzles even more so.

So what's your point? That Nintendo is just as capable of making shallow, dumbed down games (Twilight Princess) as third-party developers? And apart from the Triforce chart fetch quest, Wind Waker was pretty darn easy as well in both combat and dungeons.

So I don't really get this 'dumbed down, broader appeal' talk.

 

[EvilRoy]

Are we seriously still trying to say Nintendo would make more money going third party? Because that seems to rest on the assumption that PS/XBOX/PC owners would be interested in their games. Let's face it, Nintendo doesn't cater to the same people as they do. Sure there may be a bunch of people on forums who say they would buy them on other consoles/PC, but they don't even come close to making up the majority of gamers.

Because they WOULD make more money by going third party. The only question is how much specifically. It is nearly impossible to lose money by widening your audience, especially in cases like these where the only change required to reach more people is remove a single arbitrary hardware requirement. Even if not a single additional person purchased their games after removing the hardware requirement, Nintendo would still experience a net income increase because they are apparently selling their current console at a loss.

 

[VG_Addict]

Are we seriously still trying to say Nintendo would make more money going third party? Because that seems to rest on the assumption that PS/XBOX/PC owners would be interested in their games. Let's face it, Nintendo doesn't cater to the same people as they do. Sure there may be a bunch of people on forums who say they would buy them on other consoles/PC, but they don't even come close to making up the majority of gamers.

Because they WOULD make more money by going third party. The only question is how much specifically. It is nearly impossible to lose money by widening your audience, especially in cases like these where the only change required to reach more people is remove a single arbitrary hardware requirement. Even if not a single additional person purchased their games after removing the hardware requirement, Nintendo would still experience a net income increase because they are apparently selling their current console at a loss.

Except Nintendo has consistently made a profit on their hardware. Hell, I think Nintendo made a $99 million profit in their Q3 earnings.

And any profit they make going third party would be short term gains at best.

OK, let's play business. Could someone tell me how Nintendo could make more money on just software than they could making profits on hardware AND software? What all does Nintendo make a profit on with their hardware?

 

[VG_Addict]

Are we seriously still trying to say Nintendo would make more money going third party? Because that seems to rest on the assumption that PS/XBOX/PC owners would be interested in their games. Let's face it, Nintendo doesn't cater to the same people as they do. Sure there may be a bunch of people on forums who say they would buy them on other consoles/PC, but they don't even come close to making up the majority of gamers.

Because they WOULD make more money by going third party. The only question is how much specifically. It is nearly impossible to lose money by widening your audience, especially in cases like these where the only change required to reach more people is remove a single arbitrary hardware requirement. Even if not a single additional person purchased their games after removing the hardware requirement, Nintendo would still experience a net income increase because they are apparently selling their current console at a loss.

Nintendo has a networth of over 60+ billion just by making consoles and first party games,would going third party really help them make more money?Because I doubt most of the people who are screaming for them to go third party would be enough top offset any costs of doing so.

Also, people seem to think Nintendo going third party is as simple as just dropping the home console business and putting games on other consoles.

 

[Artaneius]

I wouldn't really care, the only nintendo games I still play are on emulators... If they went third party, I'm sure they would make a lot more money. Everyone always talks about how fun their games are, but no one wants to pay money for a game console that just has good exclusives or can't do anything else. Gaming consoles and PC's are more like media centers now than a gaming machine. Nintendo needs to start realizing that this isn't the 80s anymore.

 

[Fdzzaigl]

Any step toward making things more universal is a good one.

The only Nintendo console (or any console for that matter) I ever had was the original Game Boy Color. I don't see why they would continue with their consoles when all of their games can easily be played on tablets or smartphones (which is exactly what people are already doing tbh).

 

[Ishigami]

My reaction would look like this:

Though I would actually have to buy glasses to do so.

In any case I would be able to consider playing a Nintendo game since the GameCube.
That said there is no guarantee that I will because quite honestly I don?t really care about their franchises to begin with.
That?s why I have no Nintendo console atm.

 

[EvilRoy]

Are we seriously still trying to say Nintendo would make more money going third party? Because that seems to rest on the assumption that PS/XBOX/PC owners would be interested in their games. Let's face it, Nintendo doesn't cater to the same people as they do. Sure there may be a bunch of people on forums who say they would buy them on other consoles/PC, but they don't even come close to making up the majority of gamers.

Because they WOULD make more money by going third party. The only question is how much specifically. It is nearly impossible to lose money by widening your audience, especially in cases like these where the only change required to reach more people is remove a single arbitrary hardware requirement. Even if not a single additional person purchased their games after removing the hardware requirement, Nintendo would still experience a net income increase because they are apparently selling their current console at a loss.

Except Nintendo has consistently made a profit on their hardware. Hell, I think Nintendo made a $99 million profit in their Q3 earnings.

Except that hardware profit isn't coming from the WiiU. Nintendo has stated multiple times in the past that they are selling the WiiU at a loss, even before the delux edition price drop.

And any profit they make going third party would be short term gains at best.

Conjecture, somewhat baseless.

OK, let's play business. Could someone tell me how Nintendo could make more money on just software than they could making profits on hardware AND software? What all does Nintendo make a profit on with their hardware?

Well, since the WiiU is sold at a loss based on a report from August 2013 and has had a price drop hence, not producing hardware that loses you money would pretty much instantly increase the amount of money made on combined hardware and software.

 

[Folksoul]

I'd be worried as hell if I was Microsoft. If Nintendo goes third party, its to Sony. No other option. They will keep their brand as local as possible.

 

[VG_Addict]

Are we seriously still trying to say Nintendo would make more money going third party? Because that seems to rest on the assumption that PS/XBOX/PC owners would be interested in their games. Let's face it, Nintendo doesn't cater to the same people as they do. Sure there may be a bunch of people on forums who say they would buy them on other consoles/PC, but they don't even come close to making up the majority of gamers.

Because they WOULD make more money by going third party. The only question is how much specifically. It is nearly impossible to lose money by widening your audience, especially in cases like these where the only change required to reach more people is remove a single arbitrary hardware requirement. Even if not a single additional person purchased their games after removing the hardware requirement, Nintendo would still experience a net income increase because they are apparently selling their current console at a loss.

Except Nintendo has consistently made a profit on their hardware. Hell, I think Nintendo made a $99 million profit in their Q3 earnings.

Except that hardware profit isn't coming from the WiiU. Nintendo has stated multiple times in the past that they are selling the WiiU at a loss, even before the delux edition price drop.

And any profit they make going third party would be short term gains at best.

Conjecture, somewhat baseless.

OK, let's play business. Could someone tell me how Nintendo could make more money on just software than they could making profits on hardware AND software? What all does Nintendo make a profit on with their hardware?

Well, since the WiiU is sold at a loss based on a report from August 2013 and has had a price drop hence, not producing hardware that loses you money would pretty much instantly increase the amount of money made on combined hardware and software.

So, because Nintendo has ONE console they're selling at a loss, and is the first time they've ever done so, they should give up on home consoles?

 

[Evonisia]

I'd still play games on my Xbox 360, One and PC but with the added benefit of playing Nintendo games on them.

I'd be sad that Nintendo was gone, however.

 

[EvilRoy]

Are we seriously still trying to say Nintendo would make more money going third party? Because that seems to rest on the assumption that PS/XBOX/PC owners would be interested in their games. Let's face it, Nintendo doesn't cater to the same people as they do. Sure there may be a bunch of people on forums who say they would buy them on other consoles/PC, but they don't even come close to making up the majority of gamers.

Because they WOULD make more money by going third party. The only question is how much specifically. It is nearly impossible to lose money by widening your audience, especially in cases like these where the only change required to reach more people is remove a single arbitrary hardware requirement. Even if not a single additional person purchased their games after removing the hardware requirement, Nintendo would still experience a net income increase because they are apparently selling their current console at a loss.

Nintendo has a networth of over 60+ billion just by making consoles and first party games,would going third party really help them make more money?Because I doubt most of the people who are screaming for them to go third party would be enough top offset any costs of doing so.

Actually, I'm more worried about their stock price. The problem with net worth is that it only really expresses how hard it would be to kill a company, rather than what kind of profitability it has. Much of that value is locked up in physical or intellectual assets, sometimes companies even have substantial stock holdings in other companies and the value of those stocks would be included as well. That 60 billion net value isn't actually functional worth unless Nintendo starts selling HQ buildings, auctioning intellectual property, or dropping investments. Certainly this is a good way to avoid bankruptcy (although it is by no means a guarentee of safety - think THQ), and it does indicate past success but doesn't necessarily have any relation to how profitable the company currently is.

 

[Robert Marrs]

Given nintendos current plan of "give people no reason to buy our console" i think it would make me happy. I want to play nintendos games but I won't buy a console just to do it. They would probably make more money if they decided to go with just game development. I can't see this happening unless they end up going under though. Just give me a reason to buy your stupid console nintendo!