7 ms·

That's probably the case (as I don't know what else would make it worth buying), but the ultimate problem with Nintendo will still remain. They're bullies and t

That's probably the case (as I don't know what else would make it worth buying), but the ultimate problem with Nintendo will still remain. They're bullies and they get away with it because they make some of the most consistently high quality first party games. Microsoft took the plunge first, but everyone is realizing that the future is an open platform. Turns out if you make a quality game and make it widely available people will buy it (surprise). But they're married to the idea of restricting how their titles are played, which is only going to continue to turn people off.

Panzer04 3y ago
It's the difference between being a publisher/game developer and a hardware company. Hardware companies see games as a means to sell consoles. Game developers see platforms as a means to sell games. If you're coming at things from the perspective of a hardware maker it makes sense to be as restrictive as possible, since that provides the differentiation that sells your (overpriced) hardware. In addition, if your hardware becomes common then you can charge game developers for access (more broadly, this is what Apple does, mostly) From the game developer side, it makes sense to be on as many platforms as physically possible, since that's just more places to make sales and money.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- BlueTemplar 3y ago
  Is Nintendo even making money on the Switches themselves ?
  - hellotomyrars 3y ago
    Nintendo is famous for not selling their hardware at a loss unlike other console manufacturers. The only systems known to be sold at a loss were the 3DS (after price cuts) and the Wii U. This is part of why the hardware is underpowered compared to contemporaries.
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      > This is part of why the hardware is underpowered compared to contemporaries. The other part being that they decided years ago not to try and compete with MS/Sony and instead make great games. Switch is not an entertainment center it's a gaming console. And the strategy is absolutely working and has been since the Wii days.
      - hellotomyrars 3y ago
        To be clear, I am not saying Nintendo is wrong for making the hardware choices they have. By all accounts they intended to have a meaningful Switch hardware revision when the OLED hit but decided against it because of the then-exploded and uncertain supply chain. That said, I don't think you can draw a nice and neat trendline specifically from the Wii. I think the strategy has worked out well for them since its inception but a trend line from the Wii to the Switch only looks really good if you don't include the Wii U.
        PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        their strategy included the Wii U, to deny that is to deny reality. I also wouldn't call the Wii U a failure. Not being as successful as previous consoles from Nintendo is not the same thing as being a failure. Nintendo profited from every sale.
        hellotomyrars 3y ago
        Well, no. The Wii U is one of the two notable examples where Nintendo did sell the hardware at a loss. This isn’t speculation. Iwata said this in shareholders calls. ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20095125 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20095125) The Wii was a breakout success in a demographic the market had never previously reached. It is def unrealistic to expect the Wii U to have recaptured that market but it was done about as poorly as possible. I’m not saying the Wii U was a failure in totality but it did not live up to expectations for both Nintendo as a corporation or for many consumers. It’s okay to recognize this, Nintendo themselves did.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
>They're bullies and they get away with it because they make some of the most consistently high quality first party games. You can look at it this way: Nintendo makes the most consistent high quality first party games and have the lowest hardware spec. So they are most prone to piracy and unauthorized emulation and thus get the most attention when lawsuits come up. MS has 99% of its games on PC and Playstation specs are so hard (or maybe lack of interest. Probably many things) that gen 7 tech is still difficult to emulate in Gen 9. So Nintendo has the biggest target. >but everyone is realizing that the future is an open platform. If "release a port 2-3 years later on Windows OS to double dip" is "open platform", I kinda get why Nintendo defends their platform so rigidly. They are all closed down source games on closed down source OS's hosted on closed down source storefronts. There's no legal distinction there, just technical preferences of the minority who take the time to figure out how to setup emulation. And despite all that, Nintendo sells more on one system than both competitors on all platforms combined. I don't think they are worried about sales. Especially since they aren't chasing 300m dollar productions with 10 hours of cinematics.
garaetjjte 3y ago
Microsoft, open platform, what? With all that Trusted Computing and Pluton stuff?

Panzer04 3y ago

It's the difference between being a publisher/game developer and a hardware company. Hardware companies see games as a means to sell consoles. Game developers see platforms as a means to sell games. If you're coming at things from the perspective of a hardware maker it makes sense to be as restrictive as possible, since that provides the differentiation that sells your (overpriced) hardware. In addition, if your hardware becomes common then you can charge game developers for access (more broadly, this is what Apple does, mostly) From the game developer side, it makes sense to be on as many platforms as physically possible, since that's just more places to make sales and money.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
BlueTemplar 3y ago
Is Nintendo even making money on the Switches themselves ?
- hellotomyrars 3y ago
  Nintendo is famous for not selling their hardware at a loss unlike other console manufacturers. The only systems known to be sold at a loss were the 3DS (after price cuts) and the Wii U. This is part of why the hardware is underpowered compared to contemporaries.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    > This is part of why the hardware is underpowered compared to contemporaries. The other part being that they decided years ago not to try and compete with MS/Sony and instead make great games. Switch is not an entertainment center it's a gaming console. And the strategy is absolutely working and has been since the Wii days.
    - hellotomyrars 3y ago
      To be clear, I am not saying Nintendo is wrong for making the hardware choices they have. By all accounts they intended to have a meaningful Switch hardware revision when the OLED hit but decided against it because of the then-exploded and uncertain supply chain. That said, I don't think you can draw a nice and neat trendline specifically from the Wii. I think the strategy has worked out well for them since its inception but a trend line from the Wii to the Switch only looks really good if you don't include the Wii U.
      - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        their strategy included the Wii U, to deny that is to deny reality. I also wouldn't call the Wii U a failure. Not being as successful as previous consoles from Nintendo is not the same thing as being a failure. Nintendo profited from every sale.
        hellotomyrars 3y ago
        Well, no. The Wii U is one of the two notable examples where Nintendo did sell the hardware at a loss. This isn’t speculation. Iwata said this in shareholders calls. ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20095125 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20095125) The Wii was a breakout success in a demographic the market had never previously reached. It is def unrealistic to expect the Wii U to have recaptured that market but it was done about as poorly as possible. I’m not saying the Wii U was a failure in totality but it did not live up to expectations for both Nintendo as a corporation or for many consumers. It’s okay to recognize this, Nintendo themselves did.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

>They're bullies and they get away with it because they make some of the most consistently high quality first party games. You can look at it this way: Nintendo makes the most consistent high quality first party games and have the lowest hardware spec. So they are most prone to piracy and unauthorized emulation and thus get the most attention when lawsuits come up. MS has 99% of its games on PC and Playstation specs are so hard (or maybe lack of interest. Probably many things) that gen 7 tech is still difficult to emulate in Gen 9. So Nintendo has the biggest target. >but everyone is realizing that the future is an open platform. If "release a port 2-3 years later on Windows OS to double dip" is "open platform", I kinda get why Nintendo defends their platform so rigidly. They are all closed down source games on closed down source OS's hosted on closed down source storefronts. There's no legal distinction there, just technical preferences of the minority who take the time to figure out how to setup emulation. And despite all that, Nintendo sells more on one system than both competitors on all platforms combined. I don't think they are worried about sales. Especially since they aren't chasing 300m dollar productions with 10 hours of cinematics.

garaetjjte 3y ago

Microsoft, open platform, what? With all that Trusted Computing and Pluton stuff?