I just realized, all management decision in regards to mobile DeNA partnership, licensing ventures, QOL, etc. were all made after the death of Yamauchi? Simple coincidence or no?
Absolutely, but also one that is contracting and not very profitable. I'm not saying I'd want to abandon consoles, but I'd certainly want to make sure I had other avenues of expansion at this point, if I had Sony-like overhead. Hopefully they can expand on Sony/Playstation mobile.
You mean in the sense that Yamauchi was blocking it or that Iwata is feeling more pressure without Yamauchi backing him up?
I agree, the nature of the deal seems to be that Nintendo bought 10% of DeNA and DeNA is now owner of 1.2% of Nintendo in a way that both parties bought the similar amount of money in stock from the other.
What do people expect from this in the long run? To me, it seems more like the big deal is about Nintendo crossing a boundry (to put it like that) rather than some big change is going to happen in the gaming market overall just because Nintendo make this decision. But it remains to be seen exactly how big the mobile game output will be (as in how many games that will be made).
A free to play, Animal Crossing mobile game will probably do huge numbers for Nintendo. Put some in game advertising in there for their premium console/handheld titles and I could see it boosting their hardware business significantly. This is a smart move by Nintendo.
Both really. I mean it's either Yamauchi didn't support the vision or Iwata is backed-up against the wall and needed a change of strategy in place.
Both really. I mean it's either Yamauchi didn't support the vision or Iwata is backed-up against the wall and needed a change of strategy in place. Just odd timing really.
I don't think is that obvious. To contrast take the example of Madden and FIFA and Ultimate Team (which is making a killing on both), the model is already there and proven, people are currently paying $60 and then expending a lot of money on UT on both games. There is a case to be made here that UT revenue could increase if you take away the barrier of the $60 price tag, and it makes some sense to make a F2P UT mode as a stand alone product. But on Nintendo's case there isn't a case were you have a revenue generator in your game that has a $60 wall that works as an impediment for other players to trow money at you.
I don't think there is an obvious answer or obvious game to make mobile, it is interesting to conjecture but I doubt we will find an obvious answer into how monetize Nintendo games on mobile and push the sales of their traditional games.
I wouldn't say that the DeNA change is so much him backed into a corner. This is a move that makes a lot of sense: Nintendo gives their IP increased exposure with small/light tie-in games and apps, they get an infrastructure they've been struggling to modernize for a long time, and they are partnering with a strong company on the mobile front.
Mobile on its own still isn't much more than an alternate, additional revenue stream. It doesn't really have the throughput all on its own to fuel a company of Nintendo's size.
I understand the move; however, this is a far cry from the Iwata back in 2012 where he said Nintendo's IPs would not appear on mobile offerings
Nintendo has bought themselves a platform and hopefully will reap the rewards from this patnership.
Iwata in 2012 also wasn't looking at a contracting handheld market, and a dead console.
Market realities have changed a lot over the last five years for everyone, and even if Nintendo could survive in its niche for years, it really doesn't make sense to not expand into the growing markets and pretend that they don't exist. The key, though, is expansion at a wise and reasonable clip and not going balls-to-the-wall and expecting instant success.
But NIntendo isn't probably wining 100% of licensing fees with this startegic alience with Dena. This should have not happened. XD
Just like stated in this very thread, it was about time they leaved their comfort zone. The market is just too different to keep with the old ways.
I understand the move; however, this is a far cry from the Iwata back in 2012 where he said Nintendo's IPs would not appear on mobile offerings
Japanese developers that don't want to make high budget AAA games.
Its a 50/50 split in revenue after the loss to the OS holder. But this is coming in conjunction with them maintaining their 100% earning on their own hardware from their own software and continuing to get royalties for platform holding, not in lieu of it.
50/50?, even more interesting. They gave quiet a bit to make this deal happen because they consider it worth it. That's what you do some times to expand a busyness.There is a huge difference between making your flagship products and maintain your high profit on your own platform and a mobile adventure which we still don't know how they are going to tackle on. Mobile Nintendo games are basically a new revenue generator rather than a new model replacing an old one. I think both situations aren't comparable at all.
But NIntendo isn't probably wining 100% of licensing fees with this startegic alience with Dena. This should have not happened. XD
Just like stated in this very thread, it was about time they leaved their comfort zone. The market is just too different to keep with the old ways.
You're right in a sense that Nintendo IP does not equal free money in the mobile space but I think if they act smart, they will be able to boost profits by mobile game sales and increase profit in the dedicated hardware market. I don't think they will succeed if they just produce half complete or demo type applications for smartphones. They should go all out and produce high budget games for mobile that can attract consumers to their premium offerings as well.
Absolutely, but also one that is contracting and not very profitable. I'm not saying I'd want to abandon consoles, but I'd certainly want to make sure I had other avenues of expansion at this point, especially if I had Sony-like overhead. Hopefully they can expand on Sony/Playstation mobile or find a way to attract "casual" gamers back to consoles.
I honestly admit that I didn't understand so much about what happened yesterday with Nintendo and DeNa
could it be something good for?Youkai Watch
Nope, Youkai Watch is already dead. Level 5 better be working on their Mobage x NX transmedia franchise as we speak.
I doubt it will affect them too much.I honestly admit that I didn't understand so much about what happened yesterday with Nintendo and DeNa
could it be something good for?Youkai Watch
50/50?, even more interesting. They gave quiet a bit to make this deal happen because they consider it worth it. That's what you do some times to expand a busyness.
They didn't chose to make their own platform to target mobile devices, but took a loss in the licensing fees part of their busyness to take advantage of a more robust and stablished one going with DeNA. Take a look some posts back to see that i was talking about in such terms with one of my examples. XD
Nintendo has many IP’s that are valuable from the likes of Mario, Donkey Kong to The Legend of Zelda; however my question is in relation to the Pokemon IP as it is owned by three copyright holders, Nintendo included. Thus, is Pokemon included in this joint-partnership?
i have posted various examples of possible busyness paths for Nintendo to take, this includes the path that they have just taken with DeNA. My post stroy is there. Now what i said in this thread.Again it is different, if I remember correctly you wanted Nintendo to stop selling consoles and sell a peripheral that would be tie with the ability to play their games on PC/PS/XBOX/Whatever. It is no where near what Nintendo is doing with DeNa, and while we know that they are going to share 50/50 over the revenue of the IP nintendo choose to put on the mobile market (and that most likely DeNA is going to develop) Iwata thought it was important to point out that they aren't going away from proprietary hardware with the NX system (whatever that may be).
So it seems that the current situation is that Nintendo has build a partnership in order to add a new business model rather than completely replace the existing one. I can't see the correlations at all with what you suggested (that was basically for Nintendo to go 3rd party).
My question during DeNA's call:
Response: We can't comment if Pokemon is included or not in this partnership.
Well damn.
In China, it costs about 50 to 100 million yen to develop one title. In Japan, the cost is currently about 100 to 200 million yen. We may spend additional time on certain titles to further polish game quality.
Chinas smartphone gaming market is rapidly growing and is comparable in size with Japan, with numerous titles generating over 1 billion yen per month.
Good way to expand into emerging markets as well.
Look for Konami to make even fewer consumer games, as key staff behind the Tokimeki Memorial and Love Plus franchises have left the company: https://twitter.com/RyougaSaotome/status/577305368264474625 https://twitter.com/RyougaSaotome/status/577305613060812802
This news apparently got so scandalous that Konami has officially put out a press release to address the issue: http://www.konami.jp/osirase/150318/
They confirm that the two producers behind Love Plus and Tokimeki Memorial have left the company, but that both franchises are still very important to Konami and will continue to be supported. Damage controllllllllllllllll.
Obviously Level 5 will sign with GREE instead.Nope, Youkai Watch is already dead. Level 5 better be working on their Mobage x NX transmedia franchise as we speak.
This news apparently got so scandalous that Konami has officially put out a press release to address the issue: http://www.konami.jp/osirase/150318/
They confirm that the two producers behind Love Plus and Tokimeki Memorial have left the company, but that both franchises are still very important to Konami and will continue to be supported. Damage controllllllllllllllll.
you really ijiwaru !!!
I'm sure Konami has their brightest minds trying to figure out how they can cross the two series over with Metal Gear.
Konami, pls. You're not fooling anyone.
What were the opening week numbers for Demon Souls and Dark Souls.?
Wandering how much should Bloodborne do to be considered on par.
Demon's Souls opened at like 39k because it was undershipped, there was zero confidence in the game, but somehow word of mouth kept going and it sold more and more and more. Eventually between the original release and the budget re-release, it sold about 365k.
When Dark Souls came out, it sold 279k in the first week.
Obviously Level 5 will sign with GREE instead.
Demon's Souls opened at like 39k because it was undershipped, there was zero confidence in the game, but somehow word of mouth kept going and it sold more and more and more. Eventually between the original release and the budget re-release, it sold about 365k.
When Dark Souls came out, it sold 279k in the first week.
Am I misremembering or did Level 5 have their own mobile platform at some point?
Obviously Level 5 will sign with GREE instead.
thank you
what about Dark Souls 2?
Their [appropriate] response is to divest.so, could we say after yesterday that Nintendo unveiled their response to the shifting market, keeping their dedicated devices business while putting aside the toy-to-life business also the mobile one, right?
what about Sony, in your opinion? It's pretty obvious that they will stay in the home segment considering how successfull they have always been and how PS4 is setting the (Western) world on fire; but what about portable and or mobile?
I'm asking this because we often compare Wii U and Vita struggling sales worldwide in terms of: what will they do next?
Famitsu:
DS : 230k
DS2 : 220k
So what are the expectations from Bloodborne in Japan? 200k?
is there any NeoGAF average ?