Nintendo bows out of next-gen console stuff

If Nintendo can make its games for PS3 and XBox2, then it can sell blades without having to give away razors. Seems logical to me.

Connectivity can be pretty awesome when done right. Pac-Man Vs. is one of the best party games this gen. As for online vision, it doesn’t seem to be hurting them that much, does it? Clearly Microsoft has the best online plan for gamers, with cross game buddy lists/invites and voice support in every game. But if Microsoft is infinitely better at online than Nintendo why is the “race” for second so close? Because online really isn’t that important? Could Nintendo almost be right on this one? Maybe.

I’ll give you third party sales, though. Never been a strong suit. Except Soul Calibur 2 :)

Anyway, I can’t see a 1-2 year delay as a good thing for Nintendo. It killed them this gen and they said they wouldn’t do that again. Even if Sony/MS ship in 2005 and Nintendo in 2006 you’ll inevitably have the shortage problem in year one so they can’t get going until 2007 when Sony/MS have a growing two-year-old library. Oh well, maybe we’ll get the Super Gameboy Advance and it’ll all be good. Or I’ll just keep playing Gunbound.

Of course, then they have to pay hefty licensing fees.

Of course, then they have to pay hefty licensing fees.[/quote]

…and lose all licensing fees they now collect along with all the revenue from memory cards, peripherals, etc.

If Sega could have continued selling hardware, they would have. It is not more profitable to be “just a games maker”. Selling the hardware that everyone else makes games for makes you a LOT more money when you do it right.

–Dave

Possibly, but don’t you think Microsoft would pay HUGE money for the next Zelda or Mario games?

Not nearly as much as Nintendo makes now. Those exclusivity deals aren’t as lucrative as you think. Would you rather have the costs for developing one or two games covered or 500 million in profits? That’s how much profit Nintendo will have at the end of their fiscal year.

–Dave

So basically, the article was wrong…

–Dave

Mmmmmaybe. Videogame people tell such ridiculous fibs. I think Gamespot must have updated their article too, because the comments I’m seeing from people here seem to be going against what’s written now.

Of course, then they have to pay hefty licensing fees.[/quote]

…and lose all licensing fees they now collect along with all the revenue from memory cards, peripherals, etc.

If Sega could have continued selling hardware, they would have. It is not more profitable to be “just a games maker”. Selling the hardware that everyone else makes games for makes you a LOT more money when you do it right.

–Dave[/quote]

Even as the costs for R&D on hardware, in addition to production, skyrockets? I’m not sure how much of that I believe.

Licensing royalties on peripherals? I’m sure there’s a trickle of cash from madcatz controllers and memory cards, but most of it seems to come about from royalties on their own hardware. The last 3 generations of Nintendo consoles have had significantly less 3rd party type crap than others. I’ve always assumed this was beceuase N had a bit more of an eye for the “Quality” portion of Q&A when it came to certified peripherals.

It’s not exactly as if game consoles are nearly as divergent as they were in generations past. When Nintendo made the original NES… well, it was pretty much all them (and the SMS). Newly resurrected idea and all that. SNES? Let’s introduce 16 bit graphics + these nifty basic hardware tricks, up the color palette. N64? We’re sticking with cartridges! But GC? Yeah, it’s an optical disc system with huge polygon pushing and texturing power. It’s different from the other optical disc systems in that we have a funky form factor for our discs, and have mucked about with our controller layout yet again.

If anyone has the luxury of saying “Y’know, this whole hardware and game idea is silly. Let’s let someone else eat the R&D costs for the hardware, and we’ll just concentrate on putting out good quality games”, Nintendo does.

I’m not a console fanboi any longer. I’m old enough and well off enough that eventually I’ll own them all every generation anyway. So given that, I can’t figure out any difference in visibly perceptual capabilities between the XBox and the GC. Assumably any game can look as good on the XBox as on the GC, if not slightly better. I’d imagine MP3 streams aren’t any harder to plug into the hardware either. So it all comes down to the quality of games, and given teams who can get access to the innards of the hardware to really grok what’s going on in there, I see no reason why a solid game writer wouldn’t be able to write solid games on any system. And IMO, the whole selling point for Nintendo for at least the last two generations has been in solid game production, not superior hardware specs.

Wait, if they can make $500 million profit on being #3, then why the hell not just be happy being #3?

Most of that’s coming from GBA, though. They might make more if it wasn’t for GC - though I do think they’re running a profit on their GC operation.
Also, I’m pretty sure they’re number two and have been for some time.

Stuff from Reuters.

“Other companies aren’t expected to come out with next-generation consoles until late 2005 or 2006,” said Nintendo spokesman Yasuhiro Minagawa. “Our machine will be ready at the same time as the other new consoles.”

Saying pretty much the exact same thing as Nintendo’s American branch but from a different, Japenese person. Possibly in response to this news:

On the news of a possible delay in development, Nintendo shares fell 2.67 percent to 9,850 yen in early afternoon trade against a 0.62 percent fall in the Nikkei average.

Ouchie.

That’s a compelling point to become a software publisher if I ever saw one.

Maybe they feel its just not worth it to slug it out with MS/Sony at the same time. If those two release around the same time it will be like two giant Battleships duking it out, and it could be better to wait maybe one year. People can say well if they wait it will be like last gen, but can it be any better it if all three are released within a few months with hundreds of millions in ads being shoved in everyones face?

That’s a compelling point to become a software publisher if I ever saw one.[/quote]

Is it? How many games suck but were heavily hyped because of the quality of their flashy graphics and sound? How many cookie-cutter copies of the FPS and RTS genres do we really need?

Nintendo keeping their hardware means they can try things other guys aren’t, like (random example) Pac-Man Vs.

Now they say the N nextgen offering will be shown at e3 05.

Geez, you say the Xbox Next won’t have a harddrive and it’s like you said the sky is purple. If you say that Nintendo’s dropping out of the hardware race based on a quote taken out of context from an answer to a different question and it’s like “yes, I definitely believe this.”

Exactly. And what’s with the topic title? It’s not like the article was a report on an official announcment. Even before the update it should have been clear that A) this info is questionable at best and B) it wasn’t even a complete “bowing out”, just a delay. Maybe when the Reuters article hit this morning someone should have started a new topic called “Nintendo pre-emptively wins next generation console wars.”