* you can't actually ask them that, since you can't talk.
Nintendo should be raking in cash from all directions at this point, their strategy makes absolutely no sense.
Sega going 3rd party was their only option other then to go bankrupt. The situation is not comparable.
The time to pivot is not when you've hit rock bottom, it's not even when you have peaked, it's when you've past the inflection point, well before you've peaked. And Nintendo is already well past that point. They are seeing incredibly robust competition for every aspect of their business: casual and party games, motion based games, mobile gaming, etc. The core strength of Nintendo, which has aided them in past attempts at pivoting, is their 1st party IP: Zelda, Mario, Pokemon, Metroid, etc. But that will only get them so far, and won't save them if they make serious strategic blunders or fail to keep up with the competition. Nintendo still has options now, but will they still have those options in 5 or 10 years?
No
Nintendo has a viable, innovative product in the gaming industry. They make games for their platform because their platform is unique and their games take advantage of that. Because of this, they are raking in cash from all directions.
Why are you of the belief that Nintendo needs to bow out of the hardware business?
What has Nintendo done for a long time? A console, a handheld, fill it full of first party games.
So, even though they fully admit that these huge losses are because of an industry that is fundamentally changing, what is their strategy?
A console*, a handheld and fill them full of first party titles.
Oh, except this time, the console will have a controller that sports a huge touchscreen, so clearly they're taking on iOS (this is sarcasm).
>Because of this, they are raking in cash from all directions.
I.e., idiotic.
The worst thing Nintendo can do is to release their IP on other platforms. That's like saying Apple should start releasing software for Android.
Until Nintendo announces specifics for developers as well as the percentage take they'll get, it's hard to get excited. I'd be really surprised if they even allow indy devs in like the App Stores, and also if they don't charge 4-10k per dev kit.
Their indy catalog pales in comparison to their competitor's catalogs. Not to mention the pricing sucks in general
#2, dedicated gaming controls. Certain games need D-pads, analog sticks, and tactile buttons. Hard-wired controllers allow for more accurate control, and are essential in some "twitch-based" video games. Touchscreen's are phenomenally good for some types of games like board games and Angry Birds, but terrible for others like platformers and FPS's.
#3 is price. $40/$30 for a new game is extremely expensive for iOS games, but not 3DS ones. This may attract bigger budget games to the 3DS since developers/publishers could potentially make more on the 3DS than on iOS/Android. This can be considered a disadvantage too, since consumers may be deciding between one $40 3DS game, or 40 $0.99 iOS games. 3DS games will have to offer more perceived-value to justify premium pricing.
Currently I see #2, controls, as the biggest problem in the mobile-phone gaming space, which is why you're seeing 3rd-party solutions (iCade, 60beat GamePad, etc). Since 3rd-party solutions are not widely adopted and will result in high fragmentation, it'll probably require Apple or Google to design and release an "official" controller of some sort (ideally built into each device). If this never happens, there will still be a clear distinction between "portable gaming system" and "portable mobile phone/tablet".
RIMM? Really? So you think Nintendo's new market strategy is to run around suing everybody over questionable technology ownership claims? Because that's RIMM. I'm not getting the comparison.
EDIT: wait, RIMM, wrong company in my head. I would still disagree with the comparison though.
Too little too late? Is that in general or just for you? Because I don't assume to guess the future of the market based on such a small sample size.
To be honest, I sort of wish Nintendo would just give up making consoles and stick to making and release games for other systems.
The good new for Nintendo is that its not Millions (xbox live or PSN) vs Zero, Nintendo has millions of consoles out there, and Wii U will probably sell millions of consoles as well, especially with the added value of an online network.
All Nintendo needs to do to catch up in the online space is sell a bunch of consoles.
I for one, am glad to see Nintendo fight the good fight. The world doesn't need any more Nokia's or Palm's.
People vastly underplay the importance of cost in consoles. Family game developers will target any platform families use. An expensive WiiU will finish the job that an expensive 3DS started -- it will kill Nintendo.
Selling consoles is not synonymous with people using their online service. Moreover, there is no guarantee that even Nintendo will be able to sell a significant number of consoles.
There are several huge competitors in online gaming currently, with more competition arriving and maturing every day. XBox Live, Steam, and Battle.net all have tens of millions of users and offer a robust set of features: social networking (friends lists), online game purchasing and digital distribution, online multiplayer and grouping with friends, text and voice based chat, achievements systems, etc.
Digital distribution and selling of non-physical items have enormous profit margins and low per-item operating costs. They are clearly the wave of the future for all software, especially gaming, yet Nintendo is only just now barely even flirting with the idea. "Catching up" to Steam and XBL doesn't just mean achieving the same number of online users, it means achieving the same level of revenue and the same level of brand credibility from the rest of the industry.