Could the Wii U be Nintendo's last console?

[neoadorable]

Can't argue with the reality of publishers being reluctant to work on Wii U, but what you said about shareholders i doubt is true. Companies don't really work like that, and i have no idea who really controls Nintendo. It's certainly not individual shareholders. Either way, is Nintendo even losing money on Wii U? Doubt it, it's such a safe design, they made it like that because it's affordable and can be sold at a profit from day one. So each one they sell to vendors is money in the bank.

 

Hardly a Nintendo fan, never owned any hardware from them unless you count the game and watch thingies my mom used to buy me circa 1980...but never had anything against them either and would love to see them succeed. Wii U is a great device - punches well above its weight. Only exposed to it via friends and family, but seeing stuff like Blacklist and ZombiU run on it and thinking that's seemingly a 1.2GHz CPU in there...they got something right with the design, those games look very, very nice.

 

And six million units in one year is not so bad, nothing like Wii but there's still hope. I would get a Wii U now if i could comfortably justify and afford it.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Can't argue with the reality of publishers being reluctant to work on Wii U, but what you said about shareholders i doubt is true. Companies don't really work like that, and i have no idea who really controls Nintendo. It's certainly not individual shareholders. Either way, is Nintendo even losing money on Wii U? Doubt it, it's such a safe design, they made it like that because it's affordable and can be sold at a profit from day one. So each one they sell to vendors is money in the bank.

 

That was the business model they went for, but I doubt it was sustainable with the low sales. Even if you make money on each console, you still have the R&D to pay off along with a myriad of other things I assume. They had to sell 1 game to make a profit on each console, but I'm sure it's a few more than that now.

[neoadorable]

That was the business model they went for, but I doubt it was sustainable with the low sales. Even if you make money on each console, you still have the R&D to pay off along with a myriad of other things I assume. They had to sell 1 game to make a profit on each console, but I'm sure it's a few more than that now.

 

Yes, a net profit on the console will not negate other expenses if sales are unspectacular and attach rate is low. If those six million consoles only have four games per machine, that's not that great. Just an example, no idea what the attach rate is. Really rooting for Wii U, never had an issue with "lower spec" machines. As long as they exist alongside systems that are more tailored to power-lovers, as long as customers have a choice, then a relatively modest platform can be great. And i repeat again that from what i've seen Wii U is no slouch and definitely packs a punch. The lighting and atmospherics in ZombiU are amazing, much better than anything my beloved Titanfall has to offer, for example.

[compl3x]

No, read an article that talked about Nintendo is sitting on so much cash, it could lose 250 Million a year and survive until 2052.

http://www.gamesradar.com/nintendo-doomed-not-likely-just-take-look-how-much-money-its-got-bank/

 

 

That seems like an entirely simplistic way to explain a company's worth and how long it could tolerate loses. I think other things could tank a company if it kept losing money: investors would pull out, they'd lose their talent etc. 

[neoadorable]

Definitely not a good way to run a business, but for sure survivable. Not sure how dependent they are on investors, probably not at all. Talent is a good point, a stagnant business can't pay well, can't give perks, cuts bonuses and has unclear prospects. People don't linger at places like that very long unless they are very comfortable with the status quo. Anyway this is all academic, I don't think Nintendo are doing that bad.

[compl3x]

 Not sure how dependent they are on investors, probably not at all. 

 

If investors don't see returns on their investment they'll take their money. It's that simple. No one leaves their money in a company if it keeps losing it.

[neoadorable]

True, but i have a feeling Nintendo are not that kind of company. They are not shareholder or investor dependent, if had to guess would say the original families still control things. Nintendo does not strike me as the kind of business that gets scared too easily nor do they appear too worried about the future. They probably still make more money on poker chips and gambling equipment than our kind of gaming. But for sure no sane business would want to be stagnant or unappealing, that defeats the whole purpose of being in business.

[Shadrack]

True, but i have a feeling Nintendo are not that kind of company. They are not shareholder or investor dependent, if had to guess would say the original families still control things. Nintendo does not strike me as the kind of business that gets scared too easily nor do they appear too worried about the future. They probably still make more money on poker chips and gambling equipment than our kind of gaming. But for sure no sane business would want to be stagnant or unappealing, that defeats the whole purpose of being in business.

 

True that.  Nintendo has been in business for a very long time.  If the Wii U turns out to be a failure for them (something I'm not convinced of quite yet), then it wouldn't be their first "failure" and certainly won't be their last...

[VG_Addict]

There's also a bias against Nintendo. When people heard that they wouldn't be attending PAX East, people were quick to say they were "doomed". When it turned out that Sony would not attend either, nobody said anything.

[Blackhearted]

There's also a bias against Nintendo. When people heard that they wouldn't be attending PAX East, people were quick to say they were "doomed". When it turned out that Sony would not attend either, nobody said anything.

 

Yep, that's typically how it goes. Something is only bad if nintendo does it/doesn't do it.

[neoadorable]

True that.  Nintendo has been in business for a very long time.  If the Wii U turns out to be a failure for them (something I'm not convinced of quite yet), then it wouldn't be their first "failure" and certainly won't be their last...

 

They are very adaptable, same brand and same name, even same incorporation documents...for over a century. Very few entertainment-focused enterprises can claim this. They've adapted wonderfully to the rise of gaming, i think we can all agree on that one...they'll be fine. I remember people saying GameCube would be the last Nintendo console. The negatives always attract more attention, sadly.

[HawkMan]

There's also a bias against Nintendo. When people heard that they wouldn't be attending PAX East, people were quick to say they were "doomed". When it turned out that Sony would not attend either, nobody said anything.

Could be because people have already painted Sonys doom since they had to do the major reorg after losing buckets of money for years and have had to sell off several divisions. :)

And Nintendo always shows up to these kinds of things, it's in their image community and helping kids.

[Bigkaye]

Personally I hope nobody makes another gen of consoles. Consoles are EOL and PCs are moving into quantum territory. I'd much rather a 'sony now' experience on a computer than 4 different computers sitting under my TV so I can play titanfall, mario kart 8, watch dogs, and knack. Game consoles used to be tailored to software development, now they are just cheap computers ultra-tweaked to run heavily-DRM'd software via a fancy controller. IMHO The Xbox one/PS4 won't be hacked per-se, they are X86 arch - someone will crack the OS and clone the hardware. Instead of a modchip you'll buy custom hardware to run the hacked X1/PS4 interface...