• The Super Mario All-Stars Celebration Event has begun! We're commemorating the 30th Anniversary of Super Mario All-Stars and the upcoming release of Super Mario Bros. Wonder with Famiboards' biggest event yet. From July 14 to September 14, aim to collect 60 badges or land a place on the High Score Tables - lucky participants will have a chance to win one of a few prizes!
  • Hey Famiboards, Episode 4 of the Famiboards Discussion Club is now live! WestEgg, Irene, and VolcanicDynamo discuss Princess Peach: Showtime, Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door, F-Zero 99, and the rest of the September Nintendo Direct! Check it out here!

Discussion Three year old emails surface from FTC case about Microsoft’s interest in buying Nintendo

I mean the mail isn‘t even that bad or ill-intended and it makes total sense from a Microsoft perspective. Playing along until an opportunity opens up. Though I think that opportunity will never come at least in the next 10-20 years.

All their previous acquisitions have in common that the companies are struggling and I would say that they are actually better off with Microsoft, especially for the workforce. But I don‘t see that with Nintendo whatsoever and as long as they have a strong position in the market it‘s probably not even possible to buy them.
 
Machrider said:
likely on a platform that would become the market leader
Click to expand...

Nintendo is already a market leader... Switch is in its 7th year and still outselling the current-gen Xbox (and until very recently, PS5)...

Besides, do you really think if Nintendo becomes Microsoft's sub, they will have the freedom to delay Zelda TOTK 1 full year when the game is already done just to polish it? Or making Mario Wonder with no deadline? Those privileges only existed because Nintendo had their own hardware and didn't belong to any big company like Microsoft, Sony, etc.
 
SNP said:
Nintendo is already a market leader... Switch is in its 7th year and still outselling the current-gen Xbox (and until very recently, PS5)...

Besides, do you really think if Nintendo becomes Microsoft's sub, they will have the freedom to delay Zelda TOTK 1 full year when the game is already done just to polish it? Or making Mario Wonder with no deadline? Those privileges only existed because Nintendo had their own hardware and didn't belong to any big company like Microsoft, Sony, etc.
Click to expand...

They're the market leader but it doesn't really come with all the fruits such a position should come with. It wouldn't be a bad thing to have the ability to make games on powerful, industry standard style hardware and have all 3rd parties bend the knee, as it was in the days of the Super NES before Sony forced them out of that (and not voluntarily I might add).

It would be nice to return to the "I just buy the Nintendo console" thing (MS would be smart to just rebrand their hardware division under the Nintendo brand, and maybe just keep the "X" in there if they did this) and get all the games I want there instead of "I buy a Nintendo console for Nintendo games and then I have to buy a seperate Sony or MS console to play 3rd party games". Maybe it's because I remember the NES and SNES eras when it wasn't that way, but I've always despised this status quo.

MS would have so much software that there really wouldn't be a huge need to force Nintendo to rush games. I don't really see a ton of evidence they do that even as is.
 
Last edited:
Every company wants to buy Nintendo, you’re just getting a peak at one executive saying so because he went ahead and bought a different company instead.

HockeyBird said:
I mean, he has been head of Xbox for about a decade now and he hasn't turned around Xbox in a significant way so he's not that great at his job.
Click to expand...
Xbox would be getting a Nostalgia-fueled Atari-like Xbox 360 re-release with Halo 3 and Gears of War available exclusively at Kohl’s right now if Phil Spencer didn’t turn Xbox around.

I understand not liking Xbox or Microsoft but come on, where they’re at now and where they were a decade ago are completely different for the better. Just because it’s not Wii U -> Switch levels of turnaround doesn’t mean what they’ve done is minimal.
 
Phil got the wrong idea when playing Super Smash Ultimate and now he is dreaming about its tagline.

"Everyone is here!"

Anyway, what the fuck? Good luck kid.
 
0
HeyItsPulse said:
Every company wants to buy Nintendo, you’re just getting a peak at one executive saying so because he went ahead and bought a different company instead.


Xbox would be getting a Nostalgia-fueled Atari-like Xbox 360 re-release with Halo 3 and Gears of War available exclusively at Kohl’s right now if Phil Spencer didn’t turn Xbox around.

I understand not liking Xbox or Microsoft but come on, where they’re at now and where they were a decade ago are completely different for the better. Just because it’s not Wii U -> Switch levels of turnaround doesn’t mean what they’ve done is minimal.
Click to expand...

They’ve been in the console space for over 20 years now. Where they’re at now is running a glorified rental service, funded from outside of the gaming division, actively acting to weaken the third-party developer landscape (and therefore their rivals) instead of strengthening or expanding their own studios, with a whole bunch of mismanaged studios in one pocket and the obituaries of studios they’ve shitcanned in the other.
 
Machrider said:
They're the market leader but it doesn't really come with all the fruits such a position should come with.
Click to expand...

what does this even mean bro, the fruits of the market leader position are a lots of money and relevance. they have that. theyre drowning in it. im so confused.
 
A buy out would be hard to get past regulators, but maybe a deal like

- Nintendo agrees to make 3-5 ports of older games per year to XBox/PC platforms which are Game Pass day 1. Talking like maybe a port of Fire Emblem: Three Houses, New Pokemon Snap!, Metroid Prime 1 + 2 Remaster, Super Mario Odyssey, F-Zero 99 in year 1. So a mishmash of maybe 1 really big older title and 3-4 smaller scale things.

- Some retro content games to be made available on Game Pass ... ie: Earthbound (SNES), Super Mario World (SNES), Wave Race 64 (N64), Pokemon Red/Blue (GB), Super Mario Bros. 1 (NES), F-Zero X (N64), etc.

- In return, MS agrees to also give the Switch 2 several games per year beyond Call of Duty, including Halo Infinite, Forza Horizon 4, Conker's Bad Fur Day port, and after an exclusivity period of say 24 months ... Starfield. This would be a route for Bethesda games to continue to be on Switch 2.

- Nintendo agrees to make a special Nintendo themed XBox hardware bundle in Japan that can feature some Nintendo characters.

- For doing this, Nintendo gets $700 million/year guaranteed for 10 years.

The deal is sweeter for Nintendo yes, but MS can afford it and growing their brand IP on the Switch isn't the worst thing in the world because guess which home-only console 100+ million Switch owners may prefer if they end up liking Halo, Starfield, Forza, etc. etc.
 
james said:
what does this even mean bro, the fruits of the market leader position are a lots of money and relevance. they have that. theyre drowning in it. im so confused.
Click to expand...

I mean for the gamer. Traditionally in the past being the "market leader" meant you got all the 3rd party support for example (see: NES, Super NES, Playstation 1, PS2, etc. etc.). And even today Switch is still by a lot of people kind of looked at as it's "own thing", not the actual market leader (the PS4/PS5 get bestowed that).
 
I understand if Microsoft want to buy Nintendo. I am sure most companies would jump to the chance to own Nintendo. But usually in most mergers both companies offer something that they don't have (example: in the Activision Blizzard acquisition Microsoft has the better brand and good standing with gamers and Activision has a lot of studios and IP's) however Microsoft doesn't have much to offer Nintendo in things that they care about. The two main weaknesses of Nintendo in my opinion is probably hardware and online. On hardware they can obviously make more powerful hard work if they wanted to it's just that the market that they found the most success in doesn't require it. Nintendo also has been working bit by bit to have better online. So there isn't much that Microsoft could provide Nintendo.
 
Machrider said:
They're the market leader but it doesn't really come with all the fruits such a position should come with. It wouldn't be a bad thing to have the ability to make games on powerful, industry standard style hardware and have all 3rd parties bend the knee, as it was in the days of the Super NES before Sony forced them out of that (and not voluntarily I might add).

It would be nice to return to the "I just buy the Nintendo console" thing (MS would be smart to just rebrand their hardware division under the Nintendo brand, and maybe just keep the "X" in there if they did this) and get all the games I want there instead of "I buy a Nintendo console for Nintendo games and then I have to buy a seperate Sony or MS console to play 3rd party games". Maybe it's because I remember the NES and SNES eras when it wasn't that way, but I've always despised this status quo.

MS would have so much software that there really wouldn't be a huge need to force Nintendo to rush games. I don't really see a ton of evidence they do that even as is.
Click to expand...
I think that you are under the wrong impession that Nintendo can't make a Series X/ PS5 they have the money business partners and research teams to do so if they want to.

It's just the best business for them not to, and at the moment it has been proved that yes it's the best business decision.

Not to ignore that at the time of the Switch launch it was kinda close to the best you can do for a handheld at a good price point.
Some of you act like things such as the steam deck lunch at the same time of something haha.
Technology just advance that fast and it's gonna be the same with the next system.
 
Machrider said:
I mean for the gamer. Traditionally in the past being the "market leader" meant you got all the 3rd party support for example (see: NES, Super NES, Playstation 1, PS2, etc. etc.). And even today Switch is still by a lot of people kind of looked at as it's "own thing", not the actual market leader (the PS4/PS5 get bestowed that).
Click to expand...
damn

there's nothing wrong with just wanting to own one thing, quite the opposite really, but as a fan of nintendo games I value their independence much more highly than their position in the market

this is the sort of perspective that's totally foreign to me but I have to respect pragmatically
 
Ryuusagi no hoshi said:
I think that you are under the wrong impession that Nintendo can't make a Series X/ PS5 they have the money business partners and research teams to do so if they want to.

It's just the best business for them not to, and at the moment it has been proved that yes it's the best business decision.

Not to ignore that at the time of the Switch launch it was kinda close to the best you can do for a handheld at a good price point.
Some of you act like things such as the steam deck lunch at the same time of something haha.
Technology just advance that fast and it's gonna be the same with the next system.
Click to expand...

I'm just saying as a gamer it wouldn't be that bad, like it's not something I'd lose sleep over lets just put it that way.

One home console with Nintendo + Bethesda + Activision + Microsoft + Rareware exclusives + all 3rd party support (even the stragglers that try to ignore the XBox or Switch now would have no choice but to come crawling back) + Game Pass with relatively high end graphics would be ... a dream home console frankly.
 
Machrider said:
I'm just saying as a gamer it wouldn't be that bad, like it's not something I'd lose sleep over lets just put it that way.

One home console with Nintendo + Bethesda + Activision + Microsoft + Rareware exclusives + all 3rd party support (even the stragglers that try to ignore the XBox or Switch now would have no choice but to come crawling back) with relatively high end graphics would be ... a dream home console frankly.
Click to expand...

Nintendo's entire output would have to change. It wouldn't resemble how they've been making games.on switch at all.

If all you're interested in is BOTW/TOTK/Smash/Mario kart, and the other really big sellers, then, sure, you get slightly shinier versions of those.

If you're in for any of their low/mid tier games though? You're fucked. F zero 99, advance wars, Pikmin 4, bayonettas origins, everybody 1-2 switch, warioware move it, and likely detective Pikachu 2 just from this year, would never have happened if they weren't a completely separate first party. Other games like xenoblade 3s massive expansion and fire emblem engage would also very likely have faced the chopping block.
 
Linkstrikesback said:
Nintendo's entire output would have to change. It wouldn't resemble how they've been making games.on switch at all.

If all you're interested in is BOTW/TOTK/Smash/Mario kart, and the other really big sellers, then, sure, you get slightly shinier versions of those.

If you're in for any of their low/mid tier games though? You're fucked. F zero 99, advance wars, Pikmin 4, bayonettas origins, everybody 1-2 switch, warioware move it, and likely detective Pikachu 2 just from this year, would never have happened if they weren't a completely separate first party. Other games like xenoblade 3s massive expansion and fire emblem engage would also very likely have faced the chopping block.
Click to expand...

I think smaller games would continue because they're a nice value add for Game Pass that would keep continual content always coming for a service like that which would need it.

Having one big game a year isn't actually ideal for the Game Pass model, imagine if Netflix only released one big movie or series a year.

Things like a Pokemon Snap here, a Fire Emblem there, Pikmin 4, a Mario RPG remake, even a F-Zero 99 there ... would be perfect for Game Pass instead of saying "OK, now wait 8 months for Smash Bros".

That is the main problem Game Pass faces ... people sub for cheap to play for a month or two, and then cancel their sub. With a regular drip of beloved Nintendo IP to a hundred million Nintendo fans ... I think a lot more people would just stay subbed in.
 
Raccoon said:
anybody who thinks this wouldn't functionally destroy EPD either is kidding themselves or doesn't care about Nintendo development
Click to expand...
For real. Anyone who thinks EPD would be nearly as competitive and prestigious if they weren't first party are kidding themselves. That doesn't say anything bad about Nintendo, it's just that so much of their competitive edge is the need to keep up their reputation and sell units. If they were just a first party software developer, suddenly there's no need to be as much sticklers of quality as they are now, and you'd start getting a lot of good but half-finished games that aren't generation defining titles.

Oh, also you can kiss Fire Emblem, Metroid, and Xenoblade goodbye. But that's worth it for better graphics, amirite?

Derachi said:
something like Labo would never happen under Microsoft.
Click to expand...
Never mind, guess there's a silver lining for everything! /s
 
Machrider said:
I'm just saying as a gamer it wouldn't be that bad, like it's not something I'd lose sleep over lets just put it that way.

One home console with Nintendo + Bethesda + Activision + Microsoft + Rareware exclusives + all 3rd party support (even the stragglers that try to ignore the XBox or Switch now would have no choice but to come crawling back) + Game Pass with relatively high end graphics would be ... a dream home console frankly.
Click to expand...
It's quite dumb and naive, and sorry if I'm being rude telling you this like that.
At this point let's say that everything is on everything and PlayStation, Xbox and Nintendo all came together and end consoles and PC is all there is so we can have everything and all games and with the best graphics and fps and we all hold hands and sing.

In all honesty you are taken a lot of nuance of that scenario even with 3rd party coming back and all.
I don't think in reality you would like your hypothetical either and for that we should wait and see what MS makes out of ActBliz.
 
Mister Gideon said:
They’ve been in the console space for over 20 years now. Where they’re at now is running a glorified rental service, funded from outside of the gaming division, actively acting to weaken the third-party developer landscape (and therefore their rivals) instead of strengthening or expanding their own studios, with a whole bunch of mismanaged studios in one pocket and the obituaries of studios they’ve shitcanned in the other.
Click to expand...
You really pulled every twitter argument against Xbox into one post, that's impressive. You could say most of this about Playstation as well, seeing as the studios you look at as "Playstation" are only Playstation because they were bought out by Sony and they shuttered their Japan studio, then just recently shuttered a smaller studio because they want full focus on AAA. Heck, the only games after Spider-Man and Wolverine they have announced are GAAS multiplayer games made for the sole purpose of nickel and diming their playerbase.

I get it, you don't care for Xbox, and this forum isn't Xbox friendly. But to act like they are the "big bad" while Playstation and Nintendo are the good guys is just incorrect. They all want your money, and will do anything to get it. It just so happens that Xbox thinks buying studios (that were going to be sold one way or another anyway. He even says he doesn't want to do hostile takeovers) and getting more games into the first party lineup is the way to get people into their ecosystem. They don't have the Nostalgia to lean on like Nintendo does, or the mainstream popularity that PS does.
 
AngryAlchemist said:
For real. Anyone who thinks EPD would be nearly as competitive and prestigious if they weren't first party are kidding themselves. That doesn't say anything bad about Nintendo, it's just that so much of their competitive edge is the need to keep up their reputation and sell units. If they were just a first party software developer, suddenly there's no need to be as much sticklers of quality as they are now, and you'd start getting a lot of good but half-finished games that aren't generation defining titles.

Oh, also you can kiss Fire Emblem, Metroid, and Xenoblade goodbye. But that's worth it for better graphics, amirite?


Never mind, guess there's a silver lining for everything! /s
Click to expand...

If it was the traditional console model maybe, but even there when Nintendo had a near monopoly with the NES/Famicom/Game Boy and didn't really have to push themselves, they still made a ton of great games.

But in the modern context, a service like Game Pass would continually need new and diverse content, so Fire Emblem, Metroid, Xenoblade would certainly have their place.
 
Machrider said:
I think smaller games would continue because they're a nice value add for Game Pass that would keep continual content always coming for a service like that which would need it.

Having one big game a year isn't actually ideal for the Game Pass model, imagine if Netflix only released one big movie or series a year.

Things like a Pokemon Snap here, a Fire Emblem there, Pikmin 4, a Mario RPG remake, even a F-Zero 99 there ... would be perfect for Game Pass instead of saying "OK, now wait 8 months for Smash Bros".
Click to expand...

And those games existed because: 1) Nintendo was platform holder, they hold a tons of money thanks to big and evergreen title and cut from other 3rd party/indie. 2) Nintendo need to fill out their schedule with frequent space.

If Nintendo belong to Microsoft, they won’t have as much freedom and money as they have now. They only need to care about a few title while the space you think would be fulfilled by other Microsoft’s studios already.
 
Ryuusagi no hoshi said:
It's quite dumb and naive, and sorry if I'm being rude telling you this like that.
At this point let's say that everything is on everything and PlayStation, Xbox and Nintendo all came together and end consoles and PC is all there is so we can have everything and all games and with the best graphics and fps and we all hold hands and sing.

In all honesty you are taken a lot of nuance of that scenario even with 3rd party coming back and all.
I don't think in reality you would like your hypothetical either and for that we should wait and see what MS makes out of ActBliz.
Click to expand...

I'm saying it's not really worth stressing out over.

"Oh noez, now I can play Nintendo games on much better hardware and go back to the days of the SNES where I could just buy one game machine for all my gaming needs instead of 'I have to buy a seperate $400-$500 Playstation or XBox to play 3rd party content' nonsense" type of thing.

Isn't so terrible. Maybe MS would let Nintendo manage Rareware again too, that would be nice.

Maybe because I'm older, but I actually remember the NES and SNES eras. It was a lot better than today if I'm being honest, as much as the Switch being successful is cool (or Wii about 15 years ago) ... they don't compare to the NES and SNES eras for me. It's just different.
 
Machrider said:
If it was the traditional console model maybe, but even there when Nintendo had a near monopoly with the NES/Famicom/Game Boy and didn't really have to push themselves, they still made a ton of great games.

But in the modern context, a service like Game Pass would continually need new and diverse content, so Fire Emblem, Metroid, Xenoblade would certainly have their place.
Click to expand...
You're saying that the NES didn't have to have Nintendo pushing themselves to make great games? The console that pretty much sold entirely on the quality of Nintendo's first party (especially in the West) and adopted the Nintendo seal of approval and Nintendo's quality standards in order to reassure the North American market and bring the NA market back from collapse?

That NES didn't need Nintendo to push themselves?
 
SNP said:
And those games existed because: 1) Nintendo was platform holder, they hold a tons of money thanks to big and evergreen title and cut from other 3rd party/indie. 2) Nintendo need to fill out their schedule with frequent space.

If Nintendo belong to Microsoft, they won’t have as much freedom and money as they have now. They only need to care about a few title while the space you think would be fulfilled by other Microsoft’s studios already.
Click to expand...

Game Pass would benefit tremendously from Nintendo's smaller/faster to produce "in between blockbuster" titles ... it would be much harder to drop/dump Game Pass sub if you're a Nintendo fanatic and you know you're getting ... Pikmin 4 ... and F-Zero 99 ... and Mario RPG Remake month after month.

I think as a gamer you'd be more inclined to just keep the subscription going and not cancel it. If anything those types of Nintendo games that are faster to produce are exactly the kind of thing MS is badly lacking.

Yes they bought Bethesda like two (three?) years ago and only now are they getting one game in Starfield that makes a difference on Game Pass. That's not actually ideal at all for a subscription service.

Imagine if Netflix just made one movie or game worth subscribing for every 2 years ... people would dump their subscription after a few months.
 
0
AngryAlchemist said:
You're saying that the NES didn't have to have Nintendo pushing themselves to make great games? The console that pretty much sold entirely on the quality of Nintendo's first party (especially in the West) and adopted the Nintendo seal of approval and Nintendo's quality standards in order to reassure the North American market and bring the NA market back from collapse?

That NES didn't need Nintendo to push themselves?
Click to expand...

Not by the late 80s really. They had total control of the market and 3rd parties were releasing tons of games, they could have at that point just put their feet up and gotten lazy.

For people who didn't grow up then, you don't understand how much of a monopoly Nintendo basically had. Big retailers wouldn't even stock the Genesis for fear that Nintendo would be upset at them, lol, like think about that level of power.

No one in the game business has ever had the power and almost complete monopoly over the industry as Nintendo did circa lets say 1990. Sony has never come close to that either.
 
Yeah no, the idea is gross Microsoft is gross, this would kill Nintendo. Everything theyve bought ends up being locked away because phill doesn't care about making games he just wants to "win" the console war. I can respect the people who think it may somehow be different and better, but I see any scenario where Microsoft has any control over Nintendo as inherently bad for both Nintendo and gaming as a whole.
 
Machrider said:
Not by the late 80s really. They had total control of the market and 3rd parties were releasing tons of games, they could have at that point just put their feet up and gotten lazy.

For people who didn't grow up then, you don't understand how much of a monopoly Nintendo basically had. Big retailers wouldn't even stock the Genesis for fear that Nintendo would be upset at them, lol, like think about that level of power.

No one in the game business has ever had the power and almost complete monopoly over the industry as Nintendo did circa lets say 1990. Sony has never come close to that either.
Click to expand...
This isn't a good argument you're making. Being competitive doesn't just mean you have to make more compelling software than other people, it means you have to continuously attract attention from new customers. Nintendo would have had less growth if they weren't making competitive products. They needed to be compelling whether or not they had other console manufacturers (this is notable in how Playstation expanded gaming's reach for example). At some point consumers want new shit, whether or not there is a competitor.
 
Machrider said:
A buy out would be hard to get past regulators, but maybe a deal like

- Nintendo agrees to make 3-5 ports of older games per year to XBox/PC platforms which are Game Pass day 1. Talking like maybe a port of Fire Emblem: Three Houses, New Pokemon Snap!, Metroid Prime 1 + 2 Remaster, Super Mario Odyssey, F-Zero 99 in year 1. So a mishmash of maybe 1 really big older title and 3-4 smaller scale things.

- Some retro content games to be made available on Game Pass ... ie: Earthbound (SNES), Super Mario World (SNES), Wave Race 64 (N64), Pokemon Red/Blue (GB), Super Mario Bros. 1 (NES), F-Zero X (N64), etc.

- In return, MS agrees to also give the Switch 2 several games per year beyond Call of Duty, including Halo Infinite, Forza Horizon 4, Conker's Bad Fur Day port, and after an exclusivity period of say 24 months ... Starfield. This would be a route for Bethesda games to continue to be on Switch 2.

- Nintendo agrees to make a special Nintendo themed XBox hardware bundle in Japan that can feature some Nintendo characters.

- For doing this, Nintendo gets $700 million/year guaranteed for 10 years.

The deal is sweeter for Nintendo yes, but MS can afford it and growing their brand IP on the Switch isn't the worst thing in the world because guess which home-only console 100+ million Switch owners may prefer if they end up liking Halo, Starfield, Forza, etc. etc.
Click to expand...
Aside from none of these ideas or even this suggested business strategy making any kind of sense, there's no timeline where people are going to flock to Microsoft products from Nintendo because of Halo, Starfield or Forza
 
The biggest issue for me isn’t Microsoft exploring an acquisition of Nintendo. Like it or not, when you’re an organization like Microsoft, it would be negligent if you didn’t explore something like this at least on a surface level every few years (even if you know it’s likely not possible).

It’s the way he’s talking about it. “It would be a big career achievement for me. Oh, and also good for both companies.” Talking about how it’s “unfortunate” Nintendo is not in a precarious situation financially since it makes them harder to acquire. It really just makes it clear that all the “for the gamers”, “we only bought Activision to save them” talk is for show.
 
Agnezenn said:
The biggest issue for me isn’t Microsoft exploring an acquisition of Nintendo. Like it or not, when you’re an organization like Microsoft, it would be negligent if you didn’t explore something like this at least on a surface level every few years (even if you know it’s likely not possible).

It’s the way he’s talking about it. “It would be a big career achievement for me. Oh, and also good for both companies.” Talking about how it’s “unfortunate” Nintendo is not in a precarious situation financially since it makes them harder to acquire. It really just makes it clear that all the “for the gamers”, “we only bought Activision to save them” talk is for show.
Click to expand...
Phil is a used car salesman that really wants to be seen as the cool uncle.
 
Machrider said:
Not by the late 80s really. They had total control of the market and 3rd parties were releasing tons of games, they could have at that point just put their feet up and gotten lazy.

For people who didn't grow up then, you don't understand how much of a monopoly Nintendo basically had. Big retailers wouldn't even stock the Genesis for fear that Nintendo would be upset at them, lol, like think about that level of power.

No one in the game business has ever had the power and almost complete monopoly over the industry as Nintendo did circa lets say 1990. Sony has never come close to that either.
Click to expand...
Just say it you want a monopoly haha.
What a awful view.
A lot of what you are saying it's in part the reason why 3rds (in Japan at least) still kinda sour on Nintendo and loyal on Sony to an fanboy extent to this day because they see them still to this day like liberators.
And the small ones have take a bitter swallow in japan this generation precisely because a 300 dolar handheld is the market leader on Japan so they can have a crumb of what Nintendo is having.

Not everything is cut and simple.
 
Ryuusagi no hoshi said:
Just say it you want a monopoly haha.
What a awful view.
A lot of what you are saying it's in part the reason why 3rds (in Japan at least) still kinda sour on Nintendo and loyal on Sony to an fanboy extent to this day because they see them still to this day like liberators.
And the small ones have take a bitter swallow in japan this generation precisely because a 300 dolar handheld is the market leader on Japan so they can have a crumb of what Nintendo is having.

Not everything is cut and simple.
Click to expand...

Well as a Nintendo fan would I prefer an market setup where Nintendo is no.1 and Sony is no.2 and I can just buy the Nintendo console and get all the 3rd party games as I was able to with the NES and SNES?

Sure, that wouldn't be so bad for me.

As much as I liked the Switch, it's not the same or as good as it ever was in the NES/SNES and what the N64 should have been type of thing. That era of Nintendo when they had leadership of the home console market + having the best selling portable was the best IMO.

Would I have some concerns about how MS would handle certain things? Sure. If I was gonna cry ... I'd cry myself all the way to Best Buy to immediately purchase an XBox Series X, lol.
 
Machrider said:
I think smaller games would continue because they're a nice value add for Game Pass that would keep continual content always coming for a service like that which would need it.

Having one big game a year isn't actually ideal for the Game Pass model, imagine if Netflix only released one big movie or series a year.

Things like a Pokemon Snap here, a Fire Emblem there, Pikmin 4, a Mario RPG remake, even a F-Zero 99 there ... would be perfect for Game Pass instead of saying "OK, now wait 8 months for Smash Bros".

That is the main problem Game Pass faces ... people sub for cheap to play for a month or two, and then cancel their sub. With a regular drip of beloved Nintendo IP to a hundred million Nintendo fans ... I think a lot more people would just stay subbed in.
Click to expand...

The main problem game pass faces, isn't that people sub for a month then quit, its that the financials straight don't hold up.

Thanks to these leaks, assuming the admittedly second hand info I'm reading from someone else is accurate, we also know that GP subs were worth about 230m USD a month last year. If we're generous and say that would have retroactively applied for all the previous years too, when it would have been less, that's about 16.5 billion USD over the 6 years the switch has been on the market.

The problem now? Nintendo's first party Software alone has sold far over half a billion copies on switch in the first 6 years (+1 month). At ~60usd a copy, half a billion units of software means that's revenue of nearly 30 billion USD. Double what gamepass was worth over the same time period, and that's without all the other software that gamepass needs to pay for.

It doesn't work out that you can just say "they'll keep making everything" , either they cut the big games, or they cut the small ones. And the big ones are non-negotiable.

Game pass can only work at all when it's largely about licensing old games that are several years old and exhausted their primary sales potential, which is at odds with Microsofts promise of all first party Games on the service day 1, and would be incompatible purely from a financial perspective without being a massive loss leader compared to Nintendo's current position.
 
Last edited:
Machrider said:
Well as a Nintendo fan would I prefer an market setup where Nintendo is no.1 and Sony is no.2 and I can just buy the Nintendo console and get all the 3rd party games as I was able to with the NES and SNES?
Click to expand...
again that sounds more like you're an "owning one thing" fan
 
Linkstrikesback said:
The main problem game pass faces, isn't that people sub for a month then quit, its that the financials straight don't hold up.

Thanks to these leaks, assuming the admittedly second hand info I'm reading from someone else is accurate, we also know that GP subs were worth about 230m USD a month last year. If we're generous and say that would have retroactively applied for all the previous years too, when it would have been less, that's about 16.5 billion USD over the 6 years the switch has been on the market.

The problem now? Nintendo's first party Software alone has sold far over half a billion copies on switch in the first 6 years (+1 month). At ~60usd a copy, half a billion units of software means that's revenue of nearly 30 billion USD. Double what gamepass was worth over the same time period, and that's without all the other software that gamepass needs to pay for.

It doesn't work out that you can just say "they'll keep making everything" , either they cut the big games, or they cut the small ones.
Click to expand...

Well that is a problem because their revenue isn't growing fast enough, if they had a monthly drip feed of Nintendo content, their subscription base would massively increase and people would be reticent to cancel because well why miss out on even Pikmin 4 or Mario RPG Remake or even F-Zero 99.

Nintendo makes these games all at reasonable budgets too, for MS to get like 3rd party exclusives or games on Game Pass they have to pay out the ass. With Nintendo they'd have the mother of all content machines churning out great games constantly for only a one time payment.

I just don't think they would axe a ton of software and tell Nintendo to only make like 3 games a year. Maybe if Game Pass didn't exist, but as it does, if anything that type of content flow is exactly what Game Pass needs.
 
Machrider said:
I'm saying it's not really worth stressing out over.

"Oh noez, now I can play Nintendo games on much better hardware ..."
Click to expand...

You are going over reductive arguments again and again in this thread.

Why would they be working on "much better hardware"? Microsoft for instance would never come up with a concept like the Switch and to suggest the Series X is a better hardware than it just because "it's more powerful!!!" it is as laughable as when ex-Microsoft CEO Steve Balmer laughed at the iPhone because it didn't have the keyboard of the BlackBerry and said it was DOA.

You are just expressing your preferences as facts because of your own desire of having better graphics on your games without any more consideration about what makes a hardware better or worse. Like if the money spent on R&D towards the Switch by Nintendo was something Microsoft would do with their Series X.
 
Machrider said:
Well as a Nintendo fan would I prefer an market setup where Nintendo is no.1 and Sony is no.2 and I can just buy the Nintendo console and get all the 3rd party games as I was able to with the NES and SNES?

Sure, that wouldn't be so bad for me.

As much as I liked the Switch, it's not the same or as good as it ever was in the NES/SNES and what the N64 should have been type of thing. That era of Nintendo when they had leadership of the home console market + having the best selling portable was the best IMO.

Would I have some concerns about how MS would handle certain things? Sure. If I was gonna cry ... I'd cry myself all the way to Best Buy to immediately purchase an XBox Series X, lol.
Click to expand...
You are being very weird and delusional my friend.
The things you are saying are not realistically possible anymore for anyone not PS, not Nintendo and for sure not MS haha.

Just agree to disagree then.
This is what the young fellows call a boomer?. :•)
 
0
Machrider said:
Well that is a problem because their revenue isn't growing fast enough, if they had a monthly drip feed of Nintendo content, their subscription base would massively increase and people would be reticent to cancel because well why miss out on even Pikmin 4 or Mario RPG Remake or even F-Zero 99.

Nintendo makes these games all at reasonable budgets too, for MS to get like 3rd party exclusives or games on Game Pass they have to pay out the ass. With Nintendo they'd have the mother of all content machines churning out great games constantly for only a one time payment.

I just don't think they would axe a ton of software and tell Nintendo to only make like 3 games a year. Maybe if Game Pass didn't exist, but as it does, if anything that type of content flow is exactly what Game Pass needs.
Click to expand...
If that's how valuable the presence of Nintendo titles would be then you yourself have just made the case for not sharing them
 
Raccoon said:
again that sounds more like you're an "owning one thing" fan
Click to expand...

Guilty as charged.

I don't like having to buy multiple consoles, I grew up when I didn't have to do that, and I've always frankly resented it. Sony and whoever at Nintendo had the final say to not freaking use CDs + carts on the N64 can both go blow chunks as far as I'm concerned.

NES + SNES era is better than any era of Nintendo and sure I've never been happy that that set up ever had to end. The insult to injury was having to buy another platform just to get games that were "Nintendo games" as far as I was concerned. Final Fantasy, Castlevania, Street Fighter, Metal Gear, Dragon Warrior/Quest, even developers DMA and Angel Studios were Nintendo 2nd party studios (GTA and Red Dead developers) ... can't say I ever was happy about that at all.

Imagine having to buy two different OS smartphones every generation or two home computers or two video formats at home just to be able to do all the normal stuff that only required one before ... as Nintendo fans we just accept this "status quo" because it's how things have been since 1996, but really I can't say I've really ever loved it.
 
Machrider said:
Guilty as charged.

I don't like having to buy multiple consoles, I grew up when I didn't have to do that, and I've always frankly resented it. Sony and whoever at Nintendo had the final say to not freaking use CDs + carts on the N64 can both go blow chunks as far as I'm concerned.

NES + SNES era is better than any era of Nintendo and sure I've never been happy that that set up ever had to end. The insult to injury was having to buy another platform just to get games that were "Nintendo games" as far as I was concerned. Final Fantasy, Castlevania, Street Fighter, Metal Gear, Dragon Warrior/Quest, even developers DMA and Angel Studios were Nintendo 2nd party studios (GTA and Red Dead developers) ... can't say I ever was happy about that at all.

Imagine having to buy two different OS smartphones every generation or two home computers or two video formats at home just to be able to do all the normal stuff that only required one before ... as Nintendo fans we just accept this "status quo" because it's how things have been since 1996, but really I can't say I've really ever loved it.
Click to expand...
Like the other guy say you're just saying your preferences as facts and you are wrong.
As a Nintendo fan and if i was talking like you and your rhetorics and logic as a REAL Nintendo fan i have never purchased a xbox or ps ever i just play Nintendo and everything else if i play, i played on PC or phone.
So no.
 
Im buying nintendo, it’s me, Steve balmier gave me all his cash. First order of business is wario world 2, then the next 3d mario is getting turned into a gaas with seasonal updates. Oh look, mario can have a sexy anime lady on overalls, that will be 35 dollars please.
 
0
after reading this and the other leaked documents, i don't even care about the Nintendo comment. obvious "pie in the sky" nonsense that TBH unless you're a youtuber is not worth entertaining.

the real headline for me is the line about either WB Games or Zenimax joining the MS brand. "but i think its possible that one or both of these will happen which will help us continue to double down on our gaming relevance". that wording ain't an accident; MS higherups know full well that nothing is working, everything they've tried is unsustainable, so now they have to use the cash to buy prominence in an industry that they can't keep up with. to me, this should've been the open and shut moment of the ABK acquisition's denial, but it wasn't. i said in a different thread about Xbox's failures that this has basically lead the industry to being wholesaled and that's what's currently happening.
 
Ryuusagi no hoshi said:
Like the other guy say you're just saying your preferences as facts and you are wrong.
As a Nintendo fan and if i was talking like you and your rhetorics and logic as a REAL Nintendo fan i have never purchased a xbox or ps ever i just play Nintendo and everything else if i play, i played on PC or phone.
So no.
Click to expand...

Everyone's post is an opinion. Losing Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, Dragon Quest on consoles, Street Fighter when all of those IP really made their name on Nintendo platforms is something I've never been cool with. Even to this day it's fucking absurd that Nintendo fans who are like NFL fans or NHL fans cannot play any NFL or NHL licensed game on their Switch console.

It wasn't that way at all and sure we accept it, but that doesn't mean it's great.

Most Nintendo fans do end up having to buy a Playstation or XBox to get a wider variety of content, because Sony basically moved into the industry and stole a bunch of Nintendo's content (lets just call it for what it was) and then paid a bunch of money to ensure those games couldn't go on other platforms (something they continue to do even to this day).

I bought a PS1, PS2, PS3, PS4 and never really wanted to but basically had to in order to just continue playing IPs that I fell in love with on Nintendo consoles like Final Fantasy or Street Fighter ... over the years that's basically like $2000 out of my pocket for no great reason. This gen I put my foot down and will not buy a PS5 because my PC can play most console games, so finally I don't have to pay freaking $500 for a PS5 + extra controller that I don't really want.
 
0
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom