Wii U, 3DS miss targets in Nintendo annual results
Nintendo released its annual fiscal results today, showing an operating loss for the second time in the company's history. It attributes the loss to weaker than expected sales of Wii U and 3DS.
Nintendo released its financial earnings today for the fiscal year that ended on March 31, with an operating loss of 36.4 billion yen (approximately $366 million). This is the second annual loss in Nintendo's history, after last year's $460 million. The company attributes the loss to weaker than expected sales of the Wii U and 3DS.
In a release (PDF), Nintendo stated that the Wii U "was not able to maintain the initial sales momentum after the beginning of 2013 due to a delay in the development of subsequent software titles." Nintendo reported that it sold 3.45 million since launch. In January, the company had revised its Wii U sales forecasts from 5.5 million to 4 million. The 3DS sold 13.95 million units, and Nintendo called it the leading platform in Japan. Globally, however, the games "did not generate sufficient sales momentum."
Nintendo says it sold 13.4 million units of Wii U software in total, with New Super Mario Bros U and Nintendo Land accounting for 2.15 and 2.6 million, respectively. Nintendo 3DS moved 49.6 million units of software worldwide, and Nintendo pointed out that New Super Mario Bros 2 hit 6.42 million units alone.
For the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014, Nintendo is aiming for 920 billion yen in net sales, and 100 billion yen in operating income. For the 3DS, the company says it will concentrate on key 3DS releases like Pokemon X/Y, Animal Crossing: New Leaf, and continue to boost digital sales, as it recently made a point of showing. For the Wii U, Nintendo says it plans to proactively release key titles to regain the lost momentum from software delays.
-
Shacknews
replySteve Watts posted a new article, Wii U, 3DS miss targets in Nintendo annual results.
Nintendo released its annual fiscal results today, showing an operating loss for the second time in the company's history. It attributes the loss to weaker than expected sales of Wii U and 3DS.-
They ended up with a Net profit of $71,350,918 from currency exchange rates and over seas investments though, and have announced that Satoru Iwata is now the CEO of NOA, with Kimishima moving from that position over to General Manager of NOJ, kinda wonder how that made Reggie feel though http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/04/24/satoru-iwata-appointed-new-nintendo-of-america-ceo?abthid=5177c4449ff86beb1f000004
-
-
Lol, possibly, I think they'll be designing games for a long time to come though, regardless of whether or not it's on a platform they own.
-
-
-
-
They changed the forecast in January and it looks like they didn't change it enough, also, this is in comparison to expectations from last year I believe.
-
iirc they were originally forecasting something like 5 million sales by now but it's been moving like 60k units/month in the US since the new year. It did like 890k over the holidays and then fell off a cliff.
-
-
-
-
-
I don't think so, I think the stockholders won't let that happen, but if they ever do pull out of the hardware business they won't be the same company anymore regardless (I see a massive change in leadership being required).
-
-
Don't hold your breath.
-
Unlikely. As soon as games start coming out for the Wii U, it will pick up. Even 1st party titles are the only thing out for the system, it will still be worth it. And the controller is pure win.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo#First-party_studios
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nintendo_franchises -
While their consoles might be lacking in power, Nintendo has proven to be innovative and popular enough with their console and controller designs to force the other manufacturers play catch up every generation.
I don't see them moving out of the hardware business as a good thing, no matter how much I would like to see Zelda at 1080p with all sorts of fancy effects.
Who knows how long it would have taken to get analog sticks if the N64 had not been around!-
well, another thing to consider - their home consoles are a rollercoaster (N64 and GC weren't king of the hill, Wii was, Wii U isn't so far) but their handheld sales tend to keep them afloat (GB/GBC kept N64 afloat, GBA kept GC afloat, DS basically printed money). 3DS is looking to have a good software year so it's possible the 3DS is going to be the DS all over again (in that it initially looked weak but wound up being a major player)
But look at who are our console makers: Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft. Three companies will fallback businesses. Sony could fail with PS4 and they can fall back to the hundred other things they do. Microsoft could fail with Xbox 360++ or whatever and they can fall back to Windows and whatnot (Windows 8 sales notwithstanding), and Nintendo can afford some dud consoles because they have their handheld business to fall back on. Sega didn't have that so they went under as a hardware maker. NEC and Philips did exactly that pretty much (consoles bombed, just go back to the rest of your product line).
If the 3DS and Wii U are both duds then they're in trouble, but odds of both being big flops at the same time are low, assuming the handheld console sector survives the smartphone era.-
Part of me wonders if eventually Nintendo will be making phones with controllers built in and their own app store, but that could put them squarely in the eyes of an Apple acquisition.
-
They have to now compete with smart phones that sell digital games for $0
-
-
We'll still see Zelda in 1080p, it just might take a little longer to get here (or skip it altogether for 4k but I still doubt that).
-
[deleted]
-
I see very little overlap between tablets and the WiiU. They don't play the same kinds of games, they don't offer the same kinds of experiences, they're really different.
-
-
Sorry, this post confused me. What did you mean?
-
He's saying he doesn't have money for everything he wants and puts other entertainment priorities over the Wii U currently as the value position is poor, but even when that value position is good he will likley not purchase one because of the other entertainment devices he has already purchased.
-
-
What do you mean by "coming out with games they should have?"
Is it what they should have or what you want? Two very different things.
-
-
-
The gamepad is Nintendo's ultimate controller in terms of functionality, they saw functionality in the iPad (and its own DS) and wanted it on their home consoles. When you take a look at all the features packed into it it's kind of astounding but at the same time it's like a head with the body a room away.
-
How is the 3DS not innovative?
They don't need to shift the entire market like they did with the Wii to be innovative, simply capitalizing on a growing trend (3D) by developing their own unique product is more than enough.
Unless there are other similar products that support 3D visuals for every game without the need for glasses, two screens or not - I don't see how anyone could call it non-innovative. There is nothing that is even similar.-
because the 3D explicitly can't be required, so it's just an amped up DS with a cool but ultimately surface level visual effect
-
So graphics and visual effects can't be innovative?
-
if the graphics and effects in question are required to be optional then yes that's highly limiting what innovation you can actually do. You can't build a game around a feature that's required to be optional.
-
That's like saying anti-aliasing is pointless because you can't build a game around it.
-
it's actually nothing like that since there's no hardware system that hangs its hat on AA while also making it optional. And the fact that AA has basically 0 possible gameplay implications if it were required.
-
AA is awesome, and it has 0 possible gameplay implications.
-
Dude I feel like you're really stretching on this innovative argument just to hate on Nintendo.
The reason the 3D slider is there is because people get headaches, nausea, or it's physically impossible for them to see the effect at all. It has nothing with Nintendo imposing limits or being lazy or whatever. Because of these human imperfections you will most likely never see a product that requires mandatory stereoscopic 3D like this unless they want to severely cripple their sales (or maybe enjoy getting sued).
Regardless of this slider or not, it doesn't change the fact that there is nothing else on the market that does what the 3DS can do - and Nintendo were the first to bring it to the table. Successfully I might add. I really don't see how this is debatable.-
I don't see what the stretch is. I know why the slider is there. I never once said anything about lazyness.
It most certainly does however have to do with Nintendo imposing limits. They weren't required to require every game on their platform to work without 3D. Full stop. They chose to, that's fine, but the consequence is they've limited what you can really do with 3D. I don't know why you think the alternative is everything using 3D to some absurd degree that makes it unusable to some portion of the population. They could have simply allowed developers to choose for themselves and if someone wanted to limit their market in order to do something crazy with required 3D then that would've been up to the developer.
Yes, there's no other handheld doing 3D right now. My point is the way they've done 3D, by making it required to be optional, means that functionally the 3DS is more like a traditional handheld iteration. It's a DS with more power. That's not innovative, that's standard hardware iteration. It's significantly different from the innovation that the Gameboy to DS represented. The 3DS is successful because it's a souped up DS with a solid game line up akin to the original DS. That's fine, good for them. It's not changing my handheld gaming experience as a result of 3D in any way even close to what the DS or touch did/does.
-
So, any game with a graphics quality slider is also incapable of being innovative?
-
any other dumb inferences to be made? Let's just get them out of the way now.
We're talking about a hardware platform. If you make a hardware platform with one feature to hang your hat on, but then require that no games on your platform actually require that feature, then I'm going to take issue with how innovative your platform/feature really is.
Consider a platform that advertised online connectivity as its main feature before anyone else did it. But it also requires every game that uses online features to work equally well when offline. That's going to seriously inhibit the value of that platform feature. Online connectivity at least has some imagineable ways to work within that confine. A visual effect like 3D has far less room to do anything truly interesting if you must work equally well without it.-
Either way, the hat got hung and the 3DS is doing well so it appears to have been a good call.
-
yes, it's doing well after a massive initial miscalculation and course correction. Of course it's succeeding after that, it's a Nintendo handheld with Nintendo games that follows a massively successful predecessor. This subthread has nothing to do with its sales totals. It has to do with how much innovation you think the 3DS represents, particularly compared to past Nintendo hardware as far as it justifies their continued investment in hardware platforms rather than releasing games elsewhere.
-
A slow start and a price drop = 'massive initial miscalculation and course correction'? Everyone's a critic on the internet I guess.
-
Dropping the price 33% less than 6 months after release to the point where they're taking an unprecedented per unit loss and offering free games to try to placate the early adopters who felt burned? That's not business as usual, and it's not just a slow start and a price drop.
For comparison, the DS got its first price drop 9 months after release, and the price dropped only 13%.-
That sounds *exactly* like business as usual. Launch at a high price, get what you can from the early adopters, then scramble to keep them engaged until the software starts rolling in.
-
it's like you have no ability to understand the difference between various degrees of the same sorts of actions and what those differences reflect...
-
here I'll let Iwata clear it up for you since you don't get it:
http://www.giantbomb.com/articles/read-satoru-iwatas-apologetic-letter-to-existing-3/1100-3546/
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I still don't understand your argument. You keep saying that developers are being held back from "doing something crazy" with 3D because Nintendo did not force it for all games, but what is stopping them from doing that now? Isn't what you described the exact situation we are in? Have any developers even said this or are you just assuming?
Even if that was indeed the case, you think the reason that developers aren't forcing it on every consumer is due to the fact that Nintendo gave them the option? Couldn't they just develop the game and say "keep the 3D effect on or else"? It seems much more likely that the came to this conclusion on their own, since they were well aware that a significant portion of their customer base can't see the effect, or get physically sick because of it. Also it's not some "absurd degree" of 3D, people literally can't see it no matter what. What would be your alternative?
The 3DS does 3D. If you play the unit with the 3D turned on, it's.... still in 3D. Having the option to disable it takes nothing away from the fact that you are still playing in 3D. Again, to reiterate - the 3DS does not require glasses, there is no other device on the market that can do what it does, and it's a really cool effect that many people enjoy. You have a funny definition of innovative. If I gauged every product on whether it "changed my gaming experience" (whatever that means), then I would have a very short list indeed.
What crazy things could they be doing with the 3D tech that they currently aren't doing? You keep mentioning this but I seriously have no idea what you are talking about. I remember seeing videos of minigames where you had to tilt the unit around to see behind walls and stuff. Is this what you are referring to?-
but what is stopping them from doing that now?
The platform holder saying you are not allowed to make a game that requires the 3D slider to be on to work.
Even if that was indeed the case, you think the reason that developers aren't forcing it on every consumer is due to the fact that Nintendo gave them the option?
I think there would be a non-0 number of games that required 3D and were entirely based around that effect.
Couldn't they just develop the game and say "keep the 3D effect on or else"?
No, they can't.
I'm aware of how the 3DS works, I know it doesn't require glasses.
Yes you would have a short list of innovative hardware that changed your gaming experience. Yet it would contain numerous Nintendo platforms, including the 3DS' predecessor. As far as changing my gaming experience goes the 3DS represents little more than a traditional handheld iteration with more processing power, except still an amount less than its competition (PSP and phones). The iPhone and its associated hardware, software and services have changed my mobile gaming experience more than anything Nintendo has delivered on mobile in years. What on the 3DS really couldn't have been done at all on the DS?
And yes, I was thinking of things like those 3D demos that require you to actually look around and behind objects to make the game work at all.-
So, basically if Nintendo did allow it, there might be a few developers that would force 3D on gamers despite limiting sales, and a chance these select games would be a true innovative titles in your mind because of it. I somewhat see what you are getting at, but unless you have evidence from developers or examples that existing games are being held back because of this, it's pure speculation and worthless conjecture.
Just because you don't personally dig it, or it didn't "change your gaming experience" is outside of the context of it being an innovative console. The 3D works, no one else has it, and people buy the console because of it. It's NOT the same thing as simple hardware refresh just because you don't personally think it's the best thing since sliced bread.-
So, basically if Nintendo did allow it, there might be a few developers that would force 3D on gamers despite limiting sales, and a chance these select games would be a true innovative titles in your mind because of it. I somewhat see what you are getting at, but unless you have evidence from developers or examples that existing games are being held back because of this, it's pure speculation and worthless conjecture.
This seems like a strange position to take. Imagine if the 360 said Kinect can be used in your games but is explicitly required not to be required. It would seem obvious to say that given the choice someone would try to make a Kinect only game. And sure enough given the choice a number of developers did exactly that, willingly targeting 10% or less of the 360 install base when Kinect first released and still willingly targeting a minority of the install base for it.
Just because you don't personally dig it, or it didn't "change your gaming experience" is outside of the context of it being an innovative console. The 3D works, no one else has it, and people buy the console because of it. It's NOT the same thing as simple hardware refresh just because you don't personally think it's the best thing since sliced bread.
Again I don't think this all follows. I mean, yes, in the strictest sense obviously the 3DS is innovative in that its the first (and therefore the only at least for some period of time) device to have glasses free 3D like this. But typically people talk about innovation with the understanding that it's about whether the technology in question had a meaningful effect on the relevant market. For example, would you call the PSP an innovative piece of hardware because it has backtouch? In one sense, yes it's innovative since no one else has it, but again we generally don't just use innovative as a synonym for "new" unless that thing actually has some wider effect than merely existing and being new. Think of things universally called innovative recently, Wii, iPhones, iPads, things that had far reaching effects on how we use the device and successive devices. By that measure I don't see the 3DS as particularly innovative. Like I said, the iPhone has more innovation as far as mobile gaming goes than the 3DS does.
and people buy the console because of it
This seems like an awfully lofty claim to make. Why didn't the 3DS sell well at its initial price point if this was the case? Apparently the 3D wasn't that impressive. Why haven't 3D TVs and 3D home video content been more successful? Why haven't the smartphones with 3D displays been more successful and spawned more clones? I see a lot of data suggesting 3D hasn't been the sales driver in multiple markets while you point to the 3D in the 3DS. I bet if you dropped the 3D from it and still gave it the newest NSMB and Mario Kart and Zelda and etc you'd see awfully similar sales numbers. I don't think tue 3D turned out to be much of a selling point at all these days. How many people in the recent 3DS reveals were excited by 3D stuff rather than the mere existence of new Zelda and such on more powerful hardware?-
This seems like a strange position to take. Imagine if the 360 said Kinect can be used in your games but is explicitly required not to be required. It would seem obvious to say that given the choice someone would try to make a Kinect only game. And sure enough given the choice a number of developers did exactly that, willingly targeting 10% or less of the 360 install base when Kinect first released and still willingly targeting a minority of the install base for it.
This is a pretty poor analogy, since in the case of the 3DS all games would already support what would be the Kinect functionality straight out of the box, just not to your made up standards. The majority of Kinect only games that I saw pushed through were backed and funded by Microsoft as a means to push the hardware and that's it. We all know how great those games were too. :( It's not a comparable situation, and it's anybody's guess as to whether developers would made 3D required games, and if so to what extent.
My OP was stemming from a blanket statement of "the 3DS is not innovative" - which is clearly not the case. I agree the argument could be made for how innovative it was, but like you said in it's strictest sense it can be labeled as an innovative console. This is especially true when compared to other consoles or phones or whatever that simply get a hardware refresh and are indistinguishable from their counterparts.
Regarding sales, I don't know. I obviously have no numbers to back it up, but based on the reaction from the press and media when it was first announced I knew plenty of people that were interested in picking one up based on the 3D effect alone. The initial launch lineup sucked hard, and it stayed that way for a while, so it's hard to contribute the lack of sales to one factor or another.-
As always, Nintendo makes stuff that's super traditional married with a cheap and interesting new hardware twist. That formula makes parsing 'how innovative is it' a waste of time. Part of what people like about that company is that they have their roots in card games and physical entertainment, that's what gives it the unique flavor.
-
As always, Nintendo makes stuff that's super traditional married with a cheap and interesting new hardware twist. That formula makes parsing 'how innovative is it' a waste of time.
Then why is it so easy to trace all their previous hardware innovations that actually had an effect on the industry? What a strange perspective to take. It's not hard at all to look at the relative impact of their historical releases and innovations, in both software and hardware.
Part of what people like about that company is that they have their roots in card games and physical entertainment, that's what gives it the unique flavor.
Do you seriously think this has any affect on today's Nintendo and peoples' perception of them? No one even knows that that used to be the case. Nothing about their core franchises reflects those things at all.-
Wii Sports, the best known franchise they've got after Mario, is 100% in the spirit of card/'game of skill' arcade games. Hard to imagine anyone not seeing that.
-
it is hard to imagine anyone responding to my previous post the way you did, but here we are
-
indeed, how did they come up with such unique games of skill? "Bowling"? I'd never heard of it before but it's brilliant. And they created this game called "tennis" where there's a ball and a raquet. It's quite cool. Can't wait to see what comes next. I've been thinking about playing some of these with real objects instead of a wand in a digital world. Hard to imagine another company coming up with these kinds of unique games of skill. It's surely the result of their deep history with card games and arcades from many decades ago. Few others have such experience. Surprised you didn't see that.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
Except the Wii U is more like a home console DS than a Tablet.
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Don't worry, he didn't make sense to me either.
-
-
He said he provided a brief explanation, when he really should have elaborated his thoughts a little more than weak statements.
Not to worry though. I'm loving my 3DXL very much. The 3DS is getting much love this year too! If I had time to play console games in front of my TV, I'd pick up a Wii U as well. However, being a fairly new dad has its priorities that far outweigh video gaming. :)
P.S. It it weren't for my 3DS or Vita, I wouldn't play any games at all.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
You're assuming that in the event that Nintendo fails, they will only go into software. What about the scenario where your wish comes true, Nintendo fails, but they decide to shut it all down and take the IP with them. Thus no Nintendo IP on any platform. Your wish still came true right?
-
-
-
if Blizzard picked up Pokemon, it could turn out OK
-
... HOW?
-
-
-
Do you even play games?
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
Keep on dreaming. If the Big N were to "fail" like you said, there would be larger ramifications for the industry as a whole. Part of what makes Nintendo is their hardware and how they develop their games and encourage other companies to use it and define it. If they were to become a software only development house, they wouldn't last very long. Especially under the weight of their own legacy.
How many mario games would they make before it becomes played out? Same goes for their other legacy IPs. What I'd like to see is more creative and fresh first party IPs. Sad to say it, but their hardware is their bread and butter. How else will they fund new projects of both hardware and software?
-
I just want them to release a good 1st party game for the WiiU
-
-
Very Gamecube like sales.
-
-
how many 3rd parties are going to be making Wii U exclusives if sales keep trending this way? What are the sales numbers going to look like by the end of the year when the Wii U has actual competition from other next gen systems? And how many 3rd parties will continue making the effort to do a Wii U port of their PS4/XboxNext games once the 360 and PS3 ports go away (see Wii ports once PS3/360 versions stopped getting PS2 ports)?
-
-
Yes! Because a 5-month-old system can be objectively labeled a dud so early in its lifecycle!
-
-
they should have asked me i had more realistic expectations
-
Since around the Gamecube days, Nintendo's strongest money maker was its hold over portables. The 3DS is looking like it might bounce right back up.
-
-
This makes no sense to me, half the technology is in the controller, have you not used one yet?
-
so they'd just have an underpowered next gen console with truly no differentiator outside first party games? Why...?
-
-
-
ALttP TWO BEETCHES! They are breaking out the big guns and I am ready to throw moneys.
-
They need to get a 1st party AAA title out. That's what is keeping them from selling tons of units IMO. That and the fact that it isn't doing anything too much different in terms of computing power that the PS3/360 do.
It will be interesting to see what happens to sales once PS4 / new Xbox come out and we head into the next generation of console gaming.-
They will get left behind. A Thanksgiving Mario Kart title won't save the suffocating platform in the light of not one but two prospective AAA console releases.
Wii U < Gamecube?
-
-
no Nintendo E3 press conference? http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/24/4263810/no-nintendo-e3-press-conference
-
-
Nintendo is supposed to be dropping some pretty big surprises for the WiiU at e3 according to some industry folk in the know. I love mine but they need to bring the games and system price drops stat.
-
why would they cancel their traditional pre-E3 press conference in favor of smaller events if that was the case?
-
-
-
