If there are 1.4-2 million GC's in Japan...
Why would Nintendo ship only 400K copies of SMS?
Why not ship a million and sell a million?
Someone explain this to me.
Printable View
If there are 1.4-2 million GC's in Japan...
Why would Nintendo ship only 400K copies of SMS?
Why not ship a million and sell a million?
Someone explain this to me.
because its what nintendo always does at least here in the US
i know my boss said were going ot have majorly limited quantities of Mario here like enough for our reserves and maybe 1 or 2 more thats it
it happened with Zelda OOT and Mario 64 if you didnt pre-order those games and get them right a way you were shit out of luck
at least in this area
same thing happened with Super Smash Bros Melee
Resident Evil GC remake
Eternal Darkness
Nintendo is just like that
theyll ship 400,000 in japan for this first week probably 400,000 next week
dont forget nintendo had a huge robbery recently maybe all the games that were stolen were hundreds of t housands of copies of sunshine *LOL*
Nintendo is releasing an '80's Sega console? Wow, the market has changed.
Because Nintendo Logic is completely opposing and inconsistent with any real world logic.Quote:
Originally posted by mattvanstone
If there are 1.4-2 million GC's in Japan...
Why would Nintendo ship only 400K copies of SMS?
Why not ship a million and sell a million?
Someone explain this to me.
maybe since GC sales have been so slow in Japan, Nintendo figured to 'play it safe' and see if the public actually wanted another Mario game. Ten years ago such a question would be silly, but with the birth of the 'mature' gamer, too many people balk at anything 'cute' for Nintendo to honestly think every GC owner would want Mario. Maybe they don't even see Mario as a system seller in this new age of gaming.
Oh, and since it did sell out, of course they'll push more out soon.
Yep everytime I see SMS I think Sega master system till I figure that it doesn't fit in with the context. Then i'm like ohh super Mario Sunshine. Though I thought they dropped the super part from this mario.Quote:
Originally posted by NeoZeedeater
Nintendo is releasing an '80's Sega console? Wow, the market has changed.
Fight the power!Quote:
Originally posted by Astral
Yep everytime I see SMS I think Sega master system till I figure that it doesn't fit in with the context. Then i'm like ohh super Mario Sunshine. Though I thought they dropped the super part from this mario.
I refuse to refer to Super Mario Sunshine as SMS.
I dunno... +- 370K for the first sales week released and 27K GC's then, isn't amazing.
If it sells out, why not put 1 million out there, and push up the GC sales, so they would at least beat Sony sometime this year.
True, people over there do seem to like a different type of game, but if SSBM can sell an assload, why would nintendo think that SMS would not do the same?
John, these aren't the days of carts anymore, and making those mini-cd's is a lot faster, easier and cheaper now.
It just don't make sense.
Creating an artifitial demand for the game?
Look what it did for Yugioh cards.
People usually fiend for what they want but cant have right away.
nintendo = kings of artifical shortages. If the game is impossible to get it just raises the demand, that's the way nintendo thinks at least.
And you know as of so far it has worked pretty well for them, so they may be right.
If they released 1 million, that would still be too few.
I understand artificial demand, sony did the same thing with the PS2 launch, it's still lame either way.
This is why I have reserves for Zelda, Mario, and Metroid already. I know Nintendo too well after all these years. :)
To separate the men from the boys... er... the dedicated fans from the... non-dedicated.Quote:
Originally posted by supermario
Creating an artifitial demand for the game?
I don't think GC Smash Bros sold a million copies over one week's time... :)
Whether it's lame or not, that is the way Nintendo's been doing the business and like bbobb mentioned, it's been working out fine for them, so I don't see why they'd change their methods now.
I say let Nintendo do the business as usual and we should just enjoy the games they bring out... (unless you fall into the category of those who didn't get the game in time)
Yes, SBM didn't sell a million in a week, but it was at least 700K or so, wasn't it?
Even if nintendo has been doing it for years, to intentionally undercut the market and create a demand goes both ways...you could drive up or down interest.
I'm sure they could move more than 27K GC's if they had at least 750K of SMS to sell at launch.
It's as if they are satisfied with the GBA domination and don't even care about consoles.
well they may be happy with the GBA and not care about consoles who knows
i mean ia gree it is stupid and silly for them to do it how they are and thats also the reson why ihave metroid mario zelda and star fox all reserved allready
like i said im just not surprised by it all
also theres just something baout that sony machine i mean fucking aye every on ein japan must own 2 - 3 of them by now
Nintendo isn't trying to dominate. Nintendo's management are as conservative as you can get when it comes to running a company - they're doing everything they can to avoid risk.
Why print more, if they might not all sell? Put out one publishing run, see what happens, print a few more, and gradually soak up all demand while ensuring that there aren't any full-priced games left out on shelves.
Nintendo is extremely risk-averse in everything they do: you can see it in the way they design their hardware, the games they choose to publish, the way they finance their assets, the amount of cash they're holding, and their general lack of aggressiveness.
This is why Nintendo isn't gunning for first place this generation: all they care about is that each of their first-party games makes money. It's also why Nintendo's going to be gobbled up by a more aggressive company within 5 years (Hi, Microsoft).
LOL! You're so stuck in the 1900s, dude.Quote:
Originally posted by NeoZeedeater
Nintendo is releasing an '80's Sega console? Wow, the market has changed.
I\'m glad you didn\'t miss an opportunity to be angsty!Quote:
Originally posted by Hero
maybe since GC sales have been so slow in Japan, Nintendo figured to \'play it safe\' and see if the public actually wanted another Mario game. Ten years ago such a question would be silly, but with the birth of the \'mature\' gamer, too many people balk at anything \'cute\' for Nintendo to honestly think every GC owner would want Mario. Maybe they don\'t even see Mario as a system seller in this new age of gaming.
Oh, and since it did sell out, of course they\'ll push more out soon.
Normally, I have to agree with you. But publishing a new Mario game is equivalent to printing money.Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
Nintendo isn\'t trying to dominate. Nintendo\'s management are as conservative as you can get when it comes to running a company - they\'re doing everything they can to avoid risk.
Why print more, if they might not all sell? Put out one publishing run, see what happens, print a few more, and gradually soak up all demand while ensuring that there aren\'t any full-priced games left out on shelves.
Heh.
Anyone remember the infamous "chip shortage" that severely limited copies of SMB 2 (not Super Monkey Ball) and Zelda 2?
Shortage of Sunshine = Angry Get!
Two words... that's lame.
(thats three... damnit) but that really is lame that businesses do stuff like that to jack up the prices... :(
Nintendo isn't jacking up the prices. They're creating a demand for their product. If little kids can't get what they want, they're whine and moan about it for days. Then this kid's friends will hear about it and want it too. Suddenly a fresh new batch of games come in and everybody buys it. It's still the same price, but more people want it now.Quote:
Originally posted by Cyco
Two words... that's lame.
(thats three... damnit) but that really is lame that businesses do stuff like that to jack up the prices... :(
If nintendo is so against printing more copies of a game, how come I can go to TRU and see 50 copies of a mario party, dr mario or something?
The most anticipated game for most gamers in 6 years, and you're telling me that there's a risk it won't sell?
I dunno man, they just seem to have tapped out and rolled over to bite the pillow now.
Nintendo is in some dire straits if it needs to artificially create demand for a Miyamoto Mario release.Quote:
Originally posted by SearchManX
Nintendo isn't jacking up the prices. They're creating a demand for their product. If little kids can't get what they want, they're whine and moan about it for days. Then this kid's friends will hear about it and want it too. Suddenly a fresh new batch of games come in and everybody buys it. It's still the same price, but more people want it now.
Anyway, the whole "shortage creates demand" theory is ridiculous. There are far better ways to create hype. If there aren't enough copies on shelves when a consumer goes to pick it up, Nintendo can't sell a game that isn't there, and that consumer may pick up some other game. And a die-hard fan who buys the game for more than the MSRP isn't sending any of that money to Nintendo.
The same thing applies to the PS2 launch. The PS2 is successful in spite of and not because of the release shortages. Sony could have sold a lot more units a lot earlier if the supply was there.
So, why only make 400K or so available 1st week?
Production?
Perhaps, although mini-discs and documentation should be a cinch to produce. Maybe it has to do with overconservative or inept production management. It could well be that Nintendo only ships 400,000 copies of any game a week, and they don't bother to make exceptions.Quote:
Originally posted by mattvanstone
So, why only make 400K or so available 1st week?
Production?
I don't know why they underproduce. I'm just saying it doesn't make sense economically.
Word gets around of shortages and people that were going to wait to buy it get whipped up into a frenzy. Why is this hard to understand?
It's hard to understand, for a simple reason.
If word gets around that it is hard to find, and there is a limited quantity, then people don't get into a frenzy, they get pissed off.
If there are 400K games, and 600K people want them, those 200K aren't going to be happy. Most'll probably buy it, but if FFXII launches with 400K, there's going to be a lot of pissed off people around.
Those people who get left out in the cold will know better next time. I'm pissed at Konami for not rereleasing Dracula X on a new console but that doesn't change things does it?
If people want it, they're pay money for it plain and simple. This has happened with nearly every one of Nintendo's major releases. I was looking everywhere for Zelda: Majora's Mask during Christmas time and I had no luck. I waited and waited and eventually got it in February. I still enjoyed it, and I know better next time.
You win some and you lose some. Businesses don't have to take every single customer they can get. If that were true, there wouldn't be "lists" to get into clubs in NYC.
Drac X is a totally different story. It was produced for a niche console, and Konami wasn't sure of its sales. They were not trying to drum up demand.Quote:
Originally posted by SearchManX
Those people who get left out in the cold will know better next time. I'm pissed at Konami for not rereleasing Dracula X on a new console but that doesn't change things does it?
If people want it, they're pay money for it plain and simple. This has happened with nearly every one of Nintendo's major releases. I was looking everywhere for Zelda: Majora's Mask during Christmas time and I had no luck. I waited and waited and eventually got it in February. I still enjoyed it, and I know better next time.
You win some and you lose some. Businesses don't have to take every single customer they can get. If that were true, there wouldn't be "lists" to get into clubs in NYC.
Likewise, Majora's Mask is a totally different story. It wasn't a sure sell because of the decline of the N64. Still, the game was readily available that October, and still is now.
A club in NYC has a limited capacity. Nintendo doesn't, or at least, shouldn't. If every human being on Earth wants to buy 10 copies of SMS, then they should be happy to sell 10 copies to every human being on Earth. Cutting supply only makes sense when prices can rise. Even if Nintendo only makes 10 copies of SMS altogether, the MSRP is still going to $49.99, and any increases in price occur in the aftermarket.
The whole "shortages drum up demand" argument is totally bankrupt. What makes a game more enticing? Hearing a friend bitch about how he can't find a game? Or going to his house and playing it? If a game (or a console) has more hype than substance, maybe it would be better to sell it on hype. But we're talking about Mario here.
NINTENDO HAS ABSOFRIGGINGLUTELY NOTHING TO GAIN BY UNDERPRODUCING SUNSHINE.
Git Along...How can this be good?
July 25, 2002
1 - Jojo's Bizarre Adventure - PS2 - (Capcom) - July 25, 2002
2 - Sanjo Digi World 3 - PS2 - (Yamasa) - July 25, 2002
3 - Murakumo - Xbox - (From software) - July 25, 2002
4 - Super Mario Sunshine - GC - (Nintendo) - July 19, 2002
5 - RS Riding Spirits - PS2 - (Spike) - July 25, 2002
6 - Powerful Professional Baseball 9 - PS2 - (Konami) - July 18, 2002
7 - Crazy Taxi 3 - Xbox - (Sega) - July 25, 2002
8 - Kamaitachi no Yoru 2 - PS2 - (Chun Software) - July 18, 2002
9 - Elysium - DC - (Nec Interchannel) - July 25, 2002
10 - My Summer 2 - PS2 - (Sony) - July 11, 2002
http://www.excite.co.jp/world/url/bo...=JAEN&wb_dis=2
But they did before... not saying that they are doing it now but a few years ago (Zelda: MM)... there is no reason to have a first party game cost 70 bucks. None. And that's not includeing the price of 30 dolars of 4MB of shitty expansion RAM. I can buy 128MB of DDR RAM for that much then and now.Quote:
Originally posted by SearchManX
Nintendo isn't jacking up the prices. They're creating a demand for their product. If little kids can't get what they want, they're whine and moan about it for days. Then this kid's friends will hear about it and want it too. Suddenly a fresh new batch of games come in and everybody buys it. It's still the same price, but more people want it now.
SMS is Master System - Get it right.
ºTracer
DDR RAM and the memory chips used in N64 cartridges are different. Cartridges also drive up the cost. You can get an expansion RAM if you are willing to put up with Donkey Kong 64. IMO, Zelda:MM is worth the price it is. And I see many people here who pay $100+ for "rare" Saturn/PC-Engine games. Accessories like twin sticks and maraca's cost almost $100 alone. Price shouldn't be that much of an issue if you want it that badly.Quote:
Originally posted by TracerBullet
But they did before... not saying that they are doing it now but a few years ago (Zelda: MM)... there is no reason to have a first party game cost 70 bucks. None. And that's not includeing the price of 30 dolars of 4MB of shitty expansion RAM. I can buy 128MB of DDR RAM for that much then and now.
SMS is Super Mario Sunshine.
Not enough people cared about the sega master system to keep that for that.
SMB did edge out super monkey ball though.
"when demand is met. demand dwindles"Quote:
Originally posted by mattvanstone
If there are 1.4-2 million GC's in Japan...
Why would Nintendo ship only 400K copies of SMS?
Why not ship a million and sell a million?
Someone explain this to me.
economics 101
When Demand isn't met, and supply is gone
Money dwindles.
suckmyballs 101
and that\'s a joke, btw.
If what you're saying about money dwindling is true, Nintendo would be in the red right now. Their N64 games have sold well enough that they don't have to care about what you guys are saying.
No. It simply means there would have more money.
They still got a shitload, they just might have a shitload x2.
eh. im right.
ask Sony.
shitload x1 seems to be good enough for Nintendo. Now, let's try to give Microsoft some advice. Sure, MS has a lot of money in the bank, but how can the Xbox sell more?Quote:
Originally posted by mattvanstone
No. It simply means there would have more money.
They still got a shitload, they just might have a shitload x2.
mattvanstone knows nothing about supply and demand. Lets just leave it at that.
PS: Not that I'm an economics wiz, but I digress...
Well how many games sell 400,000 copies in one week? Not many. Sure its Mario and all, but most companies hope for million sellers and most of the time that takes nearly a year to do. 400,000 in one week is a really big number if you ask me. I am thinking that Nintendo did not think they would have to have sent out more then that, I bet they thought they were overproducing. And you know they will ship more next week, people have had to wait a hell of a lot longer for new shipments of games. I don't think Nintendo was trying to pull anything. And if they did ship 1,000,000 million copies in one week and they only sell 400,000 in one week what would be the point? I have a feeling this is how every company does things.
Yeah..I know nothing.Quote:
Originally posted by Master
mattvanstone knows nothing about supply and demand. Lets just leave it at that.
PS: Not that I'm an economics wiz, but I digress...
If you can sell 600K of something, ie, the demand.
and you produce only 400K of it, ie, the supply.
you are losing money.
If your beloved MS made 10 XB's, that wouldn't be less than demand and not yeild money that they could have?
what's to know beyond that 'master'.
Many of you are acting like this shipment of 400,000 copies are the only copies that are going to be made.
Take for instance a shunned customer who went out to pick up Sunshine release day with no pre-order (Lucas, for example ;) Just kidding...). They can't find it anywhere release day because all of it is preorders, and the game seems more "rare." This increases the chances of that person spreading the word about the game in an attempt to find it, and it also almost guarentees they'll pick it up next time they see it for fear of not being able to find it later (which does wonders for someone on the fence of whether or not they should indeed get it).
The demand will not be met on release date, but supply will grow over time as the demand increases, even if only slightly, simply due to there not being enough the first around. If people see plenty of extra copies at a store, they figure that store will have those for a while, and they could perhaps skip on that game for now and come back later (be it for whatever reason, like thinking of using the cash for something else). That person might then simply wait for a price drop or get a used copy, which would mean Nintendo would make less or no moeny from that person. In large groups, that adds up.
not, really, those 200k people wont magically stop wanting a high caliber product like Sunshine if there are none in stock, seeing those empty shelves and playing his friends will only make him want more, and as the marketing team at my work put it, "create a stronger buzz."Quote:
Originally posted by mattvanstone
Yeah..I know nothing.
If you can sell 600K of something, ie, the demand.
and you produce only 400K of it, ie, the supply.
you are losing money.
Exactly... not. When I couldn't find Morrowind the day it came out, I stopped looking and gave up until I just happened to see it when I was out. After I hadn't found it, I didn't care if I got it and was pissed. If I don't find SMS the day I go to the store with my money, I might not get it this year. When the market is overflowing with exciting, overhyped next-gen games, not grabbing what you can get as fast as you can is really stupid. Then again, Nintendo was stupid enough to keep SM64 at $40 til they stopped making it, and have garuanteed they will never be king of the hill again, so maybe they really do only care about GBA... We all know GC is their last console... :evil: :pQuote:
Originally posted by MechDeus
Many of you are acting like this shipment of 400,000 copies are the only copies that are going to be made.
Take for instance a shunned customer who went out to pick up Sunshine release day with no pre-order (Lucas, for example ;) Just kidding...). They can't find it anywhere release day because all of it is preorders, and the game seems more "rare." This increases the chances of that person spreading the word about the game in an attempt to find it, and it also almost guarentees they'll pick it up next time they see it for fear of not being able to find it later (which does wonders for someone on the fence of whether or not they should indeed get it).
The demand will not be met on release date, but supply will grow over time as the demand increases, even if only slightly, simply due to there not being enough the first around. If people see plenty of extra copies at a store, they figure that store will have those for a while, and they could perhaps skip on that game for now and come back later (be it for whatever reason, like thinking of using the cash for something else). That person might then simply wait for a price drop or get a used copy, which would mean Nintendo would make less or no moeny from that person. In large groups, that adds up.
They might still want it, but unfortunately for Nintendo, that paying customer just settled for a 3rd party game with their $50 and they won\'t be buying SMS for awhile now.Quote:
Originally posted by MrKasualUltra2000
not, really, those 200k people wont magically stop wanting a high caliber product like Sunshine if there are none in stock, seeing those empty shelves and playing his friends will only make him want more, and as the marketing team at my work put it, \"create a stronger buzz.\"
good point, but...Quote:
Originally posted by EThugg
They might still want it, but unfortunately for Nintendo, that paying customer just settled for a 3rd party game with their $50 and they won\'t be buying SMS for awhile now.
im POSITIVE, companies like Nintendo, MS, etc...have done adequate market research that produces results such as only 10% of the gamers who went out pick up a HIGH CALIBER (thats the key word in my thesis) game like SMS would pick up another game if Mario was not in stock...
it is not because the factory cannot produce enough, end of story.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(btw. i know people, both adults and kids (actually 2 kids and 3 adults) who are picking up Cubes right now in anticipation of Mario and have already pre ordered)
I am guilty of this actually. When I see a game in the stores and it's usually plentiful (and I usually don't NEED to play it) then I wait for the price to drop. As soon as FF Anthology started disappearing from stores, I started getting worried. This is why I picked up my copy off ebay, in case none could be found. For Mario Sunshine, you really can't settle for anything less if you're intent on playing it. Most people know that Mario games = good games. So why waste money on a new Army Men game in its place?Quote:
Originally posted by MechDeus
That person might then simply wait for a price drop or get a used copy, which would mean Nintendo would make less or no moeny from that person. In large groups, that adds up.
You apparently didn't do too well in Econ 101.Quote:
Originally posted by MrKasualUltra2000
"when demand is met. demand dwindles"
economics 101
Companies aren't interested in maximizing demand. They're interested in maximizing profits.
Neither supply nor price change demand. They simply determine how much of demand is met.
I am. I have a B.A. in Economics from Rutgers University. I got an A in every single Economics class I've ever taken. MVS is right.Quote:
Originally posted by Master
mattvanstone knows nothing about supply and demand. Lets just leave it at that.
PS: Not that I'm an economics wiz, but I digress...
Supply cuts can increase price. If Nintendo was selling SMS :lol: for the yen equivalent of $150, then supply cuts *might* make sense. They're not. Supply changes do not affect demand, and even if they did, supply cuts would hurt demand, not help it.
Sweet jesus..what has the world come to. burgundy is agreeing with me, and he makes more sense than me...
goddam.
:P
MD: Like I said earlier, the demand effect of hearing "I can't find game X" is completely cancelled out by the alternate effect of "I have game X, and it kicks ass."
I can't believe MVS and EThugg are the only ones making sense in this thread.
Maybe nintendo don't want to compete with themselves and in the long term lose out money? If they've got other nintendo games on shevles, and kid A still hasn't got those games, (and he still wants them) but see a copy of SMS on shelves instead, then maybe he might pass on the other nintendo titles altogether and only get sms. Whereas if nintendo make it harder to get SMS, chances are the kid will have to settle with buying another nintendo game, and then also getting SMS at some later date. Kid A then, has bought 2 games thanks to the timing of releases. Don't all companies kind of spread out thier releases to make sure all thier titles are fully milked before the next titles? If they unleash everything at once while the older stuff is still selling well, they are under threat of cutting profits generated from the existing titles on shelves. That's my theory anyway. I still haven't bought pikmin and plan on getting it, but had I gone to the store right now and seen SMS sitting right next to it, I'd forego my purchase of pikmin to get SMS instead. (and postpone my purchase of pikmin at some later date, possibly hoping to get it cheap second hand or at a reduced price somewhere. But as the game I haven't got yet ages and sits there and I'm still absorbed by other games, the chance increases that I may never bother getting the game at all and be happy with the next batch of games.)
If the demand for SMS is still there it shouldn't matter when the supply is met should it? People will still buy that game at some date anyway so there is no threat of lost profits from that title is there? But what about the other games still sitting on shelves that nintendo has yet to milk? If they want bigger overall profits they'd keep pimping the old stuff until they are satisfied and only limit releases of the newer games to fewer numbers. (for all the early adopters who bought the gc early and who are sick of the old games and have played them to death. Those are the ones that are under threat of buying some other company's game, not Kid A in the example above.)
You guys are stretching more than a bit. It's very simple.
How many of you have gone to a movie, seen it sold out, and watched another one?
Casual gamers do the same. They go, if A isn't there, B is more than likely bought.
Lets be realistic here, Nintendo has about 3 solid chances a year to change momentum in Japan, and not break the big rule of sales. Namely, don't piss off and frustrate your target audience.
If I can walk into a store and get SMS when it launches here along with a GC, then I will probably do so.
If it's like the PS2 launch, and I can't do that, then I guess nintendo will lose out on my money like sony did.
They are only undercutting their own potential profits by releasing a low number.
Well I've gone to a store, expected to buy a certain nintendo game, and after seeing it wasn't in that particular store yet, bought another nintendo game I hadn't played yet instead. Nintendo are better of for it now that they've just forced me to get this other game I hadn't expected to get when I first came to the store, but will give a try anyway. (if the quality really sucks I can return it, but nintendo games have a pretty good track record)Quote:
How many of you have gone to a movie, seen it sold out, and watched another one?
So nintendo are competing with themselves. By controlling when (and how many of) the game is released, it increases people's chances of getting more nintendo games overall. which = more overall profit (stretched over the long term).
My theory is that the lucky early few who do get one of the games that were released in small numbers, have a chance to play and get good at the game and unlock things within it, and spread the word about how good that game is. Nintendo then save money on ads because the hype from the dedicated few end up doing all the work in spreading the word about the game and why it's great or whatever. (it's like when you play a game, spend 100 hours doing it, and through some sort of time release you start to really see the depth in it or the features contained within the game and increasingly grow to like it more even more.)
Remember Super Mario Kart? That game didn't initially wow many people until a certain few people got used to the techniques of the game over a time, and then through word of mouth it grew in popularity and became a classic fan fave. It might be similar to arcades, and how certain games have a time release feature where more of the game reveals itself to maintain interest by the public in the game for longer. The awareness about the game stays around longer and people can come back to that game, while newer people (who had no intention of buying the game in the first place) hear about the merits of it from others talking about it, and may end up wanting to see what's so good about it by finally buying the game themselves..
A good example is little kids in a playground with the latest toys. The kid with the latest stuff is talking excitedly with his friends about these things that the others don't know about. Others kids listen in, and envy him and want them too. They later go to the store to get it for themselves. (begging the parents: "But all my friends have one!! I want one too!" The parent is forced to find out more about them and this stays in their mind nonstop. If they want the kid to shut up, they'll search for this rare nintendo item and be forced to know what a nintendo thing is. This is actually the start of the nintendo brand recognition thing going on. Nintendo get to the kids, to get to the parents, to get the $) But if every kid had these toys from the beginning, they wouldn't be special and the other kids would have nothing to envy him for. Nintendo now had all the marketing done for them from a small batch of people instead of promoting it themselves. Well that's what I think is going on.
Okay.
Assume not everyone lives in the nintendo world.
If joe blow goes in next month to get a GC and SMS, and they don't have SMS, he might try a few stores, but if all are sold out, like was the case with the PS2 launch debacle, then nintendo are outta luck.
There is not a way to spin this, and say that nintendo is going to do better by controlling supply over a fixed price product.
If they want to sell SMS and consoles (as many think that SMS will be the system seller), they better have SMS games or it's a bust.
Your example of the 'lucky few' falls apart on one thing:
If 400K is good, isn't 1 million better, and can spread even more word on this?
If it's production fuck up, like sony, then I can understand, but if it's not, it seems like a stupid move and one that will only cost potential dollars.
Nope because, the other games still haven't had a chance. Why would nintendo shoot itself in the foot if the other games continue to sell well? The guy who wanted SMS may just as well buy another nintendo game instead. (impulse purchase. You got some money, you're at the store and need to spend it) Or, he'll wait and get it at some later date. When you're not spoilt for choice in titles, you're more likely to settle for something else because you're bored and want to play something. One of my earlier points was that maybe they hope more people are going to go to the store looking for SMS, not get it, and end up buying luigi's mansion or some other game. If nintendo just released enough SMS, those other nintendo games would suffer. So they spread everything apart to try and milk the most out of each title. If you're a dedicated nintendo fan and can't get a copy of SMS when you go to the store, chances are you're not silly enough to boycott the game or anyhthing in future when that game is more widely available anyway.Quote:
If 400K is good, isn't 1 million better, and can spread even more word on this?
You're need for this game (when you go to the store and complain to the store owner that they didn't order enough copies of this awesome game,.. is free marketing for nintendo, because now every store is more aware of this demand for the game and forced to bow to nintendo's needs and listen to them. Nintendo then guage interest by how much complaints of shortages there are for the game and make only enough of the game.)
Nintendo don't want you to play though the games quickly and then that's it, they want to stretch it's awareness over a long period of time so it is reknown for a lot longer. When something is old and nobody talks about it anymore, the sales suffer. Stretching the interest over a long period of time allows it to stay in people's minds for longer.
To answer your question: by making enough copies of the game from the beginning, everyone is exposed to it at once, everyone that was interested buys it, and then suddenly nobody talks about it after they have it. Those people who bought it (everyone who wanted the game from the start) now don't (have no reason to) go looking around for the game or talk to others about it, and so newer people who hadn't intended on buying it in the first place, won't hear about it. I know it's just a silly theory, but I can't think of any other better reason. :D
The point was not that the RAM is or isn't the same. I'm well aware that the RAM in the Expansion is diffrent (wholy proprietary I think). My point on that was cost versus value :/Quote:
Originally posted by SearchManX
DDR RAM and the memory chips used in N64 cartridges are different. Cartridges also drive up the cost. You can get an expansion RAM if you are willing to put up with Donkey Kong 64. IMO, Zelda:MM is worth the price it is. And I see many people here who pay $100+ for "rare" Saturn/PC-Engine games. Accessories like twin sticks and maraca's cost almost $100 alone. Price shouldn't be that much of an issue if you want it that badly.
People can pay for whatever they like, but they are paying for items sold by collectors or previously played on eBay or equivelent. Not a new release. I'm saying a 1st party game has NO REASON, especially on N64, to be more expensive than any given thrid party one. Sure they knew they would make money - but by bending customers (most of which are moms/dads wanting to shut thier kids up) over for it. Whether or not it is worth it is not the problem anyway. The issue I wanted to address is that Nintendo HAS raised prices because of limited quantities that they themselves limited.
As to the Donkey Kong business - at the time of Z:MM's release DK64 was about $35 dollars - 5 dollars more than the expansion pak :/ I suppose I could have traded-in the DK to knock-off some of the hurt of the Z:MM new retail price. But still - I would be looking at paying 85 - 90 bucks. For one game. It used to be like that for every game - but it's something else when games left and right are being released at 39.99 and less - good games too.
ºTracer
Tickle Me Elmo
PS2
Furby
Beanie Babies
N64
Just add SMS to the list.
Did SMS even sell out in Japan? I think Nintendo is just trying to create additional buzz for a product that doesn't need it.
It is a silly theory, yes.
More is better. More money for them. More exposure.
If SMS has any chance to be a system seller, which it is for me, and will determine if I get a GC that day, or walk a few aisles over and make do with a DVD-RW or something else I want, it needs games to push the system.
Intentionally alienating your demographic is simply too stupid a thought to assume that nintendo would do it.
Magic Box lists SMS selling 380,000 something copies...so there would be something around 20,000 unsold copies.
I'm just nit picking though. *Fans the flames a little more*
Thank you Jef, history has proven that if you have limited supplies, your product will sell out faster, even though people complain, that causes more publicity. The same thing happened during Christmas with the Furby and the Tickle Me Elmo. I would've never heard of the Tickle Me Elmo if it weren't for coverage on the news about the short supply and frustrated parents trying to get their hands on one.Quote:
Originally posted by JefmcC
Tickle Me Elmo
PS2
Furby
Beanie Babies
N64
Just add SMS to the list.
Did SMS even sell out in Japan? I think Nintendo is just trying to create additional buzz for a product that doesn't need it.
What you guys (mvs and burgundy) are talking about are HYPOTHETICAL situations where Nintendo COULD make more money. Sure they could, but they could also lose some PR momentum. If customer A is at a store and asks for SMS and the sales clerk says "sorry we're all sold out of Mario Sunshine" that may raise a few ears of other customers in the store. Which do you think would have a better impact, an X greater number of games sold that only gets printed on a game site or word of mouth that Mario Sunshine is SOLD OUT. I think the latter has a bigger impact.
I am going to assume that another shipment of about 400,000 more will be on the way any day now. If Nintendo didn't even sell out the first shipment of them, I don't see how they are alienating thier customers. Unless someone is pissed that thier local importer didn't get his/her (technically illegal) gray market import version.Quote:
Originally posted by Rumpy
Magic Box lists SMS selling 380,000 something copies...so there would be something around 20,000 unsold copies.
I'm just nit picking though. *Fans the flames a little more*
380,000 out of 400,000 seems like a lot to me.
I fail to see how selling 400,000 copies in a year, let alone 4 days is a bad thing for any company. Besides, does it really matter? I just want the domestic version now. I could use some Mario lovin'...calm me down from getting my ass kicked in Warcraft III.
Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
You apparently didn't do too well in Econ 101.
Companies aren't interested in maximizing demand. They're interested in maximizing profits.
Neither supply nor price change demand. They simply determine how much of demand is met.
I am. I have a B.A. in Economics from Rutgers University. I got an A in every single Economics class I've ever taken.
wrong. a high profile game like SMS would not be affected by a weak first shipment, your grades mean nothing in the real world (i know business graduates from top west coast schools who cant find a job, so that shit does not impress me) , i WORK in a marketing team doing co-op sales, co-op marketing strategies, etc.... and when there is a lot of hype and anticipation for any product, empty shelves can do nothing but increase demand, people are not going to go to the store for mario and pick up Extreme Surfing or some other shit game because mario is sold out, the casual gamer would wait, especially when the clerk tells them more will be on Friday and asks if they want to reserve a copy. 50 bucks is too much money to throw around nowadays, a 20 dollar product would be another story.
kepp in mind im not talking about a month without SMS on the shelves. perhaps a max of one week between shipments would suffice.
for the record, that qoute is from my boss, not me.
you seem to have forgot that Nintendo wants to increase preorders, etc...so shipping the games out in small increments over a two week period would not affect the overall sales.
:D
i don't understand why people are sooo stupid. Ofcourse shortages pump up shit even more look what playstation did. The next shipment people flooded because all the hype it generated and they didnt want to miss out.
Nintendo did this shit on purpose look at everyone in here sweating over mario now. This shit sure made me want it even more and go down to eb and pre-order it to make sure i get it!!!
You are a complete moron if you don't understand this tactic. Also "somethign selling out fast" makes you want it more! it just sounds good.
me thinks Cyco doesn't understand how retail works... you cow!
I know this is old but I think it deserves to be dug up.
An interesting article for mattvanstone that I think explains the history of nintendo's behaviour well. (brings some insight into why shortages are good for nintendo and ends this thread by pretty much answering the original question):
extracted from http://www.geekcomix.com/vgh/fourth/nesbad.shtml
It's all about nintendo wanting to be a control freak. :DQuote:
Nintendo began orchestrating game shortages sometime in 1988. This was called "inventory management" by Peter Main, an executive in charge of public relations at Nintendo, but was really to keep the customers on a short leash. By limiting the amount of product available, Nintendo could keep the demand for the product high. The editor of one toy-industry journal noted that "Nintendo has become a name like Disney or McDonald's. They've done it by doling out games like Godiva chocolates." By design, Nintendo would not fill all of the retailers' orders and kept half or more of its library of games inactive and unavailable. In 1988, for instance, 33 million NES cartridges were sold, but market surveys indicated that upwards of 45 million could have been sold. That year retailers requested 110 million cartridges, almost 2.5 times the indicated demand. These practices would greatly benefit Nintendo, but drive many smaller software firms out of business. Certain titles would be produced, then sold very slowly over the span of a year, and the profits would not come in fast enough to keep these small companies afloat. The toy and electronics as well as department stores became dependent on Nintendo, in addition to most game producers. This gave Nintendo a great deal of clout in dealing with companies who were used to throwing their muscle around. 9, 6
One such company was Child World, at the time, the second largest toy-store chain in the United States. They refused to play by Nintendo's rules, and ended relations with them. By 1989, they were experiencing severe financial difficulties due to the loss of 20% of their sales through video games. They came back to Nintendo, trying to appease them, and were met with open hostility. Nintendo agreed to sell them product again, but they would have to pay for the product a year in advance.
Another Nintendo policy that made retailers furious was their return policy, or lack thereof. Because Nintendo's quality control was boasting a defect rate of 0.9% for hardware and 0.25% for software by 1988, Nintendo executives did not see a need for their previous 90 day guarantee. A new policy was announced to the retailers: no returns. Once a game cartridge box or system box was opened, a refund was out of the question. Concerning this, Sheff wrote:
"Pandemonium followed. One of the largest retailers in the country threatened to stop carrying Nintendo Systems and products. Nintendo refused to change the policy and the retailer refused the products. The retailer held out for three months; after that it crawled back and agreed to Nintendo's terms."
Nintendo's next atrocity would be to use the considerable monopoly they had to control the consumer. Because of the game shortages, consumers would be more concerned about getting a particular title than the price. And because of Nintendo's domineering stance with the retailers, they were able to dictate the expected prices for their games.
Thank god for sega entering into the market.. (or we'd still be playing NES games and be happy with obsolete machines... Whoops just described the mainstream ps2 fans for a mintute :D)Quote:
In 1988, when it was becoming apparent that 16-bit technology was becoming inexpensive enough to warrant inclusion in the next breed of video game consoles, Nintendo issued a press release that sounded very similar to that fateful statement by Atari made in 1982. Nintendo said, "We feel that the average game player is not mature enough for a 16-bit system, and that the demand is insufficient for it to be a high priority."8 They were wrong. In the summer of 1989, the first 16-bit system, called Genesis and produced by Sega, would arrive in the stores. By the next Christmas, they were outselling Nintendo's NES 3 to 1 9 and Nintendo was losing many of their licensees to Sega. This forced Nintendo to reconsider its decision about 16-bit technology, and begin designing one of their own.
When these events are considered with those that occurred during the Third Generation and caused the gaming market crash, the flaws of a single system market become painfully obvious. The fact that more software innovations and higher employment rates in the industry transpired during the Fifth Generation where we find a multple system market and increased competition adds to this argument as well.3 I personally think that the inherent risks of a signle system market are sufficient to warrant concern if the industry becomes dominated by one company again.
What may have been true in 1988 is no longer true now. Nintendo doesn't have an iron grip on the market, or even any grip at all.
Impact means nothing without sales. In an environment where the next chart-topper is only a week away and promos are out of gamestores before preorders, publishers are making a mistake by not meeting demand. Mario Sunshine came out what, a whole two weeks ago? And it's already old news. How far down this forum are all the SMS threads? Forget about the other consoles - SMS has already fallen under the Gamecube radar.
The marketing benefit of giving up a definite sale today for an uncertain sale next week just isn't worth it.
Oh, and GameHED? Take a look at the last paragraph of your first excerpt - it shows that Nintendo intended to secure a higher price through its business practices. A monopolist will often constrict supply to raise price and possibly maximize profits. Nintendo isn\'t a monopolist anymore, and in any event, it\'s going to sell SMS with an eye towards an MSRP of $50. If Nintendo is cutting supply and not raising price, it\'s giving away a whole bunch of money that I don\'t think it\'s recouping on the marketing end, and if Nintendo is behaving this way regardless, it\'s because it has some delusion that it still drives the industry.
What about the GBA? Don't they pretty much own the whole handheld game market now?Quote:
Nintendo isn\'t a monopolist anymore
To the hardcore. But not the maintream gamers or kids who want a specific game. Namely mario, because they recognise and worship him. Maybe the people buying the game aren't the type to spend much on gaming as a hobby (they are not tempted to buy whatever else is on shelves like you and me) and only interested in playing nintendo games. The next zelda or pokemon game isn't exactly treated by it's fans as an unknown game by some unknown company they never heard of. To these little obsessed kids eyes, what other games are out at the time, don't offer the same thing that is contained within this specific nintendo title. So a retailer can't profit from them if they don't give in to nintendos demands. That is if they still want to finally cash in on this mainstream/kiddy market.Quote:
Forget about the other consoles - SMS has already fallen under the Gamecube radar.
Where else can people play mario but on a GC? Why is it still important that Microsoft or Sony buy exclusive rights to X-franchise of games for a year to secure the profits from fans of the series of games who are buying those games? Answer: recognition of the games is big enough that having it excluded from competitors machines, traps the consumer into having only one way to get the games. Nintendo's own games have big recognition amoungst a lot of people. They are valuable and exclusive. If fans of the game want to play the game, they will do it at any price, begging retailers to just get the thing ASAP in desperation, even if it means paying a bit extra for it, because to them it's worth it. Even when the game gets old and the price stays the same they won't complain because it's the only way to get it. If nintendo know there are people who want the game right from the start, retailers have no choice but to listen to nintendo if they want to appease the growing demand by armies of kids bothering parents to get the game in.Quote:
If Nintendo is cutting supply and not raising price, it\'s giving away a whole bunch of money that I don\'t think it\'s recouping on the marketing end, and if Nintendo is behaving this way regardless, it\'s because it has some delusion that it still drives the industry.
-Sales of nintendo games stay in the top ten for ages,
-retailers know nintendo games consistantly sell well,
-nintendo gets to control retailers, or those retailers are forced to listen if they want to start making profits from the kiddy gamer market. (These are toys, kids whinng to parents is a powerful thing. word-of-mouth hyping dictates what is popular and in demand)
Maybe it's changed, and nintendo don't benefit at all, but it's just 1 possible theory as to why nintendo do it. Marketing isn't that important when your base knows your games so well and go into a store knowing what they want, (regardless of what else is sitting on a shelf to 'tempt' thier dollars, they aren't considered competition if the fan-kid has no interest in them from the beginning) but my point is: IF you want to play a specific nintendo title, not 'what else is being offered' and is common, or what will be released next week by some no-name company, then you are going to have to complain about it to a retailer to get it. Those complaints you make raise demand amoungst those hearing about it ("why is it so popular?" kid thinks to him/herself, "now i want one mommy! my friends have it" Go to the Ikaruga thread for an example :D ), and as a result of all this fooling around, nintendo can ensure more sales of the game over time. More sales = more demand = more profit. Retailers see the profits being made and must suck up to any demands nintendo make if they want to make the $. Isn't that what sony is doing with the whole "pulling posters down of the other competitors machines", and threats "to not supply the machine" if retailers don't give more favourable position to thier machine? :D It may be an old thing, but it is still very relevant today. It's just the names of the company using the tactics that changed. (probably a good lesson for all those people out there that think the industry could actually benefit from a single standardised platform. :rolleyes: )
Nintendo is simply making us of some simple principles of business when they do this kind of thing. It's not rocket science.
GameHED - Then, if Nintendo's franchises are so instantly recognizable and unique and create their own demand, why would Nintendo have to do such economically stupid things to artificially raise demand?
It's a Catch-22. Either it doesn't work, or it doesn't work.
Videogames aren't Furbies. A favorable experience with one does a lot more to increase demand than sheer "I can't have it, so I want it!"
Jay - Every sound principle of business goes against cutting supply to increase demand. It's a marketing tool, and one that doesn't work very effectively in most cases.
Anyone remember Tickle-Me-Elmo, or any such holiday crazes? Sure, they were popular when they were scarce, but the producer couldn't reap the benefits since, by definition, they were scarce. By the time the things were available en masse, no one cared anymore, and in all likelihood, they didn't all sell at full price.
I don't condone Nintendo's actions during the NES days, that sounds down-right dirty to me, and it's one reason I very much oppose Microsoft getting 100% of the console market. Nintendo seems to be more lax now with their policies and the GBA, while solely held by Nintendo is no longer excessively priced. Sure it could be better, we could be seeing $15 GBA games new instead of $30, but the fact of the matter is that no one is willing to risk a huge loss in the handheld market and Nintendo's is making good use of it. And even with the handheld market all to themselves, they already lowered GBA games from an excessive $40 to $30 now which is more reasonable.
I never said they were ethical business principles...
I agree with you all the way down to that last bit. The produces were able to reap the benefits, as the retailers were pining for the product. The producers sold their product to make the same profit on every single unit. The producer deals with consumer demand only indirectly, and the reseller demand directly. Consumers go ape-crap for a product, the resellers go ape-crap to stock the product, the producer makes out. The retailers, after all is said and done, are theones left holding the immovable product, and that in no way hurts the producers. Nintendo makes the same amount of money, if not more, when demand is artificially increased. They could care less if EB and GameStop move all of the games, outside of EB and GameStop ordering more...which is why they underproduce. Underproduction = gauranteed sell out = more retail orders for the product.Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
GameHED - Then, if Nintendo's franchises are so instantly recognizable and unique and create their own demand, why would Nintendo have to do such economically stupid things to artificially raise demand?
It's a Catch-22. Either it doesn't work, or it doesn't work.
Videogames aren't Furbies. A favorable experience with one does a lot more to increase demand than sheer "I can't have it, so I want it!"
Jay - Every sound principle of business goes against cutting supply to increase demand. It's a marketing tool, and one that doesn't work very effectively in most cases.
Anyone remember Tickle-Me-Elmo, or any such holiday crazes? Sure, they were popular when they were scarce, but the producer couldn't reap the benefits since, by definition, they were scarce. By the time the things were available en masse, no one cared anymore, and in all likelihood, they didn't all sell at full price.
If they create the illusion that the game sells out every time it\'s stocked, the retailers order more. Nintendo already has predictions of market saturation, supply and demands curves, and any other number. The retailers do not. All they know is that the game keeps selling out, so they\'ll order in huge quantities.
When the product sits on the shelf for months and doesn\'tmove at all...Nintendo has already made the money they forecast.
Neither did I. I'm talking about economics. If anyone has reason to complain about ethics, generally, the business is making sound (if unethical) economic choices.Quote:
Originally posted by Jay
I never said they were ethical business principles...
This is assuming that the resellers don\'t have some buyback provision in place. And that\'s a question of market power. You can be pretty sure than PaCrappa isn\'t going to be able to sell stock back to MS (at least not at a favorable price), but can Wal-Mart or Babbages get a favorable deal from Conspiracy? I bet they could. That\'s all ignoring distribution channels, of which I\'m totally ignorant.Quote:
Originally posted by Captain Vegetable
I agree with you all the way down to that last bit. The produces were able to reap the benefits, as the retailers were pining for the product. The producers sold their product to make the same profit on every single unit. The producer deals with consumer demand only indirectly, and the reseller demand directly. Consumers go ape-crap for a product, the resellers go ape-crap to stock the product, the producer makes out. The retailers, after all is said and done, are theones left holding the immovable product, and that in no way hurts the producers. Nintendo makes the same amount of money, if not more, when demand is artificially increased. They could care less if EB and GameStop move all of the games, outside of EB and GameStop ordering more...which is why they underproduce. Underproduction = gauranteed sell out = more retail orders for the product.
If they create the illusion that the game sells out every time it\'s stocked, the retailers order more. Nintendo already has predictions of market saturation, supply and demands curves, and any other number. The retailers do not. All they know is that the game keeps selling out, so they\'ll order in huge quantities.
When the product sits on the shelf for months and doesn\'t move at all...Nintendo has already made the money they forecast.
Big retailers know the retail market as well as or better than big publishers. This is their business, and I\'m pretty certain they have the means to make market predictions themselves.
But you raise (inadvertently, maybe?) an important point. If anything, manufacturers want to create the illusion that their product is scarce without the product actually being scarce. Then, they get the hype *and* the sales.
Agreed. Assuming the retailers have no buy-back clause in the arangement they've made with the producer/distributor, what I said holds true. A buy-back clause would significantly change the geography of the business environment; however, a clause such as this is never an issue with huge publishing houses such as Nintendo, Sega, and their ilk, because they hold the reigns as far as how business is done. EB and GameStop's business is reliant solely upon the procurement of video games, which they buy from the distributor/producer. If GameStop doesn't do business the way Nintendo says they're going to, Nintendo won't let GameStop cary their product...dun, dun, DUUUUUUUUN! GameStop caters to The Big N, not the other way around. It might float with small pro/dev houses because the smaller companies are reliant on EB and the like to keep them in business. But it works the opposite way with the bigger pros/devs.Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
This is assuming that the resellers don\'t have some buyback provision in place. And that\'s a question of market power. You can be pretty sure than PaCrappa isn\'t going to be able to sell stock back to MS (at least not at a favorable price), but can Wal-Mart or Babbages get a favorable deal from Conspiracy? I bet they could. That\'s all ignoring distribution channels, of which I\'m totally ignorant.
And distribution is another issue. Chances are, if a buy-back clause exists, it's with a distributor, not a developer/producer. So, either way, Nintendo has already made their money.
Sure. I probably should have phrased what I said differently. The retailers do, in fact, read the market. But they read on a much more short term basis. The retailers business focuses on who is going to be in their store tomorrow or in a week from Tuesday, and what they're going to buy based on todays numbers and statistics. If Mario Sunshine was hot today, they assume it'll be hot tomorrow, and order accordingly.Quote:
Big retailers know the retail market as well as or better than big publishers. This is their business, and I\'m pretty certain they have the means to make market predictions themselves.
Nintendo will be looking further into the future, and so their predictions and forcasts have a higher likely-hood of being less risky.
I.E.
GameStop: "Mario's HOT! Let's stock more for tomorrow's/next week's sales!" *places order for X additional units*
Consumers: "We've already purchased all the Mario we can handle, let's buy something different tomorrow/next week." (This info GameStop is not privy to until the consumer acts, but at this point they've already placed the order and given Nintendo their money. Nintendo, however, anticipates this)
Nintendo: "Hmmm...we have set a goal for X units of Mario to be sold. We'll tell the retailers they can't have it unless they order a certain amount, and that way we'll be covered if the Mario market crashes tomorrow/next week."
Brought it up on purpose. ;)Quote:
But you raise (inadvertently, maybe?) an important point. If anything, manufacturers want to create the illusion that their product is scarce without the product actually being scarce. Then, they get the hype *and* the sales.
Nintendo is not the same as they were during the 8-bit era. They don't and probably will never have a strong hold on the home console market. The numbers that MVS is complaining about is from JPN sales. There are a few points that I'm not sure a few of you are aware of or remember so let me give you my take on the whole 400k (shortage?):
Nintendo hasn't been meeting the hardware numbers they've anticipated for the GC and are still fighting to catch up to meet fiscal forcast. With this in mind, they are just being conservative to a degree about SMS and just about all of their other games over in Japan. Wouldn't you be? 400k is still a lot more than most games sell ever (even world-wide) and yet someone feels inclined to bitch about the "initial" print run in Japan that eclipses most other games overall sales. Boggling.