Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

World-Wide Revolution Launch Unneeded

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the going-global dept.

GamesIndustry.biz reports that, in the words of Nintendo President Iwata, a simultaneous global launch for the Nintendo Revolution is not necessary. From the article: "We don't think it's necessary to do the simultaneous worldwide launch simply because others are doing this." He also goes on to mention that they plan to have the DS shortage problem at least partially taken care of by the end of April.

3 of 48 comments (clear)

  1. Worldwide launches by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Worldwide launches are OK if you know you have enough units to make everyone happy, otherwise they aren't. Look at xbox 360. Tons of units sitting on the shelves in Japan, and people can't even find one in the US. Customers get very annoyed when they can't get something that's been released. Retailers get mad when customers leave their store empty handed because they don't have access to the products that the customers want.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    1. Re:Worldwide launches by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Retailers get mad when customers leave their store empty handed because they don't have access to the products that the customers want.

      Retailers can console (no pun intended) themselves with the knowledge that since consumers can't get the products elsewhere in the market either, it's not a lost sale yet; more likely just a deferred one.

      And if the three out of every ten customers who DO walk out with product in hand can be compelled to take x-hundred dollars' worth of add-on products with them as a condition of purchase, a product shortage isn't too bad for a retailer after all.

  2. No reason for Nintendo to consider it anyway by rabbitliberationfron · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't think it's particularly relevant for Nintendo to have considered it anyway. Consider the 360, the context was totally different:
    a) There were no direct competitors at launch. Other "competitors" were previous generation and the likely early adopters targeted at launch would most likely own at least one console from that generation.
    b) If it had worked, it would have been a hailed as a brilliant consumer friendly idea. Consumers in territories that receive the consoles last in the roll-out always feel left out. Microsoft wants everyone to feel "wanted". Remember, it is currently in second place.
    c) Microsoft could afford / were prepared to throw money at the logistics problem to (try to) solve it.
    d) The concept behind Live is of a global community, which does work better if everyone has access to consoles at the same time.

    Notice now, that Microsoft have upped the stakes too. They had a moderately low risk launch (so what if we're a few consoles short, there's nothing else to buy) in which they could try this out. Sony, on the other hand, now has to match that and better it. It's far from easy to manage. Although it would be a poke in the eye if they do.

    Nintendo, on the other hand, aren't even pitching at the same market as Microsoft / Sony. The (initial) audience for the Revolution will inevitably be smaller, just due to momentum from this generation of consoles. So why even introduce the pain? Far better to have a smoothly managed and *efficient* roll-out, than a painful and expensive one. If the Revolution is successful, it will achieve it through word of mouth, not big marketing budgets.

    BB