→ Analogue: A Hate Story

by Michael in


Analogue: A Hate Story

The first commercial (not free) game made by Christine Love. I don't believe there's any connection between the two other than title similarity, but I've played and quite liked Digital: A Love Story (which is from 2010 but I didn't play until last year--and alarmingly forgot about it completely when writing about the games I played in 2011). Digital has no major artwork to speak of, being played from the perspective of you using an old antiquated computer with dial-up. This game seems completely different with anime-style artwork and animations.

It's $15, which some people are complaining is a high price. I don't really see the complaint as very valid. The price isn't much higher than going to a movie or buying a new hardcover book. If the thing is more than a couple hours long (or even just) and quality is sufficiently high price isn't an issue. Quality is the main price justifier here. If it's not good, the price isn't worth it. Just like a book or movie. If it's good, even if short, $15 is not too much to ask.

If you want to decide whether or not you should give the game a shot, she has free trial versions up for download for Windows, OS X, and Linux. If you like the trial but want to know what kind of full story she's capable of telling you can of course play Digital: A Love Story for free to see if you think her storytelling style is up your alley (though you might not like the aesthetic, the story is engrossing by the end).

Looking forward to playing this game when I get a chance. If the storytelling is anywhere near the quality of Digital's, I'm in for a treat.


→ Introducing Ubuntu's HUD. Say Hello To The Future Of The Menu

by Michael in


Introducing the HUD. Say hello to the future of the menu.

Mark Shuttleworth, the founder of the Ubuntu project, at his blog shows off some interesting stuff Ubuntu is working on to improve what he perceives to be antiquated menu systems in our software (I can't say I disagree). It's some pretty neat stuff, really, and the video is pretty interesting to watch. It seems to mesh really well with how I already use Firefox's "Awesome Bar" agressively and is a bit reminiscent of QuickSilver or similar launchers--but integrated system wide.

This'll be great for power users for sure if executed well and potentially great for normal users if you can get them over the hump of using a new menu paradigm.


Nintendo Prepares to Post First Yearly Loss Ever, But Why?

by Michael in ,


Nintendo's Fiscal Year of 2011 is still not over. Just as Apple ends its fiscal year in September, which is not at the end of the calendar year, Nintendo ends its fiscal year in March. Nintendo has released its consolidated financial results for the 9 months ending in December 2011 (pdf), along with corresponding numbers from the previous year. The general gist can be gathered from The Verge or many other sources if you don't want to read the numbers directly.

In the release, Nintendo is predicting it will make a loss of $835 million in fiscal 2011. Let's talk about why. If you ask most people why, they'd say something about the 3DS not selling well, possibly due to competition from the iPhone. That simply isn't true. The 3DS is selling just fine, even with lowered projections. It is, in fact, selling much faster than the DS did in its first year--and the DS has gone on to become the best selling video game system of all time, just passing 151 million units sold to date according to the previously linked financial results. I'm certainly not going to say the iPhone is not relevant to Nintendo, but I will say that it isn't yet a dominant factor. (I'll have to address this in its own post.)

So if the problem isn't the 3DS selling poorly, what is it? As with most financial results from large companies several things come into play. Let's list them off.

First, the Wii has not been selling particularly well compared to previous years while also being sold at a lower price point than before. This means the Wii didn't offer so much sheer profit that it could allow the company to weather any storms it reached. The reasons for this include, but are not limited to, a lack of new compelling software for the system, the large numbers of units already sold, and the obvious age of the hardware from a technical perspective compared to other now-affordably priced alternatives. The reasons could be discussed in far more depth but are not directly relevant to the topic at hand.

Second, people may recall the 3DS was selling below expectations in its opening months. There were three things at play here:

  1. Nintendo simply priced the 3DS far too high, at $250, for most people to consider it.
  2. Nintendo didn't launch any particularly desirable games for the system in order to make room for third parties--and so there was less incentive to purchase the system.
  3. The largest element is expectations were ridiculous. In this case even Nintendo's expectations didn't make sense. There have been very few consoles in history which have ever sold at rates exceeding their predecessors immediately on launch after the opening week or two. It normally takes time for one generation to start exceeding the previous generation's sales. The Xbox 360 and PS3 took a long time to consistently beat the PS2 in sales, the DS took a while to consistently beat the GBA, etc. There have been exceptions, but the word "exception" has a definition for a reason. The Wii's explosive launch was unexpected. It isn't the norm. The Wii's launch also still didn't equate to peak numbers of the PS2 (though it exceeded the PS2's peak sales rates later). The absurdity involved in the 3DS launch sales expectations came in that Nintendo and industry insiders at large somehow expected the 3DS to simply jump into sales numbers equating to a dominant system that has been out for a while. The same problem is happening now with the PlayStation Vita's "disappointing" launch in Japan. I may not believe the Vita will sell very well, but launch numbers aren't evidence for that position.

The 3DS launch numbers being lower than expected leads us to the third major point: Nintendo dropped the price of the 3DS from its $250 to a more reasonable $170 per unit. That's $80 less per 3DS sold going to Nintendo than with an unchanged price. Obviously Nintendo wouldn't have gotten the same volume of units sold at the previous price point, but the point stands because Nintendo was operating with certain expectations of sales revenue with which it could operate.

The previous major points really only indicate why Nintendo might have made less money than expected, rather than why it lost money, though. So let's dig deeper.

The next item of significance derives from the previous one. That $80 price drop lead to the 3DS itself not being profitable in order to build momentum. Loss-leading is normal in the video game industry, but it's not normal for Nintendo. Sony and Microsoft have diverse businesses with which they can weather video game hardware losses for years until a large enough ecosystem is established to begin turning a net profit. Nintendo generally avoids this, with almost every system it's produced making profit from the day of release on every unit sold. The 3DS had to change this in order to get the volume of units Nintendo wanted into peoples' hands. This lack of profit, then, is a sacrifice Nintendo determined was necessary now--with the security of the assets it has built up over the last 5 years of immense success, in orer to position itself best for the future.

Ok, so now we're starting to see where some actual losses come from, but $800 million is a huge number. What else is there?

One huge point that can not be overlooked is the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami in Japan. While direct impact to Nintendo was fortunately minimal, the entirety of Japan's economy was effect. Energy costs increased, LCD and other component costs increased, partners were damaged more directly, Japanese consumers were harmed (and therefore couldn't purchase as much), etc. And all this happened just after the 3DS launched, thereby probably hurting sales as well. The losses caused to Nintendo probably aren't the bulk of the company's losses and are very hard to quantify, but they also were assuredly subsantial.

The final major point is Japan's strong Yen. You might think that a strong Yen would be good, but for an economy so heavily export-based, a much stronger than historical local currency hurts quite a bit. Let's take a hypothetical ¥9,000 Nintendo DS sold in January 2010 and compare it to the same one sold in January 2011. If that DS is sold in Japan in 2010, the costs and revenue associated are both handled in terms of Yen. Let's pretend that ¥9,000 cost Nintendo about ¥6,000 to produce, ship, and market, meaning Nintendo made ¥3,000 on the unit--a margin of 33.3%. If Nintendo sells the same unit the following year in Japan for the same price, and its costs have dropped a little bit, it will make marginally more money due to the cost decrease--but all of its financials look pretty similar on that same unit.

Now let's look at the international situation. Let's take that hypothetical Nintendo DS and have Nintendo sell it in the US for $100 in January 2010. I picked these price points purely for convenience (¥9,000 was roughly equivalent to $100 in January 2010), but we're going to pretend this price point was chosen carefully by Nintendo in order to maximize the combination of profit per unit and number of units sold in the target market--in this case the United States. So this hypothetical DS in January 2010, because ¥9,000 is equivalent to $100, brings Nintendo ¥9,000 in revenue. Subtracting the costs for the unit--let's say ¥7,000 because it costs more for Nintendo to ship to the US than Japan--gives Nintendo ¥2,000 profit per unit. Now let's jump to January 2011, where things start to get slightly more complicated. That Nintendo DS is still priced at $100 in the US. By this point, though, $1 is no longer worth ¥90, but instead worth ¥83. That means that $100 is now just worth ¥8,300. So Nintendo sells that DS and gets ¥8,300 in revenue from it. It's costs, though, don't go down proportionally, because its costs are still counted in Yen. So now subtracting the ¥7,000 costs means Nintendo only gets ¥1,300 instead of ¥2,000 profit on the unit unless it somehow manages to decrease costs by a proportional amount--a difficult task to accomplish when your hardware is already mature and has been cost-reduced several times.

To make things even more complicated for export-heavy Japanese companies, the Yen has continually fallen over the course of the fiscal year at a rapid pace. That means all external revenue becomes worth less and less as time continues even while local costs essentially stay the same and prices go unchanged. Having price drops at the same time the Yen continues to get stronger against foreign currencies (as Nintendo did on both the 3DS and the Wii this year) compounds the issue--the revenue drop-off is immense.

Every single device Nintendo sold outside of Japan this year made the company less money than it did the previous year, regardless of whether it got a price drop or not--for reasons entirely out of Nintendo's hands. Combine that with stagnant or even increased costs and weakened domestic sales because of a disaster, and you start to see a picture that looks an awful lot like large financial losses.

So this year's posted financials are a result of a confluence of events combining to make things look bleak. They aren't a sign, however, that Nintendo is doomed. The exchange rate is forever out of Nintendo's control, but with the launch of a new Wii U system before Christmas 2012 and a now-fast selling 3DS console ready to start making money again, it's possible Nintendo can make up for these new difficulties. Only time will tell if it can manage the immediate struggles--and then we'll talk about the viability of Nintendo as a competitor in the games industry (and the viability of that industry's existence as it exists altogether) on a later date.


A Prediction on Wall Street Predictions for Apple's 2Q 2012

by Michael in


Now that Apple has had a record-shattering quarter, easily the best quarter of any non-oil company ever (and the 4th best quarter of any company anywhere in the history of the world), let's talk about next quarter.

Next quarter, Apple's Q2 (Apple's first fiscal quarter of the year ends on December 31, so the previous huge quarter was their fiscal Q1 of 2012), will not beat the previous one. It won't be anywhere close. There won't be a new iPhone launch, might not be a new iPad launch (and even if there is, it will be near the end), and won't be any elevated holiday season sales. This part of the year is generally the lowest in sales because people purchase less after the gift season is over. So let me repeat: Next quarter will not be anywhere near the one that just ended.

Here are my predictions for next quarter:

  • Apple will beat Q2 2011 (the same quarter in the previous year, or "year over year") by a large margin.
  • Apple will set a new record for Q2 earnings.
  • Apple will make more in Q2 than many big tech companies will all year.
  • Apple will exceed their own guidance/projections for the quarter by a healthy 10-20%.
  • There is a good chance some, possibly many, Wall Street analysts will claim Apple's quarter was disappointing.

You might look at this list and wonder where the disconnect is between the first four bullet points and the last one. There are two things at play here. The first is that I switched between predicting Apple in the first four points and predicting Wall Street in the last. The second is that I am basing my prediction of Wall Street analysts based on my assessment that Wall Street analysts are lazy, incompetent, or simply bad at their jobs. Strong statements, I know. Allow me to justify.

Apple's Q4 2011 earnings were released on October 18, 2011. In that quarter Apple posted record iPad sales, record Mac sales, and record iPhone sales for the September quarter. Apple beat its own guidance by 13.08% and set an all-time record for its Q4 fiscal quarter. What kind of press do you think Apple got for it?

Pat yourself on the back if you guessed:

and a whole lot more just like that.

If you then ask "how did Apple miss expectations if they set a record for that quarter and exceeded their own forecast?" I need to congratulate you for having a brain unlike Wall Street. You see, all those expectations people complain about Apple missing? Those were Wall Street's expectations of Apple's performance, rather than the expectations of anyone who knew anything about Apple. Wall Street's expectations are based purely on emotion and guessing based on historic stock values--not on what the company is actually doing. The quarter in September was normally a huge one and Apple has been growing at an exponential rate, meaning the Street analysts predicted the September quarter to not only grow over the previous one, but to grow at a larger rate than it did previously. This despite Apple's own guidance showing it wouldn't. Just because Apple beat its own guidance by 24% in the previous quarter (an anomalously huge margin) doesn't mean you should be expecting the company to do the same in subsequent quarters when there is no actual reason to think so. (Check here for a historical overview of Wall Street expectations vs Apple guidance vs Apple real performance. This will make it clear how absurd Wall Street's expectations were.)

So to be clear: Apple's Fiscal Q4 2011 was only disappointing to people who had bad or stupid expectations not at all based on any real-world information or theory. If Wall Street makes the same mistakes again, which is unfortunately likely, it will overshoot any sort of realistic expectations of Apple's fiscal performance for no reason at all other than the fact the company just had an immense quarter. I'm not guaranteeing Wall Street will make the same mistake again, but if April rolls around and you find yourself hearing Apple had a disappointing Q2 2012, don't take the headlines or journalists at their word. Instead, make sure the disappointment isn't based on absurdity but rather on Apple actually missing its own expectations or having little to no growth.

*Note* To be clear: Wall Street does this for all kinds of businesses. I just happen to know more about Apple than I do many other companies and Apple is much more in the public eye. You should frankly take this same approach to reading reports on financial results from any company. Always make sure the disappointment is based on actual performance rather than ill-made predictions the company itself essentially warned against. I would say the same thing if someone suddenly predicted Google would double in revenue next year and then claimed Google was a disappointment because it "only" grew a little bit faster than ever before (and beat its own projections).


Why the PS4 and next Xbox will/won't launch in 2013

by Michael in , ,


According to Examiner.com, Michael Pachter has this to say about the next generation of systems:

“I think there’s zero chance of a tease from Sony for PlayStation 4 and only a 20 percent chance from Microsoft that they’ll tease the next Xbox,” Pachter told Forbes. “Neither console is launching in 2013, so there’s no reason to tease them in 2012.”

It's a tough call. Pachter has a hit and miss track record (as does anyone who's an analyst).

The way I see it, there are 5 things Microsoft and Sony would like to do in an ideal world with their next console launches:

  1. Launch in 2013.
  2. Launch with a sizable performance leap over the current generation of consoles.
  3. Launch with bundled advanced motion controls (Kinect/Move, possibly upgraded).
  4. Launch with affordable hardware.
  5. Launch without taking an immense loss per unit.

Item 1 is desired to avoid letting Nintendo have the Wii U as the only new home console on the market for well over a year and 2 full holiday sale seasons.

Item 2 is desired to show customers obvious value. The "wow factor" can only exist if the visual leap is significant but, as I've mentioned before, it's difficult to do this when the previous generation was sold at a huge loss while prioritizing this particular aspect of the console (and this time around you have other new areas which take a large slice of the cost pie).

Item 3 is desired to not be left behind. "Regular" people now expect motion controls with a home console. The Wii was huge, the Kinect has become a significantly well known success, and the Wii U is yet another platform launching with motion controls and a new interface attached. Launching a new console without any sort of alternate control available is a nonstarter.

Item 4 is desired as a response to the trials Sony had with its exorbitant pricing at the PS3's launch. People don't want expensive consoles.

Item 5 is desired because, frankly, it's hard to make that money back. While using loss-leading strategies is still feasible, you have to manage the losses such that you don't get yourself into a hole you can't dig yourself out of. Sony has been gradually shedding features of the PS3, discarding hardware left and right, over the course of the generation because the system couldn't recoup its losses otherwise (because of the debacle addressed by item 4). You only take losses small enough that you can eventually make those up on game and accessory sales. Large enough losses will never be recouped, especially if you're trying to sell to larger groups of casual owners--who buy fewer games for their consoles than so-called "hardcore" gamers.

It is extremely difficult to do all of these things at the same time. At least one of the above items has to be sacrificed. It's my guess (and make no mistake, it's only an educated guess--I don't purport to know anything secret) that Sony and Microsoft are absolutely not going to sacrifice items 3-5.

That means the companies are left with the following decision:

  1. Launch in 2013 with systems that are noticeably but not impressively more powerful than the previous generation.
  2. Launch in 2014 with systems that can have a more substantial (and more perceptible) increase in performance but leave Nintendo's Wii U as the only new home console for well over a year and two full holiday sales seasons.

Pachter is betting on item 2. I don't have a horse in this race. He could be right, he could be wrong. Either way, the reason will almost surely be one of these two points.