Industry Q&A | Mat Piscatella answers your questions

[Astrogamer]

Thank you for spending so much time on all these responses. This was very informative. The Mexico details are very surprising.

 

[Mat Piscatella]

Thank you everyone for the kind words and warm welcome. Glad some of this helped!

I'll swing through to answer the follow up questions over the next couple days.

Safe travels and happy Thanksgiving to the US peeps, safe travels and happy this week to everyone else.

 

[awng782]

Thanks for all the insights @Mat Piscatella

Those Mexico stats are astonishing, I never believed Nintendo had that strong of a presence in the region relative to PS/XB (even if this is largely due to pricing).

 

[Mekanos]

Thanks for taking the time to write all this up. Haven’t finished reading it but definitely enjoyed the bits I’ve seen so far.

 

[Nocturnal]

Thank you Mat and also the IB team for putting things together.

 

[Wockio]

Thank you so much for the Q&A! Lots of valuable information and expertise.

Thanks for all the insights @Mat Piscatella

Those Mexico stats are astonishing, I never believed Nintendo had that strong of a presence in the region relative to PS/XB (even if this is largely due to pricing).

As a Mexican, I'm not that surprised. Every store I go to the Nintendo sections have double the games and accessories of PS5/Xbox combined.

I would love it if it were somehow possible to keep getting info on this market, since I believe that unlike the US it may still be growing.

 

[Magic]

Thanks for taking the time to answer questions @Mat Piscatella.

 

[Kaworu]

Thank you so much for your insights @Mat Piscatella.

 

[MarcoP90]

Thank you for taking this much time to reply to our questions @Mat Piscatella

 

[Yomi]

Thank you @Mat Piscatella. It was interesting to read.

 

[seb]

Great read, thanks Mat for the effort and dedication to provide insightful answers and the IB team for setting this up!

While seeing the info regarding the Mexican market I wonder if there's also this tracking for Argentina. My impression is that the age of cheap piracy with PS1/PS2 cultivated a PS Nation in terms of console market that subsist even today with at an avg higher cost vs Xbox/Nintendo during the recent years.

 

[AruanaRiva]

Thanks a lot Mat. Dont have time to post question but it is always great to see many informative answer there.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Thank you so much for taking the time to answer our questions @Mat Piscatella

Really appreciate it

 

[Sagitario]

Thank you, @Mat Piscatella! Really appreciate the time, effort and info you've provided.

Truly, one of the best days on the forum since it started!

Most interesting thing here was the info on Mexico. Seeing Smash Bros after so many years being so high without digital was insane. Also, Switch being number 1 in units was also just as insane. He said PS5 was 3rd in units due to price, as long as Switch 2 is Mexican equivalent of $400, it could literally dominate the market.

Thanks for all the insights @Mat Piscatella

Those Mexico stats are astonishing, I never believed Nintendo had that strong of a presence in the region relative to PS/XB (even if this is largely due to pricing).

Fútbol/soccer, Dragon Ball and Nintendo... yep, that's my country


A bit surprised that the Xbox Series is in second place for the year. Good job, MS! Series S must be doing strong.

 

[Celine]

Thank you for sharing your time (and insights) with the community @Mat Piscatella .

 

[StardustTraveler]

Thank you for answering our questions.

 

[ikaben]

Thanks @Mat Piscatella you’re a champ.

 

[AuroraMusisAmica]

1) It was announced in January 2024, and released at the end of March. It's already sold nearly 5M units YTD, and the entire narrative around video game consumer spending has been flipped on its head. Instead, here we are.

Mat kinda voices a concern/insight I wonder if many in the industry are mulling over: is Nintendo (once again) dragging its feet after a successful console generation?

It's a classic move that's to be expected at this point:

1. Super Nintendo (1990) is launched 7 years after the Famicom (1983) and 2 years after its competitor Sega Mega Drive/Genesis (1988).
2. Nintendo 64 (1996) is launched 6 years after the Super Famicom and 2 years after its competitors PlayStation/Saturn (1994).
3. 3DS (2011) is launched 7 years after the DS (2004) and ~1 year before its competitor PSVita (2011/2012).
4. Wii U (2012) is launched 6 years after the Wii (by this time two years out of steam), made obsolete by PS4/XONE one year later (2013).
5. Switch 2 (2025*) will launch 8 years after the Switch (2017) and over four years after its closest competitors PS5/XS (2020).

Switch's software output for 2024 (Remakes, remasters, and lower-profile studios) looks like a hardware transitional year and not a year to sell on its own merits.

Now, it can certainly sell on its own merits due to its unique market niche (it does not directly compete with traditional consoles as previous systems have) and evergreen must-have titles. But 2024 felt like something was missing: whether it was a high profile studio release or a hardware launch. The good news is that Nintendo's unique market niche has (so far) remained its own (Steamdecks are cool but...) so its less pressured by other competitors. At least for now, since insiders have stated that both Microsoft and Sony are developing hybrid handheld systems. But until then Nintendo is certainly more in control of when it chooses to launch its successor.

But I'm definitely curious to be a fly on the wall in Nintendo's boardroom. Why not 2024? Is it software development issues (ala Nintendo 64 and 3DS?)? Hardware development issues? Simple confidence in their market placement with a still-strong Switch 1?

The last time we've had a successor release this late after its predecessor's launch was GameBoy > GameBoy Color (9 years, 12 years if you want GameBoy Advance). And Nintendo was in a pretty similar position. Successful and commercially reliable system with its own unique space in the market (and little in the way of direct competition).

Nintendo knows it can't solely rely on previous success to ignite newfound momentum. A new system needs to reestablish itself all over again. Hopefully this past year has been used to make the Ounce's launch year something special. Here's hoping.

But until then, I (and many others) are wondering where the heck is the thing.

 

[Lynsen]

But I'm definitely curious to be a fly on the wall in Nintendo's boardroom. Why not 2024? Is it software development issues (ala Nintendo 64 and 3DS?)? Hardware development issues? Simple confidence in their market placement with a still-strong Switch 1?

The thing is that every single argument has logical pushback.

Hardware development issues? The chip inside the console has been done for years, and, as per the 2023 prototype leak, the next console seems extremely iterative.

Software development issues? We have extremely important teams that skipped out on the Switch generation (Mario Kart, 3D Mario, etc). Therefore you'd expect that they'd have something ready to carry the first year by now.

I think that it all boils down to the fact that they still think the Switch has life left in the tank. Or perhaps the software issues extend beyond the first year of the console

 

[Mat Piscatella]

Wanted to follow up on the questions regarding other territories... yes, we do offer coverage across the Americas (and are working on global). Digital coverage is the same across territories as it is in the US. But because what we do in physical (hardware, software and accessories) is based in point-of-sale data, and not just extrapolations or projections, some territories offer better coverage than others (primarily because of the nature of retail in these territories).

Any other follow up questions anyone wants to throw out there?

Again, had a lot of fun, and I really appreciate the kind replies.

 

[Lelouch0612]

Wanted to follow up on the questions regarding other territories... yes, we do offer coverage across the Americas (and are working on global). Digital coverage is the same across territories as it is in the US. But because what we do in physical (hardware, software and accessories) is based in point-of-sale data, and not just extrapolations or projections, some territories offer better coverage than others (primarily because of the nature of retail in these territories).

Any other follow up questions anyone wants to throw out there?

Again, had a lot of fun, and I really appreciate the kind replies.

Again, thanks Mat for all the answers

I wanted to ask a question that might be a bit more theorical:

Since gaming is all about ecosystems, one underlying concept behind every success and failure is the notion of tipping point. Regardless if I talk of a multiplayer game or a hardware platform, there seems to be a point above which you are gaining massive tailwind. In hardware, we often said that the first to get to 10m sold would won the final race. In terms of software, we have a lot of examples of multiplayer games completely blowing up after they reach a certain milestone.

So basically my question is: do you work on modelizations that would try to gauge this tipping point? Also, with more and more content being shared accross platforms, at which point do you think this loss in USP would damage an ecosystem's pull and get it closer to that tipping point?

 

[Mat Piscatella]

I have not done that kind of detailed look, although I agree it would be interesting and worth doing. Did some similar types of looks in past life, but that was earlier in the days of add-on monetization, which is what would really drive this analysis today. Because now of course it isn't just the user count, but all the various monetization metrics that would ultimately help figure things out. Big challenge would be sample size and relevant time periods. There aren't a ton of games that reach the level of evergreen success, and some of the unique characteristics would be very difficult to try and quantify for this kind of modeling. And given just how different the market today is versus 5 years ago, and how it will likely be very different 5 years from now... yeah. The history of hardware is much longer and plays much better with whatever kind of quant modeling one would want to do with it. tl;dr no, but it'd be cool to try.

 

[Himura Kenshin]

Wanted to follow up on the questions regarding other territories... yes, we do offer coverage across the Americas (and are working on global). Digital coverage is the same across territories as it is in the US. But because what we do in physical (hardware, software and accessories) is based in point-of-sale data, and not just extrapolations or projections, some territories offer better coverage than others (primarily because of the nature of retail in these territories).

Any other follow up questions anyone wants to throw out there?

Again, had a lot of fun, and I really appreciate the kind replies.

I'll throw this one out there. In regard to your answer:

2) I'm hopeful, but realistic. If 3rd parties develop a strong presence on the next Nintendo device and there's a need for Nintendo to better understand 3rd party digital share data across competing platforms, then maybe. If the next Nintendo hardware device remains primarily a Nintendo box, maybe not.

Why do you think this is, their home devices I would say post-Gamecube (some would say post-SNES) perhaps being known primarily as "Nintendo boxes"? Do you believe it's because Nintendo's games sell so much, it overshadows third parties? Do you believe the onus is on Nintendo to deliver hardware that is enticing to and/or capable of better running third party titles? Or do you believe third parties simply don't always look at Nintendo's consoles as a viable option (even if their games could run fine), and if so, why is that?

Has the Switch at least started to change this mindset? While still weaker hardware than competitors, perhaps in terms of sheer numbers aka potential sales that publishers can't ignore?

 

[Mat Piscatella]

Do you believe it's because Nintendo's games sell so much, it overshadows third parties?

At least partially, yes.

Do you believe the onus is on Nintendo to deliver hardware that is enticing to and/or capable of better running third party titles?

Nintendo's primary goal has always been to make hardware that sells Nintendo software, and everything else is a bonus.

Or do you believe third parties simply don't always look at Nintendo's consoles as a viable option (even if their games could run fine), and if so, why is that?

Developers and publishers take an opportunistic approach to Switch. Certain games, at certain times. The Nintendo ecosystem is its own thing. And that's okay. And maybe that changes with Nintendo Next... especially if devs/pubs start focusing more on games that would do well across both high-end consoles/PCs as well as the various PC portables. But I think Nintendo sees these kinds of games as mostly nice-to-have.

Has the Switch at least started to change this mindset?

Sure, especially for smaller games as the marketplace is basically Steam-lite in a lot of ways.

While still weaker hardware than competitors, perhaps in terms of sheer numbers aka potential sales that publishers can't ignore?

This has been the case for decades at this point. The installed base has (almost) always been there. Nintendo hardware owners primarily buy/play Nintendo games on Nintendo platforms. Especially with the high historical cross-ownership rates between Nintendo's hardware and Sony/MS boxes at any point in time. Maybe this will finally change with the new gen. Maybe it won't! Who knows!