Here's just a few quotes:
This is the first step of our efforts to transform customer relationship management from device-based to account-based, namely, consumer-based, through which we aim to establish long-term relationships with individual consumers, unaffected by the lifespans of our systems.
Of course, when we do launch new hardware in the future, rather than re-creating an installed base from scratch as we did in the past, we wish to build on our existing connections with our consumers through NNIDs and continue to maintain them.
we will also try to change the way in which dedicated video game systems as well as software are sold that people have come to take for granted.
Dedicated video game systems are sold for two hundred or three hundred dollars, on which standalone software titles are distributed for 30 or 50 dollars. This simple model received widespread support from consumers that enabled us to create today’s market. The decision to change it is the manifestation of our recognition that we cannot expect this model to work forever amid dynamic changes in people’s lifestyles.
We aim to establish a new sales mechanism that will be beneficial to both consumers and software creators by encouraging our consumers to play more titles and increasing a platform’s active use ratio without largely increasing our consumers’ expenditures.
I read the same remarks you did. Iwata never says anything about crossplay, crossbuy, or carrying your existing purchases over to new systems. All he actually commits to is
an account-based system not tied to hardware (which MS has had since 2002 but, you know, better late than never).
Untapped potential doesn't refer to third parties. It refers to the untapped potential of the hardware.
I misunderstood. I agree that the potential of the Gamepad has been untapped thus far, and Nintendo clearly intends to make the Gamepad a focus this year.
Whether that has a snowball's chance in hell of raising Wii U sales, is a point upon which we probably disagree
.
You also misunderstand the QOL. It's going to be a new product and there are no direct competitors. The Wii and the likes of Wii Fit prove that people are willing to pay money for health related products. No name mediocre apps even if they are $2 are not that much of a problem. Mario, Fifa, GTA etc all manage to sell millions despite the plethora of free games available on various devices. QOL will live or die by the quality of the product and the marketing.
Nobody knows what the QOL is going to be, because Iwata is so vague. He mentions "the hardware that will enable such an idea", but he also calls it "non-wearable", a term with no meaning.
My best guess is that "non-wearable" means "not independent". So the QOL will be a hardware device, not standalone but instead a small portable addon, similar to the Wii Fit Tracker, that connects back to the Wii U and/or 3DS.
If you already own a Nintendo console, and the QOL product is high-quality, great, this might be for you. If you don't, requiring the additional purchase of a dedicated gaming platform to run your health app puts this concept at a disadvantage.
Now, if they were to release a hardware doohickey that talks to a smartphone app, and DOESN'T require the 3DS or Wii U, then they're at least on a level playing field with the competition. The chances of that, though, are zero.
It's going to be a new product and there are no direct competitors.
Nintendo is not first and they are not alone. Health/fitness technology is a huge existing market with tons of competition. In the "wearable gadget" category, you have Jawbone, Fitbit, and Nike Fuel. For apps, you have your choice of hundreds, and they don't cost $40 a pop.
If Nintendo wants people to plunk down money to help them get fit, they are competing with all of that.
No name mediocre apps even if they are $2 are not that much of a problem. Mario, Fifa, GTA etc all manage to sell millions despite the plethora of free games available on various devices.
Nintendo might be able to get people to pay extra for the Nintendo name, but there's a limit. $10 instead of $2? Sure. $50? Maybe. A $250 piece of hardware? I doubt it.
