It’s no secret that Nintendo have had a tough job of it over the last few years with the Wii U but now we can see for sure just how they fared against competitors Sony and Microsoft. With the recent release of the Nintendo Switch console and the 3DS still performing admirably, it’s predicted that Switch sales will inject growth within the market and in turn Nintendo’s market share will increase, understandably.

Below are graphs that were produced along side a report from IHS Markit which show the stark sales differences between the three companies between the year 2015 and now.

Here’s a quick snapshot of the figures:

  • 3DS is responsible for $2.6 billion of market value or 8 percent share of the market
  • Overall console hardware, software, and services market is expected to grow 4.1 percent to $36.2 billion in 2017
  • The Switch and growing digital business for all companies is expected to drive the turnaround
  • Nintendo’s consoles held 5 percent share of the digital games content business on consoles in 2016 at $397 million
  • This decline will slow in 2017 as digital spending increases due to Switch

Nintendo_marketshare1Nintendo_marketshare2Nintendo_marketshare3

Source / Via

Advertisements

29 Comments »

    • @Greg D

      The reason it reads that way from what I can tell (and someone can correct me if I’m wrong) is that this is tracking dollars in sales, rather than units sold. 3DS/2DS are, and always have been, much cheaper than PS4s. This chart is also tracking software sales which reaps the same benefit. You have to sell many more copies of Pokemon to reach the same flat dollar amount in retail sales as a PS4 title, just because the games are more expensive, nevermind DLC which is counted here too. Note that this is NOT tracking profitability, just dollars in sales.

      As such, it isn’t really a chart that shows marketshare (that would be units sold/estimated max size of industry), nor is it a chart that shows how successful each company is actually being. What it does give an idea for is how much cashflow each company is dealing with. We can speculate a good deal into the ramifications Nintendo’s far smaller cashflow could mean in terms of their business model.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Actually, it is a graph on market share. The console market is made up of all consumer money directed toward consoles or supporting software, accessories, etc.; and a company’s market share is the percentage of that money directed toward said company.

        There’s even a note at the bottom of the graph: “Market is consumer spending on all hardware, games content and services related to console platforms sold and operated by that company.”

        Like

        • @RidleySlayer

          Whilst that is a way you can use the term market share, it is extremely misleading within the context of video game hardware/software sales (or any market with closed platforms). If we were talking about say…..packages of peanut butter, flat $ in sales would be a fine way to measure. With consoles though, your primary concern is number of hardware units sold so that you have a high volume of customers to attract 3rd party developers. This is nearly 100% of the time what people are talking about when they say market share in the video game industry. Moreover, there’s a wider disparity in product price-point without effecting profit margin in this industry than in most. Microsoft was selling the original Xbox for $300 at a loss while Nintendo was selling Gamecubes for $200 at a profit. They sold a very similar number of units so in game industry terms, had a fairly similar market share but applying that to this chart would give an extremely distorted picture. The original Xbox would show a HUGE lead in “market share” over the Gamecube, when in reality it wouldn’t control any more of the market.

          Like

          • Then you’re talking about unit market share vs revenue market share. It can be defined in either one of those terms, but both are accurate. I completely agree that unit market share is much more important in determining the standing of companies within the market (see my comment below); but revenue market share is useful. It shows just how much money consumers are pumping into the market, which is a good way to gauge how relevant the market is.

            Like

  1. Wow those charts look atrocious.

    BUT it only tells half the story. This is revenue, but not profits. Nintendo may not have a large market share but they surely have a strong fan base that has kept them alive and they’ve kept costs down.
    Also they had Wii money in the bank.

    But given that the majority is on the competition, that boat can only float for so long.

    Liked by 1 person

    • You’re right. It really isn’t reliable information. For instance, Microsoft may have a fairly large market share, but that only means that consumers are spending a lot of money on Microsoft products. I’m pretty sure Microsoft has been selling the Xbox One at a loss since launch. In fact, I’m pretty sure Microsoft Studios has performed rather poorly overall in past years. I would have to go back through their financial reports to confirm though.

      Nintendo on the other hand has only posted an annual loss twice (2013 and 2015) since they’ve been involved in the gaming industry; both years when the Wii U was out. Every system before that was profitable. The spare money they have isn’t just from the Wii. It’s a compilation of profits from every main system they’ve ever sold. (Wii U excluded)

      Liked by 1 person

  2. A fraction of Microsoft, even with two platforms… what a shame for the Company.
    And we thought that the 3DS was selling well… it does seem that has negligible value.

    Like

    • It is selling well. It also probably has higher profit margins than the X1. So while the X1 OBVIOUSLY makes more revenue due to its high cost, the 3DS undoubtedly brings in higher profits, which means more money.

      Like

  3. What makes me sick is that Nintendo (especially now, with the Switch) has the potential to dominate the industry once again. But third parties are always what ruins Nintendo’s chances by refusing to put their games on Nintendo platforms. If third party companies were treating Nintendo equally, then I believe Nintendo may have never been dethroned.

    Like

    • Fact is that Nintendo like to seel more their games than third parties games. That’s the whole point.
      If Nintendo lower its royalties and promote their games a bit eventually third parties would be more interested to jump in.
      Its Nintendo’s fault, but some parents are happy to not find a GTA on a Nintendo console (though there are some violent games too, just less).

      Like

  4. They should have made a normal console using the tegra x2 and with the pro controller. Nintendo will never beat the mobile market and handhelds are dying. Going up against the mobile market is even more stupid than going against sony and microsoft’s consoles.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s