Support NeoGAF

[Marco1]

It's no wonder they messed up with the wiiu.
1- The gamepad doesn't add enough value to the console to make it worth the lack of GPU/ CPU power.
2- They messed up again with lack of third party.
3- The account system and locking NNID to console is archaic.
4- VC games that are on both wiiu and 3DS are not cross compatible.
5- Games can be played with wiimotes, nunchuks, pro controller and gamepad! This is not a positive thing.
6- That we are still waiting for VC titles after that initial VC E3 reveal! Really Nintendo, they need to have their entire library up there with cross compatible saves across all devices.
All of these points are relevant to why people don't see value in their products, why buy VC NES Mario Bros three times on wii, wiiu and 3DS when my iphone has many clones of it.

 

[metalslimer]

Likewise the games market can crash if all titles produced are price-capped at a sub-$1 threshold because people keep seeing how much money a few titles rake in, and expect to sell 10 million copies of their $0.99 game and stay in business after they've spent their $5 million venture capitalist investment on production budget, then end up selling 200 copies.

It is mental for the 'traditional' gaming market to expect every game to be COD and set production budgets accordingly.

It is just as mental for the mobile gaming market to expect every game to be candy crush saga and set pricing accordingly.

Where exactly is the data to back this all up?.

 

[StevieP]

You wouldn't have to spent 60$ to get a Wii Sports game on mobile, only 5$, that's why people are jumping ship from Wii to smartphones.

And yeah, the company making the game for 5$ makes a profit, because is a game that can be made by 4 people on a garage instead of 30 people on a Nintendo building.

No, they're not making a profit for 5 bucks because most games on mobile can't be sold for 5 bucks.

 

[The Maverick]

Likewise the games market can crash if all titles produced are price-capped at a sub-$1 threshold because people keep seeing how much money a few titles rake in, and expect to sell 10 million copies of their $0.99 game and stay in business after they've spent their $5 million venture capitalist investment on production budget, then end up selling 200 copies.

It is mental for the 'traditional' gaming market to expect every game to be COD and set production budgets accordingly.

It is just as mental for the mobile gaming market to expect every game to be candy crush saga and set pricing accordingly.

Why do you keep selectively quoting people? And what is the point of arguing one extreme against another?

 

[chaosblade]

The more I read these topics and think about this, the less I find myself caring. There isn't really any outcome that won't effectively leave Nintendo dead to me, or actually dead. I guess I'd about rather them continue onward as they are, bleeding money everywhere, just because I'd get to enjoy their games a while longer than if they significantly change directions.

 

[Robottiimu2000]

I can't wait for the whole video game bubble to burst and people to go back to tabletop RPGs.

Indeed!

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Where exactly is the data to back this all up?.

http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2648515 for example; it is not a secret that very few apps make money at all, and of those that do very few make money that exceeds production budget.

Why do you keep selectively quoting people? And what is the point of arguing one extreme against another?

I'm not selectively quoting anyone; some people have edited in further information after I have posted.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

No, they're not making a profit for 5 bucks because most games on mobile can't be sold for 5 bucks.

SE says you're terribly wrong.

And they don't release DQ on 3DS while they do on iOS for a reason....

Data from 2012?

Also that infographic is saying that if you don't spend money or marketing you won't success (Duh!).

A lot of people thinks just releasing a game is enough, but you have to promote it. Obviously is not the paradise most people thing, not everyone will succed (in the same way lots of 3DS developers aren't succeing, hence the lack of support and digital titles compared other platforms), but the market is growing, and is making more money every year, lots of devs are making money so the "no sustainable" argument is laughable.

 

[sörine]

You wouldn't have to spent 60$ to get a Wii Sports game on mobile, only 5$, that's why people are jumping ship from Wii to smartphones.

And yeah, the company making the game for 5$ makes a profit, because is a game that can be made by 4 people on a garage instead of 30 people on a Nintendo building.

I think the issue is that even a $5 Wii Sports with a staff of four in someone's garage would more likely fail than not in today's mobile marketplace. It would have to be 99¢ or f2p to stand any chance and even then discoverability is overwhelmingly weighted against it.

A $5 Wii Sports would have more chance at success on eShop, PSN or XBL going by the numbers. The audiences there are far far smaller, but they're also less price sensitive and the ecosystem less overcrowded.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Data from 2012?

The market is less competitive for developers today than it was then?

EDIT:

Also that infographic is saying that if you don't spend money or marketing you won't success (Duh!).

So to be a top earner you need a $30k+ marketing budget, but 68% of all apps earned less than $5000 total revenue.
Do you see the problem yet?

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

I think the issue is that even a $5 Wii Sports with a staff of four in someone's garage would more likely fail than not in today's mobile marketplace. It would have to be 99¢ or f2p to stand any chance and even then discoverability is overwhelmingly weighted against it.

A $5 Wii Sports would have more chance at success on eShop, PSN or XBL going by the numbers. The audiences there are far far smaller, but they're also less price sensitive and the ecosystem less overcrowded.

Plenty of games in the 5$~10$ range are succesful on iOS, plenty of games in that range failed on the eShop or any digital platform.

People are putting their own biased perceptions in front of pure facts.

The market is less competitive for developers today than it was then?

Is traditional markets not competitive either? We didn't see the fall of dozen of devs this gen?

Is a competitive market, but is a market that is growing and maturing each year, call it "not sostenible" dosn't hold with the actual reality. Not any developer is gonna win a lot of money on iOS/Android (specially if they don't put marketing dollars in the table) but that's a reality that is also true on PC or consoles or portables, you gotta wonder how many of all the actual DSi Ware and 3DS digital titles have been a succcess....

So to be a top earner you need a $30k+ marketing budget, but 68% of all apps earned less than $5000 total revenue.
Do you see the problem yet?

How much money on marketing you need to be succesful on consoles and how many of those who spent so much money managed to have benefits?....

How many console devs closed doors this gen?....

 

[numble]

I must have missed that part where Wii games were maximum retail price $0.99.

I think you're just setting a straw man argument. Many indie developers are having discovery issues and pricing issues, but major publishers are having success selling at $5+, even some indies like Telltale and FDG (developer of Oceanhorn). Take-Two, Epic, and Square Enix have had success as major publishers selling at high prices.

The fallacy is looking at the top grossing charts as indicative of the whole market. The App Store was a $10 billion revenue market last year, it will likely be more this year, there is plenty of revenue to be had by major publishers even if they are not the Candy Crushes that make $1 million per day--even with the top F2P games accumulating $1-2 billion out of the market, there still is $8 billion+ being available. Multiple publishers have indicated success and profitability with selling at $20 prices, from Take-Two to Telltale to Square-Enix.

 

[Team Top Hat]

Consumers might not want to pay more for a videogame than they do for a single song on iTunes but it is really difficult to justify that price as being 'its true worth'.

I'm willing to bet that they don't want to shame Iwata or be the first to truly speak in public about ousting him.

 

[sörine]

SE says you're terribly wrong.

And they don't release DQ on 3DS while they do on iOS for a reason....

SE is releasing DQ games on both smartphones and 3DS, and seemingly quite successful on both.

If you're talking the west, well you should probably lookup how those games are actually doing. In the US DQVIII on Android has sold under 50k (worse than every DS remake btw) and never even entered the top 100 paid apps on iOS afaik. With numbers like these we won't be getting localizations much longer.

Plenty of games in the 5$~10$ range are succesful on iOS, plenty of games in that range failed on the eShop or any digital platform.

People are putting their own biased perceptions in front of pure facts.

Speaking of pure facts, how about you put your money where your mouth is and list, oh, say 10 $5-10 sourced iOS successes and eShop failures. Since there are plenty that should be a pretty simple task.

 

[Chindogg]

I'm willing to bet that they don't want to shame Iwata or be the first to truly speak in public about ousting him.

Did you misquote someone because your statement doesn't match the quote.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Is traditional markets not competitive either? We didn't see the fall of dozen of devs this gen?

The Mobile market is vastly more competitive than the traditional console / handheld gaming space is.
There are more games on the appstore alone than every historical traditional gaming devices entire libraries combined.

How many console devs closed doors this gen?....

I am in no way saying the traditional gaming market is in anything other than severe trouble; please reread my above posts about AAA gamings production cost insanity.

The fallacy is looking at the top grossing charts as indicative of the whole market.

I agree with this entirely, but for entirely different reasons and conclusions as you do.

 

[metalslimer]

Look I think everyone agrees there are issues to fix with mobile. Where I take issue is the crazies who want the thing to crash and not be fixed because it hurts their favorite developer. I agree with storm in that the market is unstable because it is such a new market.

 

[numble]

The Mobile market is vastly more competitive than the traditional console / handheld gaming space is.
There are more games on the appstore alone than every historical traditional gaming devices entire libraries combined.



I am in no way saying the traditional gaming market is in anything other than severe trouble; please reread my above posts about AAA gamings production cost insanity.



I agree with this entirely, but for entirely different reasons and conclusions as you do.

I don't think you should assume that Nintendo is equivalent to all those indie developers for some reason. You really should look at the successes major developers had in the higher priced tiers. Major developers have less of a problem with discoverability compared to a small indie publisher putting out its first ever game. Even indie publishers have success in making a name for themselves--look at a Telltale and Simigo, even Gameloft is selling their Modern Combat games at $7.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

I don't think you should assume that Nintendo is equivalent to all those indie developers for some reason

I haven't even mentioned nintendo; my initial contribution to this topic was that just because a consumer doesn't want to pay more than a dollar for a game that this is what games are 'worth', and that I think right now the mobile market has horribly devalued the price expectation of what games 'should' cost to a point where it is unsustainable.

Apparently that statement is super controversial. because multiple people jumped on me for saying that.

 

[numble]

I haven't even mentioned nintendo; my initial contribution to this topic was that just because a consumer doesn't want to pay more than a dollar for a game that this is what games are 'worth', and that I think right now the mobile market has horribly devalued the price expectation of what games 'should' cost to a point where it is unsustainable.

Apparently that statement is super controversial. because multiple people jumped on me for saying that.

This is a thread about Nintendo.

Honestly, I don't understand why those articles about indie struggles is applicable to Nintendo at all. Indies struggle everywhere, it's almost the defining quality of indies in every consumer market, film, music, electronics, etc, despite some indies making it big (in every market there's also examples of this).

But the idea of a major player being faced with typical indie struggles does not make much sense to me.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

This is a thread about Nintendo.

Then why is mobile even being discussed? I know exactly why, don't worry.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I haven't even mentioned nintendo; my initial contribution to this topic was that just because a consumer doesn't want to pay more than a dollar for a game that this is what games are 'worth', and that I think right now the mobile market has horribly devalued the price expectation of what games 'should' cost to a point where it is unsustainable.

How can something be worth more than what people are willing to pay? That doesn't make sense.

 

[Ty4on]

Ah thanks, I didn't realise Japan was so overstocked, they've bought 900k XLs this year and only 300k were shipped Must have been a disappointing holiday.

Have you forgotten the Media Create sales that last december? Everybody predicted much higher sales for the 3DS who's sales almost halved compared to the last year despite the hugely popular Puzzle & Dragons game being released.

 

[Graphics Horse]

Have you forgotten the Media Create sales that last december?

I have indeed!
In the rest of the world I think that the 2DS could be doing some good to the numbers, but simply not enough to stem the decline.

 

[PdotMichael]

How can something be worth more than what people are willing to pay? That doesn't make sense.

If the production costs exceed what people are ready to pay.

 

[Log4Girlz]

If the production costs exceed what people are ready to pay.

So if I spend 100 million dollars on a game and people are only willing to spend $60 then it is worth more than the $60 price tag? Its worth 100 million?

If I spend $100 million on a game that is buggy and broken and forcibly shuts down midway through a play, it is worth what I spent to produce it? Worth and cost are the same?

 

[Hiltz]

It's no wonder they messed up with the wiiu.
1- The gamepad doesn't add enough value to the console to make it worth the lack of GPU/ CPU power.
2- They messed up again with lack of third party.
3- The account system and locking NNID to console is archaic.
4- VC games that are on both wiiu and 3DS are not cross compatible.
5- Games can be played with wiimotes, nunchuks, pro controller and gamepad! This is not a positive thing.
6- That we are still waiting for VC titles after that initial VC E3 reveal! Really Nintendo, they need to have their entire library up there with cross compatible saves across all devices.
All of these points are relevant to why people don't see value in their products, why buy VC NES Mario Bros three times on wii, wiiu and 3DS when my iphone has many clones of it.

For #1, I think it was stated that Nintendo's decision to use the GamePad for Wii U did not really impact its decision to make Wii U an underpowered console because that was decided from the get-go and predated Nintendo's decision to include the GamePad with the console. Nintendo prioritized low power consumption and hardware efficiency early on in the console's R&D. Wii U was meant to leech off of Xbox 360 and PS3 multiplatform ports, not ports that would only come from PS4 and Xbox One since Wii U doesn't support DirectX11 equivalent features, let alone the necessary processing power and memory suitable to use on new, more powerful game engines. Nintendo was concerned with diminishing returns for years, so it wasn't likely going to use a better CPU and/or GPU even if it didn't include the GamePad with the console. Nintendo would have likely instead priced the console so it would be affordable to consumers but profitable to them from its launch release with a mass market price of around $250.

Nintendo only intended Wii U to essentially be on par with Xbox 360 and PS3, albeit with a bit more ram and sporting a GGPU design, since it was coming out over a generation later. Naturally, Nintendo could afford to use more modern components and in some cases, better specs in some of the Wii U's hardware design. but it remained stingy in other areas.Clearly, Nintendo didn't care about wanting its console to have significantly better graphical fidelity than what PS3 and Xbox 360 were capable of. For one thing, Nintendo's own titles don't try do to that anyway. Secondly, third parties weren't likely going to treat Wii U as lead platform despite how Nintendo remains naive abut some of their decisions an thought processes about how they are perceived by third parties. Nintendo itself has said it is not a direct competitor to Sony and Microsoft platforms anyway ,so that's kind of red flag right there for third parties.

Wii U, like Wii before it, was still a console that Nintendo created with its own goals in mind placed far ahead of what third parties would wanted from it. Nintendo only tried to cater to some third party demands like improving its indie policies, expanding its online service in ways it id not do on Wiiware. Nintendo was naive in thinking most third parties would be thrilled about having a new home console come out at the end of 2012 that was basically as powerful as a 360 and PS3 (which wouldn't have been so bad if Nintendo home consoles didn't suffer from a history of weaker third party sales ,demographic issues and some controller gimmicks third parties don't care to base their games around) and not future-proofed to support next-gen game engines.

 

[Robottiimu2000]

For #1, I think it was stated that Nintendo's decision to use the GamePad for Wii U did not really impact its decision to make Wii U an underpowered console because that was decided from the get-go and predated Nintendo's decision to include the GamePad with the console. Nintendo prioritized low power consumption and hardware efficiency early on in the console's R&D. Wii U was meant to leech off of Xbox 360 and PS3 multiplatform ports, not ports that would only come from PS4 and Xbox One since Wii U doesn't support DirectX11 equivalent features, let alone the necessary processing power and memory suitable to use on new, more powerful game engines. Nintendo was concerned with diminishing returns for years, so it wasn't likely going to use a better CPU and/or GPU even if it didn't include the GamePad with the console. Nintendo would have likely instead priced the console so it would be affordable to consumers but profitable to them from its launch release.

Nintendo only intendedWii U to essentially be on par with Xbox 360 and PS3, albeit with a bit more ram and sporting a GGPU design since it was coming out over a generation later, so naturallt they could afford to use more modern components and in some cases, better specs in some of the Wii U
hardware design. Nintendo didn't care about wanting its console to have significantly better graphical fidelity than what PS3 and Xbox 360 were capable of. For one thing, Nintendo's own titles don't try do to that anyway. Secondly, third parties weren't likely going to treat Wii U as lead platform despite how Nintendo remains naive abut some of their decisions an thought processes about how they are perceived by third parties. Nintendo itself has said it is not a direct competitor to Sony and Microsoft platforms anyway ,so that's kind of red flag right there.

Yup. And propably thought that they can pull this through because Wii, despite being even more lackluster in raw power, was huge success and some marketing research statistic showed that "28%"( or such.. Just making this up) of people already owning a wii would buy a wii2 or at least would consider buying one..

They thought they'll have it easy.. Not Wii numbers but good enough to make profit..

 

[PdotMichael]

So if I spend 100 million dollars on a game and people are only willing to spend $60 then it is worth more than the $60 price tag? Its worth 100 million?

If I spend $100 million on a game that is buggy and broken and forcibly shuts down midway through a play, it is worth what I spent to produce it? Worth and cost are the same?

Well, you're talking about economic value now.

But both examples have work and other production costs of 100$ million.

example:

Several consoles and handhelds were sold at a loss to match the price the customers are ready to pay.

 

[Hiltz]

Yup. And propably thought that they can pull this through because Wii, despite being even more lackluster in raw power, was huge success and some marketing research statistic showed that "28%"( or such.. Just making this up) of people already owning a wii would buy a wii2 or at least would consider buying one..

They thought they'll have it easy.. Not Wii numbers but good enough to make profit..

Indeed. Nintendo clearly though the expanded audience would migrate to Wii U, so they made decisions in the console's R&D based on how to appeal to them along with the reliance on a marketing statistics and trends. Nintendo took that risk which hurt the console's perception from hardcore gamers and third party publisher interests. So far, this has resulted in a console that has barely appealed to any one major audience type. Granted, Wii U's user base mostly consists of Nintendo fans, but there's so far less of them supporting Wii U than those that supported GameCube. It's ironic how Nintendo tried to make this console do a better job of appealing to more types of gamers than the Wii did, but its actually resulted in far less due to the console's general lack of appeal, lack of systems-seller features, system-seller games and an ineffective marketing strategy that was initially confusing to consumers (and perhaps still may be to some).

 

[Y2Kev]

Competitive market equilibrium is entirely about costs and benefits as the end result is pareto efficiency.



I have no problem with mobile gaming, I have a problem with the current mobile market.

Can you please explain this further? I do not understand your perspective here. A supplier being unable to supply at an equilibrium price would leave the market. How does artificially increasing the price make no one worse off (supposing the affected party is not compensated)?

I have not seen pareto efficiency used in this manner.

 

[P90]

Indeed. Nintendo clearly though the expanded audience would migrate to Wii U, so they made decisions in the console's R&D based on how to appeal to them along with the reliance on a marketing statistics and trends. Nintendo took that risk which hurt the console's perception from hardcore gamers and third party publisher interests. So far, this has resulted in a console that has barely appealed to any one major audience type. Granted, Wii U's user base mostly consists of Nintendo fans, but there's so far less of them supporting Wii U than those that supported GameCube. It's ironic how Nintendo tried to make this console do a better job of appealing to more types of gamers than the Wii did, but its actually resulted in far less due to the console's general lack of appeal, lack of systems-seller features, system-seller games and an ineffective marketing strategy that was initially confusing to consumers (and perhaps still may be to some).

Hindsight being 20-20. The initial perception of the Wii was more negative on these boards than the WiiU.

Not directly addressed to you:

None of the consoles or handhelds are really lighting it up. For me, I don't see the need to upgrade my 360 or PS3 to the X1 or PS4 for years.

The societal perception of gaming and what is considered a "reasonable" cost for games has changed for many people. Pandora's box has been opened. I don't think the mobile environment, as it is, is sustainable, though.

 

[TheGreyHulk]

I really hope their next system is both mobile and TV capable. Just have one system with a dongle for TV connection and you can link pro controllers to it for mp.

It has to be cheap for then, so ditch all BC and use ARM chips found in mobile phones from of the shelf components.

Nintendo isn't going to be a third party based system. They can't compete hardware wise and their console can't stand on its own along with handheld. I think they need one system only.

 

[Fourth Storm]

I really hope their next system is both mobile and TV capable. Just have one system with a dongle for TV connection and you can link pro controllers to it for mp.

It has to be cheap for then, so ditch all BC and use ARM chips found in mobile phones from of the shelf components.

Nintendo isn't going to be a third party based system. They can't compete hardware wise and their console can't stand on its own along with handheld. I think they need one system only.

Stop hoping. They have clearly stated they aren't going the hybrid route. And they aren't gonna drop BC either for that matter. That being said, the unified OS should solve many of their software drought issues.

 

[AniHawk]

Nintendo is going to have no choice but to play with the major ballers in the industry if they are intent on maintaining a home console presence. Most games that are sold today are of the third party variety and the fact that nintendo has ignored this fact is haunting them . Nintendo's way is no longer working and only appeals to a rapidly shrinking market.

i think the whole thing is a rapidly shrinking market, at least at retail. fewer and fewer people need to spend over a hundred dollars on a separate gaming device. i expect we'll see 3ds logic applied to at least one of the two sony/ms platforms where expectations get realigned so that what used to pass as 2nd or 3rd place looks 'pretty good.'

Its nice to prefer things but the problem is that "ecosystem" that they don't appeal to is pretty much 90% of the hardcore gaming market. They can't appeal to casual customers and they can't appeal to the dedicated gamers.

again i think the issue is that the people who play games on those systems wouldn't be swayed to nintendo's side even if nintendo had the same amount of features and games from third parties. it sort of attributes a special power to nintendo's software that attracts that fanbase that frankly never existed outside of the us.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Well, you're talking about economic value now.

But both examples have work and other production costs of 100$ million.

example:

Several consoles and handhelds were sold at a loss to match the price the customers are ready to pay.

Worth is a personal assessment. I can't say an aircraft is worth 20 billion if it can't fly, no matter if that is what I spent on developing it. I can only say it cost 20 billion to produce.

If the maximum amount anyone is willing to pay for a game is 99 cents, then games are worth 99 cents, no matter the cost of development. You have to balance potential sales at the price people value your product (its worth to them) to establish a reasonable production budget.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

Speaking of pure facts, how about you put your money where your mouth is and list, oh, say 10 $5-10 sourced iOS successes and eShop failures. Since there are plenty that should be a pretty simple task.

On iOS success list: SE games, Oceanhorn, XCOM, Minecraft, Modern Combat games, Superbrothers: Sword and Sworcery EP

On 3DS failure list: everything that isn't Nintendo and a couple more devs.

 

[sörine]

On iOS success list: SE games, Oceanhorn, XCOM, Minecraft, Modern Combat games, etc...

On 3DS failure list: everything that isn't Nintendo and a couple more devs.

I thought we were talking four man garage studios? And your 3DS answer, why even bother?

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

I thought we were talking four man garage studios? And your 3DS answer, why even bother?

If we talk about garage developers, why take Consoles and NIntendo into account...? lol

We were talking about the industry viability, which includes everyone...

 

[sörine]

If we talk about garage developers, why take Consoles and NIntendo into account...? lol

We were talking about the industry viability, which includes everyone...

You weren't. You said on iOS Wii Sports could've been a $5 game made by four guys in their garage. I was asking for some examples of something like that succeeding?

Meanwhile your 3DS answer was exactly the sort of biased ill informed nonsense you were just accusing others of.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

You weren't. You said on iOS Wii Sports could've been a $5 game made by four guys in their garage. I was asking for some examples of something like that succeeding?

Meanwhile your 3DS answer was exactly the sort of biased ill informed nonsense you were just accusing others of.

I was just watching that list gaffers made with numbers and they are pathetic in most cases, not much I can do when Nintendo dosn't release numbers. One of the few sucess histories on 3DS is Gunman Clive, you barely hear:"Devs makes tons of money with digital game on 3DS", meanwhile you hear a few on iOS, Superbrothers was a success on iOS, Oceanhorn was a success and several other games.

All these implies that there's a market for these games on iOS while on 3DS is minimal or barely there...

Also even if they are done by big companies, the cost and human resources of these games are very low as well in those companies, not much different from indie devs, which was kinda my point. You don't need big console like teams to do Wii Sports.

 

[sörine]

I was just watching that list gaffers made with numbers and they are pathetic in most cases, not much I can do when Nintendo dosn't release numbers. One of the few sucess histories on 3DS is Gunman Clive, you barely hear:"Devs makes tons of money with digital game on 3DS", meanwhile you hear a few on iOS, Superbrothers was a success on iOS, Oceanhorn was a success and several other games.

All these implies that there's a market for these games on iOS while on 3DS is minimal or barely there...

Also even if they are done by big companies, the cost and human resources of these games are very low as well in those companies, not much different from indie devs, which was kinda my point. You don't need big console like teams to do Wii Sports.

You still aren't doing it. Superbrothers S&S and Oceanhorn were made by established studios comprised of industry veterans. They have staff, they have PR, they have offices. Gunman Clive was made by one guy and his brother did the music. These aren't the same sort of thing.

If you want to expand to a studio of any size, plenty have done well on the 3DS eShop. Wayforward, Renegade Kid, Nicalis, Silverstar, M2, Teyon, Jupiter, Genius Sonority, Poisoft, Image & Form, Spicysoft, Vblank and plenty more. Tell me some that haven't. "Everbody but Nintendo" isn't an answer, it's a fallacy.

 

[Pie and Beans]

If you want to expand to a studio of any size, plenty have done well on the 3DS eShop. Wayforward, Renegade Kid, Nicalis, Silverstar, M2, Teyon, Jupiter, Genius Sonority, Poisoft, Image & Form, Spicysoft, Vblank and plenty more. Tell me some that haven't. "Everbody but Nintendo" isn't an answer, it's a fallacy.

When i see quite a few of those studios turning to Kickstarter over the last year, I don't really think thats a good example of a 3DS focus working for them. 3DS has been good to a few indie developers, but then the same can be said of the Vita, a device that is personified as pure gaming platform doom.

When developers can hopefully easily port between HD smartphone stuff and Nintendo's next handheld/hybrid OS so theyre not as 'locked in', theyre gonna feel a lot better though.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

You still aren't doing it. Superbrothers S&S and Oceanhorn were made by established studios comprised of industry veterans. They have staff, they have PR, they have offices. Gunman Clive was made by one guy and his brother did the music. These aren't the same sort of thing.

If you want to expand to a studio of any size, plenty have done well on the 3DS eShop. Wayforward, Renegade Kid, Nicalis, Silverstar, M2, Teyon, Jupiter, Genius Sonority, Poisoft, Image & Form, Spicysoft, Vblank and plenty more. Tell me some that haven't.

HAHAHA

lol, moving goalposts, I see.

I'm gonna even consider the joke devs you posted as "success" devs on 3DS and tell you there's a lot others on 3DS like Corecell Technology with it's pitiful Aeterno Blade that probably didn't exactly set the charts on fire, hell most of the ones you said, can't say they have been news out there as "success devs on 3DS"....

Kairosoft is a successful story on iOS, Spicysoft on 3DS sounds like a joke in comparisson.

Edir: Also, Poisoft and Genius Sonority with games released by NIntendo, so I'm basically right...

 

[sörine]

When i see quite a few of those studios turning to Kickstarter over the last year, I don't really think thats a good example of a 3DS focus working for them. 3DS has been good to a few indie developers, but then the same can be said of the Vita, a device that is personified as pure gaming platform doom.

When developers can hopefully easily port between HD smartphone stuff and Nintendo's next handheld/hybrid OS so theyre not as 'locked in', theyre gonna feel a lot better though.

The whopping two studios of those I listed who did kickstarters resorted to it for console/PC games. Which aren't coming to 3DS actually, Wayforward and Renegade Kid seem able to continue supporting the platform without needing crowdfunding.

Your argument is sort of baffling to me on it's face anyway. Do you also take the multitude of PC/smartphone/console devs doing kickstarters as commentary of the strength of those ecosystems?

 

[sörine]

HAHAHA

lol, moving goalposts, I see.

I'm gonna even consider the joke devs you posted as "success" devs on 3DS and tell you there's a lot others on 3DS like Corecell Technology with it's pitiful Aeterno Blade that probably didn't exactly set the charts on fire, hell most of the ones you said, can't say they have been news out there as "success devs on 3DS"....

Kairosoft is a successful story on iOS, Spicysoft on 3DS sounds like a joke in comparisson.

Spicysoft is no joke, the Bike Rider DX games top the Japanese eShop charts selling hundreds of thousands. They're also hugely successful on phones actually, the franchise overall has exceeded 20 million downloads.

I'm not really getting much in terms of real answers out of you. I am getting a lot of preconceived bias, ironic ignorance and infuriating hypocrisy though. And goalposting? LOL, perhaps it's best to stop now.

 

[Pie and Beans]

The whopping two studios of those I listed who did kickstarters resorted to it for console/PC games. Which aren't coming to 3DS actually, Wayforward and Renegade Kid seem able to continue supporting the platform without needing crowdfunding.

Your argument is sort of baffling to me on it's face anyway. Do you also take the multitude of PC/smartphone/console devs doing kickstarters as commentary of the strength of those ecosystems?

If you want to enter into the realms of list wars, I'm taking your top two as the first that came to mind, and thus the 'strongest'. If theyre not able to support their business solely on the strength of Nintendo platforms, that seems like a slippery slope if Nintendo hardware sales continue down their own downward trajectory. A very loyal and hungry audience is good thing to have (Once again, le Vita point), but thats also a thin safety net you dont wanna tie your entire company to so the exclusives begin to thin out as the hunger for more success and expansion begins.

 

[Robottiimu2000]

Why does everything has to be so damn huge nowadays to be a success.. Why isn't..

"we made a good game, many people enjoyed it and we got enough moneys to pay the rent and feed the family and cats"

.. good enough for people?

I know why.. It's the damn nineties and the record companies who are to blame... But that's a different story..

But still.. Making a good game doesen't seem to be worth shit anymore. That's the reason I like Nintendo. As far as I can tell they are at least in it for the games and gamers. Willing to take risks and be the "kids" console, because kids have right to play as well... Of the big three... Others... Naaah not so much.

 

[sörine]

If you want to enter into the realms of list wars, I'm taking your top two as the first that came to mind, and thus the 'strongest'. If theyre not able to support their business solely on the strength of Nintendo platforms, that seems like a slippery slope if Nintendo hardware sales continue down their own downward trajectory. A very loyal and hungry audience is good thing to have (Once again, le Vita point), but thats also a thin safety net you dont wanna tie your entire company to so the exclusives begin to thin out as the hunger for more success and expansion begins.

You're building a pretty little pile of assumptions here. About my thought process, about WF/RK's sustainability, about what doing a kickstarter reflects. I'm not even sure what the point is, none of the companies I listed are putting everything in the 3DS basket?

 

[Game Guru]

Mobile gaming could change, certainly. And certain games will come and go.

But the fanciful notion that people playing games on their phones and tablets is some sort of passing fancy is nonsense.
And the willing of its demise as if it will bring some sort of mass return of consumers to the Shangri-La of dedicated devices again, equally so.

Of course not... I never said people would stop playing games on their phones and tablets any more than they would stop playing on consoles, PCs, or handhelds. However, if there comes a time that little money can be made in the mobile market, developers will choose to make games for different platforms. That will eventually happen. There were times when consoles, PCs, and handhelds had their bust cycle in the past. Whether Nintendo is still around as we know it by then is where the questions lie. However, it is in Nintendo's best interest to make their platform more appealing than possible competitors and at the moment, mobile is that competitor.