A little from column A and a little from column B IMO.
I think publishers are above "burning bridges": even the likes of EA. If they believe that a manufacturer is buying in to a common vision, or offering them something they can exploit, and if they believe in the manufacturers ability to sell, they'll get their games licensed and continue to develop for them. It's that simple.
The problem for Nintendo is that they do not exist in a bubble. The Wii U is probably the most feature-packed and interesting console that Nintendo have ever developed, I bet there are tonnes of individual developers and artists who actually love the thing and want to see it do well.
It's Nintendo's history, prior form and the buying habits of their userbase that have the publishing houses feeling sketchy. Despite a wealth of evidence and sales successes, it's like they don't know how to sell to Nintendo's audience. When Nintendo gave them a casual audience with the Wii, there were some publishers who 'got it' and jumped on board with the likes of Just Dance etc. But in a normal gaming environment - they just don't know how to do it. Personally? I think its partly Nintendo's fault but also partly the publishers' fault. Again and again, they fail to recognise what the Nintendo audience finds interesting and fun. In my opinion, they should start by listening to what Nintendo say themselves. They say it in all of their investor relations material, and in every interview: they want to surprise and please people.
In 1995/6, with the market interjection of big media companies like Sony, there has been a schism in gaming - whereby narrative, story-based games and bombastic action games have flooded the market, driven the market and sold consoles. Influential, storied-franchises like Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil and Tomb Raider were born in the PlayStation era of gaming. Naturally, powerful media boxes that emphasise the sound and presentation of these games are more suited to the bleeding edge of that kind of content. When Microsoft joined the party and gave the world a successor to SegaNet (Xbox Live), online services began to gain more and more influence too - and this again, is an area that Nintendo has not traditionally dabbled in. Even now, while I would personally consider it an area that Nintendo has recently innovated in and shown great promise, their competitors benefit from all the wealth and experience of developers and publishers who have produced online content on PC for decades.
For N64, Gamecube and Wii, Nintendo have played catchup on all fronts. They have kept themselves afloat with a sound (and beautiful) philosophy of crafting everything they do around charm and fun. It works for them, but it doesn't work for their third party partners, who have grown accustomed to selling certain kinds of content. When it HAS been attractive to third parties, there has still been a wealth of bad-PR, and other roadblocks in the way. Purely due to bad planning really - hardware limitations, storage limitations etc.
I think to tackle Software buying habits, you have to tackle the content, and the nature of the software itself. Tackle the question: is this actually marketable to a Nintendo audience? If not, can that audience be changed over time? Is there anything Nintendo can do to help me?
Sony and Microsoft consoles play home to high-quality, gameplay-mechanic-focussed games every bit as much as Nintendo consoles, but in their eco-systems, third party games do not have to compete with Nintendo games. When a person walks in to Gamestop, they do understand that Uncharted is a Sony exclusive. They will understand that Forza and Halo are Microsoft exclusives. Only the hardest of the hardcore will appreciate the difference between a Naughty Dog and Sony Bend version of Uncharted. Only a few will know which Halo games came from Bungee, Ensemble Studios or 343 Industries. When a Nintendo console owner walks in to a store, they probably don't know the exact development teams involved either. But the distinctive Nintendo logo is like a seal of quality in and of itself. Their characters and brands are so friendly to all ages, and so powerful, that games sitting alongside them struggle for attention. They have been making console games since the 1980s, so their hardcore fans include a contingent who have been around just as long. Some of them are so old that they are rearing their own children on the Nintendo brand. Is it so radical to think that these people have been buying Nintendo consoles alongside PlayStations and Xboxes for the last 15-20 years because Nintendo actually offers something different? And if that is the case, what sense was there in the first place of trying to sell them the exact same games that are available elsewhere?
I don't believe there has EVER been a sound logic in throwing Watch_Dogs, Call of Duty, or FIFA on Nintendo consoles and expecting automatic sales. Dedicated versions with dedicated features might work, but late, feature-deficient versions? Historically, Star Wars, Disney, Sonic the Hedgehog, Rayman, arcade games, puzzlers, platformers and art games have all done well. That is the kind of thing that Nintendo and others have cultivated an audience for, so I'm often puzzled to not see more of that kind of activity. The recently revealed Rogue Squadron game for Wii would have been an incredibly easy sell, but for some reason (LucasArts?) it never materialised.
I might be projecting here, but I also suspect Nintendo fans are more market savvy than publishers give credit for. They are open to offerings on other consoles. Publishers might suspect they don't really know how to exploit the Nintendo audience properly, but maybe they already are - on other consoles! EA, Activision and others have certainly sold me games on 360/PS3 and Xbone that I would have otherwise bought on Nintendo consoles. Some fans just KNOW when a Nintendo version ISN'T the version to get.
The current trajectory of the Wii U probably leads a lot of people to err on the side of pessimism, but some of the things they have attempted - Miiverse, TVii, etc. - show a Nintendo wanting to embrace positive, unique, online services and change. Their more open development environment is resulting in a lot of indie content (good and bad). Maybe having a situation in which there are no mainline-AAA games bombing on the console might actually be a good thing. In the absence of huge failure stories on a struggling console, maybe we will be able to zone in on what DOES sell as opposed to what doesn't.
I personally feel like their fallout with EA has been hugely detrimental to the Wii U. The absence of EA games has been like a black-hole that has been sucking in other publishers. It may owe a lot to a difference in vision - we can also observe EAs relationship with Sony is a lot different to their current relationship with Microsoft (EA Access). I would love to know what truly happened between Nintendo and EA.
EA is still the biggest power-player in town, especially thanks to their partnership with Disney. If Nintendo want to succeed in creating a good environment for big third parties next time around, I think they need to extend an olive branch and acquiesce somewhat with EA. Following that, Disney and Warner Bros are hugely influential players who are both big enough (outside of videogames) that they do not need to curry favour with the console manufacturers. If there are interesting new deals and Western exclusive deals to be done, I would suggest they should try and do them there. Ubisoft and Activision seem Nintendo-friendly to me. They want to continue to do business, they just need to see the receipts so to speak.
So yeah, I'm not feeling doom and gloom at all. Building a new architecture that finally severs itself from the Gamecube/Gekko/Flipper lineage is the perfect time to renew what a Nintendo console is, and what a Nintendo console means. Its the perfect time to re-establish relationships and try to come up with some kind of new Nintendo revolution.
