Support NeoGAF

[Vermillion]

I can't be the only one who would love to see a new console from Nintendo in ~2 years time that puts it on the same tier as the PS4/Xbone and has no gimmicks.

I'd be fine with gimmicks if it's easy enough to develop for/port to. Anyone remember when that Gearbox guy (was it Pitchford?) said that Wii U was a really cool stop gap console? I'm starting to think that it should be exactly that. Or at least should have been. Now? It'll just upset people - including myself.

 

[JordanN]

Your argument was that 3rd parties aren't there because Nintendo ties digital to the system. Then you move goalposts by saying that it's not that, it's that their systems aren't "perfect" in comparison to the competition which I replied that no system is perfect. Yet you wanted "examples" or what ever. I gave you a couple, you don't like them, fine.

What? Now I'm convinced you don't read my posts.

What mostly makes it Nintendo's fault is the fact they never stop alienating third parties.

The dilemma could have been over with the Gamecube but they still let pride get ahead of them. I can't think of any other company who would do that.

The day Nintendo makes a console that doesn't have any BS tied to it is when they should rightfully expect to be supported. A shame that would only happen if every senior management was fired.

This was my first post. It was very tried and true. It's not "digital", it's about how Nintendo continues to look negative to third parties every day.

Why I said "perfect", because the gist you're giving me is Nintendo has no responsibility (why dismiss their problems relevant to the situation?). Only a perfect console would be capable of that.

Your example has nothing on my examples of what it means to be bad business for third parties. I actually wanted you to prove how Nintendo systems are better than everyone else and what you gave was "PS2 and PS3 are a nightmare to develop for". That's your words and I'm expected to believe that's what's on the same level as Nintendo's disasters?

 

[Dr. Kitty Muffins]

I've been waiting to start a thread like this for a long time. Some people have wanted Nintendo to go third party because they feel their presence divides the market. Whether that is true or not is a good discussion that should be had. I certainly think you would see some genres spring back to life on the PS4 and Xbox One as new gamers would join those platforms.

 

[Novocaine]

I don't think Nintendo needs the 3rd parties. Wii U is doing horrible in comparison to its other console counterparts but the 3DS has massive sales. I wouldn't be shocked if Nintendo decided to stop producing home consoles in the future if the trends continue.

 

[RurouniZel]

Well i think its an argument to the nintendo fan argument that 3rd parties hate nintendo and wouldn't put their game on the platforms even if they thought they could make money even though capcom is putting there biggest game on 3ds and nintendo handhelds enjoy strong japanese support.

I agree.

I just think that when the argument boils down to one side crying "it's all Nintendo's fault" and the other says "it's all 3rd parties fault", I think we should all remember (myself included) that it takes two to tango.

 

[metalslimer]

I don't think Nintendo needs the 3rd parties. Wii U is doing horrible in comparison to its other console counterparts but the 3DS has massive sales. I wouldn't be shocked if Nintendo decided to stop producing home consoles in the future if the trends continue.

But thats terrible because unless their handhelds pick up the business nintendo will end up shrinking as a company. So yes nintendo needs 3rd parties if they want to stay healthy.

Also when you are puublicly traded its not all about merely profiting

I agree.

I just think that when the argument boils down to one side crying "it's all Nintendo's fault" and the other says "it's all 3rd parties fault", I think we should all remember (myself included) that it takes two to tango.

Well personally even if 3rd parties share the blame somewhat i still put it all on nintendo because in the end their platforms are having droughts and not getting these games and their fans are the ones that suffer along with nintendo. The thing is 3rd parties will never go crawling back to nintendo because they have no reason to. It's nintendo who has to do the mea culpa if they ever want reliable support

 

[Opiate]

What? Now I'm convinced you don't read my posts.



This was my first post. It was very tried and true. It's not "digital", it's about how Nintendo continues to look negative to third parties every day.

Why I said "perfect", because the gist you're giving me is Nintendo has no responsibility (why dismiss their problems relevant to the situation?). Only a perfect console would be capable of that.

Your example has nothing on my examples of what it means to be bad business for third parties. I actually wanted you to prove how Nintendo systems are better than everyone else and what you gave was "PS2 and PS3 are a nightmare to develop for". That's your words and I'm expected to believe that's what's on the same level as Nintendo's disasters?

Can you describe what you mean when you say that Nintendo's platforms have "BS tied to them?"

 

[royalan]

I agree.

I just think that when the argument boils down to one side crying "it's all Nintendo's fault" and the other says "it's all 3rd parties fault", I think we should all remember (myself included) that it takes two to tango.

But for the important discussion of what Nintendo can do to change its fate with 3rd parties, I think it's important to not fall into the trap of trying to iron out what 3rd parties did wrong. Because the fact of the matter is, unlike Nintendo, 3rd parties have alternatives. They have the option of turning to MS, or Sony, or PC, or all three of those platforms if any venture with Nintendo doesn't prove lucrative for them, and whether or not they put their best foot forward with the platform doesn't matter. What this boils down to is that, even in fault, 3rd parties are blameless.

 

[trickyhero]

I'v never seen a response to my question, which I hope makes sense. I love the OP's post and redswirl's and the entire discussion, but I have one question. It seems like Ubisoft is able to make their games on the Wii U, why arn't more companies?

 

[JordanN]

Can you describe what you mean when you say that Nintendo's platforms have "BS tied to them?"

In another thread I said, you can't even say Wii U is a friendly environment for third parties with a straight face.

This is the problem. With other consoles, third party support is never a question, because it's assumed the audience and hardware are compatible with third party ambitions.

Nintendo systems past the N64 are all bearing massive fault in some area that it gets in the way with how third party are suppose to support it (if at all).

 

[Snowden's Secret]

Amirox's response is going to be a thesis dissertation, he's been cooking it for like six hours now ha ha ha

 

[RurouniZel]

But thats terrible because unless their handhelds pick up the business nintendo will end up shrinking as a company. So yes nintendo needs 3rd parties if they want to stay healthy.

Also when you are puublicly traded its not all about merely profiting

It does bring up an interesting hypothetical situation.

If, and I'm aware this would never happen as this is just a thought excercise, Nintendo were to ditch the Wii U in 2 years and debut a machine that rivaled the PS4/Xbone or possibly bettered them, x86 architecture, the works. Standard controller, other controllers completely optional. Online structure to match the competition. A machine identical to Sony/MS in every way and competitively priced/possibly less. Would 3rd parties actually accept them and give Nintendo equal support or would they continue to be weary.

My gut leans toward weary, but I imagine I won't be taken seriously for it, esp. with no hard data to support it.

 

[Dicer]

It does bring up an interesting hypothetical situation.

If, and I'm aware this would never happen as this is just a thought excercise, Nintendo were to ditch the Wii U in 2 years and debut a machine that rivaled the PS4/Xbone or possibly bettered them, x86 architecture, the works. Standard controller, other controllers completely optional. Online structure to match the competition. A machine identical to Sony/MS in every way and competitively priced/possibly less. Would 3rd parties actually accept them and give Nintendo equal support or would they continue to be weary.

My gut leans toward weary, but I imagine I won't be taken seriously for it, esp. with no hard data to support it.

"With Nintendo ending the lifespan of their previous console early, we do not have faith that putting our software on the platform would be a wise investment at this time"

/every developer

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

It does bring up an interesting hypothetical situation.

If, and I'm aware this would never happen as this is just a thought excercise, Nintendo were to ditch the Wii U in 2 years and debut a machine that rivaled the PS4/Xbone or possibly bettered them, x86 architecture, the works. Standard controller, other controllers completely optional. Online structure to match the competition. A machine identical to Sony/MS in every way and competitively priced/possibly less. Would 3rd parties actually accept them and give Nintendo equal support or would they continue to be weary.

My gut leans toward weary, but I imagine I won't be taken seriously for it, esp. with no hard data to support it.

I doubt it. Why would third parties want to support a system with virtually no install base (and the install base there simply does not like most "AAA" "mature" western games) when there are two other consoles with established bases of consumers who demonstrably do buy those types of games? I have no idea why people seriously suggest this (not talking about you, btw)

 

[Opiate]

In another thread I said, you can't even say Wii U is a friendly environment for third parties with a straight face.

This is the problem. With other consoles, third party support is never a question, because it's assumed the audience and hardware are compatible with third party ambitions.

Can you describe what it means to be "compatible with third party ambitions?" What, specifically, does that mean?

I'm not disagreeing with necessarily here. Just looking for specifics.

Nintendo systems past the N64 are all bearing massive fault in some area.

Okay, what kind of "fault?" Why aren't these "Faults" necessarily represented in low consumer interest, like with the DS, Wii, and to a lesser extent the 3DS?

 

[RurouniZel]

I doubt it. Why would third parties want to support a system with virtually no install base (and the install base there simply does not like most "AAA" "mature" western games) when there are two other consoles with established bases of consumers who demonstrably do buy those types of games?

I guess then it's pointless to wonder what Nintendo can do to improve 3rd party relations, because the answer is apparently "Nothing."

 

[metalslimer]

It does bring up an interesting hypothetical situation.

If, and I'm aware this would never happen as this is just a thought excercise, Nintendo were to ditch the Wii U in 2 years and debut a machine that rivaled the PS4/Xbone or possibly bettered them, x86 architecture, the works. Standard controller, other controllers completely optional. Online structure to match the competition. A machine identical to Sony/MS in every way and competitively priced/possibly less. Would 3rd parties actually accept them and give Nintendo equal support or would they continue to be weary.

My gut leans toward weary, but I imagine I won't be taken seriously for it, esp. with no hard data to support it.

Well the problem then is the fact they are years late, and consumers have chosen meaning others will join their friends so i think it might be best to ride wiiu out. The thing that kills me is nintendo was in the perfect position to dominate this next gen

-overlong generation nintendo could have truly ended in 2012 instead of bad last gen ports
-no bc in ps4/xbone
-moentum from the wii

And yet they did nothing with any of it

I guess then it's pointless to wonder what Nintendo can do to improve 3rd party relations, because the answer is apparently "Nothing."

Well maybe this gen hell maybe next gen but if nintendo really focuses piece by piece they could eventually get there. When nintendo truly puts an effort in and 3rd parties dismiss them then we can talk about how nintendo is not at fauly, but lets not pretend they have given a huge effort.

 

[Madao]

well, there's no defending Nintendo out of all of this. the price that their stupidity is gonna take on them is gonna be huge. at this point nothing can save the Wii U.

with handhelds getting comparable power to last gen consoles, the sucessor of the 3DS could be the only system they make in the future and at that point they won't be able to support 2 systems at the same time anymore (this gen already proved they can't support 2 like in the GBA/GC days or the Wii/DS days).

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

I guess then it's pointless to wonder what Nintendo can do to improve 3rd party relations, because the answer is apparently "Nothing."

I think an important distinction to make is "mature, core" games and "family, kid-friendly" games. Because Nintendo does quite well with third parties with the latter group. It's the former group they have trouble with. And that's fine - the other two consoles have the opposite problem.

 

[Vermillion]

One other thing that I realized - Sony and Microsoft are getting games for PS360 right up until their deaths. Nintendo, on the other hand, has entirely stopped supporting the Wii. Upon reflection, I expect the exact same thing to happen to Wii U. Why no cross-gen games (NSMBU could have been, or any 2D Mario)? Why not have other big games come out to inspire more consumer confidence and so that Wii U owners at least have new Wii games to play?

 

[metalslimer]

One other thing that I realized - Sony and Microsoft are getting games for PS360 right up until their deaths. Nintendo, on the other hand, has entirely stopped supporting the Wii. Upon reflection, I expect the exact same thing to happen to Wii U. Why no cross-gen games (NSMBU could have been, or any 2D Mario)? Why not have other big games come out to inspire more consumer confidence and so that Wii U owners at least have new Wii games to play?

This would honestly make the situation worse. They do it because they have no 3rd party support and giving people less reasons to buy your systems is a bad idea. If nsmbu had been cross gen the wiiu would be pulling virtual boy numbers

 

[RedSwirl]

Decent post, with some caveats:

You basically just added points that I already understood but neglected to include, since the post was long enough.

It actually started the second SEGA launched the Genesis, and Nintendo got knocked around in court over anticompetitive practices. The Genesis was the first REAL competitor nintendo had (all others were locked out of the market) and they were beaten very, VERY badly stateside- mostly because they did not know how to market their console, and also because they had no idea how to make games outside of their niche. Sega Sports was HUGELY popular, and Nintendo either did not have an answer for it, or had no interest. This is a theme that will crop up to bite them in the ass many, many times in the future.

I'll give you that one, but the PlayStation was still the moment where third parties basically went through a mass exodus from Nintendo.

The DVD issue was half about space, and half about a marketing bullet point that Sony owned, and Microsoft made concessions to. The Gamecube omitting it entirely is more of a marketing failure than a technical failure- Sony and Microsoft could to an extent market themselves as multipurpose machines- Nintendo could not, and designing the system as a purple lunchbox with a handle got them slapped with the "kiddy" label VERY quickly. This is a Bad Thing when the west was rapidly expanding as the largest market.

That was part of it too. I'm just saying that the impact of the mini-DVDs on game development is overstated in my opinion. Hell, Nintendo's consoles STILL can't play movies on discs. It's obviously something they just don't care about.

I think this is half true. Yes, the kind of market nintendo has an interest in competing in is different than the one targeted by Sony and Microsoft- but it's also about business models. Nintendo (like apple) prefers to make a fairly large margin on hardware as well as software. This is what "sticking to cartridges" was ultimately about- protection of an incredibly lucrative source of revenue that they controlled. Nintendo could not keep those margins AND compete with Sony and Microsoft technically. Not only were Sony and Microsoft willing to sell hardware at a loss, but both had engineering resources that were better than Nintendo had. It was a losing battle- Sega would have run afoul of the same problem even if the DC had not collapsed.

We'll probably never know if Nintendo could have somehow made a console that was competitive technically with the PS3 and Xbxo 360 AND introduced the Wii Remote. It's probably reasonable to assume they couldn't have done it, and the cost issue for the hardware is pretty obvious. It's the whole reasoning behind their "lateral thinking with withered technology" approach.

Here I disagree significantly. It wasn't "sony and third parties" that were into "flashy, cinematic games." That was almost entirely Square, and FFVII and it's ad campaign meant that JRPGS (which had a lot of eye candy) blew up around this time. JRPGS aside, The PS1 had a metric ton of games that did not rely on flashy FMV and cinema scenes. I could get into a list war, but I think we all know that this one is kind of pointless- but I will note that Sony's best selling franchise and it's oldest appeared first on PS1- and that game is Gran Turismo. Flashy cinematic game it is not.

Oh I definitely don't believe every single PS1 game was focused on being a movie or something. I do think however that a significant part of the PS1's image was essentially games that tried to be filmic. Aside from FFVII and JRPGs, the first Metal Gear Solid was another game that became an icon of this approach. FMVs and voice acting all-around became common during that era.

I'm definitely not saying Nintendo deliberately stuck with carts to discourage all that stuff. It may have been a side-effect of sticking with carts that conveniently fit their philosophies on game development. I think it would be better to say that in Nintendo's eyes, CD-ROMs were unnecessary at the time. Same with full-size DVDs.

Here is another issue. The N64 in particular seemed to be designed explicitly to play super mario 64. You can't get away with designing a machine around one man or one game. you need to consider the needs of third parties, and consider what users are actually playing outside of their own games. The fact that nintendo has never (to my knowledge) actually done this was bound to cause serious problems eventually. can you imagine any other company that operates this way?

Yep. Probably one of Nintendo's biggest problems. The Wii U GamePad seems to actually be an attempt to somewhat bow to third parties in this area again. The problem is they didn't bow low enough. Judging by past E3 presentations of the Wii U, Iwata seemed to think that having face buttons, two sticks, and four triggers was enough to encourage PS3 and 360 ports.

Nothing can really be further from the truth here. The market was led to a VERY large degree in the PS1 and PS2 era by Japanese tastes, not "american male gamers". What were the largest franchises on the PS1? Final Fantasy? Gran Turismo? Metal Gear Solid? Resident Evil? Castlevania? Tekken? Ridge Racer? The only significant western franchise that really found success at this level is probably Tomb Raider. All consoles skew more male than not (even nintendo), but The PS1 and PS2 had their focus squarely on Japan. FPS games are VERY popular in the west, but this genre was almost entirely absent on the PS1, and very weak on the PS2.

Ironically, there WAS a system that competed well against the PS1 in the US that had no shortage of FPS games that appealed to western gamers, but sold next to nothing in Japan. Games like Turok. Mission Impossible. Goldeneye. Doom 64. Perfect Dark. Duke Nukem. Care to guess which console this was?

It's probably an exaggeration to say it was the 16-35 male American gamer during the PS1 and PS2 eras. That's certainly what it's become today. The point is though, ever since even the Genesis days, Nintendo's competitors have tried to attract older audiences with promises of their games being more "mature."

The point of a business is to actually sell games and consoles, not wage ideological wars. if you want that, start a religion. from a business perspective, this is incompetence.

I would continue, but I'm running low on time. I'll be back to respond later this evening.

Setting trends vs. following them is not an unknown concept.

This, basically. I think that all this time Nintendo has basically been trying to be a trend-setter, not a follower, for better or worse.

 

[jwhit28]

Well the problem then is the fact they are years late, and consumers have chosen meaning others will join their friends so i think it might be best to ride wiiu out. The thing that kills me is nintendo was in the perfect position to dominate this next gen

-overlong generation nintendo could have truly ended in 2012 instead of bad last gen ports
-no bc in ps4/xbone
-moentum from the wii

And yet they did nothing with any of it

I still don't think their mistake was not bending to to the huge 3rd parties' will, it was AGAIN not being prepared to offer their own steady stream of titles. They have to put the investor grumbling back in the 3rd parties' investor meetings like the chewing out EA got for not being prepared to capitalize on the Wii. If Nintendo can get Wii U back to being at least a 3rd of US console sales for the next few years with their games alone, how would 3rd parties explain ignoring a 3rd of a market to their own ravenous investors. We will be back to "well if Nintendo can profit from that market, why can't you?".

 

[JordanN]

Can you describe what it means to be "compatible with third party ambitions?" What, specifically, does that mean?

I'm not disagreeing with necessarily here. Just looking for specifics.



Okay, what kind of "fault?" Why aren't these "Faults" necessarily represented in low consumer interest, like with the DS, Wii, and to a lesser extent the 3DS?

Audience, hardware, online, etc. Third parties need a good environment to do business in and Nintendo systems have all sorts of hurdles like the ones I mentioned that raises questions "Why are we including Nintendo in this MS/Sony/PC circle?".

Simply put, I think it's easier for a third party to say "this MS/Sony/PC project should run into few problems" then it is to say the same about Nintendo without worrying "Oh my god, is this CPU going to set us way behind schedule? Do the people on Nintendo systems even care about us? They really only like Mario. What must we do to make our game work with the new controller thing that isn't seen as lazy and how much effort will that take while we have other projects to complete in the same amount of time?".

Also, I don't understand what you mean by "low consumer interest".

 

[RurouniZel]

I think an important distinction to make is "mature, core" games and "family, kid-friendly" games. Because Nintendo does quite well with third parties with the latter group. It's the former group they have trouble with. And that's fine - the other two consoles have the opposite problem.

I just want to live in a world where they can co-exist. Where it doesn't have to be all mature or all kiddy. But it seems a good section of GAF is reveling in the idea of Nintendo's demise with their Marios and and Kirbys. Ever since the Wii U's troubles began I've seen an utter contempt and vitriol for everything Nintendo and while I admit I've had my disappointments with them lately the last thing I want is Nintendo to conform, step in line and try to turn Zelda into Uncharted. Fuck we saw what happened to Metroid... >_>

I'll just lurk for a while, I doubt I'm adding anything of worth right now.

 

[royalan]

I think an important distinction to make is "mature, core" games and "family, kid-friendly" games. Because Nintendo does quite well with third parties with the latter group. It's the former group they have trouble with. And that's fine - the other two consoles have the opposite problem.

But couldn't be argued that they're grip on even that market is slipping? I mean, the 3DS saw several of Nintendo's "family, kid-friendly" games (Nintendogs + cats, Brain Training) dramatically underperforming.

 

[metalslimer]

I still don't think their mistake was not bending to to the huge 3rd parties' will, it was AGAIN not being prepared to offer their own steady stream of titles. They have to put the investor grumbling back in the 3rd parties' investor meetings like the chewing out EA got for not being prepared to capitalize on the Wii. If Nintendo can get Wii U back to being at least a 3rd of US console sales for the next few years with their games alone, how would 3rd parties explain ignoring a 3rd of a market to their own ravenous investors. We will be back to "well if Nintendo can profit from that market, why can't you?".

Well if the wiiu is a third of the market i would more e concerned about the death off the console market. And 3rd parties in the west dont give two shits about the 3ds and thats going to likely sell more than anything. I doubt they get questioned for ignoring wiiu

 

[jwhit28]

Well if the wiiu is a third of the market i would more e concerned about the death off the console market. And 3rd parties in the west dont give two shits about the 3ds and thats going to likely sell more than anything. I doubt they get questioned for ignoring wiiu

Yeah I didn't really want to bring that up in this thread because it's about consoles, but if 3DS leads all sales this holiday season and EA releases nothing but FIFA 14, how could their own investors not be irate? That is a lot of videogame buyers being ignored.

 

[boyshine]

well, there's no defending Nintendo out of all of this. the price that their stupidity is gonna take on them is gonna be huge. at this point nothing can save the Wii U..

Christmas with:

- New Super Mario Bros. U + New Super Luigi U
- Lego City Undercover
- Lego Marvel Super Heroes
- Pikmin 3
- Wonderful 101
- Sonic Lost World
- Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games Sochi 2014
- Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze
- Disney's Planes
- Disney Infinity
- Rayman Legends
- The Legend of Zelda Wind Waker HD
- Skylanders SwapForce
- Super Mario 3D World
- Wii Party U


You can't deny that's a spectacular line-up if you're a kid age 6-14. + the bolded ones will even sell to Nintendo fans of all ages.

 

[Bending_Unit_22]

I would say Nintendo deserves a lot of the blame, mainly for designing their consoles with only themselves in mind. That worked when there was no competition in the NES days but nearly and then fully did them in when real competition arrived. If they hadn't caught lightening in a bottle in 2006 then the Wii would have been another Gamecube (arguably that may have been better for Nintendo since it might have finally forced a rethink about how they design their consoles vis a vis 3rd parties and would have stopped the GCN 11 year cycle cold).

That being said it is not as if 3rd parties always and forever make the right financial decisions regarding Nintendo consoles and only Nintendo is screwing things up. Early on 3rd parties did well on the GCN, not as well as the PS2, but as good if not better in some cases than the Xbox and yet 3rd parties began repeatedly (purposely?) delaying GCN versions and then just cancelling them. On the Wii, many 3rd party franchises sold best on the Wii (Sonic, Guitar Hero, Tiger Woods, Star Wars, and Lego ___ are some) and yet the Wii version was routinely farmed out to some 3rd rate studio while the big bucks were spent on the PS360 versions. Entire genres were simply run into the ground by a flood of 3rd party me-too releases. Shockingly, after a few years of this the market for 3rd party games on the GCN and Wii was relatively small, just like 3rd parties always said it was I suppose. Outside of consoles, where has any serious effort on handhelds from western 3rd parties been? Even with DS games cheap to make and acting as money printers 3rd parties avoided the DS like it was a plague.

Anyways, I was never in the crowd that thought that every 3rd party game on the Xbox should be on the GCN and the Wii deserved PS2 levels of 3rd party support for being well in front. I simply think 3rd parties deserve some blame for the present 3rd party situation on the Nintendo consoles, that they aren't all financial super geniuses making the most brilliant of moves at all times (how many 3rd parties did we lose thanks to PS360 development this gen, despite sales being higher than ever?), but also that neither is Nintendo and ultimately it's their consoles and their responsibility to at least make it as easy as possible for 3rd parties (no limited storage, super high licensing fees, terrible online, old hardware, etc). So far their "we're supper innovative and do things our way, 3rd parties will come along eventually" method has produced 1 moderate success, 3 failures, and during the biggest generation of gaming ever, the 3rd most successful console. At the least we would know the blame doesn't lie with Nintendo and they couldn't be any worse off than they are right now.

I'v never seen a response to my question, which I hope makes sense. I love the OP's post and redswirl's and the entire discussion, but I have one question. It seems like Ubisoft is able to make their games on the Wii U, why arn't more companies?

No reason they can't, strictly speaking, why they won't is the question and Ubisoft trying has given them a big reason to stay in the won't camp. In short doesn't make financial sense (for the most part, I still think EA has other reasons but that's neither here nor there).

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

I just want to live in a world where they can co-exist. Where it doesn't have to be all mature or all kiddy. But it seems a good section of GAF is reveling in the idea of Nintendo's demise with their Marios and and Kirbys. Ever since the Wii U's troubles began I've seen an utter contempt and vitriol for everything Nintendo and while I admit I've had my disappointments with them lately the last thing I want is Nintendo to conform, step in line and try to turn Zelda into Uncharted. Fuck we saw what happened to Metroid... >_>

I'll just lurk for a while, I doubt I'm adding anything of worth right now.

Well, if nothing else it seems like Nintendo will throw core, "mature" gamers stuff like Sin and Punishment 2 (a game they knew had to bomb when they dropped it overseas). I mean, we are getting Bayonetta 2 after all.

But couldn't be argued that they're grip on even that market is slipping? I mean, the 3DS saw several of Nintendo's "family, kid-friendly" games (Nintendogs + cats, Brain Training) dramatically underperforming.

I think it could be argued, but as far as I'm aware third-party games like Just Dance, Skylanders, etc still sell the best on the Wii. Not on the Wii U, of course - that console has problems it needs to tackle before it can reach that market (notably price and first-party content). Just Dance in particular does especially well on the Wii (and notably here, the Wii U version of Just Dance 4 sold about as well as the PS3 version). So I think the audience is still there and Nintendo should take steps to ensure that the audience stays with their platform. Price and notable first-party content (3D World, Mario Kart 8 I think would are particularly notable this audience) are the first steps they absolutely need to take.

Oh, and find some way to use the first ~15 seconds of the first Wii U reveal at E3 2011 (or something similar) in an advertisement. Because frankly it shows how the GamePad can be used in such an easy-to-understand way that I think can appeal to a larger audience - off-screen play while someone else is watching TV.

I think games like Brain Age and Nintendogs dramatically under-performing is a sign of those specific games simply not being viable in a smartphone world (especially Brain Age). But there are some games which simply cannot be replicated on smartphones well - like Just Dance or Skylanders.

 

[chaosblade]

But couldn't be argued that they're grip on even that market is slipping? I mean, the 3DS saw several of Nintendo's "family, kid-friendly" games (Nintendogs + cats, Brain Training) dramatically underperforming.

Those sort of games are the kinds of things you can replicate just fine with a 99 cent phone app. It's understandable they aren't going to perform well when released as full price 3DS games.

Anyway, the answer to Nintendo's problems is kind of disappointing. Honestly, I think it's gotten to the point where they are going to be completely unable to right that ship unless both of their competitors royally screw up. Making their next console a PS5/Xbox Next clone is not going to sell their console, even if it matches them feature for feature.

 

[Opiate]

Audience, hardware, online, etc. Third parties need a good environment to do business in and Nintendo systems have all sorts of hurdles like the ones I mentioned that raises questions "Why are we including Nintendo in this MS/Sony/PC circle?"

Ah I see. You mean the traditional home console crowd in particular. Yes, I think they've set themselves outside this, I agree.

Simply put, I think it's easier for a third party to say "this MS/Sony/PC project should run into few problems" then it is to say the same about Nintendo without worrying "Oh my god, is this CPU going to set us way behind schedule? Do the people on Nintendo systems even care about us? They really only like Mario. What must we do to make our game work with the new controller thing that isn't seen as lazy and how much effort will that take while we have other projects to complete in the same amount of time?".

Well, if the suggestion here is that Nintendo's audience is narrow while third parties are broad, that strikes me as quite backwards. Nintendo has, in very recent memory, had major hits with young girls (Nintendogs) so called "soccer moms" (Wii Fit), young males (Mario Kart, Mario) nd the elderly (Wii Fit, Wii Sports, Brain Age). I would actually say it's the third parties which are quite narrow: virtually every major franchise from EA, Take 2, Activision et al aim squarely at the 16-35 male demographic, while the few exceptions such as Skylanders and Just Dance often do very well if not better on Nintendo's systems.

Also, I don't understand what you mean by "low consumer interest".

The idea is that if Nintendo's hardware is bad and to blame, then surely it would equate to low consumer interest. Hardware and software would sell poorly. Sometimes that is the case (With the Wii U being perhaps the best example of this), but often times it is not. How do we explain the situations where consumers are clearly interested in the hardware Nintendo is selling, but third parties show little interest?

 

[Madao]

Christmas with:

- New Super Mario Bros. U + New Super Luigi U
- Lego City Undercover
- Lego Marvel Super Heroes
- Pikmin 3
- Wonderful 101
- Sonic Lost World
- Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games Sochi 2014
- Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze
- Disney's Planes
- Disney Infinity
- Rayman Legends
- The Legend of Zelda Wind Waker HD
- Skylanders SwapForce
- Super Mario 3D World
- Wii Party U


You can't deny that's a spectacular line-up if you're a kid age 6-14. + the bolded ones will even sell to Nintendo fans of all ages.

the multiplatform games won't help in any significant way and only SM3DWorld and DKCTF have potential to sell systems. the rest are sent to die.

 

[Bending_Unit_22]

Christmas with:

- New Super Mario Bros. U + New Super Luigi U
- Lego City Undercover
- Lego Marvel Super Heroes
- Pikmin 3
- Wonderful 101
- Sonic Lost World
- Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games Sochi 2014
- Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze
- Disney's Planes
- Disney Infinity
- Rayman Legends
- The Legend of Zelda Wind Waker HD
- Skylanders SwapForce
- Super Mario 3D World
- Wii Party U


You can't deny that's a spectacular line-up if you're a kid age 6-14. + the bolded ones will even sell to Nintendo fans of all ages.

Hey, I recognize this list from the last time I shot down. Well to do it more easily I just do it by order here:

Already done zilch and 2 2D platformers following a glut of them and well after the 2D resurgence has faded.
Might do ok, looks pretty good but no one is buying the system for it.
Err...
It rocketed the Wii U to mediocrity in Japan, maybe it can do it in the west as well (or not), really want it myself.
Niche as all hell, may as well have Bayonetta 2 excitement on your list as well.
Looks good, may do alright but another platformer.
Nobody cares enough to get a system for it.
*sigh* Yet another 2D platformer well after they lost their luster, poor Retro.
Yeah...
Right...
Hey, major 3rd party game, somewhat popular franchise, and also a 2D platformer.
Remake, is it still a full price because if so.
Ok, could be marginal I guess.
YES! glorious 3D MARIO!! wait, 2Dish up port platformer from the 3DS. It has a cat suit so I'm in but is NSMBU didn't do it I doubt this will.
Ok, I've resisted thus far but I can no more HAHAHAHA

In summation do you really think 6 platformers, 4 kids games, 2 niche games, 2 minigame collections, a full-price (?) remake, and a game that is already out and doing not much are enough to restore the Wii U's fortunes? You did note especially for kids 6-14, but at least half that age group is going to be more into CoD and BF4 on the next consoles and not more Mario platformers.

 

[AniHawk]

thing about nintendo is they don't really care unless you're making an exclusive title or are willing to buddy up with them. they might offer incentives, but i don't think they specifically reach out to third parties.

if you go with the mindset of 'nintendo doesn't care', so much makes sense. i have a feeling their indie support recently is just a way for them to scope new talent and get them for themselves, more than it is about being awesome and open.

during the wii era when they should have cared more about getting big titles for their big system, i think they were still focused on profit in the event that they lost all their support that they made it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Vermillion]

This would honestly make the situation worse. They do it because they have no 3rd party support and giving people less reasons to buy your systems is a bad idea. If nsmbu had been cross gen the wiiu would be pulling virtual boy numbers

I guess that's true, but depressing. I mean, most of we know will launch with PS4X1 are cross-gen titles. I was wondering why Nintendo would be unable to replicate this.

 

[ZSaberLink]

Up until the Playstation era, I think the OP was fairly correct. However, you completely forgot the fact that the industry was in shambles, and Nintendo's (probably overly) strict policies got the industry back in order. Sure it may have gone from one extreme to the other, but it was a change that was needed.

Secondly, the reason didn't make games for the N64 wasn't because of cartridges. It's because Yamauchi decided to take the practices even further and cultivate a 3rd party "Dream Team", shunning even smaller third parties willing to work with Nintendo's strict policies. Square eventually said "screw it", jumped to Playstation, which really started the rift with third parties. Sure technological concerns are fine and all, but the N64 was a much more powerful console, and I'm sure developers, had Nintendo been much more practical to work with, would have done so. Nintendo deserved what they got that generation and seemed to change next generation.

Since Iwata has taken over, Nintendo has tried to be much better. Sure they've made some odd decisions, but not going with HD actually made a lot of sense initially. It just turned out to be something they paid for a bit more in the middle of the generation. Even Miyamoto said, "we never expected the transition to HD in the west to happen so fast. It happened quicker than any other TV/tech transition we've seen." That's not saying "we don't want to make HD games." It's saying "we didn't think it was necessary/practical to do so". If everyone in the market takes the same approach, the market is dead. Innovation is needed, and Sony definitely brings none to the table in this generation. Microsoft tried, but honestly got a bit cocky with what they were trying to do.

 

[AniHawk]

Hey, I recognize this list from the last time I shot down. Well to do it more easily I just do it by order here:

no one is going to go into a store and think, hm, i see there's another donkey kong PLATFORMER. those games are sooooooo overdone. the effect of having many similar games is that you build and foster and keep that fanbase. not one game does much, but it has mario, donkey kong, and sonic? great!

and i wouldn't write off mario bros. or the platformers. the wii u might have sold all it has so far only because of mario bros. the attach ratio is fucking insane. it's basically the only thing selling a $350 console.

 

[JordanN]

Well, if the suggestion here is that Nintendo's audience is narrow while third parties are broad, that strikes me as quite backwards. Nintendo has, in very recent memory, had major hits with young girls (Nintendogs) so called "soccer moms" (Wii Fit) and the elder (Wii Fit, Wii Sports, Brain Age). I would actually say it's the third parties which are quite narrow: virtually every major franchise from EA, Take 2, Activision et al aim squarely at the 16-35 male demographic, while the few exceptions such as Skylanders and Just Dance often do very well if not better on Nintendo's systems.

I think third parties can diversify if they want. All those mini game collections on Wii was them squeezing out whatever source of revenue was possible on that system. But yeah, for the time being it's 16-35 demographic.

Nintendo's portfolio is definitely skewed though. They present only games like Mario and Wii Fit as what a Nintendo system should be about.

Now, I would say "where's the western themed games?" but then I'm reminded of something. A common complaint is people don't want Nintendo anywhere near what MS/Sony are doing (because they don't believe they can compete or they would look like "clones). So they've essentially boxed themselves into doing Mario and Wii Fit. Now how are the third parties going to react while selling games that are for the 16-35 demographic? They could take a chance and create the Mario/Wii fit clones hoping they sell but the primary games like GTA or Battlefield can't be ported without asking the question "why bother with them?".

The idea is that if Nintendo's hardware is bad and to blame, then surely it would equate to low consumer interest. Hardware and software would sell poorly. Sometimes that is the case (With the Wii U being perhaps the best example of this), but often times it is not. How do we explain the situations where consumers are clearly interested in the hardware Nintendo is selling, but third parties show little interest?

Nintendo still has their software to sell, which is essentially the only thing that kept them alive all these years. That's not to say however, their software is grand. If anything, the N64 to Gamecube decline shows that Nintendo software can easily depreciate or not captivate an entire market of gamers.

 

[Bending_Unit_22]

The idea is that if Nintendo's hardware is bad and to blame, then surely it would equate to low consumer interest. Hardware and software would sell poorly. Sometimes that is the case (With the Wii U being perhaps the best example of this), but often times it is not. How do we explain the situations where consumers are clearly interested in the hardware Nintendo is selling, but third parties show little interest?

I touch on that in my post, but really the only examples of the scenario you ask about are the Wii and handhelds. The Wii is an extreme case, the system had one of the biggest leads early on but also by far the biggest power/architecture/feature(online especially) gap. I think it is safe to say that for the majority of cases the power/architecture/feature gap was simply too great. That doesn't excuse all cases which gets into the question of whether 3rd parties were acting merely out of perfect concern for their shareholders' profit interest or whether other motives were driving decisions. I have no idea on handhelds beyond companies that treat their workers like near slaves from what I've heard were terrified of a slave revolt if they made handhelds games.

 

[Vermillion]

On another note, maybe Nintendo should try to make a more creative 2D Mario? Drop the "New"? It's weird that Rayman Legends is looking more creative than the recent 2D Mario output. Had it been at launch, I would have absolutely bought it over Mario. The so-called king of platformers has become complacent. If they want sales, shouldn't they make each experience feel new? Like, really new?

 

[Opiate]

I think third parties can diversify if they want. All those mini game collections on Wii was them squeezing out whatever source of revenue was possible on that system.

Nintendo's portfolio is definitely skewed though. They present only games like Mario and Wii Fit as what a Nintendo system should be about.

I just cannot agree with this. Again, Nintendo has actually proven that they can produce games for quite varied audiences, selling huge amounts of games to young boys but also mothers and elderly men. For example, Wii Fit represents a game heavily tilted towards adult gamers which sold more copies than any game Sony or Microsoft has ever produced.

Now, I would say "where's the western themed games?" but then I'm reminded of something. A common complaint is people don't want Nintendo anywhere near what MS/Sony are doing (because they don't believe they can compete or they would look like "clones). So they've essentially boxed themselves into doing Mario and Wii Fit.

I'll repeat that this seems absolutely and completely backwards. Let's add Nintendogs in here too: you're essentially saying Nintendo has "boxed themselves in" to young boys (Mario) young girls (Nintendogs), and adult women (Wii Fit). This is, again, without discussing games like Brain Age and Wii Sports, which have had strong appeal with elderly gamers. I have no idea why you're portraying this as some small box -- some tiny slice of the consumer base --when it seems very clear to me that it is the western publishers who are "boxed in," if anything, to 16-35 male gamers.

Nintendo still has their software to sell, which is essentially the only thing that kept them alive all these years. That's not to say however, their software is grand. If anything, the N64 to Gamecube decline shows that Nintendo software can easily depreciate or not captivate an entire market of gamers.

I can definitely agree with this, but I don't feel like this is an answer to the questions I asked. I'll repeat it: lots of times, Nintendo clearly produces hardware that consumers want. Not always (Wii U), but sometimes (Wii, GBA). So when we say the hardware is "at fault" for the lack of third party support, what precisely do we mean here? Because clearly consumers can often be interested in the hardware. Why aren't the major western publishers?

 

[Bending_Unit_22]

no one is going to go into a store and think, hm, i see there's another donkey kong PLATFORMER. those games are sooooooo overdone. the effect of having many similar games is that you build and foster and keep that fanbase. not one game does much, but it has mario, donkey kong, and sonic? great!

and i wouldn't write off mario bros. or the platformers. the wii u might have sold all it has so far only because of mario bros. the attach ratio is fucking insane. it's basically the only thing selling a $350 console.

Certainly, if you're really into platformers, 2D especially, the Wii U is the console to own. Nintendo is oversaturating the genre though, including the upcoming Yoshi game there are at least 7 platformers to choose from. How many people are going to buy all 7? I like them more than most gamers and I'll get 2, maybe 3. A selection 3 or 4 would suffice to satiate the 2D manic crowd. The resources for the other games could then be used to broaden the game variety to attract people into those kind of games or those who like a 2D platformer with Pikmin and say a sci-fi adventure game.

I sort of went off topic with my response, but I can easily get back on topic by noting Nintendo is screwing up software-wise as well with their "if you loved gaming circa 1990, have we got a console for you" lineup. Iwata constantly says that if Nintendo gets the console out to more people, 3rd parties will naturally follow. Yet their software strategy is to corner to kid, platformerphile, and minigame market segments. Let's assume they are successful, why would EA look at that console and hold frantic board meetings about getting Madden, Star Wars, and BF4 on the Wii U? Ok maybe Star Wars, but then that argument was much stronger on the Wii and was largely ignored outside of Lego.

I thought NSMBU was around a high 40% attach rate but looks like it's about 60%. Not bad but then what other game has there been to buy with a Wii U? Twilight Princess was higher and the Wii had a few other major games to tempt people. Either way, given the Wii U's line up I fully agree NSMBU could be credited with maybe up to half the sales, but that's not saying much.

 

[JaseMath]

Nintendo is their own worst enemy. Speaking as the hardest of hardcore Nintendo fanboys, the Wii U is almost certainly the last Nintendo console I'll ever own. Their digital platform in particular is an open slap-in-the face to their userbase and I'll not support it with another dollar.

 

[royalan]

I think it could be argued, but as far as I'm aware third-party games like Just Dance, Skylanders, etc still sell the best on the Wii. Not on the Wii U, of course - that console has problems it needs to tackle before it can reach that market (notably price and first-party content). Just Dance in particular does especially well on the Wii (and notably here, the Wii U version of Just Dance 4 sold about as well as the PS3 version). So I think the audience is still there and Nintendo should take steps to ensure that the audience stays with their platform. Price and notable first-party content (3D World, Mario Kart 8 I think would are particularly notable this audience) are the first steps they absolutely need to take.

Oh, and find some way to use the first ~15 seconds of the first Wii U reveal at E3 2011 (or something similar) in an advertisement. Because frankly it shows how the GamePad can be used in such an easy-to-understand way that I think can appeal to a larger audience - off-screen play while someone else is watching TV.

I think games like Brain Age and Nintendogs dramatically under-performing is a sign of those specific games simply not being viable in a smartphone world (especially Brain Age). But there are some games which simply cannot be replicated on smartphones well - like Just Dance or Skylanders.

I actually don't disagree with any of this, so you won't get any fight out of me in this thread.

Spoiler

Yet...XD

 

[boyshine]

the multiplatform games won't help in any significant way and only SM3DWorld and DKCTF have potential to sell systems. the rest are sent to die.

I think you underestimate the effect of an actual selection of games. And in light of the "no third party support for Wii U" complaints I'm really puzzled by your multiplatform comment. These are all games that fit with the Nintendo core audience. The only niche games on that list, but still will add to system value due to system exclusivity and quality, is Pikmin 3 and Wonderful 101.

 

[jwhit28]

Certainly, if you're really into platformers, 2D especially, the Wii U is the console to own. Nintendo is oversaturating the genre though, including the upcoming Yoshi game there are at least 7 platformers to choose from. How many people are going to buy all 7? I like them more than most gamers and I'll get 2, maybe 3. A selection 3 or 4 would suffice to satiate the 2D manic crowd. The resources for the other games could then be used to broaden the game variety to attract people into those kind of games or those who like a 2D platformer with Pikmin and say a sci-fi adventure game.

I sort of went off topic with my response, but I can easily get back on topic by noting Nintendo is screwing up software-wise as well with their "if you loved gaming circa 1990, have we got a console for you" lineup. Iwata constantly says that if Nintendo gets the console out to more people, 3rd parties will naturally follow. Yet their software strategy is to corner to kid, platformerphile, and minigame market segments. Let's assume they are successful, why would EA look at that console and hold frantic board meetings about getting Madden, Star Wars, and BF4 on the Wii U? Ok maybe Star Wars, but then that argument was much stronger on the Wii and was largely ignored outside of Lego.

Because investor's would demand it. EA is not in the financial position to say "well we are going to ignore those customers because they don't play videogames we find it easy to make". That doesn't cut it when you are company that has to have your CEO step down. Especially when Activision, Ubisoft, and Warner Bros are in a position to do so.

 

[Amir0x]

Amirox's response is going to be a thesis dissertation, he's been cooking it for like six hours now ha ha ha

yeah there is now NO WAY I am going to be finished tonight. This thread has spawned some truly amazing discussion and I can't stop adding posts to my thesis lol

 

[BlackJace]

yeah there is now NO WAY I am going to be finished tonight. This thread has spawned some truly amazing discussion and I can't stop adding posts to my thesis lol

Just stop adding posts and just respond accordingly.