• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Might 3rd Party Wii U Hate Be an Effort to Push Gamers to DRM-Locked Platforms?

I don't get it. What are you talking about? Are you asking me what was the excuse for Wii and GCN not getting third-party support, is that it?

I'm saying—if you really think developing for Wii U is lower risk than PS4/Xbone and the only reason they haven't done so is because of a giant conspiracy to force everyone into the DRM platform, then what was the excuse for the piss poor 3rd party support last generation? and the generation before that?

why can't it just be the simplest solution—they don't find it an investment worth making?
 
thanks for this. I will provide more analysis once I skim through it.

There isn't much to analyze. It's a financial disclosure and almost everything is in terms of dollars, for the purpose of informing investors of Nintendo's financial situation and prospects in the forthcoming year. The report talks about assets, like buildings, debts, expenditures, cash on hand, etc.

About the only interesting information outside of yen/dollars is the hardware/software sales disclosures. Doing a simple calculation shows a Wii tie-in of 8.6 titles, which is largely similar to the 360-PS3.
 
It's entirely possible that Nintendo's unwillingness or inability to use DRM measures contributed to the pre-existing feeling that Nintendo's platforms are unfriendly to third parties.
I reckon it's more the other way around, that MS and Sony actively developed the console in close talks with the third parties and subsequently implemented their DRM, is what makes the publishers think these are the consoles for them.

For the most publishers it's probably simple the low install base (and historically that Nintendo's high quality first party efforts cannibalize the market) which makes them apprehensive to port for Wii U.

For EA however, I'm pretty sure that their categorical refusal to make games for the WiiU is done with the intention to make DRM free consoles crash and burn.
 
I want to know whether MS's new policies are in exchange for exclusive deals with publishers, or because the publishers threatened them if they didn't put those policies in place (i.e, 'we'll release first on other consoles' yadda yadda). Nintendo might thus be indirectly affected.
 
tumblr_mkl0hwb8ED1sn5teeo1_500.gif


It's funny because I've been trying to call out this possible plot last month, but that's just "tinfoil theory" since the real reason is that the Wii U is underpowered. /sarcasm
 
The story with Nintendo and third parties goes waaay longer back than to this DRM debacle this last year or so.

It may be one factor. But I'm guessing install base / hw specs / relationship history are more important ones. Not saying the hw specs on the U are crappy or anything, but it's a custom setup, which focuses much more on the GPU, with a rather weak CPU to support it. That means that devs have to take special care (engines not necessarily working etc) porting the game to make it not look like shit look optimal = it takes time and money to do it. I guess the sentiment is that with the current install base, and Nintendo not shovelling up dat money hat, they can get more money in return focusing on ps360/pc.

Unless there is a special history with one of the companies, third parties generally follow the money. That's why you'll see a lot of cross platform titles (from third parties) as well for the next year or two after Xbone/PS4 launch. I guess we'll also see a steady increase of third parties on the Wii U once the install base gets relatively bigger, and companies get used to developing for it. I'm an optimist. :)

So yeah, no conspiracy, just business being business, as I see it.
 
I could see individual publishers deciding on their own that the Wii U failing would be good for the publisher. Don't have to expend effort to get your game looking good on inferior hardware, don't have to expend effort to come up with a game play gimmick that uses the pad, and can ensure that all of your sales will be on a platform that blocks used games.

There doesn't even have to be a conspiracy between publishers for them all to come up with this on their own. There is no downside to holding back Wii U development to the publishers. If somehow the Wii U does get significant traction and sales, well you just start making games for it then.
 
I'm saying—if you really think developing for Wii U is lower risk than PS4/Xbone and the only reason they haven't done so is because of a giant conspiracy to force everyone into the DRM platform, then what was the excuse for the piss poor 3rd party support last generation? and the generation before that?

why can't it just be the simplest solution—they don't find it an investment worth making?

First, I never said the reason for WiiU being less risky than PS4/Xbone has anything to do about DRM platform conspiracy, but for the fact there's absolute no guarantee PS4/Xbone will sell truckloads at launch. Ignoring WiiU, which is already launched and can get better sales with a price drop and the coming line-up by this year, while they bet at two platforms which will release at a way higher price tag and mostly with games which will be avaliable also for PS3/360 possibly with little graphical gap between both generation aren't reasons to believe they're safer/better investments at this time. They may be in the next years, but definetively not now.

Now about Wii, you wanna know why 3rd-parties didn't fully supported it? Because of this (this is from 2005):

http://www.ign.com/articles/2005/03/04/nintendo-president-talks-revolution-2

Satoru Iwata said:
If the next generation platforms are going to create even more gorgeous looking games using further enhanced functionality, and if that next-gen market can still expand the games industry, then I'm afraid that third-parties may not support Nintendo

Satoru Iwata said:
If we receive the support of the licensees, I believe we will expand third party support. If our ideas cannot be appealing enough, then we cannot receive third party support.

It's quite obvious why they didn't supported it.

According to a NeoGAF poster named Cheerilee, Iwata send the GameCube to die. Here's his post from another thread:

The GameCube was always going to "fail" in the sense that Nintendo (very optimistically) expected that they could take the console throne back from Sony and the PS2, or at least seriously compete for it SNES/Genesis-style, in the console's first year. That was never even close to happening.

But when it failed to to that, Iwata called it a failure and began to shut things down. And that caused the GameCube to fail even harder and allowed Microsoft to surpass them with the XBox, a mistake which Iwata himself even recently admitted and said that he learned from when the 3DS was in trouble.

Iwata's new direction that he charted with Wii included the philosophy "We will never win against our hardware competitors on even terms, so why bother wasting energy trying?" And he was celebrated for that. But that retroactively added another level of failure to the GameCube. The GameCube tried to compete, and according to Iwata, it wasted it's time. And anyone who believed in the GameCube was a fool for doing so, because Iwata didn't follow though, which means that next time Nintendo asks us to believe in their commitment to hardware, we won't, because we've heard that lie before.

The GameCube was a fantastic piece of hardware. It was better and more dev-friendly than the PS2, on par with the Xbox, and profitable at 2/3 the price of either console, both of which were losing serious money.

And waggle was a GameCube innovation. It was being shown to GameCube devs (in an unfinished state) even before the GameCube launch. When Iwata saw that the GameCube was a failure, he took everything that was good about the GameCube and relaunched with a new name. If Nintendo had produced a "GameCube 2" instead of a "GameCube Turbo", with all the strength shown in the GameCube's design, people would have still been lining up around the block at E3 for a chance to experience waggle for the first time. It wasn't Wii's lack of 720p that drew people to the system, and it sure wasn't Nintendo's profit margin, which vastly exceeded the N64 and GameCube's profit margins.

Sony fell on their face with the PS3. And Microsoft's biggest advantage was their one-year head start. Howard Lincoln learned from the SNES and told the world (as mentioned in this article) that being first to market was meaningless. Because the industry would wait for Nintendo. That sort of happened with the N64. That did not happen at all with the PS2/GameCube. And that one year head start is what made it utterly impossible for the GameCube to catch the PS2. Iwata identified this as arrogance and vowed that he would launch first in the next gen. And then MS to beat them to market with the 360. And then he dismissed that second blindness regarding Microsoft, claiming that MS wasn't a real competitor, only Sony was. And yet, the 360's head start gave that upstart MS the lead against Sony for several years.

I would maintain that if Nintendo had launched a 720p-capable dev-friendly and profitable GameCube 2, before or around the time of the 360's launch, powered up with the immense demand we have seen for waggle, the videogame industry would have been revolutionized (as opposed to being fractured between casual and hardcore), Nintendo would have been the lead console, Microsoft would have nearly fallen off the map, and Sony would have remained an expensive but needless alternative. Nintendo would have won our current generation of consoles, their third party relations would be repaired, and they would be the hands-down favorite to win next gen.

But instead, they made mad bank for a few years, and now they're paying for it.

It was Iwata's mismanagement of the company which made Wii and GCN suffer.
 
I think for most devs/publishers it's just business as usual in regards to Nintendo consoles....

..but I can see it being a major factor in regards to EA .
 
Come on people.

The reason why sales for the WiiU are not great because the majority of core gamers
are taking a wait and see approach with the system. Why? Because they know Nintendo consoles do not get the majority of third party support.

And guess what, since its reveal, third party support has been lackluster, from the negative comments about the console, the types of games being developed, to the number of titles planned for the console.

So obviously, without third party support, the only real reason to get a Nintendo console is for Nintendo games. But that goes for any console! So what should third parties really be betting on? How good the first party titles will be! So no excuse to not support Nintendo.

And when they do support consoles equally, you get a situation like with this generation, the HD twins, with similar sale numbers. All three consoles could potentially sell around the same amount if third parties supported all the consoles equally.
 
This is like the third thread with this topic. But yeah, I think it's obvious that publishers are more interested in pushing platforms with more control on their side.
 
no. tinfoil hat conspiracies are laughable when there are damn good and damn obvious reasons why the Wii U is not getting, and really shouldn't be getting, third party support. I mean if I were any of these companies I don't think I'd put my game out on the Wii U, what would be the point?
 
Third parties did make a ton of money on Wii/3DS. It's surprising they ditched the WiiU like that. I think Nintendo is probably the responsible party for this.
 
What if Iwata/Nintendo told certain publishers emphatically that they would never allow DRM. While I doubt that alone would lead to a lot of the issues we see I can definitely see a lot of publishers "pull" for Nintendo's competitors and in turn be more likely to skip certain multiplats.

That said, most of it just seems to be the overall poor 3rd party relationships we've seen for years.
 
the hardcore flocked to the 360 and bought a ton of software in the first year presumably because they want something new w/ better graphics. and the wii U clearly isn't targeting them.

Is it financially viable to keep targetting them, though? While I'm not going to hail the Wii U as the solution to all the industry's woes... I can absolutely understand exercising caution on going in heavily on that market in the future.
 
Come on people.

The reason why sales for the WiiU are not great because the majority of core gamers
are taking a wait and see approach with the system. Why? Because they know Nintendo consoles do not get the majority of third party support.

And guess what, since its reveal, third party support has been lackluster, from the negative comments about the console, the types of games being developed, to the number of titles planned for the console.

So obviously, without third party support, the only real reason to get a Nintendo console is for Nintendo games. But that goes for any console! So what should third parties really be betting on? How good the first party titles will be! So no excuse to not support Nintendo.

And when they do support consoles equally, you get a situation like with this generation, the HD twins, with similar sale numbers. All three consoles could potentially sell around the same amount if third parties supported all the consoles equally.

Are you really saying that third parties should support everyone 'equally' because it's the nice thing to do, or am I just too tired?

There's plenty of reasons to not support the Wii U right now. It's launch has been to put it kindly, rough. Nintendo could not deliver a significant title that could drive sales at launch, which makes the system less exciting to the loyalists. Third parties didn't actually do so hot on the Wii in general (and like everything there's always exceptions), and Nintendo obviously didn't do a lot to convince publishers to stick to the Wii U.

There's also the fact that next gen consoles that were designed around developer requests are just around the corner. Before we even get into the DRM thing, the new consoles have more memory, are more powerful, and both MS and Sony have proven online networks that are used by literally tens of millions. The feature set provided by the Xbone and the PS4 exceeds what the Wii U is capable of by a significant amount.

Nintendo has struggled with third party relations as far back as the SNES. It was bad enough that not only did their split with Sony over the CD add-on create their greatest competitor yet, they also drove a lot of japanese developers to climb aboard the PS-wagon, securing from Nintendo vital exclusives and important IPs across multiple generations of consoles.

Nintendo is a company that, up until the Wii, was seeing every single one of its home consoles sell fewer and fewer units in every generation. It was especially bad for the N64, the GameCube, both were crushed by their competition by a significant degree. They have long struggled with the competition for gamer mindshare. The Wii was a hit because it DID NOT place so much emphasis on a market that they essentially had lost the majority of by the time the Gamecube rolled around. Third party developers have long seen other platforms as a place where they can find success. Nintendo has done an extremely poor job of doing away with that notion people have of them.

So here we are, six months after the launch of the Wii U, and it is currently selling so poorly in its home market it's become the butt of all the jokes the Vita once was. It's suffered a barren lineup from Nintendo as major titles have been repeatedly delayed. Third parties don't need a lack of DRM to look at the sales numbers to tell them that they may as well shift their focus elsewhere for the moment. The 360 and the PS3 are ending their shelf-lives creeping up on the Wii, which once looked as though it was unapproachable by either in terms of sales.

Speaking of the Wii, the system was essentially killed off early. Despite all of its sales, for some reason the support for the Wii dried up significantly two years ago. We had to practically BEG for Xenoblade, one of the best games of the generation to get a release outside of Japan. After Skyward Sword, Nintendo had no other swan song for their console to sing (and SS is a divisive game, ironically because it finally delivered on Nintendo's ideas about motion control in a Zelda game, only for it to fall flat in the eyes of many, not that I agreed with them).

By contrast, the PS3 is seeing some of the best games of its life this year, and while its successor isn't backward compatible, the fact that the system is ending on a fairly strong note is actually pretty damned good marketing for the PS4. It gives gamers a sense that Sony knows how to get things done on their systems.

At this point, Nintendo needs to hope that not only will everything they announce next week drives up sales for the Wii U significantly, they have to hope that MS keeps screwing the CoDog (likely), and that Sony has the worst E3 ever, then follows it up with months of negative PR. Then they have to hope that every third party developer who has left them out to dry sees the error of their ways and comes running back and brings some amazing games that can draw in a broad audience.

Next week should be fun to watch, that's for sure.
 
Are you really saying that third parties should support everyone 'equally' because it's the nice thing to do, or am I just too tired?
]

No, because its best for the game industry.

If you are a publisher selling a book, you don't limit its distribution potential.
You dont say, well I only want my book to be sold on Amazon and not Barnes&Nobles.
Thats crazy, the more places its sold, the more money you make.

When it comes to video games, there is a bottleneck of only three console manufacturers.
Each one having a core set of fans who buy their product out of loyalty to the brand. Each console has the potential to sell between 25 to 75 million within 5 to 10 years. Third party support helps consoles reach that 75 million potential. Therefore, it makes sense for third parties to get all three console manufactures up to that 75 million. And they can do that by supporting all three systems as equally as possible. The idea is to keep the game industry up and running. Yes, one title might sell better on one system over another, but these things balance out over time.

There is no fear of the book publishing, or the movie industry collapsing, there is one for video games.
 
It's ONE of the reasons. Not the only one for sure.
But aside the HW, the target, the N first party presence...there have always been also other reasons, linked to Nintendo's policy with third parties, that created problems between them.
This one is one of the policy issues.
 
I think it probably plays a part in at least EA's decision to not support the platform, as it would be a bigger coincidence if that wasn't a factor than if it was, but I'm not sure it's a vast, widespread occurrence, nor the sole reason EA jumped ship.
 
3rd party WiiU hate?

If your referencing the lack of third parties its due to the WiiU's disastrous sales and their target audience not being on the platform.
 
It's simple if you break it down.

MS pretty much drops to their knees in front of 3rd parties and gives them whatever they want. 3rd parties really like this

Sony looks for more of a middle ground, they prefer to do their own thing, but they take 3rd party input.

Nintendo tells 3rd parties to eat a dick and fuck off.

It's not hard to figure out when companies 3rd parties are going to want to work with.
 
I really don't understand where Nintendo fans are getting these conspiracy theories from. They aren't developing for it because its extremely weak compared to the other two systems they've been planning for over the last few years, third party games haven't sold well on Nintendo's platform for awhile, and no one wants to buy a Wii U.
 
Third party games don't sell enough to make it worthwhile. Third parties thought in the past maybe there was a need to be diplomatic but after several generations have come to the conclusion that Nintendo is useless to them so no need to pull punches.
 
It might be a factor, sure, but I think the biggest factor is the fact that it's selling like shit and 3rd parties aren't seeing much potential.
 
It might be a factor, sure, but I think the biggest factor is the fact that it's selling like shit and 3rd parties aren't seeing much potential.

So you are telling me that 3rd parties are that short-sighted? How long have EA, Ubisoft, Activison nd Co. been in the bussiness? For over 20 years now? They've seen every console ever made and have supported probably all of them in some form.

They shouldn't be as short-sigthed and narrow minded as the usual NeoGAF Nintendo hater/psuedo videogame expert. At least Ubisoft isn't so dumb. They've correctly analized that most of the best games - games that sell consoles - aren't even out yet and that it doesn't make sense to not support the Wii U.

But why am I even arguing. It's the same stupid shit with the 3DS back then. People saw the bad sales and just for the life of them weren't able to calm their inner fanboys down and rationally think the whole situation through before they jumped to conclusions.

Jumping to conclusions is something soooo mandy goddamn people here on NeoGAF are really good at!

EA not supporting Nintendo is downright stupid. You can't completely abandon a console after it's been out on the market for only 6 month, especially not a Nintendo console, where most of the heavy hitters for both the hardcore AND casual audience (like Wii U Sports, Wii U Fit, Wii U Party) haven't even come out yet. Those games have moved a shitton of consoles. And even if they might not be able to move as many as they did with the Wii, their audience hasn't completly forgotten about them.

The Wii U will have a turn-around just like the 3DS. It's gonna be even easier now that Microsoft is fucking up in a MAJOR WAY (I've never seen a company fuck up that badly and generate that much bad publicity in my whole life as a gamer) and Sony probably following the same route.

If EA is that stupid and short-sighted than they can go FUCK THEMSELVES. What do they think? You think their 100 Million super-dumper AAA games will make them much profit on the PS4XBone? Next gen and it's difficulties (mainly breaking even with multi-billion dollar games) has scared EA shittless. They are deperately trying to force Mircrosoft and Sony to lessen the risks for them by implementing OUTRAGIOUS anti-consumer DRM - it's pathetic!!!

*calms himself down*

The Wii U is a great console. Many people have already realized that and many more are soon gonna realize it as well. You'll see, mark my words.
 
]

No, because its best for the game industry.


It is not the best for the games industry for publishers and developers to spend time and effort on a console that has no hype going for it at the moment, whose sales are tanking worse every week, whose online infrastructure is a joke, and the company behind it is itself unprepared to properly support it through its launch window. For all the bitching GAF has done about the woes of developers, why would you think its in the best interest of the entire industry to prop up Nintendo?

Nintendo has survived despite not having the best third party support or sales throughout the last few console generations because THEY have been the ones to get people excited about their products. It is not, nor has it ever been the 'duty' of third-parties to carry a Nintendo system to success, much less any other console. If Nintendo wanted the Wii U to be a success out the gate, they'd have better prepared developers to work with them on the new hardware, and did more with the hardware as opposed to playing catch-up with a generation that is on its way out. They'd have done more to keep the Wii in the public eye for the last two years as opposed to letting it fall to the wayside, and they'd have actually given more reasons to gamers, core and casual alike, to be excited about buying the Wii U.

Instead, they boasted about partnerships that were never a sure thing to begin with, and expected people to be excited about ports of games that were going to exist (or had already existed) on systems with nearly 80 million units sold worldwide. I know people are still sore over Rayman not going exclusive to the Wii U, but it was a dumb move to begin with and Ubisoft made the right decision FOR THEMSELVES (following your own advice, no less) to give the game more places to go and make money. Why take the sequel to a multiplatform game and limit it to one platform (that isn't selling well at all)?

]If you are a publisher selling a book, you don't limit its distribution potential.
You dont say, well I only want my book to be sold on Amazon and not Barnes&Nobles.
Thats crazy, the more places its sold, the more money you make.

Sales at a retailer is not at all like programming games for different hardware. This analogy is based 100 percent on ignorance to how much effort actually goes into putting a videogame together. Merely selling a book on Amazon or Barnes + Noble is a matter of negotiating a contract. You don't have to write the book differently, scale it up or down based on the 'strength' of the retailer.

Book publishers HAVE avoided working with certain retailers (or at least have tried to find ways around them, with regards to Amazon). Book buyers will go to where the product is, and have little in the way of loyalty to booksellers. In recent years, Borders Books went out of business, one of the largest physical retail competitors to B+N, and very few people honestly gave a fuck. They just went to the next closest book store or they started shopping online. The 'book publisher' is rapidly becoming irrelevant.

There is no fear of the book publishing, or the movie industry collapsing, there is one for video games.

The videogames industry has been collapsing every year for the last decade, if you believed it every time someone said that its doomed. People made the same argument when the Dreamcast was killed. People blamed publishers and developers for not supporting the system, totally ignoring all of the factors that actually lead to it and Sega's ruin. If the industry collapses tomorrow, next week, or next year, it will not be because a lot of third party developers considered the Wii U a risk not worth taking in its first year.

For the record, book publishers ARE in fact having a rough go at things:

http://pandodaily.com/2012/01/17/co...n-amazons-sights-and-theyre-going-to-kill-us/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorgan/2012/07/12/what-is-the-future-of-publishing/

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/24/jam...out_his_aggressive_book_industry_bailout_ads/

One of the things that is really going to affect book publishing is the Random House-Penguin merger:

http://theamericanreader.com/the-house-of-penguin-notes-on-a-publishing-apocalypse/

So yes, I'd say the book publishing industry right now is kinda undergoing a real collapse. Its current models are totally unsustainable, and worse still, major publishers have almost no way to properly counter Amazon's affect on the book industry as a whole. I'd say book publishing as we know it is under threat of collapse.

Even the movie industry is not safe. It's had bad years. Back in 2011, movie theaters saw their lowest ticket sales since 1995: http://scrapetv.com/News/News Pages...rld-on-your-side-2011-12-28.html#.UbIo_ZzElmM
 
It is not the best for the games industry for publishers and developers to spend time and effort on a console that has no hype going for it at the moment, whose sales are tanking worse every week, whose online infrastructure is a joke, and the company behind it is itself unprepared to properly support it through its launch window. For all the bitching GAF has done about the woes of developers, why would you think its in the best interest of the entire industry to prop up Nintendo?

I mean, I agree with everything you said. But this in particular....

tumblr_mcz617rSy01r38j04o1_500.gif
 
It has nothing to do with drm. Its the low user base, different architecture, and a history of a lack of sales for third parties that keeps publishers from the wii u.
 
I like all the shit EA gets. First it was Origin now it's DRM, whats next?
The weak point of the Origin conspiracy was that it only worked for EA, even besides EA being one of the biggest supporters. It didn't work for all the other publishers that didn't do anything (or at least less then EA) for WiiU. But the handy thing about this new theory is that you can use it for every company which doesn't do anything for WiiU.
It's like the theory of everything for the conspiracy nintendo fan, it's just ... beautiful.
 
Why are the games on PS3/360 then? These conspiracy theories still make no sense
Not saying I agree with OP, but it would make sense they would appear on those consoles because of the install base alone. That's not including if they made a hypothetical deal with Sony/MS.
 
Pfftt hating on Nintendo is so last week. Microsoft is where it's at now.

And I doubt this is the reason. The reason is more simple than you think.
 
Indeed. Supporting PS4/XBone and claim you won't support WiiU because of the low userbase automatically invalidate your argument.
A small userbase perhaps isn't, but some of the incredibly low sales of games on Wii U certainly don't paint a very positive future for the platform for 3rd parties, especially knowing the past. PS4 & Xbone still at least have the POTENTIAL to be more viable platforms, especially for 3rd parties.
 
But was selling like shit and had a 599$ price tag. I wonder how would be third-parties's reaction if Nintendo did that instead of Sony.
PS3 never sold as badly as Wii U has been doing, iirc, especially software-wise. Games sold better on 360, but even with the smaller userbase the ratio between PS3 & 360 multiplatform game sales could still be 30-40% vs. 60-70%
 
But was selling like shit and had a 599$ price tag. I wonder how would be third-parties's reaction if Nintendo did that instead of Sony.

It was selling like shit @ $599 yet somehow never got close to the lows Wii U has reached in the last four months. Wii U is in a much, much worse spot than the PS3 was ever in. Also PS3 software was actually selling even back then, Wii U fanbase doesn't buy any games.
 
So third parties shouldn't have propped up Sony while the PS3 was struggling early on? If they didn't it may never have recovered.

What?

3rd parties didn't "prop up" Sony. They had a mounted investment in the platform due to the insane success of the PS2 and the fact that it established the Playstation platform as a place where third parties could make a ton of money.

3rd Parties continued supporting PS3 through the weak launch because they'd already placed their bets and resources on the platform (and even then, Sony lost a ton of exclusives during this period). This is a completely different situation than Nintendo - who never had that level of investment from 3rd parties to begin with.
 
Top Bottom