Support NeoGAF

[Metallix87]

They did port some of those releases, they ported Phantom Brave and Sakura Wars and those combined sold about 4 copies and since you dont even know about them I'm sure you didnt buy them so you have no place to complain

Actually, I have Sakura Wars for my Wii. That being said, the Wii version didn't include all the extras that the PS2 version included (poster, art book, etc.), lacks the Japanese language option, and also features some glitches not found in the PS2 version.

Phantom Brave on Wii also features some glitches and errors, all of which were corrected for the later PSP version, which also included additional content.

 

[freenudemacusers]

*Looks at Lego Batman sales on Wii U*

*Answers own question.*

 

[TheBaldEmperor]

I'm not sure what you're going on about OP.

Shin Megami Tensei IV
Project X Zone
Monster Hunter 3
Etrian Odyssey IV
Shin Megami Tensei Devil Summoner: Soul Hackers
Rune Factory 4
Sonic Lost World
Castelvania: Lords of the Shadow - Mirror of Fate
Phoenix Wright: Dual Destinies
Resident Evil: Revelations
Theatrhythm Final Fantasy
Professor Layton and the Miracle Mask
Kingdom Hearts 3D: Dream Drop Distance
Code of Princess
Harvest Moon: A New Beginning
Guild 01
Guild 02

This list absolutely demolishes the size and quality of the Vita's 3rd party support, including Japanese 3rd party support.

If I had to choose between these games or the unlocalized ones, this list would win out easily. A lot of good games have made it over. I'd like a good portion of the others to make it over but we have it pretty good so far imo.

 

[Wickerbasket]

How many highly-rated Wii games from third parties were released in 2010 besides Epic Mickey?

There were a few, just no one bought them; Silent hill: shattered memories and Red Steel 2 off the top of my head.

The Wii even continued to get all the yearly sports franchises despite them selling like shit, so you can't say that third parties weren't supporting them.

 

[cloudyy]

No, the "do what it takes to make your platform appealing to 3rd party developers if you really want their support" game.

How appealing were the 360 and the PS3 for 3rd party developers with all this generation's closures, over the top required budgets and the PS3 exotic and convoluted hardware? Many japanese developers just said fuck it and went all portable. It's kinda ironic too that the 3rd parties who made the most money this gen are the ones that had million sellers on the Wii.

 

[Stumpokapow]

what is the minimum print run for 3ds games versus vita games

what is the percentage of games sold digitally on 3ds versus vita

what are licensing fee for each

these are probably the most germane questions, given that you're talking about a class of software that basically has nothing to do with overall install base because it appeals to an extremely small segment of customers

 

[SmokedMeat]

And finally the Wii U is getting 360/PS3 ports from a lot of companies like Watch Dogs and Batman, but don't expect a lot of Wii U exclusives.

Before the U released I figured it would benefit from 360/PS3 ports before being left behind when the Xbone/PS4 showed up.

I never expected it would be this bad. Outside of Ubi Soft and Warner Bros, they've been left behind right after the launch. A lot of those PS3/360 ports arent happening, as Nintendo has been written off by almost everyone. This is a return to the N64 days, with Ubi and Warner playing the part of Acclaim.

 

[Evolution_1ne]

Well now we are moving goal posts. A well made game released at the same time sold well, despite having zero presence and marketing on the Wii.



.

what's your definition of "well" considering the install base of the wii to the HD consoles and massive fucking gulf between how much those games sold on the HD consoles compared to the Wii

 

[Stumpokapow]

It's kinda ironic too that the 3rd parties who made the most money this gen are the ones that had million sellers on the Wii.

3rd Party Publishers with million-plus sellers on Wii US NPD (and their highest selling property on Wii US NPD)
Ubisoft - Just Dance
Activision - Guitar Hero
LucasArts - Lego Star Wars
Sega - Mario and Sonic / Sonic
Take 2 - Carnival Games
Majesco - Zumba
Disney - Epic Mickey
THQ - uDraw
Midway - Game Party
EA - EA Sports Active
Hudson - Deca Sports
Warner Bros - Lego Batman
Capcom - Resident Evil

... isn't this every publisher who is capable of producing a million units of a game? Which one of these were the ones you were trying to use for your argument, and which of these were you trying to exclude?

Edit: Oh I see, Bethesda wasn't there. Their best was 800k (AMF Bowling whatever). Namco at 800k too (We Ski). Who else are there? Tecmo Koei?

 

[JordanN]

Nintendo has to play the game. They don't play the game.

It's really that fucking simple.

Ironically, I could see Nintendo keeping their stubborn approach if they just cared about the West for once.

It seems all their decisions to screw over third parties also happens to be the biggest negatives with them.

They refuse to make games for the West whereas Microsoft and Sony do for their own systems that help spur third party and consumer interest.

The console marketing itself is also pretty anti-western (dumb names intended to confuse people like "Wii U", hardware too weak and unorthodox for most developers to go out on a limb and use, shoddy online etc).

Seriously, a Western Nintendo branch that has full autonomy to do what they want would go a long way from salvaging their current image.

Of course, I see people complain as that would require "spending moneyzz" but then the same people have no qualms with just letting their consoles die a slow and painful death. It's a vicious cycle all around.

 

[Wickerbasket]

3rd Party Publishers with million-plus sellers on Wii US NPD
Ubisoft
Activision
LucasArts
Sega
Take 2
Majesco
Disney
THQ
Midway
EA
Hudson
Warner Bros
Capcom

... isn't this every publisher who is capable of producing a million units of a game? Which one of these were the ones you were trying to use for your argument, and which of these were you trying to exclude?

Valve aren't there; clearly they have an agenda against Nintendo.

 

[SmokedMeat]

How appealing were the 360 and the PS3 for 3rd party developers with all this generation's closures, over the top required budgets and the PS3 exotic and convoluted hardware? Many japanese developers just said fuck it and went all portable. It's kinda ironic too that the 3rd parties who made the most money this gen are the ones that had million sellers on the Wii.

And yet here they are throwing themselves at Microsoft and Sony to get their games on their hardware, while shunning Nintendo.
Are they really that dumb, or are you wrong?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Two PSP games that would have sold well on Wii

As HoL pointed out, Epic Mickey sold 1.3 million copies. Now replace it with a good game - or at the very least, one with as big a following as the Kingdom Hearts series (which also has a strong presence on Nintendo platforms to begin with - four out of the seven games have been on their handhelds), and you're talking business.

No actually I'll let this one slide. After all it's not like Nintendo put Snake in one of their best-selling games essentially giving free advertising for Konami or anything. oh wait

Not that porting every PSP game to Wii would have been a winning formula, but it's puzzling how many third parties chose to put big exclusives on PSP (which ended up going nowhere) instead of nurturing a userbase for these games on Wii because they didn't want to work on underpowered tech.

 

[cloudyy]

3rd Party Publishers with million-plus sellers on Wii US NPD
Ubisoft
Activision
LucasArts
Sega
Take 2
Majesco
Disney
THQ
Midway
EA
Hudson
Warner Bros
Capcom

... isn't this every publisher who is capable of producing a million units of a game? Which one of these were the ones you were trying to use for your argument, and which of these were you trying to exclude?

Could you mention which gameS those million sellers were? I'm not talking about a one hit seller, I was especially thinking about Activision and Ubisoft.

 

[jay]

I have no idea if anything beyond profit drives any specific studio, but is it not the case that movie execs sometimes do their best to make sure projects bomb because of personal vendettas and the like? It's odd to think this entertainment industry is run by machines when there are examples of other industries being led by petty humans.

 

[Wickerbasket]

Could you mention which gameS those million sellers were? I'm not talking about a one hit seller, I was especially thinking about Activision and Ubisoft.

I'm guessing CoD for Activision, Udraw for THQ and Just Dance for Ubisoft.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Could you mention which gameS those million sellers were? I'm not talking about a one hit seller, I was especially thinking about Activision and Ubisoft.

I edited in at least one property for each company, but I'm not going to do your work for you. I don't agree with your point and I want to know how you substantiate it--which publishers "did well" because of their Nintendo support, which publishers "did poorly" and "didn't" support Nintendo, and which games are you counting for each category?

 

[Cbajd5]

*Looks at Lego Batman sales on Wii U*

*Answers own question.*

Yup, a game released a year earlier on nearly every other platform should have sold much better.

Valve aren't there; clearly they have an agenda against Nintendo.

Obviously. I mean, if a homebrew developer could do this on the DS, why haven't they done anything on a Nintendo platform?

(This is half sarcasm half pointing out how neat that is.)

 

[freenudemacusers]

Yup, a game released a year earlier on nearly every other platform should have sold much better.

Like RE4 Wii, I agree.

 

[Wickerbasket]

Obviously. I mean, if a homebrew developer could do this on the DS, why haven't they done anything on a Nintendo platform?

(This is half sarcasm half pointing out how neat that is.)

That's seriously impressive. First time I've seen that.

 

[RazorK1d]

Not entirely sure about this one, but Nintendo hasn't exactly done a whole lot to improve their image in that regard. They're still pretty old school.

I disagree. Nintendo has done a lot over the past 10 years to make developing on their platforms (both console and handheld) much easier and more friendlier. To say that they still have the same mindset and operation with third parties since the advent of the 3rd party drought is disingenuous.
I find it weird that with every successive generation, Nintendo has had great difficulty getting triple AAA 3rd party support and/or 3rd party support equal to its competitors. From an outsiders perspective, it seems like the things that makes Nintendo's systems the most unique are also the things that 3rd parties balk at.

GameCube Gen: Had better hardware AND was easier to program for than the leading third party support console (PS2), but the controller was unique and didn't make for one-to-one ports easily.

Wii gen: Had the fastest selling console in history and was market leader for the entire generation, but the controls were too unique and the hardware was weaker than the competition, which got better third party support.

WIIU GEN: unique controller and relatively weaker hardware but also, more importantly, a different architecture to program for than the other competitors.

I think Nintendo needs to create teams to work with 3rd parties on certain, but not all, AAA 3rd party multiplatform titles (your GTA's, certain EA and Bethesda games, etc.). They also need to work on having better ad campaigns for games period.

Ultimately I don't think Nintendo will ever get comparative quality third party support, especially from the west, because of one thing: 3rd parties want all platforms to be the same. Same control scheme, same program environment, similar restrictions, and no gimmicks. This makes sense financially as it cuts porting costs way down while allowing your investment to be spread across a wider audience. It's why I believe ports for PS4, XBONE; and PC are being announced altogether now (vs before when the PC version was always in limbo) because the architectures are all super similar. The WiiU is getting shafted simply because it will take the normal effort and investment required every generation of gaming to program for instead of using similar architecture as the other 2 (which PC is only benefiting because it is also the same). This explains to me why studios are announcing multiplatform games for systems with zero install base and not for the WiiU. 3rd parties take the least path of resistance financially and I doubt even if the WiiU was selling like the Wii did, that we'd see anything other than token 3rd party support.

Long story short, Nintendo's dedication to standing out and make gaming interesting with each console cycle is antithetical to what 3rd parties want from consoles: uniformity, conformity, and no gimmicks (at least ones they can't ignore).
Just my opinion.

 

[Auto_aim1]

Just like Nintendo has its business model, third-party publishers have their own business models. There will of course be consequences if one party does its own thing and does not take into account the needs of the other. The PS3, for example, caused a lot of issues to third-party publishers (hard to develop for, less install base, etc.) and Activision had at one point publicly threatened to drop support unless Sony cuts the price. But they tolerated the system because it was in some ways very vital to the overall ecosystem. They can afford to neglect the Wii U because it won't really hurt them a lot when it comes to revenue and due to the presence of other viable consoles. There really isn't any enmity or conspiracy among third-parties to screw Nintendo, it's just they think the system isn't favourable to their business models and any amount of adjusting won't change that. There will still be some support as publishers try to find out what works and what doesn't, but a lot of third-party games won't hit the system.

 

[Effect]

*Looks at Lego Batman sales on Wii U*

*Answers own question.*

I still don't understand why this was released. Lego Batman 2 came out on the Wii. If I recall correctly from the NPD thread it sold the most on the Wii and the most on Nintendo platforms in general when you factor in the DS. The Wii U can be play Wii games. Those interested already bought and played the game. Wii U owners were expected to rebuy the game?

I know I'm still annoyed by the whole Resident Evil situation on the Wii.

I don't think third parties are actively trying to kill Nintendo. I just think many are completely indifferent and just don't care. That's on Nintendo in the end. They do set the tone for their systems. They are the ones that have tabled game series like F-Zero, Wave Race, Metroid, Eternal Darkness, etc. Games that might not have been multi-million sellers but had audiences on Nintendo hardware. The very games that would have made customers more open to games coming from third parties. Games that could have had their audiences grown had Nintendo limited them to single offering per console. The audiences for those games weren't nurtured. If it didn't sell millions of copies right from the start Nintendo dropped it.

I think that more then anything is why Nintendo consoles aren't getting third party support if it really is about the demographics.

Then again I call BS on that because the Wii launched with a Legend of Zelda game along side Wii Sports. If I recall correctly between the GameCube and the Wii Twilight Princess sold close to 6 million at last count with the majority of that being on the Wii. If I'm wrong please correct me. I can not remember a single damn game from any third party that tried to appeal to that audience. Not a single game that tried to make a connection. "If you loved Twilight Princess you'll love <game name> because of a, b, c, etc.". When games appeared that might have tried to appeal to the type of gamer that enjoyed Zelda, Metroid, etc it was just sent to die with piss poor at midnight tv ads that aired rarely or wasn't acknowledged (CoD) or just pushed out. One of my favorite games on the Wii is Dawn of Discovery (Anno 1440). I loved the Wii game so much I even got the PC version. That is an excellent game that Ubisoft published but didn't give a damn about. I still don't understand why a company would make a game and publish it but only to see it to die and not even let consumers know it exist. This happen far to often on the Wii.

Nintendo set the tone with the Wii by the games it launched. I agree. It didn't just launch with Wii Sports though. However that is all third parties looked at and tried to copy and poorly copy at that. I remember this being a complaint early on as well.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

Wii got plenty of 3rd party support.

The kind of support suited to the ecosystem Nintendo created.

I'm glad someone pointed this out, took 65 replies but that's not too bad. Nintendo cultivated a casual, family-friendly ecosystem/environment for the Wii. The entire platform focused on Wii Sports, Wii Fit, and so on. Not only the games but the marketing, advertising, everything was geared for those demographics. Third parties simply followed suit.

 

[cloudyy]

I'm guessing CoD for Activision and Just Dancefor Ubisoft.

I edited in at least one property for each company, but I'm not going to do your work for you. I don't agree with your point and I want to know how you substantiate it--which publishers "did well" because of their Nintendo support, which publishers "did poorly" and "didn't" support Nintendo, and which games are you counting for each category?

I was thinking about Activision and Ubisoft, those are the two I know supported the Wii with either CoD/Skylanders and Rabbits/Just Dance and are, correct me if I'm wrong, the two companies that did rather well this generation because they didn't only cater to the traditional gaming audience (15-30 yo male) which I think is a overly expensive audience to please now and they have all the reasons to lock that audience and not to let it fleed to a nintendo system by putting their games on it.

 

[royalan]

How appealing were the 360 and the PS3 for 3rd party developers with all this generation's closures, over the top required budgets and the PS3 exotic and convoluted hardware? Many japanese developers just said fuck it and went all portable. It's kinda ironic too that the 3rd parties who made the most money this gen are the ones that had million sellers on the Wii.

Eh, not to make light of studios closing, but a lot of it can chalked up to growing pains. The entire industry was transitioning to more demanding HD development. Studios that made good decisions survioved. Those who didn't died off. It's inevitable. "You can't stop progress" and all that jazz.

People like to focus on all the studios closing when it comes to propping up Nintendo and their decisions, but there were a lot of studios who survived. Not only survived, but thrived.

The sad thing for Nintendo is that, a lot of those studios that survived and thrived did so on their competitor's hardware.

 

[Cbajd5]

Like RE4 Wii, I agree.

That was closer to two years. Completely different story.

Even then for RE4 that's like 3 platforms had it before its release and 5 after it.

For Lego Batman 2 it was every other platform (8 of them?), then Wii U.

 

[Wickerbasket]

I was thinking about Activision and Ubisoft, those are the two I know supported the Wii with either CoD/Skylanders and Rabbits/Just Dance and are, correct me if I'm wrong, the two companies that did rather well this generation because they didn't only cater to the traditional gaming audience (15-30 yo male) which I think is a overly expensive audience to please now and they have all the reasons to lock that audience and not to let it fleed to a nintendo system by putting their games on it.

Nearly all the companies that catered to the casual market did well to some degree; it was the one's that tried to release "hardcore" games that ended up with poor sales.

I think that mostly had to do with their target market not being on the Wii.

 

[Opiate]

Third parties will put games on any system that they can make a profit on. It's as simple as that really. There is no "brand loyalty" among third parties.

I think this is largely true, but not quite in the way most seem to mean it.

I think the emergence of other platforms -- most notably iOS and Facebook -- has given us a way to sort of objectively examine the problem outside the normal confines of console warzzz.

Consider iOS, for example: obviously third party software is selling well on the platform, as no first party exists. The platform is generating billions of revenue now, and is handily outstripping 3DS + PSVita + DS + PSP combined. This is without discussing profit, where we can reasonably assume it dramatically outstrips consoles; while console publishers have largely been closing, merging or downsizing, several major, multi-billion dollar publishers have sprung up on iOS just in the last few years, including Rovio and Supercell.

In short, we know for sure that iOS is a major platform that can generate a lot of revenue and a lot of profit, turning small publishers in to giant ones in just a few years. Despite this fact, Take 2 still has no presence on iOS. Neither did THQ, before they went under. Ubisoft's presence is minimal. So is Activision's. The only one of the major western publishers that has taken it even remotely serious would be EA.

So very obviously there are platforms that produce a lot of profit which nevertheless the major publishers don't take seriously. I think what this tells us is that the major western publishers are in many ways de facto Xbox/Playstation second parties; I do not mean that they are loyal to Sony or Microsoft in particular, but that the Playstation/Xbox style of gaming is what they are used to developing, producing, and marketing for. Platforms which deviate significantly from the PS/Xbox ethos just aren't up their alley. Not that money cannot be made on iOS (or Android or 3DS or the Wii), just that these companies really aren't in a good position to take advantage of those opportunities.

 

[freenudemacusers]

That was closer to two years. Completely different story.

Even then for RE4 that's like 3 platforms had it before its release and 5 after it.

For Lego Batman 2 it was every other platform (8 of them?), then Wii U.

Plus the Wii U platform is tiny, can't forget that.

 

[Cbajd5]

Plus the Wii U platform is tiny, can't forget that.

Well that goes without saying. SERIOUSLY

 

[pieatorium]

I think this is largely true, but not quite in the way most seem to mean it.

I think the emergence of other platforms -- most notably iOS and Facebook -- has given us a way to sort of objectively examine the problem outside the normal confines of console warzzz.

Consider iOS, for example: obviously third party software is selling well on the platform, as no first party exists. The platform is generating billions of revenue now, and is handily outstripping 3DS + PSVita + DS + PSP combined. This is without discussing profit, where we can reasonably assume it dramatically outstrips consoles; while console publishers have largely been closing, merging or downsizing, several major, multi-billion dollar publishers have sprung up on iOS just in the last few years, including Rovio and Supercell.

In short, we know for sure that iOS is a major platform that can generate a lot of revenue and a lot of profit, turning small publishers in to giant ones in just a few years. Despite this fact, Take 2 still has no presence on iOS. Neither did THQ, before they went under. Ubisoft's presence is minimal. So is Activision's. The only one of the major western publishers that has taken it even remotely serious would be EA.

So very obviously there are platforms that produce a lot of profit which nevertheless the major publishers don't take seriously. I think what this tells us is that the major western publishers are in many ways de facto Xbox/Playstation second parties; I do not mean that they are loyal to Sony or Microsoft in particular, but that the Playstation/Xbox style of gaming is what they are used to developing, producing, and marketing for. Platforms which deviate significantly from the PS/Xbox ethos just aren't up their alley. Not that money cannot be made on iOS (or Android or 3DS or the Wii), just that these companies really aren't in a good position to take advantage of those opportunities.

Even in the case of EA they bought their way into mobile gaming moreso than switched focus of their console/pc teams.

 

[Game Guru]

-Because the MegaMan fanbase is smaller than it likes to believe, so Capcom doesn't consider it a worthwhile effort.

This may've been believable when Mega Man wasn't given a damn spot on the SSB4 roster... Even looking at polls, Mega Man was the second most requested third-party character for Brawl after one Sonic the Hedgehog. Why can't Capcom just ask Nintendo to help fund it for exclusivity rights if they are really worried about sales or vice-versa as the case may be.

I actually wonder if Nintendo is going about 3rd-party support the wrong way... I mean, they aren't really going to get the PlayStation/Xbox fanbase at this point, and most of their dedicated fans came straight from the NES era... So why not see if they could, in a sense, help revive third-party franchises from the NES and SNES eras that haven't seen games in years?

It's probably not a smart idea, but it doesn't sound like something that hasn't been tried in force.

 

[freenudemacusers]

Well that goes without saying. SERIOUSLY

Well I don't know if that's true, as we can see by the creation of this thread. Also explains why pubs are bailing left and right.

 

[Refreshment.01]

Two PSP games that would have sold well on Wii

No actually I'll let this one slide. After all it's not like Nintendo put Snake in one of their best-selling games essentially giving free advertising for Konami or anything. oh wait

Not that porting every PSP game to Wii would have been a winning formula, but it's puzzling how many third parties chose to put big exclusives on PSP (which ended up going nowhere) instead of nurturing a userbase for these games on Wii because they didn't want to work on underpowered tech.

The mayority of Kingdome Hearts and MGS audience is on Sony's platform where these games became big in the first place. If developers wished to port those portables games to a console the PS3 would have been the safest busyness decision.

 

[airmangataosenai]

I was referring to launch, though even today, the content coming over from Japan from third parties seems overwhelmingly in the Vita's favor.

.... The prelaunch announcements for the 3DS were far more impressive than those for the Vita.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

Consider iOS, for example: obviously third party software is selling well on the platform, as no first party exists. The platform is generating billions of revenue now, and is handily outstripping 3DS + PSVita + DS + PSP combined.

Is this confirmed? I remember people citing Mario Kart 7 DS sales revenue being more than the entire iOS platform, that the game's 25-30 million units sold generated more revenue than all of iOS/Angry Birds, something like that. This was a couple years ago, though. Crazy if true. That means there's been unbelievable growth these past couple years. Handhelds are basically done, aren't they. This is the last Sony handheld and Nintendo might release one more then that'll be it.

 

[Eusis]

The mayority of Kingdome Hearts and MGS audience is on Sony's platform where these games became big in the first place. If developers wished to port those portables games to a console the PS3 would have been the safest busyness decision.

Which they actually ended up doing in the case of Peace Walker... and had to bundle it with MGS2/3 due to NA policies there.

And Opiate brings up many great points, and nailed it harder than I did about developing certain types of games and those other platforms just not being good fits for them. Though there is also the angle that mobile may be getting a lot of revenue in a way that's unpalatable to many of us, focusing more on the freemium model rather than a complete packaged product. Some games are better about this, but not all, and annoying most instances of it involve buying tokens you'd normally have to grind for rather than buying more content or even just a permanent boost to make things more reasonable.

 

[runnin_blue]

There is no "brand loyalty" among third parties.

Considering how many developers who have come forward and publicly trashed the Wii U before they have even laid hands on it and tried it, I find this extremely hard to believe.

But the only way this theory is ever going to be proven or disproven is when Nintendo release a generation leading graphical powerhouse console with a robust online infrastructure.

Only then can we truly judge the apparent bias of third parties. IMO.

 

[Refreshment.01]

I think this is largely true, but not quite in the way most seem to mean it.

I think the emergence of other platforms -- most notably iOS and Facebook -- has given us a way to sort of objectively examine the problem outside the normal confines of console warzzz.

Consider iOS, for example: obviously third party software is selling well on the platform, as no first party exists. The platform is generating billions of revenue now, and is handily outstripping 3DS + PSVita + DS + PSP combined. This is without discussing profit, where we can reasonably assume it dramatically outstrips consoles; while console publishers have largely been closing, merging or downsizing, several major, multi-billion dollar publishers have sprung up on iOS just in the last few years, including Rovio and Supercell.

In short, we know for sure that iOS is a major platform that can generate a lot of revenue and a lot of profit, turning small publishers in to giant ones in just a few years. Despite this fact, Take 2 still has no presence on iOS. Neither did THQ, before they went under. Ubisoft's presence is minimal. So is Activision's. The only one of the major western publishers that has taken it even remotely serious would be EA.

So very obviously there are platforms that produce a lot of profit which nevertheless the major publishers don't take seriously. I think what this tells us is that the major western publishers are in many ways de facto Xbox/Playstation second parties; I do not mean that they are loyal to Sony or Microsoft in particular, but that the Playstation/Xbox style of gaming is what they are used to developing, producing, and marketing for. Platforms which deviate significantly from the PS/Xbox ethos just aren't up their alley. Not that money cannot be made on iOS (or Android or 3DS or the Wii), just that these companies really aren't in a good position to take advantage of those opportunities.

Absolutely, these developers like the known territory. You should add Square Enix to the list of big publishers that are entering the iOS waters.

Considering how many developers who have come forward and publicly trashed the Wii U before they have even laid hands on it and tried it, I find this extremely hard to believe.

But the only way this theory is ever going to be proven or disproven is when Nintendo release a generation leading graphical powerhouse console with a robust online infrastructure.

Only then can we truly judge the apparent bias of third parties. IMO.

This will not happen...wait, let me rephrase. The robust online infrastructure part more than anything else. It's too late for NIntendo there, the competition is way ahead of them.

 

[Cbajd5]

Well I don't know if that's true, as we can see by the creation of this thread. Also explains why pubs are bailing left and right.

The thread isn't just about the Wii U though. I mean, the Wii U is the last system mentioned in the first post.

 

[Eusis]

Considering how many developers who have come forward and publicly trashed the Wii U before they have even laid hands on it and tried it, I find this extremely hard to believe.

But the only way this theory is ever going to be proven or disproven is when Nintendo release a generation leading graphical powerhouse console with a robust online infrastructure.

Only then can we truly judge the apparent bias of third parties. IMO.

Admittedly developers =/= publishers, and what the publishers want is usually the final say.

Still, they definitely must bargain with their publishers on this front, and if no one wants to make a Wii game and everything's set to go for 360/PS3 games then they'll stick on that path, especially if that looks to be where their userbase is. It's a heavy kind of momentum you can't just change on a dime.

 

[Diablos54]

Is this confirmed? I remember people citing Mario Kart 7 DS sales revenue being more than the entire iOS platform, that the game's 25-30 million units sold generated more revenue than all of iOS/Angry Birds, something like that. This was a couple years ago, though. Crazy if true. That means there's been unbelievable growth these past couple years. Handhelds are basically done, aren't they. This is the last Sony handheld and Nintendo might release one more then that'll be it.

IIRC, MK DS made more in the year it launched than the whole of iOS that year.

And handhelds are not done, even if the 3DS is under performing outside of Japan.

 

[Aaron Strife]

The mayority of Kingdome Hearts and MGS audience is on Sony's platform where these games became big in the first place. If developers wished to port those portables games to a console the PS3 would have been the safest busyness decision.

Technically, the majority of KH games have been on Nintendo consoles, although it's true that the best-selling ones (KH1 and 2) were Sony exclusive. Still, there's no reason to doubt a Wii version of BBS or any other game wouldn't have sold well (or even KH1.5 to Wii U, but that's highly unlikely), and you could argue that a PSP-Wii conversion would be a safer bet since they're similar in power.

I was hoping Nintendo's involvement in Twin Snakes and including Snake in Brawl would have led to a stronger Konami presence on Nintendo consoles, but that didn't really pan out. Unless you count a workmanlike port of MGS3 to 3DS.

 

[Opiate]

Is this confirmed? I remember people citing Mario Kart 7 DS sales revenue being more than the entire iOS platform, that the game's 25-30 million units sold generated more revenue than all of iOS/Angry Birds, something like that. This was a couple years ago, though. Crazy if true. That means there's been unbelievable growth these past couple years. Handhelds are basically done, aren't they. This is the last Sony handheld and Nintendo might release one more then that'll be it.

Combined handhelds still beat iOS in the Christmas season, but not by much; iOS is much Christmas-centric. In Q1, iOS was back on top.

http://www.fiercemobilecontent.com/...dhelds-gaming-revenue-report-finds/2013-05-17

As another note, PC Gaming revenue beats all console revenue combined now, too.

 

[entremet]

This may sound like a silly question, but here's my reasoning for it: Each day that goes by, I see more and more third party Vita titles announced for localization, while countless 3DS titles from third parties, some from very big franchises, remain in Japan with no signs of a localization anytime soon.

Let's take this back a bit, back to the Wii. That system saw a great deal of third party support, but the VAST majority of the support provided was in the form of shovelware, with the rest being mostly niche titles. Wii saw tons of "test games" and "experimental games", but third parties refused to provide a decent amount of true support in the form of AAA games. There were exceptions, sure, such as Monster Hunter 3 and Tales of Graces, but for the most part, this seemed to be the case.

Even the DS had a tough time early on, despite being the successor to the GBA, as third parties quickly backed the PSP and pushed hard for that system to succeed. That followed on to Vita, as I stated earlier, with Vita getting a lot of third party support, and third parties being all-too happy to bring over Vita content as opposed to 3DS content, despite Vita selling well under even Wii U levels every month in the West, and under-performing even in Japan, the land of the handhelds.

The Wii U is currently suffering severely from third party neglect, and while I see a lot of people blaming Nintendo, could it simply be that third parties just don't want to support a Nintendo system? Has Nintendo's pre-Iwata history developed so much animosity from third parties that it's unlikely the situation can truly be remedied any time soon?

It balances out. The vita has no 1st party support lol.

 

[Opiate]

Anyway, my general point is that EA/Take 2/Ubisoft/Activsion aren't anti-Nintendo, nor are they anti-iOS. Nor, for that matter, are they pro-Sony or pro-Microsoft.

Instead they are pro "Playstation 2-like systems" because that's what they're comfortable with and what they know how to do. Just like Rovio is obviously comfortable making iOS hits but probably won't wake up tomorrow and know how to make a big AAA blockbuster on 360, so too does Take 2 know how to make AAA blockbusters on 360 but isn't waking up tomorrow knowing how to get a big hit on iOS or Android or 3DS or Wii.

 

[Game Guru]

I think this is largely true, but not quite in the way most seem to mean it.

I think the emergence of other platforms -- most notably iOS and Facebook -- has given us a way to sort of objectively examine the problem outside the normal confines of console warzzz.

Consider iOS, for example: obviously third party software is selling well on the platform, as no first party exists. The platform is generating billions of revenue now, and is handily outstripping 3DS + PSVita + DS + PSP combined. This is without discussing profit, where we can reasonably assume it dramatically outstrips consoles; while console publishers have largely been closing, merging or downsizing, several major, multi-billion dollar publishers have sprung up on iOS just in the last few years, including Rovio and Supercell.

In short, we know for sure that iOS is a major platform that can generate a lot of revenue and a lot of profit, turning small publishers in to giant ones in just a few years. Despite this fact, Take 2 still has no presence on iOS. Neither did THQ, before they went under. Ubisoft's presence is minimal. So is Activision's. The only one of the major western publishers that has taken it even remotely serious would be EA.

So very obviously there are platforms that produce a lot of profit which nevertheless the major publishers don't take seriously. I think what this tells us is that the major western publishers are in many ways de facto Xbox/Playstation second parties; I do not mean that they are loyal to Sony or Microsoft in particular, but that the Playstation/Xbox style of gaming is what they are used to developing, producing, and marketing for. Platforms which deviate significantly from the PS/Xbox ethos just aren't up their alley. Not that money cannot be made on iOS (or Android or 3DS or the Wii), just that these companies really aren't in a good position to take advantage of those opportunities.

It's interesting to see this in light of the oft-repeated idea that Nintendo should make iOS games. I mean if Nintendo would see so much success with iOS games over focusing on their own hardware, why don't the traditional console third-parties make iOS games? Even Sony and Microsoft have some foot in the mobile market doing what they're best at considering Sony makes phones and tablets and Microsoft has Windows Phone, even if both are being beaten soundly by Apple, Google, and Samsung in that market.

 

[JordanLMiller]

I think this is largely true, but not quite in the way most seem to mean it.

I think the emergence of other platforms -- most notably iOS and Facebook -- has given us a way to sort of objectively examine the problem outside the normal confines of console warzzz.

Consider iOS, for example: obviously third party software is selling well on the platform, as no first party exists. The platform is generating billions of revenue now, and is handily outstripping 3DS + PSVita + DS + PSP combined. This is without discussing profit, where we can reasonably assume it dramatically outstrips consoles; while console publishers have largely been closing, merging or downsizing, several major, multi-billion dollar publishers have sprung up on iOS just in the last few years, including Rovio and Supercell.

In short, we know for sure that iOS is a major platform that can generate a lot of revenue and a lot of profit, turning small publishers in to giant ones in just a few years. Despite this fact, Take 2 still has no presence on iOS. Neither did THQ, before they went under. Ubisoft's presence is minimal. So is Activision's. The only one of the major western publishers that has taken it even remotely serious would be EA.

So very obviously there are platforms that produce a lot of profit which nevertheless the major publishers don't take seriously. I think what this tells us is that the major western publishers are in many ways de facto Xbox/Playstation second parties; I do not mean that they are loyal to Sony or Microsoft in particular, but that the Playstation/Xbox style of gaming is what they are used to developing, producing, and marketing for. Platforms which deviate significantly from the PS/Xbox ethos just aren't up their alley. Not that money cannot be made on iOS (or Android or 3DS or the Wii), just that these companies really aren't in a good position to take advantage of those opportunities.

This is the most accurate post in the thread. Thank you for putting this into words much better than I did.

 

[freenudemacusers]

Anyway, my general point is that EA/Take 2/Ubisoft/Activsion aren't anti-Nintendo, nor are they anti-iOS. Nor, for that matter, are they pro-Sony or pro-Microsoft.

Instead they are pro "Playstation 2-like systems" because that's what they're comfortable with and what they know how to do. Just like Rovio is obviously comfortable making iOS hits but probably won't wake up tomorrow and know how to make a big AAA blockbuster on 360, so too does Take 2 know how to make AAA blockbusters on 360 but isn't waking up tomorrow knowing how to get a big hit on iOS or Android or 3DS or Wii.

It seems as if Nintendo has sorta split the difference while not attracting either primary 'camp' in significant numbers.