Support NeoGAF

[D.Lo]

You do realize that each pack-in copy of Wii Sports also counted as a software sale?

Right so I destroyed your initial argument and now you've come back with something that addresses 1/10 of the point.

Almost all consoles are sold with a pack in. You need at least one game to play with the system anyway. Many copies of Uncharted, Halo, Gears of War, Kinect games etc were sold packed in with PS360s as well. The main Wii pack-in for the last 2-3 years hasn't even been Wii Sports, it's been Mario Kart, and at least 5-10 million Wii Sports copies sold were standalone.

And even if you completely remove Wii Sports from the Wii game sales total, but count all other pack ins for PS3 as game sales, the Wii has STILL sold 100 million more games than the PS3.

And even then, you originally said in effect that Wii buyers, or at least a huge percentage of them, got the console for Wii Bowling and nothing else, which is a proven falsehood, even discounting Wii Sports, on average Wii owners bought another 8 games per console.

also 80 million wiimotes copies of wii play

Nice try with more lies, Wii Play sold about 25 million copies total last I looked, not 80. And it was $10-20 more than a Wii Remote, so should be considered a budget game, not a non-existent one.

 

[Metallix87]

Poorly built hardware isn't the same as weak hardware. Also, consistently = Wii and Wii U.

Consistently = constantly occurring

Two consoles out of six isn't "consistently", especially since Wii U has shown that maybe such a strategy is ill-advised without a genius gimmick.

 

[metalslimer]

This is true. Third party developers know that despite the 3DS's larger install base compared to the Vita, most of the 3DS owners won't buy anything outside of their bubble of Nintendo first and second party games and Ubisoft party games whereas with Vita they seem to have a more loyal fanbase.

You keep telling yourself that

 

[onipex]

This is true. Third party developers know that despite the 3DS's larger install base compared to the Vita, most of the 3DS owners won't buy anything outside of their bubble of Nintendo first and second party games and Ubisoft party games whereas with Vita they seem to have a more loyal fanbase.

You don't follow game sales do you?

 

[Metallix87]

This is true. Third party developers know that despite the 3DS's larger install base compared to the Vita, most of the 3DS owners won't buy anything outside of their bubble of Nintendo first and second party games and Ubisoft party games whereas with Vita they seem to have a more loyal fanbase.

Whoa. This entire post is absurd. You realize you're ignoring reality, yes? The reality where third party titles are doing noticeably better on 3DS than on Vita?

But hey, let's go with it for a second:

So third parties don't want to put content on the 3DS because people primarily want Nintendo games on that system, so they'll put it on Vita, where almost nothing sells and the user base is minuscule by comparison?

I really think, after reading a lot of the responses in here, that a good portion of what's going on is third party developer's setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy with each system.

 

[Barkley's Justice]

Yes, it's a conspiracy. Good job cracking the case.

 

[GetemMa]

Nintendo needs to plan on relying on their first party output and funding third party games the fill the gaps in their lineups. Many third party developers are not going to support them no matter what Nintendo does. If they think third parties are going to come just because they have a good userbase or their hardware is easy to develop for than they don't have a clue and deserve to continue being in the position they are in. These companies won't even port over their smartphone/ tablet games or make new smaller games for the eshop even after all the praise it has been getting.

The Wii U could be selling like the Wii and the support would still suck. It would still miss out on many multiplatform games because , they couldn't think of an unique idea for gamepad, the demographics are not right, the game was never on Nintendo systems before, are still waiting to see, their test game that no one wanted or asked for bombed, or whatever excuse they come up with.

Pretty much...

The Wii has made Nintendo the company that is focused on the casual/Nintendo fan gamer. 3rd parties have this thought embedded in their minds regardless of what Nintendo does with their hardware at this point. Developers are talking about 2 YEARS of cross gen games and Nintendo probably won't see a drop of it even if sales spike this holiday.

 

[$h@d0w]

The following is pure speculation on my part:

It's probably not the fact that third parties are fighting Nintendo, it's the fact that Sony has a better process than Nintendo when working with other companies to bring games over from the East. Therefore they are appearing to have more third party support.

I can imagine Shane Bettenhausen going after the types of games that have recently been announced for the US Vita market. He has proven himself to have a huge boner for picking out Japanese games and localizing them. Remember he worked at Ignition doing this job and now works in developer relations at Sony.

Developer relations doesn't just mean working with indies.

 

[I am Michael Bolton]

Yes, it's a conspiracy. Good job cracking the case.

One reason I hate the whole conspiracy angle is because it removes the responsibility of Nintendo to make sure that their hardware is desirable enough for third parties to want to put their games on. It's not third parties responsibility to place their games on any/every platform.

 

[GetemMa]

This is true. Third party developers know that despite the 3DS's larger install base compared to the Vita, most of the 3DS owners won't buy anything outside of their bubble of Nintendo first and second party games and Ubisoft party games whereas with Vita they seem to have a more loyal fanbase.

Yeah man, look at that Vita 3rd party lineup.

Spoiler

 

[shinra-bansho]

Pack in games have been a pretty solid standard throughout most of the generation across all consoles, outside the launch period. They're used as an excuse to continue to keep consoles prices around 300 dollars more than 7 years into the generation.

Shinra - Zelda is a pretty core game and that was at launch. Metroid was a shooter, albeit not a military shooter. Etc etc. shipment numbers are also what is used by the other console makers to calculate their tie ratios.

The only maker that generally touts tie ratios is Microsoft as far as I'm aware, and they cite NPD and are, as always, only referring to the US.

Last I recall the PS3 and Wii tie ratios in the US according to NPD were 8.something and 7.something respectively; their Japanese tie ratios are around 5. The only way their global tie ratios get anywhere near 9 is if European owners have bought game numbers in the teens per system, which is unlikely.

As for Zelda and Metroid, while they appeal to the traditional Nintendo audience, the dyed-in-the-wool fan, they don't build an audience for the likes of GTA or Skyrim or Battlefield or Need for Speed. I'm not going to argue semantics around what is and isn't "core." New Super Mario Bros is core to some, Nintendo Land is core to some. They aren't targeted towards the 16-35 male demographic that EA, Bethesda, Take-Two output, much of Ubisoft's, Activision's and WBIE's output, is geared towards.

Semantics don't change reality of the situation, nor the perception of said situation. "Well, technically..." doesn't convince publishers that they have a viable market on a platform.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Well, I think that there's a real question of whether or not Nintendo is actually doing everything they can to get these third party devs on board. There was an interview with Avalanche recently where the founded stated that they've had difficulty even reaching Nintendo. And the only reason that they've managed to reach them recently is because of a publisher that they're working with (i'm guessing WB). Given Nintendo's history with third party devs since the N64, why exactly is any developer having difficulty reaching them? He noted that Nintendo should take a page out of Sony's book and reach out a hand to developers.

I think that's interesting to hear since you'd think that Nintendo would be bending over backwards to get third parties on the Wii U given their history with them since the N64. But it still sounds like Nintendo isn't doing nearly as much as the could.

 

[iMerc]

This is true. Third party developers know that despite the 3DS's larger install base compared to the Vita, most of the 3DS owners won't buy anything outside of their bubble of Nintendo first and second party games and Ubisoft party games whereas with Vita they seem to have a more loyal fanbase.

yeah let's ignore reality together.

Well, I think that there's a real question of whether or not Nintendo is actually doing everything they can to get these third party devs on board. There was an interview with Avalanche recently where the founded stated that they've had difficulty even reaching Nintendo. And the only reason that they've managed to reach them recently is because of a publisher that they're working with (i'm guessing WB). Given Nintendo's history with third party devs since the N64, why exactly is any developer having difficulty reaching them? He noted that Nintendo should take a page out of Sony's book and reach out a hand to developers.

I think that's interesting to hear since you'd think that Nintendo would be bending over backwards to get third parties on the Wii U given their history with them since the N64. But it still sounds like Nintendo isn't doing nearly as much as the could.

that's exactly what they've been doing on the indie scene. that's why they have such positive buzz from this market.

traditional 3rd parties is def still a serious issue.

 

[I am Michael Bolton]

Well, I think that there's a real question of whether or not Nintendo is actually doing everything they can to get these third party devs on board. There was an interview with Avalanche recently where the founded stated that they've had difficulty even reaching Nintendo. And the only reason that they've managed to reach them recently is because of a publisher that they're working with (i'm guessing WB). Given Nintendo's history with third party devs since the N64, why exactly is any developer having difficulty reaching them? He noted that Nintendo should take a page out of Sony's book and reach out a hand to developers.

I think that's interesting to hear since you'd think that Nintendo would be bending over backwards to get third parties on the Wii U given their history with them since the N64. But it still sounds like Nintendo isn't doing nearly as much as the could.

If you read the comments from Iwata at the investor meeting he displayed quite hubris when he basically said third parties that werent supporting the Wii U currently would be sorry when they see the third parties who are supporting it have success. He doesn't seem to realize that the the problem is himself and Nitendo in general. They're simply not trying to compete for these publishers/devs. Nintendo still seems to think that big third party studios should be bending over backward for Nintendo instead of Nintendo bending over backwards to them.

 

[Mariolee]

Well, I guess that's what I get for talking without adhering to game sales of the Vita. I mean, I heard it was bad but I had no idea.

 

[D.Lo]

Last I recall the PS3 and Wii tie ratios in the US according to NPD were 8.something and 7.something respectively; their Japanese tie ratios are around 5. The only way their global tie ratios get anywhere near 9 is if European owners have bought game numbers in the teens per system, which is unlikely.

It's pretty simple, Nintendo and Sony release total game sales and total hardware sales. Divide one by the other.

Microsoft is the only iffy one actually, as they don't publish total game sales, and only talk about their US tie ratio, which makes it sound like it isn't as good outside the US.

Absolutely no doubt that Wii game sales total (~870m) > 360 game sales total (~750m) > PS3 game sales total (~690m).

 

[shinra-bansho]

It's pretty simple, Nintendo and Sony release total game sales and total hardware sales. Divide one by the other.

Microsoft is the only iffy one actually, as they don't publish total game sales, and only talk about their US tie ratio, which makes it sound like it isn't as good outside the US.

Absolutely no doubt that Wii game sales total (~870m) > 360 game sales total (~750m) > PS3 game sales total (~690m).

I'm aware of what's being done. I don't think cumulative total shipped software really represents the amount of software purchased by end-users. Retailer returns etc.

Given the published software estimates from retail POS trackers for two major regions, the US and Japan, the numbers required for the other regions seems unlikely.

I'm not disputing or even commenting on who sold more. Simply that I don't think tie ratios derived from software shipments provide a good figure.

 

[Toski]

Concerning consoles and the big western third parties, I just think Nintendo vehemently disagrees with their vision of what gaming is supposed to be and what audiences it's supposed to attract. The guys in Kyoto probably don't give a shit about COD, Battlefield, Grand Theft Auto, or any strictly 16-35 dudebro game, so they're not going the extra mile to give those publishers what they want.

The funny thing is Nintendo was always like this. When JRPGs were all the rage with the PS1&2, Nintendo devoted next to no internal resources to produce JRPGs (barring backroom deals with Sega and Namco). It seems Nintendo doesn't like to "chase" big successes that are external to them, but with Japan becoming less of a console primary nation, Nintendo will have to make a choice if they want "everyone" or "core gamers" with their next home console because there seems to be little overlap.

 

[BillyBats]

Nintendo seems to have always been a bit difficult to deal with concerning 3rd parties. Growing up, I heard stories about their hard ass business dealings during the NES days. If the internet existed then....

Also, their fans have asked for this. "I only buy Nintendo consoles to play Nintendo games." How many times have we seen that? If their fans demanded more 3rd party support instead of shitting their pants at another Zelda remake, perhaps things would be a bit different.

We all know there is no conspiracy or companies actively trying to fight Nintendo. All the big N has to do is take some of that Wii money and SPEND IT!!! Nothing was stopping them from going to Rockstar with a blank check and saying "We want exclusive content and off tv play, write in a number that will get that done." Nothing is stopping them from going to Bethesda and doing the same with Fallout. "We want Pipboy on our gamepad, we want an exclusive game, write in a number on the check." Sony does it, MS does it, Nintendo...ehhh, our fans like our games...we're good.

 

[metalslimer]

Well, I guess that's what I get for talking without adhering to game sales of the Vita. I mean, I heard it was bad but I had no idea.

You don't even have to follow Vita. Just pop in a Japanese sales thread every once in a while to see that 3DS owners only buy Nintendo games is completely ludicrous.

We all know there is no conspiracy or companies actively trying to fight Nintendo.

He says while posting in the topic with said name =p

 

[C.T.]

Your DS argument fails to put into perspective, that Sony had way more momentum at that time and Nintendo never faced such a big threat in a handheld space. The PSP was basically a mobile PS2 and a lot of people thought that spells doom over NIntendo or at least kills their dominance in the handheld space. The strongest IPs in the business where on PS2 after all. The lack of support early on isn't bias IMO, it's just a lot easier to port something you already created instead of using your creatity (which they had in the case of the DS) and use the DS's unique abilities. It's funny this is the exact reason the PSP lost momentum because Third Parties used the easy way out.

 

[SolidSnakex]

that's exactly what they've been doing on the indie scene. that's why they have such positive buzz from this market.

traditional 3rd parties is def still a serious issue.

Yeah, they need to take that indie approach to third parties. Will it work? Who knows. But it's clear that there's some sort of disconnect between Nintendo and third parties, and it's something that they need to fix.

And it's not even just the western support since the Japanese support for the Wii U really isn't any better. That's really what's most surprising about the Wii U's situation. I think many expected that the western support wouldn't be that great, but those same people were fully expecting solid Japanese support. And so far that just hasn't happened. You look at the Basara 4 announcement and have to wonder why it isn't on the Wii U also. Instead it's a PS3 only title even though previous entries were released on the Wii.

If you read the comments from Iwata at the investor meeting he displayed quite hubris when he basically said third parties that werent supporting the Wii U currently would be sorry when they see the third parties who are supporting it have success. He doesn't seem to realize that the the problem is himself and Nitendo in general. They're simply not trying to compete for these publishers/devs. Nintendo still seems to think that big third party studios should be bending over backward for Nintendo instead of Nintendo bending over backwards to them.

Yeah, I remember reading that. It seems like they've backed off of statements like that recently. Now Iwata is just saying that he hopes to improve Wii U sales with upcoming Nintendo games and perhaps that'll lead to third parties viewing it as a viable platform for their games. He probably really is frustrated with the support for the console, but he shouldn't be saying that publicly. It's certainly not going to help their relationship with those companies.

 

[Oersted]

Xbox, especially with Halo, shifted the industry towards dudebro. Online became important ( Nintendo slept on this) and the middleground like Akklaim couldn´t offer cinematic/ dudebro experiences so they died out. Those who have been able to offer that experience, had their audience on Xbox/PS. And since the middleground died, pretty much only those AAAs mattered.

Madden and Call of Duty were outselling the PS3 verions in the first years, if you don't recall.

Comparing sales numbers between them is pretty pointless. It was far more easy to break even on Wii/DS. On PS3/Xbox 360 it was far more easy to go bankrupt.

 

[redcrayon]

I can understand why Western third parties aren't releasing much on Nintendo consoles but the idea that Japanese third parties are biased against all nintendo consoles is daft, especially when trying to build a narrative across their last 4 consoles that vary wildly in success.

The situation for each is very different- DS saw major support from pretty much every Japanese third party developer, WiiU lacks support from just but everyone.

As for the 3DS vs the Vita, a few Vita localizations within a short space of time doesn't mean it's somehow a worldwide darling in comparison- there is virtually zero Western support for both, their entire libraries are almost entirely comprised of Japanese games, and the biggest Japanese third party games (Monster Hunter, Dragon Quest, Resident Evil) are pretty much entirely locked up by the 3DS.

As for localisation being handled by Nintendo, this is presumably beneficial for both developer and publisher, with both Capcom and Square Enix having 25-year relationships with Ninty- how does that show they are biased against Nintendo somehow? We're getting Phoenix Wright, and I'd be very surprised if Dragon Quest VII didn't make it after the DS remakes.

 

[Toski]

Xbox, especially with Halo, shifted the industry towards dudebro. Online became important ( Nintendo slept on this) and the middleground like Akklaim couldn´t offer cinematic/ dudebro experiences so they died out. Those who have been able to offer that experience, had their audience on Xbox/PS. And since the middleground died, pretty much only those AAAs mattered.



Comparing sales numbers between them is pretty pointless. It was far more easy to break even on Wii/DS. On PS3/Xbox 360 it was far more easy to go bankrupt.

One game alone did not shift the industry toward anything. Dudebro always existed, and Nintendo owned it themselves for a while with the N64. It was Iwata who let go of this demographic by letting almost all their Western 2nd parties go and he never replaced them. Iwata seems more comfortable with Japanese 3rd parties, and for some reason it almost seems as if he resents the big players in Western core gaming.

I'm of the mind NCL should've forced Retro to make original gritty-shootbang AAA shooter for Wii U even if they really wanted to work on Donkey Kong.

 

[Oersted]

One game alone did not shift the industry toward anything. Dudebro always existed, and Nintendo owned it themselves for a while with the N64. It was Iwata who let go of this demographic by letting almost all their Western 2nd parties go and he never replaced them. Iwata seems more comfortable with Japanese 3rd parties, and for some reason it almost seems as if he resents the big players in Western core gaming.

I'm of the mind NCL should've forced Retro to make original gritty-shootbang AAA shooter for Wii U even if they really wanted to work on Donkey Kong.

I wasn´t saying the game alone dude. Just especially. There have been of course other games.

 

[thekin]

One reason I hate the whole conspiracy angle is because it removes the responsibility of Nintendo to make sure that their hardware is desirable enough for third parties to want to put their games on. It's not third parties responsibility to place their games on any/every platform.

We are not trying to remove the blame from nintendo, It's just that even if Nintendo had made a system the same specs as PS4 or X1 people and Devs would not buy/make games from them.

Most people would say the system is too expensive for a Nintendo console and devs would give the same excuse Our games don't sale on nintendo hardware or the install base is not big.

The thing i believe is that Nintendo did 3 things wrong with the wii u

The things they did Wrong.

1. should have made more preparation for the Wii u lunch year
2. should have Made the system a little stronger (4-6 cores, 4-6gig ram and Ati 5 or 6000 model gpu with 80gig Hdd exchangeable to save money )
3. Should have named it WII tu or Wii 2

But you need to understand the principle they are working with, which is very japanese
Minimal risk = moderate returns. Just look at the eastern game market a lot of companies use this method that is why we did not see game devs closing down or mass layoff during this gen because they had reasonable budgets for making games and marketing.

But if you look at the western market it's a whole new story, the west works on the principle of GO BIG OR GO HOME and that's what happened. in the past mid level devs made mid level games = mid level profit. but in this gen mid level devs started to make AAA games because AAA had become the new stander. and what happened next was consumers did not buy because it did not look AAA to them. So they had to shut down.

Nintendo is not perfect and their are things i would like them to fix (Online infrastructure, Account system and Region locking) but i am happy with the way they are taking the company in a different direction than the others.

 

[Toski]

I wasn´t saying the game alone dude. Just especially. There have been of course other games.

You said Xbox, especially with Halo. What other games on the OG Xbox brought about "Dudebro?" You should've said CoD4, then I wouldn't have replied. "Dudebro" which I am one, came about during this gen, not last.

 

[encephalon]

You know, looking at the transition from PSP to Vita in terms of Japanese 3rd parties, wouldn't one assume that Sony dropped the ball with (Japanese) 3rd parties moreso than Nintendo has?

 

[littlebirdtoldme]

1. NINTENDO has a long history of fucking third parties in the ass.


2. NINTENDO consoles are made to sell nintendo games first and for most. The whole point of a nintendo system is to maximize sales of the next mario kart during the holiday season.

Where as sony and ms consoles are made to sell 3rd party games. Sony and ms makes their money of licensing fees, that is the whole business.

3. Everyone likes to do things you know you good at, where you know you can make money. Major 3rd parties sell games to gamers. That is their business. They know this market, they feel comfortable here. Releasing a game on a system like wii or a handheld deviates from this. Its simply a risk, uncharted waters.

4. NINTENDO refuses to release hardware that is in line with the rest of the consoles. Which means you cannot use the same tools, engines, assets etc you use on the other platoform. Which means ports will have to be made from the ground up, thus expensive.

 

[Metallix87]

You know, looking at the transition from PSP to Vita in terms of Japanese 3rd parties, wouldn't one assume that Sony dropped the ball with (Japanese) 3rd parties moreso than Nintendo has?

Absolutely, but third parties don't seem to care. They're all on board for Sony's next system, despite the last two being failures out of the gate. The PS3 eventually recovered, but the Vita has yet to, even in handheld land.

 

[encephalon]

1. NINTENDO has a long history of fucking third parties in the ass.


2. NINTENDO consoles are made to sell nintendo games first and for most. The whole point of a nintendo system is to maximize sales of the next mario kart during the holiday season.

Where as sony and ms consoles are made to sell 3rd party games. Sony and ms makes their money of licensing fees, that is the whole business.

3. Everyone likes to do things you know you good at, where you know you can make money. Major 3rd parties sell games to gamers. That is their business. They know this market, they feel comfortable here. Releasing a game on a system like wii or a handheld deviates from this. Its simply a risk, uncharted waters.

4. NINTENDO refuses to release hardware that is in line with the rest of the consoles. Which means you cannot use the same tools, engines, assets etc you use on the other platoform. Which means ports will have to be made from the ground up, thus expensive.

To be fair, Sony is known for making PS2 and PS3 hardware purposefully difficult to deal with in order to discourage ports to other platforms.

Absolutely, but third parties don't seem to care. They're all on board for Sony's next system, despite the last two being failures out of the gate. The PS3 eventually recovered, but the Vita has yet to, even in handheld land.

What do you mean "3rd parties don't seem to care?" 3rd parties didn't follow Sony with the Vita. The Vita is a disaster because of their inability to produce a compelling 3rd party lineup. The Saturn was in a better position with Japanese 3rd parties than the Vita. There is really no hint of the Vita ever "recovering" like the PS3 did.

Sony seems to be in a very similar position to the Wii U with the Vita, except Nintendo will have the first party strength to back the Wii U up, with the Vita, Sony probably won't be able to.

 

[littlebirdtoldme]

To be fair, Sony is known for making PS2 and PS3 hardware purposefully difficult to deal with in order to discourage ports to other platforms.

Not to discourage ports, but to make the sony platforms lead platform. ps2/3 where still same generation as the competition. wiiu, wii is not.

599 and complicatedness of cell almost made the loose their entire market.

ps4 has a completely different focus for a reason.

 

[Metallix87]

What do you mean "3rd parties don't seem to care?" 3rd parties didn't follow Sony with the Vita.

Not what I meant. Third parties seem to gloss over PS3 being a nightmare to develop for and Vita being almost completely a bad business venture, and are already lining up to throw their support behind PS4. They don't care about the past, they're ready to try again and give it their best shot.

 

[tassletine]

I think this is really about the way that NIntendo innovate vs human psychology. Most people don't like to adapt in a fluid manner, they only do it when they are forced to, and they want to work with what is familiar to them. This is especially true in America where the problem is exasperated by the fact that adapting costs money, which is what a capitalist society holds most dear.
Companies can't really plan what they are going to do until they get Nintendo dev kits, whilst on other platforms games could be in development for years on PC and only slight moderations make them adaptable for each machine as they are essentially the same.

 

[Razlo]

People like to make everything black & white, which of course it isn't. I work in the games industry & I can say that sales, bias, ease of coding environment, familiarity, platform holder support staff competence, & more come into play when a developer is figuring out what platform to put their games out on.

Success narratives also sometimes drive developers to make bad decisions as well. Look at the Facebook & mobile sectors for examples of this. Developers hear stories of games doing well there & make titles for the platforms in a gold rush mentality even if their game ideas & skill sets don't really mesh, & despite the fact that most games fail on both. They want to believe that they're special & they too will have Candy Crush Saga & FarmVille successes.

So if a dev doesn't believe in, isn't a fan of, doesn't understand, has a hard time working with Nintendo etc, they may choose not to develop for them. There's a million reasons why games end up where they do & it's not as simple as just money driven like so many like to believe.

 

[encephalon]

Not what I meant. Third parties seem to gloss over PS3 being a nightmare to develop for and Vita being almost completely a bad business venture, and are already lining up to throw their support behind PS4. They don't care about the past, they're ready to try again and give it their best shot.

At least in terms of Japanese developers, I think the bigger problem with the PS3 was that they simply were not prepared to devote the resources necessary to produce HD games. The complicated hardware and lack of an initial strong Japanese userbase probably didn't help, however.

Isn't your whole point that 3rd parties base their decisions off of the past? I'm confused.

 

[Metallix87]

Isn't your whole point that 3rd parties base their decisions off of the past? I'm confused.

No, absolutely not. My point was that I think third parties actively don't want to support Nintendo, and I'm not sure what the reasons are.

 

[encephalon]

No, absolutely not. My point was that I think third parties actively don't want to support Nintendo, and I'm not sure what the reasons are.

And yet they have no problem supporting 3DS?

 

[Metallix87]

And yet they have no problem supporting 3DS?

To a certain degree. Remember, Konami, Square-Enix, Tecmo Koei, and, to a lesser extent, Level-5 aren't bringing their content to the West. Capcom, once the masters of handheld third party content, are releasing Monster Hunter and not much else, and their EX Troopers isn't being released in the West. Western third parties, of course, are offering little-to-no support for the 3DS, but that much was to be expected.

 

[Oersted]

You said Xbox, especially with Halo. What other games on the OG Xbox brought about "Dudebro?" You should've said CoD4, then I wouldn't have replied. "Dudebro" which I am one, came about during this gen, not last.

Halo created the environment. CoD4 sealed the deal.

 

[littlebirdtoldme]

No, absolutely not. My point was that I think third parties actively don't want to support Nintendo, and I'm not sure what the reasons are.

probably nintendo.

Nintendo has long history of fucking third parties in the ass. Nintendo always had a knack for limiting 3rd parties on their platform. Back on nes they used to give quotas. where they could only release so many games.

this sort of attitude is ingrained in nintendo. Its in their entire being, in the genes of nintendo. Nintendo is about selling nintendo games. Period.

sega, sony had no problem in attracting third parties to genesis and psone.

I dont think nintendo ever saw third parties as anything but annoy-ans to lately necessary evil.

A completely different attitude compared to sony or ms.

 

[w1gglyjones]

The video game industry is the wild west. You can't expect any company to act rationally even if they all seem to be "in it for the money." That goes for Nintendo and others.

When people say this company or that company does their analysis and makes decisions to maximize profits, that doesn't mean that such companies are actually making correct decisions. Companies are run by people, and even high-level executives make mistakes of judgment and/or ignorance all the time. Sometimes, they don't have inspired ideas. Sometimes, they don't think outside the box. Their management skills can be lacking because they are just people.

The video games industry is the fucking wild west. No one knows what it will look like 5 years out, and no one has ever known. Just look at EA's profitability 10 years ago, 5 years ago and now. Then look at Activisions. 10 years ago, if you said that Nintendo would post two years of operating loss in a row, people would look at your funny. 10 years ago, it would be hard to you to explain how widely accepted paying for online multiplayer would become on Xbox 360.

It's not a conspiracy. Technology changes rapidly and video game companies demonstrate that with the volatility in their profits. Video gaming is the wild west, and industry executives and forum posters and enthusiasts all have different opinions on how the west should be won.

 

[Into]

What does it tell you, that as soon as third parties saw a opportunity to jump ship for a realistic contender, they did so without even blinking en eye? Which is precisely what happened during PlayStation 1 and Nintendo 64 days, all of them took their ball and went with a unproven company in the videogame industry with Sony.

They did something similar with Microsoft, who has never had issues getting third party games, Xbox OG even had GTA games, and plenty of third party support despite being a rather unsuccessful console.

Does that not say something about Nintendo and the way they dealt with third parties in the late 80s, entire 90s?

This is not just western third parties, who have only become truly relevant as of late, even Japanese companies ran away from Nintendo first chance they got.

Is it all Nintendo's fault? I am sure its not, but considering all the players involved, all around the world, i put most of the blame in Nintendo's court, its hard to blame dozen of publishers, when they clearly can work with Sony and Microsoft with ease, there is never a question about which games are coming out, it is a given that PlayStation and Xbox will play all of these games.
So you got tons of publishers, spread across the world, with different philosophies, different types of games, genres, different levels of size, different ways to make games, various levels of experience, you have all these variables, yet the one variable that is constant is: We do not bother with Nintendo.

That is pretty damning to me, it is ignorant to claim that its just western third parties when facts say otherwise, its ignorant to say "oh its just these brown shooters, who cares?" when facts say otherwise.

Brushing this off on "evil" third parties who are trying to destroy Nintendo is a simplified and fantasy fueled way to look at it. If there is one thing we can deride from the last 4 generations including the one the Wii U represents now, is that Nintendo must be much more difficult to work with than Sony or Microsoft. No other conclusion can be extracted from this

 

[iMerc]

To a certain degree. Remember, Konami, Square-Enix, Tecmo Koei, and, to a lesser extent, Level-5 aren't bringing their content to the West. Capcom, once the masters of handheld third party content, are releasing Monster Hunter and not much else, and their EX Troopers isn't being released in the West. Western third parties, of course, are offering little-to-no support for the 3DS, but that much was to be expected.

the better question is where the hell are their handheld projects and announcements? for either vita or 3ds.

as i said in another thread, handhelds completely dominate their home market and the lack of any announcements or upcoming games from these third parties since jan13 is absolutely baffling.

what the hell are these clowns doing/creating? how the hell do they sustain themselves with next to NOTHING coming out on ANYTHING?

 

[Metallix87]

Brushing this off on "evil" third parties who are trying to destroy Nintendo is a simplified and fantasy fueled way to look at it. If there is one thing we can deride from the last 4 generations including the one the Wii U represents now, is that Nintendo must be much more difficult to work with than Sony or Microsoft. No other conclusion can be extracted from this

I'm not condemning the third parties alone. Clearly Nintendo is at fault as well. That said, given how everyone is quick to damn Nintendo for this, I think it's reasonable to at least consider the possibility that third parties are at least partially responsible, and simply don't want to support Nintendo systems, whatever the reasons may be.

 

[Neo C.]

I think this is really about the way that NIntendo innovate vs human psychology. Most people don't like to adapt in a fluid manner, they only do it when they are forced to, and they want to work with what is familiar to them. This is especially true in America where the problem is exasperated by the fact that adapting costs money, which is what a capitalist society holds most dear.
Companies can't really plan what they are going to do until they get Nintendo dev kits, whilst on other platforms games could be in development for years on PC and only slight moderations make them adaptable for each machine as they are essentially the same.

People like to make everything black & white, which of course it isn't. I work in the games industry & I can say that sales, bias, ease of coding environment, familiarity, platform holder support staff competence, & more come into play when a developer is figuring out what platform to put their games out on.

Success narratives also sometimes drive developers to make bad decisions as well. Look at the Facebook & mobile sectors for examples of this. Developers hear stories of games doing well there & make titles for the platforms in a gold rush mentality even if their game ideas & skill sets don't really mesh, & despite the fact that most games fail on both. They want to believe that they're special & they too will have Candy Crush Saga & FarmVille successes.

So if a dev doesn't believe in, isn't a fan of, doesn't understand, has a hard time working with Nintendo etc, they may choose not to develop for them. There's a million reasons why games end up where they do & it's not as simple as just money driven like so many like to believe.

I agree with this two posts.

Nintendo will forever have to challenge a conservative industry and a conservative gaming community. Therefore some won't take risks even when there are great opportunities to make good profits. Luckily, some indies give the Wii U a chance and try new things with the pad.

 

[Metallix87]

Luckily, some indies give the Wii U a chance and try new things with the pad.

I'll say this much: A year or two from now, we may end up looking back and saying that indies were the saviors of the Wii U, and I hope a lot of amazing, fresh games come about from those studios.

 

[w1gglyjones]

What does it tell you, that as soon as third parties saw a opportunity to jump ship for a realistic contender, they did so without even blinking en eye? Which is precisely what happened during PlayStation 1 and Nintendo 64 days, all of them took their ball and went with a unproven company in the videogame industry with Sony.

They did something similar with Microsoft, who has never had issues getting third party games, Xbox OG even had GTA games, and plenty of third party support despite being a rather unsuccessful console.

Does that not say something about Nintendo and the way they dealt with third parties in the late 80s, entire 90s?

This is not just western third parties, who have only become truly relevant as of late, even Japanese companies ran away from Nintendo first chance they got.

Is it all Nintendo's fault? I am sure its not, but considering all the players involved, all around the world, i put most of the blame in Nintendo's court, its hard to blame dozen of publishers, when they clearly can work with Sony and Microsoft with ease, there is never a question about which games are coming out, it is a given that PlayStation and Xbox will play all of these games.
So you got tons of publishers, spread across the world, with different philosophies, different types of games, genres, different levels of size, different ways to make games, various levels of experience, you have all these variables, yet the one variable that is constant is: We do not bother with Nintendo.

That is pretty damning to me, it is ignorant to claim that its just western third parties when facts say otherwise, its ignorant to say "oh its just these brown shooters, who cares?" when facts say otherwise.

Brushing this off on "evil" third parties who are trying to destroy Nintendo is a simplified and fantasy fueled way to look at it. If there is one thing we can deride from the last 4 generations including the one the Wii U represents now, is that Nintendo must be much more difficult to work with than Sony or Microsoft. No other conclusion can be extracted from this

Well, after the N64, the reasons for not working with Nintendo changed.

On the Gamecube, it was the "kiddie image" problem. The minidisc was not an issue for most publishers and it only affected a limited amount of games.

On the Wii and Wii U, the issue is partly the "kiddie image" and party the lack of hardware power relative to the competition.

The lack of hardware power is part Nintendo's fault and part not. Simply because while they can choose to make a machine that's closer to the other two, I don't see them having to match specs with two other players as something they HAVE to do as a necessity. I say that with the understanding that such a move would limit publishers interest in their platform as the "odd man out." But again, I think choosing not to match specs is an issue that they should be blamed for only partly.

The "kiddie image" is their job to fixing, to build a user base that shows certain games can sell well on their systems.

 

[iMerc]

Yeah, they need to take that indie approach to third parties. Will it work? Who knows. But it's clear that there's some sort of disconnect between Nintendo and third parties, and it's something that they need to fix.

from my understanding it's the specific people nintendo has hired to address these concerns/departments. The guy in charge on nintendo's indie initiative for example, is seriously getting out there and speaking to indies and getting them excited for nintendo platforms. i don't remember his name, unfortunately. However he is very passionate about his job and courting the indies. especially those devs using kick-starter.

the people in charge of nintendos' traditional 3rd party publisher/dev relations; i have no idea what the hell they're doing or if they even care. seriously wtf is this dept doing other than sitting around and twiddling thier thumbs.