Support NeoGAF

[Night_Trekker]

When Nintendo is doing poorly, everyone says they need to put their games on other platforms.

When Nintendo is doing well, nobody wants to put their games on Nintendo's platform.

Nintendo just can't catch a break.

 

[kirby_fox]

Nintendo going third party would just piss off a bunch of 3rd parties. Any time a big Nintendo game would come out, it'd be like going up against COD. Just think about it.

Their IPs are strong enough that people buy systems solely for certain games. You make them 3rd party and spread that game over multiple consoles, you have a bigger audience. All those people who refused to buy a Nintendo console would start buying Nintendo games again.

I would see the big sellers to deal with being Mario, Zelda, Metroid and Smash Bros. Other IPs like Mario Kart, Wii Fit and Kirby would also be big contenders. If they had no portable, I honestly see Pokemon being killed off rather than going console or iOS (the latter would just be awful).

It's hard to really imagine it happening, but I think they'd be a bigger force to reckon with than Sega was when they went 3rd party. IPs are stronger than a lot of third parties' are, and as long as they don't churn them out like Assassin's Creed or worse, Guitar Hero- I think we'll be fine.

 

[lantus]

I'm sorry, but at this point I'm inclined to agree. 90% of the reason why I buy Nintendo hardware is for their games. If I didn't have to do that anymore I would be very happy.

 

[Soule]

If they go third party the quality of their software will suffer. They'll be put up against all the deadlines and crap all other third parties go through and the quality assurance Nintendo puts into their titles would be gone. Ntm say good bye to everything other than Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon. Nintendo being first party allows them to control their own titles and release titles that while they may not be popular contain and audience within their community. Just look at Sega, they had plenty of wonderful IPs when it was just them, but ever since they went third party all they put out now is Sonic. Hell Shenmue's even faded into obscurity despite all the clamor for it because really Sega doesn't have much control over its output anymore.

Who is going to put these deadlines on them? Sony/Microsoft/Apple/Valve? I've always been under the impression that it's publishers that pressure developers to finish their work and since Nintendo is itself a publisher why would they change their successful software strategy because their hardware is gone?

As in lets say they're making a Mario Kart game, why would they cut the development time or anything like that? Is it because different hardware? Well they make a new Mario Kart game on new hardware every time they release a new console/handheld I'm sure they can use some of that knowledge to make the game in reasonable time and fashion. If you think they cant then explain to me how any indie developer ever releases any content on unfamiliar hardware with a fraction of the resources a giant like Nintendo has.

They're smart, they could do it, they would have their fate in their own hands. I disagree with your post entirely. Still don't expect Nintendo to go 3rd party though.

 

[Kageshinzo]

You're going over a decade back to find evidence of them making decent hardware. That is not an indication of their current hardware strategy, the company today is a company that makes bad, outdated hardware. I agree with him and it's hard not to because it's pretty much fact (outside of 'bad' being subjective)

You're forgetting the fact that last generation lasted abnormally wrong -- almost a decade, in fact. The Wii came after the GC. And the Wii was created not to be a powerhouse, but to accommodate their new motion gaming idea. They know what to do with their hardware. If anything, the fact that it and the DS sold like there's no tomorrow makes them a company that is totally aware of what hardware they intend to make and how to optimize it.

 

[peanutbutterlatte]

I'm sorry, but at this point I'm inclined to agree. 90% of the reason why I buy Nintendo hardware is for their games. If I didn't have to do that anymore I would be very happy.

Yeah but that's personal convenience for you, which no offence, but that's what a large amount of this boils down to. Of course most people would rather pay £2 to get the latest Pokemon on their phone, but Nintendo doesn't profit nearly as much that way.

 

[MisterHero]

You're going over a decade back to find evidence of them making decent hardware. That is not an indication of their current hardware strategy, the company today is a company that makes bad, outdated hardware. I agree with him and it's hard not to because it's pretty much fact (outside of 'bad' being subjective)

Market conditions like skyrocketing production costs are the difference between then and now. Nintendo doesn't want to foster an environment where developers risk everything trying to make a cutting edge game.

Wii U's problem isn't conservative hardware, but Nintendo wanted too much money for what it is. Nintendo's past consoles weren't that expensive vs. their rivals either.

 

[Dark Octave]

Nintendo needs to go third party.

They had a good run.

 

[lantus]

Yeah but that's personal convenience for you, which no offence, but that's what a large amount of this boils down to. Of course most people would rather pay £2 to get the latest Pokemon on their phone, but Nintendo doesn't profit nearly as much that way.

I don't see how it's not more convenient for everyone. By putting their software on multiple devices, that increases their audience exponentially and makes it easier for almost anyone to get their games.

 

[Slavik81]

If they go third party the quality of their software will suffer. They'll be put up against all the deadlines and crap all other third parties go through and the quality assurance Nintendo puts into their titles would be gone. Ntm say good bye to everything other than Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon. Nintendo being first party allows them to control their own titles and release titles that while they may not be popular contain and audience within their community. Just look at Sega, they had plenty of wonderful IPs when it was just them, but ever since they went third party all they put out now is Sonic. Hell Shenmue's even faded into obscurity despite all the clamor for it because really Sega doesn't have much control over its output anymore.

Do Valve or Blizzard need to do that? No. Nintendo is as successful as either of those developers. It can afford to follow the same development pattern.

Sega deteriorated as a 3rd party for the same reason it deteriorated as a first party: mismanagement.

 

[Soule]

Market conditions like skyrocketing production costs are the difference between then and now. Nintendo doesn't want to foster an environment where developers risk everything trying to make a cutting edge game.

Wii U's problem isn't conservative hardware, but Nintendo wanted too much money for what it is. Nintendo's past consoles weren't that expensive vs. their rivals either.

I understand that and agree with your analysis I just thought it was stupid to dismiss criticism to Nintendos hardware just because previously they weren't so far behind, especially considering the timeframe.

 

[JordanN]

Market conditions like skyrocketing production costs are the difference between then and now. Nintendo doesn't want to foster an environment where developers risk everything trying to make a cutting edge game.

Wii U's problem isn't conservative hardware, but Nintendo wanted too much money for what it is. Nintendo's past consoles weren't that expensive vs. their rivals either.

Haven't games bombed on Nintendo hardware? I don't see what good is "fostering an environment where developers don't go through risk" when they have other options. And that's the problem that plagues Wii U so far.

Why would any developer care about Wii U when they have the PS3/360 (or in Japan PSP/3DS)? Much larger installbase and none of the troubling architecture Nintendo uses.

Although I do agree Wii U is also overpriced but that introduces a new problem. They threw everything at the gamepad and it's not setting the world on fire like Wii did so where do they go? It seems like they were always screwed with that price.

 

[Soule]

Do Valve or Blizzard need to do that? No. Nintendo is as successful as either of those developers. It can afford to follow the same development pattern.

Sega deteriorated as a 3rd party for the same reason it deteriorated as a first party: mismanagement.

If there was a like functionality on this forum I'd use it for this post. I was struggling to reply the poster you quoted properly, this was much more eloquent and succinct.

 

[Interceptor]

Nintendo designs their games around their hardware and vice versa. It's a symbiosis. You have to understand this fundamental principal of how they approach game design to understand why they won't go 3rd party. Ever.

Also watch the final bosman. ^^

 

[Chrisness]

Instead of talking about hypotheticals, why not just bring up financial reports of third party publishers from this generation to conclusively back up your claim regarding Nintendo's potential profit growth? Surely a good number of them have on average higher net income through these years if you're so confident in your assertions.

Nintendo didn't make much money at all last year...

 

[Joni]

This and Eidos' Tomb Raider had to be saved by someone else (Crystal Dynamics)

Both Core Design and Crystal Dynamics were Eidos-owned studio's so I don't see how Eidos had to have 'someone else' save them. They used a studio they owned.

 

[peanutbutterlatte]

I don't see how it's not more convenient for everyone. By putting their software on multiple devices, that increases their audience exponentially and makes it easier for almost anyone to get their games.

And they then lose hardware sales. No matter how badly their hardware's doing, to go from the WiiU and 3DS selling to being completely irrelevant is something you can't deny would be awful for Nintendo.

 

[MisterHero]

Haven't games bombed on Nintendo hardware? I don't see what good is "fostering an environment where developers don't go through risk" when they have other options. And that's the problem that plagues Wii U so far.

Why would any developer care about Wii U when they have the PS3/360 (or in Japan PSP/3DS)? Much larger installbase and none of the troubling architecture Nintendo uses.

Although I do agree Wii U also overpriced but that introduces a new problem. They threw everything at the gamepad and it's not setting the world on fire like Wii did so where do they go?

Your example with Japan and PSP/3DS doesn't work because the industry is declining in Japan. Nintendo's trying to fix it rather than bank on the West.

The problem with 3rd-parties cannot be blamed on Nintendo when they elected to give them mediocre support and failed on the HD platforms. At this point I don't care what they do because they're more likely to crash by continuing the AAAA model. EA is partly the cause of the whole DRM epidemic so I don't care what they do either; Star Wars be damned.

Square-Enix was powerful 10 years ago. Now they've picked up Eidos and can't even speak of their sales postively.

If they want to continue their self-destructive streaks then fine. They shouldn't claim that Nintendo is worse off than they are because that's laughably false.

Without Nintendo's low pricelines, it's absolutely possible HD gamers wouldn't get cheaper hardware or games. Citing Sony or MS as having proper policies ignores Nintendo forcing them to compete at all.

 

[JordanN]

Nintendo designs their games around their hardware and vice versa. It's a symbiosis. You have to understand this fundamental principal of how they approach game design to understand why they won't go 3rd party. Ever.

Also watch the final bosman. ^^

Nintendo games right now don't even come close to the best of PS3 (graphically) and it has motions controls/a separate screen so I'm not understanding what they need their hardware for.

Is there some kind of easy button only available to them that generate their games?

 

[Nightstick11]

What...

- Pokemon and Smash Bros. existing doesn't mean other RPGs and fighters wouldn't sell millions. That's silly. Pokemon wouldn't cannibalize Skyrim or Fallout or ME sales. You can't be serious. Same deal with Smash Bros. hurting Street Fighter/Capcom fighters and Mortal Kombat.

- "Plan your development around Zelda"... they release a mainline Zelda game like every 4 years. What is there to plan?

- Platformers not named Mario or Donkey Kong aren't big-sellers anyway. It's a niche genre outside of those Nintendo IPs so how exactly would their existence in this scenario hurt the industry?

- Metroid. I don't understand what you said here, sounds like you conceded that point? Or did I read it wrong. Shooters/action games are a massive genre tho so it holds far more weight than, for example, platformers.

- Kart racers, yes MK would cannibalize those sales but there's barely any Kart racers in the first place so why does this matter? There's the Sonic racers and what else? who cares? This wouldn't hurt third-party devs in any way.

I am not sure if you interpreted it the way I meant, but I was pointing out how many repercussions there would be on third-parties. Releasing an RPG near a Pokemon release or a Mortal Kombat near Smash would be utter suicide.

Metroid doesn't sell that much, that's why it wouldn't affect makers of action games.

 

[Chrisness]

And they then lose hardware sales. No matter how badly their hardware's doing, to go from the WiiU and 3DS selling to being completely irrelevant is something you can't deny would be awful for Nintendo.

Nintendo doesn't make much money off the Wii U.

 

[peanutbutterlatte]

Nintendo doesn't make much money off the Wii U.

So it would be better to make no money off the Wii U?

 

[Interceptor]

Nintendo games right now don't even come close to the best of PS3 (graphically) and it has motions controls/a separate screen so I'm not understanding what they need their hardware for.

Is there some kind of easy button only available to them that generate their games?

You named it. Motion & second screen. 9axis + wiimotes + touch + nfc in the future. You may not like it, but Nintendo builds their hardware around the games they think would be innovative and fun.

Also actually playing Nintendoland might help understanding this.

(like sm64, Zelda, Wii Sports, fit, etc)

 

[JordanN]

Your example with Japan and PSP/3DS doesn't work because the industry is declining in Japan. Nintendo's trying to fix it rather than bank on the West.

The problem with 3rd-parties cannot be blamed on Nintendo when they elected to give them mediocre support and failed on the HD platforms. At this point I don't care what they do because they're more likely to crash by continuing the AAAA model. EA is partly the cause of the whole DRM epidemic so I don't care what they do either; Star Wars be damned.

Square-Enix was powerful 10 years ago. Now they've picked up Eidos and can't even speak of their sales postively.

If they want to continue their self-destructive streaks then fine. They shouldn't claim that Nintendo is worse off than they are because that's laughably false.

I made no mention of Japan's industry declining. I'm saying, that's where they choose to work right now and well, the ones who don't are bound to be interested in PS4/XBO (where Nintendo doesn't stand a chance of wooing them).

I'm not sure what "cannot be blamed on Nintendo" means (or if it even has to do with what I said).

I said I don't believe Nintendo is trying to foster developers with low risk because if they are, there clearly is a problem with how they're doing it. The sales and the hardware make it an issue for a developer to support them over the PS3/360.

You named it. Motion & second screen. 9axis + wiimotes + touch + nfc in the future. You may not like it, but Nintendo builds their hardware around the games they think would be innovative and fun.

Also actually playing Nintendoland might help understanding this.

(like sm64, Zelda, Wii Sports, fit, etc)

I'm talking about the present though. Again, their competitors can already do what Nintendo's hardware can.

Also, not all their games even rely on using motion controls or a gamepad. If they can adapt to that, I'm sure a third party would be seen as inoffensive.

 

[Mxrz]

I'd welcome it, but it isn't something I'm all that crazy about any more. Which is part of the problem. Mario and Zelda aren't worth shelling out $250/$350+$60 for any more for a growing number of folks. There are just too many options these days.

And yes, there are people missing out on Halos and Uncharteds, but like the Nintendo die hards love pointing out, those IPs aren't nearly as iconic are they? So yeah, there probably are kids that'll grow up without a Mario game. Make what you will of that.

 

[I'M FINISHED!]

Nintendo would be the majority shareholder of bread if they sold Animal Crossing for two slices on Facebook. The sandwich exchange rates are going down, it's the perfect time for the Wii hoagie. A timed mustard exclusive and Donkey Kong toothpick flags would mean lights out for Intellivision!

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

I disagree. If you look at the sheer breadth and variety of genres Nintendo publishes, and random new IPs created by them that ignite every generation, they are a nightmare to contend with.

Let's just do a rough scan if you were, say, a Sony third-party.

Right away, you can pull the plug on all platformers, kart racers, pet-sims, "cute" games, and probably mascot games in general.

If you wish to develop an adventure game you would have to plan your development schedule around Zelda.

Action game, well, Metroid isn't that big.

Good luck making an RPG or fighting game with Pokemon and Smash lying around. A third-party Nintendo would also probably push all its franchises including Paper Mario. Fire Emblem. Earthbound.

You would either be making genres Nintendo doesn't make, or forever planning your releases around THEIR software schedule.

This is assuming Nintendo doesn't go all aggro like Activision or EA and go around straight-up buying controlling stakes in Konami, Platinum, Namco, etc.

Those are some valid points, but I don't think a Pokemon RPG and Dark Souls or Elder Scrolls are competing for the same type of audience. Not sure if Earthbound or Fire Emblem would outsell or get more recognition than Final Fantasy, Tales or Persona either. Hard to say to be truthfully honest.

I'm not sure if Tekken, Mortal Kombat, DOA, BlazBlue, Street Fighter and Marvel players would buy SSBM to replace those franchises. Will they buy it, yes, but I do not see it as a direct competitor to traditional fighters because to me they are like apples and oranges.

Yeah, I wouldn't try to compete with them with platformers. They got that covered. Ratchet and Clank might pull some admirable numbers, but I would imagine that a authentic 3D Mario will pull higher numbers.

I do not see traditional simulator racing games competing with Kart racers. They are quite different I think. A Forza player will play Mario Kart for fun, but not as a replacement I think.

Action RPG's will have a tough time directly competing with Zelda, but I still think adventure games with RPG elements could coexist with it. Zelda games are rare anyway. It isn't like the come out like Assassin's Creed or COD.

Pikmin??? Hard to say how something like that would sell on PS4 or XBone. I suppose it would appeal to strategy game players, but I am not sure if they would like it's cutesy look. Nintendo gamers would be more open to it's uniqueness, while traditional casual gamers will immediately insinuate that it has no depth and is childish based on it's appearance.

Pet-sims, "cute" games, and mascot games are seemingly kind of rare from third parties, so Nintendo also got that covered.

I think Nintendo franchises and other franchises can co-exist because the game Nintendo makes are unique for the most part and they would stand out from most other games. I don't think the vast majority of their legendary assortment of games would dominate on Sony's and Microsoft's consoles as much as people assume. Yes, I am even talking about third parties.

 

[MisterHero]

I said I don't believe Nintendo is trying to foster developers with low risk because if they are, there clearly is a problem with how they're doing it. The sales and the hardware make it a non-issue for a developer to support them over the PS3/360.

I'm trying to link 3rd-parties actual decisions to what they could have done.

Yeah, Nintendo made it hard for Wii U to keep up with Next-gen. But on the other hand, 3rd-parties are making themselves non-issues for Nintendo. Some couldn't handle HD, and now they're in worse spots than before with zero experience on Nintendo's modest hardware.

Capcom ported Resident Evil 4 to all sorts of platforms. They're doing the same thing with REvelations. Gamecube and 3DS were lead platforms. I would say that's a good idea, but I have no idea if it's even possible when PS4/XBO come along.

 

[Interceptor]

I'm talking about the present though. Again, their competitors can already do what Nintendo's hardware can.

Also, not all their games rely on using motion controls or a gamepad. If they can adapt to that, I'm sure a third party would be inoffensive to that.

Not as a packin, no they can't. Just because some of their games don't need it does not mean all games shouldn't need it. They won't go 3rd party and you can do nothing about that. ^^

*elephant walks away*

 

[ArcaneFreeze]

I kind of find it funny how people keep going on about how Nintendo is in a bad state and how they need to blow everything up yet financially Microsoft and especially Sony are in much worse positions and everyones thinks they're doing just fine.

 

[JordanN]

Not as a packin, no they can't. Just because some of their games don't need it does not mean all games shouldn't need it. They won't go 3rd party and you can do nothing about that. ^^

*elephant walks away*

I rather see a new CEO before a proposal for going third party. Probably more likely if their market share collapses.

 

[Mxrz]

Those are some valid points, but I don't think a Pokemon RPG and Dark Souls or Elder Scrolls are competing for the same type of audience. Not sure if Earthbound or Fire Emblem would outsell or get more recognition than Final Fantasy, Tales or Persona either. Hard to say to be truthfully honest.

I'm not sure if Tekken, Mortal Kombat, DOA, BlazBlue, Street Fighter and Marvel players would buy SSBM to replace those franchises. Will they buy it, yes, but I do not see it as a direct competitor to traditional fighters because to me they are like apples and oranges.

Yeah, I wouldn't try to compete with them with platformers. They got that covered. Ratchet and Clank might pull some admirable numbers, but I would imagine that a authentic 3D Mario will pull higher numbers.

I do not see traditional simulator racing games competing with Kart racers. They are quite different I think. A Forza player will play Mario Kart for fun, but not as a replacement I think.

Action RPG's will have a tough time directly competing with Zelda, but I still think adventure games with RPG elements could coexist with it.

Pikmin??? Hard to say how something like that would sell on PS4 or XBone. I suppose it would appeal to strategy game players, but I am not sure if they would like it's cutesy look. Nintendo gamers would be more open to it's uniqueness, while traditional casual gamers will immediately insinuate that it has no depth and is childish based on it's looks.

Pet-sims, "cute" games, and mascot games are seemingly kind of rare from third parties, so Nintendo also got that covered.

I think Nintendo franchises and other franchises can co-exist because the game Nintendo makes are unique for the most part. I don't think the vast majority of their legendary assortment of games would dominate on Sony's and Microsoft's consoles as much as people assume.

I dont think Nintendo would suddenly turn into Activision or Ubisoft and start pumping out yearly Zeldas either. So even stuff like Darksiders wouldn't be affected all that much. The rest of the comparisons don't really hold up outside of Mario kart. Who is that going to hurt, Sega?

It would be interesting to see how well the non-Mario, Non-Zelda games would hold up on global consoles with high levels of competing software. We haven't really seen that since the SNES. Nintendo wouldn't be able to pull their old shady stuff either. But that is probably a reason not to do it. There really isn't any benefit in it for them as long as people keep buying their hardware.

 

[Chrisness]

So it would be better to make no money off the Wii U?

Yes because they'd make up for it with sales on the PS4/Xbox

 

[MisterHero]

Yes because they'd make up for it with sales on the PS4/Xbox

But elite PS4/Xbox owners don't want kiddy gimmick games.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

Because that worked great for SNK, right?

Didn't SNK basically just release side-scrolling schmups and fighting games? That's hardly an extensive catalogue of games, and therefore a poor comparison.

 

[ArcaneFreeze]

Yes because they'd make up for it with sales on the PS4/Xbox

They'd also be losing more sales from games they wouldn't be able to put out on PS4/Xbox as opposed to their own hardware. There would be no Bayonetta 2 sales, no Pikmin 3 sales, Wonderful 101 wouldn't exist, neither would SMT x FE, say goodbye to Xenoblade sequel, Game & Wario would be gone, etc. etc. These games came to be because of their hardware. Lets face it, outside of Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon the rest of Nintendo's core titles wouldn't even exist on other platforms.

 

[peanutbutterlatte]

Yes because they'd make up for it with sales on the PS4/Xbox

They'd replace it with sales on the PS4/Xbox. Regardless, it isn't going to happen, so this is all conjecture.

 

[RawkHawk2010]

Nintendo President: "Eidos should have their IP on our platform"

Best post.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

Nintendo games right now don't even come close to the best of PS3 (graphically) and it has motions controls/a separate screen so I'm not understanding what they need their hardware for.

Is there some kind of easy button only available to them that generate their games?

That makes absolutely 0 sense. Its like you want to say it while nothing has been out. When X comes out does your perspective change?

 

[Koren]

Yes, I want my next mario with online activation and DRM that prevent me to lend it to a friend...

Wait...


I agree that it's not a given (at all) we're getting something like this with PS4, but I'm far from thinking that having some Nintendo hardware is such a bad thing (and older tech also has its advantages, it's less prone to failure, which I appreciate a lot as a retro-gamer). Besides, they're trying to find new ideas for hardware, which I find interesting (I don't say it's an issue of philosophy about videogames, I reckon it's rather a way to differentiate themselves, but the effect is the same)

And yes, half of their studios probably wouldn't exist if Nintendo was a 3rd-party elsewhere. It's rather Nintendo 1st-party or EAD + Pokemon Company 3rd party.

I definitively don't want them 3rd party...

 

[Soule]

They'd also be losing more sales from games they wouldn't be able to put out on PS4/Xbox as opposed to their own hardware. There would be no Bayonetta 2 sales, no Pikmin 3 sales, Wonderful 101 wouldn't exist, neither would SMT x FE, say goodbye to Xenoblade sequel, Game & Wario would be gone, etc. etc. These games came to be because of their hardware. Lets face it, outside of Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon the rest of Nintendo's core titles wouldn't even exist on other platforms.

So help me understand, will they shut down all their 3rd party publishing deals, other dev studios, 2nd parties, etc. or will they all work on Mario, Zelda and Pokemon? Because I am really interested to see what you think here, why you think this company will either saturate the market with dozens of games from the same franchises, kill off entire dev teams (just 'cos we're 3rd party now can't have those!) or just have hundreds if not thousands of people from multiple dev morph into 3 super dev teams just for those franchises?

To expand on this, Retro studios, what are they doing now? Monolith? Intelligent Systems? Why can't Nintendo publish for other devs anymore? Is there some secret pact that stops a smaller dev like Platinum from dealing with publishers that don't own the platform? Isn't that exactly what a publisher is supposed to do?

Why would going 3rd party suddenly render them impotent?

 

[Chrisness]

They'd replace it with sales on the PS4/Xbox. Regardless, it isn't going to happen, so this is all conjecture.

Replace and have much more. (for console sales)

 

[Persona86]

If only. Unfortunately, exclusives will still be a thing in the future.

Which is a good thing, exclusives create competition, competition creates better games.

 

[Frodo]

Sony's IPs should be on all platforms. Imagine all the people that only have a Wii or a 360, or only play on the PC not being able to play The Last of Us...

On topic: if you want to play Nintendo games buy a Nintendo platform.

 

[peanutbutterlatte]

Which is a good thing, exclusives create competition, competition creates better games.

Exactly. $100 games on the Microsoft NintendoStation because what the fuck else you gonna buy? would be terrible.

 

[JordanN]

That makes absolutely 0 sense. Its like you want to say it while nothing has been out. When X comes out does your perspective change?

Dunno? Is X the kind of game the PS3 couldn't handle or wouldn't change much if it was on it? Also, what about PS4/XBO?

Also, not every game is X. New Super Mario Bros U would barely tax the PS3 but Nintendo still made it anyway.

 

[JoeM86]

Dunno? Is X the kind of game the PS3 couldn't handle or wouldn't change much if it was on it?

Also, not every game is X. New Super Mario Bros U would barely tax the PS3 but Nintendo still made it anyway.

So? Why must every game have massively realistic graphics with strong fidelity? Graphics like that don't fit the series. It's a style.

I dislike how people dismiss styles just because they don't look "top of the range"

 

[JordanN]

So? Why must every game have massively realistic graphics with strong fidelity? Graphics like that don't fit the series. It's a style.

I dislike how people dismiss styles just because they don't look "top of the range"

I never said every game has to be real. I'm actually arguing what Nintendo's current fidelity is and that's games that look worse or on par with the PS3.

I made no mention of disliking a style beyond that post.

 

[J-Rock]

Do you guys think Nintendo games would sell well on a future Xbox, Playstation, Steam, iOS, etc? If so, how well? Or do you think they would sell poorly? Just curious.

 

[JoeM86]

I never said every game has to be real. I'm actually arguing what Nintendo's current fidelity is and that's games that look worse than the PS3.

I made no mention of disliking a style beyond that post.

But how would it look worse than the PS3? They went with a style. If they developed it for the PS3, it'd look no different.

Do you guys think Nintendo games would sell well on a future Xbox, Playstation, Steam, iOS, etc? If so, how well? Or do you think they would sell poorly? Just curious.

They wouldn't sell as well. As such, we'd end up with just continual iterations in the Mario, Mario Kart, Zelda and Pokémon franchises. Everything else, Kid Icarus, Wario, Pikmin, Kirby etc. would likely no longer exist because they won't reach over 1m in sales and thus not be financially worth it. With Nintendo being a third party, their money would only come from their software so taking losses like that wouldn't be acceptable.