Support NeoGAF

[LoveCake]

If the Nintendo system/console isn't capable of running ports of games from the other competing systems/consoles then publishers won't publish & developers won't develop for the system/console, they will only do so if they know the games will sell & they can make money.

Can Nintendo get back full third party support, they can but they need to have two things, first is a comparable console spec-wise & secondly enough people that will buy the console.

It is relativity easy for Nintendo to make a console that is more powerful than X1/PS4, anyone can just write down a list of specs that are higher than the X1/PS4, faster CPU, more faster RAM, higher spec GPU etc etc, but can it be made at a price people will pay for & will people want to buy it, that is the big question, whatever the next Nintendo console is everyone is just going to sit back on their cash & wait & see what happens, the industry will see that the console isn't shifting in numbers so publishers & developers stop publishing & developing games for the console, this is what happened with the 3DS at the start, WiiU & also VITA, without games people won't invest in a console & this just spirals, less games announced less people invest in the console.

 

[Taker666]

EA won't even spend practically pennies to release roster updated legacy editions of Fifa and Madden games that they already released on Wii U. I doubt they'd even need to sell more than 500 digital copies to make a profit....so it's clearly a bigger issue than just ease of porting/power of hardware/making their money back.

 

[megabytecr]

We don't even know what the next system is.

If they have a similar architecture system and power envelope (x86) as PS4 and XB1 then I don't see why not port everything if it is going to be very simple and easy.

If they go with a not so powerful system and with a very different architecture as PS4/XB1 then I don't think they will get 3rd party support.

 

[Number_6]

People should have known this since the N64 days, if not sooner. You buy a Nintendo device to play Nintendo games and maybe a handful of third party exclusives.

Well, this "knowledge" is a big part of why third parties left Nintendo. Nobody was buying their games on Nintendo systems.

Maybe if people would buy the other games on their Nintendo systems, then the third parties would be more comfortable making games for the Nintendo systems.

Somehow, Nintendo got themselves into a chicken/egg scenario with third parties. They need support for the hardware sales, but they can't get the sales without the support.

 

[RedSwirl]

I think the problem stems from two interconnected issues:

1) Nintendo never really learned how to earn third party support with good competition present. Nintendo had that support in the NES and SNES days because it was too big a part of the market for any console developer to ignore. It was Nintendo's game back then. As soon as real competition showed up the developers rushed to it en mass like all the air getting sucked out of a punctured airplane. Nintendo hasn't really figured out how to adapt to this, partly due to its other problem.

2) Nintendo kind of has a core philosophical disagreement with all the big western publishers. I feel like Nintendo doesn't really care for the way big console games have been made ever since around the time Final Fantasy VII came on the scene with its cinematic presentation and huge marketing campaign based on the story and cut scenes. The big western publishers have built their business off those kinds of games made specifically for the western young adult male demographic and have made it their niche. I think the main decisions makers at Nintendo simply don't especially enjoy those kinds of games and prefer things to be like how console/arcade gaming was in the 80's and early 90's. That is, games based almost entirely on mechanical gameplay made for all audiences.

Furthermore, the west wants increasingly powerful hardware to allow them to make bigger and prettier games, Sony having gone along with that. Nintendo on the other hand primarily just cares about making more purely mechanical games while trying to create more innovative control interfaces. Mind you, the N64 was still powerful hardware for its day, but Nintendo made it so because it needed the advanced 3D graphics to make its own ideas like Mario 64 a reality. The Gamecube is probably the sole case of Nintendo deliberately keeping up with the joneses, and people at Nintendo have already expressed their displeasure at what happened during those years. I know at least one third party company started feeling down about the Wii as soon as Nintendo revealed to publishers it wanted to make the console low-wattage for the benefit of the Japanese market, which is part of why it was underpowered. The same goes for the Wii U, though it was a half-attempt to get the hardcore back.

I'm really starting to think the big western publishers are essentially lost to Nintendo for these reasons. It's not even just the ones the OP mentioned that eventually drifted away from Nintendo. The ones Opiate mentioned, along with companies like Bethesda or Epic -- the old PC guard, have never had any working relationship with Nintendo. Valve, Bethesda, and Epic I believe have never shipped games for Nintendo hardware. In Blizzard's case I think there's just the SNES version of Lost Vikings and the StarCraft N64 port. id still has some willingness to pay attention to Nintendo but that's about it. I think Nintendo would be prudent to further strengthen ties to Japanese developers and try really hard to get support from mobile and indie developers. All those groups seem to make games more in line with Nintendo's philosophy.

Going forward, I wouldn't be surprised if the primary base for the NX platform was another underpowered machine that ends up mostly just attracting Japanese third parties and maybe some mobile developers if Nintendo is lucky and smart. Maybe the potential for more form factors could allow Nintendo to make a "super powerful" NX machine but that alone wouldn't attract the big western publishers.

To get them back I think Nintendo would have to:
1) Completely change how it deals with other companies, probably talking to them about new hardware while it's still in the planning stages to see what they want.
2) Be more willing to push and accommodate blockbuster games for the 18-35 western male demographic.
3) Give up on the Japanese console gaming market like Sony did. Or at least don't treat it like priority 1 anymore.

Most importantly and overall though, Nintendo needs to determine whether it's going to be a very Japanese company or start acting like an international company.

 

[Papacheeks]

Much better on Steam/PC; this is why there are so many games released there in the first place. It is definitely true that there are very few physical releases on PC in general, as the market has almost entirely collapsed in America for retail PC games.



That is definitely true, but would point out this is the sign of a healthy platform. When a platform is bustling and doing very well, it tends to have a lot of crap to go along with the cream -- PS2 is a great example here, for instance.

It is absolutely true that the consoles tend to get a "greatest hits" of the indie games on PC, so if that's what you're primarily interested in the consoles are fine. This is typically referred to as a "curated experience."

My point without deviating any further on the thread, is that slowly consoles are becoming more of the red carpet for these Indie games.

Super Giant Games guy's who made Transistor and Bastion said :

In this week's announcement, Supergiant's Greg Kasavin noted the majority of Bastion's sales arrived "many months after the game first came out on Xbox 360 and PC. So we were very happy to see Transistor selling even faster relative to Bastion during the first couple of months after its launch."

Kasavin's talked about that long sales tail before. Speaking at E3 2013 about future Transistor ports, he said, "For us, it's really important to not be tied down for the long haul, because Bastion's success was not made on any one platform. That being said, our focus is absolutely on a successful PS4 launch and also our Steam PC launch, because if that does not go well, there will not be other versions of the game, most likely and so forth."

Article

Notice how he said also steam? And also know that Transistor debuted at E3 under SOny's conference. Would the game have sold 600,000 copies that quickly or even got to that number at all if not show cased by a console?

I don't see steam, or iOs pulling out the red carpet, and trying to elevate these games to bigger audiences. I don't see people with tablet's, notebooks downloading steam just to play Indie games. Usually they are played and bought by people who already play PC games.

 

[disastermouse]

Nitpicking, I know, but the Wii U gamepad functions perfectly fine as a 'standard controller'. It has all the buttons and it's fairly comfortable to hold / use.

The cost of the controller limited them in building the rest of the console and has hindered their ability to drop the cost of what is clearly a technically inferior console in a market where Sony's and Microsoft's consoles are frequently found for less than $100 more.

 

[Entryhazard]

Nintendo won't because won't pay for the ports

 

[LegendofLex]

Nothing with do with realesing a year before PS4/Xone, the machine being not as powerful as that consoles, shitty online, abysmal third party relations, game pad being thought to be a Wii accessory for months...

1) Releasing timing doesn't matter. PS1 and PS2 both beat their main competitors to market by a year.

2) Power also doesn't matter. Wii was the best-selling console last generation; PS2 was the best-selling console the generation before; PS1 was the best-selling console the generation prior to that. All of them were the weakest spec-wise and even when it came to hardware featuresets. They won because their games generated more buzz.

3) Wii U's online is fine. You could say there aren't that many online games, but their online play works and works reasonably well. The quality of the online experience isn't something that consumers can feel prior to buying it anyway.

4) One could say that third parties have an extremely abusive relationship with the other first-party publishers, to the point that they basically demand that first parties fund them in some fashion in exchange for exclusive content. In the past, third parties went where the money was regardless of whether they were being bankrolled. So it's not the cause-effect relationship you're painting it as.

5) The gamepad being thought of as a Wii accessory actually fits very well into the narrative that Wii U failed because Nintendo's approachable brand is incompatible with the notion of a dual-analog controller. Why else would people have failed to recognize that it wasn't the primary controller for their new system, if they weren't expecting it to be an optional accessory based on how they thought of Nintendo's platforms?

 

[Taker666]

Nintendo won't because won't pay for the ports

Rather than paying, their best option IMO would be to have zero licensing fees for the first year to encourage support (they won't lose much in the first year in that regard).

Zero licensing fees for all Teen/Mature rated, licensed games and exclusives for year 2.
Zero licensing fees for all M rated, sports games and exclusives for year 3.
Then zero licensing fees for all M rated titles and exclusives for the rest of the consoles life.

 

[randomengine]

The problem is the premise is flawed. Why the arbitrary line of having all the publishers listed? Nintendo can and do get support from the majority of the publishers on the list. We could make an arbitrary list explaining why Xbox doesn't have full third party support too.

But the list isn't arbitrary. Games which are from those publishers that are listed as multi-platform will always hit Xbox and PS4 platforms. Otherwise, it would be a console exclusive. How many titles exists that are on the Wii U and either Xbox or PS4, but not both? I don't think a title like that exists. From a major publisher?

The truth is that Nintendo has gotten a game or two from maybe half of the list. Full, true Third-party support for a system means that if a publisher has a multi-platform title to publish it hits that system and with feature-parity. Otherwise it is simply third-party support of various quality/quantity - which for the purposes of this discussion is not relevant.

 

[Haines]

I have to wonder if third party support isn't even valued as much as it once was. Half of it is junk like cod/ass creed.

 

[randomengine]

I think the problem stems from two interconnected issues:

1)Nintendo never really learned how to earn third party support with good competition present.Nintendo had that support in the NES and SNES days because it was too big a part of the market for any console developer to ignore. It was Nintendo's game back then. As soon as real competition showed up the developers rushed to it en mass like all the air getting sucked out of a punctured airplane. Nintendo hasn't really figured out how to adapt to this, partly due to its other problem.

2) Nintendo kind of has a core philosophical disagreement with all the big western publishers. I feel like Nintendo doesn't really care for the way big console games have been made ever since around the time Final Fantasy VII came on the scene with its cinematic presentation and huge marketing campaign based on the story and cut scenes. The big western publishers have built their business off those kinds of games made specifically for the western young adult male demographic and have made it their niche. I think the main decisions makers at Nintendo simply don't especially enjoy those kinds of games and prefer things to be like how console/arcade gaming was in the 80's and early 90's. That is, games based almost entirely on mechanical gameplay made for all audiences.

Furthermore, the west wants increasingly powerful hardware to allow them to make bigger and prettier games, Sony having gone along with that. Nintendo on the other hand primarily just cares about making more purely mechanical games while trying to create more innovative control interfaces. Mind you, the N64 was still powerful hardware for its day, but Nintendo made it so because it needed the advanced 3D graphics to make its own ideas like Mario 64 a reality. The Gamecube is probably the sole case of Nintendo deliberately keeping up with the joneses, and people at Nintendo have already expressed their displeasure at what happened during those years. I know at least one third party company started feeling down about the Wii as soon as Nintendo revealed to publishers it wanted to make the console low-wattage for the benefit of the Japanese market, which is part of why it was underpowered. The same goes for the Wii U, though it was a half-attempt to get the hardcore back.

I'm really starting to think the big western publishers are essentially lost to Nintendo for these reasons. It's not even just the ones the OP mentioned that eventually drifted away from Nintendo. The ones Opiate mentioned, along with companies like Bethesda or Epic -- the old PC guard, have never had any working relationship with Nintendo. Valve, Bethesda, and Epic I believe have never shipped games for Nintendo hardware. In Blizzard's case I think there's just the SNES version of Lost Vikings and the StarCraft N64 port. id still has some willingness to pay attention to Nintendo but that's about it. I think Nintendo would be prudent to further strengthen ties to Japanese developers and try really hard to get support from mobile and indie developers. All those groups seem to make games more in line with Nintendo's philosophy.

Going forward, I wouldn't be surprised if the primary base for the NX platform was another underpowered machine that ends up mostly just attracting Japanese third parties and maybe some mobile developers if Nintendo is lucky and smart. Maybe the potential for more form factors could allow Nintendo to make a "super powerful" NX machine but that alone wouldn't attract the big western publishers.

To get them back I think Nintendo would have to:
1) Completely change how it deals with other companies, probably talking to them about new hardware while it's still in the planning stages to see what they want.
2) Be more willing to push and accommodate blockbuster games for the 18-35 western male demographic.
3) Give up on the Japanese console gaming market like Sony did. Or at least don't treat it like priority 1 anymore.

Most importantly and overall though, Nintendo needs to determine whether it's going to be a very Japanese company or start acting like an international company.

You are correct. Final Fantasy VII leaving for non-Nintendo systems was the original sin and ever since that day Nintendo has not been able to recover. It has been downhill ever since.

 

[trixx]

I especially don't expect anything if at all from EA, Take-Two, Square Enix, Bathesda to drop anything. Square Enix might drop the odd final fantasy side game or something. Probably not even activision and thats a huge chunk.

I don't think there's anything the can do. They could release a powerful console and still won't receive support.

 

[GameAddict411]

No they won't. It's not just a hardware issue. It's a marketing issue, a third party relation issue, a reluctance to moneyhat, and a consumer base purchasing issue.

Solve those issues you just mentioned. How are they going to make a game like arkham knight work on the wii-u?

 

[Number_6]

I especially don't expect anything if at all from EA, Take-Two, Square Enix, Bathesda to drop anything. Square Enix might drop the odd final fantasy side game or something. Probably not even activision and thats a huge chunk.

I don't think there's anything the can do. They could release a powerful console and still won't receive support.

Well, they have to do a bit more than just release a powerful console. They have to start up that dialogue, open that wallet, and fire their marketing team.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

I think the problem stems from two interconnected issues:

1) Nintendo never really learned how to earn third party support with good competition present. Nintendo had that support in the NES and SNES days because it was too big a part of the market for any console developer to ignore. It was Nintendo's game back then. As soon as real competition showed up the developers rushed to it en mass like all the air getting sucked out of a punctured airplane. Nintendo hasn't really figured out how to adapt to this, partly due to its other problem.

Not true at all. Nintendo had competition since the SNES days. Yes, they dominated with iron fist in the NES days, but SNES they had to struggle. Genesis was dominating on the US market and they only managed to turn around on it's late life. In Japan, SNES came out two years after the Genesis and PC-Engine, so there were alternatives, if they were keen to leave Nintendo. Still Japanese third-parties decided to stick with Nintendo, instead. In US, despite considerable Genesis domination, SNES still had almost every single considerable third-party support from the time.

It was from the N64 onward that Nintendo started their "shoot themselves on their foot" hardware decisions that scared away third-parties.

2) Nintendo kind of has a core philosophical disagreement with all the big western publishers. I feel like Nintendo doesn't really care for the way big console games have been made ever since around the time Final Fantasy VII came on the scene with its cinematic presentation and huge marketing campaign based on the story and cut scenes. The big western publishers have built their business off those kinds of games made specifically for the western young adult male demographic and have made it their niche. I think the main decisions makers at Nintendo simply don't especially enjoy those kinds of games and prefer things to be like how console/arcade gaming was in the 80's and early 90's. That is, games based almost entirely on mechanical gameplay made for all audiences.

Furthermore, the west wants increasingly powerful hardware to allow them to make bigger and prettier games, Sony having gone along with that. Nintendo on the other hand primarily just cares about making more purely mechanical games while trying to create more innovative control interfaces. Mind you, the N64 was still powerful hardware for its day, but Nintendo made it so because it needed the advanced 3D graphics to make its own ideas like Mario 64 a reality. The Gamecube is probably the sole case of Nintendo deliberately keeping up with the joneses, and people at Nintendo have already expressed their displeasure at what happened during those years. I know at least one third party company started feeling down about the Wii as soon as Nintendo revealed to publishers it wanted to make the console low-wattage for the benefit of the Japanese market, which is part of why it was underpowered. The same goes for the Wii U, though it was a half-attempt to get the hardcore back.

I'm really starting to think the big western publishers are essentially lost to Nintendo for these reasons. It's not even just the ones the OP mentioned that eventually drifted away from Nintendo. The ones Opiate mentioned, along with companies like Bethesda or Epic -- the old PC guard, have never had any working relationship with Nintendo. Valve, Bethesda, and Epic I believe have never shipped games for Nintendo hardware. In Blizzard's case I think there's just the SNES version of Lost Vikings and the StarCraft N64 port. id still has some willingness to pay attention to Nintendo but that's about it. I think Nintendo would be prudent to further strengthen ties to Japanese developers and try really hard to get support from mobile and indie developers. All those groups seem to make games more in line with Nintendo's philosophy.

Nintendo had a western friendly approach on their SNES and N64 days, as they made several publishing and second-party deals with many western developers attending to appeal to this audience. DMA Design, Paradigm, Angel Studios, Bits Studios, Hardware Creation, Left Field, Silicon Knights, Rare, Factor 5, Mass Media, Looking Glass Software, H20, Saffire, Midway, Retro... they were all riding Nintendo's boat and investing into the western crowd that Nintendo's first-party titles couldn't properly manage to appeal. They managed to succeed at that, because SNES and N64 had, both, a solid Teen-Mature crowd. That's why big third-parties at time like Acclaim, THQ and Midway brought several big, successful exclusive titles for the sytem. Turok? WCW/WWF series? Star Wars? They were there.

Shikamaru Ninja made a great post on a thread last year about how was NoA back in the day:

From 1990-2000. Nintendo of America had production and management autonomy from Japan. NOA basically culminated its own production team, along a few co-designers, and started funding and producing games with developers.

DMA Design: Uni Racers, Body Harvest (Nintendo dropped it in 1997, Midway took it)
Angel Studios: Ken Griffey Baseball, Buggie Boogie (canceled)
Bits Studios: Warlocked, Riqa (canceled)
Rare: Donkey Kong Country, Killer Instinct, Goldeneye 007, Perfect Dark
Software Creations: Ken Griffey Baseball, Tin Star
Silicon Knights: Eternal Darkness (N64 version)
Left Field Productions: Kobey Bryant in NBA Courtside, Excitebike 64
Looking Glass Studio: Mini Racers (canceled)
Mass Media: Star Craft 64
H20: Tetrisphere
Saffire Corp: Nester's Funky Bowling, James Bond 007
Midway: Cruisn Series

Nintendo of America also procured the Ken Griffey and MLBPA license, NHL License, Kobe Bryant and NBA license, PGA license, Disney license, James Bond license, StarCraft license. Star Wars Episode I license. They were producing their own first-party games separate from Nintendo of Japan.

That all changed when Iwata transitioned from Global Marketing Chief to President. NOA Production was killed, and Nintendo of Japan's SPD Department took over all Western development (Star Fox Adventures, Geist, Eternal Darkness GC).

Henry Sterchi, Brian Ullrich, Ken Lobb, Ed Ridgeway, Jeff Hutt, Faran Thomason, and the whole crew left NOA to Microsoft and other developers. Since then, we've seen the Western model we have today. Western developers reporting directly to Japanese management, and pretty much making B/C sequels to Nintendo IPs.

And this is an interview with Peter Main, circa 2000, acknowledging how important was western support for Nintendo systems.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2000/05/15/the-main-man-talks-dolphin

Nintendo’s Peter Main: “We continue, let me say, to have the utmost respect for the third-party world and its potential to be a very important part of our program going forward. However, in recent times a number of things have happened beyond that. Brand loyalty, by virtue of games being available on every platform, has somewhat reduced since the NES days when we did have platform exclusivity.

We know that core to our business are the franchise characters that we own. We know the limitations of our own development skills. In that line, we set out to find partners who could further build the brand identity and personality with product that would appear exclusively on our platform.”

We’re not a cash poor company, so bringing financial resources to groups that show tremendous creativity and development potential makes good sense. The second-parties have become very logical extensions of what we do so well with our group in Japan and NST now in America. And given the rate of change with new platforms, and what essentially in engineering terms becomes fast-track projects, in order to make them happen in the least amount of time, you need to bring people into your tent long before you’re finished. That is better done with internal partners than external ones.

That all said and done, we think it helps us, especially in our next go-around, come to market with more product, and more diverse product, created by people who didn’t have to wait for final tools to be made available, and instead could do it on the fly with us as we develop the components.

But again, Nintendo has in no way, shape or form turned its back in licensees and third-party developers. There are a good number of superb people that we look forward to having even more active involvement in the years ahead.”

This is what Nintendo needs to restore and bring back to their track. Something Iwata's short-sighted management disassembled and had negative impacts on Nintendo, as they not only lost significant market share to Microsoft, which managed to grab the N64's FPS crowd, for example, as burned bridges with third-parties and lost their western appeal, restricting their audience.

Going forward, I wouldn't be surprised if the primary base for the NX platform was another underpowered machine that ends up mostly just attracting Japanese third parties and maybe some mobile developers if Nintendo is lucky and smart. Maybe the potential for more form factors could allow Nintendo to make a "super powerful" NX machine but that alone wouldn't attract the big western publishers.

That's what everyone is affraid to happen and will drive them to an inevitable failure, as this direction has proven dry already, given Wii's premature death and Wii U's failure. Gamers and third-parties aren't buying the "underpowered hardware with gimmicky controller" plan anymore.

To get them back I think Nintendo would have to:
1) Completely change how it deals with other companies, probably talking to them about new hardware while it's still in the planning stages to see what they want.
2) Be more willing to push and accommodate blockbuster games for the 18-35 western male demographic.
3) Give up on the Japanese console gaming market like Sony did. Or at least don't treat it like priority 1 anymore.

Most importantly and overall though, Nintendo needs to determine whether it's going to be a very Japanese company or start acting like an international company.

Agree with 1 and 2, but not with 3. They might keep their japanese appeal if they want, but not at expense of western appeal and support like their current japanese heavily direction is making. Totally abandoning Japan wouldn't be a necessity in order to grab western attention.

 

[randomengine]

I especially don't expect anything if at all from EA, Take-Two, Square Enix, Bathesda to drop anything. Square Enix might drop the odd final fantasy side game or something.

I don't think there's anything they can do. They could release a powerful console and still won't receive support.

That is the long and short of it. This goes beyond hardware parity. The console business survives in the West and most Western developers/publishers don't want to support Nintendo. If someone doesn't like you, no amount of peacocking is going to change their mind.

 

[Delio]

That is the long and short of it. This goes beyond hardware parity. The console business survives in the West and most Western developers/publishers don't want to support Nintendo. If someone doesn't like you, no amount of peacocking is going to change their mind.

Pretty much how I see it. They will have to double down on Indies and Japanese third parties going forward. I love Nintendo but i have no hope that western third parties will ever come to them.

 

[kirby_fox]

I expect the Android part (play Amazon store games on the system) and some partnerships outside of gaming to make the system attractive to people purchasing. A developer making an Android version seeing sales skyrocket on NX could then be more likely to port an actual game to the system.

I have a strange feeling we're going to see an interesting partnership for this console too.

It'll make the system very unique compared to what's on the market, which may or may not drive sales. Those sales is what will attract third parties, even the Wii was a risk because of being underpowered and having to create a game for a market they weren't sure would buy in. Had the Wii been the Wii U in power I think the market would look really different, including the mobile market.

 

[Kansoku]

I think the problem stems from two interconnected issues:

1) Nintendo never really learned how to earn third party support with good competition present. Nintendo had that support in the NES and SNES days because it was too big a part of the market for any console developer to ignore. It was Nintendo's game back then. As soon as real competition showed up the developers rushed to it en mass like all the air getting sucked out of a punctured airplane. Nintendo hasn't really figured out how to adapt to this, partly due to its other problem.

2) Nintendo kind of has a core philosophical disagreement with all the big western publishers. I feel like Nintendo doesn't really care for the way big console games have been made ever since around the time Final Fantasy VII came on the scene with its cinematic presentation and huge marketing campaign based on the story and cut scenes. The big western publishers have built their business off those kinds of games made specifically for the western young adult male demographic and have made it their niche. I think the main decisions makers at Nintendo simply don't especially enjoy those kinds of games and prefer things to be like how console/arcade gaming was in the 80's and early 90's. That is, games based almost entirely on mechanical gameplay made for all audiences.

Furthermore, the west wants increasingly powerful hardware to allow them to make bigger and prettier games, Sony having gone along with that. Nintendo on the other hand primarily just cares about making more purely mechanical games while trying to create more innovative control interfaces. Mind you, the N64 was still powerful hardware for its day, but Nintendo made it so because it needed the advanced 3D graphics to make its own ideas like Mario 64 a reality. The Gamecube is probably the sole case of Nintendo deliberately keeping up with the joneses, and people at Nintendo have already expressed their displeasure at what happened during those years. I know at least one third party company started feeling down about the Wii as soon as Nintendo revealed to publishers it wanted to make the console low-wattage for the benefit of the Japanese market, which is part of why it was underpowered. The same goes for the Wii U, though it was a half-attempt to get the hardcore back.

I'm really starting to think the big western publishers are essentially lost to Nintendo for these reasons. It's not even just the ones the OP mentioned that eventually drifted away from Nintendo. The ones Opiate mentioned, along with companies like Bethesda or Epic -- the old PC guard, have never had any working relationship with Nintendo. Valve, Bethesda, and Epic I believe have never shipped games for Nintendo hardware. In Blizzard's case I think there's just the SNES version of Lost Vikings and the StarCraft N64 port. id still has some willingness to pay attention to Nintendo but that's about it. I think Nintendo would be prudent to further strengthen ties to Japanese developers and try really hard to get support from mobile and indie developers. All those groups seem to make games more in line with Nintendo's philosophy.

Going forward, I wouldn't be surprised if the primary base for the NX platform was another underpowered machine that ends up mostly just attracting Japanese third parties and maybe some mobile developers if Nintendo is lucky and smart. Maybe the potential for more form factors could allow Nintendo to make a "super powerful" NX machine but that alone wouldn't attract the big western publishers.

To get them back I think Nintendo would have to:
1) Completely change how it deals with other companies, probably talking to them about new hardware while it's still in the planning stages to see what they want.
2) Be more willing to push and accommodate blockbuster games for the 18-35 western male demographic.
3) Give up on the Japanese console gaming market like Sony did. Or at least don't treat it like priority 1 anymore.

Most importantly and overall though, Nintendo needs to determine whether it's going to be a very Japanese company or start acting like an international company.

I came here to make a big post, but you said basically everything I would've said.

Nintendo always had an easier time attracting Japanese thirds, especially on handhelds. The type of games both Nintendo and Japanese third parties make are very much alike, and thus they can thrive together. This will repeat with NX. What I want to see is what happens to the other type of Japanese developers, that generally focus on Vita. I believe they will all "flock back" to PC, but it would be interesting to see what would be if they went to Nintendo.

And to be honest, I want Nintendo to keep this way, to keep true to their philosophy. They are the only ones focusing on these types of games.

 

[Madao]

i think Nintendo having good third party support and a top console (without a fad) is the equivalent of Miramax doing higher box office numbers than studios like 20th Century Fox and WB in hollywood.

they have their place in the industry and it is a small one. they'll never change the minds of the PS/XB audience.

 

[RiggyRob]

But the list isn't arbitrary. Games which are from those publishers that are listed as multi-platform will always hit Xbox and PS4 platforms. Otherwise, it would be a console exclusive. How many titles exists that are on the Wii U and either Xbox or PS4, but not both? I don't think a title like that exists. From a major publisher?

The truth is that Nintendo has gotten a game or two from maybe half of the list. Full, true Third-party support for a system means that if a publisher has a multi-platform title to publish it hits that system and with feature-parity. Otherwise it is simply third-party support of various quality/quantity - which for the purposes of this discussion is not relevant.

It is arbitrary though, and you saying it isn't over and over again doesn't make it so. Where's Atlus, Level 5 and Tecmo Koei on the list? I'm sure there's some overlap between Playstation and Nintendo systems there with no Xbox port.

You're also making the mistake that Wii U/PS4/X1 are not the only game systems that exist. You say Nintendo will never have true third party support, but you're conveniently leaving out the handheld side, which is a bigger factor for Nintendo's business.

 

[randomengine]

It is arbitrary though, and you saying it isn't over and over again doesn't make it so. Where's Atlus, Level 5 and Tecmo Koei on the list? I'm sure there's some overlap between Playstation and Nintendo systems there with no Xbox port.

You're also making the mistake that Wii U/PS4/X1 are not the only game systems that exist. You say Nintendo will never have true third party support, but you're conveniently leaving out the handheld side, which is a bigger factor for Nintendo's business.

None of those are major third-party publishers. You are sure? Name a game that exists on Wii U and PS4, from a major publisher, that doesn't exist on Xbox One. There is a non-arbitrary definition here, you are just failing to see it.

If a multi-platform game, from a major publisher, exists on PS4, it also exists on Xbox One, with feature-parity and visa versa - that is full, true third-party support. It isn't arbitrary, you can clearly see which system has this and which doesn't. Nintendo systems don't. They haven't since SNES. Major publishers are pretty easy to distinguish from the non-major publishers. I am not using words which don't have easily identifiable meanings. For the purposes of this discussion we are only focused on console, not handhelds.

 

[magnumpy]

this is like watching a car wreck in slow motion. largely because of their smash hit "wii" they just won't die in spite of all the stupid decisions they make.

if you ask nintendo fans, nintendo could withstand several generations of failed consoles. in that case, brace yourself for that. you thought wii-u was a mess? nonsense, nintendo can do much worse than that. just watch.

 

[AstroNut325]

Question:

Are there any innovations from Nintendo since the N64 that are now widely used today by the rest of the industry?

The last one I can think of is the analog stick. Motion controls are almost completely dead. Off-screen play hasn't really caught on to my knowledge.

Am I missing something?

 

[JordanN]

Nintendo always had an easier time attracting Japanese thirds, especially on handhelds. The type of games both Nintendo and Japanese third parties make are very much alike, and thus they can thrive together. This will repeat with NX

I heard this before.

Any reason why the WiiU *won't* dominate Japan?

 

[Petrae]

I have to wonder if third party support isn't even valued as much as it once was. Half of it is junk like cod/ass creed.

That "junk" sells millions of units, and those who want to play that "junk" buy Sony or Microsoft consoles-- where that "junk" is located-- instead of Nintendo consoles, such as the WiiU.

 

[Rolf NB]

Because the Wii U is a secondary system to anyone who ever gave a shit about third party games, if they own one at all. You don't buy multiplats on your secondary system.

Those who treat the Wii U as their primary are the other, self-selected group that doesn't care in the first place. The same ones that made it through last gen with a Wii alone and nothing else.

I have to wonder if third party support isn't even valued as much as it once was. Half of it is junk like cod/ass creed.

See?

For a Nintendo system to get even support from third parties, it needs to be a viable primary to a mass market outside of dedicated Nintendo loyalists. And for that to happen, it would need to be actually competitive in performance and soft features.

 

[Enosh]

Just like the gamecube?

different times, games cost a lot more now and if a port cost is low enough (by having similar hardware and architecture) publishers would probably rather thrown their games on everything possible

 

[Glendemonium]

You are correct. Final Fantasy VII leaving for non-Nintendo systems was the original sin and ever since that day Nintendo has not been able to recover. It has been downhill ever since.

Not only that, but dictating what other companies can or can't have on their own games isn't any way to establish a good relationship with third parties. It goes against their design philosophy even though they tend to let a few things slip under the cracks. I tend to forget the way they handled Mortal Kombat when it came to blood on the SNES (yes there is a code, but still). I'm not talking about something as morally wrong like Hatred, but Nintendo would be hard pressed to have Dark Souls or GTA on their system.

There are times where even I forget that bit of history with Nintendo, like when NES developers were limited to how many games they can publish per year, so they had to create alternate brands to ship more games. (Konami/Ultra) Things might of changed, but I'm sure there are some "rules" in place that third parties just don't have the time or money to work around.

It's no wonder Playstation was the more attractive choice, no company would want to be held back like that. Hell even Sega seemed far more flexible with third parties, unfortunately that golden age ended with the Dreamcast, Sony came and picked up the pieces and went from there.

I want to see Nintendo succeed, but man they really got to let go of the old ways.

 

[Tuck]

Shenmue 3 will never happen.

Not even closely related.

Unfortunately, I agree with the OP. The best selling games on Nintendo platforms are Nintendo games, because most people seem to buy Nintendo platforms as secondary. I'll just play third party games on playstation. I think they should aim for more exclusives, even if they have to pay a premium.

 

[ZombiePlatypus]

I honestly personally don't mind. 3rd party games are almost always eventually multiplat and I'd never buy a Nintendo system as my only gaming platform.

All I want from Nintendo is to keep making the games they're currently making. That's more than enough for me, and essentially why I support them.

 

[Retromelon]

I wasnt going to agree with you but that wow analogy was real

 

[Interceptor]

True and they know that. That ship has sailed a long time ago. Todays 3rd parties have no legacy with Nintendo. No history .Nintendo is the weird child you don´t want to work with. At least that´s the mindset among lots of western studios. That´s why Nintendo is heavily investing into indies for a couple of years now. They are building history and relations with the next generation of third parties.

 

[GustyGardens]

Incorrect. Disks have very little to do with anything. There are many multi disc 360 games. Want to know why? Because there is demand. Interesting fact: most of the 6th gen gta games (aside from San Andreas I think) would've fit just fine on the GC mini dvds.

If that truly is the case, then I stand corrected on that point. I can't remember the exact specifics of the Gamecube hardware, so I can't make an argument with that as the keystone. Nintendo always seems to do something ridiculous, however good their console hardware.

As much a Nintendo fan as I am, I expect the NX to live up to those expectations. Funnily enough, I'm okay with that.

 

[Haines]

That "junk" sells millions of units, and those who want to play that "junk" buy Sony or Microsoft consoles-- where that "junk" is located-- instead of Nintendo consoles, such as the WiiU.

Ok. There's more ways to sell hardware than big blockbuster games. Virtual reality won't have any of those.

 

[Opiate]

Ok. There's more ways to sell hardware than big blockbuster games. Virtual reality won't have any of those.

Sure, but the point is that it does sell quite a bit, it influences lots of consumer decisions, and simply dismissing it as "junk" doesn't make that fact go away.

You can't hate iOS to death with the power of your will, and you can't do the same to AAA gaming, either.

 

[RiggyRob]

None of those are major third-party publishers. You are sure? Name a game that exists on Wii U and PS4, from a major publisher, that doesn't exist on Xbox One. There is a non-arbitrary definition here, you are just failing to see it.

If a multi-platform game, from a major publisher, exists on PS4, it also exists on Xbox One, with feature-parity and visa versa - that is full, true third-party support. It isn't arbitrary, you can clearly see which system has this and which doesn't. Nintendo systems don't. They haven't since SNES. Major publishers are pretty easy to distinguish from the non-major publishers. I am not using words which don't have easily identifiable meanings. For the purposes of this discussion we are only focused on console, not handhelds.

There it is again, you're moving the goalposts. I said Nintendo and Playstation systems, not Wii U and PS4. Your premise is that Nintendo will never have "full true third party support" which presumably extends beyond the lifespans of Wii U/PS4/X1.

And there are plenty of games that span not only Playstation and Nintendo systems and not Xbox systems, but Nintendo and mobile systems. Virtue's Last Reward, Ni no Kuni, a variety of SMT games, plus Ace Attorney, Ghost Trick, Fantasy Life and so on.

Just because they don't fit into your Western centric view of "full true third party support" does not mean Atlus, Tecmo Koei and Level 5 are not major third party publishers.

For the purposes of this discussion, why ignore handhelds? Because it doesn't fit your premise? If NX is a handheld successor as many expect it to be, you would have to include handhelds by default.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

I mean, I'll never say never, but yeah. It's certainly not something to expect without seeing a massive change in the way that more than one company does business.

 

[NormalFish]

It's hilarious how many people in this thread think huge corporations aren't putting their product on a certain platform because they don't like the platform owner. Big corporate doesn't do or not do based on something as petty as dislike. They want money, and they go where that money is. Nintendo hasn't convinced 3rd parties that their system is a good investment, and thus they don't have traditional 3rd party support.

 

[Kimawolf]

Major 3rd party support as far as some western developers go? They will be back. but what's interesting to me is, when the handheld and console are combined, they got some of the best titles SE EVER put out, some of the best work from SEGA, lots of bandai Namco games and so on. So to me, if they truly plan to make a more streamlined, uniformed gaming platform then they won't have real gaps in their line up ever.

Add to that that I think they will make a play for a lot of the other indies and some of the people in the mobile space and they could really shake things up. That's assuming it all falls into place like that.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

If the NX releases in 2016/17 with the same hardware as the PS4/One, I'd be convinced that Nintendo has learned nothing from the last 10 years. Getting ports of COD '17 and Assassin's Creed '17 and Fifa '17 that look exactly the same or worse than the PS4 version isn't going to convince anyone to "upgrade".

They'd be ignored again and I'd question the wisdom of even being in the hardware business at that point.

 

[Neoxon]

Major 3rd party support as far as some western developers go? They will be back. but what's interesting to me is, when the handheld and console are combined, they got some of the best titles SE EVER put out, some of the best work from SEGA, lots of bandai Namco games and so on. So to me, if they truly plan to make a more streamlined, uniformed gaming platform then they won't have real gaps in their line up ever.

Add to that that I think they will make a play for a lot of the other indies and some of the people in the mobile space and they could really shake things up. That's assuming it all falls into place like that.

The handheld & console won't combine in the sense of it being one hybrid system, but rather two systems that share most of each other's games.

 

[Ivan Amiibo]

If the NX releases in 2016/17 with the same hardware as the PS4/One, I'd be convinced that Nintendo has learned nothing from the last 10 years. Getting ports of COD '17 and Assassin's Creed '17 and Fifa '17 that look exactly the same or worse than the PS4 version isn't going to convince anyone to "upgrade".

They'd be ignored again and I'd question the wisdom of even being in the hardware business at that point.

we should get a pool going on if they try it again, the underpowered gambit. I'm not convinced that they realize the wii was a one-off deal.

 

[visiblemode]

Or they need the people who buy their hardware to buy the software third parties put on them if they want third party support.

That makes very little sense. You're saying that in order to secure 3rd party support, we're to spend hundreds and thousands of dollars each, willy nilly, on whatever 3rd party games that stagger into daylight on the platform, so they'll...keep making these off-brand 3rd party games?.... I shop, slightly differently.

The original idea is way better. Make a console with architecture very compatible with PS4 and with at least comparable power, ideally more.

Sure it would represent less profit potential than their traditional approach, then again: the Wii U did not sell.

Spoiler

sadly

 

[Teuoxton]

Do not buy a PC, XBone2 or PS5.

Then all third parties have to choose WiiU 2.

 

[Kimawolf]

The handheld & console won't combine in the sense of it being one hybrid system, but rather two systems that share most of each other's games.

And my argument is those sharing of most games, if this generation is any representation of things, would be a very robust and huge library of varied games, a constant flow, especially if I can simply play my Fire Emblem, or SMTV, or whatever "handheld game" on my console or handheld, or if I can slip in my Bravely Default or whatever mobile game is hot, then their line up would be pretty huge.

 

[randomengine]

Nintendo does not need funky hardware in order to make amazingly innovative Nintendo games - look at the Gamecube. So they could get away with making a console that is akin to their competitors, however, if that is their path, why not just go third-party? I never thought that recommendation would ever come out of me, but I think if Nintendo wants to remain relevant in the console sphere, they have to push more traditional hardware.

 

[mrklaw]

tech no longer matters. Tools no longer matter. Those bridges have been burned.

Nobody buys a Nintendo console as an only console, expecting to play the big multiplatform titles. They are either happy to just play first party titles, or they buy it in conjunction with a PC/Xbox/Playstation which covers their third party desires.

Even if Nintendo came out with great tools, attractive business models and hardware on par - so the cost of ports was minimal, third party publishers would still ignore it, because consumers wouldn't buy games on it.

Nintendo has spent too long ignoring commonsense and not caring about third parties, and that now means consumers have zero expections from them and therefore so do publishers.