Support NeoGAF

[RedSwirl]

For instance: Why didn't Nintendo try to go into talks with Vigil or Free Radical before they got picked up by Crytek?

The AAA developers have abandoned them. Nintendo needs to be going for basically everybody else. The Wii U isn't a AAA blockbuster game console. I think things would be better if everyone accepted this.

 

[watershed]

This has always been Nintendo's strategy. They have said countless times that first party software's job is to drive the install base for 3rd party software to sell to. It's just the dynamic Nintendo is stuck with.

 

[MikeE21286]

For instance: Why didn't Nintendo try to go into talks with Vigil or Free Radical before they got picked up by Crytek?

The AAA developers have abandoned them. Nintendo needs to be going for basically everybody else. The Wii U isn't a AAA blockbuster game console. I think things would be better if everyone accepted this.

or why didn't they try and get indies on board like Sony

 

[MYE]

or why didn't they try and get indies on board like Sony

Thats what they are doing right now

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

For instance: Why didn't Nintendo try to go into talks with Vigil or Free Radical before they got picked up by Crytek?

The AAA developers have abandoned them. Nintendo needs to be going for basically everybody else. The Wii U isn't a AAA blockbuster game console. I think things would be better if everyone accepted this.

Nintendo doesn't tend to acquire studios because the talent can leave. Why buy Vigil or Free Radical if the main people there are going to leave?

 

[maquiladora]

Why does anyone on GAF care about 3rd party games on a Nintendo console?

In some office somewhere a 3rd party guy is reading this post and turning to his colleague, pointing "See? I told you!"

 

[Mysterious]

The thing about Iwata and third parties is, he fixed Japanese support but lost Western support.

The third parties that supported the N64 were western companies and maybe a few Japanese companies not including Nintendo, all the Japanese companies went to the PS1. With the GameCube, Japanese support got better, they even kinda won back Square again.

They need someone like Howard Lincoln, the main reason they got Western support.



I remember a few months ago you said amazing things about Wii U and Nintendo, you were very pro Nintendo...What happened?

No he didn't. Square-Enix announced two marquee titles at E3 this year: Kingdom Hearts III and Final Fantasy XV, both of which have seen previous entries (including spinoffs) that have performed decently to well on Nintendo platforms.

Yet, they didn't announce anything for the Wii U. Not even Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy 13.

Konami did not announce Metal Gear Solid V for the Wii U, despite the game being announced for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, both of which have "inferior" hardware to the Wii U.

I could just keep going with other Japanese third parties. Capcom was nice to the Wii U so far though.

 

[Pie and Beans]

For instance: Why didn't Nintendo try to go into talks with Vigil or Free Radical before they got picked up by Crytek?

The AAA developers have abandoned them. Nintendo needs to be going for basically everybody else. The Wii U isn't a AAA blockbuster game console. I think things would be better if everyone accepted this.

Eurocom as well who made Goldeneye for the Wii, a great game, and could have made a great western FPS of some kind for the WiiU.

Iwata and co's general ignorance of the industry outside of Japan has finally adversely affected their bottom line. The company really needs to have a Japanese power holder alongside a European or American co-CEO.

 

[Coolwhip]

In some office somewhere a 3rd party guy is reading this post and turning to his colleague, pointing "See? I told you!"

Looking at the release schedule of 3rd party games on Wii U I doubt it

Any way you can find out what the top 10 selling 3rd party games on Wii were?

edit: nevermind I found the million seller list of Wii.

The vast majority of 3rd party games that sold decent to well on Wii (which had an insane installed base) are fitness games, dance games and shitty licensed games. Wii U already has Just Dance iirc and fitness games. I doubt it that when people bitch about 3rd party support on Nintendo consoles they are after those type of games. And the dudebro games barely sell.

So again, why do people want 3rd party games on a Nintendo console so badly?

 

[John Harker]

Show me the "new" part of that plan

 

[KillerMan91]

Until they make first party games that appeal to people that like Halo, God of War, Forza. Grab Turismo, etc etc, they are going to be stuck in the same spot.

I want a PS4 because I want Infamous. I'd want an Xbox if it weren't DRMed for Halo. I can pass on Mario. There are a large group of people like me who just don't care about classic Nintendo franchises, even if they are still good. We've moved on from that and they don't appeal to us anymore.

Yeah. This has really baffled me a long time. Why Nintendo hasn't opened across the generations more western first party studios to make western games? Sure Mario and the other traditional stuff are the biggest sellers but it really wouldn't hurt to have similar games like Sony and MS. It's those games that draw so called core gamers to the platform that also buy stuff that western third parties make. Nintendo is too Japanese for their own good.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

So what do they do?

Start by offering more value, like Sony. Free games. What type of games do they have that are relatively cheap and have relatively high value? VC games would be a start. They want core gamers? Give them something they want. Free VC games every month just for buying the console. An ambassador program where all of your old VC games are updated to Wii u vc games. A coordinated effort to update all old VC games to Wii u VC games quickly. A better account system that includes backward compatibility for free. Sony and MS have staked their claim and it comes at a price. Now, Nintendo has a chance to differentiate. Any gamers that come for the VC games will be looking for additional content. It won't fix everything but it's a start. The games don't require a lot of effort. And the first party strategy will only bring in a certain amount. Nintendo had to grow their base. That base lives better on gaf and have stated they want these types of things. Instead of trying to get a few extra bucks, these things will bring a lot of value and good will to this equation.

 

[civilstrife]

Make your platform easy to port to and from.

End of story.

 

[EatinOlives]

Honestly, I bet when not in public the higher-ups don't give a shit about third parties. And they shouldn't. Nintendo is going for a different market with a product that is cheaper and with less power (as they should). They just need to say this to save face.

A $50 difference with the PS4 isn't "going for a different market".

 

[Opiate]

Yeah. This has really baffled me a long time. Why Nintendo hasn't opened across the generations more western first party studios to make western games? Sure Mario and the other traditional stuff are the biggest sellers but it really wouldn't hurt to have similar games like Sony and MS. It's those games that draw so called core gamers to the platform that also buy stuff that western third parties make. Nintendo is too Japanese for their own good.

Not at all to take away from your point, but I do want to note the inherent incongruity of this argument with the "no one wants to compete with Nintendo's first party" argument.

One cannot simultaneously argue that Nintendo's first party is far too strong and no one can compete with it while also arguing that Nintendo's problem is that they don't have enough first party representation in shooters, racers, and other western-style games.

Again, not saying you are personally arguing both points. I am only pointing out that you can see both arguments in the same thread about Nintendo, and that they are directly opposing arguments. Not just "different" arguments, but opposite ones: one is saying they don't have enough first party, the other saying they have too much.

 

[synce]

They just royalled f'ed up with the hardware, I don't think there's anything they can do but watch the ship sink.

If it used a GPU similar to the Wii instead of the 360, they could attracted lots of developers because budgets would be small. But no.

And the CPU they went it makes porting from anything nearly impossible without a lot of extra effort, which is unjustified because sales are terrible.

Then there's that fat ol' tablet thing.

 

[Coolwhip]

They just royalled f'ed up with the hardware, I don't think there's anything they can do but watch the ship sink.

If it used a GPU similar to the Wii instead of the 360, they could attracted lots of developers because budgets would be small. But no.

And the CPU they went it makes porting from anything nearly impossible without a lot of extra effort, which is unjustified because sales are terrible.

Then there's that fat ol' tablet thing.

Yep Nintendo's success was always very dependant on 3rd party games. Just look at 3DS.

 

[Watashiwa]

Yeah. This has really baffled me a long time. Why Nintendo hasn't opened across the generations more western first party studios to make western games? Sure Mario and the other traditional stuff are the biggest sellers but it really wouldn't hurt to have similar games like Sony and MS. It's those games that draw so called core gamers to the platform that also buy stuff that western third parties make. Nintendo is too Japanese for their own good.

They had it before the N64 years. Rare was basically a Nintendo hit machine from the first Donkey Kong Country. Then there were the Ultima releases on the SNES, and those amazing Disney platformers... Nintendo used to have really good relationships with Western devs.

Thing is, Nintendo's family-friendly image was just an illusion. They fought dirty; look how Howard Phillips fed Sega to Congress in the 90s. Howard Phillips was a great spokesman for Nintendo, but once he left and the Conker issue split Rare from Nintendo, there wasn't much left.

As to why Nintendo doesn't go into FPS games and similar territory... well, they probably don't have anyone in their roster who can make one good enough to release under the Nintendo banner. Nintendo demands nothing but perfection (though they'll settle for merely "excellent") from their first and second party devs, so they'd want to back a shooter only if they believed in it without reservation.

 

[Pie and Beans]

Yep Nintendo's success was always very dependant on 3rd party games. Just look at 3DS.

Oh you mean the system that has Monster Hunter on it exclusively and is thus completely dominating Japan, the area of the world where its sales are best? I'm sure future Dragon Quest releases on the format will have no bearing either.

 

[superfamicom]

So basically from a third party point of view there is no reason to develop for Wii U over PS4/Xbone.

If developers are waiting until the Wii U has a big enough install base that will take until at least November or December of this year to happen.

When November hits both PS4 and Xbone will be out. So essentially its like all three are launching at the same time.

To be honest from a 3rd party point of view the PS4/Xbone hold a lot more business opportunity to sell games to the consumer demographic that most are aiming for.

Barring some magical miracle, Nintendo are fucked.
I just don't see it happening this gen.

Get a PS4 and wait until the end of Wii U's life when it hits bargain basement prices and go play Wii U's greatest hits backlog.

 

[MDX]

It is pretty much a fact that the big sellers on Nintendo consoles have been first party titles.

Does that also go for Sony and Microsoft?
Do their first party titles not sell generally more than third party titles?

 

[Nightstick11]

I don't get why Nintendo doesn't just throw its weight around more. They should open up that war chest and just straight up start buying IPs and funding middling studios' games.

I'd like it if they just bought Ogre Battle IP and handed it to IS. I know other gamers would love that as well.

Or small(ish) to medium companies, Japanese or Western, they should just start mad-funding games.

 

[Little Green Yoda]

Not at all to take away from your point, but I do want to note the inherent incongruity of this argument with the "no one wants to compete with Nintendo's first party" argument.

One cannot simultaneously argue that Nintendo's first party is far too strong and no one can compete with it while also arguing that Nintendo's problem is that they don't have enough first party representation in shooters, racers, and other western-style games.

Again, not saying you are personally arguing both points. I am only pointing out that you can see both arguments in the same thread about Nintendo, and that they are directly opposing arguments. Not just "different" arguments, but opposite ones: one is saying they don't have enough first party, the other saying they have too much.

These are the same arguments coming from third parties themselves. "Nintendo gamers only buy Nintendo games and it's too hard to compete with them!" "Nintendo needs to show us that their platform has the requisite demographic before we can invest in it!"

Now, I'm sure it was different devs who offered these points but it goes to show how clueless everybody is regarding this dilemma. I still think it would be a good idea for gamers if Nintendo diversified their own lineup. I don't know if people would care about third party support if good games of various genres were coming out in a steady manner.

 

[Coolwhip]

Oh you mean the system that has Monster Hunter on it exclusively and is thus completely dominating Japan, the area of the world where its sales are best? I'm sure future Dragon Quest releases on the format will have no bearing either.

The top 10 best sold 3DS games LTD has 8 Nintendo games in it.

 

[Meelow]

No he didn't. Square-Enix announced two marquee titles at E3 this year: Kingdom Hearts III and Final Fantasy XV, both of which have seen previous entries (including spinoffs) that have performed decently to well on Nintendo platforms.

Yet, they didn't announce anything for the Wii U. Not even Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy 13.

Konami did not announce Metal Gear Solid V for the Wii U, despite the game being announced for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, both of which have "inferior" hardware to the Wii U.

I could just keep going with other Japanese third parties. Capcom was nice to the Wii U so far though.

That's why I said they "kinda" won back Square Enix.

Konami is a hit or miss with Nintendo.

 

[Version 3.0]

Just eliminate the license fee, Nintendo. Money talks. I don't think anything short of that, at this point, will help at all.

 

[Pie and Beans]

The top 10 best sold 3DS games LTD has 8 Nintendo games in it.

I'm not particularly sure why you're banging the drum you are. So you want Nintendo to actively deny third parties on their systems because that makes them better in your eyes?

I'll assume you're just playing devils advocate and not the other thing.

 

[Coolwhip]

I'm not particularly sure why you're banging the drum you are. So you want Nintendo to actively deny third parties on their systems because that makes them better in your eyes?

I'll assume you're just playing devils advocate and not the other thing.

I'm just wondering why some people put so much emphasis on 3rd parties with Nintendo.

 

[Opiate]

These are the same arguments coming from third parties themselves. "Nintendo gamers only buy Nintendo games and it's too hard to compete with them!" "Nintendo needs to show us that their platform has the requisite demographic before we can invest in it!"

Now, I'm sure it was different devs who offered these points but it goes to show how clueless everybody is regarding this dilemma. I still think it would be a good idea for gamers if Nintendo diversified their own lineup. I don't know if people would care about third party support if good games of various genres were coming out in a steady manner.

I think Nintendo has a perfectly diverse lineup: mini game collections, kart racers, 2d platformers, 3d platformers, brain training games, pet simulators, arcade fighters, rhythm games, a variety of RPG styles including traditional jRPG and SRPGS, horror games, fitness games, etc.

The problem is not that their library lacks diversity. The problem is that they lack "hardcore" shooters, racers, sports, and action games. You can have 96 games in 96 different genres, but if you're lacking those particular four genres, you're basically missing the important bits that the big four Western publishers live off of. Virtually every major property that EA, Take 2, or Activision has fits in to these genres, and the few that don't (e.g. Skylanders, Guitar Hero, Just Dance from Ubisoft) do quite well on Nintendo platforms.

So let's be clear here: by "diversity," we basically mean shooters/racers/sport sims/action games. If Nintendo expanded in to (for example) the roguelike genre, EA/Activision/Ubisoft wouldn't care at all.

 

[Little Green Yoda]

I'm just wondering why some people put so much emphasis on 3rd parties with Nintendo.

Variety. Steady game releases.

Both of which would be solved to a certain degree if Nintendo expanded their studios and diversified their lineup.

I think Nintendo has a perfectly diverse lineup: mini game collections, kart racers, 2d platformers, 3d platformers, brain training games, pet simulators, arcade fighters, rhythm games, a variety of RPG styles, horror games, fitness games, etc.

The problem is not that their library lacks diversity. The problem is that they lack "hardcore" shooters, racers, sports, and action games. You can have 96 games in 96 different genres, but if you're lacking those particular four genres, you're basically missing the important bits that the big four Western publishers live off of. Virtually every major property that EA, Take 2, or Activision has fits in to these genres, and the few that don't (e.g. Skylanders, Guitar Hero, Just Dance from Ubisoft) do quite well on Nintendo platforms.

So let's be clear here: by "diversity," we basically mean shooters/racers/sport sims/action games.

Okay, that's probably a better way to put it. The fact that those 4 genres happen to be popular with the demographic that buys the most games underscores their importance to a platform. Getting more Bayonetta 2s would do a better job attracting said demographic than another platformer.

 

[RedSwirl]

Nintendo doesn't tend to acquire studios because the talent can leave. Why buy Vigil or Free Radical if the main people there are going to leave?

Yeah I meant more like "go into a deal with them like they've done with Platinum." I guess that would require Vigil actually going independent though, which they probably couldn't do, and FR was already on death's door as an independent entity.

Also, Minecraft on Xbox is a step that Nintendo should've made. At that time I'm sure they were already developing the Wii U and could've approached Mojang about it with their more open initiative on indies, or like Microsoft, developed the port themselves and even maybe a Japanese localization.

 

[superfamicom]

I don't get why Nintendo doesn't just throw its weight around more. They should open up that war chest and just straight up start buying IPs and funding middling studios' games.

I'd like it if they just bought Ogre Battle IP and handed it to IS. I know other gamers would love that as well.

Or small(ish) to medium companies, Japanese or Western, they should just start mad-funding games.

Nintendo doesn't want to spend money to make money.
They are a lowest effort highest yield developer. They have learned that they can phone in some half assed title with a minimum of effort and their customers will lap it up like deprived children, so why should they behave any different. This is why I feel that it really seems like they have lost the passion for making games.
They are just checking boxes, going through the motions but there is no fire, no passion.
I miss the Nintendo of old.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Start by offering more value, like Sony. Free games.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Unless you mean f2p games or something (which we don't even know are actually f2p yet).

 

[I am Michael Bolton]

He should have thought about this when he signed off on releasing hardware that is significantly weaker than the competition at a price point that isn't as significant due to a controller that isn't marketable in combination with a bare-bones advertising campaign.

 

[Coolwhip]

Variety. Steady game releases.

Both of which would be solved to a certain degree if Nintendo expanded their studios and diversified their lineup.

That's a legitimate complaint imo. By the end of the year Wii U has a pretty okish library. But yep, the lack of actual Nintendo games on Wii U is a huge mistake.

I think Nintendo has a perfectly diverse lineup: mini game collections, kart racers, 2d platformers, 3d platformers, brain training games, pet simulators, arcade fighters, rhythm games, a variety of RPG styles including traditional jRPG and SRPGS, horror games, fitness games, etc.

The problem is not that their library lacks diversity. The problem is that they lack "hardcore" shooters, racers, sports, and action games. You can have 96 games in 96 different genres, but if you're lacking those particular four genres, you're basically missing the important bits that the big four Western publishers live off of. Virtually every major property that EA, Take 2, or Activision has fits in to these genres, and the few that don't (e.g. Skylanders, Guitar Hero, Just Dance from Ubisoft) do quite well on Nintendo platforms.

So let's be clear here: by "diversity," we basically mean shooters/racers/sport sims/action games. If Nintendo expanded in to (for example) the roguelike genre, EA/Activision/Ubisoft wouldn't care at all.

Looking at the Wii sales chart, those genres don't do too well on Nintendo consoles. The kid friendly Nintendo brand just doesn't go well with those type of games.

 

[Scum]

I feel that Nintendo should have shifted their focus of third party support quite some time ago.

It has been evident for some time that the big four western publishers (particularly EA and Take 2) are highly resistant to Nintendo platforms for reasons I feel I understand but would require an entire discussion of their own to detail, as I'm sure some people disagree.

Whatever the reason is, it is clear that those publishers would prefer not to make games on Nintendo's systems. Smaller developers and independent studios have shown less resistance, however -- in fact, many have seemed genuinely interested (e.g. Team Meat), but have been significantly stymied by Nintendo's draconian networking which have either made the platforms impossible for indies (e.g. the Wii did not allow for even medium sized downloadable games) or simply made it unprofitable, because a download system has to be very carefully fostered and advertised to work right. Indie devs by their nature cannot advertise their own games, so if you want them to be more than wall dressing you have to help them.

Nintendo has not done that at all until very recently, as they have been completely preoccupied with trying to get EA and Take 2 and Activision fully back on board. Their time would have been better spent fostering their own third parties which could grow up in Nintendo's ecosystem and be consequently find Nintendo's approach more habitable.

We meet again, Opiate. The bolded part is what I find the biggest problem with Nintendo. They're seemingly spending too much time chasing after the "Fab Four" of publishers when they should have/build an ecosystem that will please and benefit their own devs as well as those devs who will not sit financially comfortable following in the footsteps of say, EA.

Make Miiverse the centre everything, chuck in an account system and start building and courting small/med sized teams in the West. The likes of EA just don't give a fuck anymore.

 

[KillerMan91]

Not at all to take away from your point, but I do want to note the inherent incongruity of this argument with the "no one wants to compete with Nintendo's first party" argument.

One cannot simultaneously argue that Nintendo's first party is far too strong and no one can compete with it while also arguing that Nintendo's problem is that they don't have enough first party representation in shooters, racers, and other western-style games.

Again, not saying you are personally arguing both points. I am only pointing out that you can see both arguments in the same thread about Nintendo, and that they are directly opposing arguments. Not just "different" arguments, but opposite ones: one is saying they don't have enough first party, the other saying they have too much.

Well yeah. You definitely see a lot of people having pretty much opposite opinions regarding this issue. I have always hold an opinion though that Nintendo and western publishers chase completely different demographics and that is actually the reason behind the weak third party support. Gamers that Nintendo draws to their consoles simply don't buy your normal western third party games. So yeah. Complete opposite to the other argument lol.

 

[Captainsweatpants]

If software developers decide not to support a platform when, in fact, it has momentum and other software developers have experienced good results, people will definitely question their decision

I will still question your decision of selling ancient tech.

 

[RedSwirl]

I feel that Nintendo should have shifted their focus of third party support quite some time ago.

It has been evident for some time that the big four western publishers (particularly EA and Take 2) are highly resistant to Nintendo platforms for reasons I feel I understand but would require an entire discussion of their own to detail, as I'm sure some people disagree.

Whatever the reason is, it is clear that those publishers would prefer not to make games on Nintendo's systems. Smaller developers and independent studios have shown less resistance, however -- in fact, many have seemed genuinely interested (e.g. Team Meat), but have been significantly stymied by Nintendo's draconian networking which have either made the platforms impossible for indies (e.g. the Wii did not allow for even medium sized downloadable games) or simply made it unprofitable, because a download system has to be very carefully fostered and advertised to work right. Indie devs by their nature cannot advertise their own games, so if you want them to be more than wall dressing you have to help them.

Nintendo has not done that at all until very recently, as they have been completely preoccupied with trying to get EA and Take 2 and Activision fully back on board. Their time would have been better spent fostering their own third parties which could grow up in Nintendo's ecosystem and be consequently find Nintendo's approach more habitable.

We meet again, Opiate. The bolded part is what I find the biggest problem with Nintendo. They're seemingly spending too much time chasing after the "Fab Four" of publishers when they should have/build an ecosystem that will please and benefit their own devs as well as those devs who will not sit financially comfortable following in the footsteps of say, EA.

Make Miiverse the centre everything, chuck in an account system and start building and courting small/med sized teams in the West. The likes of EA just don't give a fuck anymore.

Once again, I'm starting to think Nintendo would have benefited if they'd gone with this policy as far back as 2006 instead of expecting the big publishers to support the Wii. If only WiiWare were then what the eShop is now.

 

[Himself]

Everyone better have 5 copies of Wonderful 101 pre-ordered or you're only gonna have Mario everything to play on your Wii U.

 

[Amir0x]

I hope you really rev up those engines, Iwata. I need you guys to be successful with Sony upcoming gen... we all know what happens when someone gets to be a runaway success with the competition distant second or third. Arrogant to the extreme, and then they make anti-consumer mistakes.

With Nintendo, Sony and (most likely) Microsoft all having now experienced the third console "curse" (don't believe in it, but you know what I mean), it would hopefully make for a more humble and consumer respecting industry. Maybe Ninja Theory should only be making mobile games, for example, might be smart business for a company of such inferior talents. Not every company needs to try to make AAA games with 600 ppl staff.

And so if Nintendo can get third parties on board for the Wii U and get it running again competitively, it'd be great for the industry imo. And great for Nintendo games too, I bet.

 

[Coolwhip]

Everyone better have 5 copies of Wonderful 101 pre-ordered or you're only gonna have Mario everything to play on your Wii U.

I doubt Nintendo will suddenly stop funding 3rd party games.

 

[Meelow]

I want Nintendo and Sony to team up next gen (9th gen).

A Nintendo + Sony console would be pretty badass.

 

[Mileena]

I doubt Nintendo will suddenly stop funding 3rd party games.

Lets have this discussion after Bayonetta 2 and TW101 bomb.

Maybe Ninja Theory should only be making mobile games, for example, might be smart business for a company of such inferior talents. Not every company needs to try to make AAA games with 600 ppl staff.

I love how you threw this in there too

 

[Log4Girlz]

I don't think Nintendo wants to make a game like COD, or Killzone.

Simply put, that is an idiotic decision on their part. There is no defending it.

 

[jblank83]

Huh?

I'm pretty damn sure that Yamauchi had a lot more to do with that decision.

It was Yamauchi.

 

[Little Green Yoda]

That's a legitimate complaint imo. By the end of the year Wii U has a pretty okish library. But yep, the lack of actual Nintendo games on Wii U is a huge mistake.

My point is, Nintendo doesn't have the capacity to churn out enough first party titles to compete with its competitors' first+third party offerings. The Wii had fantastic first party support IMO and that didn't stop droughts from happening multiple times during its lifetime. That's why third party support is important. Obviously, having both a console and a handheld further complicates matters.

If Nintendo wanted to go full first party, they'd have to expand dramatically in order to sustain a console/handheld by themselves. I think gamers would be happy enough with a middle ground though.

 

[Squire]

You need to have had momentum to regain it.

 

[Coolwhip]

Simply put, that is an idiotic decision on their part. There is no defending it.

Oh and why is that? Nintendo being a kid friendly publisher for over 30 years should suddenly make dudebro products because?

 

[Opiate]

Looking at the Wii sales chart, those genres don't do too well on Nintendo consoles. The kid friendly Nintendo brand just doesn't go well with those type of games.

Well yeah. You definitely see a lot of people having pretty much opposite opinions regarding this issue. I have always hold an opinion though that Nintendo and western publishers chase completely different demographics and that is actually the reason behind the weak third party support. Gamers that Nintendo draws to their consoles simply don't buy your normal western third party games. So yeah. Complete opposite to the other argument lol.

I agree with both of you.

This is primarily a demographic problem. In the recent past, Nintendo has had major hits with older gamers (Wii Fit, Wii Sports), with young girl gamers (Nintendogs), and of course with children in general (Mario games, Mario Kart, etc.)

Young boys, young girls, moms, the elderly -- Nintendo's demographic does not lack breadth. The problem is that all four of the major western third party publishers pay very little attention to any of those demographics, as their bread and butter games are all focused on the 16-35 male demo. Here is a succinct list of the biggest properties each of the four own:

EA:

Fifa
Battlefield
Madden
Need for Speed (much bigger than people realize)

Activision:

Call of Duty
Diablo
World of Warcraft
Skylanders
Guitar Hero (dormant for the moment, yes)

Ubisoft:

Assassin's Creed
Just Dance

Take 2:

Red Dead Redemption
Grand Theft Auto
Bioshock (very hesitant to include this, but I will for now).

With the exceptions of Just Dance, Skylanders and Guitar Hero, every single one of these franchises is aimed squarely at the 16-35 male audience. Guns, cars, swords, sports. EA -- Nintendo's most vocal critic of the bunch recently -- is sports/shooter/sports/racer, respectively.

And what do you know? Those three exceptions to the rule (Guitar Hero, Skylanders, and Just Dance) have actually all performed best, historically, on Nintendo's platforms. To me, the problem clearly seems to be a case where Nintendo is aiming for a broad variety of demographics while all four of the major western publishers aim squarely and intensely at the 16-35 male demo. That is the disconnect, and it cannot be bridged by making the hardware cheaper (a la the Wii) or competitively powerful relative to its contemporaries (Gamecube, and for the moment the Wii U) or even very popular (DS, Wii) unless that popularity comes specifically and particularly from the demographic the big four are chasing.