Support NeoGAF

[gofreak]

I'm not sure why everyone is dismissing his wish that Nintendo advertised third-party games more. I mean, if the competition is doing it and that's what's allowing the competition to get more high-quality games, why is it so preposterous that one might expect a key player in this market to follow suit?

I don't get why it's preposterous either. It's not 'market distorting'. Platform holders have a stake in the success of all games on their platform, on a number of levels. If they wish to invest in marketing for some of those games they think are a good bet, that may be simply good business sense. And it has the nice bonus of strengthening relationships.

 

[jett]

Those are some pretty awful set of rules Nintendo's got. No wonder most third party games on their systems sell like butt.

 

[Mr. B Natural]

#4 is the big reason in the 21st century. Advertising is key to success for most and advertising is also the barrier. It costs too much...it can TRIPLE game budgets. It's competitive and Nintendo refuses to help.
Sure Nintendo doesn't have deep pockets but they could HELP. No longer is it true that all you need to do to sell a product is put it in nintendo power. There's more to third party support than letting the game pass to gold. It's a relationship now and that's a good and bad thing...but mostly good thing and definitely a reality.

 

[loosus]

I don't get why it's preposterous either. It's not 'market distorting'. Platform holders have a stake in the success of all games on their platform, on a number of levels. If they wish to invest in marketing for some of those games they think are a good bet, that may be simply good business sense. And it has the nice bonus of strengthening relationships.

Yep. Nintendo definitely has a vested interest in seeing its platform do well. If people bought a 3DS, for example, just for Metal Gear Solid and games like those, chances are that some of these people will buy a Mario game at some point, too, whether it's for themselves or someone else who plays their 3DS (e.g., their girlfriend, they kids, etc.).

Not to mention the fact that Nintendo gets fucking royalties from Metal Gear Solid on its system, anyway. :lol

 

[Lance Bone Path]

#4 is the big reason in the 21st century. Advertising is key to success for most and advertising is also the barrier. It costs too much...it can TRIPLE game budgets. It's competitive and Nintendo refuses to help.
Sure Nintendo doesn't have deep pockets but they could HELP. No longer is it true that all you need to do to sell a product is put it in nintendo power. There's more to third party support than letting the game pass to gold. It's a relationship now and that's a good and bad thing...but mostly good thing and definitely a reality.

I think the point of #4 is that Nintendo could be selling 3rd parties ad-time and will still be making money- this isn't a charity. These 3rd parties would be paying higher rates (than Nintendo) for that ad-time in all likelihood, but they also aren't looking for that much ad-time.

Nintendo, being Nintendo, probably bought exactly as much ad-time as they needed and is loathe to give up any of it, not even to resell it for a profit. Buying more ad-time than needed is probably equally repulsive since there's the off-chance that third party publishers don't buy up as much ad-time as expected.

 

[d+pad]

I think the more interesting reaction to this dev's comments/issues -- other than finger pointing and "a ha! that's why nintendo sucks!' -- is: What is Nintendo going to do about it?

They've been saying for some time now that they know their relationship with third parties is strained -- well, now's the time to shit or get off the pot, so to speak.

It'll be really interesting to see if they do indeed make some changes during the 3DS (and Wii follow-up) era, or if they maintain the status quo.

That said, even if they do make some changes -- hell, even if they make all of the changes suggested by the dev in the OP -- it's not going to solve all of Nintendo's problems when it comes to third parties. After all, many third parties are still going to have the belief that "only Nintendo games sell on Nintendo platforms." What's going to change that cynical mindset? I have no idea...

 

[Mael]

I don't get why it's preposterous either. It's not 'market distorting'. Platform holders have a stake in the success of all games on their platform, on a number of levels. If they wish to invest in marketing for some of those games they think are a good bet, that may be simply good business sense. And it has the nice bonus of strengthening relationships.

It's highly inefficient anyway, seriously why the hell should they do something like that for free anyway? As a 3rd party you shouldn't expect to subsidize your investment by the platform holder simply by the virtue that you grace their platform with your gift from god.
it doesn't make sense to push an product you have no control over a product you can do anything you want with.
Heck especially from Nintendo, looking at last december were they right in heavily pushing 2d Mario over some 3rd party game like Ubisoft's Rabid game? The money they could have spent on trying to sell some cheap stuffs for the DS couldn't have been used in prolonging the life of nsmb on ds?
considering the ROI, I doubt 3rd party could compete in term of opportunity for N's marketing money.
Now the things like proposing to buy adspace on some tv shows sponsored by Nintendo actually make more sense.

 

[Pureauthor]

That said, even if they do make some changes -- hell, even if they make all of the changes suggested by the dev in the OP -- it's not going to solve all of Nintendo's problems when it comes to third parties. After all, many third parties are still going to have the belief that "only Nintendo games sell on Nintendo platforms." What's going to change that cynical mindset? I have no idea...

More charts that will take up at least half of every Nintendo presentation, of course! :lol

 

[I AM JOHN!]

Well, for what it's worth, Alchemist has never released a game on Wii and they've released several games on DS

This is probably a really dumb question, but out of curiosity, who is Alchemist? What games have they done? I can't say I've ever heard of them.

 

[Vinci]

I think the more interesting reaction to this dev's comments/issues -- other than finger pointing and "a ha! that's why nintendo sucks!' -- is: What is Nintendo going to do about it?

They've been saying for some time now that they know their relationship with third parties is strained -- well, now's the time to shit or get off the pot, so to speak.

It'll be really interesting to see if they do indeed make some changes during the 3DS (and Wii follow-up) era, or if they maintain the status quo.

That said, even if they do make some changes -- hell, even if they make all of the changes suggested by the dev in the OP -- it's not going to solve all of Nintendo's problems when it comes to third parties. After all, many third parties are still going to have the belief that "only Nintendo games sell on Nintendo platforms." What's going to change that cynical mindset? I have no idea...

The 3DS will probably change the latter idea, particularly with Street Fighter and MGS hitting the system reasonably early into its life. That's really all it needs - more traditional 3rd party content hitting the system early, developing a userbase for said type of content, and then continuing from there. The manufacturing issues will only hinder this, so yes, Nintendo needs to shit in your 'shit or get off the pot' scenario.

 

[wrowa]

This is probably a really dumb question, but out of curiosity, who is Alchemist? What games have they done? I can't say I've ever heard of them.

On the DS they are mostly known for the Hirugashi no Naku Koro Ni visual-novel series afaik.

 

[charlequin]

It was two words and a not equal operator. How did you want me to make sense of it?

If there's a problem where your company's shitty policies for interacting with publishing partners are screwing over smaller publishers, shuffling them off to a tiny walled garden where the scope, price, and profitability of their products (as well as their control over them) is wildly curtailed isn't fixing the problem, it's sweeping it under a rug.

If Nintendo is fine with maximizing profit and being conservative at the risk of losing third party support then fine.

Well, the issue is that they're demonstrably not fine with that, their shareholders are very much demonstrably not fine with that, and they have pretty much proven conclusively with the Wii that they are unable to maximally execute their own platform strategy with such a low level of third-party support. Soooooo....

By mandating that minimum orders are X amount, you in effect minimise your downtime on your machines or limit it to a given value so that you're not so bogged down in small orders that you can't meet the big (high value) ones. It isn't unusual for plants that are set up to produce in volume.

Of course, when downtime implicit costs are sufficiently high compared to per-unit costs, what a strong and profitable platform-holder does is overprint restock orders, parcel them out in the small ordered amounts, and amortize the cost out over all their development partners, maybe with a "after X time you need to buy back extra overstock at $1/cart" rule or something. If you're Nintendo and stopping to reconfigure the line once costs you more than the actual materials/time cost for a run of 10,000 carts, it's better to look at someone who wants to reorder 500 carts, just pay for a run of 10,000 yourself, and sell them over to them in 500-cart chunks.

however, the advertisment bit is bloody stupid, why would nintendo spend money on advertising games that the revune of the sales of those games will go to 3rd parties.

Do people not get that a) Nintendo gets a cut of between $4-10 on each piece of third-party software sold, b) third-party software helps make a platform more desirable, leading to more sales of hardware (which Nintendo profits on), and c) helps cover various bases in the software market, enabling Nintendo to focus their own efforts on their most profitable series and genres rather than having to produce a diverse range of underselling but necessary games to broaden the library?

The idea that third-party software is competing directly with Nintendo and so they have nothing to gain from it performing well is very naive. On Nintendo's most successful systems for third-party support (I'd say the SNES and DS) Nintendo and 3PPs covered very different bases overall, producing a situation where people buying the system for one would tend to end up also buying the other and thereby increasing profitability for everyone. This is the effect people want Nintendo to see and try to capture.

And I always assumed that publishers had to pay the order up front anyway. Nintendo isn't a bank, they shouldn't have to take the risk.

Total nonsense. #3 is absolutely unacceptable and by far the worst issue on this list. Nintendo absolutely needs to shoulder part of the risk on cartridge orders for a variety of reasons: they set the prices and serve as absolute gatekeepers on production (companies can't shop around for better manufacturing deals), they allocate the timeframe for production, they set the minimum orders and are the ones putting in place the no-reorders policies that force companies to make larger first orders -- and they also profit off of the sales of these third party games.

 

[[Nintex]]

Total nonsense. #3 is absolutely unacceptable and by far the worst issue on this list. Nintendo absolutely needs to shoulder part of the risk on cartridge orders for a variety of reasons: they set the prices and serve as absolute gatekeepers on production (companies can't shop around for better manufacturing deals), they allocate the timeframe for production, they set the minimum orders and are the ones putting in place the no-reorders policies that force companies to make larger first orders -- and they also profit off of the sales of these third party games.

It's a good(or bad?) thing that Nintendo is based in Japan, that shit wouldn't even be legal in Europe. :lol

 

[gofreak]

It's highly inefficient anyway, seriously why the hell should they do something like that for free anyway?

For free?

They earn money on every third party game sold. Those third party games may sell people on 3DS, and may thus result in further sales of Nintendo and/or other third party games.

Nintendo is a stakeholder in ALL these games.

They should not be forced to help out all games, of course not. I'm just saying it's if anything in their interests to help out games that they deem to be good bets - beyond their own games.

When Nintendo signs a developer to a publishing contract, is that 'helping them out for free'? Co-marketing agreements are just another type of deal with developers that demands less investment, less risk, but with less potential return - but it's just another kind of deal that helps developers and helps software on their platform, like a publishing deal does.

 

[EvilMario]

Those are some pretty awful set of rules Nintendo's got. No wonder most third party games on their systems sell like butt.

It has almost nothing to do with how they sell, but why the choose not to develop on the platform. Or reluctantly do so. Every point, aside from Nintendo's lack of assistance in advertising is relevant. And the fact stands that 3rd parties must still compete for attention on a platform where Nintendo's first party titles dominate.

 

[EVH]

If this is true, then Nintendo should fix that. Software sells hardware, and we all know that third party support on Ninendo is not very high.

About the advertising, I think that with 3DS Nintendo must fix this. Maybe with the upper screen showing the new games released and other things. As an example, I believe that Steam does that very well, and if the upper screen is unnused while you are in the main menu, then it is a good option to do something like that.

 

[Vinci]

They earn money on every third party game sold. Those third party games may sell people on 3DS, and may thus result in further sales of Nintendo and/or other third party games.

Nintendo is a stakeholder in ALL these games.

This should be bolded and quoted, due to its simplicity of explanation, over and over again whenever people ask, "What for Nintendo should help 'em?" I mean, Nintendo might conceivably be able to skip over the advertising assistance aspect for larger 3rd parties, particularly if they have any sort of online store system that would help with advertising products, but... the manufacturing stuff is just inexcusable and stupid.

 

[Vic]

If this is true, then Nintendo should fix that. Software sells hardware, and we all know that third party support on Ninendo is not very high

It's pretty goddamn high on the DS, yet it could have been way higher which is why the issue have been brought out by Nintendo.

 

[FLEABttn]

I'm not sure why everyone is dismissing his wish that Nintendo advertised third-party games more. I mean, if the competition is doing it and that's what's allowing the competition to get more high-quality games, why is it so preposterous that one might expect a key player in this market to follow suit?

Nintendo is fiscally better off than the other two and has a healthier business model and people want them to emulate the two who are doing worse, would be my thoughts.

 

[Brofist]

Nintendo is fiscally better off than the other two and has a healthier business model and people want them to emulate the two who are doing worse, would be my thoughts.

I don't think giving 3rd parties the shaft is the part of their strategy that's giving them success.

 

[2San]

If they don't change policies 1 to 3 I can see it hurting in the long term.

For some reason people come with arguments, like; "look at all the money they made". I think it's save to assume these policies are not the reason for the success, rather innovation on technical side is(in combination with great marketing).

I think people forget in what kinda of state nintendo was in N64 and Gamecube days. People are also forgetting Sony's success with the PSX and the PS2 which could be largely contributed to great 3rd party support. For me it seems clear these policies are from the past. From a time where Nintendo couldn't bear the risk for 3rd parties. I think Nintendo has grown to a magnitude where they can.

The technical innovation will be copied by the rivals(already is, but this will mostly show their effects in the next gen). So either keep innovating on a technical side or you better be the one that has the most quality games.

 

[Vinci]

Nintendo is fiscally better off than the other two and has a healthier business model and people want them to emulate the two who are doing worse, would be my thoughts.

Sony and MS having difficulty being profitable in this industry has nothing to do with their cozy relationships with 3rd parties. In fact, if nothing else, that's the one thing they both get right.

 

[EVH]

About the advertising, I think that with 3DS Nintendo must fix this. Maybe with the upper screen showing the new games released and other things. As an example, I believe that Steam does that very well, and if the upper screen is unnused while you are in the main menu, then it is a good option to do something like that.

Quoting myself, I was watching that 3DS menu and tagmode video searching for the upper screen while we are in main menu (not talking about other apps included in the OS). Fact is that we can't see that in the video.

I would like to see something like this:

 

[Vic]

Nintendo is fiscally better off than the other two and has a healthier business model and people want them to emulate the two who are doing worse, would be my thoughts.

Doesn't make sense to me either.

 

[Zoe]

About the advertising, I think that with 3DS Nintendo must fix this. Maybe with the upper screen showing the new games released and other things. As an example, I believe that Steam does that very well, and if the upper screen is unnused while you are in the main menu, then it is a good option to do something like that.

They need advertising that will reach people who don't use their 3DS 24/7.

 

[Neo C.]

Seriously, #3 has the potential to lead to a bubble. If #3 comes true, Nintendo should maybe buy CDS just to make things even more interesting.:lol

Edit: Though If I think it thoroughly, the risk of putting too many copies on the market is nearing zero, because Nintendo controls the output (see #1 and #2).

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Doesn't makes sense to me either.

Sony and MS have taken a bath on their hardware mistakes, not because of their relations with 3rd parties.

The unprecedented 50 million that MS loaned Rockstar is a drop in the bucket compared to what they lost on rrod.

 

[Red Blaster]

Nintendo is fiscally better off than the other two and has a healthier business model and people want them to emulate the two who are doing worse, would be my thoughts.

Nintendo is so lucky to have fans who care more about their profit margins than their lack of progress in third-party relations.

 

[JWong]

I've also heard that Wii proprietary discs are more expensive to buy than BluRays and DVDs for the purposes of test builds. Not sure about the exact price, but that's what I heard among dev peers.

 

[Vic]

Sony and MS have taken a bath on their hardware mistakes, not because of their relations with 3rd parties.

The unprecedented 50 million that MS loaned Rockstar is a drop in the bucket compared to what they lost on rrod.

But Nintendo doesn't need to aggressively contract third parties content to sell their consoles like Sony & Microsoft does. They need to foster a environment where third parties can easily & successfully ride beside them when their systems becomes popular. This clearly didn't happen with the Wii. They failed to gain third parties trust on investing in the system early on. Seems to me that they're making sure this doesn't happen with the 3DS by making it third party friendly, but as Alchemist protested, what they've done so far might not be enough for certain companies to fully move on-board.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

Both Sony and MS lost allot of money on hardware stuff but if the had the sales Wii had .
You can bet there would have been no problem with 3rd party support .
Another thing getting 3rd party supports on console should be harder than 3ds.

 

[charlequin]

Nintendo is fiscally better off than the other two and has a healthier business model and people want them to emulate the two who are doing worse, would be my thoughts.

The idea that their relative profitability means that Nintendo has only good policies and ideas while Sony and Microsoft have only bad policies and ideas is incredibly simplistic, though.

I mean, I can present a list of some things Sony and MS have done:

1. Focused on a tech-oriented strategy intended to capture 18-35 males to the exclusion of other cohorts
2. Produced heavily loss-leading hardware with the hope of catching up profitwise late in the generation
3. Made large monetary and support contributions to third parties in order to sway games that were already being developed and planned for multiplat release to become exclusives instead
4. Generated solid network infrastructures that provided a customer-friendly interface for buying digital content and playing games online
5. Made significant support contributions to games that were either unlikely to be released or unlikely to be noticed upon release and which afterwards went on to become large hits that left their developers more self-reliant for future projects

1, 2, and 3 are all pretty obviously bad policies that are major contributors to the unprofitability of both divisions and the problems with the industry as a whole today in 2010. That doesn't mean 4 and 5 are somehow "tainted" because they're being implemented at the same companies, or that Nintendo shouldn't look to these positive and successful aspects of their competitors as things they can adapt and incorporate into their existing strategies. Because they're successful in so many other areas, third-party support is an area Nintendo should focus extra-hard on now because it's one of their biggest remaining weaknesses in the marketplace, and there are plenty of worthwhile lessons to be learned from the successes of their competitors.

But Nintendo doesn't need to aggressively contract third parties content to sell their consoles like Sony & Microsoft does. They need to foster a environment where third parties can easily & successfully ride beside them when their systems becomes popular.

This is exactly why issues like the ones in the OP have been a big focus for me for years when people ask "what can Nintendo do?" Imagine Nintendo changing nothing else but adopting a program for small publishers that includes fast turnaround and low minimums on reorders (because Nintendo's actually just pressing up extra cartridges the first time around that they resell to the company at a slightly higher price when they need them) and favorable billing terms (only a smaller percentage upfront.) I would wager Nintendo could do this at a very minimal overall cost to themselves and it would have a huge effect in terms of making their platform more desirable to small pubs.

 

[Somnid]

If there's a problem where your company's shitty policies for interacting with publishing partners are screwing over smaller publishers, shuffling them off to a tiny walled garden where the scope, price, and profitability of their products (as well as their control over them) is wildly curtailed isn't fixing the problem, it's sweeping it under a rug.

The issues given are related to the manufacturing of cartridges. Removing that from the equation fixes them. Practical limitations of DD especially as it progresses over the next 5 years are likely to expand and it is unlikely these devs will be able to exceed that on their budgets. Look at the progression since 2005 when it pretty much didn't exist on any platform to the types of exclusives we are starting to see on XBLA and PSN. The landscape is definitely changing with the developments.

 

[Vinci]

The issues given are related to the manufacturing of cartridges. Removing that from the equation fixes them. Practical limitations of DD especially as it progresses over the next 5 years are likely to expand and it is unlikely these devs will be able to exceed that on their budgets. Look at the progression since 2005 when it pretty much didn't exist on any platform to the types of exclusives we are starting to see on XBLA and PSN. The landscape is definitely changing with the developments.

This whole concept that developers should sit in DD land rather than have access to a much, much larger market in retail is a horrible thing to use as defense for policies that Nintendo could and should change without too much dire impact to themselves. This isn't little Nintendo up against the behemoths anymore: The company's earned power, influence, and ridiculous wealth should be used to benefit everyone, including themselves, by helping to give 3rd parties (large and small) the best chances possible to find success. And that's for the foreseeable future still in retail.

 

[Jokeropia]

In fact, I'd say Nintendo may be the one who is having to bridge a bigger gap in convincing third parties that 'this time it will be different'.

Third parties did (and do) much much better on the DS than on the PSP, so Nintendo are not the ones with the pressing need to convince anyone that this time will be different.

I'm not sure Nintendo sold more first party games than Sony, (Wii vs PS3).

And about the better (sales wide) nobody is negating the fact that the first party sales are bigger in Wii-Ds than in other platforms. But in Wii there is very few third party sales (absolute numbers) than in other platforms, as PS3, that have a smaller userbase.

Here's US and Japan combined:

 

[charlequin]

The issues given are related to the manufacturing of cartridges. Removing that from the equation fixes them.

By shoving them into a low-price, low-visibility, low-sales, low-scope ghetto. Forcing small publishers into DD is a horrendously destructive approach, which is why it's not actually a solution.

 

[AranhaHunter]

IMO those are all valid complaints. Would be nice to see how 3rd parties are with Sony/MS for comparison purposes.

 

[TunaLover]

I still insist that exclusive co-developments, first-second party investment is the way to go for Nintendo, those time exclusive agreements doesn´t prevent the game appearing in other system, Nintendo always look for 100% exclusivity, and multiplatform games aren´t an incentive to them (and shouldn´t be). The same Iwata said that, the Wii was created so different from the rest in part to get games that couldn´t be in other platforms, so it´s pretty installed in the Nintendo´s mindset.

 

[Vinci]

I still insist that exclusive co-developments, first-second party investment is the way to go for Nintendo, those time exclusive agreements doesn´t prevent the game appearing in other system, Nintendo always look for 100% exclusivity, and multiplatform games aren´t an incentive to them (and shouldn´t be). The same Iwata said that, the Wii was created so different from the rest in part to get games that couldn´t be in other platforms, so it´s pretty installed in the Nintendo´s mindset.

There's no reason they can't do both and promote the library growth of each individual system. I mean, seriously, what's the reasoning behind policies that are, for all intents and purposes, anti-3rd party?

 

[Nirolak]

IMO those are all valid complaints. Would be nice to see how 3rd parties are with Sony/MS for comparison purposes.

Sega accidentally gave us a look into their relationship with Sony a little while back: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=374846

 

[charlequin]

Nintendo always look for 100% exclusivity

This is a dumb thing to want and they should stop wanting it.

 

[Nirolak]

I still insist that exclusive co-developments, first-second party investment is the way to go for Nintendo, those time exclusive agreements doesn´t prevent the game appearing in other system, Nintendo always look for 100% exclusivity, and multiplatform games aren´t an incentive to them (and shouldn´t be). The same Iwata said that, the Wii was created so different from the rest in part to get games that couldn´t be in other platforms, so it´s pretty installed in the Nintendo´s mindset.

I would argue that Microsoft's relatively minor exclusives with the Call of Duty series have worked absolute wonders for them.

I would also argue that the GTA DLC helped them tremendously in terms of selling GTA IV on 360 and making the 360 look like the primary platform for the game, even if the DLC never sold that much.

 

[Vic]

This is exactly why issues like the ones in the OP have been a big focus for me for years when people ask "what can Nintendo do?" Imagine Nintendo changing nothing else but adopting a program for small publishers that includes fast turnaround and low minimums on reorders (because Nintendo's actually just pressing up extra cartridges the first time around that they resell to the company at a slightly higher price when they need them) and favorable billing terms (only a smaller percentage upfront.) I would wager Nintendo could do this at a very minimal overall cost to themselves and it would have a huge effect in terms of making their platform more desirable to small pubs.

Nintendo seems to mostly care about pleasing companies like Capcom and Namco than the smaller ones. Business wise this is very understandable but from the perspective of a videogame enthusiast who likes to see original games popping out & succeed thought word of mouth in the retail market, the issues the Alchemist CEO listed is all against the idea

 

[Somnid]

This whole concept that developers should sit in DD land rather than have access to a much, much larger market in retail is a horrible thing to use as defense for policies that Nintendo could and should change without too much dire impact to themselves. This isn't little Nintendo up against the behemoths anymore: The company's earned power, influence, and ridiculous wealth should be used to benefit everyone, including themselves, by helping to give 3rd parties (large and small) the best chances possible to find success. And that's for the foreseeable future still in retail.

Retail and DD will be the same market. There is no retail on iDevices (those things the everyone thinks are going to kill portables) except gift cards. PSP is fully equipped to handle full DD games (This is how Badman got released, they N1 was never able to get enough support for a UMD until they later bundled in the Badman 2). Thinking that DD is some sort of ghetto for cheap shit is at least as annoying as saying 2D games can't go retail. Given that 3DS uses SD cards, and the rough storage limits it seems highly likely that full retail games may eventually be downloadable. In fact, if they aren't this would be a huge failure on Nintendo's part.

The whole point of things like SpotPass is to eliminate the barriers of online and allow access to this sort of content. If you go into almost any electronics store in Japan (the ones where you buy retail games) you will find a Nintendo Zone station so there ideally won't be any difference whether you are there for a boxed game or a digital one.

 

[Jokeropia]

1), 2) and 3) seem to be related to using carts instead of discs, which is still definitely the right way to go for handhelds. (Maybe they could relax 3) a bit.)

4) might be a good idea. As weird as it is to have platform holders subsidize the business of third-parties, such is the current market reality.

 

[GrotesqueBeauty]

This doesn't even begin to explain why the titles that big publishers are putting on Wii are largely lazy half baked ports and spin-offs. Presumably that software is subject to all these same rules, yet it's still released.

 

[Koren]

Third parties did (and do) much much better on the DS than on the PSP, so Nintendo are not the ones with the pressing need to convince anyone that this time will be different.
Here's US and Japan combined:

Interesting... Especially since Wii 3rd party in Japan is pretty bad, so it's pretty decent in the US. Even more given the available library.

By the way, Nintendo is usually (always) one of the three main publisher in the world, regularly the first. So it's difficult to compare 1st/3rd ratio of Nintendo and Sony/MS, which have some successful licenses (Halo, GT, etc.) but nowhere near as numerous.

 

[Vinci]

Retail and DD will be the same market. There is no retail on iDevices (those things the everyone thinks are going to kill portables) except gift cards. PSP is fully equipped to handle full DD games (This is how Badman got released, they N1 was never able to get enough support for a UMD until they later bundled in the Badman 2). Thinking that DD is some sort of ghetto for cheap shit is at least as annoying as saying 2D games can't go retail. Given that 3DS uses SD cards, and the rough storage limits it seems highly likely that full retail games may eventually be downloadable. In fact, if they aren't this would be a huge failure on Nintendo's part.

We're talking about a mainstream audience, man. We're talking about mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters. The amount of downloaded content compared to retail-purchased content is still so lopsided in the mainstream market that it's ridiculous to even consider them equivalent. Yes, the discrepancy will disappear in time, but to suggest it has already disappeared is loco. The mainstream isn't as hip to the whole digital content thing as others are. Many still prefer hard copies of everything they purchase. This isn't changing anytime tremendously soon.

 

[Jomjom]

Nintendo is arrogant as hell now, their first party games sell unbelievable amounts, and the 3DS is coming out with support from everywhere. They aren't going to do a damn thing to help third parties.

 

[Somnid]

We're talking about a mainstream audience, man. We're talking about mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters. The amount of downloaded content compared to retail-purchased content is still so lopsided in the mainstream market that it's ridiculous to even consider them equivalent. Yes, the discrepancy will disappear in time, but to suggest it has already disappeared is loco. The mainstream isn't as hip to the whole digital content thing as others are. Many still prefer hard copies of everything they purchase. This isn't changing anytime tremendously soon.

I'm not saying it disappeared but I'm saying they should push for this rather than worry about cart manufacturing processes. It's going to take years to get 3DS cart prices low and optimize manufacturing to the degree it is on the current DS regardless. But Nintendo shouldn't be waiting for the audience to change their buying habits because they never will without help and a reason.

DD is the real answer, building more factories or whatever to pump out carts faster is the stop-gap.