Support NeoGAF

[Shaanyboi]

And Nintendo, guess what. You can fix the third party relationships. You just need to take one step back, and take care of things.

I grew up with Nintendo but I wouldn't touch them these days because they're incredibly out of touch until they're absolutely forced to be.

This quote sticks out to me... I mean you're not wrong about them being out of touch, but the "I wouldn't touch them these days" part...

And secondly, no, "you just need to take one step back" doesn't quite cover it...

Outside of Nintendo's own obvious problems, there's a stigma now well over a decade old that they have to combat against, both with consumers and third parties. Who is Nintendo's audience? What games do they buy? Will they be receptive to something new? Almost everytime someone tries stepping out of line of the popular mindset of these answers, it either smacks them in face because either A) the third party fucked up in critical way B) the third party left something out because of limited resources C) it turns out the popular mindset was totally right and Nintendo fans just don't buy third party games (or hell, even Nintendo's own games in some cases)

It's not a "take one step back" matter. It's a supremely complicated problem that Nintendo has and that third parties have with them.

And thirdly, what the hell does this have to do with Bayonetta 2?

 

[StevieP]

And that's why the wii u is bombing.

No, it's bombing because it's a poorly thought out console without any actual market target. Laser precision and focus is when they have found success

 

[Anth0ny]

I don't think Nintendo's willing to do what's necessary to get third-parties back.

It would also be a large financial risk for them to do so, thanks to hardware philosophy, and wanting to be profitable day one.

Wii U wasn't profitable day one. Xbone was profitable day one (and I'm pretty sure it still is at $399 without kinect). I think PS4 was profitable day one assuming you bought a year of PS+. It definitely was after 6 months

The days of launching a console at $600 at a loss are (hopefully) long gone. Xbone and PS4 weren't large financial risks. If anything, the Wii U and its fucking expensive ass gamepad was the biggest financial risk of the three current gen consoles, which is crazy.

 

[Zeyphersan]

It has jack shit to do with Nintendo being "kiddie" and everything with them being stubborn and not cooperating with 3rd parties. Just look at the horror stories from deus attempting to make wii u launch games. Nintendo has no one to blame but themselves.

What does "cooperating with third parties" mean to you?

 

[Abounder]

No Unreal Engine 4 support has to hurt Nintendo as well, a lot of game developers seem to be using it. At least Nintendo has Unity support.

I also still can't believe there's no Minecraft on the WiiU

 

[Herpes Reasons]

With the Wii U, Nintendo released hardware that was up to spec with the competition at the time, and the controller that you dismiss as a "gimmick" still had enough inputs to play absolutely any game that was made for the PS3 or 360 controllers.

It still didn't get major third-party games like GTAV and Bioshock Infinite.

It doesn't matter what hardware Nintendo releases, they'll never get the western third-party support that Sony and MS have.

Up to the time even knowing that next gen consoles were 12 months away. Again, releasing a PS3/360 capable machine 6-7 years after the competition isn't acceptable, sorry. The reason that GTAV or Bioshock Infinite wasn't making it to the Wii U was because the install base isn't there and publishers knew it never would get there. The remaster edition is too demanding for Wii U hardware and notice that the publisher of GTA5 is waiting until the install base is up to par to release on the PS4/X1. Know whose job it is to get the install base there? Nintendo.

 

[StoopKid]

No, it's bombing because it's a poorly thought out console without any actual market target. Laser precision and focus is when they have found success

It does have a target market people that love nintendo games.

Turns out there isn't a lot that will buy a wii u.

 

[AcademicSaucer]

What does "cooperating with third parties" mean to you?

i cant answer for him, but nintendo has this fame of being really bad at handing documentation to third parties

 

[AniHawk]

Gamecube failed for many reasons and the disc format sure as hell didn't help. The N64 failed partially due to the cost of the cartridge vs the disc of the PS1. Again, Nintendo choosing to rest on it's past successes. The cartridge helped push third parties to the competition or are you going to argue it wasn't Nintendo's fault that they left.

i'm arguing the disc issue was sort of a non-issue since in the following generation (where there was a much larger discrepancy between blu ray size and dvd size), it didn't seem to matter if a game fit or didn't fit - third-parties would try and make the software sell regardless.

again, the times were different in that multiplatform games weren't what they are now. back then, different skus would release on different weeks in a month. nowadays you can't get away with that shit. multiplatform games are much more unified now. but what i'm getting at is that if making games on multiple discs wasn't a big deal in the psx and ps3 era, then it probably wasn't in the ps2 era either. it's the only thing that still gets brought up to this day on occasion that comes across as bullshit.

 

[Loofy]

I dont think Nintendo needs third party games, because really third party games dont sell unless its a big exclusive(RE4).
I think the main problem this gen is that they wasted their year lead. I blame 'We didnt know HD games took longer to make' Iwata.

 

[Gleethor]

And that's why the wii u is bombing.

It's primarily because the audience that's willing to buy a system exclusively for first party Nintendo games is shrinking

 

[Jamix012]

If Nintendo actually decided to play nice with third parties I wouldn't question them. I love their games but I can't afford them for what they provide these days. Its not enough. And I'm not in the minority.

What does this have to do with anything? Are you somehow implying they wrestled control of Bayonetta 2 out of the hands of Sega and the other console manufacturers or what?

 

[……forgetit]

What does "cooperating with third parties" mean to you?

Minimum keeping them in the loop during development and responding in a timely manner when they have issues with the hardware.

 

[StevieP]

It has jack shit to do with Nintendo being "kiddie" and everything with them being stubborn and not cooperating with 3rd parties. Just look at the horror stories from deus attempting to make wii u launch games. Nintendo has no one to blame but themselves.

Pretty much every console has horror stories at launch. Documentation and tools are almost universally poor at launch, especially where language barriers are involved

With the Wii U, Nintendo released hardware that was up to spec with the competition at the time, and the controller that you dismiss as a "gimmick" still had enough inputs to play absolutely any game that was made for the PS3 or 360 controllers.

It still didn't get major third-party games like GTAV and Bioshock Infinite.

It doesn't matter what hardware Nintendo releases, they'll never get the western third-party support that Sony and MS have.

Correct.

 

[xaszatm]

And that's why the wii u is bombing.

Well, to be fair, it's a mixture between the lack of advertisements at launch (and before you jump down my neck, yes ads wouldn't have that big of an impact now), a huge dry period where no games were released due to fallen third party deals and both a rush to complete 3DS games and a lack of understanding on HD software development, a social stigma from the Wii, the idiotic name, and a dying Japanese console market. It really is unfair (and I'd say idiotic) to say that 3rd Party is the sole reason behind the Wii U's lack of success.

 

[deltatheta]

If they made a device targeted at the people who play the big name 3rd parties then they would obviously sell better.

Or the big 3rd parties could actually put some effort into games targeted at Nintendo's demographic. The Wii kind of proved that they were unwilling to do this.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

I read the OP looking for suggestions, but I think his suggestion is it just comes down to competitive hardware? Which I'm not sure is necessarily an end-all, be-all solution.

Their most successful third party Nintendo system since the NES was the DS and that thing was kind of garbage and carried on gimmicks. But it pushed forward in to third party realms the GBA and the Gameboy didn't make it to. The software library from everyone was above and beyond.

Even if Nintendo made competitive hardware, I am not sure it would really change third party outlooks. Some of it is because of arrogance, sure. They don't play the correct games that Sony and Microsoft do with third parties. Sometimes they bend over backwards (Dragon Quest, Monster Hunter), sometimes they could do way more (Zombi U), sometimes they are actively tone deaf (online systems). The "warm body in a cold bed" strategy didn't work when the Wii U landed in the PS3 and 360 generation and wasn't getting games those systems were getting and I doubt it would work if the Wii U were equivalent to the Xbox One.

The problem third parties have isn't completely that Nintendo fails to hear their common sense pleas, it's that the fanbase is made of people who just won't buy anything else. I'm not talking about ports that are better elsewhere, I mean...anything. Your SMTs, your Bayonettas, your Zombi Us, your Red Steel 2s, your Little King Storys, etc., etc. It's a depressingly long list. There are reasons for this, but not a lot of good ones that can be easily changed. It mostly comes down to this fundamental problem:

If Nintendo puts Nintendo games on a Nintendo system, people only buy those games. If they do not, people do not buy the system. For third parties, this is literally a no-win situation. Not that they've always tried their best (there was a window during the Wii boom where consumers would have bought high-quality new titles but third parties assumed the system was going to bomb, not boom, so they put out a bunch of low-effort, easily forgotten spin-offs and the audience soured), but it's still a problem that has no solution.

The fanbase could get their asses in gear and start buying shit, but you can't really mobilize people like that and it gets kind of weird telling people to spend money on things they might not like for the sake of cultivating a better ecosystem for their brand of choice. So all Nintendo can do now is what they're doing: pay for the games they don't make. Pay for Bayonetta, for Fatal Frame, for Devil's Third, and hope that something catches on and a window opens up for opportunistic third party developers.

 

[Lernaean]

I love Nintendo games, that is Nintendo first party and/or published games, because as we all know Nintendo games is not a genre.
But that doesn't mean Nintendo is perfect.
They indeed treated third parties like shit, but it's not like third partirs play nice either. Currently third parties treat Nintendo, and with them a percentage of their own userbase like shit.
Nintendo should also kill its marketing and establish a new one. It's obvious that the current is completelly useless.

 

[FormallyFamicom]

What specifically has Nintendo done wrong in their relationship with third parties on the Wii U?

From the way I understand it, western third parties wanted to have input on the creation of the hardware, specs, features, tools, stuff like that. The kinds of feedback they gave Sony and MS in the creation of their hardware, so they could start making the games they want right away.

We do know that EA went to visit Nintendo to get a look at what Wii U was going to be. I'm betting Nintendo was just doing what they always do and EA realized what was up and the "unprecedented partnership" was broken not long after.

 

[Loofy]

i'm arguing the disc issue was sort of a non-issue since in the following generation (where there was a much larger discrepancy between blu ray size and dvd size), it didn't seem to matter if a game fit or didn't fit - third-parties would try and make the software sell regardless.

What hurt the Gamecube is actually the memory cards. My theory anyways.
EA released madden on the system, but you would have been crazy to get it cause the original memory cards couldnt hold a save file. In comparison Sony had cards at least 8x the size that cost about the same.

 

[Astral Dog]

What the hell?
The GC was as powerful as their competitors, the Wii and DS were affordable hardware that had a lot of support with lower budgets, the 3DS too,Nintendo also has helped to publish third party games, and has made alliances with various partners,they have their problems, and have diifficulty on the hardware side to attract the same audience as MS and Sony, but for this game, they funded it, even giving money to Sega and Platinum, Tv ads, showed the game on all their presentations, making a port of the first included for free, Nintendo costumes , etc.
Something like Bayonetta 2 shouldnt be used as an example for this :/

 

[Weiss]

Is there any truth to the statement that Nintendo has enough money to last them for over a decade without making anything? I remember hearing that one.

If it's true, I'd like to see them do something crazy with some of that money.

 

[AniHawk]

Nintendo actually had admirable third party support with Gamecube, but I think a bigger problem is the extremely picky Nintendo contingent who generally doesn't seem to be interested in anything that isn't created by Nintendo. Probably isn't entirely Nintendo's fault , but there may not be much that can be down to rectify that. Most people play third party games on Microsoft and Sony systems now since they have been doing it for so long and they became accustomed to it. Gamers now seemingly associate Nintendo systems with first party games and other systems with third party games. Nintendo can invite third parties over for tea and cookies, but what good is that if third party games are not selling? That imo is the primary issue with third party support. Third parties will support the original Gameboy if money can be made on it. Not helping that they skimp on specs also which imo was REALLY detrimental to the Wii U. Nintendo probably came to the point where they became nonchalant about support and figure they can runs things on their own.

i notice that at least through the gamecube and probably n64, nintendo fans are really good about buying exclusives, but kind of shit with multiplatform games. this trend was reversed in the wii era, and only sort of continues now. for instance, the wii u has seen some skus sell better in comparison to multiplatform counterparts, but only of the family-friendly variety.

 

[Shard]

Nintendo never played nice with 3rd party devs, especially not in the NES days.

Well, they did paly nice in the very early days, and then once they got super huge not so much, made an enemy out of Namco there.

 

[Zeyphersan]

The fanbase could get their asses in gear and start buying shit, but you can't really mobilize people like that and it gets kind of weird telling people to spend money on things they might not like for the sake of cultivating a better ecosystem for their brand of choice. So all Nintendo can do now is what they're doing: pay for the games they don't make. Pay for Bayonetta, for Fatal Frame, for Devil's Third, and hope that something catches on and a window opens up for opportunistic third party developers.

This part stuck out to me, because it's what I've been thinking through this whole thread. This obviously applies to only a small (but growing) subset of people, but I buy all my miltiplatform games on PC. Nintendo consoles could have all the multiplatform support in the world.... and I would still only buy Nintendo games on it (or the exclusive games that Nintendo pays for)

I'm part of the problem ;_;

 

[Sandfox]

Or the big 3rd parties could actually put some effort into games targeted at Nintendo's demographic. The Wii kind of proved that they were unwilling to do this.

The only companies I can think of that didn't really do that are EA and to a lesser extent Capcom. Companies like Ubisoft and Actiivison were doing well on the Wii.

 

[Snakeyes]

Present-day Nintendo are extremely nice to third parties compared to the shit they were pulling back in the late 80s/early 90s. Thing is, "playing nice" with third parties today means courting them by footing the bill for advertising campaigns, paying for exclusive DLC and sharing PSN/XBL revenue with certain publishers, among other things. I'm not sure Nintendo has the means to push those kind of incentives.

In any case, Nintendo's biggest problem right now is the fact that their platforms have failed to cultivate an audience for the typical third party game for close to 15 years. The reason why the N64 had good western support wasn't just their courting of various publishers - it's because Goldeneye proved that those kind of games could sell to the N64 audience. If Nintendo wants to win back third party support, they need to invest in a bunch of high-profile IPs aimed at the 18-35 western demographic, just like they did in the mid-90s.

 

[Wreck-It Ralph]

Up to the time even knowing that next gen consoles were 12 months away. Again, releasing a PS3/360 capable machine 6-7 years after the competition isn't acceptable, sorry. The reason that GTAV or Bioshock Infinite wasn't making it to the Wii U was because the install base isn't there and publishers knew it never would get there. The remaster edition is too demanding for Wii U hardware and notice that the publisher of GTA5 is waiting until the install base is up to par to release on the PS4/X1. Know whose job it is to get the install base there? Nintendo.

Yes, the Wii U was shortsighted. That's beside the point. They released a console that could have easily played GTAV and Bioshock Infinite, and they didn't get either game.

On the install base argument: You realize how long it takes to make a game, right? If either GTAV or Bioshock Infinite were going to have a Wii U version, it would have had to be planned and worked on well before the console ever came out. Thus, the lackluster install base couldn't have been a deciding factor when it came to these games.

Right now? Sure, it's absolutely understandable that a company would decide not to support the Wii U due to its install base. But back then, somebody at some point said, "Should we support the Wii U with our game, knowing nothing about it except that it's a Nintendo console?" and the answer was, "No."

 

[deltatheta]

The only companies I can think of that didn't really do that are EA and to a lesser extent Capcom. Companies like Ubisoft and Actiivison were doing well on the Wii.

I think they did well because of limited competition more than anything else. I don't think that Just Dance or the Wii CoD ports were really serious efforts, even though they sold well.

 

[Scum]

Nintendo has no space as a home console manufacturer, they need to let it go and make their next handheld with hdmi out

Terrible idea.

I read the OP looking for suggestions, but I think his suggestion is it just comes down to competitive hardware? Which I'm not sure is necessarily an end-all, be-all solution.

Their most successful third party Nintendo system since the NES was the DS and that thing was kind of garbage and carried on gimmicks. But it pushed forward in to third party realms the GBA and the Gameboy didn't make it to. The software library from everyone was above and beyond.

Even if Nintendo made competitive hardware, I am not sure it would really change third party outlooks. Some of it is because of arrogance, sure. They don't play the correct games that Sony and Microsoft do with third parties. Sometimes they bend over backwards (Dragon Quest, Monster Hunter), sometimes they could do way more (Zombi U), sometimes they are actively tone deaf (online systems). The "warm body in a cold bed" strategy didn't work when the Wii U landed in the PS3 and 360 generation and wasn't getting games those systems were getting and I doubt it would work if the Wii U were equivalent to the Xbox One.

The problem third parties have isn't completely that Nintendo fails to hear their common sense pleas, it's that the fanbase is made of people who just won't buy anything else. I'm not talking about ports that are better elsewhere, I mean...anything. Your SMTs, your Bayonettas, your Zombi Us, your Red Steel 2s, your Little King Storys, etc., etc. It's a depressingly long list. There are reasons for this, but not a lot of good ones that can be easily changed. It mostly comes down to this fundamental problem:

If Nintendo puts Nintendo games on a Nintendo system, people only buy those games. If they do not, people do not buy the system. For third parties, this is literally a no-win situation. Not that they've always tried their best (there was a window during the Wii boom where consumers would have bought high-quality new titles but third parties assumed the system was going to bomb, not boom, so they put out a bunch of low-effort, easily forgotten spin-offs and the audience soured), but it's still a problem that has no solution.

The fanbase could get their asses in gear and start buying shit, but you can't really mobilize people like that and it gets kind of weird telling people to spend money on things they might not like for the sake of cultivating a better ecosystem for their brand of choice. So all Nintendo can do now is what they're doing: pay for the games they don't make. Pay for Bayonetta, for Fatal Frame, for Devil's Third, and hope that something catches on and a window opens up for opportunistic third party developers.

Nice one, Shocking.
It's also a damn shame that mid-tier development is dead. I think the Acclaim's of the gaming world would have been great for Nintendo.

 

[K-A-Deman]

From the way I understand it, western third parties wanted to have input on the creation of the hardware, specs, features, tools, stuff like that. The kinds of feedback they gave Sony and MS in the creation of their hardware, so they could start making the games they want right away.

We do know that EA went to visit Nintendo to get a look at what Wii U was going to be. I'm betting Nintendo was just doing what they always do and EA realized what was up and the "unprecedented partnership" was broken not long after.

So because they couldn't build their own console a la the Third Party Twins, they took actions of ignoring, actively dissmissing, or releasing-half-assed crap on the Wii U...

 

[udivision]

Wii U wasn't profitable day one. Xbone was profitable day one (and I'm pretty sure it still is at $399 without kinect). I think PS4 was profitable day one assuming you bought a year of PS+. It definitely was after 6 months

The days of launching a console at $600 at a loss are (hopefully) long gone. Xbone and PS4 weren't large financial risks. If anything, the Wii U and its fucking expensive ass gamepad was the biggest financial risk of the three current gen consoles, which is crazy.

The financial risk would be "competing directly" with no gimmick, but with console parity. Iwata said Nintendo would struggle to do that, and it's pretty easy to see why.

They're probably afraid that without some major differentiation strategy, they'd just end up with the HD Triplett with the worst online infrastructure and smaller library. That's a risk, albeit a different one.

 

[encephalon]

Nintendo not playing nice in the snes era is how they screwed themselves when the PlayStation became popular.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Terrible idea.



Nice one, Shocking.
It's also a damn shame that mid-tier development is dead. I think the Acclaim's of the gaming world would have been great for Nintendo.

Yeah, the death of AA games was a big nail in the coffin for the Wii U.

Nintendo could always count on those games and they didn't need to sell in the millions to be worthwhile ventures. AAA has no real home on Wii U.

 

[fluffydelusions]

Is there any truth to the statement that Nintendo has enough money to last them for over a decade without making anything? I remember hearing that one.

If it's true, I'd like to see them do something crazy with some of that money.

The majority of companies with money often don't do crazy/risky things with their money.(that is why that have lots of it)

 

[Sandfox]

I think they did well because of limited competition more than anything else. I don't think that Just Dance or the Wii CoD ports were really serious efforts, even though they sold well.

Games like Just Dance and Skylanders were targeted at the audience that bought the Wii and the companies capitalized on it.

 

[Christopher]

1) the arrogance needs to go away
.

I never got why this was an issue for any hardware/software developers they are companies, not your friends.

 

[Anth0ny]

Niche ass games like Bayonetta 2, Fatal Frame and Devil's Third aren't going to do fuck all for Nintendo.

They don't have Destiny. They don't have Grand Theft Auto. They don't have Madden, FIFA or Call of Duty. Are you fucking kidding me? These are the biggest video games in the world (not Mario, not Pokemon, not Mario Kart), and this video game console does not play them. That's a problem.

The financial risk would be "competing directly" with no gimmick, but with console parity. Iwata said Nintendo would struggle to do that, and it's pretty easy to see why.

They're probably afraid that without some major differentiation strategy, they'd just end up with the HD Triplett with the worst online infrastructure and smaller library. That's a risk, albeit a different one.

OR they could do everything the competition does, but better. And with Nintendo first party software.

Why is that so impossible to believe? They've never tried.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

With the Wii U, Nintendo released hardware that was up to spec with the competition at the time, and the controller that you dismiss as a "gimmick" still had enough inputs to play absolutely any game that was made for the PS3 or 360 controllers.

It still didn't get major third-party games like GTAV and Bioshock Infinite.

It doesn't matter what hardware Nintendo releases, they'll never get the western third-party support that Sony and MS have.

So?

Releasing a console 7 years late with comparable specs is supposed to get them third party support?

How is releasing a console several years late when the old consoles are on the way out supposed to be this grand gesture for third party support?
It's no surprise developers weren't jumping out of their seats to start putting their biggest and best games on the Wii U.

The people who want Bioshock and GTA have their systems. And that pretty much applies for every other big third party game being released.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Is there any truth to the statement that Nintendo has enough money to last them for over a decade without making anything? I remember hearing that one.

If it's true, I'd like to see them do something crazy with some of that money.

I mean

The crazy things they're doing with that money are Bayonetta 2, Devil's Third, and probably other things in that vein. Games that will sell nothing but they're publishing, regardless.

 

[Pathos]

For them to catch up on hardware, that's not a problem. What the biggest issue here is how they handle their online services imo. MS and Sony already have a lot of experience with this. If Nintendo concentrated more on their online infrastructure and built a console with good enough specs, they probably would be doing better. Also they need to stop using their own disc format.

 

[SatoAilDarko]

What arrogance. Sales of this party games are just lower on Nintendo consoles. See how several multiplatform games just skipped Gamecube towards the end of that gen.

Also as other have said you have no idea what you're talking about with the SNES and NES days playing nice with third-parties. They were bloody horrible.

 

[Fantasmo]

Nintendo not playing nice in the snes era is how they screwed themselves when the PlayStation became popular.

This is how I feel. People wanted to play games and Nintendo wanted to own the entire process. That's not how it works. That's.. not how it works.

 

[Zeyphersan]

I'm legitimately curious what deals and concessions Microsoft and Sony offer to the big third parties that Nintendo doesn't, both before the launch of a console and afterwards

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Niche ass games like Bayonetta 2, Fatal Frame and Devil's Third aren't going to do fuck all for Nintendo.

They don't have Destiny. They don't have Grand Theft Auto. They don't have Madden, FIFA or Call of Duty. Are you fucking kidding me? These are the biggest video games in the world (not Mario, not Pokemon, not Mario Kart), and this video game console does not play them. That's a problem.

Technically the biggest retail games in the world, at least in the last five or six years, were Mario, Pokemon, and Mario Kart.

 

[FreeMufasa]

Do ppl really think if Nintendo had a more powerful system theyd get 3rd parties?

 

[Fantasmo]

Do ppl really think if Nintendo had a more powerful system theyd get 3rd parties?

Yes.

 

[foxuzamaki]

Meanwhile, im playing a zelda themed dynasty warriors made by tecmo

 

[……forgetit]

Yes, the Wii U was shortsighted. That's beside the point. They released a console that could have easily played GTAV and Bioshock Infinite, and they didn't get either game.

On the install base argument: You realize how long it takes to make a game, right? If either GTAV or Bioshock Infinite were going to have a Wii U version, it would have had to be planned and worked on well before the console ever came out. Thus, the lackluster install base couldn't have been a deciding factor when it came to these games.

Right now? Sure, it's absolutely understandable that a company would decide not to support the Wii U due to its install base. But back then, somebody at some point said, "Should we support the Wii U with our game, knowing nothing about it except that it's a Nintendo console?" and the answer was, "No."

The bigger issue with those two games specifically is that they were very demanding for both Xbox and PS3. From what we know it would have been much harder for the devs to port it to the WiiU because they have to learn the console from the inside out. It would have possibly been the most expensive version on a console that hasn't been released made by a company where mature games are known to do poorly. If I were making the decisions there's no way I'd green light wii u port of either of them.

 

[Somnid]

I think they did well because of limited competition more than anything else. I don't think that Just Dance or the Wii CoD ports were really serious efforts, even though they sold well.

You don't have to dump a huge amount of money into something to make it thoughtful (In fact more and more it works the opposite way). Ubi just made a fun game with Just Dance, it wasn't a Destiny/Titanfall/WatchDogs that was forced with millions in advertising. And yes, there is less competition in less violent and more accessible games on consoles, and also a bigger audience to boot but western third parties operate almost to the exclusion of these groups.