Support NeoGAF

[Ninja Scooter]

People "ate that shit up" until they didn't. That's the point. They fouled the ecosystem, poisoning it for future third party ventures. It was only a matter of time before the consumers woke up, realized they were basically being robbed, and stopped buying crap.

Also, interesting that you note New Super Mario Bros., because unlike the rest, that wasn't exactly copied. That would've taken hard work and actual talent, something third parties weren't interested in with the Wii.

And Nintendo didn't do their part either. The onus is on them to create an environment that would be appealing to third parties. With Wii, once the casual crowd ditched it, there was nothing left, and Nintendo themselves didn't really do all that much about it either, which is why the software output from them died before the system ever really did. There was nothing more to squeeze out of that audience. Nintendo knew it and third parties knew it.

 

[Metallix87]

And Nintendo didn't do their part either. The onus is on them to create an environment that would be appealing to third parties. With Wii, once the casual crowd ditched it, there was nothing left, and Nintendo themselves didn't really do all that much about it either, which is why the software output from them died before the system ever really did. There was nothing more to squeeze out of that audience. Nintendo knew it and third parties knew it.

Again, Nintendo was able to find great success with software outside of the "casual crowd" market. Zelda was a launch title, after all, and saw solid sales. Nintendo likely didn't "abandon" the system until the time came for them to focus on 3DS and Wii U, and unfortunately, third parties weren't there to pick up the slack.

You want an example of how bad it was? Resident Evil 4 sold amazingly well on the system, and instead of taking that engine and making a follow up, Capcom instead decided to make rail shooters. Games like de Blob and Epic Mickey were successful, and their publishers followed them up with multiplatform sequels, resulting in inferior quality products with poor sales. It was absolutely bizarre.

 

[soxinthebox]

These games are the reason for why Nintendo and Take-Two/Rockstar have a grudgey relationship.

What's the story with this? Loved SSV at the time.

LOL

 

[shinra-bansho]

Zelda doesn't build an audience for COD.
Mario doesn't build an audience for FIFA.

I don't know why it's so hard to accept that the platform holder sets the tone of the platform in terms of audience composition; that the demographics within the installed base are cultivated by said platform holder.
(I can only presume it's because the people on here who own said platforms consider them part of the audience for titles like GTA; newsflash though you're not necessarily representative of the wider installed base.)

Third parties will go where they see money, they'll put titles on the system that they think will sell well. They put the types of games that they saw sell on the Wii, things like Just Dance and Epic Mickey, that played well with the house that Mario built.

They're putting the types of games that they see sell on the Wii U. namely nothing.

 

[Syph Medwes]

For those saying "what about the Wii?", you have to realize the low install base of the Wii U is just a convenient answer.

Take-Two doesn't want to release Wii U games because they don't think they'll sell. Yes, there are some outliers when it comes to adult game versus kid-friendly games; Manhunt was a foray into the mature Nintendo market, but it's probably a simple cost/benefit analysis. Would the target audience of GTA games suddenly flock to a Wii U version? You could argue some would, but I think not only would that number be too small to justify the investment, but people simply don't perceive the current and recent Nintendo consoles as places where they will do their "mature" gaming.

However, that totally doesn't mean there aren't/cant be M rated games on the Wii U, you don't have to look far for examples. I simply mean when it comes to multi-platform games, people have certain perceptions about the various consoles, just as the publishers and developers have certain audiences they are trying to target.

edit: also that gif is hilarious

 

[Metallix87]

Zelda doesn't build an audience for COD.
Mario doesn't build an audience for FIFA.

I don't know why it's so hard to accept that the platform holder sets the tone of the platform in terms of audience composition; that the demographics within the installed base are cultivated by said platform holder.

Third parties will go where they see money, they'll put titles on the system that they think will sell well. They put the types of games that they saw sell on the Wii, things like Just Dance and Epic Mickey, that played well with the house that Mario built.

They're putting the types of games that they see sell on the Wii U. namely nothing.

The Wii U is an entirely different situation. Nintendo has bundled that system from the very beginning.

As for what you said, do you honestly expect a first party to develop every single type of game, just to "make a market" for that genre? I mean, wouldn't that lead to my favorite line from third parties again? "We can't compete with Nintendo software."

It's all excuses from third parties, but if you look at it from the beginning, most do not get in on the ground floor with Nintendo systems, they don't provide equivalent experiences overall, and they act shocked when, after flooding the market with garbage-tier shovelware, that consumers have stopped buying their content.

You point to Just Dance and Epic Mickey. Fair enough. But what happens after they find success? They immediately jump to multiplatform releases, and in the case of the latter, it's at the expense of the quality of the software, unfortunately.

 

[boingball]

So no GTA on Vita either, pity.

 

[prwxv3]

Zelda doesn't build an audience for COD.
Mario doesn't build an audience for FIFA.

I don't know why it's so hard to accept that the platform holder sets the tone of the platform in terms of audience composition; that the demographics within the installed base are cultivated by said platform holder.
(I can only presume it's because the people on here who own said platforms consider them part of the audience for titles like GTA; newsflash though you're not necessarily representative of the wider installed base.)

Third parties will go where they see money, they'll put titles on the system that they think will sell well. They put the types of games that they saw sell on the Wii, things like Just Dance and Epic Mickey, that played well with the house that Mario built.

They're putting the types of games that they see sell on the Wii U. namely nothing.

The argument that third parties themselves have the resppnsibility to cultivate audiences has always been stupid. That is the job and has always been the job of the platform holders.

 

[akidnamededdy]

Announce when you're working on a game. Tired of these "we're not working on anything for that" announcements. What's the point?

The argument that third parties themselves have the resppnsibility to cultivate audiences has always been stupid. That is the job and has always been the job of the platform holders.

Nintendo cultivated an audience for the Wii last gen, they got that shit in homes everywhere, but it still got middling third party support. It's both groups' responsibility, third parties and platform holders.

 

[Metallix87]

The argument that third parties themselves have the resppnsibility to cultivate audiences has always been stupid. That is the job and has always been the job of the platform holders.

Again, when Nintendo "cultivates an audience", the third parties bitch and moan about how they can't compete with Nintendo's offerings. In fact, third parties see successful content from Nintendo, and only copy the ones that require the least effort and the shortest development times. Zelda and Mario saw huge success on Wii, but where they copied? No, of course not. It was much easier and cheaper to copy Wii Sports, Wii Play, and Wii Fit, and they did so until the consumers got fed up with inferior products from the third parties.

 

[flatearthpandas]

Anyway, it's pretty easy to see why they're not making Wii U games. Their games don't mesh well the the casual Nintendo crowd and ontop of that Wii U is a flop of major proportions.


Yes let's blame third parties instead of Nintendo.

It's a weird thing. Wii U owners aren't buying weak third party efforts because they're all casuals, but the Wii U is failing because the casual market has moved on.

How many third party "efforts" would you have bought on Wii U?

I don't blame Nintendo for third parties' less than inspiring efforts any more than I blame Google that Nike only releases ios apps.

 

[MisterHero]

The argument that third parties themselves have the resppnsibility to cultivate audiences has always been stupid. That is the job and has always been the job of the platform holders.

You're right. Nintendo needed to have a platform for action-adventure games, so they made some. 2 Zeldas, 2 Metroid Primes, Resident Evil 1, Zero, 4, Metal Gear Solid TTS, etc. then there are more low-key efforts like Battalion Wars, Geist, Starfox Adventures, etc.

Maybe they didn't back enough horses.

 

[shinra-bansho]

It is never going to be the responsibility of third parties to cultivate an audience on a platform. They go where they think they can sell. They aren't going to invest in building an audience when there are others readily available. They do not need Nintendo.

As for what you said, do you honestly expect a first party to develop every single type of game, just to "make a market" for that genre? I mean, wouldn't that lead to my favorite line from third parties again? "We can't compete with Nintendo software."

No. I'm not why this is the default response to this idea about audience cultivation. Sony and Microsoft don't need games in every genre either; what they do do however is position their platforms in all aspects towards the demographics towards which the games that third party publishers largely mare are aimed.

On the latter point, publishers will compete for the racing market with Gran Turismo; they'll compete for shooting fans with Halo; they'll compete for party games with Wii Party. 2K Sports has no problems releasing an inferior baseball game on the PS platforms. They aren't afraid to compete.

It's all excuses from third parties, but if you look at it from the beginning, most do not get in on the ground floor with Nintendo systems, they don't provide equivalent experiences overall, and they act shocked when, after flooding the market with garbage-tier shovelware, that consumers have stopped buying their content.

You point to Just Dance and Epic Mickey. Fair enough. But what happens after they find success? They immediately jump to multiplatform releases, and in the case of the latter, it's at the expense of the quality of the software, unfortunately.

They don't get in on the ground floor because the building doesn't even exist, and they're not going to lay the foundation.

They want their titles on as many platforms as they think they can sell them on; Microsoft in particular made a push towards family late in the last gen. They made a concerted effort and invested hundreds of millions into making their brand and platform conducive to attracting an audience for games like Just Dance.

 

[Usually Right]

Announce when you're working on a game. Tired of these "we're not working on anything for that" announcements. What's the point?

They were probably asked the question. I doubt Take Two care enough about Nintendo to go out their way to release a statement on how bad Wii U is without it being requested.

You're right. Nintendo needed to have a platform for action-adventure games, so they made some. 2 Zeldas, 2 Metroid Primes, Resident Evil 1, Zero, 4, Metal Gear Solid TTS, etc. then there are more low-key efforts like Battalion Wars, Geist, Starfox Adventures, etc.

Maybe they didn't back enough horses.

And GameCube got pretty decent third party support, until it became apparent the PS2 was far more worthy of people's time.

Then Nintendo gave up and just started making Wii * games and Mario sequels

 

[akidnamededdy]

They were probably asked the question. I doubt Take Two care enough about Nintendo to go out their way to release a statement on how bad Wii U is without it being requested.

Ah, maybe I'm just tired of these "This company isn't making any Wii U games" topics, then.

 

[Metallix87]

They don't get in on the ground floor because the building doesn't even exist, and they're not going to lay the foundation.

Nonsense. Each generation features a refresh, and since the days of the Nintendo 64, for one reason or another (depending on the excuse they choose), third parties will avoid laying the foundation on Nintendo's platform, but will do what they can for the rest.

 

[Munkybhai]

Zelda doesn't build an audience for COD.
Mario doesn't build an audience for FIFA.

But then surely Zelda builds an audience for other hardcore third person games... like Dark Souls? Metroid builds an audience for deep, mature first person games. Why compare Mario to FIFA?
As for the FIFA comment, no one else makes football games except Konami. So by that argument, Sony and MS platforms shouldn't receive sports franchises either. So let's just both agree that that was a cheap shot.

 

[jmizzal]

They only put 1 game on WiiU and that was NBA 2K13 at launch

They got all that money from their Wii shovelwear and put it towards other HD systems unlike UBisoft who used that money on core games for Nintendo systems

 

[CambriaRising]

Nonsense. Each generation features a refresh, and since the days of the Nintendo 64, for one reason or another (depending on the excuse they choose), third parties will avoid laying the foundation on Nintendo's platform, but will do what they can for the rest.

You're delusional if you really think that Nintendo isn't at fault of not courting third parties.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

I want to make sure I'm reading this correctly: you believe that Take-Two has a spotty support record with Nintendo devices not because of wholly practical reasons of financial and opportunity costs associated with development, but because of some kind of... principled stand they take against Nintendo for "personal" reasons?

I'm interested in your theories. Do you think maybe EA's push for always-on DRM is actually their way of protesting North Korea's humanitarian issues by making their games effectively unplayable there?

Do you ACTUALLY believe that's the reason for not bringing any GTA for Nintendo home consoles till today is because there's no audience for it in there?! There's a point now with WiiU's current situation, but ever since the GCN days?!?! Okay, then...

 

[Usually Right]

Nonsense. Each generation features a refresh, and since the days of the Nintendo 64, for one reason or another (depending on the excuse they choose), third parties will avoid laying the foundation on Nintendo's platform, but will do what they can for the rest.

Well there's usually valid reasons

n64 had ridiculously license fees and cartridge production costs compared to PSX IIRC. That alone was enough to put third parties off devoting time and attention to the system. GameCube had those shitty mini DVDs and an unusual controller layout which made doing straight ports of PS2 games more difficult than it needed to be, and it sold like crap. Wii was woefully underpowered and couldn't run most engines developers had built for their current gen titles, had an even more unusual control scheme that made direct ports often extremely difficult and an audience that was unresponsive to the kind of titles that sold well on other platforms.

 

[prwxv3]

You're right. Nintendo needed to have a platform for action-adventure games, so they made some. 2 Zeldas, 2 Metroid Primes, Resident Evil 1, Zero, 4, Metal Gear Solid TTS, etc. then there are more low-key efforts like Battalion Wars, Geist, Starfox Adventures, etc.

Maybe they didn't back enough horses.

Uh that was the GameCube era. What did they do during the Wii era?

 

[Metallix87]

You're delusional if you really think that Nintendo isn't at fault of not courting third parties.

Overall? I do think they're at fault. However, my argument is that they created a pretty attractive environment on the Wii that had plenty of opportunity for third parties to flourish and connect with a large audience. I think, with regards to the Wii specifically, third parties are just as guilty, if not more than Nintendo, for dropping the ball and not taking advantage of the audience by creating worthwhile content to finally bridge the gap, so to speak, with Nintendo fans.

Uh that was the GameCube era. What did they do during the Wii era?

Created Zelda, Mario, and Metroid games, which all saw success. Those weren't copied, and instead third parties took the easy way out, copying the mini game collections and fitness games.

 

[JaseC]

I may be wrong, so please set me straight if that is the case, but i thought the Wii had the most 3rd party 1 million+ sellers last gen.

The point I was making is that the relatively small chance of selling ~2m or more on the Wii was presumably not an enticing prospect for the likes of Take-Two when it largely deals in multi-million-sellers on the PS360 and PC.

 

[cafemomo]

Nonsense. Each generation features a refresh, and since the days of the Nintendo 64, for one reason or another (depending on the excuse they choose), third parties will avoid laying the foundation on Nintendo's platform, but will do what they can for the rest.

Excuse?

Do you really think there is some conspiracy against Nintendo?

 

[shinra-bansho]

Nonsense. Each generation features a refresh, and since the days of the Nintendo 64, for one reason or another (depending on the excuse they choose), third parties will avoid laying the foundation on Nintendo's platform, but will do what they can for the rest.

The world doesn't work like that. You don't release a system with essentially no recent historical precedent for success for the types of games that third party publishers deal in and just expect future support and success. You don't build a brand over decades based on colorful platformers and mascots, family friendly fare, purple lunchboxes, cute armless avatars that play fake sports and then expect Take-Two to think GTAV is a good demographic fit.

Each generation is not some magical reset button. The Wii U's current failings with third parties is the culmination of a series of misteps over a long period of time.

But then surely Zelda builds an audience for other hardcore third person games... like Dark Souls? Metroid builds an audience for deep, mature first person games. Why compare Mario to FIFA?
As for the FIFA comment, no one else makes football games except Konami. So by that argument, Sony and MS platforms shouldn't receive sports franchises either. So let's just both agree that that was a cheap shot.

They're the two best selling games and the first that came to mind.

I don't know why this needs repeating: Sony and Microsoft do not need to make their own sports titles to get FIFA; what they need to do and have persistently done is attract a concentrated userbase of males aged 15-35 who are the primary target demographic for FIFA and Madden and NFS and so on.

Also, and I'm sure I'll be lambasted for this, but no, I really don't think Zelda does build a substantial audience for a game like Dark Souls.

 

[Metallix87]

Do you really think there is some conspiracy against Nintendo?

"Conspiracy" is a strong word. I more think it's that third parties have picked their horses in the race, so to speak, and are willing to ignore the Nintendo platforms and keep pushing what they believe to be the safe bets. This resulted in missed opportunity and major missteps from third parties on the Wii, which left that ecosystem toxic.

 

[prwxv3]

The world doesn't work like that. You don't release a system with essentially no recent historical precedent for success for the types of games that third party publishers deal in and just expect future support and success. You don't build a brand over decades based on colorful platformers and mascots, family friendly fare, purple lunchboxes, cute armless avatars that play fake sports and then expect Take-Two to think GTAV is a good demographic fit.

Each generation is not some magical reset button. The Wii U's current failings with third parties is the culmination of a series of misteps over a long period of time.They're the two best selling games and the first that came to mind.

I don't know why this needs repeating: Sony and Microsoft do not need to make their own sports titles to get FIFA; what they need to do and persistently do is attract a concentrated userbase of males aged 15-35 who are the primary target demographic for FIFA and Madden and NFS and so on.

Also, and I'm sure I'll be lambasted for this, but no, I really don't think Zelda does build a substantial audience for a game like Dark Souls.

I don't either. Dark souls is a dark super hardcore RPG known for its brutal difficulty. Zelda has none of these qualities.

 

[Usually Right]

"Conspiracy" is a strong word. I more think it's that third parties have picked their horses in the race, so to speak, and are willing to ignore the Nintendo platforms and keep pushing what they believe to be the safe bets. This resulted in missed opportunity and major missteps from third parties on the Wii, which left that ecosystem toxic.

Wii was left because there was no evidence that high budget third party games could be more successful than they could be on PS3/360. Your option was either create content for two systems with user bases you know are active in buying high budget, core AAA games or create high budget games for Wii which you couldn't also put on PS3 and 360 and with an audience that was unproven when it came to buying anything other than dance games and Nintendo sequels.

 

[ambientmystic]

The world doesn't work like that. You don't release a system with essentially no recent historical precedent for success for the types of games that third party publishers deal in and just expect future support and success. You don't build a brand over decades based on colorful platformers and mascots, family friendly fare, purple lunchboxes, cute armless avatars that play fake sports and then expect Take-Two to think GTAV is a good demographic fit.

Each generation is not some magical reset button. The Wii U's current failings with third parties is the culmination of a series of misteps over a long period of time.They're the two best selling games and the first that came to mind.

I don't know why this needs repeating: Sony and Microsoft do not need to make their own sports titles to get FIFA; what they need to do and have persistently done is attract a concentrated userbase of males aged 15-35 who are the primary target demographic for FIFA and Madden and NFS and so on.

Also, and I'm sure I'll be lambasted for this, but no, I really don't think Zelda does build a substantial audience for a game like Dark Souls.

10/10 post. I really enjoy your posts shinra, you really have a way with words, especially in the Sales Age threads. They always make sense to me.

 

[kudoboi]

I wonder if it's the same for PC. GTA V skipped PC and apparently NBA2K15 will too.

 

[Metallix87]

Wii was left because there was no evidence that high budget third party games could be more successful than they could be on PS3/360. Your option was either create content for two systems with user bases you know are active in buying high budget, core AAA games or create high budget games for Wii which you couldn't also put on PS3 and 360 and with an audience that was unproven when it came to buying anything other than dance games and Nintendo sequels.

There was a third option, and one I've thought would've done wonders for all parties: Port PSP content to the Wii. PSP content suffered in the West, where consoles dominated, and the Wii was the perfect platform to leverage that software for the West. I'm still shocked that this didn't happen on a massive scale.

 

[Usually Right]

There was a third option, and one I've thought would've done wonders for all parties: Port PSP content to the Wii. PSP content suffered in the West, where consoles dominated, and the Wii was the perfect platform to leverage that software for the West. I'm still shocked that this didn't happen on a massive scale.

Which PSP games do you think would have sold a million plus if ported to Wii?

 

[ambientmystic]

I wonder if it's the same for PC. GTA V skipped PC and apparently NBA2K15 will too.

Ermm....

 

[Metallix87]

Which PSP games do you think would have sold a million plus if ported to Wii?

Million plus? Few, if any. That's irrelevant, though. My point is, many PSP titles would've found greater success early on on the Wii, thanks to the massive hype and the early lack of high quality content.

 

[MisterHero]

And GameCube got pretty decent third party support, until it became apparent the PS2 was far more worthy of people's time.

Then Nintendo gave up and just started making Wii * games and Mario sequels

Uh that was the GameCube era. What did they do during the Wii era?

No, Nintendo made Battalion Wars WII and made more action-adventure games. More Zelda, more Metroid, a new GoldenEye, Xenoblade/Last Story/Pandora's Tower, and so on. Nintendo moneyhatted Dragon Quest and Monster Hunter. I will agree that some of their choices are flawed on basic level of international appeal, but that doesn't mean they stopped making the games; nor does it mean they were bad. Nor does it mean that 3rd-parties couldn't publish on Wii.

Back to Take-Two though. They ported Bully and Table-Tennis, but not the game/collection that everyone might've enjoyed. Maybe some people skipped over Scarface and Godfather because they were waiting for the real deal.

Resident Evil 4 sold 2 million copies on GC and Wii EACH and Capcom continues porting it to later systems [let's ignore them jeopardizing the GC launch with the PS2 announcement]. Isn't that worth some retrospect?

There was a third option, and one I've thought would've done wonders for all parties: Port PSP content to the Wii. PSP content suffered in the West, where consoles dominated, and the Wii was the perfect platform to leverage that software for the West. I'm still shocked that this didn't happen on a massive scale.

Heh. They ported LCS and VCS to PS2 before a newer, thriving system.

 

[prwxv3]

No, Nintendo made Battalion Wars WII and made more action-adventure games. More Zelda, more Metroid, a new GoldenEye, Xenoblade/Last Story/Pandora's Tower, and so on. Nintendo moneyhatted Dragon Quest and Monster Hunter. I will agree that some of their choices are flawed on basic level of international appeal, but that doesn't mean they stopped making the games; nor does it mean they were bad. Nor does it mean that 3rd-parties couldn't publish on Wii.

Back to Take-Two though. They ported Bully and Table-Tennis, but not the game/collection that everyone might've enjoyed. Maybe some people skipped over Scarface and Godfather because they were waiting for the real deal.

Resident Evil 4 sold 2 million copies on GC and Wii EACH and Capcom continues porting it to later systems [let's ignore them jeopardizing the GC lauch with the PS2 announcement]. Isn't that worth some retrospect?

How about you compare what Nintendo did on Wii with what sony/MS did on ps3/360

 

[flatearthpandas]

Zelda doesn't build an audience for COD.
Mario doesn't build an audience for FIFA.

I don't know why it's so hard to accept that the platform holder sets the tone of the platform in terms of audience composition; that the demographics within the installed base are cultivated by said platform holder.
(I can only presume it's because the people on here who own said platforms consider them part of the audience for titles like GTA; newsflash though you're not necessarily representative of the wider installed base.)

Third parties will go where they see money, they'll put titles on the system that they think will sell well. They put the types of games that they saw sell on the Wii, things like Just Dance and Epic Mickey, that played well with the house that Mario built.

They're putting the types of games that they see sell on the Wii U. namely nothing.

Exactly!
I remember how Sony cultivated their JRPG audience and WRPG audiences. When they published and developed all those types of games.
And the FPS and action adventure audience!
Nintendo never had any of those types of games on their consoles and certainly never had first part efforts that were some of the most widely known efforts in those genres.

Don't get me started on Sony and Microsoft's classic Football and Soccer franchises.

Give me a break.

MS definitely earned their shooter audience, but let's not pretend they or Sony built the audience for any of their other best selling genres.

 

[Metallix87]

Heh. They ported LCS and VCS to PS2 before a newer, thriving system.

EXACTLY! I can't believe that happened! The Wii was literally on fire and starved for high quality content, and it was ignored for the PS2 of all systems. There were a lot of PSP titles that I think would've found success on the system: The GTA games, Tokobot, Final Fantasy Type-0, Metal Gear Solid, etc.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Exactly!
I remember how Sony cultivated their JRPG audience and WRPG audiences. When they published and developed all those types of games.
And the FPS and action adventure audience!
Nintendo never had any of those types of games on their consoles and certainly never had first part efforts that were some of the most widely known efforts in those genres.

Don't get me started on Sony and Microsoft's classic Football and Soccer franchises.

Give me a break.

MS definitely earned their shooter audience, but let's not pretend they or Sony built the audience for any of their other best selling genres.

Good grief; repeating for the third time: cultivating an audience doesn't amount solely to making games in the same genre as third party publishers. Sony and Microsoft could produce no games themselves for the PS4 and XB1 and their products would still be a better prospect for third parties. Samsung could enter into the console space, with no precedent and no software studios, and if they properly positioned their product it could be a better prospect for publishers and the types of games they make.

 

[MisterHero]

How about you compare what Nintendo did on Wii with what sony/MS did on ps3/360

This thread is about Take-Two. Nintendo did their job and made their console successful with their top-selling series. The former released more obscure franchises rather than their #1. Is it any wonder their brand had minimal impact on the Wii?

 

[prwxv3]

Exactly!
I remember how Sony cultivated their JRPG audience and WRPG audiences. When they published and developed all those types of games.
And the FPS and action adventure audience!
Nintendo never had any of those types of games on their consoles and certainly never had first part efforts that were some of the most widely known efforts in those genres.

Don't get me started on Sony and Microsoft's classic Football and Soccer franchises.

Give me a break.

MS definitely earned their shooter audience, but let's not pretend they or Sony built the audience for any of their other best selling genres.

Except the audience Sony and MS cultivated on ps3/360 buy finalfantasy, elder scrolls, deus ex, dark souls ect. It's not limited to single genres like shooters.

 

[73V3N]

I don't either. Dark souls is a dark super hardcore RPG known for its brutal difficulty. Zelda has none of these qualities.

Can I have a list of some dark super hardcore RPGs made by Sony or MS?

 

[Crimson_Gold]

Can I have a list of some dark super hardcore RPGs made by Sony or MS?

Sony published Demon Souls in Japan

 

[Zornack]

Can I have a list of some dark super hardcore RPGs made by Sony or MS?

I can list dark hardcore games made by Sony or MS. I can't list a single one made by Nintendo.

All you really need to do is look at what Iwata said this past week. It's all talk about children, marketing to children, developing for children, children, children, children. Nintendo is interested in making a console and games that are directed at children. Can adults enjoy those games? Yes! But their #1 priority is children. When that's the market the console is designed for it is difficult for developers who make more "mature" games to find an audience there.

 

[jroc74]

Well duh.

This was kinda inferred with the other article. Reading between the lines and all that jazz. They didnt really have to specifically mention Wii U.

Guess this is ....definitive...

 

[Terrible_Majesty]

really? where were they during the wii era?

this. take two, you slimey bastards

 

[flatearthpandas]

Good grief; repeating for the third time: cultivating an audience doesn't amount solely to making games in the same genre as third party publishers. Sony and Microsoft could produce no games themselves for the PS4 and XB1 and their products would still be a better prospect for third parties. Samsung could enter into the console space, with no precedent and no software studios, and if they properly positioned their product it could be a better prospect for publishers and the types of games they make.

Because third parties built their own audiences on those platforms. Neither Sony nor MS built those audiences for themselves (with the exception of MS and shooters).

 

[metalslimer]

lol people are still whining about the Wii support from 3rd parties when Nintendo completely botched the execution of that system from its architecture to online systems to power? Why in the world should Take 2 have developed a game from the ground up for the Wii when the audience is clearly on other platforms? And I can't believe fucking Zelda was actually used as an example of the audience that would have bought their games. People need to finally accept the fact that the audience Nintendo's builds is very far away from the audience that many 3rd parties target with the games they want, and you should have learned that over a decade ago.

 

[MisterHero]

lol people are still whining about the Wii support from 3rd parties when Nintendo completely botched the execution of that system from its architecture to online systems to power? Why in the world should Take 2 have developed a game from the ground up for the Wii when the audience is clearly on other platforms?

yeah because GTA ports would've needed cutting edge online integration

speaking of which, GTA V's online integration is kinda shit