Support NeoGAF

[Sho_Nuff82]

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.

Motion gaming didn't die because the games were bad, it died because the audience had their fill of what the technology offered, and that was enough. Or do you think that new Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Sonic Olympics, and Wii Party all bombing has to do with Nintendo "poisoning the well"? Note that the user scores for Carnival games and Mario & Sonic aren't that far apart.

Unlike Nintendo (and MS), TT had the foresight not to invest a huge chunk of their business into an unsustainable audience.

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

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

Are we talking ports of GTA IV + expansions (which would never work) or GTA 3/VC/SA, which were already on 3 platforms, and backwards compatible on PS360 as well? Where was this audience of M-rated game starved motion gaming fans coming from?

 

[metalslimer]

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

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

It was an example of why 3rd parties didn't want to develop for the platform. For Rockstar, they would have to develop a completely different version of their games as none of them would have come close to running on the Wii. People can bitch and moan all they want but they ignored Nintendo and still sold a shit ton of copies without the Wii ____ audience that wouldn't have bought those games on the Wii anyway.

Nintendo is going to be bankrupt and we'll still have people whining about how 3rd parties hate Nintendo.

 

[prwxv3]

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

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

You do realize that it would have taken a shit tone of work to get GTA4 working on Wii right?

 

[I-hate-u]

Nintendo should develop consoles that can be profitable solely through first part software.

 

[Metallix87]

Motion gaming didn't die because the games were bad, it died because the audience had their fill of what the technology offered, and that was enough. Or do you think that new Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Sonic Olympics, and Wii Party all bombing has to do with Nintendo "poisoning the well"?

If you're referring to the Wii U games, there's a myriad of reasons why that happened, not the least of which is the giant albatross known as the Game Pad.

 

[Ishida]

really? where were they during the wii era?

Making money on the only two consoles that actually mattered.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

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.

Wii had demographics for Resident Evil survival horror-like games and FPS titles and that audience was pretty much ignored. Capcom made RE4 Wii Edition, it became a million seller and build ground for the genre on the system. Silent Hill: Shattered Memories came out later. RE5 never saw the day light on it, despite the performance, instead they made RE UC and RE DC, two light gun shooters, totally running away from the franchise formula. EA brought a Dead Space light gun rail-shooter, not what the franchise was known for. COD3 Wii outsold the PS3 version, no COD4 was made, initially, only came out 2 years later. Red Steel became a million seller. Very few core FPS titles were made for Wii despite the performance of it's initial titles. Madden 07 initially outsold the PS3 version, later they changed the aesthetics to match the Wii Sports visuals with the All-Play look, sales took a dive ever since.

Well, some companies were using their Wii profits to fund their PS3/360 projects as Ubisoft openly claimed that in 2007: http://www.psu.com/forums/showthrea...-and-DS-to-fund-X360-and-PS3-game-development

You persist to say third-parties follow the demographic of the market, but in Wii's special case, your claims needs to be better verified. There WERE demographics for such games on Wii and third-parties simply pretended it didn't existed.

 

[shinra-bansho]

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).

Sony and Microsoft built products and platforms that attracted demographics conducive to third party success. They invested billions into this. They have spent over a decade building their brand and positioning their product lines.

Part of that is obviously also building strong third party relations, as there's positive network effects from having developers on board. And part of that is also building their own studios to create software aimed at the same demographics.

EA didn't need to go in and specifically build an audience for licensed sports games. Activision didn't need to specifically go in and build an audience for shooters. It isn't about building a specific audience for a specific genre.

EA and Activision build games targeted at the demographic audience within the PlayStation and Xbox platforms. Third parties didn't look at the platforms that Sony and Microsoft made and think, we need to go in there and specifically attract males aged 13-35 to buy the system so they can buy our games. Because they didn't need to, the platforms themselves were designed from the very beginning towards attracting those audiences.

 

[jroc74]

really? where were they during the wii era?

this. take two, you slimey bastards

Well... Rockstar did put Manhunt 2 on the Wii. Cant say they didnt try.

I think some ppl need to realize...like Sony getting rid of non profitable divisions....developers, publishers are in this to make money. You can be all in at the beginning...but if it isnt working out....you have to think with a business mind.

It is what it is.

 

[velvet_nitemare]

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).

MS built an audience for:
FPS (Halo, Perfect Dark)
TPS (GoW)
WRPG (Fable)
Sim Racer (Forza)
JRPG (Blue Dragon, Lost Oddysey)
Casual games (Kinect sports)
Plus things like co-marketing, exclusivity deals and first to recieve DLC of key games like CoD. And that's with them barely having any studios.

Don't even get me started on Sony. The depth and breath of the titles they published on PS3 was ridiculous. Plus both of these companies target their marketing at the 18-35 male demographic, as opposed to kids and families.

 

[speculawyer]

Well . . . what did you expect?

Rockstar makes 'M' rated games. 2K games largely makes 'M' rated games and the ones that are not 'M' rated are largely PC games or sports games. The did make NBA 2K13 for the Wii.

 

[Metallix87]

Plus both of these companies target their marketing at the 18-35 male demographic, as opposed to kids and families.

I hate how this is a factor. Why is Nintendo basically alone in the fight to draw in kids and families? Kids SHOULD logically be the primary demographic for video games.

 

[cafemomo]

MS built an audience for:
JRPG (Blue Dragon, Lost Oddysey)

That turned out well huh

 

[speculawyer]

really? where were they during the wii era?

It was a decent hit actually.

 

[MisterHero]

It was an example of why 3rd parties didn't want to develop for the platform. For Rockstar, they would have to develop a completely different version of their games as none of them would have come close to running on the Wii. People can bitch and moan all they want but they ignored Nintendo and still sold a shit ton of copies without the Wii ____ audience that wouldn't have bought those games on the Wii anyway.

Or they wouldn't. You need a ROCKSTAR account to access all of GTAV's features. Take-Two can ignore Miiverse just like it ignored the PSN/XBL accounts and features.

You do realize that it would have taken a shit tone of work to get GTA4 working on Wii right?

I've been talking about GTAIII-VC-SA and LCS/VCS most of this thread. Did I expect GTA4? No, San Andreas was a perfectly good game to port.

 

[metalslimer]

I hate how this is a factor. Why is Nintendo basically alone in the fight to draw in kids and families? Kids SHOULD logically be the primary demographic for video games.

They aren't. There are many developers on iOS/Android make kids games and this is why Nintendo is on the decline to begin with.

Or they wouldn't. You need a ROCKSTAR account to access all of GTAV's features. They can ignore Miiverse just like it ignored the PSN/XBL accounts and features.

I was talking about the Wii. And why in the world would anyone care about those PS2 ports on the Wii?

 

[StevieP]

Making money on the only two consoles that actually mattered.

You might want to look at their financials

 

[ambientmystic]

I hate how this is a factor. Why is Nintendo basically alone in the fight to draw in kids and families? Kids SHOULD logically be the primary demographic for video games.

That hasn't been the case since the mid to late 90s, thanks to Sony and the PSX.

 

[Crimson_Gold]

I hate how this is a factor. Why is Nintendo basically alone in the fight to draw in kids and families? Kids SHOULD logically be the primary demographic for video games.

Why should kids be the obvious demographic? This is an honest question

 

[Freezie KO]

If they don't hate Nintendo, they'll put GTA 6 on the QOL platform

 

[Replicant]

I hate how this is a factor. Why is Nintendo basically alone in the fight to draw in kids and families? Kids SHOULD logically be the primary demographic for video games.

Do kids have disposable income? No.

Their buying habit are dictated by what their parents buy or allow them to buy. So it makes sense that company would rather target adults who have disposable income and purchasing power by making games that appeal to them. They'll have more chance of making money by doing this.

 

[MisterHero]

Why should kids be the obvious demographic? This is an honest question

Kids play GTAO all the time. It's kinda weird to be honest

 

[Metallix87]

Why should kids be the obvious demographic? This is an honest question

Kids have the most free time to waste, since they're less likely to be out dating and going out hanging with friends or out working jobs. Free time leads to boredom, which leads to gaming. I mean, at least that's how it was for me growing up. As a kid, I had plenty of time to play games, but once High School was over, my free time gradually diminished to a fraction of what it once was.

 

[jroc74]

Well . . . what did you expect?

Rockstar makes 'M' rated games. 2K games largely makes 'M' rated games and the ones that are not 'M' rated are largely PC games or sports games. The did make NBA 2K13 for the Wii.

Yea...I think some ppl just dont know that some of the companies did try to be there for Nintendo. But at the end of the day....money talks...and BS walks....

I hate how this is a factor. Why is Nintendo basically alone in the fight to draw in kids and families? Kids SHOULD logically be the primary demographic for video games.

I think its more of keeping up with the current times. Sony makes plenty of kid friendly, family games....but their overall platform is really diverse.

LBP is one of Sony's biggest, most popular games.

I get what you're saying tho. I said it before...have family friendly games is one thing...having a family friendly platform, console is another.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

If you're referring to the Wii U games, there's a myriad of reasons why that happened, not the least of which is the giant albatross known as the Game Pad.

Motion gaming was dying/dead before the Wii U launched. Kinect and Just Dance were the last shots in the arm for it, there's no growth there anymore. If Kinect Sports 3 underperforms (as Just Dance 2014 did) you have to wonder if MS will continue to bother.

That turned out well huh

MS gave up on moneyhatting JRPGs almost as fast as Nintendo gave up on Eternal Darkness and Resident Evil. Not like we need to be reminded that LO came out in 2007, and ED/REmake came out in 2002. Fans of these genres will follow the games, but only as long as you show a commitment to keep making them.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Wii had demographics for Resident Evil survival horror-like games and FPS titles and that audience was pretty much ignored. Capcom made RE4 Wii Edition, it became a million seller and build ground for the genre on the system. Silent Hill: Shattered Memories came out later. RE5 never saw the day light on it, despite the performance, instead they made RE UC and RE DC, two light gun shooters, totally running away from the franchise formula. EA brought a Dead Space light gun rail-shooter, not what the franchise was known for. COD3 Wii outsold the PS3 version, no COD4 was made, initially, only came out 2 years later. Red Steel became a million seller. Very few core FPS titles were made for Wii despite the performance of it's initial titles. Madden 07 initially outsold the PS3 version, later they changed the aesthetics to match the Wii Sports visuals with the All-Play look, sales took a dive ever since.

Well, some companies were using their Wii profits to fund their PS3/360 projects as Ubisoft openly claimed that in 2007: http://www.psu.com/forums/showthrea...-and-DS-to-fund-X360-and-PS3-game-development

You persist to say third-parties follow the demographic of the market, but in Wii's special case, your claims needs to be better verified. There WERE demographics for such games on Wii and third-parties simply pretended it didn't existed.

Was RE5 possible on the Wii? How much development time and resource was needed, to downport the title. Was it worth the opportunity cost? What demographic make-up were they seeing on the platform relative to the other platforms, regardless of early sales; was there growth or was that the expected limit of sales? What were the attach rates of these titles?

Under no circumstance am I saying that third parties are always right in their business decisions, but they're business decisions none the less. EA tried to tailor their properties to the audience they saw on the system. They also openly admit to mishandling the Wii.

You want to persist in saying they don't follow demographics in terms of the types of titles they release on given platforms (when this is readily apparent). Okay then, what is it? Iwata bumped into Zelnick once and didn't say sorry?

 

[prwxv3]

They aren't. There are many developers on iOS/Android make kids games and this is why Nintendo is on the decline to begin with.

I was talking about the Wii. And why in the world would anyone care about those PS2 ports on the Wii?

Mine craft is the biggest example.

 

[velvet_nitemare]

I hate how this is a factor. Why is Nintendo basically alone in the fight to draw in kids and families? Kids SHOULD logically be the primary demographic for video games.

It's a fact, deal with it. Nintendo specifically target those demographics.Hell Iwata recently said that they didn't target kids enough. They make cute colorful platformers and party games, they specifically position their platform that way.

The 18-35 year old gamer spends lots of time and money on video games and is more likely to be a graphics whore. Nintendo are clearly backing away from that, and they barely have anything for the hated "dudebro" audience. But Sony and MS target the dudebros, and 3rd parties follow along.

 

[Metallix87]

Motion gaming was dying/dead before the Wii U launched.

Because the content wasn't there to keep it going. Motion gaming isn't a fad so much as it is a tool that needs to be properly leveraged.

 

[X05]

Why should kids be the obvious demographic? This is an honest question

 

[MisterHero]

Was RE5 possible on the Wii? How much development time and resource was needed, to downport the title. Was it worth the opportunity cost? What demographic make-up were they seeing on the platform relative to the other platforms, regardless of early sales; was there growth or was that the expected limit of sales? What were the attach rates of these titles?

Under no circumstance am I saying that third parties are always right in their business decisions. EA tried to tailor their properties to the audience they saw on the system. They also openly admit to mishandling the Wii.

Capcom made Resident Evil Revelations for 3DS and saw fit to release it for consoles. Just like RE4.

So... maybe?

I was talking about the Wii. And why in the world would anyone care about those PS2 ports on the Wii?

I cited a GC port being successful on Wii (RE4). I cited games that people like (GTAIII trilogy). Then I cited the obscure games that Take-Two released instead (Bully, Table Tennis). I also suggested that Take-Two chose a worse platform to focus on (PSP).

Why wouldn't you republish a critically acclaimed game from a past generation on Wii again?

 

[Crimson_Gold]

Kids have the most free time to waste, since they're less likely to be out dating and going out hanging with friends or out working jobs. Free time leads to boredom, which leads to gaming. I mean, at least that's how it was for me growing up. As a kid, I had plenty of time to play games, but once High School was over, my free time gradually diminished to a fraction of what it once was.

I see your point. However the gaming demographic has changed over the years. The kids of the 80s are adults now. They are the ones buying games. In addition, kids are playing mobile games and games on Sony and ms systems. The experiences people are looking for have changed as well. Targeting kids doesn't necessarily mean the colorful fun game, but the game that everyone at school is talking about. Nintendo needs these games. Unfortunately, it appears the Wii U hasn't succeeded on that front as of yet

 

[TreasureHunterG]

Was RE5 possible on the Wii? How much development time and resource was needed, to downport the title. Was it worth the opportunity cost?

Considering that RE4 Wii Edition sold 1.9 million I guess it would? No reason to believe a RE5 Wii Edition would underperform.

 

[velvet_nitemare]

Isn't RE5 the best selling RE ever? Capcom were absolutely spot on with their platform choice on that one. Only way to include the Wii would have been to develop it on an inferior platform ala Revelations and then up-port. That would have limited that game one way or another, leading to an inferior experience imo.

 

[prwxv3]

I see your point. However the gaming demographic has changed over the years. The kids of the 80s are adults now. They are the ones buying games. In addition, kids are playing mobile games and games on Sony and ms systems. The experiences people are looking for have changed as well. Targeting kids doesn't necessarily mean the colorful fun game, but the game that everyone at school is talking about. Nintendo needs these games. Unfortunately, it appears the Wii U hasn't succeeded on that front as of yet

This. Most kids these days don't care about mario much. They want minecraft, cod, hit mobile games, ect.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Because the content wasn't there to keep it going. Motion gaming isn't a fad so much as it is a tool that needs to be properly leveraged.

The only direction it has left to go is as an accessory to good VR. No one wants it for action, action adventure, and FPS titles. The sales have borne this out, over and over again. People are only barely using them a handful of times per year for rhythm, dance, and very specific sports games.

Trying to force it into genres where it was unwanted has been met with apathy at best and contempt at worst.

 

[Metallix87]

I see your point. However the gaming demographic has changed over the years. The kids of the 80s are adults now. They are the ones buying games. In addition, kids are playing mobile games and games on Sony and ms systems. The experiences people are looking for have changed as well. Targeting kids doesn't necessarily mean the colorful fun game, but the game that everyone at school is talking about. Nintendo needs these games. Unfortunately, it appears the Wii U hasn't succeeded on that front as of yet

I agree, but I also think the way that third parties are going about this is disgusting. I'm a school teacher, and it sickens me that all the kids in my fourth grade class are playing Grand Theft Auto 5 and Call of Duty: Ghosts. It's a bizarre world we live in, where time wasters on mobile and mature games on consoles dominate the lives of ten year olds.

The only direction it has left to go is as an accessory to good VR. No one wants it for action, action adventure, and FPS titles. The sales have borne this out, over and over again. People are only barely using them a handful of times per year for rhythm, dance, and very specific sports games.

Trying to force it into genres where it was unwanted has been met with apathy at best and contempt at worst.

The sales do not prove your argument whatsoever. Skyward Sword and Metroid Prime and Goldeneye saw strong success, despite motion controls. Heck, early on, Call of Duty was selling better on Wii than PS3, though Activision soon bungled that up with Modern Warfare. Do I think motion controls belong in every game? No, absolutely not, but let's not pretend that they're constantly met with disgust. When done right, they're a boon to great design.

 

[nampad]

They were already sceptical two years ago.
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=478627

 

[kunluncat]

Why people is still blaming 3rd party for WiiU. I can immediately give some reasons why 3rd party try to stay away from Nintendo:

• Nintendo is the only console maker that does not want to take a loss when selling the hardware. If you do not push hardware sales, why 3rd party publish games on your platform?
• Nintendo usually releases their big 1st party games and focus on their sales on holiday season, leading to a directly competition with most 3rd party publishers. If you take a look of Sony/MS, they usually try to avoid that.
• Nintendo's first party games are usually very expensive even many years after releasing. While Sony/Ms try to reduce the price of the old games to entice more people to buy hardware.

There are many more problems for Nintendo other than this (online, power, demographic, etc.) When Nintendo design a console, they never ask what 3rd party developer wants. Then why 3rd party developers want to publish games on Nintendo consoles? It will never be a fair play for 3rd party to compete with Nintendo's 1st party games on Nintendo consoles.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

I agree, but I also think the way that third parties are going about this is disgusting. I'm a school teacher, and it sickens me that all the kids in my fourth grade class are playing Grand Theft Auto 5 and Call of Duty: Ghosts. It's a bizarre world we live in, where time wasters on mobile and mature games on consoles dominate the lives of ten year olds.



The sales do not prove your argument whatsoever. Skyward Sword and Metroid Prime and Goldeneye saw strong success, despite motion controls. Heck, early on, Call of Duty was selling better on Wii than PS3, though Activision soon bungled that up with Modern Warfare. Do I think motion controls belong in every game? No, absolutely not, but let's not pretend that they're constantly met with disgust. When done right, they're a boon to great design.

I don't think COD 3 and Madden selling worse on PS3 (which had a staggered launch in Europe, and the entire $599 debacle) means quite what you think it does. They could always leverage the 360 sales as an excuse to keep the PS3 sku alive - even then, Activision threatened to pull the plug on Sony in 2009 before their price drop turnaround. Infinity Ward wasn't into making last-gen games, so that necessitated an extra dev team to port the Wii version. The same concession that Capcom or countless others would have to make (like with the terrible port of Dead Rising).

Skyward Sword sales were down from Twilight Princes (surprise surprise). GE, Red Steel, CoD Wii, and Metroid Prime sales are "good" for the first person genre only with a ton of caveats thrown in. A C-tier AAA franchise like Homefront or Crysis sells much more than those games. Hell, an f-tier AA franchise like Sniper: Ghost Warrior shipped over 2 million copies. Is there an audience for motion shooters? Undoubtedly. Is it worth pumping millions of dollars into making a shooter designed around motion when the audience caps out at 1 million users and there are literally tens of millions of people willing to buy your game with dual analog or m+kb?

 

[goldenpp72]

I feel people here are being really biased against Rockstar at large. If Rockstar felt they had big money to make on a Nintendo system they would do it. People bringing up that they hate them and don't want to work with them are being foolish. The Gamecube could NOT run GTA as it ran on the Ps2/Xbox due to the disc only holding what, 1.5 gigs of data? No one wants an open world game where you swap disc, and that's not factoring the controller being a bad fit. Hell the Xbox got a year late port of the game as well, and once Rockstar saw their audience was also pretty strong on Xbox/360, gave them equal support.

Nintendo has not developed a system that would be able to do their games justice and Rockstar seems VERY quality focused, if they have to compromise their game in any significant way (butchered world size, horrible graphics) they probably feel it's smarter to just focus on the systems that can handle their vision.

Rockstar threw Nintendo a few bones with mild success or total failure (china town wars) so it's not like they haven't tried, hell they tried in ways that specifically tailored to the strengths/demographics of those consoles too, there just isn't as much money to make doing a Nintendo exclusive vs a game on 2-3 platforms. Chinatown Wars is a really fun game btw, the fact it sold so bad really shows the audience just isn't there on Nintendo.

 

[Shiggy]

Non-news. he's saying what everyone outside of the NCL buildings already knows.

Especially when it comes to Rockstar games, the username definitely is not on Nintendo consoles.

 

[AHA-Lambda]

really? where were they during the wii era?

making money with Carnival Games.

 

[MisterHero]

I feel people here are being really biased against Rockstar at large. If Rockstar felt they had big money to make on a Nintendo system they would do it. People bringing up that they hate them and don't want to work with them are being foolish. The Gamecube could NOT run GTA as it ran on the Ps2/Xbox due to the disc only holding what, 1.5 gigs of data? No one wants an open world game where you swap disc, and that's not factoring the controller being a bad fit. Hell the Xbox got a year late port of the game as well, and once Rockstar saw their audience was also pretty strong on Xbox/360, gave them equal support.

Nintendo has not developed a system that would be able to do their games justice and Rockstar seems VERY quality focused, if they have to compromise their game in any significant way (butchered world size, horrible graphics) they probably feel it's smarter to just focus on the systems that can handle their vision.

Rockstar threw Nintendo a few bones with mild success or total failure (china town wars) so it's not like they haven't tried, hell they tried in ways that specifically tailored to the strengths/demographics of those consoles too, there just isn't as much money to make doing a Nintendo exclusive vs a game on 2-3 platforms. Chinatown Wars is a really fun game btw, the fact it sold so bad really shows the audience just isn't there on Nintendo.

GTA IV was not equally supported among the platforms. MS moneyhatted them for DLC timed exclusivity. Maybe Nintendo should've moneyhatted Rockstar too, but they already secured their own exclusives.

GTAIII and VC were apparently planned for Gamecube but cancelled. One possible reason was simply because a more less prestigous Rockstar game didn't sell on it. San Andreas is the only obvious case of space issues, which could've resolved itself during the Wii transition.

 

[metalslimer]

Considering that RE4 Wii Edition sold 1.9 million I guess it would? No reason to believe a RE5 Wii Edition would underperform.

Considering the 3rd party sales had become abysmal by the time it would have released I think there is certainly a reason to believe so.

 

[FourMyle]

Take-Two total assets are US$ 1.277 billion , nintendo just spend about that much buying back shares.


You know what to do Iwata

Now that's some bitterness

 

[Fox Mulder]

Why people is still blaming 3rd party for WiiU. I can immediately give some reasons why 3rd party try to stay away from Nintendo:

• Nintendo is the only console maker that does not want to take a loss when selling the hardware. If you do not push hardware sales, why 3rd party publish games on your platform?
• Nintendo usually releases their big 1st party games and focus on their sales on holiday season, leading to a directly competition with most 3rd party publishers. If you take a look of Sony/MS, they usually try to avoid that.
• Nintendo's first party games are usually very expensive even many years after releasing. While Sony/Ms try to reduce the price of the old games to entice more people to buy hardware.

There are many more problems for Nintendo other than this (online, power, demographic, etc.) When Nintendo design a console, they never ask what 3rd party developer wants. Then why 3rd party developers want to publish games on Nintendo consoles? It will never be a fair play for 3rd party to compete with Nintendo's 1st party games on Nintendo consoles.

people blame third parties because it's easier to imagine some generations long vendetta against Nintendo is in place throughout the industry.

they have had awful third party support since the n64 for a variety of reasons. Everytime you hear how it will be different and they never do anything to change it. The wiiu is practically dead and they still haven't mentioned a single thing that may turn it around. I'm shocked people are still asking companies if they're going to support it out of goodwill or something.

 

[rvy]

Consumers were on the Wii, so I don't see how this isn't PR bullshit to excuse their lack of desire to put games on Nintendo platforms.

 

[Air]

Hey at least they're up front and honest.

 

[ScreenSplitter]

They took a chance with the DS (best selling Nintendo hardware ever made) and gave it an exclusive (for the time) GTA in the vein of the first two games.

How did that work out for them?

Surprisingly a GTA in the vein of GTAs before the super popular GTA 3 didn't do as well as the super popular GTA 3. And Take Two are fucking moronic if they thought that was the case.