By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - The real reason why 3rd party games do not sell well on Nintendo hardware

RolStoppable said:
cyberninja45 said:

I don't see the differnece to what you are saying to what I said in the OP if the core games are low quality then it won't be bought. If you as nintendo gamer had the option to buy zelda, skyrim, cod, metroid on a nintendo console which would you buy first and why.

This isn't about what people buy first, it's about what people buy, period.

Rol always dodging questions from me if it doesn't suit your agenda.

I say again whats difference between what I said in the OP and what you said about the quality of 3rd party efforts or you don't have an answer for that also?

And if its not what about people buy first you should know that nintendo games tend to have the longest legs so they are bought,period.



My 3ds friendcode: 5413-0232-9676 (G-cyber)



Around the Network
M.U.G.E.N said:
fordy said:

 

I hope YOU understand that it was you responding to the OP, not me...


You still don't get it at all. It almost seems like you're cherrypicking the parts of the post that you want to respond to while ignoring the parts that you know you have no case against.

Once again, third parties HAVE attempted to publish on Nintendo systems before. They don't just outright bitch that they can't sell games on a system without even reelasing a game on it. What you're failing to realise is that game "X" is a completely different game on one platform as it is another platform. It IS reality, it's the impression 3rd parties have given them.

For example, say Exxon Mobil opened up a big oil refinery next door to you, spouting tons of pollution, smells, etc into the air. It's noisy as hell, and operates 24 hours a day, so good luck with sleeping. Now on that matte,r wouldnt you be just a LITTLE annoyed at Exxon Mobil? Just a little? Try to understand here...


It's like talking to a wall. I was responding to the OP and I still stand by what I said. Where did I contradict this? 

Second para: It may be the case with some games. But what about those that 3rd parties have actually put some effort? What about those games with some extra content just for nintendo users? What about them? if thsoe games sell like shit then who is to blame?

Either way you are right about one thing..my comment was about specific points in the OP such as the quality of first party ninty titles. You did a marvelous job dodging my question from the previous post..then again didn't expect you to actually have an answer either. Because you understand it is such a BS statement to make and a stance to take. 

Being annoyed by some lame ass efforts of publishers doesn't make it right to make stupid statements. They have nothing to do with each other. Don't think I made any arguments against bad ports to ninty systems either. That's just in your head. I have no desire to take the feelings and past experiences the OP had to go through by playing on nintendo consoles into account when he make blanket statements about other consoles as well. 

But please...keep not getting the point or bringing in some more arguments about topics I never addressed in the first place. Tell me how you really feel


Which games are we talking about in particular? Are we talking about games released at the same time as the others, or much later, with expectations that a little extra content is going to make it sell as well as the original?

I find it hilarious that in the case of buyers vs sellers, you stick with the sellers, like for some reason people are OBLIGATED to buy games now. Is that why games on other systems sell better, because these users have some kind of a guilty conscience?

You mean your stupid question regarding that Nintendo users haven't tried other games before? This is from the same person who doesn't appear to have one Nintendo game in their VGChartz library, accusing others of not playing games on other systems? Yeah, you can probably see why I chose to ignore that.

Of course it does. In my earlier example, you'd probably be a lottle mor pissed off at Exxon Mobil than the average person in the country. If someone says "Well they're doing good things over in this region", you'd probably say "I dont give a shit. What they do elsewhere doesn't make up for the fact to the damage they've done here". THAT'S why you don't get it, and are attempting to answer it with the equivalence of "well who cares what Exxon Mobil does to you? You're just in damage control".



Wow, when did Nintendo fans become so elitist? To think that the usual rehashes Nintendo puts out, while still fun to play, are miles better than any 3rd party game and are a gift from God. I guess it's a good thing I switched over to Sony during the N64/PS1 days.



SpartenOmega117 said:
IMO it's because people still associate Nintendo as a "kiddie" console. When we think of Nintendo consoles we think of Mario, Zelda, cartoony characters. When we think of Xbox we think of halo, dudebro games. Simple as that. Nintendo has the Kiddie perception.


yet it has been proven with metroid, majora's mask, twlilght princess, and xenoblade. that nintendo does make dark games 



fordy said:
Scoobes said:
fordy said:
Scoobes said:
fordy said:
Scoobes said:

Err... you know this is a forum right? He's supposed to respond and debate, especially if he disagree with the OP assessment.

Except he's arguing against subjective, opinionated matter, which only makes HIM look like the fool, not the OP.

 

I'll say it agan, there's several reasons why people buy Nintendo consoles, and "3rd party support" is not one of them.

That's not the way I interpreted his comments. He took exception to the fact that the OP claims Nintendo fans have better taste than other gamers. He disagreed but fell short of making the opposite, subjective claim.


Oh no! How dare he think like that with his subjective opinion! This calls for a public lynching!

I'll put it this way. Do you disagree to the fact that 3rd parties have dumped shovelware on Nintendo consoles in the past?

Not sure what relevance that has to do with the point people are making. No one's lynching him either, it's a debate. People disagree, give their viewpoint on his post and he has the opportunity to respond. If it's all within the rules then there's no problems as far as I can see.

Before I answer your question, how do you define shovelware? Some of the games people define as shovelware have actually sold fairly well. 

That's actually a good point, and one of the reasons why I believe third parties treat Nintendo users in such a way. 

For instance, a company releases a game that was probably cheap to develop, and releases it to pretty big sales. Other third parties see this and think "$", so attempt to emulate the same thing. However, all it does is give them a bad reputation on the console, and future releases by said publisher are generally questioned by purchasers.

Not all games that were made on the cheap can be big hits, some just got lucky and hit what the market was looking for at the time. However if some 3rd parties attempt to follow suit and don't get the same sales, they should not be blaming the consumer. They read the market completely wrong.

Good points, but I don't think budget and quality neccessarily correlate. There are plenty of big budget games that fail due to a multitude of reasons, such as competition for instance. I agree that the publishers probably did read the market wrong when they released a large number of cheaper titles in the same genres as the more sucessful titles. There's only so much room in the market before you reach saturation point and the average titles fall by the wayside.

This happened on the HD consoles as well. Take Homefront (or any other average FPS on the HD consoles) for instance, an average FPS with a massive budget released on consoles that already had a plethora of FPS franchises.

I see the shovelware label gets used a lot, but I think a lot of people discount entire genres for the sole reason they're not core genres. Some third party titles did succeed, they're just in different genres as publishers tried to make the most profit out of the Wii market. Take Just Dance for instance, at its height the franchise was nearing 10 million each for Just Dance 2 & 3. I don't play dance games so I can't comment on quality, but for any franchise (1st or 3rd party) that's a tremendous success.

Of course, the Wii itself was in an odd position. It was underpowered but more importantly, used older chip architectures meaning third parties couldn't do simple ports of core titles as readily as with 360, PS3 and PC. Going into next gen, the Wii U may well be underpowered compared to the next gen PS4/720, but it has a modern architecture and modern engines are fairly scalable. We should see far more core multiplats next gen and it'll be interesting to see how the sales play out if that is the case.



Around the Network
Scoobes said:
fordy said:
Scoobes said:
fordy said:
Scoobes said:
fordy said:
Scoobes said:

Err... you know this is a forum right? He's supposed to respond and debate, especially if he disagree with the OP assessment.

Except he's arguing against subjective, opinionated matter, which only makes HIM look like the fool, not the OP.

 

I'll say it agan, there's several reasons why people buy Nintendo consoles, and "3rd party support" is not one of them.

That's not the way I interpreted his comments. He took exception to the fact that the OP claims Nintendo fans have better taste than other gamers. He disagreed but fell short of making the opposite, subjective claim.


Oh no! How dare he think like that with his subjective opinion! This calls for a public lynching!

I'll put it this way. Do you disagree to the fact that 3rd parties have dumped shovelware on Nintendo consoles in the past?

Not sure what relevance that has to do with the point people are making. No one's lynching him either, it's a debate. People disagree, give their viewpoint on his post and he has the opportunity to respond. If it's all within the rules then there's no problems as far as I can see.

Before I answer your question, how do you define shovelware? Some of the games people define as shovelware have actually sold fairly well. 

That's actually a good point, and one of the reasons why I believe third parties treat Nintendo users in such a way. 

For instance, a company releases a game that was probably cheap to develop, and releases it to pretty big sales. Other third parties see this and think "$", so attempt to emulate the same thing. However, all it does is give them a bad reputation on the console, and future releases by said publisher are generally questioned by purchasers.

Not all games that were made on the cheap can be big hits, some just got lucky and hit what the market was looking for at the time. However if some 3rd parties attempt to follow suit and don't get the same sales, they should not be blaming the consumer. They read the market completely wrong.

Good points, but I don't think budget and quality neccessarily correlate. There are plenty of big budget games that fail due to a multitude of reasons, such as competition for instance. I agree that the publishers probably did read the market wrong when they released a large number of cheaper titles in the same genres as the more sucessful titles. There's only so much room in the market before you reach saturation point and the average titles fall by the wayside.

This happened on the HD consoles as well. Take Homefront (or any other average FPS on the HD consoles) for instance, an average FPS with a massive budget released on consoles that already had a plethora of FPS franchises.

I see the shovelware label gets used a lot, but I think a lot of people discount entire genres for the sole reason they're not core genres. Some third party titles did succeed, they're just in different genres as publishers tried to make the most profit out of the Wii market. Take Just Dance for instance, at its height the franchise was nearing 10 million each for Just Dance 2 & 3. I don't play dance games so I can't comment on quality, but for any franchise (1st or 3rd party) that's a tremendous success.

Of course, the Wii itself was in an odd position. It was underpowered but more importantly, used older chip architectures meaning third parties couldn't do simple ports of core titles as readily as with 360, PS3 and PC. Going into next gen, the Wii U may well be underpowered compared to the next gen PS4/720, but it has a modern architecture and modern engines are fairly scalable. We should see far more core multiplats next gen and it'll be interesting to see how the sales play out if that is the case.


You're right, budget and quaity aren't directly relative. However, if any game company knew they could make a multi-million seller for little development cost, I'm sure they all would. Money is the driving factor for all publishers out there. Sequels dont come just because the fans want it; sequels come if the original sold enough to warrant a sequel. Take a look at Skies of Arcadia for example. Beautiful game, one that anyone could tell had a lot of time spent on it polishing the finer details in. However, despite overhwlming demand, there's still no sequel. 

This coming gen will be interesting, because I remember Square-Enix touting that their new Light engine was made for scalability across platforms, meaning if we don't see an equal share of SE games across all 3 nextgen platforms, then SE was either full of shit, or there were other factos at play (such as other platforms paying to have a game on their system).



and they call sony fans arrogant lmao yet generally whenever i see a post like this its from a nintendo fan

edit: my first gaming experiences were on nintendo handhelds and consoles and while i will definitely say they were fun once i got exposed to a wider variety of games i was able to acknowledge that others companies make great games also

and tbh i've gotten bored of nintendo's strategy recently



Scoobes said:
cyberninja45 said:
Scoobes said:
Wow, confirmation bias and elitism in a single post, lol.

I disagree. Different audiences and market segments influence thrid-party sales rather than anything to do with actual game quality. Recent Nintendo consoles have sold predominantly to the wider audience as well as core Nintendo fans who will happily buy the next iteration of Mario or Zelda.

Funnily enough, third party games do sell on Nintendo consoles, just not in the genres traditionally associated with core gaming. On the Wii the likes of Just Dance, Zumba fitness, Lego: Star Wars, Carnival games, EA Sports active and Cooking Mama are all third party franchises that have sold millions. Like I said before, market segments influence third-party sales, not game quality.

@bolded So you are saying that there is no market for 3rd party sales on a nintendo console because they are a different market from the other console? So how does a game like RE4 (which is a high quality 3rd party game) manage to sell 2 mil copies on the wii if the market is not there?

Yes nintendo consoles do cater to a wider audience also.

It's present, but smaller compared to HD consoles + PC and less relevant from a publisher POV. When a publisher can produce a Just Dance game that sells >5 million and with a cheaper budget then a new RE, they're going to take that route.

Take shooters for instance. The Wii got a few shooters early in its life cycle (CoD3, a few Medal of Honors, Red Steel), but even with the marketing (especially for Red Steel), the lack of competition (especially as Nintendo don't have a traditional FPS- you seem to suggest this is why third party games don't sell, right?) and even with the rapidly expanding userbase the Wii had in its first 2 years, they were still low selling titles when comapred to the likes of Resistance or Gears of War.

Sales are still determined more by market segments than by the games quality. More importantly perhaps, the early sales on the Wii demonstrated that the audience was more heavily skewed towards party games and platformers with dance and fitness taking off a couple of years later. This is where third parties have had the most success.

I agree that the market is smaller than HD consoles+PC , but it was still there and still profitable from a publisher POV.

I am not sure I understand your second paragraph correctly but Red Steel was not a well made game if that is what you were implying.



My 3ds friendcode: 5413-0232-9676 (G-cyber)



fordy said:
Pristine20 said:


Dude, I don't care whether 3rd parties sell on Nintendo systems or not. What irks me is when people claim Nintendo games are holy grail and the rest of us are unevolved peasants for not liking them and preferring our graphics, QTE or whatever it is they chose to condemn on any given day.

yes, some of us like our graphics, our FPS games, our "movie" games and what-have-you. Guess I don't deserve to play games then lmao.

It really depends on what one considers a game and what one considers an "interactive movie".

its truly funny how disingenuous posts like this are 

people level these kind of comments at games like uncharted because of certain decisions taken in the sp mode yet the mp mode has imo freer and more interactive gameplay than most nintendo games

can you tell me what is movie like about gameplay like this as opposed to gameplay found in nintendo games?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRb2gwK320E



This is the real reason why third party games don't sell.