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

enrageorange on 02 March 2013
RolStoppable said:
cyberninja45 said:

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.

The difference is that you call third party efforts bad, period, while the issue runs deeper than that. A big reason why Nintendo software sells is that Nintendo has built trust for three decades. Just like any other products in life, people keep buying what they know is good; and as long as it stays good, this won't change. The reason why third parties are running into problems is because they have built brandnames that stand for (vastly) inferior products on Nintendo hardware (especially on the Wii). They have released one piece of rubbish after another, so when they release a good product for once, there's a good chance that it will be ignored, because that's what people have been conditioned to do.

There's still some truth to your argument, because it doesn't bode well for games like CoD and AC when they require patches due to serious issues. That stuff won't fly on Nintendo hardware as easily as it does on other platforms, because people are used to properly functioning and polished games due to the standards set by Nintendo software (whereas on other platforms it isn't uncommon for first party software to receive patches).

I take issue with your comment that NSMBU is a cash-in, because its sales and reception don't support your assertion. It's about the only game (minus the majorly bundled Nintendo Land) that keeps selling and thus the only real reason to own a Wii U. The game's sales would be higher, but the problem is the console. It's expensive for the little amount of software it has. People don't really trust third party brands, so games like CoD and AC do nothing to persuade potential buyers. Many fans of Nintendo software choose to wait until more Nintendo games arrive to justify the purchase of the system. NSMBU will be bought once people get the system, but the first batch of third party software won't.

You are right it is trust issues. But that arguement holds for all franchises that sell well. Nintendo's software sells for the same exact reason Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed sells. People find something they like and then they want the same exact thing over and over again. A lot of people are afraid to try new games in fear they won't enjoy them, but they know that they had fun with the last CoD, Mario, or Pokemon game, so they get that. Occasionally some new IP becomes a breakout hit, because of a steller advertising campaign, or killer word of mouth, and that just becomes the next "safe game" who's sequels gamers are willing to trust.

The reason Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed didn't sell well on the Wii U is because the people who trust the Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty franchise have been and can still play them on playstation 3 and 360, not the Wii U, and there is no reason for them to upgrade to the Wii U if they can just play the same exact game on their current gen consoles.



Around the Network
cyberninja45 on 02 March 2013
RolStoppable said:
cyberninja45 said:

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.

The difference is that you call third party efforts bad, period, while the issue runs deeper than that. A big reason why Nintendo software sells is that Nintendo has built trust for three decades. Just like any other products in life, people keep buying what they know is good; and as long as it stays good, this won't change. The reason why third parties are running into problems is because they have built brandnames that stand for (vastly) inferior products on Nintendo hardware (especially on the Wii). They have released one piece of rubbish after another, so when they release a good product for once, there's a good chance that it will be ignored, because that's what people have been conditioned to do.

There's still some truth to your argument, because it doesn't bode well for games like CoD and AC when they require patches due to serious issues. That stuff won't fly on Nintendo hardware as easily as it does on other platforms, because people are used to properly functioning and polished games due to the standards set by Nintendo software (whereas on other platforms it isn't uncommon for first party software to receive patches).

I take issue with your comment that NSMBU is a cash-in, because its sales and reception don't support your assertion. It's about the only game (minus the majorly bundled Nintendo Land) that keeps selling and thus the only real reason to own a Wii U. The game's sales would be higher, but the problem is the console. It's expensive for the little amount of software it has. People don't really trust third party brands, so games like CoD and AC do nothing to persuade potential buyers. Many fans of Nintendo software choose to wait until more Nintendo games arrive to justify the purchase of the system. NSMBU will be bought once people get the system, but the first batch of third party software won't.

I knew you would take issue with my comment on NSMBU, I believe we had a discussion about 2d Mario's already, but I will come back to that.

I never called 3rd party efforts bad period, I worded my OP very carefully, my first since sentence was "To put it simply most 3rd party games are just plain terribly made or just cash grabs from publishers" that "most" isn't there by accident (yes I know that wasn't the first sentence). But I do believe games like COD, Assassins Creed,Fifa etc are cash grabs from their publishers across any platform they appear on.

I agree with your second paragraph those won't fly on a nintendo system.

Yes I think NSMBU is a cash-in by nintendo. Nintendo believed that since it was a high seller on the wii ,and it is probably easier to develop than most other nintendo franchise, that they could have released it as a launch title for wiiU and people would have bought a wiiU immediately because of it, that's not to say that it isn't a quality title. But as you said yourself most fans are waiting for more nintendo games to come before they buy the system because NSMBU is not a system seller to most N fans by your own admission.

Myself falls into this same category I will not buy a wiiU because of NSMBU, but if nintendo does convince me to get a wiiU I will probably buy it later on.



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



RazorDragon on 02 March 2013
Otakumegane said:
So basically you're saying that because the 1st party offerings of PS and Xbox are so close in quality to 3rd party offerings, 3rd parties are more inclined to get attention on those consoles.

On the other hand, cause Nintendo provides the highest quality in 1st party gaming, 3rd parties don't get much attention because their games look bad in comparison.

Seems legit.


You said it perfectly, IMO.



Scoobes on 02 March 2013
cyberninja45 said:
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.

Neither was Resistance (relatively low meta score), or the original Assassins Creed (OK, not a shooter, but the principle is the same... I'm simply using it here because it's also from Ubisoft, had decent marketing and was released early in the gen). Heavy marketing, little competition and being an early release exclusive on the best selling console at the time all pointed to Red Steel selling well and finding a decent share of the market. However, it didn't sell particularly well especially when compared to similar titles on the HD twins, and other shooters on the console didn't fare so well either.

As I mentioned to Fordy earlier, the Wii was in a difficult position for 3rd parties. Not only was it underpowered but it also had an older chip architecture meaning porting of core games to Wii was much harder than porting between 360, PS3 & PC. Most publishers obviously thought they would have difficulty in making money from a Wii version otherwise we would have seen more core games on the console.

The majority of games would have to be built from the ground up for the older architecture on Wii rather than a cheaper porting job. Justifying a Wii version when it was effectively like making a second game (and engine) and with all previous data suggesting the market size would be the smallest of all the 3-4 versions meant the Wii was overlooked for all but the very biggest of 3rd party franchises.

So for publishers, the Wii didn't look like it had a particularly strong market for some traditional genres, and the extra costs of porting down (virtually building a game from the ground up) meant it got few of the multiplats. In the markets it was shown to be strong in (mentioned in my previous post), 3rd parties put games on the console.

It'll be interesting to see how much core support Wii U will get with its modern architecture and with most Engine makers boasting about the scalability of their game engine. Theoretically, we should see far more multiplats appear.




Get your Portable ID!

Metallicube on 02 March 2013

Nintendo games sell more than the third parties because Nintendo games are simply better. The numbers don't lie :P



Around the Network
SpartenOmega117 on 03 March 2013
animegaming said:
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 


Metroid and Zelda's are not considered "dark" by today's standards. Has Nintendo ever made a rated M game? It's obvious nintendo wants to make games that are accessible for everyone. To do that the need to be somewhat "kiddie."



cyberninja45 on 03 March 2013
Scoobes said:
cyberninja45 said:
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.

Neither was Resistance (relatively low meta score), or the original Assassins Creed (OK, not a shooter, but the principle is the same... I'm simply using it here because it's also from Ubisoft, had decent marketing and was released early in the gen). Heavy marketing, little competition and being an early release exclusive on the best selling console at the time all pointed to Red Steel selling well and finding a decent share of the market. However, it didn't sell particularly well especially when compared to similar titles on the HD twins, and other shooters on the console didn't fare so well either.

As I mentioned to Fordy earlier, the Wii was in a difficult position for 3rd parties. Not only was it underpowered but it also had an older chip architecture meaning porting of core games to Wii was much harder than porting between 360, PS3 & PC. Most publishers obviously thought they would have difficulty in making money from a Wii version otherwise we would have seen more core games on the console.

The majority of games would have to be built from the ground up for the older architecture on Wii rather than a cheaper porting job. Justifying a Wii version when it was effectively like making a second game (and engine) and with all previous data suggesting the market size would be the smallest of all the 3-4 versions meant the Wii was overlooked for all but the very biggest of 3rd party franchises.

So for publishers, the Wii didn't look like it had a particularly strong market for some traditional genres, and the extra costs of porting down (virtually building a game from the ground up) meant it got few of the multiplats. In the markets it was shown to be strong in (mentioned in my previous post), 3rd parties put games on the console.

It'll be interesting to see how much core support Wii U will get with its modern architecture and with most Engine makers boasting about the scalability of their game engine. Theoretically, we should see far more multiplats appear.

@bolded Your argument here and mine in the OP both come to the same conclusion. My point in the OP are that nintendo gamers BS radar tend to be a little more fine tuned than ps360 gamers the fact both games were reviewed badly and there is huge difference in sales only backs my claims.

For the rest I can mostly agree with you about devs having to build a game from the ground up for the wii.



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



Degausser on 03 March 2013

I can't figure out if this was meant as a serious thread or not.



hunter_alien on 03 March 2013
cyberninja45 said:
hunter_alien said:
No... the quality of Nintendo 1st party is subjective, so your argument falls flat.
The truth is that the established 3rd party fanbase is nowhere to be found on Nintendo consoles. Since the SNES they never had a stable 3rd party relationship, and that is the bigger truth. The quality of AAA 3rd party games is more than enough to rival and even surpass Nintendo. I think myself and the majority of gamers agree on this one


Quality maybe subjective to an extent. But are you honestly telling that most nintendo games are not highly rated?

Yes there are some very high quality 3rd party games, most of them just don't grace nintendo platforms.


Not at all. I am simply saying that 3rd party offerings can be of same quality.

Its actually funny. I mostly grew up with Nintendo franchises but went over to the PC/Playstation combo mostly for the quality 3rd party support, and rhe fact that by the end of the 90's Sony had a more than strong enough 1st party exclusive library that I believed that is enough to rival the N64 and later on the GC.

The truth is that 3rd party IPs became so dominant in modern times that Nintendo is loosing center stage with their IPs. New IP's from Ubi/Capcom/EA/ActiBliz are getting som much attention every day from the gaming media that Mario is starting to get sidelined, especially when you get a "New"SMB every year now.

The fact is that the biggest flaw of the OP's argument is its argument itslef. Not only 3rd party games are highly rated, they are starting to steal that creative/new feeling what Nintendo used to offer gamers. It will be nice if the 3DS gets a new Metroid, but Im willing to bet that more gamers are excited for Deep Down and Watchdogs.



Vote the Mayor for Mayor!

Pachofilauri on 03 March 2013

its all because of 3rd party time support. if you look at COD 3 it sold more than the ps3 version. wii(2.18m) ps3(1.38m).
activision released this game for all consoles at the same time, but if you look there is no MW1 or MW2 for wii so when MW3 came out people bought it for PS360 where their MW1 and MW2 friends are. the same applies for Black ops 2.