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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why is it hard to believe that third parties are biased against Nintendo?

DialgaMarine on 26 April 2014
mysteryman said:
DialgaMarine said:
burning_phoneix said:
DialgaMarine said:
Captain_Tom said:
DialgaMarine said:
It's kind of hard to not be biased if putting their games on the U will only cause them to lose money. It's a money making scheme for developers as much as it is anything else. If people aren't going to buy the games, you can't blame devs for refusing to support.

Exactly.  It isn't biased if its just good business.  It's common sense.

 Pretty much. The solution to third party problems is simple. If Ninty fans want more third party support, they need to convince themselves and their fellow Wii-U owners to start putting money where their mouths are and buy the third party titles that are already there, instead of sitting around and waiting for the next big Ninty exclusives. It's stupid when they get upset and cry like this when with pretty much every big third party title, the Wii-U version generally accounts for less than 1% of the game's total sales. Not to mention, when they claim the reason they don't buy third party games is because they get the worst versions, they might want to start looking at Nintendo and their hardware department before they start playing the blame game.


So when the WiiU gets PS3/Xbox360 ports later than the the aforementioned consoles with less DLC support, we're supposed to be grateful?

It has nothing to do with hardware if we're talking ports from last gen.

 If I'm not mistaken, Nintendo's not exactly too savy on DLC to begin with. Something tells me there's a 2-way issue there. As for the ports, clearly several third party devs have pushed Wii-U passed PS360, but at the end of the day, let's face it, it's a hardware issue there. The system is not very powerful to begin with, and it's severely gimped by the gamepad. You can't blame devs for not trying to conjure up magical elves that somehow make the Wii-U more than it is. Even Nintendo's own first party can't make Wii-U games look phenomenal, unless they feature cartoony, very undetailed, graphics. Point is, you're never going to see anything on Wii-U even come close to the graphical fidelity of a title like inFamous: SS, and if people aren't gonna buy the games anyway, why should third party devs even try?

Why should consumers buy games from devs that don't even try?

 Why should devs try if consumers won't buy the games? It's called investment. People buy the games now, show devs how much potential there is for a large userbase on the Wii-U, then devs will progressively try harder. People have to put money into it first.





0331 Happiness is a belt-fed weapon

Around the Network
Dunban67 on 26 April 2014

So there actually are adults that belief most 3rd party devs don't develop games for Nintendo home consoles due to bias or " they just have it out for Nintendo" and NOT due to reasons of "risk v reward".
This truly amazes me. That is flat out preposterous- I guess this is the same crowd who believed the Wii u is performing so poorly for any other reasons than those that are the responsibility of Nintendo and or Iwata

Nintendo does not even believe lack of 3rd party support is due to bias against them

Debating weather or not 3rd parties should support the Wii u is what these forums are all about but debate multiple billion dollar companies make major decisions re all things Nintendo based on some childish petty bias is funny-


But don't let reality stop anyone from debating the "Nintendo against the world" argument as it is great entertainment align w the fanboy wars-



mysteryman on 26 April 2014
DialgaMarine said:
mysteryman said:
DialgaMarine said:

 If I'm not mistaken, Nintendo's not exactly too savy on DLC to begin with. Something tells me there's a 2-way issue there. As for the ports, clearly several third party devs have pushed Wii-U passed PS360, but at the end of the day, let's face it, it's a hardware issue there. The system is not very powerful to begin with, and it's severely gimped by the gamepad. You can't blame devs for not trying to conjure up magical elves that somehow make the Wii-U more than it is. Even Nintendo's own first party can't make Wii-U games look phenomenal, unless they feature cartoony, very undetailed, graphics. Point is, you're never going to see anything on Wii-U even come close to the graphical fidelity of a title like inFamous: SS, and if people aren't gonna buy the games anyway, why should third party devs even try?

Why should consumers buy games from devs that don't even try?

 Why should devs try if consumers won't buy the games? It's called investment. People buy the games now, show devs how much potential there is for a large userbase on the Wii-U, then devs will progressively try harder. People have to put money into it first.

Because they're providing the product, it has to start with them. Don't release gimped and/or late and/or more expensive ports, and then use the inevitable poor sales as justification for doing so.



Hynad on 27 April 2014
mysteryman said:

Because they're providing the product, it has to start with them. Don't release gimped and/or late and/or more expensive ports, and then use the inevitable poor sales as justification for doing so.

So you agree too that it's Nintendo's fault first, right? Since they're providing the initial product. 



mysteryman on 27 April 2014
Hynad said:
mysteryman said:

Because they're providing the product, it has to start with them. Don't release gimped and/or late and/or more expensive ports, and then use the inevitable poor sales as justification for doing so.

So you agree too that it's Nintendo's fault first, right? Since they're providing the product. 

The product, of course, being third party games.



Around the Network
Hynad on 27 April 2014
mysteryman said:
Hynad said:
mysteryman said:

Because they're providing the product, it has to start with them. Don't release gimped and/or late and/or more expensive ports, and then use the inevitable poor sales as justification for doing so.

So you agree too that it's Nintendo's fault first, right? Since they're providing the product. 

The product, of course, being third party games.

The product, indeed, being the actual console. 



mysteryman on 27 April 2014
Hynad said:
mysteryman said:
Hynad said:
mysteryman said:

Because they're providing the product, it has to start with them. Don't release gimped and/or late and/or more expensive ports, and then use the inevitable poor sales as justification for doing so.

So you agree too that it's Nintendo's fault first, right? Since they're providing the product. 

The product, of course, being third party games.

The product, indeed, being the actual console. 

You can try and change my statement all you like, it's a poor argumentative device. Developers make games, that is their product.



Hynad on 27 April 2014
mysteryman said:
Hynad said:
mysteryman said:
Hynad said:

So you agree too that it's Nintendo's fault first, right? Since they're providing the product. 

The product, of course, being third party games.

The product, indeed, being the actual console. 

You can try and change my statement all you like, it's a poor argumentative device. Developers make games, that is their product.

A poor argumentative device? Your argument can just be applied to the console provider. In this case, Nintendo. They're the ones that, ultimately, are responsable for the faith of their console. But people like you prefer to blame everyone but Nintendo for their poor performance. As if it was all a big conspiracy. That's one of the most unreasonable way to look at it. Just like modern parents blame every one other than themselves for their kid's bad upbringing. ¬_¬

Historically, third party games don't sell well on Nintendo home consoles compared to the competing consoles. We're on VGC, the data is readily available and speaks for itself.



Hynad on 27 April 2014
RolStoppable said:
Hynad said:

A poor argumentative device? Your argument can just be applied to the console provider. In this case, Nintendo. They're the ones that, ultimately, are responsable for the faith of their console. But people like you prefer to blame everyone but Nintendo for their poor performance. As if it was all a big conspiracy. That's one of the most unreasonable way to look at it. Just like modern parents blame every one other than themselves for their kid's bad upbringing. ¬_¬

Historically, third party games don't sell well on Nintendo home consoles compared to the competing consoles. We're on VGC, the data is readily available and speaks for itself.

Indeed, the data speaks for itself and proves mysteryman right. The NES and SNES outdid their competitors when in comes to sales of third party software and those two third party libraries also happen to be the most respected ones out of all Nintendo consoles.

And then the market changed. And Nintendo hasn't adjusted to it yet. ^_-



greenmedic88 on 27 April 2014
fleischr said:
greenmedic88 said:
Everyone can agree more or less than Nintendo's own games sell best on their hardware. Many would argue that Nintendo's own games are The reason to buy any Nintendo hardware.

As a result, 3rd party games on Nintendo platforms are secondary at best with very few exceptions. As a result, the vast majority of 3rd party games have a more limited market than they might on other hardware platforms, or at the very least, the games can be expected to sell fewer units than they would on other platforms.

In short, it's generally more profitable for 3rd party developers to focus on other platforms where they aren't competing with the primary reason most of the installed user base is playing on a Nintendo platform.

Is it biased when they regularly and deliberately divert more effort and resources to other platforms? By definition, of course. But it doesn't take a stretch of reason to see it has more to do with seeking an optimal ROI than some sort of personal, emotional grudge. That's generally how biased consumer minds work, not the companies that develop and publish games as an investment looking for the maximum returns.


It hasn't always been that way, and it doesn't have to be that way. Sure, Nintendo's own games sell best on their platforms. But in the N64 days that didn't keep games like Turok, Star Wars Episode 1 Racer, or Kobe Bryant's NBA courtside from being successful.

We'll see a Nintendo platform with solid 3rd party someday in the future again.

It definitely wasn't although Nintendo still arguably made the best games on their own platforms, even dating back to the original NES.

When I think of when I enjoyed Nintendo systems the most, it was during the NES and SNES period when companies like Capcom and Konami made my favorite games and Nintendo published the majority of the games that would go on to be personal all-time favorites. So third party games on the SNES and the NES were the first reason for playing for myself.

But, NIntendo's licensing policies, often described as "draconian" by third party developers during the NES/SNES era resulted in a lot of third party developers jumping ship or shifting priority to the original Playstation as Sony's strategy revolved around courting the most third party developers as possible by making it the most favorable to develop on, or at least more favorable than developing and publishing on Nintendo platforms. Nintendo's insistence on publishing on cartridges for the N64 as games were becoming considerably larger due to the inclusion of video and higher definition sound/music didn't help due to ROM storage costs involved in publishing. Even so, most of the games I enjoyed on the N64 were third party games, but by then, the N64 and Nintendo had really just become my secondary game platform.

By the PS2, I had stopped playing Nintendo games and the only reason I had for considering a GC was the RE games and an increasingly smaller catalog of select third party titles. 

With the Wii, what seemed like an opportunity for third party developers and publishers to do something new with motion controls eventually devolved into games that were more suited to the majority of the audience for that platform, which was the expanded audience. More traditional games and franchises were simply better suited for the PS3 and XB360.

I don't really see this changing; it certainly won't happen with the Wii U since developers have already chosen the PS4 and the XB1. And while Nintendo has surprised the market once with the Wii, it's not to say that they won't find a new direction for the company with the next generation of hardware, personally, I don't ever see Nintendo being the main home for third party publishing ever again. 

Nintendo is probably going to branch off into a new market in the future, which if I had to guess today, would be medical and health entertainment software/hardware.