Sega and Ubisoft are the only major publishers that support Nintendo anymore.

Still wouldn't call it bias. It's a quite rational belief that's based on insufficient data. Business decisions will change when more data becomes available. Bias will hardly.

Indeed. If it wasn't for the widespread bias among third party developers, they would all release their games on Nintendo hardware and rake in the untapped profits.


Strange how no one at the offices raised their hand and pointed this out already.

REASON:

MOST 3rd party games on nintendo console is not doing that good with a few exceptions such as just dance series, some rpgs, and so on.

After reading the text I think I found the reason why people are so confused about your thread.

Worry not everyone, He-Man will teach you. You are supossed to read it like this:

Definition of bias:

1. A preference or inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
2. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.

The fall of Square-Enix has much to do with this. On one day the company suddenly decided that what it was successfully doing for two decades wasn't going to work anymore, so their output changed. The JRPGs the company became known for were pushed to the side in order to pursue the new things. Meanwhile, smaller companies like Atlus and Gust kept putting out their JRPGS and saw stable or increasing sales. Not only was there no evidence for Square-Enix to justify their change, but there was plenty of evidence that disproved the reason for their change. Apparently the company woke up from their delusions that classic JRPGs have no market anymore, but only after years of bad financials. The executives in charge stubbornly stuck to their course, unwilling to accept all evidence that showed they were wrong. It has to be seen what comes out of this, but admitting that there was a real problem these past few years is probably the most positive news about Square-Enix since the seventh generation started.

Another example of bias is the industry-wide belief that entire genres do not sell anymore. Survival horror is one prominent example, challenging games like Dark Souls are another. Such decisions aren't made based on actual data, but very narrow-minded views of the video games market. And everytime a game succeeds, it's written off as an anomaly to uphold the narrative that the executives in charge know what they are doing and can keep doing what they are doing.

Then there's the notion that singleplayer-only games are not viable anymore. For people on VGC, this is an absolutely mindboggling statement, because it's so easy to point out numerous million-selling singleplayer games of the last few years. But once again, despite obvious evidence to the contrary, the majority of the video game industry sticks to their guns. A biased perception of the market is clouding their judgment, so the nonsense doesn't stop, but rather gets worse. The hivemind of the industry dictates that there can only ever be one thing that is the future and until that bubble bursts, there won't be a serious re-evalution of the way the companies are doing business.

Biased decisions are a very real thing in the video game industry. They happen all the time.

So why is it hard to belive that third parties are biased against Nintendo?

And there you have it everyone. I hope I have been of help.

PS: I have the power.

Despite popular belief, Nintendo games aren't so good that they appeal to absolutely everyone and stop people from wanting to buy any other type of game. The reason most 3rd parties sell poorly on Nintendo consoles is due to their completely different demographics. People who buy a Wii U generally aren't the type of people who are interested in AAA 3rd party games and vice versa, hence why games like AC, CoD and the like sell worse on Wii U than on other consoles, but for a Rayman Legends, which appeals 

If Nintendo made a console that both audiences bought, both types of games would sell well and third parties would be willing to support it, just like they supported the PS3 at the start of the generation despite its faults simply because their games sold on it.

Publishers go where their games can make money. EA tried to do it with Dead Space: Extraction which is an incredible innovative light gun game but it sold poorly. Zack and Wiki from Capcom used the Wii-Mote in incredible ways but it sold poorly. Madworld is the most brutal mature title on the Wii, it sold poorly. There games just don't sell well.

Nintendo develops hardware significantly less powerful these days compared to the competitors. There would be a lot of sacrifice to be made to bring a lot of these third party game on the Wii and now Wii U. Another factor I would consider is that the core audience on Nintendo's systems just want Nintendo franchises. I think there is a market for third party games but its very risky, especially now when their hardware is selling terribly.

Is that you, Jim Sterling?

Thats the problem They should make their own money. Stop being parasites wanting easy money. 

Nintendo is not supposed to help them get money  its their own damn job to do it. I mean when was the last time you heard Hollywood whine about Adobe not offering good support for Photoshop or AfterEffects?  Its not Adobes job to help people make money and everyone knows that.

Seriously do you go to a job interview and tell the boss to pay for the bus ticket? Because "if you want me to work here then pay for my expenses!"???

The industry became lazy. And that also shows in their games.  I cant think of many polished third party games last gen at all.


And third party titles sell just look at Bravely Default or MonsterHunter or COD3 and 4.
The problem is  why pay 60 for a game when its 5 on steam a year later?  Or why buy a unfinished mess with 20FPS that lacks game modes etc ?  Nintendo gamers =/= PS360 gamers.  The industry has this image of how a gamer looks like but that image is bullshit. Some people actually still care about value.

You cant throw bones at a bird can you? Not everyone is the same.

  Its the third parties fault for not being successful.  Dont expect people to buy shit just because other people buy that shit.  And stop complaining and insulting the userbase! Dont be absent  because being absent from a console results in the userbase getting used to living without you Activisions decision to not have COD MW1 on Wii killed the whole franchise on Wii. (sold identical on Wii compared to360 evem tho the 360 was out 1 year earlier before the absence!)
Stop disappointing customers. (Yay Final Fantasy! Oh only some strange CrystalChronicle thing...... Yay! DragonQuest! Oh only on rails..... Yay! DeadSpace!  Oh only on rails..... Yay! SoulCalibur! Oh strange action game..... Yay! ResidentEvil   oh  only on rails....... Yay! DragonQuest X finally a real game in the series!  Oh only a mmorpg game wasting the X of a potentially great game......)

Having all multiplatform versions in a commercial but the Nintendo version is also not helping. (The commercial is already "paid" just add a f*ing Wii box  but nooooo why should you right?)


I dunno about other people but for me third party needs to at least make a quality hattrick before I concider buying their games again. And if they keep devaluing their own games by offering them with a 90% discount a year later  I wont buy them. I am used to Nintendo games with Value that stay at 50 even 3 years later. I do not like to pay to much   which basically happens when people buy the same game a few months later for half the price.  This happens with third party all the time so I wait. But third party has this stupid mentality that  if a game does not sell within 3 months its a failure so they drop the price.

Third party has a completely different mentality than Nintendo gamers have. And thats their own fault   its like dogs and cats waving with their tails  and not understanding why they dont get along.

I, He-Man, approve of this message. I couldn't agree more with you honey! <3