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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Give me ONE reason Nintendo shouldn't go 3rd party.

It sounds like a good idea but they could end up like sega.



    

NNID: FrequentFlyer54

Around the Network
Ryudo said:
Fusioncode said:

I don't see why Nintendo's output would change. SEGA doesn't have anywhere near the roster of IPs that Nintendo has. Nintendo is already ignoring a bunch of their classic IPs like Ice Climbers and F-Zero. 


You ever play SEGA's games? They sure as hell do have the roster and could possibly surpass Nintendo. SEGA's classic IP library and overall IP's is extensive VERY extensive.

And most haven't seen the light of day since they went 3rd party.



Barozi said:

And Nintendo isn't already influenced by MS and Sony to stay relevant?

I don't think Splatoon would do well on PS4 and X1. I also don't think it's going to do well on WiiU. That could be easily attributed to Wonderful 101 too.
Annual releases like AC and CoD aren't the reason for that.

Being influenced while having your own hardware to produce games on and being influenced by them to produce games on their hardware are two very different things though.  As a 3rd party developer they would lose any and all profits from their hardware.  This would in turn force them to want to put out games in higher volumes to make up for that.  That is one factor in the potential for dropped quality.  Then, Sony and Microsoft would be inquiring about when they could expect the product.  That could move timetables up in situations where they normally wouldn't be moved up and create a second factor.  The third piece that comes to mind is the lack of experience that Nintendo has in dealing with multiple platforms for their games.  Sure they have the handheld and the Wii U, but they have virtually no cross-system releases and even the ones they have are not identical games on each system.  Optimizing for two different sets of hardware could provide an additional challenge that decreases quality.  Going exclusive to one or the other would negate that third piece of course.

Splatoon was a specific example for a not-so-specific situation.  These days most companies don't thrive on single generation releases.  Games like GTA could support a once a generation release, but they are more exception than rule.  In order for Nintendo to keep things not named Mario, Zelda, and Donkey Kong relevant they would have to give them more frequent releases.  Part of what makes Nintendo who and what they are, in my opinion, is that they do it themselves and largely on their own terms.  Being third party changes that dynamic entirely.



BraLoD said:

So what you are saying is that Nintendo with a better hardware to work on and more consumers to sell their games will develop worse games?
That means Nintendo doesn't care about games at all.


No. Nintendo specially build hardware around games they want to make. Naturally, that ties the game quality to the consoles they make.



darkknightkryta said:
baloofarsan said:
Here is an analysis about why Nintendo needs both hardware AND software:
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=740455

TLDR - Nintendo have profit (not only revenue like the others) from one business only: they need the money from ALL of their sales - hardware+ software + peripherals + online - to make a living.

Assuming they can sell hardware at profits.  

 

I personally agree with the OP, but only because having a console makes no sense for NIntendo.  Let'sbreak down you'd want a console in the first place: liscensing money.  If you have a monopoly for consoles you get maximum liscensing money from third party publishers.  Nintendo always relied on this money from their handhelds and to an extent their consoles.  Third party sales on Nintendo machines are currently negligable.  So why burn through so much cash on R&D on a game console?  Is it worth it just so you don't have to give up liscensing money?  Hardware is also very difficult to sell at a profit, unless you're Apple.  Do I think Nintendo should give up right away on hardware though?  No.  But if they don't do well with their next hardware then Nintendo really needs to re-evaluate their business.  They can't always live off of the Yen exchange.

Without a console of their own they would loose any profit made from hardware, loose licensing money (both not getting licence money from third parties and getting to pay licence money to Sony/MS). They would have higher costs for software as they have to develop for several platforms, PC/PS/XB. 



Around the Network

I'll give you guys one good reason: There's no guarantee that Sony or Microsoft will take many risks for developing unique hardware ideas in the future (like Nintendo did with Wii and Wii U, one being much more successful than the other). I know many people say that Nintendo doesn't take any risks, since they didn't put more power on the Wii U, but that doesn't really make sense. Changing how you play the game definitely is more risky than creating a more powerful piece of hardware.
Also, I think Nintendo's presence in the market is overall beneficial in more subtle ways, such as what the Wii did for the market last gen.



StuOhQ said:

I love how people suggest that the N64, GCN, and now Wii U were all abysmal failures... There's a reason Nintendo is still in the game (hint: they weren't going totally broke before the Wii came out). Nintendo is very good at making money. 

Let's just let that sink in for a moment.

The N64 made money, the GCN made money, and the Wii U is now making money. Obviously, the original Wii was an all-out  cash cow. During all those years, Nintendo's portables GBA-3DS have been very profitable as well. 

Who are these people?

Do you have any proof that Gamecube made a profit overall? So many years I've been seeing people making this claim and still no source :( 

The point some people are making that some others fail to grasp is that Ninty could be making more money because they have much stronger IP's than MS and Sony. Now, if they are happy with small profits over going third party, more power to them. Also, some here need to keep in mind that the wiiu is making a profit at the momennt, but is it a successful investment, i.e. if you put everything together (R&D, advertising, possible deals with Capcom, etc), has it been profitable already or is it gonna take a couple of years?  And at the end, are they happy with making their money back years after release of the console? It seems to me that they're not. I could be wrong, of course. 

 



The hivemind just won't let this pipedream die huh?

The Nintendo business model relies directly of the interaction between hardware and software. In a sense the question is as meaningful as asking why dogs don't just become cats since cats are more popular right now.

I will leave you 3rd party fanatics with this thought to ponder? Do you think Nintendo will make any money off their amiibo line? Do you think they would be able to launch that line as successfully without control of the hardware? Get off the idea that Nintendo is a software company that also makes hardware. They are much more than that. If you want to play their games so much, buy the machines they play on or else play something else.



There are a lot of factors as to why they shouldn't go third party. Though if you really want to know, the strongest reason would have to be is that it's not sustainable for them. In fact it would be more expensive to go third party.

Nintendo's philosophy is that hardware is a way to create value in software. If you really want to play Mario, Zelda, etc. you can only play them on the hardware they were designed for. If they were to go 3rd party then the value drops because Without that hardware (regardless if it's weak or powerful), you wouldn't get same value/quality if you were playing it on playstation or xbox. Plus there's a probability that if they were to release their software on the other two consoles, their sales could eat away at the other games. Though that's just my guess.

Basically you wouldn't get the same "Nintendo magic" if you were playing Zelda on the PS4/XB1.



You could say the same for Sony and MS. Why can't they go PC since their consoles are just dumb-down PCs in a box that will be forever inferior to PC..



naruball said:
StuOhQ said:

I love how people suggest that the N64, GCN, and now Wii U were all abysmal failures... There's a reason Nintendo is still in the game (hint: they weren't going totally broke before the Wii came out). Nintendo is very good at making money. 

Let's just let that sink in for a moment.

The N64 made money, the GCN made money, and the Wii U is now making money. Obviously, the original Wii was an all-out  cash cow. During all those years, Nintendo's portables GBA-3DS have been very profitable as well. 

Who are these people?

Do you have any proof that Gamecube made a profit overall? So many years I've been seeing people making this claim and still no source :( 

The point some people are making that some others fail to grasp is that Ninty could be making more money because they have much stronger IP's than MS and Sony. Now, if they are happy with small profits over going third party, more power to them. Also, some here need to keep in mind that the wiiu is making a profit at the momennt, but is it a successful investment, i.e. if you put everything together (R&D, advertising, possible deals with Capcom, etc), has it been profitable already or is it gonna take a couple of years?  And at the end, are they happy with making their money back years after release of the console? It seems to me that they're not. I could be wrong, of course. 

 

This is what mostly used as evidence:

(From left to right: SONY - NINTENDO - MICROSOFT)

As you say there is no breakdown for Nintendo in how much they got from handhelds and consoles.