Quantcast
Nintendo and Third Party... Who is really to blame?

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nintendo and Third Party... Who is really to blame?

I've actually been enjoying a bit of 3rd party content on Wii U. Most recently Arkham Origins, AC:Black Flag, Watch Dogs and Deus Ex: Human Revolution. These were all great experiences, I especially enjoyed having maps on the game pad to follow rather than having to pause the game like you frequently have to do on every other console.

On a large scale I don't think gimp'ed versions are what is holding 3rd parties back from greatness on the platform. The 3rd parties in a way fulfill their own prophecies by releasing the game with minimal advertising and fanfare. Releasing the games later doesn't help either. Nintendo could do more to increase the attention these titles get as a sign of good faith. Rayman Legends got some push and sold just as well on Wii U as it did everywhere else.



run away! 

Around the Network
Salnax said:

WORK IN PROGRESS!!!!!!

 

Timeline

  • 1983 - Famicom launched in Japan during July with a few Nintendo launch titles. Nintendo attempts to make a deal with Atari to sell the Famicom in America under the Atari brand, but Atari refuses.
  • 1984 - After over a year on the market, the Famicom gets its first 3rd party titles from Hudson. By the end of 1984 though, Hudson and Namco are the only third parties supporting the Famicom. Despite this, the Famicom had sold over 2.5 million units in Japan by this point, mostly due to Nintendo games like Donkey Kong, Mario Bros, and various sports games with generic names like "Golf."
  • 1985 - This year was huge for Nintendo. Third parties like Jaleco, Taito, and Konami started releasing games for the Famicom. Big third party games included Bomberman, Dig Dug, and 1942. However, this was also Nintendo's best year yet for development, with Balloon Fight and Ice Climber coming out in Q1, Wrecking Crew in Q2, and Gyromite and Super Mario Bros(!) latter in the year. Meanwhile, the NES has limited release in NYC, with an estimated 18 games. Super Mario Bros was a launch title outside of Japan, giving Nintendo early dominance that generation.
  • 1986 (West) - NES launched across the West. In order to prevent another 1983 style crash, Nintendo establishes firm control over their console, locking out unlicensed games and limiting how many games a company could release on the NES per year. Note that this was during an era where games media as we know it was minimal at best; even de facto infomercials like Nintendo Power would not exist for a couple of years. However, few companies were able to release NES games in 1986 other than Nintendo, Bandai, and Capcom,  leaving Nintendo with the bulk of the marketshare. Nintendo's monopolization policies also started around this era, partially due to the fact that as both a hardware and software company, third parties competed with their own software when released on the NES, meaning they had better neither help sell hardware or get kicked out of the deal. Note that the competition at the time consisted of the Sega Master System and Atari 7800, which lacked high quality exclusives to sell themselves with.
  • 1986 (Japan) - Back in Japan, remaining third parties finally jumped on board the Famicom, but it was a bit late. Nintendo released their Famicom Disk System add-on, allowing for cheaper re-releases of their older games and new games that could save data. Disk System games included The Legend of Zelda, Super Mario Bros 2 (Lost Levels), Metroid, and Kid Icarus, giving Nintendo plenty of hardware and software sales that year. Enix also released Dragon Quest this year.
  • 1987 (West) - This was a good and bad year for third parties. On one hand, more companies, including Western developers, released more games which sold better. On the other hand, most of these were overshadowed by Nintendo's own releases, which included last year's Disk System games from Japan and Punch-Out. This created a weird dynamic where a third party's biggest competitor, Nintendo, was also necessary for their survival. Third parties would spend the larger part of a decade looking for ways to break out of this system.
  • 1987 (Japan) - The Disk System was used for a number of games from 1986 to 1988 before the problems of limited storage and piracy killed the peripheral. Meanwhile though, the Disk System aided the Famicom in dominating the market, supporting games like Zelda 2 and various third party titles. Note that the third party games for the Disk System were cheap to make, but required players to own a bunch of Nintendo hardware first. Other than Nintendo's Zelda 2 and sports games, third parties released Dragon Quest 2 and Final Fantasy, which would be big Nintendo exclusive series into the mid-90's. Also note that the more advanced PC Engine, aka the TurboGrafx-16, was released in October by NEC and Hudson. Hudson supported NEC in this endeavor after Nintendo didn't accept their plans for a graphics chip. It would find some success in Japan, but was limited by a lack of support aside from Hudson itself, keeping it from ever threatening Nintendo's interests.
  • 1988 (West) - Super Mario Bros 2 (the one with Shy Guys and Birdo) and Zelda 2 keep the NES healthy in America
  • 1988 (Japan) - Super Mario Bros 3 and Dragon Quest 3 happened. The Sega Genesis was also released, but since Super Mario Bros 3 had come out a few days earlier, nobody cared. Because who cares about Altered Beast anyway? Remember, Sonic was released in mid-1991, so the Genesis had trouble finding success before then.
  • 1989 (West) - The Genesis and Turbo-Grafx 16 are released. Neither have great starts, though the former does better
  • 1989 (Japan) - Nintendo support for the NES is minimal, due to a shift to the Game Boy and upcoming SNES. This gives third parties a chance to fill the void, but they are largely forced to do so on the Famicom. They still also have to compete with the large number of already-existing Nintendo games stretching back six years. On the Game Boy, Nintendo's Tetris and Super Mario Land are big hits, and become some of the best-selling games of all time in Japan. Final Fantasy Legend also did well, but it is obvious that Nintendo will control its handhelds like its consoles.
  • 1990 (West) - Super Mario Bros 3 was released. So the NES still had some life left. That said, it was starting to show its age, especially as the Genesis slowly gained hits games. Note that many Genesis games were adaptations of non-gaming people and IP's, such as Michael Jackson, John Madden, and Mickey Mouse. Also note that Electronic Arts, a PC publisher that had recently entered the game market, was behind a few Genesis games, including Joh Madden Football. This was an early indicator of Western developers and publishers, especially those used to the freedom offered by the PC gaming market, shunning Nintendo in favor of any other viable competitor.
  • 1990 (Japan) - Nintendo finally goes 16-bit, launching the Super Famicom, aka the SNES. Though the launch library is small, Super Mario World gives the platform a definitive game immediately, while Pilotwings and F-Zero give it a technological showcase. Though Final Fight stands out, it seems that Nintendo will dominate the next generation as well. 3rd party support for the Famicom continued with Dragon Quest 4, Mega Man 3 and Final Fantasy 3 this year, taking advantage of the large userbase and lack of competition from Nintendo itself. 
  • 1991 (Intermiession) - Makers of gaming hardware knew a bit about the future of their industry at this time. The CD-ROM had been invented and standardized by the late 80's, and it became clear to most experts that they were going to be an important piece of technology in gaming. The standard 12 cm disc could hold somewhere around 750 MB. In contrast, Super Mario Bros took up about 0.03 MB of space, the largest NES cartridge ever made for widespread use was limited to about 1 MB, and even the SNES and Genesis cartridges could never hold more than around 16 MB. Nintendo had been considering the new tech as early as 1986, after both benefits and flaws with the Famicom Disk System became apparent, planning a possible add-on with Sony. Sony's "Play Station" add-on for the SNES was shown off in May 1991... one day before Nintendo announced that they were working with rival company Phillips instead. Nintendo executives had been worried that their existing contracts with Sony woud put them at a disadvantage by essentially giving rights to all games made for the "Play Station" to Sony rather than Nintendo. The partnership with Phillips, in contrast, only required Nintendo to let those YouTube Poop games to be made by an outside company. Norio Ohga, Sony's legendary CEO, was somewhat miffed about having his company shamed on an international stage, and considered working with Sega to make their next console. Sega rejected this offer, which meant that Ohga would have to find revenge some other way. Sony saw the success of early 3D games like Virtua Fighter, decided that was the future, and combined 3D-based tech with the CD-ROM and their years of research involving the industry to create the original PlayStation, released in Japan in December 1994. And that's how suspicious and vindicative Japanese businessmen created gaming as we know it.
  • 1991 (West) - Sonic the Hedgehog is released for the Genesis. Though not a huge success in Japan, it is the biggest new series in console gaming since Super Mario in the West. Along with games like Streets of Rage, Golden Axe, and ToeJam and Earl, as well as EA games like James Pond, PGA Tour Golf, NHL Hockey, and Marble Madness, the Genesis is well positioned to compete with the SNES. The SNES is not necessarily panned when released a few months after Sonic the Hedgehog, but where the SNES had yet another Super Mario game and some pseudo-3D titles, the Genesis seemed to offer something Nintendo could not match. Blast Processing and whatnot. Note that the SNES was more powerful than the Genesis in most respects, including RAM and sound quality, but did in fact have trouble with games featuring movement as fast as in the Sonic series. The fact that the NES would still be supported with games, both by third parties and Nintendo, also sabotaged the SNES.
  • 1991 (Japan) - While Nintendo had reasons to worry in the West, they were doing as well as ever in Japan. Nintendo games like Link to the Past were quite successful, third party series like Final Fantasy continued where they left off on the NES, and the Game Boy got new games like Final Fantasy Adventure, Yoshi, and Metroid II. Sega released an add-on for the Genesis to let it play CD's, hinting at the eventual replacement of cartridges in a few years.
  • 1992 (West) -
  • 1992 (Japan) - 
  • 1993 (West) - 3DO
  • 1993 (Japan) -

 

To be continued...


Great timeline. Keep it up.



JazzB1987 said:


What does N64 have to do with the original seal of quality?  Third parties sued Nintendo so they could release as many games as they want etc.  N64 was at least 1 generation AFTER the seal had no meaning anymore.


You want do discuss the NES one? Dragon's Lair with broken controls, Silver Surfer with broken collisions and insane difficult. And X-men by LJN, where your forced AI partner wouldn't work at all randomly if you choose a character that could shoot (Cyclops, etc). All of them had the "seal", all of them were terribly broken and didn't had the slightest quality.

And let's talk about the peripherals: their own Power Glove, that didn't worked! The Speedboard, a ridiculous cash in with the seal of quality stamped on it!

They never were symbols of quality, protecting their consoles of bad games. As any company, they let anyone do what they want. What the seal means, specially in the light of the crash, it's some rules:

1) The game works on the console it says it should work.

2) Nintendo could refuse to publish the game if it wasn't following some of its rules about its content.

Exactly what Nintendo does today and what Sony and MS does and even Valve with Steam. What happened in the crash with Atari was a whole different situation:

Atari was the publisher for all Atari games. Some unsatisfied Atari programmers, that were paid just dimes for multi-million dollar games, left and started Activision: the world's first indepent publisher. They sued Atari for the right of being able to publish games on their own and won. After that, anyone could do the same. So it created a mass of games that didn't worked or games with sexual content (including rape, like Custer's Revenge). That made the public opinion hate Atari and was one of the things that resulted in the crash.

NES cartridges had a protection to avoid running homebrew games (just like any console has today). So Nintendo would block any game with sexual or improper content or games that didn't worked. Just that. So the families wouldn't be afraid of buying a console anymore for their kids. Sony and MS do the same thing, with different focus, but the same thing. You can see this in action with unlicesed games for NES like Action 52 or Super Noah Ark 3D for SNES. In both cases, the unlicensed cartridged had a slot in their top so you had to fit a licensed cartridge that would allow the unlicensed one to use its chip to circunvent the lock.

Nintendo rules about amount of games published and other things weren't about quality. They were about keeping 3rd parties small and weak so their games would be the big hits and 3rd parties would never have a way to influence them. 3rd parties' answer was to jump to the first newcomer and give them all the support and allowing it to dominate the market.



FloatingWaffles said:
The thing that i've noticed is that a lot of people always say stuff like "Well it's a gimped version or a late port", but even when the game comes out at the same time and is a good/best version they still haven't sold all that well.

I mean, what happened to Splinter Cell: Blacklist, Injustice: Gods Among us, etc?

Those came out at the same time as the other versions and were good ones as well.

It's sad because the people who genuinely do like buying third party games on Nintendo consoles I feel like are held back because the fact that most others won't, meaning they probably won't get the sequel.

You think most Splinter Cell or Tranditional fighting game fans (Tekken, Street FIghter, Dead or Alive etc) ran out to buy a wii U? Why? 

its like asking why Final Fantasy performs weaker on Xbox systems, the fanbase isn't truly there to begin with.



seinsmeld said:
nintendo wants to be a kiddy system. no voice chat during games bc ur afraid of a kid being kidnapped. total bs. there online although improved is still a joke. they dont make similar games that 3rd parties do and teens will not buy a wiiu as there main system. being underpwered doesnt help either. no sports games. nintendo has to change there image. devils third and bayonetta r enough to change the image.


Funny thing is, I personally know way more "kids" that want nothing to do with Nintendo and only want to play Xbox/PS shooters all day. Meanwhile... I'm in the 30+yr old demographic and all of my friends play Nintendo consoles more than anything else. Nostalgia is a powerful thing! While many of the games are certainly more colorful, N keeps pulling me back because more frequently the games offer something new game play wise



run away! 

Around the Network

We've been through this lol. Its 90% Nintendo.

The people who consume AC annually aren't picking up a Nintendo system because it doesn't serve the franchise the same way PS4/X1 does, its not a true successor to the consoles they've been playing for the last 7 years, so they're in no hurry to pick up a Wii U. Beyond that It is not the responsibility of core Nintendo fans to pretend to like games they're not interested in.

Third parties have no reason to support the wii U as it doesn't have the compelling hardware which will shape the landscape for the 6 year, nor does it have the huge userbase ( like the wii) whom they could easily rely on even if attach rates are lower then PS4/X1. From conception alone Nintendo put their system outside of the taste range of most of the core demographics who their games appeal to. If someone announces a super gimped system and you audience care about graphics and budget etc, you're not gonna expect them to run to this gimped console.

It is Nintendo responsibility to shape the perception of their hardware through marketing and 3rd party collaborations, to design the hardware so it appeals to a broad range of people, to ready software to get their system off to a good start. Whats funny is that Nintendo has collaborated this gen probably more then Sony and Microsoft, but its been on all the wrong projects :/



champybh said:
seinsmeld said:
nintendo wants to be a kiddy system. no voice chat during games bc ur afraid of a kid being kidnapped. total bs. there online although improved is still a joke. they dont make similar games that 3rd parties do and teens will not buy a wiiu as there main system. being underpwered doesnt help either. no sports games. nintendo has to change there image. devils third and bayonetta r enough to change the image.


Funny thing is, I personally know way more "kids" that want nothing to do with Nintendo and only want to play Xbox/PS shooters all day. Meanwhile... I'm in the 30+yr old demographic and all of my friends play Nintendo consoles more than anything else. Nostalgia is a powerful thing! While many of the games are certainly more colorful, N keeps pulling me back because more frequently the games offer something new game play wise

Exactly. Its nothing to do with age, its just a case of taste. If anything the younger generations are less likely to be into Nintendo because they weren't hear for the glory days (NES-SNES). If you started gaming during the PS2 generation you probably had a PS2 and nothing else, if you started last gen Its highly likely PS3/360 or PC ended up being your main platform by 2010.



teigaga said:
FloatingWaffles said:
The thing that i've noticed is that a lot of people always say stuff like "Well it's a gimped version or a late port", but even when the game comes out at the same time and is a good/best version they still haven't sold all that well.

I mean, what happened to Splinter Cell: Blacklist, Injustice: Gods Among us, etc?

Those came out at the same time as the other versions and were good ones as well.

It's sad because the people who genuinely do like buying third party games on Nintendo consoles I feel like are held back because the fact that most others won't, meaning they probably won't get the sequel.

You think most Splinter Cell or Tranditional fighting game fans (Tekken, Street FIghter, Dead or Alive etc) ran out to buy a wii U? Why? 

its like asking why Final Fantasy performs weaker on Xbox systems, the fanbase isn't truly there to begin with.

 

But that's the thing, the fanbase WON'T be there if these games don't ever release on the console.

You can't just say "Oh that game didn't sell because the fanbase isn't there" because I feel as though that adds to my comment's point which was that there always seems to be an excuse made for when a third party game doesn't sell on a Nintendo console.

The point of my comment is that the games like Splinter Cell: Blacklist and Injustice: Gods Among us were good versions on the Wii U and came out at the same time as the others and still sold badly, which immediately contradicts whenever people say the usual "Oh it was a gimped version or a late port", or something along those lines.

 

Edit: I don't know what I did but my reply got really mixed up with some quotes. Sorry about that.



FarleyMcFirefly said:
Wizz_Beard_thePirate said:

Well, the issue is the most wiiU ports of third party games are usually gimped in some way. Either there is a performance issue or its missing content or it they won't release the DLC for it or its very delayed but if you own any other console/PC, you will get the "full" version of the game. And come on, we all need money to live and continue with our daily lives so if version a) offers a gimped version with missing content/DLC where as version b) offers the full experience and they both cost the same price, who wouldn't go for b)?

Yes, I want to support Nintendo and third party games on Nintendo platform but if its at the cost of buying a gimped version for the same price as the full version. No thanks. Specially since you will be sending a message that the gimped version is all they need in order to please Nintendo gamers


Isn't a 'gimped' version better than no version at all? 


It's actually worse because it creates instant distrust in future titles from that developer/publisher. The distrust stacks over time and releases and in the end many consumers won't even look at the third party titles anymore because they know that version ain't worth it - even if that game is actually great and not gimped in any way at all. Which is precisely why few prople really care about third party releases on the Wii U



FloatingWaffles said:
teigaga said:

You think most Splinter Cell or Tranditional fighting game fans (Tekken, Street FIghter, Dead or Alive etc) ran out to buy a wii U? Why? 

its like asking why Final Fantasy performs weaker on Xbox systems, the fanbase isn't truly there to begin with.

 

But that's the thing, the fanbase WON'T be there if these games don't ever release on the console.

You can't just say "Oh that game didn't sell because the fanbase isn't there" because I feel as though that adds to my comment's point which was that there always seems to be an excuse made for when a third party game doesn't sell on a Nintendo console.

The point of my comment is that the games like Splinter Cell: Blacklist and Injustice: Gods Among us were good versions on the Wii U and came out at the same time as the others and still sold badly, which immediately contradicts whenever people say the usual "Oh it was a gimped version or a late port", or something along those lines.

Edit: I don't know what I did but my reply got really mixed up with some quotes. Sorry about that.

Yesp we're in agreement :)