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

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

thom said:
Nem said:


You are confusing marketing with advertisement. Its a common mistake people make.

Marketing is the umbrela that determines wich product you are gonna place where and how. It includes sales and product development within it, aswell as advertisement. Though the product development itself takes place before you decide where you will place it. Its also possible for it to be backwards, if you spot an unfulfilled desire that is a business opportunity, you may want to turn your product development into it.


Lol I work for an agency, I'm pretty sure I know the difference between marketing and advertising.

A business does not turn to their marketing department to determine what games to develop next.  Sorry, it just doesn't work like that.  Their R&D team is going to handle that.


You are mixing what a marketing department does in a specific company with the concept of marketing. I have a degree on this.

Besides, thats not what i said. I said both are possible. I assume that what you are talking about are companies with clear defined segments they work in. How else would R&D know what to work on? Make fridges or make match sticks? The definition of that segment is marketing on the strategic level. Your common marketing department works on it in a tactical level.



Around the Network

As a customer, I have no obligation to third paries, Nintendo, or otherwise. I'll buy games like Watch Dogs when I want, not after 6 whole months, and with a inferior experience to boot.

I design website templates and sell them online. If I want many sales, I have to work my ass off to achieve it. I have to make my customer base really WANT my product. I have only myself to blame if things go bad.

Seriously, this industry is like it's being run by 5 year olds...



routsounmanman said:
As a customer, I have no obligation to third paries, Nintendo, or otherwise. I'll buy games like Watch Dogs when I want, not after 6 whole months, and with a inferior experience to boot.

I design website templates and sell them online. If I want many sales, I have to work my ass off to achieve it. I have to make my customer base really WANT my product. I have only myself to blame if things go bad.

Seriously, this industry is like it's being run by 5 year olds...


Watch Dogs would've sold like crap on Wii U even if it was released day and date with the other versions. 

Assassin's Creed and COD: Ghosts were day and date with other versions and they bombed too. 

The audience for these games left Nintendo a long time ago, like long before the Wii U and has been raised on Playstation or XBox brands. They're not going to play these games on Nintendo consoles. 

And as for ports of games that are 6 months late ... how about a console that's 6-7 years late? For people who own a PS3 or 360 (180 million of them) there's nothing impressive about the Wii U from a hardware POV. It's Nintendo just now catching up to PS3/360 style HD hardware with a so-so online infastructure, but it's all a big "so what?" to many gamers. 



Nintendo, they seem to not care about third party developers.



 

I'm just going to add my two cents, but I haven't read the entire thread so someone may have already posted this thought.

At some point in time all three parties involved in the market cycle (Publishers, Console manufactures and consumers.) have had their hand in making the third party situation what it is. Nintendo holds some responsibility for not loosing up its control on their part of the market sooner. Though I can also fault the other two market players for allowing too much control which led to the AAA market being what it is today.

The third party publisher/developers hold responsibility for not even putting in a "freshmen effort" in a lot of their ports and their games in general, which led to the consumers not wanting to wade through the cesspit of badly made products to find the one gem located at the far end bottom. Also their moves to restrict the market flow by DRM has not help the process in where you could rent before you buy. Misleading E3 showings paying for good reviews, just made looking for a good product a mess.

The consumer hold responsibility for not buying the good products, purchasing the badly made products on other systems, or holding to their responsibility as consumers. For example don't buy products from Ubisoft, EA for a bit after them releasing a turd, even if it is a must have game; whining doesn't get paid attention to as much as people think, it is money that they listen to and if the customers stop buying games then they will have to take notice and ask themselves where they are going wrong. You have to not buy the next few games or buy used because of the way the industry is set up.

The consumer thing is the same across industries the customers today are not interested in not being a savvy customer and want someone else to do their job. The customer's job is to make sure they are ordering the correct thing, mostly applies to other industries, they need to do micro boycotts of items and services that they are fed up with not being the quality they expect and not just say they not buying this again and buy the next product that is even worse. They need to check their received order to make sure it is what they order, because people do make mistakes. Also they need to realize mistakes will be made and it isn't an affront to their person that it wasn't there.

And this is basically what is wrong with the industry in a nut shell and it has just created a horrific downward cycle. Nintendo's lack of wide third party support is just  a symotom.



Around the Network
Nem said:


This. I dont expect Nintendo to change. They have an aproach to gaming that western companies dont understand. Nintendo focus on creating great products that will delight the consumer, western companies focus on profitability and ignore long time nefarious effects. In essence those 2 doctrines clash and its difficult to find common ground.

The fault never lies and never will lie with the customer. That is a pov that is beeing supplied to you through company incompetence and propaganda. Products are created to fulfill consumer needs. If the product didnt sell, its the companies fault. That is the basic comcept of marketing and they have failed at a primal level. That is what happens when your focus is only profitability. You think that when you do things wrong, its the customers fault, wich is laughable. Such companies will meet their doom soon enough if they dont change their ways.

For example the annualisation of CoD and AC. Its great for them atm, but after some years the series will die off completely. How will ubi and activision mantain profits then? Its not a sustainable tactic. Its a highly risky one too. You need to spread the risk across several IP's. Bandai Namco does that really well, for example, and its a company i like. They make alot of games, most arent huge sellers, but together they make for pretty good profits with low risk. If one game flops, they have 3 more that will do well. If AC and CoD flop, drama will ensue on their companies.

Customer do infact have something to do with it. Customer allways carry some responsibility no matter what, because in the end if no one is buying there is no market, but right now the customers are buying the garbage that is comming out and they are using the predetory microtransaction so those are going to continue because there is a visible market for such.

I'm not saying that it is Nintendo's customers per say but the customers as a whole. They are willing to buy the lastest thing that has beed excreted out by developers no matter what condition it is. There are market that are willing to support such a behavior so they go where the money is. If customer stopped buying the annulization of different games and insisted on a mostly unbroken product. There will always be bugs in software how prevalent they are depends on how long the game is in an actual tuning and optimization mode after the game code itself is "finished". The investors will give way if consumers stop buying into badly made product that is rushed out. They will rethink monitization practices if people are not using certin ones, because it takes time and money to code them.

 

I just wrote a mid sized length post on this a few comments up. But in anything all parties share some sort of responsiblity in a normal market setting. (So this doesn't apply to companies that are trying to con people out of money)



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

People play nintendo because of quality, not nostalgia.



bananaking21 said:
UGH!! AGAIN!?!

you cant blame a failed business on the CONSUMER. i failed business is blamed on the COMPANY ITSELF. blaming it on the consumer is fucking ridiculous. its nintendos fault and nintendos fault only


Can you explain to me how thrid part games failing on nintendo platforms is nintendo's fault? Last I checked the company responsible for the game is the third party and if they don't advertize it and it flops its suddenly nintendo's fault? You guys sure are funny.



Japan Switch Sales comparison vs 3ds and Wii u: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=226216&page=1

Soundwave said:
routsounmanman said:
As a customer, I have no obligation to third paries, Nintendo, or otherwise. I'll buy games like Watch Dogs when I want, not after 6 whole months, and with a inferior experience to boot.

I design website templates and sell them online. If I want many sales, I have to work my ass off to achieve it. I have to make my customer base really WANT my product. I have only myself to blame if things go bad.

Seriously, this industry is like it's being run by 5 year olds...


Watch Dogs would've sold like crap on Wii U even if it was released day and date with the other versions. 

Assassin's Creed and COD: Ghosts were day and date with other versions and they bombed too. 

The audience for these games left Nintendo a long time ago, like long before the Wii U and has been raised on Playstation or XBox brands. They're not going to play these games on Nintendo consoles. 

And as for ports of games that are 6 months late ... how about a console that's 6-7 years late? For people who own a PS3 or 360 (180 million of them) there's nothing impressive about the Wii U from a hardware POV. It's Nintendo just now catching up to PS3/360 style HD hardware with a so-so online infastructure, but it's all a big "so what?" to many gamers. 

watch dogs would have easily sold 500k+ if released on time and without the BS.

AC and Cod didn't bomb. Nintendo always has audience for good games.

I though no one else still believed wii u was on the same level of ps360.



uran10 said:
bananaking21 said:
UGH!! AGAIN!?!

you cant blame a failed business on the CONSUMER. i failed business is blamed on the COMPANY ITSELF. blaming it on the consumer is fucking ridiculous. its nintendos fault and nintendos fault only


Can you explain to me how thrid part games failing on nintendo platforms is nintendo's fault? Last I checked the company responsible for the game is the third party and if they don't advertize it and it flops its suddenly nintendo's fault? You guys sure are funny.


the reason these games floped were because consumers could get them on other consoles (at the time the PS3 and 360) and the WiiU version had no advantages.

the reality is, third parties showed some support for the WiiU at the start. but nintendos failure to attract consumers or give consumers a reason to play on their console was the reason its nintendos fault. now, is the sole reason why third party games on the wiiu failed on nintendo? no, third parties have blame as well. but not nearly as much as nintendo. because its nintendos responsibility to create an audince on their console. and that audince was clearly not there for third parties to sell too.