Quantcast
Nintendo Fans Vs. Third-Party Developers & Entitlement

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nintendo Fans Vs. Third-Party Developers & Entitlement

Darwinianevolution said:
Soundwave said:
Darwinianevolution said:
Most western developers abandoned handhelds a long time ago. Mobile is more interesting for them. It's the home console market the most interesting one in that regard.

I would have believed that hardware power is the main excuse for 3rd parties to ignore Nintendo, but the situation of the first two years of the WiiU really proved otherwise. Back in the days when the main competitors were the PS360 and the WiiU, most games could have run on the U as well as on the HD twins.

Most publishers took the chance and released their old games on the new system (Deus Ex, Ninja Gaiden, Batman Arkaham City, Assassins Creed...), just to test the waters. However, part of the problem was exactly that: most people had already played those titles in other systems, or they weren't new enough to compete against recent releases. Granted, some should have sold more (Deus Ex, ACIV...), but some of the best selling titles that got a last gen port (Destiny, GTA V, Far Cry 4, every EA sport, PES, Resident Evil HD...) didn't come to the system, in the monent that Nintendo needed them the most, when they were strugling with HD. Even the games that came (Watch Dogs) arrived late and performed bad as everyone expected. Thus we had the droughts.

Very few studios took the chance and released titles during those droughts, when they could have gotten all the sales. The failure of CoD on those systems was the straw that broke the camel's back, though. If there's a game that sells no matter the time of the release or the state it's in, it's CoD, and it failed two times on the U. I'm sure after that, every studio avoided the system like the plague.

But they shouldn't have! Monster Huntes 3 sold well on the U, but Capcom never tried again, Zombie U almost reached the million, but Ubisoft never made a sequel of that (I'm sure the userbase would have prefered Zombie U2 before Watch Dogs), SE and Namco have a ton of JRPGs on the PS3: Kingdom Hearts titles sell well on Nintendo handhelds, FF remakes/remasters, a Tales of game... , but they didn't port one (or brought them to the west). And someone should have brought sports games, someone! EA tried to boycott the system due to Origin not running on the U, when they could have just kept releasing FIFA, as they did on the Wii! Part of the blame is Nintendo's too. I don't know if a port of GTA V would have been more expensive than the possible profits, but they should have insisted on it, and the same with Bethesda games. Without those titles, the system looked barren during two or three years. And when Nintendo managed to recover, the PS4 and the XBone were out already. The excuse of the weaker hardware was valid after that, but not before.

If something hurt the 3rd pary on the WiiU, was:

-Studios not knowing which titles could make money on the system, thus abandoning it before risking time and money. Some even ignored the machine with some successes achieved, prefering not risking anything instead of pursuing the small but consistent sales some games have, like the Lego games. Also, bad pricing for some games also killed the interest (ehem ME3 more expensive than the MEtrilogy ehem).

-Nintendo not trying to get some key titles to the system (GTA V, Destiny, some Bethesda RPG, if FIFA wasn't avalible, try bringing PES...). Also Nintendo not being able to create content fast enough for the system made it look unappealing, and thus not selling fast enough from the beginning.

-I can't say something about the userbase, because the customer is always right, and if they decide to not purchase, it's their choice. But if they want some genres over others, they could have tried bringing more attention to them, specially now with tons of ways of bringing attention to this matters. Example: OP Rainfall. If that worked with Nintendo, why shouldn't it work with other companies?

Just to be clear, Zombi U never came close to sniffing a million. The game was wildly overtracked by VGChartz, we got actual numbers for it from a NPD leak a while ago I forgot what the actual number was but it was quite mediocre. Ditto for Bayonetta 2.

There's no point in Nintendo really trying to get things like GTA. It just doesn't fit Nintendo's image or brand type and that type of game will never really be a huge seller on a Nintendo console. 

Even if it sold 60k instead of 80k, that's a good number for a new IP about something as generic as zombies in a system with a low installbase. The same can be applied for Bayonetta (minus the generic part). The point is Ubisoft could have used the assets from the first game and made a quick sequel, but they didn't. Instead of porting Wath Dogs, game that was sold mostly through hype and arrived to the system when it ran out of it, they could have made Zombie U2, a game that proved somewhat succesful, instead of a game that was released to failed (everyone said WD would fail on the system, and everyone were right).


200k for a new IP is a bomb, especially since it probably only sold about 150-160k in its initial print run, probably a chunk of those sales comes with the game be widely discounted everywhere. Factoring in Euro sales maybe being 1/3 of the US, and Zombi U is probably about 300k worldwide versus the 850k+ VGC has it as, that isn't a difference of 60k to 80k, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say there. 

I don't really blame Ubi Soft for bailing out, that level of sales just doesn't cut it when they could probably move those resources to PS4/X1 development and enjoy much higher sales on something else. 

VGChartz has overtracked a lot of Nintendo stuff, they had Bayonetta 2 at 360k in the US or something, when it's really only at 157k. 



Around the Network
SubiyaCryolite said:

They act like they still control the industry when they dont. Its all right to look out for your interests but when you dont make ANY concessions for third parties you deserve to fail. Better yet, not even Nintendo cares about 3rd party sales. They just want their own games to sell and fans to gobble up Amiibos. Nothing wrong with that but they shouldnt be surprised no 3rd party is lining up to play by their rules.



thats abit rough.. but yeah honestly Nintendo doesnt seem to treat 3rd party the same way Sony or MS does.

I dont think most people would disagree, if I went on to say my perception is sony by far does the most for 3rd parties.... guess what? they have 3rd party.



Skullwaker said:
I'm tired of black and white notions.

There is gray area to this that is far more reasonable. For both sides.

Well said. It's not so simple as selfish, entitled Nintendo fans or greedy, unscrupulous third-party developers. As with most things, the truth is somewhere in the middle.



Veknoid_Outcast said:
Skullwaker said:
I'm tired of black and white notions.

There is gray area to this that is far more reasonable. For both sides.

Well said. It's not so simple as selfish, entitled Nintendo fans or greedy, unscrupulous third-party developers. As with most things, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

The actual truth is most Nintendo fans don't care. 

Don't confuse the online community of Nintendo fans (which is really probably only 150k-200k, a drop in the bucket of the actual consumer base) with the actual Nintendo fanbase. 

I doubt the real average Nintendo fan really cares that the Wii U version of Watch Dogs for example isn't as good as the PS4 version, because they don't care about that type of game to begin with or even if they did they would be purchasing it for their Playstation or XBox console. 



JRPGfan said:
SubiyaCryolite said:

They act like they still control the industry when they dont. Its all right to look out for your interests but when you dont make ANY concessions for third parties you deserve to fail. Better yet, not even Nintendo cares about 3rd party sales. They just want their own games to sell and fans to gobble up Amiibos. Nothing wrong with that but they shouldnt be surprised no 3rd party is lining up to play by their rules.



thats abit rough.. but yeah honestly Nintendo doesnt seem to treat 3rd party the same way Sony or MS does.

I dont think most people would disagree, if I went on to say my perception is sony by far does the most for 3rd parties.... guess what? they have 3rd party.


That's because sony and ms are totally dependent from 3rd third party support. How do you think those systems would sell if there isn't FIFA COD and GTA?



 

 

We reap what we sow

Around the Network
160rmf said:
JRPGfan said:



thats abit rough.. but yeah honestly Nintendo doesnt seem to treat 3rd party the same way Sony or MS does.

I dont think most people would disagree, if I went on to say my perception is sony by far does the most for 3rd parties.... guess what? they have 3rd party.


That's because sony and ms are totally dependent from 3rd third party support. How do you think those systems would sell if there isn't FIFA COD and GTA?

Probably about in the 15-18 million LTD range the Wii U is headed for. Perhaps worse. 



@160rmf

Arnt nintendo too? No 3rd party and consol sales are down by alot.
Ofc that just means more sales of nintendo developed games = more profits.

The thing is... as a consumer are you happy that there are so few 3rd party games on the Wii U?



Sony and Microsoft serve basically all the need there is for third party content to the mass market ... there isn't really a need for Nintendo to be in the mix for that, and that's not really a slight to Nintendo.

As a consumer I will never buy a Windows Phone. It just never is going to happen. They could make the best phone with the nicest build quality and all that and I still would not buy it. It's not that I'm an Apple fanboy or anything, but I'll only buy an Apple or Android phone because of the app ecosystem and there's really nothing Microsoft could reasonably do to win me over. I'm not interested in losing out on the Apple or Android app ecosystem to go with Windows Phone. 

I just don't have an interest in a third "me too" option. I think that's really how most consumers feel about third party games with video games. It's nothing personal against Nintendo, it's just more than Sony and MS have established themselves as the proven brands for that kind of content and there's just no room/place for Nintendo.

No one needs/wants three alternatives to the same thing.



JRPGfan said:
@160rmf

Arnt nintendo too? No 3rd party and consol sales are down by alot.
Ofc that just means more sales of nintendo developed games = more profits.


Tell me...how many 3rd party games helped NIntendo HW sales?



 

 

We reap what we sow

160rmf said:
JRPGfan said:
@160rmf

Arnt nintendo too? No 3rd party and consol sales are down by alot.
Ofc that just means more sales of nintendo developed games = more profits.


Tell me how many 3rd party games helped NIntendo HW sales?


I have no idea how to Quantify something like that.... many? not many? no idea honestly.

My gut feeling is that lack of 3rd party support does hurt sales.