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

Forums - Sales Discussion - The Reason Why Nintendo Can't Get 3rd Party Games

Roronaa_chan said:
Ka-pi96 said:
Roronaa_chan said:
Bayonetta is a third party game..

Not really. Sure it is developed by a 3rd part developer, but Nintendo are still the publisher so it isn't really 3rd party.


That's what a third party game is

1st party owned and developed internally (like uncharted)

2nd party owned but developed externally (like bloodborne)

3rd party not-owned and developed externally (bayonetta 2)

 

At least in my book. And my book refuses all other doctrine

It's a second party game. The definition of 1st/2nd/3rd party has to do with who owns the IP and who publishes the IP.

1st = N/Sony/MS owns and publishes the IP

2nd = N/Sony/MS doesn't own the IP but does publish it.

3rd is N/Sony/MS neither owns nor publishes the IP

Second party games are extremely rare these days, because usually, when N/Sony/MS publish a game, they own the rights to the IP.



Around the Network
Cobretti2 said:
teigaga said:


Considering Xbox One has 2x as many million sellers in half the time, I don't think that arguement holds. Theres plenty of room for third parties to have success as second choice after  consumers have picked up Mario.  Given how slow most of those Wii U games sold we know consumers didn't exactly run out to purchase them either. Wii U owners just don't seem to have a big appetite for games or the games on the platform don't interest them much, presumably many spend much of the year playing on their Primary console 

 

The problem is my fellow bretheran nit pick every little problem. For example AC IV was "oh frame rate is shit" when in reailty it just dipped a few times because of hardware restrictions. No worst that on PS360. Hell the PS4 version even had frame rate issues. BUt nothing major that prevents you from playing the game.

Majorly broken unplayable games and gimp games I can understand but these happen on all consoles. Sadly gamers on other consoles will go out and buy them too hnece some devs think they can just release shit and ty to patch it later.

Those are just excuses that people use to justify the crap sales of the games. Heres the thing how many of those 9mil plus WIi U owners ONLY own a WIi U? ANd i mean just a Wii U no PC nonsense. Hell how many on this site? i would reckon 2? 3mil tops? With everyone else buying those 3rd party games on systems they already have.



IamAwsome said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:


Nintendo promised on E3 2012 that the Wii U would have coverage from third party, including the biggest names in the industry from the west. They failed to maintain said relationships.

To be fair it's not Iwata and Reggie's fault that third parties, particularly EA, promised support and bailed before the system launched, while continuing to support the PS3 and 360. Sales became a legit reason to not support the console after 2013, but what about launch up to that point? 

the launch games bombed.



armodillo17 said:
Roronaa_chan said:


That's what a third party game is

1st party owned and developed internally (like uncharted)

2nd party owned but developed externally (like bloodborne)

3rd party not-owned and developed externally (bayonetta 2)

 

At least in my book. And my book refuses all other doctrine

It's a second party game. The definition of 1st/2nd/3rd party has to do with who owns the IP and who publishes the IP.

1st = N/Sony/MS owns and publishes the IP

2nd = N/Sony/MS doesn't own the IP but does publish it.

3rd is N/Sony/MS neither owns nor publishes the IP

Second party games are extremely rare these days, because usually, when N/Sony/MS publish a game, they own the rights to the IP.

its really sad when they don't know which game is  first, second or third party.



S.T.A.G.E. said:
RolStoppable said:
Essentially, Nintendo doesn't get third party games because their first party games are too good and are therefore the first choice for consumers. However, if Nintendo reduced the quantity and/or quality of their output, then the hardware would sell notably worse which in turn would also mean that third party games can't sell in big numbers.

Looks like it isn't in Nintendo's power to solve this problem. What would need to happen is that third parties step up their game and make their own offerings become the first choice for consumers. However, this requires serious effort, so it's unreasonable to expect it to happen.


Or they could just entice gamers who normally buy multiplat to buy their console like the SNES era. The majority of the Playstation and XBox userbase are composed of them. LOL....just lure them for christ sakes. Microsoft did it...and they managed to weaken Sony for a generation (caused RROD but you get the picture). LOL :)

Before that can be fixed though, you have to fix the political problems between Nintendo and third party, because without them you cant get the games. Third is the strategy, much like what Microsoft did to increase their marketshare which caused them to plot down the Xbox 360's release a year ahead of Sony (thus launching without any competition while showing off a wealth of third party and enticing multiplat gamers to jump ship). Launching with Sony is not good for your health if you're in a battle for third party.

If Nintendo were a company willing to lose millions yearly, they would be doing that tactic.



Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. said:
IkePoR said:

I agree here.  Sony's been humbled though and it's something Nintendo could use too.  The Wii U has done little in this effort as the idea of mobile games will earn them back what they've missed with it.  Sony seeing red is the best thing that's happened to the company and it will only get better from here on.  Nintendo will get worse.


Sony wasnt humbled. They took the dive with the PS3 to save Blu Ray. It was a planned suicide mission in which they knew they would financially be bleeding.

Interesting theory.  Never heard it before but it sounds plausible.



"You should be banned. Youre clearly flaming the president and even his brother who you know nothing about. Dont be such a partisan hack"

TheLegendaryWolf said:

If Nintendo were a company willing to lose millions yearly, they would be doing that tactic.

Nintendo has been on the forefront of hardware before, but now since western development is at the forefront of the industry, they much like Japanese development are catching up. Needs to diversify their audience with third party or else they will be in last place almost every generation. They can try to live off of generations old hardware forever, but third party are moving forward with their games, creating more possibilities in gameplay and Nintendo is causing their gamers to miss out because of it. They are a business so at some point they will want to profit. They dont even need the most powerful console, just as long as its powerful enough to last through the generation.

P.S.

If you have played Witcher 3 or Batman Arkham Knight, its quite easy to see why both games were cut off from last gen level tech. At this point there is no excuse.



IkePoR said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:


Sony wasnt humbled. They took the dive with the PS3 to save Blu Ray. It was a planned suicide mission in which they knew they would financially be bleeding.

Interesting theory.  Never heard it before but it sounds plausible.


Look it up for yourself. Blu Ray was going to get phased out by HD-DVD so Sony took the risk on the PS3 to put Blu Ray in it and keep it alive. They expected the PS3 to take massive losses. Kaz Hirai survived the plan, hence why he was promoted to president of Sony.



the reason is because the hardware since the wii, is weaker. In the gamecube era it got most 3rd party games that were released.



WEAK HARDWARE. It needs to have comparable power to the other 2.