I take that as they'll provide some support initially but may end up fizziling out like Wii U support did.
Your interpretation: | |||
Strong NDA | 29 | 13.74% | |
Unprecedent tired joke | 59 | 27.96% | |
It's a big no | 102 | 48.34% | |
Other... | 21 | 9.95% | |
Total: | 211 |
I take that as they'll provide some support initially but may end up fizziling out like Wii U support did.
Nautilus said: Yeah, this reads like "If it gets good initial sales and looks like its going to be succesful, then we join in".As people said, at least is more honest than they were with the Wii U and their unprecedented partnership. If they trully dont support Nintendo in the first year with their games(Sport games in general, Battlefield, and so on), Nintendo needs to find alternatives.Even though I dont like them, Nintendo could go to Konami to try bringing PES to fill the Fifa void.I mean, it should be easy, Nintendo could enter with some money for development, and since all Konami cares is maximizing profit, I see them accepting.For other sport games, they could talk with 4K.If Im not mistaken, they also develop sport games right?EA not supporting at the start is not all terrible. |
Well PES is actually a better soccer game than FIFA and 2KSports (lol) make much better sports games.
They could make their own baseball game (Ken Griffey still n64 one of the best out there) as they still own the mariners so i'm sure they could get license for it.
So some people assuming (OP even crossed EA, lol) because this statement EA will not support NX, even NX is still under very strong NDA and basically we still know nothing about NX or support that will have!?
Cobretti2 said:
Well PES is actually a better soccer game than FIFA and 2KSports (lol) make much better sports games. They could make their own baseball game (Ken Griffey still n64 one of the best out there) as they still own the mariners so i'm sure they could get license for it. |
FIFA and NFL are unfortunately the big gun licenses for game console properties. Football is huge in America, and soccer obviously everywhere else in the world, but particularily in Europe.
EA has exclusive rights to both. PES does OK, but its sales are a fraction of FIFA without the official FIFA license. Nintendo would be better off quite frankly just striking a deal with EA.
Soundwave said:
FIFA and NFL are unfortunately the big gun licenses for game console properties. Football is huge in America, and soccer obviously everywhere else in the world, but particularily in Europe. EA has exclusive rights to both. PES does OK, but its sales are a fraction of FIFA without the official FIFA license. Nintendo would be better off quite frankly just striking a deal with EA. |
I meant the PES as a last resource thing, in case EA dont want to board in any case.It would be better to have alternatives to american footbal and football than having none at all.
My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.
https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1
Soundwave said:
FIFA and NFL are unfortunately the big gun licenses for game console properties. Football is huge in America, and soccer obviously everywhere else in the world, but particularily in Europe. EA has exclusive rights to both. PES does OK, but its sales are a fraction of FIFA without the official FIFA license. Nintendo would be better off quite frankly just striking a deal with EA. |
Atually i forgot totally about Madden. you are right in that regard.
I wa smore thinkign about NBA games, 2ksports have better ones and alway an MJ versio to move more lol.
Soundwave said: Demographics likely play a major part too. Lets be honest, Nintendo doesn't really appeal to the "jock audience". Generally speaking most third party major titles are either A) Violent action games or B) sports/driving simulator. Oh and then you have wacky Japanese action game with girl with giant tits that will have to be censored in the US market causing the 250 people who were planning to buy it to rage out. *Maybe* as such Nintendo should perhaps offer to pay for the porting costs of EA titles for the first year or two. Even though EA is far from perfect being completely shut out of the NFL, FIFA, and Star Wars licenses are fairly damaging and plus it will likely cause other big Western developers to back off from providing major support as well. Though Nintendo won't do it, and the results will be somewhat predictable. They better have an amaze-balls gimmick for the NX and it better be something Sony/MS cannot copy easily, because I gauruntee one of the things MS/Sony would do over about that last gen would be to copy the Wiimote much earlier. |
Demographics plays a major role. You can have a 200M userbase not willing to buy the type of games EA develops and still support will not make sense. I talked years ago about this. If they want the Battlefield/FIFA/Mass Effect base, Nintendo needs to release games that could appeal to the same userbase. Not copies, just games with a similar core.
bigtakilla said:
You forgot Nintendo fans end gen: "Where the fuc* are my Nintendo games?" I never really went through the second phase. I just wanted a Metroid.... |
Hahahaha so true that it hurts...
Proud to be the first cool Nintendo fan ever
Number ONE Zelda fan in the Universe
Prediction: No Zelda HD for Wii U, quietly moved to the succesor
Predictions for Nintendo NX and Mobile
RolStoppable said:
Why should Nintendo weaken their own ecosystem by putting their premium content on somebody else's console? Your entire argument is incredibly stupid. Even if 80% of Nintendo system owners will have chosen a handheld, it's still better to sell 10m copies of a game on a handheld than on somebody else's console. Not only is Nintendo guaranteed to keep all of the revenue to themselves, but their own hardware will sell better because there are more reasons to own it; that in turn is going to increase overall software sales. The reason why Nintendo implemented a licensing model is because the video game market crashed in the USA, and because if third parties wanted to make money from Nintendo's customers, it would only be fair that they pay for it. But the Famicom didn't have third party support right out of the gate; that rules out that Nintendo got into the console business to collect royalty fees. The reason why third parties choose to remain third parties is that paying a royalty fee is a lot less costly and risky than creating their own system.
Still only a small fraction of Nintendo's profits throughout the years. The other problem is that more third party support would come at a significant cost. Hardware needs to be sold at a loss to satisfy the needs for processing power while staying competitive with similar options in the marketplace. The investment would be greater than the return. Lastly, if royalty fees were as big of a money maker as some want to believe, then online multiplayer wouldn't be behind a paywall on both PS and Xbox. |
I never said Nintendo would stop making handheld games. It's just if their console is going to sell like complete shit anyway, much like are doing with smartphone games (to "bring" more people to the Nintendo brand), then having some Nintendo IP on say the Playstation could also introduce people to Nintendo IP and they then may buy the NX portable.
No one is selling hardware at huge losses these days, there's no need to unless you make a bunch of stupid design decisions like Nintendo did with the Wii U. The PS4 and XB1 are sold at a profit/cost. I remember even Iwata saying chipsets are not really a big issue for losses because they scale down in cost very quickly these days.
mountaindewslave said:
You're over complicating this: its simple, Nintendo has a far stronger first party lineup than Sony or Microsoft. Sony fans for example tend to be loyally hardcore more for the companies hardware than software. I'm not even going to explain the gigantic missing front for Microsoft's first party games..... then you have Nintendo, with their Mario Kart, Smash, Zelda, Pokemon, etc.- the point is that that Nintendo, of the hardware manufacturers, by far has the most known and consumer powerful software Of course its going to be more attractive for an EA or Activision to bring their titles to platforms in which their games are the stars, front and center. Since Nintendo releases so many of its own popular million selling exclusives, they slightly turn off third parties, because the software sales pool is already in a way taken What comparable IPs are Sony or Micro releasing that distract system owners at the level that Mario Kart or Pokemon do Nintendo owners? Answer: almost none Nintendo's software success in itself is what has damaged their ties with third parties.. their own IPs sell too well for an EA to feel comfortable investing a lot in releases (that and arguably demographic issues) |
That's not what he's saying. Most of the developers in the 80's were shut down due to Nintendo and their terrible attitude to third-parties where they restricted third-party game cartriges to fuel their own growth. Dirty business, but they were a juggernaut so they went unchallenged. Not only that but Nintendo completely disregarded them and their needs and only cared about their own devs which they still do to this day. I read it once in article a couple of years ago.
When Sega came in they didn't have such policies and no censorship on Sega's console so developers went and supported them. When PlayStation came devs got an oppurtunity for growth due to the fantastic business environment Sony had and they took many decisions that made PlayStation better for game development.
What you're saying doesn't matter, if Nintendo gamers had interest in these games they would have bought them. PS4 nad XB1 get incredible amount of games every year but many of them sell well. Wii U gets a few games each yaer and still the third-party games despite little competition didn't sell. Pokemon isn't even big on consoles, Nintendo has some big IP's on consoles but not much more than Sony and Microsoft.