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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Why can't 3rd parties compete against Nintendo?

fkusumot on 13 January 2009

Why can't 3rd parties compete on the Wii?

Is it because it is impossible for them to compete against Nintendo?

It's as if Nintendo has some magical powers that prevent other games from selling.

Why doesn't Sony have this power? Before this generation many analysts assumed the PS3 would win this war because the Playstation brand was so strong. In comparison the GC sold just over 20 million and Nintendo could hardly be considered a juggernaut. Now Sony is producing more games per year and spending more money in making those games. And yet no one seems to suggest Sony's games are a problem for third parties. I haven't seen anyone suggest that Microsoft's games are a problem for 3rd parties either.

Why is this a problem that's unique to Nintendo?

What's so special about Nintendo that no other game maker has?

If I were to put a game on the PS3/360, I'd be competing against Call of Duty, Metal Gear Solid, Gears of War, Halo, Bioshock, Mass Effect, Grand Theft Auto 4, and many others. Companies seem to be willing to compete against the best that Konami, Epic, Bioware, Bethesda, Rockstar, Sony, Microsoft, Activision, and Ubisoft have to offer and to compete against all of them simultaneously. Why is it possible to penetrate this market but apparently impossible to break into the Wii market?



I Blame Wii Fit!

Around the Network
JHawkNH on 13 January 2009

Third parties can compete with Nintendo. They just believe that they can't, so they don't even try.



Valkyria00 on 13 January 2009

Because Nintendo is the shit!



t3mporary_126 on 13 January 2009

To me, it seems that by breaking down the wall for letting everyone to play games, Nintendo has put up a wall that confuses the 3rd party on the subject of who wants to play what games for the Wii.

 

... but even this statement is not that true, since games like carnival games, the EA sports and mysims, and the Ubisoft Raving Rabbids(?) seem to be selling, and 2009 has better 3rd party game line-up than 2008, quality wise imo.

 

In conclusion, I have no f*ing clue, either.

 

Edit: Crap, when I reread this post, it doesn't seem to be on topic with the OP, especially the last part. I guess I should say I have no f*ing clue why someone made up that statement up in the first place.



SmokedHostage on 13 January 2009

It's probably because in the N64/GC days, most of the quality games were published by Nintendo and it has been a stigma with several fans that are somewhat wary about buying third party games.



Pixel Art can be fun.

Around the Network
Aiemond on 13 January 2009

They can compete, they just have to make a good wii exclusive. The half assed ports or super niche games they try to use as "measuring sticks" is just bullshit.



Now Playing: The Witcher (PC)

Consoles Owned: NES, SNES, N64, PS1, PS2, Wii, Xbox 360, Game Boy, DS

TWRoO on 13 January 2009
Bodhesatva said:

Publishers in general need -- absolutely need -- to put things in to terms of demographic target audiences.

Things like Wii Sports or Mario Kart absolutely throw them for loops: that is, games that appeal to young and old, male and female. It's like the concept simply doesn't compute. They don't know where to start when they don't have a target demographic.

Just look at the difference between Catz and Dogz and Nintendo's own Nintendogs. I'm serious. The cover of Nintendogs is neutral: it has neutral colors like Red or Green and simply pictures of puppies. As a retail employee, I can tell you that this game likely split 70/30 girls/boys. Taking care of puppies does tend to be a girly thing, but honestly, everyone likes dogs. It was common to sell this game to boys, too.

Now, Catz and Dogz. The covers to these games are lined in pink, and in many of the Petz titles, there are stars and other "cute" stuff on the cover. This is the equivalent of writing the name "Doom" in blood, to let people know: "This is written in blood! It's violent and for boys!" The result? Every single copy of Petz games I ever sold was to girls. Every one. And the other result: I sold about 1/5th as many Petz games as I did Nintendogs.

Not every game has to be literally absolutely neutral when it comes to gender preferences: that's not what I'm arguing. What I'm arguing instead is that most publishers go way off in the other extreme: publishers pick a demographic, and hammer that demo as hard as they possibly can. Even if this scares off all the other demographics (a la pink stars for Dog training games, or Doom in blood a la FPS). This "Wii is for everyone" stuff is just absolutely throwing people for loops. It's for grandpas! No, it's for soccer moms! No, it's for non gamers! Wait, no, it's really for girls, who may also be non gamers!

Stop! Just stop. The correct answer is: it's for everyone. That's what Wii Sports has shown us. That's what Mario Kart has wrought. I understand why third parties are struggling so mightiliy though: it doesn't just require third parties to make different games, it requires them to approach game design differently in a much broader sense.

I think the Bodherator said it best.

 



frictionini on 13 January 2009

because third parties won't bother themselves trying to create games that people say will sell on the wii...



 

arsenal009 on 13 January 2009

Well if other publishers actually put their top franchises on the Wii they would be able to compete against nintendo. Just look at Sonic, Guitar Hero, Rock Band, Resident Evil, Star Wars on the Wii. If GTA & MGS were on the Wii they would be mln sellers as well.



dude17761991hatp on 13 January 2009

I don't know where that Bodhesatva post was from, but Amen.



My Games of 2011:

The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword

Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

Super Mario 3D Land

Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception