| RolStoppable said: Think about Nintendo's release schedule in this past year once more. First off, the "etc." is basically just Flingsmash and Super Mario All-stars and nothing else. Secondly, in the eight months of 2011 it was basically just Wii Play Motion that they released on a worldwide basis. Don't pretend that Nintendo supported the Wii full force when they absolutely didn't. What the PS3 and 360 were competing against in 2011 was a console that sold almost entirely based on games released before this year started. It would have looked favorable for them with or without Move and Kinect. Nintendo never abandoned more complex games, so this isn't even a point of discussion. If third parties refuse to put such games on their system (and they do), then the only thing Nintendo really could do would be to fund all these games entirely. And this is part of why Nintendo's disruption remained incomplete. In order to move upmarket they planned to rely on third parties. Their thought process was that if they sold enough Wiis, then third parties would make the games eventually. But this never happened, so Nintendo was stuck at a certain level. A game like Catherine isn't on the Wii, because third parties don't want them to be on the Wii. All the Wii gets are scraps. Not because the hardware isn't capable of handling more complex games, but entirely due to the refusal of third parties to work with the hardware. If you want to argue that the Wii made it hard to make quality games, then you basically MUST hold the opinion that the PS2 has barely any quality games. Either that or you concede that the will of third parties played a much bigger part than you were willing to admit. |
That's funny because since I started here, I was always asking where the wii games were. IIRC Nintendo got one good mario game a year, and little else. If I were to agree with you on any level of your statement, it would be that Nintendo dropped because no quality mario game releases.
Nintendo NEVER supported the wii full force because doing that goes against maximum earnings. You don't release a 20m selling game every year. You sell it every three years, otherwise, you're both liable to sell less, and you have to pay more to develop. I think the 2011 was very much similar to the lineup every previous year. There was just no mario.
At this point, let's just agree to disagree. I see a 25% drop in sales, and 8% loss in market share starting from the time competition entered the same market. You see it differently, and I think that difference is minimal. No amount of argument is going to change this.
And I said nothing of the sort that the wii limits the developers ability. I said Nintendo limits their ability by making it risky to make games on the platform. They have BAD third party policy. They didn't inform anyone of the wii until soon before the launch, and they had their own strategy and played their cards in their own hands. They were never in the market for cooperation. Now, it's starting to look differently with this 3ds analog scenario.
They don't give devs the control they need, they don't help games that would help the system (like both other companies do), they are very restrictive about third party releases, manufacturing and price control. It's no wonder that devs praise MS and Sony for being open. Of course, Nintendo was powerful enough to demand those terms, whereas sony and MS couldn't. Had the situations been reversed, well, who knows.
