RolStoppable said:
archbrix said:
| RolStoppable said
1) This still doesn't explain why good third party support was once again relegated to the status of almost irrelevance only one generation later. Maybe, just maybe, it's because Nintendo never had to rely on third party support to make their systems a success and the only reason why the N64 and GC needed that third party support is because Nintendo royally screwed up their first party games. Especially on the Gamecube, a console that sold worse than its predecessor despite better third party support.
|
I believe that the Gamecube did particularly badly due to many factors against it. The main one being the fact that it didn't have a single, solitary thing that set it apart from the competiton. The N64 had a new kind of controller with the analogue stick and boasted more power than the competition. Heck, even the cartridge format at least set it apart (for better or worse). The Wii needs no explanation. But the GC fell in line with the competition too much, was hindered by 1st party games that weren't going to move consoles, and was timed horribly, especially when you consider that the PS2 already had such a lead in sales, hype and market perception. This is the reason why GC having the most cross-platform 3rd party support of Nintendo's last three consoles did nothing for it.
You bring up the Wii as an example of why 3rd party support is relegated to irrelevance, but you're not considering how well the HD twins have done for themselves. Where the Wii has done stellarly due to Nintendo's 1st party games and differentiation, the HD twins have achieved such successful sales due to 3rd party games. Therefore we cannot dismiss the importance of these titles; not when you have monsters and system movers out there like COD and GTA. Nintendo knows this, too. As long as Nintendo systems are perceived as consoles that lack the majority of what's on the market, they'll never achieve sales even close to what the PS2 enjoyed (i.e. being a "buy one console, play everything" machine).
I fully agree that it was Nintendo's 1st party games that propelled the NES to greatness, but you can't deny the importance of games like Metal Gear, Contra, Final Fantasy, etc. which were integral in keeping all eyes on the NES and away from the competition; everything was on the NES except for Sega's first party games. Today, no big 3rd party game is system exclusive anymore, so Nintendo's best move is to obtain these titles without abandoning their own talent of differentiating themselves. Third parties do not have to worry about competing with Nintendo's games on WiiU, simply because it is incredibly easy and relatively cheap to port their games to.
Nintendo will not keep hardcore Sony or Microsoft fans from buying their respective consoles... they don't need to. They only need to attract those majority buyers that are not loyal to any one company, but are instead driven by market trends. An affordable console launching first with both Nintendo's games and the popular 3rd party games (with a "new control interface" kicker) could potentially give Nintendo an insurmountable lead.
|
That's all fine and good, but you don't have to explain that to me. This point was part of a bigger argument:
happydolphin said:
1) If you deny the fact that the N64 released at a time where 3rd parties were yearning for another manufacturer to make consoles, and were sick and tired of Nintendo's 3rd party policies.
(...)
Then yes, probably you would argue that the N64/GC failure is rooted in the HW Interface and SW offerings.
|
And you basically agree with me. This thing just has gotten so big that some things were lost along the way. I wasn't arguing that third party games don't matter at all, just that they are not vital to Nintendo's success, hence why Nintendo themselves have to take the most blame for the N64 and GC failures.
|
Rol, yes promise we agree alot, but like arch said, it's not that 3rd parties don't matter and that Nintendo can fend for themselves. Way the opposite, 3rd parties are vital for this one thing: " you can't deny the importance of games like Metal Gear, Contra, Final Fantasy, etc. which were integral in keeping all eyes on the NES and away from the competition; everything was on the NES except for Sega's first party games."
Of course Nintendo can fend for itself just with 1st party offerings. Of course! But the danger is always present "How long will Mario sell? How long will Brain Age sell?"
When you have all your company files on a file repository, you NEED a backup just in case things go wrong. Nintendo's DR system is its relationship with 3rd parties. Its heart is its 1st party, its backup is its 3rd party relations. They need, vitally need to get that resolved. Where N64 failed, of course along with what you said granted a Blue Ocean strategy at the time of the N64 would have worked given all the other variables were in place (disks, good 3rd party relations, etc.). But to discount those variables and simply state that a blue ocean strategy would have been the be all end all is really really limited. Educated YES! I admire your getting into your books, I really do.
But ultimately, you really can't deny the importance of Nintendo's business mistakes at the beginning of gen 4, to the dismay of many a fan (myself included).
Listen, Arch's opinion is very similar to mine, he just has a much better memory of the events in gens 4 & 5 (I've watched him post). Though the arg is with me, you need to be able to address arch if you want to convince me too.
