| RolStoppable said:
Nintendo needs to make games that their audience wants to buy in order to sell consoles. If this goal doesn't mash with what third parties want to see, then tough luck for third parties. |
That's not what Nintendo said at the investor's briefing. They are targeting the core, and in so doing, they are aligning themselves at least in part with 3rd party goals. This is a non-issue.
|
If third parties want to make quality games for a Nintendo system, they are welcome to do so. Nintendo shouldn't pursue third parties at the expense of their consumers' entertainment. Now this may conflict with your view of "I want all the best third party games on my Nintendo system!", but I am afraid that Nintendo and third parties have different visions, so this is not possible. |
Who said it had to be at the expense of their consumers. Are you saying it isn't possible for Nintendo to cater to their secured demographic (families) and to the core at the same time? Tell me how that works, please.
|
Here are some points to consider: 1) Nintendo wants to offer something unique with their hardware. Third parties want all hardware to be the same to port everything everywhere without additional things to consider. |
Check -> WiiUPro Controller. Thankfully they figured that one out.
|
2) Nintendo maintains high quality standards, their games ship basically bugfree. Third parties have adopted an attitude of ship first, then patch later. |
Who cares? It's not Nintendo's issue what 3rd parties do if people are buying the stuff. The problem is when it alienates customers, that's the problem. So far, I don't see these attitudes deter customers from buying HD games.
|
3) Nintendo is of the opinion that games should ship in a complete state. Third parties want to nickel and dime gamers and sell less content for a higher price, plus DLC afterwards. |
Then let them choose so, how is that any of Nintendo's business? If customers don't want that, then they'll simply flock to Nintendo's offerings. The main thing is that people are buying Nintendo's platforms, nothing else. As for which games they buy, that's a whole separate, unrelated issue. Nintendo's aim should be to gather the greatest number of console owners as possible. The only moment this would be an issue is if Nintendo faced a shadow of itself, a shadow that, contrarily to them, actually succeeded in making quality a marketable alternative in the HD market. I'd be hard pressed but it's possible...
|
4) Nintendo knows how to make games with broad appeal, thus they dominate the sales charts on their systems. Third parties maintain the ill-belief that first party software takes away sales from third party software. |
The only argument you have.
|
5) Nintendo sees itself as a company that makes family entertainment (hence why it all started with the Family Computer), thus they are local multiplayer focused. Third parties want to sell to loners, because online multiplayer means that everyone needs to buy their own copy of the game. |
Check. They give 3rd parties the option, and follow their own path for their games, it's their business. It shouldn't reduce respect in any form so long as Nintendo stays with the times and doesn't make partners feel like Nintendo is stuck in a time-loop.
|
On all points, Nintendo's audience sides with the Nintendo way. It is why consumers appreciate gaming on Nintendo systems. |
But Nintendo is aiming another audience, and they're failing. This audience is important, as it acts as:
1) A backup market in case things go wrong.
2) A catalyst to progress (see Naughty Dog et al.)
3) A powerful entryplace for participating in cutting-edge activities, and being part of the movement of most respected developers.
These are all natural and fundamental yearnings for a serious gaming business.
|
If Nintendo doesn't give in to third parties, they won't get much third party support. If Nintendo does give in, they will not sell many consoles and games |
Wai???
|
Therefore either option will lead to poor third party support and another SNES (best first party and best third party on one and the same system) is a dream that cannot materialize unless third parties are willing to change their ways. |
Why a SNES, why not a PS2? Don't you know the PSX was the natural successor to the SNES. Nintendo got nailed on that. Why is PSX levels of success not in your realm of possibilities. It blows my mind at times how your frame of mind works.
| You will note that on the five points above Sony and Microsoft support the third party way of thinking. |
As they very well should. Good on them.
Even if Nintendo doesn't follow the ideas, they should be a part of it at least in terms of enabling 3rd parties in what they desire. This is a platform after all is it not??
