By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
thismeintiel on 27 December 2012
Edit Thread
outlawauron said:
the_dengle said:

It's not even a matter of whether or not they would do it. The fact is that a company like Nintendo can't possibly outbid a monstrously large company like Microsoft. It's just not real.

The evidence is plain to see. How did Nintendo get Viewtiful Joe? They didn't throw money at Capcom. They threw Zelda at Capcom -- and the result was Four Swords and The Minish Cap. How did Nintendo get Sonic in Smash Bros? They let Sega use Mario in Sonic & Mario at the Olympic Games.

How do you think Microsoft gets timed exclusive DLC content for CoD? What's stopping Sony and Nintendo from getting it just as early? The money. Sony can't compete with Microsoft's money, and Nintendo can't compete with either company's money. It would be pointless for them to try to "buy" exclusives with cold hard cash, because Sony and Microsoft could outbid them at every turn.

What about all of the great indie content the Wii U has been getting on the eShop? Surely Nintendo is paying those developers cash money to make their games... nope, as it turns out, Nintendo has just made a very indie developer-friendly online network.

Oh, I know, Nintendo threw money at Platinum to get Bayonetta 2 as an exclusive, right? Well, yes and no. Nintendo is paying for the game's development, so they get publishing credits; it's not some shady backroom deal meant to keep the game off Sony and Microsoft's consoles, but a completely transparent move to provide funding no one else was willing to provide to a smaller studio. It's the difference between bribing the publisher and being the publisher.

Develolper friendly networks tend to mean that there are cash or other incentives for developing on their network. Sony set up the Pub Fund to help pay for the budgets of indie provided it sells a certain amount.

Please do not act like Nintendo is some small and meager company. They have far more cash than Sony does and are worth far more. They may not do the raw revenue numbers that the others do, but they certainly make more off their games than the others. Another fault you have is not considering the inclusion of characters and IPs part of payment. I'd say the inclusion of Mario in Sega's Olmypic Games series is far more valuable than if Nintendo funded it's entire development and advertising budget. The game wouldn't have sold without it.

Paying for a game is not a shady backroom deal. It's a business move that all three major console developers take part to guarantee games. While Nintendo was behind the 8-ball with the Wii, they're certainly doing it now. They somehow got exclusive content for Ninja Gaiden that will not be released on PS3 and 360. Now that Nintendo is finally embracing online, you will see it more and more. It's not bribing either. 3rd party publishers seek out these deals because their budgets are so large, it helps them have some guarantees. That's why there's exclusive DLC per console, why you have exclusive pre-order bonuses, etc. It's not shady, it's now an open business practice and you're sticking your head in the sand if you believe Nintendo is somehow above it.

And I'm sure the second Sony or Capcom announce a Mh game for the Vita (or maybe PS4), he'll be the first to cry moneyhatting.  Every company does it.  Of course, no one did it on the level MS did earlier this gen.