pokoko said:
Let's stop with all the "third-party publishers are dumb and mean to Nintendo" nonsense and look at the real issues Nintendo has to confront.
1. Developing core games for the Wii U's first year didn't make a lot of sense to third-party developers to start with. They're trying to appeal to the PS3/360's massive installed base while it's still buying software. Creating a Wii U version would mean either unacceptable delays or late ports that don't sell. Those that did try it, like Ubisoft with AC3, saw horrible numbers that almost certainly damaged their commitment to support the Wii U--and I can't blame them. It's a business; if they don't make money then they have to start letting people go.
2. The trouble with the Wii was that it was too far below the lower boundaries of the content being developed for the PS3/360. This created a situation where, for the most part, you could either develop for the Wii OR you could develop for the PS3 AND the 360. Keeping in mind that everyone has limited resources, which situation sounds like the better investment for a core title? A core-centric fan-base that's two systems strong, or a fan-base that with a high casual content on a single system?
The good news is that the Wii U not getting current gen multi-platform games might not be important; as I've written above, there are understandable reasons for that. The bad news is that the Wii U might not get next gen multi-platform games, either, for the same reasons the Wii didn't. We don't know that, of course, but it's a possibility. Only time will tell if the Wii U's capabilities are too far below those of the PS4/720 for studios to run concurrent development.
3. Let's be real. Nintendo is more responsible for this situation than anyone else. I'm not even talking about their infamously draconian handling of third-parties in previous eras, either. That's in the past. What I'm talking about is the environment and vibe that Nintendo has created for their own home consoles.
System manufacturers don't just build a piece of hardware, throw it out into the wilds, then forget about it. No one does that. Instead, they support it with first-party software. However, in doing that, they're creating an image, an association for people to relate with. Now, no one is going to blame Nintendo for having an innocent, kid-centered image during the NES, or even SNES period. Gaming started to evolve after that, though, with new genres and new content directions popping up all over the place.
New genres and directions which Nintendo completely ignored.
This is where Nintendo lost me, personally. I wanted more dynamic storytelling, more tension, more drama, more complex characters, more variety, more conflict, and different game mechanics. Long story short, Nintendo let me go without a fight. Maybe they thought it was all a fad, that everyone would come running back to platformers, that adult gamers would always be a niche market. I really don't know, though I'd love to ask them about it.
Fast forward to the present, and what kind of vibe does each console manufacturer present? What does each of them do in terms of creating customer association? Microsoft has Halo, Gears, Fable, and Forza at the forefront. Pretty obvious who they want to appeal to, right? Sony has IPs all across the board, like Uncharted, Gran Turismo, Killzone, INfamous, God of War, Little Big Planet, and Ratchet and Clank.
And Nintendo? Do I even need to list them for anyone?
All I can figure is that they assumed third-parties would attract other types of gamers for them. Instead, publishers and developers migrated to where the new markets were being established, and honestly, I can't really blame them. We're talking about real businesses with real employees, not school-yard social groups. Phrases like "turned their backs on Nintendo" are ludicrous.
Ultimately, if Nintendo wants customers who prefer other genres and dynamics then they're going to have to do exactly what Microsoft and Sony have done, which is to create hardware and games that will attract those types of gamers. If they succeed, the third-party developers will follow. We know they have the resources, and that there are plenty of studios out there who would love to work under the protection of a powerful publisher. In all fairness, we can even say that Nintendo has made some nice inroads in that direction already. However, there is definitely more work to be done.
So, does anyone agree? Disagree? Believe that Nintendo should stay niche and keep their current content model? Does anyone have any real-world solutions that don't involve conspiracy theories or shifting all the responsibility to outside publishers and developers?
|
