DanneSandin said:
RolStoppable said:
DanneSandin said:
I see 2 flaws with your first paragraph:
1) Some games actually needs a good online infrastructure to sell, like CoD and other popular multiplayer games, so by not having a good online capability Wii lost out on quite a few games and wasn't capable of building an online-following of sorts (like PS360 managed to do). Therefore; better online support=more games. Now, this probably wouldn't have made a whole lot of difference since Wii was so severely handicapped by its specs this might not have mattered too much... But still, it's a valid argument.
2) Nintendo tends to make the same kind of games, they tend to target the same kind of people. I like Nintendo's games, mind you, so it's not criticism as such. BUT, expanding and making more games doesn't necessarily equal more consoles sold since the games might cater to the same core audience. Why do you think PS360 ( and even more so PS1 and PS2) were so successful? They catered to a wide range of gamers, and that is something Nintendo's 1st party probably won't be able to replicate on a larger scale.
By and large, I agree with your second paragraph, and would like to add that Pachter is unnecessary anti-Nintendo many times, but he's not always wrong about their business practices.
|
1) I don't think you believe that third party games would sell more Nintendo systems than Nintendo games do. More first party games would be better than more third party games.
2) Even with their limited capacity, Nintendo managed to sell 100 million Wiis. That's either proof that Nintendo's first party software is varied or, if Nintendo's games are not varied, that the demographics Nintendo reaches are very large. The PS3 and 360 both concentrated on a limited scope of genres, so this proves that commitment sustains sales. People who own the systems keep playing while more people get interested over time. Consider that even Halo 4 could move hardware. I fail to see how more Nintendo games would not lead to higher hardware sales as well as more satisfied long time owners.
|
1) I believe that if all consoles (Nintendo, Sony, MS) would start from scratch with the same specs and online features and they all got the same 3rd party support I believe Nintendo would sell the most because they have the best 1st party games, but 3rd party games would be a great complement and would help push Nintendo's console above and beyond that of Sony and MS. So 3rd party games is nothing sneeze at. It's quintessential. Wii is THE only console to ever win a generation without the best 3rd party line up, and that's a fact (excluding 1st and 2nd gen). I don't think a Nintendo only console would do too well if it didn't have something new like Wii had; without 3rd party support Nintendo is doomed to repeat N64 and GC.
2) More Nintendo games would indeed lead to more HW sales, I'm not arguing that. The question is, HOW much more would more N-games be able to push? Nintendo struck gold with Wii, and it's all thanks due to the Wiimote. It's not thanks to Mario, Zelda, Metroid or Pikmin. Wii's success is spelled motion control, so unless Nintendo can keep innovating the very way we play games and manage to "lure in" none-gamers they'll need 3rd party games. People who like CoD, Halo, God of War, Uncharted, Gran Turismo and other franchises would never considering buying a Nintendo exclusive console because they wouldn't have any games to play.
|
I would just like to add, that Nintendo has expanded eir 1st Party titles, with 10 to 15 new 1st Party IPs on the 3Ds exclusively and 5 to 10 New 1st Party IPs coming to the Wii U.
I can name some:
Savvy Style
Steel Diver
Dillon's Rolling Western (with its sequel already out too)
Pushmo (with its seuel already out too)
Kersploosh!
Ketzal's Corridors
Spirit Camera: the Cursed Memiors
Sakura Samurai: Art of the Sword
Yarn Yoshi
Fire Emblem X Shin Megami Tensei
Kid Icarus Uprising
Pilotwings resort
The Wonderful 101
Luigi's Mansion Dark Moon
Game & Wario
Nintendo Land
