By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
teigaga on 29 August 2013
Edit Thread
the_dengle said:
teigaga said:


hhmm, Monster Hunter Tri Ultimate and Dragon Quest X? Beyonetta 2 and Sonic Lost Worlds. Mayb more to be announced, monster hunter 4 was revealed 9 months after the 3DS came out.
 
Anyway handhelds and Consoles are different environments, so whether or not they've actually engaged that practice on the Wii U isn't a huge consideration of mine. 

You need to learn the difference between a money hat and publishing a game. Calling Bayonetta 2 a money hat would be like calling Journey a money hat.

3 Ultimate was on Wii U because it was on 3DS. PS3 got Portable 3rd HD, it's not Nintendo's fault that Capcom didn't bring that to America. Maybe you should ask Sony why they didn't push for a localization for that.

DQX was on Wii U because it was on Wii. It was on Wii because the DQ series was very successful on the DS. I'm pretty sure Dragon Quest hasn't appeared on a Sony platform since the PS2. At this point, I doubt Nintendo has to write Square Enix a check to keep DQ, any more than Sony has to write Atlus a check to keep Persona on PlayStation. That's where the fanbase is now.

It's possible that Nintendo has been buying expensive gifts for third parties to stay in their favor, or it would be if Nintendo were actually in their favor. If you want to know how Nintendo does business, just take a peek into their past. Nintendo has made collaborations before, and they don't involve paying another company's bills.

In the early-mid 2000s, they had pretty decent support from Capcom on GameCube, including RE4 and Viewtiful Joe. Did they cut Capcom a check? Doubtful; rather, they cut Capcom a Link. At that same time, Nintendo OK'd Capcom to make several Legend of Zelda games: two for GameBoy Color, two for GameBoy Advance. To this day, Capcom is the only third party who has received Nintendo's permission to make an original Zelda game... not counting Philips.

How about all these exclusive Sega games Nintendo keeps getting? They got Sonic in Brawl, they got Sonic Colors, now they get Lost World... has Sega found a sugar daddy? I don't think so. Nintendo isn't throwing green bills at Sega, they're throwing gold coins at them. Sega makes exclusive games for Nintendo; in return, they get to make the Mario & Sonic at the Olympics series, one of their best-selling franchises ever. They get to use Mario.

This is how Nintendo does things. They can't compete with Microsoft in the cold hard cash department; they probably can't even compete with Sony there. But they can wipe the floor with both companies in the intellectual property department, and they use that to their advantage. We haven't yet seen how Capcom benefits from MH exclusivity on 3DS (except for the game selling very well, if you consider that a benefit), but Iwata just mentioned another collaboration with Capcom to be revealed soon. I foresee a Nintendo game with Capcom's logo on it in the near future.

On the wii u side of things I wasn't so much refering to "money hating" more so coercing 3rd pary support, that includes publishing. Also I'm not out to prove anything  there as I said before.

Companies don't just come out and say, yeah we've paid to have this game exclusive so its simply a case of what you believe. Partneships are made all the time, the extent of whats being exchanged is not always visible to us. Whats clear is that capcom made strong a commitment to deliver exclusive content on the 3DS, even when it was selling poorly and the successor to the system their franchise had been home to was about to be released, so naturally it seems likely a partneship was drawn between them and Nintendo.

To me anyway, money hating is no different from offering up any other service. The end result is the same, you're colluding to have something exclusive to you're platform which is what I believed happened.