F0X said:
RolStoppable said:
Mythmaker1 said:
The difference between the question in the thread title and the examples in the OP is that, unlike those examples, there's an actual basis for third-parties to avoid Nintendo.
They have a history (albeit one that, depending on your perspective, is in the past) of being a bad partner, their tendency to make radical changes to their hardware makes them an unreliable platform, and from a purely financial perspective their platforms offer less potential return for third-parties.
|
Two simple tasks for you:
1) The PS3 made programming hard and drove up development costs, its sales pace was far below expectations which in turn crippled third party software sales to the point that in the year after the PS3 launch almost every big third party publisher posted losses and had to close studios. During the same timeframe, the PS3 sold the lowest amount of third party software between itself, the 360 and the Wii. Explain how the PS3 could end up with the best third party support in the long run.
2) The 3DS had built over a ten million lead in installed base over the PSV in Japan and Monster Hunter was very successful on Nintendo's handheld. Explain why God Eater 2 skipped the 3DS.
|
1) Nintendo barely supported the Wii after 2010, and it seems to me as if third parties followed Nintendo's lead. In terms of PS3 vs. 360, Sony had a massive advantage in the Japanese market, which I believe helped the PS3 gain steam in 2008 and 2009. Valkyria Chronicles and Demon's Souls were successful internationally.
2) Not sure if moneyhatting or bad business decision.
|
1) Why would Third parties follow Nintendo's lead? Wouldn't less 1st party games make for a more appealing release window for 3rd parties?
