Why Nintendo shouldn't suck up to third parties

[grapenose]

RolStoppable said:

Everyone who isn't in strong denial knows that the Wii U is a piece of trash. Just like there are various explanations for Nintendo's struggles, there are also various suggestions for what Nintendo's way forward should be, if they ever want to be successful again. One of those suggestions is that Nintendo has to suck up to third parties and make a console that is everything that third parties demand. This advice is voiced by Nintendo fans and detractors alike; while the motivations of these groupgs are fundamentally different, they are equally wrong. And here's why:

1. Third parties are biased against Nintendo

There's the belief that third parties would include every platform on Earth into the mix as long as the platform in question offers their demanded specifications. A prerequisite for this belief is the assumption that no third party would pull the line "We do not believe that there is an audience for our games." and forego giving support to Nintendo. This is an unsolvable problem for Nintendo, because the only realistic solutions would be to either pay off third parties for ports (thus ruining profitability) or build an audience for such games themselves which would lead into another commonly used excuse ("Only Nintendo games sell on Nintendo systems."), because consumers' expectations for quality and polish would be raised to levels that third parties are unable/unwilling to match.

2. People buy Nintendo systems in order to play the best games

There's no sales data (neither current or historic) that suggests that multiplatform games are in high demand on Nintendo platforms. Any list of best-selling games will have first party software at the top, followed by exclusive third party games, followed by multiplats. Therefore it's preposterous to suggest that Nintendo should build their console around the games with the least demand; the result would be an expensive system that compromises the values that consumers are looking for.

3. Xbox One

Since the preceding reasons still allow some wiggle room for the people who say that sucking up to third parties is the way to go, let's raise the stakes. Microsoft is an excellent practical example for how futile the pursuit of multiplatform games is. Keep in mind that consumers do buy Xboxes for multiplatform games, unlike Nintendo consoles.

With the Xbox One we have a system that gets all of the multiplatform support and yet it's still tanking hard. Who believes that the Xbox One could have beat the PS4 on a global level, if it launched at the same price, had no Kinect, was equally powerful and had none of the DRM nightmare before its launch? Continental Europe and Japan would have still picked the PS4 in much higher numbers than Microsoft's box. After all, the Xbox 360 failed to make significant inroads in the seventh generation despite having all the multiplatform games (and usually slightly better) and a clear price advantage. Therefore it's not outrageous to say that even a 100 Euro price advantage wouldn't threaten PlayStation. It's clearly an uphill battle for Microsoft and about the only reason why the 360 was competitive at all was the tremendous blunder that Sony committed with the PS3.

With this in mind, let's look at Nintendo again. Whereas Microsoft has only to deal with Sony, Nintendo has to deal with Microsoft and Sony when it comes to the battle of being the multiplatform console of choice. Let's say Sony and Microsoft put out $400 systems, that would basically mean that Nintendo has to sell an equally powerful machine at $200 in order to have a slight chance to succeed in selling their console. That, of course, is financial suicide. Alternatively, Nintendo could hope that both, Sony and Microsoft, launch PS3-like disasters. But any strategy that requires your opponents to commit huge mistakes isn't a good one. Now let's see who harps in on the first two points and ignores the third.