sc94597 said:
1. Lesser brand identity. A lot of would-be niche Nintendo games sell well because they are first-party games, and almost guaranteed quality. This wouldn't be a cost if Nintendo could guarantee quality of these games, but there are other things to consider that might affect the quality/quantity of their games, which I will further delineate. 2. Higher development costs. Nintendo games will compete even more with other third-parties. That means the budgets of said games will have to match their own budgets. Furthermore, Nintendo games would have to take advantage of the hardware in which they are building them for, in other words, the already struggling Nintendo with just Wii U level hardware would have to struggle much greater on PS4/Xbone level hardware. The main reason why Nintendo makes weak platforms isn't the cost of hardware (otherwise they wouldn't make the gamepad) it is the cost of software. They realize that more powerful harware => high software costs if you want to compete with AAA game developers. As it is now, Nintendo games are always noted with, "it looks good - for the wii/wii u." 3. Not having games tailored to specifically designed hardware. Often (if not always) Nintendo designs their hardware in order to affect their software development. This has been true since the NES. Nintendo as a company would have to functionally rework how they make their games. A clear example of this is point #2, but another example would be control schemes and mechanisms. Such a transition would induce costs, as Nintendo games are usually good because they interact with unique hardware so well. If NIntendo has very little input in the hardware of the platforms it releases they need to do more to fit the standards of said platform manufacturers. Those are just a few I've thought of on the top of my head. I'm sure if we knew more about the inner-workings of Nintendo we can come up with dozens. The assumption made is that there won't be road-blocks in the transition from first-party publisher to third party publisher, and the argument I'm making is that said assumption can't be made realistically. If said assumption can't be made realistically, then there are implicit costs involved. |
1. Mario is probably the biggest gaming franchise in the world, in terms of recognizability and brand identity. I don't see any good reason as to why Niintendo would lose much, if any, of their brand power by going third party. Why would the quality of Nintendo's games decrease by releasing on other platforms? Sure, the quantity might take a hit in the transitioning phase when they're getting used to it, but once they've gotten used to multiplat developping it should be back to normal.
2. This would only be an issue if Nintendo made it into one. Nintendo could keep one making games with decent graphics and a 60 fps stable framerate, just add Anti-Aliasing and a higher res. Most people wouldn't care, because let's be honest, the art style Nintendo uses the most (call it cartoonish or pixarish or Nintditic, whatever) doesn't require that much graphical oopmh to look good.
3. Heh, I've played a fair bit on my friedns Wii U, and there are very few games there that are tailored to specifically designed hardware (I assume you mean special features, like in this case, the gamepad). Most of the games Nintendo make aren't tailored specifically around those hardare features, more often then not, the hardware features come in as after thoughts in already fully working good games. Nintendo already fit in the standards of the other platform manufacturers.
