binary solo said:
Is this a good tactic by Nintendo? There is a reason projects head towards cancellation, and that's because there are major problems with the project. It would be rare, I think, for a game that looks for all money like it will be a major hit to head towards cancellation and oblivion for lack of investor interest. So if Nintendo is spending cash on projects that might only amount to mediocre 3rd party games to pad out the Wii U exclusive library it may end up being bad for Nintendo, in a financial sense. Not all of these almost cancelled projects are going to be underappreciated gems like Bayonetta. And of course Bayonetta was an existing IP and therefore a known quantity and thus a more predictable risk. If Nintendo can buy itself some quality 3rd party exclusive titles from the discard pile of 3rd party publishers then that will be great. But it is a risky approach. |
It's that word, right there. The Wii U is a purely exclusive and indie driven machine. With that in mind, the more good exclussives they have the better. Might as well go all in if they have to do all the heavy lifting. IMO, if the game choices are at least good (not great, but good) and different from their currently active IP, then it is a very good strategy IF (MAJOR IF) it is paired with good marketing. It's the latter that Nintendo can't seem to understand: yes, they are doing a smart thing but if they don't market the diversity and quality of their exclusives it's for nothing. I think Nintendo would do well to - where at all possible - buy a controlling interest in the franchises, not just individual entries. Devil's Third, Bayonetta, and whatever else they revive would serve them well as premanent exclussives. If you just have one entry exclusive, many fans will wait it out and grab the next entry (if there is one) when it releases elsewhere. If you own the franchise and express interest in pushing it forward, you can earn the loyalty of the fandom more easily.
Essay Pro