HoloDust said:
Anyway, why do they have to use their own internal studio? Beacuse if they want to make something AAA like Skyrim or Witcher they would need to cough up a lot od cash for 3rd party exclusive, which I don't see them doing. That is if they can even find studio that can do it - making open-world WRPG that is suitable for mainstream is really not so easy task. There are smaller devs, like Pirahna Bytes, Obisidian or even Reality Pump who could be able to pull it off with proper funding, but I seriously doubt people currently in head of Nintendo would be willing to invest heavily in such 3rd party game - they just don't seem to me willing to take such a risks. |
It isn't really a risk. First of all I think you're also confusing "3rd party" for what is actually "2nd party". When a publisher pays a studio to develop something for them, that's a 2nd party game.
Instead of pumping money into Bayonetta 2, Wonderful 101 (which was NOT a cheap game to make per Platinum), and Devil's Third they could've instead financed a FPS shooter or Western adventure RPG, they just choose to continually greenlight a lot of very niche Japanese titles that don't even sell in Japan.
Their software output in the 90s was a lot more varied and mainstream (1080, Wave Race, Kobe Bryant NBA, GoldenEye, Star Wars ... these are games with mass appeal).
Like it pains me to say it somtimes because I like niche-y Japanese games sometimes, but does the Wii U really need a 2D Yoshi game after all the other 2D games it already has and given that the 3DS also already has a 2D Yoshi game?
They kinda got be smarter about what they're greenlighting. Yes, one "Witcher type" game would cost more than a Yoshi game, but when they're making like 4 or 5 games that have no shot at really selling big numbers, one wonders if it wouldn't have been a better idea to just make say 2 games with the same money but just focus on more of a mainstream appeal with them.
