| RolStoppable said: Because third parties are biased against Nintendo. When you look through the generations and see that Nintendo can never please third parties no matter what they do while Sony and Microsoft can mess up all they want and still get the games, then it's time to accept that there's a double standard at work. It's the price that Nintendo is paying for altering the course of history, effectively making consoles here to stay with a royalty model while the various home computers bit the dust. Of course this altered history only concerns North America and Europe, but not Japan. So the third party support for Switch from Japan has improved because of hardware sales. If somebody thinks this is a conspiracy theory, they should read up on the history of Electronic Arts and the Sega Genesis. EA didn't like that Nintendo changed the gaming market into something very different than EA had envisioned, but that didn't mean that they would reject consoles altogether. Trip Hawkins saw Sega and its Genesis as an opportunity to beat Nintendo, essentially "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." - That's something that persists to this day, because Nintendo doesn't fall in line with the vision of those AAA third party publishers who want everything to be games as a service, filled with microtransactions and other shenanigans. Switch in general represents the opposite of the ideals of AAA publishers, so supporting it would mean to stifle their vision of what gaming should turn into. The only big Western publisher who is bringing a good number of its games to Switch is Bethesda who just so happens to be the one publisher who didn't forecast the death of single-player games. |
All you mean Nintendo's policy of price-gouging third parties and limiting the number of titles they could release on NES/SNES per year while not limiting the number of titles they published themselves? Or maybe it was when they started to censor what kind of content third party developers could publish on their platform to a point where Mortal Kombat games couldn't even feature blood? Those kinds of things Nintendo thought they could get away with when they were the only real option. Is that the kind of "bias against Nintendo" you're referring to? And it's not like it got any better from there. Just look into Nintendo's history with Argonaut games.
Third parties never liked working with Nintendo, they've always been by far the most difficult to work, the most anal about shit that really doesn't matter. Getting a game certified by Nintendo was like pulling teeth. Third parties worked with Nintendo for the NES because they had little other choice. it was the only real viable platform at the time. But when other first parties like Sega, Sony and Microsoft gave third parties viable options to work with, third parties didn't have to put up with Nintendo's shit anymore, so they didn't. It's taken over 20 years, but Nintendo's finally started to lighten up and be more willing to work with third parties, but you know, it's a bit late.
TL;DR Nintendo were giant dicks and no one wanted to work with them, not the other way around.
