| RolStoppable said: Pikmin does not well enough to justify internal development and that's not going to change if you keep saying that it does. Nintendo has outsourced IPs that have sold much better than Pikmin, like Luigi's Mansion where the second and third game have been developed by Next Level Games. ARMS and Labo have not sold well enough to justify in-house development either, and that's where Furukawa has to prove his worth and veto it if either team believes that they should be able to make more of that IP. This is a business and not some amusement park where people get to do whatever they want. It's not like the alternatives are oppressive. "Don't get to make ARMS 2? Well, you can take a shot at an established blockbuster IP or be creative with a new IP, because you have the trust that you can do either one." |
Except it does. Pikmin regularly does 1 million copies with each main entry. ARMS sold over 2 million worldwide, and Labo's done 1.5 million total so far. Yes, they're not system sellers like Mario Kart or Smash Bros., but they're successful enough to justify in-house development. Again, not every game needs to sell 20 million copies to continue in-house development. I get that games are a business, but businesses can afford to produce niche products so long as they still make some money in their own right. Nintendo's teams already make some of the highest selling games in the industry, why not also let them work on stuff that doesn't sell as much, but can still turn a profit anyway.
Outsourcing should only be done if the development team either has no more ideas for the property but still wants to keep it going, if its a spin-off, or if another studio can do something the main development team can't do at all, or nearly as well. I just don't believe that an IP has to be outsourced if it's not an instant hit or cash-cow.
| The_Liquid_Laser said: The Wii was a success, but it was short lived. That is the main problem with the Wii. It wasn't a sustainable business model for Nintendo. Their developers didn't want to keep making "Wii style" games like Wii Sports and Wii Fit. These franchises were hugely successful, but Nintendo doesn't make these games anymore. They just didn't want to make them. On the other hand the idea of having cheaper hardware and "different from the norm style" games was really working for them. |
Where's the evidence of this? I'm pretty sure the developers enjoyed making Wii Sports and Wii Fit during that time.
In anycase, a bigger problem with the Wii was that the industry had evolved too much during the time of its success that Nintendo was either unable or unwilling to keep up. Wii can be a sustainable buisness model, and I'd argue the Switch proves that since a lot of its DNA comes from the Wii. The problem was more the lack of a long-term plan on Nintendo's part than it not being sustainable. After the Wii took off, it felt like Nintendo never really knew how to follow up on it. Thus we got stagnating interest towards the end of the life, and the disaster known as the Wii U.
Last edited by TheMisterManGuy - on 18 June 2019
