| RolStoppable said: They would be stupid to do both. When they are about to make a sequel to an IP of which they know that it won't be able to sell more than two million copies, they are much better off by outsourcing it to a lesser development team. The game gets made without being detrimental to Nintendo's core business. Nobody needs to be upset about the lack of a sequel (because the game gets made) and Nintendo doesn't waste top talent on a game that can be made my someone else based on an already existing framework. Win-win. |
But that just cheapens the potential of the brand. ARMS could grow into something much bigger and did pretty well for a first start. Why ruin that by chucking it over to a developer that may or may not have any clue what they're doing. Outsourcing makes sense if its an already popular brand and the team doesn't have any ideas for it, or another developer has an idea for a new game. But for a fledgling IP that still has more potential to grow, it makes much more sense to keep making it in-house to nurture it more until it's a more established player.
F-Zero only sold 2 million on the SNES, yet Nintendo still made a sequel in-house. Star Fox sold under 3 million copies, yet Nintendo still made most future entries in-house. Pikmin has only ever been able to move 1-2 million copies, yet Nintendo's made 3 games in-house at this point. Nintendo's a fairly big developer, they have the resources and the money to handle their niche games in-house. I would get this argument if again, Nintendo's console was struggling in sales, or they were some indie studio who needed to be careful about spreading themselves too thin. But they are neither of those things. If one of their teams wants to make a sequel to a less popular brand, they can do it as long as they have ideas.
