By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nintendo will never be "third party friendly"

DJEVOLVE on 23 December 2014
padib said:
DJEVOLVE said:

Unlike you, I run my own business and this plays a major role. Go ask your local Gamestop how many used games they sell a day, then take that amount and times it by $60, you will see 1,000s upon 1,000s of dollars of lost revenue. The fact you over look this would make you a horrible business owner. When they make games, they add this into their developement time, meaning they can only put so much in before it becomes a game that can close your doors for good.

No matter how good the game is, it is on sale at gamestop used. I have seen every single game, rated the highest, so your argument holds no water at all.

Then why does the same logic not apply to Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft, who consistently release polished games?

@OP. Agreed. And even if they had hardware parity these are no longer the gamecube days. Third parties have become prima donna's and that's against Nintendo's business policy. They won't bend. They announced their intention to partner, not bend.

@Wolfpack. Nordic, how?

First party doesn't have to share the profit with console manufacturer.  This allows for more room to development. XBox, Sony, Nintendo are a complete different business model then 3rd party, they make profit many ways. Sales of the game, sales of units, in turn will sell more software. Which they get a % of every 3rd party game put on their system.



Around the Network
DJEVOLVE on 23 December 2014
padib said:
DJEVOLVE said:

First party doesn't have to share the profit with console manufacturer.  This allows for more room to develope, also this pushes you system to sell more in the long run. XBox, Sony, Nintendo are a complete different business model then 3rd party, they make profit many ways. Sales of the game, More sale of units, which in turn will sell more software. Which they get a % of every 3rd party game put on their system.

That's true. In that case however, wouldn't it make sense for 3rd parties to find healthier ways to promote better return on investment?

For example look at Street Fighter IV. Great game, sold lots. Did it require huge resources? Well it's no far cry that's for sure. It's no battlefield.

3rd parties are pushing cutting edge at their own peril. In order to compensate for their folly, they promote non-consumeristic parctices.

If Nintendo can understand that when they don't need to (according to your post), why can't major 3rd parties?

Nintendo can take a bigger risk, They don't have to pay the console manufacturer. 



IIIIITHE1IIIII on 23 December 2014
DJEVOLVE said:

First party doesn't have to share the profit with console manufacturer.  This allows for more room to development. XBox, Sony, Nintendo are a complete different business model then 3rd party, they make profit many ways. Sales of the game, sales of units, in turn will sell more software. Which they get a % of every 3rd party game put on their system.


I guess this explains why Sony felt the need to have a new difficulty as part of DLC for The Last of Us and why they decided to announce The Last of Us: Remastered as late as possible despite starting to work on the game as soon as the original was finished.

It also explains why Microsoft decided to block most popular Halo 4 playlists unless you bought their DLC (a decision which was later revoked), and why the Master Chief Collection faces widespread matchmaking bugs and errors to this day.



DJEVOLVE on 23 December 2014
padib said:
DJEVOLVE said:

Nintendo can take a bigger risk, They don't have to pay the console manufacturer. 

How is it risky if you're increasing your bottom line by reducing costs?

I'd think it would be more risky to hike up cost by going bleeding edge.


You don't think they are trying to reduce costs constantly? You're mistaken. 



outlawauron on 23 December 2014
ghost_of_fazz said:

You know why Nintendo consoles will never be Third Party-friendly?

Because Nintendo games are great. A bit too great, actually. Third parties don't want to have that kind of competition, because their games are not on that level of quality and polish.

Also, Nintendo games are a permanent competition because of their legs. They´re not like a Call of Duty or an Assassin's Creed, that sells a shitload when it's released and then it stops selling. They sell for years.

This is especially hilarious because COD and AC both have better legs than most Nintendo games.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Around the Network
DJEVOLVE on 23 December 2014
padib said:
DJEVOLVE said:

You don't think they are trying to reduce costs constantly? You're mistaken. 

I think so, I just don't pretend they don't make risky decisions. My question was simple, what is more risky:

- Keeping the game simple yet great

- Going bleeding edge and great


Define simple and great because others might think the game is horrible..

Going bleeding edge, can happen out of mistake. Street fighter is not a  new game, this is not a game that is made from scratch, for that matter I never liked the game and costs to redraw the same characters in HD is not brainstorming a completely new game and not reruns that make casual gamers happy.



Red4ADevil on 23 December 2014
Aiddon said:
Though we all know the hardware is completely 3rd party friendly. Is it hard to develop for? No. Is it expensive to develop for? No. We all know what's REALLY going on: Nintendo just doesn't kiss 3rd parties' asses and thus they're bitter about it. Nintendo refuses to be intimidated by what can best be described as bullying or at the very least incessant whining. What 3rd parties want would be detrimental, to both Nintendo and consumers at large. And considering how 3rd parties are continuing to struggle with making any sort of profit, continually releasing games unfinished, repeatedly lay staff off, and are having difficulties keeping the market stable let alone expanding it while Nintendo has hardly had a dent made in their company then it's clear who's the smarter company. No need to try and pander to a bunch of incompetent twits


Bulls eye....This really goes back to third parties during 5th gen. Like whiny children they demanded bigger, better hardware because the current hardware at the time "hindered" their way of making games. They wanted to make games that they wanted; and not so much what the consumers wanted. This is the main reason why third parties DESPISED the wii. Because it wasn't "sophistacted" like the bank-breaking PS3 and X360.

In a nutshell gaming has taken itself too seriously. People like Rich from Review Tech USA expect Nintendo to embrace third parties when in fact the unsustainable business model they're using is the reason NIntendo won't work with most thrd parties. Plus this is why I unsubbed him because he just doesn't get it.



DJEVOLVE on 23 December 2014
padib said:
DJEVOLVE said:

Define simple and great because others might think the game is horrible..

Going bleeding edge, can happen out of mistake. Street fighter is not a  new game, this is not a game that is made from scratch, for that matter I never liked the game and costs to redrew the same characters in HD is not brainstorming a completely new game and not reruns that make casual gamers happy.

Great as defined by critics and sales.

SFIV is a good example of a game that was not bleeding edge, and that saw healthy sales.

Most 3rd party games are not new anyways. Most are sequels to new IPs within a generation or from the previous.

COD

Assassin's Creed

Battlefield

Witcher

Far Cry

etc.

Yea and all these games to stay relevant have to push the limits, same with games entering the market. It's obvious we are not going to agree,  so we all have to play games like SFIV so Gamestop can make another 100 million? I would quit gaming, I want cutting edge games, WTF DID I BUY NEXT GEN FOR?



Ruler on 23 December 2014

well for nintendo its good if nintendo console owners buy only nintendo games, what gives them if wiiu game purchases go into the pockets of EA and activision?
But on the other hand if no one buys nintendo consoles in the first place because no mature games are available or because the console is simple to weak and none nintendo fans dont except much from it, its not better either?
Nintendo should invest into or buy mature franchises like bayonettas case.



Why i left PC gaming

 

(2015) Question for PS4 owners: if the situation would be reverse? would you still play on PS4?

(2015) The "I don't care PS4 is the most powerful console" thread

DJEVOLVE on 23 December 2014
padib said:

Great as defined by critics and sales.

SFIV is a good example of a game that was not bleeding edge, and that saw healthy sales.

Most 3rd party games are not new anyways. Most are sequels to new IPs within a generation or from the previous.

COD

Assassin's Creed

Battlefield

Witcher

Far Cry

etc.


Gamestop made 3.5 BILLION LAST HOLIDAYS SEASON.  How much of that was used sales? 40% of that if I'm not mistaken, all not spent on new games, maybe older games that people haven't bought yet, however why buy new when you can save $5. So 1.4 BIllion dollars taken out of the market.  Nope that isn't cutting into sales at all. LOL

http://www.technobuffalo.com/2014/01/14/gamestop-made-3-15-billion-in-sales-during-2013s-holiday-period/