Doobie_wop said:
Declan said:
Doobie_wop said:
Declan said:
Doobie_wop said:
MrT-Tar said:
Doobie_wop said:
When Nintendo supports third parties, then maybe third parties will consider supporting Nintendo consoles. If Nintendo aren't willing to make the effort, then I don't see why third parties should try when they already have two or three viable platforms to put their games on, especially when they all have have higher attacth rates than the Wii. When someone does take the risk, then they don't meet their expectations and pull out. It's so easy to see and it makes more sense than making up weird fanboy conspiracy theories.
|
Nintendo has done the following this generation that I can remember off the top of my head:
Localised and advertised DQIX in the West
Advertised MH3 in West, allowed Capcom to design CC Pro
Retro gave Ubisoft support with FPS controls in Red Steel 2
Nintendo have let their 1st and 2nd parties actually make games for 3rd parties, such as Intelligent made DQ Wars, Genius Sonority helped on DQ Swords and Monolith made some SRT games.
Nintendo let 3rd parties use Nintendo licences, such as Square-Enix with Mario Basketball and Mario Sports Mix
Nintendo is localising and publishing games like Goldeneye in Japan
Nintendo worked directly with Team Ninja on Metroid Other M
Miyamoto designed a mini game for the Wii version of Samurai Warriors 3
Nintendo have made bundles for the likes of MH3, Tales of Graces, Final Fantasy III and the like
Nintendo probably funded The Last Story
Wii motion plus actually launched entirely with 3rd party software, MS and Sony didn't do the same with Kinect and Move.
I really can't see how you believe that Nintendo 'aren't willing to make the effort'
|
Most of those are either to be expected or are of no benefit to Third Party studios in general. Hiring a studio to make a game for your IP isn't benefiting third parties, it's just farming out development, if I was to include your example, then Sony has helped 20 different development studios this generation. Funding The Last Story when it's your IP is not benefiting Third Parties. Bundling games should be standard practice. Also, even if everything you've listed was accurate, it still in no way stacks up to the amount of effort Sony and Microsoft has put into gaining third party support.
Paying for the marketing of multiple games such as Assassins Creed 1 2 3, the Call of Duties, Final Fantasy 13, Fallout: New Vegas, Dead Space 2, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Medal of Honour, Gears of War, Rock Band and Resident Evil 5.
Creating a free to use engine that lowers development costs and makes third party development significantly easier for the PS3. This engine has had 25 games made on it and it's received some fantastic results.
Making deals with third party publishers to gain exclusive games, content or release dates.
Sony sending out pocket teams from Sony Santa Monica, SCE Foster City Studio and Cambridge to work with many third party developers and help them with the hardware.
Sony allowing easy access through their PSN network and Microsoft vigorously advertising and promoting third party Live Arcade games on their network.
I could go on and on, but if Third Parties were to look at which publishers are offering more money, support and ease of use, then they are definently going to ignore Nintendo.
|
Why should platform holders pay for the marketing of third party games??? 3 of the games you mention come from Ubisoft, Activision and EA - they are huge companies who can afford to market their own games.
|
Platform holders need to make deals and co-operate with the third party publishers if they want to support each other. Third parties already have multiple systems were their games sell very well (PS3, IPhone, 360 and PC), they don't need Nintendo and Nintendo doesn't need them, but in the end, it's Nintendos audience that suffers, while everyone else trots along in pretty happy relationship.
You also ignored the other things they've done, like exstensively supporting development, helping to advertise smaller titles on their networks, creating free to use engines and having viable platoforms that are easier to port to and have all the necessary requirements to support the developers ideas.
|
That still doesn't answer the question of why a platform holder should pay to market the products of huge third party companies that can pay for it themselves. The original point of yours that I challenged was that when third parties gambled on the Wii, those gambles failed. I maintain that refusing to market your own games adequately is not really taking a gamble (well it is, but not in the way that you meant).
|
I'm not arguing if marketing Third Party games is wrong or right, I'm saying that if a publisher had to choose between having his title funded by Microsoft or Sony, instead of ignored by Nintendo, then they are obviously going to develop and support Sony and Microsoft. Also, Red Steel 2 was very well marketed and it failed, I rarely see game commercials in Australia outside of Wii, Call of Duty and Assasins Creed commercials, but I did see plenty of Red Steel 2 ads, along with Youtube ads and ads on game sites. The game even had motion plus bundled with it and despite Ubisofts efforts, it failed. Third Party publishers do support the Wii, just not with the games you may enjoy and they've tested the waters with both casual and 'core' games and in the end, Just Dance sold millions of units, while Red Steel 2 bombed.
|
