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

Forums - Nintendo - Why do developers act like Nintendo fans are obligated to buy their shitty games?

RolStoppable said:

I am not sure, if I have covered everything. If that's not the case, feel free to make me aware of it.

Basically it boils down to my original question. I understand Nintendo treated the majority of the industry unfairly during the 8-16 bit days, and that they payed for it by losing a ton of support with N64, and that this extended into the Gamecube generation as well, perhaps also due to some design issues with the later two consoles...

In 2004 Sony was (in theory) threatening to make Nintendo obsolete with their entry into the handheld market which was sustaining Ninty, so they had to make some drastic changes to their strategy in order to come out of the situation favorably, which they did with DS and Wii. In the process they also managed to regain much of the ground they had lost in terms acceptance and popularity in the public's eyes, though the same can't be said about developers I'm afraid.

Nintendo showed this generation that good third party games can sell well on Nintendo platforms, that's true. Did they prove that sales are so good that it warrants an investment by 3rd parties in alternate technologies and different training for the staff? I'm not sure... But the phenomenal level of success did at least bring a higher level of acceptance among developers that Nintendo's philosophy has a right to co-exist in the market, to the point where today even companies like Id, Crytek and Epic have favorable things to say about them.

Since Wii U will support developer's existing tools and production pipelines, it is no longer necessary to go though the trouble of rebuilding your entire game from scratch for another meager 1-2 mil. sales at most. Thus the fact that good 3rd party games can sell decently on Nintendo systems is once again relevant.

What remains to be seen IMO is if 3rd parties will ever enjoy the same level of success on Nintendo platforms as they do elsewhere. Better yet, I'd like to know if there are certain games that make sense to develop with Nintendo in mind to begin with, and not just as an after-thought, which is why I initially asked about games that have done better on Nintendo hardware in the past.

When I ask myself whether or not a certain 3rd party game that finds success on Nintendo hardware can succeed elsewhere, the answer is almost always yes, and probably to a greater degree. When I think about many 3rd party games on competing platforms selling well on Nintendo systems, the answer is usually much less clear...

I think that in order to remain relevant, Nintendo have to show that they can provide new areas of expansion for developers which are as significant as online was for Xbox and 360. Take that feature away and MS would have been sitting on an expensive Playstation derivative with no reason to exist.



Until you've played it, every game is a system seller!

the original trolls

Wii FC: 4810 9420 3131 7558
MHTri: name=BOo BoO/ID=BZBLEX/region=US

mini-games on consoles, cinematic games on handhelds, what's next? GameBoy IMAX?

Official Member of the Pikmin Fan Club

Around the Network

I find it pretty funny they are complaining about Nintendo Life reviews. They are pretty much the top site for reviewing VC/WW titles. There aren't a ton of high scoring games on there but the ones that got 8,9 or 10/10 pretty much deserved it. They are the only remaining site that I actually take their scores as a good measure of how I will like the game. Nintendo Life is an example of what review sites should strive to be. If Nintendo Life game their games bad reviews then the games probably deserved it.



Linkasf said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Mr Khan said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Mr Khan said:
Dante9 said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
BoneArk said:
Because Nintendo fans bought a "cheap" console they think that they don't have to make anything good for it.


or maybe its cheaper because of its specification??

and maybe sometimes hardware power actually matters? maybe sometimes decent memory and a GPU is required to show a killcam? 

I dont know though, im not pro. Ive herd a lot of people say hardware doesnt matter, all games should be equal so i guess im in the minority so im wrong.

maybe rockstar are just being douchebags for not making GTAIV and RDR for wii....surely it has enough power.

The problem seems to be just that, Wii owners are expecting games that are on par with those of the HD twins in terms of hardware power. The other thing is that out of the 90 million consoles sold, the majority were bought as a fad for the family or for drunken entertainment, mostly to run quick and easy dance and party games. That's why the needs of the serious gaming minority were never met, no matter how much they deserved it or not. I personally know people who bought the Wii as a spur of the moment thing and have yet to unbox them. You don't buy the more expensive consoles by accident and you don't buy them just  to run party games once every blue moon and that's why developers feel secure to go all out with them.

The only reason that argument works is because third party developers have made it true by refusing to develop serious games and thus making the market believe serious games can't thrive there, when in fact they can, when they're actually made (Monster Hunter is a sight more serious than any of the shooty shooty gun stuff that seems to pass for hardcore these days, and it did rather well for its franchise), but instead they make these incredibly niche games or test games, and use the inevitable failure of such games as an excuse to not make serious games


Ive had this argument before so all im going to ask you is 2 questions.

1) are you saying no-one bought a wii specifically for monster hunter? (I believe a large fraction of the MH fan base bought a wii just for that purpose)

2) if the game had been multiplatform would the difference not be similar to that between dead space extraction and dead space HD or COD4 and COD4 reflex and inevitably lead to higher sales on the HD systems?

so again i come to the same conclusion....difference in hardware power is too big.

its like trying to get a HTC wildfire or x10 mini to play 3d games just like an samsung galaxy s2 or iphone......its just an expectation you cant have.

These are two completely different games, one of which was a joke and in no way a serious effort

This is a game that came out a solid two years after its counterpart, giving no-one with any interest in the franchise any reason to pick it up.


so are you implying that if they tried enough and made a "serious effort" they could get a dead space as good as the ps3/xbox/pc version on wii? 

When YOU say as good, I'm sure you mean "Graphically." That is an obvious answer. Start asking the right questions.

ok you ask the question. I know what it is your thinking of and im certain it links directly back to graphics.



"It's a bit unfair that Nintendo is obligated to show proof time and time again while Sony and Microsoft can expect third party loyalty even if third parties post heavy losses by supporting their platforms. There's certainly a double standard applied by third parties here and the goal posts seem to be moving each time Nintendo meets certain requirements. Third parties are hesitant to build a Wii game to garner a "meager 1-2 million" in sales, but they have had no problem to spend twice or more times of these development costs on new IPs for the HD consoles (and many didn't even move a million copies)."

This is a major sign that the mindset of the gaming industry is wrong, and is threatening to destroy it. They see black as white, and ignore money and sales unless they happen to games they like.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs