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

Forums - Nintendo - Nintendo not interested in buying Wii U exclusive titles

kitler53 said:
Conegamer said:
They don't need to, because they'll get them anyway.

buh?  did i not just get done reading a thread (that you posted in) about losing the hardcore and the blame on third parties.

..financially incentives is fundamental to why third parties gravitate to MSony over nintendo. 

Yes, but as this is the first "Next" generation console, with the suggested graphical uplift and new way to play, it'll give devs something more, and new, to play with. As such, they'll be a large number of games, not neccessarily exclusives, being ported over to the console.

And with the 3DS support, and the shown Ubisoft and EA support for the WiiU this E3, Nintendo are in a good enough position to not have to buy the games, because they'll get them anyway.



 

Here lies the dearly departed Nintendomination Thread.

Around the Network
oniyide said:
kitler53 said:
Conegamer said:
They don't need to, because they'll get them anyway.

buh?  did i not just get done reading a thread (that you posted in) about losing the hardcore and the blame on third parties.

..financially incentives is fundamental to why third parties gravitate to MSony over nintendo. 


THis,  ALl you Ninty fans that a cheering this on, that means i shouldnt expect to hear any of you complaining when game a and/or b doesnt make it to Wii U. You'll know exactly why it didnt happen

This is an honest question:

when has Sony and/or Microsoft this generation done what Iwata has stated he doesn't want Nintendo to do (which I believe means acquiring exclutivity for a third party game for solely money, rather than advertising, localisation, etc)?   There have been many cases of 'console exclutivity', 'exclutivity of DLC', 'timed exclutivity' or even 'exclutivity in certain geographical regions', but I'm refering to the unlimited and absolute exclusively of the entire game to one platform.  Sony probably played a part in keeping MGS4 PS3 exclusive, but apart from that I honestly can't think of any other examples.

Nintendo has demonstrated that they are willing to secure console exclusivity for DLC (Trine 2) or what appears to be absolute (could in future be timed) exclutivity as a result of high coverage in E3 and in official statements and the like (Rayman Legends).  What I fail to see is how what Iwata said is condemning the WiiU to miss out on multiplatforms (which is what I think you are implying), he is talking about getting exclusives solely by paying a shit load of money.




oniyide said:
kitler53 said:
Conegamer said:
They don't need to, because they'll get them anyway.

buh?  did i not just get done reading a thread (that you posted in) about losing the hardcore and the blame on third parties.

..financially incentives is fundamental to why third parties gravitate to MSony over nintendo. 


THis,  ALl you Ninty fans that a cheering this on, that means i shouldnt expect to hear any of you complaining when game a and/or b doesnt make it to Wii U. You'll know exactly why it didnt happen

Because Nintendo didn't bid for it? Sure if its on one platform as an exclusive we shouldn't complain, but if its on say ps3 and 360 or 720 and ps4 ad not wiiU why not complain. 



MrT-Tar said:
oniyide said:
kitler53 said:
Conegamer said:
They don't need to, because they'll get them anyway.

buh?  did i not just get done reading a thread (that you posted in) about losing the hardcore and the blame on third parties.

..financially incentives is fundamental to why third parties gravitate to MSony over nintendo. 


THis,  ALl you Ninty fans that a cheering this on, that means i shouldnt expect to hear any of you complaining when game a and/or b doesnt make it to Wii U. You'll know exactly why it didnt happen

This is an honest question:

when has Sony and/or Microsoft this generation done what Iwata has stated he doesn't want Nintendo to do (which I believe means acquiring exclutivity for a third party game for solely money, rather than advertising, localisation, etc)?   There have been many cases of 'console exclutivity', 'exclutivity of DLC', 'timed exclutivity' or even 'exclutivity in certain geographical regions', but I'm refering to the unlimited and absolute exclusively of the entire game to one platform.  Sony probably played a part in keeping MGS4 PS3 exclusive, but apart from that I honestly can't think of any other examples.

Nintendo has demonstrated that they are willing to secure console exclusivity for DLC (Trine 2) or what appears to be absolute (could in future be timed) exclutivity as a result of high coverage in E3 and in official statements and the like (Rayman Legends).  What I fail to see is how what Iwata said is condemning the WiiU to miss out on multiplatforms (which is what I think you are implying), he is talking about getting exclusives solely by paying a shit load of money.

MS did that with quite a few JRPGs, at the beginnig of the gen. Tales of Xilia comes to mind.

Good point, but if they are not willing to play ball, with some of these companies, then itll be a repeat of WIi all over again. I doubt this would happen



oniyide said:
MrT-Tar said:
oniyide said:
kitler53 said:
Conegamer said:
They don't need to, because they'll get them anyway.

buh?  did i not just get done reading a thread (that you posted in) about losing the hardcore and the blame on third parties.

..financially incentives is fundamental to why third parties gravitate to MSony over nintendo. 


THis,  ALl you Ninty fans that a cheering this on, that means i shouldnt expect to hear any of you complaining when game a and/or b doesnt make it to Wii U. You'll know exactly why it didnt happen

This is an honest question:

when has Sony and/or Microsoft this generation done what Iwata has stated he doesn't want Nintendo to do (which I believe means acquiring exclutivity for a third party game for solely money, rather than advertising, localisation, etc)?   There have been many cases of 'console exclutivity', 'exclutivity of DLC', 'timed exclutivity' or even 'exclutivity in certain geographical regions', but I'm refering to the unlimited and absolute exclusively of the entire game to one platform.  Sony probably played a part in keeping MGS4 PS3 exclusive, but apart from that I honestly can't think of any other examples.

Nintendo has demonstrated that they are willing to secure console exclusivity for DLC (Trine 2) or what appears to be absolute (could in future be timed) exclutivity as a result of high coverage in E3 and in official statements and the like (Rayman Legends).  What I fail to see is how what Iwata said is condemning the WiiU to miss out on multiplatforms (which is what I think you are implying), he is talking about getting exclusives solely by paying a shit load of money.

MS did that with quite a few JRPGs, at the beginnig of the gen. Tales of Xilia comes to mind.

Good point, but if they are not willing to play ball, with some of these companies, then itll be a repeat of WIi all over again. I doubt this would happen

I think you mean Vesperia, I thought of that.  But there is a PS3 port, albeit one that never came out of Japan




Around the Network
MrT-Tar said:
oniyide said:
MrT-Tar said:
oniyide said:
kitler53 said:
Conegamer said:
They don't need to, because they'll get them anyway.

buh?  did i not just get done reading a thread (that you posted in) about losing the hardcore and the blame on third parties.

..financially incentives is fundamental to why third parties gravitate to MSony over nintendo. 


THis,  ALl you Ninty fans that a cheering this on, that means i shouldnt expect to hear any of you complaining when game a and/or b doesnt make it to Wii U. You'll know exactly why it didnt happen

This is an honest question:

when has Sony and/or Microsoft this generation done what Iwata has stated he doesn't want Nintendo to do (which I believe means acquiring exclutivity for a third party game for solely money, rather than advertising, localisation, etc)?   There have been many cases of 'console exclutivity', 'exclutivity of DLC', 'timed exclutivity' or even 'exclutivity in certain geographical regions', but I'm refering to the unlimited and absolute exclusively of the entire game to one platform.  Sony probably played a part in keeping MGS4 PS3 exclusive, but apart from that I honestly can't think of any other examples.

Nintendo has demonstrated that they are willing to secure console exclusivity for DLC (Trine 2) or what appears to be absolute (could in future be timed) exclutivity as a result of high coverage in E3 and in official statements and the like (Rayman Legends).  What I fail to see is how what Iwata said is condemning the WiiU to miss out on multiplatforms (which is what I think you are implying), he is talking about getting exclusives solely by paying a shit load of money.

MS did that with quite a few JRPGs, at the beginnig of the gen. Tales of Xilia comes to mind.

Good point, but if they are not willing to play ball, with some of these companies, then itll be a repeat of WIi all over again. I doubt this would happen

I think you mean Vesperia, I thought of that.  But there is a PS3 port, albeit one that never came out of Japan


my point is this, Sony and MS for the past five years have attempted to get exclusive deals games and what have you. Ninty didnt do squat in that entire and no one MH game isnt cutting it.  But they do seem to be trying more so ill give them that



Good for Nintendo and gamers



If even Nintendo don't intent to purchase first party exclusive games, how do they expect us gamers to react??!



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

Aielyn said:
AndrewWK said:
The Nintendo should some of there and not just rely on 20 years old IPs

*cracks knuckles*

Using wikipedia's List of video games published by Nintendo for most dates, so if there are a few that released a few years off from the listed dates, this is why (and any game with no page about it will be ignored unless I know it - redlinks, that is). Games with asterisks are Japan-only, but I'll only list ones I've heard of or can be bothered checking. Games not released in America but released in Europe (or vice versa) *will* be listed regularly. List will also include notable subfranchises such as Luigi's Mansion. Bolded entries are notable for being major franchises. Handheld games listed first, then console games. I'll just list from 2000 onwards.

One last note: DSiWare titles will not be listed. 3DSWare titles and WiiWare titles will, however.

2000: Sin & Punishment

2001: Golden Sun, Magical Vacation*, Napoleon*, Kurukuru Kururin*, Advance Wars (debatable), Luigi's Mansion, Paper Mario, Animal Crossing (Japan only N64 version released in 2001), Pikmin

2002: Densetsu no Starfy*, Tomato Adventure*, Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem, Metroid Prime

2003: GiFTPiA*

2004: Warioware, inc.: Mega Party Game$

2005: Polarium, Nintendogs, Another Code: Two Memories, Osu Tatakae Ouendan*, Baten Kaitos (debatable), Battalion Wars, Geist

2006: Drill Dozer, Electroplankton, Brain Age (and related), Magnetica, Big Brain Academy, Clubhouse Games, Magical Starsign, Elite Beat Agents (debatable due to Ouendan), Chibi-Robo, Odama, Wii Sports, Wii Play, Excite Truck (debatable)

2007: Hotel Dusk: Room 215, Picross DS (debatable), Master of Illusion, ASH: Archaic Sealed Heat

2008: Cooking Guide, Soma Bringer*, Jam with the Band, Professor Layton (debatable), Endless Ocean (debatable due to Everblue), Wii Fit, Wii Music, Disaster: Day of Crisis, Captain Rainbow*, MaBoShi: The Three Shape Arcade

2009: Rhythm Heaven, Personal Trainer: Walking, Fossil Fighters, Style Savvy, Tomodachi Collection*, Tact of Magic*, Lonpos, Bonsai Barber, Rock N Roll Climber, Eco Shooter: Plant 530

2010: Glory of Heracles, Art Academy, Wii Party, Flingsmash, Xenoblade Chronicles, Dynamic Slash*, And-Kensaku*, Snowpack Park, Line Attack Heroes*, Fluidity

2011: Steel Diver, Pushmo, Freakyforms: Your Creations Alive, Pandora's Tower, The Last Story

2012: Spirit Camera: The Cursed Memoir, Sakura Samurai: Art of the Sword, Dillon's Rolling Western, Ketzal's Corridors, Kiki Trick*

Special case - 2012 Wii U: NintendoLand, Project P-100.

Also notable are the ones that got cancelled - Project HAMMER, Wii Crush, and Cosmic Walker. If those three that we know of got cancelled, there were probably many more that was never seen.

Just since 2006, Nintendo has released 59 new IP titles. Even if you restrict it to games released in the West and not particularly debatable, there's still 46 new IPs. Even if you treat all Wii ___ titles as one IP, it's still 42 new IPs. So when people claim that Nintendo only relies on very old IPs, I can't help but question whether they're deluded or willfully ignorant of all of Nintendo's new IPs.

EDIT: And before anyone goes "but how many of those have you heard of", I'd like to point out that new IPs are risky - they don't always perform well. But it's absurd to ignore those ones, as they're still attempts at new IPs, and you can't actually *rely* on new IPs.

Did you really write this whole post on your own, or did you copy it?



Nintendo doesn't need force people to only buy games on their system to get them to get the customers.