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

Forums - Nintendo - Should Nintendo create more studios?

 

Should Nintendo Create More Studios?

Yes, they need more to ke... 198 72.53%
 
No, they have plenty as is 20 7.33%
 
They should try harder to... 41 15.02%
 
I have no opinion 14 5.13%
 
Total:273
curl-6 on 09 June 2013

Yes, definitely. If 3rd parties won't play ball, Nintendo will need to fill the gap themselves. More teams will help with that.



Around the Network
DucksUnlimited on 09 June 2013
burninmylight said:
DucksUnlimited said:
Can't believe so many people are saying yes. Nintendo has a lot of talented first party studios. Nintendo just rushed the Wii U and underestimated development time. That's why we have the drought that we do.

So many people seem to have this mentality of "the more first party games the better." From a business perspective it's simply not the case. Nintendo has enough studios for several big first party releases a year. These releases already have to compete with third party games. Making Nintendo's first party offerings compete with each other in addition to third parties is not a good idea.


What about the droughts from the 3DS, the Wii, the DS, and the N64? This is not to diss Nintendo or the Wii U, it's more or less to say that anyone who's been gaming since the Clinton administration should expect an early drought with every single console ever.

I'm of the belief that yes, the more first party games, the better. Nintendo should stop worrying about trying to please overly fickle, sensitive and diva third parties and let the haughty ones worry about themselves. They'll come around regardless once they see a console flying off the shelves and that there's a market for their games, which is what Nintendo needs to help create.

Well, the Wii flew off the shelves, yet its third party support was still by far the worst of the big 3. the idea that they'll come around regardless isn't really true. The fact of the matter is that most people probably buy consoles mainly for third party games. First party games for the average consumer are there more as a way to help choose which console. But that doesn't help much if the console doesn't have much in the way of third party games. That's a huge part of why the N64 and Gamecube suffered. Introducing a large influx of first party studios is only going to drive out what remaining third party suport they have.



KungKras on 09 June 2013
DucksUnlimited said:
burninmylight said:
DucksUnlimited said:
Can't believe so many people are saying yes. Nintendo has a lot of talented first party studios. Nintendo just rushed the Wii U and underestimated development time. That's why we have the drought that we do.

So many people seem to have this mentality of "the more first party games the better." From a business perspective it's simply not the case. Nintendo has enough studios for several big first party releases a year. These releases already have to compete with third party games. Making Nintendo's first party offerings compete with each other in addition to third parties is not a good idea.


What about the droughts from the 3DS, the Wii, the DS, and the N64? This is not to diss Nintendo or the Wii U, it's more or less to say that anyone who's been gaming since the Clinton administration should expect an early drought with every single console ever.

I'm of the belief that yes, the more first party games, the better. Nintendo should stop worrying about trying to please overly fickle, sensitive and diva third parties and let the haughty ones worry about themselves. They'll come around regardless once they see a console flying off the shelves and that there's a market for their games, which is what Nintendo needs to help create.

Well, the Wii flew off the shelves, yet its third party support was still by far the worst of the big 3. the idea that they'll come around regardless isn't really true. The fact of the matter is that most people probably buy consoles mainly for third party games. First party games for the average consumer are there more as a way to help choose which console. But that doesn't help much if the console doesn't have much in the way of third party games. That's a huge part of why the N64 and Gamecube suffered. Introducing a large influx of first party studios is only going to drive out what remaining third party suport they have.

@Bold. Wrong. People buy consoles for games that interest them.

Third party games did not rocket the NES or the Wii. They did, however destroy the Atari 2600.



I LOVE ICELAND!

DucksUnlimited on 09 June 2013
KungKras said:
DucksUnlimited said:
burninmylight said:
DucksUnlimited said:
Can't believe so many people are saying yes. Nintendo has a lot of talented first party studios. Nintendo just rushed the Wii U and underestimated development time. That's why we have the drought that we do.

So many people seem to have this mentality of "the more first party games the better." From a business perspective it's simply not the case. Nintendo has enough studios for several big first party releases a year. These releases already have to compete with third party games. Making Nintendo's first party offerings compete with each other in addition to third parties is not a good idea.


What about the droughts from the 3DS, the Wii, the DS, and the N64? This is not to diss Nintendo or the Wii U, it's more or less to say that anyone who's been gaming since the Clinton administration should expect an early drought with every single console ever.

I'm of the belief that yes, the more first party games, the better. Nintendo should stop worrying about trying to please overly fickle, sensitive and diva third parties and let the haughty ones worry about themselves. They'll come around regardless once they see a console flying off the shelves and that there's a market for their games, which is what Nintendo needs to help create.

Well, the Wii flew off the shelves, yet its third party support was still by far the worst of the big 3. the idea that they'll come around regardless isn't really true. The fact of the matter is that most people probably buy consoles mainly for third party games. First party games for the average consumer are there more as a way to help choose which console. But that doesn't help much if the console doesn't have much in the way of third party games. That's a huge part of why the N64 and Gamecube suffered. Introducing a large influx of first party studios is only going to drive out what remaining third party suport they have.

@Bold. Wrong. People buy consoles for games that interest them.

Third party games did not rocket the NES or the Wii. They did, however destroy the Atari 2600.

Yes. And the vast majority of popular games (i.e. games that interest people) are third party.



KungKras on 09 June 2013
DucksUnlimited said:
KungKras said:

@Bold. Wrong. People buy consoles for games that interest them.

Third party games did not rocket the NES or the Wii. They did, however destroy the Atari 2600.

Yes. And the vast majority of popular games (i.e. games that interest people) are third party.


Except for, you know, almost all the best-selling games of the previous generation.



I LOVE ICELAND!

Around the Network
DucksUnlimited on 09 June 2013
KungKras said:
DucksUnlimited said:
KungKras said:
 

@Bold. Wrong. People buy consoles for games that interest them.

Third party games did not rocket the NES or the Wii. They did, however destroy the Atari 2600.

Yes. And the vast majority of popular games (i.e. games that interest people) are third party.


Except for, you know, almost all the best-selling games of the previous generation.

I didn't say that the most popular games are third party. i said most games that are popular are third party.



Naum on 09 June 2013

And give 3rd parties even more sh*t to complain about?



If it isn't turnbased it isn't worth playing   (mostly)

And shepherds we shall be,

For Thee, my Lord, for Thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee And teeming with souls shall it ever be. In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritūs Sancti. -----The Boondock Saints

TheLastStarFighter on 09 June 2013

People saying that Nintendo should spend its money on expanding studios should know that Nintendo has already done just that. Retro moved into a much larger building this past year and now has about double+ the employees it had just a few years ago. There's also a new, much larger head quarters in Kyoto and EAD's staff has been rapidly ramped up. MonolithSoft, too, has greatly expanded, opening a second studio in Kyoto in 2011 that can work directly with Nintendo EAD. Nintendo has done a massive expansion over the last 3 years, we just aren't seeing the results of it yet. Games take time to make.

That said, I wouldn't mind a new studio or two, especially in the west. Over the last number of consoles Nintendo saw weak third party support in a number of areas. #1 was RPG's, but that's been very well addressed now by Monolith. The two main shortcomings I see right now are western 1st/3rd person shooters/adventure games and sports. I think either through a new studio or further expansion of Retro Nintendo should make a few mature adventure/shooter type games. Another studio should be developed to make realistic sports. There was a time when the NES launched with Nintendo-made Baseball, Football and so on, and we have even seen licensed games in the past like Ken Griffey Jr Baseball, NHL hockey and NCAA basketball. 1st parties once made all kinds of top sports games, it baffles me that almost everyone has left the sector for EA to dominate. They are so easy to make and take in so much money. Since EA is blacklisting WiiU and 2k has weak interest, if I were Nintendo I would jump all over this. They already make good sports games, just need to ditch the Mario element for a few.

So I'd make two western studios. One to make new unique western ip shooter/adventure games and one to make realistic licensed sports.



noname2200 on 09 June 2013
Salnax said:
If Nintendo does what I expect and fuses their handheld and console divisions by 2020, they won't need to. But if Nintendo wants to keep their platforms separate, than they could use another couple of studios to work on new or rebooted series.

Even if they only have one console from now on (please don't do this...), they should still expand the number of studios and teams. By now, we've seen enough data to know that Nintendo can sustain a console almost exclusively by itself, and that is essentially must sustain a console all by itself. If more Nintendo releases alienate third-parties, well...would anyone really be able to tell the difference?



blkfish92 on 09 June 2013

I wish, then we can see new IPs probably