| Captain_Yuri said: Umm... I never said that gamers cared about CDs or cartridges... I said that third parties cared about CDs and cartridges which is why third parties went for the ps1 instead of the n64 which is where the gamers went too cause of the third parties The ps1 sold 100 million because it provided the third party with what they wanted which were CDs which provided more space... The Xbox sold badly because it was a new console and they didn't provide anything that the ps2 didn't provide unlike the ps1 which provided the third party something that the n64 didn't Yes, I do agree that a lot of things factor into the consoles but imo, third party games is what seems to factor the most in the market these days proven by Nintendo's competitors. Well, by not going after the core... My case still kinda stands since when the casuals being gone, they don't have much left and in order to get more customers (since the casuals ain't coming back), they need to get the core back. And no, the wiiU isn't a great example of trying to get the core back cause of the amount of things wrong with it if u were going to use that example. And they can try new genre's all they like but if the games don't sell, which they wont, then the result is the same because people want games like Cod, GTA and etc and not just clones of each other. The reason why Nintendo can't make games like Halo, Uncharted and etc is because their developers don't have the experience to do so and they will merely be seens as clones rather than the real thing which will result in selling like clones. I will give you an example. You have two games: a) SSB b) Playstation All Stars. PAS tried to copy the success of SSB and it failed greatly... Why? Cause the developers of SSB wasn't there hence why they didn't have the experience nor the charm of what made SSB so great... Heck, the 3ds version of SSB outsold PAS's combined sales in 3 days... And the samething will happen when Nintendo tries to make a game like Halo and Uncharted and etc. Just that this time, Nintendo is the one that will get the short end of the stick. It really shouldn't be very hard to see why Nintendo won't be able to No one would buy the two systems even if its bundled for $400... Why? Cause they can save $200 and get the handheld that will have all the games anyway... See, the issue with your arguements is that you seem to think that Nintendo will succeed no matter what while in reality, it won't be the case at all. You don't seem to factor in the fact that this will essentially be the wiiU levels of graphics vs ps5/x2 levels of graphics and that a "diverse" lineup does not result in more people buying the console because the games they want are still not in the console... Time and time again, the industry has proven that clones do not succeed in terms of sales compared to the game they are trying to clone. I don't see what is so hard to understand about that? Yes, Nintendo are great developers but they have limitations as well and the way that the game market will see them not having the games that people want. Its not about the exclusives... Its about the games that people want... Just because Nintendo makes games does not mean it will be the games that people want because people want Cod, GTA, and etc. Not clones The reason why people will buy a Nintendo console if it has all the third party games is because while Sony and MS may have the better versions of third party games graphically, it will be nullified by Nintendo's exclusives... People are willing to settle for lower graphics just as long as it has the exclusives they want and Nintendo will have the exclusives that people want cause thats what they always do hence why Nintendo exclusives + Third parties are the way to go. What people aren't willing to do is miss out on third party games for Nintendo exclusives even if there are more Nintendo exclusives hence why third party games sell so much every generation... A console built around third parties will change that because of how well the NES and SNES did back in the day... Those two consoles had plenty of third party games... Heck, look at their handhelds every generation, those also have plenty of third party games and they sell really well compared to their consoles. Them doing a single platform will once again, butcher the sales of one of the platforms which is most likely, the console... The development time of games will decrease with an unified OS anyway because the developers dont have to learn/deal with two types of OS's/Api's so the games output for both platforms will increase regardless... So we should have less draughts with an unified OS/APi alone... You mix that in with third party games and then what you have is a console where third parties that will fill in any gaps that there may be while Nintendo develops their games. And if by the off chance third party gives the middle finger which they won't if Nintendo goes with my plan, then there will still be plenty of games to play from Nintendo due to the unified OS/APi decreasing the development time. Oh and mobile will only have very small teams and I highly doubt that QoL will have any game developers being involved since its not a gaming related thing. Fusion (popular concept and not my concept) is the worst solution for their issue because it will give even less reason for third party to develop on their platform and it will give less reason for people to get a Nintendo console. It will force them to exit the console market because there won't be any reason to buy it since the games will be avaliable on the handheld and it will sell less than both wiiU+3ds combined... |
It's true that Nintendo "helped" 3d parties move to Sony and that helped Sony a lot. But do you think if Sony made Nintendo type of games, had the same strategy, they would succeeded as they did? Why do you think Sony followed Sega's path and MS, Sony's path? That's where the mass market is and that's the type of games 3rd parties want to make end up in.
Xbox didn't fail because it had nothing to offer, just as PS4 hasn't sold almost 10M more consoles than XB1 just because of HW power.
The real reason was that gamers were more than happy with PS2 (a year apart between launche, btw) and didn't care for it's direct competitor even when MS was pushing for online gaming more than anyone else.
Wii U was meant to attract core gamers... at least in theory. The content and strategy were missing, really.
"And they can try new genre's all they like but if the games don't sell, which they wont, then the result is the same because people want games like Cod, GTA and etc and not just clones of each other."
Here, you are being way pessimistic and a bit unfair.
Why should Nintendo's games in those genres fail by default?
Nintendo doesn't have to make clones, but they need to make games of genres gamers love to play. How many 3ps shooters are there like Splatoon? On consoles at least. That's not a clone, is it? And if Nintendo makes a more serious 3ps like Gears or what have you, so much the better.
How do you expect Nintendo to attract 3rd parties if all they have to offer is Mario, Zelda, DK, MK and Smash? That's not the market for their games.
It doesn't matter how many deals Nintendo makes with 3rd parties, how many equal ports they get from them. Gamers will look at the full library and they will see that of the type of games they like, they can get them elsewhere and then some more. And this is what hurts Nintendo: that MS and Sony offer gamers something that they want and Nintendo doesn't do that.
This, is what Nintendo needs to break the cycle. Getting 3rd parties on board, like they did during the N64 and GC didn't do squat for them or Xbox - even if the big games were lacking on GC and N64.
It's not just having ports on NX that will solve Nintendo's problem.
NES and SNES succeed for the same reason PS has succeeded: in their days, Nintendo games was what gamers most wanted and 3rd parties built their success around those platforms aswell because at that time they also made Nintendo's type of games.
The only way Nintendo can have enough staff to do that is if they just focus on one ecosystem and not too.
I wouldn't count development times decreasing because of a unified OS, when developers, this generation, who are used to that tech, have been delaying their games and have spoken more than once on the increasing costs of development in this new generation.
Not to mention that handheld development will see it's development time increase aswell, even if there's a unified OS.
The real benefit would come if they actually make a game on both platforms. Then it would really help put out more games per year.
What good reason had developers to not develop for Wii U, when Wii U's tech, from what i have read, is nothing new to them?
Do you really believe that if they saw a market on Wii U for their games, they wouldn't actually try and bring their games to Wii U? Why do you think so many simply didn't try when Wii was a success?
The reason is still the same: the market just isn't there. I mean, gamers are, they just don't see Nintendo machines as the place for those games.
If i'm not mistaken, it was Iwata himself that said that QoL had a team taken from HW and SW divisions.
Overall, you don't unify departments, unify OSs, just to get a minor increase in development times, you spend that much resources to get a good boost.
That's why Fusion makes sense.
And how would Fusion spell decrease in overall HW sales? Home consoles sales are so low that the number of people buying both might be a few million.
With Fusion allowing for a better and more diverse line-up and allowing to take your games with you, you offer more reasons for people to at least buy one of your systems than you have now - and is bound to decrease more next gen.
Fusion means more potential consumers, so that's a better argument to convince 3rd parties to take risks.
If it was today, developers wouldn't just have 10M Wii Us (Wii U because western 3rd parties don't make games for handhelds. Or in the case of japanese developers, just switch platforms and you get the same result) to sell their games to, they would have 60M customers to sell their games to.
Want a better argument to convince both western and japanese developers who are afraid of taking risks on home consoles or handhelds?
Currently Online 
