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

Forums - Nintendo - Are third parties skipping Nintendo out of spite?

cheshirescat on 21 April 2014

Is this guy seriously trying to argue that the wii u isn't underpowered by comparing it to the amazon fire tv? That's just, wow, I mean come on. Funny thing is, the amazon fire tv is closer to the wii u than the wii u is to ps4/xb1.



Around the Network
SWORDF1SH on 21 April 2014
cfin2987@gmail.com said:
SWORDF1SH said:

Hey Ry,

Let's not forget that it took a while to get on the 360, even longer for the PS3 (a few months ago). Both are very huge install bases. Wii is dead and Wii U is selling poorly for them to even bother but not sure why they skipped the 3DS though. Maybe because very few 3rd party games sell well on Nintendo platforms.


Dead? It still has the largest install base. No longer produced because the Wii U does everything it does and dead are VERY different.

Install base doesn't mean anything when judging if a console is dead or not but the amount of software/hardware it sells. In the global top 75 on vgchartz there is only one wii game. To me that's dead. It was pretty much dying a year before the WiiU was released so no developer will want to develop for a console that doesn't shift games and on its way out. Couple that with the fact that not many 3rd party games sell well on Nintendo platforms.



SWORDF1SH on 21 April 2014
the_dengle said:
Only the ones as petty as that fish guy.


?? not sure what that even means. I'm just stating a fact that a developer isn't going to invest and risk money on a platform that would be high risk. 3DS wouldn't be a bad gamble though as it wouldn't be nowhere as a high risk as the wii or wii U.



Barozi on 21 April 2014

well they could totally port Minecraft Pocket Edition to 3DS, but that's an extremely gimped version.



Jumpin on 21 April 2014

Keep in mind "Third Parties" are not some united conglomerate with an aligned agenda. They're all separate entities who all came to conclusions independently.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network
marley on 21 April 2014
KylieDog said:
TheLegendaryWolf said:
KylieDog said:


That excuse doesn't work when you take into account the last 4 Nintendo consoles all having this problem. 

Wasn't it difficult for 3rd parties to develop on N64? Also, the Gamecube's lack of successful 3rd party games is thanks to Nintendo's 1st party games, same with Wii and Wii U. In order to "win" back the missing support, they have to create new games using different genres (FPS, Sports simulators, 3PS) to prove they can appeal to the "core" gamers.


N64 - Nintendo used carts because it suited them, they didn't need much memory for their games and they made the carts so got them cheaper than third parties + got their console owner cut from sales to lessen cost, it all favoured Nintendo and nobody else.  Third parties flocked to PS1 with CDs that cost MUCH less and gave them more memory for the types of games they made.

GC - Nintendo used low memory GC discs because too cheap to pay a DVD license fee, didn't matter to Nintendo because most of their games don't use a lot of memory.  Third parties flocked to PS2 using DVD with more memory because it allowed them to make the sort of game they wanted, and even Xbox (so no blaming install base for why few GC games, because Xbox install base sucked too).

Wii - Went for a heavily underpowered console and abnormal controller because it suited them.  Again third parties went to other consoles because those offered what was needed for the games they wanted to make.

WiiU - Underpowered console again, again third parties going for the more powerful hardware because those let them make the games the want.

If you want thid party support, you need give them a reason to make games for your console.  Nintendo gives third parties reasons not to.

I doubt 3rd parties are deciding to avoid Nintendo's hardware because of a lack of power.  If that were the case, they wouldn't be making mobile games...

I'm sure the decision is rooted in the financial world and has nothing to do with the system's power.



fleischr on 21 April 2014
spurgeonryan said:

Minecraft is still skipping 3DS and Wii U. But coming to vita?

 

Nintendo under attack!


I don't get skipping the 3DS. The demographics play right into Mojang's wheelhouse.

I think the issue with 3rd party and Nintendo is that NIntendo is refusing to money-hat 3rd party projects. Nintendo can easily lay out some cash for more 3rd party projects and actually gain a profit from it. The reason Nintendo doesn't do it? They like to take on more risk with their own projects so as to potentially earn higher returns while keeping their cash for rainy days such as these.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Vita version would be comparable to developing the the PS3 version and that Sony money-hatted the Vita version to be made.



I predict NX launches in 2017 - not 2016

Soundwave on 21 April 2014

No, not really, they don't support Nintendo because third party games generally sell better on other platforms almost all the time.

But a small vocal portion of Nintendo fans find comfort in there being a conspiracy, so let them have this slice of cake.

It's much easier to blame third parties who have their own bills to pay than to blame Nintendo for any responsibility other than not making enough TV commercials. 



Barozi on 21 April 2014
marley said:
KylieDog said:


N64 - Nintendo used carts because it suited them, they didn't need much memory for their games and they made the carts so got them cheaper than third parties + got their console owner cut from sales to lessen cost, it all favoured Nintendo and nobody else.  Third parties flocked to PS1 with CDs that cost MUCH less and gave them more memory for the types of games they made.

GC - Nintendo used low memory GC discs because too cheap to pay a DVD license fee, didn't matter to Nintendo because most of their games don't use a lot of memory.  Third parties flocked to PS2 using DVD with more memory because it allowed them to make the sort of game they wanted, and even Xbox (so no blaming install base for why few GC games, because Xbox install base sucked too).

Wii - Went for a heavily underpowered console and abnormal controller because it suited them.  Again third parties went to other consoles because those offered what was needed for the games they wanted to make.

WiiU - Underpowered console again, again third parties going for the more powerful hardware because those let them make the games the want.

If you want thid party support, you need give them a reason to make games for your console.  Nintendo gives third parties reasons not to.

I doubt 3rd parties are deciding to avoid Nintendo's hardware because of a lack of power.  If that were the case, they wouldn't be making mobile games...

I'm sure the decision is rooted in the financial world and has nothing to do with the system's power.

It certainly has for multiplat games. Imagine an Assassin's Creed 4 port on Wii. That's not something you can accomplish with a small team in 6 months. You'd need to make the same effort and investment as for example AC3 Liberation (and that's only a handheld game).



softcoregamer82 on 21 April 2014

EA is the only one that appears to be out of spite and related to the Origins dispute. They abandoned the Wii U very early on when its fate was far from certain as it is now. Ubisoft and Activision actually gave the system a chance, and if they pull out now, you can't say they didn't try. But EA wouldn't even put a reskined FIFA game on the Wii U, and they axed Crysis 3 even though it was running and working on the Wii U.

In fairness to EA, despite them not deserving much fairness, they at least put a few titles on the Wii U, which is more than Bethesda, Rockstar, etc.