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

Forums - Gaming - Why is it hard to believe that third parties are biased against Nintendo?

JazzB1987 on 24 April 2014
sabastian said:
JazzB1987 said:
sabastian said:
JazzB1987 said:
rolltide101x said:

In this world that we live in, EVERYTHING drops in price after time, EVERYTHING. Unless its a collectors piece.

Its the nature of itself. Bigger and better comes out, the newest edition comes out, black and white moves to color, 20 inch turnes to 42 inch, DVD turnes to Blu-Ray, NES moves to Gamecube...........

There is no reason for Nintendo to still charge full price for say Mario Kart Wii. NONE. Other than they think that consumers will still buy it, in which case the consumer is indeed part of the problem itself.

And gamers are not stupid. We gamers buy games, and we buy games all the time, so if your racing game comes out in January priced at $60, you better believe that we who want to play the game will go out and pick it up, but here is the catch, next year you are likely to release another racing game. More tracks, better tech, hopefully better gameplay, better graphics. You Set them both side by side on the store shelf priced at $60 each. Why in the world would any self respecting gamer pay $60 for the last years edition ? 

Your logic is flawed. You are aiding Nintendo in lining their pockets, while they drain YOURS. 

So why is the PS4 400 bucks then? Its out for more than 4 months now! Why is a Intel i5 2500k and equivalent CPU now more expensive than 4 years ago?  As long as a game is the newest isntallment in its franchise it can keep its price. I am not saying I dont want games to be cheaper of course I want. But i want that to happen in slow pace and with moderate price drops  (moderate as in 60 -5 = 55 instead of 60 -30 = 30 because that feels like a FUCK YOU EARLY ADOPTER!)


"next year you are likely to release another racing game."
Thats the problem there is no need for annual racing games OR Fifa12 Fifa 13 Fifa 14 etc    thats actually DLC content they want to sell at 60 bucks.  its 10x overpriced.  Annual "games" that you mention are things i dont even look at because those are not games in my opinion I am talking about "real" games.
btw "And gamers are not stupid" + buying the same game a year later for 60 which actually should be 10bucks at max  is somewhat contradicting  but thats just my opinion so no offense.

Make Assassins Creed and then WatchDogs and then PriceOfPersia and then start with AC again. So you dont have to lower your games price because its not competing with its own franchise. And again noone is forcing devs to offer bad value or the same game for 60 bucks.(in theory sport game devs have to buy a licence for each year BUT if they would just release DLC they would NOT HAVE to buy the same celebrity/sportsman's face/name etc)
Also price your anual game at 30 or better 20 and  its not the end of the world if the same game goes down 5 bucks within 3 months.  But going from 60 to 30 within a few months does not really help convincing me to buy it for 60. Whats the advantage in buying it for 60? Playing early? Making the devs rich? wow what an advantage.....



Around the Network
Zero999 on 24 April 2014
fleischr said:


It hasn't always been that way, and it doesn't have to be that way. Sure, Nintendo's own games sell best on their platforms. But in the N64 days that didn't keep games like Turok, Star Wars Episode 1 Racer, or Kobe Bryant's NBA courtside from being successful.

We'll see a Nintendo platform with solid 3rd party someday in the future again.

Correct, and a nintendo platform with the same third party support as others would dominate. people love to overexaggerate this "nintedo's ips compete with 3rd parties".



Dunban67 on 24 April 2014

Are there adults that seriously think 3rd party Dev s are biased aganst Nitendo?   I know people troll that notion sometimes but i did not think any reasonable adult actually beleived that.  

Companies make decsions primarily for financial reasons and strategic reasons (that directly and indirectly effect the financial aspect) 

Companies alos make long term a nd short term decsions.  So ther are times when they may forgo a proft now for the purpose of profiting more later

Good relationships are helpful in business but not a requirement in all their dealings (at the compnay level) 

 

Is it possible that a privatly owned busiess or a very strong CEO of a public compnay might make an occasional decison based purely on their own emotional and personal preference-  maybe but very rarely.   Dong so often would sink a business fast or get the CEO fired

All these 3rd party Devs are not Biased" against Nintendo-  they may like or dislke them but that is not gong to drive multi billion dollar companies decsions

If the risk reward ratio is in their comoft zone they would dev more for the Wii U-  

If anything Developers like Ubisoft, Activison and EA probably released some of the early games for the Wii U to foster good relstionship by helping out the Wii U launch in the event the system was succesful -  but that has not been the case-   I imagine Ubi has lost alot of money  on the WWi U and will ptob quit releasing most of their games that were not already well underway for the Wii U long ago



sabastian on 24 April 2014
JazzB1987 said:
sabastian said:
JazzB1987 said:
sabastian said:
JazzB1987 said:
rolltide101x said:

In this world that we live in, EVERYTHING drops in price after time, EVERYTHING. Unless its a collectors piece.

Its the nature of itself. Bigger and better comes out, the newest edition comes out, black and white moves to color, 20 inch turnes to 42 inch, DVD turnes to Blu-Ray, NES moves to Gamecube...........

There is no reason for Nintendo to still charge full price for say Mario Kart Wii. NONE. Other than they think that consumers will still buy it, in which case the consumer is indeed part of the problem itself.

And gamers are not stupid. We gamers buy games, and we buy games all the time, so if your racing game comes out in January priced at $60, you better believe that we who want to play the game will go out and pick it up, but here is the catch, next year you are likely to release another racing game. More tracks, better tech, hopefully better gameplay, better graphics. You Set them both side by side on the store shelf priced at $60 each. Why in the world would any self respecting gamer pay $60 for the last years edition ? 

Your logic is flawed. You are aiding Nintendo in lining their pockets, while they drain YOURS. 

So why is the PS4 400 bucks then? Its out for more than 4 months now! Why is a Intel i5 2500k and equivalent CPU now more expensive than 4 years ago?  As long as a game is the newest isntallment in its franchise it can keep its price. I am not saying I dont want games to be cheaper of course I want. But i want that to happen in slow pace and with moderate price drops  (moderate as in 60 -5 = 55 instead of 60 -30 = 30 because that feels like a FUCK YOU EARLY ADOPTER!)


"next year you are likely to release another racing game."
Thats the problem there is no need for annual racing games OR Fifa12 Fifa 13 Fifa 14 etc    thats actually DLC content they want to sell at 60 bucks.  its 10x overpriced.  Annual "games" that you mention are things i dont even look at because those are not games in my opinion I am talking about "real" games.
btw "And gamers are not stupid" + buying the same game a year later for 60 which actually should be 10bucks at max  is somewhat contradicting  but thats just my opinion so no offense.

Make Assassins Creed and then WatchDogs and then PriceOfPersia and then start with AC again. So you dont have to lower your games price because its not competing with its own franchise. And again noone is forcing devs to offer bad value or the same game for 60 bucks.(in theory sport game devs have to buy a licence for each year BUT if they would just release DLC they would NOT HAVE to buy the same celebrity/sportsman's face/name etc)
Also price your anual game at 30 or better 20 and  its not the end of the world if the same game goes down 5 bucks within 3 months.  But going from 60 to 30 within a few months does not really help convincing me to buy it for 60. Whats the advantage in buying it for 60? Playing early? Making the devs rich? wow what an advantage.....

Why is it $400 ? Because DEMAND IS STILL HIGH FOR IT... Demand for a Wii Mario Kart cartrides is NOT !!!!!

 

And about annual sports games, again , Technology jumps month after month, year after year. Developers learn more and more what more can be done with the hardware, so if the developer can creat better stadiums, better character movements, new roster, new moves, then the last years sport game is now what you call OUTDATED. Hence a new sports game. 

Again, YOUR LOGIC IS FLAWED. 

You want to support Nintendo selling you a 2008 game at $60, then go ahead. You want to support Nintendo selling you Mario Bros on the Wii-U for $10 , when you already purchased it on the Wii under your same Nintendo account priced at $10, and again on your 3DS again on your same Nintendo account priced at the same $10, THEN GO RIGHT AHEAD. 

The smart gamer will use these 3 words, F U Nintendo.



outlawauron on 24 April 2014

I see this thread was successful Rol.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Around the Network
Keegs79 on 24 April 2014
Zero999 said:

don't make me laugh with this pointless "casual" term. as I said 253 third party games sols at least 500k units and close to 100 are million sellers. among those you will find all kinds of games and genres, p.e.r.i.o.d. by comparing to other consoles, we see that third party games sell less on nintendo than others, but less =/= little, it's still a lot of sales.

You will never find third parties doing that good in one console life cycle with a huge installed base. A system that succeded by capitalizing on the casual market. A market that wasn't there for third parties and isn't there right now. One console generation doesn't mean that third parties always find success on the Wii. More than half of those games are trash. What does this mean? It means yes you can find success but third party titles STILL OVERALL don't do well on Nintendo's system. That doesn't mean all or none.

NOW GO BACK and look at my original comment. What does it says in bold and try to explain WHAT you tried to prove me wrong on!!! What are you? Damage control?

MY ORIGINAL COMMENT:

"Publishers go where their games can make money. EA tried to do it with Dead Space: Extraction which is an incredible innovative light gun game but it sold poorly. Zack and Wiki from Capcom used the Wii-Mote in incredible ways but it sold poorly. Madworld is the most brutal mature title on the Wii, it sold poorly. There games just don't sell well.

Nintendo develops hardware significantly less powerful these days compared to the competitors. There would be a lot of sacrifice to be made to bring a lot of these third party game on the Wii and now Wii U. Another factor I would consider is that the core audience on Nintendo's systems just want Nintendo franchises. I think there is a market for third party games but its very risky, especially now when their hardware is selling terribly."



Zero999 on 24 April 2014
Keegs79 said:

You will never find third parties doing that good in one console life cycle with a huge installed base. A system that succeded by capitalizing on the casual market. A market that wasn't there for third parties and isn't there right now. One console generation doesn't mean that third parties always find success on the Wii. More than half of those games are trash. What does this mean? It means yes you can find success but third party titles STILL OVERALL don't do well on Nintendo's system. That doesn't mean all or none.

NOW GO BACK and look at my original comment. What does it says in bold and try to explain WHAT you tried to prove me wrong on!!! What are you? Damage control?

MY ORIGINAL COMMENT:

"Publishers go where their games can make money. EA tried to do it with Dead Space: Extraction which is an incredible innovative light gun game but it sold poorly. Zack and Wiki from Capcom used the Wii-Mote in incredible ways but it sold poorly. Madworld is the most brutal mature title on the Wii, it sold poorly. There games just don't sell well.

Nintendo develops hardware significantly less powerful these days compared to the competitors. There would be a lot of sacrifice to be made to bring a lot of these third party game on the Wii and now Wii U. Another factor I would consider is that the core audience on Nintendo's systems just want Nintendo franchises. I think there is a market for third party games but its very risky, especially now when their hardware is selling terribly."

I'll stop here but one last thing. "More than half of those games are trash" that's really silly and by the same logic can be said about any videogame lineup.



Keegs79 on 24 April 2014
Zero999 said:

I'll stop here but one last thing. "More than half of those games are trash" that's really silly and by the same logic can be said about any videogame lineup.

You have to stop. You made no point. You argued with me for no reason.



Zero999 on 24 April 2014
Keegs79 said:
Zero999 said:

I'll stop here but one last thing. "More than half of those games are trash" that's really silly and by the same logic can be said about any videogame lineup.

You have to stop. You made no point. You argued with me for no reason.

you made no point by saying "More than half of those games are trash".



burning_phoneix on 25 April 2014
Dunban67 said:

Companies alos make long term a nd short term decsions.  So ther are times when they may forgo a proft now for the purpose of profiting more later


 

Many many companies are simply short term profit generators nowadays. Long term planning is a rare skill in business. For most it's "GET THE DIVIDENDS OUT NOW!"

 

setsunatenshi said:
ICStats said:

They're not biased against Nintendo, they're allergic to Nintendo.  Big difference.

What are they allergic to?

 - Not being put first.
 - Not having the features, support and tools that they're used to from MS & Sony.
 - Lack of hardware parity is a pain.  Devs want the consoles to be as close as possible, preferably the same.

The medicine for that is to have a big market, a lot of users.  All pains can be forgotten if there's a market, like with Wii.

Imagine a scenario where Wii U had similar specs to PS4 or XB1.... we'll come back to this.

Although the GC didn't set the house on fire with it's sales, 3rd party devs supported it.  Why?  It was pretty easy
to port to from PS2.  In some ways it was a pleasure to port to GC than to develop for the PS2.  But... Nintendo
must not have been happy with GC so they risked the Wii strategy - make a console that can't compete on power being 5 or 6
times weaker than high end consoles, but cheaper and with a new widget.  It worked, against all estimates.

So Nintendo tried to do the same again, release a console 5 or 6 times weaker than PS4/XB1, with a new widget... only
this time the widget didn't catch on.  Now they're stuck with a console that's not competitive on power and has no widget
to sell.  A worse position than the GameCube, it's big difference from PS4/XB1 is why it will not get 3rd party support.

Back to the imaginary scenario, if Wii U was close in specs to PS4/XB1, not beating anything but close, then devs would just
port their PS4/X1 software, plus you'd get awesome 1st party.  It would be a great console to own.

So like it was said, had the Wii U specs been buffed up a bit more in a similar architecture as the other 2 competitors, there would absolutely be basically the same 3rd party support that MS and Sony get.

 

That wasn't true for Gamecube and it isn't true now.