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?

impertinence on 26 April 2014
Hynad said:
impertinence said:

Your statements afe nonsensical. Of course the statement "having no major market for your products" isn't a bias, however, to hold as true that there is no major market for games on Nintendo hardware is a bias. And if you truly believe that there is no bias in how companies try to make a profit, you are sorely mistaken. The videogame industry is overflowing with decissions made based on the purest of bias, including Nintendo. There is also easy to see that there are strong biases against Nintendo from fans and many, many developers.

There are also biases against Sony and Microsoft, but in the current video game market the echochamber rings loud with the kind of unsubstantiated drivel that you have been parroting in this thread: "There is no market on Wii U for third parties", "The is more profit to be had on the PS4 or Xbox One". etc. Statements like these are inherently biased, but most people are to full of themselves to be able to see their own biases.

When people say "There is no market for our games on the Wii U" that really means "We don't want to make games that will appeal to the users of the Wii U". The bias is in prefering to make a certain type of game marketed at a certain type of gamer that they assume is easier to target on other platforms. Developers making statements like these are hiding their own bias from themselves (Meaning, they dismiss the posibility of creating a different kind of game than what they personally prefer, even though that might very well be much more profitable). And as an extention they are making irrational decisions in the marketplace. The same can be said for all other statements along the lines of "The hardware is too weak for our artistic ambitions", "Our game relies on a robust online infrastructure", etc. etc.

What a load of crap.  You're basically saying that a desk maker is biased because he doesn't also manufacture cars. -__-

How more unreasonable can you get?

Just throwing that here: Business deals aren't made with only one party. It takes two to make a deal. Nintendo is the console maker. They're the one that, ultimately, are responsible for the fate of their consoles. Blaming the third party developers is laughably similar to all those modern parents blaming everyone but themselves for their kid's bad upbringing.

Sigh. Are you trying to imply that making Playstation 4 and Xbox One games are like making desks and making WiiU games is like making cars? I am going by the assumption here that professional game developers have the skills and the know how to be able to make games on the Wii U as well as the Playstation 4 and the Xbox One.

Your counter example is obviously completely meaningless. Unless of course you hold on to a bias that developing games for the Wii U is so extremly easy compared to other platforms that it is akin to the difference between making a desk and a car? To answer your question, your useless interpretation of what I said is pretty close to as unreasonable as anything can get.

Finally, your last point about who is responsible for what is another statement right from the echo chamber. Also, it is completely irrelevant to the discussion just like your first example. First of all, who is blaming anyone for anything? Third parties (and Niontendo, and Sony, and Microsoft, and you and I) all operate based on bias to some extent or another. That doesn't mean I am blaming third parties for anything. They make their decission (irrational as they are) that effects their business and their money, reputation, feeling of self and whatever else motivations they have. Good for them. I am simply pointing out that these decissions are not driven solely by clear analytical thought, and that the underlyig bias is very easy to see. And yeah, one of the strong biases in the videogame industry right now is that Nintendo is out of touch, the hardware too weak, can only sell to casuals etc etc. I am sure you can add to the list.



Around the Network
Dr.Henry_Killinger on 26 April 2014
impertinence said:

Sigh. Are you trying to imply that making Playstation 4 and Xbox One games are like making desks and making WiiU games is like making cars? I am going by the assumption here that professional game developers have the skills and the know how to be able to make games on the Wii U as well as the Playstation 4 and the Xbox One.

Your counter example is obviously completely meaningless. Unless of course you hold on to a bias that developing games for the Wii U is so extremly easy compared to other platforms that it is akin to the difference between making a desk and a car? To answer your question, your useless interpretation of what I said is pretty close to as unreasonable as anything can get.

Finally, your last point about who is responsible for what is another statement right from the echo chamber. Also, it is completely irrelevant to the discussion just like your first example. First of all, who is blaming anyone for anything? Third parties (and Niontendo, and Sony, and Microsoft, and you and I) all operate based on bias to some extent or another. That doesn't mean I am blaming third parties for anything. They make their decission (irrational as they are) that effects their business and their money, reputation, feeling of self and whatever else motivations they have. Good for them. I am simply pointing out that these decissions are not driven solely by clear analytical thought, and that the underlyig bias is very easy to see. And yeah, one of the strong biases in the videogame industry right now is that Nintendo is out of touch, the hardware too weak, can only sell to casuals etc etc. I am sure you can add to the list.

You're refusal to openly consider opposing arguments, makes discussion with you purely just banter. You came into this thread already locked in your own opinion. I will agree that since the Wii U and HD twins are essentially the same hardware, a more accurate example would be the HD Twins as Diesel cars, and the Wii U being electric. 

Bias is inherent to human nature. But your bias is, ironically, clouding your judgement.

Company's are a lot more rational then humans, because they have to be to survive, and they are the conglomeration of all the biases of the people working in the company. Even if the CEO's mother died playing the Wii, EA would still make games for it because the profit overwrites any bias against Nintendo.

Unless you can prove undoubtedly that 3rd parties not developing for the Wii U is detrimental to themselves, then it is pointless to try to analyze any possible bias.



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

burning_phoneix on 26 April 2014
DialgaMarine said:
Captain_Tom said:
DialgaMarine said:
It's kind of hard to not be biased if putting their games on the U will only cause them to lose money. It's a money making scheme for developers as much as it is anything else. If people aren't going to buy the games, you can't blame devs for refusing to support.

Exactly.  It isn't biased if its just good business.  It's common sense.

 Pretty much. The solution to third party problems is simple. If Ninty fans want more third party support, they need to convince themselves and their fellow Wii-U owners to start putting money where their mouths are and buy the third party titles that are already there, instead of sitting around and waiting for the next big Ninty exclusives. It's stupid when they get upset and cry like this when with pretty much every big third party title, the Wii-U version generally accounts for less than 1% of the game's total sales. Not to mention, when they claim the reason they don't buy third party games is because they get the worst versions, they might want to start looking at Nintendo and their hardware department before they start playing the blame game.


So when the WiiU gets PS3/Xbox360 ports later than the the aforementioned consoles with less DLC support, we're supposed to be grateful?

It has nothing to do with hardware if we're talking ports from last gen.



Hynad on 26 April 2014
impertinence said:
Hynad said:
impertinence said:

Your statements afe nonsensical. Of course the statement "having no major market for your products" isn't a bias, however, to hold as true that there is no major market for games on Nintendo hardware is a bias. And if you truly believe that there is no bias in how companies try to make a profit, you are sorely mistaken. The videogame industry is overflowing with decissions made based on the purest of bias, including Nintendo. There is also easy to see that there are strong biases against Nintendo from fans and many, many developers.

There are also biases against Sony and Microsoft, but in the current video game market the echochamber rings loud with the kind of unsubstantiated drivel that you have been parroting in this thread: "There is no market on Wii U for third parties", "The is more profit to be had on the PS4 or Xbox One". etc. Statements like these are inherently biased, but most people are to full of themselves to be able to see their own biases.

When people say "There is no market for our games on the Wii U" that really means "We don't want to make games that will appeal to the users of the Wii U". The bias is in prefering to make a certain type of game marketed at a certain type of gamer that they assume is easier to target on other platforms. Developers making statements like these are hiding their own bias from themselves (Meaning, they dismiss the posibility of creating a different kind of game than what they personally prefer, even though that might very well be much more profitable). And as an extention they are making irrational decisions in the marketplace. The same can be said for all other statements along the lines of "The hardware is too weak for our artistic ambitions", "Our game relies on a robust online infrastructure", etc. etc.

What a load of crap.  You're basically saying that a desk maker is biased because he doesn't also manufacture cars. -__-

How more unreasonable can you get?

Just throwing that here: Business deals aren't made with only one party. It takes two to make a deal. Nintendo is the console maker. They're the one that, ultimately, are responsible for the fate of their consoles. Blaming the third party developers is laughably similar to all those modern parents blaming everyone but themselves for their kid's bad upbringing.

Sigh. Are you trying to imply that making Playstation 4 and Xbox One games are like making desks and making WiiU games is like making cars? I am going by the assumption here that professional game developers have the skills and the know how to be able to make games on the Wii U as well as the Playstation 4 and the Xbox One.

Your counter example is obviously completely meaningless. Unless of course you hold on to a bias that developing games for the Wii U is so extremly easy compared to other platforms that it is akin to the difference between making a desk and a car? To answer your question, your useless interpretation of what I said is pretty close to as unreasonable as anything can get.

Finally, your last point about who is responsible for what is another statement right from the echo chamber. Also, it is completely irrelevant to the discussion just like your first example. First of all, who is blaming anyone for anything? Third parties (and Niontendo, and Sony, and Microsoft, and you and I) all operate based on bias to some extent or another. That doesn't mean I am blaming third parties for anything. They make their decission (irrational as they are) that effects their business and their money, reputation, feeling of self and whatever else motivations they have. Good for them. I am simply pointing out that these decissions are not driven solely by clear analytical thought, and that the underlyig bias is very easy to see. And yeah, one of the strong biases in the videogame industry right now is that Nintendo is out of touch, the hardware too weak, can only sell to casuals etc etc. I am sure you can add to the list.


You missed the point. You were asking devs to adjust what they create to what the audience of the Wii U might want. If what they're good at making are FPSs (desks)  like CoD, and they don't sell well on the Wii U, it's only normal that they will prefer making those for the market for which they sell, like the Playstation and Xbox consoles.  

You're asking devs to change what they're good at doing to maybe please an audience that might or might not exist for their hypotetical games (asking a desk maker to manufacture cars) ... -__-


You're being very disingenious and unreasonable so far in this discussion. While I agree with the fact that everyone has biases, companies aren't run on gut feelings. That's a very naive way to picture how a board of directors works. ¬_¬



Aiddon on 26 April 2014

y'know, every time I hear people bring up "business" in these kind of threads, a couple red flags pop into my head.

1. Why would you NOT want your games to be on as many platforms as possible? Doesn't having more platforms and thus potentially more customers lead to a healthier and more robust industry? Shouldn't you try to make as many types of games for as many types of customers as possible? It keeps you from becoming too reliant on one demographic and thus risking serious failure should a stumble happen. Furthermore:

2. 3DS; it's STILL the highest-selling system right now, so why aren't more third parties making games for it? Sure, Namco-Bandai, CAPCOM, SEGA, Atlus, xSeed, Square-Enix, etc release titles for it all the time, but are why are companies like EA, 2K, Ubisoft, and basically every major Western publisher all suspiciously absent? You're telling me that ignoring a user base of nearly 44 million is SMART????? You'd think those guys would get their dev teams working on handheld titles all the time due to their lower financial commitments and quicker dev times. Seriously, why has EA never had Bioware make a 3DS RPG like a spinoff in Dragon Age or Mass Effect? Why does Ubisoft not do a Prince of Persia game on the 3DS? Why does 2K not do another GTA entry? Again, 44 MILLION customers, waiting to be tapped and they choose to IGNORE them? Not a good business decision in the least.

And that's the thing that REALLY gets on my nerves with 3rd parties: the lack of logic. They keep whining about profits due to rampant bloated budgets, but the thing is nobody ever held a gun to their head and forced them to make games that expensive. They cried for more power with consoles, unaware that you can still make fun games as long as you think outside the box and be efficient. To me it seems like 3rd parties are run by idiots who don't know how to manage a business properly. Furthermore, with them making their portfolios smaller and smaller, thus relying only on a handful of "AAA" titles they're running the risk of becoming inflexible and thus not capable of dealing with a few failures every now and again.



Around the Network
biglittlesps on 26 April 2014
Aiddon said:
y'know, every time I hear people bring up "business" in these kind of threads, a couple red flags pop into my head.

1. Why would you NOT want your games to be on as many platforms as possible? Doesn't having more platforms and thus potentially more customers lead to a healthier and more robust industry? Shouldn't you try to make as many types of games for as many types of customers as possible? It keeps you from becoming too reliant on one demographic and thus risking serious failure should a stumble happen. Furthermore:

2. 3DS; it's STILL the highest-selling system right now, so why aren't more third parties making games for it? Sure, Namco-Bandai, CAPCOM, SEGA, Atlus, xSeed, Square-Enix, etc release titles for it all the time, but are why are companies like EA, 2K, Ubisoft, and basically every major Western publisher all suspiciously absent? You're telling me that ignoring a user base of nearly 44 million is SMART????? You'd think those guys would get their dev teams working on handheld titles all the time due to their lower financial commitments and quicker dev times. Seriously, why has EA never had Bioware make a 3DS RPG like a spinoff in Dragon Age or Mass Effect? Why does Ubisoft not do a Prince of Persia game on the 3DS? Why does 2K not do another GTA entry? Again, 44 MILLION customers, waiting to be tapped and they choose to IGNORE them? Not a good business decision in the least.

And that's the thing that REALLY gets on my nerves with 3rd parties: the lack of logic. They keep whining about profits due to rampant bloated budgets, but the thing is nobody ever held a gun to their head and forced them to make games that expensive. They cried for more power with consoles, unaware that you can still make fun games as long as you think outside the box and be efficient. To me it seems like 3rd parties are run by idiots who don't know how to manage a business properly. Furthermore, with them making their portfolios smaller and smaller, thus relying only on a handful of "AAA" titles they're running the risk of becoming inflexible and thus not capable of dealing with a few failures every now and again.

All the wester developers IP's require some horse power and system architecture/tools that can be used across multiple platforms which is not the case with the Nitendo always. Even with the good power the Vita is not getting games from western developers because they never care about handhelds because the resournces are not worth for them there (spend those resournces on consoles/PC where there are more user base, horse power and tools for them to make money without worries) and sales of the western IP's are not very good in handhenlds. Also mostly nintendo systems have only the first party games saleas which accounts for more 70% and many other factors are there to skip Nintendo and they are not just stupid to ignore the user base of 3DS. Dont think you know everything and better than those the people who manage the Thirdy party game companies.

Handhelds are very good only for RPGS, Platforms and Indies mostly not for the console class titles which the western developers are interested in.



GAMING is not about spending hours to pass/waste our time just for fun,

its a Feeling/Experience about a VIRTUAL WORLD we can never be in real, and realizing some of our dreams (also creating new ones).

So, Feel Emotions, Experience Adventure/Action, Challenge Game, Solve puzzles and Have fun.

PlayStation is about all-round "New experiences" using new IP's to provide great diversity for everyone.

Xbox is always about Online and Shooting.

Nintendo is always about Fun games and milking IP's.

DialgaMarine on 26 April 2014
burning_phoneix said:
DialgaMarine said:
Captain_Tom said:
DialgaMarine said:
It's kind of hard to not be biased if putting their games on the U will only cause them to lose money. It's a money making scheme for developers as much as it is anything else. If people aren't going to buy the games, you can't blame devs for refusing to support.

Exactly.  It isn't biased if its just good business.  It's common sense.

 Pretty much. The solution to third party problems is simple. If Ninty fans want more third party support, they need to convince themselves and their fellow Wii-U owners to start putting money where their mouths are and buy the third party titles that are already there, instead of sitting around and waiting for the next big Ninty exclusives. It's stupid when they get upset and cry like this when with pretty much every big third party title, the Wii-U version generally accounts for less than 1% of the game's total sales. Not to mention, when they claim the reason they don't buy third party games is because they get the worst versions, they might want to start looking at Nintendo and their hardware department before they start playing the blame game.


So when the WiiU gets PS3/Xbox360 ports later than the the aforementioned consoles with less DLC support, we're supposed to be grateful?

It has nothing to do with hardware if we're talking ports from last gen.

 If I'm not mistaken, Nintendo's not exactly too savy on DLC to begin with. Something tells me there's a 2-way issue there. As for the ports, clearly several third party devs have pushed Wii-U passed PS360, but at the end of the day, let's face it, it's a hardware issue there. The system is not very powerful to begin with, and it's severely gimped by the gamepad. You can't blame devs for not trying to conjure up magical elves that somehow make the Wii-U more than it is. Even Nintendo's own first party can't make Wii-U games look phenomenal, unless they feature cartoony, very undetailed, graphics. Point is, you're never going to see anything on Wii-U even come close to the graphical fidelity of a title like inFamous: SS, and if people aren't gonna buy the games anyway, why should third party devs even try?





0331 Happiness is a belt-fed weapon

mysteryman on 26 April 2014
DialgaMarine said:

 If I'm not mistaken, Nintendo's not exactly too savy on DLC to begin with. Something tells me there's a 2-way issue there. As for the ports, clearly several third party devs have pushed Wii-U passed PS360, but at the end of the day, let's face it, it's a hardware issue there. The system is not very powerful to begin with, and it's severely gimped by the gamepad. You can't blame devs for not trying to conjure up magical elves that somehow make the Wii-U more than it is. Even Nintendo's own first party can't make Wii-U games look phenomenal, unless they feature cartoony, very undetailed, graphics. Point is, you're never going to see anything on Wii-U even come close to the graphical fidelity of a title like inFamous: SS, and if people aren't gonna buy the games anyway, why should third party devs even try?

Why should consumers buy games from devs that don't even try?

Quote Tree Trimmed - Conegamer



Hynad on 26 April 2014
mysteryman said:

Why should consumers buy games from devs that don't even try?

History has proven that consumers on Nintendo's consoles don't even buy those games when the devs do try.



Jumpin on 26 April 2014

For starters "Third Parties" isn't some sort of single entity - it is a large number of independent entities with independent opinions.

With that in mind, it's a far stretch of the imagination to sugges that third parties are biased against Nintendo.

In addition, if they were, then why are there still tons of third party games for Nintendo consoles?



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.