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?

Why is it hard to believe that it's all nintendo's fault ?



Predictions for end of 2014 HW sales:

 PS4: 17m   XB1: 10m    WiiU: 10m   Vita: 10m

 

Around the Network

There is no bias.. nintendo just decided to come out with inferior hardware and an irrelevant way to play video games.. which is why the wii u may not even match gamecube hardware sales..

 

third parties existed during the gamecube era.. with resident evil 4 being exclusive for a short time frame on a nintendo platform.. but unfortunately they released an inferior disc format.. and with the wii released hardware barely ahead of the ps2 era.. developers like to push things forward..



 

mM
bubblegamer said:

And this happens EVERY time AND to EVERY corporation? I see. Must be nice to belive things that suit your part of view.

Because this can't go both ways.

Anyhow, I'm not going to outright claim either or. I don't know how most third-party developers work behind closed doors, all I can do is speculate. From a speculative point of view, I could agree that some third party developers do indeed have a bias against Nintendo. Although, this happens with any human-run organization or faction and isn't necessarily exclusive to Nintendo.



Zero999 said:

no offense but mentioning a bunch of isolated cases looks like cherrypicking and they're not even true.

about your examples, deadspace did ok, 450k. other light gun games did great: house of the dead 2 & 3 sold 1.42m, overkill got 820k. RE umbrella and darkaside chronicles did 1.51m and 510k respectively. zack and wiki also did and ok 410k. madworld sold 740k, that's quite good and very profitable. and new ips from platinum don't usually do well.

how about a simpler fact? over 300 games sold 500k+ on wii, most of them are third party, both exclusive and multiplatform. with those sales, the vast majority, if not all, are profitable.


You do realize that they sold extremely lower than their original price. Zack and Wiki started by selling less than 35,000 copies. It priced dropped significantly because of poor sales. Capcom and many others stated how terribly it sold. There was plenty of articles stated how Dead Space: Extraction and Mad World sold poorly. I am not cherry picking. I was picking what I knew off the top of my head.

Now researching, Zack and Wiki did sale more but it took a significant amount of time with a big price drop. As for Extraction, are you counting the PS3 version because it sold less than 10,000 in 5 days.

http://wii.gamespy.com/wii/dead-space/1037209p1.html

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/07/17/the-conduit-sales-fizzle-in-late-june-debut/

It wasn't just those that sold poorly it was The Conduit and Grand Theft Auto Chinatown Wars. A said that again. A Grand Theft Auto game! No I am not cherry picking I didn't even name all the games! You don't need to defend Nintendo when they themselves acknowledged the poor sale of thes games.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/91028-GTA-Chinatown-Wars-Sales-Tank-Badly

You can say well its mixed with more handheld competition. No. I think its a reflection of what the majority of people don't want and want on Nintendo's handhelds and consoles. I only speak if I know and I spoke. Third parties don't like the results and majority of Nintendo owners are not buying them.



sabastian said:
JazzB1987 said:
rolltide101x said:
Devs and publishers want money. If Nintendo made them money then Devs and publishers would be there but 3rd party games do not do well on Nintendo hardware

Thats the problem They should make their own money. Stop being parasites wanting easy money. 

Nintendo is not supposed to help them get money  its their own damn job to do it. I mean when was the last time you heard Hollywood whine about Adobe not offering good support for Photoshop or AfterEffects?  Its not Adobes job to help people make money and everyone knows that.

Seriously do you go to a job interview and tell the boss to pay for the bus ticket? Because "if you want me to work here then pay for my expenses!"???

The industry became lazy. And that also shows in their games.  I cant think of many polished third party games last gen at all.


And third party titles sell just look at Bravely Default or MonsterHunter or COD3 and 4.
The problem is  why pay 60 for a game when its 5 on steam a year later?  Or why buy a unfinished mess with 20FPS that lacks game modes etc ?  Nintendo gamers =/= PS360 gamers.  The industry has this image of how a gamer looks like but that image is bullshit. Some people actually still care about value.

You cant throw bones at a bird can you? Not everyone is the same.

  Its the third parties fault for not being successful.  Dont expect people to buy shit just because other people buy that shit.  And stop complaining and insulting the userbase! Dont be absent  because being absent from a console results in the userbase getting used to living without you Activisions decision to not have COD MW1 on Wii killed the whole franchise on Wii. (sold identical on Wii compared to360 evem tho the 360 was out 1 year earlier before the absence!)
Stop disappointing customers. (Yay Final Fantasy! Oh only some strange CrystalChronicle thing...... Yay! DragonQuest! Oh only on rails..... Yay! DeadSpace!  Oh only on rails..... Yay! SoulCalibur! Oh strange action game..... Yay! ResidentEvil   oh  only on rails....... Yay! DragonQuest X finally a real game in the series!  Oh only a mmorpg game wasting the X of a potentially great game......)


Having all multiplatform versions in a commercial but the Nintendo version is also not helping. (The commercial is already "paid" just add a f*ing Wii box  but nooooo why should you right?)


I dunno about other people but for me third party needs to at least make a quality hattrick before I concider buying their games again. And if they keep devaluing their own games by offering them with a 90% discount a year later  I wont buy them. I am used to Nintendo games with Value that stay at 50 even 3 years later. I do not like to pay to much   which basically happens when people buy the same game a few months later for half the price.  This happens with third party all the time so I wait. But third party has this stupid mentality that  if a game does not sell within 3 months its a failure so they drop the price.

Third party has a completely different mentality than Nintendo gamers have. And thats their own fault   its like dogs and cats waving with their tails  and not understanding why they dont get along.


There are many types of gamers.

 

The gamer that owns a Wii/ Ps3

The gamer that owns a 360/Wii

The gamer that owns a ps3/360

If your the gamer that only owned a Wii as your sole console last gen, you were the gamer that missed out on a TON of awesome games....... 

Th Wii did not help itself when it came to 3rd party titles, and so is the Wii-U.

And as far as I can remember, Nintendo is the only company that has games released over 10 years now and still ask you to pay full price for them. Tell me how is that good for the consumer ?

You forgot PC...



Around the Network
noname2200 said:
Serious_frusting said:
Your OP has nothing to do with the thread title

He's assuming that everyone on this site can take the formula "1+x=2" and find x. Stupid of him, I know.

 


What kind of sorcery is this???



It's okay, He-Man the spoon is here to save us all



Fusioncode said:

No I mean the thread was almost word for word ripoff of a Jimqusition episode.

An Industry Of Pitiful Cowards | Jimquisition Video Gallery | The Escapist




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

JazzB1987 said:

Having all multiplatform versions in a commercial but the Nintendo version is also not helping. (The commercial is already "paid" just add a f*ing Wii box  but nooooo why should you right?)

Has there been any attempt at an official explanation for this?



RolStoppable said:
Mythmaker1 said:

The difference between the question in the thread title and the examples in the OP is that, unlike those examples, there's an actual basis for third-parties to avoid Nintendo. 

They have a history (albeit one that, depending on your perspective, is in the past) of being a bad partner, their tendency to make radical changes to their hardware makes them an unreliable platform, and from a purely financial perspective their platforms offer less potential return for third-parties.

Two simple tasks for you:

1) The PS3 made programming hard and drove up development costs, its sales pace was far below expectations which in turn crippled third party software sales to the point that in the year after the PS3 launch almost every big third party publisher posted losses and had to close studios. During the same timeframe, the PS3 sold the lowest amount of third party software between itself, the 360 and the Wii. Explain how the PS3 could end up with the best third party support in the long run.

2) The 3DS had built over a ten million lead in installed base over the PSV in Japan and Monster Hunter was very successful on Nintendo's handheld. Explain why God Eater 2 skipped the 3DS.

Thanks, but I'm not interested.



I believe in honesty, civility, generosity, practicality, and impartiality.

bubblegamer said:
Because the whole definition of bias playing a role, where money is the only driving force, in the business making decisions of corporations is utterly unrealistic.

You do realise that it is humans, and not finance-programmed automatons, running the companies, right? That the management of a company is capable of having a bias that influences what they believe to be the best way to make money? That a CEO's personal (that is, non-business) opinion of Nintendo's actions and activities will influence their decisions?

I think that the idea that CEOs are infallible money-making machines is the utterly unrealistic belief.