Forums - Sales Discussion - Why Nintendo shouldn't suck up to third parties

forest-spirit said:
Euphoria14 said:

It is obvious to anyone with common sense that Nintendo IS NOT the best developer in the world. Their online is subpar (They even choose AGAINST in game chat for a team-based competitive shooter!!) and I doubt they could even create a game on the same level as Elder Scrolls, Witcher, Minecraft or even Destiny.

Until they prove that they can then there is no way to begin claiming them to be the best. The notion is just silly.


Common sense? According to whom is it common sense and what is it based on? Also, using that common sense, who is the best developer in the world. Their online has been subpar yes, but online is but one element and is not featured in every single game so it would be silly to use that as some kind of deciding factor. Discrediting developers for subpar gameplay, uninspired level design, boring art style, poor visuals or releasing products with significant bugs would be just as valid.

It seems like you're using your own opninion and preferences to define this level that Nintendo needs to surpass. For many Nintendo has already made games that surpass those (or those games never beat Nintendo's offerings to begin with). Now, it's perfectly fine for you to believe that Nintendo is incapable of reaching that "level" but that doesn't mean that everyone has to share that belief. And thus there's nothing silly about regarding Nintendo as the greatest, unless people claim it to be fact or "common sense".



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
Euphoria14 said:
mii-gamer said:
Euphoria14 said:
mii-gamer said:

I see you refuse to answer my last question. I think we all know why.

Before you even attempt to shoot me down, try to shoot down my points.

 

Prove that Nintendo is the best of the best. You have Zelda, Mario, Animal Crossing, Fire Emblem and 1080. Nothing that even touches the size and scope of a Skyrim, Witcher, Minecraft or even No Man's Sky.

 

You want to shoot me down? Prove my point wrong. Prove Nintendo is the best of the best.

Show me how they can do better than everyone else.


Easy! Highest rated games of all time, highest software sales of all time, most consistent, most diverse, a name and franchises synonymous with modern gaming. Where is your argument? Skyrim? An opinion, based on your personal thoughts? ok then! The data is on my side, how unfortunate for you

Good for you.

People not buying a WiiU proves me right.

Poor argument!

Hardware sales is a terrible measure of a game developers pedigree. I sincerely hope you are not serious with that point.

Anyway I'll see you tmrrwz



OttoniBastos said:

Are you really using a game that was released in the time Wii was on the "Fad mode" and Ps3 was in the "get a second job mode"? I mean how much people had a PS3 in 2006? how much people had a Wii? what was the attach rate? and finally, is COD 3 an example or an exception to the rule?

You don't like me using the PS3 version? OK, the 360 version barely sold more than the Wii version, despite being on a system with an existing install base, that was the home of shooters for pretty much two generations (Xbox and 360), and that got the game a week earlier than the Wii/PS3 version.

And the existence of an exception disproves the claim. The claim was that only Nintendo games and cartoony games sell on Nintendo consoles. What CoD3 proves is that other titles can sell perfectly well on Nintendo systems. The sales of future CoD titles on Wii also prove the point, in that, even without advertising, without key features from the other versions, and with a stigma, plus the fact that the most important title in the franchise, which kicked off its huge sales, was two years late on the Wii, the Wii versions still managed a healthy number that invalidated the idea of dropping support for the system.

Oh, and regarding the comparison of "fad" vs "get a second job", here's the thing - first week sales of the game on PS3 in the US? 12.3k. This compares to an install base in that week of 139k. First week sales of the game on Wii in the US? 43.5k, for an install base of 463k. So the game had a tie ratio (not attach rate, that's number of games per console) of 8.85% on PS3, and of 9.4% on Wii.



#1: They're not biased against Nintendo, per se. Nintendo just doesn't make hardware that third parties like to develop for. Nintendo had inferior third-party support compared to the PS1 and PS2 because of their choice of format (first cartridges and then mini-DVDs), then they had inferior third-party support last generation and this generation because the hardware just isn't powerful enough and is centered around a gimmick. Because nearly all gamers have moved to non-Nintendo platforms to get their third-party fix, third parties also see Nintendo platforms as hardware designed to appeal mainly to Nintendo fans. There's no financial incentive for most to bother with a system that's only as powerful as systems that they're going to abandon in less than a year. If Nintendo made a conventional, sufficiently powerful system, third parties would start giving Nintendo their full support again.

#2. People buy Nintendo systems to play Nintendo games because of the lackluster third-party support. There's not much market for a system like the Wii U outside of fans of Nintendo games. History shows that lack of third-party support can severely limit sales. The Wii is the exception to the rule: it got lucky due to a combination of affordable price, brilliant marketing, and a gimmick that resonated well with gamers.

#3. The Xbox is tanking because A) PR debacles from last spring, B) a launch price of $500, which was the result of bundling an accessory that most didn't care for, and C) it's not a Sony console, which automatically puts it at a huge disadvantage in Europe.



RolStoppable said:

  This is an unsolvable problem for Nintendo, because the only realistic solutions would be to either pay off third parties for ports (thus ruining profitability) or build an audience for such games themselves which would lead into another commonly used excuse ("Only Nintendo games sell on Nintendo systems."), because consumers' expectations for quality and polish would be raised to levels that third parties are unable/unwilling to match.

I dont agree the only realistic solution is paying for 3rd party games or make it themselves.  Nintendo has no problem getting 3rd party games when they are from Japanese publishers. Bulding international relationships is possible.  They manage with Retro in Austin. Having worldwide studios is realistic in a global marketplace. They could empower their western branches to do more as far as development goes. Austin Texas alone has quite a few studios. Having Retro network and recruit by attending tons of local free stuff isnt expensive. It just takes a desire to want to build and foster those kind of relationships.  



Around the Network
Anfebious said:
Ucell said:
 

Nintendo games sell for only 2 reasons:

1) Nostalgia for the gamers of old days

2) Toddlers (nah just kidding, more like 12 year olds)

3) They have been around for a looooong time, of course their games have altogether racked up a lot of sales in all these decades.

The second is the same reason why COD sells so much. Kids are many, and their parents have to give up to their demands. Adults are more calculative when they are spending money for themselves.

That also means that COD is among the very best games by your logic.

They are but they still win as the best games. By the way those two reasons you just gave are your opinion  too, there is no careful analysis or data that can back up those two statements.

Super Mario Brothers (NES) isn't sellling anymore. Games sold 30 years ago don't keep on selling up to this day (ar at least they aren't being tracked anymore).

Where exactly do they win as best games? Maybe at Eurogamer, but anywhere else, good luck finding such a place.

If you're talking strictly about 21st century games, Rockstar North, Infinity Ward, Treyarch, Bungie, Polyphony Digital and BioWare's games typically outsell Nintendo's.

So by your logic they should be better games, right? That is, according to your logic of 'best games sell the most'.



Aielyn said:
OttoniBastos said:

Are you really using a game that was released in the time Wii was on the "Fad mode" and Ps3 was in the "get a second job mode"? I mean how much people had a PS3 in 2006? how much people had a Wii? what was the attach rate? and finally, is COD 3 an example or an exception to the rule?

You don't like me using the PS3 version? OK, the 360 version barely sold more than the Wii version, despite being on a system with an existing install base, that was the home of shooters for pretty much two generations (Xbox and 360), and that got the game a week earlier than the Wii/PS3 version.

And the existence of an exception disproves the claim.¹ The claim was that only Nintendo games and cartoony games sell on Nintendo consoles. What CoD3 proves is that other titles can sell perfectly well on Nintendo systems. The sales of future CoD titles on Wii also prove the point, in that, even without advertising, without key features from the other versions, and with a stigma, plus the fact that the most important title in the franchise, which kicked off its huge sales, was two years late on the Wii, the Wii versions still managed a healthy number that invalidated the idea of dropping support for the system.

Oh, and regarding the comparison of "fad" vs "get a second job", here's the thing - first week sales of the game on PS3 in the US? 12.3k. This compares to an install base in that week of 139k. First week sales of the game on Wii in the US? 43.5k, for an install base of 463k. So the game had a tie ratio (not attach rate, that's number of games per console) of 8.85% on PS3, and of 9.4% on Wii.

¹So you found one game that is not cartoony and now you ignore all the other games(a lot of btw) that prove you wrong? Like other CODs for example!

²You're using US numbers only. Plus,Playstation 3 was never the strongest one with shooters(specially in USA).Plus²,even Iwata said that nintendo gamers don't want/buy third party games like COD: http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/library/events/110426qa/04.html

"However, Wii is good in some areas but not in others, so especially for games like "Call of Duty," the Wii version sold pretty well, but the unit sales were very different from the versions of other platforms, and I assume that one of the reasons is the issue with the graphical representations which you mentioned before, and also, the consumers who like that kind of game will have other platforms at home as well, which led to this result."

Even Iwata agrees that nintendo consoles sell nintendo games(and nintendo's similars).

Where is your god now?



Shadow1980 said:
#1: They're not biased against Nintendo, per se. Nintendo just doesn't make hardware that third parties like to develop for. Nintendo had inferior third-party support compared to the PS1 and PS2 because of their choice of format (first cartridges and then mini-DVDs), then they had inferior third-party support last generation and this generation because the hardware just isn't powerful enough and is centered around a gimmick. Because nearly all gamers have moved to non-Nintendo platforms to get their third-party fix, third parties also see Nintendo platforms as hardware designed to appeal mainly to Nintendo fans. There's no financial incentive for most to bother with a system that's only as powerful as systems that they're going to abandon in less than a year. If Nintendo made a conventional, sufficiently powerful system, third parties would start giving Nintendo their full support again.

#2. People buy Nintendo systems to play Nintendo games because of the lackluster third-party support. There's not much market for a system like the Wii U outside of fans of Nintendo games. History shows that lack of third-party support can severely limit sales. The Wii is the exception to the rule: it got lucky due to a combination of affordable price, brilliant marketing, and a gimmick that resonated well with non-gamers.

#3. The Xbox is tanking because A) PR debacles from last spring, B) a launch price of $500, which was the result of bundling an accessory that most didn't care for, and C) it's not a Sony console, which automatically puts it at a huge disadvantage in Europe.


Fixed*

Wii sold mainly for the smartphone shovelware crowd.People who hardly played videogames before and didn't have smartphone/tablet at that time(2006) to play with.That's why the "gimmick" resonated so well with the demographic.For gamers(with the exception,of course,of the hardcore nintendo fan) Wii was a secondary console that they would buy only after pick a PS3/360/PC. 



OttoniBastos said:
¹So you found one game that is not cartoony and now you ignore all the other games(a lot of btw) that prove you wrong? Like other CODs for example!

²You're using US numbers only. Plus,Playstation 3 was never the strongest one with shooters(specially in USA).Plus²,even Iwata said that nintendo gamers don't want/buy third party games like COD: http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/library/events/110426qa/04.html

"However, Wii is good in some areas but not in others, so especially for games like "Call of Duty," the Wii version sold pretty well, but the unit sales were very different from the versions of other platforms, and I assume that one of the reasons is the issue with the graphical representations which you mentioned before, and also, the consumers who like that kind of game will have other platforms at home as well, which led to this result."

Even Iwata agrees that nintendo consoles sell nintendo games(and nintendo's similars).

Where is your god now?

¹ You did notice that I listed more than just CoD, right?

² I'm using US numbers because they're the only ones that we can be consistent on. PS3 released about 4 months later in Europe, CoD isn't popular in Japan, and Xbox isn't nearly as popular in Europe as it is in America. So I figured that choosing the region that should, in theory, be worst for Wii with regards to this comparison would be reasonable.

Meanwhile, you quote Iwata talking about multiplatform games, and assert that this proves something about third party games. And he's talking specifically about the Wii, yet you assert he's talking about Nintendo consoles in general. But even if Iwata himself had said it, that doesn't make it true - it may surprise you to learn that nobody is infallible, and I don't hold anybody up to such high standards that I think they can do no wrong.

In short, not a single one of your counterarguments is holding up to scrutiny.



Aielyn said:
OttoniBastos said:
¹So you found one game that is not cartoony and now you ignore all the other games(a lot of btw) that prove you wrong? Like other CODs for example!

²You're using US numbers only. Plus,Playstation 3 was never the strongest one with shooters(specially in USA).Plus²,even Iwata said that nintendo gamers don't want/buy third party games like COD: http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/library/events/110426qa/04.html

"However, Wii is good in some areas but not in others, so especially for games like "Call of Duty," the Wii version sold pretty well, but the unit sales were very different from the versions of other platforms, and I assume that one of the reasons is the issue with the graphical representations which you mentioned before, and also, the consumers who like that kind of game will have other platforms at home as well, which led to this result."

Even Iwata agrees that nintendo consoles sell nintendo games(and nintendo's similars).

Where is your god now?

¹ You did notice that I listed more than just CoD, right?

² I'm using US numbers because they're the only ones that we can be consistent on. PS3 released about 4 months later in Europe, CoD isn't popular in Japan, and Xbox isn't nearly as popular in Europe as it is in America. So I figured that choosing the region that should, in theory, be worst for Wii with regards to this comparison would be reasonable.

Meanwhile, you quote Iwata talking about multiplatform games, and assert that this proves something about third party games. And he's talking specifically about the Wii, yet you assert he's talking about Nintendo consoles in general. But even if Iwata himself had said it, that doesn't make it true - it may surprise you to learn that nobody is infallible, and I don't hold anybody up to such high standards that I think they can do no wrong.

In short, not a single one of your counterarguments is holding up to scrutiny.


Yeah because WiiU is soo different from Wii right?

Both are underpowered machines focused on "gimmicks" for casual audience.The only difference is that Wii succeed on hit that target.

Thus,the Iwata's quote applys for WiiU too.(it's even worse actually)

Call of duty ghost sold what on WiiU? even the recently launched PS4 and Xbox one moved more of that software. 

Besides, i don't need to prove anything to you or even try to counterargument because if N64,Gamecube and Wii third party sales/support can't prove this to you,then nobody(including me) can.