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

SubiyaCryolite said:
Part of me wants Nintendo to totally abandon 3rd parties so that their next system can fail even harder so that I can see what conspiracy theory some fans will come up with next. Unless the hardware sells itself (like the Wii) this approach is suicide.

 

Well as long as youre not bitter about it...



Around the Network
KLXVER said:
SubiyaCryolite said:
Part of me wants Nintendo to totally abandon 3rd parties so that their next system can fail even harder so that I can see what conspiracy theory some fans will come up with next. Unless the hardware sells itself (like the Wii) this approach is suicide.

 

Well as long as youre not bitter about it...



Nintendo makes the best games so such a system should do really well. >_>

I predict that the Wii U will sell a total of 18 million units in its lifetime. 

The NX will be a 900p machine

SubiyaCryolite said:
KLXVER said:
SubiyaCryolite said:
Part of me wants Nintendo to totally abandon 3rd parties so that their next system can fail even harder so that I can see what conspiracy theory some fans will come up with next. Unless the hardware sells itself (like the Wii) this approach is suicide.

 

Well as long as youre not bitter about it...



Nintendo makes the best games so such a system should do really well. >_>


Dont take the words of one fanboy as the opinion of the whole fanbase...



Euphoria14 said:

Fair enough. OP makes a statement about Nintendo being the best and me and many others disagree.

Just leave it at that.

I made two statements:

1. Nintendo setting the bar means that third parties will fall back on "Only Nintendo games sell on Nintendo systems.", because they feel that they are unable to compete. We've seen it time and time again that Nintendo building an audience for certain kinds of games doesn't lead to third parties following suit. For example, the amount of third party platformers on Nintendo systems isn't particularly big; and those games that do exist are outclassed by their Nintendo counterparts. The same holds true for pretty much every other genre that Nintendo develops, so there's nothing arrogant about suggesting that Nintendo is better than the rest.

2. People buy Nintendo systems to play the best games. It's a perfectly logical position that games that are exclusively developed for one specific platform will be better optimized than games that were built for a different platform and then ported over. Therefore the games of the platform holder (Nintendo) and exclusive third party games always sold better than multiplatform titles on Nintendo systems.

And don't get sidetracked too much. This topic is about Nintendo's future and what they shouldn't do. I made the point that Nintendo shouldn't prioritize multiplatform games for their console's design for three reasons:

1. Even if all things are equal between the three consoles, there will still be third parties that won't develop for Nintendo. We already know that this is true.
2. There is no sales data that suggests that multiplatform titles are what a Nintendo system should be about, so there's no good reason to pursue such games when the tradeoff is a console that is so expensive and unappealing that nobody wants to buy it. Which in turn would make third parties abandon ship quickly, thus defeating the entire point of sucking up to third parties in the first place.
3. Having all the multiplatform titles doesn't guarantee success, see Xbox.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

SubiyaCryolite said:
"Nintendo makes the best games", I hear that line all the time around here (no where else I might add). Here's the highest rated games of all time, http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/all/all. I see a lot of games that aren't made by Nintendo up there. Where does this statement come from? Does it carry any real weight, I don't think it does. Gamers have options and currently most consumers aren't choosing the WiiU so really Nintendos games aren't the gold standard as some would like to believe.
I don't understand why some Nintendo fans have this "Nintendo quality" boner as if other games break down every 5 seconds or are trash or something. People pick on titles like Battlefield 4 and UFC for proof of 3rd party "incompetence" while every other non buggy game gets ignored by the quality police. Maybe some people just have higher "standards", or perhaps they're just being pretentious. Who knows.


You make too much sense to be taken seriously in this thread. There really is no point in arguing with some people - let them live in lala land as long as they like.



Around the Network
hentai_11 said:
SubiyaCryolite said:
"Nintendo makes the best games", I hear that line all the time around here (no where else I might add). Here's the highest rated games of all time, http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/all/all. I see a lot of games that aren't made by Nintendo up there. Where does this statement come from? Does it carry any real weight, I don't think it does. Gamers have options and currently most consumers aren't choosing the WiiU so really Nintendos games aren't the gold standard as some would like to believe.
I don't understand why some Nintendo fans have this "Nintendo quality" boner as if other games break down every 5 seconds or are trash or something. People pick on titles like Battlefield 4 and UFC for proof of 3rd party "incompetence" while every other non buggy game gets ignored by the quality police. Maybe some people just have higher "standards", or perhaps they're just being pretentious. Who knows.


Your metacritic link sadly doesn't show the publisher or developer. Would be intresting to count which name appears the most. But I have another link for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacritic

Especially interesting are the two tables which show the top ten of all times (stand january 2014) including the publisher and the best game per year. The name Nintendo appears more often than any other publisher. And thats one of the reason, why I think that Nintendo makes the best games.

2010. Mario Galaxy 2 (9.7) runner up Mass Effect 2/World of Goo(9.6). Wow, 0.1 difference. http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?year_selected=2010

2007. Super Mario Galaxy (9.7) runner up Bioshock (9.6). 0.1 difference to a new IP, Nintendo is god.

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?year_selected=2009

2006. Twilight Princess (9.5). Runner up Gears of War(9.5). 0.1 difference to a new IP.

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?year_selected=2006

 

Even when Nintendo has the highest rated game for a particular year its no higher then a .1 difference with a solid 3rd party effort. To most people these games are practically equal in quality. Nintendo does not have the highest rated title for 2013, 2012, 2011, 2009, 2008 and 2005 (most of last gen) so unless you are stuck in the past there are plenty of alternatives, plenty of good games on other platforms. Pretending that Nintendo's games are in a league of their own is totally silly, its a myth propagated by die hard loyalists. They are one of the best not the best and as sales of the WiiU show loads of people can get along just fine without their games.



I predict that the Wii U will sell a total of 18 million units in its lifetime. 

The NX will be a 900p machine

hentai_11 said:

Your metacritic link sadly doesn't show the publisher or developer. Would be intresting to count which name appears the most. But I have another link for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacritic

Especially interesting are the two tables which show the top ten of all times (stand january 2014) including the publisher and the best game per year. The name Nintendo appears more often than any other publisher. And thats one of the reason, why I think that Nintendo makes the best games.


This might be controversial, but it needs to be said.

Look at Sonic Adventure on Dreamcast. It scored 9s and 10s and ended up with a high average rating. Same with the sequel. Then, when the sequel became multiplat, the average score dropped by more than 20%. I hereby claim that (for instance) Legend of Zelda would score less if it were multiplat. Perhaps not much less, but there would be less of a *ahem* "oh my god the new Zelda is out MEGATON" stigma surrounding it than there is now. Note that I don't think Zelda can be compared to Sonic Adventure in terms of quality (at all).

In my opinion Nintendo is a good developer. Over the last decade they have released a handful of outstanding games (certainly Mario Galaxy was an incredible achievement) and many games that are merely good

Due to the exclusive nature of their software they are (to a some extent) immune from certain types of critique. The formula of a typical Zelda game has moved forward VERY LITTLE since 1998. That's SIXTEEN YEARS and THREE generations ago. Sure, Occarina of Time was brilliant, but just because Nintendo made a game of the year winner a decade and a half ago doesn't mean they are the best today.

LOOK AT RARE. Time changes the pedigree of a dev. Just like in anything else - Spain were unstoppable in football and now they are much worse.

For these reasons, and some others, I say that Nintendo is NOT the best dev in the world today. Furthermore, I would say that they need to prove that they can still compete with the best of the best in the gaming industry, because if you look at their offerings in the last 10 years then the consistency of their software output (in terms of quality and quantity) is not even enough to keep them relevant in the gaming industry.



SubiyaCryolite said:
"Nintendo makes the best games", I hear that line all the time around here (no where else I might add). Here's the highest rated games of all time, http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/all/all. I see a lot of games that aren't made by Nintendo up there. Where does this statement come from? Does it carry any real weight, I don't think it does. Gamers have options and currently most consumers aren't choosing the WiiU so really Nintendos games aren't the gold standard as some would like to believe.
I don't understand why some Nintendo fans have this "Nintendo quality" boner as if other games break down every 5 seconds or are trash or something. People pick on titles like Battlefield 4 and UFC for proof of 3rd party "incompetence" while every other non buggy game gets ignored by the quality police. Maybe some people just have higher "standards", or perhaps they're just being pretentious. Who knows.

Metacritic sucks and even then the highest rated game there is a Nintendo game so yeah, Nintendo makes the best games. But it's not like third party games are bad or "broken", it's just that Nintendo games are better, plain and simple.



"I've Underestimated the Horse Power from Mario Kart 8, I'll Never Doubt the WiiU's Engine Again"

Anfebious said:

Metacritic sucks and even then the highest rated game there is a Nintendo game so yeah, Nintendo makes the best games. But it's not like third party games are bad or "broken", it's just that Nintendo games are better, plain and simple.

 

Dont be an idiot. Youre just throwing fuel on the fire with these kind of stupid comments.



KLXVER said:
Anfebious said:

Metacritic sucks and even then the highest rated game there is a Nintendo game so yeah, Nintendo makes the best games. But it's not like third party games are bad or "broken", it's just that Nintendo games are better, plain and simple.

 

Dont be an idiot. Youre just throwing fuel on the fire with these kind of stupid comments.

Report my comment if you feel it's wrong, but don't go around calling me and idiot.



"I've Underestimated the Horse Power from Mario Kart 8, I'll Never Doubt the WiiU's Engine Again"