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

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

Anfebious said:
Ucell said:
Anfebious said:
 

Well that's of course in your opinion but we have to look at the sales data to objectively define the best games. And those are the ones that sell the most. In that case it would be Nintendo games. Don't worry though Sony games would enter in the top 10... maybe.

Nah Rockstar's games would take up no 1, unless you count Wii Sports. That changes everything.

And Sony would come in the top 10 if you ignore their niche releases.

We count every game in these kind of objective analysis, Wii Sports, Mario Kart Wii, Super Mario Bross and a bunch of others are included but you seem to get the idea. Nintendo is the best by far.

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.



Around the Network
pokoko said:
RolStoppable said:

Youkai Watch and Bravely Default are exclusive games.

Made by third party companies.

Indeed.

Do you struggle to see the difference between multiplatform games and exclusives? The former require Nintendo to meet standards set by someone else, the latter don't. Or in other words, the former dictate what a Nintendo console should be like while the latter accept a Nintendo platform for what it is.



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

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

pokoko said:
4). They are seemingly incompetent at working cooperatively with western studios. People say they shouldn't do it but the real issue is that they CAN'T do it. If they COULD, the same people blaming third-parties now would be all for it. It's not about sucking up, it's about forging business partnerships that create a mutually beneficial environment. You know, like almost every other company in every other industry does? Yeah, like that.

Seriously, how many people are angry about third party Japanese games? How many people are yelling that Nintendo should stop "sucking up" and kick Youkai Watch or Bravely Default to the curb? Hmm, no? Those seem to be okay? My hypocrisy sense is tingling.

This whole batch of third party hate reminds me of when my cousin was a kid. He was really self-centered, even for a child. All his toys were awesome but if you had something he didn't have, he'd pout and call it "stupid". When he'd come over, that's all I heard. I remember getting in trouble for hitting him with a cardboard box because he was so annoying.

The whole crux of the matter is that NoA fails at establishing competent developer relationships. Stop rationalizing that.

Is that really true? Does Nintendo really just have to be polite and everything will fall into line? You say they need to establish developer relations...but how? The problem is that publishers have decided that they don't like making games for Nintendo consoles, typically for sales reasons (which are often unfounded (see Mass Effect 3, Rayman Legends etc).

We know it isn't all about power for reasons like the fact that the Wii U missed out on a lot of games despite being powerful enough (games that PS3/360 got). What can Nintendo do without somehow promising more sales?

I'm not going to get all conspiracy theorist in this post and talk about how there could be a viable market on Nintendo consoles if third parties took a more fair stance towards the Wii U, but I believe that is a valid line of thinking too...



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).



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

I dont understand point number 2 at all.
Anyone interested in third party games are going to prefer playing the best version, or atleast close to best version of it. Nintendo are the ones 'compromising the value of the consumer' by not catering to that need.



Around the Network
RolStoppable said:

Indeed.

Do you struggle to see the difference between multiplatform games and exclusives? The former require Nintendo to meet standards set by someone else, the latter don't. Or in other words, the former dictate what a Nintendo console should be like while the latter accept a Nintendo platform for what it is.

So third parties are bad but it's okay if they make exclusive games?  Then it's okay to suck up to them?  Maybe you should make a better thread title.



pokoko said:
4). They are seemingly incompetent at working cooperatively with western studios. People say they shouldn't do it but the real issue is that they CAN'T do it. If they COULD, the same people blaming third-parties now would be all for it. It's not about sucking up, it's about forging business partnerships that create a mutually beneficial environment. You know, like almost every other company in every other industry does? Yeah, like that.

About that specifically, how exactly would it be beneficial for Nintendo to build a $400 system only to get games on board that don't move their hardware while the resulting high price of the console stifles their sales? Going by your logic, you would actually have to agree that Nintendo shouldn't suck up to third parties.



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

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

pokoko said:
RolStoppable said:

Indeed.

Do you struggle to see the difference between multiplatform games and exclusives? The former require Nintendo to meet standards set by someone else, the latter don't. Or in other words, the former dictate what a Nintendo console should be like while the latter accept a Nintendo platform for what it is.

So third parties are bad but it's okay if they make exclusive games?  Then it's okay to suck up to them?  Maybe you should make a better thread title.

You really struggle to see the difference. I already explained it, so I can only advise you to read the post you responded to again.



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

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

sundin13 said:

Is that really true? Does Nintendo really just have to be polite and everything will fall into line? You say they need to establish developer relations...but how? The problem is that publishers have decided that they don't like making games for Nintendo consoles, typically for sales reasons (which are often unfounded (see Mass Effect 3, Rayman Legends etc).

We know it isn't all about power for reasons like the fact that the Wii U missed out on a lot of games despite being powerful enough (games that PS3/360 got). What can Nintendo do without somehow promising more sales?

I'm not going to get all conspiracy theorist in this post and talk about how there could be a viable market on Nintendo consoles if third parties took a more fair stance towards the Wii U, but I believe that is a valid line of thinking too...

Well, it's more than just being polite, of course, but communication is pretty important in business.

I always go back to the interview with guys from Bethesda and Gearbox.  They said they'd been in constant contact with Microsoft and Sony.  They were given updated information about the new consoles and were even asked for feedback.  Nintendo, on the other hand, was like, "okay, here it is, k thx bye."  The response from most western developers was a collective shrug.  

That's just not going to work.  It's not.  No competent business runs things like that.  

Would it necessarily change things?  Honestly, I don't know.  It is, however, a damned good place to start.  IF Nintendo wants third party support, which they were obviously aiming at with the Wii U, then you can't skip that and expect to do well.



RolStoppable said:
pokoko said:

So third parties are bad but it's okay if they make exclusive games?  Then it's okay to suck up to them?  Maybe you should make a better thread title.

You really struggle to see the difference. I already explained it, so I can only advise you to read the post you responded to again.

The post where you said third parties are biased against Nintendo, yes.