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

KungKras on 29 June 2014
amp316 said:
I am not in denial and think that the Wii U isn't trash. Maybe I'm crazy or perhaps senile.

Also, I'll give you a perfect example of why many third parties don't cater to Nintendo. Look at Tekken Tag Tournament 2. Namco Bandai put out the definitive version of that game and no one bought it. The game was of high quality and and wasn't some gimped port.

The real problem is that Nintendo fans usually only buy Nintendo games for whatever reason. Don't get me wrong, much of the third party support sucks big time but owners of Nintendo systems don't buy the quality ones either. So yes, Nintendo shouldn't suck up to third parties because Nintendo fans don't care about those games.

I will ignore point 3 just to do it.

The Tekken tag example works on Wii U because only Nintendo fans bought it, but it doesn't on Wii, where non-Nintendo games did well because the audience was diverse.

It's just that what's on Wii U now is too little to get the multiplat audience.



I LOVE ICELAND!

Around the Network
teigaga on 29 June 2014
TruckOSaurus said:
Train wreck 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).

How is it ruining profitability? If a said multiplatform game is not coming to the console, Nintnedo receive zero dollars. Paying for port guarantees some level of profitability in that Nintendo would receive royalty payments.

Let's suppose Nintendo had to pay off RockSteady to make Arhkam City Wii U, do you really believe they would have made their money back with the 210k copies it sold? Or if Nintendo had to pay off Namco for Tekken Tag Tournament 2 would have they made their money back with the 130k it sold on Wii U?


It all comes back to Nintendo.

Why would the game only sell 200k?

1.People have already got a system which can play the game.
2.People have no reason to buy the Wii U version (unless the gamepad excites them)
3.People have been given very little reason to own a Wii U in the first place.





oniyide on 29 June 2014
Mr Khan said:
Richard_Feynman said:
RolStoppable said:
Richard_Feynman said:
Player2 said:

 


I disagree with everything you say including the very essence of this thread.

" Nintendo wouldn't get all multiplatform games, even if their system was equal to others"

How could you possibly know this? The Wii and Wii U are/were both a generation behind. The Gamecube was "equal" and got great 3rd party support even though it sold terribly.

"It has everything to do with point 1"

No it doesn't. Who plays Dark Souls? It is common knowledge that the demographic that plays these kind of games have (largely) long abandoned Nintendo consoles. No one would buy Dark Souls on Wii U - I don't see how you could offer even a shred of evidence to the opposite.

"That's already four publishers off the top of my head that denied ports before the Wii U went on sale"

Why support the Wii U when 3rd party games were a waste of time on the phenomenally successful Wii? Clearly the relevant publishers made the correct business decisions in all of those cases. As a counter example, Mass Effect 3 was released on Wii U. Do you on any level suppose that the reception it received warrants the appearance of Mass Effect 4 on Wii U? Of course not. Why do you think that is?

"meaning that Wii U sales had zero influence on those decisions."

As a publisher, you make a call and later you may change your decision.

You seem to insinuate in point 1 of the OP that the decisions made by 3rd party publishers are not purely business decisions, but are based on some sort of 'bias' against Nintendo. You delude yourself into thinking that your argument is a good one, when in fact it clearly isn't.

"because consumers' expectations for quality and polish would be raised to levels that third parties are unable/unwilling to match."

Really? You think Nintendo is the very best of the best game developer in the world and no-one else can match them? That is utter nonsense; anyone who plays PC and Sony and MS and Nintendo will tell you.

Should I list the 3rd party games that do things that Nintendo have never even tried? Do you think there is a single Nintendo title that is even in the same category as Witcher 3 in terms of content and scope? 

My guess is this conversation is pointless. I just don't find these rants of yours as amazing as anyone else.

 

1) The GameCube didn't get the third party support of Xbox, despite Xbox selling equally terribly.

2) Monster Hunter's sales on Wii/Wii U make a decent argument. The market for rigorous ARPGs is there.

3) Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but these publishers were acting with *foresight*. They decided, absent any sales, that Wii U did not deserve full third party support. If Wii U had come roaring out of the gate, these games still would not have been made.

4) Bias is all over this industry. I'd be almost as inclined to buy it as an argument than appeals to "rationality."

5) How many game-breaking bugs will Witcher 3 have, day one? Hell, check this out. http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2659901

The "ship now, patch later" mentality is what Rol is addressing specifically.

1. Didnt it? in what way? what did xbox get that GC didnt? the only thing i can think of is Black an FPS. And games like SW old republic whihc were exclusive anyway, console exclusive

2. Wii U MH sales are nothing to be proud of and since that is the most recent release on a Ninty home console that is the more relevant descriptor

3. Nonsense you could ALWAYS port games later. Hell they are doign that now with PS4 and xone. Its actually smarter to wait it out.

4. You keep saying this but show us the bias.

5. You havent even played the game? what does that even have to do with anything? 



oniyide on 29 June 2014
teigaga said:
TruckOSaurus said:
Train wreck 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).

How is it ruining profitability? If a said multiplatform game is not coming to the console, Nintnedo receive zero dollars. Paying for port guarantees some level of profitability in that Nintendo would receive royalty payments.

Let's suppose Nintendo had to pay off RockSteady to make Arhkam City Wii U, do you really believe they would have made their money back with the 210k copies it sold? Or if Nintendo had to pay off Namco for Tekken Tag Tournament 2 would have they made their money back with the 130k it sold on Wii U?


It all comes back to Nintendo.

Why would the game only sell 200k?

1.People have already got a system which can play the game.
2.People have no reason to buy the Wii U version (unless the gamepad excites them)
3.People have been given very little reason to own a Wii U in the first place.


it begs the question why was that game even on the system in the first place? Maybe to faciltate the upcoming Arkham Origins but that didnt do good either. and the new one istn even coming to WIi U.



Richard_Feynman on 29 June 2014
oniyide said:

1. Didnt it? in what way? what did xbox get that GC didnt? the only thing i can think of is Black an FPS. And games like SW old republic whihc were exclusive anyway, console exclusive

2. Wii U MH sales are nothing to be proud of and since that is the most recent release on a Ninty home console that is the more relevant descriptor

3. Nonsense you could ALWAYS port games later. Hell they are doign that now with PS4 and xone. Its actually smarter to wait it out.

4. You keep saying this but show us the bias.

5. You havent even played the game? what does that even have to do with anything? 


Thank you.

Now I don't have to reply :)

EDIT: Scrap that - I'm going to reply anyway.



Around the Network
oniyide on 29 June 2014
spurgeonryan said:
oniyide said:
spurgeonryan said:
I do not care that much about exclusives from third parties, other than Monster Hunter. That proved to be huge for Nintendo. Sega games on the other hand proved to be a waste of time.

But games like gta, cod, etc should not be hard to get and Nintendo should do some woo'ing to get. People just do not want to miss out. Grass is always greener on the other side type of issue. Just get some big multiplates and many will be happy. CoD is a good start. Cross plateform play would be nice though.


is it? have you seen the sales. IT might as well not bet there at all.


Yep. Does not mean that more would not be happier as long as they got the main third party multiplates. One multi a month one go a long way in keeping many gamers happy. While they wait for the next Nintendo game. 

 

Myself? Don't care. Especially while I can still rent most new games on my 360 still if I want to try them.

nope but i imagine they would game on their PS, box, PC or whatever while they await for the next Nintendo game. I think its time we accept there are more multiplat owners than there are not.



teigaga on 29 June 2014
oniyide said:
teigaga said:
TruckOSaurus said:

Let's suppose Nintendo had to pay off RockSteady to make Arhkam City Wii U, do you really believe they would have made their money back with the 210k copies it sold? Or if Nintendo had to pay off Namco for Tekken Tag Tournament 2 would have they made their money back with the 130k it sold on Wii U?


It all comes back to Nintendo.

Why would the game only sell 200k?

1.People have already got a system which can play the game.
2.People have no reason to buy the Wii U version (unless the gamepad excites them)
3.People have been given very little reason to own a Wii U in the first place.


it begs the question why was that game even on the system in the first place? Maybe to faciltate the upcoming Arkham Origins but that didnt do good either. and the new one istn even coming to WIi U.

Who knows...Probably out of sentiment- token of support.
Probably the misguided thought of "Nintendo fans haven't had the chance to play it". I think Most Nintendo fans own more then one console (or are PC gamers aswell). Otherwise I have no idea how they survived 2009-2012.



Richard_Feynman on 29 June 2014
Mr Khan said:

1) The GameCube didn't get the third party support of Xbox, despite Xbox selling equally terribly.

2) Monster Hunter's sales on Wii/Wii U make a decent argument. The market for rigorous ARPGs is there.

3) Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but these publishers were acting with *foresight*. They decided, absent any sales, that Wii U did not deserve full third party support. If Wii U had come roaring out of the gate, these games still would not have been made.

4) Bias is all over this industry. I'd be almost as inclined to buy it as an argument than appeals to "rationality."

5) How many game-breaking bugs will Witcher 3 have, day one? Hell, check this out. http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2659901

The "ship now, patch later" mentality is what Rol is addressing specifically.


1) Nonsense. The GC shared many, many 3rd party games with PS2 and XB and had many 3rd party exclusives - just like the XB games you are referring to. Which games were on PS2 and XB but left GC out in the cold? Come on. Is your list significant?

2) Monster Hunter is a MASSIVE series. "Decent" is NOT good enough.

3) I don't accept this point as worth responding to.

4) " Bias is all over this industry. I'd be almost as inclined to buy it as an argument than appeals to "rationality."" You're attempt at lofty speech is not going to intimidate me into accepting your statement as having worth. Indeed, I see this statement as worthless and embarrassing.

5) How about you wait till Nintendo releases a game as vast as Elder Scrolls before saying ANYTHING about patching. You'll eat your hat if Nintendo starts patching then I presume?



Mr Khan on 29 June 2014
Richard_Feynman said:
Mr Khan said:

1) The GameCube didn't get the third party support of Xbox, despite Xbox selling equally terribly.

2) Monster Hunter's sales on Wii/Wii U make a decent argument. The market for rigorous ARPGs is there.

3) Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but these publishers were acting with *foresight*. They decided, absent any sales, that Wii U did not deserve full third party support. If Wii U had come roaring out of the gate, these games still would not have been made.

4) Bias is all over this industry. I'd be almost as inclined to buy it as an argument than appeals to "rationality."

5) How many game-breaking bugs will Witcher 3 have, day one? Hell, check this out. http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2659901

The "ship now, patch later" mentality is what Rol is addressing specifically.


1) Nonsense. The GC shared many, many 3rd party games with PS2 and XB and had many 3rd party exclusives - just like the XB games you are referring to. Which games were on PS2 and XB but left GC out in the cold? Come on. Is your list significant?

2) Monster Hunter is a MASSIVE series. "Decent" is NOT good enough.

3) I don't accept this point as worth responding to.

4) " Bias is all over this industry. I'd be almost as inclined to buy it as an argument than appeals to "rationality."" You're attempt at lofty speech is not going to intimidate me into accepting your statement as having worth. Indeed, I see this statement as worthless and embarrassing.

5) How about you wait till Nintendo releases a game as vast as Elder Scrolls before saying ANYTHING about patching. You'll eat your hat if Nintendo starts patching then I presume?

1) The biggest of them all: Grand Theft Auto.

2) It's one of the top-selling third party games on the platform. That doesn't amount to much overall, unfortunately, but it shows that Nintendo gamers favor Dark Souls-type gameplay explicitly over other third party offerings.

3) My point, then.

4) I suppose i'm being a bit disingenuous there. The point of the story is that a lot of third party developers have gone on record as being very dismissive of or outright hateful to Nintendo. Their opinions do count towards how the companies themselves function in the long run, though there comes a point where rationality wins out.

5) How about discussing the multitude of third party games much less ambitious in scope but just as bug-riddled? What of EA UFC?



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

IamAwsome on 29 June 2014
Richard_Feynman said:
Mr Khan said:

1) The GameCube didn't get the third party support of Xbox, despite Xbox selling equally terribly.

2) Monster Hunter's sales on Wii/Wii U make a decent argument. The market for rigorous ARPGs is there.

3) Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but these publishers were acting with *foresight*. They decided, absent any sales, that Wii U did not deserve full third party support. If Wii U had come roaring out of the gate, these games still would not have been made.

4) Bias is all over this industry. I'd be almost as inclined to buy it as an argument than appeals to "rationality."

5) How many game-breaking bugs will Witcher 3 have, day one? Hell, check this out. http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2659901

The "ship now, patch later" mentality is what Rol is addressing specifically.


1) Nonsense. The GC shared many, many 3rd party games with PS2 and XB and had many 3rd party exclusives - just like the XB games you are referring to. Which games were on PS2 and XB but left GC out in the cold? Come on. Is your list significant?

2) Monster Hunter is a MASSIVE series. "Decent" is NOT good enough.

3) I don't accept this point as worth responding to.

4) " Bias is all over this industry. I'd be almost as inclined to buy it as an argument than appeals to "rationality."" You're attempt at lofty speech is not going to intimidate me into accepting your statement as having worth. Indeed, I see this statement as worthless and embarrassing.

5) How about you wait till Nintendo releases a game as vast as Elder Scrolls before saying ANYTHING about patching. You'll eat your hat if Nintendo starts patching then I presume?

The big problem isn't simply patching. It's releasing a 100% glitchfest knowing the game has bugs, and relying on early adopters to beta test the game. Nintendo games have bugs too, hell they had to patch MK7, but you never hear fans complaining on forums and making entire lists of bugs to fix. Look up the controversy surrounding bugs in games like Fallout New Vegas, Sonic 06, and BF4. You get bug after bug after bug in these games and developers basically rely on patches to actually finish the game. You never see Nintendo do this.