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

oniyide on 29 June 2014
Mr Khan said:
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?


1. that actually hurts your argument. Xbox got a LATE release of the games. and the only reason they got that was because MS WENT to RS and secured it. Thats what you are supposed to do. Nintendo didnt do it. So whose fault is that?

2. I think there are big enough differences between MH and Dark Souls to be substantial. Thats like comparing Tekken to Smash Bros.

4. Hateful is a strong word. Evidence. Cause Sony got actual hate for the PS3 at one point.

5. What does this have to do with the subject at hand?



Around the Network
oniyide on 29 June 2014
IamAwsome said:
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.


I havent seen Sony do this either, or Capcom, Konami etc. Lets not act like only Ninty is some beacon of broken less games.



S.T.A.G.E. on 29 June 2014

If everyone was smart and did their history it was third parties in the 80's and 90's who had to suck up to Nintendo. They had to deal with Nintendo for the longest. Nintendo likes to be in that position where people suck up to them. They never had their freedom until Sony came because Nintendo commanded the mass marketshare and they had nowhere else to go and Sega was gaining marketshare far too slowly.



oniyide on 29 June 2014
Arius Dion said:
When Nintendo is on their game, they can support a console single handed. They don't need thirds. The other Console makers aren't game companies therefore, they are entirely reliant on third parties. This is no more evident than last gen.

Third Parties actually fucked over Sega too (though Sega's boneheaded decisions contributed greatly to their downfall) But Sega was similar to Nintendo in that they were dedicated hardware/software makers. This isn't what thirds want. They want leverage. M$ lack of a first party, and Sony's lack of a substantial first party is ideal for them.

Naw you only got half of it right. Truth is 3rd parties were never big on Sega especially Japanese publishers which is ironic. SNES got WAY better support than Genesis did. 

ANd frankly this whole 3rd parties want leverage argument is just based on paranoid fanboyism. 3rd parties dont care that a first party title does better. Lets not be silly. Halo moves big numbers thats not stopping anyone from putting games on xbox. 3rd parties just want systems they can sell there games on, that simply isnt the WIi u right now.



oniyide on 29 June 2014
Richard_Feynman said:
IamAwsome said:

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.

SO FRIGGIN WHAT!?

Are poor 3rd party games the focus of this discussion? No.

Are modern practices that Nintendo completely ignore part of this discussion? Maybe. But what about the poorest examples of these modern dev practices? NO! 

There are contraversies surround so many games. How about listing the patches, updates and DLC that were very good and added immensely to the game? No, you're not going to do that are you?

There are shit-poor products everywhere - games are no exception. You referring to examples of these as (somehow being) a counterpoint to what I said is highly frustrating.


dont let it get to you man, they'll keep using that sad argument, because the truth is they have NOTHING. All that is left is for them to face reality or make themselves look foolish.

Moderated,

-Mr Khan



Around the Network
oniyide on 29 June 2014
S.T.A.G.E. said:
If everyone was smart and did their history it was third parties in the 80's and 90's who had to suck up to Nintendo. They had to deal with Nintendo for the longest. Nintendo likes to be in that position where people suck up to them. They never had their freedom until Sony came because Nintendo commanded the mass marketshare and they had nowhere else to go and Sega was gaining marketshare far too slowly.


This. It seems Ninty has a get N or get out mentality even to this day. I mean. It could work if they have something like a WIi on their hands, but lets be real thats uncommon. They can profit of their stuff on the strength of their name. But damn there customers arent beneffiting from this thinking at all. 



Richard_Feynman on 29 June 2014
RolStoppable said:

You are just making excuses because you don't want to admit that I am right. Just leave any list of reasons at the door and focus on the facts. Those are that a Nintendo console that can run Dark Souls will not necessarily get Dark Souls. We already know that this is 100% true, so there's no point in arguing against it.


Dark Souls isn't on Wii U because the publisher doesn't believe it will sell enough to warrant the port. That's the sum and substance of what I am saying.



OttoniBastos on 29 June 2014
Aielyn said:
OttoniBastos said:
1# - Third parties are not biased against nintendo.They just know what everybody already knows.Nintendo consoles sells nintendo games(or at least nintendo-like games).Games like rayman and skylanders sell great because they are colorful/cartoonish platformers like some of nintendo softwares.

Yes, and this is why Call of Duty 3 sold better on Wii than on PS3, right? Because clearly Nintendo consoles can't sell third party titles.

Third party games sell poorly on Nintendo consoles because third parties treat the Nintendo console versions as lesser to begin with. They put less money into the Nintendo system development, they put less money into advertising if it's an exclusive or don't bother to even list the Nintendo system in the ad if it's multiplatform. Case-in-point, pretty much every single Call of Duty since World at War, where most of them weren't even confirmed for release on the Wii (or Wii U) until days before release, at which point it was just a "Oh, and it's also releasing on Wii", no video, no quality screenshots, etc.

In the rare cases where third parties put some effort into selling games on Nintendo consoles, the games do exceptionally well. Resident Evil 4 for Wii sold over 2 million copies. Shaun White Snowboarding sold far better on Wii than on other systems. Red Steel, despite the glitchiness and overall weakness, still easily sold over 1 million copies. Monster Hunter did very well on Wii. No More Heroes was Suda 51's best-selling game of all time, enough to justify making a sequel (another first for him).

Meanwhile, pretty much all of the big-selling "mature" titles from Gen 7 weren't even released on Wii to begin with, with many of the remainder being late, inferior ports and/or completely ignored in terms of advertising/marketing.

But please, keep telling us that only Nintendo games sell on Nintendo hardware. Because we just love how the same old, tired, disproven talking points get used over and over again to attack Nintendo fans. Just like the whole "Wii was for teh cazualz", "Gamecube was for kidz", etc crap that went round over and over again with NO justification and lots of FUD.


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?



Cheebee on 29 June 2014

This is a hilariously entertaining thread.



Nintendo Network ID: Cheebee   3DS Code: 2320 - 6113 - 9046

 

S.T.A.G.E. on 29 June 2014
Richard_Feynman said:
RolStoppable said:

You are just making excuses because you don't want to admit that I am right. Just leave any list of reasons at the door and focus on the facts. Those are that a Nintendo console that can run Dark Souls will not necessarily get Dark Souls. We already know that this is 100% true, so there's no point in arguing against it.


Dark Souls isn't on Wii U because the publisher doesn't believe it will sell enough to warrant the port. That's the sum and substance of what I am saying.


Yep and that comes from nearly twenty years of Nintendo not even fighting for proper third party support. Its almost like they trained Nintendo users for nearly four generations to not get used to third party. Not that they didnt want the support but they never seem to see eye to eye with their western partners. This is probably  one of the reasons why they lost gave up their shares of Rare.