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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nintendo/Iwata's Bias Against The West

DerNebel on 24 August 2014
nomad said:
It wasn't Nintendo's decision to sell Rare, Nintendo only had some stakes in the co. It became available on the market and multiple companies were looking to buy including Nintendo, Yamauchi didn't want to pay the asking price, and Microsoft just so happen make the highest bid.

You can't say Nintendo broke 2nd party relations because it was 2nd parties who were looking for greener pastures. 2nd Parties come and go, SK were on other platforms before Gamecube. Their relationships aren't so different from Platinum Games, PG signed contracts w/Ninty but are also free to sign contracts with others co. such as Microsoft.

Only some stakes? They owned 49% of the stake.



Around the Network
Soundwave on 24 August 2014
nomad said:
It wasn't Nintendo's decision to sell Rare, Nintendo only had some stakes in the co. It became available on the market and multiple companies were looking to buy including Nintendo, Yamauchi didn't want to pay the asking price, and Microsoft just so happen make the highest bid.

You can't say Nintendo broke 2nd party relations because it was 2nd parties who were looking for greener pastures. 2nd Parties come and go, SK were on other platforms before Gamecube. Their relationships aren't so different from Platinum Games, PG signed contracts w/Ninty but are also free to sign contracts with others co. such as Microsoft.


Nintendo had first right of refusal on Rare when the Stampers were retiring, they refused, then Rare had to be shopped around. Nintendo negotiated the sale with Microsoft. 



Cobretti2 on 24 August 2014

He isn't bias he is just a micro manager and wants to control everything.

He probably tried talking to western devs but he sucks at it.

I agree NOA should be left to do their own job, same with europe and aus etc..



 

 

Cobretti2 on 24 August 2014
DerNebel said:
nomad said:
It wasn't Nintendo's decision to sell Rare, Nintendo only had some stakes in the co. It became available on the market and multiple companies were looking to buy including Nintendo, Yamauchi didn't want to pay the asking price, and Microsoft just so happen make the highest bid.

You can't say Nintendo broke 2nd party relations because it was 2nd parties who were looking for greener pastures. 2nd Parties come and go, SK were on other platforms before Gamecube. Their relationships aren't so different from Platinum Games, PG signed contracts w/Ninty but are also free to sign contracts with others co. such as Microsoft.

Only some stakes? They owned 49% of the stake.

and from memory Rare offered Nintendo first shot to buy out the rest. They said no and went to Microsoft. 



 

 

Soundwave on 24 August 2014
NightDragon83 said:
baloofarsan said:
They tried Power and Graphics with the N64 and GC. They tried westernized games. Sales went from bad to worse. They still made money but the choosen direction was not going to make them win over Sony.
Rare wanted Conker to be "westernized" and Bad Fur Day features graphic violence, sexual themes, strong language and toilet humour. For a family orientated company this is a sign to withdraw.
A new president has to show initiative: so he cuts of the parts that were not essential, brought everything closer to home (Rare is sold). Then everything seems to go Iwatas way: 2004: release of DS - success, 2006: release of Wii - success. Naturally he draws some conclusion of theese events. I guess what he learns is something like: keep things close and under strict control.

You're making a false comparison here... sales didn't go from bad to worse with the N64 and GC because Nintendo went for "power and graphics" (if by power and graphics, you mean technically on par or slightly ahead of their competition's hardware)... sales went from bad to worse because Nintendo made some dumb decisions such as sticking with more expensive and restrictive storage mediums (which cost them the bulk of their 3rd party support during the N64 days), and then refusing to embrace the emergence of online gaming while designing their console to look as kiddy as possible during the GC days.

And you missed the point entirely with Conker... Conker was not "westernized" (and westernized does not automatically mean  tons of violence, sexual themes, strong language and toilet humor... as if Japanese games and anime NEVER feature any of those things, right?!?)   Rare created what eventually became Conker's BFD as a satire on the over-saturated bright and colorful 3D platformer genre (which includes many of their own games such as DK64 and BK1&2 and what was supposed to be Conker 64).  They were inspired by the likes of South Park and basically gave their own cute and cuddly platformer the South Park treatment.

On any other platform Conker would've been a huge hit, pushing the N64 to its limit and featuring great writing and gameplay... but because Nintendo protects their family-friendly "kiddie" image above all else, they refused to promote the game and wouldn't even publish it in NA or Europe.


I think Conker could've been a hit on the N64 even to be honest. 

I remember South Park 64 and things like Turok 1/2 sold well on the N64, but Conker just came out way too late in the N64's lifecycle (spring 2001).

They should have probably just moved it to the GameCube launch window where it would've gotten more attention. 

My understanding though is Miyamoto and others at Nintendo of Japan were kind of uncomfortable with the game, particularily (for whatever reason) Conker being able to urinate on things, lol. 



Around the Network
XanderXT on 24 August 2014

The only reason that Iwata sold Rare is because if he didn't, I'm pretty sure Microsoft would have bought Nintendo.



Scoobes on 24 August 2014

Interesting thoughts. I've never really thought about it myself, but it does appear that Nintendo have become insular and predominantly support their home devs.

I suspect Iwata is a strong micro-manager, as this isn't the first time I've heard about NOA not having the level of autonomy you'd expect from a company of Nintendo's size. This of course means he's great at getting deals with Eastern devs, but is weak in dealing with Western devs, but being a micro-manager won't trust his staff in the West to do their jobs properly.




Get your Portable ID!

DélioPT on 24 August 2014

I don`t know - i don`t think anyone outside Nintendo knows - what happened for Nintendo to lose so much presence in the west.
Whatever happened, the truth is Nintendo never allowed NOA or itself, to replace the missing studios or deals and that has hurt them.
During the N64 (mainly) and GC days, despite having sports games from 3rd parties, Nintendo still invested in it`s own sports games. Why? Because those were the titles that people really wanted. And Nintendo strived to give them those games.

Nowdays, people want other genres (shooters, open world games, cinematic adventures, etc.) and Nintendo has no studios to, not just make games, but to create brands. So, they resort to buying games/brands: Lego City U, Bayonetta 2, Devil`s Third, W101.

Problem is, Nintendo doesn`t own the studio, nor the brand. Anyone can come in after a successful game and just acquire the studio or just that brand and there goes another game away from Nintendo.

Problem is, and you are right about this, Soundwave, most of these games come from Japan - and they show exactly that.
If Nintendo can`t make deals to have western studios make exclusives or crossovers for them, then it`s time to either buy a studio or build a few of them to have games tailored for western audiences and help fill the gaps of games Nintendo can`t create.



Vena on 24 August 2014
DélioPT said:
Problem is, and you are right about this, Soundwave, most of these games come from Japan - and they show exactly that.
If Nintendo can`t make deals to have western studios make exclusives or crossovers for them, then it`s time to either buy a studio or build a few of them to have games tailored for western audiences and help fill the gaps of games Nintendo can`t create.


Iwata has at least given NoA freedom to market and competatively push Smash this time around.

They've (NoA) seemingly gained freedom enough to be able to push games like Shovel Knight into the light of day for consoles/handheld owners.

But, yes, they really do need to get more western devs but there is also, on some level, the Nintendo "OCD" over their studios being nothing short of excellent if they are to be first party.



Soundwave on 24 August 2014
XanderXT said:
The only reason that Iwata sold Rare is because if he didn't, I'm pretty sure Microsoft would have bought Nintendo.


MS made an offer for Nintendo in late 1999 or early 2000 and Yamauchi actually did consider it, but the Rare thing was seperate. MS simply bid more money than anyone else. I still kinda wish Nintendo had sold to a third party publisher. At least that way they could've still gotten Rare games and worked out agreements for Virtual Console stuff.