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

Forums - Nintendo - Real reason big budget 3rd party games are not on Nintendo systems

lord_of_flood on 08 October 2014

Meh. I chalk most of Ninty's failures with third parties today up to Yamauchi's draconian business methods. As much as I don't want to disrespect the dead, the guy was a giant dick and his actions cost Nintendo big time back in the mid-late 90's, and that major third party support is something they'll never get back.

I think Iwata does know that they can't get third party support like Sony/MS can, and as much as he'll paint the situation as a virtue, it's not helpful. They need the external support as well as a way to pump out first party software faster, which seems to be why:

1) Ninty's being more open to collaborations with devs like PG and Valhalla
2) Ninty's more open to crossovers
3) Unifying the architecture of their console and handheld is a thing next gen (they can make more games if they can port engines and assets easily between two systems)



NNID: TheCCluc

Around the Network
Vena on 08 October 2014
pokoko said:

In business, that "pissing contest" is called an investment.

Which doesn't even matter, actually, because the point is, even with Microsoft making a deal regarding CoD, it's still on Playstation.  Even with Sony making a deal regardling Destiny, it's still on Xbox.


Except that's not how it works at all; they buy content (that almost always the biggest part of any advertisement, "30 minutes exclusive to the PS4/X1!") and lock it to a console. Sometimes they buy a whole game and lock it to a content for a certain period.

To say that "oh the game is available everywhere" is missing the fire for the forest fire. This is a pissing contest of millions of dollars that ties up content one way or another.



Vena on 08 October 2014
st0pnsw0p said:

But they don't pay to have those games on their console. That's completely free.


They buy content, content that is console or timed-exclusive. That's not free, and is very much part of marketting.



pokoko on 08 October 2014
Multishanks said:

I can tell alot of you didnt read my post at all.

For one i stated i wish they invest in more mid tier western devs, which i believe they are slowly.

Secondly, i am not stating that the games would sell. In fact this supports what iwata is blatantly saying. They dont sell because nintendo does not pay to push them forward. They dont pay them exclusive advertisizing or for bundles. Rarely will they do that unless they have a long history like capcom. And even then it is very limited.

As a gamer it sucks and everyone is to blame. But although i disagree, going down that path would do nothing for Nintendo in the long run. Its just true.

 

What can Nintendo do now? Who knows? But it surely does not involve investing in 3rd parties like sony and ms.

At this point, coming off the Wii U, it probably is better to just worry about developing another Nintendo-box.  They have the funds to get back into the game, if they really wanted that, but honestly, I have little faith that they could pull it off well.  They're so far behind on features and perceptions about their audience are set.

Still, there are areas where they should be trying a lot harder.  Why wasn't Nintendo of America talking to western developers?  That's kind of ridiculous.  They should be talking to everyone because that can only help, not hurt.  I don't care if the developer has never made a single game for Nintendo, going and speaking with them might pay off down the line.  They need to fix that yesterday.

Now, if they'd done some of this before the Wii U launched, coming off the success of the Wii, it might have been a different ball game.



burninmylight on 08 October 2014
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
burninmylight said:
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
Aielyn said:

Not exactly surprising, when they leave out features and then sell it at the same price as the other versions.

Can you name a big budget 3rd party title that released on a Nintendo system, was released at the same time as other systems with all of the same features, was advertised equally with the other versions, and still struggled (semi-relative to install base)?

Rayman Legends


The Wii U version came in only behind the PS3 version, a system with an 80 million user installbase compared to Wii U's what at the time? Three-to-Five million? And even with that, the PS3 version only edged out the WU version by about 80k units, so big whoop. How well do you think the Wii U version would have done if it actually released in March of last year like it was supposed to, when there was no competition for it, and before pissing off the Wii U userbase?

I'm not even trying to claim third party efforts on Wii U would sell just as well as on other systems if they were given true parity. I just think you need to find a better example.

I was comparing it with the PS4

It's still not a good example. The game struggled on every platform, so I don't see why the one with the flipped-off fanbase was supposed to rise to the occassion. I can think of two much better examples, but I don't want to do your work for you. ;)



Around the Network
oniyide on 08 October 2014
Vena said:
st0pnsw0p said:

But they don't pay to have those games on their console. That's completely free.


They buy content, content that is console or timed-exclusive. That's not free, and is very much part of marketting.


thats true but i think the point he is making is that the games are STILL available. Ok so Sony might have paid to have some exclusive or locked CONTENT. But its not like MS had to pay to have Destiny on their systems. Where is Destiny for Wii U? exactly



pokoko on 08 October 2014
Vena said:
pokoko said:

In business, that "pissing contest" is called an investment.

Which doesn't even matter, actually, because the point is, even with Microsoft making a deal regarding CoD, it's still on Playstation.  Even with Sony making a deal regardling Destiny, it's still on Xbox.


Except that's not how it works at all; they buy content (that almost always the biggest part of any advertisement, "30 minutes exclusive to the PS4/X1!") and lock it to a console. Sometimes they buy a whole game and lock it to a content for a certain period.

To say that "oh the game is available everywhere" is missing the fire for the forest fire. This is a pissing contest of millions of dollars that ties up content one way or another.

Most games don't have exclusive content one way or another and, when they do, it's usually marginal.  Regardless, the point is that, even without exclusive content, almost every game would appear on Xbox and Playstation while skipping Nintendo.  That's not because they're being paid to be on Playstation and Xbox--in fact, they're paying Sony and Microsoft royalties--it's because the KNOW they can make money on those platforms.  You can't spin that.



Vena on 08 October 2014
oniyide said:

thats true but i think the point he is making is that the games are STILL available. Ok so Sony might have paid to have some exclusive or locked CONTENT. But its not like MS had to pay to have Destiny on their systems. Where is Destiny for Wii U? exactly

So then why ISN'T Destiny on the WiiU? Maybe... because someone didn't pay for it, one way or another. Like, for example, how Sony/M$ give ATVI a discount and "benefits" of online profits (which is impossible to be provided for the WiiU... since, you know, its free).



Vena on 08 October 2014
pokoko said:

Most games don't have exclusive content one way or another and, when they do, it's usually marginal.  Regardless, the point is that, even without exclusive content, almost every game would appear on Xbox and Playstation while skipping Nintendo.  That's not because they're being paid to be on Playstation and Xbox--in fact, they're paying Sony and Microsoft royalties--it's because the KNOW they can make money on those platforms.  You can't spin that.


They are being paid, you're just ignoring it. EA, ATVI, and other major publishers get a cut of the online profits from M$/Sony, and they also have royalty discounts for their publications. They're getting paid, don't you think otherwise. Its just not directly from one pocket to the other. (Unless its GTAV, then they literally paid for it.)

Its, currently, literally impossible for ATVI to seek cuts from the online profits on the WiiU... as there are none. Nintendo's decision to not give discounts is a different issue, and that's tied back to Yamauchi.

I bet you that a port of a title like Destiny, on the WiiU, would have made them money. Especially with that marketting campaign. It just wouldn't have been large, and ATVI has other "lost profits" from the WiiU's free online and Nintendo's fixed royalties.



amak11 on 08 October 2014
st0pnsw0p said:
Sony and Microsoft don't have to pay a dime for the vast majority of 3rd party games either, save for the exclusive or timed-exclusive content.


I don't think you understand how the game industry works. Sony and MS pay for developers to put their content on their platforms, if you can't see this, i'm quite surprised. This is exactly how it works in cases like Minecraft. Hell even Rockstar has came out and said regarding a Wii U version of GTAV "If Nintendo wants it on their platform, they have to pay for it", implying that Sony and MS both paid their fair share for that.