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

pokoko on 08 October 2014
Vena said:


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.

I don't ... you can't call cheaper rates for higher volume business partners as "being paid".  If you buy a 2-pack of a product that's cheaper than buying 2 single packs, you haven't "been paid" the difference.  Please don't try to change definitions to suit your argument.  If you want to say that Nintendo simply doesn't negotiate with third-party publishers then just say it.



Around the Network
Dr.Henry_Killinger on 08 October 2014
burninmylight said:
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. ;)

pfft.

Aielyn was addressing Banaking, I'm just throwing peanuts from the stadium above. Its not my work either.



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

Vena on 08 October 2014
pokoko said:

I don't ... you can't call cheaper rates for higher volume business partners as "being paid".  If you buy a 2-pack of a product that's cheaper than buying 2 single packs, you haven't "been paid" the difference.  Please don't try to change definitions to suit your argument.  If you want to say that Nintendo simply doesn't negotiate with third-party publishers then just say it.


You can't call being paid profits from online sub-fees... "being paid"? I mean, sure, maybe getting publishing discouts is a valid claim about not being paid...



st0pnsw0p on 08 October 2014
amak11 said:
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.

Uh, no. It doesn't imply anything except Rockstar doesn't think GTA V would sell enough on Wii U to warrant the work and costs involved in making the port. Do you seriously think they would give up the tens of millions of sales they got on PS3 or 360 on the off-chance that they could squeeze a bit more money out of MS or Sony? GTA V made over a billion dollars, so if the game hadn't released on either PS3 or 360, the would have missed their chance to get a significant portion of that money. Those sales are all the incentive MS and Sony need to get 3rd parties on their consoles.

Look at Wii U, on the other hand. If you add up sales the 10 best-selling multiplats on the platfrm, you get just under 3 million. Wii U sales of many multiplats often make up a single-digit percentage of the game's total sales (2% for AC IV, even less for CoD: Ghosts, both of which are games with comparable audience to GTA V's and which came out on the same day on all consoles, something that won't happen with GTA V).



Bigmouth007 on 08 October 2014

Microsoft and Sony pay a shit ton for the biggest hyped games which then sell well, as well as exclusives. As a result, all the other third-parties see potential and copy the big-selling publishers by making their games on PlayStation and Xbox systems. That's what's happening.



Around the Network
pokoko on 08 October 2014
Vena said:
pokoko said:

I don't ... you can't call cheaper rates for higher volume business partners as "being paid".  If you buy a 2-pack of a product that's cheaper than buying 2 single packs, you haven't "been paid" the difference.  Please don't try to change definitions to suit your argument.  If you want to say that Nintendo simply doesn't negotiate with third-party publishers then just say it.


You can't call being paid profits from online sub-fees... "being paid"? I mean, sure, maybe getting publishing discouts is a valid claim about not being paid...

A. Link?  I haven't heard of this before.

B. You're telling me Bethesda gets a cut of online fees for Skyrim?  2k for Borderlands?  Prove this to me.



nitekrawler1285 on 08 October 2014

In terms of how we view our relationship with third-party publishers, I think it is natural that there is a difference between publishers who have the software development resources like Nintendo’s to build a software lineup of their own and publishers who do not. Since former President Yamauchi passed away, I have been considering what he taught us in the end, and his words that the worst thing we can do in entertainment is to follow what others are doing spoke directly to my heart. Following and imitating others is the kind of reasoning that Nintendo tries to avoid the most, and while we certainly do not have a negative attitude toward strengthening our ties with third-party publishers, employing the same methodology as the other manufacturers would only lead to the most simplistic competitive approaches, such as price wars or money-giving that would never end. We would like to take a unique approach of our own and build sustainable relationships with our third-party publishers.


I can appreciate what the man is talking about here. For them 500 million dollar games and advertising campaigns or subsudies there of are not a sustainable relationship. Except for a shrinking handful of companies that isn't a sustainable relationship for any game dveloper or publisher. If it were we would see more competitors and more content period. There must be a better way. 



I3LuEI3omI3eR on 08 October 2014
bubblegamer said:
bananaking21 said:
Because they dont sell

Nothing more needs to be said.

Funny thing is I disagree on this. If you really think about it, do you really think Destiny wouldn't have sold on the Wii U? How about GTA V? Or the recent success of Fifa 15 (Last Fifa game on the Wii U was Fifa 13, which sold 660k copies. Not bad). Plus there is a world wide Futbol craze ATM.Fifa had a very strong chance to sell a million copies at the end of it's cycle.

Even GTA: China Town Wars sold on the NDS (1.3Million Copies sold). I think bringing those franchises to the Wii U would have helped move Consoles if Nintendo advertised them right (especially GTA V, It could have been the difinitive verison of the game for the Wii U, with the built in Mic and a map on the gamepad would have done wonders for the gameplay).

But then again, it's Nintendo's EGO that is again their Achillies Heel. Their ego was responsible for the rise of Sony, and continues to hurt them to this day. They REALLY have to stop Alienating themselves from publishers. It's like Nintendo feels they don't even deserve to sit on the same table with these pubilshers to eat since they feel they are so much "HIGHER" than everybody else...

EDIT: Changed Developers to Publishers (got them mixed up... I need sum sleep ).



Vena on 08 October 2014
pokoko said:

A. Link?  I haven't heard of this before.

B. You're telling me Bethesda gets a cut of online fees for Skyrim?  2k for Borderlands?  Prove this to me.


A. One doesn't exist because such things wouldn't be out in public to see. The inner workings of PS+ and XBL are locked down hard. The only model we have any rough knowledge of, ironically, is the eShop from indie devs talking about it. If info like this were public, it'd ruin the system.

B. They could if its played enough, I'd wager, or depending on what the deals were when the games were published. I suspect low-key/dated titles do not get near the same sorts of deals cut as things like Destiny.

And, yes, before you say it: it's entirely hypothetical because this stuff would never be publically available. But publishers and the consoles are constantly cutting deals, PS+/XBL are, without doubt, involved as part of the profit margins. They are, afterall, free "advertising" for the console holder to leverage their online services and sub-fees, no way in hell does Activision pass up a slice of that pie for a title like Destiny. This is exactly how all sub-fees work. Its a big pie and companies that feed it with games, want cuts of that profit or... no games.

They get paid for the game, one way or the other.



Multishanks on 08 October 2014
I3LuEI3omI3eR said:
bubblegamer said:
bananaking21 said:
Because they dont sell

Nothing more needs to be said.

Funny thing is I disagree on this. If you really think about it, do you really think Destiny wouldn't have sold on the Wii U? How about GTA V? Or the recent success of Fifa 15 (Last Fifa game on the Wii U was Fifa 13, which sold 660k copies. Not bad). Plus there is a world wide Futbol craze ATM.Fifa had a very strong chance to sell a million copies at the end of it's cycle.

Even GTA: China Town Wars sold on the NDS (1.3Million Copies sold). I think bringing those franchises to the Wii U would have helped move Consoles if Nintendo advertised them right (especially GTA V, It could have been the difinitive verison of the game for the Wii U, with the built in Mic and a map on the gamepad would have done wonders for the gameplay).

But then again, it's Nintendo's EGO that is again their Achillies Heel. Their ego was responsible for the rise of Sony, and continues to hurt them to this day. They REALLY have to stop Alienating themselves from fellow devs. It's like Nintendo feels they don't even deserve to sit on the same table with these devs to eat since they feel they are so much "HIGHER" than everybody else...


That's why rayman has a trophy in smash. Thats why they secureed games with tecmo platinum and valhalla studios. 

 

You are confusing developers with publishers...