| Mummelmann said:
As much talent as they have and as much heat as MS and Sony get for all their shooters and racers; Nintendo can be conisdered a pretty boring developer all in all and they are well known for not tasking risks on behalf of their audience or other developers who could provide more variety in their software library. |
Agreed. Nintendo doesnt excite me like past. And from Sony and Microsoft we get to play a constant supply of exciting new IPs on a regular basis.
mii-gamer said:
At no point did you mention 3rd party relations in your original comment. The topic at hand is , which you expressed in your original comment, is extending nintendo's Ip base |
"they are well known for not tasking risks on behalf of their audience or other developers who could provide more variety in their software library."
What exactly did you think that means? My point is that;
A: Nintendo have made practically no effort to compromise with developers outside their in-house relations.
B: If they do not do that, the responsibility for providing breadth in software falls more on themselves.
C: They have failed to live up to that responsibility and have also been bogged down by extended development cycles and delays.
Again; "other developers" implies developers besides Nintendo, agreed? I don't understand how there can be any major misconception there. Besides; Nintendo's relations with 3rd parties is among the most relevant bits of the topic and underlines the importance of building new IP's themselves.
Mummelmann said:
What exactly did you think that means? My point is that; A: Nintendo have made practically no effort to compromise with developers outside their in-house relations. B: If they do not do that, the responsibility for providing breadth in software falls more on themselves. C: They have failed to live up to that responsibility and have also been bogged down by extended development cycles and delays. Again; "other developers" implies developers besides Nintendo, agreed? I don't understand how there can be any major misconception there. Besides; Nintendo's relations with 3rd parties is among the most relevant bits of the topic and underlines the importance of building new IP's themselves. |
Sorry, I misread the comment lmfao. I am dyslexic. Then we are in an agreement then.
It is not new IPs, so much as it is the hardware and the direction.
The Wii U was built on the cheap like the Wii, and most Nintendo consoles however the console market and most larger publishers in the Western side of the world are not interested in developing for it when the contemporary devices are all working with higher standards. Much like we have seen with the N64, the GC and the Wii, a lot of Western developers aren't going to develop multiplatform games if they have to make significant changes (account for the N64 and GC's software format or controls) to get it on a device that isn't even selling as well if not better. Especially if the systems aren't close enough in power (as showcased by the second halves of the Wii's life cycle along with the last quarter of the DS vs PSP era in Japan and the Wii U from the beginning) to have similar features or programming tools.
That is what has been killing Nintendo's brand for a while, they tried to make the Wii U a jack of all trades, while still sticking to the economic route, thinking like the Wii it might succeed, but they failed to take into account other developers and now they are left holding the bag in being their console's primary supplier of games even sooner then their previous systems required them to be.
| DevilRising said:
No really. |
Well sorry.
I just get frustrated when people keep telling me how wrong I am without reading a word I have written.
| NoirSon said: It is not new IPs, so much as it is the hardware and the direction. The Wii U was built on the cheap like the Wii, and most Nintendo consoles however the console market and most larger publishers in the Western side of the world are not interested in developing for it when the contemporary devices are all working with higher standards. Much like we have seen with the N64, the GC and the Wii, a lot of Western developers aren't going to develop multiplatform games if they have to make significant changes (account for the N64 and GC's software format or controls) to get it on a device that isn't even selling as well if not better. Especially if the systems aren't close enough in power (as showcased by the second halves of the Wii's life cycle along with the last quarter of the DS vs PSP era in Japan and the Wii U from the beginning) to have similar features or programming tools. That is what has been killing Nintendo's brand for a while, they tried to make the Wii U a jack of all trades, while still sticking to the economic route, thinking like the Wii it might succeed, but they failed to take into account other developers and now they are left holding the bag in being their console's primary supplier of games even sooner then their previous systems required them to be. |
Yeah I agree the Wii U has plenty of things wrong with it. Lack of third party support is definitely important too.
But I never see people really point out how much the lack of new IP is hurting Nintendo. By simply releasing the old favourites, they will get the ~20 million loyalists, but that number is decreasing all the time. If they don't invest big in new IP, I can't see any future for the company beyond 2020.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
