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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nintendo Enthusiats: No Mr. Adelman, You’re Wrong About Nintendo’s Third-Party Situation

oniyide on 27 January 2015
pokoko said:
I very much agree with the author about third-party developers and publishers being intimidated by the first-party games of Nintendo. After all, the reason Activision refused to put CoD on Xbox is because Halo is such a sales juggernaut.

Yeah.

That has nothing to do with anything. It's like saying Borderlands or Destiny can't be successful because there are already so many big FPS games out there. It's a bullshit excuse, an attempt to rationalize in a way that makes Nintendo look good. If the audience is there, they will buy way more content than Nintendo can produce. That's the real point, that third-parties do not believe the audience on Nintendo home consoles will support anything but platformers and party games.

People really needs to stop believing stuff just because it's what they want to believe. A great man, Sosuke Aizen, once said, "Admiration is the furthest state from understanding.”

This



Around the Network
jonathanalis on 27 January 2015

Why Lego, skylanders and disney are always on nintendo systems?
Audience.

They should start getting other audiences. Make some first party game that GTA players would play. Thats the way, imo.



NightDragon83 on 27 January 2015
zorg1000 said:
NightDragon83 said:

Not true at all.  Street Fighter II alone probably moved as many consoles in the early days of the SNES as Super Mario World did, and was instrumental in allowing the SNES to catch up to the Genesis which already had a 2 year head start in the west.  Third parties like Square / Enix, Konami and Capcom played a huge role in the NES's and SNES's popularity and success as well.

The N64 also had its share of 3rd party best sellers like the Turok series, Tony Hawk, the WCW / WWF games, and the LucasArts / Factor 5 Star Wars games.  Hell, even the GC had a decent amount of million-seller 3rd party titles.

Then the Wii happened, which became the Just Dance / Guitar Hero and party / minigame machine for 3rd parties.  And now the Wii U can't even get that part right, so its no wonder 3rd party developers have all but abandoned Nintendo.


They are talking about multiplats, not 3rd parties in general. Most of those titles u listed were exclusive to Nintendo so that proves their point, multiplats have never been a driving force for Nintendo.

Street Fighter II was on SNES for about 2 years before Genesis got a version of it, also games like Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Mega Man, Castlevania, etc didn't sell NES/SNES because they were third party games, it was because they were high-quality games that couldn't be found elsewhere. Same goes for the N64 third party games, Turok, Star Wars, wrestling/sports/racing games that sold well were mostly exclusive, the only really strong selling multiplat was Tony Hawk.

It's the same reason PS1 was able to steal so much of Nintendo's market, it wasn't because it had third parties, it was because it had more and bigger exclusives, Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Tekken, Resident Evil, Tomb Raider, Metal Gear Solid, Twisted Metal, Crash Bandicoot, Spyro the Dragon were on PS1 but not N64.

Even most of the big system selling PS2 games were exclusive, Grand Theft Auto, Final Fantasy, Gran Turismo, Metal Gear Solid, Dragon Quest, Kingdom Hearts, God of War. PS2 did have alot of strong selling multiplats but it was because they had already built up a huge lead over the competitors.

The HD twins in the 7th were really the first time that multiplats have been the driving force of sales for consoles.

I was responding to Slarvax's comment that stated  "I'm very sure every other Nintendo console had very low selling 3rd party games (except SNES, but those didn't move the hardware numbers anyway)."   This is just simply not true as I noted in my post.

As for the difference between 3rd party multiplats and exclusives, that's a moot point in the NES's case because nearly all 3rd party games were defacto exclusives as per Nintendo's strict licensing agreements.  And how can you say that my comment proves their point that "multiplats were never a driving force for Nintendo" (a completely new argument that I was not responding to) when the SNES shared plenty of 3rd party multiplats with the Genesis that sold well and helped move consoles on both sides?  Games like the MK series, Earthworm Jim, The Lion King, the NFL/NHL games, NBA Jam, Toy Story, the later editions of Street Fighter II like Super SF2 etc.

It wasn't until the PS1/N64 generation that Nintendo lost out on alot of 3rd party exclusive titles to its rivals, but the N64 still had a decent amount of both 3rd party exclusives and mutiplats, as did the GameCube, minus some of the big name exclusives of course.  But the point being that back in the day, multiplatform or exclusive, 3rd party titles helped sell Nintendo consoles.

After the GameCube the notion that "only Nintendo games sell on Nintendo consoles" became a thing because Nintendo's userbase on consoles had eroded for greener pastures, and Niintendo hasn't done anything in 2 generations and counting now to try and woo them back.  Niche titles like Bayonetta 2 (which wouldn't even exist if they didn't fund it) aren't going to convince the gamers who left Nintendo during the PS1/2 days and who continued on to PS360 and now PSOne to come back to Nintendo.



On 2/24/13, MB1025 said:
You know I was always wondering why no one ever used the dollar sign for $ony, but then I realized they have no money so it would be pointless.

Soundwave on 27 January 2015

Gamecube multi-plats were pretty good back in the day, and they still usually sold worst on the GameCube.

Capcom was so disappointed with their Resident Evil sales that they weaselled out of their deal with Nintendo.

So y'know this isn't all on third parties, but even the premise to begin with that a third party owes any one of Sony/MS/Nintendo anything is absurd to me.

They should go where ever business is best for them, Nintendo/Sony/MS have no problem charging them $10 for each copy of a game whether it sells or rots in a bargain bin, third parties are taking tremendous risk in the home console model.

That and there's a demographic issue here ... why should the maker of say Grand Theft Auto have interest in a platform that's primarily aimed at the family market? It doesn't make sense to prioritize that platform, but when Nintendo fans complain they complain that these are the types of games they're not getting (generally speaking the violent action games that even Nintendo has problems selling themselves on their platforms). They gloss over that third parties are perfectly willing to support with things like LEGO, Skylanders, Disney Infinity, Just Dance, and other family friendly fare. 

The vast majority of the audience for games like Resident Evil, Grand Theft Auto, Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, Assassin's Creed, Batman, BioShock, Madden NFL, FIFA, Need For Speed, Tekken, Street Fighter, Skyrim, Witcher etc. are not on Nintendo systems. Nintendo lost the interest of audiences interested in these style of games with the GameCube and they have never recovered from that. Even with the Wii, what does it matter to me as the designer of GTA that a soccer mom is hot for the Wii? 

The Wii got tons of third party support, again though it was largely based around casual mini-games, which is what the system was aimed around. 

Third parties aren't "scared" of Nintendo, why should the maker of GTA or COD be scared of Nintendo? They can crush the sales of any Zelda or even Smash Brothers game. They just don't care about Nintendo platforms and have little reason to. 



Mr Khan on 27 January 2015
Shadow1980 said:
Mr Khan said:

I disagree, given that third parties abandoned Wii U *before* they abandoned PS360, that it's clearly not an issue of power. They simply aren't interested in putting their best foot forward in Nintendo's environment, and it would cost Nintendo a small fortune to get even a few of them to do so, and that's assuming that Sony and/or MS didn't try to stop them in the process.

Nintendo needs to focus on building their own environment, keep up the specific third-party partnerships (for abandoned games like B2 or Devil's Third and IP-partnerships like Pokken and Hyrule Warriors), and focus on tapping into low-end third party support that can't function elsewhere.

I knew the current third-party situation with the Wii U would come to pass from the very beginning. Once they started putting more emphasis on the PS4 and XBO their support for the Wii U would dry up. The Wii U got a lot of games that were purely seventh-gen (or at least originally so), including ACIII, Arkham City & Arkham Origins, Black Ops II, Ninja Gaiden 3, Tekken Tag Tournament 2, NFS: Most Wanted, Injustice, RE: Revelations, Deus Ex, and Rayman Legends, among others. But cross-gen games? Not as many. It got AC: Black Flag, COD: Ghosts, Watch Dogs, and a couple of Lego games, but that's about it. The Wii U's poor commercial performance probably accelerated the process, but there was no way third parties were going to continue supporting the Wii U once the PS4 and XBO became their primary focus. Even the 360 & PS3 have noticably reduced support this year and will likely have no major games in 2016.

Even though the Wii U didn't get the third-party games it needed (most cross-gen games were no-shows, and no purely eighth-gen games are present), it did show that third parties weren't just shunning Nintendo on principle. Given the relatively low costs of porting 360 & PS3 games to the Wii U (<$1M according to Ubisoft, which means they'd maybe need to sell only 50k copies to break even) it was probably more of a case of "Why the hell not?" Even if Nintendo fans (likely pretty much all of the Wii U's user base) don't buy a ton of third-party games, it was enough for some additional pocket change for the third parties. But once the PS4 & XBO came out it was obvious that it was more worth their time and effort to ignore the system that was already about to end up in third place in a generation it had a year-long head start in (the PS4 sold more in its first few weeks than the Wii U did in all of 2013). There were already two systems with a combined install base of almost 170 million plus two more destined to sell many tens of millions of units in their own right. These new systems were going to be where the real money is going to be made when it came to cross-gen games, but more importantly they offered the kind of power they needed for purely eighth-gen games. Ultimately, the Wii U was a victim of its lack of power when it came to third-party support. The sales situation merely exacerbated things.

But if Nintendo made a conventional system next time it would be suitable to the needs of third parties and would appeal to people other than Nintendo fans. Unless they can come up with another gimmick that resonates with gamers and is marketed well enough, then without third-party support the best they can hope for is 20-25 million. With strong third-party support, I think they could do three times that.

We must be seeing two different things. I look at Wii U third party support as a precise example of third parties shunning Nintendo on purpose. A purpose that was retroactively justified, but they could hardly know that (look how badly they blew it with the Wii).



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
zorg1000 on 27 January 2015
Shadow1980 said:
Mr Khan said:

I disagree, given that third parties abandoned Wii U *before* they abandoned PS360, that it's clearly not an issue of power. They simply aren't interested in putting their best foot forward in Nintendo's environment, and it would cost Nintendo a small fortune to get even a few of them to do so, and that's assuming that Sony and/or MS didn't try to stop them in the process.

Nintendo needs to focus on building their own environment, keep up the specific third-party partnerships (for abandoned games like B2 or Devil's Third and IP-partnerships like Pokken and Hyrule Warriors), and focus on tapping into low-end third party support that can't function elsewhere.

I knew the current third-party situation with the Wii U would come to pass from the very beginning. Once they started putting more emphasis on the PS4 and XBO their support for the Wii U would dry up. The Wii U got a lot of games that were purely seventh-gen (or at least originally so), including ACIII, Arkham City & Arkham Origins, Black Ops II, Ninja Gaiden 3, Tekken Tag Tournament 2, NFS: Most Wanted, Injustice, RE: Revelations, Deus Ex, and Rayman Legends, among others. But cross-gen games? Not as many. It got AC: Black Flag, COD: Ghosts, Watch Dogs, and a couple of Lego games, but that's about it. The Wii U's poor commercial performance probably accelerated the process, but there was no way third parties were going to continue supporting the Wii U once the PS4 and XBO became their primary focus. Even the 360 & PS3 have noticably reduced support this year and will likely have no major games in 2016.

Even though the Wii U didn't get the third-party games it needed (most cross-gen games were no-shows, and no purely eighth-gen games are present), it did show that third parties weren't just shunning Nintendo on principle. Given the relatively low costs of porting 360 & PS3 games to the Wii U (<$1M according to Ubisoft, which means they'd maybe need to sell only 50k copies to break even) it was probably more of a case of "Why the hell not?" Even if Nintendo fans (likely pretty much all of the Wii U's user base) don't buy a ton of third-party games, it was enough for some additional pocket change for the third parties. But once the PS4 & XBO came out it was obvious that it was more worth their time and effort to ignore the system that was already about to end up in third place in a generation it had a year-long head start in (the PS4 sold more in its first few weeks than the Wii U did in all of 2013). There were already two systems with a combined install base of almost 170 million plus two more destined to sell many tens of millions of units in their own right. These new systems were going to be where the real money is going to be made when it came to cross-gen games, but more importantly they offered the kind of power they needed for purely eighth-gen games. Ultimately, the Wii U was a victim of its lack of power when it came to third-party support. The sales situation merely exacerbated things.

But if Nintendo made a conventional system next time it would be suitable to the needs of third parties and would appeal to people other than Nintendo fans. Unless they can come up with another gimmick that resonates with gamers and is marketed well enough, then without third-party support the best they can hope for is 20-25 million. With strong third-party support, I think they could do three times that.

U can't really say 3rd parties even gave Wii U a chance, at launch it had a few decent big hitters like Call of Duty & Assassin's Creed, a really late port in Arkham City (which actually sold similar to the year old port of Tomb Raider on XB1), a ripoff in Mass Effect 3 (PS3/360 just got the entire trilogy for the same price), and a few games that didn't even do very well on PS3/360 like Darksiders II, Ninja Gaiden 3, Tekken Tag 2.

The real problem is post-launch where Wii U had basically no 3rd party support outside of Injustice and Splinter Cell for nearly 9 months. The holidays saw second releases of Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed & Batman. Wii U basically got a handful of late or inferior ports (missing features or poor performance), with essentially no marketing, did 3rd parties think they could be successful with this strategy?



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

zorg1000 on 27 January 2015
Shadow1980 said:
If third parties were actively shunning Nintendo, they wouldn't have even bothered with the minimal support they gave the Wii U in the first place. Third parties have a spotty track record when it comes to supporting Nintendo ever since the fifth generation, but there has been support nonetheless. If the system is conducive to making the kind of games they want and they can make money from releasing on the system, then they will support the system. They don't neglect Nintendo on principle alone, but rather for more practical reasons.

Formats with limited space kept many games from showing up on the N64 and GameCube. Almost nobody bothered porting any major AAA 360 & PS3 games to Wii despite the latter's large install base because the ports would have to be severely downgraded due to the Wii's inferior specs and would thus lack any real commercial viability (it did get a few half-assed COD ports, which predictably sold poorly). And the Wii U is stuck in this limbo between the seventh and eighth generations. Few were going to buy a system for games they could get on their PS3 or 360, and the system wasn't going to get "true" eighth-gen games because it's not powerful enough to run them without severe downgrades, thus making it entirely reliant on first-party games.


Can u honestly say they gave Wii U a shot before abandoning it? What relevant 3rd party games did Wii U get between holiday 2012 & holiday 2013? They basically threw out a few late or inferior ports that were destined to sell poorly then claim their games don't sell on Nintendo consoles so they could cut off support entirely for not making the console they wanted.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Vladdie93 on 27 January 2015

To this article I instantly say "Bullshit."

1) They disagree that Nintendo should try to entice people to make more games for their console DOES NOT have any similarity to Atari destroying the industry. This author's forgetting basic video game history, like Atari charged next to nothing to make a game on their console, no quality control, no review systems, a majority of the games were crap, and so on... With all the modern standards, review websites, and a more structured system to make games, it's much easier for people to avoid stinkers and simply go for the best.

2) This guy really thinks all developers are evil, doesn't he? I mean, he constantly portrays them as money-sucking leeches who'll only make a good game on a bribe. That's just a mean-spirited way of looking at the entire industry. Yeah, there's some bad groups like EA, but a lot of 3rd party developers just want to feel like you're incorporating them in your idea. Don't you remember what Bethesda head said about them?

3) Nintendo can modernize without being Sony and Microsoft. They can be themselves and still have great hardware. Remember that Fusion idea that kept floating around. That sounds amazing! Yes PLEASE! If I could take a Wii U gamepad around with me and play the same games I got on my home console, I'd fucking go broke buying nothing but Nintendo games! And even with this amazing hardware and their own great games, they can have other developers working side by side if they just allow them to.

 

Nintendo needs to TALK to developers and make them feel welcomed in their consoles. If I made a console, I'd tell everyone I know and try to get them making games for it in any way I could. I'd try to make innovative and amazing games for me while allowing 3rd party to fill up gaps between and make a pretty penny. Why wouldn't you want that?



Mr Khan on 27 January 2015
Vladdie93 said:

To this article I instantly say "Bullshit."

1) They disagree that Nintendo should try to entice people to make more games for their console DOES NOT have any similarity to Atari destroying the industry. This author's forgetting basic video game history, like Atari charged next to nothing to make a game on their console, no quality control, no review systems, a majority of the games were crap, and so on... With all the modern standards, review websites, and a more structured system to make games, it's much easier for people to avoid stinkers and simply go for the best.

2) This guy really thinks all developers are evil, doesn't he? I mean, he constantly portrays them as money-sucking leeches who'll only make a good game on a bribe. That's just a mean-spirited way of looking at the entire industry. Yeah, there's some bad groups like EA, but a lot of 3rd party developers just want to feel like you're incorporating them in your idea. Don't you remember what Bethesda head said about them?

3) Nintendo can modernize without being Sony and Microsoft. They can be themselves and still have great hardware. Remember that Fusion idea that kept floating around. That sounds amazing! Yes PLEASE! If I could take a Wii U gamepad around with me and play the same games I got on my home console, I'd fucking go broke buying nothing but Nintendo games! And even with this amazing hardware and their own great games, they can have other developers working side by side if they just allow them to.

 

Nintendo needs to TALK to developers and make them feel welcomed in their consoles. If I made a console, I'd tell everyone I know and try to get them making games for it in any way I could. I'd try to make innovative and amazing games for me while allowing 3rd party to fill up gaps between and make a pretty penny. Why wouldn't you want that?

I'm curious, the head of Bethesda said what about them?



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

pokoko on 27 January 2015
RolStoppable said:
pokoko said:
I very much agree with the author about third-party developers and publishers being intimidated by the first-party games of Nintendo. After all, the reason Activision refused to put CoD on Xbox is because Halo is such a sales juggernaut.

Yeah.

That has nothing to do with anything. It's like saying Borderlands or Destiny can't be successful because there are already so many big FPS games out there. It's a bullshit excuse, an attempt to rationalize in a way that makes Nintendo look good. If the audience is there, they will buy way more content than Nintendo can produce. That's the real point, that third-parties do not believe the audience on Nintendo home consoles will support anything but platformers and party games.

People really needs to stop believing stuff just because it's what they want to believe. A great man, Sosuke Aizen, once said, "Admiration is the furthest state from understanding.”

Actually, the phrase "Only Nintendo games sell on Nintendo systems." came from third parties themselves. It's essentially just another way of saying that they can't compete.

That doesn't change that it is a bullshit excuse, but it changes the context. It's third parties' justification for not seriously trying in the first place and then acting like the victim when their games aren't being bought. This is the self-fulfilling prophecy Adelman talked about.

"Only Nintendo games sell on Nintendo systems," is completely different than, "third-party companies are indeed intimidated by Nintendo’s offerings," which is the statement made by the author of the article in question.  Ubi-soft put Rayman Legends on the Wii U without being intimidated by Mario and it did reasonably well.  Why?  Because the game fits an established audience.  I don't know who said the quote you mentioned ("third parties" is a large and diverse group) but more correct way to say it would be that only Nintendo type games sell on systems like the Wii U.