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

Forums - Nintendo - Nintendo Fans Vs. Third-Party Developers & Entitlement

se7en7thre3 said:
MikeRox said:

 

Rockstar/Remedy stated they couldn't get the game running up to snuff on GCN and so that version of the game got axed.

In the case of GTA, you've also got the capacity limitations of the discs. Can you really break a game like GTA into multiple discs easily? Plus it has the added development costs. By that point in the systems life, it wasn't really worthwhile doing. While the Xbox was basically a PC in a box with it's Pentium 3 Processor and Ge Force GPU making that port much more straight forward.

Im farily confident there was nothing PS2 had on GC except disc size.  IIRC GCN had more/faster ram, better cpu and gpu.  Heck some argued it was more efficient than OG xbox (resi 4 was arguably best looking game of that gen).  You're right about the disc limitations for certain games, but for a game like say, Vice City, a big chunk of that is audio files which could be further compressed or degraded in quality, and even have some tracks/stations removed if nec.  

Soundwave said:

Third parties just don't need Nintendo. Now that there are two better alternatives for them in Sony and MS, Nintendo just isn't needed. 

Even during the GameCube days though I remember that GCN multi-plats would often sell the worst by a fair margin versus the PS2 and XBox versions even when Nintendo did things like get Mario characters into games like NBA Street and SSX and EA emphasied the GameCube logo in TV marketing for those ads, those games still tanked on the GameCube. 

The real issue is that Sony/MS took away the gamer who bought a lot of of third party games on the NES/SNES ... that gamer grew frustrated with Nintendo during the N64 days and jumped ship to Sony (and maybe subsequently MS), but the Nintendo audience that bought a lot of third party games was already on the Sony bandwagon by the time 2000/2001 rolled around and Nintendo's never really gotten them back. They've just gotten stuck with a core Nintendo fanbase that buys primarily Nintendo games on their Nintendo consoles. 

Very true, MS just cleaned up the scraps that was already taken mostly by PS.  But to your point about using ninty chars. in some 3rd party games, there was ONE GC gm that performed the best of the 3, and that was the Soul calibur w/Link.  

My thing is, why not try to rectify the situation, don't take gamers for granted and don't flat out give up any segment of the game community.  Nintendo has lost a lot of respect for no longer "competing".  this passive aggressive, we're not really competing nonsense has to come to an end other wise Ninty will end up bullied out of business and become 3rd party/toy maker. 

Darwinianevolution said:

 

Third parties are difficult to satisfy at this point, at least in my opinion. Big western developers aren't interested in Nintendo consoles because most of their games don't sell as well (military shooters in particular). If this is because they expect to sell PS360 numbers on the device and moderate sales are not interesting for them (GTA V not being on the WiiU when it's everywhere else), or the Nintendo crowd don't care about those genres, I don't know. One thing I don't beliebe it's power as an excuse. I firmly believe that, if power was one of the main problems, the WiiU would have gotten (and still get) all those crossgen games: Destiny, most Telltale games, GTA V, FarCry 4, Wolfenstein TNO... But they aren't coming. Wii didn't get AAA titles from western studios, but you can't say they didn't support the system, and the same with the DS. Also, western developers never were really big on the handheld market, so when mobile appeared, they quickly abandoned it.

 

Agreed with unquoted parts for sure, but for the 3rd parties not interested in Nintendo part, its up to NINTENDO to create enticing HW, that ensures the audience will get power and features like/better than the competition.  I hold the theory of "if you build it, they will come".  And nintendo simply hasn't been building it lately.  Its like, a straight man being accused of being...you know...and not defend himself! Very suspect.  Nintendo did react in the sega genesis war(fixed the blood issue in mortal kombat) but they got tired of that fight it seemed and just accepted the kiddie label, when they were actually very balanced all around during SNES and i'd guess NES days as well.  


Just to clarify something ... Soul Calibur 2 did best on the PS2. The GameCube version with Link happened to edge out the XBox version, being one of the few times a multiplat sold better on the GCN than the XBox, but that was it. 

And there's a limited number of games you can shoe-horn Link into, so that wasn't really of any solace to third party developers. 



Around the Network
Soundwave said:

Just to clarify something ... Soul Calibur 2 did best on the PS2. The GameCube version with Link happened to edge out the XBox version, being one of the few times a multiplat sold better on the GCN than the XBox, but that was it. 

And there's a limited number of games you can shoe-horn Link into, so that wasn't really of any solace to third party developers. 


Fair of you to correct me on that, but BOOOOOOOO to a 150 mil install base legging out GC's 20 mil lol.  I distincly remember GCN outsold it first couple yrs, when they all broke 1 mil GC was ahead, but yeah in the end years later I guess, VGC has PS2 version at 2 mil and gc at 1.5.



super_etecoon said:
How is this thread allowed to continue? The title is basically flame bait and the OP doesn't clarify anything. It is very much a copy/paste without summary or commentary. I've read the first few posts in this 250+ thread and they basically say the same thing. Weird.


Its allowed to continue because it attracts discussion. Don't post if you've nothing constructive to add to it.



"Say what you want about Americans but we understand Capitalism.You buy yourself a product and you Get What You Pay For."  

- Max Payne 3

oniyide said:
DonFerrari said:

It was second but sold a lot less than x360 version even with the difference in userbase.

 

On the subpar version, we have so much claim that graphics don't matter that I started believing.

 

Have sports franchise sold well on Wii before being chopped?


Alot of fanboys were making claims based on nothing and simply not true at all. Some straight lies too. As we clearly see with sales it does matter. Most people arent going to want to play a version of a game that is THAT inferior. 

No they really havent which again. Alot of Wii version of games were missing features and just straight ran like crap. Thats not on 3rds Ninty made the system they made and it just couldnt handle the games the PS360 could, people noticed rest is history.

Most GC multiplats were the worst selling but at least they sold close to the Xbox versions which make sense since those two systems sold alike

Yep. The graph difference between x360-ps3 or ps4-x1 doesn't matter much and with PC not enough to much people to expend more and tinker.

 

All the reasons gave by Nintendo fans contribute, late, gimped, lacking... But the main one is  really lack of interest.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Soundwave said:

Third parties just don't need Nintendo. Now that there are two better alternatives for them in Sony and MS, Nintendo just isn't needed.


Basically the big western publishers & Nintendo have different views on the types of games they make and this leads to them attracting different audiences so western 3rd parties don't need Nintendo & Nintendo doesn't need western 3rd parties.



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

Around the Network
se7en7thre3 said:
MikeRox said:

 

Rockstar/Remedy stated they couldn't get the game running up to snuff on GCN and so that version of the game got axed.

In the case of GTA, you've also got the capacity limitations of the discs. Can you really break a game like GTA into multiple discs easily? Plus it has the added development costs. By that point in the systems life, it wasn't really worthwhile doing. While the Xbox was basically a PC in a box with it's Pentium 3 Processor and Ge Force GPU making that port much more straight forward.

Im farily confident there was nothing PS2 had on GC except disc size.  IIRC GCN had more/faster ram, better cpu and gpu.  Heck some argued it was more efficient than OG xbox (resi 4 was arguably best looking game of that gen).  You're right about the disc limitations for certain games, but for a game like say, Vice City, a big chunk of that is audio files which could be further compressed or degraded in quality, and even have some tracks/stations removed if nec.  


But surely that would have led to the very same "not as good as other versions so I'm not buying" situation there was for many 3rd party titles anyway? Hell, GCN ports of the Dreamcast stuff wasn't even as good as the Dreamcast version.

My limited research on GCN hardware suggests yes, it had more overall RAM, but it wasn't as flexible as the PS2s as it was more set for specific tasks.

Btw, little bonus, here is the Dreamcast version of Max Payne, because yes, it started life due on Dreamcast. However changes in technology etc meant that newer platforms were more appropriate. Pretty much what happened to Project CARS.


View on YouTube

Video is from 1999, before even the PS2 launched!



RIP Dad 25/11/51 - 13/12/13. You will be missed but never forgotten.

zorg1000 said:
Soundwave said:

Third parties just don't need Nintendo. Now that there are two better alternatives for them in Sony and MS, Nintendo just isn't needed.


Basically the big western publishers & Nintendo have different views on the types of games they make and this leads to them attracting different audiences so western 3rd parties don't need Nintendo & Nintendo doesn't need western 3rd parties.


Except Japanese 3rd party support for their consoles has been even worse. Ubi Soft and Activision have been actually two of Nintendo's better third party partners. 

And every console manufacturer needs Western third party support if they want to be truly relevant in the West, but I think Nintendo is kind of just out of it when it comes to that. The mistake was letting both Sony AND Microsoft gain large footholds into the industry, that's really where all these problems stem from. 

Consumers, third parties, etc. no one really wants a third wheel console. There's never been three successful consoles at once except when the Wii went to a total casual slant opening up a temporary new audience that's since shifted away. 



Soundwave said:
zorg1000 said:


Basically the big western publishers & Nintendo have different views on the types of games they make and this leads to them attracting different audiences so western 3rd parties don't need Nintendo & Nintendo doesn't need western 3rd parties.


Except Japanese 3rd party support for their consoles has been even worse. Ubi Soft and Activision have been actually two of Nintendo's better third party partners. 

And every console manufacturer needs Western third party support if they want to be truly relevant in the West, but I think Nintendo is kind of just out of it when it comes to that. The mistake was letting both Sony AND Microsoft gain large footholds into the industry, that's really where all these problems stem from. 

Consumers, third parties, etc. no one really wants a third wheel console. There's never been three successful consoles at once except when the Wii went to a total casual slant opening up a temporary new audience that's since shifted away. 

When talking about Nintendo, u can't just leave out the side of their business that receives about 70% of their software output. So far this generation, Nintendo has published about 30 games for Wii U and about 70 games for 3DS.

Nintendo has shipped about 40 million units of hardware, and growing, to the west on the strength of Nintendo-published titles, and with Japanese/indie/child friendly games serving as secondary support. So no, Nintendo really doesn't need the mainstream, AAA western titles that Playstation/Xbox rely on.



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

zorg1000 said:
Soundwave said:


Except Japanese 3rd party support for their consoles has been even worse. Ubi Soft and Activision have been actually two of Nintendo's better third party partners. 

And every console manufacturer needs Western third party support if they want to be truly relevant in the West, but I think Nintendo is kind of just out of it when it comes to that. The mistake was letting both Sony AND Microsoft gain large footholds into the industry, that's really where all these problems stem from. 

Consumers, third parties, etc. no one really wants a third wheel console. There's never been three successful consoles at once except when the Wii went to a total casual slant opening up a temporary new audience that's since shifted away. 

When talking about Nintendo, u can't just leave out the side of their business that receives about 70% of their software output. So far this generation, Nintendo has published about 30 games for Wii U and about 70 games for 3DS.

Nintendo has shipped about 40 million units of hardware, and growing, to the west on the strength of Nintendo-published titles, and with Japanese/indie/child friendly games serving as secondary support. So no, Nintendo really doesn't need the mainstream, AAA western titles that Playstation/Xbox rely on.


If they want to sell more than 20 million home consoles ever again they probably do. Japan doesn't buy any consoles so they're out, almost all console sales are in the West, and it's kind of a long term dead end to try and sell game hardware to the Western audience with no Western games. 

I don't know honestly. Nintendo's in a tough spot, because they really I don't think can adequetely compete with Sony/MS, so I dunno. I think NX is going to be profitable for them, but they're going to expand more into where things like their non-traditional business lines -- mobile games, movie franchising, theme park tie-ins, etc. eventually makes more money for them than traditional gaming does. 

Kind of like how Marvel Comics branched out far beyond just comics or LEGO makes a lot of money these days outside of just selling toy blocks. That's kinda where I think Nintendo is headed. 

They have done OK with the 3DS in the West, but their handheld line is also suffering massive losses in the West and that erosion becomes more and more obvious every year. I don't know if they'll be able to match the 3DS' sales in the West next time out, 3DS still sorta benefitted from at least early on not having such a soldified mobile gaming landscape to compete against (holiday 2011 in particular was a good one of the 3DS in the West, but the wheels fell off after that). 



Soundwave said:
zorg1000 said:

When talking about Nintendo, u can't just leave out the side of their business that receives about 70% of their software output. So far this generation, Nintendo has published about 30 games for Wii U and about 70 games for 3DS.

Nintendo has shipped about 40 million units of hardware, and growing, to the west on the strength of Nintendo-published titles, and with Japanese/indie/child friendly games serving as secondary support. So no, Nintendo really doesn't need the mainstream, AAA western titles that Playstation/Xbox rely on.


If they want to sell more than 20 million home consoles ever again they probably do. Japan doesn't buy any consoles so they're out, almost all console sales are in the West, and it's kind of a long term dead end to try and sell game hardware to the Western audience with no Western games. 

I don't know honestly. Nintendo's in a tough spot, because they really I don't think can adequetely compete with Sony/MS, so I dunno. I think NX is going to be profitable for them, but they're going to expand more into where things like their non-traditional business lines -- mobile games, movie franchising, theme park tie-ins, etc. eventually makes more money for them than traditional gaming does. 

Kind of like how Marvel Comics branched out far beyond just comics or LEGO makes a lot of money these days outside of just selling toy blocks. That's kinda where I think Nintendo is headed. 

They have done OK with the 3DS in the West, but their handheld line is also suffering massive losses in the West and that erosion becomes more and more obvious every year. I don't know if they'll be able to match the 3DS' sales in the West next time out, 3DS still sorta benefitted from at least early on not having such a soldified mobile gaming landscape to compete against (holiday 2011 in particular was a good one of the 3DS in the West, but the wheels fell off after that). 


Well like I said, when talking about Nintendo u have to look at the company as a whole and not just one segment of it, Nintendo being able to sell over 40 million (over 50 million when all is said and done) units of hardware in the West without the need of the big western games is proof that they don't need those games.

Who cares if those divisions end up making more money for Nintendo than their tradition gaming division does? Are u implying that Nintendo is simply going to abandon that market just because other things are more profitable? As long as their gaming business is making money and they sell a bunch of hardware & software than they aren't leaving the business.

Diversifying and expanding is probably going to more beneficial than detrimental for the gaming business by increasing brand awareness through these other divisions along with Nintendo being able to take more risks with their gaming business because the company will no longer be 100% dependant on the success of gaming.



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