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

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

SubiyaCryolite said:
generic-user-1 said:
SubiyaCryolite said:
97alexk said:

 Also most third party games like assassins creed and COD are not fun anyway

God I hate that sentiment. I really wish we had a standard way of measuring fun, otherwise it sounds like rhetoric and hot air.

i bet nobody would still like cod after playing a good fps.  it sells well because most casuals dont want to look for other games,so they play what the others play.

Yeah, Id take you up on that "bet". Define "good fps", then tell me what makes CoD a "bad fps". All baseless, subjective rhetoric and buzzwords. But anything to lift up Nintendo and knock down third parties right?

we could find some metrics to messure it.  like server population after 6 months, balancing, basic features, community.

and lool, nintendo has no FPS, so it cant lift up nintendo...

but maybe i just have a sensitive backside and cant take so much assr**ing from ubi, EA and acti. (and no, its not because they make mainstream games, its because they are anticonsumer)



Around the Network

I'm tired of black and white notions.

There is gray area to this that is far more reasonable. For both sides.



Official Tokyo Mirage Sessions #FE Thread

                                      

Psh. I'm not going to give this dude a view. All he's gonna say is the same old schtick. He can come over and play all my 3rd party games.



RolStoppable said:
outlawauron said:

There's some truth to it, and you can tell he's a huge Nintendo fan....

But no time for 30 minutes of that.

Someone said it's Shokio. It really doesn't matter if he is a Nintendo fan, that doesn't exclude him from buying into false premises.

If I asked the community why gamemaster4747 doesn't receive the same treatment as outlawauron for making troll threads, what would be the answer? Why is outlawauron getting preferential treatment within this community?

I only mentioned the author because I think he comes from a place of sincerity vs wanting to get a rise out of people.

For the second part, I thank you for linking the thread and your assistance in it. 



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

The whole deal with the 3rd party support thing is a full circle so no matter where you jab at it (customers, fans, 3rd parties, nintendo, etc.) you can always point fingers to the other

In a nutshell,
People that like Nintendo games buy the consoles (due to lack of 3rd party games)
3rd party sees no need to develop for the system because people buy Nintendo games
Other people complain due to lack of 3rd party and don't buy the console
If 3rd party devs do create games, it doesn't get bought because the people who have the system bought it mainly for Nintendo games, and those who do won't buy the system because it doesn't have much in the first place



NintenDomination [May 2015 - July 2017]
 

  - Official  VGChartz Tutorial Thread - 

NintenDomination [2015/05/19 - 2017/07/02]
 

          

 

 

Here lies the hidden threads. 

 | |

Nintendo Metascore | Official NintenDomination | VGC Tutorial Thread

| Best and Worst of Miiverse | Manga Discussion Thead |
[3DS] Winter Playtimes [Wii U]

Around the Network
Soundwave said:
Darwinianevolution said:
Most western developers abandoned handhelds a long time ago. Mobile is more interesting for them. It's the home console market the most interesting one in that regard.

I would have believed that hardware power is the main excuse for 3rd parties to ignore Nintendo, but the situation of the first two years of the WiiU really proved otherwise. Back in the days when the main competitors were the PS360 and the WiiU, most games could have run on the U as well as on the HD twins.

Most publishers took the chance and released their old games on the new system (Deus Ex, Ninja Gaiden, Batman Arkaham City, Assassins Creed...), just to test the waters. However, part of the problem was exactly that: most people had already played those titles in other systems, or they weren't new enough to compete against recent releases. Granted, some should have sold more (Deus Ex, ACIV...), but some of the best selling titles that got a last gen port (Destiny, GTA V, Far Cry 4, every EA sport, PES, Resident Evil HD...) didn't come to the system, in the monent that Nintendo needed them the most, when they were strugling with HD. Even the games that came (Watch Dogs) arrived late and performed bad as everyone expected. Thus we had the droughts.

Very few studios took the chance and released titles during those droughts, when they could have gotten all the sales. The failure of CoD on those systems was the straw that broke the camel's back, though. If there's a game that sells no matter the time of the release or the state it's in, it's CoD, and it failed two times on the U. I'm sure after that, every studio avoided the system like the plague.

But they shouldn't have! Monster Huntes 3 sold well on the U, but Capcom never tried again, Zombie U almost reached the million, but Ubisoft never made a sequel of that (I'm sure the userbase would have prefered Zombie U2 before Watch Dogs), SE and Namco have a ton of JRPGs on the PS3: Kingdom Hearts titles sell well on Nintendo handhelds, FF remakes/remasters, a Tales of game... , but they didn't port one (or brought them to the west). And someone should have brought sports games, someone! EA tried to boycott the system due to Origin not running on the U, when they could have just kept releasing FIFA, as they did on the Wii! Part of the blame is Nintendo's too. I don't know if a port of GTA V would have been more expensive than the possible profits, but they should have insisted on it, and the same with Bethesda games. Without those titles, the system looked barren during two or three years. And when Nintendo managed to recover, the PS4 and the XBone were out already. The excuse of the weaker hardware was valid after that, but not before.

If something hurt the 3rd pary on the WiiU, was:

-Studios not knowing which titles could make money on the system, thus abandoning it before risking time and money. Some even ignored the machine with some successes achieved, prefering not risking anything instead of pursuing the small but consistent sales some games have, like the Lego games. Also, bad pricing for some games also killed the interest (ehem ME3 more expensive than the MEtrilogy ehem).

-Nintendo not trying to get some key titles to the system (GTA V, Destiny, some Bethesda RPG, if FIFA wasn't avalible, try bringing PES...). Also Nintendo not being able to create content fast enough for the system made it look unappealing, and thus not selling fast enough from the beginning.

-I can't say something about the userbase, because the customer is always right, and if they decide to not purchase, it's their choice. But if they want some genres over others, they could have tried bringing more attention to them, specially now with tons of ways of bringing attention to this matters. Example: OP Rainfall. If that worked with Nintendo, why shouldn't it work with other companies?

Just to be clear, Zombi U never came close to sniffing a million. The game was wildly overtracked by VGChartz, we got actual numbers for it from a NPD leak a while ago I forgot what the actual number was but it was quite mediocre. Ditto for Bayonetta 2.

There's no point in Nintendo really trying to get things like GTA. It just doesn't fit Nintendo's image or brand type and that type of game will never really be a huge seller on a Nintendo console. 

Even if it sold 60k instead of 80k, that's a good number for a new IP about something as generic as zombies in a system with a low installbase. The same can be applied for Bayonetta (minus the generic part). The point is Ubisoft could have used the assets from the first game and made a quick sequel, but they didn't. Instead of porting Wath Dogs, game that was sold mostly through hype and arrived to the system when it ran out of it, they could have made Zombie U2, a game that proved somewhat succesful, instead of a game that was released to failed (everyone said WD would fail on the system, and everyone were right).



You know it deserves the GOTY.

Come join The 2018 Obscure Game Monthly Review Thread.

Darwinianevolution said:
Soundwave said:
Darwinianevolution said:
Most western developers abandoned handhelds a long time ago. Mobile is more interesting for them. It's the home console market the most interesting one in that regard.

I would have believed that hardware power is the main excuse for 3rd parties to ignore Nintendo, but the situation of the first two years of the WiiU really proved otherwise. Back in the days when the main competitors were the PS360 and the WiiU, most games could have run on the U as well as on the HD twins.

Most publishers took the chance and released their old games on the new system (Deus Ex, Ninja Gaiden, Batman Arkaham City, Assassins Creed...), just to test the waters. However, part of the problem was exactly that: most people had already played those titles in other systems, or they weren't new enough to compete against recent releases. Granted, some should have sold more (Deus Ex, ACIV...), but some of the best selling titles that got a last gen port (Destiny, GTA V, Far Cry 4, every EA sport, PES, Resident Evil HD...) didn't come to the system, in the monent that Nintendo needed them the most, when they were strugling with HD. Even the games that came (Watch Dogs) arrived late and performed bad as everyone expected. Thus we had the droughts.

Very few studios took the chance and released titles during those droughts, when they could have gotten all the sales. The failure of CoD on those systems was the straw that broke the camel's back, though. If there's a game that sells no matter the time of the release or the state it's in, it's CoD, and it failed two times on the U. I'm sure after that, every studio avoided the system like the plague.

But they shouldn't have! Monster Huntes 3 sold well on the U, but Capcom never tried again, Zombie U almost reached the million, but Ubisoft never made a sequel of that (I'm sure the userbase would have prefered Zombie U2 before Watch Dogs), SE and Namco have a ton of JRPGs on the PS3: Kingdom Hearts titles sell well on Nintendo handhelds, FF remakes/remasters, a Tales of game... , but they didn't port one (or brought them to the west). And someone should have brought sports games, someone! EA tried to boycott the system due to Origin not running on the U, when they could have just kept releasing FIFA, as they did on the Wii! Part of the blame is Nintendo's too. I don't know if a port of GTA V would have been more expensive than the possible profits, but they should have insisted on it, and the same with Bethesda games. Without those titles, the system looked barren during two or three years. And when Nintendo managed to recover, the PS4 and the XBone were out already. The excuse of the weaker hardware was valid after that, but not before.

If something hurt the 3rd pary on the WiiU, was:

-Studios not knowing which titles could make money on the system, thus abandoning it before risking time and money. Some even ignored the machine with some successes achieved, prefering not risking anything instead of pursuing the small but consistent sales some games have, like the Lego games. Also, bad pricing for some games also killed the interest (ehem ME3 more expensive than the MEtrilogy ehem).

-Nintendo not trying to get some key titles to the system (GTA V, Destiny, some Bethesda RPG, if FIFA wasn't avalible, try bringing PES...). Also Nintendo not being able to create content fast enough for the system made it look unappealing, and thus not selling fast enough from the beginning.

-I can't say something about the userbase, because the customer is always right, and if they decide to not purchase, it's their choice. But if they want some genres over others, they could have tried bringing more attention to them, specially now with tons of ways of bringing attention to this matters. Example: OP Rainfall. If that worked with Nintendo, why shouldn't it work with other companies?

Just to be clear, Zombi U never came close to sniffing a million. The game was wildly overtracked by VGChartz, we got actual numbers for it from a NPD leak a while ago I forgot what the actual number was but it was quite mediocre. Ditto for Bayonetta 2.

There's no point in Nintendo really trying to get things like GTA. It just doesn't fit Nintendo's image or brand type and that type of game will never really be a huge seller on a Nintendo console. 

Even if it sold 60k instead of 80k, that's a good number for a new IP about something as generic as zombies in a system with a low installbase. The same can be applied for Bayonetta (minus the generic part). The point is Ubisoft could have used the assets from the first game and made a quick sequel, but they didn't. Instead of porting Wath Dogs, game that was sold mostly through hype and arrived to the system when it ran out of it, they could have made Zombie U2, a game that proved somewhat succesful, instead of a game that was released to failed (everyone said WD would fail on the system, and everyone were right).


200k for a new IP is a bomb, especially since it probably only sold about 150-160k in its initial print run, probably a chunk of those sales comes with the game be widely discounted everywhere. Factoring in Euro sales maybe being 1/3 of the US, and Zombi U is probably about 300k worldwide versus the 850k+ VGC has it as, that isn't a difference of 60k to 80k, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say there. 

I don't really blame Ubi Soft for bailing out, that level of sales just doesn't cut it when they could probably move those resources to PS4/X1 development and enjoy much higher sales on something else. 

VGChartz has overtracked a lot of Nintendo stuff, they had Bayonetta 2 at 360k in the US or something, when it's really only at 157k. 



SubiyaCryolite said:

They act like they still control the industry when they dont. Its all right to look out for your interests but when you dont make ANY concessions for third parties you deserve to fail. Better yet, not even Nintendo cares about 3rd party sales. They just want their own games to sell and fans to gobble up Amiibos. Nothing wrong with that but they shouldnt be surprised no 3rd party is lining up to play by their rules.



thats abit rough.. but yeah honestly Nintendo doesnt seem to treat 3rd party the same way Sony or MS does.

I dont think most people would disagree, if I went on to say my perception is sony by far does the most for 3rd parties.... guess what? they have 3rd party.



Skullwaker said:
I'm tired of black and white notions.

There is gray area to this that is far more reasonable. For both sides.

Well said. It's not so simple as selfish, entitled Nintendo fans or greedy, unscrupulous third-party developers. As with most things, the truth is somewhere in the middle.



Veknoid_Outcast said:
Skullwaker said:
I'm tired of black and white notions.

There is gray area to this that is far more reasonable. For both sides.

Well said. It's not so simple as selfish, entitled Nintendo fans or greedy, unscrupulous third-party developers. As with most things, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

The actual truth is most Nintendo fans don't care. 

Don't confuse the online community of Nintendo fans (which is really probably only 150k-200k, a drop in the bucket of the actual consumer base) with the actual Nintendo fanbase. 

I doubt the real average Nintendo fan really cares that the Wii U version of Watch Dogs for example isn't as good as the PS4 version, because they don't care about that type of game to begin with or even if they did they would be purchasing it for their Playstation or XBox console.