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

Forums - Nintendo - Nintendo: Not a lot of exclusive indie games on Wii U because “we don’t throw around cash”

 

Is paying for indie games a waster of money?

Yes 90 27.11%
 
No 74 22.29%
 
Only for lame indie games... 134 40.36%
 
What good indie games? 16 4.82%
 
Minecraft was an indie game so... 18 5.42%
 
Total:332
fireburn95 on 01 September 2015
Samus Aran said:
fireburn95 said:
Indies need the funding more than effing Sega and Sonic. If anything, paying for Timed Exclusivity for Indie content is better for your consumers, and all consumers, because some indies can only come to console with the assistance of a publisher. When the likes of EA, UBI and ACTIV do not give the time of day to indies, I rely on Sony and MS to bring more independant games to all gamers. Nintendo, grow up or go home

Actually all they do is withold games for a large portion of gamers.

As for the funding, it's called kickstarter or Indiegogo.


Kickstarter should be what the name implies, a Kickstarter. Also note that many gaming Kickstarter are unsuccessful because of a lack of marketing. 

How do MS and sony withhold games when majority of them are timed? They appear where they can later, so it means more console games for console gamers. What you've said literally makes no sense at all



Around the Network
fireburn95 on 01 September 2015
Bofferbrauer said:
fireburn95 said:
Indies need the funding more than effing Sega and Sonic. If anything, paying for Timed Exclusivity for Indie content is better for your consumers, and all consumers, because some indies can only come to console with the assistance of a publisher. When the likes of EA, UBI and ACTIV do not give the time of day to indies, I rely on Sony and MS to bring more independant games to all gamers. Nintendo, grow up or go home

Such was the situation during the PS36Wii era. It has changed tremendously since then with Steam early access, Crowdfunding and the platforms being more open to indie developers in general(one needed a Publisher for an XBLA release during the 360 era, not the case anymore). There is no need anymore for someone else to publish indie games on PC or consoles but themselves.

Paid exclusivity can actually become pretty risky for an Indie dev. If the game doesn't sell on that platform, it might be enough for them to get into very difficult times ahead, something which would at least have been eased if the game was available on more platforms. It's pretty much a tradeoff between a larger sum during development versus a bigger income after release. A timed exclusive is less risky, but let's face it: those who get a timed exclusive are most of the times upper tier indies with some level of visibility on the internet and thus already a bit more known to the public

Every product released is a risk that could end up with the developer sinking, doesn't make difference if it's exclusive, just means they get a nice 30,000 or so extra.

I've seen many unheard of indies getting timed exclusivity from Id@xbox.

How does failing on more platforms equal a lesser risk than failing on one?



KungKras on 01 September 2015

People stop feeding AEGRO. He's just out for blood and you'll never change his mind.



I LOVE ICELAND!

Bofferbrauer on 01 September 2015
fireburn95 said:
Bofferbrauer said:

Such was the situation during the PS36Wii era. It has changed tremendously since then with Steam early access, Crowdfunding and the platforms being more open to indie developers in general(one needed a Publisher for an XBLA release during the 360 era, not the case anymore). There is no need anymore for someone else to publish indie games on PC or consoles but themselves.

Paid exclusivity can actually become pretty risky for an Indie dev. If the game doesn't sell on that platform, it might be enough for them to get into very difficult times ahead, something which would at least have been eased if the game was available on more platforms. It's pretty much a tradeoff between a larger sum during development versus a bigger income after release. A timed exclusive is less risky, but let's face it: those who get a timed exclusive are most of the times upper tier indies with some level of visibility on the internet and thus already a bit more known to the public

Every product released is a risk that could end up with the developer sinking, doesn't make difference if it's exclusive, just means they get a nice 30,000 or so extra.

I've seen many unheard of indies getting timed exclusivity from Id@xbox.

How does failing on more platforms equal a lesser risk than failing on one?

The audience might just not be on that platform and thus could have sold more on other platform(s).

Also, 500 sales on one platform or on each of 4 platforms can make a big difference for a small developer.



Samus Aran on 01 September 2015
fireburn95 said:
Samus Aran said:
fireburn95 said:
Indies need the funding more than effing Sega and Sonic. If anything, paying for Timed Exclusivity for Indie content is better for your consumers, and all consumers, because some indies can only come to console with the assistance of a publisher. When the likes of EA, UBI and ACTIV do not give the time of day to indies, I rely on Sony and MS to bring more independant games to all gamers. Nintendo, grow up or go home

Actually all they do is withold games for a large portion of gamers.

As for the funding, it's called kickstarter or Indiegogo.


Kickstarter should be what the name implies, a Kickstarter. Also note that many gaming Kickstarter are unsuccessful because of a lack of marketing. 

How do MS and sony withhold games when majority of them are timed? They appear where they can later, so it means more console games for console gamers. What you've said literally makes no sense at all

You know what else is unsuccesful? N++. Probably shouldn't have gone exclusive. ;)

There are quite a few exclusives that aren't timed like Flower, Journey, No Man's Sky (console exclusive), Ori (console exclusive) etc.

There are also many succesful kickstarters like Divinity: Original Sin (and its sequel), Shovel Knight, Pillars of Eternity, Yooka-Laylee, Bloodstained, Wasteland 2, etc.



Around the Network
b00moscone on 01 September 2015

You know Nintendo, look at your bank statements, its not like you haven't got money to spend, or need to seriously regulate how much you spend, you can invest in at least ports or worthwhile exclusives so you can ENTICE people to buy your console, otherwise people won't bother as they can already get it on a system they already own.



 

NNID: b00moscone

Switch ID: SW-5475-6755-1986

3DS friend-Code: 4613-6380-5406

PSN: b00mosconi

TomaTito on 01 September 2015
justiceiro said:
I see some people saying that nintendo are no recieving as much port of indies as sony and microsoft, i argue that i see more indies games lefting xbox one aside in favor of PS4 and WiiU almost exclusively, because of the parity clause.

Olli and Olli was ps exclusive, now is on 3DS and WiiU. Octodad was PS4 exclusive, now its on WiiU. Never alone is here too, so is Trine games. Telltales will start releasing games on it with the minecraft games. Sierra alreadly released one and have more plans for it in the future. Maybe the biggest omission are minecraft, bastion/transistor, and fez. There are some other games that didn't came around because techinical limitations, like outlast, but even slend the arrival got a port, so the genre was not the real problem, i think. Others relate at the lack of support of some engine for 3DS specially, like unity.

About the indie games selling less in nintendo plattaforms, here is the source:
https://twitter.com/ jhoffstein/status/572481911970385921
https://twitter.com/ jhoffstein/status/572481674245619712

Nice post! I haven't read the whole thread, but I see you've covered somethings I'd have said.

Nintendo has been doing its Nindies promotions since last year, Nindies@Home at E3 or just last week we had the Nindies@PAX. And this generation both Dan Adelman and Damon Baker have done pretty well in the indie digital market with the eShop offering more exposure than the previous Wii/DSi shops.



@Twitter | Switch | Steam

You say tomato, I say tomato 

"¡Viva la Ñ!"
Nettles on 01 September 2015

Ahh well most indies are crap anyway.Steam is a heaving mass of mediocrity nowdays.



ils411 on 01 September 2015
pokoko said:

"Wall of text"?  Seriously?

Okay, I'll keep it simple for you, then.  

Your question has zero meaning because such a situation is not happening.  No one is abandoning big first-party exclusives.  What is happening is that console manufacturers are using smaller digital games to complement bigger retail titles, since they cost far less and can fill the cracks in the release schedule nicely.

In fact, it doesn't make sense to not invest in a promising new digital-only game, since the cost is so modest. 

still not answering the question eh?

regardless that the possibility of my scenario happening is zero, the question still is, will you choose an indibox console with a couple of hundred puny exclusive indie games or an xbox one with just one game and that game is halo 5?

with the excemption of mincraft, which other indie games has sold butt loads and made muchos dineros?

your avoidance of answering the question must mean that you yourself will never buy a console just for indie games. 

none, nada, zilch, zip, none.

the point is, indies will never EVER EVER be a true selling point for a home console. No one, and i mean NO ONE will buy a $400 machine just to play a bunch of small fry pixilated games. 

removing all of the indie games in the xbone and the ps4 and the wii u's library, all three will still sell the same. but take away the major Full games and just leave the indies, none of them will sell and they would have all flopped.

again, in the grand scheme of things, indies will never ever matter in console sales. 

much like how all those shovelware for the ps1, ps2 and wii never meant anything to console sales. face it, indies are the new shovelware. lots and lots of games, only a hand full of worth while ones and the rest are just a bunch of crap. 



ils411 on 01 September 2015
Smear-Gel said:
ils411 said:

and yet, after the wall of text which is irrelevant to my question, you didn't answer it.

would you buy a console with a bunch of exclusive indies, or lets make it more tempting, a hundred exclusive indies vs a console with just halo 5?


In a heartbeat.

Heck, I'd do it for 20 if I could choose what twenty.

sure you will... *wink*wink*