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

Forums - Nintendo - Would Nintendo survive if they went 3rd party?

 

Would Nintendo survive if they went third-party?

No 91 27.66%
 
Yes 238 72.34%
 
Total:329
zorg1000 said:
UltimateUnknown said:
I could see them making tons of money from exclusive marketing deals for their biggest franchises as is the case with most publishers today. In fact Nintendo could easily become one of the biggest if not the biggest 3rd party publisher with their brand recognition on systems with much bigger install bases than their own.

Its not just install base, its also audience and demographic that determine how well a game sells. Like i pointed out a few posts back, close to 80% of PS4/XB1 retail software sales are from the shooter/sports/action genres. If you also include Racing Sims & Western-RPG than that number comes close to 90%.

A whole bunch of Nintendo IP belong to genres that arent very popular on PS/XB, platformer, puzzle, party, simulation, strategy, miscellaneous.

Their big mainstream hits like 2D/3D Mario, Smash Bros, Mario Kart & Zelda could increase in sales but games like Mario Party, Pikmin, Fire Emblem, Rhythm Heaven, Animal Crossing, Paper Mario, WarioWare, Kirby, Yoshi, Donkey Kong, Tomodachi, etc? I dont really see these games doing much if any better.

And here's the reason why I prefer any Nintendo Console to any Playstation or Xbox right now. Shooters/Sports/Action/Racing Sims/WRPG just ain't my thing. RPGs tend to get way too actionyzed for my taste nowadays; Sports and Racing sims bore me to death, as do action games (especially open world ones). I love how Nintendo does work against those trends, and if they do catch on one of these trends, they give it their own spin. Splatoon was the very first shooter I loved since Serious Sam back in 2001. I don't like racing sims, but could play any Mario Kart or F-Zero for hours (and pretty much any non Nintendo Funracers too - there are just not too many left these days). I loved Mario Strikers Charged, but Fifa 98 WTRC was my very last Fifa (and never any PES) I bought.

As for the last paragraph, tastes change all the time. Maybe in 5 years the market had been so oversaturated with action games and shooters that no one is going to buy them, maybe a whole new genre takes over, maybe an old one gets a big revival, who knows. The point is that the games you mentioned might not be doing much right now, but it's impossible to tell how the situation will be in the future.



Around the Network

Of course they could. Nintendo could survive on Pokemon alone going to mobile and other consoles or even PC devices. Nintendo at this point have two things that both Atari and SEGA didn't at the time of their exit from the home console industry... relevancy and a ton of cash on hand. Atari hadn't been relevant in well over a decade when they left the industry, and SEGA had been on the decline for several years and only Sonic was really relevant at the time of their demise, and both were pretty much bankrupt when they left the industry.

Nintendo's franchises and global recognition is strong enough that they could survive and even thrive as a 3rd party only company, plus their cash reserves would ensure their future for some time to come.



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.

HomokHarcos said:
I think the decline in quality would go down, as currently Nintendo have to work really hard on their IPs to make sure their console does well- it depends on it.

Can't be much worse than the overall quality of their Wii U library... there's been some duds in between Mario U/3D World, Smash, Mario Kart and Splatoon... like Nintendo World, MP 10, Kirby, Yoshi and Mario Tennis Ultra Smash, to name a few.  No reason to think them going 3rd party would be any different in terms of quality, with a range of software from the core AAA Mario and Zelda games to the mediocre spinoffs.

If anything, going 3rd party would light a fire under Nintendo's ass, because now they'd be forced to make themselves stand out among a sea of competition instead of having a software monopoly on their own console like they're used to.  Imagine if the next Zelda had to compete with the next Fallout / GTA / COD / Uncharted, etc. when it releases, instead of nothing at all.



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.

Ka-pi96 said:
AZWification said:

They would be fine, but I don't know if they would be able to take risks with games like Splatoon and Bayonetta 2.

I don't see why they wouldn't do stuff like Splatoon. Seemed like it was relatively cheap to produce and wouldn't have needed many sales to be profitable. I really doubt they'd just stop making new IPs if they went 3rd party.

Bayonetta however.... yeah, probably wouldn't happen anymore. I'd assume that was much more to sell their system rather than to profit on the software, with no system to sell buying exclusivity of 3rd party games would just be kinda pointless.

Splatoon might have been cheap to produce, but it still is more ambitious than other new IPs Nintendo has made over the years, like Pushmo for example.



                
       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---

NightDragon83 said:
HomokHarcos said:
I think the decline in quality would go down, as currently Nintendo have to work really hard on their IPs to make sure their console does well- it depends on it.

Can't be much worse than the overall quality of their Wii U library... there's been some duds in between Mario U/3D World, Smash, Mario Kart and Splatoon... like Nintendo World, MP 10, Kirby, Yoshi and Mario Tennis Ultra Smash, to name a few.  No reason to think them going 3rd party would be any different in terms of quality, with a range of software from the core AAA Mario and Zelda games to the mediocre spinoffs.

If anything, going 3rd party would light a fire under Nintendo's ass, because now they'd be forced to make themselves stand out among a sea of competition instead of having a software monopoly on their own console like they're used to.  Imagine if the next Zelda had to compete with the next Fallout / GTA / COD / Uncharted, etc. when it releases, instead of nothing at all.

You are correct that Nintendo has released some duds, Ultra Smash & Amiibo Festival certainly fall in that category but some of the titles you listed dont, Rainbow Curse, Woolly World & Nintendo Land, while not the greatest games ever, arent duds. Those 3 titles all have scores in the mid-high 70s. Not great but certainly not duds.

Nintendo software had no problem selling on NES & SNES which both had great 3rd party support so i dont think added competition would really affect them.



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

Around the Network
Ck1x said:
zorg1000 said:

Based on sales on this site in the game database so not official and not 100% accurate but it should be relatively correct. These numbers are rounded.

PS4 software-226m, XB1 software-121m, Total-350m

Action, PS4-75 million, XB1-30m, Total-105m

Shooter, PS4-60 million, XB1-45m, Total-105m

Sports, PS4-40 million, XB1-20m, Total-60m

3 genre total, PS4-175m, XB1-95m, Total-270m

That adds up to about 77% of all retail sales coming from these three genres.

You have pointed out exactly why it wouldn't be worth it for Nintendo. The fans of those consoles don't buy anything else unless it resembles 1 of the top 3 genres selling. This is fact and the numbers prove this in black and white...

Please don't use the word fact like that. It's been abused enough already. If your statement was correct, not a single person would have bought Journey, for example or Minecraft. And we all know how well the latter has done. Also, we all know that generalizations are bad and people who make them should feel bad.



zorg1000 said:
UltimateUnknown said:
I could see them making tons of money from exclusive marketing deals for their biggest franchises as is the case with most publishers today. In fact Nintendo could easily become one of the biggest if not the biggest 3rd party publisher with their brand recognition on systems with much bigger install bases than their own.

Its not just install base, its also audience and demographic that determine how well a game sells. Like i pointed out a few posts back, close to 80% of PS4/XB1 retail software sales are from the shooter/sports/action genres. If you also include Racing Sims & Western-RPG than that number comes close to 90%.

A whole bunch of Nintendo IP belong to genres that arent very popular on PS/XB, platformer, puzzle, party, simulation, strategy, miscellaneous.

Their big mainstream hits like 2D/3D Mario, Smash Bros, Mario Kart & Zelda could increase in sales but games like Mario Party, Pikmin, Fire Emblem, Rhythm Heaven, Animal Crossing, Paper Mario, WarioWare, Kirby, Yoshi, Donkey Kong, Tomodachi, etc? I dont really see these games doing much if any better.

The 10 or so million people that bought a Wii U to specifically play the niche Nintendo games are going to follow Nintendo to whatever platform they release their next games on, whether it's on their own console or a platform from another manufacturer. They are the hardcore Nintendo fans who will always be there to play those games, and if they are willing to buy a Nintendo console just for Nintendo games and no other support, they will more than likely be willing to buy a console that has both Nintendo games and all the 3rd party support. In other words Nintendo would retain most of their sales for the niche games from their dedicated audience coming with them to the new platform, but also gain extra sales from an audience that probably never played these games because they didn't want to buy a new console for them, even if these people fall into the minority "20%" that buy games other than action/shooters on PS4/Xbone/PC.



 

UltimateUnknown said:
zorg1000 said:

Its not just install base, its also audience and demographic that determine how well a game sells. Like i pointed out a few posts back, close to 80% of PS4/XB1 retail software sales are from the shooter/sports/action genres. If you also include Racing Sims & Western-RPG than that number comes close to 90%.

A whole bunch of Nintendo IP belong to genres that arent very popular on PS/XB, platformer, puzzle, party, simulation, strategy, miscellaneous.

Their big mainstream hits like 2D/3D Mario, Smash Bros, Mario Kart & Zelda could increase in sales but games like Mario Party, Pikmin, Fire Emblem, Rhythm Heaven, Animal Crossing, Paper Mario, WarioWare, Kirby, Yoshi, Donkey Kong, Tomodachi, etc? I dont really see these games doing much if any better.

The 10 or so million people that bought a Wii U to specifically play the niche Nintendo games are going to follow Nintendo to whatever platform they release their next games on, whether it's on their own console or a platform from another manufacturer. They are the hardcore Nintendo fans who will always be there to play those games, and if they are willing to buy a Nintendo console just for Nintendo games and no other support, they will more than likely be willing to buy a console that has both Nintendo games and all the 3rd party support. In other words Nintendo would retain most of their sales for the niche games from their dedicated audience coming with them to the new platform, but also gain extra sales from an audience that probably never played these games because they didn't want to buy a new console for them, even if these people fall into the minority "20%" that buy games other than action/shooters on PS4/Xbone/PC.

Yes, i know that Nintendo fans will still buy these games but the point is if Nintendo software sales dont have a large increase from becoming 3rd party than there is no reason for them to become 3rd party.

Pikmin 3 has sold about 1 million, ya a Pikmin 4 might sell 1.5 million on PS+XB, is that really worth it when u take into consideration that Nintendo no longer recieves royalties in addition to paying royalties?

Will Nintendo even bother making games outside of their proven big hitters now that they dont need to support their own platform?

Will they continue to fund 3rd party games like Fatal Frame, Bayonetta or Wonderful 101?

Will they still outsource their IP to smaller studios like Good-Feel, Next Level, Alpha Dream, Genius Sonority, Arika, Monster Games?

Nintendo wont need to publish 20 or so games per year now that they dont need to push hardware so is their software output going to be cut drastically? How does that benefit Nintendo fans who like their smaller, more niche franchises & spinoffs?



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

They could, but they would probably not be making some games that don't sell very well like Pikmin and Metroid. In order for a game to be successful as a third party, they need to sell more units than they would as a first party to be successful. It's why the Tomb Raider was considered a flop to Square Enix even though it sold over 3 million units.



Not only would they but they should. No one except die-hard Nintendo fans want to play Nintendo games on Nintendo hardware.

The hardware is a tax on gamers.