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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Can we agree Nintendo should go third party, now?

Tagged games:



Shaddup, you Pony! 676 36.13%
Switch > PC/PS4/XBO 376 20.10%
I can buy them all, anyway 99 5.29%
Nintendon't need more 29 1.55%
Keep only doing handhelds 81 4.33%
Maybe one more gen... 78 4.17%
Sounds good! 277 14.80%
I have always wanted it... 90 4.81%
Don't care about Nintendo 125 6.68%
Sonic > Mario 40 2.14%
Hynad said:
Azzanation said:
No. Sony and Xbox should instead.

On what ground?

One is the market leader by far, and the other is doing much better than the Wii U.

There will always be a market leader. Nintendo has been the market leader on 3 occasions and has never lost the market lead in the portable market. Why should they fold when there considered the most successful in this buisness.

If you can't afford it than move on. Nothing wrong with having them around.

Around the Network
onionberry said:
man these threads are annoying lol

Now you feel the pain of seeing hot topics full of nx/switch rumor threads, I personally find it hilarious :^)

This thread magically made me disinterested in Yakuza 0. Funny how these things happen.

Hell no. I like gaming on portables. I like having diversity in my game consoles. Just as no one needs three consoles that can do the exact same thing, we also don't need a market restricted only to two consoles that do the exact same thing.

It's good to have stuff like 3DS and Switch that service other needs. It is good having diverse consoles that can appeal to different people. This is what the gaming market as a whole used to be. And getting Mario on my Xbox isn't really worth losing the Nintendo hardware DNA in my opinion.

Yeah, I was kind of disappointed by the event. As far as presentations go, I felt it was very poorly run. But as much as I think 1, 2, Switch is a very stupid idea, I am really looking forward to what the Switch is going to bring to the table. The Switch feels practically tailor made for me: I travel a lot, I game on portables a lot, but I also like being able to play games on the TV, on a couch, when I'm at home. The Switch services my needs perfectly. It will never be market leader, but I think I am not the only gamer who is attracted to such a concept.

BraLoD said:
Darc Requiem said:
This stupid topic rears it's ugly head again. How did going third party work for Sega. Sega was a top notch developer that make a great game in any genre. Now you just hope they release something decent. I don't agree with a lot of the things Nintendo does but part of what allows them to make the types of games that they do is creating their on platform. People complain about Nintendo making too many Mario and Zelda titles. That would only get worse as a 3rd party developer. You could kiss IPs like Fire Emblem goodbye.

Sega went third party out of need, because they failed more than they should have taken with the Saturn, Dreamcast and handhelds combo, if they had went on their own intention the story could have been way different.

Do you want Nintendo to keep failing until they take a measure out of desperation and being unprepared, or to make a good use of their IPs and so it the right way? Nintendo may not need it, but they should do it.

Nintendo is in a better financial position than Sony.  They are the most financially responsible company in the industry. The fact that you are making this argument and making this thread in general shows your ignorance on the subject. Nintendo's business model and Nintendo's philosophy don't jive with becoming a third party developer.

Around the Network

I think the success of the Switch will decide for them. If Nintendo can remain in the hardware business with moderate success then there's no reason for them to go 3rd party other than to benefit PS4 and XB1 owners.

I believe the Switch is a step in the wrong direction though, and I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years time going 3rd party seems like the better option. Whether they will though is another question, a Nintendo without hardware is more likely to fade into irrelevancy.

pokoko said:
The thing about having their own system is that they have a captive audience. They can sell stuff like Star Fox because it's on a system with few games and a lot of people who buy anything with "Nintendo" written on it. Imagine Star Fox in the crowded market-place of the PS4/XO. People wouldn't buy that last game because they would have a lot more options. After awhile, that "buy everything from Nintendo" attitude would fade away.

The big stuff would still sell very well, of course, but the weaker stuff would be dust in the wind.

A third-party Nintendo would cut down on the amount of content they produce by a significant amount. That's not much of a negative, to be honest, especially considering some of the weaker games the Wii U had on offer.

Well exactly, what is the real point of all the shovelware they end up producing, which isn't really big seller even for them?
That is just a waste resources.  They can make great games, and they could sell so much of those it would counter the loss of shovel ware.
And with the saved resources they can put it towards developing actually great games, both new and old IP, both in-house and partnerships.

BraLoD said:

Their minor franchises are not competitor to AAA games, they are still their own thing (except some few like Metroid), but Nintendo will always be Nintendo, their brand power is enough to put them on evidence, and like Square Enix or Ubisoft for example, even their simpler games will always have their audience, and free marketing will grow a lot just as well.

Exactly, I don't know why people constantly reduce everything to "AAA games".  Plenty of non-AAA games sell on HD twins and PC.
Somebody who would buy Nintendo niche stuff on exclusive console would still be interested in that genre on another platform.
It is not the AAA stuff that Nintendo is worried about AT ALL, if anything it is that more non-AAA niche competition can exist when pie is bigger.
The "AAA!  Boo hoo!" cry is a distraction from the true reality, designed to frame issue in most comfortable way possible when AAA is not issue.

mountaindewslave said:

lame thread and poll. obviously anyone already gaming on a PS4 or Xone will vote yes 
as it would only help them (more games on that individual console) if that were the case.

Uh... SO FUCKING WHAT?  Those people are potential Nintendo customers, right?  

mountaindewslave said:

you are unaware of what ends up happening to third party developers. They lose a LOT of control in terms of some decisions (release dates, some levels of design (have to be forced to mesh with the hardware). Also they share profits with the hardware manufacturer. 

however I could see exclusive DEALS, like a Microsoft paying Nintendo to put one of their titles on the Xbox or something.

You are conflating issues of 3rd party devs working with PUBLISHER with the situation of independent self-publisher like Nintendo could be.
You throw out the crap of "they would have to adapt game to hardware" (as if Wii U/ Switch games can't be directly ported to HD twins),
yet just a few sentences later are totally down with them putting individual titles on HD twins... Get real!

In all reality, even as a 3rd party dev, Nintendo will still be free to innovate with controllers, that simply plug into Sony/MS consoles.

I think they should, and the will, but I'm not sure if within this generation or the next.  Maybe I'm wrong and will be totally surprised, but I think Switch will do badly, and if Nintendo put both their console and handheld eggs in the Switch basket that's really bad news.

My 8th gen collection

I don't think Nintendo can make successful hardware anymore. They could have learned from the Wii and Wii U, but they didn't. More motion controls, more gimmicks that lead nowhere, terrible default controllers, under powered, overpriced, still unable to do online right.......

maxleresistant said:
I don't think they could survive the competition of AAA development.

This is silly because not every game on HD twins/PC is AAA realistic graphics. 
Plenty of "big" games like Sea of Thieves, Rime, of course Sonic etc with similar graphics to Nintendo...
And the loads of ambitious indies which are based on old school gaming and simpler graphics.

onionberry said:
BraLoD said:

But I want Nintendo to be better and do well...

I want them free and crazy and not tied to others, for each "Arms" and each "1.2" switch we have a xenoblade and breath of the wild. Without their freedom we would have a bunch of new super mario bros wii and a bunch of twilight princess.

well maybe we have different perspective, and I apologize.

Oh come on... On HD twins we see all sorts of innovative neo-retro games, we see Sea of Thieves, Rime, Last Guardian.
There is a hell of alot of shovel ware crap on Nintendo now, but there is no reason to think it will increase as 3rd party.
I mean, people are arguing against 3rd party move exactly citing that only Nintendo's good stuff would sell / shovelware can't compete.

onionberry said:

without hardware revenue they can't afford to have those crazy ideas and longer development times, they will need a constant stream of game and the quality will be affected because of that. Maybe still polished, but I prefer a polished mario odyssey than a polished new super mario bros wii. It's a bigger picture than just "ok we will develop games for everyone" plus they have to share their revenue.

Come on.  If they are depending on hardware revenue they are doing it wrong, because that increases barrier to more customers.
Money is money.  What difference does it make if they swap hardware profits for profits from selling big hits to 3x customer base?
Nintendo is sitting on cash, they don't have problem financing game development.
Plenty of console/PC devs manage crazy idea games and long development times for deep games all the time.

Hapuc12 said:

Yes i am saying when posts like this and comments come,that is doom and gloom in my book,
it's not a Win Win for them to got Third party like i said in my coment shit ton of stuff isn't accounted in your post.

This is incoherent. 
People not definitively covering every possible nuance of a topic does not equate to a negative Doom and Gloom tone.
You are blaming people for stuff they are not doing, because of negative Doom and Gloom stuff you yourself think of.

Acevil said:

You mean 15% since Nintendo isn't selling it for $60 the retailer is, nintendo would be selling it for $45. Which is fair, I was more using the mobile percentage of apple, since I was saying ultamitely the argument being presented to me, is more for a mobile nintendo than nintendo that makes games on ps4/xboxone/pc. 

Well this underlines the pig-headedness of refusing to go 3rd party on consoles.
Nintendo *IS*going 3rd party on phones where the platform owner takes huge cut,
but refuses to do so on consoles where the cut is much less.  How does that make sense?

jonathanalis said:
Id be ok with that. buuuuuuuuut we still need a dedicated handheld hardware. And seems only ninteno can handle that well.

Why can't Nintendo just release their own standard phone-tablet controller attachments?
They will set the standard because of their popularity, and reach a much larger audience.
I'm sure Apple/Google would be accomodating to officially "bless" their standard,
given their currently isn't any, and if a big historic dev wanted to kick-start that niche, why not?

Likewise, if they want to innovate on console controller, nothing stops them from releasing unique controller on HD twins.