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:

 

So?

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%
 
Total:1,871
Soundwave on 15 January 2017
CaptainExplosion said:
spemanig said:
You say Nintendo software is tethered to Nintendo hardware as if no one buys Nintendo hardware for Nintendo hardware.

I bought the Wii U because I liked the Gamepad. I bought the 3DS because I liked the the 3-D and dual screens. I bought the Wii because I liked motion controls at the time. I wanted to see how all games would utilize them, not just Nintendo games. This "you buy Nintendo systems for Nintendo games" rhetoric needs to stop, because it's out of touch with reality.

I bought the Switch because I like the Switch, not because I like Nintendo games and have to buy their "shitty hardware" to play them.

Then how come Nintendo's top-selling games for each system has been a Nintendo game?

To expand on this, remember the releases of Miitomo, Pokemon Go and Super Mario Run? Got downloaded millions of times. Did people keep playing those games after more than a couple months? No.

That's why Nintendo games don't work on non-Nintendo platforms. Nobody would buy major Mario, Zelda or Kirby games if they were on PlayStation and/or Xbox. It's like how nobody wanted to buy Rare games on Xbox.

Mario would probably be OK, but a lot of other Nintendo IP wouldn't. 



Around the Network
TheWPCTraveler on 15 January 2017

Nintendo would do better when the go third-party, for all I care. I just won't end up buying games from them, see. I'll end up stuck on the PC bashing my head against the grand strategy genre.

You know, because I don't really have much time to play at home and (for whatever reason), I find myself with quite a bit of time playing outside my home. So, go figure, if handhelds die, then I stop playing on consoles.



 
I WON A BET AGAINST AZUREN! WOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

:3

Alkibiádēs on 15 January 2017
CaptainExplosion said:
spemanig said:
You say Nintendo software is tethered to Nintendo hardware as if no one buys Nintendo hardware for Nintendo hardware.

I bought the Wii U because I liked the Gamepad. I bought the 3DS because I liked the the 3-D and dual screens. I bought the Wii because I liked motion controls at the time. I wanted to see how all games would utilize them, not just Nintendo games. This "you buy Nintendo systems for Nintendo games" rhetoric needs to stop, because it's out of touch with reality.

I bought the Switch because I like the Switch, not because I like Nintendo games and have to buy their "shitty hardware" to play them.

Then how come Nintendo's top-selling games for each system has been a Nintendo game?

To expand on this, remember the releases of Miitomo, Pokemon Go and Super Mario Run? Got downloaded millions of times. Did people keep playing those games after more than a couple months? No.

That's why Nintendo games don't work on non-Nintendo platforms. Nobody would buy major Mario, Zelda or Kirby games if they were on PlayStation and/or Xbox. It's like how nobody wanted to buy Rare games on Xbox.

Lmao, Pokémon Go became a world-wide hype and phenemenon and boosted sales of old and new Pokémon games plus the 3DS, but you use it as an example why Nintendo games don't sell on non-Nintendo platforms? Lol. The game made more profit than Sony did on all their first party games combined on the PS4. And Super Mario run costs $10 while most smartphone games are super cheap or free with micro-transactions and ads. Another "great" example. Miitomo isn't even a game. 



"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" - Thoukydides

TheWPCTraveler on 15 January 2017
CaptainExplosion said:
TheWPCTraveler said:
Nintendo would do better when the go third-party, for all I care. I just won't end up buying games from them, see. I'll end up stuck on the PC bashing my head against the grand strategy genre.

You know, because I don't really have much time to play at home and (for whatever reason), I find myself with quite a bit of time playing outside my home. So, go figure, if handhelds die, then I stop playing on consoles.

^Further proof that if Nintendo stops making hardware is A BAD THING.

I might emphasize that this is not necessarily a bad thing. After all, I'll just keep playing on my PC if that is the case.

In any case, I am also going to emphasize that I am well out of the norm, even in VGChartz. Now, if given a choice between the 3DS and PS Vita; I will pick the Vita (ex-Fire Emblem, of course). If I am given a PC, no matter how powerful it is, all I will play on it are grand strategy and porn games.* If I am given a choice between studying and playing at home, I'd rather study and use the time I free up to play at school (or what I call "relaxing").

I won't stop playing, I won't stop following VGChartz, I won't stop talking to people, I won't die.

I'll just stop caring about Nintendo.

EDIT: * - if it's powerful enough, then I'll start off with flight simulators and that newfangled Cities Skylines; provided Paradox don't fuck the latter and X-Plane is good enough for the former



 
I WON A BET AGAINST AZUREN! WOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

:3

Hynad on 15 January 2017
Alkibiádēs said:
CaptainExplosion said:

Then how come Nintendo's top-selling games for each system has been a Nintendo game?

To expand on this, remember the releases of Miitomo, Pokemon Go and Super Mario Run? Got downloaded millions of times. Did people keep playing those games after more than a couple months? No.

That's why Nintendo games don't work on non-Nintendo platforms. Nobody would buy major Mario, Zelda or Kirby games if they were on PlayStation and/or Xbox. It's like how nobody wanted to buy Rare games on Xbox.

Lmao, Pokémon Go became a world-wide hype and phenemenon and boosted sales of old and new Pokémon games plus the 3DS, but you use it as an example why Nintendo games don't sell on non-Nintendo platforms? Lol. The game made more profit than Sony did on all their first party games combined on the PS4. And Super Mario run costs $10 while most smartphone games are super cheap or free with micro-transactions and ads. Another "great" example. Miitomo isn't even a game. 

How much profit did Sony make on all their first party games combined on the PS4?



Around the Network
zorg1000 on 15 January 2017
Ka-pi96 said:
Soundwave said:

The problem with Nintendo going third party outright is I don't think they'd simply be as good of a company that way.

They wouldn't bother to try ideas like Splatoon or ARMS or bring back niche IP like Kid Icarus or Pilotwings or Punch-Out! etc. etc.

It would just be Mario/Mario Kart/Smash/Pokemon/Donkey Kong/Kirby/Zelda and maybe Metroid once in a while over and over and over again, just like companies like EA only make FIFA/Star Wars/Battlefield/Madden NFL/NHL, etc.

When you don't have any responsibility to a hardware platform, you have no real responsibility to growing the user base.

It's not like the Switch games look awful or anything, Zelda and Mario and even ARMS all look quite pretty. Would I prefer them running on a 1 TFLOP system at least? Sure. But I do like we are actually getting a real trade off this time in portability ... now I can play these games on long flights, to me that's a big plus, whereas the Wii/Wii U were underpowered for the sake of a controller, and that wore off real quick.

Some people already accuse Nintendo of that though. And while they may be wrong, so is your accusation of EA doing it.

Titanfall
Plants Vs Zombies
Mirrors Edge
EA Sports UFC
Unravel
Peggle

All new franchises, smaller games or both that EA have made within the last few years. Just because their main franchises are the ones most people know about doesn`t mean that others don`t exist.

Half of those games arent new IP created by EA, they were acquired.

Peggle released in 2007 & PvZ in 2009 and were existing franchises when EA bought PopCap, 10 UFC games released between 2000 & 2012 from various publishers, EA just currently has the license, Mirror's Edge originally released in 2008, none of those are new IP in the last few years.

Titanfall & Unravel are the only two that apply.



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

miz1q2w3e on 15 January 2017

I wish it would happen already. Provided they make the same high quality games, what's the downside?



miz1q2w3e on 15 January 2017
CaptainExplosion said:
miz1q2w3e said:
I wish it would happen already. Provided they make the same high quality games, what's the downside?

They stop making high quality games, AND/OR games that are unique and creative. Just like what happened with Sega; All non-Sonic Sega games went down the drain.

Yeah, I meant provided that they still make quality games, I see no downside.

Upsides would inculde: better graphics/performance, less gimmics, cost (I would only have to buy one system), focus on one system for all games; Nintendo + third party + (ideally) Playstation exclusives, also pay for only one online subscription.



GoOnKid on 15 January 2017
Dravenet7 said:
For once I agree with this sentiment. First order of business is to make them go third party.

Hmm, but then they'll be left out of hardware that they perfected their games on, so now they will have to start from scratch. I guess it should be fine in that department. I guess another issue may be that since they no longer sell hardware, they don't make a profit off them, which they almost always do.

They may need to recoup their losses somehow. Guess they will have Amiibo. Actually, wait... it's not compatible with the other consoles. It works on PC I guess... even though that platform has a naturally built emulator made years ago. Speaking of PC, doesn't Nintendo hate piracy. I mean of course piracy is absolutely exaggerated, but clearly Nintendo, especially recently goes out of its way to destroy any piracy found on its hardware. Not as easy on PC, but certainly possible. Though the PC crowd won't like it their policies. Whatever, we'll burn that bridge when we get there.

Let's focus on consoles. Hmm... once again the profit issue. Especially after development of separate systems. Maybe they'll look at other developer policies and start working on a lot more DLC and micro-transactions. Well, Nintendo has been testing the waters with that anyway so why not go swimming with rest of em.

Though Playstation and Microsoft and for some reason their fans really want to be competitive. Let's say they push out new hardware and Nintendo wants to take advantage of the hardware? Well let's assume that Nintendo can only make their game run on the next Playstation because its so much powerful than the Xbox next. That will sure get a lot of people angry. I mean, people who have always played Nintendo games on one system, or have been Nintendo fans for over 30 years despite only owning the NES and SNES and bashed every other system and game to date, will be pretty mad to find that they will have to buy another console to play Nintendo's Sony Exclusive Fire Emblem, Xenoblade or Pokemon game. Yikes that would suck, of course either way I'm sure the fans of the stronger platforms will defend this, by talking about power or the fact that JRPGs don't sell that well on Xbox, while still ignoring PC of course, or some of the more crude ones who will just straight up laugh.

Yes, this reasoning will work wonders. But Microsoft doesn't seem to happy about this now do they? They probably want a piece of the pie. What if Nintendo wants to make another game, but can't or doesn't want to take the risk of paying for it? Enter Microsoft. Great. Of course they would want something in return. How about exclusivity just like Sony? Oop, well that won't go too well, fans everywhere will start saying that there is absolutely no reason in this industry for 3rd party exclusives. Hmm, ok But how will Microsoft feel like they gained from this without feeling jilted. I guess timed exclusivity to will help make immediate demand for the brand while still giving it to the other platforms. Wait a second though, people are still mad that they get the game? Strange. Ah well, let us assume that they will eventually buy the game they have been coveting anyway. Not like no company lost massive sales like this before. The other option is of course is to make a full blown exclusive for MS. Surely this has worked for many developers as of recently. Nintendo would be able to make any game of their choice on a massive scale and bound by no MS interference.

Nintendo is gonna want to stay competitive to stay healthy in this environment. Big 3rd parties are no joke, and HD development was tough as is, they can't cope with expenses here. What about timed DLC? Something that everyone loves. Can't wait for them to port their old games either. From the NES, SNES, N64, GameCube Wii... wait what was that young Billy? You're saying that Nintendo games in that era were a bunch of gimmicky motion controlled games? Slap it on un-optimized VR, gimmick no more. Anyway moving on. What about the Wii U? You know that console that has no games? Nothing worth porting there. Moving on... huh? You are saying people now want them? Strange, those games are for kiddies, in fact, almost all the games past the NES are! Haha, Oh I'm just kidding there, we know kids these days love Nintendo and not CoD and Battlefield. Moving on.

Huh? You are saying Nintendo still has policies like no in game voice chat in games with lower age ranges, no sales on their games, Youtube policies, Localization changes and so on that had nothing to do with their console yet still people blamed it on their consoles anyway? It's still magically a problem. Whelp, no one buys it then. Surely, the majority who complained about this in the past were the people owning their system anyway. I'm sure everyone who boycotted Nintendo before for this will now. Ah well who cares?

Looking into the past we can clearly see Nintendo will do well. I mean there have been no first party turned 3rd party companies who failed and ended up selling the same games over and over, each more broken than the last. Sega is successful. This will all work out fine for Nintendo.

BraLoD, in all seriousness I sincerely respect your opinion, but I have to disagree. There are way too many factors even beyond that frankly I personally don't want Nintendo going third party for.

This is by far the BEST response of the entire tread, yet nobody has ever picked it up.

All of you should read this, think about it, try to compare that with your own mindset and then realize what going 3rd party would really mean.



LudicrousSpeed on 15 January 2017
thismeintiel said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
Just from the reveal, two of the more unique and entertaining looking games, Arms and 1,2 Switch either would not exist on the other platforms, or would be drastically different.

Nintendo platforms are where you go for innovation in the console space. MicroSony is where you go for the industry standard stuff. SEGA is a perfect example of this. Ever since they went multi, their once unique and innovative software pretty much disappeared.

Those game could easily be done on the PS4 with Move.  The only problem is going to be...who the hell wants to look at each other while playing a VIDEO game.  The point of a video game is to look at what your character does on screen.  Not look at the other player the whole time, while maybe side glancing at the TV.  Not even Wii tried to get away with that BS, and those games could have easily been pulled off with the Wii Motion+.

I seriously do not see those games performing well.  You might as well put on those blow up Sock'em boxing gloves and just go at each other.  And hell, 1,2 Switch could probably be done with a $40-$60 piece of HW that connects to the TV that comes with simple motion controllers.  Definitely not worth plopping down $360 bucks for.  I guess $430 if you want to go two players in Arms.

Yeah, lets have the game be connected to a hard to find, extremely rarely supported extra peripheral lol. Just Dance doesn't even advertise the Move on the box anymore, and that's pretty much the only game that still supports it. Might as well say Kinect could do the game, too. At the end of the day, nah. Arms will be unique to the Switch. Nothing like it on the other consoles.

1,2 Switch looks fun because it is different. Nothing wrong with facing someone else while you play. I'm sure you probably didn't think Wii Sports would do well, either.