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

Forums - Nintendo - I've changed my stance. Nintendo needs to go 3rd party

Renna Hazel on 18 January 2017
fordy said:
mountaindewslave said:

the OP makes loads of assumptions and flat out just pulls things from their imaginations in the original post.

They claim that the handheld market is dead (absurd, the 3DS is selling quite well, in fact it sold better in 2016 than 2015, despite being 5 years old), they claim that the Switch is SPECIFICALLY the 3DS successor (when its the successor to both the Wii U and 3DS, its a combination hybrid),

they seem incapable of accepting the fact that it is in fact a hybrid system. Its not rocket science. Maybe bitter about their Wii U purchase. 

they wrote a lot of outlandish stuff, like the concept that someone can just walk in and buy Nintendo's shares of the Pokemon Company (that cannot be done). Nintendo owns a portion of Game Freak, a portion of Hal lab, and a portion of the Pok Company. Also an easily forgotten fact is that Nintendo staff members FOUNDED Pokemon

The OP is just full of so much BS. It claims that the online service does or doesn't provide things when the online service for the Switch most likely hasn't even been finished yet. They claim things about the battery life when it hasn't even been tested officially (note: if you tried to run an open world game on ANY tablet in the world right now, the battery would last far less than normal)

just a load of hogwash. you can be as bitter as you want, but to make a list of things in the OP that are purely speculation and then to deliberately act as if the Switch is not a hybrid just makes it hard to take your opinion seriously whatsoever. Obviously the Switch is the quintessential concept of a hybrid system. On the TV and on the Go

"They claim that the handheld market is dead (absurd, the 3DS is selling quite well, in fact it sold better in 2016 than 2015, despite being 5 years old), they claim that the Switch is SPECIFICALLY the 3DS successor (when its the successor to both the Wii U and 3DS, its a combination hybrid),"

I said the portable market was dwindling. Am I wrong? Take a look at the 3DS sales compared to the DS. Even if it's selling better right now *cough*Sun&Moon*cough*, it would still need to sell significantly more to achieve a similar level to last gen.

 

Nintendo provided the capital in the joint venture. You can't say it's impossible because everything has their price, including a big franchise. While Pokemon might sell 10s of millions on a dedicated handheld, any push from a major phone producer (with the phone base in the hundreds of millions) would still garner interest among stakeholders, especially after Pokemon Go. You seem to forget that Nintendo owned a good portion of Squaresoft, but that didn't stop them jumping ship to Sony. Nintendo sold their stake shortly after the news.

For the online stuff, I'm going by the news that has already come out, on that 1. It will require a subscription fee for online play and 2. The "free" games will be monthly rentals only. Do you dispute these?

 

Tell me, are you going to provide some decent arguments, because that's the reason why I posted this in the first place. I'm not looking for the same kind of stuff that has already been addressed.

 

For the record, Nintendo owns a controlling stake in Pokemon (more than 50 percent). This is not the same situation as Squaresoft because Nintendo did not have enough shares to dictate what decisions the company could make. 



Around the Network
think-man on 18 January 2017

Nooo cause Sony will get lazy if there is no competition! Nintendo need to stay first party



 

How to Make friends In Dark Souls 3

mountaindewslave on 18 January 2017
Soundwave said:
mountaindewslave said:

I will disagree that the Switch is really a 'portable' move, but rather that it is indeed a hybrid, combining everything together. Bear in mind Nintendo has been split down the middle in terms of producing games for both of their platforms in the past, much more so than their competitors (well Sony). I think its less an aim at just doing the portable market as much genuinely wanting a combined platform for home AND abroad that will let them focus their software onto one device.

Obviously their portables have been more consistent and the backbone of the company, but in the end Nintendo's software sells great on both home consoles and portables so the hybrid concept just seems like a no brainer. I'm not sure how someone could label the Switch as a 'portable' priority device when a lot of users will probably basically permanently leave it in the dock and play on their TV

Making a system portable basically makes it a priority because you can't just choose any chipset, you can't budget the same way, you need to account for LCD screen, battery life, noise, chipset, RAM, form factor, heat dissipation in dramatically different way. Everything has to be designed for the portable nature of teh device. 

Beyond that it's not really a secret where Nintendo's audience is today. Last generation 85% of Nintendo's own buyer base chose not to buy the Wii U. And the GameCube/GBA was a similar ratio, the Wii is the outlier and that took a miracle controller to pull off. The software split you mention is also a big negative for that reason alone ... Nintendo was keeping key games like Splatoon away from 85% of their own audience, which is on the portable side. 

Nintendo just isn't good at making home consoles anymore. They used to be but that was a long time ago now. The Super NES era was 25 years ago now ... we keep thinking this was like just a little while ago ... take your age right now and add 25 years to it and think about how old you'll be. 

Things change. 

we don't really KNOW what would happen if Nintendo made a PS4 like box with equivalent graphics to the competition. I think it might do okay, and Nintendo is capable of doing it. They just seemingly don't want to. I know I would be quite interested in something like that (compared with the Wii U). That said I think the Switch is a smart direction, as you say, to combine their software audience rather than continue the split

I will say that the Wii U is not really indicative of THAT much. Conceptually it was a mess (expensive tablet controller)

maybe their audience has changed a bit but I will say that as a longtime Nintendo fan I feel like the Switch is something I've hoped would happen for like a decade now as far as a combined library 



fordy on 18 January 2017
mountaindewslave said:
fordy said:

Read the last comment in the OP. I'd like to hope the predictions don't come true, but I see way too much of a resemblence between the WiiU and the Switch.

If the device does indeed get decent 3rd party support and no large droughts, I'll be happy to say that I'm wrong.

yeah, big 'semblence' to the Wii U when the Switch has a PORTABLE hybrid component and the Wii U can't leave your house. that's just silly. The Wii U essentially had a tablet controller that added very little. The Switch can leave the house.

It's apples and oranges, more or less the Switch conceptually is what the Wii U SHOULD have been, because it actually advances gaming and brings something new. The Wii U was just a tablet connected to a game system and practically nothing different than the PS3 and Vita had with remote play

So that was the only fault of the WiiU, are you saying? It wasn't portable enough? That will be enough to invigorate sales and interest in the Switch? The sentence was referring to the fact that 1. The Switch will have too many gimmicks packed in it to get any kind of significant price cut (like the WiiU), and 2. You do realise that the list of "licensed 3rd parties" that Nintendo showed for the Switch is in fact smaller than the one they showed for the WiiU? What happened there?

Will portability fix all of that?



fordy on 18 January 2017
Renna Hazel said:
fordy said:

Because portability isn't a big, defining aspect that's considered enough to separate this console from its competitors. I could also say that smartphones are an even bigger portability factor, because people conveniently carry them around more often, and the base is much higher.

Perhaps it isn't for you, but it is for many people. It's not the ONLY factor, but being able to play something like Zelda BotW on the go is an appealing feature for many. 

Didn't the Vita try this? Console games on a portable, and they learned that portable games need to be more "stop and go" based?

It might be appealing for some, but will it be appealing enough for a decent enough userbase. Remember, this is encompassing BOTH of their old markets now. They'd need 75 million to break even with this gen's userbase.



Around the Network
mountaindewslave on 18 January 2017
fordy said:
mountaindewslave said:

you realize that a portable console hybrid at the levels of Xone and PS4 would probably cost like DOUBLE what the Switch is right? do you have any idea how the interior components of a portable system work? you need space for the battery (which takes up a LOT of space), the graphical components, all the slots for fitting memory cards, cartridges, etc.

The concept that Nintendo could just have magically made the system competitively powerful AND be a hybrid is only suggested by people who know nothing about how a portable is spaced about inside. Its the same reason almost no tablets on the market, regardless of how powerful, have been optimized to play big open world games and remain at a reasonable price point

the 'parallel' part was me pointing out that its irrelevant that you're a Nintendo fan as far as your opinion is concerned. It doesn't make your 'Nintendo doomsday' thread any more relevant than someone who doesn't like Nintendo

as for your last point- if the argument is software profits, Nintendo sells more software than any other company on the planet (as far as in house developed vs. any other company). Regardless of hardware sales.

The reality is if you're third party you're still going to have some level of development costs (getting higher and higher every year for bigger games) AND your'e going to have to split the profit with the hardware developer from licensing fees. You're completely right that Nintendo makes most of their money from software sales- but thats the point- they would be cutting it in half by going third party and would have to sell like double the software (which they already sell a lot) to make up that difference. Its not an automatic success story, look at a Capcom or Sega or any of the biggest third party developers. They're not rolling in cash for the most part 

 

You're missing the entire point of this. Would the average person see it as worth over twice as much just for added portability? Not with the way the 3DS sold at full price. Not with the way the WiiU sold at it's (stuck) price. Ironically, the only way they could sell the original 3DS was to CUT THE PRICE AND SELL IT AT A LOSS! Do you see a pattern emerging?

I never said that me being a fan makes it any more or less viable. However, I have been around the games industry quite a few years, even close to a point of entering it as an indie developer. I'm comfortable in my knowledge of software, hardware and economics to stand by my prediction. And hey, like I said it's a prediction. If it turns out that I'm wrong and the Switch sells well, then congratulations, the justification of the Switch's success will prove to Nintendo that it should just stick with underpowered hardware. 

"as for your last point- if the argument is software profits, Nintendo sells more software than any other company on the planet (as far as in house developed vs. any other company). Regardless of hardware sales."

Yes, and that's IN SPITE of Nintendo limiting themselves to a small userbase. Imagine the amount of software they could sell on a base of hundreds of millions...which nullifies your argument about the licensing costs, because increased sales from a larger sales base would more than cover those costs. 

I already covered Sega in the OP, they were in serious financial trouble when they moved. This is why Nintendo should make the move now and not when they're as broke as Sega was. Ever since the N64, Nintendo's portables have been their firewall, an assured income, but with a dwindling portable userbase, they can no longer rely on that. That's why they only recently made their first loss ever.

worth over twice as much? we've been through this, I don't know about YOUR market, but in the USA the Wii U still is sold for $300. The Switch is also going to be $300. At least for the USA you're getting a better spec system WITH hybrid capabilities for the same price as the last system. Obviously that holds some merit.

I don't think the 3DS was ever sold at a loss but that's neither here nor there.

predictions are fine but your original post states a load of opinions about things that haven't been fully announced (online services, battery life (not tested), third party support (not fully seen yet), etc.).

no, actually you're fully assuming that Nintendo would magically have that much bigger of an audience by going third party. We can safely say that SOME percent of fans of Nintendo games are buying their systems, probably a good percent. Even if Nintendo sold DOUBLE the software numbers if they went third party (and that's probably as good as you could expect it to be) they probably would literally take in like HALF as much total revenue. And by total revenue I'm talking the split of software profit with the hardware manuafacturer, the no longer selling accessories (they make a lot on that), the no longer having a virtual console, etc. etc. etc.

Your assumption about Nintendo making as much profits from going third party are based on NOTHING except for a total userbase number which is useless if the added userbase has people who just like Call of Duty and Minecraft. Just saying. Its like suggesting that if Capcom releases Monster Hunter outside of Japan and on ALL consoles, that suddenly, just because they add like 50 million users, that the Monster Hunter sales would drastically go up. That's not the case at all because a game like that is A) popular in Japan and B) much more popular on a certain system because of Local multiplayer (3DS). 

The same could be analyzed regarding Nintendo. Its not a matter of simply adding a big userbase and making insane sales. If that were the case then, again, Sega would have killed it immediately when going third party as their userbody exploded. Accessory sales and having full control over your software sales is most likely going to create a lot more profit than sharing your software ONLY revenue with somebody else



fordy on 18 January 2017
Renna Hazel said:
fordy said:

Motion and gyro. Okay...

Now, would you have considered it a wiser decision to make the joycons' features as options, and not a required part of the original package, even if only a handful of the games end up using them?

No, it's the controller, why would I want that to be optional? That's like making an analog stick an optional function. When I purchse the console, I'll have a very capable controller. 

Plenty of games don't use all the buttons/features of any given controller, but having those features standard means developers are more likely to use them. 

How many developers used the motion control on the 3DS? The WiiU? Would they be considered the majority? Is it worth the extra $x to place it in there for everybody to have, even though a fraction of a fraction will end up using it? 

These many little costs are major contributors to costs taken elsewhere, such as matching the RAM of the competition, which would have made porting for 3rd parties much more straightforward.



Renna Hazel on 18 January 2017
fordy said:
Renna Hazel said:

Perhaps it isn't for you, but it is for many people. It's not the ONLY factor, but being able to play something like Zelda BotW on the go is an appealing feature for many. 

Didn't the Vita try this? Console games on a portable, and they learned that portable games need to be more "stop and go" based?

It might be appealing for some, but will it be appealing enough for a decent enough userbase. Remember, this is encompassing BOTH of their old markets now. They'd need 75 million to break even with this gen's userbase.

Vita tried a variation of this yes, but ultimately it led to inferior portable console games on the go. I don't believe people want this which is why I don't think Switch will see much success with multiplats that are superior on PS4/XBO. 

However you do get your full Nintendo games on the go, you don't have to buy two devices to do so either, which is a big plus. Vita was a great piece of hardware that mostly ended up with smaller Japanese games and hand me down PS3 titles. Nintendo will have to use their first party software to avoid the same fate as Vita. 



mountaindewslave on 18 January 2017
fordy said:
mountaindewslave said:

yeah, big 'semblence' to the Wii U when the Switch has a PORTABLE hybrid component and the Wii U can't leave your house. that's just silly. The Wii U essentially had a tablet controller that added very little. The Switch can leave the house.

It's apples and oranges, more or less the Switch conceptually is what the Wii U SHOULD have been, because it actually advances gaming and brings something new. The Wii U was just a tablet connected to a game system and practically nothing different than the PS3 and Vita had with remote play

So that was the only fault of the WiiU, are you saying? It wasn't portable enough? That will be enough to invigorate sales and interest in the Switch? The sentence was referring to the fact that 1. The Switch will have too many gimmicks packed in it to get any kind of significant price cut (like the WiiU), and 2. You do realise that the list of "licensed 3rd parties" that Nintendo showed for the Switch is in fact smaller than the one they showed for the WiiU? What happened there?

Will portability fix all of that?

it wasn't 'portable' enough? it wasn't portable AT ALL. It was portable down your hallway in your house. That's not a big perk. That's nothing new. Again, the Vita and Playstation do that already.

sorry but if the Wii U had had a tablet that was ALSO a handheld console it would have done much much better. In fact conceptually that seemed like what it SHOULD have been. the Wii U has plenty of problems, but its #1 problem is that it offered pretty much nothing people wanted. Most gamers don't want a tablet in their hands while they game on a TV.

also the biggest problem with the Wii U software wise wasn't third party support, that's always a problem with Nintendo platforms, it was a lack of FIRST party support. No Zelda. No Metroid. a divided software library between it and the 3DS.

The concept of a hybrid device hopefully alleviates this and enables Nintendo to put out more titles more frequently on one device. Obviously this is still left to be seen if it will occur.

Again, the 3DS is still selling well and the Switch is a hybrid but far more powerful than both the 3DS and Wii U (and Vita,for arguments sake). You act like like being a hybrid and by far the most powerful dedicated handheld device ever aren't selling points to consumers. Of course they are



SegataSanshiro on 18 January 2017

Oh another one of these topics...has it been 5 minutes already?