IMO Nintendo should cover the cost of porting any game to their platform.
IMO Nintendo should cover the cost of porting any game to their platform.
| Cerebralbore101 said:
So what does Nintendo have to do to get good third party support? Simple. Make a system that is graphically competitive, sells well, and is easy and cheap to make games for. |
In other words: make a miracle happen! (especially if you want to profit on top of that)
Bet with Teeqoz for 2 weeks of avatar and sig control that Super Mario Odyssey would ship more than 7m on its first 2 months. The game shipped 9.07m, so I won

While 3rd party support is always relevant for a console platform, the license/razor blade model really hasn't been a vital part of Nintendo's business strategy since the SNES. It was clear by the N64, they lost that game to Sony.
They make good margins on all their hardware, and with the Switch, the margins they are making on the huge array of accessories (always more for a portable platform with variable interface options) is obscene.
Doubling the production for the Switch is a pretty clear indicator of a direct hit on the intended market. Stock is stretched, production lines are taxed and consoles are currently being flipped at about $100 over MSRP. Nintendo is happy to have these problems.
Virtually all their IPs are top sellers on their own platforms, indicating that Nintendo's consumers largely buy Nintendo hardware to play Nintendo games.
All that Nintendo has to do to keep hardware running out of stock is keep a steady stream of releases of their own IPs, a strategy they have already revealed as being a part of their plans moving forward with the platform.
If Nintendo really wanted the old license/razor blade model, they would just market and sell a Nintendo branded gaming PC, the market for which would be small enough to make it too much like the competition and ultimately a failure for lack of imagination.
The reason why Nintendo lacks 3rd party support from major developers doesn't exactly come down to hardware limitations most of the time. You need to remember that a lot of 3rd parties got burned in the days when people thought that Nintendo could do no wrong, and a lot of them were the most vocal in switching support when Sega and Sony came along.
Every generation since, Nintendo has relaxed more and more of it's restrictions and costs it imposes on 3rd parties (still going since the WiiU), so they're slowly catching up...
| deskpro2k3 said: i thought you guys said nintendo don't need third party support. was all that to save face? |
i dont think anybody has ever said that (or very few have), however many people have said that AAA western multiplats are not necessary for success.
3rd party support =/= AAA western multiplats
When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.
zorg1000 said:
i dont think anybody has ever said that (or very few have), however many people have said that AAA western multiplats are not necessary for success. 3rd party support =/= AAA western multiplats |
Yes they have said that, and just so you know, I wouldn't have made that statement otherwise.

deskpro2k3 said:
Yes they have said that, and just so you know, I wouldn't have made that statement otherwise. |
they as in one or two people?
When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.
oniyide said:
Nintendo screwed Nintendo on 3rd party support long before MS showed up to the party |
Indeed. People always remember how they saved the industry in the 80's and always forget how deplorable they were in the same period both against consumer, retailers and especially developers and publishers. They very much created the 3rd party issue themselves, yet people like to assign the blame to other companies and factors.