RolStoppable said:
Yes, this adds to the points I am making. When specific platforms are ignored, the basic rule of "games that do not exist cannot sell" comes into play. Also a pretty obvious reason for lack of sales. |
And then the question becomes, why don't the games exist?
The Oddworld guy is insane, he also blamed Nintendo's way of thinking for Iwata's death. In other words, claiming that Nintendo policy caused Iwata to die of cancer.
I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.
| Qwark said: Nintendo and third party games are simply a failed marriage. The offspring of that marriage more often fails than succeeds. So third parties are very careful with releasing games on Nintendo systems. Now in general third party developers are fine with pc/ps4/Xone. But every now and than there are whining gamers which think that third party games must release on Switch and get sour if they don't and that's where this discussion comes from. Third parties litteraly fled to playstation during the N64 era so Nintendo has only to thank itself for its current relationship with third parties and considering it's way less difficult to transfer a game from PS4 to Xone (basically the same system anyway) than PS4 to Switch is going to take a while before third parties are going to really support Switch. If Nintendo wants third party games they need to have a system that is appealing for third party games which means easy porting and Nintendo doesn't provide that. Because there are few (new) non exclusivr third party games on Nintendo systems. Most owners of these consoles will not buy those games and buy Nintendo games instead. So third party studios in general choose to not take the risc or make an exclusive game for Nintendo with minimal risc. |
Yokai Watch, Monster Hunter, Dragon Quest, Professor Layton, Shovel Knight, Just Dance, Skylanders (in its prime), etc. all beg to differ.
If you make a good game that fits the demographic it will sell well. If you make a crummy late-port with little to no marketing and sell it for a full price then you should not be surprised that it bombed (which is around 90% of the third party support Nintendo got)
Games like Marvel VS. Capcom and Street Fighter V are bombing on PS4 and/or Xbox One though. Not to mention the failed project that was Scalebound.
"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" - Thoukydides
RolStoppable said:
Because third parties don't want to make them. This is where it always leads to if a logical train of thought is followed: In the end each individual third party is responsible for their successes as well as their failures. At this point some people like to jump in and point the finger at Nintendo again, but the evidence doesn't support this. We only need to look at the very recent data of 3DS and Vita to see that it is not a Nintendo issue. Third parties put bigger IPs, higher quality and more marketing efforts into 3DS titles, so they unsurprisingly far outpace the sales of Vita games. That isn't a Sony issue, it's the decisions made by third parties. |
Uhm... I'd argue that is a Sony issue. The Vita as a platform was a monumental failure in nearly every aspect, because of Sony and it was that failure which lead to both poor support and poor sales for what support it got. I don't see how it is "pointing the finger". Obviously 3rd parties must have some motivation not to put games on Nintendo systems (and no, third parties haven't been particularly succesful on the 3DS either. Of the 52 million selling titles on the 3DS, 3rd parties only developed 14 of them), and that motivation ultimately leads back to decisions made by Nintendo.
Technically it is third parties for believing that they game will sell on a Nintendo console ^^'.
I'm sure there's more to it but whenever I think of console makers, I just assumed their mentality was "We made this hardware. Here's what it can do. We're gonna make games for it. You can make games for it, too."
From there, I figured it was up to the third parties to make money on it or not. If your game was good and appealed to the right people, it would sell. If it wasn't, it didn't.
To this day, I think that all Sony did with the PS1 was provide an appealing platform to release games, make a profit, and have decent performance. Now, it's a little more complicated with online modes and competition but isn't that all a first party can do? You can't tell people what to buy...can you?
| d21lewis said: I'm sure there's more to it but whenever I think of console makers, I just assumed their mentality was "We made this hardware. Here's what it can do. We're gonna make games for it. You can make games for it, too." From there, I figured it was up to the third parties to make money on it or not. If your game was good and appealed to the right people, it would sell. If it wasn't, it didn't. To this day, I think that all Sony did with the PS1 was provide an appealing platform to release games, make a profit, and have decent performance. Now, it's a little more complicated with online modes and competition but isn't that all a first party can do? You can't tell people what to buy...can you? |
Yeah no, Sony did a lot of investments, Crash bandicoot became only big because of Sony giving Naughty dog more money for making their game and promoted it like hell, and did the same for a lot of developpers. Just look with what they did with FFVII, Nintendo hardly paid for advertisements for the FF games, Squaresoft was on their own. Sony basically gave them a big advertisement Check, investments and helping opening a new studio in Santa Monica and end result, FFVII became the best selling FF game (three times more than the best selling one on the NES/SNES).
Will the next installment of Gamings biggest Franchise GTA, release on a Nintendo Console?
Probably not unless they compromise the gameplay/graphics
So the questions are?
1. do developers want to release an inferior version?
2. do they want to spend extra time working on this inferior version?
Sure perhaps on big selling titles like GTA it will financially worth the developers doing this, but for smaller companies its probably not worth the time/investment
Alkibiádēs said:
Yokai Watch, Monster Hunter, Dragon Quest, Professor Layton, Shovel Knight, Just Dance, Skylanders (in its prime), etc. all beg to differ. If you make a good game that fits the demographic it will sell well. If you make a crummy late-port with little to no marketing and sell it for a full price then you should not be surprised that it bombed (which is around 90% of the third party support Nintendo got) Games like Marvel VS. Capcom and Street Fighter V are bombing on PS4 and/or Xbox One though. Not to mention the failed project that was Scalebound. |
Wasn't scalebound an exclusive game. Proffesor Layton and Yokai Watch are second party and Nintendo exclusive. Point remains that 75% of the third party support the PS4 and Xone get just don't sell on Nintendo consoles. Resident evil 4 released earlier on the Gamecube but was still outsold by both the PS2 version of that game. Now monster hunter and Yokai watch mainly sell well in Japan and are pretty much Nintendo exclusive except for MH worlds these days. In general big third party IP's from Western developers don't tend to sell well on Nintendo hardware take Rayman origins Wii got outsold by the PS3 version 2:1 while such a game should do well with the Nintendo crowd, or so one would think. It is usually rare for a third party game that releases both on a Nintendo console and Playstation/Xbox to sell around the same amount of units. Except for JRPG's and party games which sell like crap on PS/Xbox. The need for speed series is another example of a series without late ass ports which simply don't sell all that well on Nintendo consoles even though they did get many entries from the GC till the Wii U era.
Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
Currently Online 
