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

Forums - Nintendo - The first to third party plan: backfiring or not?

sethnintendo on 01 August 2017
NoirSon said:

 

The Switch strategy is the opposite, string along a steady stream of AAA titles and hope third parties see the growth, the sales and jump on board. It is likely to work more with the Japanese publishers since most of them are still on good terms with the Big N but major Western publishers are still going to take a lot to pull and convince to divert resouces to develop on weaker then the current standards set by Xbox One or PS4 base.

It is different because you can actually take the damn thing around your house or outside.  I know people liked to say Wii U gamepad could go far but in my house it barely went anywhere because of walls ruining the signal even within short distances. 

Oh and also they have better releases because they are pretty much down to one platform now.  Not having to split your divisions anymore will provide a steady stream of games.  Just take the 3DS and Wii U releases and then imagine that on one system (along with what appears to be better games than previous generation).  Do they need third parties?  Sure but with one system their release schedule will be filled with way less droughts.



Around the Network
VAMatt on 01 August 2017
DonFerrari said:
VAMatt said:

That sounds like a great idea.  However, I imagine they'd be scared of setting a precedent.  For example, if they said "Hey, EA, we'll pay for you to port Madden to Switch", then EA might say "How about you pay for us to port FIFA?"  Whereas, without the subsidy, EA went ahead with a Switch version on their own.  

There sure is a risk on that. Nintendo would have to calculate very well. And perhaps make deals like "if we don't put any money our royalties are 5% (supposing it's 25% of other manufacturers) if we put XX royalties are 10% and if we put this much royalties are 25%", something like this that assure Nintendo will get not only the game but also good royalties that will be bigger than the expenditure and it sharing the risk with the developer may show a lot of good will.

Yes, I think some sort of risk share makes the most sense.  I wonder if anyone has ever done this.  And, if so, how successful it was.  



DonFerrari on 01 August 2017
VAMatt said:
DonFerrari said:

There sure is a risk on that. Nintendo would have to calculate very well. And perhaps make deals like "if we don't put any money our royalties are 5% (supposing it's 25% of other manufacturers) if we put XX royalties are 10% and if we put this much royalties are 25%", something like this that assure Nintendo will get not only the game but also good royalties that will be bigger than the expenditure and it sharing the risk with the developer may show a lot of good will.

Yes, I think some sort of risk share makes the most sense.  I wonder if anyone has ever done this.  And, if so, how successful it was.  

MS have done it on buying GTA IV exclusivity to X360 in a way... but I have no idea about a moneyhat involving royalties depending on the success.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

zorg1000 on 01 August 2017

Switch is set to absorb the software support of 3DS, Wii U & Vita which means it will get hundreds of 3rd party games.



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

VAMatt on 01 August 2017
zorg1000 said:
Switch is set to absorb the software support of 3DS, Wii U & Vita which means it will get hundreds of 3rd party games.

If you're right, that will be awesome!  



Around the Network
TheBraveGallade on 01 August 2017

the one key difference between the wii u and the switch is that its a portable. especially when sony gave up on the vita, when most of the minor third parties of japan heavily prefered the vita and NOT the ps4 cause its a home console.
and remember, the switch's strategy is more like 3DS's strategy rather than the wii Us. with the wii U ninty took their sweet ass time to get used to HD when others have been doing so for almost a decade, creating a massive lull for the first 2 years. and if you don't get a system seller for 2 whole years.... yeah.
the switch's bound to absorb most of the vita/3ds/wiiU market, and that is the MAJORITY of japan's console market at 7/22/3 milion vs the ps4's 4 milion respectivly. the ps4 only occupies a miniscule amount of around 10% there.
which means that japanese third party kinda have to jump to the switch within 2 years.