Forums - Nintendo Discussion - New Nintendo IPs in Switch-gen

Tagged games:

JWeinCom said:
I really don't think Mario and Rabbids or Fire Emblem Warriors should count. Mario and Rabbids is a combination of existing IPs, although at least it has differing Gameplay Mechanics. Fire Emblem Warriors on the other hand is just taking an existing IP, Hyrule Warriors, and using characters from another IP in it... And Hyrule Warriors was likewise just taking an existing IP, and adding Zelda characters to it. Same for Cadence of Hyrule.

Yeah the OP is confusing new IP (intellectual property) with new series. Cadence of Hyrule, Fire Emblem Warriors, Mario+Rabbids really aren't new IP. 



Around the Network

As long as a game is good I don't care if it is an established IP or a new IP.



VGChartz Sales Analyst and Writer - William D'Angelo - I stream on Twitch and have my own YoutubeFollow me on Twitter @TrunksWD.

Writer of the Gap Charts | Weekly Hardware Breakdown Top 10 | Weekly Sales Analysis | Marketshare Features, as well as daily news on the Video Game Industry.

AngryLittleAlchemist said:

When Nintendo's biggest teams trying to make new IPs results in Animal Crossing, Splatoon, and ARMS (which admittedly is kind of a mind-share failure but sold well enough), I don't think we get to use the "I don't need a new ip just for the sake of it!" excuse anymore.

Sorry, but there's more than enough precedent in terms of quality and sales that show Nintendo's new IP initiatives tend to work when they actually try to make something big with a big studio behind a project. Even better, a lot of them end up covering niches that are either not covered already in their ecosystem, or even rarely covered in the console space as a whole. Sure, a lot of their third party partners' new IPs just end up being quirky little 3DS/Wii U/Switch titles, but those aren't resource intensive and don't seem to take away from other pipeline products. Even the most recent example of Nintendo trying to create a big new IP with a very credible studio behind it resulted in their first 1 million seller with PlatinumGames, after a 7 year long partnership with the company. The Switch and Switch 2 are not the time to be resting on laurels.

If anything, I think the problem is sort of that their third party partners and smaller first parties have to pull a lot of the new IP weight. The idea being that because Nintendo only has like 4-5 teams which make huge console sellers, and because Nintendo has many big IP, they end up having to make a lot of games in the same series over and over. But, I think this shouldn't be the case. Maybe like, the Splatoon and Animal Crossing team could just work on those franchises. But what I really hope is that, the Mario Kart team doesn't take the relative mediocre reception of ARMS to mean they should just not try to make new IPs (Arms 2 doesn't count). Also, since most of Nintendo's team were able to make 2-3 games back in the Wii U/3DS era, and since the Odyssey team released that game in 2017, it would be nice if the Mario team were also allowed to work on a big new IP. Though, I doubt that will happen, and I won't exactly complain about an Odyssey 2. 

Animal Crossing is like a 20 year old franchise...

The more new IPs they make, the more current IPs will be cast aside. F-Zero, Kid Icarus, Punch-Out!!, Earthbound, StarTropics, Wario Land etc...

Ill take any of those over games like Labo and Arms. 



KLXVER said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

When Nintendo's biggest teams trying to make new IPs results in Animal Crossing, Splatoon, and ARMS (which admittedly is kind of a mind-share failure but sold well enough), I don't think we get to use the "I don't need a new ip just for the sake of it!" excuse anymore.

Sorry, but there's more than enough precedent in terms of quality and sales that show Nintendo's new IP initiatives tend to work when they actually try to make something big with a big studio behind a project. Even better, a lot of them end up covering niches that are either not covered already in their ecosystem, or even rarely covered in the console space as a whole. Sure, a lot of their third party partners' new IPs just end up being quirky little 3DS/Wii U/Switch titles, but those aren't resource intensive and don't seem to take away from other pipeline products. Even the most recent example of Nintendo trying to create a big new IP with a very credible studio behind it resulted in their first 1 million seller with PlatinumGames, after a 7 year long partnership with the company. The Switch and Switch 2 are not the time to be resting on laurels.

If anything, I think the problem is sort of that their third party partners and smaller first parties have to pull a lot of the new IP weight. The idea being that because Nintendo only has like 4-5 teams which make huge console sellers, and because Nintendo has many big IP, they end up having to make a lot of games in the same series over and over. But, I think this shouldn't be the case. Maybe like, the Splatoon and Animal Crossing team could just work on those franchises. But what I really hope is that, the Mario Kart team doesn't take the relative mediocre reception of ARMS to mean they should just not try to make new IPs (Arms 2 doesn't count). Also, since most of Nintendo's team were able to make 2-3 games back in the Wii U/3DS era, and since the Odyssey team released that game in 2017, it would be nice if the Mario team were also allowed to work on a big new IP. Though, I doubt that will happen, and I won't exactly complain about an Odyssey 2. 

Animal Crossing is like a 20 year old franchise...

That's quite literally the point. Is pretty bad when one of your most recent examples of a big new IP is 20 years old. 

Labo isn't really made by one of Nintendo's bigger teams, that is their experiment team iirc. I agree with Arms but like, it sold well and if we're being honest one of the bigger problems with it is that it covered a niche Nintendo already had down. 

I'm also curious, if what you say is true, then what franchise was sacrificed for the sake of Splatoon? 



CaptainExplosion said:
DélioPT said:

But, aren't those IPs fully owned by their respective companies?
As far as i know Rabbids was developed by Ubisoft and Cadence only had Nintendo characters.

I know one of those in the list was made in collaboration with NST.

That's what I meant.

As much as I love seeing Nintendo do new IPs, I'd still prefer they dug up their old IPs and reinvent them for the new generation.

Wave Race with the new rumble would be awesome.

Too bad it will never happen. :(



Around the Network

Cadence and Warriors are not new IPs but spinoffs of 2 other IPs each.



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

AngryLittleAlchemist said:
KLXVER said:

Animal Crossing is like a 20 year old franchise...

That's quite literally the point. Is pretty bad when one of your most recent examples of a big new IP is 20 years old. 

Labo isn't really made by one of Nintendo's bigger teams, that is their experiment team iirc. I agree with Arms but like, it sold well and if we're being honest one of the bigger problems with it is that it covered a niche Nintendo already had down. 

I'm also curious, if what you say is true, then what franchise was sacrificed for the sake of Splatoon? 

Nintendo cant even give many of their current IPs the time of day, so whats the point of adding to the pile? I don't know what franchises didn't happen because of Splatoon, but I do know that that franchise will now be made way before any other franchise that doesn't already sell millions.



KLXVER said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

That's quite literally the point. Is pretty bad when one of your most recent examples of a big new IP is 20 years old. 

Labo isn't really made by one of Nintendo's bigger teams, that is their experiment team iirc. I agree with Arms but like, it sold well and if we're being honest one of the bigger problems with it is that it covered a niche Nintendo already had down. 

I'm also curious, if what you say is true, then what franchise was sacrificed for the sake of Splatoon? 

Nintendo cant even give many of their current IPs the time of day, so whats the point of adding to the pile? I don't know what franchises didn't happen because of Splatoon, but I do know that that franchise will now be made way before any other franchise that doesn't already sell millions.

Splatoon and ARMS are great and unique games that really didn't fit with any of Nintendo's current IP.  So why not make them?

If there's an idea that's better than the older ones, then use those ones.  I mean, I love Punch Out! to death, but there's not a ton to do with that franchise, whereas Arms presented something fresh, so let's go with that.



JWeinCom said:
KLXVER said:

Nintendo cant even give many of their current IPs the time of day, so whats the point of adding to the pile? I don't know what franchises didn't happen because of Splatoon, but I do know that that franchise will now be made way before any other franchise that doesn't already sell millions.

Splatoon and ARMS are great and unique games that really didn't fit with any of Nintendo's current IP.  So why not make them?

If there's an idea that's better than the older ones, then use those ones.  I mean, I love Punch Out! to death, but there's not a ton to do with that franchise, whereas Arms presented something fresh, so let's go with that.

Although Im not a big fan, Ill give you Splatoon. Its a creative and well made franchise. 

But if Arms is the best they got this gen, then yeah, give me a new iteration of an older franchise instead.

Im not opposed to a new big IP of course, but I just don't trust Nintendo to give it what it needs. Rather them just pay third parties to do it for them. Astral Chain was great. More of that please.



KLXVER said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

That's quite literally the point. Is pretty bad when one of your most recent examples of a big new IP is 20 years old. 

Labo isn't really made by one of Nintendo's bigger teams, that is their experiment team iirc. I agree with Arms but like, it sold well and if we're being honest one of the bigger problems with it is that it covered a niche Nintendo already had down. 

I'm also curious, if what you say is true, then what franchise was sacrificed for the sake of Splatoon? 

Nintendo cant even give many of their current IPs the time of day, so whats the point of adding to the pile? I don't know what franchises didn't happen because of Splatoon, but I do know that that franchise will now be made way before any other franchise that doesn't already sell millions.

But that was already the case, which is why this is a terrible, terrible argument. 

F-Zero, Kid Icarus, Punch-Out!!, Earthbound, StarTropics, Wario Land are the ones you listed. F-Zero hasn't been made since like 2003 and and even then it was a third party title. Punch-Out!! hasn't been made since 2009 and was again developed by a third party. Mother hasn't been touched since forever and the creator doesn't even want to make a new one. StarTropics hasn't been touched in forever and unless they just straight up rebooted the series, the demand would be minimal at best (most people don't even know what it is, or what it represents even). And again Wario Land was developed by a third party developer, almost 12 years ago. To be clear, I'm specifying third party because I'm talking about Nintendo's main teams takling new IP. As I already stated, I think third parties are doing a pretty good job of making a decent amount of new IP, what I'm really interested in is a team as legendary as the Mario team making a completely original project, not whether Good Feel or Next Level make another Punch-Out or Wario Land. I'm fine if they do. Though honestly, is WarioLand, another 2D platformer in an era where Nintendo is housing 4/5 concurrent 2D platformer series, really as important as a new IP that covers new niches? 

Now, ok, maybe you could make an argument that the demand for new games becomes fulfilled by new IP, and this lack of leftover demand would make Nintendo not care enough to go into their back catalog and create new entries in once beloved series. This is a fair argument, and I actually think it's one that's very underrated in regards to, for example, ports and remakes. A lot of titles that Nintendo probably would have had to make for the Switch one way or another (whether it be outsourcing or developing in-house) had porting literally been impossible, are now not needed because Nintendo can just port over older games. A new 2D Donkey Kong really isn't needed, for example, when you have a port which satisfies the market. A brand new 2D Zelda isn't needed when, for example, you have Link's Awakening Remake. However, this is a good argument for games that had a chance to be made. In reality, the demand for all the games you listed has been dried for a long, long, long time, with the exception of Kid Icarus but it's a miracle Uprising was created in the first place. 

It's ironic, because you say that Nintendo can't give their "current" IPs the time of day, when none of those are current. I'm not going to pretend like the Wii is this ancient mystical temple that hasn't been visited in a thousand years but, it's pretty old, and those games really aren't current or relevant right now.

Lastly, I think a lot of the same people who argue that Nintendo should make more new IP, are also the same people who argue Nintendo should hire more staff, and that Nintendo should use their backlog IP more. So I don't even really disagree with your premise. I just take that as an example of why Nintendo should expand, whether it be through more partnerships or internally.