Support NeoGAF

[Spieler Eins]

Nope, because WiiU already is exactly the kind of scenario people in the past have described when speculating on them going 3rd party. WiiU had hardly any variety, they had fewer games than ever with high critical acclaim and most of their still good titles are only good because they are blatant rehashes of last gen (or older) titles.
Then people said that they wouldn't be able to optimize their games on their hardware. Yet Nintendo's mobile Mario game uses the hardware better than anything they've done with their latest batch of gimmicks, lol. Nowadays, their quality could only get better on other hardware, if anything.

 

[family_guy]

Don't think it would change. Nintendo has put out some stinkers even when they only had 2 platforms to deal with.

 

[KnightimeX_Legacy]

Quality as a whole would drop dramatically for the entire industry.
Nintendo dies, so does gaming.

 

[Oddish1]

I would love if Publishers went open season and just paid Nintendo to make their games. Hell, it could mean they make new IP's they've never done before.

Electronic Arts presents: Super Mario Football.
Koei Tecmo presents: Nintendo Xtreme Beach Volleyball.

Come on, you know this all sounds awesome.

If anything I'd expect the opposite. Companies paying Nintendo to license out their properties while someone else develops it.

Look forward to Legend of Zelda made by Ubisoft coming to the PS5 and Xbone 2.

 

[The Horror the horror]

These third party threads crack me up.

For all we know, Microsoft and Sony are closer to a hardware-less fate than Nintendo and yet its the masters of Kyoto the undisputed bearer of this outworn and overpreached destiny.

 

[CouchMaster]

If going third party is a result of financial desperation and their only way to survive, then obviously yes, it will drop dramatically.

I hope that day never comes.

 

[Movalpolos]

Nintendo has a passion for games though. I seriously doubt they would license out their own stuff for other pubs to entirely take care of (again).

 

[oti]

These third party threads crack me up.

For all we know, Microsoft and Sony are closer to a hardware-less fate than Nintendo and yet its the masters of Kyoto the bearer of this outworn and overpreached destiny.

I'm pretty sure most people have no idea whatsoever what's going on behind the scenes in the video game industry. It's far more likely for MS to sell off their Xbox division than Nintendo leaving hardware or video games.

 

[Oddish1]

Nope, because WiiU already is exactly the kind of scenario people in the past have described when speculating on them going 3rd party. WiiU had hardly any variety, they had fewer games than ever with high critical acclaim and most of their still good titles are only good because they are blatant rehashes of last gen (or older) titles.
Then people said that they wouldn't be able to optimize their games on their hardware. Yet Nintendo's mobile Mario game uses the hardware better than anything they've done with their latest batch of gimmicks, lol. Nowadays, their quality could only get better on other hardware, if anything.

You mean the mobile efforts that are developed by another company Nintendo partnered with explicitly because Nintendo is unfamiliar with the technology.

 

[Htown]

Looking at the history of game companies that dropped out of the console hardware business, Sega is basically the best case scenario.

Chew on that for a second.

 

[JoeM86]

You mean the mobile efforts that are developed by another company Nintendo partnered with explicitly because Nintendo is unfamiliar with the technology.

Don't engage him. He's always like this in Nintendo threads

 

[geordiemp]

Looking at the history of game companies that dropped out of the console hardware business, Sega is basically the best case scenario.

Chew on that for a second.

Popular Game company, 1 off .

Maybe they could do better, see Pokemon Go and Mario runner.

Nintendo would be fine even if they were a mobile IOS company, and you know that.

 

[LordKano]

Popular Game company, 1 off .

Maybe they could do better, see Pokemon Go and Mario runner.

Its not clear cut either way.

If Pokémon GO is any indication of how Nintendo IPs could end up if they were third-party, nobody should hope for it to be the case.

 

[Spieler Eins]

You mean the mobile efforts that are developed by another company Nintendo partnered with explicitly because Nintendo is unfamiliar with the technology.

I mean the first Tezuka-directed game in 2 decades. And again, look at WiiU. They didn't exactly have HD development under proper control either. They failed to comprehend HD gaming and key titles such as Smash Bros. needed 3rd party help.

 

[Cepheus]

No, but they'd certainly make a lot less games and drop 95% of their IPs. Say hello to Mario and Zelda and literally nothing else. They wouldn't be making handhelds anymore so that means no Pokemon unless they were mobile games.

 

[Circinus]

How would anyone know?


I'd be more inclined to speculate 'no', because they'll just have to remain as competitive, if not more. So I don't see any reason for why Nintendo's standards would drop.

 

[geordiemp]

If Pokémon GO is any indication of how Nintendo IPs could end up if they were third-party, nobody should hope for it to be the case.

On mobile, why not ? And Mario runner / platformers..

Besides these and maybe JRPG, what else could they do on mobile ?

Back on topic, there are players like me who would play Zelda, and definitely would like to play excite truck in 1080p60, but thats not enough to spurt £ 300 on weak console home hardware (console + storage + controller in UK it will be probably more than that).

However, if it does not happen, so be it, like WiiU. I doubt my stance is just me, not many people bought WiiU in UK, so somethings up.

 

[Shiggy]

Nope, because WiiU already is exactly the kind of scenario people in the past have described when speculating on them going 3rd party. WiiU had hardly any variety, they had fewer games than ever with high critical acclaim and most of their still good titles are only good because they are blatant rehashes of last gen (or older) titles.
Then people said that they wouldn't be able to optimize their games on their hardware. Yet Nintendo's mobile Mario game uses the hardware better than anything they've done with their latest batch of gimmicks, lol.

This. Wii U was already what people were saying in terms of reduced variety and simple sequels.

 

[Trago]

How would anyone know?


I'd be more inclined to speculate 'no', because they'll just have to remain as competitive, if not more.

Take a look at the software output of Sega, Atari, and SNK now compared to when they were in hardware to understand.

 

[FStubbs]

Quantity would certainly drop significantly, as would the variety of software. When you prop up hardware you develop and finance a number of games that won't necessarily be particularly profitable but will fill niches and make your platform attractive to a wider audience.

People who wish for Nintendo 3rd party also wish doom on much of Nintendos software output.

Well, if you listen to them, they do. It always comes down to

"I want to play Mario and Zelda on my PS4".

Really that's it. That's all they want anyway. And we're talking about Nintendo gradually releasing less and less games - I'm not even sure you'd get Zelda anymore. Releasing Zelda for PS4/Xbone/PC would probably be way more expensive than Wii U/Switch.

Their quality control would suffer just like Sega because they'd no longer have the luxury of waiting "until it's done" to release games, no more time to polish a game to the level we're used to from Nintendo. It would be a downward spiral.

 

[Lernaean]

Popular Game company, 1 off .

Maybe they could do better, see Pokemon Go and Mario runner.

Nintendo would be fine even if they were a mobile IOS company, and you know that.

Yes, maybe, but we ain't talking how good Nintendo will be, but how good we as gamers will be without 95% of their IPs.

Also SEGA was not the first to suffer this fate. SNK was huge too. Kings of the arcade and had the most powerful console in the planet. People still to this day brag that they owned and/or played on a NEO GEO. Look at SNK now.

Third party means cutting staff drastically, minimizing your IP output, and ultimately losing control over the product quality. Period.

 

[ggx2ac]

This. Wii U was already what people were saying in terms of reduced variety and simple sequels.

No surprise. Nintendo couldn't handle developing for both 3DS and Wii U since it strained their resources, the 3DS received the variety of games because it used up less resources compared to their HD troubles with Wii U.

 

[Shiggy]

Really that's it. That's all they want anyway. And we're talking about Nintendo gradually releasing less and less games - I'm not even sure you'd get Zelda anymore. Releasing Zelda for PS4/Xbone/PC would probably be way more expensive than Wii U/Switch.

I guess so. They'd probably need to put more effort into the visuals of a game like Zelda to make it look competitive on those platforms.

Their quality control would suffer just like Sega because they'd no longer have the luxury of waiting "until it's done" to release games, no more time to polish a game to the level we're used to from Nintendo. It would be a downward spiral.

Why would they lose that ability just because they'd go 3rd party?

No surprise. Nintendo couldn't handle developing for both 3DS and Wii U since it strained their resources, the 3DS received the variety of games because it used up less resources compared to their HD troubles with Wii U.

It was a huge step down compared to Wii and DS. I'm not even sure what happened to their digital offerings, DSiWare and WiiWare had a lot of quirky Nintendo titles. 3DS eShop not so much.

 

[Oddish1]

I mean the first Tezuka-directed game in 2 decades. And again, look at WiiU. They didn't exactly have HD development under proper control either. They failed to comprehend HD gaming and key titles such as Smash Bros. needed 3rd party help.

Okay, so first, that's a bit of a misrepresentation of the Smash Bros situation. Smash Bros for WiiU/3DS was never developed internally at Nintendo. Bandai Namco were developing it from the start under Sakurai. It's like saying Nintendo needed Platinum games help to develop Bayonetta 2, of course they're helping, they're making the game.

The second, is that farming out assets or having contracted help in launching an HD video game isn't uncommon. If that's your metric for incompetence in developing games then most large video game studios fail to comprehend HD gaming.

I guess so. They'd probably need to put more effort into the visuals of a game like Zelda to make it look competitive on those platforms.

No, they'd need less effort for Zelda compared to Wii U/Switch since it'd be on phones

 

[geordiemp]

Yes, maybe, but we ain't talking how good Nintendo will be, but how good we as gamers will be without 95% of their IPs.

Also SEGA was not the first to suffer this fate. SNK was huge too. Kings of the arcade and had the most powerful console in the planet. People still to this day brag that they owned and/or played on a NEO GEO. Look at SNK now.

Third party means cutting staff drastically, minimizing your IP output, and ultimately losing control over the product quality. Period.

Dont agree, SNK were mainly known for 2D fighters, a genre which has dropped in popularity over the years (see street fighter). It is nothing to do with being a hardware manufacturer.

SNK did not move with gaming trends, neither did Sega.

 

[Lernaean]

Dont agree, SNK were mainly known for 2D fighters, a genre which has dropped in popularity over the years (see street fighter). It is nothing to do with being a hardware manufacturer.

SNK did not move with gaming trends, neither did Sega.

Neither does Nintendo. Thank goodness.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

Dont agree, SNK were mainly known for 2D fighters, a genre which has dropped in popularity over the years (see street fighter). It is nothing to do with being a hardware manufacturer.

SNK did not move with gaming trends, neither did Sega.

In terms of hardware, they sure didn't. Which is exactly the reason that the Wii u was a spectacular failure. Sega's game quality was up there releasing a great variety of lots of genres until they went 3rd party and that dried up in a very short period.

Maybe it wouldn't happen to Nintendo. Maybe they buck the trend somehow, but past examples have gone the same way and Ultimately, it would be the most likely case for Nintendo too.

 

[random25]

Obviously. Aren't the PS and Xbox crowd disgusted with kiddie shit? That's basically what Nintendo are masters of, and obviously just to sell something for that crowd, they'll abandon what they're good at.

 

[Shiggy]

No, they'd need less effort for Zelda compared to Wii U/Switch since it'd be on phones

True. Then again, I prefer 2D Zeldas over something like BotW.

 

[18-Volt]

Absolutely. Nintendo earn money mostly from hardware sales. If they go third party, namely for PS4, they'll make games to earn money instead of making games just to satisfy fans and customers. Quality would drop so hard, we will get Mario's rendition of Sonic 2006.

 

[chrislowe]

Only their hardware sales will drop. Why buy a nintendo switch when i can get their games anyway?

 

[The Maverick]

Nothing would really change from as it is in the Wii U generation. They would just have access to millions of more gamers. This is assuming that they don't get prideful and wait until they are on their death bed to go third party.

People dream about Nintendo making games not to make money but to make fans "happy". That's not really the way it works. Also, if them going third party means no XCX or Wonderful 101, did we really lose anything?

 

[KojiKnight]

Looking at the history of game companies that dropped out of the console hardware business, Sega is basically the best case scenario.

Chew on that for a second.

This. How quickly people forget madness like Atari and Hudson.

 

[-MB-]

People can argue this scenario till they are blue faced, it will never happen.
These people who want to play Nintendo games on their favorite hardcore box, will have to satisfy themselves with the tons of games they already get and forgo Nintendo games till eternity.

Not that I think most actually care about playing them, they just want something they cannot get or want to see people on the other side of the aisle suffer.

 

[scamander]

Nope, because WiiU already is exactly the kind of scenario people in the past have described when speculating on them going 3rd party. WiiU had hardly any variety, they had fewer games than ever with high critical acclaim and most of their still good titles are only good because they are blatant rehashes of last gen (or older) titles.

Captain Toad Treasure Tracker
Hyrule Warriors
Pokken Tournament
Project Zero 5/ Fatal Frame 5
Kirby and the Rainbow Curse
TLoZ Breath of the Wild
Lego City Undercover
NES Remix 1+2
Nintendo Land
Pikmin 3
Splatoon
Star Fox Guard
Super Mario Maker
Tokyo Mirage Sessions
The Wonderful 101
Xenoblade Chronicles X


Plus all the 3DS output from them. Neither Sony nor Microsoft have anywhere near that variety with their first party offerings.

This. Wii U was already what people were saying in terms of reduced variety and simple sequels.

My disagreement with this statement aside, the Wii U also wasn't the only platform Nintendo had to support this generation.

 

[geordiemp]

Absolutely. Nintendo earn money mostly from hardware sales. .

Source ?

Really ?

You think that Nintendo made more money from WiiU hardware than software last year. Any year.

 

[Chronospherics]

I imagine competing in the 3rd party space on another platform, they'd need to retain an incredibly high level of quality if they wanted their games to retain the reputation of their games. With that in mind, I don't imagine they would allow the quality to drop.

I don't see why they would be less innovative either. If the industry were more tightly packed (with more games and developers publishing for a smaller number of systems) then competition in that space is greater, which means you will need to innovate if you want your games to stand out.

At first I imagine we might see some relatively standard Nintendo titles, that arguably 'lack innovation' as they present their basic franchises to the new platforms, though. For instance if we had a new Mario Kart or 2D Mario game, it would be able to ride off of the novelty of being a 'Mario game' on another platform, and Nintendo would probably want their first outing to be relatively minimal in terms of risk. But I can't imagine their game development wouldn't go back to normal after that initial 'testing the waters' period.

 

[JordanN]

Obviously. Aren't the PS and Xbox crowd disgusted with kiddie shit? That's basically what Nintendo are masters of, and obviously just to sell something for that crowd, they'll abandon what they're good at.

Unless you're an absolute Nintendo diehard, I'm pretty sure the audience already owns both systems. I mean, isn't the justification I always see is "Nintendo console for 1st party, Xbox/Playstation for 3rd party?"

So if Nintendo goes 3rd party, they'll just migrate anyway.

 

[The Maverick]

Captain Toad Treasure Tracker
Hyrule Warriors
Pokken Tournament
Project Zero 5/ Fatal Frame 5
Kirby and the Rainbow Curse
TLoZ Breath of the Wild
Lego City Undercover
NES Remix 1+2
Nintendo Land
Pikmin 3
Splatoon
Star Fox Guard
Super Mario Maker
Tokyo Mirage Sessions
The Wonderful 101
Xenoblade Chronicles X


Plus all the 3DS output from them. Neither Sony nor Microsoft have anywhere near that variety with their first party offerings.



My disagreement with this statement aside, the Wii U also wasn't the only platform Nintendo had to support this generation.

To the bolded, come on now. Not to mention that Sony and Microsoft have third parties to fill almost every gap. Nintendo does not. You've just made a list with almost every significant Wii U release.

 

[JoeM86]

There seems to be a notion from certain people here that Nintendo's output, in variety, has to match the entire ecosystem of the competitors, including the third parties.

To the bolded, come on now. Not to mention that Sony and Microsoft have third parties to fill almost every gap. Nintendo does not. You've just made a list with almost every significant Wii U release.

Exactly, and they still have a crapload of variety and game releases. If they didn't do it on their own hardware, we wouldn't get that

 

[NSESN]

Looking at the history of game companies that dropped out of the console hardware business, Sega is basically the best case scenario.

Chew on that for a second.

Or more relevant to this thread, see what happenned to Sonic


EDIT: I disagre with the people assuming that the Nintendo audience would migrate. Most nintendo fans that would migrate to PS4 and Xboc already have one of these, the rest would go mobile or simply stop playing imo.

 

[random25]

Unless you're an absolute Nintendo diehard, I'm pretty sure the audience already owns both systems. I mean, isn't the justification I always see is "Nintendo console for 1st party, Xbox/Playstation for 3rd party?"

So if Nintendo goes 3rd party, they'll just there migrate anyway.

So it defeats the purpose. You go third party so more than your usual audience buy your games, not just cater to the same ones. If that's the case, then might as well sell hardware that you know your usual audience buy for your games.

 

[The Maverick]

There seems to be a notion from certain people here that Nintendo's output, in variety, has to match the entire ecosystem of the competitors, including the third parties.

There seems to be a notion that people already think Nintendo exceeds their competition on that front. Which isn't true in the slightest.

What is the basis to say that their games will lose variety (any more that can be lost anyways) by going third party?

 

[KillGore]

Quality as a whole would drop dramatically for the entire industry.
Nintendo dies, so does gaming.

lol

Some of the comments here. Nintendo going third party does not mean quality necessarily has to drop. The consoles dont define the games. The developers do. Mario would still be amazing on xbox and playstation. Pokemon would still be amazing on Vita and even mobile. You guys are just being sour about it. Trying to convince yourself and others that Nintendo and the gaming industry would go to shit if they stop making consoles.

 

[Oddish1]

Unless you're an absolute Nintendo diehard, I'm pretty sure the audience already owns both systems. I mean, isn't the justification I always see is "Nintendo console for 1st party, Xbox/Playstation for 3rd party?"

So if Nintendo goes 3rd party, they'll just migrate anyway.

There's really no evidence that this actually happens. Did Sega games sell better when they went third party? The whole migrating to follow Nintendo isn't really based on anything but is taken for granted for some reason.

There seems to be a notion that people already think Nintendo exceeds their competition on that front. Which isn't true in the slightest.

What is the basis to say that their games will lose variety (any more that can be lost anyways) by going third party?

It's due to looking at the homogenization of AAA third party video game titles that are common due to the ballooning budget and becoming increasingly risk averse as a result and is something Nintendo would have to deal with if they were to develop third party on other consoles.

Which they will never do because if they stopped being first party they would go to mobile, not console, and adopt the homogenization of THAT ecosystem instead.

 

[JoeM86]

There seems to be a notion that people already think Nintendo exceeds their competition on that front. Which isn't true in the slightest.

What is the basis to say that their games will lose variety (any more that can be lost anyways) by going third party?

Because many of the games that provide said variety don't sell well (i.e. Metroid), and so they will be the first to go when Nintendo has to focus solely on output on other platforms.

I disagree that Nintendo doesn't exceed other first parties in terms of variety.

lol

Some of the comments here. Nintendo going third party does not mean quality necessarily has to drop. The consoles dont define the games. The developers do. Mario would still be amazing on xbox and playstation. Pokemon would still be amazing on Vita and even mobile. You guys are just being sour about it. Trying to convince yourself and others that Nintendo and the gaming industry would go to shit if they stop making consoles.

That's because you're not looking at the actual big picture. You're just looking at things as if all that happens is them releasing games on a different format when there are far more things to factor into it.

 

[-MB-]

lol

Some of the comments here. Nintendo going third party does not mean quality necessarily has to drop. The consoles dont define the games. The developers do. Mario would still be amazing on xbox and playstation. Pokemon would still be amazing on Vita and even mobile. You guys are just being sour about it. Trying to convince yourself and others that Nintendo and the gaming industry would go to shit if they stop making consoles.

Many people already GAVE examples as evidence to their statements ( Hudson/SNK/Sega/Atari, all you have as counterpoint is calling those people sour.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

They wouldn't be able to compete with EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Square Enix, and Capcom.

 

[Fox_Mulder]

Maybe we'll see it soon

 

[Astral Dog]

Without a question