Support NeoGAF

[ShadowFox08]

When was that? He said they were Maxwell around the time of the Venture Beat article and Eurogamer reporting Maxwell when they mentioned clockspeeds.

final dev kits I mean. He said he heard its pascal since July. Not final retail.

 

[Doctre81]

It's fairly simple.

The opportunity cost of developing a game is non-zero.

Publishers are businesses, if they think the opportunity cost is too high compared to the gains they are not going to risk the losses involved in development, or if they do they are going to moderate their expenditure on that title to reduce the opportunity cost.

To do otherwise would be a quick path to bankcruptcy.

The development on the game is already finished. It would not cost them a lot of money to port it over. If it did there would be no pc version. Believe that.

 

[Schnozberry]

final dev kits I mean. He said he heard its pascal since July. Not final retail.

He heard that Pascal was considered, but Final Devkits were running Maxwell, which surprised him.

 

[LCGeek]

Nintendo is a multi billion dollar company. There is nothing stopping them from competing directly with their competition besides their own internal culture and philosophies. I'm a fan of their software and IP, but but there is nowhere to look but the mirror for them when trying my to figure out why they are in the competitive position they are in.

Positioning them as underdogs is a bit disingenuous. They had a decade or more of experience in the industry before Microsoft and Sony entered. It was their industry to fumble away, and they did.

Being a leader doesn't make you the industry, this is where some of their problems come from ironically enough. I also agree deeply on the internal culture and bs philosophies being their problems more than external ones.

 

[Speely]

We're missing key pieces of information that no one is going to give us. Calling some speculation reasonable and other speculation unreasonable presumes we know generally what is going on when we don't. We know the clock speeds and that dev kits up until recently were on a Tegra X1 in a non standard configuration to mimic the final hardware. But we don't know anything about lithography, core counts, or memory configuration. Honestly, the most puzzling bit is why it would need active cooling given the limited information we do have.

There are several conclusions you could arrive at extrapolating from what we know, and I think the speculation in the thread reflects that.

I agree! I was just making a bad fan pun.

Edit: Pretty good summation of this thread, btw.

 

[Schnozberry]

Being a leader doesn't make you the industry, this is where some of their problems come from ironically enough. I also agree deeply on the internal culture and bs philosophies being their problems more than external ones.

They were not the entire industry, but they very much defined it throughout the post NES 1980s and much of the 90s. They fumbled the market to Sony with the N64's various shortcomings, and have never saw reason to learn from what their Western led competitors were doing right until recently. Their insular nature and pride kept that from happening. The Switch seems like a departure in that regard, so I'm hopeful, but time will tell.

 

[Schopenhauerian]

Nintendo is a multi billion dollar company. There is nothing stopping them from competing directly with their competition besides their own internal culture and philosophies. I'm a fan of their software and IP, but but there is nowhere to look but the mirror for them when trying my to figure out why they are in the competitive position they are in.

Positioning them as underdogs is a bit disingenuous. They had a decade or more of experience in the industry before Microsoft and Sony entered. It was their industry to fumble away, and they did.

Is there an analysis that you feel effectively demonstrates this point, that it would have been feasible for Nintendo to directly compete with Microsoft and Sony? Taking into account the hardware R&D, bill of materials for each hardware unit, payments made for exclusivity of software, and so on? I'm only vaguely aware of some of the relevant considerations, in this context:

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/microsoft-taking-126-hit-per-xbox-360/1100-6140383/
When Microsoft got into the console game in 2001, much was made of the fact that it lost an estimated $125 per console on each Xbox. Four years later, that per-console-hit has tallied to $4 billion of red ink for the Redmond, Washington-based software colossus... According to a study commissioned by BusinessWeek, Microsoft is again losing around $125 per hard-drive-equipped unit of its brand-spanking-new console, the Xbox 360... Factor those in, and Microsoft's per-unit-loss on each Premium pack comes to $126--just above the per-unit loss of the original Xbox--before one penny (or, more likely, yuan) is spent on labor...

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/20...s_two_million_units_to_ship_in_time_for_march
On Switch: Nintendo CEO says company won't make loss by selling it; but also listening to what consumers expect from us when setting price... Not selling the console at a loss isn't a surprising admission for Nintendo - this has been company policy for years...

...The only people with actual skin in the game are employees and shareholders, and Nintendo has a fairly high proportion of institutional shareholders who are there for 'the long haul' precisely because Nintendo is a fairly conservative company with a close eye on expenses versus income (and also consistently pays dividends even in years of operating losses)...

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

That's not what opportunity cost means.

I'm failing to come up with what the more profitable thing a theoretical GTAV Switch port team could be doing is. A port of one of the biggest continuous sellers to a new audience on hardware that should have no problems running it seems about as close to easy money as one could get.

The more sales of a product there are, the less of a potential for sales there are for it and any potential future demand is subsequently reduced, and with GTAV you're talking about a game that has already sold well over 60 million copies across all it's platforms.

That is a lot of demand that is already met, which significantly reduces the sales potential of any late port.

It's still selling millions years after release, though. The number of GTAV copies that haven't been sold yet is probably greater than the vast majority of new games to be released this year.

 

[Schnozberry]

Is there an analysis that you feel effectively demonstrates this point, that it would have been feasible for Nintendo to directly compete with Microsoft and Sony? Taking into account the hardware R&D, bill of materials for each hardware unit, payments made for exclusivity of software, and so on? I'm only vaguely aware of some of the relevant considerations, in this context:

It's not just hardware. They refused to assist with marketing, or bundle high profile third party software with consoles, or even assist with adequate technical documentation and support, leading to their own in house development teams putting out better looking and performing games.

I'm in agreement that they couldn't afford to lose exorbitant amounts of money on hardware, but they refused to even attempt to be competitive, and as a result when they finally got around to going HD, the industry had left them behind.

They didn't have to win the arms race, they just had to adapt to a more competitive industry, and their response was to further isolate themselves. That can sometimes work if it produces home run ideas nobody else would have thought of, but it can also lead you into a dream state that can make you lose your bearings. The Switch better be Nintendo regaining their bearings, and bracing the young people in the company that have a better grasp on what people want from Nintendo.

 

[Malakai]

Nintendo is a multi billion dollar company. There is nothing stopping them from competing directly with their competition besides their own internal culture and philosophies. I'm a fan of their software and IP, but but there is nowhere to look but the mirror for them when trying my to figure out why they are in the competitive position they are in.

Positioning them as underdogs is a bit disingenuous. They had a decade or more of experience in the industry before Microsoft and Sony entered. It was their industry to fumble away, and they did.

WTF? In how many industry were competitors were willing to lose billions and billions of dollars to point were it is questionable if one of the competitors (Microsoft) even made money doesn't make one an underdog, I don't know what will. No, Schnozberry, you are the one being completely disingenuous.

 

[Father_Brain]

I'm failing to come up with what the more profitable thing a theoretical GTAV Switch port team could be doing is.

Pretty much anything targeted at platforms where the GTAV/RDR2/etc. audience already, demonstrably is?

 

[LCGeek]

They were not the entire industry, but they very much defined it throughout the post NES 1980s and much of the 90s. They fumbled the market to Sony with the N64's various shortcomings, and have never saw reason to learn from what their Western led competitors were doing right until recently. Their insular nature and pride kept that from happening. The Switch seems like a departure in that regard, so I'm hopeful, but time will tell.

As a graphical nut the 90s belong to powervr/3dfx without them industry would still be stuck in the past. Even then I disagree nintendo ignored the sports craze of that era and in the next decade, never captilizing on it with pathetic attempts to do so. Nintendo had nothing to do with the various fps moments, with exception of goldeneye. I do like goldeneye but it's not doom or counter strike in terms of influence or impact. They had a few bright moments and post snes they weren't the talk of the town with exception to mario64 or zelda influence on games.

I wouldn't call keep development information to themselves or having crap tools a short coming it's quite unethical to say the least what bullshit they were pulling with devs that made bad blood. I wouldn't call using dumb storage formats for more profit a shortcoming when they knew better. I still think the bad blood is there in the mind of any 3rd party who has had history with with them and it speaks volumes developers would rather trust Microsoft on games publishing or development over nintendo considering their mistakes in the industry.

 

[Malakai]

Pretty much anything targeted at platforms where the GTAV/RDR2/etc. audience already, demonstrably is?

Oh boy, here we go with the audience stuff yet again...

 

[Osiris]

Oh boy, here we go with the audience stuff yet again...

Unbunch your panties, he's probably talking about audience size rather than demographic.

Which makes more sense, developing for a platform with 50 million+ potential customers, or a platform with likely less than a 10th of that? (At least for the first 6 months after launch)

 

[Azelover]

Nintendo is a multi billion dollar company. There is nothing stopping them from competing directly with their competition besides their own internal culture and philosophies. I'm a fan of their software and IP, but but there is nowhere to look but the mirror for them when trying my to figure out why they are in the competitive position they are in.

Positioning them as underdogs is a bit disingenuous. They had a decade or more of experience in the industry before Microsoft and Sony entered. It was their industry to fumble away, and they did.

Nintendo may have a lot of money, but they're not a multi media giant. In terms of hard assets Sony has a lot, and Microsoft has a lot. Nintendo is just gaming, and they have rather small teams considering the demands of today.

There's plenty to do in terms of Blue Ocean in the gaming market. They used the DS as an island to create the Wii, and now they're using mobile as an island to create the Switch.

People who want them to go Red Ocean are only in it for themselves. It is not the best route for Nintendo.

 

[Schnozberry]

As a graphical nut the 90s belong to powervr/3dfx without them industry would still be stuck in the past. Even then I disagree nintendo ignored the sports craze of that era and in the next decade, never captilizing on it with pathetic attempts to do so. Nintendo had nothing to do with the various fps moments, with exception of goldeneye. I do like goldeneye but it's not doom or counter strike in terms of influence or impact. They had a few bright moments and post snes they weren't the talk of the town with exception to mario64 or zelda influence on games.

I wouldn't call keep development information to themselves or having crap tools a short coming it's quite unethical to say the least what bullshit they were pulling with devs that made bad blood. I wouldn't call using dumb storage formats for more profit a shortcoming when they knew better. I still think the bad blood is there in the mind of any 3rd party who has had history with with them and it speaks volumes developers would rather trust Microsoft on games publishing or development over nintendo considering their mistakes in the industry.

Well, I was referring more to who was making all the money at the time. PowerVR and 3DFX's contributions were major, along with companies like S3, ATI, and Matrox, and they made gaming on PC vibrant and diverse. But also a pain in the ass with competing standards. I agree Nintendo's influence died right about the mid 90s with the release of the PSX.

But we're way off topic here.

 

[Donnie]

It's pretty difficult to say precisely (there are an awful lot of variables), but just taking TSMC's public comments on the processes can give us a reasonable idea. On their 20nm process (they only have one, compared to I believe six 28nm processes), they claim:



The problem is that they don't specify which of their 28nm processes they're comparing to. It might be assumed that they'll give themselves the most favourable comparison, which would be 28LP, although this would actually make 20nm less power efficient than 28HPC, let alone 28HPC+, as they say:.

What's leading you to think they might be using one of these newer 28nm processes rather than 20nm? Just based on the info about the newer 28nm processes being as good as 20nm and cheaper or something else?

I mean I can't see anything we know now technically that suggests 28nm, not if its a process as power efficient as 20nm.

 

[Schopenhauerian]

It's not just hardware. They refused to assist with marketing, or bundle high profile third party software with consoles, or even assist with adequate technical documentation and support, leading to their own in house development teams putting out better looking and performing games...

I've read a bit about some of the problems in the N64 era:

...Another problem with the N64 was the whole microcode thing. The graphics unit was somewhat programmable (in a very primitive way) and the SDK shipped with SGI's provided microcode that implemented all the basic stuff like vertex transformation and lighting. However, SGI's microcode was designed for accuracy (not performance), was badly documented and Nintendo didn't allow developers to write custom microcode until very late in the system's life, which is when we got actual system-pushers from the likes of Factor 5 and Rare...

...Because what you're missing is that the N64 uses a LOT of hardware power to keep polygons where they should be, while the PS1 uses none because it can't do that. If Fast3d -- that is, the N64 microcode with none of those features -- had been allowed, N64 games would look as inaccurate as PS1 games, with texture warping and polygon popping... Nintendo chose to require better-quality graphics instead... While it is true that a few developers were given the ability to do their own microcode, Nintendo had to really be pushed to allow it, and very, very few third-party studios were ever given the information necessary to do their own microcode. Looking at Boss Games and Factor 5's games shows what you can do with your own microcode, but not many others managed to convince Nintendo to let them try...

But wasn't the GameCube ultimately very developer-friendly?

...The N64 had a weird architecture full of bottlenecks that made it a pain to get good performance from. The near complete lack of sound hardware, for example, required developers to use precious CPU time and RAM to perform software sound synth and mixing. Nintendo was really soured with the experience, which made them work hard on making the GC architecture as friendly as possible...

 

[Malakai]

Unbunch your panties, he's probably talking about audience size rather than demographic.

Which makes more sense, developing for a platform with 50 million+ potential customers, or a platform with likely less than a 10th of that? (At least for the first 6 months after launch)

Lovely, the false dichotomy fallacy.

 

[Schnozberry]

But wasn't the GameCube ultimately very developer-friendly?

Yes, but the media format made a lot of projects difficult. They also didn't approach third parties directly, believing they would come to them. This was after deliberately making N64 development as difficult as they could in an effort to turn off low skill developers.

Nintendo's story over the last 20 years is very interesting. They had amazing successes with the DS and Wii U, and everything else has been crippled by hubris or the unintended consequences of doing things the Nintendo way.

 

[Osiris]

Yes, but the media format made a lot of projects difficult. They also didn't approach third parties directly, believing they would come to them. This was after deliberately making N64 development as difficult as they could in an effort to turn off low skill developers.

Nintendo's story over the last 20 years is very interesting. They had amazing successes with the DS and Wii U, and everything else has been crippled by hubris or the unintended consequences of doing things the Nintendo way.

You also can't ignore the difference in corporate perception of 3rd parties and the effects that had on 3rd party relations between Nintendo and their rivals.

Nintendo saw 3rd parties primarily as competition to their 1st party titles, and were reluctant to treat them as necessary to the health of their platforms compared to both Sony & Microsoft, who saw partnerships and larger 3rd party libraries as key.

Admittedly Sony & MS had no choice in this, without 3rd parties there really would not have been much content on their systems, compared to Nintendo with it's stronger 1st party teams.

I imagine that has changed to some degree now, but it was a culture difference that has been a hard hurdle for Nintendo to overcome, assuming they have.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

I've read a bit about some of the problems in the N64 era:




But wasn't the GameCube ultimately very developer-friendly?

Sorta. Third parties weren't super happy with the controller, the weird Z button (and only one of them), or the game size. I talked to a developer once who believed in his heart of hearts that Nintendo deliberately wanted to keep disc capacity low because they controlled disc production, so being forced to make more discs meant more money for Nintendo.

I believe Factor 5 begged Nintendo for a RAM bump as well, believing it would make the Gamecube far and away the strongest system on the market, but Nintendo refused.

 

[Malakai]

Yes, but the media format made a lot of projects difficult. They also didn't approach third parties directly, believing they would come to them. This was after deliberately making N64 development as difficult as they could in an effort to turn off low skill developers.

Nintendo's story over the last 20 years is very interesting. They had amazing successes with the DS and Wii U, and everything else has been crippled by hubris or the unintended consequences of doing things the Nintendo way.

Any documented cases for that? DVD media wasn't that big of deal with the 360 vs the PS3's blu ray disc...

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Any documented cases for that? DVD media wasn't that big of deal with the 360 vs the PS3's blu ray disc...

That's because games were built for the 360 and publishers could outsource production of DVDs.

 

[Schnozberry]

Any documented cases for that? DVD media wasn't that big of deal with the 360 vs the PS3's blu ray disc...

It wasn't the storage size, like many believe, but how much it limited how games could be pressed and distributed. Along with low sales of the platform, low software sales for third parties, and Nintendo's general attitude at the time, the platform was less attractive than if Nintendo had chosen to drop their hubris.

Here's a quote from Iwata at the time:

The GameCube has been well received by the development community, but we don’t believe in overwhelming third party support. However, we’re certainly talking with more developers about the possibility of working together. Frequently, developers use our platforms solely for their own self-interests, so it’s hard to form management relationships. Rather than business to business relationships, we’ve chosen more personal collaborations such as creator to creator. Capcom’s decision to release Biohazard on the GameCube is a direct result of that.

 

[Skittzo0413]

It wasn't the storage size, like many believe, but how much it limited how games could be pressed and distributed. Along with low sales of the platform, low software sales for third parties, and Nintendo's general attitude at the time, the platform was less attractive than if Nintendo had chosen to drop their hubris.

Here's a quote from Iwata at the time:

It would be really interesting to see how Iwata's attitude has changed since then and how Kimishima sees third party relations like this.

It's pretty fascinating to look at the evolution of Nintendo and the industry side by side.

 

[Osiris]

It would be really interesting to see how Iwata's attitude has changed since then and how Kimishima sees third party relations like this.

It's pretty fascinating to look at the evolution of Nintendo and the industry side by side.

Has changed?

 

[Skittzo0413]

Has changed?

I'm pretty sure after the Wii U and 3DS he must have changed his attitude quite a bit. The Switch is based on his strategy after all, and you can tell by the reveal trailer that they've changed at the very least their marketing focus.

Maybe has wasn't the right word, but "had" would work. Sadly.

 

[Schnozberry]

It would be really interesting to see how Iwata's attitude has changed since then and how Kimishima sees third party relations like this.

It's pretty fascinating to look at the evolution of Nintendo and the industry side by side.

Iwata was clearly a different man after being an executive for 10+ years. This was shortly after he took over for Yamauchi, and it was the attitude pervasive in the entire company at the time.

The Wii and DS vindicated their stance that they can go it alone, which made the Wii U's failure and subsequent rebuttal of their corporate vision all the more devastating. Iwata's new vision was a lot more willing to embrace industry standards and trends, which the Switch seems setup to accommodate.

 

[Osiris]

What do you all EA releasing mass effect then a week later announcing te collection for ps360. Again Nintendo hasn't been great but publishers and devs could be better they are not perfect and to suggest it's all on Nintendo is not accurate. There have been plenty of games on Nintendo console from third parties that "look good" but haven't sold well. What is the definition of "look good" anyway? That could mean anything to many different people. It is what it is like I said everyone needs to step up to the plate to make switch success no one is more important than the other in this equation they all are needed. Especially in Nintendo case.

3rd parties have no obligation to do jack shit for Nintendo to be frank, it's on the platform provider to make a compelling case, sell the platform and provide a compelling business reason for development on their platform, this "spread the blame" bullshit is exactly that, bullshit.

Nintendo doesn't exist in a vacuum, 3rd parties have other options, and obviously Nintendo have failed, for one reason or another, to make the business proposition of development on their platorm worthwhile, the why of that is unknown but could be anything from licensing, lack of support, intransigence or even a rude phone manner for all we know, the results with the Wii-U spoke for itself, 3rd parties abandoned the platform before it was obvious that sales were going to be as flat as they were long term, not just after.

The responsibility of the success of a platform lies entirely 100% on the platform provider, including the state of 3rd party partnerships on that platform.

 

[lwilliams3]

It wasn't the storage size, like many believe, but how much it limited how games could be pressed and distributed. Along with low sales of the platform, low software sales for third parties, and Nintendo's general attitude at the time, the platform was less attractive than if Nintendo had chosen to drop their hubris.

Here's a quote from Iwata at the time:

That does make a lot more sense than for it to be an issue with disc space. Btw, thanks for linking to that TX1 PDF file earlier.

 

[EDarkness]

3rd parties have no obligation to do jack shit for Nintendo to be frank, it's on the platform provider to make a compelling case, sell the platform and provide a compelling business reason for development on their platform, this "spread the blame" bullshit is exactly that, bullshit.

Nintendo doesn't exist in a vacuum, 3rd parties have other options, and obviously Nintendo have failed, for one reason or another, to make the business proposition of development on their platorm worthwhile, the why of that is unknown but could be anything from licensing, lack of support, intransigence or even a rude phone manner for all we know, the results with the Wii-U spoke for itself, 3rd parties abandoned the platform before it was obvious that sales were going to be as flat as they were long term, not just after.

The responsibility of the success of a platform lies entirely 100% on the platform provider, including the state of 3rd party partnerships on that platform.

This is not true at all. I don't know why you guys are giving devs and publishers a pass here. It's their job to make games we want to play. We are under no obligation to buy their product, therefore their product has to be compelling. Sure, Nintendo has to take some of the blame. However, it's not Nintendo who puts out a bad game. If I make a game today and it's crappy and doesn't sell, should I blame Nintendo for that? Is it their fault that I made a crappy game and couldn't convince people to buy it? No, it isn't. Gamers don't have to buy their stuff and if their games can't click with players, they bomb. Every developer/publisher takes that risk. The final product is theirs, though.

Right now I'm making a game across multiple platforms. Linux, Wii U, PC, and Mac. My main development is on a Mac so that version runs tops on different Mac hardware. I have to spend time getting it to function properly on the other platforms...even using Unity. I try to understand the intricacies related to each platform, but it does require a bit of work to get everything working properly. There are always some niggly little things that pop up and I have to work through those on the target platforms. If I end up releasing a crappy Wii U version, then who gets the blame for that? Nintendo? The player? I decided to work on my game and chose the platforms knowing good and well that there would be challenges. I can either cut my losses and drop a version, own up to the fact that one of them is crappy, or try to make them all the best they can be. I suppose I could blame Nintendo (Sony or Microsoft) for why my game didn't run well on their hardware.

Anyway, I'm being longwinded just to point out that it's not the hardware manufacturers who create these games. Devs, publishers, and hardware manufacturers are all involved. If some third party puts out some shitty game and expects us to buy them, then they're out of their damn mind. We should buy crap just because they did us a "favor" by putting it on a Nintendo platform? That's not how this works.

 

[lwilliams3]

3rd parties have no obligation to do jack shit for Nintendo to be frank, it's on the platform provider to make a compelling case, sell the platform and provide a compelling business reason for development on their platform, this "spread the blame" bullshit is exactly that, bullshit.

Nintendo doesn't exist in a vacuum, 3rd parties have other options, and obviously Nintendo have failed, for one reason or another, to make the business proposition of development on their platorm worthwhile, the why of that is unknown but could be anything from licensing, lack of support, intransigence or even a rude phone manner for all we know, the results with the Wii-U spoke for itself, 3rd parties abandoned the platform before it was obvious that sales were going to be as flat as they were long term, not just after.

The responsibility of the success of a platform lies entirely 100% on the platform provider, including the state of 3rd party partnerships on that platform.

In the case of EA, they screwed their own teams that was working on those Wii U games. There is naturally a case to be made about Nintendo not knowing what to do with their platform, but it shouldn't excuse EA for doing things the way they did.

 

[Osiris]

This is not true at all. I don't know why you guys are giving devs and publishers a pass here. It's their job to make games we want to play. We are under no obligation to buy their product, therefore their product has to be compelling. Sure, Nintendo has to take some of the blame. However, it's not Nintendo who puts out a bad game. If I make a game today and it's crappy and doesn't sell, should I blame Nintendo for that? Is it their fault that I made a crappy game and couldn't convince people to buy it? No, it isn't. Gamers don't have to buy their stuff and if their games can't click with players, they bomb. Every developer/publisher takes that risk. The final product is theirs, though.

Right now I'm making a game across multiple platforms. Linux, Wii U, PC, and Mac. My main development is on a Mac so that version runs tops on different Mac hardware. I have to spend time getting it to function properly on the other platforms...even using Unity. I try to understand the intricacies related to each platform, but it does require a bit of work to get everything working properly. There are always some niggly little things that pop up and I have to work through those on the target platforms. If I end up releasing a crappy Wii U version, then who gets the blame for that? Nintendo? The player? I decided to work on my game and chose the platforms knowing good and well that there would be challenges. I can either cut my losses and drop a version, own up to the fact that one of them is crappy, or try to make them all the best they can be. I suppose I could blame Nintendo (Sony or Microsoft) for why my game didn't run well on their hardware.

Anyway, I'm being longwinded just to point out that it's not the hardware manufacturers who create these games. Devs, publishers, and hardware manufacturers are all involved. If some third party puts out some shitty game and expects us to buy them, then they're out of their damn mind. We should buy crap just because they did us a "favor" by putting it on a Nintendo platform? That's not how this works.

That's with respect to 3rd parties being responsible for making the compelling business case for their own product, and for that I agree 100%. They do, and if they fail to do so the failure of their product is on them and no-one else.

However Tron#1 went further than that and placed responsibility for the platforms success lying equally with 3rd parties, and that is what my post addresses as bullshit.

To quote:

I said everyone needs to step up to the plate to make switch success no one is more important than the other in this equation they all are needed. Especially in Nintendo case.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

3rd parties have no obligation to do jack shit for Nintendo to be frank, it's on the platform provider to make a compelling case, sell the platform and provide a compelling business reason for development on their platform, this "spread the blame" bullshit is exactly that, bullshit.

I agree its on Nintendo to improve third party relations. But I also believe its on third parties to set their titles up for success. They consistently do this weird dumb shit on Nintendo systems that is unexplainable.

Sports games that sold fine on the Gamecube suddenly had this weird ass shit branding and promotion on Wii. Bigger budget rail shooters based on just like "nothing". Like no one interested in Dead Space thought "oh dead space rail shooter that is what I want". Etc etc.

Sometimes I dont get wtf they are doing on Nintendo systems. If you want a piece of the more enthusiest userbase you actually have to put out a quality project on time. They rarely do that. I totally blame the publisher for releasing shit and expecting that consumers are gonna be in for it.

 

[EDarkness]

That's with respect to 3rd parties being responsible for making the compelling business case for their own product, and for that I agree 100%. They do, and if they fail to do so the failure of their product is on them and no-one else.

However Tron#1 went further than that and placed responsibility for the platforms success lying equally with 3rd parties, and that is what my post addresses as bullshit.

I do agree that everyone has to do their part, but you're also right that the platform holder has to make a compelling case to the public why their hardware is worth buying. This also means setting some sort of standard for software quality, functionality, and features. There's a balance there, but it's not the platform holder's job to sell third party games. If I want my games to sell, then I have to do what's required to do that. Platform holder's can make my job easier by making better tools and structure for selling my games, but making and promoting is all me.

 

[Osiris]

I agree its on Nintendo to improve third party relations. But I also believe its on third parties to set their titles up for success. They consistently do this weird dumb shit on Nintendo systems that is unexplainable.

Sports games that sold fine on the Gamecube suddenly had this weird ass shit branding and promotion on Wii. Bigger budget rail shooters based on just like "nothing". Like no one interested in Dead Space thought "oh dead space rail shooter that is what I want". Etc etc.

Sometimes I dont get wtf they are doing on Nintendo systems. If you want a piece of the more enthusiest userbase you actually have to put out a quality project on time. They rarely do that. I totally blame the publisher for releasing shit and expecting that consumers are gonna be in for it.

Here's the thing:

3rd Party #1: Releases title on a Sony platform, no "weird ass shit" in sight, They do the same on Microsofts platform and again, no "weird ass shit", they release on a Nintendo platform and there's this weird ass shit going on, repeat for 3rd party #2, and 3rd party #3... and so on, so what's going on, what is the common denominator? Nintendo.

Whether it's odd TRC's, a demand for "Blue Ocean" only-on-our system exclusive features, strong development / publishing direction from Nintendo that gets that "weird ass shit" in the game or inability to make something happen on Nintendo systems that they have no trouble with on the competition, there is something about the Nintendo / 3rd party relationship that makes this happen, and given we don't see it happen much if at all on the competitors points to something being different about dealing with Nintendo, one way or another.

And I'm not going to take "grudges" or jealousy, or any other fanciful emotional reason for this being the case, it's a business decision for one reason or another and unless you ascribe it to either silly "everyone has it out to kill Nintendo" conspiracy theories or other ridiculous excuses the reason has to lie somehow, somewhere with Nintendo and their relationships with 3rd parties.

I do agree that everyone has to do their part, but you're also right that the platform holder has to make a compelling case to the public why their hardware is worth buying. This also means setting some sort of standard for software quality, functionality, and features. There's a balance there, but it's not the platform holder's job to sell third party games. If I want my games to sell, then I have to do what's required to do that. Platform holder's can make my job easier by making better tools and structure for selling my games, but making and promoting is all me.

Cannot disagree with any of that.

 

[FyreWulff]

Here's the thing:

3rd Party #1: Releases title on a Sony platform, no "weird ass shit" in sight, They do the same on Microsofts platform and again, no "weird ass shit", they release on a Nintendo platform and there's this weird ass shit going on, repeat for 3rd party #2, and 3rd party #3... and so on, so what's going on, what is the common denominator? Nintendo.

Whether it's odd TRC's, a demand for "Blue Ocean" only-on-our system exclusive features, or inability to make something happen on Nintendo systems that they have no trouble with on the competition, there is something about the Nintendo / 3rd party relationship that makes this happen, and given we don't see it happen much if at all on the competitors points to something being different about dealing with Nintendo, one way or another.

And I'm not going to take "grudges" or jealousy, or any other fanciful emotional reason for this being the case, it's a business decision for one reason or another and unless you ascribe it to either silly "everyone has it out to kill Nintendo" conspiracy theories or other ridiculous excuses the reason has to lie somehow, somewhere with Nintendo and their relationships with 3rd parties..

The only console makers I know with "feature requirements" in their TRCs and licensing are Sony and Microsoft.

Nintendo never required use of motion on Wii, and didn't even require the use of touch on DS.

Stupid decisions lay solely at the feet of third parties whenever they do stupid shit.

 

[brad-t]

Nintendo is a multi billion dollar company. There is nothing stopping them from competing directly with their competition besides their own internal culture and philosophies.

This is seriously disingenuous. No, Nintendo cannot feasibly compete with companies like Sony and Microsoft in terms of manufacturing powerful tech at scale in the year 2017. Nintendo is a valuable company with a lot of cash, but that's an incomplete picture of their situation versus their competitors.

What they can do is innovate laterally by pursuing strategies their competitors aren't incentivized to pursue and finding new ways to provide value without increasing cost.

 

[Osiris]

The only console makers I know with "feature requirements" in their TRCs and licensing are Sony and Microsoft.

Nintendo never required use of motion on Wii, and didn't even require the use of touch on DS.

Stupid decisions lay solely at the feet of third parties whenever they do stupid shit.

You and I both know that TRC's alone are not the only club a platform holder can use with 3rd parties & publishers as far as pushing development directions in.

That's of course not the only viable reason, there are scarier options (for Nintendo) such as Nintendo platforms are not being taken entirely seriously and are being used as testing grounds for ideas that really should have been cut long before the feature freeze.

 

[EDarkness]

Here's the thing:

3rd Party #1: Releases title on a Sony platform, no "weird ass shit" in sight, They do the same on Microsofts platform and again, no "weird ass shit", they release on a Nintendo platform and there's this weird ass shit going on, repeat for 3rd party #2, and 3rd party #3... and so on, so what's going on, what is the common denominator? Nintendo.

Whether it's odd TRC's, a demand for "Blue Ocean" only-on-our system exclusive features, strong development / publishing direction from Nintendo that gets that "weird ass shit" in the game or inability to make something happen on Nintendo systems that they have no trouble with on the competition, there is something about the Nintendo / 3rd party relationship that makes this happen, and given we don't see it happen much if at all on the competitors points to something being different about dealing with Nintendo, one way or another.

And I'm not going to take "grudges" or jealousy, or any other fanciful emotional reason for this being the case, it's a business decision for one reason or another and unless you ascribe it to either silly "everyone has it out to kill Nintendo" conspiracy theories or other ridiculous excuses the reason has to lie somehow, somewhere with Nintendo and their relationships with 3rd parties.

As a Nintendo developer, I can tell you that they don't have any "weird" requirements. You can make whatever you want as long as your game isn't rated AO. My game is pretty heavy in crazy themes and they're totally okay with it. There were no "blue ocean" requirements for Wii games. Developers and pubs decided on that all on their own. Why? Who the hell knows, but it was dumb and they paid for it. I do agree that Nintendo should have clamped down on that shit, but they don't dictate what developers make on their system. Maybe they're two lax in that area, but the moment they start doing that stuff, you can be there would be some article about how Nintendo is stopping people from making the games they want to make.

I think the issue is that just because Nintendo is "different" publishers feel like they have to be "different", too. Which is wrong. I say (and so does Nintendo), make the games you're good at. Devs don't want to do that for whatever reason and that's on them.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

And I'm not going to take "grudges" or jealousy, or any other fanciful emotional reason for this being the case, it's a business decision for one reason or another and unless you ascribe it to either silly "everyone has it out to kill Nintendo" conspiracy theories or other ridiculous excuses the reason has to lie somehow, somewhere with Nintendo and their relationships with 3rd parties.

I dunno why you are even bringing in grudges. All I am saying is if 3rd party developers wanna make software for enthusiest gamers then you can't release a shit featured game. That isn't Nintendo. You bring up all this stuff without any actual knowledge of the ins and outs and then mention this "everyone has it out for Nintendo" like that was my point.

My point was 3rd parties make unappealing software for Nintendo consoles and then wonder why it doesn't sell. It's because your game is shit and the people it is suppose to appeal to know better or dont want it. That has nothing to do with Nintendo. If you want sales I have a full expectation that you provide something people actually want. Very little third party games on the WiiU were worth the investment. I have a PS3. I'm not buying ME3 when ME Trilogy exists.

Some of the competent WiiU titles saw better sales. It was a damn failed system though that sold what it deserved but the best third party efforts like Rayman or MH3U saw some better success.

What part of dont release mediocre shit or unappealing titles simply because Nintendo is so hard to understand? Nintendo isn't holding a gun to anyones head pushing direction. They would love CoD on their system every year. They would love star wars. You know that this "oh maybe nintendo is pushing it" line is garbage.

I think the issue is that just because Nintendo is "different" publishers feel like they have to be "different", too. Which is wrong. I say (and so does Nintendo), make the games you're good at. Devs don't want to do that for whatever reason and that's on them.

Personally this is what I think is going on. And I see validity and not wanting to just duplicate efforts on other systems. But if you want to be different there has to also be an audience for your shit. I also in general just think that since Nintendo sucked ass at cultivating the types of games that push Sony and Microsoft systems their platform is just an after thought and treated as such. I don't blame third parties for feeling Nintendo systems are meh w/e not our main market. But I do blame them for not releasing appealing products. It's a tough market, people dont wanna buy shit.

 

[Osiris]

As a Nintendo developer, I can tell you that they don't have any "weird" requirements. You can make whatever you want as long as your game isn't rated AO. My game is pretty heavy in crazy themes and they're totally okay with it. There were no "blue ocean" requirements for Wii games. Developers and pubs decided on that all on their own. Why? Who the hell knows, but it was dumb and they paid for it. I do agree that Nintendo should have clamped down on that shit, but they don't dictate what developers make on their system. Maybe they're two lax in that area, but the moment they start doing that stuff, you can be there would be some article about how Nintendo is stopping people from making the games they want to make.

I think the issue is that just because Nintendo is "different" publishers feel like they have to be "different", too. Which is wrong. I say (and so does Nintendo), make the games you're good at. Devs don't want to do that for whatever reason and that's on them.

That's actually a really good point I had not considered, I would have thought Nintendo were more stringent with TRC's than their competition rather than less, I honestly hadn't considered the possibility that they could actually be giving 3rd parties more leeway and providing too much freedom for 3rd parties, for better or worse.

Interesting.

 

[Smurfman256]

As a Nintendo developer, I can tell you that they don't have any "weird" requirements. You can make whatever you want as long as your game isn't rated AO. My game is pretty heavy in crazy themes and they're totally okay with it. There were no "blue ocean" requirements for Wii games. Developers and pubs decided on that all on their own. Why? Who the hell knows, but it was dumb and they paid for it. I do agree that Nintendo should have clamped down on that shit, but they don't dictate what developers make on their system. Maybe they're two lax in that area, but the moment they start doing that stuff, you can be there would be some article about how Nintendo is stopping people from making the games they want to make.

I think the issue is that just because Nintendo is "different" publishers feel like they have to be "different", too. Which is wrong. I say (and so does Nintendo), make the games you're good at. Devs don't want to do that for whatever reason and that's on them.

So, for Nintendo systems, the TRCs are like the Pirate's Code (they're really more like guidelines) whereas for Sony and MS, they say "you're going to put these features into your title or we're revoking your license"?

 

[Osiris]

So, for Nintendo systems, the TRCs are like the Pirate's Code (they're really more like guidelines) whereas for Sony and MS, they say "you're going to put these features into your title or we're revoking your license"?

That's not what a TRC is, they don't outline features, but more mundane arbitrary rules for things like "Don't make the console shit the bed" and "Don't make the user wait for longer than XX seconds" etc.

None (that I'm aware of) have ever been anything other than fairly generic across all titles on the platform.

 

[EDarkness]

So, for Nintendo systems, the TRCs are like the Pirate's Code (they're really more like guidelines) whereas for Sony and MS, they say "you're going to put these features into your title or we're revoking your license"?

There are some standards that I can't get into, but for the most part developers can make whatever they want as long as they're "games". I haven't seen them outright reject something and hell they let Meme Run and The Letter get released and I'm still wondering why they let those games through. Still, devs decide what they want to make and Nintendo is pretty much hands off.

 

[AzaK]

I'm failing to come up with what the more profitable thing a theoretical GTAV Switch port team could be doing is. A port of one of the biggest continuous sellers to a new audience on hardware that should have no problems running it seems about as close to easy money as one could get.

It's still selling millions years after release, though. The number of GTAV copies that haven't been sold yet is probably greater than the vast majority of new games to be released this year.

You have to take a lot into consideration though.

- How much is a port of a game that big - 1 million? 3?
- How many sales do you think the console will do in your projected timeframe? Even if the game sold gangbusters (20% attach rate like on other platforms) will that make you profit over your expenditure?
- Are most of the people who want the game already on a console powerful enough to play it. If so, why bother with the Switch version?
- Even if the numbers do come out as generating profit you have to also then think "OK, if we spent the same amount on something else, would we make more money"

 

[EDarkness]

You have to take a lot into consideration though.

- How much is a port of a game that big - 1 million? 3?
- How many sales do you think the console will do in your projected timeframe? Even if the game sold gangbusters (20% attach rate like on other platforms) will that make you profit over your expenditure?
- Are most of the people who want the game already on a console powerful enough to play it. If so, why bother with the Switch version?
- Even if the numbers do come out as generating profit you have to also then think "OK, if we spent the same amount on something else, would we make more money"

I doubt porting GTA V will cost a million to port. Most likely they'll put one or two guys on it, then do some QA. Don't need a huge team for this. If they want to add something to the game (motion controls or something), then maybe add another person or two. Either way, it won't reach a million dollars to port.

 

[Osiris]

There are some standards that I can't get into, but for the most part developers can make whatever they want as long as they're "games". I haven't seen them outright reject something and hell they let Meme Run and The Letter get released and I'm still wondering why they let those games through. Still, devs decide what they want to make and Nintendo is pretty much hands off.

As long as you remember to dot your i's and cross your t's

A Lot check that I found hilarious, given the above context, and that meeting them is literally dotting your i's & crossing your t's

 

[FyreWulff]

I think one of the most frustrating ones was that Microsoft wouldn't license a game if it used both Kinect body detection and a controller or any sort of prop, because since marketing / higher ups decided that it was controllerless, that meant ALWAYS controllerless. No matter what. You could only use voice commands in a controller game.

The developers behind Baller Beats had to convince Microsoft to let people use a basketball.

Meanwhile over on Wii you could literally let people use a cardboard box with your game as a peripheral.