Ah, the "good business" excuse I was expecting you to throw once more.
I didn't say it was "good business". I said it was "business" with no qualifier. It was retrospectively poor decision making with regard to the Wii. While decisions made prior to the release of the PS3 proved poor, and restricted potential subsequent decisions.
Avoiding the Wii U is not, at this juncture, poor decision making. As a whole, many third parties are being extremely conservative and entering a phase of consolidation.
Ok, then explain me, if third-parties "are made on the basis of what key decision makers think will make the most money", then why they gave such major support to a machine that was less profitable than the mobile market in 2007? If they look for a machine which can offer them most money, it makes no sense for why they prefered to support a system under such circunstances while Wii had record-breaking sales and was more profitable, as the EA link I provided proves that.
Because they had a market on the platform. Because they had investments in HD development.
You want to color this as some sort of emotional decision.
Madden NFL 07 (Electronic Arts) - 264K
Need for Speed: Carbon (Electronic Arts) - 147K
Fight Night Round 3 (Electronic Arts) - 121K
Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2 (Activision) - 120K
NPD, after three months on a 932K installed base.
That's why this "good business" excuse don't hold any water and, if they wanted, they could support WiiU.
No EA game had sold over 100K after 3 months on the Wii U. No EA game has sold over 150K after 7 months on the Wii U. Based on revenue, the average US sales for a 3rd party game on the Wii U is less than 40K.
They aren't in some sort of intractable position where they
need the Wii U. It isn't increasing their addressable audience and they expect transition will occur to the Xbox One and PS4, which are positioned more towards their target markets.
The Wii brand was big and already proved success, why do you believe supporting a brand which was able to sell close to 100M worldwide is a "risky and untested proposition"? It gets even stranger after what you said:
If you consider this a reason for supporting the PS3, then why would you disconsider Wii's success to help WiiU? It doesn't make sense.
The Wii brand
was big, with a different audience than what publishers target their AAA properties towards.
When the Wii U was announced the 360 was the market leader, the Wii gradually losing marketshare and mindshare until its successor released.
The situations are simply not the same. Presumably you quoted my post above detailing the myriad differences without reading it, because you're ignoring it in its entirety.
Neither Sony is their platform. The self-fulfilling prophecy keeps on.
I didn't say it was. The PS4 is Sony's platform. It is theirs to set the tone, to position in the market place, to build an audience conducive to titles they want on it. Sony and Microsoft have spent over a decade building their brand and cultivating an audience for the titles that third parties make. An installed base is not the same as an audience.
WiiU isn't the first time third-parties fuck up on a Nintendo platform, this is actually old news circa the GameCube days. GCN had third-parties games which had solid sales and, for strange reasons, where later canned, never got a sequel or got a very late port. Star Wars games, Tales of series, Mortal Kombat Deception and Burnout 3 comes to mind.
If the WiiU was the first time they made a confidence shaken mistake repelling the third-party support, like they're doing now, then yes, these issues would be valid. But no, they fucked up with GCN and Wii, too.
As usual, Nintendo detractors try to point the blame solely for them and try to pose third-parties as "clever" for ignoring it.
It's not about "blame," it's about need and viable options. Again you want to make this an emotional discussion.
I feel like these discussions tend to repeat...
If Nintendo wanted studios like Bethesda and Rockstar on their system then yes, a system of more comparable power to the other two would be more conducive to multiplatform development and would provide greater incentive for upgrade and transition for the intended market from the current gen systems. They should have positioned the system more towards those markets, even if at risk of losing some of their family friendly brand image. They should be producing software more in line with attracting those audiences. The system should have been made with ease of development in mind, first and foremost, not only for their internal studios, but for external studios.
If being the operative word. That isn't the only model.
Alternatively, they could have gone in the other direction; they could have had a low cost alternative to next gen systems with their strong family friendly properties and created a separate lucrative market for titles from third parties aimed at females of all ages, older audiences, younger males. They could have made a more accessible platform, as the Wii should have shown them accessibility was a major pain point for the "casual" audience, rather than one which apparently the virtues of need elaborate explanation.
But instead they ended up trying to appease both markets simultaneously and have failed to capture either in great number.
A system that isn't really targeted at the "core" in its design, aesthetic and first party software; a system that doesn't inspire transition from current generation systems, due to a dearth in hardware power - why "upgrade"? Lacking the catalog software, with less new software and at a higher price, with a less developed and populated online infrastructure.
A system whose USP is alienating to parts of the "casual" market rather than accessible, while simultaneously striking as a me-too proposition in the face of smart devices to others; at a price point too high to appeal to these expanded audiences, despite the product identity and software more in tune with the demographics of these audiences.
If Nintendo wants games like GTA on their platform,
they need to build the market for it, and
they need to prove the market for it. Because Rockstar simply isn't going to.
As you said, Nintendo needs third-parties. If they're looking for money, as yourself is convicted since you defend the "good business" thesis, they might find a potential market if they go forth and decide to support Nintendo platforms. Of course, Nintendo does need to change, too, especially it's direction. They're conservative and out of touch with modern industry and they're need new blood in their leadership, but without third-parties they won't succeed.
It is not the responsibility of third parties to lose money propping up Nintendo. Unless they see some sort of self-interest in doing so they simply won't.
And no, Nintendo don't need to change their focus, if they don't really want AAA third party properties on their platform. Third parties will put games on the platform that they see an audience for. Warner is proceeding with LEGO Marvel and Scribblenauts DC, Activision will continue to Skylanders even if they stop putting COD on it, Sega will put Sonic on it even after Yakuza HD bombs, Ubisoft will put Just Dance 2015 on it.
