If Nintendo went 3rd party, would the quality of their games drop?
- Thread starter Doosi
- Start date
It wouldn't change *anything* ?
archreaper93
Member
Is that acceptable to you? Having a reduced output but having that output available everywhere? I want more games being made, not less.
And how much do you see that being reduced by? My optimistic estimate is 1-2 games per year that aren't Mario/Zelda/Pokemon.
-Mutsukki-
Member
Maybe not quality, but we'd see less of them or even Nintendo just dying really fast. Sega is still up mostly because of their pachinko side. I honestly think it'd kill a lot of their drive too. Also as everyone said already, less variety.
archreaper93
Member
Why do you think Playstation/Xbox gamers who mainly like mature games, shooters, open world games, etc. would buy the games Nintendo makes?
Yeah, and there's a reason for that. They don't sell.
CaviarMeths
Member
You're pulling a lot of numbers out of your ass here.
I highly doubt any Nintendo franchise would sell 5x as many copies on PS4/XB1, let alone their most reliable system sellers. You specifically mention SM3DW and MK8. They sold 5.2 million and 8 million copies on Wii U, respectively. By your math, that's 26 million for SM3DW on PS4 and 40 million for MK8. That would be far more than what those series sold on Wii with 100 million consoles sold. MKW sold 36 million, and that was being a pack-in title for a long time. SMG sold 12 million and is widely considered not only one of the best Mario games, but one of the best games period.
It's not a direct 1:1. You can't just say "oh, there's 5x as many PS4s sold as Wii Us, therefore Mario Kart would sell 5x better on PS4." People buy Wii Us just to play Mario Kart. Chances are they already have a PS4 as well. The only difference on Nintendo's end would be that now they're not making any money on hardware and they're also having to pay Sony a fee to publish on their store.
Bolded is also true for publishing on their own hardware. In fact they have even less competition for family-friendly AAA games on their own hardware, and their characters are still widely recognized.
It is a give and take relationship. It's important to not be distracted by revenue when profit is what really matters. Hardware R&D, developing and maintaining and operating system(s), platform specific development tools and support for first and third party developers, fighting for retail shelf space, maintaining wide online services, hardware specific advertising, these are all costs that third party developers find themselves largely freed from.
Hardware, particularly hardware focused on video games, is just not a viable long term market. The earlier Nintendo can pivot away from it the better really. Their success has ultimately been about making video games people want to play, so it's better not to get caught up on chasing hardware when the market for that is completely oversaturated. When the hardware space is so crowded Nintendo is unable to charge a premium for devices, so expecting massive returns from the sector is just a lost cause.
People should avoid drawing comparisons to Sega, who were overwhelmed by financial and management troubles that had them burning down pieces of their business. People worrying about shrinking variety in Nintendo's catalogue should reflect on the situation with Rare, or how Monolith Soft is having at least some of their resources diverted to building the new Zelda.
wonderful103
Member
A post proprietary hardware/walled garden future is the future for everyone. The hardware Nintendo would move to is very clearly going to be mobile. Only mobile.
The structure of the company would likely change pretty drastically if they're not looking to bolster support for their own platform and are exposed to the same environment other third parties are. A lot of people are saying their major IPs would survive, but I doubt most of them would last without specific hardware to cater to. Mario probably will, but I see Zelda on a Sony platform as a novelty that would be shocking at first and wear thin as years past. I don't see Zelda existing the way it does with Nintendo platforms.
Nintendo would survive on those platforms better than Sega if they went third party, but I doubt their output would be nearly what is now.
Nintendo would survive on those platforms better than Sega if they went third party, but I doubt their output would be nearly what is now.
I believe the point he's trying to make (which I agree with) is that since they'd be selling their games to a much larger install base they'd make up the lost revenue from m hardware sales, with massively increased software sales.
Also, I don't get why people think they'd be less "b-tier" titled if they went 3rd party. Every game they made wouldn't be restricted to their shitty selling hardware, and would have a chance to sell to a huge audience - an audience whose numbers Nintendo has never seen before. Imagine Nintendo being able to sell games on PS, Xbox and PC.
wonderful103
Member
Yeah I hear family friendly titles are doing gangbusters on the ps4. So many dozen-million selling platformers there. Nintendo should willingly give up 30 percent of its software revenue and like 60 percent of its total company evenue in exchange for being able to join the renessaince.
I don't get why people think a 3rd party Nintendo would go to PS, Xbox, and PC at all. A 3rd party Nintendo would run to mobile and leave console gaming behind entirely. It's a bigger audience more likely to buy Nintendo games than those other platforms, it'd be less expensive to develop for, and Nintendo already has experience doing it.
I think at least with PC, they could create their own store front. That's about it when it comes to PC though. And you can expect some serious DRM on their PC games that no one will like because Nintendo is very, very anti-piracy.
We saw third party Sony during the 16 bit era and Skyblazer and Mickey Mania aside, they are better as first party.
Sony is the reverse Sega and Atari example.
Lord of Ostia
Member
The reason you probably wouldn't see a huge increase is that the people who really want those games and franchises already buy Nintendo hardware. There are certainly people open to buying Nintendo software who don't own a WiiU, but not the amount some people are suggesting here. The GameCube and N64 are evidence of that. The Wii was an anomaly, that hit a much wider audience than the typical Nintendo buying audience. WiiU is also an anomaly because of how big of a flop it was. Nintendo also loses a lot by being a third party dev/publisher. They lose hardware sales, and even worse, they lose licensing fees which are low-risk, high-reward for them. While they probably aren't making a ton from that on WiiU due to low third party support, they probably are making quite a lot from licensing on 3DS. That's not something a company the size of Nintendo can just let go of. Also, if Nintendo did go third party, they would have to downsize considerably. That inevitably means less games being developed, localized, plus all the third party games they help fund or localize...the ramifications of such a shift are incredibly significant, and not really better for the gaming consumer. Unless you flat out refuse to buy Nintendo hardware, and in that case I highly doubt you'll be buying much of their software either.
If you're talking gross profit, you should be telling Sony to exit the hardware business seeing as the PS3 burned away all the profit PS1 and PS2 made.
Same thing for Microsoft and the $4 billion debt from the original Xbox.
While i would said, the quality of their game probably won't drop as Nintendo and Miyamoto probably won't allow that too happen,
I would bet that it will lead to Nintendo localizing less game, publishing less games, and less vanity project.
And I will hate to lose all of those. Just accept that Nintendo is better as first party rather than going third party guys. It is like Sega alone is not enough. Now u want to drag Nintendo too? The hell?
I would bet that it will lead to Nintendo localizing less game, publishing less games, and less vanity project.
And I will hate to lose all of those. Just accept that Nintendo is better as first party rather than going third party guys. It is like Sega alone is not enough. Now u want to drag Nintendo too? The hell?
Dripping sarcasm aside, I don't think anyone else really has the IP power that Nintendo has. I think they could do well for themselves.
I don't see them giving up console gaming entirely even if they do go 3rd party. Gaming is in their DNA.
This was a great post, good explanation.
I guess I see it from the perspective that more people would buy their games but already own a console and/or PC and don't want to shell out for yet another console - YET - do want to play their games like Mario, Zelda, Smash Bros, ect. If more of the gaming populace had access to these games without the investment of buying a console just to play them, I could see a significant sales increase. Now if that would be enough to offset the loss of revenue from hardware sales is harder to guess. I'm inclined to think it would be, because as much as I dislike Nintendos hardware decisions, their software has conintually been excellent for decades.
I'm not sure, but I think we'll see the average quality of the games on the Switch benefit from them not needing to push any gimmicky features
The Wii and Wii U both have tons of great games that use each systems respective features, but for every Mario Galaxy or Xenoblade you have a Skyward Sword or Star Fox Zero, games that would have been better had they not used them as a vessel to push the systems unique features (I know both games have their fans, but I think we can agree that both games have divisive control systems)
I don't think a third party Nintendo would suddenly start to phone it in with regards to quality, but we'd probably see an even greater emphasis on Mario and Zelda
If Nintendo can barely justify using most of their IP when they could use them to boost their systems line up, I can't see them pushing for Metroid or F-Zero games on PS4/XB1, and certainly not big budget iterations
Edit: To clarify, I hope Nintendo don't ever need to go 3rd party
The Wii and Wii U both have tons of great games that use each systems respective features, but for every Mario Galaxy or Xenoblade you have a Skyward Sword or Star Fox Zero, games that would have been better had they not used them as a vessel to push the systems unique features (I know both games have their fans, but I think we can agree that both games have divisive control systems)
I don't think a third party Nintendo would suddenly start to phone it in with regards to quality, but we'd probably see an even greater emphasis on Mario and Zelda
If Nintendo can barely justify using most of their IP when they could use them to boost their systems line up, I can't see them pushing for Metroid or F-Zero games on PS4/XB1, and certainly not big budget iterations
Edit: To clarify, I hope Nintendo don't ever need to go 3rd party
Massively increased software sales? That sounds pretty magical. By what percentage would this massive increase be on average? Does it apply to their big hitters like Mario Kart too? If not, would the IPs that see this so called massive increase make up for that as well?
Also it's even more foolish to think they'd simply stop hardware production and route all software output to a third party platform if they went in this direction. A lot of Nintendo published titles exist to try and bring interested parties to their hardware (both consumer and business). There would undeniably be a different strategy and team structure from the start, one that would continue to change until they have a new sustainable business under this new model. Like I said, they'd be better off than Sega, but it's not going to be the same business for them at all.
CaviarMeths
Member
If anyone can successfully transfer to 3rd party without a notable drop in quality, it's Nintendo. Sure. But just because they can doesn't mean they should. I think it's a very steep uphill battle to try and explain with receipts how Nintendo would stand to benefit from going 3rd party.
Nobody dramatically downsizes because they wanted to, and nobody makes it back without the scars to prove it.
Nobody dramatically downsizes because they wanted to, and nobody makes it back without the scars to prove it.
I'm not saying they'll give up gaming. I'm saying they'll likely give up console gaming.
You do realize that the OP isn't asking if Nintendo will go third-party, and instead, is asking if their software would hold up -- qualitatively -- in a third-party environment? And that the reason the OP is asking this in relation to Sega is because Sega's software didn't get any better when they became a third-party house?
I hope you also realize that Nintendo going third-party does not mean complete abandonment of hardware. For example, Nintendo is now a third-party developer and publisher on iOS, but they're still making the Switch. It's important to understand that there are big differences in the quality of games between Nintendo and Sega, and it is those same differences that make a Nintendo game on iOS a much bigger success than a Sega game on iOS. Try to understand these differences, and then think about how those differences would work in Nintendo's favor against other developers and publishers on other platforms.
Guardian Monkey
Member
Super mario run is third party and most people say it's fairly polished so..
Guardian Monkey
Member
The biggest difference with Nintendo than most companies is that control mechanics and playability are the primary focus. They recognized long ago that gameplay will always trump visual appeal. Somewhere along the lines this changed for gaming. By proof that all we see for most games are trailers of what the game looks like opposed to most of nintendos reveals are of gameplay.
It's also important to note that mass profit isn't the main strategy for their mobile games. It's marketing and awareness to convert people to their hardware and software. They've said so many times now. I mean, they care to a degree about the profit but not the degree of hurting the quality of their product and going with game design focus first.
John Harker in another thread made a good post on it.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=226773697&postcount=538
I don't think those asking for Nintendo to go third party really care or understand how bad it will do to Nintendo there.
Not only we will miss tons of game localized.(Meaning losing game like Bravely Default, SMTIV on Europe, Layton, Inazuma Eleven, Youkai Watch and etc), we will also lose soo many risky project which Nintendo won't need to do anymore as they are not anymore first party(We won't get Xenoblade, PxZ series, The Last Story, Zangeki no Regienliev, Pandora's Tower, Fatal Frame V, Tokyo Mirage Session, etc)
Hell we will even lose most if not all Mii series game as guess what? There is no platform for Nintendo to promote Mii's at all now. So goodbye all game which perfectly utilized Mii's.
I would probably cry the day Nintendo does not had their own platform anymore as i will miss all their quirky things.T_T
Another point that should be made is, that even *IF* Nintendo could increase the sales potential of their games by a non-marginally amount by going third party (which is already a big *IF*), they most likely had to adjust the prices of their games to market standards, too; if you sell double the amount than before, but the majority of gamers will wait until your games are available for $20 or less, you're overall making less money, still.
This effect would be worsened by the complete loss of hardware revenue, which is more than half of Nintendo's annually revenue stream.
This effect would be worsened by the complete loss of hardware revenue, which is more than half of Nintendo's annually revenue stream.
Bingo.
What benefit is there for Nintendo to go third party (in the way people tend to ask for) when they can simply diversify and become bigger than they are now? Why give up what they have right now when they can have that and so much more? Right now they've got their own hardware/software, mobile games, amiibo, nes classic, 3 universal theme parks in pre-production, etc.
Outside of the theme parks, which aren't out yet so we can't count them, and the Wii U, everything Nintendo has their hands in is successful, often ridiculously so like the early amiibos, nes classic, and their mobile efforts. If the Switch sells well (which based on what we know about it, it certainly has a good chance to), then every single major recent project of theirs will be a success. And even the failure that is the Wii U managed to have multiple successful games on it.
They're in a good position right now. They're diversifying, attempting to become an even stronger first party hardware manufacturer with a bigger reach. So they're obviously not going to just choose to drop all these huge projects for new revenue, mindshare, etc. just so they can maybe have a chance at short-term success on their competitor's platforms, selling only software while having to pay license fees. How is any of that logical?
It's not. The only things that would cause Nintendo to go 3rd party are monumental failures that basically force them to. And that Nintendo isn't going to be the Nintendo you want. You think you want it. But really, you don't.
To add to this, there's a thread here that has data on the gross profit ratio on Nintendo's hardware, albeit only up to FY 2013.
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=740455
Nintendo makes a pretty good gross profit on their hardware, anyone that objects to this would have to show numbers that Nintendo would do better without their hardware business and by that token Sony and Microsoft would have even more of a reason to exit the hardware business since the PS3 burned all of Sony's profits PS1 and PS2 made which is around $5 billion in losses(during 2013) and, with regards to Microsoft, $4 billion in losses from the original Xbox and around $3 billion in losses from the Xbox 360 (during 2013).
http://www.vg247.com/2013/01/07/xbo...-billion-ex-sony-employee-paints-grim-future/
It makes sense that going mobile is to increase their brand and product awareness.
