If Nintendo went 3rd party, would the quality of their games drop?
- Thread starter Doosi
- Start date
Mass_Pincup
Banned
I guess we'll agree to disagree then.
No worries. I wasn't trying to "put down" the Wii U by saying that it wouldn't compare favourably, just that there's not that much of a difference.
The only employees in danger are their hardware developers. They have a moderate number of software developers in line with several major third party developers like Blizzard and Capcom.
LordRaptor
Member
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).
The shareholders people think would back them up on "go third party!" options are the ones who want to cash out any intrinsic value ASAP for a fast return on investment, but even those shareholders would laugh in someones face at the suggestion of giving up their own hardware platform to be a third party for Sony or MS, because they're looking at making software for devices with install bases numbering in the billions, not the paltry PS4 / X1 userbase.
.... How in any way is the PS4 and Xbox One "dying system
They'd probably sell more games than they currently do. And they could better justify risk-taking because there's more than triple the audience.
Linkstrikesback
Member
Games sales don't scale with the audience like that. It's a lot more complicated.
And that person didn't mean that ps4 or xbone are dying. They meant something like, "If sony/ms had a system that did as terribly as Wii U, they'd probably have dropped it quicker".
Schopenhauerian
Member
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Im not saying that nintendo should or shouldnt go third party, but only about 1% of mobile users actually spend money on mobile games. Id rather have 100 million console and pc gamers who actually spend
Money on games than a billion people who dont.
LordRaptor
Member
Shareholders who want a third party Nintendo aren't shareholders who want to wait 3 years for a 1080p HDR 4k enabled PBR Legend Of Zelda to maybe sell more than it would have on a nintendo platform but to definitely cost a lot more to make.
They want all back catalog available on IOS now for $0.99 a title, so they can sell those shares right after the record earnings report.
wonderful103
Member
I don't get it it either.
And 3rd Party Nintendo probably means Mario than we already get.
James Scott
Banned
I'd hope not, but their biggest audience is on portables, right?
Pokemon, Fire Emblem, and Animal Crossing would probably works really well on mobile, right?
It allows them to keep budgets down and appeal to the biggest audience possible.
Zelda might be the most to suffer, but they already made two games played completely with the touchscreen
FarFromAnyGame
Banned
Mario games released in 2016
All completly different games
missing is Mario Run, who is a completly different genre than any other listed
Still Mario. Why can't they make more new IP's with new characters? I'm sick of Mario. He's not interesting in any way other than nostalgia.
CaviarMeths
Member
As LordRaptor said, they'd have to sell 40% more copies just to cover the cost of platform holder fees. Then there's loss of hardware and licensing, which is more than 50% of their total revenue.
I dunno. 8 million people have bought Mario Kart 8 so far. 13 million bought MK7. 3DS has 5x the audience of the Wii U. Doesn't seem like that attractive of a proposition from Nintendo's point of view. Sony and Microsoft would love it though.
If you don't like Mario, there are literally hundreds of other Wii U and 3DS games to choose from.
But you either already knew that or aren't interested in Nintendo products anyway.
I love when people act like Mario is a game genre
FarFromAnyGame
Banned
Show me where I said Mario is a genre.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
They could simply make a base version where they make their definitive standard of the game, lets say PC, since it's an easy enough base that scales so well... then any other version could be easily ported.
They wouldn't have to spread their focus all over the place and could simply make one baseline version of the game, just like they currently do. If Sony or MS wanted a port, maybe Nintendo could allow them to finance it and supervise the port themselves (similar to how Sony currently does with some 3rd party and indie developers). They get all of the normal sale money for the game, yet don't need as much of a strain on their own developer output and I think that would help keep the quality they're known for up to their standard.
That's my Utopian Nintendo dream. I'm not a fan of their hardware efforts post Gamecube era.
As cool as the new Zelda looks, I can't help but think how much nicer it'd look on a nice 4k screen with decent AA; or 1440p 144fps/120fps etc etc... granted no Nintendo hardware would be doing the high framerate stuff, but the former is purely down to their hardware choice.
They wouldn't have to spread their focus all over the place and could simply make one baseline version of the game, just like they currently do. If Sony or MS wanted a port, maybe Nintendo could allow them to finance it and supervise the port themselves (similar to how Sony currently does with some 3rd party and indie developers). They get all of the normal sale money for the game, yet don't need as much of a strain on their own developer output and I think that would help keep the quality they're known for up to their standard.
That's my Utopian Nintendo dream. I'm not a fan of their hardware efforts post Gamecube era.
As cool as the new Zelda looks, I can't help but think how much nicer it'd look on a nice 4k screen with decent AA; or 1440p 144fps/120fps etc etc... granted no Nintendo hardware would be doing the high framerate stuff, but the former is purely down to their hardware choice.
He's still a rather popular character, especially among younger audiences, and I doubt anyone cares terribly much that a minigame collection has a Mario wrapper. If they turned Mario Party into something that resembles Fuzion Frenzy, chances are that it would sell more like Fuzion Frenzy than Mario Party.
you didn't explicitly but it's pretty much what you're implying by downplaying the variety of a list of games because they have mario in them
wonderful103
Member
As cool as Uncharted 4 looks, I can't help but think how much nicer it look if Naughty Dog weren't working on such shit hardware
CaviarMeths
Member
I get where he's coming from though. I think Kratos is one of the worst characters in modern fiction, both in design and characterization, and it definitely informs my opinion on any game he would appear in. I wouldn't be any more interested in a kart racer or RPG starring Kratos than I would in his own action games.
Nintendo wouldn't bother doing this even if they had access to the best hardware in the world. It would double the budget and greatly lengthen the development time and sell like 2 extra copies.
'Those games don't count, they have Mario in them'
Hcoregamer00
The 'H' stands for hentai.
It has been said before, and I will say it again. Historical precedent has shown us that the variety and quality of games drastically decrease when they go third party. When you have a platform, there is a great incentive to invest in a VARIETY of games to try to hit as many markets as possible to sell more hardware. This incentive disappears when you are third party because variety doesn't sell games. There will be a stronger focus on the bottom line, which means less games, and more cutting of corners.
Of course, this point is moot. Nintendo will never go third party unless that third party is iOS and Android. Those two platforms can give Nintendo enough money to sustain console development for a very long time, probably even outlasting MS and Sony. Plus there are great marketing benefits of being relevant on smartphones and tablets. Look at how it improved 3DS and Pokemon sales.
If done right, it can really make the switch shine and turn it into one of the great Nintendo consoles.
Of course, this point is moot. Nintendo will never go third party unless that third party is iOS and Android. Those two platforms can give Nintendo enough money to sustain console development for a very long time, probably even outlasting MS and Sony. Plus there are great marketing benefits of being relevant on smartphones and tablets. Look at how it improved 3DS and Pokemon sales.
If done right, it can really make the switch shine and turn it into one of the great Nintendo consoles.
The poster was talking about Nintendo games on wiiu compared to Sony games on Vita
it's kind of understandable (more so with the kratos example because kratos is kratos), if wholly superficial, but it doesn't negate a varied list of games representing different game genres especially in a discussion where that's the crux of what is being discussed
KIRBY AND YOSHI GAMES would probably be ignored if Nintendo went 3rd party.
WHO WANTS TO LIVE IN A WORLD WITHOUT KIRBY ?
The saddest one =(
But like it or not it is diversity =P
Mario games released in 2016
All completly different games
missing is Mario Run, who is a completly different genre than any other listed
Calling Minecraft a Mario game is stretching it
Head.spawn
Junior Member
Well, relative and all that... Naughty Dog games aren't created on hardware comparable to decade+ old consoles.
To the overall point though; fuck yes I'd love to see Uncharted 4 running on a Pascal Titan X.
Don't knock my imaginary 3rd party Nintendo dreams bro.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
Look at literally any video game company who has went third party.
The answer has always been yes. They make less money which means they can take less risks and have to narrow down what franchises they're going to keep using. Which in the case of Nintendo would mean less variety in what they make.
The answer has always been yes. They make less money which means they can take less risks and have to narrow down what franchises they're going to keep using. Which in the case of Nintendo would mean less variety in what they make.
Angel Whispers
Member
Didn't need to say the exact words - It's clear what you meant. The fact that you were so quick to reduce so much of Nintendo's output to "Mario Games" to give whatever you said a false sense of validity was enough indication, as well as the "nostalgia" assertion to reduce the character's relevance. If you recognised that Mario existed in many video game genres, you wouldn't have felt the need to shitpost. Unless you're bringing an anti-Nintendo agenda to the table, or you're a console warrior. It was a terrible post on your part. Own it.
Perhaps you might not like Mario, and that's fine and well. Each to their own tastes. But millions more do. The iPhone game set records, while Mario Kart Wii and DS and NSMB Wii and DS are some of the biggest-selling video games OF ALL TIME, let alone exclusives - That was last generation, so hardly "nostalgia". This "nostalgia" cry isn't exclusive to Nintendo, by the way - Let me remind you that the Dual Shock and GTA have been around for 19 YEARS. Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, Castlevania, and Elder Scrolls are over 20 years old. I could list more - Hell, before X4 console reveals, #PlayStationMemories and #XBoxMemories were trending topics. But Please, tell us more about "nostalgia". **Takes Pitcher; Sips Cocktail...**
Also, Your assertion that he's not interesting in any other way catches burns from fire and holy water when you realise that Japan saw fit to use him as a Mascot earlier this year for the Olympic Closing Ceremony. They even had a whole set piece.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
Nintendo isn't literally any video game company though.
They just released a game the other day on a platform they hadn't been on and set an all time record on their first shot with a spin-off game.
They sustained N64, Gamecube, Wii and Wii U with quality titles largely on their own for their past twenty years and managed to grow their company even more.
No other video game company can do that. If Sony or MS had anemic or half-assed third party support, who the hell would buy their consoles?
kingkaiser
Member
I would rather someone like Microsoft or Apple buys them out.
I mean they already have a hard time delivering for two different systems of their own without major droughts in between or delaying releases. Now imagine going full third party...it would end in a disaster.
I mean they already have a hard time delivering for two different systems of their own without major droughts in between or delaying releases. Now imagine going full third party...it would end in a disaster.
Hcoregamer00
The 'H' stands for hentai.
It has also been said before too, but people forgets that a hardware maker typically "subsidizes" games in that they will fund games that might not sell as well as established works because they are making a calculated risk of attracting more people to buy into the hardware. There is less incentive to create games that aren't megahits if there isn't a hardware and software ecosystem they can buy into.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
They can do all those things because they have the money to do so. If they go third party that means their business isn't making as much money in what it's doing and eventually they would be making less money overall. You're still thinking that a third party Nintendo would function exactly the same as first party Nintendo, which is almost certainly not the case.
There is zero reason to believe that Nintendo is some special snowflake that's exempt from what happened to literally every other company when they went and changed their business model.
VistraNorrez
Member
There would probably be a push to make a big game first. And it would probably be exclusive to 1 console. Probably Playstation because Nintendo wants to be successful in their homeland. But they'd clearly cancel a bunch of games they were developing on whatever their last hardware was. Probably cut a good chunk of staff too. Get more mobile games in play. There would be much less risk taking for probably a few years while they tried to get financially stable.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
You're more than likely right.
I'm just going by what I'd like to see and in all honesty the business side of things was not my main theoretical concern.
CaviarMeths
Member
Lol you're kind of just arguing in favour of them remaining a 1st party publisher. They're very good at supporting their own ecosystems and achieving growth in the meantime. Now they'll do even better with more diversified investments. Look at Pokemon Sun/Moon, they just had their best launch in series history, and you can most likely attribute a lot of that to Pokemon Go getting them back in the mindshare of consumers.
The problem is that they need to sort third party relations out to stop content droughts on their devices. Still between those two devices, even in quiet years, Nintendo put out far more content than the other first parties did. I don't like the double standard people give here. Yes, Nintendo had delays and droughts, but despite that they still put out an average of just under 1 first party title a month on Wii U and just over 1 first party title a month on 3DS. Can you say the same of the others?
Looking back at Sega, all those great studios that made a variety of games for the Dreamcast no longer exist. They were shut down and merged with their R&D groups. I think that some of the Jet Set Radio devs work on Yakuza now. Oh, and how's Sega AM2 now? They are literally a shell these days. A far cry from the days when Yu Suzuki founded that studio. Everything also went to hell when Sammy bought Sega.
Looking at Sega right now and that couple week old thread asking why Sega no longer makes a variety of games anymore, it's because they 1. they no longer have too, and 2. don't have the money if they wanted too.
Nintendo would be in a similar place. Much of the smaller and experimental stuff would be no more or shoved to phones not getting the attention to detail or precision they once could have had. Phone games they're making are purely marketing and are not too concerned on making profit their main goal, that would change going 3rd party and changing the team structure. Making a bigger studio for full time mobile development that's mostly data driven to maximize profits with life-cycle monetization. Meaning, less design driven games and more data scientists running the studio.
Big games would just be the 4 major games that sell, Pokemon, Mario, Zelda and recently Splatoon. I don't know where Xenoblade would land to be honest. I don't know where their other 1st party and 2nd party studios would go either.
Looking at Sega right now and that couple week old thread asking why Sega no longer makes a variety of games anymore, it's because they 1. they no longer have too, and 2. don't have the money if they wanted too.
Nintendo would be in a similar place. Much of the smaller and experimental stuff would be no more or shoved to phones not getting the attention to detail or precision they once could have had. Phone games they're making are purely marketing and are not too concerned on making profit their main goal, that would change going 3rd party and changing the team structure. Making a bigger studio for full time mobile development that's mostly data driven to maximize profits with life-cycle monetization. Meaning, less design driven games and more data scientists running the studio.
Big games would just be the 4 major games that sell, Pokemon, Mario, Zelda and recently Splatoon. I don't know where Xenoblade would land to be honest. I don't know where their other 1st party and 2nd party studios would go either.
archreaper93
Member
I'm gonna have to contest you on that. Like, Nintendo arguably has the most software variety out of all the game companies. They have games in the following genres:
Third Person Shooter (Splatoon).
First Person Shooter (Geist, Metroid Prime).
Character Action (Bayonetta 2, Wonderful 101).
Action-Adventure (Zelda).
Turn-based RPG (Mario & Luigi, Golden Sun, early Paper Mario, Pokemon).
SRPG (Fire Emblem).
Real-time Strategy (Pikmin).
Survival Horror (Eternal Darkness, Luigi's Mansion).
Turn-based Strategy (Advance Wars).
Water Racing (Wave Race).
Board Game (Mario Party).
Minigame Collection (Wii, Warioware, Nintendoland)
2D Platformer (Mario, Yoshi, Wario land, Donkey Kong).
Baseball (Mario Superstar).
Basketball (Mario Hoops, NBA Courtside).
Soccer (Mario Strikers).
Tennis (Mario Tennis).
Golf (Mario Golf).
Kart Racing (Diddy Kong Racing, Mario Kart).
Futuristic/High Speed Racing (F-Zero).
Snowboarding (1080).
Racing (Excite).
2D Fighter (Smash Bros).
3D Platformer (Mario).
Rail Shooter (Sin and Punishment, Star Fox).
Metroidvania (Metroid).
Rhythm (Ouendan/Elite Beat Agents, Rhythm Heaven).
Point-and-Click Adventure (Hotel Dusk).
Boxing (Punch Out).
Puzzle (Dr. Mario).
Action RPG (Super Paper Mario).
MMO-like RPG (Xenoblade).
Fitness (Wii Fit).
Action (Mysterious Murasame Castle).
Simulation (Animal Crossing, Tomodachi Life).
3D Fighter (Pokken).
And I'm sure I'm forgetting stuff.
Like, outside of Stealth, what huge genres are they missing?
And what 3rd parties cover more genres than that? Only 2 I think have a chance are Sega (who used to be 1st party) and Capcom.
Or when people act like Nintendo is a game genre.
OnimaruXLR
Member
It's not 100% set in stone that it would, but if you look at Sega, it seems pretty damn likely. But the average quality of mobile games might see a significant rise
Actually, what the hell reason does Nintendo have to make games for their old competitors? If they did decide to get out of the hardware game, it seems like they'd have a lot easier time going 100% mobile. They are a Japanese company, and that's where the bread's buttered over there.
I bet something like Super Mario Run 2 offers a much more appealing investment/profit ratio than the notion of developing Super Mario Galaxy 3 for Scorpio or whatever
Actually, what the hell reason does Nintendo have to make games for their old competitors? If they did decide to get out of the hardware game, it seems like they'd have a lot easier time going 100% mobile. They are a Japanese company, and that's where the bread's buttered over there.
I bet something like Super Mario Run 2 offers a much more appealing investment/profit ratio than the notion of developing Super Mario Galaxy 3 for Scorpio or whatever
No.
The opposite would happen. If you're a super talented basketball player, but you're playing with shoes that are making practice and games difficult, common sense says that when you're given better shoes you're not going to play worse. You're going to be able to move better, react better, and pull off even more tricks on the court.
The belief that Sega's quality in games dropped due to them going 3rd party is just that: a belief. There were a lot of bad Sega games before and after their hardware exit. The sooner you can acknowledge this the sooner you'll realize that Sega went into the Dreamcast with a lot of software weaknesses that ultimately led to them not being able to sustain their hardware business. What happened to Sega's software after the Dreamcast -- for those who care about what really happened -- is that it could not compete with the software being offered by other companies. This is very important to understand in the context of looking at Nintendo going third party. People were not in any whatsoever rush to buy a Sonic game over a Jak/Mario/Ratchet platformer. People were not in any whatsoever rush to buy Shinobi over Devil May Cry/Onimusha. People were not in any whatsoever rush to buy The Typing of the Dead over Resident Evil. People were not in any whatsoever rush to buy Sega Rally over Gran Turismo/Need for Speed/Burnout/Midnight Club. The list goes on. The majority of Sega's developed and published games were not as good as people have led you to believe.
This is why when a Sega game eventually had a PS2/Gamecube/Xbox logo printed on its face, the reception and outcome of the game did not change in the market. When you look at Sega's output in the PS3 generation, it becomes even clearer that Sega -- as a third-party house -- was never going to succeed with their lineup. It's ok if you believe that Sega had the greatest lineup and that Golden Axe and Binary Domain and The Incredible Hulk and Sonic 2006 and AvP were all fantastic unmatched experiences. But at a certain point, you're going to have to function beyond your beliefs. Sega absolutely had and still has a good game or two: Valkyria Chronicles and Yakuza spring to mind. But when you're putting out dozens of games and you're up against hundreds of games, a handful of good games might not cut it.
The majority of Nintendo's lineup is viewed in a favorable light. They do not have Sega's problem. You don't need me to tell you that Mario, Mario Kart, Smash Bros., Animal Crossing, and Pokemon are uncontested in the market. The only Nintendo games that would see a lot of competition would be Zelda and Metroid Prime. And this has nothing to do with their quality; it's more that every RPG is now an open-world adventure game and the first-person shooter genre now has a lot of games with exploration and space gameplay. The majority of their titles however, won't have to deal with this. Mario won't have to worry about Unravel 2, Knack 2, and Yooka Lay-lee. Note: I think Yooka Laylee could turn out great.
The truth is the quality of their known quantities won't drop because of better hardware. It's not like they'll wake up and go "Damn it, we have more RAM." When Nintendo steps outside their creative box, they have demonstrated a capability of making successful IP: Splatoon being the most recent example. What happens when they step outside of their physical box? The quality of what they currently have becomes better, and when they're faced with having to compete with way more developers, it will be necessary for them to step outside of their creative box. This is a good thing.
With all of that said, more power is a good problem to have. A lot of people -- myself included -- love seeing Nintendo games running on powerful hardware. When you look at the gameplay and artstyle that Nintendo can pull off on their conservative/outdated hardware, it immediately becomes apparent that their software talent is immense. I remember the first time I saw screenshots of Wind Waker with all of the bells and whistles and flutes and exhaust pipes. It was like seeing a completely different game! Everything just popped and looked vibrant and unbelievably gorgeous. The gameplay obviously didn't change, but again, better hardware doesn't work against gameplay and mechanic systems. They work together.
The opposite would happen. If you're a super talented basketball player, but you're playing with shoes that are making practice and games difficult, common sense says that when you're given better shoes you're not going to play worse. You're going to be able to move better, react better, and pull off even more tricks on the court.
The belief that Sega's quality in games dropped due to them going 3rd party is just that: a belief. There were a lot of bad Sega games before and after their hardware exit. The sooner you can acknowledge this the sooner you'll realize that Sega went into the Dreamcast with a lot of software weaknesses that ultimately led to them not being able to sustain their hardware business. What happened to Sega's software after the Dreamcast -- for those who care about what really happened -- is that it could not compete with the software being offered by other companies. This is very important to understand in the context of looking at Nintendo going third party. People were not in any whatsoever rush to buy a Sonic game over a Jak/Mario/Ratchet platformer. People were not in any whatsoever rush to buy Shinobi over Devil May Cry/Onimusha. People were not in any whatsoever rush to buy The Typing of the Dead over Resident Evil. People were not in any whatsoever rush to buy Sega Rally over Gran Turismo/Need for Speed/Burnout/Midnight Club. The list goes on. The majority of Sega's developed and published games were not as good as people have led you to believe.
This is why when a Sega game eventually had a PS2/Gamecube/Xbox logo printed on its face, the reception and outcome of the game did not change in the market. When you look at Sega's output in the PS3 generation, it becomes even clearer that Sega -- as a third-party house -- was never going to succeed with their lineup. It's ok if you believe that Sega had the greatest lineup and that Golden Axe and Binary Domain and The Incredible Hulk and Sonic 2006 and AvP were all fantastic unmatched experiences. But at a certain point, you're going to have to function beyond your beliefs. Sega absolutely had and still has a good game or two: Valkyria Chronicles and Yakuza spring to mind. But when you're putting out dozens of games and you're up against hundreds of games, a handful of good games might not cut it.
The majority of Nintendo's lineup is viewed in a favorable light. They do not have Sega's problem. You don't need me to tell you that Mario, Mario Kart, Smash Bros., Animal Crossing, and Pokemon are uncontested in the market. The only Nintendo games that would see a lot of competition would be Zelda and Metroid Prime. And this has nothing to do with their quality; it's more that every RPG is now an open-world adventure game and the first-person shooter genre now has a lot of games with exploration and space gameplay. The majority of their titles however, won't have to deal with this. Mario won't have to worry about Unravel 2, Knack 2, and Yooka Lay-lee. Note: I think Yooka Laylee could turn out great.
The truth is the quality of their known quantities won't drop because of better hardware. It's not like they'll wake up and go "Damn it, we have more RAM." When Nintendo steps outside their creative box, they have demonstrated a capability of making successful IP: Splatoon being the most recent example. What happens when they step outside of their physical box? The quality of what they currently have becomes better, and when they're faced with having to compete with way more developers, it will be necessary for them to step outside of their creative box. This is a good thing.
With all of that said, more power is a good problem to have. A lot of people -- myself included -- love seeing Nintendo games running on powerful hardware. When you look at the gameplay and artstyle that Nintendo can pull off on their conservative/outdated hardware, it immediately becomes apparent that their software talent is immense. I remember the first time I saw screenshots of Wind Waker with all of the bells and whistles and flutes and exhaust pipes. It was like seeing a completely different game! Everything just popped and looked vibrant and unbelievably gorgeous. The gameplay obviously didn't change, but again, better hardware doesn't work against gameplay and mechanic systems. They work together.
pretty done
Member
The problem with this post is the majority of the games/franchises are dead. Historically they have every genre covered, but their last console was basically the platformer machine with sprinkled in gems like Xenoblade, Bayonetta, Splatoon and some Zelda remakes.
Linkstrikesback
Member
Depending on what you mean by 3d fighter, Pokken. I wouldn't be surprised if a stealth game exists too.
They died because nobody bought them