So you agree with me that the era of high quality, sought after Sega first-party software is NOT a myth.
Thank you.
If Nintendo went 3rd party, would the quality of their games drop?
- Thread starter Doosi
- Start date
So you agree with me that the era of high quality, sought after Sega first-party software is NOT a myth.
Thank you.
What is this shit? The endless amount of 2D sidescrollers on the 3DS the last three years, ladies and gentlemen:
Kirby: Triple Deluxe
Kirby: Planet Robobot
Yoshi's New Island
Atlus made Tokyo Mirage Sessions on behalf of Nintendo and under their leadership, it's a Nintendo IP.
Bandai made Pokken on behalf of and under the leadership of Nintendo and the Pokémon Company. It's their IP.
Tantalus made Twilight Princess HD on behalf of Nintendo and under their leadership. It's a Nintendo IP.
"Those games don't count because of reasons."
AstroNut325
Member
Like others have said, they'll likely take less risk and avoid niche titles. Which, IMO, is sort of a big deal since I'm no longer into Marios, and Zeldas.
If they can maintain their Mario/Zelda output, yes please go third party. Nintendo hardware adds little to no value in recent times.
If they can maintain their Mario/Zelda output, yes please go third party. Nintendo hardware adds little to no value in recent times.
If you forget that while Nintendo made those games they had 100% of their financials, staff and resources, this could be a good argument...
Since their mobile output is first and foremost supposed to get new customers into their ecosystem and onto their own platforms, which naturally wouldn't be the case anymore if they were third party, your conclusion is flawed.
We would see so many less vanity projects and they'd be making the safest Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon games. Bayonetta 2 and W101 wouldn't happen if Nintendo was 3rd party. They probably wouldn't have tried to revive Fire Emblem with Awakening either (I don't care what you think of Awakening).
The games they do put out would be good, but overtime they'd be boring.
The games they do put out would be good, but overtime they'd be boring.
LordRaptor
Member
It's really on people who think nothing much would change outside of MOAR POWAR to justify their thinking rather than people who think it would be detrimental to what makes Nintendo, well, Nintendo to justify their reasoning.
Bear in mind;
- Nintendo as a publisher are currently at an Activision / EA size, so you would need to explain how they could maintain their market position as an EA/ActiBlizz but not use the same work methodology that EA/ActiBlizz do (and if you are proposing a different methodology explain how that would be successful where the market shows only EA/ActiBlizz methods result in EA/ActiBlizz success).
- All historical transitions of platform owners to third parties have been detrimental to that third party (Atari, SNK, Sega, Hudson, Midway, Capcom, Konami, Namco, Stardock), by any metric you choose to use (profit / relevance / critical response)
Bear in mind;
- Nintendo as a publisher are currently at an Activision / EA size, so you would need to explain how they could maintain their market position as an EA/ActiBlizz but not use the same work methodology that EA/ActiBlizz do (and if you are proposing a different methodology explain how that would be successful where the market shows only EA/ActiBlizz methods result in EA/ActiBlizz success).
- All historical transitions of platform owners to third parties have been detrimental to that third party (Atari, SNK, Sega, Hudson, Midway, Capcom, Konami, Namco, Stardock), by any metric you choose to use (profit / relevance / critical response)
SporeCrawler
Member
also it would mean that there is even less competition in the console hardware space and MS and Sony are basically doing the same thing
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
For the most part it was. Outside of Sonic they had next to nothing that the mainstream cared for.
Exactly.Let me look at my crystal ball...its cloudy right now, sorry
Only thing I'll say is comparisons to Sega are barely skin-deep. Sega was bankrupt and dead if not for a donation from a former owner. They didn't have IP that the mass-market liked enough to buy in great quanities on their own hardware. When they put out similar titles, ports and sequels of their DC titles on other platforms they still didn't sell.
The era of high quality, sought after Sega first-party software is a myth.
Apples and oranges.
I don't see it a lot in this thread but normally when this is bought up you have a lot of ppl claiming the quality would drop.
AstroNut325
Member
I wish people would stop with the "Sony and MS are doing the same thing." VR says hello.
I don't get the people that act like Metroid is dead. This is a franchise where we had to wait EIGHT years after Super Metroid for a new game and then we got two AMAZING games in Fusion and Prime. I think there is a pretty good chance we'll see a return of Metroid with the Switch. Nintendo as they are might neglect a franchise until they come up with ideas for them, but it's not a surprise for them to return to those neglected franchises either. If they went third party I just can't see them doing so.
This. Just look at Sega. Or even look at Konami, Capcom, SNK, or any other Japanese developer who used to make console hardware or arcade hardware.
When you remove the manufacturing of new hardware, the incentive to create risky software fades away. First party software will always be the riskiest and most groundbreaking because it has to sell new hardware.
Let me look at my crystal ball...its cloudy right now, sorry
Only thing I'll say is comparisons to Sega are barely skin-deep. Sega was bankrupt and dead if not for a donation from a former owner. They didn't have IP that the mass-market liked enough to buy in great quanities on their own hardware. When they put out similar titles, ports and sequels of their DC titles on other platforms they still didn't sell.
The era of high quality, sought after Sega first-party software is a myth.
Apples and oranges.
I don't agree. Again, consoles used to be the place where arcade games came into your home. Sony sort of changed that with their focus on cinematic experiences.
Many Japanese devs lost their way when they started catering to this shift in tastes. And it only happened when they stopped making their own hardware. Nintendo started in the arcades, and selling hardware with unique software is part of their overall DNA. Take away their hardware and the incentive to take risks goes with it. Just look at Super Mario Run. It's fairly phoned in and safe.
And you're wrong about Sega's software. It was always high quality in the 80s and 90s. They just made poor choices with their hardware which caused them to lose too money, then too many third parties jumped ship to the PS2. Piracy also hit the Dreamcast very hard in its heyday causing a lower attach rate.
A similar thing happened with the Wii U - it was a poor branding direction for the company and no amount of quality software could save it. Similar software efforts from Nintendo saved the 3DS, so it shows that sometimes, even quality software alone cannot move hardware. The hardware itself has to be appealing too.
Sega's hardware struggles had nothing to do with the quality of their first party software. They just lost the hardware arms race to Sony.
I don't see particularly why the quality of their games would drop. Sure supporting multiple systems is more than supporting one that you know inside out, but I'm sure they could handle it! The increased game sales would bring in more than enough extra revenue to fund whatever extra staff supporting multiple systems would cost.
Just look at Mario Run, there's a thirst for quality Nintendo titles not on a Nintendo system. Now I think, if Switch is the price it's been leaked to be (£200-£250 in UK) then it makes it a far more attractive proposition and might mitigate Nintendo ever even thinking of going third paty if they can Switch a success. But lets say it flopped.. Nintendo could sell SHIT LOADS of games if they went 3rd party rather than only supporting their own struggling system. The money left on the table is huge.
And regarding their more niche titles.. I don't see why they would cease to exist. So long as they made more money than they cost to make why wouldn't Nintendo keep making them, keep broadening their range of IP's. If anything going third party might push them into broadening their range of IP further, to take advantage of markets they don't really foster very much on their own consoles. Look at Splatoon, Nintendo's take on a FPS, and look how well that game was received. If you could have bought it on PS4 and XB1 it would have sold millions of copies. Nintendo could EXPAND their range of IP's and game genres, rather than limit it. Mario, Zelda and Pokemon would, like Hollywood Blockbuster films, help to fund the other niche titles and experiments outside of their comfort zone, where a hit and new IP could be born, just like Splatoon.
Just look at Mario Run, there's a thirst for quality Nintendo titles not on a Nintendo system. Now I think, if Switch is the price it's been leaked to be (£200-£250 in UK) then it makes it a far more attractive proposition and might mitigate Nintendo ever even thinking of going third paty if they can Switch a success. But lets say it flopped.. Nintendo could sell SHIT LOADS of games if they went 3rd party rather than only supporting their own struggling system. The money left on the table is huge.
And regarding their more niche titles.. I don't see why they would cease to exist. So long as they made more money than they cost to make why wouldn't Nintendo keep making them, keep broadening their range of IP's. If anything going third party might push them into broadening their range of IP further, to take advantage of markets they don't really foster very much on their own consoles. Look at Splatoon, Nintendo's take on a FPS, and look how well that game was received. If you could have bought it on PS4 and XB1 it would have sold millions of copies. Nintendo could EXPAND their range of IP's and game genres, rather than limit it. Mario, Zelda and Pokemon would, like Hollywood Blockbuster films, help to fund the other niche titles and experiments outside of their comfort zone, where a hit and new IP could be born, just like Splatoon.
Aaronrules380
Member
Yes because big third parties love to experiment with niche ideas as we've all seen.
The reason Nintendo tries to diversify so much is to broaden the appeal of their consoles. A lot of the things they make and do are done more to support their consoles and less to make money in and of themselves
Mario Run just shows that Nintendo will not take risks to support non-proprietary hardware. It's not a groundbreaking game.
Linkstrikesback
Member
I mean... it's only sold a fraction of what the two SMB games did on Nintendo hardware so far. At $10. We have to wait and see if there really is a thirst.
Because we don't live in a lala land where developers can make what they want for no reason beyond that. No development team has managed to go from first to third party without taking a big hit eventually, even if they stave it off for a few years. The other games only exist to fill niches and get more people to buy the hardware. There is literally no chance at all that going third party makes Nintendo expand in terms of active ips.
LordRaptor
Member
You don't even need to restrict that to only Japanese developers - Atari, Coleco, Magnavox, Bally, Midway, Commodore...
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
You assume we'll see another Metroid. Just like we assumed Wii U would get a Metroid. Or even it's own exclusive Zelda game. Never happened.
And when Nintendo does decide to return to a franchise, there's a good chance they'll fuck it all up with some forced innovation crap like they did with Starfox Zero. Also a good example of them farming out their ips to outside developers like Metroid Other M.
Nintendo should continue spreading themselves out. Don't put all of your eggs in one basket, because there's no question that their console hardware is more often then not a poor performer. If Switch flops they're in big trouble.
So Mobile is smart. I think putting VC on PC via their own store front is also smart. Imagine a VC where there's no reset for each piece of hardware? No bullshit upgrade fees for the games you own? I feel Nintendo would be successful there with a new source of revenue.
PdotMichael
Banned
Companies who left the console making industry after a finanical collapse dropped their quality output
I'm shocked!
I'm shocked!
even the biggest hater can't deny nintendo has one of if not the best track record in the industry. something would have to go terribly wrong for a hypothetical third party output to suffer.
assuming 15-20 years from now consoles are extinct i don't have any doubt nintendo won't become another sega
assuming 15-20 years from now consoles are extinct i don't have any doubt nintendo won't become another sega
Dangansona
Member
I think this is my response to. There was a time where I wanted Nintendo to go third party. Now I'm older and have the money to where I can buy a cheap Nintendo console and I don't want to risk stirring up any of their game making magic. I mean we are about to get unified development on the Switch! This could be a hell of a platform for Nintendo games.
kunonabi
Member
I feel like their mobile output is proving the point. The quality of their wii u and 3ds stuff has been getting worse, the switch is port city so far, and the mobile games aren't very good either.
I see no reason to believe them going third party wouldn't be as disastrous as Sega's move
Linkstrikesback
Member
There's no other reason Nintendo would ever even entertain going third party than a similar financial collapse though. So it's still a reasonable comparison.
Yeah like they never would go third party 5 years ago.
I hope you're not assuming that everyone here is not talking about third party in the sense "going to other consoles" and not to mobile, because that would be frankly stupid since all the three big hardware manufactors are already kind-of third party with their mobile games.
PdotMichael
Banned
Only that Nintendo does already their moves outside of their walled garden business model. There is mobile, Nintendo's theme park or the once planned quality of life stuff.
Thanks Mr. Crystal Ball. Have you got lottery numbers too?
LordBaztion
Member
If Nintendo goes this party it will be after huge losses in hardware, So they will be under the pressure to release profitable games instead of delaying for the sake of quality.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
They already are third party.
LordRaptor
Member
Yes - as I said before, something people seem to conveniently overlook is that Nintendo are currently a publisher of the size of EA or ActiBlizzard (and much bigger than Ubi / WB / T2 et al) so they would need to be releasing FIFA / CoD appeal level games on an annual basis just to maintain their current stature as a third party.
PdotMichael
Banned
Why would they need to etablish the very same structures if they are already a publisher of the same size on a way smaller hardware base?
Linkstrikesback
Member
Because they released games on mobile?
Then so are sony and microsoft, and I don't know what people are even asking for by "Nintendo going Third party".
Or we can drop the silly pretence, because we know the question is supposed to be interpreted as "If Nintendo stopped producing hardware themselves, and started releasing their software on the direct competitions machines, the PS4/Xbone or equivalent , would the quality of Nintendo software drop?"
I think so. They wouldn't have any reason to push themselves. They aren't selling any hardware which they make the most profit from so they don't have to go all out to get people to come to their platforms.
I'd imagine they downsize a lot too. Don't need big teams pushing Pokémon games out if they ain't selling consoles. They would be satisfied with probably one per gen since the boost from console sales would be none existent.
I'd imagine they downsize a lot too. Don't need big teams pushing Pokémon games out if they ain't selling consoles. They would be satisfied with probably one per gen since the boost from console sales would be none existent.
LordRaptor
Member
They're a publisher of that size because of their hardware base.
When you take that away, they have only software to stay at that level.
Which means they need a FIFA / CoD level release every year.
e:
Also "way smaller hardware base"...? Their current hardware platforms (3DS + WiiU) are of approximate equal size to Ps4+XB1 hardware base, so... "way smaller"...?
They're workflow is geared to making the best possible product, not to releasing their games anually. Some games can take years for them to make because they like to experiment with control methods. That would stop being the case. There's also the fact that if they exit hardware, they'll be losing a large fraction of their work force. Remember there EA size because they have a hardware and software side. If they remove hardware they'll be far smaller. They have the luxury of releasing games when they want because they have a lot of streams of income. If they remove hardware without radically altering their pipeline (which is unlikely for the first few years after going third party) it'll be like trying to run a marathon with one leg
The Hermit
Member
It might not be so apparent, but all 3D Mario games were risky and very different each one of them (except Mario Galaxy 2 for obvious reasons).
So we won't have then anymore.
The same could be said for Zelda, especially the new one, which is a great change of dynamic from thr old "find dungeon-> find item-> find dungeon" routine.
Still, I think Nintendo will eventually launch some of their games on PC, like everyone game will in the not so distant future.
I doubt they will ever launch anything on PS or Xbox whatever.
So we won't have then anymore.
The same could be said for Zelda, especially the new one, which is a great change of dynamic from thr old "find dungeon-> find item-> find dungeon" routine.
Still, I think Nintendo will eventually launch some of their games on PC, like everyone game will in the not so distant future.
I doubt they will ever launch anything on PS or Xbox whatever.
wonderful103
Member
I mean, the hardware and content of Sony and MS, outside of a few gimmicks like VR and Kinect, is largely identical.
PdotMichael
Banned
The base who wants Nintendo games doesn't disappear. Pokemon GO showed that there is such a large untapped market although the game itself was flawed and doesn't have the legs to really capitalize on it
wonderful103
Member
That large untapped market isn't on the other consoles.
He's just going by what games are currently being localised for next year. Based on that, we seemingly get quite a lot of (expanded) ports.
But stuff hasn't been revealed. It's illogical to assume the leaks are 100% it. Even despite there being some enhanced ports, there's also a lot of new content. Come on.
Also, if we want to talk about enhanced ports & remasters and trash a company for it, let's look back 2 weeks at PSX shall we?
To Far Away Times
Member
Sega and SNK were top shelf first party developers and that whole third party thing didn't work out so well for either of them in terms of quality software output.
PdotMichael
Banned
It would mostlikely still be more profitable than releasing failed hardware systems a la WiiU.
That's the point if you change your business model, you are trying to diversify your assets not reducing them.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
The WIIU would not compare favourably from this.
Are you for real?
archreaper93
Member
They have a much better chance of coming back while Nintendo is 1st party.
Similar threads
- Poll