-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Isn't it about time Nintendo began to kiss 3rd party ***?
- Thread starter norinrad21
- Start date
Alcibiades
Member
and $4 million EA keeps to itself. Even if it's dismal, EA is playing for keeps, and they are going after every gamer out there, not limiting themselves.thorns said:
BTW, Turok saved Acclaim from bankruptcy, but thier N64 games did respectable enough that they were still bringing profits in.
SolidSnakex
Member
efralope said:
Here's a few other facts. GC 3rd party sales are nowhere near N64 3rd party sales. GC 3rd party support is up alot compared to N64 3rd party. During the N64 era, Acclaim was basically Nintendo's biggest 3rd party supporter. This generation, their biggest 3rd party supporter could be EA, could be Capcom ect. They've got alot more companies that are supporting them now. Acclaim's game just wouldn't cut it this gen. Gamers have become much more picky at what they're buying, and with GC owners having a bigger pick at quality FPS (Metroid, Bond games), Acclaim's biggest monbey makers wouldn't work well. Acclaim didn't go down for not supporting Nintendo, Acclaim went down because they put together crazy costing marketing campaigns (the doves at Wimbledon, the "grave" campaign) for games that just weren't good and it came back to bite them in the ass.
Musashi Wins!
FLAWLESS VICTOLY!
Saint Cornelius said:
OMFG FREEMASONS + NINTENDO!
Even EA doesn't put all their major publishing efforts on the doomed-cube. Things like Burnout 3, Fight Night, etc. don't make sense.
I think Nintendo should choose one of two paths, make sure everyone knows what that path is and run with it. They should either try to compete directly with the "big boys" which will still look futile to alot of people inside and outside of the industry, plus it means they'll have to match the competition feature for feature toe-to-toe and may get them into money troubles since they don't have the mulah influence of the "big boys"...OR...they should just say: "hey, we're aiming low, we know that mainly only Nintendo fans buy Nintendo systems...so we will give them what they want" and occassionally go out of their way to get an exclussive third party title as well. That way they have the same sort of control structure of the NES (where they spaced out releases of their own and third party games to maximize the sales of each)...sorta like SNK/NeO*GeO...only...on a bigger scale since Nintendo is bigger.
I would call that like the movie maker to actor structure...where an audience wants an actor (or, in this case, a game) to work with a certain movie maker (or, in this case, Nintendo). Nintendo has sorta done things in the past like this with the collaboration deals and getting certain properties done by their own groups (Ridge Racer 64, MGS:TTS, etc.), but I would say they should do it on a much larger scale so that they get more and more exclussives (that STAY exclussive) even if their total libraries aren't of the same quantity of the "big boys".
I would call that like the movie maker to actor structure...where an audience wants an actor (or, in this case, a game) to work with a certain movie maker (or, in this case, Nintendo). Nintendo has sorta done things in the past like this with the collaboration deals and getting certain properties done by their own groups (Ridge Racer 64, MGS:TTS, etc.), but I would say they should do it on a much larger scale so that they get more and more exclussives (that STAY exclussive) even if their total libraries aren't of the same quantity of the "big boys".
BurnOut 3 skipping GC had more to do with Criterion than EA. And considering sales of the previous versions were in line with the XBox versions, any sales argument starts breaking down really... every major EA internal release hits GameCube however though (Madden, Live, SSX, Harry Potter, DJV, 007, Tiger Woods, FIFA, NFS, etc) only external projects like BO3 or Samurai Warriors seem to skip the platform.Musashi Wins! said:
Musashi Wins!
FLAWLESS VICTOLY!
jarrod said:
Isn't Fight Night a major internal project? Did it come out on GC?
There was no interest? The GC lacks many fighters, I thought that series sold pretty well.
Musashi Wins!
FLAWLESS VICTOLY!
AniHawk said:Way to nitpick.
The way I look at it, if NCAA Football still comes out on the system year after year, jarrod's statement is pretty solid.
Yea, I agree, it's pretty solid. But even EA doesn't support them all the way with internal projects. That's just the way it is, and their used as the example as the most important publisher in this discussion. The previous Knockout Kings were ported as well, so obviously that's a scaling back. I guess it's just nitpicking because it's not important.
I don't know why the GC doesn't get games like that, seems to me they have previous port experience, current teams working on other ports and a history of having a series that has been noticeably dropped on the GC. Can't be good.
xsarien said:
Who are you trying to fool? 12 of the top 15 best selling GC games are from Nintendo.
1 GCN SUPER SMASH BRO MELEE NINTENDO OF AMERICA 2,363,997 43,549
2 GCN MARIO KART: DOUBLE NINTENDO OF AMERICA 1,636,625 26,914
3 GCN SUPER MARIO SUNSHINE NINTENDO OF AMERICA 1,544,352 18,709
4 GCN ZELDA: THE WIND WAKER NINTENDO OF AMERICA 1,484,179 7,461
5 GCN LUIGI'S MANSION NINTENDO OF AMERICA 1,434,135 22,653
6 GCN METROID PRIME NINTENDO OF AMERICA 1,167,703 15,193
7 GCN MARIO PARTY 4 NINTENDO OF AMERICA 942,772 3,466
8 GCN SONIC ADVENTURE 2 SEGA OF AMERICA 901,144 6,925
9 GCN SW: ROGUE SQUADRON II LUCASARTS 851,618 2,637
10 GCN STAR FOX ADVENTURES NINTENDO OF AMERICA 764,503 6,921
11 GCN ANIMAL CROSSING NINTENDO OF AMERICA 732,024 16,472
12 GCN MARIO PARTY 5 NINTENDO OF AMERICA 721,479 16,888
13 GCN PIKMIN NINTENDO OF AMERICA 646,322 4,959
14 GCN SOUL CALIBUR II NAMCO 639,559 34,457
15 GCN POKEMON COLOSSEUM NINTENDO OF AMERICA 630,902 28,971
What's strange is that Nintendo had a really strong launch for the system and third party games... Look at Star Wars, Burnout, THPS3, SA2, Spider-Man, Agent Under Fire, etc... With a little more attention to this and going up against MS at the beginning, Nintendo could be the clear second choice in the west.
Happened in Europe too.
Happened in Europe too.
CajoleJuice
Member
I would have bought Fight Night if it came out on GC and BO3 too. I swear the 3rd party games I give a shit about don't come to GC. Oh wtf do I care...I don't even have my GC up with me at college.
And Nintendo definitely is going for a niche market next gen with the Revolution. They've lost the mainstream. Unless Sony fucks up bad, it has the home console industry by the balls. Nintendo still has the Gameboy brand though. You can tell Nintendo doesn't want to let that slip away like its hold on the home console market did.
And Nintendo definitely is going for a niche market next gen with the Revolution. They've lost the mainstream. Unless Sony fucks up bad, it has the home console industry by the balls. Nintendo still has the Gameboy brand though. You can tell Nintendo doesn't want to let that slip away like its hold on the home console market did.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
I dunno, man... Xbox is definitely doing better than the GCN this year, but comparing the numbers from last year to this it seems the increased Xbox numbers are at the expense of PS2. Which if anything would hurt the chance of a one console dream, since there's more parity.Drinky Crow said:
jarrod said:
I really didn't see anyone hooping and hollering about it... but the title of this thread is about Nintendo needing to kiss some ass, not about Xbox and PS2.
Xsarien was trying to prove that 3rd party developers have more success on GC than Nintendo by quoting "six of the ten best selling games on the Cube were 3rd party games" ... I was just pointing out that he was wrong.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
I thought this statement to be true, but I decided to examine it further. I guess having not messed about in the sales threads recently I forgot how much fun this was.JoshuaJSlone said:
Code:
.........PS2 Change XBX Change GCN Change PS2% XBX% GCN %
January -110000 28000 50000 -25 17 62
February -125934 5469 -28417 -26 3 -17
March -116267 33665 - 2389 -28 20 - 1
April - 75604 170761 - 4950 -29 35 - 5
May - 34673 93383 - 6581 -12 76 - 8
June - 13834 95121 -15080 - 3 57 -12
July - 21000 107000 -34000 - 7 78 -27
August - 79310 70911 8953 -27 49 9
Total -576622 604310 -32464 -20 49 - 3At this time last year the PS2/XBX/GCN ratios were 57/24/19. This year they're 46/36/18. So I'd continue to say that this is in fact bad for one looking for a one console dream. The PS2 is merely more down to earth this year, even compared to GameCube. Last year at this point GCN had sold 32% as well as the market leader. This year, 39%. Though that's just spin; moving from being barely in last to one giant competitor to being definitely in last between two closer competitors is certainly a bad thing.
However, total console sales are nearly the same; a drop of less than 5000 by these numbers.
FitzOfRage
Member
efralope said:
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of Acclaim's performance over the years here. People say they generally did well last gen and generally did poorly this generation, but that shouldn't (and doesn't) translate into all of the N64 years being profitable and all the years since being losses.
So if we want to talk about FACTS, I pulled up their earnings history.
Fiscal Year Ended...
Aug. 1996 - ($220 million) loss
Aug. 1997 (first year of N64 support, particularly Turok) - ($159 million) loss
Aug. 1998 - $21 million profit
Aug. 1999 - $36 million profit
Aug. 2000 (last year of N64 support) - ($132 million) loss
Aug. 2001 (first year of PS2 support) - $17 million profit
Aug. 2002 (first year of GC, Xbox support)- $5 million loss
They changed their fiscal year ends to March after that point so only 7 months was included for the next year and they compared it to the same time period from the previous year
March 2003 - $68 million loss (compared to a $12 million profit for the 7 month period from Sept. 2001 to March 2002)
March 2004 (pulled GC support during what would be their last full year) - $56 million loss (compared to an $85 million for the 12 month period from April 2002 to March 2003)
3 profitable years out of the last 9. They had a net loss of $234 million during the years supporting the N64 vs. a net loss of $112 million since then. Overall $640 million in losses in that time period vs. $74 million in profits. FACTS
Whenever I venture out of Nintendo's hardware territory, it's a waste of money other than a measly game here or there. There's that problem, and that I hate the other guys' controllers (and Sony's consoles break down). If developers don't want to support Nintendo's consoles, then they don't get my support. They make some good stuff, but they're crazy if they expect me to buy and play lesser hardware for what they put out.
That said, I think I know how Nintendo could go great lengths to regaining marketshare and developer support: new games (as in completely original). The kind that people really want to play... big games with tons of freedom... whatever. I love their franchises, Mario, Zelda, but for the sake of expanding, they need to create an environment for newness. The new Zelda is already kind of heading in the direction, but they could do it with original software, too. As a fan, I think they've done wonderfully with original software this gen in Animal Crossing, Wario Ware, Four Swords (sorta) and Pikmin, but I'm always up for originality, and it'll help them.
That said, I think I know how Nintendo could go great lengths to regaining marketshare and developer support: new games (as in completely original). The kind that people really want to play... big games with tons of freedom... whatever. I love their franchises, Mario, Zelda, but for the sake of expanding, they need to create an environment for newness. The new Zelda is already kind of heading in the direction, but they could do it with original software, too. As a fan, I think they've done wonderfully with original software this gen in Animal Crossing, Wario Ware, Four Swords (sorta) and Pikmin, but I'm always up for originality, and it'll help them.
wipeout364
Member
Nintendo has a lot of problems in the console market. Many are deserved IMO. I personally would like to see them continue as a console maker. The fact is that they make some great titles.
Unfortunately they have a poor working relationship with developers they have in the past overcharged for publishing rights and chosen mediums (ie cartridges) that have been very expensive. I think the N64 hurt them with third parties and consumers. I never forgot the poor selection of games that system delivered and the bloated prices for software on that system.
I think the kiddie image whether deserved or not has also been problematic. Mario was OK when I was young but back then I didn't really know games could be any different. Sony delivered a new type of experience with more mature games (not necessarily better) that redefined the gaming atmosphere and allowed them to capture teens, 20 and 30 year olds. Nintendo's flagships are still Mario, Zelda, and Starfox.
I think Nintendo is in a difficult spot. These "older gamers" are having kids (who arguably are Nintendo's target demographic) but the kids are seeing PSX and XBOX, not Nintendo.
How do they regain the market, I have no idea. I think the Metroid remake was great and perhaps that might have been the title to launch revolution with, that and resident evil 4 with no sight of mario or zelda for a few months. That would change the tone of the system straight from the get go or maybe it would have make no difference.
Unfortunately they have a poor working relationship with developers they have in the past overcharged for publishing rights and chosen mediums (ie cartridges) that have been very expensive. I think the N64 hurt them with third parties and consumers. I never forgot the poor selection of games that system delivered and the bloated prices for software on that system.
I think the kiddie image whether deserved or not has also been problematic. Mario was OK when I was young but back then I didn't really know games could be any different. Sony delivered a new type of experience with more mature games (not necessarily better) that redefined the gaming atmosphere and allowed them to capture teens, 20 and 30 year olds. Nintendo's flagships are still Mario, Zelda, and Starfox.
I think Nintendo is in a difficult spot. These "older gamers" are having kids (who arguably are Nintendo's target demographic) but the kids are seeing PSX and XBOX, not Nintendo.
How do they regain the market, I have no idea. I think the Metroid remake was great and perhaps that might have been the title to launch revolution with, that and resident evil 4 with no sight of mario or zelda for a few months. That would change the tone of the system straight from the get go or maybe it would have make no difference.
Take 2 is the publisher, Rockstar is the publishing label for many of their games, Rockstar North (formerly DMA) are the development team. Nintendo pissed off DMA when they were one of the "little guys" in the industry. It has since come back to hurt them drastically in the US market.
You can say they'd make slightly more money releasing a GTA on Gamecube, and they probably don't care. They've been around for a long time, and with the money they've made in the past three years, they'll be around for some time to come. And Take 2's fluctuating stock price isn't of much concern to a team that could find a new publisher at the drop of hat should things go sour for the company they are with now.
Nintendo has already been kissing third party ass. So have others. The result is Sony gets the most overall 3rd party support, Xbox gets more western 3rd party support and Gamecube gets more Japanese 3rd party support than Xbox.
The issue is whether current game politics are good for videogames or even based in reality, not console loyalty.
The issue is whether current game politics are good for videogames or even based in reality, not console loyalty.
The Bookerman
Member
Project Midway said:
GREATEST QUOTE FROM GA.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
I thik what Efralope was saying is that, when you look back at the N64 and how alot third party companies abandoned the system, there has been sort of a backlash towards third party companies. Some third party games seem invisible, because most assume those third party games are not the GC. There's been many times where I've been told that this game or that game is not on the GC, when I know for fact. BO2 is a good example, when went pick it up at my local game store, the clerk told me that the game isn't coming out for the GC. But the Gamestop 5 miles away had three copies.
http://biz.gamedaily.com/articles.asp?section=news&email=&article_id=7836#7836
One more EA title skipping the Cube...
"Developed by EA Canada, NCAA March Madness 2005 is slated for release on the Xbox and PlayStation 2 this November."
One more EA title skipping the Cube...
"Developed by EA Canada, NCAA March Madness 2005 is slated for release on the Xbox and PlayStation 2 this November."
ironichaos
Member
That's the absolute worst thing that could ever happen to this industry. Unregulated monopolies are never good. Ask third-party developers if they want to go back to the dictatorship of the NES generation if you need proof.
However, if the situation ever arose where one console was created and invested in by the industry equally - Sony created the hardware, Microsoft provided the operating system and Nintendo created the first-party titles...that, I would probably agree with.
Bluemercury
Member
Drinky Crow said:
Like you dont have any brand loyalty
Drinky Crow said:
I really hope you're wrong, this market is already in bad shape with companies going down lately or the small ones being absorved by the big ones, i cant imagine it without Nintendo games......
Alcibiades
Member
Of course when development for the first year of a new system (N64/Dreamcast, both of which had strong Acclaim support) losses might be an issue as there are expenses without a retail presence for those games.FitzOfRage said:
FACTS say that in 98-99, even without a game with the level of success of Turok, games like Forsaken, Shadowman, Quarterback Club (even if you say these games are mediocre/bad/decent/etc...).
Etreme G should have probably remained Nintendo exclusive, even with F-Zero competition (if you can call F-Zero's dismal numbers competition), Nintendo audiences, IMO, were familiar with certain franchises, and if Extreme G and Turok had come out swinging hard and strong (with great reviews and awesome graphics, the result of focused, one-platform development), they could have stood out and the Nintendo audience would have made them hits. Turok would have been part of the "mature" triumvarte of RE/Eternal Darkness since those were the only other two mature titles to stand out. Turok would have definitely been in the spotlight, as was the case before the generation started in sites like fgnonline.com (when Acclaim first brought up the development of a new Turok).
That's just my opinion of course, but look at what the Nintendo community/network was able to do with exclusive games like Billy Hatcher, Godzilla: DAMM, Monkey Ball, Viewtiful Joe, Ikaruga, Tales of Symphonia, A Wonderful Life, SA2: Battle, PSO: I & II, Skies of Arcadia, and Viewtiful Joe (which just bombed on PS2, btw).
On the other hand, if you are a IGN member, you may remember a anti-Acclaim rant about Turok going mulitplatform. I have 2 pieces of it saved in my lab account, I'll post it when I go next, but basically I said GCN'ers should stay away from Turok games.
I remember talking about 3rd party support for N64 back when I was a sophomore in HS (I'm my 4th year of college now), so that's 6 years ago. Even Nintendo gamers that don't get on the net get word around, and stay informed. The whole Nintendo fanbase isn't on GAF/IGN/other forums, many may not even have internet or care to go online. I know there is a group of about 4-5 of us that hang out during the summer (+ 1 military guy that's got an XBox) that I've been hanging out for a while now that are Nintendo gamers. Plus there are gamers which I've played games with since early in HS of course. I think I'm the only one that goes online, but I've got the info and they read mags and keep up to date. I'm sure this instance of Nintendo fan group isn't unique and probably are also in many places around the country.
Funny cause I like SEGA a lot so I'd been pushing the 2k5 at retail (to the point where I convinced my GM to set up NFL 2k5 on a widescreen big screen TV - XBX version, for over a week), but a friend (also a Nintendo fan, though he had gotten a Dreamcast at some point) is pretty much trashing it and pointing to reviews where Madden came out on top of being legit, it's like you can't mention 2k5 in front of him. Not only that, he canceled his GI subscription (or has let it run out) and went immediately to EB to subscribe to GMR, since GI gave 2k5 higher scores. I guess the fact that 2k5 didn't come out on GCN upset him (and contributed to EA's $4 million intake for GCN Madden this past month)
kitchenmotors
Banned
Project Midway said:
Speak for yourself. I remember a time when you were pretty fanatical with Xbox.
Alcibiades
Member
no really, I'm a big 2k5 fan (or rather SEGA), even pushing XBox consoles along w/ the system. I have no real problem w/ XBox, in August I gave them a big push and in our store, 2k5 held a clear lead in sales. We were #1 in the district (and high in the region for sure) for sales on both PS2 and XBox.AniHawk said:Yes. "Friend."
I mean, it was great, and I became pretty cool with other employees in other departments that liked the game. After I convinced my GM to use a big screen TV for the game in the middle of the store, people were stunned at the graphics, including my sales manager.
It was awesome, and I pushed the game pretty hard. The very first day, my supervisor kinda got upset I think because she gave me a copy of Madden XBox, put it in my hand, and told me that's the game we should be pushing (she doesn't know about games other than the margin is higher with Madden). Of course, I didnt' listen to her, and as an emploiyee I'm pretty indispensible for something like that (they didn't seem to mind when I made my store #1 in the company for GCN memory cards and #1 in the company for GCN controllers) since I'm great at driving revenue and informing customers about the games, even for PS2, XBox and PC.
Seriously, even though it's not on GCN, I'm cool with 2k5. If Sega sells Visual Concepts though, I'll pay no mind to it anymore.
MadOdorMachine
No additional functions
Next gen, they need to launch w/ an original FPS from Retro. They also need some racing games. Maybe they should let NST try their hands at an original racer. They did pretty good w/ WR:BS, 1080, RR64 and Zelda:OoT (GCN), let them try something new for once. Either that or get some exclusive racer from Sega. Buying Free Radical would be a good idea too, although I doubt that would happen.
One way of looking at it is that Nintendo's "problem" is that their games are too good.
If you only own a Gamecube, and a typical gamer buys say, 5, games per year, chances are that you're going to buy the Mario, Metroid, Zelda games released that year. The strength of Nintendo's 1st Party offering is so strong that it doesn't leave much room for anything but biggest 3rd Party brands (like EA's).
Back in March, I did some analysis that might shed some light on the arguably hostile 3rd Party publishing environment on the Cube. I haven't updated my analysis, but it looked something like this:
Compare the % of the Catalogue that is 1st Party (#1st Party SKUs/Total SKUs)
to
The % of Revenue captured by the 1st Party company
One could argue, that in a perfectly fair world, the ratio of these two metrics should be 1:1.
In 2003:
7% of all Gamecube games were Nintendo 1st Party
38% of the revenue went to Nintendo
Ratio: 5.44
11% of all Xbox games that were MS 1st Party
16% of the Xbox revenue went to MS
Ratio: 1.42
10% of all PS2 games were Sony 1st Party
12% of the PS2 revenue went to Sony
Ratio: 1.24
Nintendo reaps way more pie on their console than 3rd Parties would like. Their games and brands are just so strong that they make the 3rd Party publishing environment very difficult. (Note: MS ratio during the Xbox launch year peaked at 2.09, mostly due to Halo sales. You can bet money that Sony is targeting to release 10% of all SKUs and generate about 10% of all revenue. Their % in both categories have been very constant since 2000.)
If you only own a Gamecube, and a typical gamer buys say, 5, games per year, chances are that you're going to buy the Mario, Metroid, Zelda games released that year. The strength of Nintendo's 1st Party offering is so strong that it doesn't leave much room for anything but biggest 3rd Party brands (like EA's).
Back in March, I did some analysis that might shed some light on the arguably hostile 3rd Party publishing environment on the Cube. I haven't updated my analysis, but it looked something like this:
Compare the % of the Catalogue that is 1st Party (#1st Party SKUs/Total SKUs)
to
The % of Revenue captured by the 1st Party company
One could argue, that in a perfectly fair world, the ratio of these two metrics should be 1:1.
In 2003:
7% of all Gamecube games were Nintendo 1st Party
38% of the revenue went to Nintendo
Ratio: 5.44
11% of all Xbox games that were MS 1st Party
16% of the Xbox revenue went to MS
Ratio: 1.42
10% of all PS2 games were Sony 1st Party
12% of the PS2 revenue went to Sony
Ratio: 1.24
Nintendo reaps way more pie on their console than 3rd Parties would like. Their games and brands are just so strong that they make the 3rd Party publishing environment very difficult. (Note: MS ratio during the Xbox launch year peaked at 2.09, mostly due to Halo sales. You can bet money that Sony is targeting to release 10% of all SKUs and generate about 10% of all revenue. Their % in both categories have been very constant since 2000.)
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll