Support NeoGAF

[TheGreenGiant]

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.)

You're right of course; but then cubers have the extra benefit of being discerning which is scary for developers. Its not like games don't sell, just that rubbish tend not to. I think the gamecube does fine for what it is; a Nintendo console.

**

back to main point raised in the first post; so are you saying Nintendo should have loaned money to Capcom awhile back and made them into second/first party then? This was when Capcom asked - I personally was shocked to hear that they didn't. That would have been complete ownage for Nintendo.

That said;

a) Capcom ASKED Nintendo for funds; not MS or Sony. Says something
a) Nintendo said NO. Says something

 

[DrGAKMAN]

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.

This is an example of a point I was trying to make a while back. This all goes back to Nintendo reps...if they're not doing their jobs at these retail & rental chains then people will think certain games or even whole genre's of games don't exist on GAMECUBE. If Nintendo had better representation at these outlets then the common gamer would see that YES alot of these gameshave come out on GAMECUBE. I've been told countless times that the reason they didn't get such'n'such game on GAMECUBE for rent/sale is 'cos these games don't rent/sell on the system...WELL NO SHIT...if you don't even carry but one copy of each of these games. So idiotic. The blame goes to these retailers AND to the Nintendo representatives who aren't doing their job and making sure that people (casuals, everyday gamers, not just Nintendo fans) KNOW that these games DO exist on GAMECUBE. Too late for the most part now as these types of games aren't even being made for GAMECUBE now due to what's already happened this generation.

I like to think this is a 50/50 thing. It was just as much Nintendo's fault that GAMECUBE was never taken seriously by the industry as it is the industries fault for treating it like the black sheep...it all goes back to Nintendo unveiling the GAMECUBE as a silly, colorful toy, instead of a serious, dark machine. From that point on, before they even launched the system, GAMECUBE was never taken seriously by the mainstream or gaming press, retailers, developers, publishers and most importantly gamers.

 

[Mooreberg]

One way of looking at it is that Nintendo's "problem" is that their games are too good.

Yeah except... no.

 

[human5892]

uh.. I hate to break it to you, but, the Cube is pretty much finished. I mean, after Resident Evil 4, what is there? nothing! what has there been? nothing! .. Nintendo should pack-in the console business, and just focus on handhelds, they had a good run. nes/snes.

HRM HAR I CAN RIPE ON NINTEENDO TOO GUYS

At 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.

I think that's pretty interesting -- I'm surprised no-one else has commented on it yet. I guess all of Microsoft's protests that they weren't really competing with Nintendo were right after all.

One console dream: further away than ever.

 

[GDGF]

You buy Nintendo home consoles for Nintendo games (and the occasional big third party exclusive) You need alot of third party games? Do what Drinky says and buy a PS(3),
and that's really all there is to say.


OK, I got more. I imagine the Revolution is going to be Nintendo giving the big F You to most third parties (partially from necessity)...more and more that idea of a hub where all Nintendo games are available is making sense.

 

[FitzOfRage]

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.

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...).

Well they did have games with the level of success of Turok during that time - Turok 1 and Turok 2. The first game was actually released in a February, so it didn't have its first holiday season until fiscal 98. Remember, the N64 only had about 40 games by the end of 1997, so the shelf life of hit games was pretty long. And of course fiscal 99 had Turok 2.

Going back to their last profitable year, it actually wasn't the Dreamcast saving them. 74% of their sales that year came from Sony platforms - 41% for PS1, 33% for PS2. Their DC sales had actually decreased from the previous year.

And BTW all this information is available on the SEC's website, since Acclaim's website has been taken down.

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

When it comes to third parties and successful titles, I think some titles should stay to the console that lead its success. Once you build a brand, it gives an obvious chance at continued success. If you are publisher as large EA, multiplatform development is a must. EA history is multiplatform, it started this when it was just Sega and Nintendo. So they have brands that spand across consoles of 20 generations now.

I think Ubisoft has found the right formula for multiplatform development, SC and RS3 were released on the Xbox first. These brands have a following, ports come after the end of timed exclusivity.

 

[Datawhore]

I imagine the Revolution is going to be Nintendo giving the big F You to most third parties (partially from necessity)...more and more that idea of a hub where all Nintendo games are available is making sense.

That's exactly what Nintendo wants. They are deliberately developing their systems (DS & now Revolution) to be difficult to port to. They want to ensure platform exclusive content (1st Party, or 3rd Party) and the best way to do that is to make your platform so unique that titles MUST be developed specifically for it. (DS - two screens, stylus controls; Revolution - likely some gyro controller, some other weird shit).

I'll buy them both!!!

That said, the DS is getting quite a bit 3rd Party support, but much of it is original content (based on established brands). Its unlikely that you'll see any DS to PSP ports though for obvious reasons.

 

[SonicMegaDrive]

As a side note, the other day I was playing my GameCube. I gazed down at my hands for a second. It was then I realized, "Geezus. This controller looks like a little kid's toy!" This kind of thing may not matter to you or I, but the common idiot off the street isn't gonna want to show this thing off to his drinking buddies. Whoever it was that said the image of the system itself is a part of Nintendo's problem was dead-on. If Nintendo does intend to capture any of the mainstream older crowd, they need to design the system to look more 'professional'.

 

[GDGF]

True that, Datawhore. My video game library has always consisted of like 90% Nintendo games and third party exclusives. I don't buy games you can get on another system (as ports are for the most part, crap) I'd imagine the hardcore nintendo fan has very similar buying habits.

Whatever happens in the upcoming gen, it won't really affect my buying habits that much. My future library will consist of Nintendo games mostly, with the occasional third party exclusive, (and that will probably remain the constant for the hardcore nintendo fan, too)

Nintendo picked up on this a long time ago, and it's pretty apparent that alot of the third parties have as well. Nintendo's always been against ports, too, and as you said, I think that is reflected in the uniqueness of their upcoming systems (two systems that I will most certainly be buying on launch day BTW)

 

[Scrow]

Damnit Xbox and PS2 receive all the good games and Nintendo only seem to get petty ports and left overs.

really? i've always thought of it the other way. GameCube doesn't get bucket loads of shit games... the GBA however has its fair share of crap.

 

[jarrod]

3rd party devs already get a taste of how bad Nintendo is with the GBA, perhaps that is why they rather not have Nintendo regain control of consoles again

What do you mean bad? At least when Nintendo wants to bring GBA MSRPs down they drop 3rd party royalties accordingly (unlike Sony with PS2)....