Support NeoGAF

[Nirolak]

To me, stronger Japanese support as compared to Western support has always made sense to me- you look at some of the relationships there in terms of Namco helping with Smash or the Atlus collaboration, and it seems like there should be some Wii U games.

But the proof is in the pudding and right now there is nothing there.

Maybe we should look at this from the other direction.

We normally ask "why not?" and come to the conclusion we could expect to see support. Since so far we aren't, let's ask "why?"

What benefits do Japanese third parties get by supporting the Wii U?

 

[Canis lupus]

Bayonetta 2 is considered a first party game as long as Nintendo is publishing and (presumably) playing for all of it.

You're right.

I cannot think of any Japanese 3rd party game...

 

[Magicpaint]

Small devs/publishers (such as Falcom, NIS, Gust etc) don't even need to be aggressive with 3DS support anyway, since they usually cater to a niche and that doesn't rely on a massive userbase. I don't even remember Falcom ever announcing support for the 3DS?

With the WiiU, I'm not surprised at all by the lack of support. Support was VERY quick to dry up for the Wii even in Japan when it was doing well, so what's going to change their minds? Nintendo would need to heavily incentivise to change things up dramatically.

 

[metalslimer]

Maybe we should look at this from the other direction.

We normally ask "why not?" and come to the conclusion we could expect to see support. Since so far we aren't, let's ask "why?"

What benefits do Japanese third parties get by supporting the Wii U?

I said this earlier. There are no real benefits to wiiu support when there are better avenues for every type of game. Combine this with Japanese publishers not wanting to spend as much and the Wiiu being an hd console makes things worse ironically

You're right.

I cannot think of any Japanese 3rd party game...

A stretch, but deus ex. I mean Eidos is taking an even bigger role in the company with Wada out

 

[schuelma]

Maybe we should look at this from the other direction.

We normally ask "why not?" and come to the conclusion we could expect to see support. Since so far we aren't, let's ask "why?"

What benefits do Japanese third parties get by supporting the Wii U?

Well, honestly at this moment there isn't a huge one. But in talking about support for this post launch period,those decisions had to be made a year ago or more.

Hypothetically when these discussions were presumably taking place, I think a benefit for 3rd parties would be the ability to maintain your current development tools and engines, and the opportunity to establish a early foothold in a platform that was a successor to a platform that initially sold extremely well before support died down.

 

[Soriku]

Small devs/publishers (such as Falcom, NIS, Gust etc) don't even need to be aggressive with 3DS support anyway, since they usually cater to a niche and that doesn't rely on a massive userbase. I don't even remember Falcom ever announcing support for the 3DS?

With the WiiU, I'm not surprised at all by the lack of support. Support was VERY quick to dry up for the Wii even in Japan when it was doing well, so what's going to change their minds? Nintendo would need to heavily incentivise to change things up dramatically.

http://andriasang.com/con1wg/3ds_legend_of_heroes/

"The Kiseki series has been limited to PSP, but starting next term it will be offered on 3DS and a variety of other targets."

Could still happen but Falcom has been focused on Sony for a while. Doubt there's some behind the scenes Sony incentives. They just know Sony systems are where their fanbase is. Same goes for NIS and Gust.

I wouldn't look into Marvelous much. There's no reason for them to drop support for 3DS. A new Senran Kagura, Rune Factory (RF4 did very well for them), Harvest Moon, and Inafune's pirate game as previously stated. I think that Dragon Marked for Death game is vaporware until stated otherwise though considering we haven't heard about it since 2011.

 

[Bruno MB]

Maybe we should look at this from the other direction.

We normally ask "why not?" and come to the conclusion we could expect to see support. Since so far we aren't, let's ask "why?"

What benefits do Japanese third parties get by supporting the Wii U?

One thing is clear, there isn't market on Wii U for current-gen ports, all of them bombed miserably. For example, how much would Dynasty Warriors 8 have sold on Wii U? yes, a figure closer to 0 than a quarter of what the PS3 version sold. That's the biggest issue.

 

[Mpl90]

Talking about Shin Sangoku Musou 7, do you think Tecmo will release the classic Special edition this time too? in the case, where? All the other have been released on PSP, but maybe it's time for going to other platforms, or to just another platform. Then: Vita, 3DS, or even both?

 

[Chris1964]

Load summer with Pikmin, Wii Fit, Wii Party, Wonderful 101, G&W (west) and Lego City (JP) starting in June and timed with a price drop/SKU value add. Then this fall through the holidays roll out Wind Waker HD, Yarn Yoshi, Mario Kart, Mario Universe, Xenosomething (JP), DQX (west) and whatever other goodies are behind the veil (Retro shooter, Bayo Climax, etc). If that can't move Wii Us, time to kill it and move on.

The big problem with this list is that almost everything is first party. Nintendo can't support the system alone without help from third parties, not when there isn't the system seller at the system.

 

[Magicpaint]

http://andriasang.com/con1wg/3ds_legend_of_heroes/

"The Kiseki series has been limited to PSP, but starting next term it will be offered on 3DS and a variety of other targets."

Could still happen but Falcom has been focused on Sony for a while. Doubt there's some behind the scenes Sony incentives. They just know Sony systems are where their fanbase is. Same goes for NIS and Gust.

I wouldn't look into Marvelous much. There's no reason for them to drop support for 3DS. A new Senran Kagura, Rune Factory (RF4 did very well for them), Harvest Moon, and Inafune's pirate game as previously stated. I think that Dragon Marked for Death game is vaporware until stated otherwise though considering we haven't heard about it since 2011.

Ah, I see.

 

[Thorgal]

Maybe we should look at this from the other direction.

We normally ask "why not?" and come to the conclusion we could expect to see support. Since so far we aren't, let's ask "why?"

What benefits do Japanese third parties get by supporting the Wii U?

i have two theories brewing but both just seem outrageous.

either:

they are all looking at 3ds domination and figured : if our games can function and sell well enough on a handheld with a big install base like that then why bother focusing on a nintendo console ?

or even more outrageous;

suddenly everyone wants to jump back on a sony console (PS4) as they think a future with nintendo having the handhelds and sony having the console market would be best for everyone.

 

[schuelma]

i have two theories brewing but both just seem outrageous.

either:

they are all looking at 3ds domination and figured : if our games can function and sell well enough on a handheld with a big install base like that then why bother focusing on a nintendo console ?

or even more outrageous;

suddenly everyone wants to jump back on a sony console (PS4) as they think a future with nintendo having the handhelds and sony having the console market would be best for everyone.

Another unlikely theory, but hell why not- a decent amount of games are being planned as Wii U/PS4 multi-platform. This could explain some of the lack of Wii U software currently announced.

I don't think its likely, but who knows.

 

[michaelius]

Ah, I see.

Well they added PS3 and PSV to the list so variety other targets was done

And a lot of reason probably lies in stuff we will never know about - royalties, development tools, minimum print size and other bussiness conditions.

 

[Magicpaint]

Well they added PS3 and PSV to the list so variety other targets was done

And a lot of reason probably lies in stuff we will never know about - royalties, development tools, minimum print size and other bussiness conditions.

Yeah, I mean, I'm still skeptical that it will materialise to actual 3DS support. I just wasn't aware that they actually considered the platform at any point.

 

[electroplankton]

The big problem with this list is that almost everything is first party. Nintendo can't support the system alone without help from third parties, not when there isn't the system seller at the system.

I can agree to some extent, but Nintendo supported Wii by itself and we didn't have any system seller from third parties in Japan, other than Monster Hunter 3, which appeared in 2009 anyway.

 

[Chris1964]

I can agree to some extent, but Nintendo supported Wii by itself and we didn't have any system seller from third parties in Japan, other than Monster Hunter 3, which appeared in 2009 anyway.

No, but there was a system seller from Nintendo.

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

Another unlikely theory, but hell why not- a decent amount of games are being planned as Wii U/PS4 multi-platform. This could explain some of the lack of Wii U software currently announced.

I don't think its likely, but who knows.

WiiU/PS4 doesn't really make sense though. PS4 vastly out powers the WiiU and porting may not be easy. Theres also the risk since the WiiU has a small user base and low slaes while the PS4 is an entirely new platform.

WiiU/PS3 makes the most sense but we haven't even been getting those. They just seem to be ps3 exclusive.

PS4/PS3 only makes sense for big publishers as they would want to maintain their sales while building their audience on the next platform. Smaller pubs will probably stick with PS3 until PS4 picks up.

I see it as more than unlikely.

Could still happen but Falcom has been focused on Sony for a while. Doubt there's some behind the scenes Sony incentives. They just know Sony systems are where their fanbase is. Same goes for NIS and Gust.

It seems Falcom want to be in on that PS3 pie now. I agree with the notion that Gust, NIS and Falcom know where their audience is and their audience know where to go for their games.

We've got Marvelous being very successful on the 3DS who then suddenly stopped supporting it

Marvelous have had a lot of succes on the 3DS I doubt they have stopped supporting it, they just have not announced their titles. Its also important to note that Marvelous has also had success with the Vita especially SK series. Muramasa will be interesting to see what happens but I think Marvelous is going to back the Vita.

 

[Soriku]

Another unlikely theory, but hell why not- a decent amount of games are being planned as Wii U/PS4 multi-platform. This could explain some of the lack of Wii U software currently announced.

I don't think its likely, but who knows.

This is just a pipe dream IMO. Third parties are more content to do PS3/360 or PS3/PSV games and there are barely any PS3/Wii U games. PS3/360 is meant to penetrate the West, while the Vita gives them an opportunity to get games on a console and handheld in Japan (and the Vita's a handheld being capable enough to not just run a shoddy version of the console game). Eventually, third parties are more likely to move to PS4/720 and PS4/PSV games than PS4/Wii U.

 

[schuelma]

WiiU/PS4 doesn't really make sense though. PS4 vastly out powers the WiiU and porting may not be easy. Theres also the risk since the WiiU has a small user base and low .

I agree its unlikely, but for many console games from Japan I guarantee you there is not going to be some insane graphical leap. For games focused on the West, yes- for those focused on Japan, I really doubt.

 

[big youth]

Nintendo has never been bigger or better equipped to support a console by themselves. they've been more active in publishing 3rd party games recently, for example B2, W101, Rayman, LEGO and they allegedly have other dev partnerships beyond SMTxFE and Smash Bros. this is Nintendo's best course of action, and they seem to know it.

 

[electroplankton]

No, but there was a system seller from Nintendo.

Of course. I read as you meant system sellers from third parties.

 

[Kid Ying]

One thing is clear, there isn't market on Wii U for current-gen ports, all of them bombed miserably. For example, how much would Dynasty Warriors 8 have sold on Wii U? yes, a figure closer to 0 than a quarter of what the PS3 version sold. That's the biggest issue.

I don't think so. Hokuto Musou, even being a late port with a terrible word of mouth, managed the usual 10k that the 360 had. We will have an actual test with Revelaitons.

 

[Thorgal]

to give some reason why i thought about reason 2 heres a post from me from another thread about sony allowing free publishing.

So i was wondering something today.


durring this generation we have seen many japanese developpers move on to handhelds and IOS because of the high development costs and also because the ps3 hardware was difficult too work with.

Seeing as it is confirmed that the ps4 is super easy to develop for . that removed already one barrier.

the thing i was wondering is now that sony allows for self publishing and is throwing its stupid rules out the window could this be the catalyst that removes the other barrier
and allow small japanese 3rd party devellopers to put their games back on playstation as
if they where small indi developers?

of course this all depends how well it sells in japan .

tl;dr

with this aproach could we see a resurgence of massive japanese 3rd party support?

now i don't know if japanese developers would like this aproach but in my opinion it would solve the issues that caused the exodus of small developer teams from ps3 to handheld only.

 

[frankie_baby]

I don't think so. Hokuto Musou, even being a late port with a terrible word of mouth, managed the usual 10k that the 360 had. We will have an actual test with Revelaitons.

well resident evil usually does well on nintendo systems, so could see revelaitons doing a good percentage

 

[Nekki]

On a different note, what are peoples expectations with Pokemon Rumble??

I think it will do decently, and make a good profit with the NFC integration.

 

[Nirolak]

Well, honestly at this moment there isn't a huge one. But in talking about support for this post launch period,those decisions had to be made a year ago or more.

Hypothetically when these discussions were presumably taking place, I think a benefit for 3rd parties would be the ability to maintain your current development tools and engines, and the opportunity to establish a early foothold in a platform that was a successor to a platform that initially sold extremely well before support died down.

Well, I can see the logic there, but to play devil's advocate, I'll break this into two parts and see the potential counter arguments.

Point 1.) "The ability to maintain your current development tools and engines."

Response 1.) Due to the Wii U's architecture, developers have to rearchitect their technology to move notable amounts of work off the CPU and onto the GPU, which isn't necessarily a very straightforward conversion. Now, for the most forward looking technology, that is something that happens, but the people constructing that forward looking technology were likely looking forward to the other next-gen platforms instead, and now want to capitalize on their investment to the fullest by fighting the "We have the absolute best graphics/technology for our specific niche, it's really hard to directly compete with us." fight. Now, technologically speaking, moving your Wii technology over to the Wii U is actually fairly straightforward due to some inherited architecture, but most companies did not invest heavily in Wii technology. On the other hand, we see the Vita getting a lot of PS3 ports, but it is worth noting that Sony spent a significant amount of effort making it relatively easy to port PS3 content to the Vita by (for example) making sure things like shaders written for PS3 could natively run on the Vita with no additional work. Since the Wii U isn't made by Sony, Nintendo couldn't offer developers nearly the same ease of porting, thus making any Wii U ports coming from the PS3 instead of the Wii potentially notably harder than a Vita port. I feel it's worth pointing out that two of the major third party games on the Wii U were built on technology that ran on the Wii (Monster Hunter and Dragon Quest). Given that the PS4 still uses PSLS and lib-gcm, that may also be an easier port despite the very notable architectural switch.

(As a side note, I think this is a good example of why Nintendo's plans to unify their consoles and handhelds architecturally the next go around is smart, since they might be able to get handheld games/derivatives on their console, especially if the 4DS is at least Vita level in power.)

Point 2.) "The opportunity to establish a early foothold in a platform that was a successor to a platform that initially sold extremely well."

Response 2.) While this is true, the biggest issue here is that it didn't necessarily sell the types of games Japanese third parties make. Now, it's kind of odd that the casual games that did succeed on the Wii aren't having successors on the Wii U, but maybe the third parties feel that market has dried up after the Wii finally floundered. If a developer only had the resources to target their technology at one new console, looking at how their games and games that were similar to theirs sold historically on PlayStation consoles and Nintendo consoles, they might decide that PlayStation consoles are the safest bet. If they didn't like either answer, they might just decide to dump console development off a cliff and go all in on the much-more-likely-to-succeed-long-term 3DS platform despite its initial woes. For some of these titles as well (late 2013/early 2014), they may have already been in the major take off of the 3DS period.

One thing is clear, there isn't market on Wii U for current-gen ports, all of them bombed miserably. For example, how much would Dynasty Warriors 8 have sold on Wii U? yes, a figure closer to 0 than a quarter of what the PS3 version sold. That's the biggest issue.

Yeah I think in terms of porting over what publishers have right now, that's a problem. "Well my last two games didn't do well, so why try a third?"

@private400 I think this covers what you said as well. Sorry didn't notice your post at first while scrolling.

 

[ksamedi]

Maybe we should look at this from the other direction.

We normally ask "why not?" and come to the conclusion we could expect to see support. Since so far we aren't, let's ask "why?"

What benefits do Japanese third parties get by supporting the Wii U?

Filling in white spaces, like genres Nintendo doesn't cover or getting extra attention for a game exclusive to WiiU that would otherwise not be noticed maybe ? I think the biggest benefit is keeping a good reationship with Nintendo because of their huge handheld presence and software selling capability.

 

[VAPitts]

Bloody hell. You're right.


You wot, mate? I'm asking for the first one to be available on the eShop, well before the second one arrives.

well that would be on Sega and Platinum not Nintendo.

 

[frankie_baby]

On a different note, what are peoples expectations with Pokemon Rumble??

I think it will do decently, and make a good profit with the NFC integration.

its a download game, so we are unlikely to ever know much (possible famitsu could track download card sales of it) the price point of the game and the toys means it could do quite well though, especially with skylanders being a non factor in japan

 

[schuelma]

Point 1.) "The ability to maintain your current development tools and engines."

Response 1.) Due to the Wii U's architecture, developers have to rearchitect their technology to move notable amounts of work off the CPU and onto the GPU, which isn't necessarily a very straightforward conversion. Now, for the most forward looking technology, that is something that happens, but the people constructing that forward looking technology were likely looking forward to the other next-gen platforms instead, and now want to capitalize on their investment to the fullest by fighting the "We have the absolute best graphics/technology for our specific niche, it's really hard to directly compete with us." fight. Now, technologically speaking, moving your Wii technology over to the Wii U is actually fairly straightforward due to some inherited architecture, but most companies did not invest heavily in Wii technology. On the other hand, we see the Vita getting a lot of PS3 ports, but it is worth noting that Sony spent a significant amount of effort making it relatively easy to port PS3 content to the Vita by (for example) making sure things like shaders written for PS3 could natively run on the Vita with no additional work. Since the Wii U isn't made by Sony, Nintendo couldn't offer developers nearly the same ease of porting, thus making any Wii U ports coming from the PS3 instead of the Wii potentially notably harder than a Vita port. I feel it's worth pointing out that two of the major third party games on the Wii U were built on technology that ran on the Wii (Monster Hunter and Dragon Quest). Given that the PS4 still uses PSLS and lib-gcm, that may also be an easier port despite the very notable architectural switch.

Yeah, absolutely fair point, and kind of baffling to me on Nintendo's part. This could also explain the lack of ports from Japanese companies compared to the West- Western companies have more resources and could get around tech issues easier than Japanese companies.

Response 2.) While this is true, the biggest issue here is that it didn't necessarily sell the types of games Japanese third parties make. Now, it's kind of odd that the casual games that did succeed on the Wii aren't having successors on the Wii U, but maybe the third parties feel that market has dried up after the Wii finally floundered. If a developer only had the resources to target their technology at one new console, looking at how their games and games that were similar to theirs sold historically on PlayStation consoles and Nintendo consoles, they might decide that PlayStation consoles are the safest bet. If they didn't like either answer, they might just decide to dump console development off a cliff and go all in on the much-more-likely-to-succeed-long-term 3DS platform despite its initial woes. For some of these titles as well (late 2013/early 2014), they may have already been in the major take off of the 3DS period.

2 responses:

1- It is true that the core type games didn't do that well on Wii. I think Nintendo could have/should have made an argument to 3rd parties that they were too late to get on that bandwagon for the Wii and needed to be on Wii U from day 1 to grow the userbase.

2- Yeah the one group of games I thought were truly locks for Wii U were the casual titles that saw successes on Wii- Taiko Drum, the "Family" group of games from Namco, Inazuma Strikers, and Go Vacation. I still would be somewhat surprised if those don't make it over sooner or later- perhaps they are holding back until Wii Fit U comes out and the userbase is larger?

 

[Nirolak]

Filling in white spaces, like genres Nintendo doesn't cover or getting extra attention for a game exclusive to WiiU that would otherwise not be noticed maybe ? I think the biggest benefit is keeping a good reationship with Nintendo because of their huge handheld presence and software selling capability.

Well, I mean, do they really need to make games for the Wii U to keep their relationships up with Nintendo?

Nintendo never seemed to throw Square Enix or Level 5 off a bridge on the DS for having ho-hum Wii support.

They could take an actively hostile approach toward third parties and say "If you don't make for Wii U, we will treat you poorly on 3DS.", but that seems like an extremely dangerous strategy to me that lead to the N64 era exodus we saw after the SNES.

 

[ksamedi]

Well, I mean, do they really need to make games for the Wii U to keep their relationships up with Nintendo?

Nintendo never seemed to throw Square Enix or Level 5 off a bridge on the DS for having ho-hum Wii support.

They could take an actively hostile approach toward third parties and say "If you don't make for Wii U, we will treat you poorly on 3DS.", but that seems like an extremely dangerous strategy to me that lead to the N64 era exodus we saw after the SNES.

It's not that really. Nintendo can effectively negotiate support with the 3ds by, for example, lowering cart prices or royalty fees for certain 3DS titles. The 3DS is really strong right now and I think Nintendo will use the 3DS like that to crank up Wii U support.

I also think that not preparing anything for the WiiU is an incredibly bad long term strategy. Nintendo have a track record of creating hit titles and one big hit can change the fortunes of a platform. Being totally unprepared for such a thing is not really a good strategy at all.
I don't think they will go all out, but having some experience with the platform is beneficial even in this stage. Besides, a decent WiiU title from a third party would probably sell decent with how empty the release list is looking right now.

 

[Nirolak]

Yeah, absolutely fair point, and kind of baffling to me on Nintendo's part. This could also explain the lack of ports from Japanese companies compared to the West- Western companies have more resources and could get around tech issues easier than Japanese companies.

Right, since the West has to deal with tons of architectures anyway since they tend to port their engines all the way from high end PCs to smartphones, adding the Wii U isn't asking a huge amount.

However, a 30-40 person team adding a platform can be painful, especially if only 2-4 people are handling the vast majority of the core technology.

Again though, I think they can help lower the barrier by making a platform that really feeds into how developers want to make games. Presumably a platform that unifies handheld and console technology would be based on supercharged smartphone technology, most of which supports modern game development techniques and technologies natively (and certainly will by the time the Wii 3 and 4DS are due), and that would also go well with where a fair amount of Japanese publishers are heading with mobile to boot.

Unfortunately, I imagine Nintendo would not want to wait that long to have another shot at third party support on the console front.

2 responses:

1- It is true that the core type games didn't do that well on Wii. I think Nintendo could have/should have made an argument to 3rd parties that they were too late to get on that bandwagon for the Wii and needed to be on Wii U from day 1 to grow the userbase.

2- Yeah the one group of games I thought were truly locks for Wii U were the casual titles that saw successes on Wii- Taiko Drum, the "Family" group of games from Namco, Inazuma Strikers, and Go Vacation. I still would be somewhat surprised if those don't make it over sooner or later- perhaps they are holding back until Wii Fit U comes out and
the userbase is larger?

1.) I feel the thing that hurt them here is that publishers have been through a lot of generations where "test games" that are actually core oriented products have been released at launch (or maybe even a few years later), yet not performed well. Could we point to plausible tertiary reasons for most of them? Probably, but overall it still doesn't inspire confidence. We also didn't have Nintendo diving in head first and presenting their own major JRPGs/hunting action games/hack & slash/etc games near launch to help prove the audience exists and make third parties think "Well if this big impressive exclusive game in our genre is coming out near launch, maybe our title is fit for the platform too."

2.) I'm relatively positive on the casual games showing up on the Wii U once the Wii U starts achieving a larger install base (or at least starts releasing more casual games to build out the market for casual titles, thus reducing third party risk). These also strike me as the kinds of titles publishers like to release in the holiday season, since holiday shoppers are casual gamers have large overlap.

 

[Nirolak]

It's not that really. Nintendo can effectively negotiate support with the 3ds by, for example, lowering cart prices or royalty fees for certain 3DS titles. The 3DS is really strong right now and I think Nintendo will use the 3DS like that to crank up Wii U support.

I also think that not preparing anything for the WiiU is an incredibly bad long term strategy. Nintendo have a track record of creating hit titles and one big hit can change the fortunes of a platform. Being totally unprepared for such a thing is not really a good strategy at all.
I don't think they will go all out, but having some experience with the platform is beneficial even in this stage. Besides, a decent WiiU title from a third party would probably sell decent with how empty the release list is looking right now.

Ah I see what you mean. Positive incentives.

Yeah that has some potential, though I think it would mostly be appealing to smaller developers who aren't targeting the moon technologically/budget wise with their games.

That said, smaller developer support could be quite useful as we see with our current Vita bump.

They do still have to compete with Sony on that front however, given Sony has a long track record on that sort of thing, but Nintendo does have a large pocket book to work with, and as you said, the 3DS.

 

[schuelma]

We also didn't have Nintendo diving in head first and presenting their own major JRPGs/hunting action games/hack & slash/etc games near launch to help prove the audience exists and make third parties think "Well if this big impressive exclusive game in our genre is coming out near launch, maybe our title is fit for the platform too."
.

Well, that can be a double edged sword- seems just as likely that 3rd parties would complain about Nintendo's first party output taking away sales from whatever they brought to launch. Also, Nintendo had Zelda at its last launch and 3rd parties did not bring anything real significant to the platform until DQ:Swords in the summer of 2007, which frankly was pretty casual anyways.

I would also argue that at least in Nintendo's mind MH 3G HD was the game they felt would show 3rd parties that there was an audience for core games at launch. Outside of Zelda, not sure any Nintendo 1st party core gamer focused output would sell better.

 

[ksamedi]

Ah I see what you mean. Positive incentives.

Yeah that has some potential, though I think it would mostly be appealing to smaller developers who aren't targeting the moon technologically/budget wise with their games.

That said, smaller developer support could be quite useful as we see with our current Vita bump.

They do still have to compete with Sony on that front however, given Sony has a long track record on that sort of thing, but Nintendo does have a large pocket book to work with.

It really doesn't have to be smaller devs only. Imagine the next DQ, which will probably be 3DS only. Assuming it sells 4 million, a 7 dollar royalty fee cut would net 28 million. That is a large sum of money to negotiate with.

Again all these kinds of deals are probably negotiated behind closed doors and Nintendo is probably explaining, on a CEO level, what their strategy will be to increase sales with third parties. Getting to know the hardware, even by porting stuff only, is still beneficial long term when or if momentum hits.

 

[Thorgal]

On a different note, what are peoples expectations with Pokemon Rumble??

I think it will do decently, and make a good profit with the NFC integration.

well .i don't dare make a prediction about that at this time

on the one hand :its freaking pokemon! in japan thats huge.

on the other hand is the question if the system at its current price would entice people to bite the bullet and buy it just for this one game even if it is pokemon.

we could also question whether they want this game or if they are all waiting for pokemon X and Y .

 

[schuelma]

On a different note, what are peoples expectations with Pokemon Rumble??

I think it will do decently, and make a good profit with the NFC integration.

If it was an actual retail release I think it could possibly make a hardware dent. Since its download only and IIRC the toys are only being sold at Pokemon Centers I doubt it will do much of anything.

 

[Nirolak]

Well, that can be a double edged sword- seems just as likely that 3rd parties would complain about Nintendo's first party output taking away sales from whatever they brought to launch. Also, Nintendo had Zelda at its last launch and 3rd parties did not bring anything real significant to the platform until DQ:Swords in the summer of 2007, which frankly was pretty casual anyways.

I would also argue that at least in Nintendo's mind MH 3G HD was the game they felt would show 3rd parties that there was an audience for core games at launch. Outside of Zelda, not sure any Nintendo 1st party core gamer focused output would sell better.

While I'm sure some people would complain, I think a previous point we discussed kind of covered the answer to what tends to happen though.

The Wii had Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Mario, and Mario Kart, and Nintendo's support third party support ended up being minigame compilations, exercise games, a few platformers, and some knock off kart racing games.

There were also a ton of lightgun games after the success of Umbrella Chronicles.

As much as publishers may complain about having competing software, the way they treat platforms tends to suggest they like it.

Now, of course, most of those were low budget, but let's take Zelda as an example. Nintendo didn't get a lot of support in terms of larger core games from third parties, but I do feel it's worth noting that Beyond Good & Evil showed up on the GameCube, Okami showed up on the Wii, and Darksiders 2 showed up on the Wii U. None of these were exclusive, but they did at least get ports of these games, and I suspect Zelda had a fair amount to do with it. At least for Darksiders 2, Danny Bilson even said as much.

Did developers show up with games that were like RE4 after it showed up on the Wii U? No, but I do feel it's key that it was a budget re-release and a late port, whereas Zelda, Umbrella Chronicles, and the previously mentioned casual titles were all exclusives, suggesting that their audience was established on the Wii instead of also established on other platforms.

But yes, in terms of making larger sellers, I think they would have had to invest in new IP (or make a big push on a smaller IP) to attempt to do this.

I do feel Monster Hunter is an interesting example, but that what hurt that one was that it was an HD port of an existing game that sells better on PSP and 3DS. If you're making a hunting action game, why wouldn't you go with the PSP, 3DS, or Vita (given that many of the people making hunting action games may have thought mainline Monster Hunter was coming to the platform when they started) instead?

Monster Hunter also wasn't really announced early enough for publishers to see that and go "Oh, there may be a market for Hunting Action games here." Announcing what types of games you want on your platform early and often can be an effective tool in trying to influence developers, but Nintendo is fairly secretive.

 

[Nirolak]

It really doesn't have to be smaller devs only. Imagine the next DQ, which will probably be 3DS only. Assuming it sells 4 million, a 7 dollar royalty fee cut would net 28 million. That is a large sum of money to negotiate with.

Again all these kinds of deals are probably negotiated behind closed doors and Nintendo is probably explaining, on a CEO level, what their strategy will be to increase sales with third parties. Getting to know the hardware, even by porting stuff only, is still beneficial long term when or if momentum hits.

That's a fair point.

Dragon Quest games already all seem to be on Nintendo platforms. Perhaps they already signed a deal like this. Monster Hunter is also present (and decidedly not present elsewhere), so perhaps they signed that deal too.

However, given that we're dealing with a really large number of copies for this to add up to a really large number of copies, there is kind of a very limited pool of games to offer this much of an incentive to.

 

[disco]

Why do people fetishise the support of NIS/Falcom/Gust so much? Their games hardly sell anything and yes, their support means something - but not a great deal. Do people in Japan talk about them as much as NeoGAF does?

 

[schuelma]

Monster Hunter also wasn't really announced early enough for publishers to see that and go "Oh, there may be a market for Hunting Action games here." Announcing what types of games you want on your platform early and often can be an effective tool in trying to influence developers, but Nintendo is fairly secretive.

Aside from the obvious fuck ups with development delays and an inability to secure 3rd party support early, this apparent intentional philosophy of Nintendo to only talk about stuff coming out relatively soon (yes, with a few exceptions), just is pure idiocy.

I see no direction by Nintendo in what they want this platform to be.

Monster Hunter should have been announced as soon as it was secured- not 2 months before launch. It makes no sense to hold that back until mid-September when you are launching the first week of December.

 

[ksamedi]

That's a fair point.

Dragon Quest games already all seem to be on Nintendo platforms. Perhaps they already signed a deal like this. Monster Hunter is also present (and decidedly not present elsewhere), so perhaps they signed that deal too.

However, given that we're dealing with a really large number of copies for this to add up to a really large number of copies, there is kind of a very limited pool of games to offer this much of an incentive to.

That is true, but there are many more options to convince third parties to get some titles on there. If you secure just a couple of big exlusives, that would make publishers more confident that the hardware will sell and that should be the focus right now for Nintendo.

 

[Nirolak]

That is true, but there are many more options to convince third parties to get some titles on there. If you secure just a couple of big exlusives, that would make publishers more confident that the hardware will sell and that should be the focus right now for Nintendo.

Well yes, I mean in theory this shouldn't be a gigantic problem to solve, but for some reason it seems to be almost every generation lately.

Aside from the obvious fuck ups with development delays and an inability to secure 3rd party support early, this apparent intentional philosophy of Nintendo to only talk about stuff coming out relatively soon (yes, with a few exceptions), just is pure idiocy.

I see no direction by Nintendo in what they want this platform to be.

Monster Hunter should have been announced as soon as it was secured- not 2 months before launch. It makes no sense to hold that back until mid-September when you are launching the first week of December.

Right, I think this is why we see games announced very early at the beginning of a generation and then much later at the end of a generation.

At the beginning of the generation you want to generate a ton of mindshare when there aren't many other things announced and your product looks new and shiny. It also helps "stake out your claim" to an extent, so anything that's similar that's announced later seems to be a copy even if it isn't.

For platform vendors, it has the additional benefit of representing what your platform is about. Sony at the PS4 unveiling showed a bunch of cinematic shooters, action games, racing games, and experimental indie titles, and then the announcements that followed largely fit in those categories. I don't think we've seen anyone talk about a fitness game for the PlayStation 4 for example, but we've definitely seen a lot of shooters and action/adventure titles, and a few smaller indie titles start to appear. The Wii U also had a similar result where its big exclusive included Rayman Legends, and in 2011 they had shown off NSMB Wii U (with Miis and looking like NSMB Wii, but they still at least showed it). We also saw games that were presumed to fit Nintendo's audience show up for the platform (like Rabbids, Your Shape, Just Dance, and even Darksiders 2), since third parties had nothing else to go off of.

Later in the generation I totally get a short marketing cycle though. Your game likely doesn't look very different from anything else, so you want to compress the marketing cycle to keep it on full blast as much as possible, but yeah, it's been a while since Nintendo has been releasing late gen games.

 

[schuelma]

For platform vendors, it has the additional benefit of representing what your platform is about.

Frankly, I think Sony showing off FF13 and MGS4 so early (relatively speaking of course) is the only reason PS3 sales in Japan were not worse than they would have been. If you look at PS3's actual release schedule in Japan its first year, it was absolutely dreadful. Hell, it didn't have a single game that outsold NSMB U until a year and a half after it released- but it had huge titles people knew were coming.

Wii U had a few decent launch titles, but it still lacks a single truly high profile title that people and look to and know is coming.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

At this point Nintendo doesn't just need exclusives, they also need to start paying for ports.

It's a situation I don't think I have ever seen a console manufacturer in before, but, well...

 

[schuelma]

At this point Nintendo doesn't just need exclusives, they also need to start paying for ports.

It's a situation I don't think I have ever seen a console manufacturer in before, but, well...

Last summer you seemed pretty optimistic about Japanese support.

I'm going to assume that is no longer, or never was, the case?

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Last summer you seemed pretty optimistic about Japanese support.

I'm going to assume that is no longer, or never was, the case?

There's still some games down the pipeline that I don't know have been cancelled.

Smash going to Namco was the big thing that made me think Nintendo was working with third parties.

 

[serplux]

There's still some games down the pipeline that I don't know have been cancelled.

Smash going to Namco was the big thing that made me think Nintendo was working with third parties.

I mean, there are games that are unannounced. We just don't know how many.

 

[big youth]

At this point Nintendo doesn't just need exclusives, they also need to start paying for ports.

It's a situation I don't think I have ever seen a console manufacturer in before, but, well...

aside from huge games like GTA, paying for ports is the worst business decision Nintendo could make. Rather than paying out of pocket they can incentivize in numerous other ways.