Support NeoGAF

[Dragmire]

Wouldn't publishers, big and small, that want to avoid seeing mass consolidation next gen be smart to stick with Nintendo? Yes, I'd like to see more third party games for them, but I believe there's a good reason for it outside of my own wishful thinking. Sony's market is heavily saturated, which has caused, and will continue to cause, consolidation. That means bigger budgets, bigger projects, and less risks. Not good for the smaller developers and small projects from bigger developers.

In Nintendo's market, lots of smaller projects have proven successful: Harvest Moon, Viewtiful Joe, Animal Crossing, Sonic Mega Collection, etc. Sony's market is arguably less friendly for small projects, even from big developers (Katamari Damacy, Viewtiful Joe, Ico), giving even large developers a reason to support Nintendo. While some would say there isn't exactly a boatload of compelling proof that Nintendo's market is better for small projects, it could be very different if developers were sold into this philosophy.

Imagine if a lot of developers began backing Nintendo exclusively, it would give Nintendo's market more games, more sales, a wider demographics, and thus greater competition for Sony's market and the likes of EA. Nintendo's market is very different from Sony's, so if it grows and becomes more lucrative for developers, it would create a tangible alternative to Sony's market for consumers. That's something I'm not sure Microsoft can do, since its market is almost the same. What, in their market, will pull consumers away from Sony's market? If they started having more exclusive games than Sony, perhaps it could happen, but that would entail having something different. Nintendo already has that.

It will take major backing of Nintendo to cause a rift in the current trends of consolidation. The problem is having someone start and having others follow. This is where Nintendo comes in. If they don't preach this to third parties, it will never come to fruition on its own. Truth be told, I'm not really that worried about Nintendo's third party support, because I think their proposed revolution will bring it in nicely (if it is what I'm thinking). But it is an issue I'd like to discuss no matter how things unfold.

 

[JackFrost2012]

paging anonymous topic changing mod

 

[AniHawk]

Yeah, this topic is pretty doomed.

 

[Gaia Theory]

I generally agree with everything you've said, and I've been waiting for a 'developers union' for quite some time.

One that sees major third parties unite, not merge, with Nintendo, sharing a vision for the future of the interactive game industry. By uniting, they have a large capacity to decide what goes into Nintendo's new hardware, and then the united third parties along with Nintendo release exclusive content for the machine.

That doesn't mean third parties wouldn't release anywhere else, it just means that they'd have a vested interest in Nintendo's console.

It really comes down to philosophy rather than business. Where do we see ourselves and the industry in 20 years? DMC 20? NBA Street 40? Mario 64 Billion? If third parties and Nintendo could agree on a shared vision, nothing could stop them.

Why do I lump third parties with Nintendo? Because I believe Nintendo is the only hardware manufacturer left with a vested interest in game content, rather than delivery.

 

[kaching]

If publishers want to avoid consolidation and champion the small projects, they should create consoles of their own. Small projects for everybody!

 

[Unison]

This theory assumes that Nintendo's next console will be marginalized, though, and I don't think Nintendo would ever assume that going into a console war... They're too arrogant! :lol

 

[GDJustin]

The more niche your title is, the larger the installed base has to be for it to be a commercial success. Thats why this will never happen.

 

[thorns]

Well if your game is Nintendo exclusive , their fans will hype it for you so you don't have spend money on marketing :lol :lol

 

[Jonnyram]

If the Revolution is easier to develop for than either the PS3 or Xenon, low budget titles might end up there, but I imagine most major publishers will have cross-platform libraries that make it simple to develop for any or all of the machines.

 

[DCharlie]

The thing is - the real cash is in the aging gamer market of 25-40 year olds professionals who grew up with gaming and now have money to burn, and that's where nintendo are losing market share.

Look at RE4 - it's a fantastic game, the best this gen IMO, but it's not going to get anywhere near the sales of the top tear MS or Sony games. The demographic just isn't there.

Though, stating the obvious, if everyone did jump ship to Nintendo, then what would happen? we'd get exactly the same situation as we had on the PS2 - everyone would have to buy a machine, that'll lead to oversaturation, which will then lead to consolidation.

The issue is there isn't enough money to go around, so how about reduced games prices to help make some of that good money spread? $40 is a significant investment - $59 (next gen prices) is MORE than a significant investment. Would you take a chance on a game that cost $59 (hell, even $40!)? ... what if all games were $10 - wouldn't people be then more inclined to try things they wouldn't usually give a shot? Would Katamari have done as well in the US had it been a $40 game ? i very much doubt it.

 

[AniHawk]

Though, stating the obvious, if everyone did jump ship to Nintendo, then what would happen? we'd get exactly the same situation as we had on the PS2 - everyone would have to buy a machine, that'll lead to oversaturation, which will then lead to consolidation.

Not necessarily. There was at least one generation where it was nicely split, and it seemed to work well enough.

 

[Dragmire]

Look at RE4 - it's a fantastic game, the best this gen IMO, but it's not going to get anywhere near the sales of the top tear MS or Sony games. The demographic just isn't there.

But it will also create a demographic. It can't match the numbers of a huge Sony game due to the size of the installed base of the GameCube. But just like Goldeneye brought an older market to N64, a game like RE4 will bring people, too (less so now that it's coming to PS2). RE4 may not appeal to the current GameCube userbase, but that userbase can change, and it needs games to do so.

Though, stating the obvious, if everyone did jump ship to Nintendo, then what would happen? we'd get exactly the same situation as we had on the PS2 - everyone would have to buy a machine, that'll lead to oversaturation, which will then lead to consolidation.

But everyone wouldn't jump ship, I don't think. The idea is that, like with the Genesis, developers start to back the underdog with a lot of games to create another market more conducive to different kinds of games. PS3 wouldn't die off anyway. I think the overall effect would be somewhat of a backlash towards consolidation because the market that bred consolidation (Sony's) would be challenged.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

The more niche your title is, the larger the installed base has to be for it to be a commercial success. Thats why this will never happen.

Great Truth™.

After hearing about Atlus having Konami publish their titles in their own country, I fear alot for smaller companies than ever before.

 

[kaching]

Not necessarily. There was at least one generation where it was nicely split, and it seemed to work well enough.

A nice *two-way* split, which I definitely wouldn't mind seeing a return to. 3-way ain't working.

 

[Dragmire]

A cheaply developed game doesn't have to be niche, for one. I don't know that popular games and big budgets necessarily correlate, or at least they haven't always in the past. Also, a massive installed base like with PS2 has only bred a market that is dangerous for small projects.

I was almost going to say that Madden is a small project and is an exception, but then I realized that its annual nature means the series itself is quite a project and it's also released for pretty much every platform available.

 

[AniHawk]

A nice *two-way* split, which I definitely wouldn't mind seeing a return to. 3-way ain't working.

A very good point. I don't know what else to say except what's already been said about this though.

 

[golem]

I generally agree with everything you've said, and I've been waiting for a 'developers union' for quite some time.

there is one.. its called EA

 

[Jonnyram]

A nice *two-way* split, which I definitely wouldn't mind seeing a return to. 3-way ain't working.

Nothing wrong with a three-way split if consoles 1 and 2 have the same games though :lol

 

[dog$]

Wouldn't publishers, big and small, that want to avoid seeing mass consolidation next gen be smart to stick with Nintendo?

So, you're asking if publishers should avoid mass consolidation by consolidating under one company?

Um, no.

 

[Axsider]

Wouldn't publishers, big and small, that want to avoid seeing mass consolidation next gen be smart to stick with Nintendo? Yes, I'd like to see more third party games for them, but I believe there's a good reason for it outside of my own wishful thinking. Sony's market is heavily saturated, which has caused, and will continue to cause, consolidation. That means bigger budgets, bigger projects, and less risks. Not good for the smaller developers and small projects from bigger developers.

In Nintendo's market, lots of smaller projects have proven successful: Harvest Moon, Viewtiful Joe, Animal Crossing, Sonic Mega Collection, etc. Sony's market is arguably less friendly for small projects, even from big developers (Katamari Damacy, Viewtiful Joe, Ico), giving even large developers a reason to support Nintendo. While some would say there isn't exactly a boatload of compelling proof that Nintendo's market is better for small projects, it could be very different if developers were sold into this philosophy.

Imagine if a lot of developers began backing Nintendo exclusively, it would give Nintendo's market more games, more sales, a wider demographics, and thus greater competition for Sony's market and the likes of EA. Nintendo's market is very different from Sony's, so if it grows and becomes more lucrative for developers, it would create a tangible alternative to Sony's market for consumers. That's something I'm not sure Microsoft can do, since its market is almost the same. What, in their market, will pull consumers away from Sony's market? If they started having more exclusive games than Sony, perhaps it could happen, but that would entail having something different. Nintendo already has that.

It will take major backing of Nintendo to cause a rift in the current trends of consolidation. The problem is having someone start and having others follow. This is where Nintendo comes in. If they don't preach this to third parties, it will never come to fruition on its own. Truth be told, I'm not really that worried about Nintendo's third party support, because I think their proposed revolution will bring it in nicely (if it is what I'm thinking). But it is an issue I'd like to discuss no matter how things unfold.

Oh god......!
Another Nintendrone?

 

[AniHawk]

Oh god......!
Another Nintendrone?

Hah! You really stuck it to him.

 

[human5892]

Hah! You really stuck it to him.

:lol

 

[kaching]

Nothing wrong with a three-way split if consoles 1 and 2 have the same games though :lol

That's...part of why a 3-way split isn't working.

 

[The End]

Generally, low-budget niche titles wind up on whatever machine has the largest install-base, because , in Vic's words, "It's easier to squeeze 100k out of 80 million than 20"

 

[Dragmire]

So, you're asking if publishers should avoid mass consolidation by consolidating under one company?

Um, no.

Semantics. ''Consolidating under one company'' isn't the same kind of consolidating I'm talking about. You know, where the small dev/publishers are gobbled up by the big ones?

Generally, low-budget niche titles wind up on whatever machine has the largest install-base, because , in Vic's words, "It's easier to squeeze 100k out of 80 million than 20"

Yes, this can be true, but supporting that 80 million userbase while ignoring a feasible alternative has only lead to consolidation that could hurt the smaller developers. Consolidation can be good when a small publisher gets major funding from a good publisher that gives them time for their projects. But in the current industry with companies like Sega and Ubisoft consolidating or bastardizing their resources to compete with EA, it's the exception. I don't think it's good for anyone except the casuals that anticipate each Madden game more than anything unique like perhaps Cubivore or Homeland.

I think consolidation will lead to a decrease in all smaller budget kind of games even from big publishers, except perhaps Nintendo, who thrives for their own solution. They certainly haven't succumbed to the trends of the GTA's, the Final Fantasy's (during the crucial N64 era), anything. Instead you get Nintendogs, Animal Crossing, Band Brothers, Wario Ware, etc. All on DS of course. Which leads me to PSP. It will lead handhelds more towards PS2... a consolidated industry with more games like Madden, Need for Speed, 3D Castlevania's. It is Nintendo's hardware that lets the 2D Castlevania live. That's because Nintendo didn't care about visuals half as much as what they believed was innovation.

Yes, a portable like PSP will lend itself to different kinds of games like Lumines, but as the PSP library beefs up with more PS2-esque kind of games, the Lumines will sell less and likely become victims to consolidation. This is exactly what I'm suggesting of the console market. If more developers supported NDS instead of the Consolidation Station (what I believe will be PSP), it would be a blow to these market trends.

But again, Nintendo isn't helping. They should be preaching to developers with the angle that Sony is bad for them. They do make their philosophy known, but I would think they could rally developers up to form stronger alliances. Even with the Capcom 5, PS2 got more exclusives than Nintendo. More support needs to happen before this works.

 

[kaching]

So, basically, this is all just an elaborate argument to justify the territoriality of certain classes of gamers who base their gaming habits more on allegiances to companies than on a more objective and absolute sense of what they like to play.

Yes, a portable like PSP will lend itself to different kinds of games like Lumines, but as the PSP library beefs up with more PS2-esque kind of games, the Lumines will sell less and likely become victims to consolidation. This is exactly what I'm suggesting of the console market. If more developers supported NDS instead of the Consolidation Station (what I believe will be PSP), it would be a blow to these market trends.

Unless a certain portion of the total population of gamers that would be interested in Lumines or any such game is just studiously ignoring its release for some reason (...), there should be no reason why it couldn't sell as well on one platform as it could on another, assuming both platforms can support the core game design and technology required.

 

[The End]

So what you're saying is, that developers should target their games towards Nintendo platforms because there's such a shortage of games that anything they publish will sell.

riiiight.