Support NeoGAF

[Amir0x]

Just stop adding posts and just respond accordingly.

You know that's not the way I operate. I like to give such thoughtful posts a real thorough time of day

Red Swirl's post is so magnificent it made me modify my theory a bit.

 

[BlackJace]

You know that's not the way I operate. I like to give such thoughtful posts a real thorough time of day

Red Swirl's post is so magnificent it made me modify my theory a bit.

Alright then

Your post better be stuff of legends.

 

[Bending_Unit_22]

Because investor's would demand it. EA is not in the financial position to say "well we are going to ignore those customers because they don't play videogames we find it easy to make". That doesn't cut it when you are company that has to have your CEO step down. Especially when Activision, Ubisoft, and Warner Bros are in a position to do so.

I could easily do the same for Activision and Ubisoft. WB has less of an argument, but Ubisoft has their own experience to use against investors and Activision would just have to respond with how much they expect to make off of CoD DLC and then segue into their next WoW (maybe throw something in about iOS functionality to really get the investors heart rates going. AS for EA, many publicly traded 3rd parties have done worse and ignored the Wii. Again, they could just answer the question with their "new markets" smartphone approach so they can ask their investors if that's a rocket in their pocket or did EA just talk some iOS to them.

I think you underestimate the effect of an actual selection of games. And in light of the "no third party support for Wii U" complaints I'm really puzzled by your multiplatform comment. These are all games that fit with the Nintendo core audience. Only niche games on that list, but still will add to system value due to system exclusivity and quality, is Pikmin 3 and Wonderful 101.

Hmm, I don't think "6 platformers, 4 kids games, 2 niche games, 2 minigame collections, a full-price (?) remake, and a game that is already out and doing not much" constitute much of a selection. Neither do 3rd parties and consumers thus far, but hey we'll see soon enough.

 

[trickyhero]

Certainly, if you're really into platformers, 2D especially, the Wii U is the console to own. Nintendo is oversaturating the genre though, including the upcoming Yoshi game there are at least 7 platformers to choose from. How many people are going to buy all 7? I like them more than most gamers and I'll get 2, maybe 3. A selection 3 or 4 would suffice to satiate the 2D manic crowd. The resources for the other games could then be used to broaden the game variety to attract people into those kind of games or those who like a 2D platformer with Pikmin and say a sci-fi adventure game.

I sort of went off topic with my response, but I can easily get back on topic by noting Nintendo is screwing up software-wise as well with their "if you loved gaming circa 1990, have we got a console for you" lineup. Iwata constantly says that if Nintendo gets the console out to more people, 3rd parties will naturally follow. Yet their software strategy is to corner to kid, platformerphile, and minigame market segments. Let's assume they are successful, why would EA look at that console and hold frantic board meetings about getting Madden, Star Wars, and BF4 on the Wii U? Ok maybe Star Wars, but then that argument was much stronger on the Wii and was largely ignored outside of Lego.

I thought NSMBU was around a high 40% attach rate but looks like it's about 60%. Not bad but then what other game has there been to buy with a Wii U? Twilight Princess was higher and the Wii had a few other major games to tempt people. Either way, given the Wii U's line up I fully agree NSMBU could be credited with maybe up to half the sales, but that's not saying much.

I love some platformers, but I have to agree you here. There's only so much of the same genre I will take at once. Same with music, just because I can enjoy noise definitly dosn't mean I'm gonna listen to it all the time.

 

[Opiate]

JordanN, have to go to bed here -- I want to make it clear that I'm not suggesting that Nintendo is faultless and that it's the third parties which are to "blame." Nintendo has made lots of errors (I feel most particularly in their inability to appeal to indies and expand their networking feature set, for example).

But saying Nintendo has made mistakes doesn't mean EA/Take 2/etc. have played it right, either (and in their case, I definitely think their primarily problem is their inability to expand beyond their core male 16-35 consumer on any platform, be that Wii and DS or iOS or Facebook or Android). Just as Nintendo's stock prices have tanked (because they've made so many mistakes), so too has EA's stock price, and Take 2's stock price, and so forth. I would argue that everyone involved in the home console business has made serious errors, and this isn't a situation where the brilliant, progressive third parties outgrew an incompetent, bumbling Nintendo, nor one where Nintendo is a bright shining beacon of genius that third parties refuse to acknowledge because they're mean.

 

[JordanN]

I mean, just saying "third parties could definitely diversified if they wanted" seems like a rather nice way to dismiss the problem here. Quite clearly they have not done that. Again, the software of the four major western publishers is heavily tilted towards 16-35 males.

I understand what you mean now but I'll answer it in the last part of my post.

This again seems absolutely and completely backwards. Let's add Nintendogs in here too: you're essentially saying Nintendo has "boxed themselves in" to young boys (Mario) young girls (Nintendogs), and adult women (Wii Fit). This is, again, without discussing games like Brain Age and Wii Sports, which have had strong appeal with elderly gamers. I have no idea why you're portraying this as some small box, some tiny slice of the consumer base, when it seems very clear to me that it is the western publishers who are "boxed in," if anything.

They have everything but the 16-35 demographic (and the Western games). That seems boxed in to me. That doesn't mean the box is small though (actually, it could be quite big!). I think it was even you who posted social games and facebook games are one of the best selling games of last gen (next to COD).

I think Western publishers are "only boxed in" if they can't create games for people who buy Nintendogs/Mario and Wii Fit. They do make alot of 16-35 games, I'm not denying that, but I feel that's just one path. Nintendo though, seems that's the only things they can make. I.e they can't break into the 16-35 demographics without being called "clones" or "can't compete" for it.

I'll repeat it: lots of times, Nintendo clearly produces hardware that consumers want. Not always (Wii U), but sometimes (Wii, GBA). So when we say the hardware is "at fault" for the lack of third party support, what precisely do we mean here? Because clearly consumers are interested in the hardware. Why aren't third parties?

This question is complex because it covers alot of things. Hardware power, demographics, taking risks.

The Wii sold for sure but I don't think that excused it for the overlying problem Nintendo consoles have (i.e underpowered and missing the 16-35 audience). However, it did at least make it more viable to sell games on it that do fit the Wii's messaging (i.e casual games). Now third parties would be in the wrong when they missed that but only under the assumption, would their games have sold?

Nintendo's handhelds are another playing field. I think they benefit alot from the huge installbase. Third parties could definitely get more involved if it's been evaluated, the people who buy games are also willing to buy third party games.

~~~
My post may have gotten convoluted so I'll try to rephrase them again.

-If Nintendo wants 16-35 games that other third parties are capitalizing on, their current approach to hardware is simply incompatible or not without grievance
-In addition to hardware, Nintendo's consoles have an audience problem. Mario and Wii Fit show popular Western games meant for 16-35 cannot thrive in that ecosystem
-Nintendo is thus "boxed in". That doesn't mean their market is small, but they can't improve their 16-35 situation because it's perceived all attempts to will make them "clones" or "cannot compete"
-The Wii still had the hardware and audience problem but, it also had another thing going for it (Casuals). Third parties could have attempted to break into that market and stay there if the audience was willing to buy third party games.
-Handhelds have huge installbases that make any third party attempt on the system far more safe than any console with Gamecube or N64 level of success.

 

[clay_ghost]

I expected this thread to be another Nintendo going 3rd party thread. Happy to be wrong and enjoyed reading the op. I still believe Nintendo can turn it around next Gen.*



*because I think their home console and handheld platform will be combined into a single portable console with Av output.And Japan 3rd parties loves Nintendo handheld.

 

[AniHawk]

Certainly, if you're really into platformers, 2D especially, the Wii U is the console to own. Nintendo is oversaturating the genre though, including the upcoming Yoshi game there are at least 7 platformers to choose from. How many people are going to buy all 7? I like them more than most gamers and I'll get 2, maybe 3. A selection 3 or 4 would suffice to satiate the 2D manic crowd. The resources for the other games could then be used to broaden the game variety to attract people into those kind of games or those who like a 2D platformer with Pikmin and say a sci-fi adventure game.

i'll believe in the oversaturation of the market when i see it. nintendo had several kirby games on the wii and each one did very well. donkey kong country returns was successful, and even the rom-dump that was super mario all-stars sold over a million copies in the united states. why should nintendo not satiate that market, and wouldn't third-parties be foolish in not getting in on that?

I sort of went off topic with my response, but I can easily get back on topic by noting Nintendo is screwing up software-wise as well with their "if you loved gaming circa 1990, have we got a console for you" lineup. Iwata constantly says that if Nintendo gets the console out to more people, 3rd parties will naturally follow. Yet their software strategy is to corner to kid, platformerphile, and minigame market segments. Let's assume they are successful, why would EA look at that console and hold frantic board meetings about getting Madden, Star Wars, and BF4 on the Wii U?

nintendo is building a fanbase. it's not the fanbase microsoft or sony is going after, and it's one microsoft and sony don't understand very well either. the trick is to create an environment in which people are used to regularly buying software for your machine. maybe after nsmbu they want donkey kong, and after donkey kong they get yoshi, and after yoshi they pick up sonic, rayman, 3d world, whatever. after that, what will they get? well that's the theory- that they'll wind up trying out some new thing, probably something with brand appeal or something they've heard their friends talk about (like madden or star wars).

Ok maybe Star Wars, but then that argument was much stronger on the Wii and was largely ignored outside of Lego.

star wars wasn't ignored on the wii. not a whole lot of star wars games were made last gen period. outside of the force unleashed games (which were both on the wii and relatively successful), and the old republic, what was there, the kinect game?

 

[Buddha Beam]

stuff.

Well said. This is pretty much my position on the matter. There are lots of things you can blame Nintendo for regarding their current problems, but a lot of that is trumped by appauling third party business sense towards Nintendo. The thing that has frustrated me most about the gaming industry for many years now is how they all seem to only want to pursue personal interests. It's like the industry as a whole doesn't realize that they are, in essence, commercial artists and they should be pursuing relevant interests, even if it doesn't sound fun.

The idea is that if Nintendo's hardware is bad and to blame, then surely it would equate to low consumer interest. Hardware and software would sell poorly. Sometimes that is the case (With the Wii U being perhaps the best example of this), but often times it is not. How do we explain the situations where consumers are clearly interested in the hardware Nintendo is selling, but third parties show little interest?

Ultimately, it boils down to the gaming industry as a whole being exceptionally immature + lacking any decent business sense in several areas.

I relate to that though my own profession. I'm a graphic artist. I create ads 5 days a week for things I usually don't like or have little interest in... and I do a damn good job because I'm a professional. If I had the gaming industry's sensibilities though, I'd mostly create the kind of things that personally appeal to me. Wouldn't matter if I was putting myself at financial risk by essentially pissing my time away making something similar to what everyone else like me is doing.
When I would have no choice to create an ad I'm not interested in, I would do a half assed, rushed job. Ultimately, people would probably start to realize that I don't do good work and ignore me all together.

It's that lack of professionalism that is hurting them on Nintendo consoles. Several people in this thread have defended third parties ignoring Nintendo by saying, "that's not the kind of games they make". It begs the question... why are they not making different games then, if there is clearly money to be made?

When a game like GTA or Call of Duty hits, you have everybody deconstructing those games; studying them from all angles; boiling them down to their very essences to understand how they work and why they're successful. Then they take that understanding and apply it to their own work. You don't see that occurring with Nintendo unfortunately. There has rarely been an effort made to figure out the success or Mario, Zelda and even any of the Wii______ titles. They either leave the potential audience all to Nintendo or pump out some inferior version as fast as possible.

There is no "response" to Nintendo's titles the way there are to games on the competition's consoles. To me, the question has long been, "why is it considered acceptable for much of the gaming industry to operate the way it does?"

 

[LCGeek]

You really only highlight nintendos bad decisions which I agree with. What you do not highlight is company like EA who makes bad ports basically since n64 who releases them late yet expects similar performance of other platforms. That same complaint can be leveled against most big 3rd parties. Can we talk about how bad capcom was during the GC generation with title releases even with GC having better sale stats.

The blame goes both ways and sadly more often than not the problems are about quality, when the title is released or how its marketed. Nintendo just made the situation worse doing their own bullshit.

As a multiplatform gamer I'm starting to care less about companies that pull bullshit that both nintendo and 3rd parties do. I want solid products and I will pay for it but when I see drama, fud, and all the other crap I've seen for 2 generations I don't see it as one group making the problems when it takes two to tango.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

It's that lack of professionalism that is hurting them on Nintendo consoles. Several people in this thread have defended third parties ignoring Nintendo by saying, "that's not the kind of games they make". It begs the question... why are they not making different games then, if there is clearly money to be made?

Some do. Just Dance has been wildly successful on Wii for Ubisoft and Skylanders has also done well for Activision on the platform. Sonic games also perform best on Nintendo platforms.

It's just that these don't particularly appeal to people who browse NeoGAF.

 

[hymanator]

That was a very good read. It felt more like a magazine article than a forum post. Nintendo will always be one of the most unpredictable companies in the gaming industry. It's sort of their gift and their curse. It's very true that they always set themselves up to be the "lowest common denominator" when it comes to 3rd party support (except for NES/SNES/handhelds). Weak hardware, "different" controls, low install base, and online connectivity that's in it's infancy make for a console that no one wants to develop for. At this point it would be a charity to develop games for the Wii U.

 

[Xisiqomelir]

thing about nintendo is they don't really care unless you're making an exclusive title or are willing to buddy up with them. they might offer incentives, but i don't think they specifically reach out to third parties.

if you go with the mindset of 'nintendo doesn't care', so much makes sense. i have a feeling their indie support recently is just a way for them to scope new talent and get them for themselves, more than it is about being awesome and open.

This is absolutely the case. Unlike their competition, Nintendo could literally take the rest of the generation off and keep going for another two consoles (Sony couldn't afford this financially, and M$ would be excoriated by shareholders).

Nintendo doesn't need third parties, so it does nothing to encourage or incentivise them. There are certainly no moneyhats coming from Kyoto.

 

[PK Gaming]

I've always been a huge Nintendo fan but I find it impossible to disagree with anything you've said.

Fantastic OP, you've definitely earned my like.

Spoiler

Wait, wrong forum

 

[AniHawk]

redswirl made several good points, specifically the idealogical war. i think it was nintendo's intention to offer something different with the 3ds and wii u when probably any ol' thing probably would have done, and they could have upped the specs/performance for both machines.

what's strange is that right around the time of littlebigplanet 2, i became aware that sony's games all kinda feel the same the way all of nintendo's games feel the same, and i realized that most of the time i really don't like what they have to offer because it's too focused on presentation- style over substance. nintendo's had the opposite problem lately, where sticker star, donkey kong, and the nsmb games all use the red-blue level select icons on the world map. they could benefit from changing things up just a little on the presentation front. that's partially why rayman legends is so appealing to people, and as far as i can tell, the only reason puppeteer is so appealing to people.

i generally agree with miyamoto on matters of voice acting and story in games. he's right to shove it off in a corner, and i'm glad he doesn't let koizumi run amok when it comes to every single genre (it's fine doing what he does in an exploration-based action-adventure game like zelda, but not when you're making a 3d platformer).

this is getting away a little bit from any point, but the games i enjoyed the most this gen? the ones that i felt were anti large cinematics and focused more on game mechanics over everything else. vanquish, bayonetta, mirror's edge- all these crappy-selling games are some of my most highly-regarded from this gen, and it seems like there will be less of them going forward.

 

[ULTROS!]

Well said. This is pretty much my position on the matter. There are lots of things you can blame Nintendo for regarding their current problems, but a lot of that is trumped by appauling third party business sense towards Nintendo. The thing that has frustrated me most about the gaming industry for many years now is how they all seem to only want to pursue personal interests. It's like the industry as a whole doesn't realize that they are, in essence, commercial artists and they should be pursuing relevant interests, even if it doesn't sound fun.

Put your shoes in the developer and ask "who would I develop for and where can I make money? Sony or Nintendo?"

The problem like what Amir0x said is that there are too many things to go through in order to actually publish (let alone highly succeed) in a Nintendo home console, and core gaming is already a niche where it can be a hit or miss. So why would a developer publish exclusively on a Nintendo console when they provide too many hassles and would opt to go for Sony or Microsoft, especially in the current climate right now? Not to mention the mindset of consumers and even developers are heavily gearing towards Sony, PC, and Microsoft when it comes to core gaming, heck Apple grabbed the casual crowd because, AFAIK, it's pretty easy to publish on the iOS with low cost productions.

Nintendo home consoles are basically left with the Nintendo fans. Even if its a sizable niche, it will not save the Wii U.

 

[jwhit28]

redswirl made several good points, specifically the idealogical war. i think it was nintendo's intention to offer something different with the 3ds and wii u when probably any ol' thing probably would have done, and they could have upped the specs/performance for both machines.

what's strange is that right around the time of littlebigplanet 2, i became aware that sony's games all kinda feel the same the way all of nintendo's games feel the same, and i realized that most of the time i really don't like what they have to offer because it's too focused on presentation- style over substance. nintendo's had the opposite problem lately, where sticker star, donkey kong, and the nsmb games all use the red-blue level select icons on the world map. they could benefit from changing things up just a little on the presentation front. that's partially why rayman legends is so appealing to people, and as far as i can tell, the only reason puppeteer is so appealing to people.

i generally agree with miyamoto on matters of voice acting and story in games. he's right to shove it off in a corner, and i'm glad he doesn't let koizumi run amok when it comes to every single genre (it's fine doing what he does in an exploration-based action-adventure game like zelda, but not when you're making a 3d platformer).

this is getting away a little bit from my point, but the games i enjoyed the most this gen? the ones that i felt were anti large cinematics and focused more on game mechanics over everything else. vanquish, bayonetta, mirror's edge- all these crappy-selling games are some of my most highly-regarded from this gen, and it seems like there will be less of them going forward.

They will probably still exist, if they can be annualized, have some part constantly connected with other users, offer multiplayer, work in social networking, be monetized after release, and take place in an openworld. Roll it down the production line, check all the boxes, ship it out.

PSP got Wii games!

Seriously, the Wii era just pokes holes all over third party excuses. Obviously Nintendo is to blame for a lot of it, but even when they provide a platform with a huge audience they just get "test games" and games that would have done poorly and did do poorly when ported to any other console. Resident Evil 4 sold over a million units on Wii and Capcom responded with rail shooters.

Yeah, I mean that is the best Nintendo can do. Offer 3rd parties a nice user base of gamers hungry for software and watch as the 3rd party CEO's answer their investors with "Please understand..." when they can't figure out how to capitalize on that fan base.

 

[RagnarokX]

I also see this point up a lot, but I'm not sure it holds water.

It may explain why Wii didn't get ports of 360/PS3 games, but why didn't it get quality, core oriented PS2 era ports? Those proved right out the gate that there was a strong demand for that sort of software (Twilight Princess, Resident Evil 4). Why didn't more of those ever materialize?

Why didn't more PS2 era original games appear? The risk was far less; development costs were much lower and the audience much larger.

Why didn't Wii get PSP games?

If hardware not being up to the competition in terms of horsepower was an issue, why did the DS have so much third party support? Third parties hadn't developed PS1/N64 level games in years. Where was the Final Fantasy III-level effort from a third party on Wii?

Why is there so much quality 3DS software from third parties, if they packed up the PS2 tech prior to the Wii?

PSP got Wii games!

Seriously, the Wii era just pokes holes all over third party excuses. Obviously Nintendo is to blame for a lot of it, but even when they provide a platform with a huge audience they just get "test games" and games that would have done poorly and did do poorly when ported to any other console. Resident Evil 4 sold over a million units on Wii and Capcom responded with rail shooters.

 

[royalan]

It's that lack of professionalism that is hurting them on Nintendo consoles. Several people in this thread have defended third parties ignoring Nintendo by saying, "that's not the kind of games they make". It begs the question... why are they not making different games then, if there is clearly money to be made?

Because maybe it's not that clear?

Making games is risky business, and you're not going to find very many publishers willing to take a risk on bringing AAA games to Nintendo consoles if Nintendo doesn't do the work to prove that audience is there. It's their platform. It's THEIR responsibility. Nintendo has to lead by example, it's as simple as that.

Funny thing is, the thing that people don't want to admit about the Wii is that it DID get support. It got a shit ton of support. Nintendo lead by example and proved there was a lucrative market for casual, family-friendly, low budget games, and the industry responded by supporting the system with those kinds of games. The Wii got a ton of support in that regard. But people ignore this because when they complain about 3rd parties not supporting Nintendo hardware, what they really mean is why aren't 3rd parties supporting Nintendo hardware with the AAA games I really want to play? The traditional, "hardcore" gaming experiences 3rd parties bring to other platforms, that's what we're REALLY talking about here.

And then my question becomes this: If Nintendo had to lead by example to prove there was a market for family-friendly games not tied to legacy Nintendo IP, why do any of you think they DON'T have to do that to get 3rd parties to risk their AAA, 13-36 male demographic games?

 

[pieatorium]

this is getting away a little bit from any point, but the games i enjoyed the most this gen? the ones that i felt were anti large cinematics and focused more on game mechanics over everything else. vanquish, bayonetta, mirror's edge- all these crappy-selling games are some of my most highly-regarded from this gen, and it seems like there will be less of them going forward.

Well there is at least more bayo and mirrors edge on the way , other non cinematic mechanic focused games have done well though and will definitely be seeing more of like Dark Souls, X-Com(strategy), Mobas (they will invade consoles eventually)

 

[rdrr gnr]

I think the demographic argument made earlier is more important than the install base argument. Especially when it comes to the Wii.

 

[Tiktaalik]

I've worked in the games industry for over 6 years and I know a bunch of folks from a bunch of different companies that have worked on a variety of projects on every platform (some even with Nintendo) and I'd like to chime in with what I believe is the core issue why many 3rd parties are not terribly interested in working on Nintendo platforms.

Amirox's OP is a good read and he does a fantastic job of summarizing what were the core issues that prevented 3rd parties from working with Nintendo in the past. At the moment however, a huge part of the gaming industry is made up of 20 somethings that obviously only have fond memories of the NES days, and so we must wonder, what's preventing them from hooking up with their favourite company with which they hold so many fond nostalgic memories?

It's simply this:

Nintendo is not producing products that enable game developers to develop the games that they want to create.

We forget that game developers are made up of individual people, and that these individuals have their own passions, interests and life goals. These individuals have their pet projects that they dream about working on. We have to expect that they will push to realize those dreams. The problem for Nintendo is that when I talk to my friends about their passion projects it utterly clashes with what Nintendo is doing on the market right now.

People I talk to are working on projects where concepts like online play, free to play and asymmetrical asynchronous gameplay are utterly essential to the core concept, and these are all areas that Nintendo products are incredibly weak in. Nintendo is improving in some areas, but their account-system-less eShop is utter garbage compared to the well realized online systems of PSN and Steam, so it is completely understandable to me why online and indie developers I know are focused on those platforms.

Other people I know have spent their lives developing amazing cutting edge technology in graphics and animation and are passionate about creating the most cinematic and awesome experiences possible. This is the "cool factor" that encourages them to get into work every day. This is their life work. On a Nintendo platform, this is not a priority. If you were so passionate about pushing the bar of games technology, why on earth would you want to develop for a Nintendo platform?

I'm sure some will criticize these people for not supporting the Wii and leaving money on the table by developing doomed AAA products or obscure indie titles, but these are these peoples' passions and we have to acknowledge that individuals will pursue their passions and individuals drive a company's agenda.

If Nintendo wants to receive the support of independent 3rd party developers, they have to align their product more towards what 3rd parties are interested in. If Nintendo doesn't want to do that that's fine. They can develop their own games by themselves.

 

[RurouniZel]

People I talk to are working on projects where concepts like online play, free to play and asymmetrical gameplay are utterly essential to the core concept, and these are all areas that Nintendo products are incredibly weak in. Nintendo is improving in some areas, but their account-system-less eShop is utter garbage compared to the well realized online systems of PSN and Steam, so it is completely understandable to me why online and indie developers I know are focused on those platforms.

?

Isn't.... that exactly what the Wii U... is?

 

[Opiate]

(Didn't get to bed.) I would say the networking concern is by far the more important one for indie/small developers.

Look at where indies and small companies have succeeded the most over the last few years: Browser gaming, PCs, iOS, Android. These are in most cases 100% exclusively digital products and archaic networking systems like Nintendo's are going to be a massive problem.

 

[Bending_Unit_22]

i'll believe in the oversaturation of the market when i see it. nintendo had several kirby games on the wii and each one did very well. donkey kong country returns was successful, and even the rom-dump that was super mario all-stars sold over a million copies in the united states. why should nintendo not satiate that market, and wouldn't third-parties be foolish in not getting in on that?

nintendo is building a fanbase. it's not the fanbase microsoft or sony is going after, and it's one microsoft and sony don't understand very well either. the trick is to create an environment in which people are used to regularly buying software for your machine. maybe after nsmbu they want donkey kong, and after donkey kong they get yoshi, and after yoshi they pick up sonic, rayman, 3d world, whatever. after that, what will they get? well that's the theory- that they'll wind up trying out some new thing, probably something with brand appeal or something they've heard their friends talk about (like madden or star wars).

star wars wasn't ignored on the wii. not a whole lot of star wars games were made last gen period. outside of the force unleashed games (which were both on the wii and relatively successful), and the old republic, what was there, the kinect game?

The problem with oversaturating a market is that once you can see it, it's too late. The platformer games you note, save the second Kirby, came out at the tail end of the 2006-2010 platformer resurgence. As such you can see a definite tapering with DKCR doing 5 million, Epic Yarn doing under 2 million, 4 Mario games doing a little above, and Kirby: RtD doing worse (bah, best game of the 4 imho). Games that sell 2 million on a console with 80 million units sold coming at least in, if at the end, of resurgent phase for their genre doesn't strike me as something you make the center-, heck just about only-,piece of your next console.

You have a rational theory (EDIT: I really don't mean to sound rude or sarcastic with that, it's late and the best I can come up with atm), it might end up happening, but I don't think the Wii shows it will. 30 million or so bought NSMBW, then 5 million bought DKCR, 2(-) million Epic Yarn, 2(+) million ROM dump, and 1(+) million Kirby: RtD. Almost nobody at that point had to buy a Wii, and it was pretty cheap with lots of other different kinds of games, to buy those games and yet that is how well they did with 60-100 million users. Also, that was over 3 years, throw in a couple Sonics and a Rayman you are looking at 8 platformers over 3 years. With the Wii U it is much more expensive, will require a console purchase for most, and there are 7 platformers in little over a year with not much else (unless you like minigames and licensed kid games but I'd wager they are already platformer fans or have moved to smartphones). I don't think this strategy will beat make 4 platformers (1 a real 3D Mario adventure), and have the others work on an RPG, a sci-fi adventure, and a racing or flying game even if it means some come out early next year.

There were some Clone Wars cartoon games I think. I know not many Star Wars games were made in general. By largely ignoring the Wii I mean they clearly sold very well on the Wii (the more kid friendly ones trounced the PS360 versions) yet the PS360 versions were always the focus, except for the Clone Wars exclusive where the less said the better. Also, the did well on the Wii, the Wiimote offered different options and yet nothing except c-team ports of the PS360 games.

I love some platformers, but I have to agree you here. There's only so much of the same genre I will take at once. Same with music, just because I can enjoy noise definitly dosn't mean I'm gonna listen to it all the time.

Pretty much my view. I like 2D platformers a lot, my biggest gripe from 1996-2006 was where the hell were the 2D platformers (especially in the PS1/N64 period, those consoles were not ready for 3D). That doesn't mean I want 7 in little more than a year with several more on a handheld and little else from my favorite console maker's systems.

Well said. This is pretty much my position on the matter. There are lots of things you can blame Nintendo for regarding their current problems, but a lot of that is trumped by appauling third party business sense towards Nintendo. The thing that has frustrated me most about the gaming industry for many years now is how they all seem to only want to pursue personal interests. It's like the industry as a whole doesn't realize that they are, in essence, commercial artists and they should be pursuing relevant interests, even if it doesn't sound fun.

I wouldn't go so far as to say trumped since at least from the examples we have Nintendo caused some serious headaches for 3rd parties with their decisions. Though I don't doubt that if we had a perfect example (say the Wii U being a PS4 with a Nintendo logo and their online being XBL with, errr, a Nintendo logo) the result would be at least similar. That being said, it has always bothered how 3rd party devs act like prima donna artistes who can't bear to suffer the indignities of working on anything other than the latest and greatest tech (unless it's a smartphone/tablet, or Sony/MS console after it's first day, nevermind) or, heaven forfend a "kiddy" console. Maybe that has little influence on the decisions 3rd parties make, maybe it has a good deal. I don't know but it seems to have some influence, particularly given how it seems they view handhelds so lowly they wouldn't even piss on a DS and yeah, that's not far from how they treated it (in the west).

 

[Tiktaalik]

?

Isn't.... that exactly what the Wii U... is?

I was really puzzled by this and had to look it up and got this article. http://www.1up.com/features/what-the-hell-is-asymmetric-gameplay

I'm assuming that's what you were referring to?

I don't really agree with this definition of asymmetrical gameplay. What I'm talking about is essentially play by mail checkers. You do a move, and x number of days later I provide my move. Asymmetrical games are pretty common on mobile platforms. Letterpress for the iPhone is a really great one.

Edit: I mean the definition definitely works for the Wii U games described, but prior to the Wii U launching the term was often used for turn based games where a turn would take place at some unknown point in the future. Maybe we'll need a new term...

 

[royalan]

I've worked in the games industry for over 6 years and I know a bunch of folks from a bunch of different companies that have worked on a variety of projects on every platform (some even with Nintendo) and I'd like to chime in with what I believe is the core issue why many 3rd parties are not terribly interested in working on Nintendo platforms.

Amirox's OP is a good read and he does a fantastic job of summarizing what were the core issues that prevented 3rd parties from working with Nintendo in the past. At the moment however, a huge part of the gaming industry is made up of 20 somethings that obviously only have fond memories of the NES days, and so we must wonder, what's preventing them from hooking up with their favourite company with which they hold so many fond nostalgic memories?

It's simply this:

Nintendo is not producing products that enable game developers to develop the games that they want to create.

We forget that game developers are made up of individual people, and that these individuals have their own passions, interests and life goals. These individuals have their pet projects that they dream about working on. We have to expect that they will push to realize those dreams. The problem for Nintendo is that when I talk to my friends about their passion projects it utterly clashes with what Nintendo is doing on the market right now.

People I talk to are working on projects where concepts like online play, free to play and asymmetrical gameplay are utterly essential to the core concept, and these are all areas that Nintendo products are incredibly weak in. Nintendo is improving in some areas, but their account-system-less eShop is utter garbage compared to the well realized online systems of PSN and Steam, so it is completely understandable to me why online and indie developers I know are focused on those platforms.

Other people I know have spent their lives developing amazing cutting edge technology in graphics and animation and are passionate about creating the most cinematic and awesome experiences possible. This is the "cool factor" that encourages them to get into work every day. This is their life work. On a Nintendo platform, this is not a priority. If you were so passionate about pushing the bar of games technology, why on earth would you want to develop for a Nintendo platform?

I'm sure some will criticize these people for not supporting the Wii and leaving money on the table by developing doomed AAA products or obscure indie titles, but these are these peoples' passions and we have to acknowledge that individuals will pursue their passions and individuals drive a company's agenda.

If Nintendo wants to receive the support of independent 3rd party developers, they have to align their product more towards what 3rd parties are interested in. If Nintendo doesn't want to do that that's fine. They can develop their own games by themselves.

This entire post is great, but I really appreciate the bolded bit. It's good to hear this out of the mouth of someone in the industry, because so often in these Nintendo threads people brush off a desire to push cutting edge technology and IQ as frivolous, unnecessary, and a waste of time. "it's just the gameplay that matters!" And while that is true to a certain degree, I think people forget that game developers ARE gamers as well, and likely get genuinely excited by the prospect of entering uncharted territory and working with cutting-edge tech. Supporting the Xbox One and PS4 doesn't just make sense financially, they probably got developers pumped on a personal level.

It would be nice to say that about the gamepad, but I think it's safe to say that Nintendo hamstrung that idea with too many compromises.

 

[I am Michael Bolton]

I've worked in the games industry for over 6 years and I know a bunch of folks from a bunch of different companies that have worked on a variety of projects on every platform (some even with Nintendo) and I'd like to chime in with what I believe is the core issue why many 3rd parties are not terribly interested in working on Nintendo platforms.

Amirox's OP is a good read and he does a fantastic job of summarizing what were the core issues that prevented 3rd parties from working with Nintendo in the past. At the moment however, a huge part of the gaming industry is made up of 20 somethings that obviously only have fond memories of the NES days, and so we must wonder, what's preventing them from hooking up with their favourite company with which they hold so many fond nostalgic memories?

It's simply this:

Nintendo is not producing products that enable game developers to develop the games that they want to create.

We forget that game developers are made up of individual people, and that these individuals have their own passions, interests and life goals. These individuals have their pet projects that they dream about working on. We have to expect that they will push to realize those dreams. The problem for Nintendo is that when I talk to my friends about their passion projects it utterly clashes with what Nintendo is doing on the market right now.

People I talk to are working on projects where concepts like online play, free to play and asymmetrical gameplay are utterly essential to the core concept, and these are all areas that Nintendo products are incredibly weak in. Nintendo is improving in some areas, but their account-system-less eShop is utter garbage compared to the well realized online systems of PSN and Steam, so it is completely understandable to me why online and indie developers I know are focused on those platforms.

Other people I know have spent their lives developing amazing cutting edge technology in graphics and animation and are passionate about creating the most cinematic and awesome experiences possible. This is the "cool factor" that encourages them to get into work every day. This is their life work. On a Nintendo platform, this is not a priority. If you were so passionate about pushing the bar of games technology, why on earth would you want to develop for a Nintendo platform?

I'm sure some will criticize these people for not supporting the Wii and leaving money on the table by developing doomed AAA products or obscure indie titles, but these are these peoples' passions and we have to acknowledge that individuals will pursue their passions and individuals drive a company's agenda.

If Nintendo wants to receive the support of independent 3rd party developers, they have to align their product more towards what 3rd parties are interested in. If Nintendo doesn't want to do that that's fine. They can develop their own games by themselves.

Fantastic post and goes to the heart of the matter. Like you said, at the end of the day these developers are individuals who are passionate about tech, art, immersion, pushing boundaries. Which manufacturer's support these types of games most? Microsoft and Sony. Like you said, it seems Nintendo refuses to support these types of areas of gaming.

 

[Opiate]

The response to Tiktaalik's post (Which I largely think is reasonable) is that consumers have, at many times, clearly wanted the types of games Nintendo is making (certainly not with the Wii U, but with the Wii, DS, GBA, and to a lesser extent 3DS), and I think it's a shame that so few companies are willing to satiate this interest. They don't even have to do it on Nintendo's platform -- they're barely doing it at all, anywhere.

Of course, I don't personally like Nintendo's games, so it's not really a problem for me in particular -- but this problem extends beyond Nintendo. Virtually all of big western publisher have also avoided iOS, Android, Facebook, and other burgeoning platforms. I think it's a shame that so many customers who are obviously interested in playing games are going so underserved because nobody seems to want to make games for them outside of a select few companies. As a non-developer, I don't really care about their personal interests and would much rather they make games I actually want to play. Their job is to please me, not please themselves.

 

[hackdog]

Nintendo has two problems for me: The limited scope of games (too "kiddie") and the cult of miyamoto.

Nintendo has had their own paradigm since the 80's of what gaming should be and for better or worse most of the world has passed that by. Everything they do is according to that paradigm including hardware design. That's not to say they can't make compelling software but it has definitely limited the scope of software that can be created. For me there was a great quote from a developer saying that the WiiU was designed to just play mario games rather than giving developers ample power to create what they wanted to create.

The albatross around their neck though is their loyal fanbase. As much money as this fanbase brings in it is dwindling as it gets older. But that is not the real problem with them. They adore everything nintendo does. They idolise miyamoto and iwata. They shower everything nintendo does with praise and scorn most things that aren't nintendo a'la some of the examples in this thread. Nintendo will never know they are doing a bad job. They are like an emperor who has surrounded himself with 'yes' men rather than people who will tell them straight up what's what.

Until both these things change nintendo will gradually become less and less relevant till it is firmly entrenched as the domain of the 4 to 9 year old crowd only.

My first exposure to video games was over 30 years ago watching someone play donkey kong on a game and watch dual screen. As it is it looks likely that the 3DS will be the last nintendo product I play. it won't be a donkey kong game though.

 

[BlackJace]

The thing is, I don't see what's necessarily wrong with not buying into the whole AAA blockbuster schema that the West is currently focused on. As a company that has been around the longest, there's nothing wrong with playing to your strong suits, especially when there is a clear demand for your software.

Could Nintendo not be as stiff, and take a risk or two? Sure, but I think going headfirst into the AAA Western blockbuster schema like MS and Sony loses sight of what makes Nintendo Nintendo.

@hackdog: please leave your illusions of the fanbase at the door. The problem with the company isn't the few bad apples that happen to take brand loyalty to the extreme. Fanboys are in every camp, let's not pretend one is worse than the other.

 

[RagnarokX]

I was really puzzled by this and had to look it up and got this article. http://www.1up.com/features/what-the-hell-is-asymmetric-gameplay

I'm assuming that's what you were referring to?

I don't really agree with this definition of asymmetrical gameplay. What I'm talking about is essentially play by mail checkers. You do a move, and x number of days later I provide my move. Asymmetrical games are pretty common on mobile platforms. Letterpress for the iPhone is a really great one.

Edit: I mean the definition definitely works for the Wii U games described, but prior to the Wii U launching the term was often used for turn based games where a turn would take place at some unknown point in the future. Maybe we'll need a new term...

What you are referring to doesn't make sense to call asymmetric gameplay; that's where players have drastically different roles. What you are describing is asynchronous gaming.

Yeah, that's what I was referring to with asymmetrical gameplay. My apologies.

No reason to apologize. He mixed up asymmetric and asynchronous.

 

[RurouniZel]

I was really puzzled by this and had to look it up and got this article. http://www.1up.com/features/what-the-hell-is-asymmetric-gameplay

I'm assuming that's what you were referring to?

I don't really agree with this definition of asymmetrical gameplay. What I'm talking about is essentially play by mail checkers. You do a move, and x number of days later I provide my move. Asymmetrical games are pretty common on mobile platforms. Letterpress for the iPhone is a really great one.

Edit: I mean the definition definitely works for the Wii U games described, but prior to the Wii U launching the term was often used for turn based games where a turn would take place at some unknown point in the future. Maybe we'll need a new term...

Yeah, that's what I was referring to with asymmetrical gameplay. My apologies.

 

[Opiate]

@hackdog: please leave your illusions of the fanbase at the door. The problem with the company isn't the few bad apples that happen to take brand loyalty to the extreme. Fanboys are in every camp, let's not pretend one is worse than the other.

I think you could make the argument that Nintendo's fanbase is at the very least particular, such that Nintendo are entrapped by them.

That isn't to say they're bad or more fervent than other fanbases, mind you. But let's consider fans of Microsoft's games: by and large, those fans want them to make games that are quite a bit like everybody else's games. That may sound like a criticism, but it also means that Microsoft's games will be similar to other popular "core" games and subsequently pave the way for those third party games to appear on Microsoft's platform. The fact that Nintendo's design philosophy diverges from most major western third parties means that the fanbase they cultivate is a distinct one which isn't as likely to be interested in Call of Duty or Madden, while the demographic who enjoys Halo and Gears of War is largely the same demographic which is likely to enjoy Grand Theft Auto and Battlefield.

 

[Kai Dracon]

When a game like GTA or Call of Duty hits, you have everybody deconstructing those games; studying them from all angles; boiling them down to their very essences to understand how they work and why they're successful. Then they take that understanding and apply it to their own work. You don't see that occurring with Nintendo unfortunately. There has rarely been an effort made to figure out the success or Mario, Zelda and even any of the Wii______ titles. They either leave the potential audience all to Nintendo or pump out some inferior version as fast as possible.

My two cents is that a great many people in the industry don't respect a lot of the content Nintendo makes. It's considered cute, but "merely toys" compared to the amazing cinematic future where, well, I guess, all respectable games are movies. "Pure" games have become devalued in the west by the technologically oriented core gaming entertainment business, except perhaps as a low investment, high return F2P framework. Possibly because pure games don't forward the effort to capture parts of the pie shared by other entertainment mediums such as motion pictures and television.

 

[Opiate]

Edit: I mean the definition definitely works for the Wii U games described, but prior to the Wii U launching the term was often used for turn based games where a turn would take place at some unknown point in the future. Maybe we'll need a new term...

In your defense, Tiktaalik, I feel like the primary criticism -- by a country mile -- is Nintendo's lackluster networking infrastructure. At least that seems to be the case for the indie/small develop community, from what I've inferred. That doesn't mean these other concerns don't exist, but my guess is virtually all of these other concerns would seem like small potatoes if Nintendo's networking was not only up to snuff but progressive. You almost don't need to provide any other examples, because that one example is such a big one.

AAA studios have their own issues with Nintendo, but indie/small developers are almost 100% digital so any platform that isn't on the vanguard of digital delivery is a bad one for them.

 

[TKM]

When Playstation and CD came along it really showed up how crazy carts were, both from a price and inventory management perspective. I was working for a games company doing a PS1 and N64 game and the differences were stark.

Lead times from Sony DADC were tiny, you could order a small amount of stock knowing you could request more with maybe one week turnaround, so your inventory risk was low. And minimum orders were really small. Plus the cost of production was also low (think it was around $10 per disc including printed manual and case, delivered to your warehouse).

Nintendo by contrast on N64 had large minimum orders, expensive costs to produce the carts depending on memory size, whether you had battery backup ram for saves etc, and the lead times were horrendous - 6 weeks or so. So you had to hedge your bets right from the start. If you ordered low you'd have retailers with no stock and by the time you could replenish the opportunity would have passed. Overstock and you risk being left with piles of unsellable cartridges which you've taken the hit for. You could wipe out profits instantly with a tiny mistake in sales predictions.

Inventory control and cash flow management are too often overlooked by gamers. Understandably because they don't see the business side. To expand one your point, Nintendo by far had the worst payment terms. Sony DADC and Microsoft+Technicolor allow terms of 30 days or so. After discs are delivered, the publisher has 30 days to pay Sony and MS. Net 30 terms are very common in business to business sales.

Nintendo didn't operate that way. They required a Letter of Credit from the publisher. Nintendo provides a bill of lading (proves shipment) to the publisher's bank and payment is made then. Risk of loss is entirely on the publisher at this point.

When the economic crisis hit in 2008, terms got even worse. Nintendo now required a deposit up front before they'd start manufacturing a single cart. This is devastating to a publisher's cash flow. In a time when outside credit was hard to come by, Nintendo introduced a longer lag time between manufacturing the game and when publishers received cash from retailers.

Nintendo has operated as a monopolist for a long time and believed in high prices and lower quantities. Sony disrupted this model by aggressively introducing royalties on a sliding scale. This allowed games like Katamari Damacy, for example, to debut at a price lower than the standard $49.99. Sony also did a better job pushing the Greatest Hits line to expand game audiences.

Microsoft largely copied Sony's structure, and gave 3rd parties additional revenue streams through digital items (avatars, expansions, DLC) on XB Live.

Nintendo is way behind in embracing alternative game models like F2P, MMO sub, online-only, etc. Their business structure just doesn't facilitate it for 3rd parties because Nintendo 1st party doesn't make those types of games.

Nintendo acts like 3rd parties don't matter. It's no surprise 3rd parties prefer the other two manufacturers.

 

[BlackJace]

I think you could make the argument that Nintendo's fanbase is at the very least particular, such that Nintendo are entrapped by them.

That isn't to say they're bad or more fervent than other fanbases, mind you. But let's consider fans of Microsoft's games: by and large, those fans want them to make games that are quite a bit like everybody else's games. That may sound like a criticism, but it also means that Microsoft's games will be similar to other popular "core" games and subsequently pave the way for those third party games to appear on Microsoft's platform. The fact that Nintendo's design philosophy diverges from most major western third parties means that the fanbase they cultivate is a distinct one which isn't as likely to be interested in Call of Duty or Madden, while the demographic who enjoys Halo and Gears of War is largely the same demographic which is likely to enjoy Grand Theft Auto and Battlefield.

Sure, but my bone to pick was with the whole cultist angle. Believing management can do no wrong, an obsession with Miyamoto, etc. That's just useless generalization, people shouldn't let silly heat wave and dragon posts shape their opinions like that.

Moving on, Sony and Microsoft would probably kill to have the collective brand recognition of Nintendo's IPs, but since they don't, it'd only make sense to construct their ecosystems as a third party haven. Again, playing to their strong suits. You'll never see me criticize them for making the games they make, or how they approach the industry. Those two seem to be locked in a battle each other for a specific demo, saying something is fundamentally with a company that chooses to opt out of that battle, I can't fully agree with.

Third parties and Nintendo could mix to create something great, but I think both are too busy racing to their own bottom line. They believe they can coexist without actually having to have much to do with each other, unfortunately.

 

[Tiktaalik]

No reason to apologize. He mixed up asymmetric and asynchronous.

Yep!!!!! I meant asynchronous. Sorry. One beer too many and I start to get confused on long words.

 

[royalan]

Inventory control and cash flow management are too often overlooked by gamers. Understandably because they don't see the business side. To expand one your point, Nintendo by far had the worst payment terms. Sony DADC and Microsoft+Technicolor allow terms of 30 days or so. After discs are delivered, the publisher has 30 days to pay Sony and MS. Net 30 terms are very common in business to business sales.

Nintendo didn't operate that way. They required a Letter of Credit from the publisher. Nintendo provides a bill of lading (proves shipment) to the publisher's bank and payment is made then. Risk of loss is entirely on the publisher at this point.

When the economic crisis hit in 2008, terms got even worse. Nintendo now required a deposit up front before they'd start manufacturing a single cart. This is devastating to a publisher's cash flow. In a time when outside credit was hard to come by, Nintendo introduced a longer lag time between manufacturing the game and when publishers received cash from retailers.

Nintendo has operated as a monopolist for a long time and believed in high prices and lower quantities. Sony disrupted this model by aggressively introducing royalties on a sliding scale. This allowed games like Katamari Damacy, for example, to debut at a price lower than the standard $49.99. Sony also did a better job pushing the Greatest Hits line to expand game audiences.

Microsoft largely copied Sony's structure, and gave 3rd parties additional revenue streams through digital items (avatars, expansions, DLC) on XB Live.

Nintendo is way behind in embracing alternative game models like F2P, MMO sub, online-only, etc. Their business structure just doesn't facilitate it for 3rd parties because Nintendo 1st party doesn't make those types of games.

Nintendo acts like 3rd parties don't matter. It's no surprise 3rd parties prefer the other two manufacturers.

DAMN this thread is informative. Great post.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

I've worked in the games industry for over 6 years and I know a bunch of folks from a bunch of different companies that have worked on a variety of projects on every platform (some even with Nintendo) and I'd like to chime in with what I believe is the core issue why many 3rd parties are not terribly interested in working on Nintendo platforms.

Amirox's OP is a good read and he does a fantastic job of summarizing what were the core issues that prevented 3rd parties from working with Nintendo in the past. At the moment however, a huge part of the gaming industry is made up of 20 somethings that obviously only have fond memories of the NES days, and so we must wonder, what's preventing them from hooking up with their favourite company with which they hold so many fond nostalgic memories?

It's simply this:

Nintendo is not producing products that enable game developers to develop the games that they want to create.

We forget that game developers are made up of individual people, and that these individuals have their own passions, interests and life goals. These individuals have their pet projects that they dream about working on. We have to expect that they will push to realize those dreams. The problem for Nintendo is that when I talk to my friends about their passion projects it utterly clashes with what Nintendo is doing on the market right now.

People I talk to are working on projects where concepts like online play, free to play and asymmetrical gameplay are utterly essential to the core concept, and these are all areas that Nintendo products are incredibly weak in. Nintendo is improving in some areas, but their account-system-less eShop is utter garbage compared to the well realized online systems of PSN and Steam, so it is completely understandable to me why online and indie developers I know are focused on those platforms.

Other people I know have spent their lives developing amazing cutting edge technology in graphics and animation and are passionate about creating the most cinematic and awesome experiences possible. This is the "cool factor" that encourages them to get into work every day. This is their life work. On a Nintendo platform, this is not a priority. If you were so passionate about pushing the bar of games technology, why on earth would you want to develop for a Nintendo platform?

I'm sure some will criticize these people for not supporting the Wii and leaving money on the table by developing doomed AAA products or obscure indie titles, but these are these peoples' passions and we have to acknowledge that individuals will pursue their passions and individuals drive a company's agenda.

If Nintendo wants to receive the support of independent 3rd party developers, they have to align their product more towards what 3rd parties are interested in. If Nintendo doesn't want to do that that's fine. They can develop their own games by themselves.

Everytime when someone brings posts like this you can only conclude this company is on a cycle of self undermining and the only way to stop this cycle of diminishing returns is an emergency management shake up.

 

[Kai Dracon]

Sure, but my bone to pick was with the whole cultist angle. Believing management can do no wrong, an obsession with Miyamoto, etc. That's just useless generalization, people shouldn't let silly heat wave and dragon posts shape their opinions like that.

I don't see how anyone could observe the Nintendo fanbase today and think there is a cult of Miyamoto. You mostly see fans obsessed with the idea that Miyamoto has turned into a mean old man who is literally making games bad on purpose to crush dreams, ha ha. (Shh, no player agency now, only tutorials.)

To be honest the perception of the "Nintendo cult" seems to come from the fact that in spite of the many controversies a lot of people still like Nintendo's games and, shockingly, buy them. It's easy and self-gratifying for people who don't like something to point at everyone who does and call them all a bunch of mindless drones - happens in everything, see: Apple products. See: the hate Call of Duty receives. All those poor tens of millions of gamers, buying that game they don't... actually like... or something. Having fun without permission.

 

[Bending_Unit_22]

Inventory control and cash flow management are too often overlooked by gamers. Understandably because they don't see the business side. To expand one your point, Nintendo by far had the worst payment terms. Sony DADC and Microsoft+Technicolor allow terms of 30 days or so. After discs are delivered, the publisher has 30 days to pay Sony and MS. Net 30 terms are very common in business to business sales.

Nintendo didn't operate that way. They required a Letter of Credit from the publisher. Nintendo provides a bill of lading (proves shipment) to the publisher's bank and payment is made then. Risk of loss is entirely on the publisher at this point.

When the economic crisis hit in 2008, terms got even worse. Nintendo now required a deposit up front before they'd start manufacturing a single cart. This is devastating to a publisher's cash flow. In a time when outside credit was hard to come by, Nintendo introduced a longer lag time between manufacturing the game and when publishers received cash from retailers.

Nintendo has operated as a monopolist for a long time and believed in high prices and lower quantities. Sony disrupted this model by aggressively introducing royalties on a sliding scale. This allowed games like Katamari Damacy, for example, to debut at a price lower than the standard $49.99. Sony also did a better job pushing the Greatest Hits line to expand game audiences.

Microsoft largely copied Sony's structure, and gave 3rd parties additional revenue streams through digital items (avatars, expansions, DLC) on XB Live.

Nintendo is way behind in embracing alternative game models like F2P, MMO sub, online-only, etc. Their business structure just doesn't facilitate it for 3rd parties because Nintendo 1st party doesn't make those types of games.

Nintendo acts like 3rd parties don't matter. It's no surprise 3rd parties prefer the other two manufacturers.

Not at any of the companies for which I've done accounting, where I work now is hilariously stacked in the company's favor. At any rate, net 30 is far better than what you're saying Nintendo does. I've only seen it for recurrent past due payees and new foreign customers. Anyhow, if true then yeah that is a definite unnecessary issue Nintendo is creating for 3rd parties (also very annoying for Nintendo's accounting department from my experience). This is the kind of thing that Nintendo needs to stop. It does little to benefit them and much to hurt them.

 

[Opiate]

I absolutely agree that Nintendo's problems with networking are profound and are the core of their issues with developers today, particularly on the small/indie end of the spectrum.

As stated, this isn't just as simple and facile as "Nintendo doesn't have a proper account system." They have expressely stated a resistance to inexpensively priced or F2P DD games a la iOS and PC, and according to Ravidrath (a poster on GAF who is also a developer), treat Youtube as a de facto pirate site, among many other examples. This generally suggests that Nintendo is not just apathetic towards but actively hostile to the networking revolutions taking place from game pricing to social media.

And unlike the high end tech race, which many customers clearly don't care much about, networking is something that virtually everyone seems to care about, from Xbox dudebros playing Call of Duty or Madden to niche PC gamers playing indie titles to casual games on iOS and Facebook. You can point to iOS or Android or Facebook and say, "see, not everyone cares about graphics," but you cannot find any similar examples for networking.

 

[Night_Trekker]

I've posted about this at length in earlier threads.

I basically agree with the OP about how Nintendo got into this situation. Though I think going, for the second generation in a row, for hardware innovation over hardware strength, was not necessarily a mistake. While it's true that, at a time when games are getting more and more expensive to make, being able to gets ports of multiplat games is important, I think Nintendo's decision is only seen as a mistake now because the WiiU's "innovations" aren't selling gangbusters like the Wii did.

IMO, Nintendo continues to have bad luck with third parties, regardless of how well they do, because investors are risk averse and "third parties can't make money on Nintendo consoles" has become a "rule" about investing in video games. Doesn't matter if that rule has any rational basis. We're talking about lots of money at stake here! Investors don't understand video games, but they do understand trends. And the trend is third parties are not as successful on Nintendo consoles as Nintendo's first party titles are. These days, the trend is largely a self-fulfilling prophecy based on third party behavior, but the third parties don't let that bother them.

EDIT: Also, yes, Nintendo's continued reluctance and incompetence in the online area is a major blow to them. It was a big problem with the Wii, but at least it was their first major effort with an online console. Now it's just unacceptable.

 

[trickyhero]

I think it comes down to East vs West. Before you cry Sony, all of their first party develoment teams are in the west other than SCE Japan Studio. Which gives you fun, gameplay based, and 'diffrent' acording to american taste games. The diffrence between Sony and Nintendo is that Sony is almost all western first party develoment, and so it creates games that people expect for "AAA" games, like Resistance, Uncharted, God of War, ect. Nintendo dosn't focus on western develoment at all. It's only major western developer is Retro Studios, which they control with an iron fist, since they have deemed their attempts at their own games as futile. This makes a precadent of quirky japanese games that arn't considered "AAA" in the west and so western publishers see no market to reach on that system.

tl;dr: Nintendo dosn't have western first party developers, and so only Japanese/not "AAA" games are made.

 

[cloudyy]

I absolutely agree that Nintendo's problems with networking are profound and are the core of their issues with developers today, particularly on the small/indie end of the spectrum.

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that Nintendo is somehow preventing small/indies developers when these past couple of months it's the one thing Nintendo seems to do right. Self-publishing, free Unity licences, HTML5 development platforms, developers set their own pricing/sale etc. Also, F2P is already available on the Wii U eshop (Tank Tank Tank).

 

[Opiate]

I've posted about this at length in earlier threads.

I basically agree with the OP about how Nintendo got into this situation. Though I think going, for the second generation in a row, for hardware innovation over hardware strength, was not necessarily a mistake. While it's true that, at a time when games are getting more and more expensive to make, being able to gets ports of multiplat games is important, I think Nintendo's decision is only seen as a mistake now because the WiiU's "innovations" aren't selling gangbusters like the Wii did.

IMO, Nintendo continues to have bad luck with third parties, regardless of how well they do, because investors are risk averse and "third parties can't make money on Nintendo consoles" has become a "rule" about investing in video games. Doesn't matter if that rule has any rational basis. We're talking about lots of money at stake here! Investors don't understand video games, but they do understand trends. And the trend is third parties are not as successful on Nintendo consoles as Nintendo's first party titles are. These days, the trend is largely a self-fulfilling prophecy based on third party behavior, but the third parties don't let that bother them.

I think this argument holds more validity for the big players like EA and Take 2, but is much less valid for small guys who don't have guys in suits calling the shots. I think small developers are hurt a lot more by the financial concerns TKM is talking about -- EA has no trouble covering up front costs, but small guys making their first game absolutely could.

I've pointed out several times in this thread that iOS, like Nintendo's platforms, has gone largely ignored by the big western publishers. So why is it that iOS has managed to get a large group of publishers on their platform? Because they basically grew their own third parties; companies like Gameloft and Rovio were built and grown on mobile platforms, and have become huge publishers in their own right. The reason we don't see a Rovio or a Gameloft taking root in Nintendo's ecosystems is because they've made it extremely hard for these little guys to break in. This is a completely separate problem than what we see with the big publishers, whose dispute with Nintendo is largely philosophical/demographic rather than economic. If Nintendo's platforms appealed strongly to the Madden/Call of Duty/Grand Theft Auto demogarphic, I can guarantee that Nintendo's relatively poor business terms would be a small bump in the road for those guys.

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that Nintendo is somehow preventing small/indies developers when these past couple of months it's the one thing Nintendo seems to do right. Self-publishing, free Unity licences, HTML5 development platforms, developers set their own pricing/sale etc. Also, F2P is already available on the Wii U eshop (Tank Tank Tank).

Yes, maybe these past couple months. Maybe. Nintendo's problems are literally decades in the making, so a few months of things going in the right direction isn't enough for me to say, "It's over, Nintendo has solved all their problems!"

It's still definitely possible for Nintendo to create and sustain a more positive business ecosystem, but until they get there and sustain it for a few years, I'm going to rely on the last 15-20 years of history as a guide first. If they change their systems and keep moving forward, I'll be happy to change my tune.

 

[TKM]

Not at any of the companies for which I've done accounting, where I work now is hilariously stacked in the company's favor. At any rate, net 30 is far better than what you're saying Nintendo does. I've only seen it for recurrent past due payees and new foreign customers. Anyhow, if true then yeah that is a definite unnecessary issue Nintendo is creating for 3rd parties (also very annoying for Nintendo's accounting department from my experience). This is the kind of thing that Nintendo needs to stop. It does little to benefit them and much to hurt them.

It's true for North American and European pubs I've had experience with. Maybe not for Japanese ones.

Net 30 is by far the most common trade credit in the US from my experience in accounting. Nintendo's practice really extended the cash cycle because trade credit must be offered to retailers as well. And again, that's net 30, sometimes net 60.

So the publisher's out a couple million dollars, and ships out product ASAP. Walmart accepts delivery and then has 30 days to pay the pub. And if they only cut checks once a week and your invoice misses input into Walmart's A/P system, then the best case scenario is 30+7 days for payment. 30 days is the minimum, no business will pay earlier than they have to.

 

[Game Guru]

There is really nothing Nintendo can really do to win back third-party console support to the levels of the NES or SNES... Not as long as Sony is still making consoles. Outside the Vita, Sony's never had a console sell worse than 75 million systems, which is much higher than what Nintendo achieved with the NES. Sony is also not making huge mistakes with their PS4 versus Nintendo's Wii U and Microsoft's Xbox One. My own prediction with the eighth generation is that things will return to how they were in the sixth... Sony unarguably dominant in consoles and Nintendo unarguably dominant in handhelds.

It doesn't really matter how Nintendo got into their mess with third-parties, but that Nintendo really can't get out of it since making a game for Sony's console is going to be an infinitely better proposition for third-parties as it has been since Sony started making consoles. As for why Sony can't be dominant in handhelds, I really think it has to do with the mindsets of the two companies in that Sony's mindset is better for consoles but doesn't make for a good handheld, and Nintendo's mindset is better for handhelds but doesn't make for a good console.