Dead in the blood red ocean as far as consoles are concerned... All three consoles selling worse than GameCube would not a contraction, but instead a full on crash of the console market. A contraction is pretty much guaranteed just from Wii U and Xbox One likely not being as big of successes as the Wii and 360 were due to various mistakes from Nintendo and Microsoft. In addition, 3DS and Vita is not doing as well as the DS and PSP respectfully. The only way there won't be some contraction at this point is if PS4 surpasses the PS2 in sales and becomes the best selling console ever.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Nintendo Third Party Dilemma: How we got here and why
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
Dead in the blood red ocean as far as consoles are concerned... All three consoles selling worse than GameCube would not a contraction, but instead a full on crash of the console market. A contraction is pretty much guaranteed just from Wii U and Xbox One likely not being as big of successes as the Wii and 360 were due to various mistakes from Nintendo and Microsoft. In addition, 3DS and Vita is not doing as well as the DS and PSP respectfully. The only way there won't be some contraction at this point is if PS4 surpasses the PS2 in sales and becomes the best selling console ever.
Coreda
Member
Typo fix.
Great write-up, enjoyed reading your opinion on it. Always like a good long-form post.
You can say goodbye to console game. You are talking about market crash.
DICKS AHOY
Banned
Going off the pre-order numbers alone wouldn't it take some serious budget miscalculations from both companies for the PS4 and even Xbox1 to have a bad launch?
Even with PS3 and Xbox 360 still kicking around in 2014, I don't think PS4 in particular, will struggle out of the gate despite all these cross-gen titles and some highly anticipated exclusives such as GTA V. It's been a long generation, and an adequate amount of gamers are ready to move on from it. Unfortunately,Nintendo's still going to be behind even if they have a successful holiday season, but at least there will be a better reason to own a Wii U from that point on.
littlebirdtoldme
Banned
sony/ms have completely different objectives than nintendo.
A playstation is made to sell 3rd party games.
A nintendo console is made to sell nintendo games.
The focus is completely different. Naturally third parties will put their efforts on the system that is made around them.
The whole point of a nintendo console is to maximize sales of nintendo software. Its all about selling as many mario karts as you possibly can during the holiday season. Nintendo does not even like competition from them selves. That is why they dont make that many games themselves. And that is why they have trouble localizing their own fucking titles like the orignal xenoblade.
Nintendo wants a few select nintendo games each year that they can market and sell.
A playstation is made to sell 3rd party games.
A nintendo console is made to sell nintendo games.
The focus is completely different. Naturally third parties will put their efforts on the system that is made around them.
The whole point of a nintendo console is to maximize sales of nintendo software. Its all about selling as many mario karts as you possibly can during the holiday season. Nintendo does not even like competition from them selves. That is why they dont make that many games themselves. And that is why they have trouble localizing their own fucking titles like the orignal xenoblade.
Nintendo wants a few select nintendo games each year that they can market and sell.
Just a few things (on mobile so it's going to be short).
1) people calling for Nintendo to make a ps4/one-a-like have to realize that they're a gaming only company and will be selling at or near cost (Wii u requires more than 1 game to be profitable at launch). Ill tell you right now that the ps4 costs more than 400 bucks to make. How do you think a 500 dollar wii box one would be selling? I'd say worse. The Wii u console is currently selling for slightly above the ASP of 7 year old boxes. That's fair, even if we all consider it overpriced. You simply can't sell a console for 300 or less without it being a lower powered unit. Consider the Wii was apparently making Nintendo 6 bucks/unit at launch after store cuts, shipping, etc according to Forbes. Yes the Wii.
2) the ps4 and Xbo launch are going to be great I'm sure. It's what happens next spring/summer that matters most. Don't look at the launch as the staunchest indicator. Wait until supply catches up with a demand to see relative console performance. This could be very high, or it can be bad as in Snowden's post. There will be a pretty sizeable contraction this gen in my opinion. To which extent, we will see.
3) the idea that Nintendo only wants their games on their platforms (as the previous poster alluded to) and that's the only thing they care about is ludicrous. Yes their design their platforms/controllers to facilitate ideas but they take a chunk out of every sold game. The more of every piece of software they sell, the more money they make.
4) with Xbl and PSn charging sub fees, certain big publishers get a small chunk of that revenue every year *cough Activision cough* (I think roughly 1 months worth per year being the agreement?). Nintendo doesn't subscribe to that same fee. It does affect the support they receive. Ever wonder why call of duty always just showed up without any press releases and was Photographed by GameStop employees and first purchasers and such? I'd wager that has something to do with it. Regardless, the online itself works fine, even if its feature incomplete in comparison to other services. It's the lack of personal accounts (rather than the system account currently in place) that really should be changed at some point soon. With that said, the reason you see so many DLC, day one stuff, pre order bonuses, season passes, digital future and most big companies turning their focus into free to play (ie looking for whales - see PR like "connected world" and "social is the future", "massive online presence") is because they want to transition gaming into a service rather than a product. Microsoft in particular is transitioning its whole company into one of service rather than product (I deal with the other side of the company regularly at work as well) but Sony is going in this direction as well. PSN was a start. You will see this rear it's head when you see more of the OS' focus and you will see it when you see the gakai stuff as well. Microsoft went a bit overboard with it but will eventually head in that direction again. That is what the higher ups want - everywhere. Third party publishers are looking in that same direction. In contrast, Nintendo is old fashioned. They see their consoles as toys for everyone (which, sorry guys, that's what out video game boxes are - toys) and are only dipping their feet a bit into stuff like DLC and f2p. For better or worse, they are "old school". They still think of themselves as product-based toy makers, not monetized service providers. That's obviously a good thing in some ways, and a bad thing in other ways.
5) a lot of fantastic posts in this thread, whether we agree with them or not
1) people calling for Nintendo to make a ps4/one-a-like have to realize that they're a gaming only company and will be selling at or near cost (Wii u requires more than 1 game to be profitable at launch). Ill tell you right now that the ps4 costs more than 400 bucks to make. How do you think a 500 dollar wii box one would be selling? I'd say worse. The Wii u console is currently selling for slightly above the ASP of 7 year old boxes. That's fair, even if we all consider it overpriced. You simply can't sell a console for 300 or less without it being a lower powered unit. Consider the Wii was apparently making Nintendo 6 bucks/unit at launch after store cuts, shipping, etc according to Forbes. Yes the Wii.
2) the ps4 and Xbo launch are going to be great I'm sure. It's what happens next spring/summer that matters most. Don't look at the launch as the staunchest indicator. Wait until supply catches up with a demand to see relative console performance. This could be very high, or it can be bad as in Snowden's post. There will be a pretty sizeable contraction this gen in my opinion. To which extent, we will see.
3) the idea that Nintendo only wants their games on their platforms (as the previous poster alluded to) and that's the only thing they care about is ludicrous. Yes their design their platforms/controllers to facilitate ideas but they take a chunk out of every sold game. The more of every piece of software they sell, the more money they make.
4) with Xbl and PSn charging sub fees, certain big publishers get a small chunk of that revenue every year *cough Activision cough* (I think roughly 1 months worth per year being the agreement?). Nintendo doesn't subscribe to that same fee. It does affect the support they receive. Ever wonder why call of duty always just showed up without any press releases and was Photographed by GameStop employees and first purchasers and such? I'd wager that has something to do with it. Regardless, the online itself works fine, even if its feature incomplete in comparison to other services. It's the lack of personal accounts (rather than the system account currently in place) that really should be changed at some point soon. With that said, the reason you see so many DLC, day one stuff, pre order bonuses, season passes, digital future and most big companies turning their focus into free to play (ie looking for whales - see PR like "connected world" and "social is the future", "massive online presence") is because they want to transition gaming into a service rather than a product. Microsoft in particular is transitioning its whole company into one of service rather than product (I deal with the other side of the company regularly at work as well) but Sony is going in this direction as well. PSN was a start. You will see this rear it's head when you see more of the OS' focus and you will see it when you see the gakai stuff as well. Microsoft went a bit overboard with it but will eventually head in that direction again. That is what the higher ups want - everywhere. Third party publishers are looking in that same direction. In contrast, Nintendo is old fashioned. They see their consoles as toys for everyone (which, sorry guys, that's what out video game boxes are - toys) and are only dipping their feet a bit into stuff like DLC and f2p. For better or worse, they are "old school". They still think of themselves as product-based toy makers, not monetized service providers. That's obviously a good thing in some ways, and a bad thing in other ways.
5) a lot of fantastic posts in this thread, whether we agree with them or not
littlebirdtoldme
Banned
but they make much much much more selling their own games.
I mean nintendo makes games like nsmb and it sells 25 million units @ 40-50 bucks each.
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
There's no point in being a first party if third party games are not important. Making a console and supporting it is not free, it's not a matter of "well they make hardware so they can profit on it too." Otherwise we'd have consoles on the market from every major publisher.
They spend millions and millions of dollars in R&D for hardware development, APIs, software, developer assistance, etc. If they were content selling their own games without concern for third parties they could just as easily do that on another platform without that huge investment.
Much of the money made by a first party is from the cut they get of every single game that sells for their platform.
You have it backwards;
A Playstation isn't made to sell third party titles; Sony produces the Playstation to sell machines and their own first party output as well. Sony needs third parties as much as Nintendo does, but uses different incentives to get them on board. If third parties find success, well that's good for them. But it's not because Playstation is made to sell their software titles. They still have to push their output themselves to succeed on the platform.
The market responding in great numbers for Nintendo's own software does not mean they only want succes for their own titles. It means people just prefer their software over other options.
A Playstation isn't made to sell third party titles; Sony produces the Playstation to sell machines and their own first party output as well. Sony needs third parties as much as Nintendo does, but uses different incentives to get them on board. If third parties find success, well that's good for them. But it's not because Playstation is made to sell their software titles. They still have to push their output themselves to succeed on the platform.
The market responding in great numbers for Nintendo's own software does not mean they only want succes for their own titles. It means people just prefer their software over other options.
Flightmare
Member
Well, I meant the price, not sales figures. But noted.
Premium has dropped from 3200 NOK to 2300 NOK (~290€
Basic has dropped from 2600 NOK to 1700 NOK (~220€
When the wii launched, it was 2500 NOK for comparison
littlebirdtoldme
Banned
yes it is. Playstation exists to make money of third party licensing. That is the whole set up.
its not to sell sony games. Sony and ms games exist only to sell the platform so it will be viable to third parties.
That is why ms hardly releases any games anymore on 360.
littlebirdtoldme
Banned
But then they would have to pay royalties to sony or ms. And remember nintendo makes money of hardware. Its a risk to be a platform holder. But there are also plenty of benefits.
It is a double sided fold. But for the most part I do agree actually. That's why the Wii U is disappointing. I thought that it would be the console that communicates with developers just as well as it did with the consumers. Ironically, it did just that but in a way no one ever hoped.
Why didn't they just improve the Wiimote + nuncuck set up so it can accommodate traditional games as well as unique titles, power the console up, and improve their online infrastructure? To me, that would have seemed like the perfect evolution of the Wii. But nope, they decided to throw away everything that made the Wii good and stuck to a strategy that is only beneficial to a very small audience.
Bleh, I still love them, but really what the hell?
Why didn't they just improve the Wiimote + nuncuck set up so it can accommodate traditional games as well as unique titles, power the console up, and improve their online infrastructure? To me, that would have seemed like the perfect evolution of the Wii. But nope, they decided to throw away everything that made the Wii good and stuck to a strategy that is only beneficial to a very small audience.
Bleh, I still love them, but really what the hell?
Que? You're not making any sense. If Sony's not in it to sell software and just give third parties a platform to publish their games on, why did Sony expand their studios and IP portfolio for the last couple of years? The reason why MS doesn't release any 360 games from this point on is because they're putting all their resources on Xbone development.
If Sony and MS just make games to be viable for third parties(?), they could have spent their gamedevelopment/studio expansion money into marketing and pushing third party related content. They do push their content, but at the same time they want sell their Uncharted's, GT's, Forza Motorsports and Halo's.
littlebirdtoldme
Banned
The reason they have a first party is primarily to make the console more desirable for the consumer. So the consumer chooses ms xbox hardware standard over sony hardware standard. Its to there first and foremost to sell the console and establish the hardware standard so it in the end is desirable to the third parties.
Sony and ms loves making money of their game studios.
But that is not their main focus. The main focus is to establish the standard, and then make money of third parties.
famousmortimer
Banned
Absolutely spot on post, amirox. It's been clear to us old timers that nintendo builds things just for Nintendo for a while now. And that's fine, I buy nintendo consoles to play nintendo games. But i feel bad for the people who fall for the 'we're gonna get third party games this time' bs.
And the thing is, with the Wii U, not many games have been canceled that would be out by now... just aliens, right? So you can't even blame the shit sales for the software lull we are currently in. This is on them.
The games canceled for this fall... madden, etc - that's definitely a reaction to slow sales. But other than Rayman getting pushed and wii u owners dodging the aliens debacle these first 8 months are exactly as nintendo set it up. They have no one to blame but themselves.
I love my wii u and look forward to many games on it. But i had to make peace with the fact that I may go 6 months at a time without turning it on, between big nintendo releases.
And the thing is, with the Wii U, not many games have been canceled that would be out by now... just aliens, right? So you can't even blame the shit sales for the software lull we are currently in. This is on them.
The games canceled for this fall... madden, etc - that's definitely a reaction to slow sales. But other than Rayman getting pushed and wii u owners dodging the aliens debacle these first 8 months are exactly as nintendo set it up. They have no one to blame but themselves.
I love my wii u and look forward to many games on it. But i had to make peace with the fact that I may go 6 months at a time without turning it on, between big nintendo releases.
littlebirdtoldme
Banned
that is not what you said.
anyway the difference in philosopy is:
nintendo makes consoles to sell their own games first and formost. third party is an afterthought.
end goal: rake in money on first party games.
sony/ms makes their consoles to sell third party games. first and formost. firstparty is there to sell and establish the hardware standard.
end goal: rake in money on third party licensing.
Snowden's Secret
Banned
Wii U had great pre-order numbers and a strong enough launch. It was everything that came after launch that was the problem.
PS4 is very expensive ($400 is well over the established price point the mass market is known to accept) and isn't presenting anything new. Sony's entire strategy seems to be trying to do things as closely to PS1/PS2 as possible. Maybe this works, maybe the market responds to that (we enthusiasts are excited for this strategy, for sure), but maybe it doesn't since there's no "hook."
I don't think PS4 will do as poorly as Wii U, but I don't think it's out of the question either. What would third parties do then? Fully jump into mobile development?
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
Selling first party games is not the end-goal, which is the point. First party content is obviously important to differentiate the system and give people a reason to buy it over the competitors systems.
But anybody who says Nintendo (or Sony or MS) doesn't need third parties is simply wrong. There is zero benefit in being a first party if you don't have third parties developing for your system. Paying licensing fees to another company makes more sense than burning money on hardware development that wouldn't be covered and profited on by third party licensing.
That would lead to a crash in the console sector of the industry.
I don't think it's going to happen, though.
That would imply that all these millions of people who turned games like Elder Scrolls, GTA, Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed etc. into huge successes, have no interest in console gaming anymore...because they only want to play games like Doodle Jump and Angry Birds.
GTA5 will be a good test for this theory imo.
This fall it would only prove that those people are still okay playing those games on current-gen machines.
And I think you're wrong.
It doesn't matter if you're Nintendo, Sony or MS; all three of them want third party publishers to succeed on their platform and have a nice stable income in regards to licensing fees. It's a messageboard myth that Nintendo sees third parties as an afterthought. The key difference between those three are that Sony and MS are far more agressive in obtaining third party support. If you actually expect Nintendo to think "well if third parties won't come that means more money for our first party titles!" is ludicrous.
Push their PS4/Xbone titles as long as possible until the market picks up the slack. In other words, the same strategy as pushing the 360/PS3 hardware back in '06/'07/'08/'09. If that doesn't work, I suppose the first to go are the prestige projects and going all in with safe bets.
They do pay a licensing fee. Nobody's console is a charity.
Lots of stuff has been canned, both before and after the launch of the console.
Yeah this will happen. They will just trudge along until people begin to buy the games. Again they've invested too heavily in the two platforms to not do it. You'll see lots of interviews of "consumers just need time to move on" and "Ps3 and 360 are too great a buys/need to phaze them out" and stuff like that as more people are laid off/fired and only sure fire games (see popular/yearly sequels) will be made.
The "next-gen is doomed because of diminishing returns" argument is a bit overstated imo.
I mean, even if the diminishing returns theory is true and the general public can't tell the difference between current-gen and next-gen games, they will still need to buy a next-gen console in order to play the new entries in the GTA or Elder Scrolls series.
So, even if graphics don't sell the new consoles to the people, the games will (assuming, of course, that they're still interested in console gaming).
But if, like Wii U developers see no one is buying them fast enough in in enough quantities, why would they move from the sure things of PS3/360 where all the money is supposedly?? would Sony/MS purposely discontinue them? Force developers to move forward? basically doing what Nintendo used to do when they were so hated?
Remember how badly the PS360 were selling for years at the beginning of this generation? They weren't Wii U-tanking, but they were incredibly slow on the uptake. Most people seem to have blocked that out of their memories I think. Publishers have it in their best interest to gently coax new users onto the other platforms because that's where their focus is supposed to be in the future. Unlike the Wii U (and the Wii, I guess, despite the fact that the Wii sold a ton of software), they will spend the money to cultivate their audiences because they see it as a place where that will eventually give them a return. Whether that will succeed or not is up in the air (as I personally see a pretty sizeable contraction happening) but that transition of software will also take longer this round, IMO. I'd say approximately 2 or 2 and a half years until most PS360 software (outside surefire stuff like Madden/Fifa/CoD) is not the focus.
Nintendo could have easily got more 3rd party support if they went with x86 hardware. They could have dropped that tablet and hard more powerful hardware. Basically make it similar to PS4 but slightly weaker, such as no GDDR5. They would have automatically got 3rd party support due to similar hardware. They could have sold the system for $349 and make a profit after selling 1 game.
Something tells me you don't really know how much money releasing hardware with the power of a PS4 in late 2012 would be. I'll give you a clue: 28nm STILL isn't the primary output of chip fabs, in mid 2013.
Nintendo doesn't sell for a major loss as a company because video games is all they do and they want to survive (hence their more conservative approach to business), and I think the PS4 being $399 has skewed the perception of what it actually costs to build such hardware. Imagine a Nintendo console releasing at $599. What would these message boards look like then? What would Nintendo's sales prospects be like then? I think they'd be much worse.
Nevermind the fact that they'd have to forego any differentiation factor (which is important to the company, for better or worse) and they'd have to throw away BC (which also seems to be important to the company).
Nevermind the fact being similar in hardware power or architecture guarantees nothing. We've done that dance many times on this forum, and everything from return on investment to perceived demographics matter a lot more to the bean counters at the major publishers than what's inside the box. Or, to put it another way, if you think it will sell there you'll make it work (see: every successful console except Wii).
Snowden's Secret
Banned
I agree. I think the prominence of and sheer quantity of cross gen games is a strong signal to that affect. Sure, cross gen games always exist, but rarely to this extent. I can't see either new box picking up faster than their predecessors, especially because neither has a hook (a gimmick, if you will). Last gen, X360 had HD, Wii had motion controls, PS3 had blu ray.
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
That's the kicker. Would that work? Would people outside of Nintendo fans that would buy the system regardless pick it up over a PS4 or Xbox One?
Is getting inferior third party ports really going to put Nintendo in a favorable position? What even IS a favorable position for them?
I think there are more questions than answers. Beyond having successful consoles what is Nintendo's goal for the future?
You're claiming that ms gives activision 1/12 of every live gold subscription fee? I've never heard anything like that. Do you have a citation?
Bingo. Consumers go where the games are.
This fall the PS4 and Xbox One probably won't tank like the Wii U did, but it's possible they won't burst out the gate either because of how many of their launch games are cross-gen. A lot of the early 2014 games are cross-gen too.
If anything this could be sort of a "soft launch" for next-gen games. When DVD came out people kept making and selling VHS movies for a long time because they knew consumers would upgrade gradually, not immediately. You can kind of look at this as the same thing but at a faster pace -- publishers know consumers on the whole will upgrade to next-gen gradually, not immediately. Eventually publishers will make the switch though because they need next-gen PlayStation and Xbox to be successful. Next-gen GTA and Elder Scrolls specifically are probably two years out at least though.
Publishers' business model depends on next-gen being a success. They played a hand in bringing the PS3 back to life because they needed it in order to make money, that's why they bet on it initially. If the PS4 and Xbox One for whatever reason don't do well initially in hardware sales, I think publishers will continue to support the consoles to try to rejuvenate them.
I don't think they'd actually start pulling support unless the actual games started selling like crap on PS4 and Xbox One. And PS3/360 is less and less of a sure thing every quarter, with sales declining. The big publishers are expecting next-gen to be a shot in the arm to those sales. If that doesn't happen you'll probably see a sharp decline in the industry overall.
Publishers don't need the Wii U to succeed however. They aren't betting on it. They see no need to resuscitate that platform.
Snowden's Secret
Banned
I think this may contribute to some of the animosity towards third parties from Nintendo fans. Third parties could (should?) be putting all their cross gen games on Wii U and promoting them as the "definitive" version, but aren't. Wii U would be in a better position (how much better is up for debate) if it had got improved versions of Bioshock, Tomb Raider, etc this year, and had announced versions of all upcoming cross gen titles.
Why Nintendo isn't paying for these versions themselves if they have to is beyond me. Hell, if Nintendo produced the ports themselves there's the experience making HD games they lack.
Baki
Member
Actually Kuturagi wanted a platform that heavily favoured third parties. That was his vision.
Nintendo is very conservative with their expenses, is the reason they have so much money. They aren't just going to throw money out for some developers. Then again, they are funding Bayonetta 2.
I really think we think we know what goes behind the scenes but reality might be completely different, what kind of agreements have happened with western developers that might have fallen apart? we really aren't going to know, not now anyway.
Snowden's Secret
Banned
Yeah, but then I think of something like Kinect, which is powered almost entirely by marketing. Microsoft spent $500,000,000 (half a fucking billion dollars!) in marketing when it launched. Obviously Nintendo shouldn't do something of that magnituge, but for 1/5 the cost (a hundred million) Nintendo could have ported and advertised at least 25 third party cross gen games, and just marked it up as advertising. Would Wii U be in the same dire straights if it had received the 25 biggest third party games over the last year (instead of basically nothing)?
On the other hand, that same hundred million could be used to make 3-5 exclusive games, so maybe that's what they did instead.
Bjoern the Smexy
Member
I will probably always and forever buy any system Nintendo releases, but even I can see that they're destroying themselves eventually.
I really hope that for the Wii U's successor Nintendo thinks about putting some powerful shit in its console so it's equally powerful to the Xbox Two/PS5.
Also aggressive marketing.
Just copy the competition for once, Nintendo. Just this once.
I really hope that for the Wii U's successor Nintendo thinks about putting some powerful shit in its console so it's equally powerful to the Xbox Two/PS5.
Also aggressive marketing.
Just copy the competition for once, Nintendo. Just this once.
Good OP. TBH I think I see far more posts blaming Nintendo for their current situation than third parties, mainly for the reasons set out in the OP.
I don't really see how it's ever possible to 'blame' third parties for the fortunes of a console anyway- they are under absolutely no obligation to ensure any one piece of hardware is a success, least of all the hardware that that has the greatest first-party competition to their own products or has unique hardware features (or less power) that requires a bespoke approach for an obviously much smaller market than a shared PC/PS/Xbox build.
What I do find funny is arguments where people think global technology companies hold thirty-year grudges rather than following the money. The isolated nature of the markets in the 80s meant that decisions regarding Nintendo (and virtually every other publisher still going) in the 80s outside of Japan were made by a comically small amount of people compared to today- see the Super Mario 2 release, or the terrible Megaman box art.
So few companies have been going for 30+ years in this industry that it seems a bit odd to be beating them up for dodgy practices back then when there are plenty of modern reasons for their problems, and plenty of Japanese third parties (Sega, Capcom, Atlus etc) are clearly happy to work with Nintendo when it's in their interest to do so.
Isn't there more of an argument that only a few of the western games developers working with Nintendo back then are still in business, and even then the business models are hugely different and focused on fewer publishing houses with more clout? Other, smaller, modern western games developers just don't have any historical relationship with Nintendo at all, and so the modern issues are perhaps far more relevant for them.
I don't really see how it's ever possible to 'blame' third parties for the fortunes of a console anyway- they are under absolutely no obligation to ensure any one piece of hardware is a success, least of all the hardware that that has the greatest first-party competition to their own products or has unique hardware features (or less power) that requires a bespoke approach for an obviously much smaller market than a shared PC/PS/Xbox build.
What I do find funny is arguments where people think global technology companies hold thirty-year grudges rather than following the money. The isolated nature of the markets in the 80s meant that decisions regarding Nintendo (and virtually every other publisher still going) in the 80s outside of Japan were made by a comically small amount of people compared to today- see the Super Mario 2 release, or the terrible Megaman box art.
So few companies have been going for 30+ years in this industry that it seems a bit odd to be beating them up for dodgy practices back then when there are plenty of modern reasons for their problems, and plenty of Japanese third parties (Sega, Capcom, Atlus etc) are clearly happy to work with Nintendo when it's in their interest to do so.
Isn't there more of an argument that only a few of the western games developers working with Nintendo back then are still in business, and even then the business models are hugely different and focused on fewer publishing houses with more clout? Other, smaller, modern western games developers just don't have any historical relationship with Nintendo at all, and so the modern issues are perhaps far more relevant for them.
Barry Burton
Member
Good read OP, exactly how I've felt about this problem for a long time. It's been readily apparent since the N64 "Dream Team" era -- rather than just being the slogan for the N64, "Get N or Get Out" could be applied to Nintendo's third-parties relations in a nutshell.
PlumCantaloupe
Member
The length of this thread suggests there is no easy solution - only a surprise anamoly like the Wii.
The main problem Nintendo faces is likely mindshare, both with game creators and consumers, though this is admittedly a complex issue. Mario sells, but not to the supposedly "hardcore" crowd that controls the videogame mindshare like teenagers control the music one. With developers I think they just don't know how to develop for Nintendo systems and so stick with what they are comfortable with (or where at least 2/3 of the gaming eco-systems live). The Wii didn't make all third-parties money; except for the ones that made a serious effort to conform to the systems and eco-systems strengths like Ubisoft with Rabbids for example.
It is possible for a system like the Wii U to be successful but there are just so many unknown variables that all Nintendo can really just keep shooting in the dark until they hit something. Everyone has their theories; but until we can look onto a successful strategy in hindsight (hopefully clear after Christmas this year) none seem especially clear. Nintendo has demonstrated it will not throw money at exclusives like Microsoft does, and subsidize hardware like both Sony and Microsoft do, so it must find a path of comfortable survival that also does not alienate everyone looking in - tough when gorillas like Microsoft and Sony, with their many additional businesses, continually disrupt the economies of creating video game systems.
If I were to guess at where Nintendo could spend money - which would raise consumer and thus third-party interest as well - would be for in paying for top marketing talent in every region. We are such emotionally charged beings that investing into marketing that warps the mindshare more into Nintendo's favour would be a great benefit. They have the games coming out, and great and unique features like Miiverse, Nintendo's incomparable back-catalogue, and out of the box Off-TV play. They just need to push these in a way that convinces people (specifically teenagers for the the pop-culture - and mothers for the families) they "need" a Wii U. Then the third-parties will come and try again, and with more traditional controls possible they imagination they seem to lack will not hurt as much as it did during the Wii generation.
The only thing I could find that references something like this is this Joystiq article, which is so chopped up that it's nearly impossible to tell exactly what Kotick means.
I find it hard to believe that MS just gives away live gold revenue to publishers. It seems much more likely that there's some revenue sharing as part of the COD deal that gets MS timed exclusives on DLC. And that sharing is almost certainly a significantly smaller amount than 1/12 of the whole shebang. Sony, of course, up to this point hasn't had a sub fee to share, so I'm not sure why you brought them up at all.
The back room deals will be similar in both cases. There are those in this forum that know more than me, so perhaps someone can chime in. Kotick is certainly receiving parts of sub fees. I think that article states that "hey guys, cod is responsible for a great deal of the growth on your service platforms. If you want that to continue, throw us some chedder".
I think that's a perfectly plausible explanation of why call of duty is stealth released on Nintendo platforms as well, tying back to the topic.
Yeah, I would have to agree. Both Wii & Xbox 360 were popular through gamers last gen, while PS3 was the least popular through gamers up until 2009. Now we have both Wii U & Xbox One being the least popular while PS4's the most popular.
While PS4 will most likely be successful out of the three this gen, I highly doubt that we'll see PS2/DS numbers from it.
Edit: Whoops, didn't realize that this thread is very old; Sorry!