Support NeoGAF

[z0m3le]

You think they should get out of handhelds?

No, Nintendo should treat their platform as form factor agnostic, like PC but a closed environment so that they can have a handheld and console that play the same games at different resolutions and settings. It is only recently possible to do this as hardware has become agnostic in the last decade on desktops and only the last couple years for mobile.

Performance that can fit into a few watts is finally enough to offer console like experiences from the same generation of hardware is now a thing and thanks to the entire industry building for scale-ability, a handheld offering current gen gaming at reduced graphical settings and resolution should be entirely possible. Physical media from solid state solutions should also be capable at a reasonable price of bridging the gap between consoles that use bluray and consoles that have to use gamecards.

Pretty good post, but it's a chicken and egg scenario. Hard for Nintendo to build that compelling platform that enough of us buy without third-part support.

Nintendo has some third party support on their handhelds, if this can be brought over entirely to an agnostic platform where the user decides if they want to play it with better graphics and higher resolutions on their home console or take these same games with them on a high performance handheld, then they stand a chance to expand on their current ~70 million users; In order to do this though, the entire handheld library needs to be available to the console.

Completely disagree. Wii sold like hot cake yet 3rd party support was poor.
They need to talk to 3rd parties when they are designing their console instead of throwing out some random gimmicks expecting 3rd parties to know how to use them.

This is a very common viewpoint, but the reality is in the tech, the Wii would have seen Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed and every other major third party game had it been capable of running ports from the PS3/360, the reality is that Wii was not designed with programmable shaders, so code had to be written from scratch, not to mention that the CPU while very powerful for a 2001 console, was lacking entirely with it's single core design in 2006. The Wii only failed to attract 3rd party multiplatform games by the way, most major studios did in fact make exclusive content for it, but because they couldn't just port their games, they didn't expand on the genres and target market much, offering family friendly or more casual games than they did on PS3 / 360.

Had Nintendo of released something like the Wii U (tech-wise) in 2006 with the wiimote, they would have completely taken over the market, even if that device was less powerful than 360, Nintendo dropped the ball on future proofing their device, and many third parties were scrambling to bring something to the wildly popular platform. While I'm talking about the Wii, I'd also like to mention that it's attach rate is nearly 10:1, people like to cite it as the console where people bought Wii Sports and then put it in their closet after the novelty wore off, but that is revisionist history, it sold a lot of software for it's 4 years of dominance on the market, and forced Microsoft and Sony to chase the casual market.

 

[Ansatz]

Nintendo has already stated they're not interested in entering direct competition for the home console market because it boils down to a war of who spends the most cash. You apply pure brute force tactics to succeed in that space, which is something Nintendo is fundamentally against.

Watch this for a couple of minutes to get a sense of where they're coming from: Iwata GDC Keynote 2005.

 

[AgeEighty]

Someone hasn't followed the financial results of EA and Activision in the past years.

Edit: and you actually said in this thread that Nintendo fans buy the 3rd party games on other consoles, so there are no new clients to get for the third party publishers according to your own theory.

Many do, but not all. You were the one who used a 99% figure, not me. While a good chunk of people who buy Nintendo consoles also buy third party games on other consoles, there's enough who don't to present a growth opportunity.

EA and Activision are doing well, but how many others are? And how much of that growth has been in the console market? Think carefully.

 

[EhoaVash]

Why would I buy NX for 3rd party game. I already have a machine for that.

Only incentive for me to get a NX is to be able to play future Zeldas and smash game.

Would be cool to see old 3rd party series like main line FF return to Nintendo though

If NX console can run both handheld and console games, Nintendo themselves can prevent the system from ever having a drought. It will get games published by them almost every month.

But Nintendo's core fanbase has shrunk. They do need 3rd party games. Best way to do it is get GTA on board for their next console.

 

[lazygecko]

The way Nintendo operates and thinks as a company has never really been about cultivating third parties in the same manner defined by the other platform holders. Back when the NES swallowed the entire console market, the advent of third parties seemed to be treated more like some kind of byproduct. The sheer momentum they gained from the NES lasted them throughout the SNES years without Nintendo really needing to do anything, but by the time of the N64 Sega and Sony had made enough of a splash in the industry to make third parties realize that they don't simply have to put up with Nintendo's shit any more. But making business decisions to appease third parties more or less remained an alien concept to Nintendo.

 

[AgeEighty]

Why would I buy NX for 3rd party game. I already have a machine for that.

Fortunately, Sony and Microsoft seem to be helping Nintendo in that regard by releasing .5 versions of the PS4 and Xbox One. Even though those won't be mandatory upgrades, I'm betting a lot of people will feel compelled to buy a new console because they'll feel like they're missing out on the best experience if they don't.

So in creating a new decision for consumers to make, they're kind of opening more of a window of opportunity for Nintendo, whereas otherwise a lot more people would probably decide they're content with what they've already got.

Not saying that's a definite or even that Nintendo will definitely benefit from it, but it's probably a better chance for them than otherwise.

 

[Prisoner KSC2-303]

The bolded part of your post sticks out to me as a strange statement to make, because how do you define what a third party publisher "needs"? Are they raking in more money than they can possibly spend? Not really; in fact the state of the industry has been getting more dire year by year despite record hardware sales, because of the skyrocketing cost of development. So of course they would all say they "need" more money. They're businesses, and businesses are about exploiting opportunities for profit. Especially publicly traded ones like most of the big publishers are.

But releasing on another system does not always equal more profits, particularly if the market for your game is already well covered by established systems. At a given point, the cost to benefit ratio makes it no longer worthwhile.

The reason third parties don't support Nintendo is because historically they can't be profitable there. This is for two reasons: lower install base, and higher cost of entry. And you don't have to take my word for it: these are the reasons most third parties have publicly given for years now.

They may be two of the reasons many initially left (I'd add several others, such as support offered by competing manufacturers) but the one you fail to mention is the lack of a market for their games, which is the biggest key to profitability. There's a reason the Dark Souls II producer laughed when asked about the Wii U rather than mention licensing costs and low install base etc.

There certainly may be a perception that Nintendo's audience doesn't buy third party games, but that's born more out of the historical quality of those games on Nintendo consoles. That lower quality usually ties directly in to the state of Nintendo's hardware, so if Nintendo can make the case to third parties that they can get their games running on Nintendo hardware with minimal effort and without noticeable sacrifices in quality, it's a relatively low-risk/high-potential-reward situation for them... especially with a digital distribution model.

I think we may have to agree to disagree here. I think the quality of titles is inconsequential - the PS2 had as much shovelware as the Wii, the difference is one catered to an audience that would return to its brand - and reaped the benefits of more core titles - whilst the other headed towards a market that would quickly migrate. Nintendo's problem is a direct result of this, and is now one of branding, rather than the ease of getting titles onto the console. The margins may be great, the ease of development inconsequential, but the first question asked before a line of code is written will be "Is there a market for this game?" Whether it's perception or reality, for many, when regarding a Nintendo home system, the answer may not be positive.

 

[MacTag]

How many of these sold even to 1% of the Wii U's install base? The answer to that question shows you the dimension of the issue that Nintendo has with the 3rd parties.

How many sold 130k worldwide? Probably nearly all of them.

 

[KingSnake]

Many do, but not all. You were the one who used a 99% figure, not me. While a good chunk of people who buy Nintendo consoles also buy third party games on other consoles, there's enough who don't to present a growth opportunity.

There are very few people out there who play on only Nintendo consoles these days. Most Wii U owners also own a PS4 or an Xbox One. It was the same with Wii. They don't do this because they just love paying for more than one console; they do it because they want the games Nintendo isn't getting, or isn't getting decent versions of.

Can you decide on one version, please? So which one it is?

1.Most of the Wii U owners have another console so there's no potential there for new clients?

Or

2. Only a part of the Wii U owners have another console and that raises the question why the others didn't buy 3rd party games (as the excuse of being late or not better than the other versions doesn't have any relevance in this case)? Maybe because there is no audience overlap? Maybe because Nintendo needs to work together with the 3rd parties to push them to become an audience also for those games?

But Nintendo doesn't have any incentive to work with the 3rd parties if what you say here is true:

It can hardly be said that anyone other than a fan of Nintendo buys (or asks for as a gift) a Nintendo console.

 

[AgeEighty]

But releasing on another system does not always equal more profits, particularly if the market for your game is already well covered by established systems. At a given point, the cost to benefit ratio makes it no longer worthwhile.

Correct, and my argument is that Nintendo needs to shift that cost to benefit ratio in their favor. There are a variety of ways they can do this, if they decide to. As for the market already being covered, Sony and Microsoft both seem to have new iterations of their hardware coming out, which will compel a lot of people to feel they have to upgrade mid-cycle. And if the NX has some kind of cool feature people can't get elsewhere—something with the instant draw power the Wii had, but without the baggage associated with developing for it—they have an opportunity to win some people over who are finding themselves in the market for a new console.

They may be two of the reasons many initially left (I'd add several others, such as support offered by competing manufacturers) but the one you fail to mention is the lack of a market for their games, which is the biggest key to profitability. There's a reason the Dark Souls II producer laughed when asked about the Wii U rather than mention licensing costs and low install base etc.

I don't buy the argument that people who buy Nintendo consoles aren't a market for third party titles. Almost everyone I see in the Nintendo OTs here on GAF I also see in other game threads; most of them play across platforms out of necessity. It's the same on reddit and elsewhere; the Venn diagram between players of Nintendo games and players of third party games has plenty of overlap.

As for the reason why Miyazoe laughed, no one ever said ego doesn't play a role with these guys. I think he'd be surprised if he actually knew how many players of his games also indulge in Zelda and other Nintendo titles.

I think we may have to agree to disagree here. I think the quality of titles is inconsequential - the PS2 had as much shovelware as the Wii, the difference is one catered to an audience that would return to its brand - and reaped the benefits of more core titles - whilst the other headed towards a market that would quickly migrate. Nintendo's problem is a direct result of this, and is now one of branding, rather than the ease of getting titles onto the console. The margins may be great, the ease of development inconsequential, but the first question asked before a line of code is written will be "Is there a market for this game?" Whether it's perception or reality, for many, when regarding a Nintendo home system, the answer may not be positive.

Yes, we will definitely have to agree to disagree. Consumers may make decisions based largely on perception and assumptions, but companies are required to be a little more exacting than that. If they decide not to support a particular hardware, they probably did a cost-benefit analysis first, and I'm betting they do that with each new Nintendo release despite what may have been true about the previous ones.

Can you decide on one version, please? So which one it is?

Are you being wilfully obtuse? Neither statement contradicts the other.

For the sake of argument, let's make up a number. Let's say that 66% of owners of Nintendo consoles own a second console and buy third party games on it, while 33% do not.

Can we say that 66% of Nintendo fans/owners represent a significant audience for third party games? Yes we can. Can we also say that the other 33% is a significant growth opportunity for those third parties? Yes. We can.

Now I don't know what the real ratio is, but if it's even remotely near that ballpark, then everything I've said holds up. So, try again.

 

[blast processed]

I said this in another thread but I'll repeat:

Wii U launched with:

Latest FIFA
Latest COD
Latest Assassins Creed
Latest Musou
Batman Arkham game
Darksiders 2
Ninja Gaiden 3 Razors Edge
Tekken Tag Tournament
Sonic All Stars Racing
Mass Effect game

Didn't help it at all with third party titles in the future.

A lot of those games were already released earlier and were selling cheaper on the other consoles. Missing DLC, no multiplayer, Mass Effect Trilogy had more content and was cheaper than M3 on WiiU. No wonder nobody bought it.

 

[KingSnake]

For the sake of argument, let's make up a number. Let's say that 66% of owners of Nintendo consoles own a second console and buy third party games on it, while 33% do not.

Can we say that 66% of Nintendo fans/owners represent a significant audience for third party games? Yes we can. Can we also say that the other 33% is a significant growth opportunity for those third parties? Yes. We can.

Now I don't know what the real ratio is, but if it's even remotely near that ballpark, then everything I've said holds up. So, try again.

Why didn't the 33% of the owners buy the existing 3rd party games on Wii U if they are a potential audience for them?

The rest of 66% are already customers of the 3rd parties, so there is no incentive to invest more for them if they are already on board.

 

[DavidDesu]

The issue is that third parties do not need Nintendo, there is a very small audience for 'mature' AAA games on Nintendo platforms at this point in time, one that isn't worth spending big money chasing.

It's up to Nintendo to show publishers that NX will have a healthy audience for different types of software beyond Nintendo's own offerings. They managed to do that with the Wii but even then third parties did not take it seriously as a platform, it is still very tough to compete against Nintendo's first party games. The average consumer does not buy that many games in a year, convincing them to buy Call of Duty instead of Zelda will always be difficult.

The biggest third party successes for Nintendo in recent years have been indie games on the eShop, but most of them are what you would call Nintendo-like games. I think it will be a few years before western publishers start looking seriously at Nintendo platforms again and that's only if NX becomes a real success with a thriving software market. It basically has to be such a success that it would be stupid not to support the platform properly.

I think you're forgetting that this is a whole chicken and egg scenario regarding AAA titles and their draw (or not) for a Nintendo console. Back in the SNES era Nintendo was absolutely on par with the competition. All the biggest third party games of the day were on there as far as I remember. It's all evaporated since then it seems.

I know it's tough to hear but the draw of Nintendo games just isn't big enough to force people to drop a ton of money on a console just for the privilege of those games. I'd say the Wii U was such a huge PR failure and so the only people who even knew it was a new console and then the only people willing to buy it were the absolute Nintendo hardcore and very few others. That 10 million or so figure, there's your Nintendo hardcore base.

I'm sorry but there's no way they can have a successful console again if you're only appealing to those people. Third parties need to be as part of the system as they are on PS4, end of story. If Nintendo can't work with others and step down off their pedestal then there's no hope for them in the console space. I just think of how great it would be to have a great Nintendo console that competes with the big ones in all aspects with the massive bonus of great Nintendo games, it's such a shame that in the last few consoles they've purposefully not cared about third parties on their system, indeed they seem to regard them as competition, rather than as an extra juicy string in their bow. Hopefully they've grown up and want to actually make a successful return.

 

[geordiemp]

Fortunately, Sony and Microsoft seem to be helping Nintendo in that regard by releasing .5 versions of the PS4 and Xbox One. Even though those won't be mandatory upgrades, I'm betting a lot of people will feel compelled to buy a new console because they'll feel like they're missing out on the best experience if they don't.

So in creating a new decision for consumers to make, they're kind of opening more of a window of opportunity for Nintendo, whereas otherwise a lot more people would probably decide they're content with what they've already got.

Not saying that's a definite or even that Nintendo will definitely benefit from it, but it's probably a better chance for them than otherwise.

Do you really believe that ? Sony and MS will have 70 + million console users on their systems by the time NX comes out.

Ps4 neo is trying to attract that Ps4 user, who maybe is an early adopter, has 20+ Ps4 games, and wants 1080p60 and maybe 5 TF console. As Neo is fully compatible, all those games will probably run better.

I dont think Nx will compete for those customers, the people who bought WiiU will buy an Nx, and maybe some of the 3DS owners if its shared catalogue.

But the next MS and Sony consoles seem to be positioned to not be the usual new generation reset and will probably retain the player base. Maybe Witcher 3 and Bloodborne will get new life in them if they run better...thats a big draw.

 

[toddhunter]

While you make a case of how third parties may matter, what is the definition of "matter" in the context of Nintendo?

They may not be winning gold medals, but they are still around and their fans seem relatively happy.

So who exactly do third parties matter to? The way I see it, they could have zero third parties and they'll still be around for the Wii UU or NES2 or whatever the next thing will be. This might not win the NPD threads, but how important is that really?

 

[Maneauleau]

I care about third parties on Nintendo consoles so please add Zombi U on Wii U ^^'

 

[Morfeo]

I dont think many argue that thirdparties dont matter for Nintendo consoles. However, I and others have argued that there is a limit to how much Nintendo should do to court thirdparties, for two reasons. First, it would cost ALOT to rebuild the trust, and second, most people interested in typical thirdparty games, probably already owns a console/pc that plays them. This mean, that Nintendo in my opinion, would be better off channeling their limited resources into for instance attracting more exclusives, buying studios, unique hardware gimmicks etc, than just trying to put out another PS4 with the Nintendo brand. Of course, the best of all worlds, would be similar power, easy to develop for etc, but if they do have to prioritize for instance price or port-ability, then the answer is not as clear as many seems to think. Imo.

 

[AgeEighty]

Why didn't the 33% of the owners buy the existing 3rd party games on Wii U if they are a potential audience for them?

Just because a particular Wii U owner didn't like the looks of Mass Effect 3 doesn't mean they won't be attracted to a future BioWare game. That's what "potential" means. You're talking as if low sales of one game to a certain segment of gamers means they will never buy anything by that studio, ever. That's ridiculous.

The rest of 66% are already customers of the 3rd parties, so there is no incentive to invest more for them if they are already on board.

A gamer who doesn't have to spend so much on hardware has more to spend on software.

Do you really believe that ? Sony and MS will have 70 + million console users on their systems by the time NX comes out.

Ps4 neo is trying to attract that Ps4 user, who maybe is an early adopter, has 20+ Ps4 games, and wants 1080p60 and maybe 5 TF console. As Neo is fully compatible, all those games will probably run better.

I don't think that's how it's going to work. Games going forward will have a souped-up mode on the Neo, but ones already released aren't likely to be much improved by hardware they weren't designed to take advantage of. It's similar to the way regular 3DS games aren't improved in any meaningful way by being played on the New 3DS.

So, for all intents and purposes, if you're buying into the Neo, you're buying into a new generation. One part that's in Sony's favor is that a lot of people would probably want to sell their vanilla PS4s but keep the games.

(Except P.T. fans. Those people will cling to their old PS4s until the end of time.)

 

[family_guy]

A lot of those games were already released earlier and were selling cheaper on the other consoles. Missing DLC, no multiplayer, Mass Effect Trilogy had more content and was cheaper than M3 on WiiU. No wonder nobody bought it.

If you don't have another console then it shouldn't matter. If you wanted to play those games but didn't buy them then you just made the decision easy for third parties regarding future support for Wii U. If you did have another console then that just proves the point that third parties aren't really needed on Nintendo systems because you'll just buy those games elsewhere.

 

[AgeEighty]

If you don't have another console then it shouldn't matter. If you wanted to play those games but didn't buy them then you just made the decision easy for third parties regarding future support for Wii U. If you did have another console then that just proves the point that third parties aren't really needed on Nintendo systems because you'll just buy those games elsewhere.

People who own Nintendo consoles but buy third party games on other consoles usually do it because there's either the reality or the perception that the Nintendo versions are compromised in some way.

Give them an uncompromised third party game on a Nintendo console and they'll buy it there. People don't buy more than one console just because they love wasting a few hundred bucks extra.

 

[KingSnake]

Just because a particular Wii U owner didn't like the looks of Mass Effect 3 doesn't mean they won't be attracted to a future BioWare game. That's what "potential" means. You're talking as if low sales of one game to a certain segment of gamers means they will never buy anything by that studio, ever. That's ridiculous.

Right, because third parties are charity organizations who have as motto "let's give them another chance" and make decisions based on fantasies rather than on actual figures.

People who own Nintendo consoles but buy third party games on other consoles usually do it because there's either the reality or the perception that the Nintendo versions are compromised in some way.

Give them an uncompromised third party game on a Nintendo console and they'll buy it there. People don't buy more than one console just because they love wasting a few hundred bucks extra.

They are already customers. You, as a company, don't have to invest in another version of your game for them, they are buying it already.

 

[geordiemp]

I don't think that's how it's going to work. Games going forward will have a souped-up mode on the Neo, but ones already released aren't likely to be much improved by hardware they weren't designed to take advantage of. It's similar to the way regular 3DS games aren't improved in any meaningful way by being played on the New 3DS.

So, for all intents and purposes, if you're buying into the Neo, you're buying into a new generation. One part that's in Sony's favor is that a lot of people would probably want to sell their vanilla PS4s but keep the games.

(Except P.T. fans. Those people will cling to their old PS4s until the end of time.)

Neo mode I agree with, but take witcher 3 it drops to 20 FPS, a Neo might run that game better even in Ps4 mode (it should if it is what the rumour says it is). That is a big deal.

Also I can see a shit load of low cost second hand Ps4 coming onto the market 6 months before the Nx - I cant see that being good for a new console...Gamestop and Game is gonna be full of pre-owned Ps4's selling at silly price after Xmas.....

 

[AgeEighty]

Right, because third parties are charity organizations who have as motto "let's give them another chance" and make decision on fantasies rather than judging based on actual figures.

Now you're just being ridiculous.

It has nothing to do with charity or giving second chances. If you make a game, you want to sell it to as many people as you can. If some people don't buy your game, then you try to get those to buy your next game (along with the ones who did buy the last one). Third parties are always trying to expand their audience to new people. This is not news.

 

[Rncewind]

Dont know if there is something to dispel, only nintendofanboys think that

 

[AgeEighty]

They are already customers. You, as a company, don't have to invest in another version of your game for them, they are buying it already.

I already addressed that. When you take away a customer's reason to have to buy multiple consoles, you free up their money to buy more games.

We're just going in circles, and your arguments are as bad as they were at the start, so I'm calling official time on this one, nurse.

 

[KingSnake]

If you make a game, you want to sell it to as many people as you can.

If it's profitable enough!

If selling to 1000 more customers doesn't bring you enough profit as much as it would bring investing the resources in some other area (like a new game, a DLC etc), those 1000 more customers are not worth it.

 

[Rncewind]

Now you're just being ridiculous.

It has nothing to do with charity or giving second chances. If you make a game, you want to sell it to as many people as you can. If some people don't buy your game, then you try to get those to buy your next game (along with the ones who did buy the last one). Third parties are always trying to expand their audience to new people. This is not news.

look up: "opportunity costs"

 

[Yado]

I think you're forgetting that this is a whole chicken and egg scenario regarding AAA titles and their draw (or not) for a Nintendo console. Back in the SNES era Nintendo was absolutely on par with the competition. All the biggest third party games of the day were on there as far as I remember. It's all evaporated since then it seems.

I know it's tough to hear but the draw of Nintendo games just isn't big enough to force people to drop a ton of money on a console just for the privilege of those games. I'd say the Wii U was such a huge PR failure and so the only people who even knew it was a new console and then the only people willing to buy it were the absolute Nintendo hardcore and very few others. That 10 million or so figure, there's your Nintendo hardcore base.

I'm sorry but there's no way they can have a successful console again if you're only appealing to those people. Third parties need to be as part of the system as they are on PS4, end of story. If Nintendo can't work with others and step down off their pedestal then there's no hope for them in the console space. I just think of how great it would be to have a great Nintendo console that competes with the big ones in all aspects with the massive bonus of great Nintendo games, it's such a shame that in the last few consoles they've purposefully not cared about third parties on their system, indeed they seem to regard them as competition, rather than as an extra juicy string in their bow. Hopefully they've grown up and want to actually make a successful return.

Ok but why would I buy this hypothetical Nintendo console if I already own a PS4/XB1 and my friends do as well? Especially since as you say the draw of playing Nintendo games isn't enough of a reason to buy their console.

 

[KingSnake]

When you take away a customer's reason to have to buy multiple consoles, you free up their money to buy more games.

This is not some collective decision, like the Union of 3rd party producers decides to port all games on a Nintendo console. So one 3rd party developer can't bet its investment on money that depend on the others. Or have a guarantee that the saved money are spent on him.

Let's say EA ports FIFA to NX, but Activision doesn't port COD or the other way around. People will still buy two console and EA just invested poorly some millions. That's not how business cases are done.

 

[Oppo]

it's supremely ironic

that no one says "Nintendo is doomed" half as much as actual Nintendo hardcore fans who bring it up. because they read "increasing irrelevance" as "doomed".

seriously. no one says "Nintendo is going out of business." not really.

but constantly, any criticism of the company is met with this recurring snide "Nintendoomed!" meme. they do it to themselves.

anyways – I think it's clear to most rational folk that while Nintendo is a great, even legendary developer, they are but one developer. of course they cannot compete with nearly the entire rest of the game dev world. it's not a fair fight. they need to get those devs back, and they need a console that will run Unity and Unreal without hassle. those devs are done jumpong through exotic compiler hoops for both Sony and Nintendo – Microsoft saw to that, and thanks to them for leading the way on straightforward developer platforms and relationships. Sony learned. Let's see if Nintendo does as well. Signs look promising.

 

[Dr. Buni]

We need to dispel the notion that Nintendo is capable of getting back third-parties.

I agree with this.

 

[sixteen-bit]

Didn't Nintendo by themselves account for 41% of all Wii game sales?

And that was on one of their successful consoles.

surely the pack-in game skews this

 

[Widge]

Adding to anecdote warfare 2016, my situation is this:

I've got a PC.
Out of a Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft second gaming machine situation. It'd absolutely be a Nintendo.

The reason for this is that Nintendo offers distinct enough gameplay experience and titles from the other two to make it a worthwhile purchase.

Where a third party title exists on both PC and Nintendo, it'd get it on PC. The same would be true if PS4 or XB1 was my current main console. I'd imagine this would fan out to a majority of purchasers.

There's people who don't want to fragment catalogues between Steam and Origin, there are people who based their next console purchase on their existing friends list and online infrastructure.

This is the greatest hurdle to get over for Nintendo to sell to a grand majority of people - to become the primary console of choice for third party games. I just can't see it, not at all. Wonderful second console, wonderful first console if you care for their catalogue more than the opposition, otherwise an absolute mountain to climb over to get the mainline third party franchise players to get on board.

 

[cacildo]

It dosent matter what we think. 3rd parties are not coming to the NX

 

[Inuhanyou]

They matter to Nintendo, but they are never getting them because of what they have done to them over the past 25+ years.

Fact of the matter is, Nintendo has been covering its own ass, soaking up its own profits with its own IP with reckless abandon, leaving a majority of third parties to their own devices on other platforms, and nobody at this point is under any illusion that they are desperate to come crawling to Nintendo on their consoles.

Nintendo needs those third parties a lot more than those third parties will ever need Nintendo at this point, and they did it to themselves.

When those third parties have PC, PS and Xbox user bases, it seems like a lost cause for Nintendo. That is why i say they should double down on their current business model, but instead of doing it shitty by splitting their efforts between two units, they should unify all of their development and partnership efforts into one unit.

 

[Kid Ying]

It mattered back them, but they don't matter now. No one is buying a Nintendo console to play 3rd paty games, when there is already three plataforms that play all of them, with their own ecosystems. People won't stop playing cod with their friends to buy on nintendo. Not to mentior that the games nintendo makes are usually not alligned with 3rd party games in terms of presentation and style.

Nintendo needs to make an interesting platform with games that people want, just like the Wii was. 3rd parties are an afterthough.

 

[Prisoner KSC2-303]

Correct, and my argument is that Nintendo needs to shift that cost to benefit ratio in their favor. There are a variety of ways they can do this, if they decide to. As for the market already being covered, Sony and Microsoft both seem to have new iterations of their hardware coming out, which will compel a lot of people to feel they have to upgrade mid-cycle. And if the NX has some kind of cool feature people can't get elsewhere—something with the instant draw power the Wii had, but without the baggage associated with developing for it—they have an opportunity to win some people over who are finding themselves in the market for a new console.

I'm afraid I disagree that the new consoles represent a good opportunity for Nintendo to win people over. Those consoles are only likely to appeal to those who are already invested in the PS or MS (assuming there's an XB1.5) ecosystem, but want better graphics. There's very little overlap with any new Nintendo audience there. If anything, I'd assume Nintendo wouldn't want to draw a direct comparison, if the rumoured specs are true.

I don't buy the argument that people who buy Nintendo consoles aren't a market for third party titles. Almost everyone I see in the Nintendo OTs here on GAF I also see in other game threads; most of them play across platforms out of necessity. It's the same on reddit and elsewhere; the Venn diagram between players of Nintendo games and players of third party games has plenty of overlap.

As for the reason why Miyazoe laughed, no one ever said ego doesn't play a role with these guys. I think he'd be surprised if he actually knew how many players of his games also indulge in Zelda and other Nintendo titles.

I never said they weren't a market, but the reason they aren't a big enough market for Nintendo is partially because of that overlap. Most people have already chosen their system for multi-plats, namely the box that gets the most and the best looking, which doesn't tend to be Nintendo's. Adding one more port won't expand the market as those players would pick up the title on PS4 / XB1 / PC instead anyway. And as for those who only own a Nintendo home console, well they are by default those who care the least about third party titles in comparison to first party output.

Yes, we will definitely have to agree to disagree. Consumers may make decisions based largely on perception and assumptions, but companies are required to be a little more exacting than that. If they decide not to support a particular hardware, they probably did a cost-benefit analysis first, and I'm betting they do that with each new Nintendo release despite what may have been true about the previous ones.

I'd agree, they'll do so, but they'll also follow where the consumers for their products are, and that usually entails looking at where they've sold before and to whom. It's up to Nintendo to expand their audience now, they've stopped dragging their heels on online play, shown with Splatoon that competitive shooters can work, and need to continue doing so, rather than waiting for third party support to fill the gaps.

 

[Celine]

Third-party matters of course but before SNES, during SNES and after SNES Nintendo always had a big chunk of the software sales on their own systems.
Usually more than 30% which is a big percentage.
This is due Nintendo own legacy and business model.

 

[family_guy]

People who own Nintendo consoles but buy third party games on other consoles usually do it because there's either the reality or the perception that the Nintendo versions are compromised in some way.

Give them an uncompromised third party game on a Nintendo console and they'll buy it there. People don't buy more than one console just because they love wasting a few hundred bucks extra.

That might work for a single player game like the Witcher 3, but online games? Don't think so. There's the investment people have with playing with friends, growing their achievements/trophies, and having a quality network. People are even willing to pay for that through subscription fees. You think they'll just switch to Nintendo especially when they have demonstrated how behind the times they are?

 

[Scrawnton]

As a nintendo fan, I would rather nintendo consolidate handheld and console, hire more devs, and support their consoles by themselves. Nintendo gets enough third party support on their handhelds for it to be sustainable.

Say what you want about how they are not the hardcore games that sell millions, but they have their niche and those people will stick around. Nintendo can be like the atlus of hardware makers; continuing to make hardware to their audience without the expectation of ungodly profits like the Wii brought them.

 

[GregLombardi]

Yeah as a Nintendo fan I really don't care about third parties anymore. Their support of Nintendo has been anemic for approximately 1-2 decades, and I believe it has mostly been purposeful on their part.

Good luck on them trying to get back in a position to grab my dollars on a Nintendo console.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

We need to dispel the notion that Nintendo is capable of getting back third-parties.

They need to offer us a compelling platform on their own, when enough of us have bought the platform, third parties will come back. When Nintendo tells third-parties that they can't release on NX, that is when we can have these sort of talks.

Nintendo has to focus on a single platform, they have to put all their development teams to work on offering us all their best work, not sacrificing one platform to hold up another, if they go this route again, they would be better off not releasing multiple devices at all.

The Wii proved this wrong.

 

[Peltz]

If Nintendo got the same third party support on consoles that they have on handhelds, they'd be fine. They don't need the same type of support that Sony and Microsoft have.

Their 3rd party support on DS and 3DS is fantastic and unlike anything we have on consoles.

 

[Sterok]

3rd parties are a huge reason the 3DS has done as well as it has. 3rd parties are keeping their relevant system alive. Why would anyone think they're unimportant?

 

[Scrawnton]

3rd parties are a huge reason the 3DS has done as well as it has. 3rd parties are keeping their relevant system alive. Why would anyone think they're unimportant?

the benefit of 3rd parties on 3ds is that those games do not exist anywhere else. Yes those are third parties, but for some reason people typically mean "western" third parties when talking about nintendo.

Atlus isnt going anywhere, heck aside from some vita and console games (and persona) the 3ds has been their bread and butter for years. Square Enix has done pretty well with the system as well.

I think nintendo and the NX can be successful without EA, Ubisoft, take two, etc., but if they lose the support from japanese devs, they will lose a lot of fans.

The 3DS is the perfect type of 3rd party support I like. I play games on that system that I can mostly only get on that system. The lack of western games does not bug me because I have other systems to scratch that itch.

PS4 scratches my shooter and blockbuster itch, my 3ds scratches the platformer and jrpg itch.

 

[Dr. Black Jack]

OP's list pretty much proves that their post-SNES quality third party support is definitely not a "significant number". Compare that list to other consoles' during their respective eras.

Ever since the N64 Nintendo has focused on making atypical hardware/controllers that force devs to either adapt their multiplat games or make an exclusive from scratch. Some devs are willing to do this, a lot aren't. It is what it is. At this point it's been 20 years since Nintendo has given up on third parties...they aren't going to suddenly start attracting them again and we just need to accept it.

 

[Steroyd]

Having a machine that can handle modern engines and graphics will accomplish that.

The reason third party games don't sell on Nintendo consoles isn't because Nintendo fans aren't interested in those games, it's because they buy them for other consoles because they don't want watered-down versions of them. But when Nintendo delivers a console that can't keep up tech-wise, watered-down versions are precisely what they get.

A bit from column A a bit from column B.

PS3 also had watered down year late ports of Xbox 360 games, which didn't sell as well as the initial release, but it sold enough for the developers/publishers to put their other games out at the same time as the Xbox 360 versions. And this is ultimately what it boils down to, confidence in the platform, Criterion (RIP) made a definitive version of Burnout* on the WiiU and they were awarded with the sales numbers similar to pathetic port efforts like Mass Effect 3 and Batman no DLC edition.

Edit: *Derp it was Need for Speed Most Wanted that was ported to the WiiU not Burnout.

 

[Celine]

Ever since the N64 Nintendo has focused on making atypical hardware/controllers that force devs to either adapt their multiplat games or make an exclusive from scratch.

You mean since the NES ;-)

3rd parties are a huge reason the 3DS has done as well as it has. 3rd parties are keeping their relevant system alive. Why would anyone think they're unimportant?

3DS is going to have more than 50% of its total software sales be composed by Nintendo published games (currently about 48% and is going up).
In Japan where 3DS has already far outsold GBA LTD, the number of 3DS third-party games released is very likely going to be lower than what GBA received.

Note I'm not saying 3rd party support isn't important, just that 3DS isn't a good candidate to say "3rd parties are a huge reason console XX has done as well as it has".

 

[HvySky]

We need to dispel this notion that Nintendo don't know what they're doing. They know exactly what they're doing.

At this point, all we can do is play the waiting game. If they can grasp even half of the third party support that their handheld systems enjoy, then I'd be ecstatic relative to the Wii and Wii U.

 

[Scrawnton]

A bit from column A a bit from column B.

PS3 also had watered down year late ports of Xbox 360 games, which didn't sell as well as the initial release, but it sold enough for the developers/publishers to put their other games out at the same time as the Xbox 360 versions. And this is ultimately what it boils down to, confidence in the platform, Criterion (RIP) made a definitive version of Burnout* on the WiiU and they were awarded with the sales numbers similar to pathetic port efforts like Mass Effect 3 and Batman no DLC edition.

Edit: *Derp it was Need for Speed Most Wanted that was ported to the WiiU not Burnout.

A game that had little marketing and no fanfare, also bitter feelings from Nintendo fans because EA had already pulled out of anything relating to Nintendo. From my point of view, if you make it obvious to Nintendo fans that youre done with their system after a late port and you will give them nothing else after that, you should assume that late port is going to bomb hard.

It would be completely wrong to look at Need for Speed and Rayman Legends as a sales test for third parties on nintendo platforms because those games released in a wind of game industry controversy and publishers publicly turning their back on nintendo and their fans. The launch of the Wii U really seemed like a time for 3rd parties to tell nintendo "oh yeah, we'll support you" and then all of them seemed to just laugh at that and pull the plug the day the console shipped.