Support NeoGAF

[LegendofLex]

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.

This doesn't explain why the third-party games that had more QOL features on Wii U didn't sell.

similar to pathetic port efforts like Mass Effect 3

What? Mass Effect 3 on Wii U is my favorite game in the series.

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.

Nintendo isn't getting Sony exclusives regardless of what they do.

The Wii proved this wrong.

No, Wii proved this right by having many more times more third-party support (and third-party sales) than its predecessor did.

Most big publishers still put games that didn't fit the Wii audience on other platforms, but Wii definitely proved that if Nintendo brings an audience, third parties will come. They may suck at making games for the platform, but they'll come.

 

[z0m3le]

The Wii proved this wrong.

Since I already answered this, I'll just quote myself.

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.

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

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.

Who is this "us"? Because if you're referring to who I think you're referring to, a lot of "us" precisely want the third parties back or powerful hardware, the latter of which would naturally bring third parties back on board. And if you're referring to some system feature, well, the Wii already did that.

Nintendo's problem isn't in getting third parties to show up; it's been in keeping them around for the long haul. Gamecube wasn't sparse w/ 3rd party support in its early years; it's just that any system would look sparse in comparison to the avalanche of support the PS2 received. Same thing with the Wii, tho in that case some could argue a lot of 3rd parties were just waiting until the PS360 crowd grew large enough to begin prioritizing them and focus away from the Wii.

A good amount of this will come from how healthy system sales are, but not simply that. It also depends on how well 3rd parties are selling on the platform, how satisfied they are with licensing agreements, ease of platform development (tech and costs), and more. Mostly behind-the-scenes stuff we wouldn't be privy to.

 

[z0m3le]

Who is this "us"? Because if you're referring to who I think you're referring to, a lot of "us" precisely want the third parties back or powerful hardware, the latter of which would naturally bring third parties back on board. And if you're referring to some system feature, well, the Wii already did that.

Nintendo's problem isn't in getting third parties to show up; it's been in keeping them around for the long haul. Gamecube wasn't sparse w/ 3rd party support in its early years; it's just that any system would look sparse in comparison to the avalanche of support the PS2 received. Same thing with the Wii, tho in that case some could argue a lot of 3rd parties were just waiting until the PS360 crowd grew large enough to begin prioritizing them and focus away from the Wii.

A good amount of this will come from how healthy system sales are, but not simply that. It also depends on how well 3rd parties are selling on the platform, how satisfied they are with licensing agreements, ease of platform development (tech and costs), and more. Mostly behind-the-scenes stuff we wouldn't be privy to.

If Nintendo could magically fix all their relationship problems with 3rd parties by just having a stronger box, then why did the gamecube fall behind the xbox in 3rd party support? They sold similarly after all. Nintendo's market doesn't buy 3rd party games, "us" core gamers need to find NX attractive first, buy NX and purchase software like what 3rd parties are releasing on other platforms first. Sony and Microsoft both attract 3rd parties by building the market for the games they want on their system, 3rd parties have found success with those markets, so they are there. Nintendo's market doesn't attract EA, Activision and Ubisoft multiplats because they can't sell those games at a high enough profit to afford the resources they would have to allocate.

If Call of Duty sold millions on Wii U, it would have gotten every version of Call of Duty this gen, but the opposite happened, in fact Wii sold millions of copies of Call of Duty and even though those games were basically created from scratch for Wii, Activision went ahead and did them. We are past the technological barrier that existed back then, at worst Activision would be targeting lower resolutions and lowering settings like shadows/lighting, textures, but the overall work would be part of the original pipeline they have on PS4/XB1 so minimal effort involved. This is why the entire argument that Nintendo needs 3rd parties is a chicken and egg scenario, until they create a market that attracts 3rd party sales, 3rd parties won't bother to go through the work (no matter how little) to port those games.

 

[Effigenius]

Op, do you intend to only buy an nx an not own a ps4/xb1/gaming pc? If its your only console, then sure, I can see why you would want third party multiplats, but if its not, why would you care? Just buy the game on another system. If your point is you want third party exclusives on the nx, thats not happening, but even ps4 and xb1 dont get third party exclusives. The ecosystem has changed.

Thats why most of us dont care, we have other systems. We will buy an nx for nintendo games, third party multiplats are redundant for most of us, and the nx is apparently going to be weak again, so if you did buy an nx version of a multiplat it woukd likely be gimped graphically and maybe feauture-wise.

 

[Bel Marduk]

This notion has been dispelled.. Its been apparent for a very long time but hopefully Nintendo has finally realized it following abysmal sales of the Wii U.

 

[GamerJM]

Op, do you intend to only buy an nx an not own a ps4/xb1/gaming pc? If its your only console, then sure, I can see why you would want third party multiplats, but if its not, why would you care? Just buy the game on another system. If your point is you want third party exclusives on the nx, thats not happening, but even ps4 and xb1 dont get third party exclusives. The ecosystem has changed.

Thats why most of us dont care, we have other systems. We will buy an nx for nintendo games, third party multiplats are redundant for most of us, and the nx is apparently going to be weak again, so if you did buy an nx version of a multiplat it woukd likely be gimped graphically and maybe feauture-wise.

I do own PS4/X1 and a decent gaming laptop, but I prefer Nintendo controllers and their ecosystem. Also, if you look at a lot of the third-party exclusives, a lot of them are the kinds of games that straight up just don't really exist on non-Nintendo platforms. Who's making another game like Boom Blox, Trauma Center, or de Blob? Something like Super Monkey Ball or Space Station Silicon Valley?

 

[Hcoregamer00]

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.

^THIS, SO MUCH

When the GameCube was released and was more powerful than the PS2, guess what, I bought more third party games for the cube. The Nintendo GameCube was the first and the last Nintendo console I bought where a huge majority of my games were third party games.

If they can get third party games that look and run as well as their PS4 and XBone counterparts, I would buy the heck out of the third party games released on the NX or whatever the future console is.

 

[Ansatz]

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.

As a Nintendo fan I don't care about third parties anymore either, but for me it's because what those games have become.

I was only ever interested in "Nintendo-like" 3rd party games or "games that appeal to Nintendo audiences" and those don't exist anymore outside of indies.

 

[FormallyFamicom]

Man I would love it if Nintendo got all of the third party support, if that's what it meant for Nintendo to keep existing. However as primarily a PC player who also loves Nintendo, there's no way I'd pass up on a third party PC title for a Nintendo console version. Realistically there is no way that Nintendo could make their's "better" in the way that I interpret value for myself. I think it's that way for a lot of people, if not for PC than for PS4 or whatever. I think third party companies understand this too, so why would they bother (talking about the AAA major franchises, not indies or games targeted towards family audiences that are more likely to be on a Nintendo platform)? I'm in my 30s and time is moving fast, but realize that there have been more years and consoles of third party "drought" than years of glory for Nintendo. This is what they are now, this is what they have been to a generation of people.

Can it be fixed? I don't think so, because it would take some incredibly drastic changes to the way Nintendo operates. Like, creating 5+ more studios devoted to creating all of the popular genres of games that don't get ported to Nintendo consoles. A gritty competitive FPS, a cinematic TPS/platformer, realistic sports games, shit like that. Stupidly expensive and not guaranteed to work, which is why it won't happen. One of Nintendo's most critical mistakes was closing up their Western studios back in the N64 days. The groundwork was laid already. Things could've been different.

These days I just accept Nintendo as what they are and hope for the best. Hope they win, but their terms for winning these days won't affect much for me.

 

[Robert at Zeboyd Games]

If Nintendo could magically fix all their relationship problems with 3rd parties by just having a stronger box, then why did the gamecube fall behind the xbox in 3rd party support? They sold similarly after all.

Eh, both the Xbox & Gamecube's 3rd party support is tiny compared to what the PS2 had.

Xbox (23% of PS2 library size)
Gamecube (17% of PS2 library size)

What difference there is, I'm guessing is largely due to PC ports on the Xbox.

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.

You're not going to be able to pull this off at the kind of prices you need for a portable system to achieve widespread success. The n3DS has a handful of Wii/WiiU ports, but it's not like they just took the console game and turned down some graphic settings - they had to be rebuilt for the n3DS to handle them and even so, there were major compromises that needed to be made.

 

[Version 3.0]

If Nintendo could magically fix all their relationship problems with 3rd parties by just having a stronger box, then why did the gamecube fall behind the xbox in 3rd party support? They sold similarly after all.

Actually, the Gamecube DID "magically fix their relationship problems with 3rd parties", at least to a large degree. It wasn't due to a "stronger box" at the time, it was due to the disc media; 3rd parties ditched the N64 due to cartridges, not processing power.

However, 3rd party support dried up during the generation for several reasons, and of course sales was the primary reason. However, there are also reasons why 3rd party game sales were lower on Gamecube. The game media endlessly lambasted the Gamecube for lacking features, most notably online support, disc capacity, and 4 fewer buttons (select, L1, and clickable sticks), vs. its competition. There was also its "kiddie" image.

Also, developer support was reported to be lacking. All this on top of a license fee that was higher than Sony's or Microsoft's, IIRC, which was reported late in the gen when Nintendo lowered theirs.

That was all 15 years ago now, though. At this point, Nintendo would need more than hardware equivalency (which the Gamecube didn't even quite accomplish) to see that level of support again. They'd need, at a minimum, hardware and feature equivalency on both the developer and consumer side of the fence. And even then they'd have to deal with the perception that they can't attract a wide demographic of consumers.

 

[Hcoregamer00]

Actually, the Gamecube DID "magically fix their relationship problems with 3rd parties", at least to a large degree. It wasn't due to a "stronger box" at the time, it was due to the disc media; 3rd parties ditched the N64 due to cartridges, not processing power.

However, 3rd party support dried up during the generation for several reasons, and of course sales was the primary reason. However, there are also reasons why 3rd party game sales were lower on Gamecube. The game media endlessly lambasted the Gamecube for lacking features, most notably online support, disc capacity, and 4 fewer buttons (select, L1, and clickable sticks), vs. its competition. There was also its "kiddie" image.

Also, developer support was reported to be lacking. All this on top of a license fee that was higher than Sony's or Microsoft's, IIRC, which was reported late in the gen when Nintendo lowered theirs.

That was all 15 years ago now, though. At this point, Nintendo would need more than hardware equivalency (which the Gamecube didn't even quite accomplish) to see that level of support again. They'd need, at a minimum, hardware and feature equivalency on both the developer and consumer side of the fence. And even then they'd have to deal with the perception that they can't attract a wide demographic of consumers.

I agree with all your points.

For all the good Nintendo did in having the equivalent amount of power, it did still make some fatal errors that kept the big third party games from it like disc size, controller layout, and yes past third party relations. Nintendo would be in a very different situation if they were able to get GTA3, GTA Vice City, GTA San Andreas.

While the rumors point otherwise, if they are able to make a console with at least the power equivalent for easy porting (programmable shaders, similar GPU power), similar controller layout, and similar licensing structure, they can build a somewhat comparable ecosystem. Not everyone has a PS4 and XBone, and if they adopt a Nintendo home console, they will buy plenty of third party games to "fill in the gaps"

 

[Yasumi]

I just noticed in the OP, no One Piece Grand Battle/Grand Adventure? How dare you, sir. Two of my favorite third party GC games. They were like Power Stone with over-the-top cinematic special attacks.

Edit: My bad, just noticed the 80% qualifier. Never mind.

 

[Ogodei]

I have a Wii U and did not buy a single game from OP's list.

But I did buy Sonic Lost World and Ninja Gaiden 3 Razor Edge.

Those two plus Arkham City and Monster Hunter 3U are my only 3rd party Wii U games.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

No, Wii proved this right by having many more times more third-party support (and third-party sales) than its predecessor did.

Most big publishers still put games that didn't fit the Wii audience on other platforms, but Wii definitely proved that if Nintendo brings an audience, third parties will come. They may suck at making games for the platform, but they'll come.

Is that what we're talking about here? The loads of afterthought shovelware titles the Wii got? If that's what you want, then rock on brother.

Since I already answered this, I'll just quote myself.

So you're not talking about quality third party support, you're talking about port overs? If that's the case, that ship has sailed for Nintendo, not because of the power of the console, but because of Nintendo's infrastructure.

As a poster earlier said, The networks the Sony and MS have built with PSN and XBOX Live are what help to guarantee their success. Wii U was plenty powerful enough to receive XBone and PS4 port overs. Problem is that gamers aren't buying Wii U for those games, they'll get them on Ps4 and XBone where the networks to facilitate the games features are already in place. Ever wonder why Activision never bothered with CoD on Wii U past BLOPS 2? There's your answer.

 

[Effigenius]

^THIS, SO MUCH

When the GameCube was released and was more powerful than the PS2, guess what, I bought more third party games for the cube. The Nintendo GameCube was the first and the last Nintendo console I bought where a huge majority of my games were third party games.

If they can get third party games that look and run as well as their PS4 and XBone counterparts, I would buy the heck out of the third party games released on the NX or whatever the future console is.

Yes, but you are an outlier. Overall third party games sold very poorly on gcn which was more powerful than ps2. This seems to disprove that notion. Gamers overall arent going to buy third party games on nintendo systems no matter the hardware.

 

[Astral Dog]

I dont think anybody has ever truly said third parties dont matter for Nintendo, they have always been important. at most i think few people say its not truly neccessary for them personally as long as the first party content satisfies them enough to buy their products.

But third parties, are, and always have been a huge part of the Nintendo ecosystem, series exclusive for them (on their handhelds) family friendly games, the ocassional B game, and a few ports.

the exception is some of their home consoles, wich have been struggling is some ways, competition is strong with at least two other publishers on the game, and Nintendo cant quite find their place, they have a neccessity of differentiation.

but its not so much that they dont care, or that they dont matter, its just that Nintendo struggles to find a healthy consistent reationship with many third parties, unlike Sony and Microsoft.

part of it is inadequate hardware, different audiences, other priorities like hardware innovation, different target age, issues with competing directly etc.

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

If Nintendo could magically fix all their relationship problems with 3rd parties by just having a stronger box, then why did the gamecube fall behind the xbox in 3rd party support? They sold similarly after all. Nintendo's market doesn't buy 3rd party games, "us" core gamers need to find NX attractive first, buy NX and purchase software like what 3rd parties are releasing on other platforms first. Sony and Microsoft both attract 3rd parties by building the market for the games they want on their system, 3rd parties have found success with those markets, so they are there. Nintendo's market doesn't attract EA, Activision and Ubisoft multiplats because they can't sell those games at a high enough profit to afford the resources they would have to allocate.

If Call of Duty sold millions on Wii U, it would have gotten every version of Call of Duty this gen, but the opposite happened, in fact Wii sold millions of copies of Call of Duty and even though those games were basically created from scratch for Wii, Activision went ahead and did them. We are past the technological barrier that existed back then, at worst Activision would be targeting lower resolutions and lowering settings like shadows/lighting, textures, but the overall work would be part of the original pipeline they have on PS4/XB1 so minimal effort involved. This is why the entire argument that Nintendo needs 3rd parties is a chicken and egg scenario, until they create a market that attracts 3rd party sales, 3rd parties won't bother to go through the work (no matter how little) to port those games.

So basically the onus is on owners of Nintendo platforms to buy more games outside of Nintendo's stuff and (very) select 3rd party games like Sonic and Rayman? If so I can definitely agree with that.

Tho, I also think a lot of Nintendo platform owners got into that habit as a side-effect of what happened during the later Gamecube years and seeing so much shovelware on the Wii, just going with known quantities. So it's not completely on their shoulders, but some of it is.

^THIS, SO MUCH

When the GameCube was released and was more powerful than the PS2, guess what, I bought more third party games for the cube. The Nintendo GameCube was the first and the last Nintendo console I bought where a huge majority of my games were third party games.

If they can get third party games that look and run as well as their PS4 and XBone counterparts, I would buy the heck out of the third party games released on the NX or whatever the future console is.

Gamecube was noticeably more capable than PS2 but not "way" more. It was about as more capable as you'd expect a console releasing more than a year afterwards to be. Now, before it was downclocked it probably was "way" more powerful, but that isn't the final version we got at retail.