Third Parties: With me, or against me.....

[Goodtwin]

I really feel like Nintendo needs to embrace their situation, and understand that they need to build real alliances to succeed going forward. On the same token, many third party developers need to make the same decision. There is a certain amount of animosity for Nintendo when it comes to many third party developers. Regardless what the reasons for that may be, they need to acknowledge it, and take the altercation on head on.

How many times have we heard EA's developers slam Nintendo? Just recently the developer of Titanfall bashes Switch. Dice had blasted the Wii U. Needless to say, EA is not your friend Nintendo. They aint your buddy, partner, or friend. Of course the PR from the suites will always come out and apologize for these comments, but in truth, this is the sentiment of the company. EA would prefer Nintendo disappear as a hardware company. They do just enough to leave the door open in case the Nintendo console takes off, but in reality they would like to see Nintendo die off as a hardware manufacture.

Nintendo hardware is inevitably different from the competition, and a copy and paste method of software development doesn't work. By supporting this more obscure platform, it only appeases a niche group of consumers on the platform that are interested in buying such games, and thus has limited sales potential. I believe that the mind set is this, if we stop supporting Nintendo hardware, we can persuade the majority of those gamers to buy hardware that they do support. In a way, by supporting Nintendo, they are supporting a platform that is really competition to the platforms that they are truly vested in. Good sales for AAA Western games on Nintendo hardware isn't likely to eclipse a million units sold. Its in their best interest to convert those games to PS or Xbox.

This is where Nintendo has to realize that these companies do not wish you success, but root for your demise in private (sometimes publically). Publishers like EA want to dictate what the videogame industry looks like. What kind of games we play. This is where developers have to realize that just like Nintendo, they themselves may not fit inside the mold that they have created. There is no room in this world for modest selling JRPG's, 3D Platformers, and really anything that competes with the trending AAA releases.

Its time for Nintendo to realize they need to build an army. Where does a developer like Platinum have the best chance for success? Atlus? Sega? Konami? Tecmo? Namco? Sorry, but the truth is EA and Activision want to rid themselves of these nuisances as well. Nintendo needs to make real allies, and come to the mutal agreement that their future is brighter together.

Nintendo Switch can be the outlet to really let the more obscure software have the spot light. Its time for some of these publishers to realize that the currently business model is bringing upon a slow death for many publishers. Konami goes from AAA releases on PS4/X1 to focusing on mobile? How about Castlevania for Switch? Nintendo needs to develop allies who realize there is no room for them in a world of COD and Assassins Creed on the Xbox and PlayStation platforms.

Nintendo needs to work with potential allies, and communicate that developers like them are all short for this world unless they help build a platform where those experiences can thrive a do well.

 

[FriedShoes]

HEAR HEAR!

 

[tekshow]

Very good points. Especially the part about smaller devs not fitting in with the competition like EA. I think Nintendo moved towards those teams during the U and the Switch sizzle reels are already showing it to be an indie darling along with smaller devs.

The internet seems to be up and arms over Bomberman R, but you're getting a game from Konami. .... Konami! Do they even make games anymore. I also found out today that Nintendo approached and helped the team behind Snipperclips make their game a reality.

The industry is kind of struggling against itself. There's plenty of indies,but they're buried in a mammoth marketplace. Smaller games like Yooka Laylee are hits, but they're also from established developers.

The benefit of Nintendo's position is they can provide a level of curation. They've proven they can launch their own successful new IP and with games like Shovel Knight they've done the same for other developers. After watching dozens of upcoming Switch games videos I'm wholly excited for the platform. Not only is the hardware great but the incoming stream of gsmes is unique and different.

Standouts for me besides first party is Snipperclips, Has been Heroes, I am Setsuana, Project Octopath, Xenoblade 2, Disgea 5 and the next Shovel Knight. There's been cries on the internets about how it should have been FFXV instead of this weird "Octo game-wats-that?" In my respectful opinion that's stupid. While I'd consider double dipping for ports of the Witcher or FF, a brand new Square game is much more exciting, I have t okayed any of the gsmes I listed so for me, they're hand picking some great titles. The Switch is also a platform that older games could thrive on. Maybe the def doesn't want to put time and resources into a title like Fallout 4, but I'd sure as shit rebuy New Vegas or the Mass Effect Trilogy just to have them portable. Imagine the cost savings and the ease of bringing those games over.

Nintendos in a good spot, and I think and hope with fingers crossed they're finally learning to build some relationships.

We'll know more soon, lol.

 

[Koenig]

Nintendo needs to foster more 3rd party support, period. Traditionally they have adopted a very uninviting development and publishing environment, much of which is still left over from their NES monopoly days; ultimately chooses to "let" developers make games for the their system rather than actively seek it out. It has done nothing to endear them to publishers, and short of selling 100M units of hardware I don't see many of the major publishers left pushing full support.

I want to see Nintendo actively pursue 3rd party support, as there is no other way that attitudes towards them are ever going to change. That said, what exactly they need to do to secure said support and build the army you speak of it beyond my realm of expertise.

 

[mattavelle1]

THIS IS WHAT TYPE OF 3RD PARTY SUPPORT TO EXPECT ON SWITCH

https://mobile.twitter.com/YachtClubGames/status/822142338055028736

 

[FriedShoes]

THIS IS WHAT TYPE OF 3RD PARTY SUPPORT TO EXPECT ON SWITCH

https://mobile.twitter.com/YachtClubGames/status/822142338055028736

Unexpected yet expected. Recall how Nintendo was the only company they namedropped back when they won the game award a few years ago, they've been treating each other well.

 

[Jack Lovejoy]

I really feel like Nintendo needs to embrace their situation, and understand that they need to build real alliances to succeed going forward. On the same token, many third party developers need to make the same decision. There is a certain amount of animosity for Nintendo when it comes to many third party developers. Regardless what the reasons for that may be, they need to acknowledge it, and take the altercation on head on.

How many times have we heard EA's developers slam Nintendo? Just recently the developer of Titanfall bashes Switch. Dice had blasted the Wii U. Needless to say, EA is not your friend Nintendo. They aint your buddy, partner, or friend. Of course the PR from the suites will always come out and apologize for these comments, but in truth, this is the sentiment of the company. EA would prefer Nintendo disappear as a hardware company. They do just enough to leave the door open in case the Nintendo console takes off, but in reality they would like to see Nintendo die off as a hardware manufacture.

Nintendo hardware is inevitably different from the competition, and a copy and paste method of software development doesn't work. By supporting this more obscure platform, it only appeases a niche group of consumers on the platform that are interested in buying such games, and thus has limited sales potential. I believe that the mind set is this, if we stop supporting Nintendo hardware, we can persuade the majority of those gamers to buy hardware that they do support. In a way, by supporting Nintendo, they are supporting a platform that is really competition to the platforms that they are truly vested in. Good sales for AAA Western games on Nintendo hardware isn't likely to eclipse a million units sold. Its in their best interest to convert those games to PS or Xbox.

This is where Nintendo has to realize that these companies do not wish you success, but root for your demise in private (sometimes publically). Publishers like EA want to dictate what the videogame industry looks like. What kind of games we play. This is where developers have to realize that just like Nintendo, they themselves may not fit inside the mold that they have created. There is no room in this world for modest selling JRPG's, 3D Platformers, and really anything that competes with the trending AAA releases.

Its time for Nintendo to realize they need to build an army. Where does a developer like Platinum have the best chance for success? Atlus? Sega? Konami? Tecmo? Namco? Sorry, but the truth is EA and Activision want to rid themselves of these nuisances as well. Nintendo needs to make real allies, and come to the mutal agreement that their future is brighter together.

Nintendo Switch can be the outlet to really let the more obscure software have the spot light. Its time for some of these publishers to realize that the currently business model is bringing upon a slow death for many publishers. Konami goes from AAA releases on PS4/X1 to focusing on mobile? How about Castlevania for Switch? Nintendo needs to develop allies who realize there is no room for them in a world of COD and Assassins Creed on the Xbox and PlayStation platforms.

Nintendo needs to work with potential allies, and communicate that developers like them are all short for this world unless they help build a platform where those experiences can thrive a do well.

Fuck EA, Activision, Konami, and all their shitty business practices.

 

[Redhatdrawler]

Fuck EA...

 

[Goodtwin]

Nintendo needs to build an army of outsiders, making Switch the ultimate alternative to what the competition offers. Im not saying close the doors on Activision, but begging for 2nd rate support from them isnt going to help Switch succeed. Nintendo needs to stand strong with many alliances. Im not sure how the relationship with Capcom isnt better than it is. Monster Hunter paid Capcoms bills for years, and that was thanks to the popularity of the 3DS in Japan. Even did pretty good on Wii and Wii U. Nintendo also needs to embrace nastalgia, and ressurect some older IP's. Give Platinum games free reighn on a proper Star Fox or Metroid. Look for partners that will truly give you their best effort, not the ones only interested in making a quick buck.

 

[mattavelle1]

https://mynintendonews.com/2017/01/...nintendo-switch-were-excited-fingers-crossed/

 

[Goodtwin]

I think Switch brings the opportunity for "old is new again" type of strategy. Konami brining Bomberman R and Ultra Street Fighter 2 from Capcom. If these games do well, third parties could get a of sense of low risk opportunities with Switch that other platforms haven't really offered. You can imagine if Capcom sees great results with Street Fighter, and then decides to see what happen with Mega Man 2 with a fresh coat of paint on it. Or Konami releases Castlevania HD. Nintendo's core audience does seem to be a nostalgic audience, and perhaps this is a niche where third parties really do have an opportunity.

 

[mattavelle1]

I think Switch brings the opportunity for "old is new again" type of strategy. Konami brining Bomberman R and Ultra Street Fighter 2 from Capcom. If these games do well, third parties could get a of sense of low risk opportunities with Switch that other platforms haven't really offered. You can imagine if Capcom sees great results with Street Fighter, and then decides to see what happen with Mega Man 2 with a fresh coat of paint on it. Or Konami releases Castlevania HD. Nintendo's core audience does seem to be a nostalgic audience, and perhaps this is a niche where third parties really do have an opportunity.

I think these will all do well. The closer launch comes the more I feel like LoZ is gonna drive this thing like a dump truck at full speed going down an 8 lane with 0 traffic.

Just by havin these games there to offer. I think there gonna sell very well with the crowd there focusing on.

And speakin of 3rd party's I was checkin out the IGN Lobby and saw that this list was updated.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NintendoSw...ntendo_switch_lineup_wallpaper_update_thread/

I'm pretty damn excited to see Steep on that list now. I've been fiending a snowboarding game for awhile now. I'm lovin the diversity outta this list. There is a ton of stuff here I want this year.

 

[Jack Lovejoy]

What did Nintendo do to deserve Third Party Support to be honest?

NES/SNES- Threatened retailers to not stock the competition's products, leading to an unfair monopoly, and even threatened against the third party developers to understock their products if they ever developed their games on different platforms. This was shown by Namco deciding to quit Nintendo because of their greedy actions and going on to support Sega and the TurboGrafix16, but joined back for the SNES because their business was plummeting. Developers were more than happy to see Sega go up against Nintendo and shifted platforms.

N64- Nintendo went after cartridges that are purposefully made to be harder to develop for and have very high development costs to "pick out the smaller developers" and as a result, most Third Parties shifted to Sony Playstation and this was a move Nintendo could never recover from up to this day.

Gamecube- Nintendo had no intention to give development kits for the Nintendo Gamecube, even having shortages AFTER the launch of the Gamecube and simply believed that Third parties would come to them for no real reason. They were also very arrogant during this era as they said that they would win against Sony and Microsoft as they considered Third Parties to be "Useless companies" and bashed on third party companies for having games developed for all 3 consoles. Yes, they literally called third parties "useless companies" and as a result, they did not view the PS2 as a threat just because they have garnered so much third party support.... And we all know how that turned out....

Wii- Nintendo's core audience has been dwindling from generation to generation and thought that they could completely abandon their core audience and aim after the casual and non-gamer crowd without embracing HD capabilities, online infrastructure like the xbox 360 and ps3, and having childish gimmicks. Sure it has been a commerical success with over 100 million units but there is a reason why the Wii died when its lifecycle was not even complete. Third Party Developers jumped off ship because it was generally not a good console to develop for and thus the reason why they made the ps3 and xbox 360 have games even after their successors launched. Nintendo catered to themselves and that's all they catered to.

Wii U- Wii all over again, but did not have the large casual line up like the Wii and the games come out slower thanks to third parties not finding the Wii U worth developing games for with its last-gen graphics and gimmicky gamepad.

Nintendo Switch-

So what has made you think they magically deserve to get support from others?

 

[mattavelle1]

What did Nintendo do to deserve Third Party Support to be honest?

NES/SNES- Threatened retailers to not stock the competition's products, leading to an unfair monopoly, and even threatened against the third party developers to understock their products if they ever developed their games on different platforms. This was shown by Namco deciding to quit Nintendo because of their greedy actions and going on to support Sega and the TurboGrafix16, but joined back for the SNES because their business was plummeting. Developers were more than happy to see Sega go up against Nintendo and shifted platforms.

N64- Nintendo went after cartridges that are purposefully made to be harder to develop for and have very high development costs to "pick out the smaller developers" and as a result, most Third Parties shifted to Sony Playstation and this was a move Nintendo could never recover from up to this day.

Gamecube- Nintendo had no intention to give development kits for the Nintendo Gamecube, even having shortages AFTER the launch of the Gamecube and simply believed that Third parties would come to them for no real reason. They were also very arrogant during this era as they said that they would win against Sony and Microsoft as they considered Third Parties to be "Useless companies" and bashed on third party companies for having games developed for all 3 consoles. Yes, they literally called third parties "useless companies" and as a result, they did not view the PS2 as a threat just because they have garnered so much third party support.... And we all know how that turned out....

Wii- Nintendo's core audience has been dwindling from generation to generation and thought that they could completely abandon their core audience and aim after the casual and non-gamer crowd without embracing HD capabilities, online infrastructure like the xbox 360 and ps3. Sure it has been a commerical success with over 100 million units but there is a reason why the Wii died when its lifecycle was not even complete. Third Party Developers jumped off ship because it was generally not a good console to develop for and thus the reason why they made the ps3 and xbox 360 have games even after their successors launched. Nintendo catered to themselves and that's all they catered to.

Wii U- Wii all over again, but did not have the large casual line up like the Wii and the games come out slower thanks to third parties not finding the Wii U worth developing games for.

Nintendo Switch-

Well Jack to answer you initial question. Nintendo built a console or a portable, therefore giving some third party's the ability to make money. I guess that's what they did to deserve 3rd party support is that some of them make money.

 

[Jack Lovejoy]

Well Jack to answer you initial question. Nintendo built a console or a portable, therefore giving some third party's the ability to make money. I guess that's what they did to deserve 3rd party support is that some of them make money.

Read my entire post first or watch this video:

 

[mattavelle1]

Read my entire post first or watch this video:

Your the one who asked the question, not me.

 

[Jack Lovejoy]

Your the one who asked the question, not me.

There is a difference between magnetizing 3rd party support and deserving third party support. As I said, read the entire thing first before you jump to answers.

 

[Juegos]

There is a difference between magnetizing 3rd party support and deserving third party support.

Why are you even talking about whether Nintendo "deserves" third party or not? That has nothing to do with this thread. The point of the thread is to talk about what kind of strategy Nintendo has to employ to get third party support. Whether you think they have enough good-boy-points to deserve them has no bearing. If you want to talk about Nintendo's failed third party policies of the past, and whether they deserve your goodwill or not, maybe you should start a different thread instead of derailing this one.

 

[Socar]

Funny how none of you guys mentioned of how much of third party support they have on their handheld divisions......

Now just to rant at SEGA here...for a bit...

From Takashi lizuka

"When SEGA stopped making hardware and just started doing software, the first platform that we released Sonic on was a Nintendo console. We felt from the very beginning, that the Nintendo platforms were where the passionate Sonic fans were. Historically that is where our relationship started with Nintendo. Unfortunately, the Wii U didn’t manage to get as many gamers on the hardware as we would have liked. That was unfortunate for Sonic because we didn’t get the mass of people to enjoy the content. But Nintendo has always been a great partner, we have Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games, Sonic in Super Smash Bros… we really appreciate the work that they do.”

Ok SEGA explain to me why on earth you did NOT release Valkyria Chronicles 2 on the 3DS? Infact, seeing as how you are one of the good supporters of Nintendo, why the hell do you not make most of your games available on Nintendo systems as well? Is there a specific reason as to why Valkyria Chronicles can't be on a Nintendo system? If anything, VC is loosely based on Sakura Wars(interms of game play alone) so that makes two IPs that don't see a Nintendo release.

Yet you release Sonic games and for the most of the time, they are left crappy or something that fans didn't have in mind. Sure, Sonic Mania looks great and for great reasons too but us Nintendo fans want more than just Sonic..like..oh idk maybe...PHANTASY STAR?!? Or how about again, VC?!?!

Now I can understand that some IPs like Yakuza cannot be on a Nintendo system cause well...Nintendo will censor a lot of things that you aren't a big fan off so I can respect that? But what is there to censor for VC???? Better yet, what reason VC is never on a Nintendo system.

Heck, what's the reason that Persona 5 (even though I'm not into Atlus games) isn't on Switch?

SEGA, in short..you confuse the hell out of me.

 

[Goodtwin]

Third parties like Sega have typically sterotyped Nintendo gamers, assuming we will only buy Sonic, and most of their other IP's are slated for other consoles. It's not like these games flourish on the other consoles, sales are often disappointing.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

 

[Odo]

I'm not disagreeing with Goodtwin, catering for Japanese devs is crucial for Nintendo now, however my opinion is on the side of the traditional strategy of do what most of 3rd parties want you to do and bringing consumers in the first place.

The lesson from PS is that PS1 was the SNES successor that everyone was waiting for while N64 was something totally unusual and in many ways sort of ridiculous. (I'm a N64 fan, though)

Nintendo don't need to beg for western devs, but they need to work harder on making a more traditional console if they want more content -- plus they need consumers. The dwindling fanbase of Nintendo is a real issue and if Switch will have enough consumers only with Mario and AA Japanese games on Switch is yet to be known, but in the end, install base is the only thing that developers care about.

 

[Juegos]

The dwindling fanbase of Nintendo is a real issue and if Switch will have enough consumers only with Mario and AA Japanese games on Switch is yet to be known, but in the end, install base is the only thing that developers care about.

I'm quoting this sentence in specific because I think it's a very good summary of the current state of Nintendo, and it leaves room for every person to decide for themselves how much each clause in that sentence matters to them personally.

 

[Goodtwin]

Western publishers are being very cautious with Switch, and honestly I do not really blame them. Historically, third party multi plats have done poorly on Nintendo hardware. If you go back and look at sales of third party games on the Xbox compared to the Gamecube, "most" multi plat games did better on Xbox than the Gamecube, typically substantially better on Xbox. The install base was nearl identical for those two consoles. Then we had the Wii with a tremendous userbase, and sales were often dissapointing for third party games. Third party Publishers are taking this history into account. A large install base is very important for whem concerning Nintendo because the attach ratio for their games on Nintendo hardware has been historically poor.

Western Publishers also share a business model that makes releasing games without the ability to generate tens of millions of dollars a no go for them. With projects cost 50-100+ million dollars to develop, making a few million dollars on a platform is considered a waste of time. This is where the issue with Nintendo platforms comes into play. Porting is no copy and paste scenario, and real porting cost and resources are needed to make it happen. If they have reason to believe the port has a higher likelyhood of doing poorly than well, they will probably decline to take the risk. They just havent seen big returns of their ports, and often seen them do very poorly.

In the Japanese development scene, there are still a tremenous amount of low to mid budget titles being developed where sales expectations are much lower, and thus the risk of failure is lower as well. For a game like Project Octopath on Switch, selling a few hundred thousand copies will result in fantastic returns on investment. The latest Final Fantasy game for PS4/X1 would cost more to port to Switch than Project Octopaths entire development cost. These are assumptions I am making of course, but I believe them to be reasonable.

Western Publishers will be there if Switch takes off like a rocket, but its partnerships with real partners likes KOEI Tecmo, Namco, and Platinum that help assure Switch is not only an immediate success, but long term. As quick as EA puts Madden on Switch, they could just as easily scrap it the following year if software sales dissapoint. Same with COD on Switch from Activision. They may test the waters, but it would take some million sellers to keep them around. Dont get me wrong, I would love to see Switch recieve wide spread support from all publishers. I just think their odds of maintaining support is the greatest with publishers who consisently release games that are considered a success at a few hundred thousand sold, and not many millions of units like Western Publishers.

 

[EvilTw1n]

I'm quoting this sentence in specific because I think it's a very good summary of the current state of Nintendo, and it leaves room for every person to decide for themselves how much each clause in that sentence matters to them personally.

Nintendo is the only company that can be profitable with one device that has an install base of 65 million, plus have a good chunk of bank for a rainy day, and still also be in this situation. I don't mean that facetiously or in a "doomed since 1889"-way; it's just how it is. Nintendo is in a unique situation due to making hardware that is typically only a successful platform for big, ambitious software made by...Nintendo. Which leads me to...

Western publishers are being very cautious with Switch, and honestly I do not really blame them. Historically, third party multi plats have done poorly on Nintendo hardware. If you go back and look at sales of third party games on the Xbox compared to the Gamecube, "most" multi plat games did better on Xbox than the Gamecube, typically substantially better on Xbox. The install base was nearl identical for those two consoles. Then we had the Wii with a tremendous userbase, and sales were often dissapointing for third party games. Third party Publishers are taking this history into account. A large install base is very important for whem concerning Nintendo because the attach ratio for their games on Nintendo hardware has been historically poor.

This reminds me of this old article and chart...
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=20988

We're a site for enthusiasts, so it's easy to lose sight that the average person may only buy 2 or 3 games a year (that chart is for about 2 years on the market, and it's probably skewed by the enthusiasts who buy a dozen games or the like). 3D Mario, 2D Mario, Zelda, Kart, Smash, Pikmin, DKC, Xenoblade, Splatoon, the odd Nintendo-published collab (Hyrule Warriors, Bayonetta, W101, TMS#FE)...you just run the hell out of room for third parties to succeed against your own IP. That isn't a qualitative judgement on third parties and their work; it's just how it has played out.

Handhelds have been different, of course, but the margins for development cost and profit are correspondingly smaller there. If anyone is wondering why Nintendo doesn't just want to slam the door shut on handhelds...well, there's your answer. Nintendo can push the sales for a cheap handheld with their own software, and on a hardware device that allows relatively small development budgets, that means smaller third party efforts can profit without selling huge numbers. Mid-tier "A" and "AA" games didn't really completely die in the HD era - they just went to the DS and 3DS.

Is the designated handheld audience dying? Or can it bleed into a Nintendo hybrid console as a sort of transfusion? We'll find out pretty soon.

 

[GaemzDood]

> EA wants to dictate the industry [implying a monopoly].
Pretty sure that's not how capitalism works. Monopolies screw competition. We saw this with the government subsidizing their favorite companies in the food industry for votes.

There's a reason why Nintendo won't create a powerful console with lots of 3rd party support. They're not big enough. A game developer I follow on Tumblr was asked about this and he pointed out that Nintendo as a company is worth $16b compared to Sony's $30b and Microsoft's $403b. The Wii U was a flop and most of the revenue they made was from game sales and 3DS sales. They lack funding and a huge install base.

People will be quick to point out that they supposedly tried to make 3rd party support happen along with big marketing campaigns with the GameCube, but as Emily Rodgers' blog points out, that's not true. Nintendo was uber backwards in their philosophy during the GameCube era, and it was actually 3rd parties that were trying to give them a chance; their [Nintendo] marketing was eclipsed by Sony and Microsoft too. By the end, they [3rd parties] just said screw it and released the most barebones ports (Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory and Double Agent for example) just because Nintendo was begging them by that point.

 

[GaemzDood]

Fuck EA, Activision, Konami, and all their shitty business practices.

Exactly how are Activision's business practices shitty? They're actually pretty fine. The worst case I can think of was Diablo III's launch, but they rectified that.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[GaemzDood]

Funny how none of you guys mentioned of how much of third party support they have on their handheld divisions......

Now just to rant at SEGA here...for a bit...

From Takashi lizuka

"When SEGA stopped making hardware and just started doing software, the first platform that we released Sonic on was a Nintendo console. We felt from the very beginning, that the Nintendo platforms were where the passionate Sonic fans were. Historically that is where our relationship started with Nintendo. Unfortunately, the Wii U didn’t manage to get as many gamers on the hardware as we would have liked. That was unfortunate for Sonic because we didn’t get the mass of people to enjoy the content. But Nintendo has always been a great partner, we have Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games, Sonic in Super Smash Bros… we really appreciate the work that they do.”

Ok SEGA explain to me why on earth you did NOT release Valkyria Chronicles 2 on the 3DS? Infact, seeing as how you are one of the good supporters of Nintendo, why the hell do you not make most of your games available on Nintendo systems as well? Is there a specific reason as to why Valkyria Chronicles can't be on a Nintendo system? If anything, VC is loosely based on Sakura Wars(interms of game play alone) so that makes two IPs that don't see a Nintendo release.

Yet you release Sonic games and for the most of the time, they are left crappy or something that fans didn't have in mind. Sure, Sonic Mania looks great and for great reasons too but us Nintendo fans want more than just Sonic..like..oh idk maybe...PHANTASY STAR?!? Or how about again, VC?!?!

Now I can understand that some IPs like Yakuza cannot be on a Nintendo system cause well...Nintendo will censor a lot of things that you aren't a big fan off so I can respect that? But what is there to censor for VC???? Better yet, what reason VC is never on a Nintendo system.

Heck, what's the reason that Persona 5 (even though I'm not into Atlus games) isn't on Switch?

SEGA, in short..you confuse the hell out of me.

Nintendo doesn't censor games anymore though. Yakuza would be fine. Sony used to censor content too. Devil Summoner: Soul Hackers was denied a US release for religiously blasphemous content.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Odo]

There's a reason why Nintendo won't create a powerful console with lots of 3rd party support. They're not big enough. A game developer I follow on Tumblr was asked about this and he pointed out that Nintendo as a company is worth $16b compared to Sony's $30b and Microsoft's $403b.

Besides they're getting smaller and smaller. They've been struggling to make profit for 5 years and they went from having 2 systems in the market to just one now which is its last bet. NSW shows that Nintendo wants to keep its market smaller and very Japanese-like which means more efficient. Its operation has shrank considerably in order to keep the content flowing for a very specific and dedicated market/userbase.

Nintendo is going back to its roots as a modest Japanese company with a very specific sort of product and that might be the only strategy that would work for them from now on.

I hope that the power and brightness of titles like Splatoon and other Nintendo franchises can give to the new console what they couldn't give to Wii U that, in spite of some brilliant games, was unable to survive. Although Switch as a device has its own elegance and smartness in a level that we haven't seen since Wii and Pokemon Go is one example of how a Nintendo game can catch on very well in the mobile world.

 

[Goodtwin]

I think Nintendo recognizes that their place in the market has evolved and changed. They need to adapt, and I think that is what the Switch is, but lets not pretend Nintendo is no some sort of niche player in the gaming industry. They are the largest publisher in the world as far as games are concerned, and have consistently been a top provider of dedicated gaming hardware for over 30 years now. Sony is the only real competitor, ever generation Nintendo has completely destroyed Microsoft. GBA+GC equal over 100 million compared to 23 million Xbox consoles, and 250 million Wii+DS compared to 85 million X360 consoles. Nintendo is adapting, but hardly falling into irrelevance. If anthing, the Xbox brand is still trying to prove itself in the global market. On a year to year basis, if Nintendo isnt number one, its number two, and by a large margin.

Switch is a product that caters to its strengths as a company. Portables are their stronghold in the market, and the capabilties of modern mobile technology allows for a mobile processor to outperformn previous gen consoles. Nintendo has recognized early on that its a matter of time before the differences between a console and portable are minimal. The appeal of playing portably will quickly outweigh the benefits of a dedicated console. Switch is the NES of this transition, but its successor will be the SNES. Basically, the ability to play anywhere will soon outweigh the benefits a deciated console can offer. In five year, a mobile chip will outperform the PS4 Pro, and at what point do graphic improvements start to seem pretty minimal? I think we are there personally. Not saying there arent improvements to be had, but its weight as a selling point fade with each year.

Looks how many of the biggest games of the previous decade didnt rely on graphics at all. Wii Sports, Angry Birds, and Mine Craft. All huge, and didnt sell because of their visuals. Nintendo is in a great spot, as time passes, graphics will continue to take a back seat to great concepts, and that is where they shine. Not saying I dont enjoy a good interactive movie/game like Mass Effect 3, but I feel the future of gaming wont be able to leverage superior graphics for much longer.

 

[Aki]

This makes me wonder if Nintendo will release a handheld alongside the NS and compete with itself for marketshare?

Personally, I don't think they will. I think they'll continue to solely focus on NS. Which they should because the price will only go down from here and I believe that NS will sell phenomenally @ $250. If Nintendo plays it right they could have a 100 million seller.

 

[Goodtwin]

This makes me wonder if Nintendo will release a handheld alongside the NS and compete with itself for marketshare?

Personally, I don't think they will. I think they'll continue to solely focus on NS. Which they should because the price will only go down from here and I believe that NS will sell phenomenally @ $250. If Nintendo plays it right they could have a 100 million seller.

I'm going to say no. Not saying that in three years they might not sell an inexpensive portable only version of Switch, but I really feel like doing that too early undermines the potential of the Switch concept. Right now Nintendo is content to have the 3DS as the inexpensive portable offering, and give Switch the spotlight as the premier offering from Nintendo. Technology becomes less expensive at a pretty fast rate, so I would bet that Nintendo can get the Switch down to $199 pretty fast if demand for the product starts to fade. I think $199 is the mass market price for Switch. The most popular 3DS models are $199, and I personally think Switch is a much better value proposition at $199 than 3DS. As far as hardware is concerned, of course currently 3DS has a fantastic library of games that Switch cant compete with.

I still hold my stance that Nintendo needs to look for real partners as far as third parties are concerned. I do not feel they should worry too much about acquiring watered down ports, those will come as long as the platform is selling well, but exclusives are where the Switch can really separate itself from the competition. Nintendo had the right idea with Bayonetta 2, Wonderful 101, and even Devils Third with Wii U, but the platform brand was so badly damaged that it didn't work. Switch as a brand is off to a great start, acquiring games like Bayonetta 3 and perhaps even Time Splitters would go a long way for the new platform.

 

[Aki]

I agree w/ you on both counts. $199 will be the perfect price for NS to really take off. However, I think they could still do a bunch of damage even @ $250. Also, Nintendo does need to partner w/ third parties for exclusive content to really separate themselves from the competition and create an enticing product. I believe they will do so and are on the right track. They've had a bunch of eShop hits going back to the DS / Wii days so they're obviously capable of identifying good software. I think they're bread and butter will be those niche Japanese games and hit steam games.

 

[Koenig]

Overwatch would be a gangbuster seller on the Switch...Just sayin.

 

[GaemzDood]

I think Nintendo recognizes that their place in the market has evolved and changed. They need to adapt, and I think that is what the Switch is, but lets not pretend Nintendo is no some sort of niche player in the gaming industry. They are the largest publisher in the world as far as games are concerned, and have consistently been a top provider of dedicated gaming hardware for over 30 years now. Sony is the only real competitor, ever generation Nintendo has completely destroyed Microsoft. GBA+GC equal over 100 million compared to 23 million Xbox consoles, and 250 million Wii+DS compared to 85 million X360 consoles. Nintendo is adapting, but hardly falling into irrelevance. If anthing, the Xbox brand is still trying to prove itself in the global market. On a year to year basis, if Nintendo isnt number one, its number two, and by a large margin.

Switch is a product that caters to its strengths as a company. Portables are their stronghold in the market, and the capabilties of modern mobile technology allows for a mobile processor to outperformn previous gen consoles. Nintendo has recognized early on that its a matter of time before the differences between a console and portable are minimal. The appeal of playing portably will quickly outweigh the benefits of a dedicated console. Switch is the NES of this transition, but its successor will be the SNES. Basically, the ability to play anywhere will soon outweigh the benefits a deciated console can offer. In five year, a mobile chip will outperform the PS4 Pro, and at what point do graphic improvements start to seem pretty minimal? I think we are there personally. Not saying there arent improvements to be had, but its weight as a selling point fade with each year.

Looks how many of the biggest games of the previous decade didnt rely on graphics at all. Wii Sports, Angry Birds, and Mine Craft. All huge, and didnt sell because of their visuals. Nintendo is in a great spot, as time passes, graphics will continue to take a back seat to great concepts, and that is where they shine. Not saying I dont enjoy a good interactive movie/game like Mass Effect 3, but I feel the future of gaming wont be able to leverage superior graphics for much longer.

Well, save for this generation. Graphics may not be the way forward, but if hardware is so weak that it is impossible to adapt games to it properly (see: Wii U), then that holds it back from having a large variety of games to choose from.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[theMightyME]

Well, save for this generation. Graphics may not be the way forward, but if hardware is so weak that it is impossible to adapt games to it properly (see: Wii U), then that holds it back from having a large variety of games to choose from.

Sent from my SM-G900V using genital warts

there isn't a game out now that couldn't have been adapted to the wii u with a little effort... it was install base, not power, as it pretty much always is

 

[GaemzDood]

there isn't a game out now that couldn't have been adapted to the wii u with a little effort... it was install base, not power, as it pretty much always is

Sorry, but there is no Wii U secret sauce. The closest thing to it is Fast Racing NEO, and that game has to use a reprojection technique just to get to 720p. I used to think the was secret sauce until I became more knowledgeable about visual designs of video games, but the fact is that the Wii U is simply not a capable system. The bandwidth and fill rate is paltry and will always hold it back.

 

[Goodtwin]

It depends on your expectations. Can Wii U run current AAA games? Yes, but the final product after the compromises have been made might degrade the product significantly. If you want to see this in action, go watch lowspecgamer on YouTube. He digs deep into setting to get games running on super weak hardware.

The business side will make the decision for publishers. It takes work to down port and still end up with an attractive product. Western third parties have a history of struggling to sell well on Nintendo platforms, so I expect those third parties to shy away from Switch ports.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

 

[theMightyME]

Sorry, but there is no Wii U secret sauce. The closest thing to it is Fast Racing NEO, and that game has to use a reprojection technique just to get to 720p. I used to think the was secret sauce until I became more knowledgeable about visual designs of video games, but the fact is that the Wii U is simply not a capable system. The bandwidth and fill rate is paltry and will always hold it back.

I am not saying the wii u had special sauce, i am saying tech in games, as in the need for great power, is bullshit... 1080p or 720p who gives a shit.... Can the game run, compromised or not, in an effective manner given a decent effort? Yes... He'll the gamecube could run a bunch of modern games... They just wouldn't look as good... This idea that games now a days just can't run on anything shy of gigaflop hardware is total bullshit...

Tech doesn't make games good, design does, and if breath of the Wild can run on wii u there is no reason any game that skipped the wii u in its lifetime couldn't.... Sure it would be the worst version, sure it would require work and money, and that is why install base is the reason we didn't get those games.

 

[Koenig]

I would argue that making 360 games run on the wii was a far more challenging effort than getting X1 games to run on the Wii U. Granted, from what I understand there was an architecture difference that would cause some issues between the two, but I am not knowledgeable enough to saw either way in regards to it.

 

[Goodtwin]

I don't think its relevant any longer to discuss if ports are possible, because we know they are, but are they viable? Is there demand for ports from people buying Switch? I don't think so, at least not in the volume that these publishers would deem worth while. I think there are certain titles like sports games and Lego games that easily port to Switch that have a good chance for good sales, but the AAA games that are the meat and potatoes of the PS4/X1, I just don't see them being as relevant on Switch.

I think expecting the majority of AAA titles to grace the Switch to be unlikely. I think games like Fifa, Madden, and NBA 2K will likely be yearly releases on Switch, but the majority of AAA titles will skip it. The extra cost associated with porting to Switch will be enough to deter many publishers because of little confidence in great adoption for their titles on Nintendo hardware.

 

[EvilTw1n]

I don't think its relevant any longer to discuss if ports are possible, because we know they are, but are they viable?

Well not all of us know that, apparently, but it all points on the bolded portion. Developers will make games possible if they think that there is the possibility for some return on investment. It can even be a remote possibility. See: SF2 on the ZX Spectrum.

...actually, I'm sorry. You can't unsee that.

But the point for modern AAA development is simply are the resources better spent on making the best game possible for devices with reliable userbases, or is the human talent and time better spent on porting to a Nintendo system with a userbase that hasn't reliably bought your games? It's always been two ships passing in the night with Nintendo and third parties; it's not all a lack of third party effort or Nintendo screwing them over or being backwards.

Maybe it'll be different with Switch in some capacity. But holding out for identical third-party parity with Sony and MS is probably not the path this goes down.

 

[Koenig]

Still, it would be a damn shame not to get at least moderate AAA support. The portability factor alone would be a huge boon for many AAA games that ONLY the switch could offer, and it would be a waste of a an otherwise potentially huge market that they would be passing up on.

 

[theMightyME]

I agree with both @EvilTw1n and @Goodtwin ... both of the twins

the switch will not get many 3rd party multiplats... I would argue though that certain games could do exceptionally well on the switch.... and some games present an opportunity to do best on the switch by using nintendo content....

for the first example I would use sonic... sonic sells better on Nintendo hardware than elsewhere because the fanbases crossover ... for the second example I would cite soul calibur 2, which sold better on the gc than on the other hardwares thanks to the inclusion of Link

these are not universal though... just adding a nintendo character wont seal the deal...

but I would argue that games that trade on nostalgia would probably do very well on Nintendo hardware, as well as games closelyr elated to nitnendo formulas... like beyond good and evil, which had a cartoony look and played like zelda... a fairly sloppy port of Okami also did well on the wii compared top its low numbers on ps2...

I have argued all along that nintendo shouldn't be focused on securing call of duty... that Nintendo should focus on filling int he holes themselves.. and they have been, Splatoon is Nintendo's call of Duty, and Arms might be their virtua fighter...

but as much as I have always been against courting 3rd parties, it does make sense in some areas... nintendo needs to keep a good relationship with sega... not just for sonic, but if sega does monkeyball again, for example, switch should be the lead platform...

I also think that there is a pretty big opening for nintendo to take the japanese niche market while sony's eye is on the west... nintendo should be aggressively courting nippon ichi, vannilaware, level 5, atlus, etc... saying basically "hey, you guys aren't exactly taxing the ps4 anyways, and we are going to take Japan when pokemon and monster hunter are both out... so hop on guys"

I just brought up monster hunter, another essential 4rd party title, hell I think nintendo should do with capcom what they have been doing with tecmo... buy the rights for monster hunter to be exclusive, and then while theya re at it, make offers on some of capcom's forgotten properties... mega man, ghouls and ghosts, maybe even omnimusha... offer a aprtnership to develop and distribute those games, or offer to buy the franchises from capcom outright... do the same with konami... castlevania, for example

when it coems to the west there is much less cross-over of interests... but nintendo could be strategic about who they make big deals with... somethign like plants vs zombies garden warfare should have been on nintendo systems... it makes far mroe sense there then anywhere else... and when a developer wants to do soemthign more cartoony and fun than gritty and real, nintendo should be the first call they make.... and nintendo could make strides towards opening those channels for conversation... and overwatch... c'mon that makes so much sense

I don't think pursuing call of duty or grand theft auto will ebar any fruit for nintendo... but taking over niche and nostalgia japan (meaning castlevania, not metal gear), and owning the family friendly and FUN and colorful markets could do wonders for them.

All while they fill in some of the cracks themselves... nintendo has their call of duty (splatoon), now they need their gta

 

[theMightyME]

Still, it would be a damn shame not to get at least moderate AAA support. The portability factor alone would be a huge boon for many AAA games that ONLY the switch could offer, and it would be a waste of a an otherwise potentially huge market that they would be passing up on.

it is all about priorities, should nintendo prioritize call of duty, or monster hunter

they can't do everything, that is unfeasible

 

[Koenig]

it is all about priorities, should nintendo prioritize call of duty, or monster hunter

they can't do everything, that is unfeasible

These games are hardly exclusive conditions though, they are two of the largest franchises in the market by two of the most well known publishers; Nintendo can't do everything, but they could certainly secure the both of those two titles with all involved turning a profit.

 

[theMightyME]

These games are hardly exclusive conditions though, they are two of the largest franchises in the market by two of the most well known publishers; Nintendo can't do everything, but they could certainly secure the both of those two titles with all involved turning a profit.

But which is more important, to nintendo? If Nintendo had to invest to get 1 or the other on switch ,which should they focus on .... Nintendo is not in any position to demand parity... Which means they need to choose their battles

 

[Koenig]

But which is more important, to nintendo? If Nintendo had to invest to get 1 or the other on switch ,which should they focus on .... Nintendo is not in any position to demand parity... Which means they need to choose their battles

Forcing such an arbitrary condition on these two games is a contrived excuse, when it would be easy to get both, but in this case I would argue the one that has the larger install base if we are talking a multi-platform release. If, however on of the game remains an exclusive then it would likely be the better option.

 

[theMightyME]

Forcing such an arbitrary condition on these two games is a contrived excuse, when it would be easy to get both, but in this case I would argue the one that has the larger install base if we are talking a multi-platform release. If, however on of the game remains an exclusive then it would likely be the better option.

If it was so easy, nintendo would have done it... Which means it isn't easy

 

[Koenig]

If it was so easy, nintendo would have done it... Which means it isn't easy

Generally speaking, nothing that is worth pursuing is "easy" to achieve. Nintendo has a long history of being at odds with publishers, nor have they done themselves any favors by willfully cutting themselves out of the primary "gaming" demographic for nearly a decade; so of course it is not going to be easy to win back that market. To say that they should give up on it and not even make the attempt is the words of an apologist and short sighted one at that.

 

[EvilTw1n]

To say that they should give up on it and not even make the attempt is the words of an apologist and short sighted one at that.

Nintendo did make an attempt last gen. Dismiss it all you like, but they tried to launch a console with Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty and Need For Speed and Batman (all launch window, before the Wii U got into real trouble). It did not work. It isn't like this is a hypothetical. I would caution against calling someone an apologist when you're ignoring the distant past of merely a few years ago. But I wanted to backtrack just a touch:

Forcing such an arbitrary condition on these two games is a contrived excuse, when it would be easy to get both, but in this case I would argue the one that has the larger install base if we are talking a multi-platform release. If, however on of the game remains an exclusive then it would likely be the better option.

Money isn't an arbitrary condition, though. And without an audience that shows up as your install base to reliably buy third-party content, it becomes a money issue. If maybe 40 million Nintendo fans reliably showed up for each home console to make AAA third party games perennial million-sellers, this conversation would be very different.

So if you're not looking at install base, you're left with pay-to-play. AAA productions cost anywhere from $20 million to $60 million. Sony and Microsoft can look to parent corporations to pony up to make sure those games come to their devices. That's how Microsoft, with a game division that was costing the organization $1 billion in RROD money, still found $50 million in couch money for GTA DLC. ...exclusivity that lasted 14 months. Even the hardware players with the reliable install bases are still paying out to third parties.
[In defense of MS, they've even talked about how they need to not invest so much in third-party content at the expense of first party...not that they've managed to work out how to make that a reality.]

Nintendo simply does not have the same luxury. Which brings us here:

Nintendo can't do everything, but they could certainly secure the both of those two titles with all involved turning a profit.

Again, it comes back to where resources are best spent. Securing the rights would mean paying for them, and every dollar Nintendo spends on a third-party port that sells a marginal amount is money they aren't spending on their own games or exclusives. Pertinent to this discussion because @theMightyME mentioned COD or MonHun as a hypothetical. But it's not really a hypothetical. Nintendo paid for Monster Hunter. That deal wasn't "won" because Iwata-san was a nice guy; the development cost too much on Sony and Nintendo stepped in to help fund the project on a less expensive device.

But there is only so much money for projects like that. Nintendo isn't in a position to make those sorts of offers on the regular. They have their own games to fund and lack a corporate honey pot. This isn't a myopic argument. It's a math argument.

The only way to "secure" anything is to secure an install base. If you have a big enough install base, third parties have a larger pool and less risk in attempting to move some product. Hardware manufacturer Nintendo can only rely on one videogame maker to secure an install base - software developer Nintendo. That's anything but defeatist; it's rebuilding, one step at a time.