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

[GaemzDood]

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

There should be a balance where 3rd parties prioritize on creating a market of grimdark games on Nintendo systems while Nintendo makes the family friendly content. This creates more variety and opens up to more market potential from more audiences.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[GaemzDood]

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.

So if I am to go off that, Watch Dogs, Assassin's Creed III and IV, Splinter Cell: Blacklist, Darksiders II, and both Call of Duties are acceptable because they ran on the Wii U despite having significant deficiencies compared to the other versions due to the Wii U's poor hardware design. Here's the thing about game developers: they don't like to compromise their vision. They want to extract the most out of it, so if it means dumping a weak platform, then they will. It's not "laziness," anyone who thinks game developers are lazy are offensively insulting and intellectually dishonest.

Also, games not being able to run on hardware at acceptable levels is nothing new. Daytona USA on arcades vs. Saturn, Half-Life 2 on the original Xbox vs. PC, Doom on the SNES...

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[GaemzDood]

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:

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:

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.

It didn't work because, with the exception of Need for Speed, the ports were inferior. Why would I buy a Call of Duty game that virtually never hits 60 FPS when the other versions hit it frequently? It makes no sense.

Every other point you make is valid though. Unless Nintendo can secure a core gamer base that exists outside their own fans, then 3rd parties won't gravitate. It's market economics.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Goodtwin]

It didn't work because, with the exception of Need for Speed, the ports were inferior. Why would I buy a Call of Duty game that virtually never hits 60 FPS when the other versions hit it frequently? It makes no sense.

Every other point you make is valid though. Unless Nintendo can secure a core gamer base that exists outside their own fans, then 3rd parties won't gravitate. It's market economics.

Sent from my SM-G900V using genital warts

Then there is little incentive for Publishers to port their AAA games to Switch, because they will be inferior. There is no getting around that, Wii U was much more on par performance with the 360/ps3 than Switch is with PS4/X1. So if the Nintendo userbase is that in tune with the quality of the ports, it doesn't bode well for sales of those games on Switch.

It's not just userbase, but consumer buying habbits on Nintendo hardware. Post SNES, third party multi plats sell in lower numbers on Nintendo hardware compared to Sony and Microsoft. It was especially true with Wii U.

I agree that Nintendo needs a diverse lineup, and I do believe they try to do this. I find it hard to believe that the Xenoblade games are money makers, but Nintendo funds them. Bayonetta 2, Wonderful 101, and Devils Third was an attempt to broaden appeal on Wii U. I think Nintendo will continue to look for opportunities to broaden the appeal of the software lineup. Platinum Games has most likely been hired for a project or two already. Retro Studios will finnally work on multiple projects.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

 

[theMightyME]

So if I am to go off that, Watch Dogs, Assassin's Creed III and IV, Splinter Cell: Blacklist, Darksiders II, and both Call of Duties are acceptable because they ran on the Wii U despite having significant deficiencies compared to the other versions due to the Wii U's poor hardware design. Here's the thing about game developers: they don't like to compromise their vision. They want to extract the most out of it, so if it means dumping a weak platform, then they will. It's not "laziness," anyone who thinks game developers are lazy are offensively insulting and intellectually dishonest.

Also, games not being able to run on hardware at acceptable levels is nothing new. Daytona USA on arcades vs. Saturn, Half-Life 2 on the original Xbox vs. PC, Doom on the SNES...

Sent from my SM-G900V using genital warts

what you describe as acceptable levels is just bullshit, nobody cares outside of a vocal minority

was darksider 2 and call of duty and asscreed on wii u acceptable? yes they were, they were f'n fine... the only acceptions being lack of content, like the wii u call of duty games not having all the dlc... the problem is thta they didn't sell, and if the hardware was better.. THEY STILL wouldn't have sold...

and I never said devs are lazy, it isn't about laziness it is about time and money.... and in 99% of all cases the developer has little say in what it will appear on, that is the publishers choice

it isn't a matter of a game not being able to run on something, it is a matter of it not being worth the time, effort, and money it would cost to make it run on it...

call of duty was ported to the original wii, the games sold around 300k, but that was fine because the team porting them was small and efficient... it was worth activisions money, and the developers time to port it, so they did.... they even went back and ported a game that initially skipped the system on an off year... on the wii u call of duty support dried up after 2 entries...

you attribute that to the wii u being weak... but that makes no sense as the wii was compartively weaker to its rival hardware comeptitors than the wii u was to its... and yet the wii had regular cod support... hell the wii would have been even harder to part to since it didn't even use standardized shaders, and the online infrastructure was a colossal mess.. but activision ported it anyways...

so if it wasn't power, what was it? why did the wii get ports while the wii u did not?

FUCKING INSTALL BASE

the wii sold over 100 million units, the wii u sold what? 20?

if 100 million units equates to 300,000 copies of a port selling... than what does 20 million equate to? 60,000... hardly worth the time and money... hell, the only reason the wii was worth the time and money for them was because it is an annualized franchise, which emans they can reuse asstes and the engine they developed making each new wii port of the franchise cheaper to make... but that only works when the installbase is big enough that even a meager attach rate is profitable.

power has never been the problem, and it never will be

 

[Goodtwin]

Wii COD games sold between one and two million copies each. Pretty decent, but needed a massive install base to get that. Wii U had sold 14 million units life time. Install base with low attach rates for third party games is why third party support dried up so quickly on Wii U.

With Switch, I think third parties will look for install base and choose titles they think can do well on the platform. Even with a fast growing userbase, I think they will be selective on what to port.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

 

[Koenig]

@EvilTw1n

On point 1. You have a point, except for the fact that the question was the Wii U; a system that appealed to just about no one except the die hard Nintendo fan and was inferior to the competition in every way that would matter to a third party.

On point 2. Again you have a point, but only if the games were being built from scratch and exclusively for the Switch. In the case of CoD (Which was the example I was basing the post after) the game already exists on all other platforms including PC, it would be a far, FAR cheaper effort to port that game to the Switch that you are making it out to be.

On point 3. When I said "secure" those titles, I was referring to those titles coming to the system itself, not them being an exclusive. As far as I can tell, Nintendo has never put much effort into "securing" 3rd party support here in the west since the Super Nintendo. As you said, Nintendo paid for Monster Hunter, and I would argue it paid off in spades; but what about other titles? When was the last time Nintendo partnered with a western developer to secure an exclusive from a major game series? what about just ensuring that a major game title game to their system as a multiplat? (Considering the US makes up such a large portion of their market, you think they would invest in more popular western titles that they do). Microsoft said they need to cut back on their investment in 3rd parties, but they already have secured a stable repuation among 3rd parties so that would easily balance out; Nintendo has not, in fact they have done the opposite by effectively ostracizing the "AAA" industry for past decade. They need to take steps to reverse this, and half-assed token gestures will not suffice.

 

[Koenig]

Then there is little incentive for Publishers to port their AAA games to Switch, because they will be inferior.

Asside from portability that is. The Switch is the perfect opportunity to release a ton of old and new games to the Nintendo market that would likely snap them up for portability.

There is no getting around that, Wii U was much more on par performance with the 360/ps3 than Switch is with PS4/X1. So if the Nintendo userbase is that in tune with the quality of the ports, it doesn't bode well for sales of those games on Switch.

Perhaps, though again I get the feeling it was an issue with the Wii U completely abysmal install base as compared to its graphical power. Again, Portability is a key factor they could bank on for Switch, never mind that the Switch will have a larger instal base than the Wii U could ever hope to, and likely appeals to a much larger demographic of gamers as well. I would wager they could even release a ton of old 360/PS3 games selling on the Portability factor and small portion of the Nintendo audience who would buy into it; it's not like it would be difficult to port most of these older titles given how much more powerful and developer friendly the switch is by comparison and since the assets in question are already complete and tested, so it should be easy to turn a profit; probably far easier and more profitable that the glut of "HD" remasters we have been getting lately.

It's not just userbase, but consumer buying habbits on Nintendo hardware. Post SNES, third party multi plats sell in lower numbers on Nintendo hardware compared to Sony and Microsoft. It was especially true with Wii U.

On this I agree in part, but it begs the question why? I would argue it is because Nintendo systems have not attracted enough of the core market in a long time as a result of Nintendo's generation long misguided efforts to come off as an exclusively familar friendly company. Nintendo has started the change that image somewhat in recent years, but has failed to convey that change to their hardware. Nintendo NEEDS to (continue to) portray the Switch as a gaming device for all players and not just kids and families; however this alone will not be enough to change the perspective of the average demographic of the AAA market. If want's to have a larger market that includes that demographic, then Nintendo needs to make the effort to actually re-secure these players, otherwise they will never have a chance. So of course that market does not do well on Nintendo system so far, because Nintendo has done practically nothing as far as the average consumer is concerned to change their minds about it. Just saying that 3rd partys don't sell on Nintendo systems does not resolve the fundamental reason why they don't sell; solving that issue is the real challenge and where the payoff lays buried.

I agree that Nintendo needs a diverse lineup, and I do believe they try to do this. I find it hard to believe that the Xenoblade games are money makers, but Nintendo funds them. Bayonetta 2, Wonderful 101, and Devils Third was an attempt to broaden appeal on Wii U. I think Nintendo will continue to look for opportunities to broaden the appeal of the software lineup. Platinum Games has most likely been hired for a project or two already. Retro Studios will finnally work on multiple projects.

Note however that all of the games you listed were niche, or japanese style games, games that do not appeal to a large portion of the AAA demographic; I am very glad we got them and I will not fault Nintendo for them at all; but Nintendo should absolutely invest in some western AAA games in addition to or instead of some of them once in a while.

 

[Koenig]

Or, to summarize one of the points I have been trying to convey in a single post:

If Nintendo want's to fix the state of their 3rd party problem; (how well 3rd parties sell on Nintendo system, generating an install base, working with 3rd parties, etc) Then Nintendo needs to make a real effort to work towards making it a reality.

-They need to make systems that appeal to everyone (I think the Switch does that well)
-They need to make sure that the system is easy/powerful enough to develop for (The switch seems to be half'n'half on this on)
-They need to make sure that the Switch has enough games to cater to everyone (So far, I would argue the switch is doing well, however long term it is still lacking the 3rd party variaty that is needed to break this cycle)
-They need to foster more long term relationships with 3rd parties, especially in the west which has been left underdeveloped by Nintendo for decades (So far, this seems to be one of Nintendo's biggest weaknesses)

 

[GaemzDood]

Note however that all of the games you listed were niche, or japanese style games, games that do not appeal to a large portion of the AAA demographic; I am very glad we got them and I will not fault Nintendo for them at all; but Nintendo should absolutely invest in some western AAA games in addition to or instead of some of them once in a while.

Yeah, like a new Metroid Prime game.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Odo]

I would argue it is because Nintendo systems have not attracted enough of the core market in a long time as a result of Nintendo's generation long misguided efforts to come off as an exclusively familar friendly company. Nintendo has started the change that image somewhat in recent years, but has failed to convey that change to their hardware. Nintendo NEEDS to (continue to) portray the Switch as a gaming device for all players and not just kids and families; however this alone will not be enough to change the perspective of the average demographic of the AAA market. If want's to have a larger market that includes that demographic, then Nintendo needs to make the effort to actually re-secure these players, otherwise they will never have a chance.

I agree with you that Nintendo needs to try harder, however at the same time I think their chance has passed. I think they don't have that chance right now and they won't have for the foreseeable future unless they change into something that I don't know yet. I don't have anything to support my belief, it's just a feeling, but the traditional console/content for Nintendo is over. The home console market is Sony/Microsoft's from now on while Nintendo is doing their thing.

One of the main bottlenecks is still hardware no matter how much people say that it's not a problem. The console is fine, but as Goodtwin said:

"There is no getting around that, Wii U was much more on par performance with the 360/ps3 than Switch is with PS4/X1."​

We know that Wii conquered the world even though it was weak and bla bla bla bla, but I think today's different than back in the days when PS3 was yet to be released and people were crazy about motion controls. As a home console, NSW hardware is already deprecated, the console is too expensive and the situation will be even worse as soon as PS5/XB2 hit the market in a few years. Western multipart developers will soon stay away from NSW as soon as they finished trying their launch window/1st year titles as happened with GB, Wii and Wii U. I hope I'm wrong, but I bet that will be the situation.

 

[Koenig]

Yeah, like a new Metroid Prime game.

Sent from my SM-G900V using genital warts

Agreed, Metroid Prime would help fill in one of the genres Nintendo needs to build, but its still not on of the biggest markets they could (And should) be filling in. Metroid would have to be one piece in a series of western appealing games.

 

[Koenig]

I agree with you that Nintendo needs to try harder, however at the same time I think their chance has passed. I think they don't have that chance right now and they won't have for the foreseeable future unless they change into something that I don't know yet. I don't have anything to support my belief, it's just a feeling, but the traditional console/content for Nintendo is over. The home console market is Sony/Microsoft's from now on while Nintendo is doing their thing.

One of the main bottlenecks is still hardware no matter how much people say that it's not a problem. The console is fine, but as Goodtwin said:

"There is no getting around that, Wii U was much more on par performance with the 360/ps3 than Switch is with PS4/X1."​

We know that Wii conquered the world even though it was weak and bla bla bla bla, but I think today's different than back in the days when PS3 was yet to be released and people were crazy about motion controls. As a home console, NSW hardware is already deprecated, the console is too expensive and the situation will be even worse as soon as PS5/XB2 hit the market in a few years. Western multipart developers will soon stay away from NSW as soon as they finished trying their launch window/1st year titles as happened with GB, Wii and Wii U. I hope I'm wrong, but I bet that will be the situation.

Agreed. In regards to Nintendo pulling it off however, I feel this would have to be a long run effort, and not just a one off deal like they normally do. If Nintendo ever want's to have a truly diverse market for their systems, they are going to have undo DECADES of portraying themselves as a "kiddie" console and push into the main market. This is not something they will ever be able to do over night, and will take a real (not token) and continued effort for years to accomplish. I believe it is entirely possible for Nintendo to do this, but sadly I doubt they have the stones or forsight to do so.

 

[Odo]

Those are good points. My thoughts on them:

-They need to make systems that appeal to everyone (I think the Switch does that well)

Switch is the real Japanese thing. Japanese will love it and they already do, but I don't think it appeals to everyone yet. As a tablet, it's too expensive and too niche. As home console, it's too weak (and too expensive) and it's still carries the Nintendo "baggage" of "it's a Mario/Zelda machine".

Nintendo has enough enthusiasts, Pokemon lovers and early adopters to keep the in the market, though.

-They need to make sure that the system is easy/powerful enough to develop for (The switch seems to be half'n'half on this on)

Yeah, it is if we consider the hardware. The developers now are trying to push PS4 to its limits. The games for this year and beyond aren't like Watch Dogs anymore. Every year, make a AAA game run smoothly on a mobile console like NSW will be harder.

-They need to make sure that the Switch has enough games to cater to everyone (So far, I would argue the switch is doing well, however long term it is still lacking the 3rd party variaty that is needed to break this cycle)

So far, NSW is becoming more like 3DS successor.

-They need to foster more long term relationships with 3rd parties, especially in the west which has been left underdeveloped by Nintendo for decades (So far, this seems to be one of Nintendo's biggest weaknesses)

They won't. Nintendo has that arrogant culture like those 100-year-old Japanese companies.

 

[Goodtwin]

Nintendo needs the games that help drive their hardware, and I think AAA western games are far from low hanging fruit. Nintendo doesn't need to be the product that fits everybody, but the product that a lot of people want. Why fight tooth and nail trying to win over skeptics when there are plenty of potential customers perfectly happy with what Nintendo offers. You can't be everything to everybody.

Bayonetta 2 sold more copies than and COD game on Wii U. 3DS has done very well with no western support. Truth is, on Nintendo platforms, Western games are niche. Just because a vocal minority wants these games on the Switch doesn't mean the demand is actually there, and if the demand isn't there, does it really matter if they are missing?

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

 

[weeman_com]

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.

Not having read the rest of the discussion after your opening post here are my comments so far

A quick half joking half serious comment is this not what Sony try to achieve on their system?

What you have described is basically any business anywhere, any industry. They all want to achieve majority industry controlling share so they can have the capital to dictate to the industry what and how things are going to happen. I do remember watching a late night analysis on Formula 1 racing and the current (at the time) dispute about rules and regulations on engines and certain aspects. One side was regulations limiting what the cars can do in aspects, the other side was to reduce regulation and let it be down to whoever has the biggest buck can afford the bigger better faster cars. It really did make me think of the games industry as I watched.

In essence EA are that big at the moment that their swinging dick. They have spent years acquiring talent and IP through takeovers, buying and closing down independents, they've built up a portfolio that makes up a huge chunk of the industry revenue. They of course see supporting 3 systems as a cost exercise that the % lost in revenue supporting 2 is least when dropping Nintendo. Why pay a guy $30 p/h to work on a game for a system thats going to only sell 1million when they could work on something thats going to sell 5million for the same about of development hours?

Nintendo created this environment within the games industry with their treatment of all developers back in the "Official Seal of Quality" days. Developers were small, they couldn't fight the clout of Nintendo, and even if they did and won. Who is to say that that would end up with poor relations between the companies leading to less that preferential treatment with the release of your game? So developers/publishers had to grow.

Your strategy of Nintendo pulling in other parties to make the games on Nintendo systems that the western influence would kill off. Whilst it is a great idea, it is risky, marking the system as the niche system. It could alienate larger audiences and developers, due to what I'd assume to be consumer confidence. Meaning if your faced with a $3/400 purchase but you only know of 1 game coming out that you want, would you make that purchase? And if the majority of people decide no, then that kills early adopter numbers, meaning less investment from other developers and eventual WiiU-esque environment.

What would be in my opinion a far stronger strategy would be for Nintendo to flaunt their cash reserves. Throw a couple of million at certain publishers/developers for exclusive/times exclusives. Buy new IP's from big name developers to be exclusive for the first game. Get the gamers on board because you have bought titles for your system that people want, when developers and publishers see that there is a market for 3rd parties on Nintendo platforms you will see their attitudes change.

The attitude you cannot change is the attitude that I read about from Stardock developer that they have no interest in a Nintendo system unless its a $1000 system. Thats just ignorance and screams to me a lack of love for games and the industry, its just a money making racket.

Essentially to me you cannot have a games industry that wont cater to the core-er mechanics and games, if thats where the money is at then you need to accept it as part of the system. So it would not be wise to ignore this element at all.
There is a way for Nintendo to do things better to have a more invested system, but that would require an attitude change in Nintendo.

 

[Koenig]

Bayonetta 2 sold more copies than and COD game on Wii U. 3DS has done very well with no western support. Truth is, on Nintendo platforms, Western games are niche. Just because a vocal minority wants these games on the Switch doesn't mean the demand is actually there, and if the demand isn't there, does it really matter if they are missing?

Sent from my SM-G360V using genital warts

I do have to ask though, how much did Bayonetta 2 cost to produce vs how much it cost to port CoD to the Wii U? Likewise what was the net profit of each of them? Sadly, I don't think that information is available to the public, but it would go a long ways towards actually understanding the situation.

 

[Goodtwin]

I do have to ask though, how much did Bayonetta 2 cost to produce vs how much it cost to port CoD to the Wii U? Likewise what was the net profit of each of them? Sadly, I don't think that information is available to the public, but it would go a long ways towards actually understanding the situation.

True, but Bayonetta 2 is game of the generation material while the COD ports were lesser versions compared to other platforms. Keep in mind that Bayonetta 2 would have benefited from a larger userbase as well. I just don't see a scenario where Nintendo will front the cost of "all" those AAA games, and that is what it would take. Money that could be spent on exclusives. Exclusives help differentiate the Switch from other devices, ports mean just another device to play COD on.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

 

[Koenig]

True, but Bayonetta 2 is game of the generation material while the COD ports were lesser versions compared to other platforms. Keep in mind that Bayonetta 2 would have benefited from a larger userbase as well. I just don't see a scenario where Nintendo will front the cost of "all" those AAA games, and that is what it would take. Money that could be spent on exclusives. Exclusives help differentiate the Switch from other devices, ports mean just another device to play COD on.

Sent from my SM-G360V using genital warts

True. Again, I wish these production cost and return values were made public knowledge, as it would make comparing and critiquing such things much more accurate.

In regards to multiplats, I have to wonder if it would be possible to have a deal where Nintendo would front the port cost and be re-reimbursed some or all of the profit from the games sales until the initial cost was paid off, at which point it would return to the traditional cost distribution. In this scenario it would remove any risk of loss to 3rd parties and have a very low risk to Nintendo given the relatively low cost of porting an already finished game. I don't think this would be a good idea for a long term solution, but it is something I think Nintendo could (and should) do to help jumpstart the 3rd party lineup on the Switch.

 

[Goodtwin]

I do like the idea of Nintendo offering insurance policies to third parties. Basically, if you can show that your company had *million dollars in cost porting to Switch, Nintendo will guarantee a recoup on those expenses at their own expense if required. For the sake of argument, lets assume for a minute that Nintendo has already done this. Third parties have this offered to them, and still do not take Nintendo up on it. Now what? I think there is a threshold on what is reasonable to expect of Nintendo. I am totally with Koenig when its comes to the ideal situation, but where we disagree lies within what can be accomplished, at what cost, and is it ultimately reasonable for that platform manufacture to accommodate it? Spending tons of money paying for games that a minority of players on the platform will buy, and even fewer who would buy said platform inorder to play said game just doesn't make sense to me. This is from a business perspective, as a gamer/consumer sure, I want it all.

Part of Nintendo's problem lies within their own strength. They are third parties worst enemy on their hardware. Nintendo's first party games will almost always outsell third party games. Unlike Xbox and PlayStation where third party games rule the roost, on Nintendo hardware software sales are almost always dominated by first party software. On average most consumers buy about 10 retail games per console. Where is the low hanging fruit for third parties? A platform where is has to compete with Nintendo's high profile first party games? I know Sony has some great first party games and Microsoft has Gears and Halo, but the number of titles and popularity is far less for those games. Nintendo's greatest strength is also its Achilles heal when it comes to third parties. Their own first party games cannibalize the market for third parties on Nintendo hardware.

This isn't to say there isn't room for third parties, but the expectations for sales must be adjusted. Selling a fraction of what you might expect to sell on Xbox might be a realistic figure. Perhaps selling a few hundred thousand copies is not worth it for one game, but for another it is very much so worth it. Publishers will have to figure this out, but the ecosystem on Nintendo hardware is different. Until the attach ration goes from 10 to 1 to 25 to 1, Nintendo cant really cater to third parties and sell its own first party content in the same volume that it is accustomed to.

I want you to consider this for a minute. Why is Sonic Forces coming to Switch? It will take extra resources to make happen compared to the PS4/X1 build. It faces the same hurdles that other third party multi plats face. So why is Sega so quick to bring Sonic to Switch? History! Sales history says Sonic games sell as well if not better on Nintendo hardware compared to the competition. This is why Sonic will arrive later this year, and COD is less likely. Its not the hardware limitations, but the market tendencies that have been laid out for many years now.

 

[Koenig]

Again, I am more interested in jump starting the AAA scene for Nintendo systems than Nintendo continuously porting the games.

Why don't people who typically buy "Core" AAA games buy Nintendo consoles? Because said AAA games are rarely supported or come to Nintendo systems.

Why do "Core" AAA games rarely come to Nintendo systems? Because typically the same people don't own Nintendo systems to actually buy them.

It is a self defeating cycle, but one that will continue to perpetuate itself without intervention on Nintendo's part. Circles never stop themselves, and if there is ever going to be any hope of breaking this one Nintendo and other 3rd parties will have to actually invest in the effort. Will they do it? Probably not; humans and especially businessmen are exceptionally short sighted. The potential is there, so hopefully publishers will eventually find a way to attain it.

 

[GaemzDood]

Again, I am more interested in jump starting the AAA scene for Nintendo systems than Nintendo continuously porting the games.

Why don't people who typically buy "Core" AAA games buy Nintendo consoles? Because said AAA games are rarely supported or come to Nintendo systems.

Why do "Core" AAA games rarely come to Nintendo systems? Because typically the same people don't own Nintendo systems to actually buy them.

It is a self defeating cycle, but one that will continue to perpetuate itself without intervention on Nintendo's part. Circles never stop themselves, and if there is ever going to be any hope of breaking this one Nintendo and other 3rd parties will have to actually invest in the effort. Will they do it? Probably not; humans and especially businessmen are exceptionally short sighted. The potential is there, so hopefully publishers will eventually find a way to attain it.

This kind of reminds me of soda and the government.

Why does the government heavily subsidize corn syrup, act surprised when people buy more of their unhealthy subsidized products, and then proceed to tax the product they continue to subsidize?

What strikes me the most is that Nintendo still heavily regulates games despite the creation of the ESRB. Baten Kaitos: Origins, Xenoblade Chronicles X, Fire Emblem Fates, Tokyo Mirage Sessions, Fatal Frame V, and F-Zero GX were censored, and The Binding of Isaac was initially denied a release on the 3DS due to religious content, despite the system's fledgling M rated game library (this isn't me being insecure by the way, this is just a statistical trend that has been the case since the creation of the ESRB).

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Koenig]

This kind of reminds me of soda and the government.

Why does the government heavily subsidize corn syrup, act surprised when people buy more of their unhealthy subsidized products, and then proceed to tax the product they continue to subsidize?

What strikes me the most is that Nintendo still heavily regulates games despite the creation of the ESRB. Baten Kaitos: Origins, Xenoblade Chronicles X, Fire Emblem Fates, Tokyo Mirage Sessions, Fatal Frame V, and F-Zero GX were censored, and The Binding of Isaac was initially denied a release on the 3DS due to religious content, despite the system's fledgling M rated game library (this isn't me being insecure by the way, this is just a statistical trend that has been the case since the creation of the ESRB).

Sent from my SM-G900V using genital warts

DANGER: Miniaturized wall of text following!

It is a definite trend for Nintendo; I personally don't mind them editing their own published games, but in the case of games like the Binding of Issac is was a clear case of Nintendo acting paranoid again. Thankfully they have reversed and removed their policy in that regard and finally deferred to the ESRB for that kind of content. Granted, at this point in time I don't think censorship has much of an impact on 3rd party support for the Switch, although its legacy certainly does hurt; what does harm them however is how many people, and more specifically in this case, what kind of people are buying the Switch. The die-hard Nintendo fan and casual console players are groups that Nintendo library definitely appeals to, but with the exception of a small portion that overlaps with those previous mentioned, the "core" gaming audience, particular in America, generally has little reason to buy a Nintendo system. If Nintendo takes the time to target that market again and commit to it long term I could see the easily clawing their way into the "core" market and it substantially more "enthusiastic" spenders. Sadly, at this point in time the Switch does not seem to have much in the way of games coming out in the near future that cater to that particular audience; Super Mario, Xenoblade 2, Zelda generally cater far more to the Nintendo diehard fanbase and its satellites than they do to the "Core" gaming demographic. Games like Skyrim coming to the system are a step in the right direction, but given the age and ubiquity of the game, it does not offer much on its own to install any level of confidence in most of the "Core" gaming market; there simply are not enough games designed for that market available to the switch to really become appealing to the "Core" market yet. (PS: Do I really need to put "Core" in quotations each time? I know that it is good form considering the nature of said demographic, but it is getting redundant considering how much I am reference them here, but I digress...) This is another reason I am really disappointed by Nintendo's treatment of the Metroid franchise because it represents the best suited series under Nintendo's belt to be appeal to the core demographic. I often see the arguent that Metroid was never really one of Nintendo's biggest franchises, and while I technically agree in that it was not the mega million seller that Zelda and Mario often are, it did however act as the best ambassador to the core demographic that any of Nintendo's system library had to offer. If Nintendo were to bring back the Metroid franchise in conjunction with a handful of similarly themed titles (mechanically and/or stylistically) such as Doom, Wolfenstein, CoD, Darksouls, and the like, it would go a very long ways towards building a "Core" foundation for said demographic to base any level of trust on buying a Nintendo system and actually get those kind of games in the future. I still firmly believe that Nintendo would be very wise to expand their systems appeal into all demographics, namely said "Core" demographic, and not just diehard and casual groups they have since forever; unfortunately they have decades of ill will work against, as ever since the SNES Nintendo's policies have helped drive away or limit the productions of developers who would otherwise appeal to that market.

blah blah blah, this wall of text makes me want to scrub my keyboard with soap.

 

[Goodtwin]

Nintendo needs to reach out to those publisher/developers who are the most likely to support the Switch. Western Publishers are going to be skeptical and resist making any sort of significantly investment on Switch. If the sales are there, and so far things look good, these publishers will come around on their own. Not saying they will suddenly bring the full lineup, but will cherry pick the titles they feel are the most likely to give a good return on investment.

What I want to see is a solid effort to court those developers who have made their living on 3DS and Vita. This is the low hanging fruit for Nintendo, and honestly is where they can pick up the most exclusives. We have seen even in the US that games like Bravely Default can do very well. This is also where the performance deficit Switch pays isn't a big deal.

There really isn't any way to spin it, but strictly as a home console the Switch stack sup poorly with the PS4/X1. All AAA third party games will be lower quality on Switch. Trying to have what those consoles have doesn't really do the system much good if they are perceived to be lesser versions. Games that have traditionally done well on portables, well....PS4/X1 do not really have an answer for that.

Nintendo can and will take care of providing AAA games on Switch. This year alone they will release Zelda BoTW, Mario Odyssey, and Xenoblade 2. Nintendo just needs to continue what they started on Wii U, and work with high level talent like Platinum Games for exclusive games. They are just one example, there are plenty of developers trying to survive in the world of COD where gaming dollars are gobbled up by the perennial releases year after year.

Make no mistake about it, large publishers want to force competitors out of the market. Either through acquisition, or by simply creating a business model that is only sustainable for those with an abundance of resources. On the Xbox and PlayStation, most of these smaller games struggle to gain recognition, over shadowed by the blockbusters.

 

[GaemzDood]

Western 3rd party support wouldn't even be a big deal to me if it weren't for the fact that Nintendo arguably has more high quality IPs that they're sitting on and doing nothing with than EA. The difference between Nintendo and EA killing off their IPs is that EA does it by making disappointing games whereas Nintendo makes great games that they don't market. I'll make a list right now.

- Metroid Prime
- Mach Rider: A post apocalyptic racing game as fast as F-Zero or Fast Racing with tech that could compete with the latter would be a seriously awesome game.
- F-Zero: This would make Mario Kart irrelevant to me, I said it.
- Mother
- Zangeki no Reginleiv: Imagine an open world action game with colossi style boss fights and character action game combat.
- Eternal Darkness
- Sin & Punishment
- Battalion Wars: Add some destructible scenery and fleshed out multiplayer; it would be Nintendo's answer to Battlefield. One that could see more games like Battlefield if successful. As for the style, I'd like it to be more Advance Wars: Days of Ruin than previous Battalion Wars games, as to show that dark games can sell on Nintendo systems.
- Golden Sun: If they reinvented it as an open world RPG with free form Devil May Cry style combat where you could completely customize party members and play as them, the latter which FFXV didn't even let you do without a season pass.
- Geist: The original had a great concept and deserves where credit is due for being an M rated Nintendo published product, but it was too linear and there was too much forced action. Reinvent it as a a Hitman style systems based open ended stealth assassin game with more flexible posessions and it would be an instant classic.
- Custom Robo: This could be Nintendo's Armored Core, with better level design and streamlined controls.
- ASH: Archaic Sealed Heat
- Exclamation Warriors Sakeburein
- Captain Rainbow (not published in the U.S. because Nintendo thinks we hate gays)
- Disaster: Day of Crisis: Make it a legitimate 3rd person shooter with a lot more replayability and you could have a Last of Us alternative.
- Wave Race: This could be an amazing tech demo, especially for water caustics, physics, tessellation, etc.
- Excite: A 60 FPS reboot with full dynamic weather and time of day while preserving what made it more infinitely fun than MotorStorm would be a smash with me.
- Baiten Kaitos
- The Last Story
- Pandora's Tower: I. Love. This. Game. This is Nintendo's alternative to Metroid Prime and a legitimate Metroidvania.
- 1080°: This could be a legit snowboarding game that doesn't suck. Add some weather effects in the vein of this and it would be the greatest arcade extreme sports game ever.

Bayonetta 2 sold more copies than and COD game on Wii U. 3DS has done very well with no western support. Truth is, on Nintendo platforms, Western games are niche. Just because a vocal minority wants these games on the Switch doesn't mean the demand is actually there, and if the demand isn't there, does it really matter if they are missing?

Sent from my SM-G360V using genital warts

COD sold poorly on Wii U not only because they were crap ports, but because they weren't even marketed.

 

[GaemzDood]

Nintendo needs to reach out to those publisher/developers who are the most likely to support the Switch. Western Publishers are going to be skeptical and resist making any sort of significantly investment on Switch. If the sales are there, and so far things look good, these publishers will come around on their own. Not saying they will suddenly bring the full lineup, but will cherry pick the titles they feel are the most likely to give a good return on investment.

What I want to see is a solid effort to court those developers who have made their living on 3DS and Vita. This is the low hanging fruit for Nintendo, and honestly is where they can pick up the most exclusives. We have seen even in the US that games like Bravely Default can do very well. This is also where the performance deficit Switch pays isn't a big deal.

There really isn't any way to spin it, but strictly as a home console the Switch stack sup poorly with the PS4/X1. All AAA third party games will be lower quality on Switch. Trying to have what those consoles have doesn't really do the system much good if they are perceived to be lesser versions. Games that have traditionally done well on portables, well....PS4/X1 do not really have an answer for that.

Nintendo can and will take care of providing AAA games on Switch. This year alone they will release Zelda BoTW, Mario Odyssey, and Xenoblade 2. Nintendo just needs to continue what they started on Wii U, and work with high level talent like Platinum Games for exclusive games. They are just one example, there are plenty of developers trying to survive in the world of COD where gaming dollars are gobbled up by the perennial releases year after year.

Make no mistake about it, large publishers want to force competitors out of the market. Either through acquisition, or by simply creating a business model that is only sustainable for those with an abundance of resources. On the Xbox and PlayStation, most of these smaller games struggle to gain recognition, over shadowed by the blockbusters.

Yeah, and guess what? That, to them, means "kids games." What I don't get is why publishers showed the PSPtanic so much love with tons of high quality AAA software from notable franchises despite it not selling as much or as fast as the Switch and not even being remotely as comparable to the PS2 as the Switch is to, say, the Xbox One (not saying it's comparable, but it stacks up a lot better compared to the PSP vs. the PS2). Is it because they're afraid their mature titles will fail because they're on a Nintendo platform? Here's a thought: do what 2K is doing with NBA, releasing it on the same day as the other versions with the same content, framerate, visuals (mostly), and special editions, and market the damn things. 'Hardcore' multiplatform games failed on the GameCube because they weren't marketed, and they failed on the Wii U because they weren't marketed and they were often missing features and running at a lower framerate.

Think of the Switch to the Xbox One like the PSP is to the PS2. Remember, the PSP got some seriously impressive software that staked up well next to the PS2, as I pointed out in another thread.

Indie games are more popular than ever though, thanks to the internet and word of mouth. Battlegrounds is one such anecdote. Nicalis is pushing indie games out at an astonishing rate on multiple platforms, and guess what? They see consistent returns for it.

 

[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.

I posted about this in my retro gaming enthusiast thread. Compare Sega's GameCube exclusives to their PS2 and Xbox exclusives and the stark jump in quality is shocking.

 

[Koenig]

Again, I would love to see Nintendo offer to cover the initial costs of porting a handful of games to their system in order to foster and cultivate the market place for future titles in the same genres and target demographics. Otherwise, the best we can hope for is cherry picked games everyone once in a blue moon.

 

[GaemzDood]

So I did some thinking after reading various posts by IGN user phantomx. While I consider him, for the most part, to be a nonthinker of the least eloquent manner, he does make one good point: Nintendo doesn't attract 3rd parties because of the games they make. That's not to say that the games they make are bad, because they're objectively not, but I just listed a whole lot of franchises above that have potential to attract 3rd parties: open world ARPGs, arcade racing games with stunning visuals, hack n' slash titles like Zangeki no Reginleiv, horror games, grimdark multiplayer action games, and shooters like Metroid Prime all have tons of potential to make developers go "hmm, these genres that we develop have an audience on this system." That's not to say abandon the franchises they currently have, but offer mainstream sequels to their experimental titles too, and market them.

Again, I would love to see Nintendo offer to cover the initial costs of porting a handful of games to their system in order to foster and cultivate the market place for future titles in the same genres and target demographics. Otherwise, the best we can hope for is cherry picked games everyone once in a blue moon.

I think your quote about Nintendo holding themselves back is both true and untrue. It's untrue because they clearly have a handheld design regimen that clearly suits their need for profit, like any capitalist (<3) enterprise. However, when it comes to consoles, it is true.

The Switch is a console/handheld with Nintendo's handheld design regimen, so despite what a pseudo-economist/marketer like me might think about what they need to do, they're clearly doing well because of it.

 

[Koenig]

I said it from the start of the hybrid rumors: The then "NX" would make an absolutely amazing handheld, but a poor console in comparison. Nintendo has not been able to sustain a truly health degree of variation in their console libraries since I would argue the GameCube (Or SNES, if you count being in the lead); so I am hoping they do something a bit more drastic this generation to rectify that.

 

[Goodtwin]

I think Jueg nailed it in a recent post. Outside of Zelda, nearly every Nintendo IP benefits more from portability than it could gain from more powerful hardware.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

 

[Odo]

Western 3rd party support wouldn't even be a big deal to me if it weren't for the fact that Nintendo arguably has more high quality IPs that they're sitting on and doing nothing with than EA.

Well said. If Nintendo could consistently release titles for all those franchises you mentioned at least one iteration per generation, that would be incredible.

Besides, why don't Nintendo develop its own yearly COD? I know they've got Splatoon, but how hard is to develop a FPS game like COD?

 

[GaemzDood]

I think Jueg nailed it in a recent post. Outside of Zelda, nearly every Nintendo IP benefits more from portability than it could gain from more powerful hardware.

Sent from my SM-G360V using genital warts

Keyword is nearly. The games I discussed in the OP would benefit from better hardware in addition to Zelda.



Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[GaemzDood]

Well said. If Nintendo could consistently release titles for all those franchises you mentioned at least one iteration per generation, that would be incredible.

Besides, why don't Nintendo develop its own yearly COD? I know they've got Splatoon, but how hard is to develop a FPS game like COD?

In terms of racing games, I would love to see Nintendo's old racing franchises with visuals almost as good as DriveClub (if they were to aim for 30 FPS, which 1080 and Wave Race on the GCN ran at) or Project C.A.R.S. (if they were to aim for 60 FPS, which the Excite series always ran at), but with the signature gameplay.

I'll break down what those games do on a technical level if you want.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Odo]

In terms of racing games, I would love to see Nintendo's old racing franchises with visuals almost as good as DriveClub (if they were to aim for 30 FPS, which 1080 and Wave Race on the GCN ran at) or Project C.A.R.S. (if they were to aim for 60 FPS, which the Excite series always ran at), but with the signature gameplay.

I'll break down what those games do on a technical level if you want.

Sent from my SM-G900V using genital warts

yeah, definitely. I hate the fact that Nintendo has no "real/sim racing" franchise.

 

[Koenig]

Besides, why don't Nintendo develop its own yearly COD? I know they've got Splatoon, but how hard is to develop a FPS game like COD?

Probably because they don't have 150M systems to sell games for, nor a game that could consistently sell to that many. Since CoD is a multi-platform game it has a much larger install base that is likely to perpetuate the cycle each year, and it has nearly perfected the business model by being refined down to the crack cocaine equivalent of pick up and play multiplayer. Likewise it has three or more separate studios working on individual games so that each effectively gets a 2-3 year development cycle despite the game being released on a yearly basis.

If Nintendo were to do something similar, they would first have to come up with a series that could effectively fit into a yearly cycle, segregate or create multiple studios to continuously produce content for the series, and finally actually be able to sell it to enough people to justify the costs set up by the prior to conditions and still turn a profit. I don't think its impossible for Nintendo to do mind you, but they will need drastically change their attitude towards online gaming and the mechanics frequently employed in it. Achievement systems, online voice chat, dedicated servers, lack of oppressive censorship, etc. I would love to see something like Splatoon become an even bigger hit than it is; but short of mixing up the formula and adding much more features than it currently has I don't see that happening to the same degree. Keep in mind it seems that Splatoon 2 is still keeping the"Map rotation" and limit weapon selection to the lobby like the original, so although Nintendo is slowly starting to accept online play, they still are not embracing it's design sensibilities.

On that note however; Nintendo could do a yearly release of much smaller, story driven games. It is something I am surprised that Capcom has not done with Ace Attorney series, as the original format of the series (And the one still generally preferred by most fans) allowed for a much shorter development period than most games.

 

[Odo]

Probably because they don't have 150M systems to sell games for, nor a game that could consistently sell to that many. Since CoD is a multi-platform game it has a much larger install base that is likely to perpetuate the cycle each year, and it has nearly perfected the business model by being refined down to the crack cocaine equivalent of pick up and play multiplayer. Likewise it has three or more separate studios working on individual games so that each effectively gets a 2-3 year development cycle despite the game being released on a yearly basis.

If Nintendo were to do something similar, they would first have to come up with a series that could effectively fit into a yearly cycle, segregate or create multiple studios to continuously produce content for the series, and finally actually be able to sell it to enough people to justify the costs set up by the prior to conditions and still turn a profit. I don't think its impossible for Nintendo to do mind you, but they will need drastically change their attitude towards online gaming and the mechanics frequently employed in it. Achievement systems, online voice chat, dedicated servers, lack of oppressive censorship, etc. I would love to see something like Splatoon become an even bigger hit than it is; but short of mixing up the formula and adding much more features than it currently has I don't see that happening to the same degree. Keep in mind it seems that Splatoon 2 is still keeping the"Map rotation" and limit weapon selection to the lobby like the original, so although Nintendo is slowly starting to accept online play, they still are not embracing it's design sensibilities.

On that note however; Nintendo could do a yearly release of much smaller, story driven games. It is something I am surprised that Capcom has not done with Ace Attorney series, as the original format of the series (And the one still generally preferred by most fans) allowed for a much shorter development period than most games.

Nintendo would have to buy a studio to take care of a game like this in my opinion.

 

[Shoulder]

yeah, definitely. I hate the fact that Nintendo has no "real/sim racing" franchise.

Given the Switch, and how it is, a proper sim racing game wouldn't work well I think. If someone wants a proper racing sim, and they want to be competitive at it, they're going to get a steering wheel and pedals, which I don't see the Switch ever having really. Sure, there's the steering wheel, but you still need the pedals, and even then, using Nintendo's steering wheel setup would be lame given the precise amount of control you'd need for a sim.

Now, I'm not saying you can't play sim racing games with a controller, but if I wanted to get good at a racing game, I'll always go with a steering wheel. It's partially why I haven't played DriveClub for hours and hours on end. My current steering wheel is not compatible with the PS4 unfortunately, so that's a shame.

That all being said, I would like it if Project CARS 2 did make its way onto the Switch, and maybe they can tweak the controller setup to work well with the Joy-cons and Pro controller. But then there's the other major issue of no analog triggers, which I consider to be a requirement for any sim game. Arcade racing titles can get away with it because you're normally on or off the throttle (like it was for NFS: MW on Wii U), but sim games is a different story.

If the next NFS were to make its way onto the Switch, that'd be cool.

 

[Koenig]

Given the Switch, and how it is, a proper sim racing game wouldn't work well I think.

I still have to wonder why Nintendo abandoned analogue triggers and pissed on its grave... It is something I don't get at all from any perspective.

 

[Goodtwin]

Nintendo pretty much sticks to what it does best. They tried to branch out and do what they thought was an answer to Halo by creating Geist, which ended up being a shit game for the most part. I don't believe Nintendo should try and copy what others already do well, do what you do and continue to do it better. If anything, reach out for games that would likely fit in rather well with your library of games. Time Splitters is a shooter I have wanted Nintendo to pursue for years. Not because I am a huge fan, but because it would be a shooter that fits in on a Nintendo platform rather nicely. Cry Engine 3 hasn't exactly been a huge hit. Perhaps they could help promote it with Time Splitters on Switch.

Nintendo isn't creating a sim racing game anytime soon, but a game like Excite Truck? What are they waiting for? With a straight forward racing game like Excite Truck, they could really push the limits on visuals, and it would have a pick up and play value that should do well on a portable console like Switch.

Nintendo does need to use their IP's more generously. So many options are available to them. Internal resources may be more limited, but there are plenty of qualified developers out there who would make great partners in resurrecting some neglected franchises.

 

[GaemzDood]

I will also say this. I own a PS4, Xbox One, and a PC. I have access to any game I want that's not released on the Switch. However, I also want to be able to play Xenoblade 2 (assuming it's more than just a glorified MMO fetch quest sim), No More Heroes, Metroid, Fast RMX, Shin Megami Tensei, and portable versions of Terraria ad The Binding of Isaac that are not cut down. Similarly, Castlevania was always a handheld franchise, so Bloodstained on the Switch is very enticing, even at 720p despite the fact that I could play it at 1440p or 4k with downsampling.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Shoulder]

I still have to wonder why Nintendo abandoned analogue triggers and pissed on its grave... It is something I don't get at all from any perspective.

The only reasonable explanation I can think of is there are not many games that truly benefit from analog triggers. The vast majority of games don't really improve much with the use of analog triggers. I know you're going to bring up something like Mario Sunshine, but that can always be adapted with its control scheme.

Other than that, I don't really have an answer for you.

I will also say this. I own a PS4, Xbox One, and a PC. I have access to any game I want that's not released on the Switch. However, I also want to be able to play Xenoblade 2 (assuming it's more than just a glorified MMO fetch quest sim), No More Heroes, Metroid, Fast RMX, Shin Megami Tensei, and portable versions of Terraria ad The Binding of Isaac that are not cut down. Similarly, Castlevania was always a handheld franchise, so Bloodstained on the Switch is very enticing, even at 720p despite the fact that I could play it at 1440p or 4k with downsampling.

What I find interesting is a poll I saw on Nintendo Life about COD: WWII. Most said it wouldn't come and most weren't interested. Now seeing as Nintendo Life's community is filled with autistic 12 year olds with the English language capabilities of a dyslexic Iranian, I wouldn't take it seriously.

Sent from my SM-G900V using genital warts

Was that honestly necessary?

 

[Koenig]

The only reasonable explanation I can think of is there are not many games that truly benefit from analog triggers. The vast majority of games don't really improve much with the use of analog triggers. I know you're going to bring up something like Mario Sunshine, but that can always be adapted with its control scheme.

Other than that, I don't really have an answer for you.

Still, it seems really odd though, especially considering how the Switch does have other odd ball features that few games would benefit from like the IR Camera and HD Rumble; both of which are substantially more expensive to implement and have far less functional application for the majority of games than analogue triggers do. Again, I am very confused on the issue. Does one of the lead staff at Nintendo just dislike them? (Which based on the power people like Miyamoto seem to have over the company, even on whims, may not be that unlikely) Because I for the life of me can't think of any other reason not to keep them.

 

[GaemzDood]

The only reasonable explanation I can think of is there are not many games that truly benefit from analog triggers. The vast majority of games don't really improve much with the use of analog triggers. I know you're going to bring up something like Mario Sunshine, but that can always be adapted with its control scheme.

Other than that, I don't really have an answer for you.



Was that honestly necessary?

I have a form of Asperger Syndrome that was diagnosed about a year ago. I cope with it with humor, even if that means joking about Autism in the process. I joke about everything, I don't exclusively subjugate certain minority groups if that is what you are worried about. will delete it if you want me to.

Tbh I didn't even start joking about the spectrum until I saw Tumblr's spectrum community. To put it less than eloquently, they're a bunch of whiny SJWs who want society to coddle them and accuse anyone who tells them to get their shit together of being ableist eugenics supporters. They make me so god damn embarrassed to be on the spectrum, so I try my hardest to curb any association I might have with them.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[FriedShoes]

Geist can be reworked and be great, fuck yall

 

[Koenig]

Geist can be reworked and be great

Agreed.

fuck yall

No, thank you.

 

[Juegos]

Geist can be reworked and be great, fuck yall

I think that's what the new Prey is like:

 

[FriedShoes]

I think that's what the new Prey is like:

Bingo.
Although not quite.
I mentioned my ideas for a Geist reboot a while back, or maybe that was a fever dream.
Spoilers: the first game has a weird subplot where the whole "turning people into ghosts" thing is used to make ghost assassins (the overarching plot I think has you fight Satan or something in the end of the game lol).
But this reboot would take place in that alternate plot where you are a ghost assassin. Using your dumb possession powers in a Hitman-like sandbox to craftily murder targets, be it through objects or human possession. Maybe throw in some stuff where you have to fight other ghost assassins, whatever. I'm not a game designer, but I think the basic thing here would be pretty neat.

 

[GaemzDood]

yeah, definitely. I hate the fact that Nintendo has no "real/sim racing" franchise.

Wave Race: Blue Storm comes close. The physics and attention to detail is insane. The only one of those games that I want to be sims are 1080 (as a snowboarder, I want a snowboarding sim) and Wave Race. The rest should be arcade games.

Seriously, an Exite Bike/Truck sim would be weird. Those should always be arcade games.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[theMightyME]

I always dreamed of a race with nested menus that control everything... There would literally be a slider with sim on one side and arcade on the other... Then below that a collapsible messaged menu with individual sliders for things like gravity, friction, rigidity, etc... Basically you could make the game as sim or as arcadey as you want... With deep customization of you could just move a slider between sim and arcade and use the presets left by the developer.... Other customizations would include visual things like choosing between texture sets for a course, choosing lighting conditions, etc... Even hazards like lightning, fire, and ice... Which would all play into the other variables... The key to making the game approachable would be that the options are nested, you can keep it simple or go deep as hell