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

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
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
Forza basically allows you to choose how much of a sim you want it to be. DriveClub and Project C.A.R.S. allow you to adjust weather and TOD pre-race.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
Forza basically allows you to choose how much of a sim you want it to be. DriveClub and Project C.A.R.S. allow you to adjust weather and TOD pre-race.

Sent from my SM-G900V using genital warts
but none even close to the extent of what I am talkign about... I am sayign you could make it gran turismo, or you could make it mario kart, or you could make it burn out... you could make it so that when you hit a car it launches into the air and floats away as if it was in space... basically I want a sandbox, not a snadbox game per se... but a sandbox to making your own racing game... almsot like a playable garys mod where you can literally turn on and off elements of the physics engine, or skew them to your liking... and as I said all of that would be in colapsable nested options... you could also just move a slider from sim to arcade, and everything in between

but how bad ass would it be to get deep into the setting and save a settings profile and then invite some friends to play online.... add in a track editor and some stuff like item blocks in Mario which could be turned on or off and you could basically make any kind of racer... I could make an f-zero clone, or I could make a mario kart clone, or a GT clone, or a stunts (an old pc racing game with loop de loops and such ) clone... or just make somethign wierd and new.. maybe create a sort of rocket league clone even...

that is the kind of racing game I want.. somehting I can tinker with forever
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
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.
Geist wasn't meant to compete with Halo. It was a first person adventure game first and foremost, much like Metroid Prime.

Still though, look at any of the concepts I came up with and try and tell me they're not great ideas.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
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.
It's a real shame, because a lot of my favorite games on Nintendo's systems from the GameCube onwards have been first party. And if quality is what is causing Nintendo's games to dominate sales on their own platforms, then Metroid Prime would be their best selling game of all time. I hate to say it, but I feel like audience age has just as much to do with it as quality. That's why Sega will happily bring Sonic to Nintendo systems but not Yakuza, Binary Domain, or Valkyria Chronicles. They published one of the best Wii games ever with MadWorld and it got a ton of coverage by the gaming press, but the experiment failed.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
Geist wasn't meant to compete with Halo. It was a first person adventure game first and foremost, much like Metroid Prime.

Still though, look at any of the concepts I came up with and try and tell me they're not great ideas.

Sent from my SM-G900V using genital warts
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=653527

Nintendo may not have been trying to directly compete or copy Halo, but they certainly intended for Geist to be their answer to the phenom that was Halo. Geist is a good example of Miyamoto trying to be something he is not. Miyamoto is a god in the videogame world, but even he has his limits. Thrusting into the first parson shooter genre was not kind to him, and the project went poorly. Its no surprise that the incredible Metroid Prime Trilogy was created by a western developer, even if it was being overseen by Nintendo of Japan. If you want to see more Western type games from Nintendo, it will come from Retro and NOA, and I am genuinely hoping that Nintendo loosens up their shackles on these studios. They have the ability to bring some Western influence into some neglected IP's that Nintendo keeps dormant. If Retro doesn't release 3-4 games on Switch, Nintendo is failing to utilize their talent. Even if Retro isn't the same group of guys from Prime, they have acquired plenty of talent from various developers over the years, and have given young talent plenty of time to mature and become prepared to make top notch software.
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=653527

Nintendo may not have been trying to directly compete or copy Halo, but they certainly intended for Geist to be their answer to the phenom that was Halo. Geist is a good example of Miyamoto trying to be something he is not. Miyamoto is a god in the videogame world, but even he has his limits. Thrusting into the first parson shooter genre was not kind to him, and the project went poorly. Its no surprise that the incredible Metroid Prime Trilogy was created by a western developer, even if it was being overseen by Nintendo of Japan. If you want to see more Western type games from Nintendo, it will come from Retro and NOA, and I am genuinely hoping that Nintendo loosens up their shackles on these studios. They have the ability to bring some Western influence into some neglected IP's that Nintendo keeps dormant. If Retro doesn't release 3-4 games on Switch, Nintendo is failing to utilize their talent. Even if Retro isn't the same group of guys from Prime, they have acquired plenty of talent from various developers over the years, and have given young talent plenty of time to mature and become prepared to make top notch software.
If Nintendo doesn't announce a new Metroid Prime game, I will literally slap a bitch.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
Another thing about Geist is that pretty much every "Halo killer" got mediocre reviews. The original Killzone, which also was marketed the same way, got similar scores to Geist (high 60s, low 70s). However, Killzone 2 went on to be one of the most praised and technically accomplished shooter games of the last generation.

Personally, I think the rendering pipeline had a lot of flaws (it makes heavy use of baked shadows and lightmaps despite being a deferred render, interior lighting looks super unnatural compared to something like Metro 2033, and there's crippling input lag).

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
I don't know that it has to be a Prime game, but Metroid for sure.
Prime was essentially a classic Metroid game in the 1st person. They just need to go back to the classic Metroid formula.

On another note, Other M could have been a good character action game has the combat actually had some depth and had controls not been utter balls. TheGamingBrit goes more in depth on it.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
I was referring the inevitable flame war (or our more civilized variant thereof) that always manifests when we bring up Other M.

*Throws Jueg into sack and throws of cliff just to be safe*

*Resists urge to comment on other M*
>2017
>Throwing people off cliffs instead of helicopters


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
http://nintendoeverything.com/ubiso...ch-why-it-will-be-more-successful-than-wii-u/
I had a shitty work night, so my blood boiled when I read this even though I'm pretty chill for the most part. Literally, the first part of this interview has the head stating "it [Switch] will still be for kids."

This is how the rest of the industry perceives Nintendo, like it or not. They do not take the big N seriously that much, even when they're successful like they are right now. They will always see their system as "for kids," and Nintendo literally does nothing to counteract this assertion. It seems like they just go along with it. It's a perpetual cycle.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

Koenig

The Architect
It essentially what I have been harping on Nintendo for a while now; even if they sell 100M units of a system, every AAA third party game that comes to it will be an after thought due to the perceived child stigma associated with Nintendo. Obviously if they are in a situation where they are selling 100M units they are in a good positions, but that does not hange the fact that the perceived stigma is still working against them in the long run.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
It essentially what I have been harping on Nintendo for a while now; even if they sell 100M units of a system, every AAA third party game that comes to it will be an after thought due to the perceived child stigma associated with Nintendo. Obviously if they are in a situation where they are selling 100M units they are in a good positions, but that does not hange the fact that the perceived stigma is still working against them in the long run.

Why would you bitch at Nintendo for third parties making shitty versions of their games for the Switch? I don't understand the entitlement that people have these days. Nintendo cant force third parties to make great ports, and if they can sell loads of hardware and first party software, then what incentive is there to fork out money for better third party ports? None! Its only your personal interest that are influencing your believe that Nintendo must find a way to shoehorn better versions of the games you personally want to play on their hardware.

Look, Nintendo's job is to create a large userbase that third parties can sell to. If those third party games don't sell, its not Nintendo's fault, and if third parties bail because their software sales suck on the platform, then that is supply and demand people. Its how it works. You are not entitled to play the games you want to play on the platform you want to play them on.

I have been of the opinion that Nintendo's success rest on their own shoulders. If they can prove the Switch successful on their own, they will actually gain more attention from third parties. The less and less the Switch platforms needs those publishers, the more likely those publishers are to actually support it.
 

mattavelle1

IT’S GOT A DEATH RAY!
Moderator
Why would you bitch at Nintendo for third parties making shitty versions of their games for the Switch? I don't understand the entitlement that people have these days. Nintendo cant force third parties to make great ports, and if they can sell loads of hardware and first party software, then what incentive is there to fork out money for better third party ports? None! Its only your personal interest that are influencing your believe that Nintendo must find a way to shoehorn better versions of the games you personally want to play on their hardware.

Look, Nintendo's job is to create a large userbase that third parties can sell to. If those third party games don't sell, its not Nintendo's fault, and if third parties bail because their software sales suck on the platform, then that is supply and demand people. Its how it works. You are not entitled to play the games you want to play on the platform you want to play them on.

I have been of the opinion that Nintendo's success rest on their own shoulders. If they can prove the Switch successful on their own, they will actually gain more attention from third parties. The less and less the Switch platforms needs those publishers, the more likely those publishers are to actually support it.
GET THE HELL OUTTA HERE!!! COMMON SENSE ISNT NEEDED ON INTERNET FORUMS!!!!
 

Koenig

The Architect
Why would you bitch at Nintendo for third parties making shitty versions of their games for the Switch? I don't understand the entitlement that people have these days. Nintendo cant force third parties to make great ports, and if they can sell loads of hardware and first party software, then what incentive is there to fork out money for better third party ports? None! Its only your personal interest that are influencing your believe that Nintendo must find a way to shoehorn better versions of the games you personally want to play on their hardware.

Look, Nintendo's job is to create a large userbase that third parties can sell to. If those third party games don't sell, its not Nintendo's fault, and if third parties bail because their software sales suck on the platform, then that is supply and demand people. Its how it works. You are not entitled to play the games you want to play on the platform you want to play them on.

I have been of the opinion that Nintendo's success rest on their own shoulders. If they can prove the Switch successful on their own, they will actually gain more attention from third parties. The less and less the Switch platforms needs those publishers, the more likely those publishers are to actually support it.
If you would read my argument, that is not what I am "bitching" about; I am however harping on the fact that they do not actively seek out third party involvement. Nintendo has not tried to cater to huge swaths of the gaming market for decades, and it has resulted in a blatantly obvious cycle every generation that at this point I am tired of having to point blank explain. It has nothing to do with entitlement, but simple observation.
 

mattavelle1

IT’S GOT A DEATH RAY!
Moderator
If you would read my argument, that is not what I am "bitching" about; I am however harping on the fact that they do not actively seek out third party involvement. Nintendo has not tried to cater to huge swaths of the gaming market for decades, and it has resulted in a blatantly obvious cycle every generation that at this point I am tired of having to point blank explain. It has nothing to do with entitlement, but simple observation.
But they have, they have built consoles for them to put there games on. Why does Nintendo HAVE to seek them out? MS and Sony just put out a console and they come to it. Nintendo puts out a console and somehow they gotta pay off 3rd party's to come? Dosent seem right when they do the same thing the others do which is make consoles.

If they don't like money, or think Nintendo is kiddy that's there problem.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
If you would read my argument, that is not what I am "bitching" about; I am however harping on the fact that they do not actively seek out third party involvement. Nintendo has not tried to cater to huge swaths of the gaming market for decades, and it has resulted in a blatantly obvious cycle every generation that at this point I am tired of having to point blank explain. It has nothing to do with entitlement, but simple observation.

I quoted your post, not singling you out so don't take it personally. Plus I have been drinking beer so my opinions are blunt. LOL Anyway, creating a sizable usebase for third parties to sell to is all that is reasonable for Nintendo. Its unreasonable for them to spend money for ports that are unlikely to sell well on their platform. Nintendo is its own worst enemy with third parties. Nintendo is in competition with those other publishers for software sales, and when Nintendo releases a multiple games in a single year on their platform, how much room is there for third party game sales? It gets tight. The average console to software ratio is around 10 to 1, and when Nintendo dominates software sales on their own platforms, doesn't it seem only reasonable for third parties to seek out lower hanging fruit?
 

EvilTw1n

Even my henchmen think I'm crazy.
Moderator
Nintendo cant force third parties to make great ports, and if they can sell loads of hardware and first party software, then what incentive is there to fork out money for better third party ports? None!
Well, the counter-argument for this is always going to be "third parties are such a huge part of the industry, so why can't Nintendo get good third-party games while Sony and Microsoft can?"

Which, at face value, is a sensible question.

But in the physical universe we reside in, it becomes a far less sensible question. It is not a matter of third parties always being lazy bastards trying to stick it to Nintendo fans. Nor is it a matter of "well if Nintendo made some nebulous-better-effort, then the third parties would come running." It is a matter of, yes, economics, but it's also a matter of audiences. The audience for gaming is not homogeneous. There are different audiences that buy different things. Different audiences will have overlap in their buying habits, but not total overlap - different gamers will buy different games. The Nintendo audience is not going to have the same buying habits as the Microsoft audience.

Say there's a pool of people at a movie theater. Say it's an audience made 90% of 18-22 year old males. Say there are two movies showing at the same time - Alien:Covenant and The Zookeeper's Wife. I have a thing for Jessica Chastain, but as remarkable as I find her to be, my money is on more people in that crowd going to see Aliens.
I am however harping on the fact that they do not actively seek out third party involvement.
Which is false. They sought out EA last gen to help them make online games. They sought out partnerships with Ubisoft the past two home console gens to get Ubi games (both multiplat and exclusive) on their consoles. They gave third parties a more conventional controller to work with, and even changed its shape and stick layout to accommodate their wishes.

What Nintendo hasn't done is something like MS did by paying out the ass for a game like GTA IV.

Maybe they should. I don't think so, but that's JMO.
 
Last edited:

Koenig

The Architect
But they have, they have built consoles for them to put there games on. Why does Nintendo HAVE to seek them out? MS and Sony just put out a console and they come to it.
Except they don't just do that, they actively seek out third party support, fund for exclusives, cut deals to ensure quality, and the like; Likewise because they have built up AND maintained their market, they no longer need to put near as much effort into securing 3rd party support as third parties already have a degree of insurance in the for of a loyal (and content) market. To Nintendo's credit, Microsoft and Sony generally do not have the resources to create their own games, which means that they have to rely on 3rd party support and have thus sought to actively maintain it. Nintendo by contrast has let their 3rd party connection (Especially in the west) languish, on top of the fact that it was never very strong to begin with due to their monopolistic practices being effectively broken during the N64 era.

Nintendo puts out a console and somehow they gotta pay off 3rd party's to come? Dosent seem right when they do the same thing the others do which is make consoles.
Nintendo does not do the same thing however, as I pointed out above. I don't think it would be economically viable long term for Nintendo to go completely out of their way to fund or pay for third party support, however they really should put forward a real effort to break the negative connotations associated with their system that is costing them consumers and games alike. For example; Monster Hunter is one of the few examples in which Nintendo outright payed to have a 3rd party game on their system; if they did as you sayed and not pay off developers, we would likely never have been introduced to that game, at least on Nintendo systems.

As my post about a 100M unit sell alluded to, they don't have to do this if they are already doing well, but there is no valid argument that they shouldn't. No one benefits in the long term, as Nintendo systems perpetuate their anti-3rd party reputation, Nintendo ultimately loses out on an increase in positive net income, publishers miss out on potential customers, and consumers in general receive less choice as a whole.

If they don't like money, or think Nintendo is kiddy that's there problem.
On this I completely disagree. If large portions of AAA games are bypassing Nintendo systems due to an ill perceived "Kiddie" stigma, cutting off one of the most lucrative and financially stable portions of the market in the process, then it ABSOLUTELY is Nintendo's problem.

I quoted your post, not singling you out so don't take it personally. Plus I have been drinking beer so my opinions are blunt. LOL Anyway, creating a sizable usebase for third parties to sell to is all that is reasonable for Nintendo. Its unreasonable for them to spend money for ports that are unlikely to sell well on their platform.
On this I agree in part, note however that I am more concerned with the market buying the games in question. I ask you, why do these games not sell well on Nintendo systems? Why do the people who generally buy those games skip Nintendo systems? Why is this? And as a business, how could Nintendo change this?

Nintendo is its own worst enemy with third parties. Nintendo is in competition with those other publishers for software sales, and when Nintendo releases a multiple games in a single year on their platform, how much room is there for third party game sales? It gets tight. The average console to software ratio is around 10 to 1, and when Nintendo dominates software sales on their own platforms, doesn't it seem only reasonable for third parties to seek out lower hanging fruit?
Again I agree, but that only really applies to the die-hard Nintendo fanbase who purely buy Nintendo games, and not the "core" demographic who would buy most third party games. The problem is because of Nintendo's reputation as a "kiddie" console and a continued lack of third party support; that portion of the market generally bypasses Nintendo. That is what is where the vast majority of my criticisms and complaints about Nintendo are directed, as ultimately their is no objective reason why a Nintendo system can not appeal to everyone, and not just the casual and diehard Nintendo fan; only Nintendo's own actions (and lack thereof) hold their systems back in the grand scheme of things, and it is ultimately up to them to take the initiative.
 

Koenig

The Architect
Which is false. They sought out EA last gen to help them make online games. They sought out partnerships with Ubisoft the past two home console gens to get Ubi games (both multiplat and exclusive) on their consoles. They gave third parties a more conventional controller to work with, and even changed its shape and stick layout to accommodate their wishes.

What Nintendo hasn't done is something like MS did by paying out the ass for a game like GTA IV.

Maybe they should. I don't think so, but that's JMO.
I am very curious how much EA and Nintendo actually worked together, as beyond the initial articles stating that they worked together I have seen nothing to substantiate it. Ubisoft ended up being the only publisher doing much of anything in the AAA space with Nintendo last gen, but they were the exception to the rule. As for the Gamepad, I completely disagree in this regard; the gamepad had a more standard layout, but as a controller was despised by almost everyone that I know and have spoken with. The only people who seem to like the gamepad are the diehard Nintendo fans here.
 

mattavelle1

IT’S GOT A DEATH RAY!
Moderator
Except they don't just do that, they actively seek out third party support, fund for exclusives, cut deals to ensure quality, and the like; Likewise because they have built up AND maintained their market, they no longer need to put near as much effort into securing 3rd party support as third parties already have a degree of insurance in the for of a loyal (and content) market. To Nintendo's credit, Microsoft and Sony generally do not have the resources to create their own games, which means that they have to rely on 3rd party support and have thus sought to actively maintain it. Nintendo by contrast has let their 3rd party connection (Especially in the west) languish, on top of the fact that it was never very strong to begin with due to their monopolistic practices being effectively broken during the N64 era.

Nintendo does not do the same thing however, as I pointed out above. I don't think it would be economically viable long term for Nintendo to go completely out of their way to fund or pay for third party support, however they really should put forward a real effort to break the negative connotations associated with their system that is costing them consumers and games alike. For example; Monster Hunter is one of the few examples in which Nintendo outright payed to have a 3rd party game on their system; if they did as you sayed and not pay off developers, we would likely never have been introduced to that game, at least on Nintendo systems.

As my post about a 100M unit sell alluded to, they don't have to do this if they are already doing well, but there is no valid argument that they shouldn't. No one benefits in the long term, as Nintendo systems perpetuate their anti-3rd party reputation, Nintendo ultimately loses out on an increase in positive net income, publishers miss out on potential customers, and consumers in general receive less choice as a whole.

On this I completely disagree. If large portions of AAA games are bypassing Nintendo systems due to an ill perceived "Kiddie" stigma, cutting off one of the most lucrative and financially stable portions of the market in the process, then it ABSOLUTELY is Nintendo's problem.

On this I agree in part, note however that I am more concerned with the market buying the games in question. I ask you, why do these games not sell well on Nintendo systems? Why do the people who generally buy those games skip Nintendo systems? Why is this? And as a business, how could Nintendo change this?

Again I agree, but that only really applies to the die-hard Nintendo fanbase who purely buy Nintendo games, and not the "core" demographic who would buy most third party games. The problem is because of Nintendo's reputation as a "kiddie" console and a continued lack of third party support; that portion of the market generally bypasses Nintendo. That is what is where the vast majority of my criticisms and complaints about Nintendo are directed, as ultimately their is no objective reason why a Nintendo system can not appeal to everyone, and not just the casual and diehard Nintendo fan; only Nintendo's own actions (and lack thereof) hold their systems back in the grand scheme of things, and it is ultimately up to them to take the initiative.
I don't see AAA bringin in a whole lot of money for Nintendo tho. There bread and butter is "everyone". So if "kiddie" keeps on rakin in the dough without AAA trust me Nintendo the business will continue being "kiddie" no matter what.
 

Koenig

The Architect
I don't see AAA bringin in a whole lot of money for Nintendo tho. There bread and butter is "everyone". So if "kiddie" keeps on rakin in the dough without AAA trust me Nintendo the business will continue being "kiddie" no matter what.
Nintendo makes a cut off of every single game sold for their system. Nintendo can bring in a metric f'k ton of money if they ever created a viable ecosystem for the games most third parties are aimed at. They have done a good job of appealing to the Japanese audience the past few years (Again, Monster Hunter comes to mind) but they have done very little in terms of the Western market.
 

mattavelle1

IT’S GOT A DEATH RAY!
Moderator
Nintendo makes a cut off of every single game sold for their system. Nintendo can bring in a metric f'k ton of money if they ever created a viable ecosystem for the games most third parties are aimed at. They have done a good job of appealing to the Japanese audience the past few years (Again, Monster Hunter comes to mind) but they have done very little in terms of the Western market.
MH is penatrating the western market, there spending in the right places and that shows if we're using MH and the defacto 3rd party game.

And again it's not up to Nintendo they obviously do go after 3rd party they think will be worth it like. But 3rd party gotta do there part and commit to be honest.

This has more to do about what Koenig wants personally tho than it has to do with what's right for Nintendo. That's not there model and don't act like it is, that's MS and Sonys model. Nintendo is very chooses on what to support 3rd party wise and for them along with there exclusIves that's ok by them.

3rd party's if they wanna come I'm sure Nintendo wouldn't say "oh no you can't bring CoD!" Or "no rockstar we don't want GTA!" That would be ridiculose which is why I think it lies on 3rd party's and not Nintendo.
 

Koenig

The Architect
MH is penatrating the western market, there spending in the right places and that shows if we're using MH and the defacto 3rd party game.
Isn't that basically what I said? Also, what about western support?

And again it's not up to Nintendo they obviously do go after 3rd party they think will be worth it like.
I agree, but it seems to me that Nintendo only bothers to go after Japanese 3rd party support, and generally completely ignored the west.

But 3rd party gotta do there part and commit to be honest.
Agreed, but I think we can all agree that most business are to short sighted to see any long term potential and thus invest the resources it would take to cultivate on a Nintendo system.

This has more to do about what Koenig wants personally tho than it has to do with what's right for Nintendo. That's not there model and don't act like it is, that's MS and Sonys model. Nintendo is very chooses on what to support 3rd party wise and for them along with there exclusIves that's ok by them.
No need to make this personal mate. If not the avid consumer, then who's to say what is right for Nintendo? This is a discussion, not a demand. I would hope that you understand that rather than discount any argument out of hand.

3rd party's if they wanna come I'm sure Nintendo wouldn't say "oh no you can't bring CoD!" Or "no rockstar we don't want GTA!" That would be ridiculose which is why I think it lies on 3rd party's and not Nintendo.
Although Nintendo basically did that to some indie developers last generation due to their obsolete censorship rule, I agree that Nintendo is not likely to do anything like that towards major games like GTA and CoD. It is up to 3rd parties to bring their games to Nintendo systems, but it is up to Nintendo to ensure that the market is their to support them in the first place.
 

mattavelle1

IT’S GOT A DEATH RAY!
Moderator
Isn't that basically what I said? Also, what about western support?

I agree, but it seems to me that Nintendo only bothers to go after Japanese 3rd party support, and generally completely ignored the west.

Agreed, but I think we can all agree that most business are to short sighted to see any long term potential and thus invest the resources it would take to cultivate on a Nintendo system.

No need to make this personal mate. If not the avid consumer, then who's to say what is right for Nintendo? This is a discussion, not a demand. I would hope that you understand that rather than discount any argument out of hand.

Although Nintendo basically did that to some indie developers last generation due to their obsolete censorship rule, I agree that Nintendo is not likely to do anything like that towards major games like GTA and CoD. It is up to 3rd parties to bring their games to Nintendo systems, but it is up to Nintendo to ensure that the market is their to support them in the first place.
It's not personal it's the truth. How do I know that? You have said the same thing for years.

But yeah on this topic we don't agree on a lot if anything. Nintendo is fine if AAA wanna come I'm sure Nintendo would love that and that's where I stand on this. I don't think Nintendo should have to "woo" them when the others don't.
 

Koenig

The Architect
And Nintendo has done practically none of the things I have been sharing my thoughts on with you guys, and that turned out so well for the Wii U. :p I have been consistent, but their has been no frame of reference to directly prove or disprove what I have been saying.

But yeah on this topic we don't agree on a lot if anything. Nintendo is fine if AAA wanna come I'm sure Nintendo would love that and that's where I stand on this. I don't think Nintendo should have to "woo" them when the others don't.


It's not worth it, we are going in circles now. This discussion can wait for another time though, because...

MONSTER HUNTER ON SWITCH! :mlove::mlove::mlove::mlove::mlove::mlove::mlove:
 

mattavelle1

IT’S GOT A DEATH RAY!
Moderator
And Nintendo has done practically none of the things I have been sharing my thoughts on with you guys, and that turned out so well for the Wii U. :p I have been consistent, but their has been no frame of reference to directly prove or disprove what I have been saying.




It's not worth it, we are going in circles now. This discussion can wait for another time though, because...

MONSTER HUNTER ON SWITCH! :mlove::mlove::mlove::mlove::mlove::mlove::mlove:[/QUOTE]

Please quit comparing WiiU and Switch. If you can't see there is an obvious difference with the way there handling this machine then your lost worse then me in BotW.
 

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
I think there is no easy answer for how Nintendo can capture the casual-core COD-type of market while at the same time keeping the audience they already have. I don't believe that it's an issue of Nintendo suddenly throwing more money out into the ether.

The truth is that they DO throw a lot of money towards third parties, it's just that they don't choose the same partners that MS and Sony choose. Their rich history of "2nd party" titles is precisely a series of licensing and co-development deals with third parties. Nintendo SPD (now absorbed into EPD) had multiple teams that were frequently assisting third parties to make games exclusive to Nintendo's platforms, sometimes using original characters and sometimes using Nintendo's own IP. Mario and Luigi is absolutely comparable to a game like Resistance: the IP is owned by the hardware manufacturer, and while the development is mostly done by a third party company, the hardware manufacturer's own developers assist the third party company to ensure a high level of quality in their game.

I think if you were to directly compare a list of games that Nintendo has created as a collaboration, co-funding, or licensing deal with a third party, it would be larger than any list Sony and Microsoft could provide. Granted, Sony and Microsoft probably spend more cash securing deals for exclusive DLC in entirely third-party games, or for timed exclusivity, but I'm not convinced that the total number of resources (in both cash and manpower) isn't at least comparable between Nintendo and the other two companies.

The problem that I think is more accurate is the one that @theMightyME has been bringing up since he first started discussing the Hybrid system idea: having two mouths to feed is a serious challenge for Nintendo as a company. Any given generation, you might have seen many great third party exclusives on one system but not the other (mostly, the portable systems had the larger variety of third party successes). This would leave one of the systems languishing with nothing but first party titles, resulting in a lower install base, and lss incentive for independent third parties to support that system. Yet again, all that matters is the install base.

From that perspective, this generation has a completely different premise for Nintendo. They no longer have to split exclusive third party games between two systems, which means that it's less likely for the switch to have software gaps, which means it's more likely that it will have a large install base, so that third parties will be naturally attracted to the system.

So again, I don't think the issue is that Nintendo doesn't spend enough money on charming third parties. I think they do spend more than enough money on that, and now that they only have one mouth to feed, Nintendo's third party problems will "magically" disappear by the end of the generation.

The exact same process that isn't successful in one context can be perfectly successful in a different context. If I have limited resources (and you should never assume that resources are unlimited), and I'm trying to bake two cakes, then it's likely that one cake will suffer from scarcity. However, if I choose to only make one cake, then I'll have enough resources and then some more to really make that cake the best goddamn cake you have ever eaten, all without having to spend any more money (which I don't have) or hire an assistant (who might not know what he's doing), or having to change the process at all.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
It makes you wonder if there are PlayStation or Xbox forums with people talking about all the games that release on Nintendo platforms but not on their preferred platform? I kind of doubt it, because it seems to be accepted that in order to get those games, you must purchase Nintendo hardware, but that doesn't seem to be fully accepted when it comes to Nintendo. I'm not talking first party titles either, but games like Monster Hunter and Bravely Default where they could release on other platforms but the publisher simply chooses not to. When you sit a Switch beside a PS4 or X1, its pretty obvious that its a very different platform, and thus has a software library that is equally unique.

Switch is selling well, and its getting third parties to pay attention, but odds are Assassins Creed and Red Dead Redemption are not coming to Switch no matter how well it sells. COD stands a chance because it does have some history of success on Wii. Bottom line is there will be some cross over, but Nintendo forking out a bunch of money for third party games that wouldn't otherwise grace the platform trying to change culture on their platforms isn't going to happen. For one, Nintendo wants their own first party games to be the top sellers. They make far more money from their own software than they do from third party titles. They aren't going to have their own first party content take a back seat for third parties, not happening.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
It makes you wonder if there are PlayStation or Xbox forums with people talking about all the games that release on Nintendo platforms but not on their preferred platform? I kind of doubt it, because it seems to be accepted that in order to get those games, you must purchase Nintendo hardware, but that doesn't seem to be fully accepted when it comes to Nintendo.
I'm into PS and general gaming discussions and yes, people talk about it. Usually they're like this:

Group 1 - They don't give a damm about Nintendo. They find Zelda kinda nice, but they wouldn't buy a Nintendo device for it.
Group 2 - They ask why such dev decided to keep a game exclusive to Nintendo since that said game could sell a lot more on PS4. Those sort of discussions happen with Bayoneta, Monster Hunter, Bravely Default, DQ and some other games overall.
Group 3 - They believe that a Nintendo device is useless and discuss why Nintendo don't go Sega and put their games on PS4.

Group 3 is quite rare, but they're still out there. I was in a thread about this a few months ago.

Group 1 is ubiquitous. They only talk about Nintendo once in a while, when something like Zelda Breath or Xenoblade happen, then they forget it and go back to Destiny, GTAV, Persona 5 and all their X1 and Steam deals.

Group 2 is not as big as Group 1, but they still dream about a open world MH on PS4 for example and some other Nintendo exclusive games they'd like to play. Now, after MHXX announcement, new open-world MH for PS4 threads are out there again. The only thing that limits the numbers in Group 2 is the fact that usually when you want a Nintendo game on your platform that means that you're into Japanese games and PS4/X1 fanbase are mostly people that don't care about Japanese games.

For those, PS4 fanbase has already enough of them in titles like Dark Souls, Nioh, Persona, Gravity Rush, MGS, FF, Warriors, Tekken, Street Fighter and many others and they usually consider those Japanese titles better than the Japanese ones that Nintendo get. They consider the Japanese franchises on PS4 the prime top-notch Japanese material while Nintendo get the rest or old remakes like this Street Fighter 2 for NSW. For example they consider a game like FExSMT rubbish compared to Persona and MH a PS2 game with better graphics and all others just weird Japanese stuff. Usually the only superior franchises they recognise Nintendo has is Xenoblade, Zelda and DQ. All the others are on PS.

However those who are really into Japanese stuff and own those consoles they still talk about what Nintendo gets, but as I said before, most PS users consider that they're already well served with enough quality Japanese content.

For Western content, Nintendo has nothing a PS user would want and for Nintendo developed games, they know that they need to buy a NSW for it or they join the Group 3 and discuss about Nintendo going Sega :D
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
I quoted your post, not singling you out so don't take it personally. Plus I have been drinking beer so my opinions are blunt. LOL Anyway, creating a sizable usebase for third parties to sell to is all that is reasonable for Nintendo. Its unreasonable for them to spend money for ports that are unlikely to sell well on their platform. Nintendo is its own worst enemy with third parties. Nintendo is in competition with those other publishers for software sales, and when Nintendo releases a multiple games in a single year on their platform, how much room is there for third party game sales? It gets tight. The average console to software ratio is around 10 to 1, and when Nintendo dominates software sales on their own platforms, doesn't it seem only reasonable for third parties to seek out lower hanging fruit?
Some 3rd party games are better than some Nintendo games, and some Nintendo games are better than 3rd party games.

For example, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is better than Super Mario Sunshine.

If we're going off the argument that Nintendo games just sell better because of quality and not because the word Nintendo is on the box, why did Super Mario Sunshine outsell the Prince of Persia titles on the GameCube despite the trilogy being super polished on the system and not "lazy" in any way?

Better yet, if Nintendo really does influence purchasing decisions with their logo, why didn't Eternal Darkness sell well? Why did Bayonetta 2 need a petition to break 1 million sales (before you say it's "niche", look at the sales of the Devil May Cry games or Ninja Gaiden)? Why hasn't Metroid Prime been an overwhelming success? Why didn't the Nintendo collaboration project from a multimillion dollar series known as Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes sell well?

The fact is that Nintendo's "for kids" stigma has prevented some of their own best games from taking off on their platform, as well as some truly amazing 3rd party titles.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
Some 3rd party games are better than some Nintendo games, and some Nintendo games are better than 3rd party games.

For example, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is better than Super Mario Sunshine.

If we're going off the argument that Nintendo games just sell better because of quality and not because the word Nintendo is on the box, why did Super Mario Sunshine outsell the Prince of Persia titles on the GameCube despite the trilogy being super polished on the system and not "lazy" in any way?

Better yet, if Nintendo really does influence purchasing decisions with their logo, why didn't Eternal Darkness sell well? Why did Bayonetta 2 need a petition to break 1 million sales (before you say it's "niche", look at the sales of the Devil May Cry games or Ninja Gaiden)? Why hasn't Metroid Prime been an overwhelming success? Why didn't the Nintendo collaboration project from a multimillion dollar series known as Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes sell well?

The fact is that Nintendo's "for kids" stigma has prevented some of their own best games from taking off on their platform, as well as some truly amazing 3rd party titles.

Sent from my SM-G900V using genital warts
I never said all Nintendo games are superior in quality. Where did you get that from? I have said Nintendo's first party games have historically dominated the top of the sales charts on their platforms, and this means less third part games are purchased. There is a pattern of what the buying habbits look like on Nintendo platforms.

Nintendo realeases far more first party games than any other console manufacture. Compare this to Xbox where they have basically Halo and Gears, otherwise the platform is wide open for third parties.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

Koenig

The Architect
I think the point @GaemzDood was trying to make was that the market and consumer perspective on Nintendo systems has never been adequately prepared for 3rd party, nay, "Core" and "Mature" games to do well (Please note the quotations). The quality example was not a mark against your previous statement, but to help illustrate the point he made.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
The fact is that Nintendo's "for kids" stigma has prevented some of their own best games from taking off on their platform, as well as some truly amazing 3rd party titles.
User base and sales are a huge factor, but I agree that Nintendo's 'for kids' image is real and is also a factor for many 3rd parties just avoid Nintendo consoles.

NSW is selling well and so far there's no mature third-party AAA game on Switch. It may change next year when Switch hits 10m units, but I still doubt it.

I want to see now where are all those devs from that picture:



Many were expecting multiple AAA releases. I keep expecting just kids games, a few old ports, crossovers & collaborations and a few "exclusive for Switch" games. All of them will be games "for the usual Nintendo fanbase". That's the basic PR statement since Wii and I don't see this changing.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
Nintendo's userbase has historically been different from their competitors. However, I don't think its as simple as "Nintendo is for kids." Nintendo's own IP's normally target a wide audience. Mario and Zelda are neither kiddy or mature. People of all ages enjoy these games. Anther example could be the Metroid Prime games. They all sold well over a million units, while other third party games targeting a similar audience didn't fair as well. Even when Nintendo left the door wide open for third party game developers to dominate software sales on their new platform the Wii U, there were no real successes.

Take a look at releases later this year for all platforms. What must have game is Sony or Microsoft offering that could negatively effect COD WW2 sales? Do they even have a first party game releasing worth mentioning? Nintendo on the other hand will have Mario Odysey and Xenoblade 2 releasing, and Zelda DLC that will resurrect any lost enthusiasm for the game. This is what happens on a yearly basis. Third parties release their games, and Nintendo releasing competing software that will likely take precedence for the majority of gamers who chose to buy a Nintendo platform.

Through the volume of software that Nintendo releases, they offer more first party competition for third parties than any other console manufacture. The landscape for third parties on Nintendo platforms will never be as lucrative as others.
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
Nintendo's userbase has historically been different from their competitors. However, I don't think its as simple as "Nintendo is for kids." Nintendo's own IP's normally target a wide audience. Mario and Zelda are neither kiddy or mature. People of all ages enjoy these games. Anther example could be the Metroid Prime games. They all sold well over a million units, while other third party games targeting a similar audience didn't fair as well. Even when Nintendo left the door wide open for third party game developers to dominate software sales on their new platform the Wii U, there were no real successes.

Take a look at releases later this year for all platforms. What must have game is Sony or Microsoft offering that could negatively effect COD WW2 sales? Do they even have a first party game releasing worth mentioning? Nintendo on the other hand will have Mario Odysey and Xenoblade 2 releasing, and Zelda DLC that will resurrect any lost enthusiasm for the game. This is what happens on a yearly basis. Third parties release their games, and Nintendo releasing competing software that will likely take precedence for the majority of gamers who chose to buy a Nintendo platform.

Through the volume of software that Nintendo releases, they offer more first party competition for third parties than any other console manufacture. The landscape for third parties on Nintendo platforms will never be as lucrative as others.
Last generation, Microsoft's IPs offered major competition against 3rd parties. The Halo series and Gears of War series went HAM on Metacritic and went on to define the HD console generation, while the best selling games for both the PS3 and 360 were...wait for it...1st party games. The difference is that Sony and Microsoft have created a platform that allows 3rd party developers to branch out their content while still offering critically acclaimed 1st party content (Microsoft has admittedly slacked off in this regard). Having a monopoly on your own system is not necessarily a good thing.

Also, that still doesn't explain why titles like Metroid Prime and Eternal Darkness didn't do well (1 million units isn't Mario or Zelda tier) despite being critically acclaimed Nintendo published games.

Third party Wii U games sold badly because they were badly optimized games on a system that nobody wanted.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
User base and sales are a huge factor, but I agree that Nintendo's 'for kids' image is real and is also a factor for many 3rd parties just avoid Nintendo consoles.

NSW is selling well and so far there's no mature third-party AAA game on Switch. It may change next year when Switch hits 10m units, but I still doubt it.

I want to see now where are all those devs from that picture:



Many were expecting multiple AAA releases. I keep expecting just kids games, a few old ports, crossovers & collaborations and a few "exclusive for Switch" games. All of them will be games "for the usual Nintendo fanbase". That's the basic PR statement since Wii and I don't see this changing.
What I find disheartening is that my favorite Nintendo franchises are the ones they'll most likely not bring back.

People say the Wii was a "betrayal", but I call bullshit. The Wii gave us an original Metroid Prime game, two Fatal Frame titles, a sequel to Sin & Punishment, and new IPs like Disaster: Day of Crisis, Zangeki no Reginleiv, Pandora's Tower, and The Last Story.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
Last generation, Microsoft's IPs offered major competition against 3rd parties. The Halo series and Gears of War series went HAM on Metacritic and went on to define the HD console generation, while the best selling games for both the PS3 and 360 were...wait for it...1st party games. The difference is that Sony and Microsoft have created a platform that allows 3rd party developers to branch out their content while still offering critically acclaimed 1st party content (Microsoft has admittedly slacked off in this regard). Having a monopoly on your own system is not necessarily a good thing.

Also, that still doesn't explain why titles like Metroid Prime and Eternal Darkness didn't do well (1 million units isn't Mario or Zelda tier) despite being critically acclaimed Nintendo published games.

Third party Wii U games sold badly because they were badly optimized games on a system that nobody wanted.

Sent from my SM-G900V using genital warts
There is a volume disparity. Nintendo releases "more" titles than Microsoft and Sony, especially Microsoft. I just looked at 360's top 5 best selling games, excluding Kinects pack in game, none were first party games. After that it is just Halo and Gears, games I already brought up.

I'm not suggesting having a Monoply on your platform is great, only that is has been that way on Nintendo consoles for a long time now.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
What I find disheartening is that my favorite Nintendo franchises are the ones they'll most likely not bring back.
That's one of the reasons that made me left Nintendo die-hard fan boat. I don't feel like paying full price on what Nintendo's been selling since that dreadful year that Nintendo released Federation Force, Star Fox Zero and Zelda TriForce. Even with Switch, which is an outstanding system I admit, I still can't make a top 10 list of games I'd like to buy on NSW.

Splatoon is brilliant though. Zelda and Xenoblade too. Pokemon is still incredible and those are the reasons that I'll be buying Switch eventually. Other than that, Nintendo lacks the variety of genres and the deals that only a multi-platform system can offer. I think that's why many of us still dream about a Nintendo console that could bring back the thirdies even though we know that it most likely will never happen again.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
by the way, here's your 3rd-party content: Fifa 18 "for Switch". The "portable" FIFA. Meaning: "the iPad version" lol.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
System has been out for 3 months
I don't get your point. What's the connection between this and the list of all games available for NSW and the list of upcoming games?

You can add the new Mario game on your top 10 list of games you want to buy even though it wasn't released yet.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
Let me share my Switch wishlist:

Splatoon 2
Fire Emblem for Switch
Xenoblade Chronicles 2
MHXX
Pokemon (it'll happen)

That's it so far.

I might get Switch for MHXX next year though (I'm not sure yet), but considering that I don't care much about other big Nintendo franchises I think it will be hard to add 10 games to this wishlist even after NSW complete 3 years in the market.

My NSW will probably become a Splatoon/Pokemon exclusive machine and that is reason enough to buy a Switch. On the other hand. ... in the Wii/DS days.. I couldn't stop buying games for them.
 
Top