Pit-Jr Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 Don't Microsoft/Sony publish a lot of games from other companies, though (as in companies not owned by them, or buying out a company after they create the IP)? Yes and so does Nintendo, which makes everyones numbers look weaker (except Capcom, god bless them)
DCK Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 To be honest I wish Nintendo bought out more. They have the cash and the companies have the games. Their only new studios have been Kuju and Monolith in the last few years, while they have the money to buy out Amusement Vision and (former) Flagship, but didn't. If Nintendo keeps on using a lot of capacity to make Zeldas and the like, and then some more capacity for the Wii Sports games, of course there aren't going to be new franchises... Also, I wish they'd stop making a new Mario Sports title every year, and stuff like DK Barrel Blast, which are just average games with no original ideas. Shame they sell so well. They can keep up Mario Party because Hudson sucks anyway.
Zechs Merquise Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 I think the sequel thing is a real mainstay of the big Japanese software houses. Nintendo, SEGA, CAPCOM, Konami and Square all live of sequels. Just look at Streetfighter, Mega Man, Castlevania, Sonic and of course Final Fantasy.
jammy2211 Posted November 4, 2007 Author Posted November 4, 2007 I think the sequel thing is a real mainstay of the big Japanese software houses. Nintendo, SEGA, CAPCOM, Konami and Square all live of sequels. Just look at Streetfighter, Mega Man, Castlevania, Sonic and of course Final Fantasy. I think it's much more present in what the West do. I mean, look at EA, they'll make a new franchise and then milk it with yearly releases. Mysims and Boogie will no doubt have sequels next year. Same can be said for Ubisoft, they've already got RRR2 coming this month, then there are sequels to all the petz games on the way. The Japanese publishers do it too, but over there they seem to take more care with their sequels. I mean, we've already touched on how Mario / Zelda etc are never really the same game despite being sequels (Fludd to Physics manipulation, Ocarina to Masks to sailing to wolf transformation etc). Whatsmore, most of the Japanese publishers put a good 3 years or so between the releases of their biggest franchises, and much more often build the new game from the ground up, whereas western developers normally just use the old-games engine and improve it ready for the sequel.
Tellyn Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 To be honest I wish Nintendo bought out more. They have the cash and the companies have the games. Their only new studios have been Kuju and Monolith in the last few years, while they have the money to buy out Amusement Vision and (former) Flagship, but didn't. If Nintendo keeps on using a lot of capacity to make Zeldas and the like, and then some more capacity for the Wii Sports games, of course there aren't going to be new franchises... Also, I wish they'd stop making a new Mario Sports title every year, and stuff like DK Barrel Blast, which are just average games with no original ideas. Shame they sell so well. They can keep up Mario Party because Hudson sucks anyway. Kuju are third party, they're developing stuff for the PS2 and PC.
jammy2211 Posted November 4, 2007 Author Posted November 4, 2007 To be honest I wish Nintendo bought out more. They have the cash and the companies have the games. Their only new studios have been Kuju and Monolith in the last few years, while they have the money to buy out Amusement Vision and (former) Flagship, but didn't. If Nintendo keeps on using a lot of capacity to make Zeldas and the like, and then some more capacity for the Wii Sports games, of course there aren't going to be new franchises... I don't think you realise how difficult it can be to just go buy out a company. It's not just a matter of putting up the money and getting it, firstly the company has to want to be sold. Secondly Nintendo need to know it's worth the money, I mean, would it be worth them buying Square-Enix when with the money they could probably set up 100 seperate studio's all on their own? OF course you could say they should set up more studio's, but then you have the problem that you've no guarentee you'll get the staff to fill it. There are only so many people with the qualifications to make a game, and when you consider there are so many publishers trying to get these employees you soon see how difficult it can be. Also, I wish they'd stop making a new Mario Sports title every year, and stuff like DK Barrel Blast, which are just average games with no original ideas. Shame they sell so well. They can keep up Mario Party because Hudson sucks anyway. To be fair, non of the Mario Sports games or DK Barrel Blast were made by a first party studio. So they're not taking resources away from Nintendo, just using a big license to convince third parties to make exclusive games on the system.
tapedeck Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 (Foreword: DK Barrel Blast should have been the Rare game that was originally shown all those years ago!! Grrr.) Personally I feel Nintendo pay fan service too much at times. I still feel they are at their best when they are forced to take risks. Indeed, the Wii and DS were born from this notion alone. Oh, I have to say it seems like Nintendo were whoring out franchises during the Gamecubes lifespan. DDR Mario/Starfox Assault et al... They needed sales but it just annoyed me. Afterall, what were Nintendo doing last gen? Playing Wii???! Phew, done!
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 Anyway, introducing new IPs is the only way forward if they want to have something to fall back on in the future. This is very true. Pokemon is a prime example of this (or Nintendo acquiring the franchise). Look what Pokemon has done for Nintendo in a decade?! Truely exceptional. But Pokemon can't hold it down for Nintendo forever, Pokemon is at its zenith now with online play and almost 500 of the critters but if the series continues the same old routine on the Gameboy I predict a steady decrease in sells - Its at this point a new IP, idea or franchise is created or acquired. I feel Nintendo do not feel bothered at present, with this 'touch generation' and Wii-mote 'waggle' we see the 'cheap' games utilizing these features sell like hot cakes. The first year of the Wii featured extremely casual, extremely waggle-based inexpensive games...And the Wii sold/sells like crazy - This is what Nintendo sees as a profit-hungry company. The Gamecube is very much the antithesis; a couple of new IPs introduced (Luigi's Mansion, Pikmin, Animal crossing etc) but what was the outcome? Nintendo losing customers and being on the brink of exitting the Home Console scene. I feel no new IPs will be introduced this generation but rather expansion on the existing ones such as Link's Crossbow game.
jammy2211 Posted November 5, 2007 Author Posted November 5, 2007 I feel no new IPs will be introduced this generation but rather expansion on the existing ones such as Link's Crossbow game. There's already Disaster: Day of Crisis announced and Miyamoto has said there is another coming in 2008. I think there will be some, just launching your console with only new IP's doesn't give consumers much of a reason to buy it (*cough* PS3 *cough*). It's up to the third parties aswell to me, there are already some pretty nifty new IP's from third parties but we need more. The 2008 line up will be announced next year anyway, hmm.
The-chosen-one Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 im still hoping for a Kid icarus adventure game
darkjak Posted November 6, 2007 Posted November 6, 2007 I know that Nintendo want different kinds of games for their consoles. I mean, Nintendo once tried to get exclusive rights for Battlefield 1942 (before BF actually was released, just after the GC's release). I hope Nintendo go and acquire sumtin' kewl.
Hellfire Posted November 6, 2007 Posted November 6, 2007 How the hell do you guys know if we'll see new IPs or not? It's been one year and we've seen at least 2 new IPs with GC.
DCK Posted November 6, 2007 Posted November 6, 2007 I don't think you realise how difficult it can be to just go buy out a company.I perfectly do, but "it's difficult" shouldn't be a reason... Microsoft and Sony are seemingly able to buy out/exclusively license study all the time, and Nintendo is in a far more positive financial situation than they are yet all they do is hand out Mario to random third parties while only buying the occasional studio every four years or so. Nintendo is not as aggressive as they are in that area, and that is something they could improve on.
jammy2211 Posted November 6, 2007 Author Posted November 6, 2007 I perfectly do, but "it's difficult" shouldn't be a reason... Microsoft and Sony are seemingly able to buy out/exclusively license study all the time, and Nintendo is in a far more positive financial situation than they are yet all they do is hand out Mario to random third parties while only buying the occasional studio every four years or so. Nintendo is not as aggressive as they are in that area, and that is something they could improve on. So who have Microsoft and Sony bought out recently? I mean you could try draw reference to the studio's Sony bought in the 90s but it was a much different market back then so I guess we should keep things relevent. RARE is the only major example I can think of and things haven't really worked out there just yet. I'm not expert so I don't really know the legistics of it, but if it was as easy as you seem to be suggesting I've no doubt Nintendo, or Microsoft, or Sony or whoever would have already done it. I would suggest these companies most likely don't want to be bought out by any of the big 3, seeing as it would probably hurt their share prices / financial projects by being forced to develope exclusively to one console. Probably why the biggest purchases in the past months (Bioware, Bizarre) were made by compmanies who can offer much better prospects (EA and Activision). Also, I'm sure Microsoft are in a far superior positiion to throw money at these companies then Nintendo. Personally, I think Nintendo's focus should be on trying to build third party relations, not buying out companies. They should be offering insentives to companys, making them want to work with Nintendo, not just throwing money at them and expecting the final product to work out okay.
darkjak Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 Nintendo shouldn't buy more companies, but getting eclusivity deals for certain games is a must. Sony "bought" Soul Calibur III, they've bought all previous versions of GTA, and the same goes for both the "real" Final Fantasy games and MGS. Nintendo got Geist, which turned out to be mediocre.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 I perfectly do, but "it's difficult" shouldn't be a reason... Microsoft and Sony are seemingly able to buy out/exclusively license study all the time, and Nintendo is in a far more positive financial situation than they are yet all they do is hand out Mario to random third parties while only buying the occasional studio every four years or so. Nintendo is not as aggressive as they are in that area, and that is something they could improve on. ...And blow 8 Million smackers on a remote cover no one really needed.
DCK Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 So who have Microsoft and Sony bought out recently? I mean you could try draw reference to the studio's Sony bought in the 90s but it was a much different market back then so I guess we should keep things relevent. RARE is the only major example I can think of and things haven't really worked out there just yet.Done some research and there aren't many companies (althought Microsoft's acquisition of Lionhead is pretty big), true, but the games both Sony and Microsoft buy are something from which Nintendo can learn. I'm not expert so I don't really know the legistics of it, but if it was as easy as you seem to be suggesting I've no doubt Nintendo, or Microsoft, or Sony or whoever would have already done it. I would suggest these companies most likely don't want to be bought out by any of the big 3, seeing as it would probably hurt their share prices / financial projects by being forced to develope exclusively to one console. Probably why the biggest purchases in the past months (Bioware, Bizarre) were made by compmanies who can offer much better prospects (EA and Activision).I never said it was easy... Third parties do have a better hand as they probably offer better prospects for the developers in terms of sales and freedom.Also, I'm sure Microsoft are in a far superior positiion to throw money at these companies then Nintendo.I really doubt it, Microsoft's game section is losing big money, and there's only so much budget they can spend. Microsoft as a whole is huge, but they're not all about games in the end.Personally, I think Nintendo's focus should be on trying to build third party relations, not buying out companies. They should be offering insentives to companys, making them want to work with Nintendo, not just throwing money at them and expecting the final product to work out okay.True, they should earn more exclusives. However, I feel that getting a few new third parties just to improve capacity for making games can't hurt. EAD, Intelligent Systems and Retro can only work on so many games at the same time, we need more !
jammy2211 Posted November 7, 2007 Author Posted November 7, 2007 Done some research and there aren't many companies (althought Microsoft's acquisition of Lionhead is pretty big), true, but the games both Sony and Microsoft buy are something from which Nintendo can learn. Sony and Microsoft don't 'buy' games, they offer incentives to make it exclusive. Normally they'll offer a much lower royalties take for a series of games by the company, or 'fund' developement. Either way, Nintendo do their fair share of it, Monster Hunter 3 being the most recent example. There's already some good examples on the Wii though (Red Steel, SonicATSRs, FFCC:TCB etc). Fair enough they didn't want to do it all that much during the GameCube days, but who the hell would have chosen to develope exclusively on the GameCube no matter what Nintendo offered. (Even then there was still exclusives like Tales of Symphonia, Baten Kaos, Skies of Arcadia etc). True, they should earn more exclusives. However, I feel that getting a few new third parties just to improve capacity for making games can't hurt. EAD, Intelligent Systems and Retro can only work on so many games at the same time, we need more ! I think Nintendo have some very good relations with promising developement houses (Grasshopper, Atlus, NextLevelGames, Monster Games) etc. Personally I think they need to get compmanies like Konami and Square-Enix putting big budgets and first string teams behind some Wii exclusives, but it's too soon to know if that's happening . I do wonder if Nintendo expanding itself would be such a good thing. I mean, the level of quality control on Nintendo games is what they're reknown for, and the bigger they get the harder it'd be to monitor these projects and ensure things are up to their standards. Anywho, we'll see what happens in the next year I guess, I'm expecting the biggest announcements from the third parties in 2008 .
Recommended Posts