Hero-of-Time Posted June 22, 2014 Author Posted June 22, 2014 As long as Nintendo keep doing their own thing then 3rd parties will continue to ignore them and honestly I don't blame them. Nintendo doesn't exactly make it easy for them to port their games, what with Nintendo not being on par in terms of power. Then there is the way they treated 3rd parties in the past which comes back to bite them in the butt. I also believe there's something going with Nintendos online infrastructure. Too many 3rd party games have online modes cut or DLC missing. Why wouldn't a company want to make some extra moolah with DLC? I think it goes beyond more than not wanting to put effort in. I agree these content exclusive deals seem to be going a bit nuts now but if you look at how few 3rd party exclusives there are now, this is clearly the next best thing that one of the big 3 can do to sway consumers. In short, since the SNES Nintendo have ALWAYS done something different that makes it fiddly for 3rd party developers to port a game.
Serebii Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) As long as Nintendo keep doing their own thing then 3rd parties will continue to ignore them and honestly I don't blame them. Nintendo doesn't exactly make it easy for them to port their games, what with Nintendo not being on par in terms of power. Then there is the way they treated 3rd parties in the past which comes back to bite them in the butt. I also believe there's something going with Nintendos online infrastructure. Too many 3rd party games have online modes cut or DLC missing. Why wouldn't a company want to make some extra moolah with DLC? I think it goes beyond more than not wanting to put effort in. I agree these content exclusive deals seem to be going a bit nuts now but if you look at how few 3rd party exclusives there are now, this is clearly the next best thing that one of the big 3 can do to sway consumers. In short, since the SNES Nintendo have ALWAYS done something different that makes it fiddly for 3rd party developers to port a game. Didn't Ubisoft say that it was incredibly easy and cheap to port to the Wii U, though? I also don't think it's an issue with the online infrastructure, at least not for DLC. If I'm not mistaken, it has been said that DLC is very easy for developers to put up, and many do. I believe the issue is with developers thinking it's not worth it because of the userbase Edited June 22, 2014 by Serebii
Sheikah Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 See, they're right. It's annoyingly about specs and that's all they care for. They say they won't until the userbase is there, but that's utter bull. The Wii had a fantastic userbase, the 3DS has a decent userbase and they were both practically ignored by the core publishers and the Wii was mostly limited to mini-game collections and other such titles. People say "well the market for the Wii wasn't right for those games", and to an extent, sure, but if there were enough games, there would have been a market for it. Call of Duty on the Wii always sold pretty well, despite being less graphically capable. Hell, specs isn't the entire issue at all either, else we'd have got all the multiplatform games over the past year or so for 360/PS3 like Tomb Raider and so forth. There's also the factor of financial incentives. Practically every third party game these days has exclusive content on one platform or another. Nintendo typically doesn't deal with these financial incentives and are less likely to throw money at publishers in order to secure a title on the platform, or even just for exclusive content. They're showing a shift in that again though, like with the Gamecube, where they're paying third parties to develop exclusive games, but it's not enough. Nintendo devices, since the SNES, have never had strong third party releases. It's unfortunately been the case for almost 20 years now, and it's never going to change. The issue is simply that people don't want the console. There's no point releasing games on a console people don't want, or don't buy multiplatform games on due to the crappy network features and specs. And the blame for that falls entirely on Nintendo's shoulders.
Serebii Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 The issue is simply that people don't want the console. There's no point releasing games on a console people don't want, or don't buy multiplatform games on due to the crappy network features and specs. And the blame for that falls entirely on Nintendo's shoulders. That could explain the Wii U, yes, but not the lack of support of the Nintendo consoles that did well/are doing well, which gives the possibility that there's something larger here.
Jonnas Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 The issue is simply that people don't want the console. There's no point releasing games on a console people don't want, or don't buy multiplatform games on due to the crappy network features and specs. And the blame for that falls entirely on Nintendo's shoulders. He's not talking (solely) about the Wii U, he's talking in general. Nintendo has struggled with 3rd party support since the end of the SNES days, online or not.
Serebii Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 He's not talking (solely) about the Wii U, he's talking in general. Nintendo has struggled with 3rd party support since the end of the SNES days, online or not. Which is especially noteworthy with the Wii (before it died early), and the 3DS which has been the top selling console worldwide in 2011, 2012 and 2013.
Hero-of-Time Posted June 22, 2014 Author Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) Didn't Ubisoft say that it was incredibly easy and cheap to port to the Wii U, though? Yes, but we've also had developers saying it was a nightmare and the documention just wasn't there and very little support was offered to them. I've stated in the past that my mate who worked at Codemasters & Ubisoft said this was very much the case while he was there and they've always been a nightmare to work with. That could explain the Wii U, yes, but not the lack of support of the Nintendo consoles that did well/are doing well, which gives the possibility that there's something larger here. There's no conspiracy here. As I said before, they always do something different. N64- Cartridges when everyone went CD Cube- Mini Disc when everyone went DVD Wii- SD when everyone went with HD 3rd parties are looking to port their games with ease for maximum profits and if you are going to make it a headache to do this they simply aren't going to bother, especially when the other two seem to be bending over backwards to help them develop for their consoles and the userbase is already there. Which is especially noteworthy with the Wii (before it died early), and the 3DS which has been the top selling console worldwide in 2011, 2012 and 2013. Western developers don't really value handheld gaming and the Japanese developers have shifted to smart phones. Edited June 22, 2014 by Hero-of-Time Automerged Doublepost
Goron_3 Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 He's not talking (solely) about the Wii U, he's talking in general. Nintendo has struggled with 3rd party support since the end of the SNES days, online or not. The N64 didn't get 3rd party support for very obvious reasons and Nintendo screwed dev's over with the gamecube, whilst also advertising the console in a poor manner. The storage limit hurt it too. The Wii sold a lot and got some great 3rd party titles, but it was never going to get 'core' 3rd party titles because: 1. It would cost a lot of money to downgrade a game (the infrastructure of the Wii is completely different to that of a 360..it's not as simple as just turning some settings down). In many cases when we did get ports (CoD) it required developers to hire out studios to make the games. 2. The audience was completely different. Why release a game like Assassin's Creed on the Wii when the entire branding and marketing of the console is aimed at casuals/Nintendo gamers? If a gamer wants to play 'core' 3rd party titles they likely already own either a 360/PS3, which is completely true in most cases.
Serebii Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 Yes, but we've also had developers saying it was a nightmare and the documention just wasn't there and very little support was offered to them. I've stated in the past that my mate who worked at Codemasters & Ubisoft said this was very much the case while he was there and they've always been a nightmare to work with. There's no conspiracy here. As I said before, they always do something different. N64- Cartridges when everyone went CD Cube- Mini Disc when everyone went DVD Wii- SD when everyone went with HD 3rd parties are looking to port their games with ease for maximum profits and if you are going to make it a headache to do this they simply aren't going to bother, especially when the other two seem to be bending over backwards to help them develop for their consoles and the userbase is already there. Western developers don't really value handheld gaming and the Japanese developers have shifted to smart phones. All this furthers my initial point that their statement that they'll come when there's an install base is utter bull.
Serebii Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 The N64 didn't get 3rd party support for very obvious reasons and Nintendo screwed dev's over with the gamecube, whilst also advertising the console in a poor manner. The storage limit hurt it too. The Wii sold a lot and got some great 3rd party titles, but it was never going to get 'core' 3rd party titles because: 1. It would cost a lot of money to downgrade a game (the infrastructure of the Wii is completely different to that of a 360..it's not as simple as just turning some settings down). In many cases when we did get ports (CoD) it required developers to hire out studios to make the games. 2. The audience was completely different. Why release a game like Assassin's Creed on the Wii when the entire branding and marketing of the console is aimed at casuals/Nintendo gamers? If a gamer wants to play 'core' 3rd party titles they likely already own either a 360/PS3, which is completely true in most cases. I dunno, there was considerable overlap for the first 3 or so years. A decent Wii exclusive version of these core games would have mopped up very well.
Jonnas Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 The N64 didn't get 3rd party support for very obvious reasons and Nintendo screwed dev's over with the gamecube, whilst also advertising the console in a poor manner. The storage limit hurt it too. Oh yeah, there were good reasons, there. I think the Gamecube still saw quite a few multiplatform and 3rd party titles, though, and also the biggest 3rd party snub I've seen. (Yes, Namco, I'm looking at you and your inability to capitalize on the success of Soul Calibur II and Tales of Symphonia) Back to my original point, I was just pointing out that this isn't a "Wii U" issue, it runs deeper than that, definitely.
Serebii Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) I get the whiff of talking sh1te. Sorry but that's just my opinion. Well you're entitled to your opinion, but it is wrong :p You must have skimmed my post. Oh yeah, there were good reasons, there. I think the Gamecube still saw quite a few multiplatform and 3rd party titles, though, and also the biggest 3rd party snub I've seen.(Yes, Namco, I'm looking at you and your inability to capitalize on the success of Soul Calibur II and Tales of Symphonia) Back to my original point, I was just pointing out that this isn't a "Wii U" issue, it runs deeper than that, definitely. Which is what I was saying, yes. People seem to be jumping on me as if I was saying "oh it's not Nintendo's fault, it's everyone else's and they all suck", which is not what I said or even implied. -_- Edited June 22, 2014 by Serebii Automerged Doublepost
Hero-of-Time Posted June 22, 2014 Author Posted June 22, 2014 All this furthers my initial point that their statement that they'll come when there's an install base is utter bull. Until Nintendo release a console that is the same as the others, with near enough the same innards we will never know. If by some crazy chance Nintendo do enter the arms race and 3rd parties still snub them then yeah we can start calling foul play. Thing is, do you think 3rd party games would sell a substantial amount to keep the developers interested in the platform? Would a game like Assassins Creed, Battlefield, Fifa, Call of Duty, that launched on the same day, on all platforms, with all the same features sell as well on the Wii U as the other two? I'm not so sure.
Sheikah Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 That could explain the Wii U, yes, but not the lack of support of the Nintendo consoles that did well/are doing well, which gives the possibility that there's something larger here. Specs and network features... which ultimately means people would rather buy the multiplatform games elsewhere. Nothing else can explain why the more popular Wii sold less copies of a lot of 'hardcore' multiformats (and why the Wii died quicker). All this furthers my initial point that their statement that they'll come when there's an install base is utter bull. It's a win win comment. The Wii U won't get an install base because of their lower spec machine with poor network features. Core gamers (the majority) will go elsewhere. So they can essentially blame those limitations, without actually mentioning them.
Retro_Link Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 Thing is, do you think 3rd party games would sell a substantial amount to keep the developers interested in the platform? Would a game like Assassins Creed, Battlefield, Fifa, Call of Duty, that launched on the same day, on all platforms, with all the same features sell as well on the Wii U as the other two? I'm not so sure.Nope they wouldn't and I think this is down to something I'm not sure Nintendo can ever recover from, and that's the online communities established to existing franchises. People are unlikely to suddenly start buying such third party franchises on a Nintendo console, even if it's at the start of a new generation, because they've built up communities around certain games on the other consoles for the last 7 years. Everything they ever need for those games is already in place, easy to access, good to go and it's where their friends are.
Serebii Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Saw this post on GAF. It truly explains the entire third party issue and why it'll never change TL:DR: Nintendo is just too different from what the big third parties have become over the last 15 or so years. They seem to have a totally different vision for what they want console games to be compared to, say, EA. The OP is basically an elaboration of all the old arguments we've been through before, and I also think it misappropriates some of the later points. It's pretty much accepted that this all started when PlayStation provided developers with an escape from Nintendo's draconian policies of the 80's and 90's. Where things get hazy is Nintendo's relationship with third parties between the late 90's and today. For that timeframe I've actually given up trying to blame one side or the other, and I've begun to think that Nintendo and most of the major western third parties are just too different from one another. They seem to want different things. Starting around the Gamecube era, Nintendo actively tried to reverse the third party policies it was known for in the 8 and 16-bit days. I remember reading articles during the Gamecube era where developers stated Nintendo still had high minimum orders compared to Sony or Microsoft, but Nintendo had clearly tossed the strong-arm tactics of the 80's. Over the course of the Gamecube era, Nintendo more or less repaired their relationships with Japanese third parties, almost all of whom are still fairly willing to support Nintendo consoles where the market makes sense. I think the OP might misunderstand what actually caused the Gamecube's problems. I think the mini-DVD issue is a bit overblown, as there weren't a huge number of console games during that era that had to be cut down for Gamecube. In my opinion the real problem was that the Gamecube had no "selling point" to developers. The PS2 had its massive install base, the Xbox had Live and the familiarity of its PC-like architecture to western studios, but the Gamecube didn't really have anything to make it stand apart. Before the Gamecube launched Nintendo went on about how easy the system was to develop for compared to N64, but that wasn't enough. Nintendo didn't anticipate the Xbox being equally accessible to developers. I think all the other factors like the discs and controller were ultimately minor. The Gamecube's real problem is that it offered developers nothing the other two consoles didn't already offer. The Wii is I think where the truth really came to bare: The kind of console game market Nintendo wants is very different from what most of the dominant third parties want. It's probably a schism that really started during the PS1 era. Sony and third parties were all about flashy, cinematic games that leveraged the advantages of the CD format. Nintendo's games on the other hand have remained heavily mechanic-driven and lean on presentation. I remember quotes from Miyamoto stating that he didn't like using huge amounts of voice acting for games because he thought it was a waste of disc space. The N64 was basically designed for that man's games, and Miyamoto has typically come off as someone who doesn't really care for the flashiness of modern gaming. When Nintendo and Silicon Knights split up, they officially said it was due to "ideological differences." The other thing is that Nintendo has never really cared about making a platform specifically for the 16-35 male American gamer, which is where the PS1 started to take the industry. This means they didn't necessarily care about supporting games like shooters specifically. Guys like Iwata have repeatedly said they just want "fun games." This basically continued throughout the Gamecube era and went into overdrive with the Wii. In hindsight, third parties were probably a bit foolish to bet as much as they did on the PS3 and Xbox 360. Just look at how many of them went under because of it. On the other hand, Nintendo was probably foolish to expect the likes of EA and Take Two to support the Wii's vision, since it differed so much from their own plans. Did Nintendo really think those guys were gonna abandon their whole way of business? Even if it might have been more economically sensible to do so? Also, you have the western PC guard that recently invaded the console space, made up of guys like Epic, BioWare, Bethesda, Obsidian, and Irrational. These guys don't have a bad relationship with Nintendo because they don't have ANY relationship with Nintendo. Most of the aforementioned companies have never shipped a game for Nintendo hardware. They were all only making PC games during the time of Nintendo's console dominance. They occupy a world totally foreign to Nintendo. On Nintendo's end, they, like Sony, were completely caught off-guard by the rise of the west this gen. They didn't anticipate the western PC guard coming in, and those guys sure as hell weren't compatible with what the Wii was trying to do. And then there's online infrastructure. I don't think Nintendo has been unaware of the internet all this time, they just don't quite agree with how Sony and Microsoft are utilizing it. During the Gamecube era people at Nintendo (Iwata I think) stated that online gaming wasn't profitable enough, and that only a very small fraction of console gamers even used it back then (they were right). Friend codes were there because Nintendo thought of online gaming as basically a secondary way to play with your existing friends. To this day Nintendo doesn't seem to completely agree with the system of paying a subscription to play with and meet new people completely online. Admittedly, friend codes were a fucking terrible way to do this. Shit, just look at how much Nintendo still emphasizes local multiplayer over online. Anyway, to summarize, since the mid-90's you have: -Sticking to smaller media formats to accommodate game mechanics over flashy media. -Creating a console with a simpler control interface and weaker hardware in order to attract a whole new consumer base and encourage lower development costs. -Emphasizing local multiplayer over online for philosophical reasons. In my opinion what you have here is not incompetence on Nintendo's part, but an ideological war the company is waging against basically the entire rest of console gaming. All the companies in the console retail space right now are all about bigger and better AAA games, and Nintendo seems to be vehemently AGAINST that kind of thing. They are also against targeting one specific demographic. They won't block those kinds of games on their platforms, but they aren't specifically trying to make a console where those games will sell either. Just look at the third parties Nintendo is heavily supporting. They went and grabbed Monster Hunter, and they are deep in bed with Sega and Platinum. One of the biggest third party games Nintendo put front-and-center was Lego City Stories. They've been publishing western versions of Dragon Quest games themselves. Nintendo even offered to publish the Japanese version of Rayman Legends. Nintendo does try to put backing behind third party games, just only the ones it actually likes, which rarely, if ever, end up being a Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed. Personally, I don't think Nintendo can ever fully repair their relations with the big western third parties currently running the show because of these differences. They just seem to want different things. Whether that's good or bad depends on what you want. For Nintendo to become what the big third parties and a lot of gamers want them to be, they'd probably have to cease being the company that made so many of the games we love. On the other hand, the number of publishers willing to go along with Nintendo's way of doing things is shrinking. In my opinion Nintendo has two options if they wanna get a lot of good third party support and still remain Nintendo: 1) Somehow get Japan fully behind the Wii U. 2) Gain the heavy favor of indies and hope they blossom on Wii U. Japanese third parties are basically how the 3DS is kicking ass right now, and in my opinion indies are more similar to Nintendo ideologically than anyone else. Of course Nintendo's main problems are tearing Japan away from the 3DS long enough to notice the Wii U and competing with Sony's heavy push for indies.
Hero-of-Time Posted June 23, 2014 Author Posted June 23, 2014 So basically what many of us have said recently and in the past. The rise of the West is a great point and one that Goron_3 has made before. Just look at how the power has shifted to over here now. Last generation was awful for Japanese developers in terms of console output and with mobile dominating over there now I can't see the power swinging back in their favour.
Serebii Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 So basically what many of us have said recently and in the past. The rise of the West is a great point and one that Goron_3 has made before. Just look at how the power has shifted to over here now. Last generation was awful for Japanese developers in terms of console output and with mobile dominating over there now I can't see the power swinging back in their favour. I dunno, I could see the quest for the AAA cinematic experience is going to result in losses as expenses go up while returns are the same. We had so many developers fold last gen and I fully expect many to collapse this gen, too. As such, it could be the time for Nintendo and the Japanese industry to jump back in again. But who knows what the future will bring
liger05 Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 See, they're right. It's annoyingly about specs and that's all they care for. They say they won't until the userbase is there, but that's utter bull. The Wii had a fantastic userbase, the 3DS has a decent userbase and they were both practically ignored by the core publishers and the Wii was mostly limited to mini-game collections and other such titles. People say "well the market for the Wii wasn't right for those games", and to an extent, sure, but if there were enough games, there would have been a market for it. Call of Duty on the Wii always sold pretty well, despite being less graphically capable. Hell, specs isn't the entire issue at all either, else we'd have got all the multiplatform games over the past year or so for 360/PS3 like Tomb Raider and so forth. There's also the factor of financial incentives. Practically every third party game these days has exclusive content on one platform or another. Nintendo typically doesn't deal with these financial incentives and are less likely to throw money at publishers in order to secure a title on the platform, or even just for exclusive content. They're showing a shift in that again though, like with the Gamecube, where they're paying third parties to develop exclusive games, but it's not enough. Nintendo devices, since the SNES, have never had strong third party releases. It's unfortunately been the case for almost 20 years now, and it's never going to change. The fact that you make no mention of how Nintendo treated third parties shows just how in balanced your arguments always are. Nintendo screwed third parties and didn't give a damn about them before the mega drive and PlayStation arrived. Yes the Wii had a large install Base but could the Wii run 360/PS3 games? No!!!
Serebii Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 The fact that you make no mention of how Nintendo treated third parties shows just how in balanced your arguments always are. Nintendo screwed third parties and didn't give a damn about them before the mega drive and PlayStation arrived. Yes the Wii had a large install Base but could the Wii run 360/PS3 games? No!!! No, I didn't include that because I was dealing with the times after that. It is irrelevant to the point I made, especially as most third parties from those times don't exist anymore. Also, the Wii had a large install base, that's my point. It didn't NEED to run 360/PS3 games. It had a large enough install base for games to be developed on it without the massively increasing budgets and they would have done well and made a decent profit, but it was ignored. Also, see my above post.
liger05 Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 No, I didn't include that because I was dealing with the times after that. It is irrelevant to the point I made, especially as most third parties from those times don't exist anymore. Also, the Wii had a large install base, that's my point. It didn't NEED to run 360/PS3 games. It had a large enough install base for games to be developed on it without the massively increasing budgets and they would have done well and made a decent profit, but it was ignored. Also, see my above post. That's all well and good if developers want to do that but as has been said many a time Nintendo before they design consoles need to speak to third parties to see what they want. Developers have there own ideas and visions for there games and it could be argues underpowered hardware makes that vision a lot harder to bring to fruition. As for the 3DS, we know why that's not getting western third party support and it's simply down to the handheld market shrinking and the rise of mobile.
Dcubed Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 As for the 3DS, we know why that's not getting western third party support and it's simply down to the handheld market shrinking and the rise of mobile. If that's the case, then why didn't the DS, GBA or the original GB/GBC get any significant western support outside of smaller devs like Wayforward or throwaway shovelware from the larger studios either?
Hero-of-Time Posted June 23, 2014 Author Posted June 23, 2014 If that's the case, then why didn't the DS, GBA or the original GB/GBC get any significant western support outside of smaller devs like Wayforward or throwaway shovelware from the larger studios either? Probably due to the fact that western developers simply don't seem to care for the handheld market. It doesn't really fit with their vision of cinematic gameplay.
Retro_Link Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Pfft, the Gamecube didn't have anything to make it stand apart... It had a handle!
Hero-of-Time Posted June 23, 2014 Author Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) I dunno, I could see the quest for the AAA cinematic experience is going to result in losses as expenses go up while returns are the same. We had so many developers fold last gen and I fully expect many to collapse this gen, too. As such, it could be the time for Nintendo and the Japanese industry to jump back in again. But who knows what the future will bring Problem is that most Japanese developers seem to have lost the plot. Either they are chasing the mobile market or trying to develop games with a more western approach. It annoys me because most of us who grew up with these games fell in love with them because they were typically Japanese. Companies like Capcom have peed a lot of fans off as well with their mismanagement of certain franchises. Looking at it there's only really Nintendo left of the old guard who are staying true to their vision and roots, which is probably why their games continue to sell. Edited June 23, 2014 by Hero-of-Time
Recommended Posts