Should Nintendo go 3rd party?!

[Sheikah]

I would rather they die than go third party.

 

[/hyperbole]

 

Seriously though, them going third party is a horrible idea. Part of the reason their games are so polished, with a locked 60fps, so tight and responsive is because they were developed in tandem with the console, with the developers knowing everything about the ins and outs of it. Them going third party would kill that. At best, their games would have to be exclusive to one console so that the sort of polish we expect could be achieved, and for a third party, that would be suicide.

 

In addition to that, they'd have to significantly downsize. We'd stop getting niche titles like Kid Icarus, Pushmo, Rolling Western, and even Metroid and have to deal with annualised versions of Mario and Pokémon, with the occassional Zelda.

 

It would be horrific.

 

Put it this way - whatever they can achieve technically (60 FPS etc) can only ever be more impressive on far higher spec machines. It's not as if Nintendo software is some kind of magical creature that only performs properly on a machine with a Nintendo brand. Even those Nintendo machines are made from parts that they didn't personally hand forge, so what's the big deal?

[dazzybee]

This crops up time and time again. Never in any other setting would anyone use an n=1 observation to base the outcome of all future similar events.

 

The reason I don't agree with the comparison is because Sega were forced into their position whereas Nintendo have money and wouldn't be forced into anything.

 

Put simply, it wouldn't be the same situation at all and people who bring this example up never seem to consider that.

 

Well one, I don't agree, you DO look at history and similar circumstance to see how things could work out, in fact the entertainment industry in particular absolutely lives that way.

 

Two, I wasn't saying it would be identical, just wondering how it worked out for them as a comparison. I think it is relevant and interesting.

[Sheikah]

Yes, but you don't look at one instance of something happening in history and say 'well we can't do that, because this is what will always happen'. The world doesn't work that way.

 

Especially when the two companies are not the same, do not have the same calibre of content and most importantly, are not being forced into losing what made them great.

[Happenstance]

I think its a comparison that can be discussed but its one that is brought out way too often as a perfect reason why Nintendo shouldn't go third party and as has been said, the situations are very different.

[dazzybee]

Who's saying make a decision solely based on it? I'm sure I just said let's take a look? This Is what I mean by putting words in people's mouths and critisizing them for those words they never said. It's a bizarre thing you do.

 

But also, games,music, film, books, tv all work on the principal of that (mainly in the positive sense though). Something worked and is successful, let's do the same thing!

[Goron_3]

I would rather they die than go third party.

 

[/hyperbole]

 

Seriously though, them going third party is a horrible idea. Part of the reason their games are so polished, with a locked 60fps, so tight and responsive is because they were developed in tandem with the console, with the developers knowing everything about the ins and outs of it. Them going third party would kill that. At best, their games would have to be exclusive to one console so that the sort of polish we expect could be achieved, and for a third party, that would be suicide.

 

In addition to that, they'd have to significantly downsize. We'd stop getting niche titles like Kid Icarus, Pushmo, Rolling Western, and even Metroid and have to deal with annualised versions of Mario and Pokémon, with the occassional Zelda.

 

It would be horrific.

 

It is impossible to read this and not laugh. What a childish response. Yes, they clearly aren't capable to getting used to other hardware. I mean come on, are you being serious? Jesus Christ.

 

Anyway, there is a simple answer here:

 

They are only just getting used to HD development. If they temporarily abandoned Nintendo consoles, it would take them years to get used to even more powerful hardware (i.e. 2016-2017 would be the earliest these games would come out). By then, they would have had a chance to regroup, create a new strategy and restructure the organisation to give NoA more autonomy and they would need those teams to be ready to support a new console. It's not feasible.

 

That said, if they want to make some money, I'd be hugely interested in knowing how well a game like Metroid Prime 3/SMG would sell if it was given treatment on the PS4/PS3, but that will never happen.

[Serebii]

It is impossible to read this and not laugh. What a childish response. Yes, they clearly aren't capable to getting used to other hardware. I mean come on, are you being serious? Jesus Christ.

 

Anyway, there is a simple answer here:

 

They are only just getting used to HD development. If they temporarily abandoned Nintendo consoles, it would take them years to get used to even more powerful hardware (i.e. 2016-2017 would be the earliest these games would come out). By then, they would have had a chance to regroup, create a new strategy and restructure the organisation to give NoA more autonomy and they would need those teams to be ready to support a new console. It's not feasible.

 

That said, if they want to make some money, I'd be hugely interested in knowing how well a game like Metroid Prime 3/SMG would sell if it was given treatment on the PS4/PS3, but that will never happen.

That isn't what I said.

 

I said the reason their games are so polished is because they know the console in and out. If they were to go multiplatform, it would damage this somewhat. Working on two different consoles would cause disparity in their output. Ever notice that multiformat games run better on one console than another? This would happen and it'd kill things. If they went to just work for one console, it'd be damaging also, due to lack of income.

[liger05]

The idea that Nintendo can go third party home consoles and still stay have a handheld business is laughable. It's all or nothing and for that reason alone I would say no they should not go third party.

[Sheikah]

@Serebii 60 FPS has been achieved on next gen. Given that Nintendo's games would in no way push the next gen systems based on what they normally output, I see no problems.

 

X1/PS4 are also said to have very similar architecture. The only reason there have been issues so far is probably because they were rushing for launch and had a very short time to get to grips with it. Nintendo spend years between game releases so wouldn't really have that problem.

 

The idea that Nintendo can go third party home consoles and still stay have a handheld business is laughable. It's all or nothing and for that reason alone I would say no they should not go third party.

 

Why? Handhelds and consoles are very different.

 

As proven by 3DS being successful and Wii U failing. People clearly see/want something differently in handhelds than home consoles. They are distinct from one another.

[Goron_3]

That isn't what I said.

 

I said the reason their games are so polished is because they know the console in and out. If they were to go multiplatform, it would damage this somewhat. Working on two different consoles would cause disparity in their output. Ever notice that multiformat games run better on one console than another? This would happen and it'd kill things. If they went to just work for one console, it'd be damaging also, due to lack of income.

 

Nintendo's games are polished because they target framerate and controls from the get go, and then build the graphics up around that (hence why games in trailers they show don't often look 'amazing' but improve closer to release date).

 

To act as though they couldn't do the same with other hardware is extremely damning and offensive to the guys at Nintendo, particularly the EAD and Zelda teams.

[Pestneb]

I think there are two points being made here

 

1) Building the hardware gives an insiders advantage that allows added polish

2) Developing a game on two systems means increased development time or reduced polish.

 

I agree with both those points. I also agree Nintendo would be capable of releasing games with as much polish on the other two consoles. But I would suggest that the added costs of producing games on multiple platforms, licensing fee's and reduced prominence would impact (to varying degree's) on the financial benefits.

 

 

Also on Liger's point on all or nothing, I think he may have a point.

 

If the home hardware is withdrawn and they release on other consoles, I think releasing on a proprietary handheld would be foolish.

Once they set a precedent of withdrawing when the going gets tough, it harms consumer perception.

 

Better to pull ALL home console development or ALL hardware.

basically the 4ds becomes their one and only console. No Mario on PS4/5 or Xone/xtoo, only on their handheld.

OR kill all hardware development and go multiplatform.

 

I think either of those is a weak idea, but better than diluting their brand by becoming a 3rd AND 1st party developer.

I can just imagine people getting confused about the 4ds being released, because they'd be likely to assume Nintendo had gone bust and thats why mario is developed by sony now....

[Phube]

The only 3rd party I'd like to see is Nintendo + Steam. I could stomach that. As long as is was a two way street.

[khilafah]

no way!

 

nintendo have still got another console in them. Lets see how successful that is before all the 3rd party talk.

[Grazza]

Anyone a big sega fan to talk about them and what happened to their games? Do they still do incredible games? They were pretty much the "other half" of the games industry and now they've fallen away massively. Just wondered if anyone knew more about them and why etc

 

I probably don't know enough about it, but I think they made two massive mistakes. The first of which was to keep releasing expensive hardware that didn't get supported properly (particularly the Mega CD and 32X). The Saturn was actually good, but expensive. People no longer seemed to "follow" Sega, which brings me onto the 2nd point...

 

Sega never, ever knew how to keep their franchises going over successive consoles. They had the market in the palm of their hands with Sonic and Sonic 2, but never made them a focus of future consoles. The same with their other franchises like Golden Axe, Streets of Rage etc. By the time they'd worked out how to put Sonic into 3D (Sonic Adventure on the Dreamcast), the market had disappeared. Personally, I don't think the average person who had enjoyed the Megadrive games could have got to grips with it anyway.

 

Sega could have got Climax to develop Landstalker into their own Zelda equivalent, but it stayed a one-off. Whilst Nintendo was putting out Ocarina of Time and Mario 64, Sega didn't really have anything like that. In many ways it's to Sega's credit that they were so original and didn't rely on franchises, but I'm sure this didn't help with keeping the wider fan base.

 

Anyway, I know you didn't want a history of Sega, but if you look at what they kept making into recent years, it was the continuation of arcade-style games like Virtua Fighter, Afterburner and OutRun. All well-respected, I believe, but not much for a fan base to get their teeth into. It was nothing at all like waiting for the next Metroid or Zelda.

 

What I'm trying to say is that, despite my doubts, I do think Nintendo would have much more chance of success (as a 3rd-party developer) than Sega. Nintendo still makes those deeper, longer games that fans get passionate about. Despite any trouble Nintendo may encounter, "Mario" and "The Legend of Zelda" really do still mean something amongst the wider gaming market. Whatever the quality of the games would be, I guarantee Nintendo would still have many people's attention as it ventured into the multi-platform world.

[Miharin]

Nintendo should not go 3rd party, they should just focus on handheld consoles. Release a definitive version of DS next year (call it 4DS or whatever) and make it such that you can stream it to your TV.

[drahkon]

Release a definitive version of DS next year (call it 4DS or whatever) and make it such that you can stream it to your TV.

 

Holy crap, that I haven't thought about that.

 

Forget everything I said before. This is the thing I want.

[Jonnas]

Anyone a big sega fan to talk about them and what happened to their games? Do they still do incredible games? They were pretty much the "other half" of the games industry and now they've fallen away massively. Just wondered if anyone knew more about them and why etc

 

This crops up time and time again. Never in any other setting would anyone use an n=1 observation to base the outcome of all future similar events.

 

The reason I don't agree with the comparison is because Sega were forced into their position whereas Nintendo have money and wouldn't be forced into anything.

 

Put simply, it wouldn't be the same situation at all and people who bring this example up never seem to consider that.

 

I was the one who brought up Sega a few times before. I do think it's a very relevant comparison, because Hardware!Sega was so similar to Nintendo in many respects. Not a 1:1 comparison, mind you (which is what I assume you meant by "n=1"), but we can be sensible enough to draw the relevant similarities.

 

We are talking about companies that have a healthy number of IPs, and that strive to deliver quality experiences tailor-made for their consoles. Both of them develop games in-house, but also employ 2nd parties for certain franchises. Both also strove to come up with new ways to play (whether they be hit or miss).

 

Sega made a few blunders that lead to their downfall (namely, releasing 3 major pieces of hardware in the span of a few years), even though the Dreamcast was amazing (and way ahead of its time). There's no denying that the games they made in the meantime were incredible, though, and they had tons of good IPs by the time they went under (they didn't rely on Sonic back then as much as Nintendo relies on Mario now).

 

But how many of those IPs saw new life after the fact? Many of the Dreamcast classics were re-released on other consoles, and they even released stuff like Panzer Dragon Orta and Billy Hatcher, showing they were still the same Sega.

 

That phase didn't last long. Considering all of their revenue came from software sales, they started getting pickier: either something had brand recognition, or it wasn't worth pursuing. Soon enough, they stopped coming up with new stuff, and many of their franchises just died (even though they had "last chances", like Panzer Dragoon or Nights). Nowadays, they rely mostly on Sonic, FM and Virtua Fighter (they publicly said this, even) and even something like releasing (not even developing) Bayonetta 2 was considered too risky (Bayonetta's sales weren't shabby, and the game does have a healthy fanbase).

 

I usually argue that the same would eventually happen with Nintendo, should they drop out. Keep releasing their type of games at the beginning, but start suffering financially, each time a game does less than amazing. Eventually, they would end up relying solely on their best-sellers (Mario, Zelda, Pokémon), and take fewer risks. Games like the recent Fire Emblem and Kid Icarus wouldn't get made if Nintendo was third party, and the same could be true for franchises like Metroid (more popular abroad than in Japan, and even then not a best-seller).

 

Anyway, these are my usual arguments whenever I compare Sega and Nintendo's (hypothetical) cases. I know Nintendo is in a better financial position right now, but I think the only thing that means is that Nintendo would take longer than Sega to reach this point.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Retro_Link

[Sheikah]

No by n=1 I mean that you can't use a single example to argue that that's the way it'll go for anyone else. It's a moot point, really. You can study the case to try and figure out where they in particular went wrong, but with just one example you can't really conclude that the same would happen again for everyone else.

 

Especially when you consider that Sega are vastly different to Nintendo in the sense that they were forced into that position and lost much of what made them great. When you lose that, you're not going to produce the same kind of games. And as said before, a lot of Sega's games didn't carry over with generations. Nintendo have several very popular to popular well established game series. What happened to Sega therefore would be very unlikely to happen to them.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Sheikah

[flameboy]

 

For me the fact that Nintendo merged their handheld and home console hardware divisions point towards this happening.

 

I think they still need to up their anti. Give us a paid for online network like Plus and Live and attach Virtual Console behind that pay wall....give access to the retro catalogue whole hog rather than slowly trick out the titles. If they can get the tech working make it a streaming service if it can work for Gaikai/Playstation Now with much more current games why can't it with NES,SNES,N64 Get home structuring and maintaining the online.

 

Failing that go third party get the pld games on PSN and XBL and become super super profitable as a result. Think how much the next Mario Galaxy would sell across PS4, Xbox and PC. Hell bring innovation by making your own peripherals for those consoles...I don't see this as the most immediate solution they still have plenty to offer in the handheld arena.

Edited January 19, 2014 by flameboy

[Serebii]

For me the fact that Nintendo merged their handheld and home console hardware divisions point towards this happening.

 

I think they still need to up their anti. Give us a paid for online network like Plus and Live and attach Virtual Console behind that pay wall....give access to the retro catalogue whole hog rather than slowly trick out the titles. If they can get the tech working make it a streaming service if it can work for Gaikai/Playstation Now with much more current games why can't it with NES,SNES,N64 Get home structuring and maintaining the online.

 

Failing that go third party get the pld games on PSN and XBL and become super super profitable as a result. Think how much the next Mario Galaxy would sell across PS4, Xbox and PC. Hell bring innovation by making your own peripherals for those consoles...I don't see this as the most immediate solution they still have plenty to offer in the handheld arena.

They specifically said that it isn't the case. Rather, what they're doing with their next hardware is having them work with a similar architecture, but different specs, so that assets can be shared easily, games can be ported easily, connect easily etc.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Retro_Link
Automerged Doublepost

[Cube]

Nintendo should not go 3rd party, they should just focus on handheld consoles. Release a definitive version of DS next year (call it 4DS or whatever) and make it such that you can stream it to your TV.

 

I've always been more of a fan of their console games than handheld games. The games feel different.

 

Unless they pull of something truly special with the hardware (which, considering everything they've made after the GameCube, isn't promising - they've had great features, but not great hardware), this would effectively be Nintendo abandoning home consoles and would destroy them for me.

 

As for going handheld and third party. The way I see it, we'll get a few more western games (like Metroid Prime, F-Zero), Nintendo will be able to produce games more often (in previous generations working on 360/PS3 was a pain, now it isn't), and they'll be able to make their games even more polished due to the extra power of the consoles. And nothing important would be lost as their games aren't using the GamePad for gameplay, either.

 

The fact that games like LittleBigPlanet and Ratchet & Clank are big sellers on the PS3 show that there is an audience for Nintendo's more family-orientated games, and many more will flock over to them if they did go third party.

[Kaepora_Gaebora]

I like this idea of a paid online service, behind which is Nintendo's entire back catalogue of games. No drip feeding of games each week, the next console should just be called "Nintendo", they should save the next home console Zelda for its launch, and pay £X amount to get the NES/Snes/N64/GC back catalogue at your fingers tips!

 

Back to the topic...

 

I don't think they should go 3rd party unless they completely stop making consoles. I can see what Sheikah is getting at, but I would think "why would I bother buying a 3DS for Mario, when I can play it on my XB1?"

So then I think there would be no point in them trying to sell their own games machine because it's Nintendo's identity to buy their system for their games. I know handheld/console is slightly different, but honestly I don't think they are that different any more and, as I said, people would look at the situation and get the console where they can get Nintendo games and more, rather than just the Nintendo machine.

 

Slightly hungover, not sure that's coherent or makes sense...

[Jimbob]

I hope not, even with Sega having gone 3rd party since the demise of the Dreamcast. I've personally found that Sega just hasn't been the same since going down this route. Games are good, but they've not been the same. Playing the retro Sonic games on a Nintendo or XBox 360, yes they are good but not as a remember them.

 

With Nintendo, i sure as hope they don't go third party. The Handheld market is virtually non-competitive with other developers. Nintendo's only competitor is the Vita, and sales certainly show that isn't doing as well as Sony want. Looking at other peoples opinions here, i'm in agreeance with some views. If it came to it, Nintendo should either combine a handheld with the home console. So you could take games like Zelda, Mario, Metroid etc including the virtual console on the move. Then when you get home, press a button transfer back over to the console and continue the game where you left off. With the handheld with it's screen becoming a second screen and controller for the console for say items or in-game menus without the need to jump through menus to find what you need. And you could still have the "off screen" play by a press of a button as it is at the present moment with the WiiU. No need for multiple controllers anymore, just the one simple controller for all needs.

 

Or the other route, abandon the home console market and focus on the successful handheld market. As i mentioned earlier, it's completely uncontested from Microsoft and Sony, but the Smartphone market is catching up. Which is where you can focus on.

[Sheikah]

Regarding the comment 'why would I buy the 3DS when I can get Mario on X1/PS4' - surely if that were true, nobody would have ever bought any Nintendo handheld if they could just buy a Nintendo home console? The handheld/home console formats must be different enough for people ever to buy both anyway. People can't get Pokemon, Phoenix Wright or Layton on home console, for instance.

[Serebii]

Its not unusually hostile

 

 

 

Its not unusual but its not right either! you can come across as a Nintendo PR man sometimes, always siding with them but it shouldn't warrant the attitude that you sometimes get because of it

 

That said its hard to read text as it might get said, someone might write something as a more jovial "your damn well nuts", but it can be read as if your a Sargent in a war film screaming it too

 

What was my point?...oh yeah its not fair and we should all think about what we type more before hitting post

If they severely screw up, I'd be there with pitchforks like everyone else.

 

However, this situation isn't as bad as the media and people here project. I mean hell, more than half of their projected loss is money they shifted into R&D beyond the R&D budget. Plus the expansion in building and staff. These things won't show results for at least a year, and so in that year they will look like significant loss. If it wasn't for their expansion last year, Nintendo's financials would look a lot better, and possibly even bordering a profit, despite the Wii U's woes.

 

In 2013, Nintendo changed. Their management changed. They increased their workforce considerably and even have a new building. We won't see the results of these things until the latter half of this year.

 

It's also worth noting that whatever Iwata announces on the 30th isn't "rushed in the past two weeks" as people will undoubtedly say, but has been in the works for months.