Should Nintendo go 3rd party?!

[Serebii]

I don't even know if this on topic anymore, either way I'm sure I'll be mauled, but here goes;

 

Imagine all the resources freed up if Nintendo didn't have to worry about developing and maintaining a hardware platform; how much more focused they could be. Not to mention the money they'd save; it would be cheaper to pay licensing fees to other platform holders, or just pay none at all to release on PC (not to mention financially less risky since they wouldn't have to worry about their sole option failing). And the advantage of being able to react to market trends in a much more nimble manner (instead of having to wait for a console cycle to end).

 

And who's to say they don't release their own peripherals (like the Wii Fit Balance Board, or even the Wii U controller; Rock Band and Guitar Hero did it) across every platform available (Xbox/Playstation/PC/Steam/SmartTVs/Tablets)? It would be vastly cheaper and much more accessible. (Maybe they make the successor to the 3DS that peripheral; able to link up to any wireless device like every smart phone and tablet currently does.)

 

Being platform agnostic, there's no reason why Nintendo's games couldn't do similar numbers to the 29 million copies that GTAV sold in six weeks. And if you think it would compromise the quality of Nintendo's games than you're really doing a gross disservice to the quality of Nintendo's designers and programmers.

 

*Braces self*

Imagine all the resources they had to drop and people that needed to be made redundant because they no longer get their hardware income, licensing income etc. plus no longer getting 100% of the money from their own software.

 

They would have to downsize, considerably, if they were to go third party.

[daftada]

Nintendo's IP is so strong they'd be able to negotiate really good rates with Sony or Microsoft if they did choose the third-party route. I.e. We'll give you exclusivity and you don't take a penny from our sales.

[Retro_Link]

@Daft that was one of my main thoughts too.

 

Nintendo put so much time and money into console development and R&D, they seem to put a lot of pressure upon themselves in this department, as does the industry as a whole. And whilst they dedicate so much to it, worryingly they haven't been doing particularly well at it in recent years and arguably being quite hit and miss with it throughout their history, in terms of misreading industry trends and giving gamer what they actually want in terms of hardware and software.

 

It's exciting to think what they could do in terms of hiring new staff, setting up new studios and developing new industry partnerships with all that weight off their shoulders.

 

However @Dcubed brought up some interesting counter points

 

Putting their games out on MS & Sony's machines is not the answer as their staff counts would be slashed (say bye bye to IRD, SRD, NBD, SDD as well as all of their 2nd party partners like HAL, Skip and everyone else, and probably Int Sys, Retro Studios, Monolith Soft, NST, NERD and most of SPD as well - leaving nothing but a shrivelled up EAD and SPD1), development costs would skyrocket (while their software margins get slashed since they would have to pay royalties AND conform to the MS & Sony's terms of license. - stifling their creative output and raising costs even further), their entire company culture would fall apart, their quality would falter, most of their talent would leave, their output would shrink down to just their absolute top IP like Mario (if you think they're milking Mario now, you ain't seen nothing yet!) and they become a mere shadow of their former selves. Their games are built around their own unique hardware and it is the continued evolution of their own hardware that has enabled them to continue to keep their existing IPs fresh with new and novel concepts and to enable their staff to make the kinds of games that they want to make.

[daftada]

Nintendo are behind the curve in terms of hardware, but that's not to say they couldn't focus on peripherals. Leave MS and SOny to cover the big R&D and manufacturing costs associated with a home console and just create a unique control system to connect to that hardware.

 

Edit: Sorry, I missed @Daft's post

Edited January 20, 2014 by daftada

[Sheikah]

I don't even know if this on topic anymore, either way I'm sure I'll be mauled, but here goes;

 

Imagine all the resources freed up if Nintendo didn't have to worry about developing and maintaining a hardware platform; how much more focused they could be. Not to mention the money they'd save; it would be cheaper to pay licensing fees to other platform holders, or just pay none at all to release on PC (not to mention financially less risky since they wouldn't have to worry about their sole option failing). And the advantage of being able to react to market trends in a much more nimble manner (instead of having to wait for a console cycle to end).

 

And who's to say they don't release their own peripherals (like the Wii Fit Balance Board, or even the Wii U controller; Rock Band and Guitar Hero did it) across every platform available (Xbox/Playstation/PC/Steam/SmartTVs/Tablets)? It would be vastly cheaper and much more accessible. (Maybe they make the successor to the 3DS that peripheral; able to link up to any wireless device like every smart phone and tablet currently does.)

 

Being platform agnostic, there's no reason why Nintendo's games couldn't do similar numbers to the 29 million copies that GTAV sold in six weeks. And if you think it would compromise the quality of Nintendo's games than you're really doing a gross disservice to the quality of Nintendo's designers and programmers.

 

*Braces self*

 

No need to brace I think, that post sums it up perfectly.

 

I think when you look at Guitar Hero (or whichever series first did this), they show that you can come up with a device that's pretty novel, and they didn't need their own hardware platform. I don't really buy when people say we'd only ever see their most popular franchises such as Zelda and Mario, and never F-Zero. If the demand for these games is there, then surely there will be enough money in it for a game to be made (whether Nintendo were first or third party).

 

However @Dcubed brought up some interesting counter points

 

I just don't understand how he can predict all of this. At the moment the Wii U has very little third party support so the amount of actual developers supporting the Wii U (not talking 3DS) lost if they went third party home console seems to be negligible. I mean, you even have companies like Ubisoft saying that they're making exclusive games for the Wii U, then announcing that actually it's going to all consoles (Rayman Legends - probably because they saw how badly the Wii U was doing). For that reason, even the next Xenoblade/whatever isn't exactly a cast in stone Wii U exclusive (so not really known if it's 'their loss).

 

As for their finances, I don't know the figures but the Wii U must surely be haemorrhaging money on account of how badly it's doing. At the end of the day, if it's a choice between losing a lot of money/being unprofitable with their Wii U vs making good money but paying licensing fees on other consoles then the latter seems preferable.

 

If you have more money, I would've thought that'd mean more potential to have more studios and hire the talent. People talk about how the 'company culture' would fall apart, but would it really? And would that necessarily be a bad thing? A lot of Nintendo games have got rather stale - perhaps more studios with larger numbers of fresh staff is a good thing.

 

Let's face it, many of Nintendo's games (particularly New Super Mario Bros, Mario Kart, Zelda) have become a bit formulaic - I think even with the loss of the 'company culture' that they could easily produce these sequels as they are doing now. They just follow a set of pre-defined standards and traditions when making these games.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Sheikah
Automerged Doublepost

[Daft]

Imagine all the resources they had to drop and people that needed to be made redundant because they no longer get their hardware income, licensing income etc. plus no longer getting 100% of the money from their own software.

 

They would have to downsize, considerably, if they were to go third party.

 

Why are redundancies relevant to the discussion? In any case, people get made redundant all the time. Not to mention, these will be highly skilled people who will be snapped up.

 

Your other point, sure they won't get 100% of the money from their own software but (and these figures are random); 60% of 20 million units sold > 100% of 10 million units sold. It's a matter of balance, a balance that many third parties have absolutely no problem with.

 

So, in conclusion, beyond cutting away unnecessary departments (which is always done in business) if the transition was well planned - and Nintendo are currently in the best of positions to make this choice in their own time and on their own terms - there's no reason to assume there would be any considerable downsizing.

 

The bottom line is, the company has to change. There is no getting away from that. Nintendo's structure and business strategies aren't cutting it anymore.

[Jamba]

Imagine all the resources they had to drop and people that needed to be made redundant because they no longer get their hardware income, licensing income etc. plus no longer getting 100% of the money from their own software.

 

They would have to downsize, considerably, if they were to go third party.

 

I agree with you about some down sizing but I'd suggest two points:

 

1) EVERY publisher resents paying Nintendo manufacturing costs and with the market going ever more digital, I think the income from this would decrease more so over time.

 

2) Putting Nintendo games on another platform would massively increase their sales potential. Nintendo would have the ability to trounce every pathetic excuse out there for a family title and if they didn't they would learn some valuable lessons through direct competition (e.g. Skylanders vs Pokemon Rumble). Huge potential install base with Nintendo having the ability the entire buying power of those looking for something for their kids/family. That's the kind of gaming that they do well and others do not (broadly speaking) and through a combination I think that both would benefit by having a broader catalogue.

 

Also the stockholders are going to be wanting risk reduction. Nintendo's IP is the stronger part of the business not the hardware.

[Daft]

Nintendo's IP is so strong they'd be able to negotiate really good rates with Sony or Microsoft if they did choose the third-party route. I.e. We'll give you exclusivity and you don't take a penny from our sales.

 

You know what Microsoft and Sony would definitely foot the bill for? Marketing.

[Jamba]

You know what Microsoft and Sony would definitely foot the bill for? Marketing.

 

For some reason you've just inspired the gold mine of potential cross overs in my head including more of the Yarn games vs. LBP

 

it's never going to happen...

[Serebii]

Why are redundancies relevant to the discussion? In any case, people get made redundant all the time. Not to mention, these will be highly skilled people who will be snapped up.

 

Your other point, sure they won't get 100% of the money from their own software but (and these figures are random); 60% of 20 million units sold > 100% of 10 million units sold. It's a matter of balance, a balance that many third parties have absolutely no problem with.

 

So, in conclusion, beyond cutting away unnecessary departments (which is always done in business) if the transition was well planned - and Nintendo are currently in the best of positions to make this choice in their own time and on their own terms - there's no reason to assume there would be any considerable downsizing.

 

The bottom line is, the company has to change. There is no getting away from that. Nintendo's structure and business strategies aren't cutting it anymore.

 

Redundancies are not common place in Nintendo, especially as they have been expanding in the past year. They are very relevant as they have an effect on staff morale which has an effect on quality of work.

 

We have gone over this countless times and @Dcubed's post is the most succinct in this. Go read it.

 

It's irrelevant anyway as it IS NOT HAPPENING.

[Miharin]

You want Nintendo tablet gaming? Just release the Wii U gamepad as a standalone product, with higher resolution and multi touch screen.

[Pestneb]

Serebii, I think everyone posting is aware that this is speculation and fantasy.

 

I agree with that earlier point, 60% of 20 million > 100% of 10 million.

 

However the audience isn't defined just by ownership of a console.

Nintendo games are great, but there are a lot of people out there who just don't enjoy them. In the current climate, I can't imagine any such gamers owning a Nintendo console.

Looking at a Nintendo console and saying 30% of gamers bought this game on the wii, 30% of gamers would buy that game on the PS2 is a stretch, I imagine the number would be respectable, but lower than the equivalent % on a Nintendo platform.

It's difficult to guess really, without any form of evidence. But I think it is fair to split the gaming population into 2 groups of gamers

1) gamers who on balance are willing to sacrifice 3rd party games over Nintendo games

2) gamers who on balance are willing to sacrifice Nintendo games over 3rd party games

 

The second group will, logically, gravitate towards PS, Xbox and PC to meet their gaming needs. I think it's reasonable to assume that as a consequence there would be a diminished appetite for Nintendo games on those platforms.

 

Of course it is possible that many of the second group belong to it largely because they have had restricted access to Nintendo games, and if Nintendo were to go 3rd party they might win the hearts of new gamers.

I don't think we'll be finding out within a decade in any case.

 

You want Nintendo tablet gaming? Just release the Wii U gamepad as a standalone product, with higher resolution and multi touch screen.

 

The gamepad does very little processing, has no data storage at all. If it did it's 3 hour battery life would be greatly reduced. Multi touch costs a more. A higher resolution, again added costs and reduced battery life.

Although I suppose it won't necessarily be communicating data to a base unit as frequently, so who knows, maybe that will reduce power requirements.

[Retro_Link]

It's irrelevant anyway as it IS NOT HAPPENING.

@Serebii please stop this.

 

This is a discussion forum.

I don't want to speak for everyone, but I believe the vast majority on here are not always concerned with what is and is not always realistically possible. The fun comes in sharing and exploring ideas, and dreaming about possibilities. Being creative and exploring new ideas is no doubt one of the reasons why we all enjoy video games.

 

You do not work for Nintendo and so cannot categorically either way what will or will not happen with the future of the company.

[Jamba]

Serebii, I think everyone posting is aware that this is speculation and fantasy.

 

I agree with that earlier point, 60% of 20 million > 100% of 10 million.

 

However the audience isn't defined just by ownership of a console.

Nintendo games are great, but there are a lot of people out there who just don't enjoy them. In the current climate, I can't imagine any such gamers owning a Nintendo console.

Looking at a Nintendo console and saying 30% of gamers bought this game on the wii, 30% of gamers would buy that game on the PS2 is a stretch, I imagine the number would be respectable, but lower than the equivalent % on a Nintendo platform.

It's difficult to guess really, without any form of evidence. But I think it is fair to split the gaming population into 2 groups of gamers

1) gamers who on balance are willing to sacrifice 3rd party games over Nintendo games

2) gamers who on balance are willing to sacrifice Nintendo games over 3rd party games

 

The second group will, logically, gravitate towards PS, Xbox and PC to meet their gaming needs. I think it's reasonable to assume that as a consequence there would be a diminished appetite for Nintendo games on those platforms.

 

Of course it is possible that many of the second group belong to it largely because they have had restricted access to Nintendo games, and if Nintendo were to go 3rd party they might win the hearts of new gamers.

I don't think we'll be finding out within a decade in any case.

 

I disagree. I know plenty of people that own previous or next gen machines that would happily fork more money into the games than buy another console. Also many of the have families and would love a family games of Nintendo calibur to be on their COD/Halo/GTA machine.

 

I guarantee you that if you released Mario Kart, multiplatform it's sales would piss all over almost any Mario Kart game released ever. It's a universal game that almost everybody loves and everyone can play and I'd be pretty happy to bet that almost every house that has a console would have Mario Kart.

[Serebii]

@Serebii please stop this.

 

This is a discussion forum.

I don't want to speak for everyone, but I believe the vast majority on here are not always concerned with what is and is not always realistically possible. The fun comes in sharing and exploring ideas, and dreaming about possibilities. Being creative and exploring new ideas is no doubt one of the reasons why we all enjoy video games.

 

You do not work for Nintendo and so cannot categorically either way what will or will not happen with the future of the company.

No, but them essentially saying it countless times is indicative of it. Also, discussing the sharing and ideas is fine, but dismissing the facts is not.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Serebii

[Retro_Link]

No, but them essentially saying it countless times is indicative of it.

By all means state it as your opinion, or find a recent quote from Nintendo to back up what you are saying.

 

But do not tell people what topics they should be discussing on here, or flat out tell someone it is not worth their time, just because you yourself do not agree with it.

[dazzybee]

Whether it will be more profitable to them or not, whether it'll impact on the development I don't know.

 

But I don't want it to happen as I'll miss their consoles? Then industry needed the DS and Wii? I love street pass (and even the 3D) on the 3DS, I love the gamepad, and miiverse, I like the fact they offer much cheaper gaming alternatives completely different to the other two. I love the eshop music and loads of tiny details. It isn't JUST their software, I want them to keep making hardware, and I think the industry needs nintendo to keep making hardware. Do we not think it would be bait boring if there was just the Xbox One and PS4?

[Goron_3]

Here we go again....

 

Anyway, it's interesting that people seem to be mentioning the Rayman iOS title as the type of title Nintendo should put on mobile devices. I actually had very little interest in Rayman Legends until I played Jungle Run on my iPad. 'Oh, so I can play a console version of this with more levels on my Wii U? Sold'.

[Mandalore]

How much power do the shareholders have in this? If Nintendo continued losing money for long enough could they be forced into developing phone or other console games?

[Serebii]

By all means state it as your opinion, or find a recent quote from Nintendo to back up what you are saying.

 

But do not tell people what topics they should be discussing on here, or flat out tell someone it is not worth their time, just because you yourself do not agree with it.

The one from Iwata on Friday, which I posted here, does so.

 

How much power do the shareholders have in this? If Nintendo continued losing money for long enough could they be forced into developing phone or other console games?

Not too much power at all. They can push for it, and they can show disapproval, but they have no control over anything. If Iwata's approval rating drops dramatically, then they can call for a change in CEO, but that's about it.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Serebii
Automerged Doublepost

[Hero-of-Time]

The one from Iwata on Friday, which I posted here, does so.

 

Dude also said that they would be no gaming droughts for various generations so.....

[Serebii]

Dude also said that they would be no gaming droughts for various generations so.....

True, but this is a bit different :p

 

We'll all see next Friday :p

[dazzybee]

Anyone think we're having a direct this month?!

[Hero-of-Time]

True, but this is a bit different :p

 

We'll all see next Friday :p

 

We won't see anything in terms of what people are discussing, nor are we expecting it. As Retro said, this is more about should they go 3rd party and if they did what route will be taken? Consoles or smartphones? Both?

[Retro_Link]

Anyone think we're having a direct this month?!

Oh I thought that's what others had been referring to about the date/event we'd find out at, no?