Topic: This just in: Developers and publishers still have no business sense.

[UERD]

Quote
Sony jumped into the console race, Microsoft jumped in the console race. What's stopping GE, Apple, or Mistubishi from hopping in, too? Just because you own one generation against one set of competitors in one situation, doesn't mean you'll win the next.

Sony had a half-finished SNES add-on that they could turn into a console, Microsoft had mountains of cash they could burn through (and their XBox division is still miles away from recovering their investment). Entering the console race is really, really difficult, and only getting harder.

Incidentally, Apple had a console at one point- the Apple Pippin. None of the third-parties you mentioned have the breadth, quality, and depth of titles to support a console as a first party.  

[that Baby guy]

While I have to agree that none of the aforementioned groups could make it on their own, if Nintendo pisses off all the other devs this generation, who says none of the companies could make it with everyone else's support?   I mean, no one thought that Sony would make it in.  We had Sega and Nintendo.  Sony had foreign hardware, no first party game divisions, and all that jazz, but immediately, developers flocked to them because the Saturn was just weird and they all disliked Nintendo.
Sony entered because of the half-finished SNES-CD, but they won because of the third parties.

Microsoft has a ton of cash, yes, and they aren't making money on their games division, true, but they are attempting to use the games department to break into home entertainment media devices.  To them, if their game division loses money, but they earn money by creating a strong digital distribution platform, there's no net loss.  What's to say GE can't cross-promote NBC, Universal movie properties, theme parks, and other things by using a games console?  If they lose money on the console, but gain more by generating interest in other things, wouldn't that be successful?  Couldn't third parties choose them, too?

You're looking at only small portions of the issues that define a console race, and you're looking at them as separate pieces.  You've got to look at the big picture.  How many copies of Final Fantasy sold?  About five million.  That's likely five million people that would be on board if SE decided to create their own console.  Now, as SE is known for creating cinematic games, Kojima jumps on board, along with most Konami support.  After all, they already obviously don't like working with Nintendo.  So then, you get the Metal Gear fans who aren't already major Square-Enix fans.  Now Capcom announces that several of its titles will be cross-platform, because their money whores.

Where does that leave Nintendo?  In a ton of trouble, clearly.

Of course, this is if Nintendo takes the "You're with us or you're with them." strategy.  If they avoid that, and continue to be nice to third parties, hopefully SE never feels the need to create its own console.  It's really hard to say that someone is too small or too separate to create a console.  After all, Nintendo made cards, then toys, then video games.  What's to say Mattel doesn't want back in to video games?

[Strell]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Of course, this is the same company who said 'we don't think our fans want to download our games on the Virtual Console.'"

Did they say that?  Act Raiser is on the VC.  Or because that's Enix does that not count?  Square games for some reason have to be treated differently?

The reason we haven't seen a Final Fantasy game on the VC is simple - they've been re-releasing them on the GBA, DS and PSP.  They can't expect to constantly remake or retool these games and sell them at full price if the VC offers the original version for less than 10 bucks, can they?  They probably feel that something like Act Raiser isn't popular enough for remakes to be worthwhile but it popular enough with hardcore game geeks to get some easy VC sales.  The first Square games on the VC will likely be titles like Secret of Evermore and Final Fantasy: Mystic Quest.  But Final Fantasy VI?  Remakes of that will continue to sell for YEARS.

Yes, they did say that.

And I'm talking about the games they aren't constantly remaking, which includes (most notably) Super Mario RPG and Chrono Trigger.  Hell, they won't even put Breath of Fire out there, given that they published it in the US (as is my understanding, which is why BoF2 is out).

To a lesser extent this also includes games like Radical Dreamers, Seiken Densetsu 2/3, Bahamut Lagoon, and a host of other only-released-in-Japan RPG games.

The FF series - and recently, the DQ series - are exceptions for the reason you give above.

Actraiser doesn't count because it was solely an Enix game at the time it was made, so I imagine Square has no say in the matter.  Or, rather, the part of SE that is Square.

On a related point, WTF is up with Igarashi and Castlevania?  That's an even bigger travesty in my opinion.  All that nonsense about how he wanted to focus on consoles and 3D, and then pulling support/development for the DS versions, which consistently turned out better than anything else.  I can understand the PSP getting the remake of Rondo + SOTN.  That in and of itself doesn't really bother me.  But the nonsense with that series is just scarifyingly beyond.

[UERD]

Quote
Where does that leave Nintendo? In a ton of trouble, clearly.

Of course, this is if Nintendo takes the "You're with us or you're with them." strategy. If they avoid that, and continue to be nice to third parties, hopefully SE never feels the need to create its own console. It's really hard to say that someone is too small or too separate to create a console. After all, Nintendo made cards, then toys, then video games. What's to say Mattel doesn't want back in to video games?

You make lots of good points, but it seems Nintendo is not (overtly) doing anything wrong in terms of luring third parties- no arrogant demands, hard-to-get devkits, high licensing fees...I mean, devs are willing to make games, for the console...just crappy ones. So I think that the issues at hand are more fundamental than simply a hegemonic Nintendo.

Also remember that console R&D and manufacturing takes a lot of resources, especially if you want the cutting-edge hardware and online infrastructure necessary for certain types of game development styles. Sony and MS lose money on the hardware, but make it up through licensing fees. Current third parties only have to worry about licensing fees and game development costs. So it would probably be a tremendous financial burden with possibly disastrous results to whoever decided to make the hardware.

One more thing- a lot of companies that would otherwise do so do not have the consumer electronics experience required to successfully compete in the market. Yes, Nintendo went into the electronic games business after making toys and ramen, but the whole industry was still in a very formative state. Sony and MS both have experience marketing consumer technological products and understand the R&D and software work that goes into making high-end consumer electronics. It seems like expectations have somewhat solidified at this point, meaning that gamers have a very specific idea as to what they want and what is 'good' and 'bad' in a console, and as a result they are much less willing to tolerate or forgive deviations to that model.  

[that Baby guy]

I think the winner will be the first to utilize shrunken head tech.  I thought of it first, folks!

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Igarashi is just flat-out jealous.  He's been unable to steal the thunder by the team that originally worked on the N64 Castlevanias, while his "modern 3D" projects floundered.

[UERD]

I think you're right, thatguy. Also, I didn't get the context of the posts leading up to yours. Regardless, I do agree that Nintendo should *not* enter domineering mode again.

What I *would* like to see is Nintendo funding the development of a couple 'key' games by reputable second/third parties- an epic multiplayer FPS and/or RTS (which would be really cool on Wii), an epic JRPG with a really good storyline, etc. Nintendo really needs to take a more proactive stance in regards to 'selling' the Wii to third-party developers and proving its worth for 'traditional' games and development styles, because it seems like sales numbers alone may not be enough.  

[SixthAngel]

I think there are a few reasons for this and I don't think it involves a vendetta against Nintendo.
-The games these companies started developing 2 years ago are still not out and they don't want focus taken off these pricey games by announcing new titles for a different system
-Companies, Square especially, need to justify all the money it spent on next gen technology.  With the ps3 and bluray they can justify their cg movie making stuff.  They also feel the need to not waste the money they spent on a new engine for ps3 games even if cutting their losses would be better.
-Sony and MS give money to third parties.  Especially now that each is system is just starting they will throw bonuses at these companies to get an exclusive or even get the game on their system at all in hopes of future success.  Nintendo doesn't want to give out money for games.  There console philosophy is to make money from the beginning, not lose it at first and with their strong 1st party line up they get a small sales benefit.  Is there a way to know if "deals" are made?  Accepting money hats will hurt the games brand in the long run but the companies are worried about now and the difference in the number of consoles hasn't become too wide yet.

[UncleBob]

Quote
Originally posted by: Luigi Dude
I say Iwata should just say "f*ck it" one day and go into Yamauchi mode.

From what I know of Nintendo's History, this is the day I crave.

But then, I'm not one of those who thinks Nintendo really needs third parties to survive.  Do I enjoy *good* third party games?  Sure.  However, the N64 and the GameCube pretty much proved that Nintendo can market a system - and turn a pretty profit on it - based on just about first party games alone.  I know there are those who disagree and think this entire idea is bad, etc, etc... But heck, remember how the industry started - third parties were frowned upon and hardware developers were known to redesign the hardware to make third party games actually *not work* in newer revisions of the hardware.  Granted, none of those companies really exist (Video game-wise) now-a-days, but I don't think anyone would say they have the same panache as Nintendo does.

I don't mean to come off as sounding like a gushing Nintendo fanboy... I'm just saying - Nintendo doesn't need third parties.  Judging by the way hardware sales are going (console and hand held) - third parties are going to need Nintendo.  I wish Nintendo would just bring back the seal of quality, except make it mean something a little more than it did in the NES days - take a more "We won't approve it unless it's actually good (or at least not Superman 64/Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz bad)" attitude.

"We don't need you.  You showed us that with the Nintendo 64.  You showed us again with the GameCube... and again in the early days of the DS... and the early days of the Wii."  

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
You're looking at only small portions of the issues that define a console race, and you're looking at them as separate pieces.  You've got to look at the big picture.  How many copies of Final Fantasy sold?  About five million.  That's likely five million people that would be on board if SE decided to create their own console.  Now, as SE is known for creating cinematic games, Kojima jumps on board, along with most Konami support.  After all, they already obviously don't like working with Nintendo.  So then, you get the Metal Gear fans who aren't already major Square-Enix fans.  Now Capcom announces that several of its titles will be cross-platform, because their money whores.

Where does that leave Nintendo?  In a ton of trouble, clearly.

That's basically what's happening right now... unless you are crediting the Wii's success to the scant few Konami and SE titles. As it has been stated, SE doesn't have the resources to make their own console. EA is the only one I could see with the finical might to make that happen, and I really doubt they would be interested.

[UERD]

And not to rag on EA, but I doubt they have the creative firepower to compete in terms of first-party and original franchise titles.

[couchmonkey]

Two topics:

Nintendo's lack of third party support:  I think this is a misconception that's fuelled by a handful of games like Final Fantasy, RE 5, and MGS 4 which have appeared over and over and over again at every trade show for a few years now.  The fact is, TGS belonged to Nintendo, and they weren't even there.  I think people are just jealous that we don't have those few big sequels on the Wii.

Square and Konami are stupid: I don't know what Igarashi is thinking with Castlevania.  I don't think he has a ton of business sense, although he makes some decent games.  As for MGS...the game was planned for PS3 long ago, and honestly, I think it will do fine on that platform.  The best thing they could do for MGS4 is port it to 360.  Overall I think Konami could definitely wise up to the Wii situation some more, but it is showing more support than it did for GameCube.

Square Enix...ugh.  While the company has shown some decent support for Wii, the overall business strategy is horrible.  It seems like they're going down the same road as Sega did prior to the Sammy merger, and look how that turned out.  Spreading your fanbase over three consoles and two handhelds is not a smart idea: most people won't buy all of them.  They also seem to fail at catching on to the new trends...Parasite Eve and Final Fantasy VII were exactly what gamers were calling for back in the 90s, but today a new approach may be needed and I don't think Square Enix is even trying.  

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Nintendo needs to come out and say "we don't need 3rd parties, but 3rd parties will be needing us."

[that Baby guy]

Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
Nintendo needs to come out and say "we don't need 3rd parties, but 3rd parties will be needing us."

You know, it is true for Nintendo.  But it isn't true for me.  I want to be able to get a lot of good third party games for one system.  I don't like dealing with two different consoles.  It's a hassle to me.  Maybe I'm lazy, but I'd prefer just one console.  I had two last gen, and pretty much didn't use the PS2 for the later half of the generation.

I think other people are the same way, too.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy

Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
Nintendo needs to come out and say "we don't need 3rd parties, but 3rd parties will be needing us."

You know, it is true for Nintendo.  But it isn't true for me.  I want to be able to get a lot of good third party games for one system.  I don't like dealing with two different consoles.  It's a hassle to me.  Maybe I'm lazy, but I'd prefer just one console.  I had two last gen, and pretty much didn't use the PS2 for the later half of the generation.

I think other people are the same way, too.

Except for me, I get games for all my consoles, well except for the PS3 which hasn't had any games worth getting for a long time.

[couchmonkey]

In the short term, if you really have to play the big franchises (especially Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid) you may need two consoles.

I think in the longer term Wii is going to receive the most third party support (at least from Japan) and big companies that don't figure Wii out are going to have a lot of problems as many of their loyal users migrate to Nintendo.  We've already heard Wii success stories from Ubisoft, Majesco and, to a smaller degree, Capcom.  Those that don't get with the program are going to either have to work hard to dominate the "next-gen" half of the market or start trimming the fat.

[darknight06]

For the most part I agree with the assesment, but DAMN don't put this year's DDR into the half baked section.  Konami did more for this mix than they've done for DDR in YEARS and the fact that we ended up getting it instead of PS2 is a huge boon to the console.  Yeah, they got DDR Supernova 2 and I know some of you guys are looking at it all as Hottest Party being the spinoff.   Truth be told, I bet it's the other way around.  Which one got showed off at TGS?  Which one was announced first?  Which one were they pimping hard?  Nobody knew about Supernova 2 until maybe 2 months before it's release and they kept unusually quiet about it while they couldn't shut up about Hottest Party.  I'm not saying Konami as a whole is thinking up great stuff for the Wii, but give the Bemani group credit.  They at least seem to know what's up.

[Kairon]

I think the deal with Konami is getting penetration into their more core development efforts. We've obviously got the Elebits/Dewy group dedicated to giving the Wii their brand of games, and it really is great to finally get a regular DDR game... YES! We're even getting their big-headed Baseball game! But... there are those Wii-Castlevania comments that were made by Igarashi (?), and until we see some commitment from the rest of their studios, it's hard not to feel uneasy about the prospect of being given lip-service.

[Ceric]

I agree with the notion of brining back the Seal of Quality and it meaning that a game has reached a certain level of polish.  I think it should mean that at the end of the day if you don't like a game with the seal its because you don't like the genre or that story.  Nothing technical.

[Kairon]

The seal of quality never meant anything to begin with, it was just a psychological consumer trick. The REAL seal of quality is Yamauchi's iron fist... and I think the price for that to return would be too high for many fans to accept.

[KDR_11k]

I think it should not be up to Nintendo to judge the value of a game beyond technical concerns or perhaps when the game is seriously crap, Superman 64 style. Having them judge a game by any higher standard can easily result in skewing where their less favourite genres get downrated.

[Plugabugz]

If it plays on the console and doesn't damage the hardware, its got the seal.

[Ceric]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
I think it should not be up to Nintendo to judge the value of a game beyond technical concerns or perhaps when the game is seriously crap, Superman 64 style. Having them judge a game by any higher standard can easily result in skewing where their less favourite genres get downrated.

Thats pretty much what I'm saying.  Things of a technical nature.  Though I put controls in their as well but its really so intertwined in both that you can't split it out...

[Galford]

I really don't think developers are giving the Wii the finger.
There are a number of factors involved, but much of it has to do with the course Nintendo has taken the Wii.

1.)The industry is in the middle of a transition.
In Japan next-gen HD equals PS3.  With the PS3 flopping few companines can afford a next gen title unless it's a million seller.
Even still with the PS3's obtuse design few companies will pay money to push it.
Licensing middleware is something the Japanese are not big on.

2.)Limited hardware.
The Wii will not age gracefully.  
Minus the controller the Wii hardware was outdated from day one and will continue to look worse against the competition.
With little internal memory the Wii is going to hit a wall fast.
I could say alot things but to boil it down the 360 and PS3 can grow as is, the Wii can not without a major hardware revision.

3.)Nintendo still ignores online.
The PS2 had better online support.
Nintendo only does online because competition shamed them into it.
Once again Xbox Live and PSN are raping the Wii in terms of online integration.

4.)Wii's misc/multimedia functions suck.
From homebrew programming to video/DVD playback there are many things to do on the 360/PS3 without buying a game.
With the Wii you can create a Mii, play a puzzle, and play back a movie in an obscure video format.
That's it.

I know I will take a lot of heat for this but think about it...

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: Galford
I really don't think developers are giving the Wii the finger.
There are a number of factors involved, but much of it has to do with the course Nintendo has taken the Wii.

1.)The industry is in the middle of a transition.
In Japan next-gen HD equals PS3.  With the PS3 flopping few companines can afford a next gen title unless it's a million seller.
Even still with the PS3's obtuse design few companies will pay money to push it.
Licensing middleware is something the Japanese are not big on.

2.)Limited hardware.
The Wii will not age gracefully.  
Minus the controller the Wii hardware was outdated from day one and will continue to look worse against the competition.
With little internal memory the Wii is going to hit a wall fast.
I could say alot things but to boil it down the 360 and PS3 can grow as is, the Wii can not without a major hardware revision.

3.)Nintendo still ignores online.
The PS2 had better online support.
Nintendo only does online because competition shamed them into it.
Once again Xbox Live and PSN are raping the Wii in terms of online integration.

4.)Wii's misc/multimedia functions suck.
From homebrew programming to video/DVD playback there are many things to do on the 360/PS3 without buying a game.
With the Wii you can create a Mii, play a puzzle, and play back a movie in an obscure video format.
That's it.

I know I will take a lot of heat for this but think about it...

But doesn't that all pale in comparison to the considerations of install base, marketshare, and money?

Of course, this generation is totally crazy, but the hope of Nintendo fans is to benefit from a sort of delayed PS2 effect. And of course, points 2,3, and 4 all didn't hurt the NDS... just gave it a little bit of a roadbump. Will we see similar results for the Wii as we saw for the DS?