Topic: Nintendo Development Studios

[shingi_70]

Was wondering if anyone knew all the studios nintendo owened and an Accurate source of info?


I find it odd that its hard to find out nintendos development info whole Sony and Microsoft's are pretty easy to come by.

[NWR_Neal]

Wikipedia's list of Nintendo studios is accurate.

[ThePerm]

lets try one off the top of my head

First Party
EAD
Retro
Monolith
HAL
Brownie Brown
ND Cube
Intelligent Systems

second party or close 3rd parties
treasure
n-space
game freak & creatures
camelot

others...etc..

[Luigi Dude]

Was wondering if anyone knew all the studios nintendo owened and an Accurate source of info?


I find it odd that its hard to find out nintendos development info whole Sony and Microsoft's are pretty easy to come by.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_development_teams

[Ian Sane]

I remember when the Cube was almost out and Nintendo had this "dream team" of second parties: Rare, Retro, SK & Left Field.  I remember being all pumped up about those devs and thinking about what games they would make over the system's life and how they would define the Cube's legacy.

Left Field made an NBA game no one cared about and was gone.  Rare made a Star Fox game no one liked and was gone.  SK made the awesome Eternal Darkness and unnecessary Metal Gear port and was gone.  Retro was the only true success story, becoming a first party team, delivering two amazing Metroid games and continuing to be one of Nintendo's greatest assests to this day.

Man did my dreams for this group not turn out well.  Of those four companies I would say they only delivered three truly worthwhile Cube titles (the two Metroid Primes and ED; I discount MGS because it wasn't a new game).  That's pretty bad since Rare released over ten N64 games alone and you could easily name at least five great ones.  In retrospect however that is actually very reflective of the Cube's legacy.

What always bothered me though was the piss-poor effort on Nintendo's part to replace these companies.  The whole thing felt like a team letting good players go in free agency and not making any sort of trade or signing to replace them.  "Let's just field the same team as before without those stars and hope we make the playoffs."

[NWR_insanolord]

Nintendo's moved to a different strategy, working closely with third party studios (like Next Level Games or Monster) without actually purchasing them. They've had some good success with that, although not on the same level as some of the games you mentioned.

[Kairon]

What always bothered me though was the piss-poor effort on Nintendo's part to replace these companies.  The whole thing felt like a team letting good players go in free agency and not making any sort of trade or signing to replace them.  "Let's just field the same team as before without those stars and hope we make the playoffs."

I would argue that Nintendo made little effort to "replace" these companies via traditional second-party methods precisely because they had such little output out of them. I'm not sure the "dream team" concept that I remember first hearing with the N64 (Angel Studios? What?) actually ever worked. I have always regarded it as a marketing strategy for distracting people from the smaller number of developers working on the systems overall by trying to get people to believe that those developers who actually were on the system were higher quality.

[Chozo Ghost]

I'm not sure the "dream team" concept that I remember first hearing with the N64 (Angel Studios? What?) actually ever worked.

The "Dream Team" concept helped get O.J. off the hook, so it kinda worked there.

Seriously though, its quite possible that as underperforming as the N64 was, maybe without the "Dream Team" things would have been even worse? The fact the N64 was cartridge based pretty much doomed it to be 2nd or 3rd place in terms of market share no matter what. Even though the N64 was beat out by the PS1, maybe we can thank the Dream Team for at least bringing it ahead of the Saturn?

Maybe the same applies to the Gamecube. Even though it was third place, it was very close to the Xbox and at least it was profitable, so even though the GC could have done better it also could have done a lot worse. Maybe the Dream Team concept should be thanked for that?

Sega didn't have a Dream Team with the Saturn or Dreamcast, and maybe that's the reason those systems didn't just simply underperform, but were outright failures. The Dream Team concept might have spared Nintendo from a similar fate.

[Louieturkey]

Nintendo's moved to a different strategy, working closely with third party studios (like Next Level Games or Monster) without actually purchasing them. They've had some good success with that, although not on the same level as some of the games you mentioned.

That sounds like a different way of doing money hats.  "We'll pay you to make a game exclusive to our system."

[tendoboy1984]

What always bothered me though was the piss-poor effort on Nintendo's part to replace these companies.  The whole thing felt like a team letting good players go in free agency and not making any sort of trade or signing to replace them.  "Let's just field the same team as before without those stars and hope we make the playoffs."

I would argue that Nintendo made little effort to "replace" these companies via traditional second-party methods precisely because they had such little output out of them. I'm not sure the "dream team" concept that I remember first hearing with the N64 (Angel Studios? What?) actually ever worked. I have always regarded it as a marketing strategy for distracting people from the smaller number of developers working on the systems overall by trying to get people to believe that those developers who actually were on the system were higher quality.

That's kind of what Sony's philosophy is, but they're 1st-party studios actually make plenty of quality titles.


On the other hand, Nintendo's current-ish trend of working closely with outside (3rd-party) developers is pretty much the same thing that Microsoft does.

[Kairon]

That's kind of what Sony's philosophy is, but they're 1st-party studios actually make plenty of quality titles.

On the other hand, Nintendo's current-ish trend of working closely with outside (3rd-party) developers is pretty much the same thing that Microsoft does.

I'm confused, are you comparing Sony 1st Parties to Nintendo close 3rd parties?

[tendoboy1984]

That's kind of what Sony's philosophy is, but they're 1st-party studios actually make plenty of quality titles.

On the other hand, Nintendo's current-ish trend of working closely with outside (3rd-party) developers is pretty much the same thing that Microsoft does.

I'm confused, are you comparing Sony 1st Parties to Nintendo close 3rd parties?

I was stating that Sony's development philosophy is pretty much the opposite of what Nintendo is doing with their partnerships.

[NWR_insanolord]

Sony's going more along the lines of what Nintendo used to do, building up a stable of developers that they own at least a stake in.

[Chozo Ghost]

Its too bad that's only what Nintendo used to do. They should be doing it still.

[NWR_insanolord]

Satoru Iwata disagrees with you.

[Chozo Ghost]

Satoru Iwata disagrees with you.

And who is right? I think the Wii software drought speaks for itself.

[Kairon]

I don't believe that the software drought for the Wii, or the GC, or the N64, were primarily caused by whether or not a Dream Team or second-party stable of developers is in effect.

[Luigi Dude]

And who is right? I think the Wii software drought speaks for itself.

The N64 software droughts which were a million times worse show the old way wasn't any better.

[NWR_insanolord]

Satoru Iwata disagrees with you.

And who is right? I think the Wii software drought speaks for itself.

I'm going to side with the guy with a lot of business experience who employs a team of experts over some random crackpot on a Nintendo forum.

The problem isn't with Nintendo's studios. The problem is the complete lack of quality third party software. No one company could support one dying platform singlehandedly while simultaneously developing the vital early software to get two new platforms off the ground. Making Nintendo unnecessarily massive isn't the way to fix the problem.

[Chozo Ghost]

Making Nintendo unnecessarily massive isn't the way to fix the problem.

Nintendo is already massive in terms of the money they've made over the last several years, so why not do something with it? Having all that money and doing absolutely nothing is stupid. They are massive, but if they want to stay massive they need to solidify their gains so it isn't undone.

Did you know that adult elephants and blue whales have no natural predators? They are the largest animals in their respective environments, and all the other animals leave them alone and for good reason. So there is an advantage to being massive.

[NWR_insanolord]

There are also many disadvantages, not the least of which being that Nintendo's losing a lot of money right now and probably shouldn't be going out of their way to spend what they have until they fix that. What you're talking about isn't going to be a real problem again for at least half a decade, so even if they were going to do it they've a lot of time to think about it.

[Stogi]

Most people think that when Nintendo says "We make games that try to appeal to all people" they mean one game can appeal to all people. That's not what they're saying at all. They're saying that our platformer game will appeal to all people who like platformers. Most people think Nintendo should specialize and gather more resources to develop more types of games. These people haven't been paying attention. Nintendo makes rpgs, adventure games, puzzle games, strategy games, sports games, fighting games, racers, party gamers, shooting games, platformers, rts's, and even horror games. Most people think that pandering to third parties is the only way for Nintendo to be successful. That is obviously false when they are the largest company in Japan. They are seen as unsuccessful but they are the most successful company in the business today.


So why do people continue to complain? It is because Nintendo doesn't make mature games anymore. Why? Because it is not their philosophy anymore. People are waiting for Nintendo to develop a mature FPS. It's never ever going to happen, at least not with the DEVELOPED BY NINTENDO moniker on the front.

And I think people realize that. That is why it is so exciting (or frustrating) to speculate who Nintendo can go to and buy or partner with to make mature games. And I agree with that sentiment, but I don't believe they need to go to a new developer (just yet).

Nintendo first needs to prove to themselves that those markets are viable. Obviously they see the success of COD or GoW, but they also see the cost of all those who have tried; the companies that shut down after one big game didn't sell. Still, they need to prove to themselves that targeting a specific demographic is not only possible, but mass marketable. They need to employ their same philosophy "We make games that appeal to all people" and use it not with genres, but with demographics. Nintendo should make a game that appeals to all 40-60 year old women. They should also make a game that appeals to all 18-35 men.

Make a new company brand to go with this same, but skewed philosophy. Make it the Miramax of Nintendo. Invest in it as much as you would anything else. Start small and work diligently until you can bolster that new side of Nintendo as much as the old side (either through the building of new teams or purchasing companies) and work together to reach every genre and every demographic simultaneously.

That is the way I see Nintendo succeeding in the future. The have the X and Y axis. Now all the need is the Z.

[Ian Sane]

Satoru Iwata disagrees with you.

I'm pretty sure Iwata and I disagree on pretty much everything... except maybe that we both like Kirby.

Nintendo needs good third party support but they never have it.  Nintendo shouldn't have to carry their systems all by themselves but they create situations where they have to.  They sabotaged the Wii third party themselves by making it glorified last gen hardware.  At least in the past with their interest in second parties and such it came across like Nintendo was making some sort of effort to fill the gap.  Now they don't seem to care.  We get the same games we probably would get from them even if the third party support was good.  The N64 had major problems with droughts but it really seemed like Nintendo was busting their ass trying to make sure their fans had something to play.  The Wii in comparison was seemingly abandoned by Nintendo almost a full two years before it's successor came out.  The whole second party concept came across as "okay, our third party support isn't so hot so we're going to have to carry this thing and we've got these partners to help us do it."

I don't give a **** how rich Iwata has made Nintendo.  All I give a damn about is what it's like to own a Nintendo system.  It means lots of droughts and Nintendo's attitude towards that these days is "meh".

[Adrock]

Nintendo gambled with the Wii rather than sabotaged it. Nintendo hoped 3rd parties would be enticed by the lower production costs and new controller. They weren't. Sabotaging suggests that Nintendo wanted to have crummy 3rd party support which isn't likely in the least. They just bet on the wrong horse in terms of 3rd party support. If the Wii was as powerful as the 360, things would have been different despite the console's other shortcomings. People would have came for the controller and stayed for the games. Hindsight is 20/20. Nintendo didn't even know what they had. For over a year, people were reselling Wii consoles online for like $1000 so the probably could have launched at $400 with power comparable to 360/PS3. Oh well. Nothing to be done.

[Ian Sane]

Yeah I guess "sabotage" isn't the right word.  I don't think they tried to screw up third party support (though they might have realized it was a potential issue and decided that having cheap hardware was more important).  The problem is self-inflicted anyway.  They created a situation where third party support was doomed from the start and it would be impossible for things to turn around on the same system.