Topic: How to solve Nintendos 3rd party problem...

[BranDonk Kong]

Hmmm...halfway between last gen and current get...if only they could release a system like that...

[the asylum]

Don't get me wrong I love Nintendo and I want them to succeed but I just can't find the same level of optimism I used to anymore things have just been this way too long. In the Gamecube days I would defend them to the death, I tried to defend the Wii but it was getting hard to do each passing month. With Wii u I just can't seem to justify the price for what you get.

It's been a long, dark age for us lifelong Nintendo fanboys.

[pokepal148]

Hmmm...halfway between last gen and current get...if only they could release a system like that...

+1

[NWR_insanolord]

Hmmm...halfway between last gen and current get...if only they could release a system like that...

You joke, but if they released it halfway through the generation instead of when new consoles were about to come out it might work. I'd bet the Wii U would have been a big success if it had come out in 2010 instead of 2012.


Actually, this could work out great for Nintendo. They could get on a completely different cycle from Sony and Microsoft, launching hardware about halfway through the life of their consoles, so they could more affordably match the hardware specs of them while still having enough time to get support because of it. They could then carry on a few years into the following Sony/MS generation, while the former consoles are still getting support and the new ones are still finding they're footing, and then swoop in with their own.

[BranDonk Kong]

I agree. They waited too long, and now with PS4 and Xbone, it's hard to make the argument for someone to buy a Wii U unless they simply love Nintendo games.

[Ian Sane]

That idea of being on a different cycle is not a bad idea.  That could totally work.  The Wii U is probably not going to last five years so its replacement could kick this strategy off.




.... knowing Nintendo they probably thought they WERE doing that with the Wii U.  The strategy would require being very hip to the industry so as to have a good idea of when Sony and MS are going to drop their next console.  Timing would be everything so do we realistically expect Nintendo of all companies to be able to pull that off?

[Sarail]

I look at things this way...

All of those late PSOne gamers and Xbox and PS2 gamers that were in their adolescent/pre-teen years are now old enough to have graduated college - which means they're finding jobs working for game publishing companies, or even becoming game developers themselves. What's frustrating is that their general dislike for Nintendo is, I feel, a big reason why you're not seeing support from western third-parties. If you don't like Nintendo, why would you even develop for their console to begin with?

Now, I realise this isn't true for ALL developers/publishers, but I'm certain a good portion of them come from this pool of gamers now.

And then, yes, you have Nintendo fans out there who are now developers that want to develop games for Nintendo, but publishers get in the way. It's a battle that just can't be won until Nintendo make strides to improve their image among all gamers.

It's the industry and world that we currently live in.

[toddra]

I think there may be some truth to that, I am getting into development and I would kill to make games for Nintendo. My brother in law worked for a certain company I can't say and he told me nobody in the studio would ever work on a project that went to a Nintendo machine and so far all their games have either been PS3/360 or PC exclusive. And none of their games wouldn't have been too taxing for the Wii.

[NWR_insanolord]

New, young hires at game development houses aren't making decisions about what platforms they're making games for. The people making those choices are higher ups at publishers, and they're basing them on money, not personal feelings. If executives at EA thought they could make good money on the Wii U they'd be making games for it, whether the developers liked Nintendo or not.

[toddra]

Well the company he worked for was pretty small and I am planning going the indie route at first. But to be honest I really don't care where my games end up as long as they find an audience.

[Ian Sane]

I guess a kid today dreaming about making Nintendo games would be kind of like if as a kid I was dreaming about making TurboGrafx-16 games. 

For most of my life if I imagined myself making videogames I always imagined Nintendo being the publisher.  But that changed with the Wii.  Frankly my ideas no longer jived with them.  I didn't want motion controls and didn't want to stick to Gamecube era hardware.  I think it's natural for people to be ambitious in their creativity.  Conservative creativity is for businessmen, not artists.  Who as an artist wants to make casual games on old hardware with gimmick controllers?  No one.  I figure that's partially why the "real" third party games were made for the other systems and the shovelware junk for the Wii.  The devs with clout that have some input on what they make had no interest in the Wii so the Wii projects went to the junior teams that get stuck with the corporate junk.  Even games that did make the Wii like Call of Duty and Guitar Hero were done by other teams porting over someone else's work.  The "real" team made their game for the HD consoles.

From a purely artistic standpoint what is the appeal in the Wii U?  Any dev with experience has pushed the limits of Wii U level hardware for years and would want to move up to the next gen.  So that leaves the Gamepad as the sole artistic hook of the system.

While every videogame company is a business, Nintendo seems a little too damn obvious about it in the Iwata era.  Safe sequels, conservative hardware, constant talk about appealing to non-gamers and broad demographics - it's too blatant in being a product.  People connect with creative works that appear as if they mean something, even if deep down it's just a product manipulating its audience.  No one dreams about making souless product so no dev is going to be all excited about making Nintendo games if they associate the Wii U as such.  I don't think this is the prime cause of the Wii U's weak third party support but I honestly can't imagine any developer being excited about making games for it.

[NWR_insanolord]

It's ridiculous to call anything Nintendo's done "soulless". Again, these kinds of decisions are made by publishers, not developers, except in very rare cases. It's going to be a while before someone who grew up with a PlayStation is in a position to make these kinds of calls.

[the asylum]

The more I think about it, the more I come to realize that this is a golden opportunity for Nintendo to win back the hearts and minds of the outsiders. It's too late for the Wii U, that much is already glaringly obvious (hello negative rep!) So I'm going to talk about their next console.

First off their next system needs power. The "two gamecubes taped together hurr durr" line was why the Wii was by and large ignored by big studios (except when it came to publishing their shovelware, of course). The same will likely happen with the Wii U. It's not necessarily a "HURR IT'S NINTENDO, WE'LL PASS" mentality, but sole reliance on gimmick controllers have thus far proved it's limited shelf-life.

Secondly, they need- and I mean REALLY NEED, to ditch the "Wii" brand. The word "Wii" has become irreparably and utterly toxic. Calling the new system "Wii U" really drove the point home. Completely rebranding the next system will no doubt open a lot of doors into the third party hearts.

And online. Nintendo needs to make an incredibly serious commitment to online. Yes, the Miiverse is great, but it exists within it's own little impenetrable bubble. Bring in connections with Facebook, Twitter, and the like. Nintendo may never be able to shed the "HURP DURP ONE HUNDRED DIGIT FREIND CODES LAWL" stigma, but integrating popular social media into the console will be a gigantic leap in the right direction.

And core games. Oh god does Nintendo ever need to appeal to the core audience. Not just the outsiders but their own (yes, we still exist.) Breaking out the big guns like Star Fox and F-Zero. Also a Metroid title that bumps Other M out of canon would be a welcome gesture to the choir. No, they're not Mario. Yes, they will sell like **** compared to Zelda. But this is what Nintendo needs to do on day one: Straight up grab the industry by the balls. And twist.

[Wah]

You act like Nintendo could just magically fix third party support if they just tried. Outside of outright paying for support, Nintendo can't really do much more than they have already done. The Wii U was designed to appeal to developers, and we saw a lot of that early on, but since then support has dried up.

This is about money. Third parties don't think they can make enough by supporting the Wii U to be worth it. You could argue that they haven't given it a fair enough chance, such as EA completely dropping support after releasing four games that, while quality titles, were released 3-6 months after they came out on other platforms, but they have seen a long history of poor sales on Nintendo platforms and have been quick to jump out.

Again, what could Nintendo do to fix that besides buying support? They worked with third parties to design the hardware, they've offered them help with development resources, but at the end of the day, the money's not good enough for them. How is that Nintendo's fault?

I don't think the problem is that big, Isanolord is your name a pun?
Eyes= eyes of website
and
Lord= lord of the website?
If so that's pretty cool

[Soren]

It's too late for the Wii U, that much is already glaringly obvious (hello negative rep!)

Hold on there cowboy. Let's wait until the holiday season before we start making grand proclamations like that, ok?

[Kytim89]

I still find it stupid on Nintendo's part that they are going to let Destiny and GTA V slip from the Wii U's grasp. If there were two games that Nintendo needs to money hat it would be those two games. It is also equally insulting that Castlevania: LoS 2 and Killer is Dead will not be coming to the Wii U either. Although the games that the Wii U is getting this holiday are adequate, but I hope they sell well to justify more support.

[Oblivion]

I still find it stupid on Nintendo's part that they are going to let Destiny and GTA V slip from the Wii U's grasp. If there were two games that Nintendo needs to money hat it would be those two games. It is also equally insulting that Castlevania: LoS 2 and Killer is Dead will not be coming to the Wii U either. Although the games that the Wii U is getting this holiday are adequate, but I hope they sell well to justify more support.

stahp

[ThePerm]

Wii U sales will pick up, but  slowly. There are a couple things that will drive this.

Zelda
Price Reduction
Mario Kart
colors

I might make a game on Wii U, but right now my target platform is Ouya. The only reason its not showing up on Wii U is because i'm new at this.(sort of)





judging by the way pikmin 3 looks that demo they did for Zelda was actually really nothing.

[toddra]

I was thinking about this today in my computer science class and I think I might have discovered the root of Nintendo's deeper issue that is plaguing them as a whole. I won't get too deep into this as I don't have a lot of time before my next class but I wanted to put this out there for others to consider. I think from a mainstream perspective that Nintendo's problems stem from them being a toy company first. I think to them video games are still just toys, sure they make the best toys around no arguments there. But video games have evolved to be so much more than just toys, they are entertainment, they are a medium for great storytelling, they are artistic expressions, and yes they are games too. I think that Nintendo's philosophy of game play first is dated, it is a solid philosophy and what makes them stand out but I think they do need to take a more modern approach if they want to stay relevant.


One of the reasons people often claim they don't like Nintendo games anymore is they as gamers have grown up and they view Nintendo games as kiddie, and then Nintendo gamers respond negatively. But I realize now that they are right in their feelings but they are wrong in the way they are expressing their feelings. I think what the real problem is that Nintendo's games haven't really changed since we, or us as gamers, were kids and that is what they mean by kiddie. I don't think it inherently means just for kids but that what gamers are seeing is Nintendo games have not caught up with modern game making, they have not added that artistic and big budget entertainment look to their games that the rest of the industry is now doing. Sure Nintendo still does make great games, some of the best in the world nobody in their right mind could really argue with that and be taken seriously. But their are issues with the company and I think people tend to over state the obvious without really looking deeper at the issues that are holding the company back and I really think the issue is they still view themselves as a toy industry not an entertainment industry and most people tend to associate toys with kids and I think that is where the miscommunications are coming from and why Nintendo just doesn't get their message across is because they are hearing the wrong words and responding with the wrong attitudes it doesn't mean that their games are kids games per se, their games have universal appeal and they do have their games that are not for kids or aimed at just kids so that isn't really an issue but it is obvious that they do not take their games as seriously as anything other than toys. I think that is part of what makes discussing their issues so difficult is because it is hard to pin it on one issue.


Gamecube didn't fail because it was underpowered, it was not under powered. Gamecube did not fail because it had a lack of DVD or a really odd online model that was swept under the rug before it had a chance to take off. Gamecube failed because Nintendo was short sighted and yes they put a great emphasis on game play but they did so at the expense of the deeper experiences gamers were craving and that lead to gamers who were missing out on those experiences attacking Nintendo because they felt left out and not fully understanding what the problem was gamers lashed out with whatever immediately came to mind and latched on to that. I don't think Wii U's issues are exactly transferable to Gamecube if you look at it as a technological parallel but if you look at the philosophy it is the same, gamers are tired of even the experiences PS3 has to offer and they want more, deeper, richer gameplay, not just prettier graphics. Talking to people who are looking forward to the next gen most people say they are looking forward to bigger games, larger landscapes, more enemies on screen, more depth not better graphics but just bigger worlds. Nintendo was attacked for their downplay on graphics so this gen they tried to fix that problem and let's be real Wii U graphics do not suck they are pretty damn impressive. But the depth I think is what their games are lacking. No chasing around millions in stead of thousands of Pikmin is not the type of depth we are talking here, but more like  a game where the levels are larger in scope and there is more to explore and the worlds don't feel so artificial but more immersive.


Going back to replay Mario 64 the game feels like Mario is in a box with backgrounds painted on the sides. In Mario Sunshine it still felt like he was in a box but it was a larger box with smoother animations to mask the painted on backgrounds and really neat glossy paint effects to distract you from how clostraphobic it really was. I think that is also what is happening with Nintendo's other platformers and why gamers are growing tired of the New Mario franchise, it feels like they are just doing the same game with different levels and minor tweaks and gamers like the gameplay but they want more to their levels. Going from SMB to SMB3 was a big leap but looking back it really wasn't as big a leap as we remember it to be and SMW was huge when it was new and now feels like a tiny mini game that would be tacked on as a special feature of a real game.

I think that is why gamers keep asking for Zelda, Metroid, and Star Fox because those games are the closest games Nintendo has to having the level of depth modern gamers are begging for. It isn't so much the graphics that is no impressing people I think but since that is what they can articulate that is what they focus on instead of attempting to really figure it out. I have been giving this a lot of thought because like most people who grew up on Nintendo I want a Wii U, but I just can't talk myself into it until the games start to show up and not just rehashes of last gen games it needs to be new experiences and I think that is what Nintendo is failing to realize. It is like Mattel and Hasbro, both toy companies but one sticks to the tried and true and the other innovates and tries new things but keeps they old stuff and just retools it to meet the demands of the new markets where Mattel is like Nintendo they have their franchises that lay golden eggs and they don't need to innovate or think outside the box and Hasbro keeps the same franchises going but updates the **** out of them every few years and brings new stuff to the table all the time. Monopoly today is not the same as it was a decade ago, but Barbie's only real change is her wardrobe reflects modern tastes and thats about it. Transformers doesn't even look remotely familiar to the old timer but it retains the essence of the toy line. And that is what Nintendo is doing wrong, they are just dressing Mario up in modern clothes but not giving him new features like Hasbro with their toylines. Equating Mario to Barbie sounds odd at first but I think it really is a good analogy.

Well that is all the time for today, gotta get to my next class. Chew on that peeps and I will be checking back in latter.

[Wah]

That was a big reply!

[toddra]

Sorry it was a very long day and I had a really long wait between classes with nothing to do.

[smallsharkbigbite]

I don't think the in between console works because to make it an in-between console Nintendo would have to spend R&D and have cutting edge hardware.  For instance, the Wii U is viewed as an in-between console in 2013.  But to make the strategy work, Nintendo would have had to have the Wii U console power in 2009/2010.  This would push the price upwards ($400+) to have this come out then and would have been a harder sell for the Wii U.  I also think that that puts you in the maturity phase of the PS3/Xbox 360 when those systems were picking up steam making it look like less of a bargain with fewer games. 

To me it's all about 3rd parties.  In America, you look at the top 10 NPD charts and it is flooded with games that aren't on Nintendo systems.  Nintendo needs those games to be considered competition with Sony/Microsoft.  They aren't going to get them and I'm not sure how they can get them at this point.  Third parties have a consumer base that expects those games on Sony/Microsoft and not on Nintendo.  Even if Nintendo was going to sell an equal amount as the PS4/One, I'm not sure why 3rd parties would feel compelled to put software on a Nintendo system because people that expect those games are going to have a PS4/One.

I know Nintendo isn't a Sega, they make money each generation and I still appreciate their games moreso than other developer games.  But I still wonder if going third party would make them more money.  They are trying to innovate or find the next gimmick to sell consoles because they can't compete directly with Sony/Microsoft.  NSMB and several other titles sold >30M on the Wii because the userbase wasn't a limiting factor.  NSMB U has sold like 2M.  Nintendo isn't making money on the Wii U hardware yet and are subsidizing it with software and 3DS sales.  Assuming NSMB U could have sold 30M if the Wii U userbase wasn't an issue that is almost $2 billion in additional revenue that the Wii version pulled in.  Multiply that by all the big Nintendo games.  Add in the fact that Microsoft would certainly pay them handsomely to be exclusive.

[toddra]

Yeah I guess at this point going it alone is the best they can do without going full third party. I still can't believe all the hate they get as a company that is a bad sign because it shows people in general have given up on the brand as a whole. It does remind of a lot of how bad things got for Sega near the end, the only difference is Nintendo makes money on their hand helds but Sega did make money on their arcade division too which is why they kept that going even after everyone else got out. I guess I am torn between Nintendo always being around to make consoles to release their games on, and them just going third party and destroying their competition. I think third parties are treating them badly out of spite sometimes, like they know if they give Nintendo just enough support to keep them making hardware that keeps them out of their way to release games elsewhere, Imaging if you could get Zelda on PS4 Elder Scrolls would be a dud sales wise.

[Spak-Spang]

Nintendo doesn't need to worry about 3rd parties.  3rd parties will come if Nintendo presents a compelling argument for them to come.  I think Nintendo coming put and sharing their agenda with the 3rd parties is important.  Let's say after next year Nintendo sees the Wii U as a flop and wants to do something new at the end of year 4 instead of year 5.  Then Nintendo needs to begin planning it out.  Ask developers what they want, ask them what they predict the next game console to be like coming in 6-7 years and go for it. 

Personally, I think Nintendo would be best to combine their handheld and console markets, and make a system that is both a handheld and a console.  I don't know what that would look like...but I think Nintendo really needs to go for broke with the next systems...and don't worry about cannibalization of their own games.

What I mean is right now, Nintendo is worried about gamers not buying all their games.  Well you know what STOP worrying...get games to us...and if they are good people will buy them.  This is extremely important with the idea of the Virtual Console.  People do not want the trickle down approach...let them all the virtual console games when they are ready...and don't sit on them.  It is not like I can't buy Super Mario World a month later if I only have the budget for Earthbound today.  Stop thinking in the old retail manner and start thinking like a digital retailer. 

Next, don't have timid launches.  Wow us at launch.  Prepare to give gamers 4-5 first party games at launch.  You say that gamers can't afford all those games at launch so why do it?  Because gamers have different tastes...and you should not expect third party games to fill that void.  Instead, launch with a good Mario, a racing game, a party game, and a Mature Nintendo franchise on day one or at least by month 3.  You say Nintendo doesn't have the development houses to do this, then hire other developers to do it, with Nintendo supervision or go back to my original idea.  Combine the console and handheld. 

Create a system that is both console and handheld at the same time.  Let gamers which version of the console they want...and then having all your developers designing games for the one singular console.  I know that would mean compromises in hardware and potentially software...but you could always create games that can be scaled back...like PC games are.  One version for the Console, one version for the handheld, and if you buy a version of it...you can play it on either system. 

Imagine that world for a second...and tell me Nintendo wouldn't be banking money on first party games alone...and that developers wouldn't be lining up to support it? 

[Adrock]

I don't like the idea of Nintendo combining their home console and handheld hardware into one unit. They risk making a mediocre product that does two things poorly rather than two products that do two things well.

Hardware isn't really the problem for Nintendo. I believe someone from Bethesda recently said that Nintendo was less forthcoming about what they were planning with Wii U than Sony and Microsoft were with PS4 and One respectively. That may explain why so few games use the GamePad effectively and changes how we've been viewing Nintendo's situation with third parties. Nintendo has always been a secretive company, but if they ever want better support, they need to start including third parties on what they're doing from an early stage. Games take time and the earlier third parties are given information, the better. Nintendo should be less worried about Sony and Microsoft copying them (because that's just going to happen, companies copy each other all the time) and more concerned about making a product developers want to make games for and consumers want to buy.

I think Wii U can make it to 2017 as Nintendo preps a successor for Q4. 2014 is a particularly strong year from what we know so far. Still, Nintendo needs to make some major changes in terms of how they conduct business with their partners. I'm still against money hats and incurring massive losses. Better communication will go a long way. Admitting that Sony and Microsoft indeed have decent ideas and implementing them will as well. Nintendo needs to reevaluate its priorities and make some compromises, but that goes along with better communication. If third parties feel like they're in the loop and that their thoughts/concerns matter, they'll be more likely to offer support. Instead of "Here's our console. Support it," Nintendo should say, "Here's what we have so far. Help us make it better."