Topic: The OFFICIAL Big N rumor thread *bring your own salt*

[BranDonk Kong]

Plus it had fucking Pierce Brosnan on the box!

[Spak-Spang]

Yeah, going back.  Goldeneye was an awesome game.  The design was smart and focused on stealth and less on twitch aiming and gun fights. 

It took the weakness of console controllers of difficulty aiming and made that part of the game...by really needing to know how to stop and aim.  Something that later has been incorporated into all the more realistic shooters. 

I will not say that Goldeneye had a difficult learning curve or was relatively hard per say.  Was the game hard?  Yes, 007 mode was intense, but the easier modes weren't hard at all.  The game also pretty much taught you the very first level how to play the game...now yes, if you started playing the game from the start on 007 mode, then the learning and difficulty level were quite difficult.

In the end, I think the game was great, but had some issues that keep it holding up in today's market.  When I compare Goldeneye to Perfect Dark, I think that PD had the better and probably the best FPS multiplayer on a console system at the time...but Goldeneyes levels were more interesting and fun.  I think Perfect Dark had some great levels...but they also had many levels that were overly complicated to figure out what to do...and just not fun.  Goldeneye this was not the case at all.  Most if not all of the levels were well crafted  and easy to interpret your objectives. 

[Ian Sane]

What blew my mind about Goldeneye was that it had mission objectives and such.  Before that I had just played FPS games like Wolfenstein, Doom and Duke Nukem 3D and those just had "find red key, get to exit, kill everything" gameplay.  In Goldeneye you go to plant bombs here or access this computer here.  That was incredibly complex and creative stuff at the time.  The game plays less like Doom and more like a first person Metal Gear Solid, which is really impressive since MGS came out a year later.  I can't think of a computer FPS from that time period with that kind of depth.  Half-Life was still to come.  In this era first person shooters were pretty much just shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot.

[BlackNMild2k1]

http://wiiudaily.com/2012/06/nintendo-offering-insane-incentives-to-publish-on-wii-u-eshop/

The source, working at a European developer who previously informed on Wii U Achievements (a report which was later confirmed by Nintendo), said that Nintendo is taking digital downloads seriously this time. He said Nintendo wants to offer all retail games — first and third party titles– available as downloadable titles on the console via the Wii U eShop.
“They’re offering insane incentives for publishers to sell retail games as downloads on the console. You’d be stupid not to take advantage of it and go retail box-only”, he said, adding “The new platform is perfect for indie devs, it’s a whole different ball game than WiiWare. They’ve learned a lot from that mess”.
When we asked what the “insane incentives” on the Wii U eShop were, he replied: “It’s just a much bigger revenue cut that you’d get selling it on any other platform at the moment, plus promotions on the online store. If they [Nintendo] pull it off and it gains traction, it’ll press the other guys [Microsoft and Sony] to give more of the revenue to the publishers. It’s very good for us who make games”.

Sounds good to me. However they can entice 3rd parties to bring more games to the system, then the better.

[Kytim89]

http://wiiudaily.com/2012/06/nintendo-offering-insane-incentives-to-publish-on-wii-u-eshop/

The source, working at a European developer who previously informed on Wii U Achievements (a report which was later confirmed by Nintendo), said that Nintendo is taking digital downloads seriously this time. He said Nintendo wants to offer all retail games — first and third party titles– available as downloadable titles on the console via the Wii U eShop.
“They’re offering insane incentives for publishers to sell retail games as downloads on the console. You’d be stupid not to take advantage of it and go retail box-only”, he said, adding “The new platform is perfect for indie devs, it’s a whole different ball game than WiiWare. They’ve learned a lot from that mess”.
When we asked what the “insane incentives” on the Wii U eShop were, he replied: “It’s just a much bigger revenue cut that you’d get selling it on any other platform at the moment, plus promotions on the online store. If they [Nintendo] pull it off and it gains traction, it’ll press the other guys [Microsoft and Sony] to give more of the revenue to the publishers. It’s very good for us who make games”.

Sounds good to me. However they can entice 3rd parties to bring more games to the system, then the better.

I thought Nintendo was against money hats?

[Sarail]

http://wiiudaily.com/2012/06/nintendo-offering-insane-incentives-to-publish-on-wii-u-eshop/

The source, working at a European developer who previously informed on Wii U Achievements (a report which was later confirmed by Nintendo), said that Nintendo is taking digital downloads seriously this time. He said Nintendo wants to offer all retail games — first and third party titles– available as downloadable titles on the console via the Wii U eShop.
“They’re offering insane incentives for publishers to sell retail games as downloads on the console. You’d be stupid not to take advantage of it and go retail box-only”, he said, adding “The new platform is perfect for indie devs, it’s a whole different ball game than WiiWare. They’ve learned a lot from that mess”.
When we asked what the “insane incentives” on the Wii U eShop were, he replied: “It’s just a much bigger revenue cut that you’d get selling it on any other platform at the moment, plus promotions on the online store. If they [Nintendo] pull it off and it gains traction, it’ll press the other guys [Microsoft and Sony] to give more of the revenue to the publishers. It’s very good for us who make games”.

Sounds good to me. However they can entice 3rd parties to bring more games to the system, then the better.

I thought Nintendo was against money hats?

This isn't "money hats." This is Nintendo not taking as much of a cut of the pay when a third party's game sells on the eShop. More profits for third parties means happier third parties distributing games on our Wii U consoles means MORE games for Wii U console owners.

 

[NWR_insanolord]

This isn't moneyhats; this is better than moneyhats. This makes the platform more attractive across the board instead of just buying a few exclusives. If the Wii U provides more revenue per sale, the Wii U version of the game is likely to be a focus of development and have exclusive features to get people to buy it that way.

[Evan_B]

And remember, the indie developer of today could be the awesome third party developer of tomorrow.

However, this is pretty awesome news, if true.

[Adrock]

I thought Nintendo was against money hats?

They are. What that rumor is saying is that Nintendo is taking a smaller cut of revenue from 3rd parties. For example, say a company sells a digital download for $10 and Nintendo used to take $6. Here, Nintendo would only take $3 or $4 and the 3rd party gets more back. Those aren't official numbers. I was just using them for simplicity's sake.

A money hat would be if Nintendo gave Capcom $50 million for Resident Evil 7 exclusivity. That's a gamble because there's no guarantee that the initial investment pays off. By the time the game comes out, it might not make a difference in the grand scheme of things. Sure, Wii U owners get a nice exclusive but it might only amount to a short spike in hardware sales.

Giving 3rd parties are larger cut of revenue is probably a sounder strategy. It encourages 3rd parties to support Wii U. Ultimately, Nintendo may even make more money this way despite taking a smaller cut per download by increasing the amount of titles available.

[Spak-Spang]

This is good news. 

Actually I see Nintendo balancing this out.  Retail games I can see Nintendo keeping the same margins or even asking for a slightly higher margin ratio...however, Nintendo telling developers.  You can also sell your game as a download and you get to earn more money that way.  Its really win/win for Nintendo.  Promote indie developers to the WiiU and offer large 3rd parties an incentive to offer the game as a download.  And yet...the price of boxed games might go up.  Also, 3rd parties and Nintendo would rather you buy digital to prevent second hand game markets from reaping the reward of the game. 

Now hopefully this means downloaded games will be priced lower. 

[Kytim89]

I thought Nintendo was against money hats?

They are. What that rumor is saying is that Nintendo is taking a smaller cut of revenue from 3rd parties. For example, say a company sells a digital download for $10 and Nintendo used to take $6. Here, Nintendo would only take $3 or $4 and the 3rd party gets more back. Those aren't official numbers. I was just using them for simplicity's sake.

A money hat for be if Nintendo gave Capcom $50 million for Resident Evil 7 exclusivity. That's a gamble because there's no guarantee that the initial investment pays off. By the time the game comes out, it might not make a difference in the grand scheme of things. Sure, Wii U owners get a nice exclusive but it might only amount to a short spike in hardware sales.

Giving 3rd parties are larger cut of revenue is probably a sounder strategy. It encourages 3rd parties to support Wii U. Ultimately, Nintendo may even make more money this way despite taking a smaller cut per download by increasing the amount of titles available.

I mentioned a while ago that if Nintendo wanted strong third party support they should offer them a greater percentage of profits than either Sony or Microsoft. Nintendo already makes bank off of their own titles, so losing a few extra dollars on each third party title is well meaing sacrifice if it will incentivize companies to bring games to your system. The big question is whter Take Two will bother to get involved, or not?

[Evan_B]

While the devs would be a big draw, I don't see why Take Two being involved is such a big question.

[Adrock]

Take Two would offer more variety and would help legitimize Wii U as a viable platform for the remaining holdouts because of the games they publish. I don't personally like their games, but I stand to reap the benefits if they were to be successful supporting Wii U.

[NWR_insanolord]

They didn't say would never make games for it; they just want more evidence that Nintendo's figured things out. If stuff like Zombi U and other core-focused launch games sell well I'm sure they'll jump onboard.

[ThePerm]

its the same self fulfilling prophesy logic. To define what audience is for a console 3rd parties have to jump in from the beginning and decide. They over estimate brand loyalty too much. People will buy whatever platform their games happen to be on.

[Chozo Ghost]

I thought Nintendo was against money hats?

Think of this as more like a tax cut in contrast to a government subsidy. A money hat would be Nintendo giving a "subsidy", whereas this is simply a "tax break". Nintendo isn't giving away anything, they're just not taking away as much. If that makes any sense.

[Ian Sane]

This is awesome news!  It's third party friendly.  When is Nintendo EVER third party friendly?  That's their whole damn problem.  This is very un-Nintendo like which, in this case, is AWESOME!

[Adrock]

When is Nintendo EVER third party friendly?

Between 3DS and Wii U, they've been really 3rd party friendly.

And don't get too excited, it's still a rumor. However, +1 for not being a Negative Nancy. You earned it.

[Evan_B]

Maybe disproved.

[Tamazoid]

Looks like Nintendo now partially owns the Fatal Frame/Project Zero IP.


http://www.relyonhorror.com/latest-news/several-new-project-zerofatal-frame-2-wii-edition-trailers-fatal-frame-ip-now-officially-co-owned-by-nintendo/


Seems like they are getting very close to Tecmo-Koei

[Chozo Ghost]

Nintendo should out right buy Tecmo-Koei. They would really benefit from the exclusive content these studios could create for their hardware.

[NWR_insanolord]

Nintendo doesn't need to go out and buy every company they have the opportunity to get. I think their current method of working closely with trusted third party partners works very well, and I don't think it's necessary to go out and buy these companies.

[Adrock]

Ehh, I think Nintendo could do better than Tecmo Koei if they really wanted to acquire another company. They would be better off looking west. Nintendo could use more exclusive western style games while also increasing their presence over here.

And unless Nintendo can find companies that want to be part of Nintendo (like Monolith Soft did), they're probably better off making partnerships and signing contracts like they do now.

[noname2200]

Looks like Nintendo now partially owns the Fatal Frame/Project Zero IP.

As an American, there goes my hopes of ever playing a new mainline Fatal Frame game again.  :

[Ceric]

I'm a little late but the Rumor of Nintendo taking a far less cut on the Digital version of games over the Physical games is good news for their marketplace.  Though I do see this not really benefitting consumers beyond game availability.  I see this pushing Nintendo even more into there evergreen model where we won't see game cuts until the console itself is on fire sale.  It be clever for Nintendo to just cut ~$10 off the top of Digital games with Retail releases.  Have people need to pay a Physical Premium.  In exchange Nintendo saves a possible copy from the second-hand side.  More Importantly for Nintendo it gives them Control.