Topic: Beamdog: No More Nintendo Projects

[Ceric]

9-Month Cert Process.
6,000 Sales before seeing any money.
40 mb size limit.
Not allowed to set your own pricing.

Its amazing the Wiiware service has anything on it that isn't from Nintendo.  That is ridiculously restrictive.  I can see Nintendo ultimately setting the public price, but paying the retailer a static wholesale price.

[GoldenPhoenix]

9-Month Cert Process.
6,000 Sales before seeing any money.
40 mb size limit.
Not allowed to set your own pricing.

Its amazing the Wiiware service has anything on it that isn't from Nintendo.  That is ridiculously restrictive.  I can see Nintendo ultimately setting the public price, but paying the retailer a static wholesale price.

Yeah, it is a crappy system, but Beamdog knew about all of that when they decided to put a game on the service. There is personal responsibility on their part for getting involved in a service that is so restrictive. Do Nintendo's restrictions apparently suck? Yes they do. Does that eliminate the fact that a company KNEW going into it that it was a restrictive service and it would be hard to succeed? No it does not. In the end they made the choice, they have no one to blame but themselves for getting involved in a service that obviously wasn't right for them and their port of a decade old game that had to be significantly compressed and changed to fit the game size restrictions.

[NWR_insanolord]

I don't think he's arguing that they weren't at fault here, just that he really regrets that choice, and won't make it again. If anyone is qualified to find fault with Nintendo's handling of WiiWare it's someone who suffered due to it, even if they put themselves there.

[ejamer]

9-Month Cert Process.
6,000 Sales before seeing any money.
40 mb size limit.
Not allowed to set your own pricing.

Its amazing the Wiiware service has anything on it that isn't from Nintendo.  That is ridiculously restrictive.  I can see Nintendo ultimately setting the public price, but paying the retailer a static wholesale price.

The 9 month certification process is at least partly the developer's fault though.  How many times did they fail certification?  According to his statements, Nintendo took 2 weeks to get back them regarding certification... I'm not sure how much time was spent fixing bugs in between attempts, but that seems like a lot of failed certification tests no matter how you slice things.
Not arguing the viability of the platform or that the other disadvantages aren't meaningful - just pointing out that a 9-month certification process isn't necessarily "normal".

[motang]

Can't really blame them, Nintendo has very archaic rules, which I hope they will revise with the Wii U.

[Chocobo_Rider]

Seems like some devs enjoy WiiWare and plan to come back ...

http://gonintendo.com/?mode=viewstory&id=175782

[ejamer]

Seems like some devs enjoy WiiWare and plan to come back ...

http://gonintendo.com/?mode=viewstory&id=175782

This might be publicity more than actual opinion. I doubt the game will sell because the platform is (and has been for a while) essentially dead, so wait and see if the devs are still talking nice a year later when they haven't been paid.




That said, a number of small/medium devs have spoken out about positive experiences with WiiWare and other Nintendo downloadable platforms.  Part of this stems from differing personal experiences based on who they communicate with inside of Nintendo, part of it depends on how well suited the software being created is for the platform in question, part of it is reliant on end results -- it's always easier to be happy if you haven't failed miserably.


You see the same thing (a range of different opinions from different developers) on every digital platform - for example, just ask Team Meat how great it is to develop for XBLA and be ready for a blistering response.

[NWR_Neal]

Gaijin Games had a very good WiiWare experience as well. You have a mix of both sides.

It basically shows that while WiiWare has its faults, it's not a total failure. Some people made it work, but those people are, as far as I know, fewer. Then again, XBLA and PSN have their drawbacks as well. It's not just a Nintendo issue, but regardless, it's an issue that needs to be fixed to some degree. Fortunately, the eShop is promising.

[Chocobo_Rider]

It basically shows that while WiiWare has its faults, it's not a total failure. Some people made it work, but those people are, as far as I know, fewer. Then again, XBLA and PSN have their drawbacks as well. It's not just a Nintendo issue, but regardless, it's an issue that needs to be fixed to some degree. Fortunately, the eShop is promising.

Best comment in the whole thread.  This could have saved us all a lot of typing and should probably be "stickied" should this subject ever come  up again.

Well done, Neal 

[Mop it up]

Sounds like a developer trying to earn street cred from beating a dead horse.

[sonicfan1373]

I must agree with them. Nintendo is a fantastic company they make innovative consoles and amazing games. They are personally my favourite gaming company.


However, they have an outdated third party business model and so far their online system has been a dud. The Virtual Console service has been amazing, but Nintendo approached WiiWare in the same manner which was a very bad move that cannot happen with the Wii U. With WiiWare developers do not get paid until they have sold a certain amount of units of software, and they have to develop around a 40 MB limitation.



For the Wii U Nintendo should develop a percentage based pay system that seeks to encourage third-party developers. They should make it so that Nintendo takes 10% of revenues made from a game or app until lets say 3000 units have been sold, than they will only take 5%. They should also lighten the restrictions on developers in order to get more indie game developers. Furthermore, 40 MB is a stupid limitation (which has been thankfully removed in the 3DS eShop)  for making games, the Wii U should have that cap increased significantly (which is probably will)


Also, Nintendo needs to do better at making sure third-party games are properly advertised. One reason why I believe (this is not scientific just based on my opinion and  opinion of friends and family members) people tend to not buy third-party games on Nintendo platforms is because the library of third-party titles is not the healthiest, there are a lot of over-priced waggle-fest games that great titles like Zack and Wiki get lost in it, as gamers we of course know better and we can search for better titles to buy but the average customer who is looking to pickup a game does not. In order to promote better titles being made Nintendo could once again focus on its Seal of Quality, which actually meant the game was of an acceptable quality during the NES days, and Nintendo outright rejected games that were not of quality. An easier approach (and one that does not reek havoc with anti-trust violations) is that they can better promote third-party titles.


They should also developers some of the things that they want to entice end users. For example, a unified network service (which is being done with Nintendo Network) complete with chatting capability and online capabilities. They should also create a universal achievement application with services like Facebook integrated to it (they can do this in a Nintendo Network app). As for apps developers, Nintendo could try to approach some and get them to develop some apps for the 3DS and Wii U so that as end users we have a catalogue of applications as well.

[TJ Spyke]

Charging only 10%, then 5% royalty? That is shockingly low (Sony, Microsoft, and Apple all charge around 30%). That might convince some developers to release them on Wii U instead though.