Topic: Playing with Power: Harnessing the Nintendo Community

[NWR_insanolord]

Nintendo is just as responsible for the lousy third party support the Wii got as those developers, if not more so.

NO
 
http://pietriots.com/2010/12/17/the-3rd-party-wall-of-shame/

As much as I love Pietriots, I'm not going to take an argument consisting solely of it at all seriously. Yes, the third parties had a significant role in this, but Nintendo's policies are a big part of why they didn't recover from that once the Wii started selling as well as it did.

[Urkel]

Well, I've gone over that argument so many times that I'm too tired to say anything other than mention the Wall of Shame. It just kind of blows my mind that people are still convinced that third parties aren't overwhelmingly responsible for their poor Wii software sales. I'm glad to see Pro has since removed the Wall from this place. It was never appreciated here anyway. YOU GET THE FORUM YOU DESERVE.
 
 
And the timing of Capcom's cancellation of Mega Man Legends 3 is just too perfect. See, they provided a polite little "We're so sorry, we don't think it's worth it" response, too. People aren't taking the news too well.
 
They made a big deal out of being in touch with the fans, and involving them with the development of the game. So now all that backfired on them and they look like total dicks for cancelling it. It doesn't matter how well they worded their reasons, their shining armor and fine words wont get them anywhere.

[Plugabugz]

I'm going to treat this entirely as a consumer perspective. If you fail to meet my needs then i will not do business with you.

If my credit card company treated me in this attitude (and one of them did recently) i'd write a complaint. The result was they bucked up their issues and things improved with lots of apologies. No amount of Project Rainfall will tell Nintendo they are doing it wrong.

If every one of these people then went and wrote to Nintendo and told them their attitude to your "fixed fanbase" and online attitude is poor and needs fixing, they cannot argue that change needs to happen eventually. Why? Because lots of people telling Nintendo all about the same thing (in a personal form such as emails or letters) cannot be wrong.

[Chocobo_Rider]

@ Ceric

Nope. Read every word.  Though I must say some of the phrasing was a little confusing.  What point do you feel my previous response did not address?

@ Urkel

That Pietriots article is amazing.  That really spells it all out.

Granted, I'd like to see a similar Wall for PS3/60.  You see, what people forget is that a lot of the same shovelware appears on those consoles... but it is completely ignored when they also get the high-profile titles.

[Ceric]

@ Ceric

Nope. Read every word.  Though I must say some of the phrasing was a little confusing.  What point do you feel my previous response did not address?

@ Urkel

That Pietriots article is amazing.  That really spells it all out.

Granted, I'd like to see a similar Wall for PS3/60.  You see, what people forget is that a lot of the same shovelware appears on those consoles... but it is completely ignored when they also get the high-profile titles.

The point I was trying to make is that Nintendo is a beast with two masters.  Their is Nintendo the Platform and Nintendo the Software developer.

Nintendo the Platform (Platform)
1.  Wants to Generally Expand its audience
2.  Wants to Make Licensing Money
3.  Wants More Mindshare and Marketshare for their Platform

Nintendo the Software Developers (Software)
1.  Wants to Expand the Audience of Games they are willing to make.
2.  Wants to have more Mindshare and Marketshare then their Competitors in Software,

A Majority of the time the Platform and Software are in agreement.  Different times whats good for the Platform might be detrimental to the Software in the short term.  In the last post one of key points I was trying to get across was that the Software sees games that they have no intention to make as possible threats.  Why the Platform sees these games as potential way of getting more Market and Mind share by bringing in the gamers who prefer those style of games to the fold.  To that effect the Platform may go to 3rd party developers that Specialize in games that the Software is not going to make and offer incentives to bring those games to a Nintendo System.  The Platform would also go the extra step to slightly augmenting their marketing by including them in Press Materials, Demo Reels, etc.

In summation, the big point I wanted to get across is that I believe that Nintendo is ran a little to heavily as a Software Developer.  Which was fine in the NES/SNES days when they really were the only viable platform but, today their are other viable platforms available for developers.  These platforms are willing to do the bit extra because lets face it they don't have nearly as strong of a First Party brand as Nintendo.  I think that Nintendo itself has arguably done a very good job at reaching a large number of the people who enjoy the types of games Nintendo Makes with the DS and Wii.  So much so that I don't think they'll be able to beat those numbers if they don't start filling the holes in the Platforms lineup.  Every game sold on another is a Game Nintendo isn't getting anything from.

That was what I was trying to say.  I doubt is any clearer in this post in retrospect but that's a limitation on my ability to communicate.

[Chocobo_Rider]

@ Ceric

Thanks for the explanation.  I do believe I understand your point now.

So what you're saying is, if Nintendo isn't going to make certain genres themselves (Football sims, WW2 shooters), then they should go out of their way to promote those games when third parties make them.  Is that it?

[Ceric]

@ Ceric

Thanks for the explanation.  I do believe I understand your point now.

So what you're saying is, if Nintendo isn't going to make certain genres themselves (Football sims, WW2 shooters), then they should go out of their way to promote those games when third parties make them.  Is that it?

Right, not Super out of their way but make a point to get them into the general PR stream from them.  Enough to make people not forget they are there.  Of course Nintendo will want to choose the ones they believe are of quality.

[Chocobo_Rider]

@ Ceric

Well, in that regard, I absolutely see your point. I really do.

However, I think there are some decent explanations for why Nintendo doesn't go out of their way for those particular products.

The Madden games on Wii have been especially kiddie-fied in both style and tone.  That may make sense for EA because now they have their "mature" version on 360, PS3, PS2 and PSP (can't believe the PS2/PSP versions get that version when the more powerful Wii does not) and then they can try to broaden their appeal by having the "kiddie" version on the Wii.

However, from Nintendo's perspective, why put effort behind such a product?

As for the WWII shooters, it may really change in the future ... this year's E3 presentation made it look like Nintendo wants to change up their purely family-friendly image.  However, during the Wii's time, I think Nintendo felt associating themselves too much with those shooters would muddy the message.  In other words, they wanted to clearly be an alternative to the scary, scary (I'm kidding for effect) world of the violent game biz.

[Ceric]

Part of the effort is to get the "mature" Madden to came to your platform.  We as gamers should never see that but, it should be happening.

[broodwars]

I personally don't understand why we should even want the "mature" Madden games on a Nintendo platform.  IMO, the sport's boring enough without tossing "realism" onto it.  At least with a more fanciful version there's a higher chance of something fun getting introduced, but I guess Sports fans really want the realism.  I expect we won't see such disparate versions with the Wii U, as the more "kiddie" aspect of the Wii versions was likely done to capitalize on the weaker tech specs and the unique nature of the Wii Remote.  You pretty much have to make a game stylized to look good on the Wii, but that probably won't be a problem with the Wii U.

[NWR_insanolord]

In an ideal world, all platforms would get a version of Madden that included both the more serious, realistic sim stuff and the more arcadey stuff. But the Wii loses out on the sim stuff, and while some of the arcade-style stuff is available on the HD platforms, it's via a separately-purchased download game.

[NWR_Neal]

Madden on Wii has always included the sim stuff. What the **** game have you (not) been playing? Get your head out of your ass before you talk about how EA put zero effort into Wii on Madden. Would you rather have a PS2 port? It's not their fault the Wii market is a pain in the ass.

With the exception of the first Madden on the system, I have genuinely liked every Wii iteration of Madden, and this is coming from someone who has poured thousands of hours into Madden dating all the way back to the Genesis/SNES days. When Madden Wii made the jump to the "kiddie" style you guys refer to, it improved as a game. It stopped becoming a PS2 port and started becoming its own game. Along that way, its never lost what made Madden a great game; it just lost a little bit of the complexity and customization. For some, that's a drawback, but for the majority of those people, they never played Madden on Nintendo systems to begin with. The problems with Madden Wii are the same problems that plague every Madden game: they can only change so much every year, so some things (like the Franchise in Madden 10) are just retreads of the year before (a feature-complete version of the PS2 franchise).

I don't really know what else to do but point you to everything I've written about Madden Wii games during my entire tenure on staff. That came from a very genuine spot before EA PR contacted me last year to do an in-depth preview of last year's game. It still comes from that same genuine spot. I enjoy those games a lot. I'd much rather have a colorful art style that takes advantage of the Wii.

Go complain about Wind Waker being cel-shaded some more.


EDIT: Also, maybe Capcom's fan involvement started turning sour when sales weren't what they expected for games with "active fanbases." Not saying that Capcom's poor business acumen makes up for MML3, but it's a thought.

[TJ Spyke]

I was gonna say that EA admitted that the first few Madden games on Wii were literally just ports of the PS2 version with motion control tacked on.

[NWR_insanolord]

I should have said "loses out on some of the sim stuff." As someone who has extensively played both the Wii and Xbox 360 versions of Madden, I can assure you that a not insignificant amount of sim stuff that's in the 360 game is not in the Wii game. I actually like the Wii version quite a bit, though it's funny to me that you didn't like the first one, because I liked its controls better than anything that came after it, except maybe '09. I'd argue Madden '07 was easily the best use of motion controls at the Wii launch outside of Wii Sports.

[Chocobo_Rider]

Don't get me wrong guys, I am a diehard football fan but the simpler Wii versions of the game appeal to me much more than the super-detailed aspects of the "mature" Maddens.  Also, the ability to chose receivers with the wiimote in Madden'11 (played it at a friends house) was sooooo comfortable!

The cartoony style is fine... but it's a terrible excuse if EA says they have to do that because the Wii "can't handle" the realistic style... and then put that style on the PS2 and PSP!!

However, I was saying that from Nintendo's perspective it might not make sense because let's face it, most of the Madden audience would find that cutesy cartoon style insulting - agreed?

[NWR_Neal]

The Wii handled the realistic style for three years. I honestly have no idea where you're getting your information. Also: http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/feature/23651

You say that it doesn't bother you on one hand, but then its giving your hemorrhoids on the other.

And as for your question, just ask the Madden players who downloaded Madden NFL Arcade, which featured that art style.

Humorously enough, this year's Wii Madden is dialing back the cartoony style a bit (players are less exaggerated).

[Ceric]

The Wii handled the realistic style for three years. I honestly have no idea where you're getting your information. Also: http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/feature/23651

You say that it doesn't bother you on one hand, but then its giving your hemorrhoids on the other.

And as for your question, just ask the Madden players who downloaded Madden NFL Arcade, which featured that art style.

Humorously enough, this year's Wii Madden is dialing back the cartoony style a bit (players are less exaggerated).

XCWarrior is the only comment on that story that wasn't someone in some position on this site now.  Thats sort of funny.

[NWR_Lindy]

By the way, this article wasn't really about Operation Rainfall.  It used that as a springboard to discuss Nintendo's mediocre interaction with its fanbase online, in general.

I've never understood why Nintendo hasn't gone out of its way to court third-party console developers (aside from wanting to keep their console audience to themselves).  Their "opt-in" policy comes across as more of a "you're welcome to develop for our hardware, but you're on your own" policy.  They made the Wii hardware completely different from PS3 and 360, making it less appealing for third-parties to develop for the system because they couldn't spread development costs across a fourth platform (like they could with PS3, 360, and PC). Nintendo made Wii the odd man out by design.

Then the lack of a packed-in traditional controller made it motion control or the highway for third-parties, resulting in many of them abandoning the platform. They knew that fans of their games didn't want motion control (or at least the mediocre motion control on the original Wii; heck, most of them don't even want Move or Kinect either), and their games didn't benefit from it anyways.

Funny, the DS never had a problem with third-party support, even with its goofy control setup.  Handhelds have always been development islands, so spreading development costs across platforms was never an option to begin with.  However, the fact that it was an island was offset by the fact that it was cheap to develop for.  As a result, plenty of third-parties jumped on board.

I think the "Third Parties Hate Nintendo" rhetoric is ridiculous. There's no emotion involved here; the game industry is not the NWR Forums.  It all comes down to dollars and cents. Funny how Epic has pretty much confirmed that the Unreal Engine is going to come to Wii U now that it's HD...wait, weren't they reviled as Nintendo haters last generation?  Oh wait, didn't John Carmack hate Nintendo too, but suddenly he's talking about bringing id Tech 5 to Wii U?  Yeah, but these third parties HATE Nintendo.  They HATE them.  Nintendo's actions have NOTHING to do with it.  Right.

[Ceric]

Lol,  this thread has about 3-4 different conversations going.

[Chocobo_Rider]

@ Neal

As someone who owns the Wii version of Madden 08, I'm fully aware that they used to use the realistic style.  All the more evidence that it was possible on the Wii.

@ Lindy

Not even sure if you were talking to me but I've never, ever, ever said third parties hate Nintendo or have it in for them.  What I do believe is that third parties were lazy with the Wii and then blamed Nintendo when their laziness was properly rewarded.

I also believe that Nintendo's cheaper/older development requirements should, at worst, balance out the fact that third parties couldn't just cut'n'paste their games to yet another platform.

Also,
Wiimote + Nunchuck = traditional control scheme + optional motion input.
Classic controller = traditional control scheme.

Third parties choosing to implement poor motion control instead is there choice.

It's true, Nintendo made their own island with the Wii ... it was a plan that put them back in first place after a long absence.  But, they threw a pretty sweet party on that island and third parties were invited.  It's true, third parties had to make an effort to get all the way out there.  Third parties that made said effort were rewarded appropriately.

Nothin' wrong with that!

[Ian Sane]

There was a telling quote about the Wii U.  Can't remember which third party dev said it but it was to the effect of Nintendo providing a lot of options to developers instead of having a very rigid setup where Nintendo tells you how to do it.  The Wii was Nintendo's self-serving "do it our way or **** off" design taken to such an extreme that even selling more consoles than everyone else could not prevent third parties from wanting absolutely nothing to do with it.  I would argue that even the N64 was more inviting.  You can talk about third parties making the effort all you want but when one guy demands that you put in extra effort when no one else does, who would you bother?

Though this argument is nothing new and at this point everyone seems to have gone into one of three conclusions regarding third party support typically based on how much slack they cut Nintendo:

1. Nintendo scared off third parties with restrictive hardware.
2. Third parties are lazy dipshits and never gave the Wii a chance.
3. The third party support was never bad and the Wii is super awesome and perfect in every way.

We know the Wii U is trying a different approach and it seems to be a reaction to conclusion 1.

[Ceric]

There was a telling quote about the Wii U.  Can't remember which third party dev said it but it was to the effect of Nintendo providing a lot of options to developers instead of having a very rigid setup where Nintendo tells you how to do it.  The Wii was Nintendo's self-serving "do it our way or **** off" design taken to such an extreme that even selling more consoles than everyone else could not prevent third parties from wanting absolutely nothing to do with it.  I would argue that even the N64 was more inviting.  You can talk about third parties making the effort all you want but when one guy demands that you put in extra effort when no one else does, who would you bother?

Though this argument is nothing new and at this point everyone seems to have gone into one of three conclusions regarding third party support typically based on how much slack they cut Nintendo:

1. Nintendo scared off third parties with restrictive hardware.
2. Third parties are lazy dipshits and never gave the Wii a chance.
3. The third party support was never bad and the Wii is super awesome and perfect in every way.

We know the Wii U is trying a different approach and it seems to be a reaction to conclusion 1.

I think I may have heard some Hope in there.

[Chocobo_Rider]

@ Ian Sane

I think there is truth in all three of those statements actually.

First, I think the Wii U is an attempt to build a bridge to Isle de Nintendo.  It's really silly to think Nintendo doesn't care about third parties.  I think Nintendo just under-estimated how much third parties would fall in love with the same ol' shiny graphics = more fun mentality.  So, yes, in theory, the Wii U will allow Nintendo to have its cake (Wii success) and eat it too (first tier third party efforts).

I do believe third parties were lazy and foolish in how they approached the Wii.

However, I also believe that amidst the garbage there were some truly amazing third party experiences on the Wii - so much so, that I, personally, have been very happy with my overall Wii experience. 

[NWR_Lindy]

I don't think they were lazy or foolish; they just didn't have enough money to float a completely separate team of developers specifically dedicated to Wii development.  Look at the companies that made the most Wii games: Capcom, Activision, Ubisoft, Nintendo, etc.  All of these companies shared the same qualities:

1) Lots of money
2) Lots of development teams to assign to different projects
3) Internal developers with plenty of GameCube experience, which translated over to Wii
4) Not necessarily any allegiance to a single development environment or engine, or enough time/expertise to create their own

Smaller developers, or those that make mainly PC/PS3/360 games, would have:

1) Limited budget (meaning that it's in their best interests to re-use code or engines across multiple platforms)
2) A single development team
3) Mainly experience in PC development, which would translate over to 360 and later PS3
4) Reliance on a single engine, like Unreal or Gamebryo, or a need to create their own engine that they can re-use across platforms

I think this was why third-parties shied away from Wii.  They just couldn't afford to not re-use their code and game engines across platforms.  This especially hurt devs who made games that didn't necessarily play to Nintendo's audience, which tends to skew younger than PC/PS3/360.

[Ian Sane]

First, I think the Wii U is an attempt to build a bridge to Isle de Nintendo.  It's really silly to think Nintendo doesn't care about third parties.

I think part of it is indifference to third party support, in that as long as Nintendo stays profitable it doesn't really matter if the system has good third party support or not.  The other part I think is obliviousness in that Nintendo wants third parties to make games for their systems but does not know what specifically attracts or repels them.  Hell, I would consider a lot of Nintendo's questionable decisions to come out of obliviousness.  I don't think they have the slightest clue why the N64 or Gamecube were not very popular and they come across as quite shocked that the Wii got branded as a casual console that core gamers were not interested in.  Nintendo is like an autistic savant whose brilliance changes the world and yet can't have a conversation with someone without offending or scaring them.