Topic: Nintendo of America's troubling Indie gatekeeping

[Soren]

2 things:


1) Playtonic is mostly made up of former Rare employees. Why on earth would they want to be tied to a specific hardware/company again? Most of these indie devs were people who worked for major developers before and are seeking a level of independence that they can't have with those companies. Most of these people aren't looking to get bought out by Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft.


2) As mentioned in the article, NoA isn't really offering much in return for these exclusive deals, which is probably why Runner 3 is the only indie exclusive to Switch so far. And I'm 99% sure that exclusivity deal has an eventual expiration date.

[ThePerm]

I'm not saying chain them down forever, just be patrons. As far as exclusivity goes. It would have be better if it was timed. Nintendo used to take some developers under their wings. Today's small developers could become the future Capcoms, Square Enixs, Konamis, EA, Ubisoft.

I am aware bungee is not with Microsoft as a second party. But you do see Destiny on PS4 and Xbox but not a Nintendo system. I had meant to throwthat caveat in, but it sort of is(whats left unsaid).

Take for instance what Sony does with Kojima. He could make games for any system, but he has some patronage.

What I should really say instead of making it a challenge for great companies to make games on the system, shouldn't they make it lucrative both creatively and financially? If it is a technical challenge then they need to be compensating.

I have mostly indy games for Wii U. I was just saying what their overall strategy should be. Headhunt good talent. Offer rewards to those that reward you. Create mutually beneficial relationships. Treat people with respect.

When you look at someone like Tom Happ who made a game all by himself. He did the music, wrote the code, designed the levels, you wonder what someone like that would do if they had excellent support. I could imagine with some help he could churn out either a gigantic game or several games. When you hear they're keeping him from releasing the game that's some time in sales he isn't going to get back. This is actually one of the most optimal times to be buying a game for a system. It would be nice if he could sell the game to people who just bought a switch and want an excellent platformer for the go. Instead of jerking him around maybe they should facilitate him or let him in on what is probably an obvious secret? Do you want Tom Happ's next game? Because facilitating him is how you get his next game. Tom Happs communication with Nintendo should not be like trying to get a hold of the Engineering department at Verizon.

And honestly I think all the fault is on NOA and not NCL. They get some games over in Japan from Japanese developers, NOA has been a dump since Klobb and Peter Maine left. There's massive and regular miscommunication and easily preventable errors.

[Agent-X-]

Why are we talking about Capcom when this article is about Indies?

Because it's relevant. Just because the article in question speaks specifically to Indies, doesn't mean we can't draw a conclusion that this treatment/behavior is not limited to Indies and could also explain why even Japanese third parties are kinda being slow to support the Switch.

[Agent-X-]

I'm not saying chain them down forever, just be patrons. As far as exclusivity goes. It would have be better if it was timed. Nintendo used to take some developers under their wings. Today's small developers could become the future Capcoms, Square Enixs, Konamis, EA, Ubisoft.

I am aware bungee is not with Microsoft as a second party. But you do see Destiny on PS4 and Xbox but not a Nintendo system. I had meant to throwthat caveat in, but it sort of is(whats left unsaid).

Take for instance what Sony does with Kojima. He could make games for any system, but he has some patronage.

What I should really say instead of making it a challenge for great companies to make games on the system, shouldn't they make it lucrative both creatively and financially? If it is a technical challenge then they need to be compensating.

I have mostly indy games for Wii U. I was just saying what their overall strategy should be. Headhunt good talent. Offer rewards to those that reward you. Create mutually beneficial relationships. Treat people with respect.

When you look at someone like Tom Happ who made a game all by himself. He did the music, wrote the code, designed the levels, you wonder what someone like that would do if they had excellent support. I could imagine with some help he could churn out either a gigantic game or several games. When you hear they're keeping him from releasing the game that's some time in sales he isn't going to get back. This is actually one of the most optimal times to be buying a game for a system. It would be nice if he could sell the game to people who just bought a switch and want an excellent platformer for the go. Instead of jerking him around maybe they should facilitate him or let him in on what is probably an obvious secret? Do you want Tom Happ's next game? Because facilitating him is how you get his next game. Tom Happs communication with Nintendo should not be like trying to get a hold of the Engineering department at Verizon.

And honestly I think all the fault is on NOA and not NCL. They get some games over in Japan from Japanese developers, NOA has been a dump since Klobb and Peter Maine left. There's massive and regular miscommunication and easily preventable errors.

You're spot on. NOA could/should do a lot more to nurture Indie support as well as third party support. Instead, it almost looks like they're raising the bar for entry onto the platform.


I kinda get the impression that if we see any multiplat titles, they will all have Switch-specific enhancements tacked on, aka EA games using last-gen engines with motion controls and HD rumble added on.

[Kairon]

Why are we talking about Capcom when this article is about Indies?

Because it's relevant. Just because the article in question speaks specifically to Indies, doesn't mean we can't draw a conclusion that this treatment/behavior is not limited to Indies and could also explain why even Japanese third parties are kinda being slow to support the Switch.

I get what you're saying, and there's definitely stuff to dig into on the larger third-party side, but I don't see anything in this article that supports that. In fact, this article has a couple things thatsuggest that larger traditional third parties have a separate and distinct experience from Indies:

1. The article makes it sound like Indies have a dedicated team at Nintendo that handles them.
2. This article seems to make it sound like Nintendo is more attentive to Publishers instead of straight self-publishing shops, and most traditional third parties ARE publishers.
3. The article's critical aspects are mostly focused on NA, whereas it contains much less criticism from Europe and Japan. Given that Capcom is a Japanese Dev, doesn't that suggest that they might even have had a more distinctly difference experience than the quoted devs?
4. The article suggests out that Japan's process is mysteriously less stringent than the one experienced by the more critical Nindies, using VROOM as an example.

I mean, it's obvious that there are issues with the larger world of third parties, just as there has been since the beginning with Nintendo. I just don't believe that this article sheds any new light on that, instead focusing on the "I got a golden ticket" esque saga where some Indies feel the glow of the Nintendo Switch Launch period support, and some other indies, surprising given their track record, are being left out in the cold.

I think this is just a reminder that behind the scenes of the Switch's significant indie presence of Fast RMX, Snipper Clips, The Binding of Isaac, Snake Pass, Has-Been Heroes, Jackbox Party Pack 3, Mr. Shifty, WonderBoy, Tumble Seed, Graceful Explosion Machine, and others, there is a system that created that lineup, and that system has created losers as well as winners.

Tentatively, I would argue that the system has worked well for this first two months. It's brutal, and it's insensate of past Nindie history, but it's accrued a lineup of well-received, varied, and interesting games to cover one of Nintendo's most public weakspots: the post launch drought.

I would argue that speaks to a sense of priorities and focus at Nintendo. Brutal, unrelenting, constrained focus perhaps, with a general favoring of exclusives over older ports, favoring indie publishers over indie developers, and of business and market concerns over personal histories of collaboration. A focus that got them through the first two months... but one that could be harshly restrictive if it remains a pattern over the next two years.

[Soren]

Why are we talking about Capcom when this article is about Indies?

Because it's relevant. Just because the article in question speaks specifically to Indies, doesn't mean we can't draw a conclusion that this treatment/behavior is not limited to Indies and could also explain why even Japanese third parties are kinda being slow to support the Switch.

If Capcom pitches a port for the Switch, they're not going to get the runaround from Nintendo. There's just not a reasonable comparison here.

[Agent-X-]

Kairon, Soren: You're both making good points. I jumped to conclusions. The same day I saw this article being shared, I saw Capcom's game announcement of Marvel vs Capcom for PS4, XB1, and Steam. That obviously fed into my negative feelings, because that would be par for the course at the moment. They're porting a 10-year old digital title with a $40 price tag to Swtich, while they heap on the quality titles on other platforms.


It doesn't make sense, but I now see that it's completely unrelated to NoA and Nindies. Although... the lone Capcom title has tacked on Switch-exclusive content. *cue the X-files/conspiracy music*