I could not disagree more. The Gamecube is hardly a reference point. Nintendo offered up 1.3GB of disc space while Microsoft and Sony offered 8GB of disc space. The Gamecube controller featured less buttons and a relatively non-standard design to boot, making the mere task of getting a workable control scheme a task. The design of the Gamecube architecturally was also strange- it was very efficient and could produce fantastic looking games if you designed for it first. But since it wasn't the market leader, games would only be ported to it. It had the least ram, making a port not as simple as going from PS2 --> Xbox. Again, a very efficient design, but your game had to be designed around it. Now that Nintendo is the market leader, let's say the Wii 2 hits with rough power parity with the others and a controller that features a bit more in the way of buttons (though still a Wiimote). What game developer is NOT going to have a Wii version? If a multiplat engine like UE3 is there and supported, Nintendo coming off a huge marketshare will easily attract ports (and possibly be the primary development platform) of all the big 3rd party games. I mean, simply look at this generation- it's dominated by multiplats. Yet the Wii doesn't draw versions of the cream of the crop of this generation. (3rd party) If you want to play Zelda, you need a Nintendo console. But to play many, many other high profile games, you're going to need another system. If Nintendo can produce a console that has its own unique features but allows for easy cross-platform development, then Nintendo can cut off sales to the other system. Why buy a Xbox3 or PS4 when the Wii2 has your favorite Nintendo games AND your favorite 3rd party megahits?I'll tell you one thing they shouldn't do: make the graphical capabilities comparable to the competition. Seriously, people, they made the Gamecube that way and there still were plenty of games on the other two consoles but not the Gamecube. Nintendo's problem with third party support did not begin with the Wii. If anything their third-party support has been better on the Wii than on the Gamecube, as they've gotten many more exclusives instead of just "me-too" three-console multiplats that do nothing to actually differentiate or sell the console.
GabuEx
What can Nintendo do to gain support from 3rd parties next gen.?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]I could not disagree more. The Gamecube is hardly a reference point. Nintendo offered up 1.3GB of disc space while Microsoft and Sony offered 8GB of disc space. The Gamecube controller featured less buttons and a relatively non-standard design to boot, making the mere task of getting a workable control scheme a task. The design of the Gamecube architecturally was also strange- it was very efficient and could produce fantastic looking games if you designed for it first. But since it wasn't the market leader, games would only be ported to it. It had the least ram, making a port not as simple as going from PS2 --> Xbox. Again, a very efficient design, but your game had to be designed around it. Now that Nintendo is the market leader, let's say the Wii 2 hits with rough power parity with the others and a controller that features a bit more in the way of buttons (though still a Wiimote). What game developer is NOT going to have a Wii version? If a multiplat engine like UE3 is there and supported, Nintendo coming off a huge marketshare will easily attract ports (and possibly be the primary development platform) of all the big 3rd party games. I mean, simply look at this generation- it's dominated by multiplats. Yet the Wii doesn't draw versions of the cream of the crop of this generation. (3rd party) If you want to play Zelda, you need a Nintendo console. But to play many, many other high profile games, you're going to need another system. If Nintendo can produce a console that has its own unique features but allows for easy cross-platform development, then Nintendo can cut off sales to the other system. Why buy a Xbox3 or PS4 when the Wii2 has your favorite Nintendo games AND your favorite 3rd party megahits? I couldn't agree more, the n64 lost third party because of cartridges, the gc lost third party in part because of he disc, and wii does because of the weak hardwareI'll tell you one thing they shouldn't do: make the graphical capabilities comparable to the competition. Seriously, people, they made the Gamecube that way and there still were plenty of games on the other two consoles but not the Gamecube. Nintendo's problem with third party support did not begin with the Wii. If anything their third-party support has been better on the Wii than on the Gamecube, as they've gotten many more exclusives instead of just "me-too" three-console multiplats that do nothing to actually differentiate or sell the console.
LongZhiZi
I believe the console and video game market is highly unpredictable and risky. For example the current trend are Call of Duty style shooters which sell millions, but who knows what the next trend is gonna be. The best-selling PS2 game was GTA: San Andreas, a timed exclusive multiplatform game which was representative of the GTA craze of those times. It's a fact that Wii succeeded because it had a family-friendly image, an innovative controller scheme which made games playlable to everyone and because it was cheaper than the competition. Also who would have thought that PS3, the successor to the best-selling games console of all time aka the PS2, would slip third place sales-wise and stay there all till now? And considering how much effort does Sony make to put out great exclusives, it seems that just isn't the deciding factor for the success of a console. That's also why console companies now bet a lot on the casual markets rather than the unpredictable core gamers. After all, you can do a direct Wii copy and it will still sell millions.
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]I think what we're all assuming (myself included) is that Nintendo will launch their console last again. What if Nintendo is the first one out and sets the bar for the competition?I'll tell you one thing they shouldn't do: make the graphical capabilities comparable to the competition. Seriously, people, they made the Gamecube that way and there still were plenty of games on the other two consoles but not the Gamecube. Nintendo's problem with third party support did not begin with the Wii. If anything their third-party support has been better on the Wii than on the Gamecube, as they've gotten many more exclusives instead of just "me-too" three-console multiplats that do nothing to actually differentiate or sell the console.
JordanElek
They will have to launch their next console first if they want a slight technical advantage over the competition. I don't believe Nintendo will ever really match the next-gen competition again tech-wise if they want to sell their console at a low price and still have profit from each unit sold.
[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]If Nintendo cannot gain third party support by selling by far the most consoles this generation as well as by selling the most consoles they have ever sold, then this is a matter that requires some strenuous thinking and I am not up for that at this hour, especially since Nintendo employs some brilliant people that likely outdo me in intellect and yet even they cannot manage to attract as much third party support as the others.WreckEm711When the 360 and PS3 sales combined surpass the total sales of the Wii, 3rd party multiplat developers dont really have a reason to develop for the wii with such a vast hardware difference and volatile marketbaseYou would also have to factor in the development cost of developing for two vastly different platforms of which both have higher development costs than the Wii to boot. Publishers also need to realise that putting a decent marketing budget behind their games on the Wii would be wise as well instead of relying on Nintendo like the likes of Capcom have done.
A big reason why some games (like RE5 for example) did not get a release on Wii was because of its hardware. Better graphics will make more devs want to make games for it. This is the only reason why I hope Nintendo's next console will have hardware equal to the other next gen consoles.
Litchie
The engine that powers RE5 (MT Framework) runs on the 3DS, though. Also Capcom is bringing Super Street Fighter IV over to the 3DS and Half-Life 2 ran on the first Xbox, so I don't think the Wii is too weak (pun :P ) to run those games. Of course, the visual quality would be a lot lower than PS3 and Xbox 360, but it could run them.
I think Nintendo is doing a fine job with 3DS and it's good 3rd party support so I think they could do the same with the next Wii.
The MT framework runs on the Wii too. Sengoru Basara uses it.
And you people must be in strong denial if you really think that adding more horsepower will magically make third parties flock to a Nintendo platform. There is exactly one way Nintendo can get third party support, and that is becoming the absolute dominant force. The 3DS isn't getting all those third party games because of "teh horsepower", it's getting them because the PSP turned out to be a semi failed brand. Chances are the PSP2 will be much more powerful than the 3DS, but developers will support the 3DS simply because, in the handheld market, it's Nintendo's way or the highway.
Until (assuming this could happen) Nintendo becomes a near monopoly on the home console market, developers will keep supporting platforms where THEY call the shots instead of the hardware manufacturer. They've been spoiled since the PS1 (a console with virtually no first party games, much less first party killer apps), that's the way they like it and that's the way they want it to be for as long as possible.
This, but I don't think Nintendo really gives a rip about 3rd party games, even if they say they do. If the Wii had no 3rd party games, how many Wii owners would not have bought one? If the Wii had no 3rd party games, how much 1st and 2nd party software would Nintendo not have sold? When the Wii's specs were released, it was obvious it wouldn't get all the most advanced 3rd party games, but it was sold out for more than a year anyway. How many Wii owners said to themselves, "there's a good chance there might not be any really good 3rd party games on the Wii, but it will have Nintendo's games, and that's good enough for me."?produce multiplat capable hardware
AmnesiaHaze
So why are third parties so damn afraid of Nintendo's first party titles but third parties seemingly don't mind Sony's first party titles?
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say it's because Nintendo's 1st party games are a lot better than Sony's 1st party games. It always bugs me when 3rd party developers complain about competing with Nintendo. It sounds like the 'everyone gets a trophy' mentality.So why are third parties so damn afraid of Nintendo's first party titles but third parties seemingly don't mind Sony's first party titles?
Hexagon_777
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say it's because Nintendo's 1st party games are a lot better than Sony's 1st party games. It always bugs me when 3rd party developers complain about competing with Nintendo. It sounds like the 'everyone gets a trophy' mentality. Thats not terribly fair. Don't want to turn this into System Wars but Sony make incredible games too.[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]
So why are third parties so damn afraid of Nintendo's first party titles but third parties seemingly don't mind Sony's first party titles?
aransom
So why are third parties so damn afraid of Nintendo's first party titles but third parties seemingly don't mind Sony's first party titles?
Hexagon_777
Maybe because 90% of the best selling games of all time are nintendo games. A "nintendo console" owner will always pick a first party title over a 3rd party intend of game. In terms of software commercialisation and sales nintendo is a huge obstacle for most developers, who most probably won't ever dare to enter that obscure and harsh market. This is a business and meanwhile there is a Mario game on the shelves, the others alongside will always be the "next time option".
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]I could not disagree more.I'll tell you one thing they shouldn't do: make the graphical capabilities comparable to the competition. Seriously, people, they made the Gamecube that way and there still were plenty of games on the other two consoles but not the Gamecube. Nintendo's problem with third party support did not begin with the Wii. If anything their third-party support has been better on the Wii than on the Gamecube, as they've gotten many more exclusives instead of just "me-too" three-console multiplats that do nothing to actually differentiate or sell the console.
LongZhiZi
The Gamecube is hardly a reference point. Nintendo offered up 1.3GB of disc space while Microsoft and Sony offered 8GB of disc space. The Gamecube controller featured less buttons and a relatively non-standard design to boot, making the mere task of getting a workable control scheme a task. The design of the Gamecube architecturally was also strange- it was very efficient and could produce fantastic looking games if you designed for it first. But since it wasn't the market leader, games would only be ported to it. It had the least ram, making a port not as simple as going from PS2 --> Xbox. Again, a very efficient design, but your game had to be designed around it.
Now that Nintendo is the market leader, let's say the Wii 2 hits with rough power parity with the others and a controller that features a bit more in the way of buttons (though still a Wiimote). What game developer is NOT going to have a Wii version? If a multiplat engine like UE3 is there and supported, Nintendo coming off a huge marketshare will easily attract ports (and possibly be the primary development platform) of all the big 3rd party games. I mean, simply look at this generation- it's dominated by multiplats. Yet the Wii doesn't draw versions of the cream of the crop of this generation. (3rd party)
If you want to play Zelda, you need a Nintendo console. But to play many, many other high profile games, you're going to need another system. If Nintendo can produce a console that has its own unique features but allows for easy cross-platform development, then Nintendo can cut off sales to the other system. Why buy a Xbox3 or PS4 when the Wii2 has your favorite Nintendo games AND your favorite 3rd party megahits?
It seems to me that you could ask the entirely opposite question: Why buy the Wii 2 when the competitors have all the same games?
Let's be clear: even given what you mention, the Gamecube got a lot of multiplats last generation. What it didn't get were games (other than Nintendo games) that actually made it desirable above and beyond the competition. Getting more multiplats is not going to provide that market differentiation that is today one of the key components of the Wii's success. Furthermore, making the Wii 2 comparable to its competitors would inevitably remove some of the major contributors to the Wii's success, such as its cheapness in comparison to the competition and the lower development costs when developing for it compared to games on the competition. The entire reason why I like the Wii so much is because of all the unique games on it that you really would never have found on the competition. If Nintendo had designed the Wii such that it gets a lot of the games on the other platforms but loses those games that actually set it apart from the competition, then, really, what possible reason would I or someone else have had to buy the Wii?
A console that tries to be everything is a console that in all likelihood is going to fail at everything. People asking the Wii 2 to be like the competition are basically asking Nintendo to undo the things that made the Wii a success this generation.
[QUOTE="aransom"][QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]So why are third parties so damn afraid of Nintendo's first party titles but third parties seemingly don't mind Sony's first party titles?locopathoI'm going to go out on a limb here, and say it's because Nintendo's 1st party games are a lot better than Sony's 1st party games. It always bugs me when 3rd party developers complain about competing with Nintendo. It sounds like the 'everyone gets a trophy' mentality. Thats not terribly fair. Don't want to turn this into System Wars but Sony make incredible games too.Exactly. Looking at Metacritic, Sony seems to produce games which are just about equal to Nintendo's games. The Uncharted series, the Resistance series, the God of War series, the Killzone series, and so on.
[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]So why are third parties so damn afraid of Nintendo's first party titles but third parties seemingly don't mind Sony's first party titles?gulfoMaybe because 90% of the best selling games of all time are nintendo games. A "nintendo console" owner will always pick a first party title over a 3rd party intend of game. In terms of software commercialisation and sales nintendo is a huge obstacle for most developers, who most probably won't ever dare to enter that obscure and harsh market. This is a business and meanwhile there is a Mario game on the shelves, the others alongside will always be the "next time option".If we are going by quality as well as sales, then I refer away from Sony and instead to Microsoft with the likes of Halo, Gears of War, Fable, and so on.
[QUOTE="aransom"]I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say it's because Nintendo's 1st party games are a lot better than Sony's 1st party games. It always bugs me when 3rd party developers complain about competing with Nintendo. It sounds like the 'everyone gets a trophy' mentality. Thats not terribly fair. Don't want to turn this into System Wars but Sony make incredible games too. The quality really isn't the factor, its all in the games ability to sale, Nintendo franchises can outsell any 3rd party franchise including GTA and CoD and they have multiple games that can do that. The other consoles don't have that, so its much easier to be the big ticket game for 3rd party publishers on other consoles. When CoD comes out on the HD consoles it a massive event, all other games are brushed aside by it; on a Nintendo platform, CoD would be avoiding Mario the way every other series avoids CoD.[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]
So why are third parties so damn afraid of Nintendo's first party titles but third parties seemingly don't mind Sony's first party titles?
locopatho
I could not disagree more.[QUOTE="LongZhiZi"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]
I'll tell you one thing they shouldn't do: make the graphical capabilities comparable to the competition. Seriously, people, they made the Gamecube that way and there still were plenty of games on the other two consoles but not the Gamecube. Nintendo's problem with third party support did not begin with the Wii. If anything their third-party support has been better on the Wii than on the Gamecube, as they've gotten many more exclusives instead of just "me-too" three-console multiplats that do nothing to actually differentiate or sell the console.
GabuEx
The Gamecube is hardly a reference point. Nintendo offered up 1.3GB of disc space while Microsoft and Sony offered 8GB of disc space. The Gamecube controller featured less buttons and a relatively non-standard design to boot, making the mere task of getting a workable control scheme a task. The design of the Gamecube architecturally was also strange- it was very efficient and could produce fantastic looking games if you designed for it first. But since it wasn't the market leader, games would only be ported to it. It had the least ram, making a port not as simple as going from PS2 --> Xbox. Again, a very efficient design, but your game had to be designed around it.
Now that Nintendo is the market leader, let's say the Wii 2 hits with rough power parity with the others and a controller that features a bit more in the way of buttons (though still a Wiimote). What game developer is NOT going to have a Wii version? If a multiplat engine like UE3 is there and supported, Nintendo coming off a huge marketshare will easily attract ports (and possibly be the primary development platform) of all the big 3rd party games. I mean, simply look at this generation- it's dominated by multiplats. Yet the Wii doesn't draw versions of the cream of the crop of this generation. (3rd party)
If you want to play Zelda, you need a Nintendo console. But to play many, many other high profile games, you're going to need another system. If Nintendo can produce a console that has its own unique features but allows for easy cross-platform development, then Nintendo can cut off sales to the other system. Why buy a Xbox3 or PS4 when the Wii2 has your favorite Nintendo games AND your favorite 3rd party megahits?
It seems to me that you could ask the entirely opposite question: Why buy the Wii 2 when the competitors have all the same games?
Let's be clear: even given what you mention, the Gamecube got a lot of multiplats last generation. What it didn't get were games (other than Nintendo games) that actually made it desirable above and beyond the competition. Getting more multiplats is not going to provide that market differentiation that is today one of the key components of the Wii's success. Furthermore, making the Wii 2 comparable to its competitors would inevitably remove some of the major contributors to the Wii's success, such as its cheapness in comparison to the competition and the lower development costs when developing for it compared to games on the competition. The entire reason why I like the Wii so much is because of all the unique games on it that you really would never have found on the competition. If Nintendo had designed the Wii such that it gets a lot of the games on the other platforms but loses those games that actually set it apart from the competition, then, really, what possible reason would I or someone else have had to buy the Wii?
A console that tries to be everything is a console that in all likelihood is going to fail at everything. People asking the Wii 2 to be like the competition are basically asking Nintendo to undo the things that made the Wii a success this generation.
I think you are pretty mixed up with what made Wii get more third party support this gen. The control scheme is 75% the reason why so much more support was present. Any of the good quirky odd games would still be there with hardware that was competitive. A small percentage can also be attributed to Nintendo reaching out to certain developers. A very small percentage is cheaper hardware and you could argue that weak hardware pushed away developers who are attracted to tech. Thewii does have more support but most is only significant in quantity. Very few help the system or competewith other console third party games. The GC did not have nearly as many multi plats as the xbox or ps2. Gta is an example thathelped sellsystems for those other consoles. And the games they did share were almost always inferior on GC. When you make a reputation on your console that your version of an important multiplat has to be read on two discs, or has weird controls because of missing buttons, or has no online play (splinter cell, madden, many fps), or was never released or whatever else tends to happen you are going to get ignored by that crowd. Itis not simply the rule of three or lack of differentiation. It isthe lack of detail and features that even the most uninformed become aware of. I think there are many hardcore gamers who left during the N64 days who would come back to Nintendo hardware. If Nintendo would get outof their ownway for online and hardware, where most thirdparty games make it to the system with all the features of the other systems then an audience that would never even think about Nintendo would be a possibility again. The SNES was a system withgreat third and first party support and it is often said as the golden age of gaming. The wii has differentiation with it's controls and it's lack of features. The latter is not a stategy that has helped Nintendo in the long run of it's console life cycle.[QUOTE="locopatho"][QUOTE="aransom"]I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say it's because Nintendo's 1st party games are a lot better than Sony's 1st party games. It always bugs me when 3rd party developers complain about competing with Nintendo. It sounds like the 'everyone gets a trophy' mentality.Thats not terribly fair. Don't want to turn this into System Wars but Sony make incredible games too. The quality really isn't the factor, its all in the games ability to sale, Nintendo franchises can outsell any 3rd party franchise including GTA and CoD and they have multiple games that can do that. The other consoles don't have that, so its much easier to be the big ticket game for 3rd party publishers on other consoles. When CoD comes out on the HD consoles it a massive event, all other games are brushed aside by it; on a Nintendo platform, CoD would be avoiding Mario the way every other series avoids CoD. Yeah suppose 20 million Mario Karts and Wii Fits compared to a few hundred thousand of some 3rd party games is pretty scary.Sepewrath
The only thing that would really work - Nintendo first party and second party games need to condescend to the mediocity of most of the rest of the industry (or not get published at all). They've been trying with some of their stuff, but then they go and release a SMG or DKCR and it's back to square one...
[QUOTE="locopatho"][QUOTE="aransom"]I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say it's because Nintendo's 1st party games are a lot better than Sony's 1st party games. It always bugs me when 3rd party developers complain about competing with Nintendo. It sounds like the 'everyone gets a trophy' mentality.SepewrathThats not terribly fair. Don't want to turn this into System Wars but Sony make incredible games too. The quality really isn't the factor, its all in the games ability to sale, Nintendo franchises can outsell any 3rd party franchise including GTA and CoD and they have multiple games that can do that. The other consoles don't have that, so its much easier to be the big ticket game for 3rd party publishers on other consoles. When CoD comes out on the HD consoles it a massive event, all other games are brushed aside by it; on a Nintendo platform, CoD would be avoiding Mario the way every other series avoids CoD. The thing is, franchises like CoD could easily sell another one or two million units if they were pushed on the Wii as well and with the Wii having a lower development cost than the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3, said games in the franchise could easily recuperate their costs, even when selling less than the Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3 version.
If we are going by quality as well as sales, then I refer away from Sony and instead to Microsoft with the likes of Halo, Gears of War, Fable, and so on.
Hexagon_777
None of them are in the same league of New Super Mario Bros., Mario Kart, Wii Fit, Wii Sports, Wii Play, Pokemon, etc. in terms of sales. While on the 360 the biggest threat for 3rd parties might be Halo (or GT for Sony), for the Wii there are about 4 o 5 nintendo franchises that will bury any 3rd party intend of survival. Compete against games that sell over 20 million copies is not a risk developers will take that easy, it's better for them to release games on the PS3 or 360 where chances for a customer to pick up their games are better.
[QUOTE="aransom"]I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say it's because Nintendo's 1st party games are a lot better than Sony's 1st party games. It always bugs me when 3rd party developers complain about competing with Nintendo. It sounds like the 'everyone gets a trophy' mentality. Thats not terribly fair. Don't want to turn this into System Wars but Sony make incredible games too. i agree, but you can't compare sony's games sales with nintendo's sales[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]
So why are third parties so damn afraid of Nintendo's first party titles but third parties seemingly don't mind Sony's first party titles?
locopatho
[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]If we are going by quality as well as sales, then I refer away from Sony and instead to Microsoft with the likes of Halo, Gears of War, Fable, and so on.gulfoNone of them are in the same league of New Super Mario Bros., Mario Kart, Wii Fit, Wii Sports, Wii Play, Pokemon, etc. in terms of sales. While on the 360 the biggest threat for 3rd parties might be Halo (or GT for Sony), for the Wii there are about 4 o 5 nintendo franchises that will bury any 3rd party intend of survival. Compete against games that sell over 20 million copies is not a risk developers will take that easy, it's better for them to release games on the PS3 or 360 where chances for a customer to pick up their games are better.Didn't Nintendo leave a window of opportunity consisting of nine months for third parties to release games by not releasing any themselves? Third parties didn't make use of that either, though, right?
@Hexagon
The 3rd party isn't interested in getting out one game in that nine months of downtime between Nintendo onslaughts, they want to do 7 million copies per console of CoD every year. They want GTA to dominate whenever they feel like it coming out, they don't want to have hopscotch around Zelda to see big numbers. Think about last year when MW2 came out and like half of Q4 got delayed to avoid it, publishers don't want to do that, it cost them money and screws up their schedule which cost them more money. Having to dance around the 5 or 6 Nintendo monsters, when you on the HD consoles you have to worry about one, maybe two. "Halo is out in September, we'll release in November, everybody's happy"
And to elaborate on that, Nintendo games have legs, ridiculous legs. NSMB is still in the top selling games from time to time. So you cant avoid Zelda for a month, you cant even avoid 5 months later, when Nintendo has that down time between releases, their games are still flying off the shelves. So its constant competition against Nintendo games, something that doesn't happen on other consoles. At the end of the day, the 3rd party likely just don't see the benefit in trying to halt a juggernaut, when greener pastures exist elsewhere.
Gabu I can get what your saying, but I think you underestimate the state of the cube. It was a distant 3rd in market share and you have to take into account how many people still had their console after a few years. The PS2 had 70% of the total market, no game is going to actually reach 70% of the audience, so there was little reason to release games on consoles other than the PS2, but the Xbox had enough of the audience to make it a viable move, the cube did not; particularly for exclusives. Making a console that is more port friendly wouldn't hurt them, its just a matter of can they sustain a market share that makes those multiplat games an option worth pursuing. The same case can be made for exclusives, that is why the PS2 got so many last gen.
Nintendo doesn't have to make a 360 clone to get into the multiplat market and even if they did, it wouldn't take away the reason people buy Nintendo platforms, the software. Nintendo has always sold the software, which in turn obviously sales the hardware. Motion controls wouldn't have been anything but a novelty if not for Wii Sports, then once they got people in, they started selling them Wii Fit, Mario Kart, Galaxy, NSMB etc.
I think having your hardware more similar to that of the competition (while still being unique with motion and stuff) would help us get more multiplats!
Then again the GC was like that and we still got left out on some stuff like GTA. But then again I hear the GC was pretty different to develop for as well with the mini discs and such.....
Next generation they need to release a HD system, but I think they're gonna get a lot of 3rd party developers from the 3DS.
I think having your hardware more similar to that of the competition (while still being unique with motion and stuff) would help us get more multiplats!
Then again the GC was like that and we still got left out on some stuff like GTA. But then again I hear the GC was pretty different to develop for as well with the mini discs and such.....
kenakuma
Actually Rockstar themselves said something like their games like GTA and Max Payne wouldn't sell on the GC.
I think Nintendo's first fail was staying with the cartidge format on the N64. Not only that limited game content but also turned off many 3rd parties. Final Fantasy VII was originally developed for the N64 but moved to PS1 because of cartridge limits. N64 did get some PS1 games like Ridge Racer and Resident Evil 2 later in it's life, but it was too late by then. Also N64 was hard to program for and got the reputation of the "kiddy" console, which didn't help either. GameCube was easy to develop for and had a promising start, but 3rd party games simply didn't sell well on the GC (which is probably also because most 3rd party GC games were just lazy PS2 ports). So 3rd party devs started jumping ship with the GC and consequently GC missed on some big multiplats despite being comparable to the competition in hardware power. But the Wii is a different matter because it has motion controls by default and a lot weaker hardware than the competition. So simply porting games over to the Wii isn't such an easy task which may explain the current situation. Like I said before, they should make the next console more powerful, with a hybrid motion-conventional controller, better online and contact 3rd parties to make games for them or port them over.
[QUOTE="kenakuma"]
I think having your hardware more similar to that of the competition (while still being unique with motion and stuff) would help us get more multiplats!
Then again the GC was like that and we still got left out on some stuff like GTA. But then again I hear the GC was pretty different to develop for as well with the mini discs and such.....
nameless12345
Actually Rockstar themselves said something like their games like GTA and Max Payne wouldn't sell on the GC.
I could see them saying that.
Nintendo consoles have always had a more "family friendly" type of audience.
I could see them saying that.
Nintendo consoles have always had a more "family friendly" type of audience.
kenakuma
And then they released a GTA for the DS. And then it didn't really sell as much as they expected. And then Rockstar said "SEE? NINTENDO IS TEH KIDDIE!!!1111". And then they ported the game to the HARDCORE AND MATURE PSP. And then the game sold even less on the PSP. And then, for some strange reason, they didn't complain about the PSP. And then... Well, anyone could see the pattern.
Don't listen to me if you guys don't want to, but try to listen to Gabu and Mugen. They know what they're talking about.
[QUOTE="kenakuma"]
I could see them saying that.
Nintendo consoles have always had a more "family friendly" type of audience.
LordQuorthon
And then they released a GTA for the DS. And then it didn't really sell as much as they expected. And then Rockstar said "SEE? NINTENDO IS TEH KIDDIE!!!1111". And then they ported the game to the HARDCORE AND MATURE PSP. And then the game sold even less on the PSP. And then, for some strange reason, they didn't complain about the PSP. And then... Well, anyone could see the pattern.
Don't listen to me if you guys don't want to, but try to listen to Gabu and Mugen. They know what they're talking about.
Well the handheld market is very different.
I still think its pretty fair to say that Nintendo is alot more "family" focused and this reflects in their audience.
Theirs no denying that different gaming platforms have different audiences with different tastes.
Demos and advertising
i have no idea what they could do. better hardware did that with the gamecube and still missed out on a huge amount of multiplatforms. the controller is what got them all those sales in the first place that and first party. its so bad now that the ipod seems to have a far superior dead space game from ea.
The same thing they are doing with the 3DS.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment