Nintendo's relations with 3rd party developers and publishers has always been hit and miss. While the company has fostered and even repaired relations with certain companies, it's acted completely indifferent towards arguably more important ones. A common criticism is that Nintendo's hardware is just too different to port to, whether that be not having the same storage format, having a unique controller, or not having a good architecture, many 3rd party companies typically avoid Nintendo for major releases.

Conformity and standardization have become the name of the game for 3rd party development in recent years, but Nintendo continues to play a different game. The Nintendo Switch at first, appears to be business as usual. An unconventional and underpowered system with an equally weird controller sounds like kryptonite to risk-averse 3rd party publishers, who often want big fat profit, as fast as possible. Now the common answer to Nintendo's 3rd party woes is to just make a "normal" console. Ya know, super powerful, traditional controller, and robust online. That'll get 3rd parties, plus Nintendo games. That sound like a good fantasy, but reality check. I don't think just having a watered down PC will be enough for Nintendo to get 3rd party support.

The problem with Nintendo's third party relations lies within the roots of the company's overall philosophy. Nintendo typically designs their hardware for their software. Its game developers and producers are typically very hands-on with the development of their platforms. Nintendo then pitches the final product to third parties, and it's up to them whether they want to support it or not. This is a very different approach to Sony and Microsoft, who go to all the major companies as early in the development process as possible, and design the whole thing based on the wishes of said companies. Nintendo makes consoles they think will be fun, Sony and Microsoft make consoles to order. Both methods have their pros and cons, but for Nintendo to get the likes of EA and Rockstar on board, they'd need to put aside their own interests and ideas and basically let the 3rd parties call the shots. Granted, Nintendo has apparently been taking their feedback more seriously during the Switch's development, but it's clear the Switch is still designed for Nintendo games first, 3rd parties second.

Another problem has to do with branding and marketing. Whether you feel it's deserved or not, Nintendo still has a bit of a kiddie stigma attached to it. 3rd parties typically target the 18-35 year old male gamer demographic, which is the safest and most reliable audience in consumer goods. Sony and Microsoft cater almost exclusively to this audience, and they make sure nearly every major release panders to this audience in some way shape or form, thus making their platforms more attractive to companies looking to pursue this audience. Nintendo as usual, takes the path less traveled. They aim to make gaming inclusive to everyone, including those who never really played games before. They typically have never curated an audience for games like GTA or The Witcher III, and thus, those companies don't see much benefit in releasing their games on Nintendo platforms. How do you try and pimp a massive franchise like Grand Theft Auto on the Nintendo DS platform, for example, when the platform holder pours tons of marketing $$$ and R&D into stuff like Style Savvy or Mario Kart? Like or not, Nintendo just isn't very good at targeting the AAA 3rd party audience, and probably, never will be.

Do I think Nintendo can do a better job courting 3rd parties? Of course, Everyone wants Nintendo to have as many developers on board as possible. But we have to face facts, Nintendo is never going to be the main choice for gamers simply due to how different their philosophies and goals are as a company. Philosophies, that are largely incompatible with what most major 3rd party look for. Gaming has changed, and gamers today are very different from how they were in the 80s and 90s. The only way Nintendo could be #1 is if they toss out their entire ideological and creative ethos, and homogenize themselves to meet what is considered hot, or the norm, which at that point they may as well not even be Nintendo. The best Nintendo can do, is be the best companion piece to an Xbox, PlayStation, or PC they can.

The Switch isn't the first gaming tablet to plug into a TV (The Nvidia Sheild toyed with that concept a few years back). But as Nintendo has proven time and time again, it's not about what ideas you use, it's about how you use them. Sure the ability to take a console game like Breath of the Wild with you is nothing new, but the ability to prop it up with a kick stand, connect wirelessly with other players locally, or pass half a controller to a friend to play multiplayer is something truly unique, as stuff only Nintendo could really think of.

Nintendo is known for having some of the most recognizable names in gaming. I doubt there are many gamers who can't tell you what Mario, Zelda, or Pokemon are, even those who don't really consider themselves gamers can recognize Mario and Co. instantly.

But when it comes to brand recognition, it seems only these precious few properties are instantly recognizable to a mass audience. By comparison, titles like Rhythm Heaven, Star Fox, Fire Emblem, Pikmin, even Splatoon, while successful in their own right, are comparatively more niche, and not every gamer is guaranteed to have heard of or played them.

Even Splatoon, Nintendo's first truly break-out new IP since Wii Sports, is a far more popular phenomenon in Japan than it is here in the west (not to say Splatoon isn't popular here, but it's presence in Japan dwarfs it's US presence). On top of that, many children are increasingly being raised on Minecraft, Skylanders, and the deluge of Free to Play titles on iOS and Android. To kids, Mario, simply feels like a well known Video Game icon next to Sonic and Pac-Man, rather than the face of gaming. For older gamers, Call of Duty, The Witcher, Uncharted, and many other AAA franchise are the new faces of modern gaming. Game design has evolved, and a lot of gamers want more from their graphics and presentation these days.

This is what I fear could potentially happen to Nintendo and the Switch. Nintendo has the opportunity to recapture the success and popularity of original Wii and DS, but I fear it may be too little, too late. Nintendo for better or worse, is still making and curating the same types of games and experiences it's been doing since they first entered the gaming industry as an Arcade developer. As a Nintendo fan, that's all fine and good. But can the likes of Pikmin, ARMS, Splatoon, Fire Emblem, etc. be system sellers in the US? Look at the NPD sales for retail games, most of them are dominated by Hollywood-style blockbusters made, not by platform holders, but third party publishers.

It seems like more and more the concept of first party games becomes more and more niche as companies like EA and Ubisoft control the US market. So I just wonder if Nintendo's IPs and philosophies of game design are more niche than we are led to believe.

Most of the Switch's problems are actually just design hiccups that were created as a byproduct of the system being rushed to market. Nearly all of them can be fixed pretty easily post-launch in the future. By comparison, the Wii U had severe problems regarding it's fundamental hardware, concept, and strategy. No matter what you do to it, it was never going to be a success. The Switch's concept, execution, and overall strategy are much better than the Wii U's, Nintendo just needs to fix the few serious issues like the Joy-Con syncing issue and dock, both of which can be fixed in future shipments.

@xantufrog: tryhard pretty much mean you're trying way too hard, to be cool, badass, and dangerous with just about everything you do, mainly to get attention. This sums up Nintendo's strategy in the GameCube era. Much of their advertising and software deals that generation was plagued with the kind of edgy, hipster, emo crap you'd expect from Hot Topic, not from a company who's mascot is a cartoon plumber.

@storm_of_swords: If you look back at much of Nintendo's marketing for the GameCube, including the commercials I linked to, you can see Nintendo was trying to pass it off as an edgy, young adult gizmo. Even in the case of the commercial you linked to, was a edgy satire of cheesy recycling PSAs, further fueling the perception that Nintendo was trying way too hard to be cool.

@Planeforger: Purple wasn't an attempt to be edgy, but Nintendo trying to pass it off as edgy was laughable. Their marketing and overall strategy durring that period was just awkward and out of touch. Like you said, the GameCube was a great system with some excellent games. But Nintendo's "How do you do, fellow kids?" mentality at the time was embarrassing.

@dotWithShoes: Sure, you could buy the black GameCube at launch, but all the marketing and promotions for the system from 2001, to around 2003, used indigo as the main color, thus giving the GameCube the look of a kids toy. And Nintendo's desperate attempts to pass this Fisher Price color off as "edgy" and "cool" showed just how desperate and awkward they were durring that time. Sure, they phased out indigo later in its life, but by that time, the damage had already been done.

No matter how much you dress up a purple lunchbox, it's still a purple lunchbox, and when indigo is the primary color, people are going to associate the product with that color.

@dotWithShoes: While multiple colors of the GameCube were released, the primary color marketed in its first few years, was indigo, aka, purple. And the GameCube did have a broadband adapter, but it had no official online service provided by Nintendo, and the only games that used it for online, were the Phantasy Star Online games.

First, let me make something clear. I love the GameCube, I think it's one of the most underrated systems ever, and had some of my favorite games of all time on it. That being said, I can't ignore the problems Nintendo had with it. Sure we can talk about the mini-DVD format, and lack of online, and purple color, and while the decisions Nintendo made in regards to those weren't helping, I think Nintendo had another problem on their hands.

Throughout much of it's life, Nintendo of America constantly tried to portray the GameCube as this "cool", "hip", "edgy" system for young adults. Not only in advertising examples A(https://youtu.be/kIgpuGw168k), B(https://youtu.be/sNmCgOOqh80), and C(https://youtu.be/3C-IRfw5LJ8). But also in the direction Nintendo took some of their franchises, and the games they got onto it. To give a few examples...

* Super Mario Sunshine had fully voiced cutscenes, and a more in-depth story than Super Mario 64, giving the game a bit more of a cinamatic feel.

* Eternal Darkness, an innovative Survival Horror game, marked the very first Mature rated game published and co-produced by Nintendo (Perfect Dark and Conker's Bad Fur Day were both self-published by Rare, Nintendo just distributed them).

* 1080 Avalanche featured almost entirely licensed rock music from artists like Finger Eleven.

* Nintendo constantly tried pushing Sports, Wrestling, and Mature action titles in a lot of their marketing.

* Twilight Princess being darker and more realistic was a response to the contraversial Art Style of Wind Waker

* Nintendo's ill-fated publishing deal with Capcom, The Capcom 5, included exclusive access to the Resident Evil franchise.

While all of these were great games, it all gave the impression that Nintendo was trying to be "hip with da youths" so-to-speak. It felt like Nintendo was trying to mimick Sony's strategy, and philosophy with the original PlayStation, but didn't understand why it worked, and were about 6 years too late. Don't get me wrong, Sunshine, Metroid Prime, and Resident Evil are great games, but the pervasive feeling was that of "look, look, were cool and edgy too!", and came off as a desperate attempt to be relevant with more hardcore gamers. It also contradicts with Nintendo's philosophies as a company. To put it in perspective, when the tone of your console's design and some of it's software, clashes heavily with the tone and audience of how you're marketing it, you have a problem.

It just felt like Nintendo wasn't playing to it's strengths as a company, and was just trying to cash-in on the "edgy hipster" gaming fad of the early-mid 2000s. Like I said, the GameCube was a great system, but if I had to sum up Nintendo's biggest problem in that generation, "How do you do, fellow kids?" is probably the first that comes to mind.