"Nintendo Should Have Their IP on Every Platform"

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Kinda like how most kids today have no idea what Fighting Fantasy is. I loved those books as a child, and I am excited about the movie being made of House of Hell, but Nintendo has managed to remain relevant today despite having a business model based largely on nostalgia.

Nintendo are about the only people who are going to be bothered making the most of Nintendo consoles. If there is a seamless, enriching way to use motion controls, it's not going to come from a multiplatform game. As far as my own wants, I'd see every exclusive become multiplatform. But as far as what's good for Nintendo, they're probably better off keeping their IPs close, especially if they want people to see the merits of whatever amusing technology the implement. I'm not saying they've done a good job of it in the past, but if a good job can be done, it'll be with first-party exclusives that don't have to also work on every other system.

When can I play Halo on my DS (no really that was a thing at one point), oh man lets have Battle All Star X Smash Bros as well.

Doing this would be shooting itself in the foot. Going multiplatform would kill Nintendo's hardware business. All they really have right now are first-party titles and the meager number of exclusives they're able to cobble together from other companies. Without those, Nintendo systems would lose a lot of their appeal. Not to mention a lot of those games use Nintendo-specific hardware. You might be able to port Wii games to PS3's move, but right now there isn't really anything for games that heavily use the Wii U's gamepad or the DS's dual-screens/touch-screen. At least not without altering the game significantly or making it look like crap.

As for the people saying that this call should go out for other systems too, I disagree. The point doesn't seem to be getting rid of exclusives entirely. Nintendo caters more towards younger audiences. Mario games and the like are much more child-friendly than most other exclusives. The younger market seems to lack many real good games on other systems. That's a niche that Nintendo could come in and fill quite nicely if they basically wanted to go the way of Sega. I'm guessing that's why he mentioned younger people missing out. He wasn't talking about the 20-somethings and onward. He was talking about the ten-year-olds who get the 360 or PS3 if I'm not mistaken. That's not a market that's helped much by Halo or Metal Gear Solid (at least in theory since those are M-rated games).

DVS BSTrD:
After seeing the review of The Last of Us, I'm not too keen on ANY platform having exclusives.

I know what you mean. I would love to see The Last of Us come to Steam but sadly I doubt it will.

On Topic: I understand what he is saying but at the same time if he is going to tell Nintendo they need to release their games multiplatform than both Microsoft and Sony also need to release all their games multiplatform too.

UltimatheChosen:

Mr. Omega:
I'm curious: Why is it Nintendo is the only one who "needs" to stop having exclusive first-party titles? This line of thinking never comes up with Sony or Microsoft. It's always Nintendo.

They're not the only ones that should do it. They're just one of the most prominent examples.

Okay. Then go ask Microsoft about Halo, or Sony about Uncharted. Tell them you don't think they should keep those games locked onto their consoles because folks might "miss out".

See if they don't laugh you right out the door for even suggesting the idea.

You don't get to whine at Nintendo for doing the same thing as every other console on the market.

What's with this mentality that "consoles shouldn't ever have exclusives", anyways? Why exactly should a business not be allowed to offer products which are only available through them? Oftentimes the most attractive prospect of any product is what it does differently from every other product of similar intent on the market. That's a fundamental aspect of competition in the business world. If your product is just like every other product of similar intent, you don't stand out and you're less likely to attract a large following.

What people are basically proposing when they say "no console should have exclusives" is a world where consoles are all samey and bland, because they'd all play the exact same games (and presumably so would PCs in this "utopia" of non-exclusive gaming, thus eliminating nearly every benefit of owning a console in the first place) and would offer nothing unique to differentiate themselves. I'd rather have three distinct consoles with their own rosters of games than three shitty PCs.

It basically sounds like this core argument is fueled by people who don't have the money to own all three consoles but don't want to actually have to make a decision for themselves about which console they want most. Tough. You can't always get everything you want with everything you buy, sometimes you need to compromise and make sacrifices. You want to play Nintendo games, buy a Nintendo console.

This would be the most un-Nintendo thing Nintendo has ever done. It's never going to happen. Even if Nintendo completely gave up on making consoles they'd close shop before considering developing games for someone else.

And considering how unique Nintendo consoles are from their competition it's not exactly hard to understand why it would be a bad idea to develop multiplatform.

Unless Nintendo start to go bankrupt because of their consoles doing badly they will never go multi-platform.
Back in '89 or '90 John Carmack of ID Software fame created the first smooth side scrolling game engine for the PC. Carmack, Tom Hall and John Romero worked together to make a perfect PC port of Super Mario Bros. 3 on the engine and presented it to Nintendo to try and convince them to publish it. Nintendo congratulated them on their achievement but declined to publish the game as they saw their games as console games and not anything more.

Carmack, Hall and Romero then went on to create Commander Keen as ID Software using the engine Carmack developed and published it as a shareware title through Apogee. A lot of this engine was then repurposed to create Wolfenstein, Wolfenstein 3D, Doom and eventually Quake.

From a financial perspective Nintendo could be called crazy for declining a pre-made PC port of one of their games that they didn't have to fund the development for. All they had to do was say yes and write up a contract to sell the game.
By sticking to their vision they probably sold more consoles and gamers everywhere got FPS games.

Don't ever forget. Nintendo's stubbornness led to the FPS genre being invented.

Making their games multiplatform would maybe increase their sales in games but that would mean no one would buy their consoles because PS and Xbox won't go multiplatform for each other and the WiiU.
I don't see why Nintendo would do this unless Sony and Microsoft jump along and they unite in making 1 console with IPs from everyone.
Then again most PS and Xbox gamers are too "hardcore" for the childish Nintendo games?

So, a lot of comments are saying similar things. I, for one, can play devil's advocate and see the merit in the suggestion. However, only if they decide to bail on their hardware at the same time. Hardware development can be a much more costly process than making software.

While they have certainly found success in the past with their hardware, I don't feel that they've reliably delivered on consoles throughout their history. Like Microsoft OSs, they usually have one good release for every two to three they produce. I haven't bought a Nintendo console since the Super Nintendo, but you better bet your sweet ass I'd pick up a Zelda/Metroid game if it was available on a console that I owned. Opening their games up to this huge market of people who don't own a current Nintendo system could be more valuable in the long-term than continuing to pump money into hardware that will potentially fail on a much grander scale.

In addition, their reliance on IPs has caused their company to narrow their focus to only judge their console by Nintendo logic. So they develop consoles that are underpowered for the generation their in and contain gimmicky hardware that can be cool, but also have a strong likelihood of flopping. With underpowered systems and failed gimmicks, developers are less likely to want to spend the time to make good games for the console. This has resulted, in the most recent generation, where those who will only buy one gaming machine have to choose between getting the Nintendo IPs or having access to a wider variety of third party developer titles. A pretty good summary of this concept can be found here:

http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/21/x86-architecture-vs-nintendo/

I'm not ready to say that Nintendo needs to abandon ship on its consoles, but if it can't succeed with its next console, I would say 2 failures in a row could warrant a hard look at restructuring how they do things.

CriticKitten:

UltimatheChosen:

Mr. Omega:
I'm curious: Why is it Nintendo is the only one who "needs" to stop having exclusive first-party titles? This line of thinking never comes up with Sony or Microsoft. It's always Nintendo.

They're not the only ones that should do it. They're just one of the most prominent examples.

Okay. Then go ask Microsoft about Halo, or Sony about Uncharted. Tell them you don't think they should keep those games locked onto their consoles because folks might "miss out".

Halo 1 was released on the PC. And it's worth noting that Nintendo (arguably) has more exclusive IPs of consistently high quality than any other company. Even the less respected Mario games like Super Mario Sunshine are still really good games.

Nintendo isn't the only one to do this, but they are the poster boy for it.

CriticKitten:
You don't get to whine at Nintendo for doing the same thing as every other console on the market.

Sure I do, because the stuff that every console is doing is stupid, too. These companies are making games, intentionally limiting their audience, and then losing money hand-over-fist because sales need to be astronomically high to recoup development budgets.

CriticKitten:
What's with this mentality that "consoles shouldn't ever have exclusives", anyways? Why exactly should a business not be allowed to offer products which are only available through them? Oftentimes the most attractive prospect of any product is what it does differently from every other product of similar intent on the market. That's a fundamental aspect of competition in the business world. If your product is just like every other product of similar intent, you don't stand out and you're less likely to attract a large following.

What people are basically proposing when they say "no console should have exclusives" is a world where consoles are all samey and bland, because they'd all play the exact same games (and presumably so would PCs in this "utopia" of non-exclusive gaming, thus eliminating nearly every benefit of owning a console in the first place) and would offer nothing unique to differentiate themselves. I'd rather have three distinct consoles with their own rosters of games than three shitty PCs.

It basically sounds like this core argument is fueled by people who don't have the money to own all three consoles but don't want to actually have to make a decision for themselves about which console they want most. Tough. You can't always get everything you want with everything you buy, sometimes you need to compromise and make sacrifices. You want to play Nintendo games, buy a Nintendo console.

Yes, that's exactly what's fueling it. That, and people who don't want to buy any console, but still want to play the games on a PC.

"Three distinct consoles" simply will not happen, because there won't be enough third-party support. We're already seeing the industry buckle under its own weight-- as I noted above, budgets are so large that games need to see tons of copies just to break even. No publisher is going to put that kind of money into a game that's tailor-made for a console that not everyone has.

This is the reason why the Wii failed for hardcore gamers last generation-- even though there was a lot of interesting stuff you could do with motion controls, anything that used those motion controls in a meaningful way was incompatible with PCs and the other two consoles. It wasn't worth the money to make Wii games, and thus the bulk of the big releases were Nintendo games. The Wii did get some third-party support, sure, but it paled in comparison to PCs and the other consoles in that same period.

Console wars, and the exclusives that go along with them, are stupid. I'm a fan of Nintendo's games, and I'd buy them, but I'm not going to drop hundreds of dollars on a console so that I can play the six or seven games that interest me over the next five to ten years. And that goes for every console.

Terminate421:
I always supported Nintendo, their morals have always been one thing I respect about them.

Seriously? I suggest you dig a little deeper. Back in the NES days Nintendo forced developers to sign exclusivity agreements, preventing them from releasing the game on any other platform for six years or something (by which time it'd be too dated to bother porting). It's why the NES had such a huge library of games and the Sega Master System only had around 300, I think.

I admire them for their incredible business savvy and game design skills, but they got to where they are now by being ruthless. Morality takes a backseat to profits in Nintendo's playbook.

Sonic Doctor:

DVS BSTrD:
After seeing the review of The Last of Us, I'm not too keen on ANY platform having exclusives.

That is why I find Livingstone's comment so damn stupid. If he is going to make a comment like that, he has to say that to Sony and Microsoft as well, if not, then his point falls flat on its face.

while this is true, Nintendo is excreme on the exclusivity, thats their selling poitn for consoles as noone would buy them otherwise, while for other consoles exclusivity is 1 in 10 games sort of thing. So he probably picked on the biggest target. Like if you had a burning house and vulcanic eruption im sure youd be commenting on the volcano first of all.

Capcha: Bond, james bond

really capcha, you reincardnated bond? all is explained now.

SpAc3man:
Don't ever forget. Nintendo's stubbornness led to the FPS genre being invented.

And that... is... a good thing.... because?

Im kidding of course, FPS have thier palce, but i never found the attraction people had to wolfenstein or quake or doom. i played them, quite boring one-timers imo. then again i was always more of a strategy gamer.

Prior to reading any of the comments, I said to myself, "Regardless of the fact that console exclusivity benefits absolutely no one besides the companies eager to throw their consumers and the whole medium under the proverbial bus so long as it stands a chance of upping their short-term profit margin, I hereby predict that there will be people vehemently disagreeing with the sentiments expressed in the article." And though I was indeed unsurprised, reading the ensuing posts still made me die a little inside.

Well that would be neat and all but right now their games are the only thing still selling their console, take those games elsewhere and you are killing the console on the spot.

Nintendo should die in the console market altogether and keep their IP's for their handhelds and them alone.

RicoADF:
Why would they remove the only draw card for their consoles? For fabs of their series a Nintendo system is a must, however I agree this could bite them on the ass later.

Because it's time for Nintendo to go the way of Sega.

Sleekit:

Bleidd Whitefalcon:

suntt123:
*snip*

PS3 and 360 controllers aren't compatible with the PS4 and Xbone unfortunately

and yet there's no real reason for that as all the controllers are USB devices...except to get you to buy controllers ofc....and because the added a couple largely pointless extra buttons or something as a cockblock.

It's really simple. You see, they go to the trouble of remaking these controllers, they then ship em to stores.

Barely anyone buys them, because the majority of PS4 and XBox One owners have a 360/PS3 controller.

Old controllers aren't compatible with new systems simply because it cuts into the sales of new controllers.

suntt123:

Xman490:
Every time I read Nintendo's firm stance on cross-platform development, I sigh in disappointment. I, for one, would not buy their systems, even if their franchises make their needed moderate jumps.

The 3DS is too bulky for me to carry it around, even for Pokemon, but I'd love to have Pokemon on my iPhone since no other good game on the platform has its easy-to-play, fun-to-experiment-with formula. Every time I hear of a game coming out on the Wii U, I think about getting the system and remember the huge, necessary tablet controller with its short battery life. It's not like their games are really special now.

The 3DS is "too bulky"? I have one and it's no bigger than the original DS. If anything the thing is too damn small. It feels so tiny and delicate when I hold it in my hands. And the Wii U controller is optional... I wish they'd bundle the thing with pro controllers and sell the tablets as peripherals, instead but you can buy pro controllers separately. Besides off screen play is awesome. I can play monster hunter while my brother watches TV or plays COD or something.

OT:
And anyway, who wants to play a nintendo game on iOS, with no buttons... The PC maybe... But nintendo hardware has survived on 1st party software before and if they ever leave the hardware biz, I feel that the games industry would be a much more boring place.

Ugh, hell no.

Pro controllers aren't that expensive(when compared to PS3/360)

Tablet controllers are expensive as hell! According to Nintendo, they're valued around 150$ to replace. "To his or her surprise, the owner had to pay over $150 to receive a replacement - the price was accumulated from the cost of the controller itself, sales tax and a shipping charge"

I'd rather get a Wii u with a free tablet controller and pay 60$ for the pro controller, then have a Wii U with a free pro controller and pay 150$ for the tablet.

Akisa:

RicoADF:
Why would they remove the only draw card for their consoles? For fabs of their series a Nintendo system is a must, however I agree this could bite them on the ass later.

Because it's time for Nintendo to go the way of Sega.

And why would that be?

Don't most exclusive games get made for exclusivity? Would they have ever been made if Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo and all the others didn't see a point to investing in these things?

Asuka Soryu:

Akisa:

RicoADF:
Why would they remove the only draw card for their consoles? For fabs of their series a Nintendo system is a must, however I agree this could bite them on the ass later.

Because it's time for Nintendo to go the way of Sega.

And why would that be?

Aside for handhelds Nintendo is not doing well in the hardware department, and even than it's being chipped away by mobile devices.

Strazdas:

SpAc3man:
Don't ever forget. Nintendo's stubbornness led to the FPS genre being invented.

And that... is... a good thing.... because?

Im kidding of course, FPS have thier palce, but i never found the attraction people had to wolfenstein or quake or doom. i played them, quite boring one-timers imo. then again i was always more of a strategy gamer.

I started on Doom as a five year old in '96. It was pretty damn amazing back then.

While they were awesome for the time, most of ID's games have an importance in terms of what they enabled. Doom had a huge custom map and modding community, the Quake engine was used in a huge number of very important games throughout the years.
For example Valve used the Quake engine to create their GoldSrc engine for Half-Life and subsequently the Source engine. Infinity Ward made the first CoD game using one of the Quake engines before developing it into the engine that (unfortunately) every single CoD game (good and bad) since then has used.

From the good to the bad to the very bad, all of this is Carmack, Hall and Romero's legacy. A legacy that stems from Nintendo refusing to publish a Super Mario Bros. 3 PC port.

UltimatheChosen:
Halo 1 was released on the PC.

Er, you do realize that's because PCs are Microsoft products, right? So it's still a Microsoft exclusive? XD

And it's worth noting that Nintendo (arguably) has more exclusive IPs of consistently high quality than any other company. Even the less respected Mario games like Super Mario Sunshine are still really good games.

Then suck up your pride and buy the console.

Nintendo isn't the only one to do this, but they are the poster boy for it.

Doesn't matter, it's their right as a business to decide what products to offer and how to offer them.

Sure I do, because the stuff that every console is doing is stupid, too. These companies are making games, intentionally limiting their audience, and then losing money hand-over-fist because sales need to be astronomically high to recoup development budgets.

Pure speculation. There's no hard evidence to suggest that Nintendo games would "make money "hand-over-fist" on a Sony console, or vice versa, beyond your own personal tastes.

There's plenty of evidence, however, that numerous multi-platform games have seen much poorer sales on one console than another. It's more accurate to state that most multi-platform games tend to sell significantly better on one particular console over all others. And when there's a guaranteed net cost for release on a particular console, it doesn't encourage the developers to spend money on all those discs if they won't sell enough to make sales on that console profitable.

Yes, that's exactly what's fueling it. That, and people who don't want to buy any console, but still want to play the games on a PC.

And as I said before, that's tough luck. It's their product to distribute as they see fit. Either suck up your pride and buy their console, or "miss out".

"Three distinct consoles" simply will not happen, because there won't be enough third-party support. We're already seeing the industry buckle under its own weight-- as I noted above, budgets are so large that games need to see tons of copies just to break even. No publisher is going to put that kind of money into a game that's tailor-made for a console that not everyone has.

Considering that this is already what happens on all three consoles (companies pouring millions of dollars a year into exclusive titles), it's safe to say that you're wrong on this count.

This is the reason why the Wii failed for hardcore gamers last generation-- even though there was a lot of interesting stuff you could do with motion controls, anything that used those motion controls in a meaningful way was incompatible with PCs and the other two consoles. It wasn't worth the money to make Wii games, and thus the bulk of the big releases were Nintendo games. The Wii did get some third-party support, sure, but it paled in comparison to PCs and the other consoles in that same period.

No, the reason it failed with hardcore gamers was because it was never going for them in the first place. The console was advertised right from the start as a family console.

That, however, is an entirely different issue from why it failed to provide third-party games....and the REAL reason why that fell through is because Nintendo tried to force developers to insert motion controls into their games whether they wanted to or not. That's where the sneering reference to the console's "token Wiimote waggle" came from: Nintendo essentially told devs that if they wanted to put out games on their console, they HAD to insert at least one use of the motion controls. Devs responded to this in the opposite way that Nintendo expected, by simply not releasing games on the Wii.

Console wars, and the exclusives that go along with them, are stupid.

No disagreement.

I'm a fan of Nintendo's games, and I'd buy them, but I'm not going to drop hundreds of dollars on a console so that I can play the six or seven games that interest me over the next five to ten years. And that goes for every console.

Then I guess you'll have to "miss out". You're not making a compelling argument for why a company which creates a product should be MANDATED to make that product available to their competitors. "It makes them more money" isn't necessarily true (and it means their competitors get a significant cut of any profits that would have been made anyways).

Can someone find me a pie chart for sales of multiplatform games between the three consoles?

Because I'm fairly certain those statistics won't favour Nintendo, if their exclusives are non-exclusives, we're looking at that happening again.

UltimatheChosen:
This is the reason why the Wii failed for hardcore gamers last generation-- even though there was a lot of interesting stuff you could do with motion controls, anything that used those motion controls in a meaningful way was incompatible with PCs and the other two consoles. It wasn't worth the money to make Wii games, and thus the bulk of the big releases were Nintendo games. The Wii did get some third-party support, sure, but it paled in comparison to PCs and the other consoles in that same period.

And yet, in spite of failing the "hardcore", the Wii still managed to beat out both the 360 and PS3.

Space Jawa:

UltimatheChosen:
This is the reason why the Wii failed for hardcore gamers last generation-- even though there was a lot of interesting stuff you could do with motion controls, anything that used those motion controls in a meaningful way was incompatible with PCs and the other two consoles. It wasn't worth the money to make Wii games, and thus the bulk of the big releases were Nintendo games. The Wii did get some third-party support, sure, but it paled in comparison to PCs and the other consoles in that same period.

And yet, in spite of failing the "hardcore", the Wii still managed to beat out both the 360 and PS3.

This is largely because the Wii tapped into the casual market. It sold a lot of units, but with the Wii U, we're seeing that it's not a sustainable business model. The people that bought the Wii aren't buying the Wii U, and a lot of the Wiis that were sold ended up gathering dust after a month or two of use. To that audience, the Wii was a novelty, nothing more.

CriticKitten:

UltimatheChosen:
Halo 1 was released on the PC.

Er, you do realize that's because PCs are Microsoft products, right? So it's still a Microsoft exclusive? XD

You do realize that it's possible to run Halo on computers without Windows, right?

CriticKitten:

And it's worth noting that Nintendo (arguably) has more exclusive IPs of consistently high quality than any other company. Even the less respected Mario games like Super Mario Sunshine are still really good games.

Then suck up your pride and buy the console.

Nintendo isn't the only one to do this, but they are the poster boy for it.

Doesn't matter, it's their right as a business to decide what products to offer and how to offer them.

Pride? Try practicality. Like I said, I'm not going to spend hundreds of dollars on a console so that I can play a few games-- the games themselves are expensive enough as it is, and I don't have enough income to justify spending that much on so few games.

I really want to play those games, but there are other games that I really want to play as well, and I can get dozens of them for the price of a console.

Nintendo can do whatever they want. I never said otherwise, so I'm really not sure where you're getting that impression. What I said was that they should release their stuff on multiple platforms.

CriticKitten:

Sure I do, because the stuff that every console is doing is stupid, too. These companies are making games, intentionally limiting their audience, and then losing money hand-over-fist because sales need to be astronomically high to recoup development budgets.

Pure speculation. There's no hard evidence to suggest that Nintendo games would "make money "hand-over-fist" on a Sony console, or vice versa, beyond your own personal tastes.

There's plenty of evidence, however, that numerous multi-platform games have seen much poorer sales on one console than another. It's more accurate to state that most multi-platform games tend to sell significantly better on one particular console over all others. And when there's a guaranteed net cost for release on a particular console, it doesn't encourage the developers to spend money on all those discs if they won't sell enough to make sales on that console profitable.

Yes, that's exactly what's fueling it. That, and people who don't want to buy any console, but still want to play the games on a PC.

And as I said before, that's tough luck. It's their product to distribute as they see fit. Either suck up your pride and buy their console, or "miss out".

I will miss out. And so will a lot of other people. And so will Nintendo, because they're locking out a ton of their fans.

"Three distinct consoles" simply will not happen, because there won't be enough third-party support. We're already seeing the industry buckle under its own weight-- as I noted above, budgets are so large that games need to see tons of copies just to break even. No publisher is going to put that kind of money into a game that's tailor-made for a console that not everyone has.

Considering that this is already what happens on all three consoles (companies pouring millions of dollars a year into exclusive titles), it's safe to say that you're wrong on this count.

This is the reason why the Wii failed for hardcore gamers last generation-- even though there was a lot of interesting stuff you could do with motion controls, anything that used those motion controls in a meaningful way was incompatible with PCs and the other two consoles. It wasn't worth the money to make Wii games, and thus the bulk of the big releases were Nintendo games. The Wii did get some third-party support, sure, but it paled in comparison to PCs and the other consoles in that same period.

No, the reason it failed with hardcore gamers was because it was never going for them in the first place. The console was advertised right from the start as a family console.

That, however, is an entirely different issue from why it failed to provide third-party games....and the REAL reason why that fell through is because Nintendo tried to force developers to insert motion controls into their games whether they wanted to or not. That's where the sneering reference to the console's "token Wiimote waggle" came from: Nintendo essentially told devs that if they wanted to put out games on their console, they HAD to insert at least one use of the motion controls. Devs responded to this in the opposite way that Nintendo expected, by simply not releasing games on the Wii.[/quote]
That's actually part of the point I was making-- the Wii was, inarguably, the most distinct and unique console of its generation. But most games simply couldn't take advantage of it, so developers making "mainstream" games looked at the userbase and decided that it wasn't worth porting their game to a system where most of the userbase was made up of casual gamers that probably wouldn't buy the game.

Basically, the Wii failed because it wasn't compatible, and compatibility is huge because it expands your game library. The PS3 had issues as well, but it was, at least, capable of running pretty much any Xbox 360 game if the dev team took the time to port it.

CriticKitten:

I'm a fan of Nintendo's games, and I'd buy them, but I'm not going to drop hundreds of dollars on a console so that I can play the six or seven games that interest me over the next five to ten years. And that goes for every console.

Then I guess you'll have to "miss out". You're not making a compelling argument for why a company which creates a product should be MANDATED to make that product available to their competitors. "It makes them more money" isn't necessarily true (and it means their competitors get a significant cut of any profits that would have been made anyways).

Mandate? What? I didn't say that they have to do it. I said that they should, and that it would benefit them.

Successful platform specific releases tend to succeed despite their exclusive nature, not because of it.

And it's not just the current gen games that should be cross-platform. If Nintendo released, say, the NES and SNES Mario games on the PC, I think they'd see a ton of sales. That goes for the back catalog of a lot of these companies, and porting those games doesn't even take a whole lot of effort.

Does this guy understand that a huge part of the appeal is how you play it on the Nintendo hardware?
Nintendo changes the hardware with the game in mind.
The N64 had the analog stick because that was the best way of moving in 3D space. The made the N64 in mind with 3D Mario and 3D Zelda.
The GC's analog trigger where made with Sunshine and the FLUUD in mind.
One of the main reasons why they used motion controls with the Wii was because Miyamoto always wanted to be able to use the Skyward Strike in a Zelda game.
Then we have the DS and 3DS with the 2 screens complementing each other.
We have the WiiU that allows for asymmetrical gameplay on 1 console without awkward workarounds. And the WiiUpad is the closes gamepad to a mouse&keyboard we got, which allows for games with more complicated control schemes.

Sure, they didn't make the consoles exclusively for those games, but they played a big role in the console development. Nintendo already stated several times that their software developer have a saying during the hardware R&D because they know what they want and which hardware allows for the best results.

While some kids do miss out Nintendo games, it's their and their parents fault, not Nintendo's. If their parents buy them a PS3 or 360, they did fuck up, not Nintendo. Nintendo was always known for being kids friends. While they did have hard and dark games on their consoles, they had always a huge library of kids friendly games, even in the old days.

Also, while those kids maybe wouldn't miss out on the Nintendo IP's if Ninty went 3rd party, they sure as hell would miss out on the hardware. Pretty much the whole gaming world would lose a huge part.
I don't even want to imagine a world without the GB/GBC/GBA/DS or even the Wii. Yes, I like the Wii. I like it a lot. I'm not closeminded to just write it of because I have to "waggle" as people like to say.
I loved Skyward Sword. While the game did have it's flaws, I absolutely loved the sword play. I've played the Thunderdragon challenge a gorillion times. I LOVE Red Steel 2. I love No More Heroes 1 and 2. I can't explain how much I love the rail shooter like House of the Living Dead, I love many other games that use the "waggeling". They are nice, addicting and unique.

Those games are possible on the PS3 NOW. But if Nintendo was 3rd party, the Wii wouldn't have been made and Sony wouldn't have made the Move.

Nintendo IP's are great on their own, but they get a lot better on Nintendo exclusive hardware because the hardware was made for the games and not the other way around.

While Sony and MS make the hardware and you have to fit the software for it, Nintendo has the games and then develops the hardware fit those games. Those two things simply work together.

Ah so much butt hurt over Nintendo the company that makes such great games you all rage that you can't buy one and call it gimmicky.... I laugh at anyone stupid enough to say consoles shouldn't have exclusives They are the reason to own a console or we would all just be on PC's.

I bought my WII U on day 1 for Zombie U and Mosnster hunter 3 ultimate and so far it's been well worth it I'm also looking forward to buying Bayonetta 2 when that pops up yeah everyone buys a Nintendo for Nintendo games only.....

All you mugs that say it's Gimmicky tell me why please do because sony have done such a half arsed Wii u wana be controller it's not even funny it has a mono speaker Wii U has stereo and when used properly it enhances the sound really well the touch pad wow sony nice really... Wii U full on screen that alows you to play games and not need to hog the TV this is bloody awesome oh and it's also a touch screen, Motion sensors sonys 6 axis wow so shit it only gets used to balance as your toon walks over beams so so good worth it? Wii U full on gyroscopic tracking.

You call it a gimmick because it's Nintendo? Why not when Sony Does it? So please tell me what the gimmics are Is it the built in NFC reader teh Microphone The camera for video calls? What what is it or is it that you know with every nintendo console you know for a fact there will be top quality games made by nintendo and 3rd parties is it that nintendo look out for there customers (telling EA to go shove origin up their ass)?

I'm confused are you gamers or fan bois do you enjoy playing games or talking shit?

Now excuse me I'm gonna go back to playing MH3U while i wait on The last of us to come out i'd post an Xbox game too but they don't have anything exclusive up and coming that i'm interested in well maybe class 5 but that's going to be an age and probably for xbone and i don't think i'l be buying that.

Edit for balance I just rememberd I bought my Xb360 for Gears one a game that was for a time exclusive.

The calls for Nintendo to go multiplatform is old news. Though what I always found interesting is that somehow people believe that Publishers like Microsoft and Sony won't force their own views on the Nintendo games to make them more mass appeal. pfft, ya good luck on that pipe dream. I'd rather they stay on Nintendo so the games are treated like a platformer or adventure game. Not another checklist of "This is what makes games popular these days"

While I don't really know if I'm for or against the idea of Nintendo putting their IP on other platforms, I can say with certainty that despite having access to a Wii I'm really behind on Nintendo's games almost one-hundred percent because I chose to purchase a 360 and have not bought any other consoles of the same generation. So yes, I'd like to have that option in the future to just buy one console and enjoy all the IP from two companies...

But I think we can already see why that idea doesn't work so well in context (Hint: It's why Burger King and McDonalds don't sell recipes to each other despite the potential for crossover sales) and why even if Nintendo wanted to, it'd probably signal the death of their console production. Don't get me wrong and immediately assume I hate Nintento and/or it's consoles, because I don't; The Gamecube was genuinely amazing and many of it's games still orbit the constellation 'Favoritus Gameus' in my gaming galaxy, the Wii while I'm not a fan of motion controls had some fun titles and the DS/3DS continue to be my favorite goof off tools alongside my Kindle.

What I mean is that the strength of Nintendo's market comes primarily from it's hold on it's personal IP. If you could buy Metroid/Mario/etc on other consoles that have better graphics, more power and other games, what's the point of buying Nintendo's consoles who's selling point has been their innovative interaction methods second, their access to a fresh wave of IP first.

UltimatheChosen:
This is largely because the Wii tapped into the casual market. It sold a lot of units, but with the Wii U, we're seeing that it's not a sustainable business model. The people that bought the Wii aren't buying the Wii U, and a lot of the Wiis that were sold ended up gathering dust after a month or two of use. To that audience, the Wii was a novelty, nothing more.

Actually it's more because of the absolutely terrible roster of games than anything else.

People made these same (wrong) claims about the 3DS, how its hardware gimmick was stupid and that's why it didn't sell any units....but once the 3DS was re-priced at an appropriate level and expanded its library significantly, it proceeded to sell like hotcakes, and straight up beat the technologically superior Vita in sales with little trouble.

The Wii U just needs the same treatment. If they cut their price and flood the market with games right before the other consoles come out, the Wii U could very well outsell them both, as neither console will have a large selection of exclusives that aren't also available on their much cheaper older brothers.

You do realize that it's possible to run Halo on computers without Windows, right?

That's completely irrelevant, really. The "PC" as a gaming platform is generally a Microsoft-dominated system, ergo if they're selling it on the XBox and on PC, it is still a Microsoft exclusive. Whether or not you can custom-rig a Linux system to run the game is relatively meaningless, because the game and its primary platform were still made and sold by Microsoft.

Pride? Try practicality. Like I said, I'm not going to spend hundreds of dollars on a console so that I can play a few games-- the games themselves are expensive enough as it is, and I don't have enough income to justify spending that much on so few games.

I really want to play those games, but there are other games that I really want to play as well, and I can get dozens of them for the price of a console.

Then you miss out. Too bad. Whining about Nintendo's decision to keep its financial money-makers in-house is nonsensical.

That's actually part of the point I was making-- the Wii was, inarguably, the most distinct and unique console of its generation. But most games simply couldn't take advantage of it, so developers making "mainstream" games looked at the userbase and decided that it wasn't worth porting their game to a system where most of the userbase was made up of casual gamers that probably wouldn't buy the game.

Basically, the Wii failed because it wasn't compatible, and compatibility is huge because it expands your game library. The PS3 had issues as well, but it was, at least, capable of running pretty much any Xbox 360 game if the dev team took the time to port it.

No, the console didn't fail for being "too unique" (in fact it didn't "fail" by any stretch of the definition).

The Wii's complication was self-engineered. It wasn't a lack of compatibility, it was Nintendo trying to shove the hardware down the dev's throats. The devs would, essentially, have to rebuild parts of the game not because they didn't work on the Wii, but to fulfill corporate mandates to include a Wiimote waggling functionality. Devs considered that a hassle and stopped making games for the system. It ended up biting them hard in the ass as the Wii went on to sell more units than either of its competitors and those devs lost out on unknown gobs of money.

Nintendo can do whatever they want. I never said otherwise, so I'm really not sure where you're getting that impression. What I said was that they should release their stuff on multiple platforms.

Mandate? What? I didn't say that they have to do it. I said that they should, and that it would benefit them.

And you haven't proven that claim, either.

Nintendo makes loads from its first-party games because they develop the titles themselves. Thus they minimize the number of cuts that have to be made, pay for all of the product manufacturing and distribution and marketing in-house, and thus they get to keep nearly every dime of profit.

Other console "exclusives" are usually licensed by one company, developed by another, and published by someone else. That's three separate cuts that have to be made to pay off each group. On top of that, there's the matter of paying for all of the manufacturing, distribution, and marketing. That leaves relatively little of the overall sales amount to Sony or Microsoft.

You're basically suggesting that Nintendo should embrace this philosophy and willfully choose to make much less money on their games when selling them on other platforms. You're asking Nintendo to pay out the nose for:
* The cost of recoding their games for compatibility and different control schemes
* The cost of paying for new game discs, casings, and labels
* The cost of distribution of these games in addition to the already-significant costs for distributing them on their own console
* The cost of paying Sony or MS a significant portion of the overall sales profits

All of these major costs just to take the GAMBLE of maybe selling an extra million units of their game (though more likely, less) on a console full of gamers who, in general, chose to buy the Sony console to play Sony-style games, not Nintendo-style ones.

That's just not good business sense.

Successful platform specific releases tend to succeed despite their exclusive nature, not because of it.

That's not really true, as I pointed out earlier.

What you have suggested is essentially like telling Coca-Cola that they should share their drink formulas with their competitors so that people can buy Coca-Cola from other companies, too, because it'll totally be more profitable for them. Except....that's clearly not how it would work. If Pepsi started selling Coca-Cola, then Pepsi would get a cut of the sales, there'd be additional manufacturing costs due to another company having to make the drink and its containers, and there'd also be the possibility of different marketing and other such things that would all come out of Coca-Cola's cut of the profits. On top of that, most people who buy from Pepsi....aren't looking to buy Coca-Cola, they're looking to buy PEPSI. So Pepsi won't end up selling a lot of Coca-Cola cans anyways because their customers aren't interested in buying a product they didn't really want.

When people buy a Sony console, they aren't looking to play Mario. They already have the games they want, because that's why they bought that particular console. The overlap between audiences is not as significant as you seem to think it is.

And it's not just the current gen games that should be cross-platform. If Nintendo released, say, the NES and SNES Mario games on the PC, I think they'd see a ton of sales. That goes for the back catalog of a lot of these companies, and porting those games doesn't even take a whole lot of effort.

They're already making tons of money by doing this in-house through their existing console-focused online stores. Why would they pay Sony a cut of the profits to sell a lot less units of the same games through the PS4, or ditto to Microsoft for the Xbone?

I don't think you understand the gaming market at all. You essentially assert that there's a lot of demand from Sony/MS customers for Nintendo's games, despite NO evidence to suggest anything of the sort, basically because YOU want to play those games (so obviously everyone else does, too). The fact of the matter is that there is relatively little true overlap between folks who buy Sony/MS consoles and those who buy Nintendo consoles, and the costs incurred would not necessarily be recouped in sales.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.