Nintendo Will Consider Mergers And Acquisitions, Says President Iwata

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Nintendo Will Consider Mergers And Acquisitions, Says President Iwata

Satoru Iwata, president and CEO of Nintendo, says that his company is investigating possible mergers and acquisitions.

Nintendo has always been one of those companies that refuses to listen to outside voices, and until recently, this philosophy has served the company well. Unfortunately, the Wii U hasn't exactly been successful, which means that the Mario publisher needs to rethink some of its basic principles. And, according the President Satoru Iwata, Nintendo is considering some drastic changes.

In a recent interview with The Nikkei, Mr. Iwata acknowledged Nintendo's woes and outlined a potpourri of adjustments. "We'll change the way we sell products, by managing customer information via the Internet," he explained. "We'll offer discounts to steady, regular customers. We'll cultivate emerging markets and launch new businesses in health and other areas."

Surprisingly, President Iwata also mentioned that his company is open to mergers and acquisitions. "We should abandon old assumptions about our businesses," he said. "We are considering M&As as an option. For this reason, we'll step up share buybacks."

Mergers and acquisitions have always been a sore spot for Nintendo. Like I said, this is a traditionally isolated, but confident, corporation. Rumors about a possible partnership with Apple are already starting to swirl, but they're entirely foundationless at the moment.

Source: The Nikkei, Game Informer

Permalink

Buy some 3rd parties just so they can't screw you over any more. At this point the only way Nintendo seem to be able to get other product out for its systems is by forcing 3rd parties to do. Well, at least from the West; all they need to do with Japanese devs is just ask politely

Businesses in health?

Are Dr. Mario's practices going to be a reality then?

I am not an expert on Japanese business, but isn't any kind of merger with Apple illegal seeing as it's a foreign company? Maybe I am misinterpreting Japan's corporate laws, but I was under the impression that they couldn't be bought out by or merge with non-Japanese corporations. Such was the case with ATLUS (Index Holdings), wasn't it?

scorptatious:
Businesses in health?

Are Dr. Mario's practices going to be a reality then?

Remember that pulse sensor? That has a lot of practical use in health. Especially if it's damn accurate. Also consider that Nintendo has a history of tapping into various markets.

Dragonbums:

scorptatious:
Businesses in health?

Are Dr. Mario's practices going to be a reality then?

Remember that pulse sensor? That has a lot of practical use in health. Especially if it's damn accurate. Also consider that Nintendo has a history of tapping into various markets.

True. They didn't start out as a video game company after all.

scorptatious:
Businesses in health?

Are Dr. Mario's practices going to be a reality then?

Ya, I'm confused as well. Was the Wii Fit really that popular?

Though, it might not be stupid to focus on a specific market. Games for senior centres and children's hospitals? It could work.

Fappy:
I am not an expert on Japanese business, but isn't any kind of merger with Apple illegal seeing as it's a foreign company? Maybe I am misinterpreting Japan's corporate laws, but I was under the impression that they couldn't be bought out by or merge with non-Japanese corporations. Such was the case with ATLUS (Index Holdings), wasn't it?

The law in Japan is that foreign companies cannot buy Japanese based and founded companies, which is why EA or UbiSoft couldn't buy Index. However, Japanese companies can buy and merge foreign ones since other countries don't have those laws. An example of this is the acquisition of Eidos Interactive by Square Enix.

Aiddon:
Buy some 3rd parties just so they can't screw you over any more. At this point the only way Nintendo seem to be able to get other product out for its systems is by forcing 3rd parties to do. Well, at least from the West; all they need to do with Japanese devs is just ask politely

Except what he's suggesting is pretty much what other companies often times have to do to get 3rd party support as well. Sony has acquired a few studios (Santa Monica, Sucker Punch) so then they'd make games, and Microsoft does the same (Rare, paying Bethesda for "exclusivity") or they'd pay for the development of the game while the 3rd parties would either publish them or help out with development and then publishing. An example of this is that Portal games and the Left 4 Dead games were developed by Valve and distributed on Steam by them, but on consoles EA reworked them and published them on the consoles. You don't just make a console and then expect the 3rd parties to just instantly decide "we should develop games for that console." Often times they needed to be paid in order to do it. If all they had to do was "ask nicely" as you say, then Square Enix and Capcom would be developing more games for the Wii U as they are Japanese based companies.

Nintendo often times doesn't want to have to spend money to 3rd parties and sorta just wants it that the 3rd parties decide to publish on Nintendo systems themselves. Very rarely does Nintendo fully acquire a studio, in fact I think the last one they fully acquired was Monolith Soft back in 2007 when Bandi Namco sold the remaining shares of Monolith Soft to Nintendo.

I wouldn't mind seeing them expand. If they acquired more 3rd party developers than that could breathe new life into an otherwise rather sterile environment. Being independent is great if you're a dynamic company, but Nintendo is one of the most conservative gaming companies out there. Their guilty of the same crimes as other studios. I don't understand why people get angry when Activision releases a new COD every year, but Nintendo gets a free pass. I would love to see Nintendo turn around its fortune and become more diversified.

Just don't sell your soul in the process, okay Nintendo?

If they do it the way Sony does it, they could simply straight up buy companies in a position like Platinum Game' and make them create exclusives. Problem is Nintendo fans don't typically flock to new IPs in general even when Nintendo publishes it. Eternal Darkness anyone?

Neronium:
-Snip-

Thanks for clearing that up. I suppose that law is in place to keep the interests of major Japanese corporations primarily focused on Japan itself (whether it be the consumer market or other Japanese companies).

What does it say about Nintendo when a bunch of random high school students on various internet forums are able to tell you the exact reasons why the Wii U is a bad idea before the thing is even out? Think about that.

Fappy:

Neronium:
-Snip-

Thanks for clearing that up. I suppose that law is in place to keep the interests of major Japanese corporations primarily focused on Japan itself.

Pretty much that's the reason. I still don't know why Nintendo never really did this sort of thing sooner. They make a console, and seem to think that just because they made the console that 3rd parties will flock to want to develop for it. That's not the case though, because if it were then the Ouya would have games on it. In the end the company that wants the game/games has to offer something up besides the console itself. If you look at it, it's been that way for a long time. Usually the only time in which you'll see third-parties willingly going out to publish on a certain system it's because that system has a large install base. Of course that's not always the case either.

I mean hell, do you think Sucker Punch willingly put games on Sony's Systems, no they were acquired just like how Santa Monica and Naughty Dog were, and even then back with Naughty Dog Sony had to pay Universal Interactive to get Naughty Dog and Insomniac to make Spyro and Crash for the system. Similar thing was with Microsoft, they paid Bungie to make the Halo series, Bungie didn't just up and go to Microsoft saying that wanted to make something for the Xbox, although there are some companies that will do that as well.
Hell the only really big 3rd Party publisher I can think of who just develops on a system for the heck of it is Sega, and it's successful for them.

Mainly to end off this little exposition, the main thing is that a company shouldn't expect 3rd party developers or publishers to just flock to a console because they released it. Some will, but often times to lure the bigger ones you need something more, like how you need different lures and bait to catch big and more valuable fish.

Adam Jensen:
What does it say about Nintendo when a bunch of random high school students on various internet forums are able to tell you the exact reasons why the Wii U is a bad idea before the thing is even out? Think about that.

The internet is so big that everyone says everything everytime.

Lol...poor Nintendo... would it really kill them just to make a console witha non-gimmicky controller and some decent games hmm.. or at least make a console that's easier for indies to dev for

AzrealMaximillion:
If they do it the way Sony does it, they could simply straight up buy companies in a position like Platinum Game' and make them create exclusives. Problem is Nintendo fans don't typically flock to new IPs in general even when Nintendo publishes it. Eternal Darkness anyone?

Hey! I forked over cash for that. Granted, I'm not a Nintendo follower, didn't even have a GameCube at the time of purchase, but still...

Besides, I don't think that Nintendo fans is that big of a crowd. Of all the people I know who purchased anything Nintendo since 1995 only one of them is a pure Nintendo fan. In fact the only thing that held me back from buying a Wii/WiiU was Nintendo's pissy attitude on tying your digital purchased to a single console and the lack of games. The first one they promised to change in the near future. The second isn't much of a deal breaker once their policy goes out the window and I can buy stuff in their digital store without having to sacrifice virgins every full moon to make sure that my console doesn't brick.

TL;DR. Fanboys don't make that big of a deal in the long run.

Fox12:
I wouldn't mind seeing them expand. If they acquired more 3rd party developers than that could breathe new life into an otherwise rather sterile environment. Being independent is great if you're a dynamic company, but Nintendo is one of the most conservative gaming companies out there. Their guilty of the same crimes as other studios. I don't understand why people get angry when Activision releases a new COD every year, but Nintendo gets a free pass. I would love to see Nintendo turn around its fortune and become more diversified.

Just don't sell your soul in the process, okay Nintendo?

Because Nintendo DOESN'T release the same game yearly. When you have franchises that have survived that are entering their 3rd decade, that's the very definition of longevity as most franchises are lucky to hit ten years, if that. As for dynamics, it's actually the exact opposite; Nintendo has always been experimenting with its IPs, it's just that people handwave them for halfassed reasons. Furthermore, name me ONE genre they haven't dabbled in if not firmly established a franchise for? You can't get much more diverse than Nintendo

Full Metal Bolshevik:

Adam Jensen:
What does it say about Nintendo when a bunch of random high school students on various internet forums are able to tell you the exact reasons why the Wii U is a bad idea before the thing is even out? Think about that.

The internet is so big that everyone says everything everytime.

Let's remember those were the same kids who said the DS was dumb, the XL was idiotic because it defeated the whole point of a portable (it's more popular than the regular DS now), the Wii was stupid and gimmicky, the 3DS would fail because it's all smartphones now. Oh, and they predicted Nintendo's death continually at every point except maybe the height of the Wii's success.

These people do not have a great track record of being right, though if you keep saying the same negative things, chances are you'll eventually be right. It just too REALLY long in internet time for them to be at all right here.

And as was said, there's so much chatter online you can find people saying anything.

Aiddon:

Fox12:
I wouldn't mind seeing them expand. If they acquired more 3rd party developers than that could breathe new life into an otherwise rather sterile environment. Being independent is great if you're a dynamic company, but Nintendo is one of the most conservative gaming companies out there. Their guilty of the same crimes as other studios. I don't understand why people get angry when Activision releases a new COD every year, but Nintendo gets a free pass. I would love to see Nintendo turn around its fortune and become more diversified.

Just don't sell your soul in the process, okay Nintendo?

Because Nintendo DOESN'T release the same game yearly. When you have franchises that have survived that are entering their 3rd decade, that's the very definition of longevity as most franchises are lucky to hit ten years, if that. As for dynamics, it's actually the exact opposite; Nintendo has always been experimenting with its IPs, it's just that people handwave them for halfassed reasons. Furthermore, name me ONE genre they haven't dabbled in if not firmly established a franchise for? You can't get much more diverse than Nintendo

Perhaps, but most of their current franchises can be traced back to their early days, when they were young, and vibrant, and churning classics out at a consistent rate. Since then they've depended on those same franchises every generation, most of which follow the same formula as the old ones. Fire Emblem, a series that I love, nearly got cancelled for that reason.

We can expect to see the same lineup of titles every generation from Nintendo, as well as two or three games featuring Mario every year. Occasionally something new, like Pikmin or Wii Fit will get thrown in, but it's rare. I'm not saying that they should stop making those games, or even put them on other consoles. I'm just saying that it would be healthy for them to pick up some more outside developers in order to get some healthy outside influence and experience. Square Enix did that, and now almost all of their profitable games seem to be coming from a single studio.

Jumwa:

Let's remember those were the same kids who said the DS was dumb, the XL was idiotic because it defeated the whole point of a portable (it's more popular than the regular DS now), the Wii was stupid and gimmicky, the 3DS would fail because it's all smartphones now. Oh, and they predicted Nintendo's death continually at every point except maybe the height of the Wii's success.

These people do not have a great track record of being right, though if you keep saying the same negative things, chances are you'll eventually be right. It just too REALLY long in internet time for them to be at all right here.

And as was said, there's so much chatter online you can find people saying anything.

It's like a fortune teller saying you'll meet your true love while wearing red shoes and thus you proceed to wear red shoes constantly even if it takes three years for that to come true. Or someone constantly saying it'll rain tomorrow. It could take weeks, but eventually they'll be right but not because they're insightful.

Also, a post on another forum kinda spelled out the obvious I missed: Iwata might be referring to acquisitions in the vein of that QOL idea they were talking about. We'll see how this goes as Nintendo is careful with its money and for good reason.

Jumwa:
Let's remember those were the same kids who said

No those weren't the same kids and you're missing the point. The point is that an amateur could have predicted the EXACT REASONS why it's a bad idea.

Aiddon:
Buy some 3rd parties just so they can't screw you over any more.

Wrong way round, Nintendo have managed to make their hardware a toxic environment for third parties. They offer none of the combined marketing pushes and historically their SDKs have been expensive and difficult to get a hold of.

They've been throwing their weight around as if it's still 1994 and they're the option with the best market share and fastest hardware, it hurt them only a little through the N64 to Wii years as games weren't massively costly to port and something like Timesplitters could sell under a hundred thousand units and be (just about) profitable against the cost of porting it. The price of development has risen but selling under a hundred thousand units on the Wii U is still a real possibility for third party titles thanks to poor uptake of the console and Nintendo's total ambivalence towards third party releases.

So after two decades abusing third party developers Nintendo finds itself in a situation where it literally can't give Wii U SDK's away now and it can't drive sales with it's own releases, payback's a bitch.

As for joining forces with Apple, that's a bit daft. They should be releasing old (GBA and back, N64 and back) titles onto tablets for sure, but blindly entering a partnership with one company isn't the way to do it.

Fox12:

Perhaps, but most of their current franchises can be traced back to their early days, when they were young, and vibrant, and churning classics out at a consistent rate. Since then they've depended on those same franchises every generation, most of which follow the same formula as the old ones. Fire Emblem, a series that I love, nearly got cancelled for that reason.

We can expect to see the same lineup of titles every generation from Nintendo, as well as two or three games featuring Mario every year. Occasionally something new, like Pikmin or Wii Fit will get thrown in, but it's rare. I'm not saying that they should stop making those games, or even put them on other consoles. I'm just saying that it would be healthy for them to pick up some more outside developers in order to get some healthy outside influence and experience. Square Enix did that, and now almost all of their profitable games seem to be coming from a single studio.

I'm going to be blunt here; wanna know WHY Nintendo seems to be very slow to make new franchises?

1) Because they have been around so long they've hit nearly every kind of genre you can think of. Adventure games, visual novels, action, space shooters, RPGs, turn-based strategy, FPS, real-time strategy, fighting, racing, 2D platformers, beat 'em up, puzzle, party games, sports, tower defense and this list keeps going on. The only genres they really haven't done are realistic sports and....y'know, I can't think of another one. And this leads into 2:

2) Nintendo realizes a new IP HAS to be more then just a name. Let's face it, that's what most "new IPs" are; they're people basically designing childhood ideas. It's why you have so many "spiritual successors" as of late. Nintendo realizes a NEW IP must be something truly unique to the Nintendo lineup. You can't just reskin something or slap on a gimmick and pretend that qualifies as truly new. No, Nintendo does not tolerate that kind of laziness. It's why you see Zelda get a new gameplay hook in every entry. If a team DOES find a gimmick that can truly stand on its own than that's fine. There's no point to artificially expansion of IPs.

Aiddon:
[quote="Fox12" post="7.841097.20676892"]
I'm going to be blunt here; wanna know WHY Nintendo seems to be very slow to make new franchises?

1) Because they have been around so long they've hit nearly every kind of genre you can think of. Adventure games, visual novels, action, space shooters, RPGs, turn-based strategy, FPS, real-time strategy, fighting, racing, 2D platformers, beat 'em up, puzzle, party games, sports, tower defense and this list keeps going on. The only genres they really haven't done are realistic sports and....y'know, I can't think of another one. And this leads into 2:

2) Nintendo realizes a new IP HAS to be more then just a name. Let's face it, that's what most "new IPs" are; they're people basically designing childhood ideas. It's why you have so many "spiritual successors" as of late. Nintendo realizes a NEW IP must be something truly unique to the Nintendo lineup. You can't just reskin something or slap on a gimmick and pretend that qualifies as truly new. No, Nintendo does not tolerate that kind of laziness. It's why you see Zelda get a new gameplay hook in every entry. If a team DOES find a gimmick that can truly stand on its own than that's fine. There's no point to artificially expansion of IPs.

But then you seem to be suggesting that they've done everything worth doing, and I don't think that's true. Just because they have Metroid doesn't mean they can't have another great Sci-fi game that's completely different. I haven't seen a story driven game like The Last of Us, an interactive narrative like Mass Effect, a fluid combat game like Kingdom Hearts, or a hardcore RPG on the same level as Persona come anywhere near the Wii. There are plenty of innovations that can, an are, made across every genre. I'm not hating on Nintendo, I love Nintendo, I have a 3DS sitting beside me right now. But the fact remains that they need to innovate if they want to compete, and they can't innovate in the same direction as Sony and Microsoft. Furthermore the shouldn't have to. Nintendo can't afford to keep the statis quo any longer, and now I think their realizing that. But in order to bring in the good kind of innovation, the kind that creates high quality merchandise and art, they need to bring in outside perspectives, including third party developers from the United States and Europe. If they purchase talented third party developers, or at least seek them out diligently, then they will have a larger catalog to work with, a catalog that fits more in line with the unique structure of the Wii.

Fox12:

But then you seem to be suggesting that they've done everything worth doing, and I don't think that's true. Just because they have Metroid doesn't mean they can't have another great Sci-fi game that's completely different. I haven't seen a story driven game like The Last of Us, an interactive narrative like Mass Effect, a fluid combat game like Kingdom Hearts, or a hardcore RPG on the same level as Persona come anywhere near the Wii. There are plenty of innovations that can, an are, made across every genre. I'm not hating on Nintendo, I love Nintendo, I have a 3DS sitting beside me right now. But the fact remains that they need to innovate if they want to compete, and they can't innovate in the same direction as Sony and Microsoft. Furthermore the shouldn't have to. Nintendo can't afford to keep the statis quo any longer, and now I think their realizing that. But in order to bring in the good kind of innovation, the kind that creates high quality merchandise and art, they need to bring in outside perspectives, including third party developers from the United States and Europe. If they purchase talented third party developers, or at least seek them out diligently, then they will have a larger catalog to work with, a catalog that fits more in line with the unique structure of the Wii.

And again, you're going on about essentially artificial expansion. Those franchises weren't exactly breaking new ground in terms of gameplay when they were released. And that's the thing: gameplay. What does a game to gameplay-wise to justify itself in the Nintendo catalog? Does this actually do something new and exciting or is it just polishing old ground at best? It's one thing if Mario stays Mario, Zelda stays Zelda, Metroid stays Metroid, Fire Emblem stays Fire Emblem, Donkey Kong stays Donkey Kong, etc due to them being honed to razor sharpness from their extended tenures. A NEW IP must be unique amongst that catalog. Not exactly an easy thing to do. If all you're doing is slapping a different name and aesthetic onto something you're already doing and trying to pass it off as a new IP, then you FAIL as a designer

Furthermore, they have also said there are just some genres they're not interested in such as The Last of Us style games. It doesn't fit them. And I very much doubt they would acquire devs just to fill in blanks with genres.

Before any Yahtzites get excited, Iwata's statements mean buying other companies, not being bought themselves.

I know most of you get hot under the collar about the Big Bad Toymen finally getting put on a leash or something, but you'll just have to keep praying into your PS2 love pillows a little longer.

I know it won't happen, but even the crazy thought of Nintendo being bought out or merging with Apple makes me nauseous.

I do like the idea of discounts for loyal customers, though I think Club Nintendo is an already solid rewards program.

Hero of Lime:
I know it won't happen, but even the crazy thought of Nintendo being bought out or merging with Apple makes me nauseous.

I do like the idea of discounts for loyal customers, though I think Club Nintendo is an already solid rewards program.

Although the prizes in Europe are way better than the US rewards most of the time, and as for merging with Apple that is literally impossible as it's illegal for that to happen. Really this is just Nintendo saying they might acquire smaller 3rd party developers and make them first party, which is what Sony has had to do since it started (Naughty Dog, Santa Monica, Sucker Punch), and what Microsoft had to do as well (Rare). Really I'm glad they'll be doing this because it might also mean more 3rd party support since then they can pay for development more on things like how they did for Bayonetta 2 and Platinum. Nintendo in the past just would release a console and then everyone wanted to develop for it because they had such a large market share in the industry, but after the PS2 it shifted to Sony, while Microsoft was buying exclusives.

Hero of Lime:
I know it won't happen, but even the crazy thought of Nintendo being bought out or merging with Apple makes me nauseous.

I do like the idea of discounts for loyal customers, though I think Club Nintendo is an already solid rewards program.

Japanese corporate law actually makes mergers with non-Japanese companies illegal. While Japanese companies can buy non-Japanese ones, the opposite is not possible. There's basically no threat of foreign intervention with Nintendo, something too many people seem to forget. Though at least it's not as annoying about people constantly repeating "marketing, advertising" day-in, day-out.

Aiddon:
[quote="Fox12" post="7.841097.20677451"]

And again, you're going on about essentially artificial expansion. Those franchises weren't exactly breaking new ground in terms of gameplay when they were released. And that's the thing: gameplay. What does a game to gameplay-wise to justify itself in the Nintendo catalog? Does this actually do something new and exciting or is it just polishing old ground at best? It's one thing if Mario stays Mario, Zelda stays Zelda, Metroid stays Metroid, Fire Emblem stays Fire Emblem, Donkey Kong stays Donkey Kong, etc due to them being honed to razor sharpness from their extended tenures. A NEW IP must be unique amongst that catalog. Not exactly an easy thing to do. If all you're doing is slapping a different name and aesthetic onto something you're already doing and trying to pass it off as a new IP, then you FAIL as a designer

Furthermore, they have also said there are just some genres they're not interested in such as The Last of Us style games. It doesn't fit them. And I very much doubt they would acquire devs just to fill in blanks with genres.

But how is it artificial expansion? There are tons of genres they haven't touched. A real hardcore stealth game? Not really. A successful survival horror series? Not since RE4, which was obviously third party. A great 3rd or even 1st person shooter? Nothing there. Those genres can be done well. You can argue that those games don't fit Nintendo's style, but that's EXACTLY why they need to attract third party developers: to make the kinds of games they can't. Yes, Mass Effect and Spec Ops are both third person shooters, but are they really anything alike? Should Spec Ops not exist just because other third person shooters existed before it? It wasn't just another shooter with a new skin, it was an intelligent and thoughtful masterpiece in its own right. Nintendo innovated their genres in the past, but they haven't really done that since the N64, or the Game Cube at best. It's not a question of whether a genre has been done before, it's a question of whether you can improve upon the formula.

Furthermore Nintendo games can't just stay the same. They may be honed to razor sharpness, but then why should I keep playing? I have Ocarina of Time and Majoras Mask, why do I need the newer titles if they're the same, or worse? I have Metroid Prime and the classic Metroids, why do I need Other M? I have the classic Marios and Mario 64, do I need the new games? Have they actually improved upon the formula at all since the Game Cube? They can't even innovate their own franchises, much less their respective genres. The truth is that they are totally derivative. That's why Fire Emblem, which I love, was almost discontinued. That's why the average consumer doesn't want a Wii U. Mass Effect and TLoU didn't revolutionize game play, but they did things we've never seen before in a video game, and story wise they've been blowing Nintendo out of the water. And at the end of the day, your Mario jumping mechanics can be great, but the audience is going to follow a good story. It was true of the PS1 and FF7, and it's true for Mass Effect, Spec Ops, and TLoU now.

Too bad THQ already went over, Nintendo could've gotten some pretty sweet IP by just buying them

Aiddon:

Hero of Lime:
I know it won't happen, but even the crazy thought of Nintendo being bought out or merging with Apple makes me nauseous.

I do like the idea of discounts for loyal customers, though I think Club Nintendo is an already solid rewards program.

Japanese corporate law actually makes mergers with non-Japanese companies illegal. While Japanese companies can buy non-Japanese ones, the opposite is not possible. There's basically no threat of foreign intervention with Nintendo, something too many people seem to forget. Though at least it's not as annoying about people constantly repeating "marketing, advertising" day-in, day-out.

Good to know, though I was pretty sure it was impossible anyway. Nintendo is dealing with some problems, but merging with another company would be too drastic and unnecessary.

Neronium:

Hero of Lime:
I know it won't happen, but even the crazy thought of Nintendo being bought out or merging with Apple makes me nauseous.

I do like the idea of discounts for loyal customers, though I think Club Nintendo is an already solid rewards program.

Although the prizes in Europe are way better than the US rewards most of the time, and as for merging with Apple that is literally impossible as it's illegal for that to happen. Really this is just Nintendo saying they might acquire smaller 3rd party developers and make them first party, which is what Sony has had to do since it started (Naughty Dog, Santa Monica, Sucker Punch), and what Microsoft had to do as well (Rare). Really I'm glad they'll be doing this because it might also mean more 3rd party support since then they can pay for development more on things like how they did for Bayonetta 2 and Platinum. Nintendo in the past just would release a console and then everyone wanted to develop for it because they had such a large market share in the industry, but after the PS2 it shifted to Sony, while Microsoft was buying exclusives.

It would be interesting to see who Nintendo could acquire these days, most developers would rather make games on multiple platforms. I think it would be almost impossible for Nintendo, or any of the big three to buy a big studio without paying an incredible amount of money.

Hero of Lime:

It would be interesting to see who Nintendo could acquire these days, most developers would rather make games on multiple platforms. I think it would be almost impossible for Nintendo, or any of the big three to buy a big studio without paying an incredible amount of money.

Well I'm seeing some people think that they could buy some of the big AAA publishers, which makes me laugh because that would pretty much cut their total cash pile in half since those companies are worth so much themselves. If anything their best bets are to go and buy some of the smaller studios first. Some of them could be Platinum Games, Hal Laboratories (they are still second party), and Retro (second party still). Out of all the possibilities of them buying an actual AAA publisher, Capcom would probably be the cheapest one since Capcom's worth isn't so much, and to be honest I'd rather have Nintendo keep Megaman safe than leave him in the hands of Capcom.

With this as well, they could also pay developers to port certain games to their systems, which is what Sony and Microsoft have had to do which is why they have such a large 3rd party support. For example, they could pay Square Enix for a port of Kingdom Hearts 3 onto their system. Really one of the main things I'm glad about is that Nintendo is finally gonna use different business models to improve themselves, because no business strategy lasts forever as some people like to think they do.

gizmo2300:
Too bad THQ already went over, Nintendo could've gotten some pretty sweet IP by just buying them

Some of their IPs are still in Limbo to my knowledge, so there is still some chances for it. Plus some lesser developers bought the rights to Darksiders I believe and haven't used it yet.

Well, something finally had to change.
The arrogant "We're Nintendo. You bend to OUR trends!" attitude couldn't keep them going forever.

That, and the unexpected success of the Wii poisoned their thinking. I'm just glad they recognized how badly with the WiiU.

Does that mean they will finally buy SEGA? That company has been very friendly with them lately.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here