Why do gamers want to see Nintendo go multi-platform?

[80sboy]

Hmmm...this is how I feel about the Wii U.

"Hey, where's Bioshock: Infinite on the Wii U? The game is multi-platform and on the 360, PC, and PS3. Why isn't it on the WiiU? And where's the new Tomb Raider which I wasn't a big fan of but still? Wait, will GTA 5 be coming out? No? Yup...not getting that system."

Because devs like to make up 1 million excuses as to why the WiiU is hard to make games for, yet some of those same devs have no issue putting something on a tablet.
Also, no, they don't have to make games utilizing the WiiU tablet. They could use the pro controller if they so wish.

Well, then they need to start cutting deals, and stop treating 3rd party developers like shit. I mean, Nintendo has had a bad reputation with them since the NES days, and it's time for them to swallow their pride and - as I said - start cutting deals.

I mean look at how well Valves and Sony PS relationship got when Sony decided to call up Gabe Newell and have a talk. Before, he'd bash on the PS3 every step of the way and refused to make games for it. After, he was all open arms talking about how the PS3 would have the best Portal 2 port...slapping the Xbox across the face.

 

[BrotherRool]

I don't think it's about Nintendo making better games, I think it's because Nintendo makes kickass games but if you want to play them you can play them and nothing else because Nintendo completely sucks at getting anyone else to make games for their consoles. People want to play Mario _and_ Bioshock

 

[Tom_green_day]

I think Nintendo games going multiplatform would be cool because then I'd be able to play them? I'm not going to buy a Nintendo console, not since there are barely any games released for them that are on PS3, so I'd only play them if they were on the PS3.

 

[Dragonbums]

Hmmm...this is how I feel about the Wii U.

"Hey, where's Bioshock: Infinite on the Wii U? The game is multi-platform and on the 360, PC, and PS3. Why isn't it on the WiiU? And where's the new Tomb Raider which I wasn't a big fan of but still? Wait, will GTA 5 be coming out? No? Yup...not getting that system."

Because devs like to make up 1 million excuses as to why the WiiU is hard to make games for, yet some of those same devs have no issue putting something on a tablet.
Also, no, they don't have to make games utilizing the WiiU tablet. They could use the pro controller if they so wish.

Well, then they need to start cutting deals, and stop treating 3rd party developers like shit. I mean, Nintendo has had a bad reputation with them since the NES days, and it's time for them to swallow their pride and - as I said - start cutting deals.

I mean look at how well Valves and Sony PS relationship got when Sony decided to call up Gabe Newell and have a talk. Before, he'd bash on the PS3 every step of the way and refused to make games for it. After, he was all open arms talking about how the PS3 would have the best Portal 2 port...slapping the Xbox across the face.

The only people Nintendo need to treat nicer are the indie developers.
As far as I'm concerned Nintendo has been listening to them.

They didn't like making games utilizing motion controls(the wii). Nintendo makes a tablet for the WiiU and a pro controller for the WiiU. SPECIFICALLY for shooters and "hard core games" Iwata himself even stated himself that third party devs don't have to utilize the touch pad in anyway. Yet they still complained.(Funny how the game industry calls for innovation, yet anything innovative is called a gimmick)

The WiiU is able to handle the latest physic engines. EA, and a bunch of third party developers themselves claimed the same thing prior to launch. Now for some reason they are backtracking and stating that the WiiU CANNOT handle those engines.

The WiiU is more powerful than the PS3 and Xbox360- certainly more powerful than the Wii. The Wii's power was the biggest complaint and reason for devs not goint to Nintendo. Fixed that.
What's the problem exactly? Like looking at the PS4 and Xbox demos, is there really that big of a different console wise? No.
Third party just doesn't like Nintendo, and they will continue to bring in the excuses to justify not doing anything for Nintendo. Simple as that.

Also you act like Third parties are saints, when as we all know, especially around this generation, they are more than happy to screw us over with online passes, DRM, Always online, and ridiculous DLC pack prices for minimal content. They like to treat us like shit when they get the chance, yet whine when the same thing happens to them? Please.

 

[MetalDooley]

even the SNES looked weird.

What's weird looking about the SNES?

Spoiler

A perfectly fine looking machine if you ask me

 

[80sboy]

Also you act like Third parties are saints, when as we all know, especially around this generation, they are more than happy to screw us over with online passes, DRM, Always online, and ridiculous DLC pack prices for minimal content. They like to treat us like shit when they get the chance, yet whine when the same thing happens to them? Please.

No, you're right, they aren't saints in the least. But the thing is they're the ones that churn out the bulk of the games for the consoles. I mean look at the Wii, except for first party games, what else do they have worth getting a Wii for? Not much. All those great 3rd party games that came out this gen, and the Wii completely missed it. I mean, if I only have a Wii this generation, I would have been a really sad camper.



The industry learned a very long time ago that what keeps consoles afloat are the games. And the more games you have, the bigger they are, the better your console will do.

I learned this back in the NES days, when I owned just a Sega, and was jealous of what that other system use to have. Nintendo use to be the best system because it had ALL the best games. SNES had ALL the best games. N64 had some awesome games, but now the system finally had competition in the PS1.

Now it's just Mario, Mario, a Link game every gen, hopefully not a bad remake of Methroid, and Mario. Oh, and Smash where they take characters from those three, and have them fight each other.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

Right, because, as we all know, the PS1 and PS2 were the hardware kings of the industry! ... Wait, what's that? The PS1 was substandard compared to the Nintendo 64, and the PS2 was substandard compared to the Gamecube and Xbox, and the only reason it did so well was because 3rd companies actually tried to make good games with what they had? You don't say...

To be fair, the difference in power between the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube or PS1/N64 was much less significant than between the Wii/Xbox360/PS3.

And the PS1 had the advantage of being able to hold up to 700 MB of information per disc, whereas the biggest Nintendo cartridges could only hold up to 64 MB.

This is true. However, there was still enough of a difference. The PS1 and PS2 were definitely the weaker consoles of their gens (Baring the Dreamcast and Saturn).

All of their games were worse compared to GameCube and Xbox titles, but did they abandon the PS2?

Citation needed? Unless you're talking specifically about multi-platform games, because Devil May Cry 3, Metal Gear Solid 3, Okami, Shadow of the Colossus, Kingdom Hearts, Final Fantasy XII, and Persona 3/Persona 4 beg to differ on the exclusive front. (They were exclusive when they originally released, at least.)

Meant for Multi-Platforms, my mistake.

For some reason or another, they simply kept screwing over the Wii, and as a result, people stopped buying 3rd Party games on the Wii.

Because it was yet another API that developers would need to learn and port with, that had significantly less power than the three they were already trying to use. It was only really with the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube that games started actually becoming multi-platform in the first place, and a great number of them were still exclusive (or Xbox/PC because the Xbox basically was a PC).

But see, the PS2 was another API that developers had to learn to port with, and that had significantly less power then the other two (Not as much as Wii/360/PS3, but it was still significant). That didn't stop any developer from porting to the PS2. Resident Evil 4 had to have so much work done to it to get it working on the PS2, but they still did it. They didn't try and say "Oh, the PS2 is a piece of crap! Let's give up on it!" So I don't think that that arguement works against the Wii.

Meanwhile, the third best selling game on the WiiU is a game made by a 3rd party that decided to put all of the love and attention on it they could, ZombiU.

It's pretty easy to reach 'third-best-selling-game' when there's only about three or four games worth buying on the system. (Just my opinion, of course. Personally, ZombiU isn't a game I'm interested in.)

Fair enough, but when sales do pick up, I expect ZombiU (And it's sequel if ZombiU 2 is exclusive) to both pick up with them.

1) Did Sega going multi-platform improve their money standings? No, not really.

Sega hasn't gone out of business yet.

It hasn't helped them either. In fact, I would say that going Multi-plat is what caused the ruination of Sonic the Hedgehog, the death of Shenmue, the loss of multiple IP's, and the Nintendo Exclusivity of Bayonetta.

But I'd love for the chance to play Metroid Prime, Super Smash Bros., Kirby, Mario Kart, Pokemon, Super Mario Galaxy, and The Legend of Zelda on my PC.

You wouldn't see Super Smash Bros. Made anymore, because that would require Nintendo to have any leverage within Video Gaming anymore (3rd Parties really do not have that power). Metroid Prime wouldn't exist as Metroid Prime, because Retro would be a completely different company that didn't work for Nintendo (A Metroid Prime-ish game would, and a Retro-type company would). Super Mario Galaxy wouldn't exist, because Nintendo wouldn't try to take risks in making such a game like that. Kirby would suffer and die, as Viva Pinata shows Kid games can not survive on 'real' consoles. Legend of Zelda would also suffer, though not to the point of death. It would not sell as well as it did, however, on a Nintendo console. Mario Kart and Pokemon would probably be the only things to improve from Multiplatform, but how successful would be debatable.

 

[MetalDooley]

Nintendo should go multi-platform simply because 1. It would earn them more money

Would it?I doubt that myself.Going multiplatform would lead to

1.Massively increased game budgets due to having to develop for multiple platforms at once
2.Developing for multiple platforms at once would require more staff leading to higher overheads
2.Having to pay a licencing fee for every game to Sony,MS,Valve etc

All that with absolutely no guarantee of increased sales.Think about it.Who buys Nintendo games?Nintendo fans.If they went multiplatform then there would more than likely be around the same number of fans buying the games as there is now so whats the incentive

OT:The words "gamer entitlement" have been thrown around a lot lately but this is a perfect example of it

"I want to play Nintendo games but I don't want to buy a Nintendo console.Therefore they should cater to my desires and release all their games on the system I own"

Doesn't get much more entitled than that

 

[mysecondlife]

Why the hell not? I see consoles as necessary evil. Necessary. But evil is still evil.

 

[Mr Mystery Guest]

I bought a Wii but got rid of it because it was a babies toy. I only played Zelda on it. I would love to play a Mario game but i'm not wasting space under my tv with an under-powered console.

 

[McMarbles]

Because they're under the delusion that they'd still get Nintendo games of the same quality and variety. They're under the delusion that they'd ever see Starfox or F-Zero again. That they'd ever see Fire Emblem or Golden Sun or Sin and Punsihment. Hell, even Metroid isn't a guarantee.

You think there's a lot of Mario now? Wait'll there's nothing else.

 

[Worgen]

Being a part of the NINTENDO DEFENSE FORCE! I am now going to poke the logic in all of these arguements.

The Wii and WiiU are substandard gaming machines, and a number of people would like to see them just quit making shitty console hardware and focus on making games for the other platforms. Handhelds being the obvious exception.

Right, because, as we all know, the PS1 and PS2 were the hardware kings of the industry! ... Wait, what's that? The PS1 was substandard compared to the Nintendo 64, and the PS2 was substandard compared to the Gamecube and Xbox, and the only reason it did so well was because 3rd companies actually tried to make good games with what they had? You don't say...

Alright, show me the massive support of awesome 3rd party games for the Wii. Oh wait...

I actually answered that further along in my post:

For some reason or another, they simply kept screwing over the Wii, and as a result, people stopped buying 3rd Party games on the Wii. Meanwhile, the third best selling game on the WiiU is a game made by a 3rd party that decided to put all of the love and attention on it they could, ZombiU. Also, the best third party, multi-platform game on the Wii is Guitar Hero 3, a game that is almost exactly the same as Guitar Hero 3 on the 360 or the PS3.

I have no idea why they didn't try to take advantage of how successful the Wii was, although I think it's because of the Mandatory Motion Controls and the general dislike third parties have with Nintendo (Ever since the N64 days).

I disagree, Nintendo has some of the most valuable IPs around and I think the idea of them going multiplatform would bump the stock price to new heights.

I have to disagree. The fact that Nintendo's stocks are shakey from the poor first year of the 3DS, coupled with the poor WiiU sales, proves that Hardware is very important to stock brokers involving the Nintendo. If Nintendo goes third party, expect their stocks to plummet, and plummet hard.

I disagree, I think while if nindendo did go software only their stocks would take a hit, I don't think it would be much of one and it wouldn't last long. RIght now the biggest hurtle to nintendo games is that they are limited to nintendo systems, without that limit they could be breaking cod numbers easily. I still don't want to see Nintendo have to leave the console makers market but my point is that if they did they would probably be even more successful.

 

[Mr. Omega]

People want to be "right" about Nintendo being DOOOOOOMED all these years and not have to actually lose one of the companies that doesn't engage in anti-consumer practices or boringly safe game design.

That want Nintendo to be "punished" (for... reasons). But not too badly.

At least some. Most have the obvious reason: want the games, but not the console. Just add layers of "they BETRAYED hardcores" to make it sound like more than that.

As for the whole "they made an underpowered console" thing, that's just hardcore gamer's love of revisionist history at work, conveniently ignoring that the last 3 generations have not been won by the most powerful machine.

 

[suntt123]

I disagree, I think while if nindendo did go software only their stocks would take a hit, I don't think it would be much of one and it wouldn't last long. RIght now the biggest hurtle to nintendo games is that they are limited to nintendo systems, without that limit they could be breaking cod numbers easily. I still don't want to see Nintendo have to leave the console makers market but my point is that if they did they would probably be even more successful.

This might be true but them by that same logic Sony, MS and basically every publisher ever would make more money by putting their games on every console. And correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that Mario was still 2nd best seller overall last gen, next to CoD, despite being only on nintendo consoles. My point being that, love it or hate it, Nintendo made a TON of money off the wii and its games.

Again I could be wrong but didn't Sony and MS LOSE money on the PS360? I'd be more beneficial for them to have their games on Wii U than the other way around.

Nintendo is under scrutiny by the gaming community by virtue of being the oldest of the big 3 and also because they are continually making 'odd' decisions with their hardware that many 'core' gamer seem to find weird. I prefer that though... I would rather see a new iteration of a console be different from its predecessor than have played GameCube2 in wii's place or something like that. I've been a console gamer for about 3 generations now and I'm already sick of seeing better graphics as being touted as a selling point for a next generation. It was justifiable before, when everything was still noticeably blocky, but now not so much. Last gen was HD enough for me. Let's see what else we can do but keep the traditional controllers an option.

 

[MetalDooley]

RIght now the biggest hurtle to nintendo games is that they are limited to nintendo systems, without that limit they could be breaking cod numbers easily.

Mario Kart Wii - 33.75m
Wii Sports Resort - 31.67m
Wii Play - 28.73m
New Super Mario Bros Wii - 26.92m
Wii Fit - 22.75
Wii Fit Plus - 21.20m
New Super Mario Bros DS - 29.18m
Nintendogs - 24.52m
Mario Kart DS - 22.53m
Brain Age - 20.03m


That's 10 games on the Wii and DS that did CoD numbers.I didn't even bother to list the other 24 Wii,DS and 3DS titles that each sold between 5m and 18m copies.They seem to be doing ok without going multiplatform if you ask me

Edit:Changed 31 to 24.I mistakenly included several games not published by Nintendo

 

[Worgen]

I disagree, I think while if nindendo did go software only their stocks would take a hit, I don't think it would be much of one and it wouldn't last long. RIght now the biggest hurtle to nintendo games is that they are limited to nintendo systems, without that limit they could be breaking cod numbers easily. I still don't want to see Nintendo have to leave the console makers market but my point is that if they did they would probably be even more successful.

This might be true but them by that same logic Sony, MS and basically every publisher ever would make more money by putting their games on every console. And correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that Mario was still 2nd best seller overall last gen, next to CoD, despite being only on nintendo consoles. My point being that, love it or hate it, Nintendo made a TON of money off the wii and its games.

Again I could be wrong but didn't Sony and MS LOSE money on the PS360? I'd be more beneficial for them to have their games on Wii U than the other way around.

Nintendo is under scrutiny by the gaming community by virtue of being the oldest of the big 3 and also because they are continually making 'odd' decisions with their hardware that many 'core' gamer seem to find weird. I prefer that though... I would rather see a new iteration of a console be different from its predecessor than have played GameCube2 in wii's place or something like that. I've been a console gamer for about 3 generations now and I'm already sick of seeing better graphics as being touted as a selling point for a next generation. It was justifiable before, when everything was still noticeably blocky, but now not so much. Last gen was HD enough for me. Let's see what else we can do but keep the traditional controllers an option.

Really the only thing exclusives give is a slightly lower dev cost since you only have to code for one piece of hardware, and the console maker pays for them. Other than that they exist to sell consoles. Out of all 3 Nintendo is really the only one who really develops a lot of titles themselves, sony and ms have some dev houses under their banner but most of them aren't really owned by the console maker.