Your reaction if Nintendo went third party?

[IceForce]

Nintendo makes a profit on both hardware and software.

Except when they don't, but we've been over this before. I posted several links detailing how your claims were false, and you've gone back and made the same claims in a new thread.

I like how the OP seems to ignore all instances of where he's proved wrong, and instead nitpicks at some irrelevant point, or he makes replies that are completely unconnected and unrelated to the post he's quoting.

But I posted it in several forums, and the majority of people would like it to happen. So, maybe most of the internet doesn't like Nintendo.

Methinks maybe you can't do statistics, because this is a tremendous leap in logic.

Do you even know what you're talking about?

It would be good if you could address some of the questions people have posted in this thread. Including how you managed to twist "I want to be able to play Nintendo games on non-Nintendo consoles", to "I want Nintendo to go bankrupt".

If there's any logic here, I'm not seeing it.

 

[VG_Addict]

Nintendo makes a profit on both hardware and software.

Except when they don't, but we've been over this before. I posted several links detailing how your claims were false, and you've gone back and made the same claims in a new thread.

I like how the OP seems to ignore all instances of where he's proved wrong, and instead nitpicks at some irrelevant point, or he makes replies that are completely unconnected and unrelated to the post he's quoting.

But I posted it in several forums, and the majority of people would like it to happen. So, maybe most of the internet doesn't like Nintendo.

Methinks maybe you can't do statistics, because this is a tremendous leap in logic.

Do you even know what you're talking about?

It would be good if you could address some of the questions people have posted in this thread. Including how you managed to twist "I want to be able to play Nintendo games on non-Nintendo consoles", to "I want Nintendo to go bankrupt".

If there's any logic here, I'm not seeing it.

Because, until recently, Nintendo has made a profit on their consoles. I don't know how much more clear I can make that.


What other questions should I address?

 

[Kuro Serpentina]

I very much doubt Nintendo would ever go third party
The way I see it, if they really do feel like their sinking, they'd dig their heels in and go all out, emptying the vault
And if they do fall, even then, they'd go down with honour.
Basically meaning, they would not go third party.
"Leave Luck to Heaven"...
They do things their way or not at all
I wouldn't be surprised if they'd see going down utterly to be preferable to going down half assed and going 3rd part
tl;dr- If they go down, they go down entirely.

 

[Maxtro]

My reaction?

FINALLY!

Though I doubt Nintendo will ever go third party because the handheld market is so strong.

Mario, Link and Samus would most likely be exclusive to the 4DS.

 

[Poetic Nova]

If it means Metroid (a good one, not like Other M) comes to PS3, I would be damn happy. Stopped caring for Nintendo since the Wii.

 

[tm96]

This is probably never gonna since Nintendo isn't stupid and famously stubborn. If it did happen I have no idea what will happen. I could probably buy their games on other consoles and PC (side note if I can stop being a lazy man to build one or crazy enough to buy an overpriced pre-built one a la Alienware) but it won't be the same. I won't get that feeling of enjoying a product that has being made to the maximum full potential by a company that likes to do things to the benefit of it and the gamers who buy their games for their consoles. I just don't truly know.

 

[floppylobster]

Nintendo banks on novelty dressed as innovation.

How can you have that many posts and still not know anything about gaming history?

Portable gaming, forced feed back, analog controls, shoulder buttons, the D-Pad, save files, female protagonists, online console gaming, wireless controllers, lock-on targeting, all brought forward by Nintendo. Sony wouldn't even be in the hardware business if Nintendo weren't experimenting with CD drives.

The main reason their controller hasn't changed much is that there's little reason for it to. You'll also note the pro controller imitates the standard variety from the other companies.

Right... because the original PlayStation controller was based on Nintendo's SNES controller right? And had a D-pad, pioneered by Nintendo with the NES. And shoulder buttons, pioneered by Nintendo with the SNES. But Sony decided to add analog sticks - adding them only after they witness how successful they were when Nintendo released the N64.

So did all the kids die off or something? Is that why Sony did nearly as well in two months as Nintendo did in two years?

No. What I was saying is kids grow up loving Nintendo. They hit their teens and suddenly think their games are 'uncool' because they're so worried about image. Then they mature and realize their games were the most fun they ever had in their lives and return to Nintendo. So Nintendo have a smaller but loyal fan base of age groups under 15 and over 25.

Sony are great but like most developers, they owe a huge debt to Nintendo.

 

[Something Amyss]

How can you have that many posts and still not know anything about gaming history?

Because there's no correlation between posts on a message board and knowledge of a subject. Or because it's a false premise.

Portable gaming, forced feed back, analog controls, shoulder buttons, the D-Pad, save files, female protagonists, online console gaming, wireless controllers, lock-on targeting, all brought forward by Nintendo. Sony wouldn't even be in the hardware business if Nintendo weren't experimenting with CD drives.

There's a great video on the things Sega did first that Nintendo gets credit for "inventing." A good number of those are on your list. How do you not know your gaming history when you seek to lecture me on it?

And did you seriously just list female protagonists as an "innovation?"

Right... because the original PlayStation controller was based on Nintendo's SNES controller right?

I think you're confusing the Wii one with the Wii U one.

And had a D-pad, pioneered by Nintendo with the NES. And shoulder buttons, pioneered by Nintendo with the SNES. But Sony decided to add analog sticks - adding them only after they witness how successful they were when Nintendo released the N64.

Analogue sticks date back to the 70s. Sorry. And the rest doesn't mean that Nintendo isn't emulating the form made common by others--which, at best, is your argument for Nintendo's "creation" or "innovation" of many of its designs.

No. What I was saying is kids grow up loving Nintendo. They hit their teens and suddenly think their games are 'uncool' because they're so worried about image. Then they mature and realize their games were the most fun they ever had in their lives and return to Nintendo. So Nintendo have a smaller but loyal fan base of age groups under 15 and over 25.

Except that's not happening, as I demonstrated. So....

It seems like your best argument about Sony is that Sony owes as much to Nintendo as Nintendo owes to the people whose ideas they took. And by that argument, Sony (and Microsoft) is just as innovative.

Or, and this is a possibility, they take old ideas and package them in OOOOH SHINY!

 

[VG_Addict]

How can you have that many posts and still not know anything about gaming history?

Because there's no correlation between posts on a message board and knowledge of a subject. Or because it's a false premise.

Portable gaming, forced feed back, analog controls, shoulder buttons, the D-Pad, save files, female protagonists, online console gaming, wireless controllers, lock-on targeting, all brought forward by Nintendo. Sony wouldn't even be in the hardware business if Nintendo weren't experimenting with CD drives.

There's a great video on the things Sega did first that Nintendo gets credit for "inventing." A good number of those are on your list. How do you not know your gaming history when you seek to lecture me on it?

And did you seriously just list female protagonists as an "innovation?"

Right... because the original PlayStation controller was based on Nintendo's SNES controller right?

I think you're confusing the Wii one with the Wii U one.

And had a D-pad, pioneered by Nintendo with the NES. And shoulder buttons, pioneered by Nintendo with the SNES. But Sony decided to add analog sticks - adding them only after they witness how successful they were when Nintendo released the N64.

Analogue sticks date back to the 70s. Sorry. And the rest doesn't mean that Nintendo isn't emulating the form made common by others--which, at best, is your argument for Nintendo's "creation" or "innovation" of many of its designs.

No. What I was saying is kids grow up loving Nintendo. They hit their teens and suddenly think their games are 'uncool' because they're so worried about image. Then they mature and realize their games were the most fun they ever had in their lives and return to Nintendo. So Nintendo have a smaller but loyal fan base of age groups under 15 and over 25.

Except that's not happening, as I demonstrated. So....

It seems like your best argument about Sony is that Sony owes as much to Nintendo as Nintendo owes to the people whose ideas they took. And by that argument, Sony (and Microsoft) is just as innovative.

Or, and this is a possibility, they take old ideas and package them in OOOOH SHINY!

Except Nintendo experimented with online with the Sattleview back in the SNES days.

You don't have to invent something to be innovative. Nintendo just perfected those things.

 

[gyrobot_v1legacy]

One thing I am concerned about Nintendo going third party is this: Will anyone want to set up deals with them? The new age market is almost M rated games, you may have German Euro Games on the PC but the console market is pretty cold to E rated titles with a few exceptions, it is no longer the days where kid friendly games are the majority. MS and Sony may pull an EA and let the Nintendo IPs, no matter how profitable and popular it is to devalue and die and eventually buy them up so they can sit on it forever ala Big Oil and fusion engines.

 

[InsanityRequiem]

One thing I am concerned about Nintendo going third party is this: Will anyone want to set up deals with them? The new age market is almost M rated games, you may have German Euro Games on the PC but the console market is pretty cold to E rated titles with a few exceptions, it is no longer the days where kid friendly games are the majority. MS and Sony may pull an EA and let the Nintendo IPs, no matter how profitable and popular it is to devalue and die and eventually buy them up so they can sit on it forever ala Big Oil and fusion engines.

The other issues are costs and returns. Third party development is more expensive than first party/exclusive development for consoles. Nintendo making just for their console/one sole console is cheaper with a better return than Nintendo making for Xbone/PS4/PC all at once. So as it is right now, Nintendo selling 2 million games for the Wii U is more profitable in 6 months compared to selling 2 million games on multiple consoles at once. The graph I'll post below is a bit outdated, but it gets the point I'm making across better.

On their own console, Nintendo would get between $34 - $49. If Nintendo were third party, they'd get a drastic reduction from $27 - $35.

 

[Pink Gregory]

I like the Wii, I like the WiiU; but I'm not attached to any of the franchises or anything. I also don't believe that processing power = quality, and I don't believe that 'gimmicks' can't be harnessed to make interesting games.

If they went, I'd probably not feel anything due to not being attached, but if that led to ALL of their *at least* first party back catalogue becoming available digitally, then I'd be behind it. Cuz lawd knows they're not doing a great job of that.

 

[InsanityRequiem]

On their own console, Nintendo would get between $34 - $49. If Nintendo were third party, they'd get a drastic reduction from $27 - $35.

Yet with bigger install bases on the competition and PC, they could potentially sell MORE software... 1 million sales @ $34-$49 will still be less than 4 million @ $27-$35... I dont see them selling LESS software than usual going 3rd party. I see them selling MORE. Of course its hypothetical...

A (hypotheical) bigger install base still doesn't mean one can make the money back either. Third party AAA development is costing nearly to over $100 million now, hence why companies like Acti-Blizz, EA, and Ubisoft are saying they have to sell games as potential franchises or sell more than 5 million games. Heck, a new company selling 1.2 million copies of their game would have been considered a success, but the company didn't survive due to financial issues. Nowadays, $42 million may not seem like a success compared to $128 million in sales, but when you compare the costs of development, unless there's gross mismanagement of money, that $42 million is more of a success than the $128 million. First party development will always end up being cheaper than third party development. http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Video_game_costs

Then we have to account for the fact that hypothetically, the most to third party would cost Nintendo a lot of fans. I know I'm one who would drop gaming completely if Nintendo leaves, due to my lack of desire for the other consoles and the business practices of many third party publishers. Then we have to talk about the fact that people say they'll buy Nintendo games if they go third party, but more likely than not, they actually won't buy the games. People call for Nintendo to localize/distribute games all the time, and yet when Nintendo does sell the called for games(say 100,000 people "signed a petition" for it), the sales end up extraordinarily horrible. Nintendo of America has a bad marketing campaign, has been since the N64 days. Bad marketing as well as a rather vitriolic fandom means that a game that could sell well normally may end up as a flop, costing Nintendo millions.

 

[InsanityRequiem]

Snip.

Did you even read what I posted? Or even read the links I posted at all?

There's something called consumer trust, and if a company does something that you don't like, that trust is broken. I enjoy having more than two consoles on the market for people to play games on. When company A and company B have bad business practices, while company C does not, my trust will be in company C. If company C decides to stop what they're doing, even when they said that they will not do it (Nintendo saying they won't go 3rd party, but decides to anyway), my trust in said company is gone. Therefore, I do not buy products from company C anymore. I would have already stopped with companies A and B for that very same reason in the first place.

AAA development costs have a lot to do with Nintendo. For example, lets look at EA and Dead Space. Here are some good articles about it. http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/06/15/dead-space-needs-around-five-million-fans-to-survive-according-to-ea/ http://www.destructoid.com/dead-space-3-is-the-latest-game-to-have-officially-failed-253319.phtml
And this isn't an EA issue either. Square Enix, Capcom, Ubisoft, and other companies have talked about how if their game does not do well, then good bye to making more. It's one of the big reasons why THQ died. And you know what happens? Quality gets bad, development studios get shut down, and bad marketing/business decisions become prominent. Don't believe me? Look at Dungeon Keeper for the mobile scene. That's what you want? A mobile[/] phone game where you pay hundreds of dollars to be able to access normal gameplay abilities? Heck, we can talk about the more big time issues with SimCity, Battlefields 3 & 4, Diablo 3, etc. Buggy messes made with business decisions that fucked over customers.

Millions of potential customers? I don't see any. Reggie said it best when he talked about petitions: http://www.vg247.com/2013/12/05/nintendo-petitions-dont-affect-what-we-do-says-reggie/
Just because 300,000 people signed a petition, does not mean that 300,000 people will buy the game if Nintendo does so. Marketing could help that, but from everything I've seen, Nintendo has the worst broken fan base out there. Make new IP? Nintendo does so and the fan base attacks them for it. Keep doing what they're doing? The fan base attacks them for it. Compound the issue with the fact that Nintendo's marketing is really, really bad and you have the mess of a company going down the route of Sega. Good IPs tossed or forever locked away to never be touched, the IPs currently in use continuously getting worse and worse in quality.

That is why I would quit gaming. Nintendo may not be perfect, but they're better than the rest of the gaming sphere in terms of console manufacturers and game publishers. And if they go, I go.

 

[Eve Charm]

The clocks ticking on all the console and handheld manufacturers. I'd be surprised if Mario ends up on a One or a PS4 tho.

At the end of the day the console signed their death warrents, After generations of Graphics and Frame rates and screen resolutions you have one console that's no where near as graphically and the other two that can't do last gen's Framerate and Screen resolution. If gaming manufactures are going to ask people to "Settle" they are gonna settle with the consoles and devices they already own.