Nintendo Has A Tough Time Finding Suitable U.S. Developers
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
We have had basically the same Pokemon games come out regularly for the past 15 years. I know it is a Gamefreak developed game, but I think more people these days might identify Nintendo more with Pokemon than some of their other franchises. Not saying Pokemon are bad games, been playing White for a little bit now (though my enthusiasm is waning around the fifth gym as I'm starting to see evolved forms of pokemon in the wild rather than new pokemon) and each game on its own is Okay, the franchise hasn't really developed much at all.Dorkmaster Flek said:
Uh, hey Nintendo, remember Retro Studios? The guys who made the amazing Metroid Prime series and Donkey Kong Returns?
You kind of had issues with them when they wanted to start from scratch when they made Prime 2 instead of just reusing stuff. Sounds like a money grab to me.
You kind of had issues with them when they wanted to start from scratch when they made Prime 2 instead of just reusing stuff. Sounds like a money grab to me.
Well, since they're discussing craftsmanship as much as innovation, that isn't really much of a point.HankMan said:
While Super Mario Galaxy 2 is about as unoriginal as Nintendo gets, you can't argue it's an example of bad craftsmanship, since lack of originality aside, it's design is very polished and well thought out, with a lot of attention paid to subtle details.
And that is, essentially the definition of craftsmanship. Taking pride, and effort to create something that is as polished and well-finished as you can.
It doesn't necessarily say what you're making is a particularly original design...
Just that it is of the highest possible quality you can make it.
And that's something I have a hard time believing anyone can debate about Nintendo.
Unoriginal? Sure.
Repeating the same thing over and over? Yep.
Lazy, cash-grabbing game design? Not really.
Even Nintendo's crap is Highly polished crap.
(To see this in action, compare the average shovel-ware Wii title to Wii Sports. Superficially they're pretty similar, but look closely and you'll see that the things that constitute shovelware have horrible production standards even compared to something as stupid as Wii Sports.)
Considering that they brought the video game industry back from the dead, and almost 30 years later they can release a game that isn't terribly different from their mother ship title on the NES and have it sell?ThePeaceFrog said:
Yeah, they earned it. And it's not like Nintendo is wrong in the assessment that US companies are often run like businesses. The US terrain is dominated by giants like EA and Activision.
Isn't Nintendo re-releasing one of the Zelda games they already reased like Twice before for the 3DS?
So Nintendo DOESN'T like making money? If that was the case then they'd give more support to real third part developers outside of the heaps of shovel-ware.
It really angers me every time I read this sort of thing, and not just from Nintendo, this has come up before about other aspects. The fact of the matter is the Western market is a massive force in the games industry, unlike up to 20 years ago, and not only does it develop commercially successful games, it also innovates. Now of course I know companies like EA and Activision are the obvious targets, but when you factor in all the new developments in gameplay and graphics from various developers (Valve, Bioware for example) one simply can't deny there is more outside of Japan. Yes, I know for some it's all about your Call of Duty and annual sport franchises but that hardly gets the likes of Pokemon, Dynasty Warriors, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil and any other with well over multiple sequels off the hook.
And before anyone calls me bias, I found Demon's Souls to be one of the more refreshing gaming experiences recently and a great pick for top game of 2009, so of course there's very much still plenty of great new titles coming out of Japan.
I mean that really rounds like something Nintendo would say about themselves.vansau said:
It really angers me every time I read this sort of thing, and not just from Nintendo, this has come up before about other aspects. The fact of the matter is the Western market is a massive force in the games industry, unlike up to 20 years ago, and not only does it develop commercially successful games, it also innovates. Now of course I know companies like EA and Activision are the obvious targets, but when you factor in all the new developments in gameplay and graphics from various developers (Valve, Bioware for example) one simply can't deny there is more outside of Japan. Yes, I know for some it's all about your Call of Duty and annual sport franchises but that hardly gets the likes of Pokemon, Dynasty Warriors, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil and any other with well over multiple sequels off the hook.
And before anyone calls me bias, I found Demon's Souls to be one of the more refreshing gaming experiences recently and a great pick for top game of 2009, so of course there's very much still plenty of great new titles coming out of Japan.
Exactly and Rare weren't even American. I'm not sure how much recent experience Nintendo have had with European developers.ENKC said:
It doesn't help that the vast majority of western publishers are publicly traded companies... they're beholdent to the all-powerful shareholders. And these publishers will bend over backwards and do pretty much anything purely to achieve the short-sighted goal of making this quarter look better than the same quarter of the previous year.
Once that vicious cycle starts, there's no escaping it and the bigger publishers, like EA and Activision, have to take drastic measures to make themselves look more and more profitable year-on-year. With expanding development budgets, the key ways to do that are:
1) Reduce your workforce and make less people do the same amount of work - the same gross revenue will then yield a higher profit
2) Narrow your portfolio and only spend money on titles you know will sell bucketloads - why release 6 games if you know that only 1 is going to turn a profit? (And this is where any hope of innovation is drained from large western publishers)
3) Squeeze the crap out of the development budget until there is barely enough money to actually develop the game, and certainly not to a decent level of quality, then your profit-to-earnings ratio goes up
4) Franchise, franchise, franchise - knock out sequels of your big seller every year and get it on as many platforms as possible to capitalize on the marketing spend
5) All of the above.
Of course, this is not sustainable... at some point, there aren't going to be enough people or budget left to make the actual game, and the gaming public are going to reach saturation point of your tired sequels. However, shareholders either don't understand this, or don't care, and all they want is more and more profit.
It's very sad that most publishers are essentially run by Wall Street. I think that a couple of the biggies are approaching breaking point - if not this year, then certainly next. I'm sure I don't need to name names as to who they are.
Once that vicious cycle starts, there's no escaping it and the bigger publishers, like EA and Activision, have to take drastic measures to make themselves look more and more profitable year-on-year. With expanding development budgets, the key ways to do that are:
1) Reduce your workforce and make less people do the same amount of work - the same gross revenue will then yield a higher profit
2) Narrow your portfolio and only spend money on titles you know will sell bucketloads - why release 6 games if you know that only 1 is going to turn a profit? (And this is where any hope of innovation is drained from large western publishers)
3) Squeeze the crap out of the development budget until there is barely enough money to actually develop the game, and certainly not to a decent level of quality, then your profit-to-earnings ratio goes up
4) Franchise, franchise, franchise - knock out sequels of your big seller every year and get it on as many platforms as possible to capitalize on the marketing spend
5) All of the above.
Of course, this is not sustainable... at some point, there aren't going to be enough people or budget left to make the actual game, and the gaming public are going to reach saturation point of your tired sequels. However, shareholders either don't understand this, or don't care, and all they want is more and more profit.
It's very sad that most publishers are essentially run by Wall Street. I think that a couple of the biggies are approaching breaking point - if not this year, then certainly next. I'm sure I don't need to name names as to who they are.
Oh, and one more thing:
That's the best example? House of the Dead: Overkill, Battalion Wars and Geometry Wars are great, more memorable titles.vansau said:
Well that's cause of what sells and what doesn't sell on Nintendo.
Let's admit it, it's
a) The Core AAA games of internal nintendo studios who have retrogamers by the balls (not a bad thing)
b) cheaper casual games
I heard many developers tried to "go BIG on the Wii with big projects" and after pooling resources and time failed to sell nicely and decided not to work there.
Let's admit it, it's
a) The Core AAA games of internal nintendo studios who have retrogamers by the balls (not a bad thing)
b) cheaper casual games
I heard many developers tried to "go BIG on the Wii with big projects" and after pooling resources and time failed to sell nicely and decided not to work there.
Super Mario Galaxy 2 is developed BY NINTENDO and has nothing to do with third-party Western Studioszombie711 said:
So point invalid.
"There's a real increase in the number of companies that look like they're really running a business for business' sake. There are many of those certainly within the midst of the gaming industry as a whole, or at least I feel that way."
Oh cry me a river. Nintendo was sued by Sega in the late 1980s over its business strategy of monopolising 3rd part developers. That Sony, Microsoft, Apple, and Steam exist is the only reason it is struggling.
And I'm sure now that the 3rd party devs - companies full of artists and writers - have been accused of being in it for the money they're just gonna LOVE the idea of working with Nintendo. I'm sure they can't wait to get into such a situation and feel the big N's love and respect.
Nintendo's problem is it has no idea whatsoever what a 3rd party developer company actually does, why they do it, what working there is like. They're like a king, touring their kingdom, concluding the country is covered in red carpet, and thinking anyone in muddy boots is a savage since they're too stupid not to arrive at their destination without stepping off the carpet and into the mud.
Oh cry me a river. Nintendo was sued by Sega in the late 1980s over its business strategy of monopolising 3rd part developers. That Sony, Microsoft, Apple, and Steam exist is the only reason it is struggling.
And I'm sure now that the 3rd party devs - companies full of artists and writers - have been accused of being in it for the money they're just gonna LOVE the idea of working with Nintendo. I'm sure they can't wait to get into such a situation and feel the big N's love and respect.
Nintendo's problem is it has no idea whatsoever what a 3rd party developer company actually does, why they do it, what working there is like. They're like a king, touring their kingdom, concluding the country is covered in red carpet, and thinking anyone in muddy boots is a savage since they're too stupid not to arrive at their destination without stepping off the carpet and into the mud.
Shirokurou said:
No the point was that Nintendo said that most developers in the west make games 4 money, and Nintendo themselves made a sequel, which often made for money. SMG 2 is an exception because it more well received than SMG and the ideas that were put into SMG 2 were supposed to be in the original but didn't have the time or space to put it.
?zombie711 said:
So you're saying it was like Street Fighter IV and Super Street Fighter IV? Honestly, not that knowledgeable on Nintendo and didn't play SMG1 or SMG2.
But back to my post.
Well that's cause of what sells and what doesn't sell on Nintendo.
Let's admit it, it's
a) The Core AAA games of internal nintendo studios who have retrogamers by the balls (not a bad thing) where SMG2 falls in.
b) cheaper casual games