Nintendo Has A Tough Time Finding Suitable U.S. Developers
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That's because this is an off-month where Activision isn't doing anything at all and actually isn't running their mouth for once. Trust me, though, we hate Kotick and Activision more than anybody else here at the Escapist. Walk into a news thread with Activision as its headline and you'll see nothing but outrage.BiH-Kira said:I know there is hate for them.Raiyan 1.0 said:CoD and KotickVision doesn't get any hate here...?BiH-Kira said:
You're obviously new to this place. Welcome to the Escapist!
But I have jet to see as much hate for anything as people hate Nintendo. People LOVE Hitler compared to Nintendo.
It's because US developers prefer to create something instead of joining the endless copypasta fest.
I've never seen a Nintendo product that would stand up to modern standards and quality. They just copy and paste everything they've created at the beginning of their existence.
I've never seen a Nintendo product that would stand up to modern standards and quality. They just copy and paste everything they've created at the beginning of their existence.
Counter attack to the counter attack. Professional reviewers have been coddling Nintendo 1st party games for years with overblown scores.zombie711 said:
Ultra tackle by the safety.zombie711 said:
A reboot doesn't have to have roots on other consoles.
Super Mario Galaxy 2 was a retcon/reboot of the original game. Making SMG2 Reboot in the same console generation is lazy.
I think Nintendo is being arrogant by saying that. Nintendo is saying: No one is better than US when talking about pouring love in big corporations and we turn them all down...
But oh my GOD! Two dollar tittles are actually making competition on our precious DS by actually making refreshing games that the general people enjoy? By beating US on our OWN casual game market?? We must eliminate all those "garage developers" now! No allowance by Nintendo!
Serously though, they are going to miss the "next big thing" in the next decade by ignoring the "garage developers" (unless they manage to make another huge blue ocean, which I really doubt). So that comment from them is uncalled for... with these last series of comments from them, it sounds more that they are scared about the future because they "lost control of it (e.g. portable market)" I believe.
But oh my GOD! Two dollar tittles are actually making competition on our precious DS by actually making refreshing games that the general people enjoy? By beating US on our OWN casual game market?? We must eliminate all those "garage developers" now! No allowance by Nintendo!
Serously though, they are going to miss the "next big thing" in the next decade by ignoring the "garage developers" (unless they manage to make another huge blue ocean, which I really doubt). So that comment from them is uncalled for... with these last series of comments from them, it sounds more that they are scared about the future because they "lost control of it (e.g. portable market)" I believe.
We're such dicks...pandasaw said:
Seriously, we should only be making purely fun games that only earn us just enough profit so that we can give hearty bonuses to our employees after everything is paid off.
Wait... I like that idea. Well, as well as giving the companies some extra capital to invest in more good games.
What weakness?HankMan said:
As already stated by posters here, and by a lot of the interviews or press conferences with Nintendo (particularly Fils-aime and Miyamoto), Nintendo, and Japanese companies in general have a very different approach to business than Western companies.
Nintendo released another Super Mario on Wii because thats what the audience wanted; the first one was super popular and well-received, and fans wanted more. So Nintendo releases another Super Mario, even more polished and prepared than the first one, and gets rewarded for it. Nintendo was driven to please fans first; reward and gain was secondary. Nintendo changes because they feel the creative drive and need to, and then see how fans react to it. In Nintendo's case, this usually rewards them with more money.
Activision on the other hand, doesn't give a flying fuck about fans, and releases Call of Duty every year because it made money before, and they want more. In Activision's case, the want for money precedes the need to please fans. Activision forces change only when the old method stops earning them money.
"But wait, why then do other companies change more than Nintendo?"
Because Nintendo started with a better core product than basically every other company out there. Much as you don't want to admit it, the core concept and execution of games like Mario, Zelda and Pokemon are damn near perfect; you can't improve on them much at all. You can polish and shine and sharpen until it gleams so much other, lesser games can't even stand to look at it. Games like Mario, Zelda, Pokemon are basically timeless; 20 years from now, people and children will still be playing them, and new ones will likely still be being made, whereas you'll be lucky if Microsoft and Sony are still in the business, and if games like Minecraft and devs like Mojang become more than footnotes in history in 20 years.
Nintendo: "these studios are all too interested in making money... that's OUR JOB!
We were hoping to have some really creative dev teams that were so financially incompetent we could easily take 90% of the profit for us only doing 10% of the work."
___
Seriously, Nintendo are really being over-controlling hypocrites here, now they have made good games but they HAVE price-gouged to a very wide extent and they have clearly tried to maximise their profits this generation rather than really set the agenda in the pinnacle of gaming. They are defined my by quantity than quality
I mean Mario Galaxy 2 for $60? That should have been like Super Street fighter 4, released for $40 due to how it was pretty much just an upgrade.
And the Nintendo Wii STILL is sold at a huge profit per system, about $79 per unit in Europe and that was back in 2007, by now in 2011 even with the meagre price cuts they're raking it in.
And not forgetting what Nintendo's official line is on App-store style pricing for mini-games. They think games like Steel Diver should be $40 rather than $4!
We were hoping to have some really creative dev teams that were so financially incompetent we could easily take 90% of the profit for us only doing 10% of the work."
___
Seriously, Nintendo are really being over-controlling hypocrites here, now they have made good games but they HAVE price-gouged to a very wide extent and they have clearly tried to maximise their profits this generation rather than really set the agenda in the pinnacle of gaming. They are defined my by quantity than quality
I mean Mario Galaxy 2 for $60? That should have been like Super Street fighter 4, released for $40 due to how it was pretty much just an upgrade.
And the Nintendo Wii STILL is sold at a huge profit per system, about $79 per unit in Europe and that was back in 2007, by now in 2011 even with the meagre price cuts they're raking it in.
And not forgetting what Nintendo's official line is on App-store style pricing for mini-games. They think games like Steel Diver should be $40 rather than $4!
Off bounds 20 yard penelty!AzrealMaximillion said:
it can be a reboot because its only been 2 years and you see that number 2. that makes it a sequel. If nintendo wanted a game that would have made money they would have made new super mario bros 2 because New super mario bros sold significantly more than SMG. With the name brand comes responsibility, with responsibility comes fun, with fun comes money.
COMBO BREAKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AzrealMaximillion said:
whether or not you agree with reviewers does not mean the game is bad. And considering that reviewers both official and independent praise nintendo games (with exceptions like Other M) They must be doing something right (which they are)
No because *most* western (besides US-based) developers are *fairly* small, which means they have to innovate and make something interesting in order to attract a buyer's eye.ENKC said:
Penalty overturned!zombie711 said:
The game has the exact same concept as the first SMG as well as rips multiple bosses right out of the first game and places them in the second. And so what if the game came out 2 years after the first? It's still a retcon/reboot story. Look at the Evil Dead series. Evil Dead 2 is essentially a reboot of Evil Dead. Evil Dead is the reboot of Within The Woods (the short film version) that came 3 years prior. And to your New Super Mario Bros. arguement you realize that New Super Mario Bros Wii is a sequal to the DS version right?
NOT REALLY!!!!!zombie711 said:
I never said the game was bad, but it being the highest rated platformer of all time means nothing when you look at all of the overlooking of flaws in most of Nintendo's first party games. Nintendo is doing something right. Appealing to those who grew up on Nintendo and nothing else. Guys like me who grew up in the 90s-early 2000s got to experience massive innovations from Sony and Microsoft. Yes we love Mario too but redoing things is lazy no matter how good it is copypasta is copypasta.
The thing is though, that Nintendo kinda painted themselves into a hole with the Wii. Simply speaking, making a console aimed primarily at kids kinda doesn't well in the Western development world.
Here's the thing, most Western developers who aren't in it for the money ultimately make games for themselves. I was a Comp Sci student once, long ago, and the people who took the graphics classes and talked about maybe opening a video game studio one day weren't planning to make games their kids could play. They wanted to make games they could play. It's not really possible to do that on the Wii and that is entirely Nintendo's fault. It's Nintendo's fault that they've marketed and designed their console to appeal mostly to kids. It's Nintendo's fault that the 3rd party Wii market is crowded with gimmicky shovelware. You cannot create the console version of a facebook game platform and then complain that only the type of people who make facebook games and cheap browser games want to develop on your console.
edit: That probably sounds harsher than intended. I'm not demeaning the people who make those games. But I can tell you right now that I don't know anybody who dreamed of making a facebook game as a 'labor of love'. I know plenty who wanted to do it for the sweet, sweet moolah, but the people who were willing to work long hours, get paid less and ultimately suffer the reduced job quality that writing game code gives over more stable and lucrative work did not want to make those games.
Here's the thing, most Western developers who aren't in it for the money ultimately make games for themselves. I was a Comp Sci student once, long ago, and the people who took the graphics classes and talked about maybe opening a video game studio one day weren't planning to make games their kids could play. They wanted to make games they could play. It's not really possible to do that on the Wii and that is entirely Nintendo's fault. It's Nintendo's fault that they've marketed and designed their console to appeal mostly to kids. It's Nintendo's fault that the 3rd party Wii market is crowded with gimmicky shovelware. You cannot create the console version of a facebook game platform and then complain that only the type of people who make facebook games and cheap browser games want to develop on your console.
edit: That probably sounds harsher than intended. I'm not demeaning the people who make those games. But I can tell you right now that I don't know anybody who dreamed of making a facebook game as a 'labor of love'. I know plenty who wanted to do it for the sweet, sweet moolah, but the people who were willing to work long hours, get paid less and ultimately suffer the reduced job quality that writing game code gives over more stable and lucrative work did not want to make those games.
Too bad they didn't.NeutralDrow said:
I remember the launch of the wii. Saying it's for 'everyone' is like making a movie that's rated G or a game that's rated E. Everyone pretty much understands that it means you will not be catering to more mature audience.
Take in comparison the marketing and advertising for the xbox kinect. That was all about families and kids playing together in front of a screen. Guess what, months later all we see for what is apparently a wonderful piece of hardware is shovelware, shovelware everywhere.
The way you portray your system affects how potential customers will view it. This in turn affects how people who want to sell things to those customers will in turn view it. Nintendo made it pretty clear from their initial launch offerings, marketing, and public statements that they primarily cared about making games for children and families. There were a few exceptions in 3rd party games, notably MadWorld and No More Heroes, which by and large didn't make nearly as much money as similar titles on other consoles. Certainly no first party Nintendo game can even try to make that argument.
Maybe they should invest in a few developers who are willing to make games that appeal to a broader spectrum of gamers. The Wii has some great games, but I find it is far less often that I am sitting in my favorite game vendor looking for a new release on the Wii. Generally if I buy a game for the Wii it has aged a bit and the price has dropped, mostly because it is so hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
My point is made. Claiming they marketed the console specifically for children not only belied their actual marketing, but who exactly bought the consoles. In other words, basically every age range.Snooder said: