Why should Nintendo go third party?

[senordesol]

Why should they go third party, and thus change their business after ONE console failure? Wouldn't it make more sense to just make a better console next time around? It's not like they don't have the money to give it another try.

Here's a better question: why should Nintendo stay in the console market? Many of the properties it continues to lean on, while still popular, don't excite people as much as they used to. I personally don't care if I ever play Mario or Zelda ever again. I might be enticed to play a full-console adaptation of Pokemon, but Nintendo's old standards bore me (and many of the once-faithful) now.

Their insistence of total control of their hardware has and continues to prove harmful (indirectly creating their own competitor, the Playstation, at one point) but they don't seem keen to change.

In short: what is there to be excited about from a new Nintendo system? If it's just the old titles warmed over, why does that necessitate a new console?

A great examination of this is MovieBob's Game Overthinker (http://www.screwattack.com/shows/partners/game-overthinker/game-overthinker-special-fate-nintendo) here he acknowledges that if Nintendo maintains its current trajectory, it's fate as a 3rd party is all but assured...and this is coming from a major Nintendo fanboy.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I dunno, isn't it in their best interest to NOT go bankrupt?

 

[VG_Addict]

I dunno, isn't it in their best interest to NOT go bankrupt?

You seriously think the Wii U is going to bankrupt Nintendo? Do you know how much they made on the Wii and DS?

 

[MysticSlayer]

Making software available on more than one platform = Wider userbase and more customers
More customers = More money

Seems simple enough.

So where are the threads demanding that Microsoft and Sony go third party? Where are the threads demanding that Valve make stuff for consoles?

I think those get lumped into the more general "console exclusivity is anti-consumer" threads. We haven't had one for a few weeks, but we also haven't had one of these "third party Nintendo!" threads in weeks.

Keep in mind, a lot of people just don't like console exclusivity at all. The difference with Nintendo is that while many of the more "hardcore gamers" (for lack of a better term) can get most exclusives on the Xbox 360 or PS3 (or Xbox One and PS4 once they get some good exclusives), as they likely own one. Nintendo, on the other hand, has mostly pushed the hardcore gamer aside from having anything on its consoles outside of their first party titles. Naturally, it becomes the quickest target for getting rid of console exclusivity arguments, as it is the one with the most immediate benefit to gamers as a whole.

Now, I'm not saying that is a good mentality to have. I'm just saying that it is likely the one most responsible for why Nintendo is called out by name more than Microsoft and Sony. Valve isn't called out because they do make their games available on consoles and have been pretty much ever since Half-Life 2. Of course, if we're talking about service exclusivity on PC games...

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I dunno, isn't it in their best interest to NOT go bankrupt?

You seriously think the Wii U is going to bankrupt Nintendo? Do you know how much they made on the Wii and DS?

Yes, but I also know their newest console is a fiasco that didn't meet expectations in 2013 and whose ambitious 9 million sales forecasts has been knocked down 70% since the year began. They have a long way to go before they croak but they're going alright as it is. Resting on laurels never helped anyone.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I dunno, isn't it in their best interest to NOT go bankrupt?

You seriously think the Wii U is going to bankrupt Nintendo? Do you know how much they made on the Wii and DS?

Yes, but I also know their newest console is a fiasco that didn't meet expectations in 2013 and whose ambitious 9 million sales forecasts has been knocked down 70% since the year began. They have a long way to go before they croak but they're going alright as it is. Resting on laurels never helped anyone.

having the reserves to be able to make mistakes and move on tho does.

Living off leftovers isn't a terribly good business model and they should review their policies soon. Going third party, for example. I'm not saying it's their Obi-Wan Kenobi but it's a possibility.

 

[VG_Addict]

I dunno, isn't it in their best interest to NOT go bankrupt?

You seriously think the Wii U is going to bankrupt Nintendo? Do you know how much they made on the Wii and DS?

Yes, but I also know their newest console is a fiasco that didn't meet expectations in 2013 and whose ambitious 9 million sales forecasts has been knocked down 70% since the year began. They have a long way to go before they croak but they're going alright as it is. Resting on laurels never helped anyone.

having the reserves to be able to make mistakes and move on tho does.

Living off leftovers isn't a terribly good business model and they should review their policies soon. Going third party, for example. I'm not saying it's their Obi-Wan Kenobi but it's a possibility.

I thought they were reviewing their policies. They're licensing their games to other companies, doing mergers and acquisitions, considering advertising on smartphones, and integrating handheld and home console.

 

[VG_Addict]

Why should they go third party, and thus change their business after ONE console failure? Wouldn't it make more sense to just make a better console next time around? It's not like they don't have the money to give it another try.

Here's a better question: why should Nintendo stay in the console market? Many of the properties it continues to lean on, while still popular, don't excite people as much as they used to. I personally don't care if I ever play Mario or Zelda ever again. I might be enticed to play a full-console adaptation of Pokemon, but Nintendo's old standards bore me (and many of the once-faithful) now.

Their insistence of total control of their hardware has and continues to prove harmful (indirectly creating their own competitor, the Playstation, at one point) but they don't seem keen to change.

In short: what is there to be excited about from a new Nintendo system? If it's just the old titles warmed over, why does that necessitate a new console?

A great examination of this is MovieBob's Game Overthinker (http://www.screwattack.com/shows/partners/game-overthinker/game-overthinker-special-fate-nintendo) here he acknowledges that if Nintendo maintains its current trajectory, it's fate as a 3rd party is all but assured...and this is coming from a major Nintendo fanboy.

How has total control of their hardware been harmful? Sony and Microsoft control their hardware too.

Nintendo has made new IPs. It's just that nobody bought them.

 

[senordesol]

Why should they go third party, and thus change their business after ONE console failure? Wouldn't it make more sense to just make a better console next time around? It's not like they don't have the money to give it another try.

Here's a better question: why should Nintendo stay in the console market? Many of the properties it continues to lean on, while still popular, don't excite people as much as they used to. I personally don't care if I ever play Mario or Zelda ever again. I might be enticed to play a full-console adaptation of Pokemon, but Nintendo's old standards bore me (and many of the once-faithful) now.

Their insistence of total control of their hardware has and continues to prove harmful (indirectly creating their own competitor, the Playstation, at one point) but they don't seem keen to change.

In short: what is there to be excited about from a new Nintendo system? If it's just the old titles warmed over, why does that necessitate a new console?

A great examination of this is MovieBob's Game Overthinker (http://www.screwattack.com/shows/partners/game-overthinker/game-overthinker-special-fate-nintendo) here he acknowledges that if Nintendo maintains its current trajectory, it's fate as a 3rd party is all but assured...and this is coming from a major Nintendo fanboy.

How has total control of their hardware been harmful? Sony and Microsoft control their hardware too.

Nintendo has made new IPs. It's just that nobody bought them.

Nintendo nixed the 'Nintendo CD' in favor of proprietary cartridges for the 64. Nintendo was uncomfortable with CD-based system as they had less control as opposed to cartridges. In so doing, they gave a big 'F.U.' to Sony who was developing the hardware for the Nintendo CD at the time (and had just unveiled the NCD just days before). Rather than go home and cry, Sony created the Playstation and thus became a major competitor to Nintendo. I'd say that's pretty damaging.

The Wii required its own proprietary disks to operate, thus disallowing DvDs or BluRays. While Wii sales were still the best of any consoles, media integration remains a considerable consumer demand; thus making an MS or Sony console more attractive to any gamer who might not have that much money to spend on multiple media devices.

 

[Brian Tams]

If they dropped out of console making it would be to simply publish all their IP on the 3DS. That's it. No, stop, they wouldn't release 3rd party. Anybody who says they will is talking crazy.

The 3DS broke 40 million sold a while ago, guys. Its cheapcheapcheap to develop for when compared to PS4 and XB1. And their IPs sell extremely well on it.

Why would they share the pot when the 3DS pot is still ripe full of honey?

 

[Mr.Mattress]

Making software available on more than one platform = Wider userbase and more customers
More customers = More money

Not making Machines that make more Money then games = less money
Loosing Royalty Fees = Less money
Having to pay Royalty Fees to Sony and MS = Less Money
Not having a Console you need to sell = Less Innovation and Risk in Games
Less Innovation in Game making = Less Choice
Less Choice = A Loss for the Customers

What happened to Sega would happen to Nintendo; A General Decline in Quality of titles, A General Decline for the Company, and a loss of their more Creative Titles (Pikmin comes to Mind).

 

[lacktheknack]

Making software available on more than one platform = Wider userbase and more customers
More customers = More money

Seems simple enough.

So where are the threads demanding that Microsoft and Sony go third party? Where are the threads demanding that Valve make stuff for consoles?

More customers = more money, after all.

Valve DOES make things for consoles...?

I mean, sure, DOTA2 wasn't on console, but that's for the same reason Age of Empires wasn't.

And Microsoft/Sony don't have a wide array of highly desirable exclusives. Nintendo does.

 

[VG_Addict]

Making software available on more than one platform = Wider userbase and more customers
More customers = More money

Seems simple enough.

So where are the threads demanding that Microsoft and Sony go third party? Where are the threads demanding that Valve make stuff for consoles?

More customers = more money, after all.

Valve DOES make things for consoles...?

I mean, sure, DOTA2 wasn't on console, but that's for the same reason Age of Empires wasn't.

And Microsoft/Sony don't have a wide array of highly desirable exclusives. Nintendo does.

Why should Nintendo give up their exclusives? Exclusives have ALWAYS been a major selling point for consoles.

 

[lacktheknack]

Making software available on more than one platform = Wider userbase and more customers
More customers = More money

Seems simple enough.

So where are the threads demanding that Microsoft and Sony go third party? Where are the threads demanding that Valve make stuff for consoles?

More customers = more money, after all.

Valve DOES make things for consoles...?

I mean, sure, DOTA2 wasn't on console, but that's for the same reason Age of Empires wasn't.

And Microsoft/Sony don't have a wide array of highly desirable exclusives. Nintendo does.

Why should Nintendo give up their exclusives? Exclusives have ALWAYS been a major selling point for consoles.

Because they aren't selling consoles, as shown by Wii U's lack of sold units.

Here's a better question: Between the blasted height threads and these threads, why do you have to make the same thread over and over and over and over and over and over and over?

 

[VG_Addict]

Making software available on more than one platform = Wider userbase and more customers
More customers = More money

Seems simple enough.

So where are the threads demanding that Microsoft and Sony go third party? Where are the threads demanding that Valve make stuff for consoles?

More customers = more money, after all.

Valve DOES make things for consoles...?

I mean, sure, DOTA2 wasn't on console, but that's for the same reason Age of Empires wasn't.

And Microsoft/Sony don't have a wide array of highly desirable exclusives. Nintendo does.

Why should Nintendo give up their exclusives? Exclusives have ALWAYS been a major selling point for consoles.

Because they aren't selling consoles, as shown by Wii U's lack of sold units.

Here's a better question: Between the blasted height threads and these threads, why do you have to make the same thread over and over and over and over and over and over and over?

I only made one height thread on here.

The games have nothing to do with it. I already said that Nintendo would be doing better if they made a competitive console.

 

[Vivi22]

Sega and Atari only left the console market because they were bleeding money from consecutive failures.

Worth pointing out that were it not for them managing to turn the 3DS around and make it a sales success, both of their consoles right now would be bleeding money. The Wii U is actually a complete and utter failure so far and they broke their once cardinal rule by selling it at a loss so they can't even just drop the price to try and boost sales. If I'm not mistaken, the 3DS may still be losing them money on every unit sold.

The reality is that the Wii was a fluke of a console and since they haven't been able to replicate that success they're back to Gamecube level sales (or actually, probably a bit worse than that lately), and they no longer sell the machines at a profit.

It's hard not to argue for them at least ditching home consoles and bringing their software third party when they clearly have no clue what they're doing in that market.

 

[lacktheknack]

Making software available on more than one platform = Wider userbase and more customers
More customers = More money

Seems simple enough.

So where are the threads demanding that Microsoft and Sony go third party? Where are the threads demanding that Valve make stuff for consoles?

More customers = more money, after all.

Valve DOES make things for consoles...?

I mean, sure, DOTA2 wasn't on console, but that's for the same reason Age of Empires wasn't.

And Microsoft/Sony don't have a wide array of highly desirable exclusives. Nintendo does.

Why should Nintendo give up their exclusives? Exclusives have ALWAYS been a major selling point for consoles.

Because they aren't selling consoles, as shown by Wii U's lack of sold units.

Here's a better question: Between the blasted height threads and these threads, why do you have to make the same thread over and over and over and over and over and over and over?

I only made one height thread on here.

The games have nothing to do with it. I already said that Nintendo would be doing better if they made a competitive console.

No, you made at least six.

And yes, they would be doing better. Sadly, that's not where they are now. Therefore, it would be smart if they dropped exclusivity.