What worst to happen if Nintendo went third-party?

Eventhough Nintendo is fianancially sound, what would happen if it loses billions of dollars and was forced to go third-party in order to be relevant in the video game market. What worse can happen to Nintendo?

The worst I feel is that the quality of games will decline and will not be the quality we have been expected of Nintendo. Corners will be cut and there will be a lack of variety of releases.

Discuss.

Without Nintendos hardware innovations the gaming world would stagnate and eventually die. It'll be the second gaming crash.

Doubt it, with their pride they will take it all down with them. I don't see them working with MS/Sony's console. There would no Nintendo as 3rd party, its Nintendo *hardware & software* OR not at all imo. :P

Similar to what happened to SEGA. Since all the revenue streams are limited to the actual sales of your games minus the royalties paid to the platform holders:

1. The only games they would make would be the ones financially viable (so no more Pikmins, no F-Zeros, no more Metroids).

2. Because of 1, the games wouldn't be as polished as they currently are (polishing a game requires money and that's why day 1 patches are becoming more and more popular among the 3rd parties).

Going 3rd party would sever revenue streams created by marketing their own hardware. Add-on hardware, such as a portal for Amiibos, would have to be approved by the platform holders who may or may not give the green light.

This, too.

Worst case scenario would be them turning into Capcom or Square Enix.

we'd be stuck with dual analog controls as the only option for FPS on consoles unfortunately

Nintendo would be the industry leader again.

That's the worst case scenario

Nothing bad could come from it.

Right now Nintendo makes crap hardware and substandard software that runs on the crap hardware. Let people who know how to make real hardware make the hardware and have the teams that only know how to make more from less learn how to use real power to make games.

It would be a gaming Renaissance.

They would go strictly handheld before that happened.

lol

I can't imagine what the world would be like without the Wii U gamepad, brr...

In all seriousness, this would be very bad.

What? The gamepad is awesome. Even then it has some stuff that hasn't been seen before. NFC is now being used. It is pretty much latency free which is amazing considering its streaming to the gamepad, and you can do some serious fine tuned shooting using the motion controls. It is a great controller, its just that its not accessible for all. If 4 gamepads were allowed then I could see Wii U being something incredible. But since it can't and won't happen it became a problem for Wii U.

Nope it's useless aside from map screens and detracts from gaming when I have to look at both the gamepad screen and the TV, the battery life is crap, the ergonomics are crap, and off screen play is neat but it should've been an optional feature that is if they had a handheld with enough buttons and 2 analog sticks.

Aiming with that monstrosity?

How the hell are amiibos a pro? Useless DLC toys grown adults are going nuts for, they're so stupid.

Not knocking collectibles but those things are built like crap and hardly do anything for games.

Nonsense. If 4 players were allowed to use gamepads it could have led to very different games. Goldeneye or Star Fox with 4 players on gamepads and huge levels and online could have made for some serious fun. Its just that the Wii U couldn't stream to 4 gamepads at the same time. Aiming with the gamepad is very intuitive, its just that when you turn around you use your whole body. Some may find it unnatural but its responsive and easy to aim.

Amiibos will reach their true potential when Nintendo makes a sandbox game that takes full advantage of them. And when it does I think it could be something huge. Also there are other lines that will happen that will lead to incredible sales. A pokemon Amiibo line along with a Pokemon MMO could be one of the defining games of this generation. Also don't forget that there will be other forms of NFC that Nintendo is working on. A trading card game that features NFC could be something awesome too.

Like usual Nintendo has a great bunch of initial ideas but they need to be refined. Nintendo made the diamond layout controller, but was missing ergonomic grips. Nintendo made shoulder buttons but didn't plan for a second set for better control. Nintendo made the analog stick, but used a wonky setup and it led to analogs breaking down, and they only made 1 stick. Nintendo made rumble, but it was a disconnectable peripheral that needed batteries. Nintendo made analog triggers, but made them too prominent and only allowed 1 Z button. Nintendo made a great latency free wireless controller with the Wavebird, but it needed a reciever to work. Nintendo made console/handheld/2nd screen connectivity possible with the GBA connector, but it was a wired setup and was inefficient. Nintendo made motion controllers but they needed to be refined to the motion plus before they became great reliable controllers. Nintendo put a speaker in a controller, but it had garbled sound. etc. etc. leading up to the gamepad. Great idea but it needed to be refined.

@bunchanumbers:

A pokemon amiibo line... good god that would be a lot of useless plastic and wasted money. I mean holy shit. Skylanders was a plague to gaming, but you want 700+ of those damn things? That is one of the dumbest things I have ever read on this forum.

the idea of multiple gamepad's are irrelevant when you can't do anything interesting with a single gamepad besides touch and map screens. For single player. For multiplayer, yeah, we could've had some more interesting things. We still can, next gen if Nintendo does something smart for once and makes their next handheld an optional second screen to the console, which will be the only financially feasible way of doing what you want.

In fact, the asynchronous gameplay already shows potential even with 1 gamepad for multiplayer, like the bowser gameplay in Mario Party or Mario and sonic at the winter olympic games.

But for single player, when I want to be engrossed in an experience, having to go between 2 screens is a disjointed mess. Wanting to shoehorn that crap in to games is one thing that really hurt W101.

Which is one reason I won't play captain toad, among basic design failures like moving the camera with the gyroscope and stick at the same time. Though I see the appeal.

I don't use the gyroscope for the camera on Captain Toad. Always the analog stick. You're nitpicking on something that you don't really have to use. There are also other features you can use that doesn't even require looking at the second screen. There is one part where there is a enemy nearby but you need to get in there to spin the wheel to move a platform. Most people stop and look down at the gamepad when its time to turn the wheel. You don't even have to look at it. Just trace a circle pattern and you move on. It would be no different than if I did it with the touchpad with a ps4 controller.

As for the Pokemon MMO it wouldn't be hard to have the starting pokemon be amiibos. It doen't have to be the whole collection. Amiibo is also another Nintendo idea that needed to be refined. Saves for more than 1 game for example. But Nintendo go the basic idea right.

I mean the fact you can't disable the gyroscope. Unless you're sitting perfectly still with the controller, the gyroscope will move the camera.

How the hell are you always going to know what's on the gamepad screen without looking at it? The Ps4 touchpad isn't a screen. Unless you're only doing fast movements that let you use the whole screen as a blank sketchpad like W101. You're never going to be perfectly precise if you're not looking at the screen.

And btw, touch itself I don't like because I have to take my grip off the controller and draw something. This is exactly what I don't like about the gamepad, having to use multiple control schemes for one game sucks. Even in Pikmin 3 where you just move the map around, but use the wii mote as a main controller, it's disjointed.

---

For anything other than off screen play and multiplayer functionality, the gamepad was the thoughtless idea of bringing the DS 2 screen gameplay to a home console, and that's all it is and it doesn't even replicate that since the screens are not right next to each other. It's not a revolution like the wii mote and the less it's used in upcoming Wii U games, the better.

And screw Nintendo for wanting me to pay for the battery they should've put in there in the first place.

Because when you get to those dials a picture of a dial shows up. All you gotta do is trace a circle to make it move. You can do that without looking at the gamepad. Its really not that complicated. You also blow into the microphone to make the platforms move and that doesn't invovlve looking down at the screen too. Once you master the gamepad stuff like this is just natural feeling. The only part I have problems is in the very last dungeon Mummy Me Forever where you touch the plants to not shoot at you while outrunning a mummy.

But most of these gripes of yours about the gamepad are personal choice or opinions. I'm just pointing out that when you are used to it that it is a fine control scheme. I really wish that Nintendo had the foresight to turn the Wii U into a home version of the 3DS that lets it play 3DS games. It would have been the biggest selling console this generation. But like the usual Nintendo way, they had a great idea but it needed to be refined more.

I would seriously leave console gaming completely. PC gaming has been great thus far. Nintendo is the only company with the vision and possibly balls to think outside the more power despite falling completely behind PC specs vision of gaming in the future is concerned. The PS4/XBoxOne future is weak, both vision wise and spec wise with nothing to add as far as interaction. Nintendo games are magic incarnate. Gamers that don't recognize this are beyond that of true gaming respect.

These are both of our opinions, pointing it out doesn't make mine any less valid or yours valid.

Nintendo just doesn't put in game options in there games and that is a flaw with their games. Not being able to turn off the gyroscope is a flaw.

I have an idea, Nintendo should make a console with about 8 different controllers, having you run around the room using them all for different things. Once you got used to it, i'm sure it would be amazingly natural and revolutionary!

It is a fact that Nintendo skimped on the battery that doesn't even take up the full compartment, just like they're not even including a damn adapter with their 3ds xl. Anti consumer.

It is clear you are one of those guys who will defend Nintendo to the death, and anything Nintendo does is gold. Nintendo leaving the business would be awful, but to say Gaming would die without them is hilarious. They're a like a lost puppie dog right now, and they're not in their glory days anymore, and it's certainly not 1985 when they saved gaming. I hope they get back there though, I really really do.

I have a 3ds XL A Link Between World edition and it did come with the power supply. As for the Wii U game pad I like it. I think some game could use it differently but all in all it has been great and very responsive. I also don't have any problems going from the TV screen and looking at the game pad screen.

Purchased by Microsoft and forced to make Kinect games.

Nintendo's an old Japanese company. They see themselves as the house of video games. They would rather die a thousand deaths and take everything down with them then suffer the dishonor of being bought out and working for companies that they see as "under" them and that they consider themselves better than. Companies that Nintendo believes allowed to exist through their own success.

You will never see Ninty go third party. Ever. At least not with the current management. They've stated, numerous times, they'd sooner go under and take all their IPs with them then go third party. It will never happen.

Gamers would have fewer choices in consoles and gameplay options.

Besides falling quality, they might likely turn into a cash-in only name (see: Atari and how many Dragon Ball games they published in North America, some gems and some I enjoyed, otherwise shovelware) and even if their big names "survive", they have little to NO chance on other platforms because it's NOT where those users interests lie.

Part of the reason they do so well with their games is because they are in complete control of the hardware and the software. It would be good, but challenging for them. Fortunately, they have a lot of money. They'd go all portable before that happened, I feel.

Doubtful. Gaming would be even more of the same, but it won't die out with another crash.

If that ever happens, we have even bigger problems to worry about.

Think about it: If Ninty were ever so poor that they couldn't make their own console, they'd make a handheld that can display on a TV. And there'd be enough of an audience that would buy even the lowest tier machine they make as long as it had Nintendo games.

Therefore, the only thing that can make Nintendo stop selling hardware is if Nintendo no longer makes quality games. And that, my friends, is the worst thing. Worse than Nintendo not making hardware.

I feel like they would take even less risks and only rely on Mario and Zelda (while I love those two, I would miss Metroid, DK, Yoshi, Kirby and several others). Part of their strength right now is that they offer all those in variety on their own console. If they only made games for PS and Xbox, I could imagine the prettiest Zelda ever created, but that would be it. Nintendo needs to succeed, they just need to build their next console with power so they can make those games, but also get the Dragon Age's, Assassins Creeds, Call of Duties, Mass Effects and so forth too.

Currently, Nintendo relies on making games that sell consoles. It's something that requires an unwavering commitment to quality. Without the hardware side, Nintendo would only have to make games that sell, period. That, on the other hand, is easier to do, and result in the gutter trash that is EA and Ubisoft quality.

Which makes no sense at all

Congratulations, you made the most wildly inaccurate post in this thread

I'm not sure how that doesn't make sense. Nintendo has to make games that sell its hardware. Their potential to make money from things like DLC or microtransactions isn't nearly as big as the potential profit from selling hardware. So the games have to be good. Very good. Nintendo good. Activision can shovel out sequels on a yearly basis because their games don't have to sell hardware. However, Sony has to make fantastically good games like The Last of Us in order to make it compete against the Xbox. Nintendo is on that boat.

Hardware is the real money-melon. Third party developers would kill to be in a position in which they can profit from their own platform, and not paying royalties on their products. EA's Origin and Ubisoft's Uplay are baby steps in that direction. Going software-only is taking steps backward.

Nintendo standing to profit more if they go software-only is a lie that a lot of people fell for. It's the "trickle down economics" lie of the gaming world.

i do think nintendo will go handheld only then go bust before they make games for another platform.

what could be interesting though, if it got really bad, is moving to the PC. make the eshop and its entire catalogue work on the PC, set up a competitor to steam, origin and so on and make PC games (perhaps using new controllers if nintendo didnt want to use the mouse and keyboard).

They wouldnt have as much control over the hardware (though with modern consoles that is not such a big deal) but they can target a certain spec as they see fit. they wouldnt have to pay licence fees or adhere to PS/xbox terms and conditions (the requirement for achievements and that kind of thing). they would still have a lot of control. the hardware R&D costs would be gone and no need to manufacture hardware (well they could make PCs with the target hardware for their games if they wanted. probably no need though).

it would be a culture shock though. developing PC games is a bit different than making console games. a lot more testing on as wide a variety of hardware as possible would be needed.

they would also have to deal with steam. enticing people and developers to the estore on the PC would be a difficult task. but they would certainly be motivated to still deliver the best games they can to the estore so that more people use it.

as i say...if it got really bad it could be something for them to consider.