Does the industry benefit from Nintendo going 3rd party?

  • 72 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Life-is-a-Game
#1 Posted by Life-is-a-Game (615 posts) -

Ok so let's talk about the industry's point of view for a second .. Does Nintendo going 3rd party benefit the videogames industry? Please people think about this for a second .. Do you guys really want an industry that has only two major players (Sony/Microsoft)? I mean I'm trying to imagine a future with only two console makers, and to me it doesn't look bright honestly. All Sony and Microsoft doing for our industry is to beef-up graphics each gen .. But it gets worse!! They scraped the idea of backwards compatibility, they are moving industry towards microtransactions, they introduce little to no innovation on hardware or new playing methods, they are moving industry towards "more multiplayer/less singleplayer" mentality or introduce multiplayer into only-singleplayer games and it sucks, they are even moving industry towards digital only and DRM crap. Is this really the industry people want? Can't you see that Nintendo going out of the picture is going to triple or quadruple these behaviors?

What if I'm not a graphics whore and play all of my games singleplayer, I don't care for microtransactions shit and need BC feature in new consoles? What if I like to play in new ways each gen? I'm astonished actually .. Like really astonished about gamers who want Nintendo to go 3rd party!!! Yes having to play Nintendo games on ps4 or Xbox1 is not a bad idea, but what about the industry itself? What about having more competition brings more quality out of each one of the 3 major players here?! I mean come on I hate everything Microsoft and hate Xbox brand but even I appreciate what they are doing and don't want ANY of the big 3 companies to die or go 3rd party .. I was even thinking of buying a 360 to play the console's exclusives that came out for it last gen ..

YES NINTENDO MADE LOTS OF MISTAKES!! but wanting them to go 3rd party?! Hell no!! I just want Nintendo to take their head out of their ass and go on with the times as a lot of people here said .. But keep their ethics in tact when it comes to certain shit we see from other companies or developers nowadays ..

What do you guys think? Do you agree or disagree and why?

Avatar image for RR360DD
#3 Edited by RR360DD (13494 posts) -

Yes, it would benefit more from Nintendo multiplats than it would from Nintendo continuing to chase gimmicks. They struck lucky with the Wii, and now the Wii U is a total flop.

That being said I think if they did go third party, the drop in quality of their games would only accelerate.

Avatar image for lundy86_4
#4 Posted by lundy86_4 (47029 posts) -

It is way too difficult to map out. Would there be benefits? Potentially. Would there be hindrances? I would think so.

I can't see this overly benefiting Nintendo, considering their sales record (though WiiU put a stint in that).

Avatar image for mariokart64fan
#5 Posted by mariokart64fan (20089 posts) -

wiiu is selling poorly now, but wait til the gen is over before calling it a total flop,

that said ive been thinking , i say no

theres only 3 console manufacturers atm , ,

if there is only 2 one can only imagine how much the prices would go up because of less competition

take wiiu out of the picture , , ps4 costs 400 xbox one costs 500 , these same prices are what made ps3 as bad as it was , ,

now just imagine if how good ps4 and x1 are selling ms and sony will say --- ok they liked us then theyll like us when we jack up the prices to 600 , because hey we dont got nintendo around any more ya, id be careful what you ask for because you might just get it , nintendo goes third party i see third party also having a rough time , along with prices of consoles going up , bad for the industry bad all around but hey lets see

Avatar image for cainetao11
#6 Posted by cainetao11 (25928 posts) -

the industry? No. Nintendo? Maybe. Selling software to systems with growing user bases would bring in money. The jury is out on WiiU being profitable, and it isn't looking good.

Avatar image for Life-is-a-Game
#7 Posted by Life-is-a-Game (615 posts) -

@RR360DD: Nintendo introduces gimmicks .. But are they necessarily bad? I see a lot of people actually like the WiiU gamepad and the possibility of playing on it instead of playing on T.V. .. But anyway I don't want to argue about gimmicks .. What about having only Sony/Microsoft as console makers? Is this good/healthy for the industry?

Avatar image for Life-is-a-Game
#8 Posted by Life-is-a-Game (615 posts) -

@lundy86_4: Yes it is difficult to map out .. But I think it would hurt us more than help the industry .. Just from the sole reason that more competition is always a good thing ..

Avatar image for bbkkristian
#9 Posted by bbkkristian (14971 posts) -

@RR360DD: Games don't magically get better on a new platform. Look at Ys Memories of Celceta on Vita, it has Ps2 graphics. You would have the same quality games, so your argument is invalid.

@Life-is-a-Game: I agree with everything you said.

Avatar image for lundy86_4
#10 Edited by lundy86_4 (47029 posts) -

@Life-is-a-Game said:

@lundy86_4: Yes it is difficult to map out .. But I think it would hurt us more than help the industry .. Just from the sole reason that more competition is always a good thing ..

That's definitely hard to argue with. Competition in the industry is great, though I see the Sony/MS rivalry overtake the Nintendo rivalry a lot more... Shocking, due to the fact that Nintendo dominated last gen (sales, before Cows/Lems get their panties in a bunch).

Avatar image for Life-is-a-Game
#11 Posted by Life-is-a-Game (615 posts) -

@mariokart64fan: I'm not calling the WiiU a flop either, but let's be real its situation is not good at the moment; Nintendo can turn it around if they think wisely.

And yes I agree with you, having only Sony/MS as the two major console makers is bad no doubt about that; Prices are going to go up, DRM/Digital/Always-online stunt that MS tried to pull will be a standard, micro-transactions and other bad things will become a standard, etc. Again: more competition is always a good thing ..

Avatar image for YearoftheSnake5
#12 Posted by YearoftheSnake5 (8951 posts) -

The industry as a whole would not benefit from Nintendo going 3rd party. If anything, I feel it would be worse without them. Competition is good for the marketplace, and Nintendo has its role. Going 3rd party puts Nintendo at the mercy of other console manufacturers, which I don't feel would be good for them creatively.

On the gimmick subject others are talking about, every console has a gimmick to set it apart from the others. If there wasn't a gimmick to make each system unique, the whole market devolves into a price war. Xbox One's TV functionality? Gimmick. PS4's share button? Gimmick. Backwards compaitbility? Gimmick. Gamepad? Gimmick. Is this a bad thing? No.

Dictionary.com

Gimmick -noun-

an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention or increase appeal.

Avatar image for Life-is-a-Game
#13 Posted by Life-is-a-Game (615 posts) -

@cainetao11: Yes it could benefit Nintendo :) .. but what I fear is that some bad behaviors or concepts that are lurking (or beginning to surface) may become standard next-gen (yes next-gen is going to be like 5-7 years from now) .. I would bet Sony/MS would sell their new consoles for more money, DRM/Digital only/Always-online stunt that MS tried to pull will be a standard, micro-transactions will be available in almost all games, focus on online multiplayer and generic FPS will become more evident, etc.

So IMHO, what would benefit us and the industry is for Nintendo to stay in the console business ..

Avatar image for no-scope-AK47
#14 Posted by no-scope-AK47 (3357 posts) -

If nintendo was the force you claim more gamers would supported the wii u. Frankly Nintendo negatives far surpass the positives. The console is frankly rubbish and over priced with no 3rd party support and the worse online gaming. There are 4 other consoles on the market. At best the wii u is good for a secondary console. In the current market there are way too many other options that are cheaper as a secondary game platform.

Most gamers have current gen consoles and have no reason to upgrade yet. The ps3 has a great line up of games for 2014. The wii u frankly does not scream next gen the games look too similar to current gen games. The only good thing about the wii u is a tiny selection of exclusives vs the massive selection of games on the current gen.

When you look to upgrade it goes something like this. The wii u cost 300 and the ps4 cost 400. The ps4 is a real next gen console with similar quality and a better selection of 1st party games. The ps4 has much better graphics and online gaming with 3rd party and indie game support. The ps4 will last you 7 to 10 years and the wii u's future is a mystery. The wii u has no multi media support unlike the other consoles on the market either. The ps4 has blu-ray and 4k video support ect.

You get it the wii u is a poor value with not much going for it besides the exclusives and that is not enough.

Avatar image for Life-is-a-Game
#15 Posted by Life-is-a-Game (615 posts) -

@YearoftheSnake5: Absolutely agree with you .. I fear about an industry that I cared for (and continue to do so) for 23 years I've been gaming in, and Nintendo IMO is playing a major role in keeping it a good industry driven by fun factor not one that is driven by pure money/business decisions ..

Avatar image for Gue1
#16 Edited by Gue1 (12171 posts) -

who knows? Maybe, maybe not... They could always create their crappy gimmicks as 3rd party peripherals.

Avatar image for speak_low
#17 Edited by Speak_Low (1969 posts) -

The way things are going now, it is almost like Nintendo isn't there, so Sheep being scared of this "future" should just look at where things are now - we are living it.

Nintendo doesn't feature at all in the long-term plans of the major, largest publishers in the world: EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Square-Enix, 2K Games - we're seeing more and more games announced for PS4, X1, PC and no Wii U version. It's like they never existed.

The only exceptions are Ubisoft and Activision with COD: Ghosts U and Watch_Dogs U, but those are your cross-gen games. When the time comes for pure next-gen titles, Nintendo will be nothing to them. (When you sell less than 1% of total sales for the years' biggest games, you are worthless as a platform to them)

Destiny (Activision), The Division (Ubisoft), Alien: Isolation (Sega) and Evolve (2K) are not coming to Wii U ever.

Kingdom Hearts 3, Mass Effect 4, Thief, MGS 5, Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition, Witcher 3........the list goes on forever. I'm only stopping because I'm getting tired typing it all.

None of these games from the biggest game makers in the world are ever coming to the Wii U. And delusional Sheep think a future Nintendo console will somehow change this.

This is why Nintendo needs to say goodbye to consoles, stop being dumb and sucking, and start making money the only way left.

They are making games (Pikmin, Mario 3D World) but no one is buying them because they don't want the console it comes on.

Avatar image for Life-is-a-Game
#18 Posted by Life-is-a-Game (615 posts) -

@no-scope-AK47: I'm not saying Nintendo is a force or not, but I'm saying that Nintendo's presence as a major console maker and major developer/publisher in the market is keeping some bad behavior/ethics from becoming standard.

Yes, WiiU is underpowered and overpriced (but keep in mind gamepad adds a good cost), and yes the online is not on par with Sony's/MS's (although it is not complete garbage because you have demos, e-shop, online features and multiplayer in games, etc), and that's what I meant when I said that Nintendo made mistakes and need to go on with times and have some of these shortcomings fixed. I'm not going to argue about which 1st party exclusives are better (it is a matter of taste).

But let me ask you: doesn't it sound/feel bad to you that all gamers think about nowadays is graphics and online? I mean some gamers are not graphics whores and many gamers don't game online. Also, don't you think that having only Sony/MS as the two major console makers going to make some bad/unethical behaviors we see nowadays more of a standard?

Avatar image for YearoftheSnake5
#19 Edited by YearoftheSnake5 (8951 posts) -

@Life-is-a-Game said:

@YearoftheSnake5: Absolutely agree with you .. I fear about an industry that I cared for (and continue to do so) for 23 years I've been gaming in, and Nintendo IMO is playing a major role in keeping it a good industry driven by fun factor not one that is driven by pure money/business decisions ..

Honestly, the industry has always been driven by money and how to maximize what you're bringing in. How companies have gone about this has been changing, however. Even Nintendo is dabbling with microtransactions in Fire Emblem Awakening and Pikmin 3. The content is good for the price, but Nintendo is playing with the ring of power and can potentially be corrupted by it. There are plenty of examples of what NOT to do, and if Iwata's press releases are any indication, Nintendo already understands this.

Avatar image for benleslie5
#20 Posted by benleslie5 (8398 posts) -

I really can't see this happening I reckon Nintendo will think of something smart to help raise sales

Avatar image for Life-is-a-Game
#21 Posted by Life-is-a-Game (615 posts) -

@speak_low: I'm no sheep by any means :) .. I'm not scared of the future cause I won't die if I left video games altogether; I have a life you know, and believe me most "sheep" - as you like to call us - do have a life.

Anyway, what you said are "facts" and I'm not going to argue with them; almost all major 3rd party devs are ignoring the WiiU because it is not on par with Ps4/X1 graphically.

But you missed my point: I'm talking about the industry itself. Again: do you think it is better to have only Sony/MS as major console makers? Don't you think less competition is a bad thing? Aren't we going to see some bad/unethical behaviors from the major developers you listed become the norm/standard like DRM/Digital only/Always-online stunt that MS tried to pull or micro-transactions or generic FPS, etc?

Avatar image for Life-is-a-Game
#22 Posted by Life-is-a-Game (615 posts) -

@YearoftheSnake5: yes you described it better than I did in my response; basically what you said is how I feel/think ..

Avatar image for Shinobishyguy
#23 Posted by Shinobishyguy (22907 posts) -

If it fractures their internal studios it sure as hell won't.

Avatar image for stuff238
#24 Posted by stuff238 (1510 posts) -

I say nintendo quits making consoles and makes Sony exclusives. That would ensure nintendo makes better software and would keep the balance in check so microsoft does not monopolize the industry. Microsoft has proven they don't care about gamers, while Sony continues to pump out AAA games all the time.

Avatar image for speak_low
#25 Edited by Speak_Low (1969 posts) -

@Life-is-a-Game said:

But you missed my point: I'm talking about the industry itself. Again: do you think it is better to have only Sony/MS as major console makers? Don't you think less competition is a bad thing? Aren't we going to see some bad/unethical behaviors from the major developers you listed become the norm/standard like DRM/Digital only/Always-online stunt that MS tried to pull or micro-transactions or generic FPS, etc?

Well Nintendo and Sega used to be the only ones in business a long time ago, and Sheep (personally I love using this term) boast about how Nintendo dominated and won in those days of two console makers (unless you want to count NEC and Turbo-Grafix 16 as the third competitor, but most people have to look them up just to understand who I'm talking about).

And even MS joined late, and so it was just Nintendo and Sony for a while. Did things get out of control back then with corrupt business practices?

I think Sheep are giving Nintendo way too much credit for "keeping the industry in check," like they are the last bastion of honesty. They are financially suffering and getting ignored by millions of people, ironically, for staying the same - holding out too long, and being too slow to adapt to modern trends and gamer wishes. This is affecting their own Wii U adopters because they can't buy or play the games that are going to X1 and PS4 (and even 360/PS3) in droves.

DRM/micro-transactions and all of that - Nintendo existed all this time with this stuff happening, so what exactly did "vigilante Nintendo" do to stem or stop this? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

That is why I think Nintendo is getting too much credit for being the crucial third pillar when most of the time, they are just sitting there passively watching everything you didn't want to see happen anyways. Not only that, but they are occupied at the moment just figuring out how to be successful - they have no time for crusades or correcting industry abuses when they don't even know what they want to be themselves - Wii U is like a console that came too late and is not quite there as a next-gen in terms of hardware and features.

Last of all, if those other things like DRM and such get out of control, we'll speak with our wallets, the same way we did by ignoring the Wii U. It was enough to send Nintendo the message their latest console is inadequate and poorly-handled and thought out. If we can send Nintendo a message and spur them to action (they are now looking to restructure business because of this), then Sony and MS can listen to us if we don't buy their consoles too if they get out of control.

Avatar image for HarlockJC
#26 Edited by HarlockJC (25546 posts) -

I personally don't think so. You may not like motion controls, but some like myself do. Other companies may not be willing to make that same risk. We need more than just 2 consoles anyways otherwise the market will stall.

Avatar image for Life-is-a-Game
#27 Posted by Life-is-a-Game (615 posts) -

@stuff238: Whatever happens, I would pray that MS doesn't monopolize or play a major role into forcing this industry to accept bad/anti-consumer behaviors as the norm/standard, because if this happens, I will say goodbye to gaming altogether ..

Avatar image for Life-is-a-Game
#28 Posted by Life-is-a-Game (615 posts) -

@speak_low: I disagree with some points you said. MS is a company that is known for monopolizing and forcing anti-consumer behaviors and doesn't care about gamers one tiny bit. Yes all 3 companies are purely business companies looking for money no doubt, but MS is the worst IMO. The presence of Nintendo and Sony is keeping MS at bay; once Nintendo pulls out of the console HW business, MS will have all the room to force their anti-consumer shit down our throat, and guess who are going to follow their path when they do so? Yes that's right, it is Sony!!

I'm not saying Nintendo is the "last bastion of honesty" but until recently they were against they micro-transaction shit, and guess what happened next: they started doing it themselves. Do you know why? Because Sony/MS are allowing it as a standard in their games and/or games from 3rd party developed for their systems. What makes you think that when Nintendo exists the industry, Sony will not be forced to implement the same anti-consumer behaviors that MS is going to force on gamers? See my first paragraph above :) .. So basically what I'm trying to say is that the behaviors of other companies can influence yours too .. Nintendo's presence as a HW console maker has some positives and once they exit, I assure you that you will not like what you see from Sony/MS the gen after this one ..

You may speak with your wallet, but not all will/can do the same .. You saw how many gamers were willing to support the stunt that MS was going to pull if it weren't for Nintendo and Sony keeping this at bay by not following the same anti-consumer behaviors. But yes I agree that we as gamers need to deliver a message to any of these companies when needed ..

Avatar image for Articuno76
#29 Edited by Articuno76 (19546 posts) -

At the moment there are only two contenders. Microsoft and Sony. Nintendo isn't even a real competitor at this point and you'd have a very hard time proving they were even factored into competition; hardware vendors, publishers and developers alike talk as if Nintendo is a non-factor, and if the treat Nintendo that way then that is what Nintendo will become.

If Nintendo is supposed to be this third competitor it sure doesn't feel like it. Nintendo's competitiveness in the market and the innovation that could come from that is basically nil anyway (it's not like Nintendo are a fountain of originality these days).

Avatar image for Life-is-a-Game
#30 Posted by Life-is-a-Game (615 posts) -

@HarlockJC: exactly .. it is always better to have more competition and choice .. the market can stall although I see many Sony/MS fanboys not agreeing with that because to them Nintendo is non-existent ..

Avatar image for princessgomez92
#31 Edited by PrincessGomez92 (4405 posts) -

How about they all just go third party.

Avatar image for Life-is-a-Game
#32 Edited by Life-is-a-Game (615 posts) -

@Articuno76: Having little 3rd party support for WiiU does NOT mean that it is not a contender :) .. Go visit every major and minor gaming website on the internet, you will see there is a section/tab for Wii/WiiU/DS/3DS on them .. if Nintendo is not a major contender, then why do all websites include it as one?! Why did/does E3 have and list Nintendo as one of the major 3 console manufacturers? Please stop with this nonsense you are saying because if you look at the 3DS you will see major 3rd party support on it. The WiiU has a problem with 3rd party support that is a fact.

Funny that you brought up originality because all I see on the HW level is Sony/MS copying Nintendo. They did that with motion controls, they did that with a lot of things before, and they do that until now (see Vita remote play and MS smart glass). Even on the software level Sony/MS copies Nintendo (see the Sony game that looked like Super Smash Bros.). And until now we will continue to hear gamers saying Nintendo is non-existent .. sigh ..

Avatar image for PurpleMan5000
#33 Edited by PurpleMan5000 (8797 posts) -

I wouldn't buy a PS4 or XB1 just to play Nintendo games. They are both much too expensive with crappy controllers in comparison to the Wii U. I would still play the Nintendo games on the PC, I guess, but that's only because I already have a pc.

Avatar image for santoron
#34 Edited by santoron (8575 posts) -

Absolutely. The move would make classic franchises available to more players, and when more people can play a game I generally consider that a positive.

I disagree that 3 console makers are essential from some sort of balance perspective. The other two consoles keep each other in check pretty well, and frankly Nintendo has been almost viewed in a seperate category from them for years now anyhow. Besides, there are more viable and competing gaming platforms now than at any point in history.

Avatar image for Articuno76
#35 Edited by Articuno76 (19546 posts) -

@Life-is-a-Game said:

@Articuno76: Having little 3rd party support for WiiU does NOT mean that it is not a contender :) .. Go visit every major and minor gaming website on the internet, you will see there is a section/tab for Wii/WiiU/DS/3DS on them .. if Nintendo is not a major contender, then why do all websites include it as one?! Why did/does E3 have and list Nintendo as one of the major 3 console manufacturers? Please stop with this nonsense you are saying because if you look at the 3DS you will see major 3rd party support on it. The WiiU has a problem with 3rd party support that is a fact.

Funny that you brought up originality because all I see on the HW level is Sony/MS copying Nintendo. They did that with motion controls, they did that with a lot of things before, and they do that until now (see Vita remote play and MS smart glass). Even on the software level Sony/MS copies Nintendo (see the Sony game that looked like Super Smash Bros.). And until now we will continue to hear gamers saying Nintendo is non-existent .. sigh ..

Nintendo being treated like a contender by gaming websites is not the same thing as being treated like one in the market. One is a trend informed by history and fan clicks, the other is a trend informed by the present and peoples wallets.

Nintendo does not have a space at E3 as a major contender. Did you see E3 2013? They didn't show up.

Handhelds are not part of this discussion. So the 3DS is a moot point. I think most people think of Nintendo going third party to mean leaving the home console business, not dropping a widly successful handheld for...no reason.

Sony and MS don't need to innovate because they drive their brand through technology, networking, integration, 3rd party support and increasingly complex eco-systems (SEN/XBL). Nintendo needs to be innovative to be noticed because it has almost none of the these.

This may seem like a double standard but innovation (and the damage from the lack of it) is more important when considering Nintendo than when looking at MS/Sony.

We are not seeing any examples of compelling (marketable) innovation from Nintendo; take a look a the new Mario game, a series typically built to fit each new system like a glove, notice anything? The lack of the gamepad functions being central to the game's design should set alarm bells ringing. If Nintendo can't sell people on the innovation of their system with Mario then something is very wrong in Kyoto.

Avatar image for LegatoSkyheart
#36 Edited by LegatoSkyheart (28210 posts) -

Yes and it's only because the people who make Nintendo great will still be around to make the Game Industry great.

You could also argue this around other Development studios as well. Bungie and Epic probably would have done wonders to the PS3 and Naughty Dog and Santa Monica could have done master works on Xbox and PC.

Avatar image for BeardMaster
#37 Posted by BeardMaster (1686 posts) -

The whole industry... i dunno. I never want to see a competitor knocked out, although it can be argued nintendo doesnt really directly compete the same way MS and Sony do.

For me? absolutely. The worst part of nintendo games is that you have to play them on a nintendo console.

Avatar image for sailor232
#38 Edited by sailor232 (6096 posts) -

I think Nintendo is ignored right now anyway, basically not being in the industry at all. We have only been a three console industry since the Xbox came out, before that two consoles lived perfectly together in the industry, at the time Microsoft showed its intent the whole world where wondering if there was room for three consoles, a lot of people said that "No" there wasn't. So now magically we can't go back to two?

The industry would not change, people don't care for Nintendo consoles, this is very clear in how poorly the WiiU is selling and how third parties have abandoned it. Consoles are already expensive enough, Microsoft and Sony are not idiots and would not jack the price up on future systems, they still have each other to compete with. In the end Nintendo is not holding back any practices, Nintendo themselves say they are not competing, so why would anything they do effect the industry of the other two?

Nintendo going third party (for the console, not handheld) then all there games will be available on more mediums, more people can play these gems. There is nothing to say the quality will degrade, Sony or Microsoft might give them all the time they need to create their games. Plus imagine Nintendo given control over Sony games or Microsoft games.

Avatar image for edwardecl
#39 Posted by edwardecl (2241 posts) -

Nintendo has not competed with Sony or Microsoft last gen. They occupied a space that was empty and appealed to many non gamers. In my opinion them making 3rd party games would only benefit the sales of the games but not by much (well compared to Wii) but in the case off WiiU then massively.

I would still not play a Nintendo games because they don't appeal to me that much. The games kinda come across like they are aimed at the 5 - 12 year olds and nostalgic people (no offense). Not saying the games are not fun, hell I like Spyro the dragon and it's much in the same style (wish they remade that), bit Nintendo need to make more serious stuff too.

Avatar image for navyguy21
#40 Edited by navyguy21 (13402 posts) -

I think the industry as a whole would benefit. Let me explain.

Nintendo - They are in the same position as Sega was after they Dreamcast. Not that they failed 2 gens in a row, but because Nintendo's business model isnt set up like Microsoft and Sony. Ninty sells hardware at a profit to make money knowing that 3rd parties arent really supportive. Their first party games arent nearly as numerous as 3rd parties. Going 3rd party would allow them to sell WAY more software and allow them to invest in morew new IPs that have that Nintendo level of quality.

Microsoft and Sony - Because ninty doesnt make hardware, those gamers both young and old will be forced to by on of their consoles to play these games Hardware and software sales would see an increase, especially if Ninty released their Virtual Console games on PSN and XBL

The industry - With Ninty being 3rd party, Ninty's games would reach more people and would be out there far more than they are now. I honestly feel like this would be boost to our industry because right now, we dont have NEARLY the diversity of games and software that we had during PS1/N64, PS2/Gamecube battles. Ninty would then be in a position to scout talent just as Microsoft, Sony, Ubisoft, and EA do, finding those small and talented devs that need funding and quality control. More studios would be able the thrive and wouldnt be drowned out by the status quo development of today.

I feel like Nintendo has a unique eye for quality and attention to detail, something we saw in Rare back in they day. It would be a huge boom for the industry to get Nintys IPs and creativeness out to more players.

Avatar image for nintendoboy16
#41 Posted by nintendoboy16 (30637 posts) -

@navyguy21 said:

I think the industry as a whole would benefit. Let me explain.

Nintendo - They are in the same position as Sega was after they Dreamcast. Not that they failed 2 gens in a row, but because Nintendo's business model isnt set up like Microsoft and Sony. Ninty sells hardware at a profit to make money knowing that 3rd parties arent really supportive. Their first party games arent nearly as numerous as 3rd parties. Going 3rd party would allow them to sell WAY more software and allow them to invest in morew new IPs that have that Nintendo level of quality.

Microsoft and Sony - Because ninty doesnt make hardware, those gamers both young and old will be forced to by on of their consoles to play these games Hardware and software sales would see an increase, especially if Ninty released their Virtual Console games on PSN and XBL

The industry - With Ninty being 3rd party, Ninty's games would reach more people and would be out there far more than they are now. I honestly feel like this would be boost to our industry because right now, we dont have NEARLY the diversity of games and software that we had during PS1/N64, PS2/Gamecube battles. Ninty would then be in a position to scout talent just as Microsoft, Sony, Ubisoft, and EA do, finding those small and talented devs that need funding and quality control. More studios would be able the thrive and wouldnt be drowned out by the status quo development of today.

I feel like Nintendo has a unique eye for quality and attention to detail, something we saw in Rare back in they day. It would be a huge boom for the industry to get Nintys IPs and creativeness out to more players.

No! (x4) SEGA and Nintendo had entirely different situations. SEGA had a stream of failures that cost them too much, where Nintendo, despite getting their asses kicked in the PS1/N64/Saturn and PS2/XBOX/GC era, still made profit from those gens and on top of that, came off the Wii, which is their most financially successful.

Avatar image for MBirdy88
#42 Posted by MBirdy88 (10583 posts) -


As I keep saying, keep 3ds games/system 1st party... they are good at those.

But their bigger game titles meant for consoles should be on PS4/X1/PC .... despite what stupid nintendo fans believe many of us love their games, but are unwilling to buy their system.

Avatar image for mems_1224
#43 Posted by mems_1224 (54277 posts) -

No, Nintendo is the only one willing to do different things with their consoles and IPs. PS4 and X1 are basically the same consoles.

Avatar image for KungfuKitten
#44 Posted by KungfuKitten (22588 posts) -
@mems_1224 said:

No, Nintendo is the only one willing to do different things with their consoles and IPs. PS4 and X1 are basically the same consoles.

Consoles is a big word. I would call them bad PC's.

Avatar image for KungfuKitten
#45 Posted by KungfuKitten (22588 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

As I keep saying, keep 3ds games/system 1st party... they are good at those.

But their bigger game titles meant for consoles should be on PS4/X1/PC .... despite what stupid nintendo fans believe many of us love their games, but are unwilling to buy their system.

Yeah that sounds credible. We love your games we're just not going to buy them! They're not worth an extra $250 but sinking $1250 in a console just for Sony or MS exclusives is fine.
You think that COD gamers would suddenly be interested in Nintendo games if they were on Sony or MS consoles? Nintendo doesn't make that many FPS's...

Avatar image for MBirdy88
#46 Edited by MBirdy88 (10583 posts) -

@KungfuKitten said:

@MBirdy88 said:

As I keep saying, keep 3ds games/system 1st party... they are good at those.

But their bigger game titles meant for consoles should be on PS4/X1/PC .... despite what stupid nintendo fans believe many of us love their games, but are unwilling to buy their system.

Yeah that sounds credible. We love your games we're just not going to buy them! They're not worth an extra $250 but sinking $1250 in a console just for Sony or MS exclusives is fine.

You think that COD gamers would suddenly be interested in Nintendo games if they were on Sony or MS consoles? Nintendo doesn't make that many FPS's...

Sigh... its going to sound anecdotal because it is, myself and quite a few freinds who mainly play PC are all saying the same thing.

You don't get it do you? £250 for a system to play 1 game every 6 months is NOT good value for money and no matter how much we like said games is not often justifiable. not everyone can afford or WANTS to pay to have every system, hence why multiplats are so important for many people.

Nintendo's hardware is gutter trash for its price, I would also have to buy 3 wii-motes which are fkin £50 each (with nunchuck) to play the multiplayer games ... all 2-3 of them. (smash, kart ect)

its completely credible. pleanty of good stuff on systems people don't own, doesn't mean they can justify having it too.

You also stereotype groupds of gamers, the only reason cod isn't big on nintendo is because it always sucks on nintendo consoles because nintendo havn't a clue how to network properly and their hardware is far behind.

Yes, I would, I am a living example and i bet many people on this very board let alone elsewhere would. so yes, credible, not nintendo fantards or manticores without the value issue.

Avatar image for KungfuKitten
#47 Edited by KungfuKitten (22588 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

@KungfuKitten said:

@MBirdy88 said:

As I keep saying, keep 3ds games/system 1st party... they are good at those.

But their bigger game titles meant for consoles should be on PS4/X1/PC .... despite what stupid nintendo fans believe many of us love their games, but are unwilling to buy their system.

Yeah that sounds credible. We love your games we're just not going to buy them! They're not worth an extra $250 but sinking $1250 in a console just for Sony or MS exclusives is fine.

You think that COD gamers would suddenly be interested in Nintendo games if they were on Sony or MS consoles? Nintendo doesn't make that many FPS's...

Sigh... its going to sound anecdotal because it is, myself and quite a few freinds who mainly play PC are all saying the same thing.

You don't get it do you? £250 for a system to play 1 game every 6 months is NOT good value for money and no matter how much we like said games is not often justifiable. not everyone can afford or WANTS to pay to have every system, hence why multiplats are so important for many people.

Nintendo's hardware is gutter trash for its price, I would also have to buy 3 wii-motes which are fkin £50 each (with nunchuck) to play the multiplayer games ... all 2-3 of them. (smash, kart ect)

its completely credible. pleanty of good stuff on systems people don't own, doesn't mean they can justify having it too.

PC gaming is cheaper than console gaming. With PC as a primary gaming platform, buying a PS4 or Xone for the handful of generic exclusives is wayyy more expensive than buying a WiiU. If everything has to be on one platform, then everything on PC would make way more sense than Nintendo on a MS or Sony platform.

Avatar image for MBirdy88
#48 Edited by MBirdy88 (10583 posts) -

@KungfuKitten said:

@MBirdy88 said:

@KungfuKitten said:

@MBirdy88 said:

As I keep saying, keep 3ds games/system 1st party... they are good at those.

But their bigger game titles meant for consoles should be on PS4/X1/PC .... despite what stupid nintendo fans believe many of us love their games, but are unwilling to buy their system.

Yeah that sounds credible. We love your games we're just not going to buy them! They're not worth an extra $250 but sinking $1250 in a console just for Sony or MS exclusives is fine.

You think that COD gamers would suddenly be interested in Nintendo games if they were on Sony or MS consoles? Nintendo doesn't make that many FPS's...

Sigh... its going to sound anecdotal because it is, myself and quite a few freinds who mainly play PC are all saying the same thing.

You don't get it do you? £250 for a system to play 1 game every 6 months is NOT good value for money and no matter how much we like said games is not often justifiable. not everyone can afford or WANTS to pay to have every system, hence why multiplats are so important for many people.

Nintendo's hardware is gutter trash for its price, I would also have to buy 3 wii-motes which are fkin £50 each (with nunchuck) to play the multiplayer games ... all 2-3 of them. (smash, kart ect)

its completely credible. pleanty of good stuff on systems people don't own, doesn't mean they can justify having it too.

PC gaming is cheaper than console gaming. With PC as a primary gaming platform, buying a PS4 or Xone for the handful of generic exclusives is wayyy more expensive than buying a WiiU. If everything has to be on one platform, then everything on PC would make way more sense than Nintendo on a MS or Sony platform.

Except I will have access to many more X1/PS4 only games (E.G FF15, Kingdom Hearts 3, MGS 5 ect ect) and have a good standard of console that is up to scratch with the times. artstyle carries nintendo games, but even more power will help a good artstyle as well. plus proper online systems ect ect.

There is very little value in a wii-u, it a pile of turd and is quite obvious going by the fact that the 2 new consoles despite releasing within a month of eachother have already nearly outsold the Wii-U's year head start.

Gutter trash, the device does no favours for nintendo or its brilliant software franchises.

You say that about PS4/X1 yet in their lifetime they would offer me as a PC Gamer (well mainly talking about PS4 here.) much more than the Wii-U would. not to mention, actually having other people that own them to play with.

Avatar image for KungfuKitten
#49 Edited by KungfuKitten (22588 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

@KungfuKitten said:

@MBirdy88 said:

@KungfuKitten said:

@MBirdy88 said:

As I keep saying, keep 3ds games/system 1st party... they are good at those.

But their bigger game titles meant for consoles should be on PS4/X1/PC .... despite what stupid nintendo fans believe many of us love their games, but are unwilling to buy their system.

Yeah that sounds credible. We love your games we're just not going to buy them! They're not worth an extra $250 but sinking $1250 in a console just for Sony or MS exclusives is fine.

You think that COD gamers would suddenly be interested in Nintendo games if they were on Sony or MS consoles? Nintendo doesn't make that many FPS's...

Sigh... its going to sound anecdotal because it is, myself and quite a few freinds who mainly play PC are all saying the same thing.

You don't get it do you? £250 for a system to play 1 game every 6 months is NOT good value for money and no matter how much we like said games is not often justifiable. not everyone can afford or WANTS to pay to have every system, hence why multiplats are so important for many people.

Nintendo's hardware is gutter trash for its price, I would also have to buy 3 wii-motes which are fkin £50 each (with nunchuck) to play the multiplayer games ... all 2-3 of them. (smash, kart ect)

its completely credible. pleanty of good stuff on systems people don't own, doesn't mean they can justify having it too.

PC gaming is cheaper than console gaming. With PC as a primary gaming platform, buying a PS4 or Xone for the handful of generic exclusives is wayyy more expensive than buying a WiiU. If everything has to be on one platform, then everything on PC would make way more sense than Nintendo on a MS or Sony platform.

Except I will have access to many more X1/PS4 only games (E.G FF15, Kingdom Hearts 3, MGS 5 ect ect) and have a good standard of console that is up to scratch with the times. artstyle carries nintendo games, but even more power will help a good artstyle as well. plus proper online systems ect ect.

There is very little value in a wii-u, it a pile of turd and is quite obvious going by the fact that the 2 new consoles despite releasing within a month of eachother have already nearly outsold the Wii-U's year head start.

Gutter trash, the device does no favours for nintendo or its brilliant software franchises.

You say that about PS4/X1 yet in their lifetime they would offer me as a PC Gamer (well mainly talking about PS4 here.) much more than the Wii-U would. not to mention, actually having other people that own them to play with.

Well have fun playing with specs. I prefer actual games. For like 5 times the costs I'm sure that Sony and MS will have an occasional exclusive that is not a sports game or a console FPS. Suppose we'll see. I'd be surprised if the handful of exclusives won't be riddled with F2P gamedesign for a full price as seems to be their new thing.

Avatar image for MBirdy88
#50 Edited by MBirdy88 (10583 posts) -

@KungfuKitten said:

@MBirdy88 said:

@KungfuKitten said:

@MBirdy88 said:

@KungfuKitten said:

@MBirdy88 said:

As I keep saying, keep 3ds games/system 1st party... they are good at those.

But their bigger game titles meant for consoles should be on PS4/X1/PC .... despite what stupid nintendo fans believe many of us love their games, but are unwilling to buy their system.

Yeah that sounds credible. We love your games we're just not going to buy them! They're not worth an extra $250 but sinking $1250 in a console just for Sony or MS exclusives is fine.

You think that COD gamers would suddenly be interested in Nintendo games if they were on Sony or MS consoles? Nintendo doesn't make that many FPS's...

Sigh... its going to sound anecdotal because it is, myself and quite a few freinds who mainly play PC are all saying the same thing.

You don't get it do you? £250 for a system to play 1 game every 6 months is NOT good value for money and no matter how much we like said games is not often justifiable. not everyone can afford or WANTS to pay to have every system, hence why multiplats are so important for many people.

Nintendo's hardware is gutter trash for its price, I would also have to buy 3 wii-motes which are fkin £50 each (with nunchuck) to play the multiplayer games ... all 2-3 of them. (smash, kart ect)

its completely credible. pleanty of good stuff on systems people don't own, doesn't mean they can justify having it too.

PC gaming is cheaper than console gaming. With PC as a primary gaming platform, buying a PS4 or Xone for the handful of generic exclusives is wayyy more expensive than buying a WiiU. If everything has to be on one platform, then everything on PC would make way more sense than Nintendo on a MS or Sony platform.

Except I will have access to many more X1/PS4 only games (E.G FF15, Kingdom Hearts 3, MGS 5 ect ect) and have a good standard of console that is up to scratch with the times. artstyle carries nintendo games, but even more power will help a good artstyle as well. plus proper online systems ect ect.

There is very little value in a wii-u, it a pile of turd and is quite obvious going by the fact that the 2 new consoles despite releasing within a month of eachother have already nearly outsold the Wii-U's year head start.

Gutter trash, the device does no favours for nintendo or its brilliant software franchises.

You say that about PS4/X1 yet in their lifetime they would offer me as a PC Gamer (well mainly talking about PS4 here.) much more than the Wii-U would. not to mention, actually having other people that own them to play with.

Well have fun playing with specs. I prefer actual games. For like 5 times the costs I'm sure that Sony and MS will have an occasional exclusive that is not a sports game or a console FPS. Suppose we'll see. I'd be surprised if the handful of exclusives won't be riddled with F2P gamedesign for a full price as seems to be their new thing.

Neither of the 3 games I mentioned are sports or shooters. I could go on and say how glorius Little Big Planet 3 will be with 7GB RAM to play with and alot more processing power. (so yea, specs do help games.).

At the end of the day, its nintendo to prove to us consumers not the other way around. 3 mario platformers and probably a zelda game in 3 years. and smash bros once in the entire genertation ... oh and yet another mario kart.

your just a hypocrit.

The hardware and software sales speak for themselves, nintendo's console holds back their games, a shame for nintendo's plummeting stock... and a shame for us gamers.