The horsepower tables are turned, but it matters... why?

The subject title is a question of a hypothetical matter. Hear me out...

A few days back, I ran into this video that goes into the state of the Wii U's third party support situation. (Warning: the video contains strong language.) The video's point is in no way surprising to me and it's something that I think most sensible people would agree on. Nevertheless, it got me to thinking about the "hows" and "whys" when it comes to Nintendo platforms and its third party struggles. In particular, the way the Wii U's multiplats have been handled to this point challenges a commonly-used 'reason' why the Wii and Wii U had/have such shaky software support from third parties: power. Already a notion I find to be more cliche than factual, it got me to think about something else... what it the roles were reversed between Nintendo and the other hardware makers?

Based on what we've already seen with the Wii U and its PS3/Xbox 360 multiplats (and lack thereof at times), why is there such a strong belief that Nintendo's shortcoming in recent years is because its platforms haven't been powerful enough, especially when we have examples like Sniper Elite 2, Mass Effect 3, and Injustice that suggests a different issue entirely? Suppose that it was the Wii and Wii U that were clearly at the top of the ladder in terms of console horsepower... for what reason(s) would other publishers and developers take them more seriously? If it's a matter of sales and revenue, Nintendo's platforms wouldn't make anymore sense as undisputed powerhouses than they do as is. In the case of the Wii, it being a $500+ console would have been nothing but an absolute disaster for Nintendo, and third parties would have paid it no mind anyways. The answer I anticipate here probably comes down to multiplats, but when you look at the history of most multiplats on Nintendo consoles, as well as how they're being handled now on the Wii U, how exactly would a more powerful system inspire more confidence and better effort from publishers that would still likely be making games for the other systems on the market?

This is in no way me trying to defend Nintendo's decision to make the Wii and Wii U what they are as consoles. Frankly, I think the Wii's success and innovation justified how powerful it was and I believe that the Wii U would be where it is, no matter how powerful it was. This is just my curiosity coming into play and wanting to know exactly why so many people suggest that if Nintendo would simply build more powerful systems, it would gain much stronger support from publishers. When I look at not only what has happened in previous gens, but also what is happening at this very moment, there is just nothing I see to make me believe this claim. Nevertheless, I'm open for answers. :P

Your basically hitting on an age old point of third party games not selling Nintendo systems because the majority of users buy the consoles to play first party games.  People buy the other consoles in order to play third party games.  Not all third party titles are failures, but Nintendo's first party is the main reason why Nintendo systems sell.  Take a popular game such as Madden for example.  How much did it sell on Wii compared to other systems? 

Your basically hitting on an age old point of third party games not selling Nintendo systems because the majority of users buy the consoles to play first party games.  People buy the other consoles in order to play third party games.  Not all third party titles are failures, but Nintendo's first party is the main reason why Nintendo systems sell.  Take a popular game such as Madden for example.  How much did it sell on Wii compared to other systems? 

gamenerd15

But here's the real question: If the specs were higher, would the user base then naturally be greater? Let's say the WiiU came out in November 2012 with specs on par with PS4 at $400. Would people have clamored for that version of the console more than they did the current version? If so, then third parties would probably have followed.

More core gamers would've jumped on a more powerful WiiU, but I don't think the general public would have at that price. The situation would probably be almost exactly the same as it is today, to your point.

i agree madman....

i just dont get how between the snes and n64 a light switch just went off and everyone decided to buy 3rd party on playstation instead foever...its wierd.

and how xbox was able to get 3rd party support so easily.

[QUOTE="gamenerd15"]

Your basically hitting on an age old point of third party games not selling Nintendo systems because the majority of users buy the consoles to play first party games.  People buy the other consoles in order to play third party games.  Not all third party titles are failures, but Nintendo's first party is the main reason why Nintendo systems sell.  Take a popular game such as Madden for example.  How much did it sell on Wii compared to other systems? 

JordanElek

But here's the real question: If the specs were higher, would the user base then naturally be greater? Let's say the WiiU came out in November 2012 with specs on par with PS4 at $400. Would people have clamored for that version of the console more than they did the current version? If so, then third parties would probably have followed.

More core gamers would've jumped on a more powerful WiiU, but I don't think the general public would have at that price. The situation would probably be almost exactly the same as it is today, to your point.

I think you guys get what I'm trying to express. Honestly, I think people have gotten so caught up with the differences of Nintendo's consoles, it has become more of a scapegoat that most people would like to believe. That's not to say that Nintendo's decisions over the years haven't caused some means of compromise for third party publishers, but it just seems like there's a bigger issue at play that only a handful of people want to address.

To answer your question, JordanElek, I don't think it would have made much of a difference. I think it would have still been the same situation the Dreamcast found itself in 13+ years ago. There's always that group of people that's going to get a console at launch, but I suspect most "core gamers" would have still waited for the other console offerings before making the jump to Nintendo's newest system, and most publishers would still be on the fence about it, as opposed to pulling out all the stops to make a splash on the system. Ultimately, I don't think the difference in userbase would have been significant to change the system's start, especially if it meant that even fewer mass-market consumers were turned off by the price that came with the higher introductory price.

I can't even tell what your question is.MethodManFTW

Simply, based on what we've seen from third party games and the way publishers have handled them over the years, what reason is there to believe that the Wii, Wii U, or any other Nintendo platform would have gotten/get better support even if it was the most powerful system on the market? To those who believe that the console being "underpowered" has been the weakness of the Wii U (and the Wii before it), what evidence is there to make one truly believe things would be better the other way around?

Hope that helps.

i agree madman....

i just dont get how between the snes and n64 a light switch just went off and everyone decided to buy 3rd party on playstation instead foever...its wierd.

and how xbox was able to get 3rd party support so easily.

KBFloyd

If you want my opinion, whatever "light switch" there was went off the moment the Genesis became successful. Nintendo still hasn't fully recovered from what the "Genesis Does" strategy of Sega's did to its image. What helped the SNES' cause was that Japanese publishers were still bullish on Nintendo at the time, but I think the Playstation's success merely evolved an already-successful approach that Sega had created. Same goes for the Xbox, especially with how strongly the system attracted western developers to create games for the platform.

Truth be told, for most of the high-profile games that have surfaced in the past decade, I don't think they would have been all too successful on the SNES or any other Nintendo system to begin with. Much like Sega was able to establish the Genesis' identity as the system for sports titles and certain action games over Nintendo's console, I think that same mentality exists today in the minds of most publishers and gamers.

i agree madman....

i just dont get how between the snes and n64 a light switch just went off and everyone decided to buy 3rd party on playstation instead foever...its wierd.

and how xbox was able to get 3rd party support so easily.

KBFloYd

I wanna say it had something to do with Nintendo still using cartridges, I remember having a N64 and a playstation, the fact that it played CDs made it seem so much better and then I remember hearing the rumors of the new Playstation and Nitendo and having them say the new PS it's gonna be bad ass while the New Nintendo system looked kiddie. So I think there was also alot of imagery the Consoles brought to the table that helped push Nintendo to the side. Plus PS2 getting grand theft auto 3 and Final Fantasy x and The Gamecube getting super mario sunshine didn't help matters either.

I just don't understand why some third parties decide to make certain ports all together. The Sniper Elite title is a perfect example. It's so bare bones and lacking, why on earth would they even go ahead with the port to begin with? Huge waste of money and resources.

The point about people buying Nintendo consoles for first party software is true. It's certain the reason why I usually want a Nintendo console the most, since I like their games the most. 

I'm still going to buy third party titles depending on the situation. The Wonderful 101, Bayonetta 2, Rayman Legends and Sonic Lost World are all titles I'm excited for an will purchase since they've been either made specifically for the platform or are on par with other versions. I even skipped out on buying Assassin's Creed III and Call of Duty: Black Ops II on the 360 because of free online on the Wii U and GamePad features (maps, inventories, etc on the screen). Though, I'm probably in the very small minority who would do so.

All that being said, Ubisoft seems to be the smartest with their Wii U ports so far. Assassin's Creed III seems to have done well enough on the Wii U, Splinter Cell: Blacklist, Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag and Watch_Dogs might perform favourably on the Wii U as well.

The whole attitude of third party titles not selling well because consumers buy first party software always struck me as simple and unrealistic. Software sells systems. If the Wii U got all the multiplat games instead of them going to Sony or Microsoft, then people could buy the Wii U and play nothing but third party games. You can't tell me Rockstar is scared that Mario will take a chunk out of their Grand Theft Auto sales. 

No, I've always seen it as a bit more underhanded. Microsoft especially is known to employ reputationmanagement. You can't tell me that multi-billion dollar companies like Microsoft or Sony show up on the market with their first console and achieve amazing success due to nothing but hard work and honest business practices. They're on our message boards, falsely creating positive buzz about their own brands, and slandering the competition. They might evenbepayingcompanies to not release games on rival systems.

People talk all the time about Nintendo being "behind the times." Does that include shady business practises? Because if so, that explains a lot.

I just don't understand why some third parties decide to make certain ports all together. The Sniper Elite title is a perfect example. It's so bare bones and lacking, why on earth would they even go ahead with the port to begin with? Huge waste of money and resources.

The point about people buying Nintendo consoles for first party software is true. It's certain the reason why I usually want a Nintendo console the most, since I like their games the most. 

I'm still going to buy third party titles depending on the situation. The Wonderful 101, Bayonetta 2, Rayman Legends and Sonic Lost World are all titles I'm excited for an will purchase since they've been either made specifically for the platform or are on par with other versions. I even skipped out on buying Assassin's Creed III and Call of Duty: Black Ops II on the 360 because of free online on the Wii U and GamePad features (maps, inventories, etc on the screen). Though, I'm probably in the very small minority who would do so.

All that being said, Ubisoft seems to be the smartest with their Wii U ports so far. Assassin's Creed III seems to have done well enough on the Wii U, Splinter Cell: Blacklist, Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag and Watch_Dogs might perform favourably on the Wii U as well.

Haziqonfire

i agree madman....

i just dont get how between the snes and n64 a light switch just went off and everyone decided to buy 3rd party on playstation instead foever...its wierd.

and how xbox was able to get 3rd party support so easily.

KBFloYd

[QUOTE="KBFloYd"]

i agree madman....

i just dont get how between the snes and n64 a light switch just went off and everyone decided to buy 3rd party on playstation instead foever...its wierd.

and how xbox was able to get 3rd party support so easily.

simomate

banjo kazooie, tooie mario 64 and goldeneye all worked fine on cartridges.

[QUOTE="simomate"][QUOTE="KBFloYd"]

i agree madman....

i just dont get how between the snes and n64 a light switch just went off and everyone decided to buy 3rd party on playstation instead foever...its wierd.

and how xbox was able to get 3rd party support so easily.

KBFloYd

banjo kazooie, tooie mario 64 and goldeneye all worked fine on cartridges.

Even though the graphics sucked on PSX compared to N64, developers wanted the freedom of more storage space (and publishers wanted the profit from cheaper production costs), so they ran to Sony. Consumers followed. That really was the genesis of Nintendo's place in the industry today.

i agree madman....

i just dont get how between the snes and n64 a light switch just went off and everyone decided to buy 3rd party on playstation instead foever...its wierd.

and how xbox was able to get 3rd party support so easily.

KBFloYd

It wasn't a light switch. Nintendo had bad policies that alienated 3rd parties. They opted for carts instead of cheaper  CDs and then delayed the Ultra 64 from late 95 to late 96. During this time 3rd parties saw the Playstation outpace the Saturn in sales and knew their 650MB per disc games (often 2-3 discs) could never work on the 64. So they took their games to PS1 in 95/96

Then a flood of  great PS1 games hit shelves in 1997 just as the N64 was experiencing a drought. MGS, FFVII, and more. Had Nintendo gone with CDs and released the 64 during 95 I think history would be far different. Maybe they should have pushed Donkey Kong Country 2 or 3 to 64, or Mario RPG to move units in 95 as they waited on Mario 64 in 96.

Anyway, it wasn't "a light switch" going off. Nintendo made some serious mistakes and hasn't been able to recover from since.

I think it is worth noting that Sony's original plan back in 2011/early 2012 was to ship the PS4 with 2GB DDR5 RAM. That would have helped the Wii U so very much. Then they upgraded to 4GB later in 2012, and eventually 8GB this past February.

Considering the Wii U's 2GB RAM cost like $6 per unit, I do wonder how better off they'd be had they simply added $1-$6 and made it 3GB/4GB, heck even 6GB.

But I'm more than happy with what we got now

i agree madman....

i just dont get how between the snes and n64 a light switch just went off and everyone decided to buy 3rd party on playstation instead foever...its wierd.

and how xbox was able to get 3rd party support so easily.

KBFloYd

Your light switch theory is not accurate.  Nintendo decided to go with cartridges for the format of the N64 and that killed it for third parties.  Catridges were also more expensive to produce.  every game on PS1 was $50 while N64 cartridges ranged from about $50 to $70.  People then had to buy memory cards and the expansion pack afterwards.  Games like FF7 and Metal Gear Solid were not possible on N64 because of the storage space.  I believe Jason Rubin, the founder of Naughty Dog and ex THQ President said that the N64 had a lower polygon count, but it was capable of using bigger polygons.   http://all-things-andy-gavin.com/2011/02/07/making-crash-bandicoot-part-6/      "Of course he had consciously made the decision to forgo the complex worlds Crash contained.  The N64 had prettier polygons, but less of them to offer.  Crash Bandicoot could not be made on the N64.  Of course Mario 64 couldnt be done on the PlayStation either.  The PlayStation sucked at big polygons, specifically scissoring them without warping textures.  Mario 64 relied on big polygons."

Gamecube also suffered from the same problem to a degree.  the disc format for GC only had 1.5GB of space.  The controller also lacked clickable analog sticks and a second trigger button on the left side.  This means that some games required two button to be pushed together in order to achieve one action.  Add the weak sales numbers of the Gamecube, and you can see the full picture.  

Third parties lost interest in the Wii because the market for their games just was not there.  Yes, the Wii sold over 100 million units, but a lot of those units are not "gamers" so to speak.  A lot of people only bought the Wii to play Wii Sports and Wii Fit.  For example, my uncle only got a Wii to play Wii Sports and Tiger Woods Golf.  He never touched the console afterwards.  A lot of people who bought the wii were no repeat customers in terms of software. 

The Wii U is not catching on because it is not clearn what the advantages of the system are.  People already have multiple TV's in their houses, so what is so cool about playing things on another screen?  Most of the titles available on Wii U are also on current generation systems, so how is the console next generation?  These are the questons some consumers ask themselves.  It also does not help that under the hood, Sony and Microsoft have built systmes that are very similar to on another.  It is easy to port software from one to the other.  Third parties are wondering why they should put games on Wii U when they can build a title for PC and be able to port it to two other consoles very easily.  The sales of PS4 and Xbox One will most likely be greater than Wii U alone.  Putting a title on three platforms instead of one is a better deal for developers. 

This is an excellent explanation of Nintendo's shortcomings each generation!

Nintendo decided to go with cartridges for the format of the N64 and that killed it for third parties.  Catridges were also more expensive to produce.  every game on PS1 was $50 while N64 cartridges ranged from about $50 to $70...    ...Games like FF7 and Metal Gear Solid were not possible on N64 because of the storage space.  gamenerd15

To add more to this, The publishers also made less profit per cartirdge, since their manufacturing cost was higher. Yet another reason for 3rd parties to go to Sony. The worst part about Final Fantasy 7 is that it had originally started as an N64 title. A few magazines had articles and screenshots. That's another one of those "if it had come out on N64, how much would that have changed the gaming landscape?"

  ...the disc format for GC only had 1.5GB of space.  The controller also lacked clickable analog sticks and a second trigger button on the left side.  This means that some games required two button to be pushed together in order to achieve one action. gamenerd15

Yet another problem. 3rd parties couldn't just port the games. they had to put some effort into making it work within the disc capacities and controller differences. Some developers just didn't bother.

And it's the same with the Wii and Wii-U. Nintendo has made their console radically different than the competition and by doing so, they have alienated the 3rd parties. There are some really great games that simply don't need something like the gamepad. But does Nintendo force developers to use it? Would gamers be let down if a game released without gamepad support?

Sadly, I think it would be best for Nintendo to drop the gamepad as the main controller type and focus on real core games, and getting that 3rd party support, IF they want to be people's first choice. I guess Nintendo may be ok with being the secondary console. It'll be interesting to see how the Wii-U version of Watch Dogs compares to the next gen version.

I just don't understand why some third parties decide to make certain ports all together. The Sniper Elite title is a perfect example. It's so bare bones and lacking, why on earth would they even go ahead with the port to begin with? Huge waste of money and resources.

The point about people buying Nintendo consoles for first party software is true. It's certain the reason why I usually want a Nintendo console the most, since I like their games the most. 

I'm still going to buy third party titles depending on the situation. The Wonderful 101, Bayonetta 2, Rayman Legends and Sonic Lost World are all titles I'm excited for an will purchase since they've been either made specifically for the platform or are on par with other versions. I even skipped out on buying Assassin's Creed III and Call of Duty: Black Ops II on the 360 because of free online on the Wii U and GamePad features (maps, inventories, etc on the screen). Though, I'm probably in the very small minority who would do so.

All that being said, Ubisoft seems to be the smartest with their Wii U ports so far. Assassin's Creed III seems to have done well enough on the Wii U, Splinter Cell: Blacklist, Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag and Watch_Dogs might perform favourably on the Wii U as well.

Haziqonfire

I don't get it either... if third party publishers truly believe that their games simply don't sell on the Wii U or Nintendo platformers in general, why are resources being wasted on dead-end ports or niche, poorly marketed products? I don't buy into the idea that third parties have an actual agenda against Nintendo, as at the end of the day, I think most of them are simply concerned about the bottom line. Yet, when you see so many half-hearted efforts that are typically followed by complaints about poor sales, it just doesn't make much sense. What exactly is the goal behind games like Sniper Elite on the Wii U and why should consumers be expected to pick them up? It's a question I'd love an answer for, but considering the established stigma that third party games don't sell on Nintendo systems regardless, I doubt anyone would ever challenge third party publishers to address the issue.

The whole attitude of third party titles not selling well because consumers buy first party software always struck me as simple and unrealistic. Software sells systems. If the Wii U got all the multiplat games instead of them going to Sony or Microsoft, then people could buy the Wii U and play nothing but third party games. You can't tell me Rockstar is scared that Mario will take a chunk out of their Grand Theft Auto sales. 

No, I've always seen it as a bit more underhanded. Microsoft especially is known to employ reputationmanagement. You can't tell me that multi-billion dollar companies like Microsoft or Sony show up on the market with their first console and achieve amazing success due to nothing but hard work and honest business practices. They're on our message boards, falsely creating positive buzz about their own brands, and slandering the competition. They might evenbepayingcompanies to not release games on rival systems.

People talk all the time about Nintendo being "behind the times." Does that include shady business practises? Because if so, that explains a lot.

Wonkyman

I both agree and disagree with what you're saying. First off, I do think the notion that third party games can't sell on Nintendo systems is too straightforward of a statement to make. It's not as if there aren't examples of certain titles doing so over the course of recent history. What I question, however, is the idea that multiplats would be more successful if they appeared on Nintendo consoles more frequently. Honestly, with the exception of a handful of games, I don't think it's very reasonable to expect key titles to be successful on three, if not four, different platforms (depending if you count PC or not) consistently. And while I don't think that third party publishers should be afraid of Nintendo's titles, I do believe that Nintendo's typical userbase does present a dynamic that third parties have to understand and cater to differently. I don't think it's about Mario stealing the sales of a game like GTA as much as it is a GTA game simply not being able to find many takers on Nintendo platforms to begin with. That may not be the exact reason why certain games have avoided Nintendo platforms, but I find it to be the most sensible one nevertheless.

As for the part about the practices that other companies may be doing to secure third party support, I can buy what you're saying, but I'm not sure if that's the biggest issue. For all we know, Nintendo could have very well made similar attempts to appease third party publishers, but has simply not been as successful. What can be made certain is that there is a disconnect between Nintendo and most third party publishers these days, and the most concrete of conclusions we could hope to come up with would be that there hasn't been a great deal of success to be had with the larger publishers on Nintendo systems in recent years. The question is what precisely needs to be done about it, and that's where there's always room for debate.

This is an excellent explanation of Nintendo's shortcomings each generation!

[QUOTE="gamenerd15"]

Nintendo decided to go with cartridges for the format of the N64 and that killed it for third parties.  Catridges were also more expensive to produce.  every game on PS1 was $50 while N64 cartridges ranged from about $50 to $70...    ...Games like FF7 and Metal Gear Solid were not possible on N64 because of the storage space.  Grieverr

To add more to this, The publishers also made less profit per cartirdge, since their manufacturing cost was higher. Yet another reason for 3rd parties to go to Sony. The worst part about Final Fantasy 7 is that it had originally started as an N64 title. A few magazines had articles and screenshots. That's another one of those "if it had come out on N64, how much would that have changed the gaming landscape?"

  ...the disc format for GC only had 1.5GB of space.  The controller also lacked clickable analog sticks and a second trigger button on the left side.  This means that some games required two button to be pushed together in order to achieve one action. gamenerd15

Yet another problem. 3rd parties couldn't just port the games. they had to put some effort into making it work within the disc capacities and controller differences. Some developers just didn't bother.

And it's the same with the Wii and Wii-U. Nintendo has made their console radically different than the competition and by doing so, they have alienated the 3rd parties. There are some really great games that simply don't need something like the gamepad. But does Nintendo force developers to use it? Would gamers be let down if a game released without gamepad support?

Sadly, I think it would be best for Nintendo to drop the gamepad as the main controller type and focus on real core games, and getting that 3rd party support, IF they want to be people's first choice. I guess Nintendo may be ok with being the secondary console. It'll be interesting to see how the Wii-U version of Watch Dogs compares to the next gen version.

I still don't buy it all as a whole, though. Here's the problem I find with saying Nintendo's shortcomings are the sole reason for the third party support of its most recent platforms. It's not to say that Nintendo's decisions in console design didn't play some factor in the omission of some games, but rather you're implying that it played a major part in EVERY game not being released. For instance, can anyone honestly say that every game the N64/GCN missed was because of a smaller format (which is also less excusable in the GCN's case, as it was still disc-based) and/or that every PS2/Xbox multiplat that didn't make its way to the GCN was because its controller simply didn't have enough buttons to support the gameplay? Considering the amount of games we're talking about, that's a very bold claim. I'm certain that you can find games that didn't come to Nintendo platforms and didn't fall under those circumstances, and by doing so, it would create a new series of questions and ponderings about why those games didn't exist for Nintendo's consoles.

Neither the NES or SNES were able to completely translate the arcade gaming experience to the platforms, and the GB had a monochrome-based display for a period much longer than anyone would have expected. The DS also dealt with a smaller format and power disadvantage than its portable competition at the time in the PSP. In short, you can make the argument that EVERY Nintendo system has had a "shortcoming" or some sort, which means that it doesn't totally explain the wishy-washy nature in support of Nintendo systems over the years. Again, I'm sure there have been obstacles presented by Nintendo's hardware designs that have indeed hurt the chances of its platforms getting games, but at the same time, I'm in no way convinced that it's the only or even major reason Nintendo's platforms have been supported the way they have.

I've also yet to figure out how the cartridge format that supposedly the N64's undoing, while Sega had THREE disc-based consoles that somehow crashed and burned harder surrounding it...

I've also yet to figure out how the cartridge format that supposedly the N64's undoing, while Sega had THREE disc-based consoles that somehow crashed and burned harder surrounding it...Madmangamer364

[QUOTE="Grieverr"]

This is an excellent explanation of Nintendo's shortcomings each generation!

[QUOTE="gamenerd15"]

To add more to this, The publishers also made less profit per cartirdge, since their manufacturing cost was higher. Yet another reason for 3rd parties to go to Sony. The worst part about Final Fantasy 7 is that it had originally started as an N64 title. A few magazines had articles and screenshots. That's another one of those "if it had come out on N64, how much would that have changed the gaming landscape?"

 

[QUOTE="gamenerd15"]  ...the disc format for GC only had 1.5GB of space.  The controller also lacked clickable analog sticks and a second trigger button on the left side.  This means that some games required two button to be pushed together in order to achieve one action. Madmangamer364

Yet another problem. 3rd parties couldn't just port the games. they had to put some effort into making it work within the disc capacities and controller differences. Some developers just didn't bother.

And it's the same with the Wii and Wii-U. Nintendo has made their console radically different than the competition and by doing so, they have alienated the 3rd parties. There are some really great games that simply don't need something like the gamepad. But does Nintendo force developers to use it? Would gamers be let down if a game released without gamepad support?

Sadly, I think it would be best for Nintendo to drop the gamepad as the main controller type and focus on real core games, and getting that 3rd party support, IF they want to be people's first choice. I guess Nintendo may be ok with being the secondary console. It'll be interesting to see how the Wii-U version of Watch Dogs compares to the next gen version.

I still don't buy it all as a whole, though. Here's the problem I find with saying Nintendo's shortcomings are the sole reason for the third party support of its most recent platforms. It's not to say that Nintendo's decisions in console design didn't play some factor in the omission of some games, but rather you're implying that it played a major part in EVERY game not being released. For instance, can anyone honestly say that every game the N64/GCN missed was because of a smaller format (which is also less excusable in the GCN's case, as it was still disc-based) and/or that every PS2/Xbox multiplat that didn't make its way to the GCN was because its controller simply didn't have enough buttons to support the gameplay? Considering the amount of games we're talking about, that's a very bold claim. I'm certain that you can find games that didn't come to Nintendo platforms and didn't fall under those circumstances, and by doing so, it would create a new series of questions and ponderings about why those games didn't exist for Nintendo's consoles.

Neither the NES or SNES were able to completely translate the arcade gaming experience to the platforms, and the GB had a monochrome-based display for a period much longer than anyone would have expected. The DS also dealt with a smaller format and power disadvantage than its portable competition at the time in the PSP. In short, you can make the argument that EVERY Nintendo system has had a "shortcoming" or some sort, which means that it doesn't totally explain the wishy-washy nature in support of Nintendo systems over the years. Again, I'm sure there have been obstacles presented by Nintendo's hardware designs that have indeed hurt the chances of its platforms getting games, but at the same time, I'm in no way convinced that it's the only or even major reason Nintendo's platforms have been supported the way they have.

I've also yet to figure out how the cartridge format that supposedly the N64's undoing, while Sega had THREE disc-based consoles that somehow crashed and burned harder surrounding it...

Sega's problems started when the Sega CD was released.  Sega released three pieces of hardware in three years.  Sega lacked direction in the console market.  The Saturn was originally supposed to be a 2D only console, but then 3D capabilities were added at the last minute.  The Saturn had 2 GPU's instead of one, and this led to complications in game development.  Sega also competed against itself internally.  Sega Japan would try to outdue Sega of North America.  This also contributed to software problems.  Certain developers in one region did not want another region to use the graphics engine for specific games in other ones.  The Dreamcast due to the promise of PS2.  The PS2 sported a DVD player plus games all for $300.  Sega could not afford to drop the price of the Dreamcast and eventually went down. 

I still don't buy it all as a whole, though. Here's the problem I find with saying Nintendo's shortcomings are the sole reason for the third party support of its most recent platforms. It's not to say that Nintendo's decisions in console design didn't play some factor in the omission of some games, but rather you're implying that it played a major part in EVERY game not being released. For instance, can anyone honestly say that every game the N64/GCN missed was because of a smaller format (which is also less excusable in the GCN's case, as it was still disc-based) and/or that every PS2/Xbox multiplat that didn't make its way to the GCN was because its controller simply didn't have enough buttons to support the gameplay? Considering the amount of games we're talking about, that's a very bold claim. I'm certain that you can find games that didn't come to Nintendo platforms and didn't fall under those circumstances, and by doing so, it would create a new series of questions and ponderings about why those games didn't exist for Nintendo's consoles.

Neither the NES or SNES were able to completely translate the arcade gaming experience to the platforms, and the GB had a monochrome-based display for a period much longer than anyone would have expected. The DS also dealt with a smaller format and power disadvantage than its portable competition at the time in the PSP. In short, you can make the argument that EVERY Nintendo system has had a "shortcoming" or some sort, which means that it doesn't totally explain the wishy-washy nature in support of Nintendo systems over the years. Again, I'm sure there have been obstacles presented by Nintendo's hardware designs that have indeed hurt the chances of its platforms getting games, but at the same time, I'm in no way convinced that it's the only or even major reason Nintendo's platforms have been supported the way they have.

I've also yet to figure out how the cartridge format that supposedly the N64's undoing, while Sega had THREE disc-based consoles that somehow crashed and burned harder surrounding it...

Madmangamer364

exactly...

i dont buy it either.

[QUOTE="Madmangamer364"]

I've also yet to figure out how the cartridge format that supposedly the N64's undoing, while Sega had THREE disc-based consoles that somehow crashed and burned harder surrounding it...

KBFloYd

exactly...

i dont buy it either.

It was the major catalyst of it all. The more expansive games that required more storage space were also the more mature-looking and cool games at the time. Nintendo's games were more colorful and family friendly. Nintendo had always had that kind of image, but it was really hammered home during that era due to the stark difference between the N64's library and the Playstation's. Even though the PSX had its share of mascot platformers and kid-friendly games, it also had a lock on more "mature" and epic games (save for Ocarina of Time).

Playstation became the console where people would buy bigger games skewed to an older demographic, and Nintendo was the opposite. Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid simply couldn't have been on the N64 due to the limitations of carts. Even Resident Evil 2, which eventually made its way to the N64, was on the biggest, most expensive cart for the system... And it probably sold really poorly.

Thus Goldeneye, Perfect Dark and Conker's Bad Fur Day were born. Nintendo had NEVER published games like that until the N64 era when they were trying to yank a portion of that market from Sony. They continued it into the Gamecube era with Eternal Darkness and Geist, then they realized with the Wii that they could go after a totally different kind of adult demographic. Now that that demographic has dried up, they're going back to the more mature-looking well by publishing Bayonetta 2 on WiiU.

[QUOTE="Madmangamer364"]

I still don't buy it all as a whole, though. Here's the problem I find with saying Nintendo's shortcomings are the sole reason for the third party support of its most recent platforms. It's not to say that Nintendo's decisions in console design didn't play some factor in the omission of some games, but rather you're implying that it played a major part in EVERY game not being released. For instance, can anyone honestly say that every game the N64/GCN missed was because of a smaller format (which is also less excusable in the GCN's case, as it was still disc-based) and/or that every PS2/Xbox multiplat that didn't make its way to the GCN was because its controller simply didn't have enough buttons to support the gameplay? Considering the amount of games we're talking about, that's a very bold claim. I'm certain that you can find games that didn't come to Nintendo platforms and didn't fall under those circumstances, and by doing so, it would create a new series of questions and ponderings about why those games didn't exist for Nintendo's consoles.

Neither the NES or SNES were able to completely translate the arcade gaming experience to the platforms, and the GB had a monochrome-based display for a period much longer than anyone would have expected. The DS also dealt with a smaller format and power disadvantage than its portable competition at the time in the PSP. In short, you can make the argument that EVERY Nintendo system has had a "shortcoming" or some sort, which means that it doesn't totally explain the wishy-washy nature in support of Nintendo systems over the years. Again, I'm sure there have been obstacles presented by Nintendo's hardware designs that have indeed hurt the chances of its platforms getting games, but at the same time, I'm in no way convinced that it's the only or even major reason Nintendo's platforms have been supported the way they have.

I've also yet to figure out how the cartridge format that supposedly the N64's undoing, while Sega had THREE disc-based consoles that somehow crashed and burned harder surrounding it...

KBFloYd

exactly...

i dont buy it either.

Yet you buy that Sega's undoing had anything to do with the CD format? Sega's undoing was releasing the Sega CD, 32X and Saturn within a 3 year time frame. They could never stop looking over their shoulder and couldn't keep their mouth shut. Only 16 months after Saturn launched and after an abysmal holiday 1996 Sega  even said "Saturn isn't our future" and the Katana next-gen project leaked summer of 97. Sega's undoing was by themselves.

Had Sega not made the Saturn so complicated to develop for because they feared the PS1 and had they not released the Sega CD/32X they would have done better with the Saturn. The usage of CDs in those consoles has nothing to do with anything

Had Nintendo used CDs (650MB) instead of carts (64MB max) in 1995/1996 they wouldn't have lost so much third party support. Tell me how you're supposed to port MGS and FF7 to N64 when these games have a bunch of FMV and two-three discs. Those 1.2GB+ games on PS1 would literally use almost 19 N64 carts. NINETEEN!!

Yet you buy that Sega's undoing had anything to do with the CD format? Sega's undoing was releasing the Sega CD, 32X and Saturn within a 3 year time frame. They could never stop looking over their shoulder and couldn't keep their mouth shut. Only 16 months after Saturn launched and after an abysmal holiday 1996 Sega  even said "Saturn isn't our future" and the Katana next-gen project leaked summer of 97. Sega's undoing was by themselves.

Had Sega not made the Saturn so complicated to develop for because they feared the PS1 and had they not released the Sega CD/32X they would have done better with the Saturn. The usage of CDs in those consoles has nothing to do with anything

Had Nintendo used CDs (650MB) instead of carts (64MB max) in 1995/1996 they wouldn't have lost so much third party support. Tell me how you're supposed to port MGS and FF7 to N64 when these games have a bunch of FMV and two-three discs. Those 1.2GB+ games on PS1 would literally use almost 19 N64 carts. NINETEEN!!

bonesawisready5

i meant i agreed about the nintendo stuff.

honestly i dont know why sega failed. i never had a sega console.

if nintendo had included cd with the n64 would it have lost its 3rd party support? idk.. yes i think they still would have left nintendo.

gamenerd15 & Randolph:

Haha, that last bit was more of a rhetorical remark, but thanks for the explainations nevertheless. :P

The point I was trying to get across in bring that up was that if the CD format by itself was THAT important, it doesn't explain why the Sega CD, Saturn, and Dreamcast all struggled greatly to receive adequate support and commercial success doing the same the the PS1 was becoming what it eventually became. Other factors had to play a role in the PS1's success, especially when it reached a point of success so great, it singlehandedly surpassed any benchmark that had been established before it by such a large margin.

If the gap between the N64 and PS1 was simply a matter of cartridges vs. CDs, there were enough examples before that point where the differences should have been evident. The Sega CD and Saturn were both CD-based platforms that also were riding of the Genesis' success, yet they became largely ignored by both developers and consumers. Many of those same 'advantages' were there for the taking with Sega's systems, but it didn't work to the company's favor. For this reason, this is where I give a lot of credit to Sony. Sure, having a CD-based system to compete against the N64 was helpful, but I don't think nearly enough credit is given to Sony for how its strategy in creating a fresh platform that reached out to new consumers, as well as BOTH Japanese and Western developers, which is something both Nintendo and Sega struggled with in the 16-bit days. I'm not knocking the established "CDs vs. carts" argument as much as I am saying other factors were CLEARLY involved in what took place surrounding the Playstation's emergence on the gaming market.

Yet you buy that Sega's undoing had anything to do with the CD format?

bonesawisready

That... wasn't what I was saying. My point was for that all that is made about the CD format and how important it was, Sega's demise in the console market came to pass nevertheless with THREE systems that featured it. They've been out of the market for over a decade now, and still have as many disc-based consoles as Nintendo and Mircosoft have/is going to have to this day! Just thinking about that is pretty mindblowing, I think! We can go back and forth on the advantages/disadvantages of the formats all day (not that I'm even trying to disagree at this point), but it still doesn't explain in entirety what took place during the 16-bit and 32/64-bit eras, which you have also pointed out. What I'm saying is that it has never been THAT cut and dry, as otherwise, Sega WOULD very much still be holding its own making consoles to this day.

Whether it was completely by design or not, Sony was able to create a plaform that was more than capable of meeting the needs and desires of developers at that time, something neither Nintendo or Sega was as able to accomplish at that time. The cinematic experience that came with the aforementioned FMVs may have helped against the N64's limited storage, but the Saturn should have been just as capable of housing those games. That alone would suggest that the PS1 had to offer something else in order to not only pull the likes of Square and Konami from Nintendo's grasp, but also keep them away from Sega. Perhaps it was simply the complications that the Saturn had as a console that kept developers from supporting it, but at the very least, you have to credit Sony for not running into those same pitfalls. You simply don't go from newcomer to undisputed king by simply holding a more capable format, especially when others are also supporting it.

So many responses from one little remark... :P That said, I'm glad it has gotten the attention it did, even if it has steered the discussion away from the main topic a bit.

It was the major catalyst of it all. The more expansive games that required more storage space were also the more mature-looking and cool games at the time. Nintendo's games were more colorful and family friendly. Nintendo had always had that kind of image, but it was really hammered home during that era due to the stark difference between the N64's library and the Playstation's. Even though the PSX had its share of mascot platformers and kid-friendly games, it also had a lock on more "mature" and epic games (save for Ocarina of Time).

Playstation became the console where people would buy bigger games skewed to an older demographic, and Nintendo was the opposite. Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid simply couldn't have been on the N64 due to the limitations of carts. Even Resident Evil 2, which eventually made its way to the N64, was on the biggest, most expensive cart for the system... And it probably sold really poorly.

Thus Goldeneye, Perfect Dark and Conker's Bad Fur Day were born. Nintendo had NEVER published games like that until the N64 era when they were trying to yank a portion of that market from Sony. They continued it into the Gamecube era with Eternal Darkness and Geist, then they realized with the Wii that they could go after a totally different kind of adult demographic. Now that that demographic has dried up, they're going back to the more mature-looking well by publishing Bayonetta 2 on WiiU.

JordanElek

NOW we're staring to get somewhere...! Honestly, I feel like I'm the same page with you with the image point, but I just think the story starts at an earlier paragraph. What we agree on is that Sony took advantage of Nintendo's family-friendly with the Playstation and the key games it offered. The CD format was, in essence, needed to drive that strategy home, but it also needed the right games to use them and re-enforce the message being sent. What I also believe, however, is that this was something established by Sega first. It was the Genesis that was able to establish itself as "cooler" way to play certain titles and genres first, as well as showing the world just sensitive Nintendo was in protecting its family-friendly stance on video games (Mortal Kombat, anyone?). I've no doubt that Sony saw this and looking to take even greater advantage of the formula, and it doesn't seem like its timing could have been any better.

Looking back at the past and coming back to today, and it all begs a question. Did Nintendo ever have the "mature" audience to begin with? Much like the argument in regards to power, there are those who suggest that Nintendo needs to make greater efforts in attracting the "mature" demographic, but in honesty, it looks like this has been a battle that Nintendo has consistently lost over the years. As you pointed out, the Wii (and DS) were able to gain the attention of adults, but in a very different way. What I take from it all is that even if that well has "dried up," which is not something I necessarily agree with, it still looks like a much deeper well than the Geist/Eternal Darkness/Goldeneye well was able to become.

With the exception of Goldeneye, there's really nothing to make you believe that Nintendo or any other developer has ever had much hope in establishing this "mature" market on Nintendo platforms, and to this day, it makes me seriously question why there is such a strong opinion about how Nintendo needs to cater to this demographic. If anything, I think the struggles the 3DS and Wii U have faced to this point has a lot to do because Nintendo has attempted to capture this market too strongly already (ala GCN), as opposed to actually finding out what's left of its DS/Wii audience. Again, it's another one of those potential "back and forth" kind of things, but I think this all goes hand-in-hand to the struggles Nintendo face today.

NOW we're staring to get somewhere...! Honestly, I feel like I'm the same page with you with the image point, but I just think the story starts at an earlier paragraph. What we agree on is that Sony took advantage of Nintendo's family-friendly with the Playstation and the key games it offered. The CD format was, in essence, needed to drive that strategy home, but it also needed the right games to use them and re-enforce the message being sent. What I also believe, however, is that this was something established by Sega first. It was the Genesis that was able to establish itself as "cooler" way to play certain titles and genres first, as well as showing the world just sensitive Nintendo was in protecting its family-friendly stance on video games (Mortal Kombat, anyone?). I've no doubt that Sony saw this and looking to take even greater advantage of the formula, and it doesn't seem like its timing could have been any better.

Looking back at the past and coming back to today, and it all begs a question. Did Nintendo ever have the "mature" audience to begin with? Much like the argument in regards to power, there are those who suggest that Nintendo needs to make greater efforts in attracting the "mature" demographic, but in honesty, it looks like this has been a battle that Nintendo has consistently lost over the years. As you pointed out, the Wii (and DS) were able to gain the attention of adults, but in a very different way. What I take from it all is that even if that well has "dried up," which is not something I necessarily agree with, it still looks like a much deeper well than the Geist/Eternal Darkness/Goldeneye well was able to become.

With the exception of Goldeneye, there's really nothing to make you believe that Nintendo or any other developer has ever had much hope in establishing this "mature" market on Nintendo platforms, and to this day, it makes me seriously question why there is such a strong opinion about how Nintendo needs to cater to this demographic. If anything, I think the struggles the 3DS and Wii U have faced to this point has a lot to do because Nintendo has attempted to capture this market too strongly already (ala GCN), as opposed to actually finding out what's left of its DS/Wii audience. Again, it's another one of those potential "back and forth" kind of things, but I think this all goes hand-in-hand to the struggles Nintendo face today.

Madmangamer364

well said...

now what? we wait for nintendo to die? for being too family friendly..

we better hope wiifitu and wiiu Party catch fire..

It all boils down to policies for console developers.  Nintendo has always focused on what it wanted to do regardless if any othe developers thought.  The only time Nintendo caved was when Mortal Kombat came out.  Third parties made  games for SNES because the Genesis did not do well in Japan.  In today's world, having a strong first party goes a long way.  Sony learned a harsh lesson with third parties and the PS3, and strengthened up its first party studios.  It even got third parties to work on first party franchises.  Why bother paying for third party exclusives when you can work for yourself?  Nintendo should still try to get third parties to work on its platforms, but it is doubtful anything will come of it.  Nintendo does not actively seek out support.  The company focuses on itself first and everyone else later.  Nintendo just needs to find a way to multitask.  It needs to make first party titles and establish relationships with third parties at the same time.   

The stuff I'm reading in here (first few posts) seems to be from people who didn't even game in the SNES era, when Nintendo had a truckload of 3rd party support. Nintendos refusal to use modern hardware is what removed that 3rd party support. It has continued on to this day. No, you don't have to be the most powerful console, but being significantlly less powerful is a problem.

 Nintendo does not actively seek out support.  The company focuses on itself first and everyone else later.  Nintendo just needs to find a way to multitask.  It needs to make first party titles and establish relationships with third parties at the same time.   

gamenerd15

i think what been said is that nintendo cant get 3rd party support because 3rd party games dont sell on nintendo because of the family friendly/kiddie image they have built for their consoles.

The stuff I'm reading in here (first few posts) seems to be from people who didn't even game in the SNES era, when Nintendo had a truckload of 3rd party support. Nintendos refusal to use modern hardware is what removed that 3rd party support. It has continued on to this day. No, you don't have to be the most powerful console, but being significantlly less powerful is a problem.

schu

Nah, what you're reading is from someone that has been gaming since the NES and is well-versed of the history of Nintendo's platforms. Nintendo didn't gain third party support because it created top-of-the-line hardware, but rather because of the success of their hardware in spite of it. Personal computers, arcades, Atari Lynx, Game Gear, Neo Geo... there were numerous options for developers to turn that were more powerful than what Nintendo was offering even back then, but they didn't carry Nintendo's widespread appeal, which was more crucial to the success of games being made at the time. Mass market appeal and accessiblity, not horsepower, are what were responsible for the success of the NES and Game Boy, and the SNES would later ride off of that momentum. Even so, there were hurdles back then when it came to developing games for Nintendo systems, even with Nintendo's own arcade titles.

What changed was other systems coming to the market, such as the Genesis and Playstation, and not only becoming successful, but also taking away considerable market share from Nintendo's console dominance. Once other, viable options became available third party publishers, especially western studios, reacted accordingly. The hardware differences may have played a part, but the damage was being done even before it became such a largely known issue.

Again, what reason is there to believe that Nintendo would recapture that "truckload of 3rd party support" when even now, as the Wii U is currently the most powerful console on the market, is in arguably as bad of a shape as a Nintendo console has ever been in, even as less powerful platforms are getting stronger support? The reason I bring it up isn't because I'm unaware of the past, but because history doesn't exactly support the common claim as much as people tend to think.

now what? we wait for nintendo to die? for being too family friendly..

we better hope wiifitu and wiiu Party catch fire..

KBFloYd

Nintendo won't die so much as it don't follow in the footsteps of the competition and be forced to deal with the costly consequences that come with it. Fortunately for Nintendo, its family friendly image and universally appealing franchises, such as Mario and Pokemon, means that it doesn't necessarily have to follow the AAA model of game development and can focus on creating efficient, accessible, and more affordable games and platforms for mass market consumers to purchase. The beauty of the "Blue Ocean" strategy for Nintendo with the Wii and DS, was that it actually fit well with Nintendo's philosophy of game design and properties, while opening the door for entirely new group of consumers to embraces its products.

The problem with the Wii U is that it simply doesn't fit that mold. Nintendo can eventually make the console cheaper and create games that try to recapture the Wii audience, but it's not the same as building a platform with that philosophy in mind. Nintendo instead bought into the whole "casual/hardcore" stereotypes and tried to build systems with those labels in mind (3DS and Wii U). It may sound similar to the Wii/DS strategy, but it's not, as this approach does nothing to captivate new consumers and tries to find a balance between two extremes, ultimately doing things that turn off both sides, especially the masses that picked up the DS and Wii in unprecedented numbers.

To be honest, I don't think there's much Nintendo can do this time around, other than resort to "GameCube mode" and hope its franchises can carry the load as long as possible. What I think needs to happen is for Nintendo to get back to basics and reestablish its strategy so that it works to the company's strengths in the meanwhile, so that what we've seen the past few years doesn't become the new norm for the company. In relation to third party publishers, there will always be those that are less capable to support the rising costs of game development and are looking for a safer platform to work with. Nintendo would be wise to find these publishers/developers and work with them, as opposed to trying to keep up with the AAA game makers and come up short to their demands anyway.

Just my two cents, though. :P

[QUOTE="KBFloYd"]

now what? we wait for nintendo to die? for being too family friendly..

we better hope wiifitu and wiiu Party catch fire..

Madmangamer364

Nintendo won't die so much as it don't follow in the footsteps of the competition and be forced to deal with the costly consequences that come with it. Fortunately for Nintendo, its family friendly image and universally appealing franchises, such as Mario and Pokemon, means that it doesn't necessarily have to follow the AAA model of game development and can focus on creating efficient, accessible, and more affordable games and platforms for mass market consumers to purchase. The beauty of the "Blue Ocean" strategy for Nintendo with the Wii and DS, was that it actually fit well with Nintendo's philosophy of game design and properties, while opening the door for entirely new group of consumers to embraces its products.

The problem with the Wii U is that it simply doesn't fit that mold. Nintendo can eventually make the console cheaper and create games that try to recapture the Wii audience, but it's not the same as building a platform with that philosophy in mind. Nintendo instead bought into the whole "casual/hardcore" stereotypes and tried to build systems with those labels in mind (3DS and Wii U). It may sound similar to the Wii/DS strategy, but it's not, as this approach does nothing to captivate new consumers and tries to find a balance between two extremes, ultimately doing things that turn off both sides, especially the masses that picked up the DS and Wii in unprecedented numbers.

To be honest, I don't think there's much Nintendo can do this time around, other than resort to "GameCube mode" and hope its franchises can carry the load as long as possible. What I think needs to happen is for Nintendo to get back to basics and reestablish its strategy so that it works to the company's strengths in the meanwhile, so that what we've seen the past few years doesn't become the new norm for the company. In relation to third party publishers, there will always be those that are less capable to support the rising costs of game development and are looking for a safer platform to work with. Nintendo would be wise to find these publishers/developers and work with them, as opposed to trying to keep up with the AAA game makers and come up short to their demands anyway.

Just my two cents, though. :P

Nintendo thought that the Wii brand was enough to sell its newest system.  The company also believed that Mario Bros U was going to sell like Mario Bros Wii.  The only thing is, a lot of non-gamers bought Wii to play Wii Sports and Wii Fit, then gave the system up.  It is highly doubtful that Wii Fit U will sell anywhere near the original.  The title still might pull in great numbers, but it will not touch the first game by a mile. 

What I also believe, however, is that this was something established by Sega first. It was the Genesis that was able to establish itself as "cooler" way to play certain titles and genres first.

Looking back at the past and coming back to today, and it all begs a question. Did Nintendo ever have the "mature" audience to begin with?Madmangamer364

I don't really remember there ever being a "mature" audience before the Playstation. Maybe it's simply because of my age at the time (being 12 when the N64 launched), but I don't remember anyone even having a conversation about kiddy consoles versus mature consoles until the N64/PSX era. Sega had rolled with the whole "we're so much cooler than Nintendo, look at Sonic's sunglasses" strategy like you said, but that was a very different vibe from the whole "we're more adult and epic and dark" image that Sony had thanks to its more violent and larger scope games.

With all of this said, I don't think any of this is a bad thing. Kids still exist. It's not like we all grew up and now there aren't any more kids around. But kids now play games in a very different way than we did. The adults still cling to consoles while kids mooch off their parents' tablets and phones, and the libraries of both reflect that. Nintendo still makes the best games for kids, so they need to figure out how to capitalize on those new trends. Making a tablet controller was a good idea in theory, but it obviously didn't work like they expected. 3DS was a much more successful idea, but I think that'll have to be the last of its kind.

Maybe it's simply because of my age at the time (being 12 when the N64 launched), but I don't remember anyone even having a conversation about kiddy consoles versus mature consoles until the N64/PSX era. Sega had rolled with the whole "we're so much cooler than Nintendo, look at Sonic's sunglasses" strategy like you said, but that was a very different vibe from the whole "we're more adult and epic and dark" image that Sony had thanks to its more violent and larger scope games.JordanElek

[QUOTE="gamenerd15"] Nintendo does not actively seek out support.  The company focuses on itself first and everyone else later.  Nintendo just needs to find a way to multitask.  It needs to make first party titles and establish relationships with third parties at the same time.   

KBFloYd

i think what been said is that nintendo cant get 3rd party support because 3rd party games dont sell on nintendo because of the family friendly/kiddie image they have built for their consoles.

There are some really great games that simply don't need something like the gamepad. But does Nintendo force developers to use it? Would gamers be let down if a game released without gamepad support?Grieverr

The one advantage Nintendo has over the others with regards to the second screen experience is Nintendo can guarantee that all users will have a gamepad. Microsoft and Sony require costly investments in other devices just to have the possibility that their users can take advantage of the second screen. This prevents them from being able to put anything crucial into the the second screen user experience. Nintendo can do whatever they want which gives them the freedom to put some very awesome and innovative features into their games using the gamepad. This is the primary undersold feature of the Wii U that most people who haven't played the console simply don't understand.

Nintendo thought that the Wii brand was enough to sell its newest system.  The company also believed that Mario Bros U was going to sell like Mario Bros Wii.  The only thing is, a lot of non-gamers bought Wii to play Wii Sports and Wii Fit, then gave the system up.  It is highly doubtful that Wii Fit U will sell anywhere near the original.  The title still might pull in great numbers, but it will not touch the first game by a mile. 

gamenerd15

I agree with you on the first and last parts. Nintendo assumed that the Wii name and New Super Mario Bros. U was enough to sell the Wii U in crazy numbers, much like it believe the DS brand and Nintendogs+Cats would do the same for the 3DS. That's doesn't mean that those systems followed the same strategy of mass market appeal and audience expansion that the DS and Wii had, though. It was just obvious that Nintendo was trying to get by with throwing DS/Wii owners an attractive enough bone when it went after a different audience, and it didn't work. THAT was the mistake Nintendo made with the 3DS, and the reason they didn't address it for the Wii U was because they weren't fully aware of it.

The mainstream, "non gamer" consumer isn't some alien race that comes and goes on a whim, but rather a group of people that wants to be entertained and appreciates value, like anybody else. This is why I disagree with the notion that most Wii owners just gave up on the Wii, especially when sales of multiple titles beyond Wii Sports and Wii Fit don't suggest that notion at all. Simply put, trying to sell $250 portables centered around 3D or $300+ consoles that's focused on an unattractive 'Gamepad', both with only an actual game or two that has significant appeal, isn't a recipe for success, regardless of who you're going after. I don't just say this out of hindsight, but as someone that suspected that the 3DS and Wii U would struggle from the start because of Nintendo's philosophy behind the two platforms. They may carry the same name as their predecessors, but the Wii U and 3DS aren't cut from the same cloth as their older relatives, and consumers have responded to that, whether anyone is aware of it or not.

So no, I don't think Wii Fit U will sell like the original game or Wii Fit+ at all, but I don't think it's because owners of the previous games have jumped ship with no means of returning. Instead, I just think Nintendo made the critical mistake of making those consumers a much smaller priority for the sake of attracting more "hardcore" gamers, and are getting burned by the reality that there is no interest coming anyone at the moment, outside of Nintendo's biggest fanatics. And much like the initial impression of the Wii was able to carry it for years, I find the Wii U's unattractiveness hurting it for a long period of time, as well.

[QUOTE="KBFloYd"]

[QUOTE="gamenerd15"] Nintendo does not actively seek out support.  The company focuses on itself first and everyone else later.  Nintendo just needs to find a way to multitask.  It needs to make first party titles and establish relationships with third parties at the same time.   

simomate

i think what been said is that nintendo cant get 3rd party support because 3rd party games dont sell on nintendo because of the family friendly/kiddie image they have built for their consoles.

yea... but whats the reason they made those mistakes? whats the reason people only buy 1st party on intendo systems?

see what we are getting at?

[QUOTE="JordanElek"]Maybe it's simply because of my age at the time (being 12 when the N64 launched), but I don't remember anyone even having a conversation about kiddy consoles versus mature consoles until the N64/PSX era. Sega had rolled with the whole "we're so much cooler than Nintendo, look at Sonic's sunglasses" strategy like you said, but that was a very different vibe from the whole "we're more adult and epic and dark" image that Sony had thanks to its more violent and larger scope games.Randolph

It's true that Mortal Kombat was a major turning point in how Nintendo was viewed, but Sega was planting the seeds even before that point. Seriously, just take a moment or two looking at the "Genesis Does" commercials on YouTube. It's pretty obvious that Sega wanted to make it clear through both the in-game capabilities of the Genesis and the big-name celebs it had on its games that it wanted to make Nintendo look like a little kid's company, no different than Sony later on. The intention was to make you feel uncomfortable if Nintendo was favorite video game company and showing that hipper versions of games like Mortal Kombat and Madden were to be had elsewhere, even if that wasn't exactly true. As a kid growing up in that era myself and having to deal with my cousin's boasting about how Sega was better than Nintendo, among other things, I know firsthand how effective Sega's strategy was and what it would eventually lead to.

Sure, the words would eventually change, but the idea has always been the same, even now with the "hardcore/casual" labels. The "mature" approach was only an 'evolution' of sorts to the successful gameplan Sega had created. The target audience was pretty much the same, and many of the key genres, like sports, racing, and action games, were the same as well. Sony was just able to do it better, due to the fact that the Playstation could also claim to have stronger Japanese developer support and greater capabilities needed to produce those larger scope games, which Sega was unsuccessful with using the Sega CD and Saturn. "Mature" and "cool" aren't as important of factors here as the idea of making Nintendo look out of touch with the modern gamer at the time and forcing Nintendo to play by rules it wasn't comfortable with.

gamenerd15 & Randolph:

Haha, that last bit was more of a rhetorical remark, but thanks for the explainations nevertheless. :P

The point I was trying to get across in bring that up was that if the CD format by itself was THAT important, it doesn't explain why the Sega CD, Saturn, and Dreamcast all struggled greatly to receive adequate support and commercial success doing the same the the PS1 was becoming what it eventually became. Other factors had to play a role in the PS1's success, especially when it reached a point of success so great, it singlehandedly surpassed any benchmark that had been established before it by such a large margin.

If the gap between the N64 and PS1 was simply a matter of cartridges vs. CDs, there were enough examples before that point where the differences should have been evident. The Sega CD and Saturn were both CD-based platforms that also were riding of the Genesis' success, yet they became largely ignored by both developers and consumers. Many of those same 'advantages' were there for the taking with Sega's systems, but it didn't work to the company's favor. For this reason, this is where I give a lot of credit to Sony. Sure, having a CD-based system to compete against the N64 was helpful, but I don't think nearly enough credit is given to Sony for how its strategy in creating a fresh platform that reached out to new consumers, as well as BOTH Japanese and Western developers, which is something both Nintendo and Sega struggled with in the 16-bit days. I'm not knocking the established "CDs vs. carts" argument as much as I am saying other factors were CLEARLY involved in what took place surrounding the Playstation's emergence on the gaming market.

[QUOTE="bonesawisready"]

Yet you buy that Sega's undoing had anything to do with the CD format?

Madmangamer364

That... wasn't what I was saying. My point was for that all that is made about the CD format and how important it was, Sega's demise in the console market came to pass nevertheless with THREE systems that featured it. They've been out of the market for over a decade now, and still have as many disc-based consoles as Nintendo and Mircosoft have/is going to have to this day! Just thinking about that is pretty mindblowing, I think! We can go back and forth on the advantages/disadvantages of the formats all day (not that I'm even trying to disagree at this point), but it still doesn't explain in entirety what took place during the 16-bit and 32/64-bit eras, which you have also pointed out. What I'm saying is that it has never been THAT cut and dry, as otherwise, Sega WOULD very much still be holding its own making consoles to this day.

Whether it was completely by design or not, Sony was able to create a plaform that was more than capable of meeting the needs and desires of developers at that time, something neither Nintendo or Sega was as able to accomplish at that time. The cinematic experience that came with the aforementioned FMVs may have helped against the N64's limited storage, but the Saturn should have been just as capable of housing those games. That alone would suggest that the PS1 had to offer something else in order to not only pull the likes of Square and Konami from Nintendo's grasp, but also keep them away from Sega. Perhaps it was simply the complications that the Saturn had as a console that kept developers from supporting it, but at the very least, you have to credit Sony for not running into those same pitfalls. You simply don't go from newcomer to undisputed king by simply holding a more capable format, especially when others are also supporting it.

So many responses from one little remark... :P That said, I'm glad it has gotten the attention it did, even if it has steered the discussion away from the main topic a bit.

It seemed like you were implying that since Sega's failures had little to do with whether they used CDs or Carts, that it didn't factor into the N64 losing 3rd parties. 

The N64 not using CDs was a huge blow. They announced that they wouldn't use CDs in early 1995 and developers jumped ship because they were already developing games near 500MB+ instead of the 64MB carts. Plus, cartridges costed more to make then CDs. It was a huge lose lose for most developers.

That decision in early 95 to go with Cartridges had massive effects that weren't felt until mid-1997 when Final Fantasy 7 and others finally released. It wasn't so much that the N64 sold badly out of the gate like some think, it was that these amazing CD based games with loads of FMV took the masses by storm and the PS1 took off in ways no one had ever seen.

Had the N64 used CDs I'm sure developers like Square Enix/Capcom/Konami wouldn't have taken a new comer like Sony seriously in 1995, since they knew Nintendo had a proven track record and had a more powerful console coming out too. I'd also suggest the N64 coming out in late 1996 had a lot to do with 3rd parties abandoning Nintendo too. Had it launched in late 1995 with a CD drive it would've been game over for Sony right out of the gate.

It seemed like you were implying that since Sega's failures had little to do with whether they used CDs or Carts, that it didn't factor into the N64 losing 3rd parties. 

The N64 not using CDs was a huge blow. They announced that they wouldn't use CDs in early 1995 and developers jumped ship because they were already developing games near 500MB+ instead of the 64MB carts. Plus, cartridges costed more to make then CDs. It was a huge lose lose for most developers.

That decision in early 95 to go with Cartridges had massive effects that weren't felt until mid-1997 when Final Fantasy 7 and others finally released. It wasn't so much that the N64 sold badly out of the gate like some think, it was that these amazing CD based games with loads of FMV took the masses by storm and the PS1 took off in ways no one had ever seen.

Had the N64 used CDs I'm sure developers like Square Enix/Capcom/Konami wouldn't have taken a new comer like Sony seriously in 1995, since they knew Nintendo had a proven track record and had a more powerful console coming out too. I'd also suggest the N64 coming out in late 1996 had a lot to do with 3rd parties abandoning Nintendo too. Had it launched in late 1995 with a CD drive it would've been game over for Sony right out of the gate.

bonesawisready5

My point is more like since Sega's failures came to be, even with the CD format, there's no way CDs was singlehandedly the difference in the 32/64 bit era. Everything you're saying about storage, costs, and FMVs should have been known about to the industry, including Nintendo, before the PS1 was even released. The Sega CD came and went without so much of a major publisher batting its eye at it, so obviously, something else about the Playstation platform had to attract them in order to be so gung-ho about it. That's not dismissing the differences between the 500MB disc and the more expensive 64MB cart, but it's pretty evident to me that the timing and strategy of the Playstaion's arrival was just as, if not more, important than anything else.

As suggested by the documents of Nintendo's policies with third parties with previous platforms and the arrival of the Genesis and how it played a part in defining the 16-bit era, it looks to me like the bridge between Nintendo and third parties was already starting to burn. Under the circumstances, I don't know why it's so impossible to believe that a multimedia giant like Sony could suddenly show up and put together an attractive model for publishers to cling to. And even then, the popularity of the likes of Final Fantasy and Metal Gear would soar to unprecedented levels, which was something Nintendo couldn't exactly promise, even if its console was supporting a CD drive. And even looking ahead, Sony's relationship with those publishers would prove to be relevant against more powerful platforms with formats that were similar or even equal to it.

Meanwhile, it's become one big guessing game as to how Nintendo could ever establish a similar relationship with publishers since the moment the industry realized that Nintendo wasn't the only hardware maker it had to turn to in order to be successful. It all suggests an issue deeper than "CDs vs. Carts," since Nintendo platforms should have still been trusted enough to release major games on, as opposed to getting the cold shoulder for the next 15+ years, regardless of how they were built. In any case, it certainly doesn't explain why in 2013, a Nintendo system that acutally IS using the same format and is more powerful than a Sony console appears to be in as bad of shape as ever in regards to third party support. No way the lack of a CD format in '95 should have led to all of this by itself.

[QUOTE="bonesawisready5"]

It seemed like you were implying that since Sega's failures had little to do with whether they used CDs or Carts, that it didn't factor into the N64 losing 3rd parties. 

The N64 not using CDs was a huge blow. They announced that they wouldn't use CDs in early 1995 and developers jumped ship because they were already developing games near 500MB+ instead of the 64MB carts. Plus, cartridges costed more to make then CDs. It was a huge lose lose for most developers.

That decision in early 95 to go with Cartridges had massive effects that weren't felt until mid-1997 when Final Fantasy 7 and others finally released. It wasn't so much that the N64 sold badly out of the gate like some think, it was that these amazing CD based games with loads of FMV took the masses by storm and the PS1 took off in ways no one had ever seen.

Had the N64 used CDs I'm sure developers like Square Enix/Capcom/Konami wouldn't have taken a new comer like Sony seriously in 1995, since they knew Nintendo had a proven track record and had a more powerful console coming out too. I'd also suggest the N64 coming out in late 1996 had a lot to do with 3rd parties abandoning Nintendo too. Had it launched in late 1995 with a CD drive it would've been game over for Sony right out of the gate.

Madmangamer364

My point is more like since Sega's failures came to be, even with the CD format, there's no way CDs was singlehandedly the difference in the 32/64 bit era. Everything you're saying about storage, costs, and FMVs should have been known about to the industry, including Nintendo, before the PS1 was even released. The Sega CD came and went without so much of a major publisher batting its eye at it, so obviously, something else about the Playstation platform had to attract them in order to be so gung-ho about it. That's not dismissing the differences between the 500MB disc and the more expensive 64MB cart, but it's pretty evident to me that the timing and strategy of the Playstaion's arrival was just as, if not more, important than anything else.

As suggested by the documents of Nintendo's policies with third parties with previous platforms and the arrival of the Genesis and how it played a part in defining the 16-bit era, it looks to me like the bridge between Nintendo and third parties was already starting to burn. Under the circumstances, I don't know why it's so impossible to believe that a multimedia giant like Sony could suddenly show up and put together an attractive model for publishers to cling to. And even then, the popularity of the likes of Final Fantasy and Metal Gear would soar to unprecedented levels, which was something Nintendo couldn't exactly promise, even if its console was supporting a CD drive. And even looking ahead, Sony's relationship with those publishers would prove to be relevant against more powerful platforms with formats that were similar or even equal to it.

Meanwhile, it's become one big guessing game as to how Nintendo could ever establish a similar relationship with publishers since the moment the industry realized that Nintendo wasn't the only hardware maker it had to turn to in order to be successful. It all suggests an issue deeper than "CDs vs. Carts," since Nintendo platforms should have still been trusted enough to release major games on, as opposed to getting the cold shoulder for the next 15+ years, regardless of how they were built. In any case, it certainly doesn't explain why in 2013, a Nintendo system that acutally IS using the same format and is more powerful than a Sony console appears to be in as bad of shape as ever in regards to third party support. No way the lack of a CD format in '95 should have led to all of this by itself.

It also matters on a console maker's business policies.  If a console maker has policies that third parties do not agree with, then they will go somewhere else.  Nintendo had a habit (and still does to degree) of wanting to oversee development of the games made for its platforms.  A lot of third parties saw this as bullying, and they went elsewhere.  This practice was evident even as far back as the NES days.  Nintendo only allowed third parties to publish so many games in a certain time frame.  This where third parties like Konami came up with the idea to develop games under a different name such as Ultra.   

[QUOTE="bonesawisready5"]

It seemed like you were implying that since Sega's failures had little to do with whether they used CDs or Carts, that it didn't factor into the N64 losing 3rd parties. 

The N64 not using CDs was a huge blow. They announced that they wouldn't use CDs in early 1995 and developers jumped ship because they were already developing games near 500MB+ instead of the 64MB carts. Plus, cartridges costed more to make then CDs. It was a huge lose lose for most developers.

That decision in early 95 to go with Cartridges had massive effects that weren't felt until mid-1997 when Final Fantasy 7 and others finally released. It wasn't so much that the N64 sold badly out of the gate like some think, it was that these amazing CD based games with loads of FMV took the masses by storm and the PS1 took off in ways no one had ever seen.

Had the N64 used CDs I'm sure developers like Square Enix/Capcom/Konami wouldn't have taken a new comer like Sony seriously in 1995, since they knew Nintendo had a proven track record and had a more powerful console coming out too. I'd also suggest the N64 coming out in late 1996 had a lot to do with 3rd parties abandoning Nintendo too. Had it launched in late 1995 with a CD drive it would've been game over for Sony right out of the gate.

Madmangamer364

My point is more like since Sega's failures came to be, even with the CD format, there's no way CDs was singlehandedly the difference in the 32/64 bit era. Everything you're saying about storage, costs, and FMVs should have been known about to the industry, including Nintendo, before the PS1 was even released. The Sega CD came and went without so much of a major publisher batting its eye at it, so obviously, something else about the Playstation platform had to attract them in order to be so gung-ho about it. That's not dismissing the differences between the 500MB disc and the more expensive 64MB cart, but it's pretty evident to me that the timing and strategy of the Playstaion's arrival was just as, if not more, important than anything else.

As suggested by the documents of Nintendo's policies with third parties with previous platforms and the arrival of the Genesis and how it played a part in defining the 16-bit era, it looks to me like the bridge between Nintendo and third parties was already starting to burn. Under the circumstances, I don't know why it's so impossible to believe that a multimedia giant like Sony could suddenly show up and put together an attractive model for publishers to cling to. And even then, the popularity of the likes of Final Fantasy and Metal Gear would soar to unprecedented levels, which was something Nintendo couldn't exactly promise, even if its console was supporting a CD drive. And even looking ahead, Sony's relationship with those publishers would prove to be relevant against more powerful platforms with formats that were similar or even equal to it.

Meanwhile, it's become one big guessing game as to how Nintendo could ever establish a similar relationship with publishers since the moment the industry realized that Nintendo wasn't the only hardware maker it had to turn to in order to be successful. It all suggests an issue deeper than "CDs vs. Carts," since Nintendo platforms should have still been trusted enough to release major games on, as opposed to getting the cold shoulder for the next 15+ years, regardless of how they were built. In any case, it certainly doesn't explain why in 2013, a Nintendo system that acutally IS using the same format and is more powerful than a Sony console appears to be in as bad of shape as ever in regards to third party support. No way the lack of a CD format in '95 should have led to all of this by itself.

I agree with you, the bridges had already been set on fire but I do believe the push from third party outrage at cartridges in the N64 was enough for third parties to put dynamite under the bridge themselves.

Nintendo had it coming with how they treated 3rd parties during the time but had the N64 had cheaper costs to develop and used CDs I do think 3rd parties would have ultimately stayed with Nintendo due to not having a good other option as Playstation wouldn't have taken off the way it did had MGS, FFVII and others went to the N64.