Support NeoGAF

[Gadfly]

Nope. Nintendo doesn't give a shit about the industry. In fact, Nintendo would very much rather there weren't an industry, and they could continue selling their products without interference from competitors or third-party game publishers.

If pushing a gaming-only machine helped them, and also happened to help some other gaming companies, they'd do that. But if pushing a game-only machine helped them and screwed over every other company in the industry, they'd do it in a heartbeat.



Precisely.



It's really not, though. There are many conceivable scenarios in which the revenue of the industry as a whole is down but the revenue of Nintendo in particular is up. In fact, that's pretty much precisely the scenario in Japan over the last six years, and we've seen quite clearly that Nintendo does not consider that to be a problem.

I wouldn't give Microsoft or Sony credit for "altruistic" moves that helped the entire industry either, BTW, but both of those companies have potential incentives for helping the industry as a whole stay afloat (to wit, they both profit extensively off of industry partnerships) whereas Nintendo really don't, very clearly understand that they don't, and behave consistently in a fashion that demonstrates this understanding.

This point cannot be stressed enough. There was a thread about "what should Nintendo do next generation to attract and help third party" (or something to that effect). My take was they don't need to and chances are they don't want to. They're doing fine with a couple of first party games every year and increasingly the crowd they cater to doesn't care much for having more games, third party games, etc. Is it sustainable? Something tells me no. you can pull off something like this if you happen to sell shitload of consoles for whatever reason.

I seriously doubt Nintendo can repeat their success in console business next generation.

 

[TheOddOne]

why? the title is accurate.

Because it reports on more then the PS3.

 

[Cosmonaut X]

This point cannot be stressed enough. There was a thread about "what should Nintendo do next generation to attract and help third party" (or something to that effect). My take was they don't need to and chances are they don't want to. They're doing fine with a couple of first party games every year and increasingly the crowd they cater to doesn't care much for having more games, third party games, etc. Is it sustainable? Something tells me no. you can pull off something like this if you happen to sell shitload of consoles for whatever reason.

So is your assertion that Nintendo don't actually care about having any third party involvement on their platforms, and that any public statements to the contrary, or behind-the-scenes support, or co-marketing, or any promotion of third party titles at recent events is, what, some kind of con?

I've said it before, but it bears repeating - you can certainly make a strong case for Nintendo not doing enough/not having done enough in terms of third party relations, but the idea that they would be delighted to have even less of a third party presence on their platforms and are actively (or even passively) trying to bring this about is absurd.

 

[Ashes]

So is your assertion that Nintendo don't actually care about having any third party involvement on their platforms, and that any public statements to the contrary, or behind-the-scenes support, or co-marketing, or any promotion of third party titles at recent events is, what, some kind of con?

You got an awful lot more than what I got from what he wrote.

 

[Cosmonaut X]

You got an awful lot more than what I got from what he wrote.

Well, what he seems to be saying is that Nintendo don't actually want to pursue third parties and/or don't actually mind if they don't have third party support for their platforms - in which case, what the hell is the point of them doing what they have been doing (hence the list in my post)?

 

[Vinci]

So expansion of the audience is more important than the core of that very audience?
Seems more detrimental to the argument, rather than in an admirable support of it.

I think you're missing the point: In this case, increasing the number of people playing games had nothing to do with the supposed 'core' you're talking about - it had all to do with Nintendo. Again, this is about them. So yes, the expansion of the audience is more important than the companies within the industry if they are, in fact, not the ones contributing to the growth of said audience.

edit: when is the last time Nintendo called up the independent scene?

At what point did they need to? They've never created an ecosystem in which mid-tier games were virtually outcast.

 

[Ashes]

I think I have missed the point. How can you say they do everything they can to protect their industry when they don't? They protect Nintendo first, and only Nintendo, and that in turn helps the industry from a business point of view only. What about actual culture related aspects or are you only concerning your self with sales only? Which I guess makes sense in a sales thread but is not circumspect as regards to the industry as a whole.

 

[Vinci]

I think I have missed the point. How can you say they do everything they can to protect their industry when they don't? They protect Nintendo first, and only Nintendo, and that in turn helps the industry from a business point of view only. What about actual culture related aspects or are you only concerning your self with sales only? Which I guess makes sense in a sales thread but is not circumspect as regards to the industry as a whole.

Which is better from your perspective for an industry: That it becomes niche with a small but enthusiastic customer base, but many successful companies, or that it has reached virtually mainstream acceptance on the back of one very successful company?

Again: It depends on what you view as constituting the 'industry,' and what you consider to be good for it.

 

[donny2112]

You got an awful lot more than what I got from what he wrote.

Eh? Read his post again. Seems pretty clear that he thinks Nintendo doesn't, or at least thinks they don't, need third-party support. That position follows logically to Cosmonaut X's statement.

 

[Ashes]

Which is better from your perspective for an industry: That it becomes niche with a small but enthusiastic customer base, but many successful companies, or that it has reached virtually mainstream acceptance on the back of one very successful company?

Again: It depends on what you view as constituting the 'industry,' and what you consider to be good for it.

People play/spend more time playing their ps3 games more than they use their wii period, if that data set from earlier is to be believed, and has a better attach rate. Xbox 360 leads the way in attach rate, and in the online space, and through Kinnect sales now it seems. Both of those competitors extend their range through psn and arcade by a grander margin than what nintendo does with their online space. They aren't serving a decent part of the industry it seems. What you imply for the sake of argument in the bolded part is not reality or reflects the industry as whole.

I guess what I'm saying is this. Sure more money in the bank is everyone's goal and Nintendo does this best, and an ever expanding audience is brilliant, as it was with Sony and the ps2, but I am most definitely missing the point where Nintendo serves the wider industry wholly through those two things as it would need to, to meet your criteria to protect the industry as it were by being Nintendo.

I'm still on the fence on this one, as regards all of them.

 

[Ashes]

Eh? Read his post again. Seems pretty clear that he thinks Nintendo doesn't, or at least thinks they don't, need third-party support. That position follows logically to Cosmonaut X's statement.

I didn't agree with him anyway, but fair enough.
On that point You could be fooled for thinking Goldeneye was being published by Nintendo, not Activision, which pretty much is everything a third party would want from a Nintendo console release.

 

[Vinci]

People play/spend more time playing their ps3 games more than they use their wii period, if that data set from earlier is to be believed, and has a better attach rate. Xbox 360 leads the way in attach rate, and in the online space, and through Kinnect sales now it seems. Both of those competitors extend their range through psn and arcade by a grander margin than what nintendo does with their online space.

Yes, they're terrific at serving this set of the audience. Though 360 is doing better now at serving a more expansive part of the audience.

They aren't serving a decent part of the industry it seems. What you imply for the sake of argument in the bolded part is not reality or reflects the industry as whole.

I'm talking about society, man. Say Nintendo didn't make the Wii or DS - would we be seeing MS and Sony even trying to get the expanded audience? Probably not. Take Nintendo out of the equation over this generation and what do you get? An insane amount of lost money, and probably more developer deaths than have already occurred. This is the problem with the business model Sony, MS, and the big 3rd parties were utilizing - it basically forced everything sky-high. Nothing about it serves the industry, from either a cultural or financial standpoint, except for those company with enough capital to force the standards even higher and more developers into dangerous territory until they force out competitors by attrition.

Generally speaking, I agree with what Iwata said years ago. The industry was heading into very dangerous territory; it was becoming less relevant and more expensive to operate in. This is an equation for disaster. So yes, I think Nintendo did what it felt was best for itself and the industry when it released the Wii and DS. Now if you're talking about how much people use this console or that console, of course the hardcore users are going to do more - but they're not enough to sustain an entire industry.

Hell, take Microsoft's money out of the equation and we'd be in a heap of shit right now more than likely.

 

[Ashes]

hmm...

 

[Dave Long]

Vinci gets it, and always has.

 

[Zoe]

I'm talking about society, man. Say Nintendo didn't make the Wii or DS - would we be seeing MS and Sony even trying to get the expanded audience? Probably not.

Are you talking about the casual audience? Or the mobile audience?

 

[Ashes]

Vinci gets it, and always has.

By his measure we ought to thank facebook and apple too. Infact moreso.
Actually, I get where he is coming from.

edit: hang about, since Nintendo doesn't affect either... Mark Zuckerberg for person of the year?

 

[Vinci]

Vinci gets it, and always has.

Hell no. I just wasn't a fan of where the industry was going, so I've rationalized my position by latching onto other, more intelligent individuals' comments.

...

Okay, that's only mostly true.

 

[Ashes]

Hell no. I just wasn't a fan of where the industry was going, so I've rationalized my position by latching onto other, more intelligent individuals' comments.

...

Okay, that's only mostly true.

No man seriously. You're pretending that gta hadn't had sold a gazillion copies and that Gears and Halo were not blockbuster titles, and what about little old Cod man. Freakin call of duty.
If it were not for Microsoft we would be stuck with only wii fit. That's kind of the flip-flop to what you are saying, and neither is true. Not fully anyway. Microsoft pushed for Mainstream acceptance in a different way to Nintendo, by pushing core titles which is why they are successfull in a different way.
You could also argue Nintendo's push of an expanded market which includes grandparents and grandchildren, are good but they kind of left a tech void with the hd revolution which Microsoft and Sony picked up. Had it not been for them, we would still be in the SD area as far as consoles go.

Man, I feel silly arguing along similiar lines to you. Nintendo isn't the be all, end all, gaming would still be here, and there would still be blockbuster titles like the COD:BLOPS which sold eight million copies in the US alone, and is the single biggest entertainment launch ever. EVER! :lol

 

[X26]

Nintendo hero worship is funny to me, I find them to be as selfish as any other company in the business

 

[charlequin]

I would argue it's conceivable that the latter is more important for the industry than the former.

That's very possible. I'd certainly say that in terms of actual, applied effect, Nintendo's "market expanding" moves this generation have been very beneficial for the industry in general.

Again, my distinction isn't about effects, it's about goals. Microsoft and Sony both see a burgeoning games industry as beneficial to their own game business profitability, and both have an incentive to see companies like third-party publishers grow even that growth doesn't immediately impact their bottom-line. Nintendo views all other companies in the industry as direct competitors and while they are willing to cut deals with "the enemy" in certain circumstances, they don't consider growth or success valuable or beneficial at all unless it's growth in their numbers.

My take was they don't need to and chances are they don't want to. They're doing fine with a couple of first party games every year and increasingly the crowd they cater to doesn't care much for having more games, third party games, etc.

I think we're starting to see the problems with this strategy now, though, and the 3DS seems to be moving (very, very tentatively) in a different direction. I personally don't think a purely self-oriented strategy is very forward-thinking or sustainable at all and that Nintendo needs to take a more industry-centric viewpoint going forward, but I think it's pretty unambiguous that at the moment they do not take such a viewpoint at all.

Are you talking about the casual audience? Or the mobile audience?

I think it's pretty straightforwardly true that Sony made a huge, dramatic, and very successful push to expand the gaming market during the PSOne generation, while during the current generation they aggressively narrowed their focus to target the same demographics Microsoft was chasing.

 

[Gadfly]

That's very possible. I'd certainly say that in terms of actual, applied effect, Nintendo's "market expanding" moves this generation have been very beneficial for the industry in general.

How so exactly?

They have sold a zillion of Wiis that for the most part gather dust. Their effort has not helped any small guy third party game developer (save maybe some shovel-ware shops in Japan).

I'd give it to them that their waggle accelerated the incentive for motion control from other console vendors.

I don’t mean to blame them for being selfish. They're all in it to make money for themselves first and foremost. But Nintendo in particular does not seem to be interested in creating an ecosystem around their Wii, mostly because so far they didn’t need to. On the other hand, Microsoft and Sony cannot survive without one. Can you imagine Microsoft not helping third party to create the best version of their game on 360 because (for ex.) they think that reducing the sale of COD will mean higher sale for Halo? Because I think this is what Nintendo is doing.

 

[slipknot2009]

how the fuck is gran turismo so low?

GT5 only had 5 days of sales. The Move numbers are skewed because the thing came out in September but somehow gets immediately compared to the Kinect which very recently came out.

 

[Gadfly]

GT5 only had 5 days of sales. The Move numbers are skewed because the thing came out in September but somehow gets immediately compared to the Kinect which very recently came out.

So unfair..

 

[charlequin]

How so exactly?

Nintendo more or less singlehandedly propped up the Japanese market by making the DS a hit, thereby generating a ton of profits for those publishers who got on board (a fairly extensive list) and providing a large number of small developers an affordable outlet. They sold a large volume of low-margin third-party software in the US on both their systems (even if there were very few individual hits counted amongst that number.) And the Wii cut a swathe into an extended market that's now being successfully courted by Microsoft, helping to extend the length of the generation and thereby spare developers (for a few more years, anyway) another devastating generational turnover. All of those are direct benefits to the overall industry as a result of Nintendo's actions, even though none of them are results of things Nintendo did with the intent of expanding the industry as a whole.

GT5 only had 5 days of sales. The Move numbers are skewed because the thing came out in September but somehow gets immediately compared to the Kinect which very recently came out.

Hmmm? The part of the thread where we ran damage control for Sony's underwhelming showing this month was like 25 pages ago.

 

[RBH]

GT5 only had 5 days of sales. The Move numbers are skewed because the thing came out in September but somehow gets immediately compared to the Kinect which very recently came out.

:lol

 

[Dai101]

GT5 only had 5 days of sales. The Move numbers are skewed because the thing came out in September but somehow gets immediately compared to the Kinect which very recently came out.

Wai- How this ........ So, round 12 it is?

 

[see5harp]

GT5 only had 5 days of sales. The Move numbers are skewed because the thing came out in September but somehow gets immediately compared to the Kinect which very recently came out.

You forgot to mention $500 million in marketing.

 

[fernoca]

GT5 only had 5 days of sales. The Move numbers are skewed because the thing came out in September but somehow gets immediately compared to the Kinect which very recently came out.

Quick summary:
-GT5 had 3 days (not 5), one day being Black Friday. (For comparison, Fable III in October's NPD had 4 -regular-days, and sold (nearly 200k) more]
-Move's September numbers weren't as high as Kinect's November numbers. So launch vs. launch, Kinect still sold the most. (Even adding October and November; seeing how November combined Move software =[around the same of] Dance Central)

Hope that helps, or not.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

GT5 only had 5 days of sales. The Move numbers are skewed because the thing came out in September but somehow gets immediately compared to the Kinect which very recently came out.

What??? GT5 was only on sale for a few days of NPD? Why hasn't anyone said this in the 70 pages of the thread yet?

 

[duk]

What??? GT5 was only on sale for a few days of NPD? Why hasn't anyone said this in the 70 pages of the thread yet?

and no marketing either! secret launches ftw!

 

[Dreams-Visions]

What??? GT5 was only on sale for a few days of NPD? Why hasn't anyone said this in the 70 pages of the thread yet?

surely just a minor oversight!

 

[AndresON777]

500 MILLION DOLLARS

 

[donny2112]

I think there are generally two types of posters who propose that Nintendo doesn't want/need third-parties.

1) People who don't like what Nintendo's done this gen.
They see a Nintendo without third-parties as beneficial for them, as it means the games they cared about in the first place (e.g. non-Nintendo games) continue to come out for their preferred platform(s). A Nintendo with PS2-level third-party support would be very deflating for them (e.g. Wii lead versions, default Wii exclusives just due to it not being worth porting elsewhere).

2) People who like Nintendo/what they've done this gen.
These are either burned supporters who now want third-parties to "suffer," or they're just straight-up delusional.

 

[Ashes]

Some people might just be ignorant to the situation? Lots of people talk with authority they don't have, or talk about things without too much thought.

 

[Vizion28]

I think there are generally two types of posters who propose that Nintendo doesn't want/need third-parties.

1) People who don't like what Nintendo's done this gen.
They see a Nintendo without third-parties as beneficial for them, as it means the games they cared about in the first place (e.g. non-Nintendo games) continue to come out for their preferred platform(s). A Nintendo with PS2-level third-party support would be very deflating for them (e.g. Wii lead versions, default Wii exclusives just due to it not being worth porting elsewhere).

2) People who like Nintendo/what they've done this gen.
These are either burned supporters who now want third-parties to "suffer," or they're just straight-up delusional.

I'm more in aligned with 3) They don't need third parties because that is simply a fact. Most of the games that drove sales for DS and Wii were from their 1st party offerings.

Just to be clear when I say they don't need third parties I mean they don't need all the big budget third party games such as the Assassin's Creeds, GTAs, SF4s, main Resident Evil games etc. to be successful. The fact that the Wii is successful without those games proves they really don't need third parties.

 

[donny2112]

The fact that the Wii is successful without those games proves they really don't need third parties.

Japan Wii LTD - 11.0m

U.S. Wii LTD - 31.9m

 

[FateBreaker]

GT5 only had 5 days of sales. The Move numbers are skewed because the thing came out in September but somehow gets immediately compared to the Kinect which very recently came out.

:lol

 

[Ashes]

Japan Wii LTD - 11.0m


U.S. Wii LTD - 31.9m

do you have similar stats for the other two?

 

[Takao]

I think it's pretty straightforwardly true that Sony made a huge, dramatic, and very successful push to expand the gaming market during the PSOne generation, while during the current generation they aggressively narrowed their focus to target the same demographics Microsoft was chasing.

They had no choice with $599. However, stuff like Singstar, Buzz, and Move are showing them going back to a bigger general appeal, which is representative of the company actually being at a competitive price point (in most markets in the world).

 

[Nirolak]

Japan Wii LTD - 11.0m

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/library/events/090508/img/49l.jpg[IMG]

U.S. Wii LTD - 31.9m

[IMG]http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/library/events/090508/img/50l.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]
Do you happen to have charts for 2009/2010?

I'm rather curious what it has switched to today.

 

[TacticalFox88]

December will determine EVERYTHING. Seriously.

 

[jedimike]

Japan Wii LTD - 11.0m

U.S. Wii LTD - 31.9m

The Wii landscape has changed A LOT since 2008.

 

[charlequin]

Nintendo doesn't want/need third-parties.

These are two different claims.

Claim two is irrational and based on a poor understanding of the workings of the video game market.

Claim one is based on observation of Nintendo's behavior.

I wouldn't take it so far as to claim, say, that Nintendo was completely disinterested in third-party support in all contexts, but I don't think there is any logical conclusion that can be drawn about their current behavior besides the one where they view all third-party support as competitive, not complementary, to their own aims, and they court it only when they feel they have no other choice. This is pretty much their biggest flaw as an organization right now and one we'll have to watch the 3DS and eventual Wii successor carefully to see if they've been able to move past it.

They don't need third parties because that is simply a fact.

Not actually true for anyone who considers a business' responsibility to maximize their success and profitability. Nintendo is dramatically less reliant on third-party software than their competitors, but they do not have the demonstrated ability to both create successful platforms and sustain them solely with their own software: the DS stayed successful because it had plentiful third-party support, while the Wii began to decline in every territory in part because it did not.

The official Nintendo party line on the matter is that when their software isn't enough to keep sales up on the Wii, it's a failure to produce sufficiently strong software and the solution is to redouble their efforts. But in truth, the idea that any company, even Nintendo, can create a new 20+ million seller every year is ludicrous. The reality is that Nintendo can't and won't ever be able to deliver a Wii Fit or an NSMB every single year and third-party support is the solution to that.

 

[GavinGT]

Movies don't make anyone in the game industry any money.

Except Sony gets royalties on every Blu-ray, DVD, and disk player sold. It's not much, though, and a more successful gaming division probably would've proved more profitable.

 

[boiled goose]

The Wii landscape has changed A LOT since 2008.

I have heard people saying third party games dont sell on Wii in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011.

If i happens to be true say in the second half of 2010, it will suddenly be: "told you so!"

The official Nintendo party line on the matter is that when their software isn't enough to keep sales up on the Wii, it's a failure to produce sufficiently strong software and the solution is to redouble their efforts. But in truth, the idea that any company, even Nintendo, can create a new 20+ million seller every year is ludicrous. The reality is that Nintendo can't and won't ever be able to deliver a Wii Fit or an NSMB every single year and third-party support is the solution to that.

I fully agree with this.

Let's say that this gen, it was more profitable for nintendo to not aggressively pursue third parties. Wii was a smashing success, nintendo software sales were crazy. Good third party support would have netted 20M more consoles sold, but the benefit in profit would be zero for nintendo (hypothetical)

Even in this case, I still think nintendo should have sacrificed profit for support. Support ensures a more stable and probably profitable business in the future. Producing NSMBwii, Wii fit, and Wii sports like smash hits is extremely difficult and I would argue even requires a bit of luck. And after those hits come to market, there are less possibilities available for novel concepts. Fitness games are abundant, sports games are abundant, motion games are abundant, etc.

Nintendo needs third parties. Simple as that. They cannot have Wii-level success without support indefinitely.

 

[donny2112]

Do you happen to have charts for 2009/2010?

Those were the latest I found on Nintendo's IR site, but Jokeropia posted something more recent earlier in the thread. It wasn't separated biannually, I think, though.

Edit:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=24874656&postcount=2776

The Wii landscape has changed A LOT since 2008.

The general trend should still be the same, though. Japan heavily weighted toward 1st-party (we have Famitsu data to back that up), and U.S. much more toward third-parties. It may not be as heavy, but the point would still be the same.

Claim one is based on observation of Nintendo's behavior.

I wouldn't take it so far as to claim, say, that Nintendo was completely disinterested in third-party support in all contexts, but I don't think there is any logical conclusion that can be drawn about their current behavior besides the one where they view all third-party support as competitive, not complementary, to their own aims, and they court it only when they feel they have no other choice.

Nintendo absolutely doesn't mind third-parties putting out games on their system. They'll even proactively seek out certain publishers, as they feel necessary, as you point out. However the thrust behind the claim that Nintendo doesn't want third-party support is that they are actively dissuading it, even sabotaging it as the example posted earlier said. That has not been the case since the NES days, and I doubt it would've been the case then with Iwata at the head.

Iwata (pretty sure it was him) has even pointed out that Nintendo doesn't make certain types of games and so rely on third-parties to fill that gap. Sort of seems like a complementary view to me.

 

[pslayer666]

I don't know if all the numbers actually were found out through detective work, but I just stampled on this today:

Hmmmm.... is this ok to post?

 

[crazy monkey]

xbox 360 is gonna sell like hot cakes during boxing day. It is on sale for $129 everywhere.

 

[RedStep]

I don't know if all the numbers actually were found out through detective work, but I just stampled on this today:

Hmmmm.... is this ok to post?

#1 - That's probably not accurate, and looks like it was made by a 4th-grader with Paint.

#2 - How is 663,978 > 718,179?

 

[pslayer666]

#1 - That's probably not accurate, and looks like it was made by a 4th-grader with Paint.

#2 - How is 663,978 > 718,179?

#1 it's on paint, it's just print Screens from invisible walls podcast on GT :lol

#2 that's a bit weird they even discussed it on the show, that's what NPD gave them they said