Here's a bit of a mad idea of how Nintendo might be able to gain 3rd party support...

I have always found that I prefer the d pad, the sticks and the quality of buttons to the other consoles controllers. I know that many other (most other?) people have not.

As for since the gamecube days I guess I did not like the gamecube controller that much really. Never seen or felt the comfort in the pronged controllers. Bit off topic now, though so I will stop here.

You keep saying nintendo games on third parties, but it's easier and more likely for 3rd parties to come to nintendo. It's such a boring argument. And personally find it baffling why ANYONE who loves games would even want this to happen, the industry would get (even more) stale very quickly.

IF nintendo made the same quality of game with the same quality of control on another machine, yeah, only nostalgia would fight against that. But this is a lab test. In the real world the fact nintendo make their own hardware and controls is a HUGE reason why their ages are so good I believe.

But aside from that, Nintendo are infinitely more daring than the other companies with hardware that without them things would get boring so quickly.

So nobody thinks that my idea is any good?

when i came in here i expected a mad idea like Reggie inviting overg CEO's of EA, Ubi etc and holding them at at gun point, or kidnapping their children or something

A steam box....i just can't see it working really, i think everyones covered the main points (lack of roylaties, becoming essentially third party etc) but i also think Nintendo would already have begun development on a WiiU replacement, or began researching it, so to suddenly flip to this would be pointless/hugely expensive

who knows maybe they are already working on a WiiU DD drive to make it uber, or on a replacement to launch in 2015, who knows, but i don't think hardware changes will turn things around, the problem with all next gen consoles is lack of good games making it value for money to get a new system

they'd have to become annualised to stay afloat

2006 - New Super Mario Bros

2007 - Super Mario Galaxy

2009 - New Super Mario Bros. Wii

2010 - Super Mario Galaxy 2

2011 - Super Mario 3D Land

2012 - New Super Mario Bros. 2

New Super Mario Bros. U

2013 - New Super Luigi U

Super Mario 3D World

...

They're different consoles, sure, but Nintendo can put out an annual Mario title.

And while we're at it there's been 16 Zelda games in the last 15 years (granted three of those have been games that are simply re-released).

Nintendo games are great in spite of their post-GameCube/DS hardware, not because of it. 3D and the Gamepad, they're both duds. The Wii-mote sold the concept of the console but Mario Galaxy didn't need it and is arguably better played with a traditional controller, in terms of gameplay it was another relative dud.

No one raves about Galaxy or 3D World or LBW because of the controls or how they use the hardware, they rave about them because they are great games at their core. /Unpopular Opinion

Whilst it is true that the gimmick of the controller was not needed for those games I still preferred to play them on the controllers that came with the console due to the overall quality of those controllers.

They may not have found a good use or purpose for the gamepad, but I find it a pleasurable experience to use to control the games. Same with the Wiimote, I much preferred playing galaxy like that over a traditional controller like the game cube one. Although clearly there are quite a few on this board that disagree with that.

This always gets mentioned as if this singular event that occurred would happen to any other company that went the same way, EVERY TIME. Depsite Nintendo not being in anywhere near the same situation as what Sega was when they went multiformat.

It's a pretty logical assumption, though. A 3rd-party Nintendo really would have to downsize, leaving it in a more precarious position, and with less room for mistakes.

That literally makes no sense. People are already buying third party games on systems like the PS3/360. If Nintendo games were so good that people bought them instead of the third party 'competition' (which I don't really understand as nearly all multiformat games are very different/non competing with Nintendo's type of games) then you would see people spending their limited funds on Nintendo games and not COD/GTA on other consoles.

The GTA crowd does not buy Nintendo games, and vice-versa, true.

So, how well do Nintendo-like games sell on the X360 and PS3? You know, platforming games, Zelda clones, or simply games with colourful and lighthearted art styles. How well do they sell, generally? How did that work out for Rare?

If COD and GTA are the best sellers in those consoles, it speaks volumes about their clients are looking for in a game, and Nintendo games aren't it.

So nobody thinks that my idea is any good?

I don't think it is, as it would go against what works for Nintendo, that is to say, price and accessibility. Hell, it goes against what works for Steam, too.

And for what? The possibility of 3rd-party approval?

Nintendo games are great in spite of their post-GameCube/DS hardware, not because of it. 3D and the Gamepad, they're both duds. The Wii-mote sold the concept of the console but Mario Galaxy didn't need it and is arguably better played with a traditional controller, in terms of gameplay it was another relative dud.

 

No one raves about Galaxy or 3D World or LBW because of the controls or how they use the hardware, they rave about them because they are great games at their core. /Unpopular Opinion

I don't think it's an unpopular opinion at all. But there are reasons for Nintendo to stay in the console market other than "they get to choose their controller".

Nintendo games are great in spite of their post-GameCube/DS hardware, not because of it. 3D and the Gamepad, they're both duds. The Wii-mote sold the concept of the console but Mario Galaxy didn't need it and is arguably better played with a traditional controller, in terms of gameplay it was another relative dud.

 

No one raves about Galaxy or 3D World or LBW because of the controls or how they use the hardware, they rave about them because they are great games at their core. /Unpopular Opinion

Personally I love the 3D effect in 3D World and especially ALBW, and enjoyed collecting star bits and using the blue stars with the Wii remote pointer in Galaxy.

It's bizarre really. Even if sales picked up, games would have to be put into development and they'd be a while and not worth it. BUT...that's the same situation Xone/PS4 are in. Yet they chose to support them, but not Wii U (other than cheap ports of OLD games, shovelware etc.). Face it, Wii U was deliberately shunned, just like the Wii. Just like Cube was... etc. Third party developers HATE Nintendo. Most (like rabid fans of other consoles) see Nintendo as kiddy, which isn't true. Nintendo's image is just "family-friendly", plenty of violent game end up on Nintendo consoles, it's up to 3rd party developers to just release them WITH THE OTHER CONSOLE VERSIONS OF THE GAME. Not months/years later, with gimped options. 3rd party developers have a self-fulfilling prophecy going on in regards to developing for Nintendo. Why put effort in if it will fail? EQUALS: crappy late ports/shovelware EQUALS: low sales EQUALS: developers don't bother.

 

I don't doubt for one minute if 3rd party developers had announced lots of the kind of stuff they release of sony/microsoft, that hype would have picked up enough for those sort of gamers to buy Wii Us. At the moment the only people supporting Wii U are the core Nintendo fans (not even casuals are supporting like they did with Wii. Do casuals even know Wii U Fit is out...?).

 

It's because, when you're the console maker too, making the game is about "selling your console" thus more time/effort/money. When it's just the software, it's just about making enough profit.

Would you create a game for the console? Given its low market penetration/install base?

Why has the PS4 sold so much in its opening weekend, when it doesn't have games? Quick googling reports both Microsoft and Sony report sales of 1 million consoles within 24 hours. They're not even out in all territories yet. The Wii U's more than a year old now. Each have sold 25% of the WiiU's worldwide LTD sales. 50% combined.

And with what? What games are selling those all those consoles? People TRIED to support the Wii U - yes maybe with some dated ports but what else was there to support it with? The TRIED and it flopped. You can't blame them for being wary about making games for it.

*original post*

I liked the idea - but the cost would be too prohibitive. If I could somehow maybe instead use my Wii U as a Steambox streamer, with my PC elsewhere doing the processing - that'd be worth a thought maybe. However, whilst a lovely idea, many have already pointed out all the issues with it.

Would you create a game for the console? Given its low market penetration/install base?

 

Why has the PS4 sold so much in its opening weekend, when it doesn't have games? Quick googling reports both Microsoft and Sony report sales of 1 million consoles within 24 hours. They're not even out in all territories yet. The Wii U's more than a year old now. Each have sold 25% of the WiiU's worldwide LTD sales. 50% combined.

 

And with what? What games are selling those all those consoles? People TRIED to support the Wii U - yes maybe with some dated ports but what else was there to support it with? The TRIED and it flopped. You can't blame them for that.

 

 

 

I liked the idea - but the cost would be too prohibitive. If I could somehow maybe instead use my Wii U as a Steambox streamer, with my PC elsewhere doing the processing - that'd be worth a thought maybe. However, whilst a lovely idea, many have already pointed out all the issues with it.

You say that as if supporting with dated ports is trying. It's not...at all. It's sending things out to die to justify a decision you made beforehand. Of course you can blame them.

As for sales. In the first month and a half, the Wii U sold over 3 million units, comparable in rate to the Xbox One and the PS4. It's not the launch that matters, it's what follows the launch.

You say that as if supporting with dated ports is trying. It's not...at all. It's sending things out to die to justify a decision you made beforehand. Of course you can blame them

Apologies, I did just edit that to mean you can't blame them for not supporting further now/putting games on it now.

Would you make a game on Wii U? After all, you seem to think you understand business and have stated elsewhere that 'it's business' - this is business. What of ZombiU, the somewhat unique WiiU exclusive? If you were Ubisoft, would you make a WiiU exclusive again in the near future? If you'd ported a title to Wii U and it didn't sell; would you risk trying that again?

You say that as if supporting with dated ports is trying. It's not...at all.

Nice extreme argument there to make your point.

As for sales. In the first month and a half, the Wii U sold over 3 million units, comparable in rate to the Xbox One and the PS4. It's not the launch that matters, it's what follows the launch.

I was clearly addressing the argument that these games are going to make the sales. Well done for once again ignoring that to turn your point to your own agenda.

Install base matters. 3 million units in 6 weeks where? Worldwide? The others haven't even hit some major territories. Install base matters - why? Because that's how business works.

Apologies, I did just edit that to mean you can't blame them for not supporting further now/putting games on it now.

 

Would you make a game on Wii U? After all, you seem to think you understand business and have stated elsewhere that 'it's business' - this is business. What of ZombiU, the somewhat unique WiiU exclusive? If you were Ubisoft, would you make a WiiU exclusive again in the near future? If you'd ported a title to Wii U and it didn't sell; would you risk trying that again?

 

 

 

Nice extreme argument there to make your point.

 

 

 

I was clearly addressing the argument that these games are going to make the sales. Well done for once again ignoring that to turn your point to your own agenda.

 

Install base matters. 3 million units in 6 weeks where? Worldwide? The others haven't even hit some major territories. Install base matters - why? Because that's how business works.

You brought up the sales of the other consoles, I responded stating that launches are irrelevant. You didn't even mention install base...you clearly stated opening sales. Ergo, I'm not ignoring things to turn to "my agenda", you're just changing your story afterwards to try and clash with me.

As for me, yes I would make a game for the format. Ubisoft once stated the costs for porting to the Wii U and noted that it didn't need to sell much to break even. I would stick mostly to the eShop, however, as those games do decent amounts and don't require massive budgets.

Right, I'm going to quote that post to show the clear mention of install base and leave it there. This isn't a thread about sales, or launches, it wasn't even really about 3rd party support directly - more Dcubed's idea. I'm fed up of your derailing of discussions with tangenital points to support whatever stupid case you have. I'll leave it with these two quotes, just for your information.

You brought up the sales of the other consoles, I responded stating that launches are irrelevant. You didn't even mention install base

Would you create a game for the console? Given its low market penetration/install base?

 

Why has the PS4 sold so much in its opening weekend,

Good trolling. I'd say feel free to apologise, but I know that you won't. Just move onto some other tangenital issue.

It's a pretty logical assumption, though. A 3rd-party Nintendo really would have to downsize, leaving it in a more precarious position, and with less room for mistakes.

It'll downsize but I don't see how that's a bad thing. It's a natural thing - they won't need staff to develop consoles/OS level software. If anything it'll mean people are less critical - no longer do they have to put out games just to keep a console afloat. Now it's purely about games and people won't expect games with such frequency. Most developers don't release games nearly as frequently as Nintendo, but then they don't have the same responsibility.

 

The GTA crowd does not buy Nintendo games, and vice-versa, true.

 

So, how well do Nintendo-like games sell on the X360 and PS3? You know, platforming games, Zelda clones, or simply games with colourful and lighthearted art styles. How well do they sell, generally? How did that work out for Rare?

 

If COD and GTA are the best sellers in those consoles, it speaks volumes about their clients are looking for in a game, and Nintendo games aren't it.

That's not the point though - he's saying that a major reason why Nintendo home consoles won't get third party games because of stiff competition.

The games in question that people bought PS3/360 for are GTA, COD, Dark Souls, Battlefield, Borderlands, Mass Effect, etc. These games already sell, regardless of what Nintendo outputs. Thus, saying that the reason for lack of third party support on Nintendo home consoles is due to facing too much competition from first party Nintendo games is false. If people will spend 30-40 pounds buying it on the PS3, there's no reason why they wouldn't have bought it on a Nintendo console.*

* ie. The actual reasons for why people don't buy it on Wii U are not due to 'stiff competition'.

To lose the Nintendo 'difference' ethos in the face of systems that are similar would be a heavy blow to the industry in my opinion. Difference is good. The last thing I want is for this creative industry to go the way of Hollywood where the mainstream is dominated by copy-cat movies revolving around similar themes with cut and paste actors in them. As Sony recently stated, having Nintendo do well in the market is good for everyone. This includes the consumers and game developers.

Nintendo hardware also allows software to be unique each generation. It is a symbiotic relationship. To discredit that is to not really give credit to or understand what Nintendo bring to this industry. From the DPad, Shoulder buttons, analogue integration to motion control - much of Sony and Microsoft's eco-systems are built around Nintendo's gaming ideologies. Who would want to lose that in order to secure sterility?

Face it: Nintendo are the alternative now. It is done. They have created their niche and in such an expansive market with two powerhouses fighting for the same gamers, being in a place where your imagination controls your destiny (rather than your budget or chipsets) isn't such a bad place for a creative powerhouse like Nintendo to be in.

To adopt the thinking that Nintendo should join with Sony or Microsoft is born of fear. Fear from seeing those sales numbers and making a judgement call that Nintendo will fail now and in the future.

What's wrong with failing?

Nintendo are better failing on their own terms than failing on a Sony/MS system as, although hard to predict, I would estimate that Nintendo would succeed on a Sony or Microsoft platform initially but sales would fall over time as their ethos wouldn't fit with two systems that focus on realism. Sure, Mario and co. may still be critical darlings yet would they find that same passionate audience amongst online fees, the focus on graphical 'oomph' over art style and a controller that doesn't have any real integration into the software? I believe Nintendo's portfolio would look out of place in the Sony/MS camp, kind of like that amazing Rare and MS relationship.

Who knows. There have been many mascots that have died on Sony and MS consoles. Sonic has been pulled into the Nintendo fold and games like Crash/Spyro have forgone their initial roots to become more 'edgy'. But it's all ifs and buts.

But what I do know is that without a Nintendo console, it would definitely be a more dreary industry.

If Nintendo developed a new Mario/Zelda/Metroid/F-Zero for the PS4/Xbox I'd jizz.

My opinion: Nintendo should be a 'first party developer' for handhelds (hardware and software) and a 'third party developer' for home consoles (just software; maybe in a few years develop a new console with amazing innovations).

Never going to happen.

If Nintendo developed a new Mario/Zelda/Metroid/F-Zero for the PS4/Xbox I'd jizz.

 

My opinion: Nintendo should be a 'first party developer' for handhelds (hardware and software) and a 'third party developer' for home consoles (just software; maybe in a few years develop a new console with amazing innovations).

 

Never going to happen.

I agree with this.

I'm on this forum for a reason, primarily because I love Nintendo games. As a games developer, they cater more to my needs than any other company. But the problem is, I can't justify buying a console simply for their games any more, I need the variety offered by third parties.

As a consumer, I'm naturally going to prefer having one gaming machine. Not two. Handhelds aren't so bad as they don't really require as much investment, but I'm now looking at the home console front and thinking "Fuck, I'd rather just buy one console, but if I buy the Wii U I'm stuck with Nintendo games and terrible ports because publishers can't justify the risk. But if I go to another console, I miss out on some Nintendo games I may really want to try".

So I end up wishing Nintendo would just go third party on the home console front. And the fanboys go ballistic.

You say that as if supporting with dated ports is trying. It's not...at all. It's sending things out to die to justify a decision you made beforehand. Of course you can blame them.

 

As for sales. In the first month and a half, the Wii U sold over 3 million units, comparable in rate to the Xbox One and the PS4. It's not the launch that matters, it's what follows the launch.

I believe the Wii U sold 3 million up to March, the end of the fiscal year and since that until recently in their last quarterly report stated that it sold 0.9 million units since March. So it took over 4 months to reach 3 million not 6 weeks.

Now regarding getting back 3rd party support for Wii U. Maybe if they reduce the commission they charge to put games on their platform. That might entice some of them to come back. It might not. I think we boarded the Titanic this time last year and I see an iceberg imminently in Nintendo's path.

I believe the Wii U sold 3 million up to March, the end of the fiscal year and since that until recently in their last quarterly report stated that it sold 0.9 million units since March. So it took over 4 months to reach 3 million not 6 weeks.

 

Now regarding getting back 3rd party support for Wii U. Maybe if they reduce the commission they charge to put games on their platform. That might entice some of them to come back. It might not. I think we boarded the Titanic this time last year and I see an iceberg imminently in Nintendo's path.

Nope. It was end of December 2012

http://www.polygon.com/2013/1/30/3931742/nintendos-earnings-wii-u-sales-had-a-negative-impact-on-profits

Nintendo cited the Wii U's sales as a contributing factor to the company's 5.8 billion yen operating loss. In the period from the console's release to the end of December 2012, the Wii U sold 830,000 units in Japan, 1.32 million in The Americas and 900,000 units "elsewhere". A total of 3.06 million units were sold globally. Software sales came to a total of 11.69 million. The console is forecast to sell a total of 4 million units by the end of the financial year ending March 2013, down from Nintendo's forecast in October 2012 of 5.5 million units. In comparison, the Nintendo Wii sold 3.19 million units globally in its first six weeks and had a forecast of selling 6 million units by the fiscal year that ended March 2007.

It'll downsize but I don't see how that's a bad thing. It's a natural thing - they won't need staff to develop consoles/OS level software. If anything it'll mean people are less critical - no longer do they have to put out games just to keep a console afloat. Now it's purely about games and people won't expect games with such frequency. Most developers don't release games nearly as frequently as Nintendo, but then they don't have the same responsibility.

No, they'll need to put out games to keep themselves afloat. The risk is worse.

Either way, I don't see why releasing less games would be a better situation for them. Different teams of developers are working in all of those games, and less games is just the result of having less developers under their wings. The only pressure they would be on is to make sure those few games actually sell.

And it's a good thing they can afford to release this many games, otherwise we wouldn't see Kid Icarus, Fire Emblem or Pikmin 3 being released.

If the pressure is about public opinion, well, they would be fools to listen to what fanboys and journalists are expecting. Most console owners are content with buying a handful of games per year, and rarely notice the "droughts" in the first place.

I should also add: downsizing is the better course of action when the previous business model isn't working, and I still feel like that's an exaggeration of where Nintendo is right now. They had what, one bad year? And by bad we mean "not amazing"?

That's not the point though - he's saying that a major reason why Nintendo home consoles won't get third party games because of stiff competition.

 

The games in question that people bought PS3/360 for are GTA, COD, Dark Souls, Battlefield, Borderlands, Mass Effect, etc. These games already sell, regardless of what Nintendo outputs. Thus, saying that the reason for lack of third party support on Nintendo home consoles is due to facing too much competition from first party Nintendo games is false. If people will spend 30-40 pounds buying it on the PS3, there's no reason why they wouldn't have bought it on a Nintendo console.*

 

* ie. The actual reasons for why people don't buy it on Wii U are not due to 'stiff competition'.

Ah, I see your point. Right, sorry

No, they'll need to put out games to keep themselves afloat. The risk is worse.

Either way, I don't see why releasing less games would be a better situation for them. Different teams of developers are working in all of those games, and less games is just the result of having less developers under their wings. The only pressure they would be on is to make sure those few games actually sell.

 

And it's a good thing they can afford to release this many games, otherwise we wouldn't see Kid Icarus, Fire Emblem or Pikmin 3 being released.

 

If the pressure is about public opinion, well, they would be fools to listen to what fanboys and journalists are expecting. Most console owners are content with buying a handful of games per year, and rarely notice the "droughts" in the first place.

 

I should also add: downsizing is the better course of action when the previous business model isn't working, and I still feel like that's an exaggeration of where Nintendo is right now. They had what, one bad year? And by bad we mean "not amazing"?

 

 

 

Ah, I see your point. Right, sorry

But right now they need to keep themselves afloat and they have a responsibility to prop up their console. To do that they need to release a lot of games. This seems to mean rehashing content like New Super Mario Bros, rather than taking their time and making awesome new games or at least more different same series games.

Elder Scrolls games for instance - you're looking at maybe 5 years between a release, but you get so much of a game when it hits. I would love for them to spend more time coming up with quality stuff, without the pressure of them having to provide a big catalogue of games to entice people to buy their consoles.

Also I don't see how they can't still make games like Kid Icarus if they released it on other consoles rather than their own system. They still could. When you look at some of the crap that gets released, Kid Icarus must surely have more of a fanbase and will be poised to do better.

One thing we can say is that the Wii U will not sell anywhere near as well as the combined Xbone and PS4 systems. Having your games on systems that everyone has just seems like a much better idea. So many more people could buy your games.

One thing we can say is that the Wii U will not sell anywhere near as well as the combined Xbone and PS4 systems. Having your games on systems that everyone has just seems like a much better idea. So many more people could buy your games.

True, but I feel that it's more important to target the right demographic, than the biggest one. We have to agree to disagree, here.

But right now they need to keep themselves afloat and they have a responsibility to prop up their console. To do that they need to release a lot of games. This seems to mean rehashing content like New Super Mario Bros, rather than taking their time and making awesome new games or at least more different same series games.

 

Elder Scrolls games for instance - you're looking at maybe 5 years between a release, but you get so much of a game when it hits. I would love for them to spend more time coming up with quality stuff, without the pressure of them having to provide a big catalogue of games to entice people to buy their consoles.

 

Also I don't see how they can't still make games like Kid Icarus if they released it on other consoles rather than their own system. They still could. When you look at some of the crap that gets released, Kid Icarus must surely have more of a fanbase and will be poised to do better.

My main point is that Nintendo just wouldn't be able to dole out entries on all of their franchises if they weren't confident in the risks they could take.

It's interesting you mentioned Bethesda, a company that works on Elder Scrolls and nothing else. You say Nintendo needs to keep rehashing Mario titles, well, the same would be true if they were 3rd-Party, you know? Like any company, they give priority to what's more profitable.

The reason Kid Icarus got made was because they could just give Sakurai a team to work on this idea he had. The game got delayed quite a bit, too. If Nintendo was in a "no-risk" mentality, they would either rush the game for release, or cancel it.

(Kid Icarus had no fanbase besides old-school gamers, by the way. It was very much a risk, practically a new IP)

I know you don't want this case to be compared to Sega, but it's a very apt comparison: Sega had plenty of franchises, and when it first went 3rd party, it still worked on them, making stuff like Panzer Dragoon Orta, Super Monkey Ball and Billy Hatcher.

Then some of that stuff simply didn't make enough profit, they took less and less risks, and they reached the point where they would only work on Sonic and Football Manager. Even publishing Bayonetta 2 was something they deemed too much of a risk.

And looking at Nintendo, many of their franchises are risks. I already mentioned Pikmin 3 and Fire Emblem Awakening (they were seriously considering cutting off the franchise from the west again, if this game didn't do well), but even Metroid isn't a priority for Nintendo (not popular in Japan). All it would take would be for one game to be a loss for them to start playing it safe.

You speak as if they release many games to keep their consoles afloat, but it's not quite. What keeps the console afloat are the best sellers, but anything that isn't that is just cool stuff the developers wanted to do. Even the Wind Waker remake falls into this category.

tl,dr: I feel like Nintendo as we love it (the Nintendo that we want) would have a hard time surviving in a 3rd-party environment for long.

True, but I feel that it's more important to target the right demographic, than the biggest one. We have to agree to disagree, here.

 

 

 

My main point is that Nintendo just wouldn't be able to dole out entries on all of their franchises if they weren't confident in the risks they could take.

 

It's interesting you mentioned Bethesda, a company that works on Elder Scrolls and nothing else. You say Nintendo needs to keep rehashing Mario titles, well, the same would be true if they were 3rd-Party, you know? Like any company, they give priority to what's more profitable.

 

The reason Kid Icarus got made was because they could just give Sakurai a team to work on this idea he had. The game got delayed quite a bit, too. If Nintendo was in a "no-risk" mentality, they would either rush the game for release, or cancel it.

(Kid Icarus had no fanbase besides old-school gamers, by the way. It was very much a risk, practically a new IP)

 

I know you don't want this case to be compared to Sega, but it's a very apt comparison: Sega had plenty of franchises, and when it first went 3rd party, it still worked on them, making stuff like Panzer Dragoon Orta, Super Monkey Ball and Billy Hatcher.

Then some of that stuff simply didn't make enough profit, they took less and less risks, and they reached the point where they would only work on Sonic and Football Manager. Even publishing Bayonetta 2 was something they deemed too much of a risk.

 

And looking at Nintendo, many of their franchises are risks. I already mentioned Pikmin 3 and Fire Emblem Awakening (they were seriously considering cutting off the franchise from the west again, if this game didn't do well), but even Metroid isn't a priority for Nintendo (not popular in Japan). All it would take would be for one game to be a loss for them to start playing it safe.

 

You speak as if they release many games to keep their consoles afloat, but it's not quite. What keeps the console afloat are the best sellers, but anything that isn't that is just cool stuff the developers wanted to do. Even the Wind Waker remake falls into this category.

 

 

tl,dr: I feel like Nintendo as we love it (the Nintendo that we want) would have a hard time surviving in a 3rd-party environment for long.

Regarding the risk thing about Sega. Aside from producing new hardware (which has bailed), Nintendo's are about as safe and conserved as you can get, in terms of their game franchises. Most of their games are now down to a formula, polished and sharpened from the 64 and DS eras.

The reason I don't get the Sega comparison is because they were forced into the situation and I don't doubt their financial situation affected things. I don't see why with talented staff, teams within Nintendo can't make great Nintendo games. So long as there are talented people on board, and money (which they would still have), they could make great games. And without the pressure to shovel out conserved, rehashed games to provide their console with stuff to play, they can spend more time producing great games.

BTW Bethesda have also done Fallout 3, another huge game. The point I was trying to make was more that Nintendo could have multiple teams working on different games like they do now. Each team would see a return on their games since people still want/buy them.

If the Wii U isn't bringing them much money, and suppose their next home console doesn't either, then surely multiformat releases would mean more profit. Which would mean more money to spend on game development - so theoretically more teams producing more games. As opposed to less.

And maybe it's just me, but I am a real software nut. I could easily play any Nintendo game on another console - it's all about how great the gameplay is to me. New controller methods always come second.

The reason I don't get the Sega comparison...

 

BTW Bethesda have also done Fallout 3, another huge game.

The main reason Sega is brought up is because turning 3rd party made it worse for them. Maybe Nintendo wouldn't be as affected as they were, but it's a very real possibility, and not an unlikely one.

Also, I stand corrected on Bethesda.

Regardless, I feel like both of us have explained our views, and that there's not much else to be said.