Former Nintendo Exec: 1st party software hurts 3rd parties sales...

[Xenocity 343]

Most people know you as “the indie guy”, but when you worked for Microsoft, you negotiated Xbox contracts with major third party publishers such as LucasArts, Activision, THQ, and Midway. You also worked on major Xbox deals involving Sega and Electronic Arts. At Nintendo of America, you built business relationships with small developers and worked closely with Nintendo of America’s licensing department.

What do you personally believe caused Wii U’s third party support to collapse and fall apart? I’m talking specifically big publishers like EA, Take Two, etc. If Nintendo had asked for your advice on how to fix these third party relationships, what advice would you have offered?

 

 

 

Adelman: It really comes down to the business case for these publishers. Nintendo consumers buy Nintendo systems primarily for the first party content. There’s a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy in that publishers feel that they can’t compete with Nintendo first party, so they choose not to invest in making high quality products for the platform. There are some notable exceptions to this over the years like Rayman Legends but many times third party publishers set low sales projections for their games, and then decide a development budget based on that. I can’t say outright that they’re wrong either.

 

There have been cases where companies decided to pull out the stops and make a great game for Nintendo platforms only to find that consumers weren’t interested. And it could be because consumers have been burnt by third party games on Nintendo platforms before.

 

For Nintendo to break this cycle, I think they need to invest and absorb some of the risk for third parties who try to embrace the features of Nintendo platforms and help communicate to consumers which games are on par with Nintendo first party games in terms of quality.

 

Sony and Microsoft spend a lot of money securing exclusives – or at least exclusive features – on the top games and since Nintendo doesn’t really do that, third parties focus on the other systems. I’m not sure about Sony, but I know Microsoft also has a team of technical people that will go work with a studio for a few weeks or even months to help them make their games as good as they can be on those platforms.

 

If Nintendo doesn’t want to be a first-party-only system, they may need to be more aggressive in securing those games and making sure that they’re high quality.

 

Dan Adelman use to work for Microsoft in securing 3rd party support before joining Nintendo as their man incharge of Indie support.

He has since left Nintendo to pursue other ventures.

 

You can read the rest of the article here.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

I still think this is kind of a misdiagnosis of the problem. Indeed people buy Nintendo console primarily for the 1st party games, but it isn't the quality of those games (which is great) that pushes out the 3rd parties. It isn't because Nintendo games are just so much better that no one bothers to buy that other crap. I still contend that the lack of an audience for 3rd party AAA games like Call of Duty and the inablity to reach the graphical fidelity of its competitors is the main factor for the lack of 3rd party games on Nintendo's last 2 consoles. If the majority of your audience (80-90%) own XB1s or PS4s what is the point of making a WiiU version?

[LexusInfernus 908]

I dont think it works like that. Games are not a zero sum game. Buying a first party game does not mean you no longer buy a 3rd party gamer. Especially not with the rate in which Nintendo has been releasing high quality first party games. 

[Duke87 1,070]

Indeed, I don't see how Nintendo's lack of third party support is a "problem" per se. Nintendo has enough desirable first party content that they can survive on that alone. They appeal to a generally different audience than the Playstation/Xbox crowd. It's a different sort of gaming embraced by a different sort of people. If you want a reason Nintendo doesn't have third party support, it's because people who buy Nintendo consoles buy them for Nintendo games and really aren't after other stuff.

 

Nintendo has always kind of done their own thing and not worried so much about everyone else. Indeed, all of Nintendo's projects in the past 10-15 years have been more about creating something different rather than creating something that's the same but more powerful. Some have flopped, some have succeeded amazingly. But it's unfair to try to compare it to what Microsoft and Sony are doing since it's apples and oranges.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

The "lack of 3rd party" thing usually comes up when there are lulls in between the publishing of 1st party games. Nintendo did pretty well in 2013 and 2014 but there are periods when they have practically no games coming out and I think some people wish there were more 3rd party games to fill in the gaps. XB and PS owners have a much wider array of AAA and indie titles than Nintendo owners in any given year. Nintendo produces top quality stuff, but in terms of volume and variety they are kind of lacking.

 

There's also some "grass is always greener" going on. Sometimes Nintendo owners look over the fence and say "hey, why can't we have that game?" Same with Microsoft and Sony people, sometimes they look over and say "wouldn't it be great if we had a Mario Kart?"

 

If Nintendo manages to release Zelda and Xenoblade in 2015 I think they will have a pretty good year, but if those get delayed I think WiiU owners will be left wanting. Hard to believe that they will be able to release StarFox in 2015 since we haven't even seen a screenshot of it yet.

 

 

Indeed, all of Nintendo's projects in the past 10-15 years have been more about creating something different rather than creating something that's the same but more powerful. Some have flopped, some have succeeded amazingly.

 

Creating something different? Hardly. In the past 10-15 years Nintendo has been about creating something that's the same but with a gimmick. That's all the Wii, WiiU and 3DS are, gimmick machines (not denying that fact that they have great games). Motion control, that was a dead end. Second screen, barely anyone gives a damn. 3D, another gimmick.

 

Nintendo still leans heavily on their core franchises (nothing wrong with that) and they barely ever deviate from the formula. Sure they add a new twist here and there, but they're hardly creating anything that new or innovative. I guess to some degree you could say that Wii Fitness and Wii Sports were forward thinking, but still, no core gamer takes those "games" seriously. What is Mario Kart 8? The same but more powerful. What is Smash Brothers WiiU? The same but more powerful. Look at the new Zelda they're making. They aren't creating something different. It's the same but more powerful. If anything they're playing catch up with the addition of the fully open world idea.

[Duke87 1,070]

When I say different I mean compared to what Sony and Microsoft are doing. I.e. the WiiU is not an Xbox or Playstation and it is silly to expect it to be. But that doesn't make it inferior, it just makes it different. And said difference would be better embraced then complained about.

Third party developers could certainly make WiiU games and make it work if they wanted to, but they would have to make a game that appeals to Nintendo's audience rather than a game that appeals to Sony and Microsoft's audience. Third parties just aren't willing to do that since anyone chasing a casual audience sees more money in making apps. That, ultimately, is a lot of the problem here - Nintendo has their loyal fans and plenty of them, but the market for anyone else who might buy their stuff has been stripped away by smartphones and tablets.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

When I say different I mean compared to what Sony and Microsoft are doing. I.e. the WiiU is not an Xbox or Playstation and it is silly to expect it to be.

 

Ah, I see what you mean.

 

 

Third party developers could certainly make WiiU games and make it work if they wanted to, but they would have to make a game that appeals to Nintendo's audience rather than a game that appeals to Sony and Microsoft's audience. Third parties just aren't willing to do that since anyone chasing a casual audience sees more money in making apps. That, ultimately, is a lot of the problem here - Nintendo has their loyal fans and plenty of them, but the market for anyone else who might buy their stuff has been stripped away by smartphones and tablets.

 

I think there is a place where the tastes of XB & PS owners intersect with those of WiiU owners. Microsoft and Sony are kind of filling the gap when it comes to "games that would appeal to a Nintendo audience" (look at games like Rime, Abzu, Inside, Little Big Planet) but I don't think Nintendo is filling that gap in reverse for Wii owners (not that they necessarily have to).

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

I was under the impression that Nintendo was doing fairly well.  If they were doing fairly well, then what's the big deal?  Why should they care at all about 3rd parties?

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

I was under the impression that Nintendo was doing fairly well.  If they were doing fairly well, then what's the big deal?  Why should they care at all about 3rd parties?

 

Nintendo did indeed manage to turn things around for the WiiU in 2014. The 3rd party thing isn't a big deal for now. I think it is a matter of attracting a larger audience for their console. There is always a fear of a gaming drought on the WiiU. The WiiU still has far less major titles coming out than the other two consoles. None of Nintendo's big games for 2015 even have a release date yet (as far as I know). WiiU owners are going to be waiting months, perhaps almost a full year, for games like Zelda, Star Fox, and Xenoblade to be released. Meanwhile the other consoles have 1 or more highly anticipated games coming out practically every month.

 

Titles with confirmed dates being released for PS4 in the next few months:

- Evlove

- The Order 1886

- Battlefield Hardline

- Bloodborne

- Project Cars

- The Witcher

- Arkham Knight

 

Titles with confirmed dates being released for the WiiU in the next few months:

- Mario Party 10

- Kirby and the Rainbow curse

- Splatoon

- LEGO Jursassic World

 

See the "problem"?

[Xenocity 343]

Edited

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

And how is this relevant to the current discussion?

[Xenocity 343]

And how is this relevant to the current discussion?

The point is the guy in question, used to work at Microsoft money hatting 3rd parties.

 

PS4 has an ever widening amount of 3rd party games compared to Xbox One

 

Sony with PS4 has done the following:

• Reduced 1st party output compared to PS3
• Makes damn sure 1st party releases aren't in the way of 3rd party releases or competes against them.
• Spent more money  than Microsoft currently on 3rd party support
• Though the only two third parties in Microsoft's camp are EA and Ubisoft.

Microsoft on the other hand:

• Has increased 1st party output
• Has increased the number  of 1st party games that compete with 3rd party games
• Has spent the bulk of the money to become EA's lead system and their exclusive content

On Xbox 360 and Xbox original, Microsoft spared no cost at getting 3rd party support, spending over $1B just on 360 alone.

 

As long as Microsoft continues to chooses to spend their money on 1st party output instead of buying 3rd party support, they will continue to lose said 3rd party support.

 

if Microsoft was smart they'd greatly reduce their 1st party support and rapidly increase spending on 3rd parties in order to obtain partiy with PS4.

 

3rd parties hate doing on business on a system where there is a huge 1st party output.

They require you foot the bill for their support.

 

 

The lesson is you cannot get 3rd party support, if you are going to take away their sales with 1st party games.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

 

And how is this relevant to the current discussion?

The point is the guy in question, used to work at Microsoft money hatting 3rd parties.

 

PS4 has an ever widening amount of 3rd party games compared to Xbox One

 

Sony with PS4 has done the following:

• Reduced 1st party output compared to PS3
• Makes damn sure 1st party releases aren't in the way of 3rd party releases or competes against them.
• Spent more money  than Microsoft currently on 3rd party support
• Though the only two third parties in Microsoft's camp are EA and Ubisoft.

Microsoft on the other hand:

• Has increased 1st party output
• Has increased the number  of 1st party games that compete with 3rd party games
• Has spent the bulk of the money to become EA's lead system and their exclusive content

On Xbox 360 and Xbox original, Microsoft spared no cost at getting 3rd party support, spending over $1B just on 360 alone.

 

As long as Microsoft continues to chooses to spend their money on 1st party output instead of buying 3rd party support, they will continue to lose said 3rd party support.

 

if Microsoft was smart they'd greatly reduce their 1st party support and rapidly increase spending on 3rd parties in order to obtain partiy with PS4.

 

3rd parties hate doing on business on a system where there is a huge 1st party output.

They require you foot the bill for their support.

 

 

The lesson is you cannot get 3rd party support, if you are going to take away their sales with 1st party games.

 

 

What 1st party stuff is Microsoft spending it's money on? Barely anything.

 

You forgot to mention that Activision is also in Microsoft's camp when it comes to Call of Duty.

 

In 2013, what Microsoft 1st party games offered any significant competition to 3rd party games?

 

In 2014, what Microsoft 1st party games offered any significant competition to 3rd party games?

 

In 2015, other than Halo, what Microsoft 1st party game will offer any significant competition to 3rd party games?

 

The answer is: none!

 

Name more than one Microsoft 1st party exclusive, other than Halo 5, confirmed to be coming out in the next year or so that has the potential to seriously interfere with the sales of a major AAA 3rd party game.

 

Sony's PS4 has just as many 1st party games as Microsoft's XB1. They haven't reduced their 1st party output, they've increased it. In February The Order 1886 is going up against Evolve, a major 3rd party game. In March Bloodborne (not 1st party, but exclusive) is going up against Battlefield Hardline and Project CARS. Uncharted 4 will most likely be released in the fall going up against many huge 3rd party titles.

 

If anything, 2015 is going to be Sony's most prolific year in terms of 1st party games in a very long time. You don't see that scaring off 3rd parties. As good as Last of Us and Uncharted are, no 3rd party is afraid that they are going to significantly impact their sales. You don't see 3rd parties backing out of Playstation simply because it has a lot of high quality 1st party exclusives.

 

The theory that 1st party games "take away sales" from 3rd party games is wrong. It is mental gymnastics style rationalization. All games are in competition with each other and have the potential to "take away sales". It doesn't matter if they are 1st or 3rd party.

 

As I've stated before, the only reason Nintendo 1st party dominate 3rd party games on the WiiU is because the audience for 3rd party mature rated games simply isn't there. It isn't a question of taking away sales. People don't buy WiiUs so they can play Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty. People who like to play AAA 3rd party games generally buy MS or Sony consoles simply because those games perform much better on those systems and there are more incentives to buy them on those consoles. Their online networks, especially Microsoft's, helps them maintain a player base for 3rd party online games like Call of Duty. Partnerships with 3rd parties also helps them push their consoles as the lead platforms for those games.

 

Nintendo's 1st party output isn't even that prolific. They released 2 major 1st party titles last year - that's it. Release dates for games like Zelda, Xenoblade, and Star Fox are nowhere in sight. Why aren't games like Evolve, Battlefield, Witcher 3, and Arkham Knight coming out on WiiU? Those games have nothing to fear from Nintendo 1st parties. The release calendar is clear of any opposition from Nintendo 1st party games may pose. They could easily position their games to be released at a time when Nintendo doesn't have any 1st party games coming out. Why don't they?

[Xenocity 343]

 

 

And how is this relevant to the current discussion?

The point is the guy in question, used to work at Microsoft money hatting 3rd parties.

 

PS4 has an ever widening amount of 3rd party games compared to Xbox One

 

Sony with PS4 has done the following:

• Reduced 1st party output compared to PS3
• Makes damn sure 1st party releases aren't in the way of 3rd party releases or competes against them.
• Spent more money  than Microsoft currently on 3rd party support
• Though the only two third parties in Microsoft's camp are EA and Ubisoft.

Microsoft on the other hand:

• Has increased 1st party output
• Has increased the number  of 1st party games that compete with 3rd party games
• Has spent the bulk of the money to become EA's lead system and their exclusive content

On Xbox 360 and Xbox original, Microsoft spared no cost at getting 3rd party support, spending over $1B just on 360 alone.

 

As long as Microsoft continues to chooses to spend their money on 1st party output instead of buying 3rd party support, they will continue to lose said 3rd party support.

 

if Microsoft was smart they'd greatly reduce their 1st party support and rapidly increase spending on 3rd parties in order to obtain partiy with PS4.

 

3rd parties hate doing on business on a system where there is a huge 1st party output.

They require you foot the bill for their support.

 

 

The lesson is you cannot get 3rd party support, if you are going to take away their sales with 1st party games.

 

 

What 1st party stuff is Microsoft spending it's money on? Barely anything.

 

You forgot to mention that Activision is also in Microsoft's camp when it comes to Call of Duty.

 

In 2013, what Microsoft 1st party games offered any significant competition to 3rd party games?

 

In 2014, what Microsoft 1st party games offered any significant competition to 3rd party games?

 

In 2015, other than Halo, what Microsoft 1st party game will offer any significant competition to 3rd party games?

 

The answer is: none!

 

Name more than one Microsoft 1st party exclusive, other than Halo 5, confirmed to be coming out in the next year or so that has the potential to seriously interfere with the sales of a major AAA 3rd party game.

 

Sony's PS4 has just as many 1st party games as Microsoft's XB1. They haven't reduced their 1st party output, they've increased it. In February The Order 1886 is going up against Evolve, a major 3rd party game. In March Bloodborne (not 1st party, but exclusive) is going up against Battlefield Hardline and Project CARS. Uncharted 4 will most likely be released in the fall going up against many huge 3rd party titles.

 

If anything, 2015 is going to be Sony's most prolific year in terms of 1st party games in a very long time. You don't see that scaring off 3rd parties. As good as Last of Us and Uncharted are, no 3rd party is afraid that they are going to significantly impact their sales. You don't see 3rd parties backing out of Playstation simply because it has a lot of high quality 1st party exclusives.

 

The theory that 1st party games "take away sales" from 3rd party games is wrong. It is mental gymnastics style rationalization. All games are in competition with each other and have the potential to "take away sales". It doesn't matter if they are 1st or 3rd party.

 

As I've stated before, the only reason Nintendo 1st party dominate 3rd party games on the WiiU is because the audience for 3rd party mature rated games simply isn't there. It isn't a question of taking away sales. People don't buy WiiUs so they can play Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty. People who like to play AAA 3rd party games generally buy MS or Sony consoles simply because those games perform much better on those systems and there are more incentives to buy them on those consoles. Their online networks, especially Microsoft's, helps them maintain a player base for 3rd party online games like Call of Duty. Partnerships with 3rd parties also helps them push their consoles as the lead platforms for those games.

 

Nintendo's 1st party output isn't even that prolific. They released 2 major 1st party titles last year - that's it. Release dates for games like Zelda, Xenoblade, and Star Fox are nowhere in sight. Why aren't games like Evolve, Battlefield, Witcher 3, and Arkham Knight coming out on WiiU? Those games have nothing to fear from Nintendo 1st parties. The release calendar is clear of any opposition from Nintendo 1st party games may pose. They could easily position their games to be released at a time when Nintendo doesn't have any 1st party games coming out. Why don't they?

 

Actually Microsoft spent/is spending $1B on new studios for 1st party content.

 

Microsoft has promised to announce more 1st party titles at E3 for release later this year.

Their most recent 1st Susent Set Overdrive.

 

According to NeoGaf, PS4 has 40 more 3rd party games planned than Xbox One.

SFV is the biggest one yet.

Capcom said PS4 had less competition for fighting games and had better online policies.

 

Also Project Cars is not a major 3rd party title!

It is an Indie title that some how gained a following and publisher.

 

Right now Sony is blocking EA from implementing EA Acess and blocking Ubisoft from doing something similar.

This is why EA and Ubisoft are buddy buddy with Microsoft.

 

Sony has been paying a very big money hat to  Activision to get tons of exclusive content for Call of Duty and Destiny.

 

Anyways regarding Wii U Launch:

 

• ACIII was shoddy port with many issues including frame rate. It also lacked a lot of content that the other verisons had.
  • Ubisoft shipped very few copies to market and it was hard to find
• CoD:BOII: was a decent port
  • No DLC was announced two weeks before launch
  • No preorder content
  • Very few copies shipped to retail
  • No digital copy on eShop
  • Was announced in 1 month before launch
• Ninja Gaiden 3: RE was the best version of the game, but it didn't matter since the name was toxic.
• Mass Effect 3:SE - EA made sure that this game wasn't worth the price
  • It had no DLC
  • Shoddy port
  • The ME Trilogy launched for $60 on the other systems and PC a week before this game (Why buy this game when you can buy the trilogy for the same price?)
  • EA shipped very few copies of this game to market.
• ZombiU: A broken game at launch panned by American media across the board
  • American reviewers hated the game, saying it was an awful shooter
  • They said was too boring
  • The game did receive a massive patch a few months later fixing it
  • True horror games don't sell well on any system (RE is now action game)
  • ZombiU was a game that was stuck in development hell as 5 different games. on 3 different systems over 10 years, which cost Ubisoft a pretty penny.
  • Here is Gamespot's damning review which has since been edited.
  • Here is IGN's damning review as well.
  • ZombiU was bunlded from the beginning in the EU, eventually bundled in NA.
• Batman: Arkham City was missing content on the Wii U version and it was under shipped
• Darksider II was shipped in limited quantities originally due to a licensing issue, then was reissued recently for all systems.
• Tekken Tag Team 2 sold the same as the Xbox 360 version, but both bombed compared to the PS3 version.

As you can see the 3rd parties at Wii U's launch shipped very few copies for the most part of the titles listed and complained of low sales.

Many also were missing content that the other versions.

 

Wii U's 2014 Retail releases were:

• DKC: Tropical Freeze
• Mario Kart 8
• Wii Sports Club (People demanded a physical release)
• Hyrule Warriors (Sold over 1M in the West)
• Bayonetta 2 (This had more press than all the rest)
• Smash Bros
• Captain Toad (Sold better than expected)
• NES Remix

It turns out Hyrule Warriors is selling better than expected in the West blowing past the 1M mark in under 4 months.

While Mario Kart 8 is selling extremely well.

We don't have enough data on Smash yet.

 

2014 is a decent year for Nintendo in output, especially since they have 5,300 employees.

 

2015 should be even better.

Though Nintendo has been taking Splatoon and other games around the U.S., Japan, and EU by holding events at malls and other places.

They want as many people as possible to play Splatoon and others.

They are purposely giving Splatoon the pre E3 spot light in the West.

At E3 you'll hear 3rd parties whine about Nintendo's release schedule and how it's not 3rd party conducive.

 

Nintendo stated repeatedly with Wii and DS that 3rd parties told them that their games weren't selling due to Nintendo releasing too many games in the same period.

 

Nintendo also stated that 3rd parties told Nintendo to let them have the 3DS and Wii U launch with no major 1st party titles, in order to get 3rd party support.

Nintendo purposely delayed their major titles until a later date, so 3rd parties could establish themselves.

 

 

As for Sony:

The Order 1886 isn't previewing well and there is no guarantee this game is going to sell well.

Though Sony's titles typically sell no more than 5M, other than GT and TLoU.

So it really isn't a threat to 3rd parties.

 

The other major Sony title for the first half of the year is MLB 15!

 

With that said, Sony openly says they plan their release schedules to benefit 3rd party releases.

They openly work with the 3rd parties to determine the optimal release time for 3rd party games.

This is why Sony never releases a major 1st party game alongside a major 3rd party title.

 

Though the best time to release a game is September through January, this when most of the sales happen in the West.

May through August is the dead period in gaming sales traditionally in the West.

February through April is the slow post holiday period.

 

That the reason why most games release between August and February.

 

As for Evolve, Battlefield (EA), Witcher 3, Arkham Knight and etc...

 

First off EA has no interest in developing for Nintendo outside of the occasional FIFA reskin.

EA was unable to secure the deal they wanted from Nintendo, in order support Nintendo systems.

EA claims they won't develop for another Nintendo system again regardless of how well it sells until Nintendo agrees to EA's terms.

 

For the rest of Western developers, they want to make hardcore games for the hardcore consoles.

They do not want to make games for Nintendo because they believe Nintendo systems are for kids, families, women, and casuals.

Also they don't like the fact that Nintendo won't give them money hats and help them port the code over like Sony and Microsoft do.

Sony has a whole studio for porting 3rd party games to their systems.

 

 

 

Dan Adelman has been working with 3rd parties since 2000.

He was tasked with securing 3rd party support for both Xbox and Xbox 360 before he took the short lived job at Nintendo.

He is just telling what 3rd parties told him when he worked with them.

Are you saying he has it wrong?

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Actually Microsoft spent/is spending $1B on new studios for 1st party content.

 

Microsoft has promised to announce more 1st party titles at E3 for release later this year.

Their most recent 1st Susent Set Overdrive.

 

I have no doubt that Microsoft is spending a lot on 1st party content, but that doesn't prove anything.

 

Sunset Overdrive was a cult hit at best and I'm pretty sure it is a 2nd party title.

 

It still doesn't answer my question. Which 1st party Microsoft exclusives, other than Halo, pose a significant threat to 3rd party games?

 

Also Project Cars is not a major 3rd party title!

 

 

It is an Indie title that some how gained a following and publisher.

 

Oh, my bad. There seems to be some buzz around it so I thought it was a big AAA game for some reason. It still doesn't negate the fact that Bloodborne, although not 1st party, is being released exclusively on PS4 against Battlefield Hardline.

 

According to NeoGaf, PS4 has 40 more 3rd party games planned than Xbox One.

 

Is that because Sony has less 1st party exclusives? No.

 

SFV is the biggest one yet.

 

 

Capcom said PS4 had less competition for fighting games and had better online policies.

 

Less competition by one game, Killer Instinct. Big whoopty doo! SFV went PS exclusive because Sony paid them. That's the only reason. Just like Tomb Raider went to XB1 (timed).

 

Sony has been paying a very big money hat to  Activision to get tons of exclusive content for Call of Duty and Destiny.

 

Sony doesn't get any exclusive or early content for CoD. CoD still remains firmly in Microsoft's hand.

 

As you can see the 3rd parties at Wii U's launch shipped very few copies for the most part of the titles listed and complained of low sales.

 

Many also were missing content that the other versions.

 

This has nothing to do with Nintendo 1st party games taking away sales from those games. It's a simple matter of the audience not being there because the people who play those types of games own PSs and XBs.

 

Wii U's 2014 Retail releases were:

• DKC: Tropical Freeze
• Mario Kart 8
• Wii Sports Club (People demanded a physical release)
• Hyrule Warriors (Sold over 1M in the West)
• Bayonetta 2 (This had more press than all the rest)
• Smash Bros
• Captain Toad (Sold better than expected)
• NES Remix

It turns out Hyrule Warriors is selling better than expected in the West blowing past the 1M mark in under 4 months.

While Mario Kart 8 is selling extremely well.

We don't have enough data on Smash yet.

 

2014 is a decent year for Nintendo in output, especially since they have 5,300 employees.

 

Only a few of those games, namely Mario Kart 8 and Super Smash, posed a significant threat to any AAA 3rd party game. And you've only listed 8 games out of a whole year. In the next 5 months XB and PS have at least 7-8 major titles being released. There is plenty of room in the yearly release calendar to put out games unhindered by Nintendo 1st party releases.

 

Nintendo also stated that 3rd parties told Nintendo to let them have the 3DS and Wii U launch with no major 1st party titles, in order to get 3rd party support.

Nintendo purposely delayed their major titles until a later date, so 3rd parties could establish themselves.

 

And did 3rd parties manage to establish themselves? No. Which only goes to show that the audience for those games simply isn't there.

 

Again, out of a full year Nintendo usually only manages to release 1 or 2 blockbuster games. That is hardly a threat to any 3rd parties.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

As for Sony:

 

 

The Order 1886 isn't previewing well and there is no guarantee this game is going to sell well.

Though Sony's titles typically sell no more than 5M, other than GT and TLoU.

So it really isn't a threat to 3rd parties.

 

No game, especially new IP, is a guaranteed success. That doesn't detract from the fact that The Order 1886 is a major 1st party release.

 

With that said, Sony openly says they plan their release schedules to benefit 3rd party releases.

They openly work with the 3rd parties to determine the optimal release time for 3rd party games.

This is why Sony never releases a major 1st party game alongside a major 3rd party title.

 

Right, so that's why Uncharted games typically come out in the fall when all the other big 3rd party games are being released and that's why The Order is being released in the same time frame as Evolve and Bloodorne with Battlefield Hardline...

 

 

Though the best time to release a game is September through January, this when most of the sales happen in the West.

May through August is the dead period in gaming sales traditionally in the West.

February through April is the slow post holiday period.

 

Things are changing with huge games now releasing in that time-frame. Last of Us came out in June and Arkham Knight will launch in June as well. The Witcher 3, possible one of 2015's most anticipated games, is being released in may and they originally wanted to release in February. Granted, those games all have those dates because of delays, but it doesn't change the fact that the publishers chose those dates to release. Rockstar also has a tendency to release in this time period. They originally wanted to release GTA 5 in March or April (I forget). Red Dead Redemption was released in May.

 

 

First off EA has no interest in developing for Nintendo outside of the occasional FIFA reskin.

EA was unable to secure the deal they wanted from Nintendo, in order support Nintendo systems.

EA claims they won't develop for another Nintendo system again regardless of how well it sells until Nintendo agrees to EA's terms.

 

So EA's decision to not publish for Nintendo has nothing to do with 1st party games taking away sales then...

 

 

For the rest of Western developers, they want to make hardcore games for the hardcore consoles.

They do not want to make games for Nintendo because they believe Nintendo systems are for kids, families, women, and casuals.

 

Okay, so that supports my point that 3rd parties don't develop for Nintendo simply because the audience isn't there. It has nothing to do with the fear of having to compete with Nintendo game.

 

 

Dan Adelman has been working with 3rd parties since 2000.

 

 

He was tasked with securing 3rd party support for both Xbox and Xbox 360 before he took the short lived job at Nintendo.

He is just telling what 3rd parties told him when he worked with them.

Are you saying he has it wrong?

 

Yup, he's wrong. It's just a nice roundabout way of saying that the install base for 3rd party games isn't there that's all. Of course Nintendo 1st party games dominate the sales on the WiiU, cause that is why people buy WiiUs - to play Mario, to play Zelda, to play Star Fox. No one is buying a WiiU to play CoD or Arkham City, that would be absurd. It has nothing to do with this notion that the 3rd party games can't compete. There is a myriad of factors ranging from the WiiU's architecture, the audience it caters to, and the amount of money Nintendo spends helping 3rd parties, that makes it undesirable and unprofitable for 3rd parties to makes games for it.

 

"Looking at this through the prism of a business decision, if I’m a third-party publisher, what I want is that I want a large, diverse installed base to invest in my development and be able to monetize against that large installed base," Fils-Aime said. "That’s why, from a Nintendo first-party perspective, we have to drive the installed base. We need a diverse group of consumers. Not just core, not just casual, but a broad, diverse group of consumers within that installed base, so that whether you’re Ubi with Assassin’s Creed or with Just Dance, you’re feeling confident that your game is going to find a home. You’ll be able to monetize your development." - http://ca.ign.com/ar...ondary-priority

 

TL;DR - He's saying that they need a diverse range of first party games to attract a wide audience in order expand the install base so that 3rd party companies feel confident that there will be a market for their games.

 

He isn't saying they need to cut back on development of 1st party games so that they don't scare off 3rd parties.

 

Reggie Fils Aime President and chief operating officer of Nintendo of America, the North American division of the Japan-based video game company Nintendo, is he wrong?

[Xenocity 343]

Reggie is just a mouth piece for marketing.

Iwata is the CEO of Nintendo and the head of Nintendo of America.

Reggie is his subordinate at Nintendo of America.

Iwata at the end of the first quarter of the 3DS being on market and the same for Wii U, told the investors they chose to focus on the 15 - 35 males who buy primarily buy shooters and M-rated games. He said this group are what the market defines as hardcore gamers in the West.

He stated the Wii and DS had too diverse of a user base for 3rd parties to be successfully.

He claims this is what he was told by EA and other Western Developers.

The non hardcore gamers aren't as "reliable" as the hardcore who lap up shooters and M-rated games.

Nintendo has never released a blockbuster/AAA game in their life.

Smash bros, Mario Kart, Zelda, and others don't meet the definition nor do they meet the definition of hardcore!

Nintendo doesn't have a hardcore game to their name.

To date Sony hasn't released any 1st party Blockbuster/AAA games on PS4 outside of GT and TLoU.

Nothing in their 2015 lineup as of now looks to be blockbuster/AAA!

What is a Blockbuster/AAA game?

It is a game that has production value, budget, and marketing that rivals a Hollywood Blockbuster movie!

Anything less is just a video game and falls into one of the other categories.

How much money does a Blockbuster/AAA game cost to develop?

At last NPD report it was a minimum $50M.

Nearly every blockbuster/AAA game that EA, Square, Capcom, Konami, Activision, Ubiosft, etcetera release are normally cost over $100M (marketing included) to make.

This is why nearly every game released is not blockbuster/AAA.

Ratings and reviews do not determine what games are classified, budgets do!

If you are a 15-35 male who primarily plays Shooters and M-rated games, YOU ARE A REAL/HARDCORE/TRUE/DUDEBRO gamer who plays on his Xbox or Playstation console.

This group is the bread and butter for 3rd parties.

They don't care for any other consumers.

If you don't fit into this group you are one of the casual/kiddy type.

You could be a PC gamer, Mac gamer, a woman, kid, an omnivore/multiplatform gamer, a man who doesn't play shooters and most M-rated games, or someone who just like to play games.

IF YOU FIT INTO THESE GROUPS, you are a CASUAL/KIDDY GAMER!!

There's no debate about it, maker research doesn't lie... Right?!

So please finally admit you're a casual/kiddy gamer like the majority of us gamers.

If you are a shooter fan, then you are a real gamer and I apologize for assuming you are a casual/kiddy gamer.

Please do not try to use the old 80s gaming definitions, if you want to be taken seriously as a gamer!

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Reggie is just a mouth piece for marketing.

Iwata is the CEO of Nintendo and the head of Nintendo of America.

Reggie is his subordinate at Nintendo of America.

Iwata at the end of the first quarter of the 3DS being on market and the same for Wii U, told the investors they chose to focus on the 15 - 35 males who buy primarily buy shooters and M-rated games. He said this group are what the market defines as hardcore gamers in the West.

 

So Iwata and Nintendo decided to focus on the "hardcore market", how did that work out for them? Not so well. Why? Is it because their 1st party games diverted sales? No, because Nintendo allegedly held back their 1st parties to leave room for 3rd parties and that didn't at all help the sales.

 

 

He stated the Wii and DS had too diverse of a user base for 3rd parties to be successfully.

He claims this is what he was told by EA and other Western Developers.

The non hardcore gamers aren't as "reliable" as the hardcore who lap up shooters and M-rated games.

 

Just proves my point. WiiU's user base isn't the market for "hardcore games" which is why 3rd parties don't develop for it. It isn't because their first party games are too monumental or too voluminous to be released against.

 

He stated the Wii and DS had too diverse of a user base for 3rd parties to be successfully.

He claims this is what he was told by EA and other Western Developers.

The non hardcore gamers aren't as "reliable" as the hardcore who lap up shooters and M-rated games.

 

Well then Reggie and Iwata are contradicting each other. The idea that Nintendo's user-base is "too diverse" is absurd. Their problem, as Reggie pointed out, is that it isn't diverse enough and consists mainly of what you define as casual gamers who don't buy M-Rated AAA games. Which is why 3rd parties don't develop for it.

 

 

Nintendo has never released a blockbuster/AAA game in their life.

Smash bros, Mario Kart, Zelda, and others don't meet the definition nor do they meet the definition of hardcore!

 

Blockbuster: a thing of great power or size, in particular a movie, book, or other product that is a great commercial success.

 

Top 10 video games by copies sold:

 

- Tetris (mobile)

- Wii Sports (Nintendo)

- Minecraft (mulitplat)

- GTA 5 (multiplat)

- Super Mario Bros (Nintendo)

- Mario Kart Wii (Nintendo)

- Tetris (Nintendo)

- Wii Sports Resort (Nintendo)

- New Super Mario Bros (Nintendo)

- Wii Play (Nintendo)

 

Nintendo has released a lot of blockbuster games. They may not be AAA, they may not be hardcore, but they are blockbusters. Nintendo has plenty of blockbuster games, but they only release one every once and a while.

 

If you are a 15-35 male who primarily plays Shooters and M-rated games, YOU ARE A REAL/HARDCORE/TRUE/DUDEBRO gamer who plays on his Xbox or Playstation console.

This group is the bread and butter for 3rd parties.

They don't care for any other consumers.

 

Yeah, that's one of the main reasons why 3rd parties don't bother developing for Nintendo.

 

There's no debate about it, maker research doesn't lie... Right?!

So please finally admit you're a casual/kiddy gamer like the majority of us gamers.

If you are a shooter fan, then you are a real gamer and I apologize for assuming you are a casual/kiddy gamer.

Please do not try to use the old 80s gaming definitions, if you want to be taken seriously as a gamer!

 

Are you being facetious?

 

I just like games and I play them a lot. That's what makes me a hardcore gamer. Quit arbitrarily deciding what era my "definition of gamer" is from.  I own Call of Duty AW love it. I own SC4 and love it. I own Ni No Kuni and love it. I want to play games like Rime and Zelda as well as games like Uncharted and The Witcher. What kind of a gamer am I? I just don't own a WiiU because I don't see it is a worthwhile investment since there are only a few games that I'd buy compared to the amount of top quality games that PS3 & 4 have to offer.

 

You claim that "you cannot get 3rd party support, if you are going to take away their sales with 1st party games", and you used Microsoft as an example. I asked you to name 1st party games on Xbox that were released in the past 3-4 years or in the near future that could have significantly take away sales from 3rd party games. You still haven't answered my question.

 

Part of you theory relies on this idea that Microsoft has less 3rd party games because it's 1st party output is so voluminous it impedes the sales of other games. Yet you can't even point to a single 1st party Microsoft games that has been released or that will be released (other than the obvious Halo 5) that pose any kind of threat to 3rd party games.

 

You claim that "3rd parties hate doing on business on a system where there is a huge 1st party output", yet Sony and Microsoft's 1st party output is at around the same level, somehow Sony has more 3rd party games.

 

The only reason Sony has more 3rd party games, as you pointed out, is because they're currently spending more money on them.

 

You said "Sony reduced 1st party output compared to PS3". They haven't. If anything they've increased thanks to smaller 1st party dev teams.

 

You said "Sony makes damn sure 1st party releases aren't in the way of 3rd party releases or competes against them". All evidence to the contrary. In 2013 Sony released Killzone Shadow Fall against major 3rd party games released in November, one of the most competitive months in game sales. In 2014 Sony released Driveclub in December, another packed month. They are releasing The Order against Evolve and Bloodborne (2nd party but still exclusive and very hyped) against Battlefield.

 

The facts are against you good sir.

 

 

Adelman: It really comes down to the business case for these publishers. Nintendo consumers buy Nintendo systems primarily for the first party content. There’s a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy in that publishers feel that they can’t compete with Nintendo first party, so they choose not to invest in making high quality products for the platform. There are some notable exceptions to this over the years like Rayman Legends but many times third party publishers set low sales projections for their games, and then decide a development budget based on that. I can’t say outright that they’re wrong either.

 

I said Adelman is wrong and I recant that. He's not 100% wrong. I just take exception with how he's putting a rhetorical spin on it to pat Nintendo on the back.

 

I take issue with the word "compete" because to me it implies that 3rd parties are losing out to Nintendo 1st party games because 1. Nintendo games are so much better 2. There are just too many Nintendo games to compete with. Those to things aren't true, although Nintendo does make some great 1st party games. The simple fact is, a fact that I hope we can both agree on finally, that the audience for 3rd party games just isn't there.

 

It's like saying an Angus beef burger can't compete with a salad at a vegan restaurant. It isn't a question of competition since people who go to vegan restaurants don't go there to eat meat in the first place.

[Duke87 1,070]

Alright, enough. Enough arguing about the definition of "hardcore gamer" over and over again. This discussion is a dead horse, put down the stick and stop beating it.

 

Furthermore, personal attacks are not allowed. Discuss the issues, not each other.

 

Since these rules aren't being followed and since this has ceased being productive, THREAD CLOSED.