Why can't Nintendo....

[NZA]

nintendo leads product development with 1st party games as the priority, sony and microsoft make 3rd parties a priority. these divergent philosophies are why the market is the way it is. as a matter of fact, it is present from the very start of the PS1 era. and only got worse with each new generation. this approach helped during the wii era, but that was short lived, obviously.

nintendo has miyamoto and a select few others brainstorming ideas about what they like to play and what new games mario can be shoehorned into. then some eggheads bring up some demographic data to help give a little more direction to what they are going to do, then they go about designing a controller. once some game prototypes are done and they make use of a new controller, they finalize specs (bare minimum to make games with cartoony graphics look decent). nintendo sends some feelers out to 3rd party developers to get their opinion on what they want, but it is not with much enthusiasm. they pretty much have several things finalized before other game studios know what nintendo is doing.

nintendo spends more money on software R&D while sony and MS spend more on hardware R&D. sony and MS are far more "open" companies that bring 3rd parties into hardware and netowrking development decisions early on and really use their suggestions, nintendo leaves even their closest japanese partners in the dark until less than 2 years before launch. nintendo has always had horrible relations with 3rd parties, it's just that they didnt face serious opposition globally until their deal with sony fell through.

 

[notPsychosiz]

nintendo leads product development with 1st party games as the priority, sony and microsoft make 3rd parties a priority. these divergent philosophies are why the market is the way it is. as a matter of fact, it is present from the very start of the PS1 era. and only got worse with each new generation. this approach helped during the wii era, but that was short lived, obviously.

nintendo has miyamoto and a select few others brainstorming ideas about what they like to play and what new games mario can be shoehorned into. then some eggheads bring up some demographic data to help give a little more direction to what they are going to do, then they go about designing a controller. once some game prototypes are done and they make use of a new controller, they finalize specs (bare minimum to make games with cartoony graphics look decent). nintendo sends some feelers out to 3rd party developers to get their opinion on what they want, but it is not with much enthusiasm. they pretty much have several things finalized before other game studios know what nintendo is doing.

nintendo spends more money on software R&D while sony and MS spend more on hardware R&D. sony and MS are far more "open" companies that bring 3rd parties into hardware and netowrking development decisions early on and really use their suggestions, nintendo leaves even their closest japanese partners in the dark until less than 2 years before launch. nintendo has always had horrible relations with 3rd parties, it's just that they didnt face serious opposition globally until their deal with sony fell through.

Alot of that is right. Some is wrong.
More importantly though, you have left out overall context. Nintendo has only ever considered themselves to have a major competetion with Sega. This is because Sega was the only video game company that has ever ammassed enough marketshare to be problematic. Sony is not a video game company. It makes very little in that division overall. Their entire gaming division could close tomorrow and the company would carry on unscathed. Sony is not even an electronics company as many westerners believe. Sony is a bank. Just like you can go to Bank of America in the US, you can go to a Sony branch in eastern markets and open a banking account, mortgage a house, or get a credit card. Second to that, they make batteries. This is why they started making electronics in the first place. To package and fascilitate them selling batteries which they make loads on. The Sony music and video game branches are afterthoughts of the electronics... which are after thoughts of the batteries... which is a side project from their actual business, banking. Microsoft is similar in its regards to computing. Sega was focused on gaming, and so Nintendo took them serious.

MS and Sony are content to get third party input because they are not planning any innovation on thier own. People with no ideas are always happy when others wish to brainstorm.

If you look at the Wii U vs past Nintendo launches you will see that the reason they are behind Sony (technically they are not, counting the DS... but just looking at consoles) is because of the delay of 1st party titles, not 3rd.
No Zelda... No Smash... No Pokemon... they just barely released Mario Kart... Donkey Kong... etc.
Zelda is a system seller. The SNES, N64, and Gamecube all came in gold editions that did numbers up thier with the Mario Box sets, so why they didn't release it is mind boggling.
The Wii U launch was terrible in terms of 1st party release schedule, that is hurting them more than 3rd party releases.

 

[PS5 Pro]

IF you got a PS4, what games do you have
And what games do you plan on having between now and 2016

I don't expect you to answer that question, which thus answers the question

 

[NZA]

Alot of that is right. Some is wrong.
More importantly though, you have left out overall context. Nintendo has only ever considered themselves to have a major competetion with Sega. This is because Sega was the only video game company that has ever ammassed enough marketshare to be problematic. Sony is not a video game company. It makes very little in that division overall. Their entire gaming division could close tomorrow and the company would carry on unscathed. Sony is not even an electronics company as many westerners believe. Sony is a bank. Just like you can go to Bank of America in the US, you can go to a Sony branch in eastern markets and open a banking account, mortgage a house, or get a credit card. Second to that, they make batteries. This is why they started making electronics in the first place. To package and fascilitate them selling batteries which they make loads on. The Sony music and video game branches are afterthoughts of the electronics... which are after thoughts of the batteries... which is a side project from their actual business, banking. Microsoft is similar in its regards to computing. Sega was focused on gaming, and so Nintendo took them serious.

MS and Sony are content to get third party input because they are not planning any innovation on thier own. People with no ideas are always happy when others wish to brainstorm.

If you look at the Wii U vs past Nintendo launches you will see that the reason they are behind Sony (technically they are not, counting the DS... but just looking at consoles) is because of the delay of 1st party titles, not 3rd.
No Zelda... No Smash... No Pokemon... they just barely released Mario Kart... Donkey Kong... etc.
Zelda is a system seller. The SNES, N64, and Gamecube all came in gold editions that did numbers up thier with the Mario Box sets, so why they didn't release it is mind boggling.
The Wii U launch was terrible in terms of 1st party release schedule, that is hurting them more than 3rd party releases.

your context sounds like nintendo apologism. im not interested in making nintendo's behavior seem like it is the highroad, it is just how they choose to do business. im just focusing on the question of the thread.

the important parts are that nintendo is a software focused company, everything they do supports their own software. they have always had terrible relations with 3rd parties but only paid a serious price once sony entered the market. instead of changing this focus to compete for existing market share, they have sought to expand the gaming audience. this worked temporarily but now the casuals can play smart phone games or minecraft so nintendo is back in the same situation it was in during the n64 and gamecube. they are now trying to compete for hardcore gamers with a weaker 3rd party lineup. 1st party games will never meet the needs that the sheer volume and diversity of 3rd party games will. at best, nintendo can hope to be the second option for most gamers.

 

[Champion]

I dont really think their issues with 3rd parties has an A--->B solution. And hardware on par with the competition certainly didn't help them with the GC and N64.

 

[NZA]

I dont really think their issues with 3rd parties has an A--->B solution. And hardware on par with the competition certainly didn't help them with the GC and N64.

n64 cartridges were a problem. gamecube is the one where hardware wasnt a big problem, but it seems that years of bad decisions and microsoft in the marketplace really gave nintendo no room to mess up.

 

[Champion]

n64 cartridges were a problem. gamecube is the one where hardware wasnt a big problem, but it seems that years of bad decisions and microsoft in the marketplace really gave nintendo no room to mess up.

Cartridges and mini discs are very small in comparison to the real reason 3rd parties dont fukk with Nintendo...which is they havent built an audience for a lot of these games. When is the last time Nintendo pushed a multiplat as an exclusive the way you see Sony pushing Destiny? And they're just now coming out with a 1st party shooter.

And your previous post about Nintendo spending a bunch of R&D on 1st party games couldn't be more wrong by the way. Nintendo always has small teams working on games. Especially in companion to ur typical Western development teams. Mario 3D World is one of the biggest games on their current gen console and they didn't have 100 devs working on that game.

 

[5n0man]

I dont really think their issues with 3rd parties has an A--->B solution. And hardware on par with the competition certainly didn't help them with the GC and N64.

They were still being hardheaded a$$holes during the gc, n64 days.

Third parties acted like dealing with nintendo back in the days was torture.

Now they just dont wanna waste resources on an inferior copy of a game that fails to turn a profit.

 

[Kingshango]

Just came in to say that the Gamecube is a massively underrated console and it's a shame no one bought it.

 

[Champion]

They were still being hardheaded a$$holes during the gc, n64 days.

Third parties acted like dealing with nintendo back in the days was torture.

Now they just dont wanna waste resources on an inferior copy of a game that fails to turn a profit.

Read the post above. I already stated there is little to no audience for most 3rd party games. Nintendo could align their hardware but it really wouldnt make that much of a difference. Would you buy GTA V or 2K on a Nintendo platform if it was released on it? Probably not and its because everyone you know will buy it on Sony or Microsoft's hardware.

 

[ThiefyPoo]

Read the post above. I already stated there is little to no audience for most 3rd party games. Nintendo could align their hardware but it really wouldnt make that much of a difference. Would you buy GTA V or 2K on a Nintendo platform if it was released on it? Probably not and its because everyone you know will buy it on Sony or Microsoft's hardware.

I would buy a multi plat on Nintendo if their hardware was to up to par.

 

[NZA]

Cartridges and mini discs are very small in comparison to the real reason 3rd parties dont fukk with Nintendo...which is they havent built an audience for a lot of these games. When is the last time Nintendo pushed a multiplat as an exclusive the way you see Sony pushing Destiny? And they're just now coming out with a 1st party shooter.

And your previous post about Nintendo spending a bunch of R&D on 1st party games couldn't be more wrong by the way. Nintendo always has small teams working on games. Especially in companion to ur typical Western development teams. Mario 3D World is one of the biggest games on their current gen console and they didn't have 100 devs working on that game.

actually, cartridges were a huge problem...

nintendo would have to start funding 3rd party development in order to get more third parties since they have kept their hardware so different from the pack. that will never happen because nintendo doesnt want to spend money on franchises that will end up on competing hardware. either nintendo has to start making consoles that reduce the burden on 3rd parties, or they have to rely more on 2nd party development.

nintendo makes pieces of software that they never release, unlike much of what western companies do. R&D is not about developing retail games, it is about experimentation and learning things that will hopefully end up in new games. of the 3, nintendo is far more focused on that.

 

[notPsychosiz]

your context sounds like nintendo apologism. im not interested in making nintendo's behavior seem like it is the highroad, it is just how they choose to do business. im just focusing on the question of the thread.

the important parts are that nintendo is a software focused company, everything they do supports their own software. they have always had terrible relations with 3rd parties but only paid a serious price once sony entered the market. instead of changing this focus to compete for existing market share, they have sought to expand the gaming audience. this worked temporarily but now the casuals can play smart phone games or minecraft so nintendo is back in the same situation it was in during the n64 and gamecube. they are now trying to compete for hardcore gamers with a weaker 3rd party lineup. 1st party games will never meet the needs that the sheer volume and diversity of 3rd party games will. at best, nintendo can hope to be the second option for most gamers.

I have no relation or interest in Nintendo. But in any discussion, I am weary of anyone that wishes to ignore context.

Nintendo is not a software focused company. They are a technologies focused company. Which is why they continue to file pattents, create new delivery systems, and innovate. Sony and MS are friendlier with 3rd parties because they need to be. They are competing with oneanother. Nintendo is competing with itself. Either it will top itself and control the market for an console generation (as is usually the case) or its experiment will fall short for whatever reason and they will go back into development, as with the Wii U or the Virtual Boy. Both like nothing that existed at the time, but commercially unsuccessful, or in the case of the Virtual Boy, decades ahead of the tech required and an outright failure.

Nintendo has never been concerned with 3rd party support. I'm not sure why people think this is new. It has never mattered for them one way or the other. The Wii (original, not U) dominated the market with terrible 3rd party support.
Lack of 3rd party support would tank the PS4 or XBONE, but cannot make or break a Nintendo home console. Its success is largely just up to the company. That is one of the reasons I study Nintendo. They are an anomoly in terms of how businesses tend to work. Certain companies (Nintendo, Disney, Playboy, the NBA) implement techniques that are worth knowing and understanding if you do any business at all, even if it is in a different field.

 

[5n0man]

Read the post above. I already stated there is little to no audience for most 3rd party games. Nintendo could align their hardware but it really wouldnt make that much of a difference. Would you buy GTA V or 2K on a Nintendo platform if it was released on it? Probably not and its because everyone you know will buy it on Sony or Microsoft's hardware.

Actually I feel that nintendo could pull a vast amount of market share with an equally powerful console. The market isnt there because nobody is gonna realistically buy a nintendo console for third party games with last gen quality.

If the third party games were equal to the xb1 and ps4 then it may be a whole nother story.

Nintendo already has the biggest and most popular first party titles outta the three.
They also have more quantity of exclusives.

 

[notPsychosiz]

I would buy a multi play on Nintendo if their hardware was to up to par.

Me too. Well, hypothetically.
My Wii is modded like every other console I have, so...
But if I were going to play a game like 2k (which was mentioned) I play it on the Wii (or PC). The regular Wii, not the Wii U. I decided against getting a Wii U.
But the reason I'd play 2k on the Wii... well, if I didn't own a glorious PC... is that playing it on the xbox or playstation results in a similar experience do to intentional parity, while the motion controls provides an alternate more interactive experience. Of course, if I just want the optimal version (graphics and smoothness) I'd run it on the PC. Which I usually do.