-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Nintendo Turns Up Its Nose at Garage Developers [Update: Reggie Clarifies Comment]
- Thread starter FoxSpirit
- Start date
Oh my God, the real quote is even worse.
They expect indie developers to somehow be able to fund development without any outside capital, and no other jobs? Oh wait, I know how - by launching their games on other platforms and possibly porting it to 3DSWare when they get prestige.
Again, way to foster creativity on your platform, Nintendo. Only accept what's already been proven elsewhere.
They expect indie developers to somehow be able to fund development without any outside capital, and no other jobs? Oh wait, I know how - by launching their games on other platforms and possibly porting it to 3DSWare when they get prestige.
Again, way to foster creativity on your platform, Nintendo. Only accept what's already been proven elsewhere.
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Do you think these garage developers only exist since Microsoft and Apple started having their games or what? Were they absolutely worthless previously? Did Microsoft and Apple hate them before this gen? Is Microsoft dissing them by having Indie Games separate from XBLA like they're not worth as much?szaromir said:
Since when does "we don't want to/have plans to invest in x business right now" mean "x business sucks, we're better"? Go ask them about car manufacturing then write an article about how they diss cars and think their video games are better than cars, lol...
gerg said:
Sure, I don't mean they're knocking their work, just that it doesn't fit their model very neatly to welcome them all with open arms.
farnham said:
Mind you, Cave Story had a reputation before it came to Nintendo's platforms. So even though it was originally developed in someone's free time, by the time they came to Nintendo with it, the game was 'established' to a certain degree. Same as the story with notch or Minecraft, but even moreso - of course they'd work with them now.
AceBandage
Banned
How to become a 3DS developer:
Have a studio that isn't your house.
Have $5000.
Oh man, that's so difficult. Nintendo won't let anyone develop games for them!
Have a studio that isn't your house.
Have $5000.
Oh man, that's so difficult. Nintendo won't let anyone develop games for them!
Yeah, indie devs have that kind of stuff in spades. And there's really no risk at all! I can see where you're coming from.AceBandage said:
How to be a XNA developer:
Have a computer and a normal 360.
Pay a yearly 99$ fee to submit.
How to be an App Store developer:
Have a computer.
Pay a 99$ fee.
Diablohead
Member
Garage developers? but I work in my bedroom...
AceBandage said:
Those are not insubstantial barriers for a starting indie dev, and it's only the beginning in terms of actually getting a game out on the platform. What other hoops do you have to jump through between development of your game and release on the platform?
Compared to other platforms it's not very inviting for a starter dev. It's requires investment in both money and work without any guarantee your game will even be released (AFAIK - I'm sure Nintendo has a not insubstantial approval process), and that's a lot of risk for someone on their own. On other platforms, you have a lot more control, you're much less subject to someone else's say-so about selling or not selling your game.
AceBandage
Banned
Lyphen said:
Eh, I dunno, I'd think if you were really serious about making a game on a console, you'd have more capitol and experience.
Where as, if you just wanted to make games, you do it on PC, like has been happening for ages.
Why would you want to release it on something like the 360 or Wii where it will be almost completely ignored?
MarshMellow96
Member
I don't know why you'd go to Nintendo first when you've got the PC and the app store to go to. If your game is good enough to make some money, then you can move on to the 'big 3'.
I suppose Nintendo still treats its indie devs better than Sony
I suppose Nintendo still treats its indie devs better than Sony
Mithos
Member
Lyphen said:
And how advanced is this? Halo: Reach capable results or does that require a full Xbox 360 devkit, and how much does this cost?
The way I understand the devkits when you get approved as a Nintendo Wii/DS/3DS developer means you get full access, and "could" do the next Super Mario Galaxy so to speak.
AceBandage
Banned
Aaron said:
Except Reggie never equated "garage developers" with low quality.
Quite the opposite.
Nintendo just doesn't want to be responsible for helping them start up on their system.
gofreak said:
In a way, I agree. One of the reasons you get the diversity of titles on Apple's platforms, for example, is because as long as there's an Angry Birds or some other title firing up the charts (to promote development) Apple doesn't care if that physics puzzler that Johnny programmed in his time off from school ever turns a healthy profit. Depending on how much more involved you want to be with the development of titles, then, working with every person with grand aspirations is simply untenable. The problem Nintendo had this generation, though, is that they were half-assed about it, and didn't do extra work on their part to help co-market and promote digital content themselves.
Are you expecting a "garage developer" to put out Halo Reach or Super Mario Galaxy? Why are you even going into this? They're bite sized games, or games with a smaller scope.Mithos said:
No, you won't be able to achieve that. For one thing, it straight up doesn't allow leaderboards. And there are size restrictions.
AceBandage said:
I think we're also thinking about handhelds here. But in all cases, platforms with strict controls and higher barriers to publishing need to consider their position, and whether their platforms can exclude or present a non-ideal business environment for a batch of game development that is becoming increasingly exciting. Maybe the answer is that they can afford to turn a blind eye, maybe the answer is to loosen up a lot in some ways, or maybe the answer is somewhere in between.
Criminal Upper
Banned
having played a fair amount of the "games" availalable on Xbox Live Indie channel, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing.
Mithos
Member
Why?Lyphen said:
Because that's the difference. Nintendo will give you dev-capabilities or not, no middle-ground, IF you wanted/spent enough time money you "could" make something that rivals a Super Mario Galaxy, or you just make something "smaller". Maybe Nintendo "should" create and offer a "light" devkit that's restricted to what you can do, but they don't.
Microsoft on the other hand sells a dev-"light"kit (XNA) or a full devkit (360).
AceBandage
Banned
Aaron said:
...
Yes?
I really don't understand your post.
I, nor Reggie, ever said where the game is made determines its quality.
TBH the last Nintendo turds I played were Nintendogs and Brain Training, interesting idea but very few features and extremely low guality (and I have a great deal of respect for so called casual games, just not at that quality level and not at that price), I became wary of their non-high reviewed games since them.gerg said:
I don't have a Wii, but stuff like Mario & Luigi or Advance Wars is something I happily paid the money for.
AceBandage
Banned
szaromir said:
wat
szaromir said:
It's the same argument as with NSMB Wii. What features, for example, would you want in Brain Training that were lacking? Would you want online leader boards, for example? If so, my question would be why Nintendo should cater to you as a consumer (over catering to consumers who do not request such features) when they operate in a reality that doesn't offer them unlimited time and resources. The only answer I can consider would be that it is a more profitable venture to do so (that Nintendo would make more money satisfying fully both audiences than only one) but it doesn't exactly seem that Nintendo managed to run the Brain Training series into the ground by lacking such features, either. As a result, I fail to find motivation to include that feature on those grounds.
Seraphinianus
Banned
do people ever read articles before posting them (so as to post more informative thread titles)
Ickman3400
Banned
Draft said:
Yes, their goal is to weed out the garbage that just any random person with the smallest level of game design knowledge can make by making it too expensive for them.
Seeing as they accept plenty of garbage produced by companies though, I'm not sure what their overral plan is. I guess they just really hate that $1-$10 price point.
fabricated backlash
Member
Too bad 90% of such statements are utter bullshit.farnham said:
I don't know exactly now, it's been years since I played it, but I remember lack of some obvious features (I think graphs of your performance in time were one of it, but maybe it included them?) and very shoddy handwriting recognition. I would have to play again to say for sure, but I have no intention of investing in it again.gerg said:
AceBandage
Banned
Ickman3400 said:
I don't think that's it at all, since a lot of WiiWare/DSiWare games release at under $10.
I think it's just that Nintendo doesn't want just anyone to have a dev kit. Which makes perfect sense, really. Even MS doesn't want just anyone to have a dev kit.
I suppose they could take a similar route and release some kind of toned down kit, but does Nintendo really have that knowledge? I mean, they aren't MS, they don't have a wealth of PC programing to fall back on for that, or simple tools.
I don't think they hate the $1-$10 price range, seeing as there's very few games on WiiWare/DSiWare that break from that. The argument comes from seeing a game like GTA: Chinatown Wars debuting on the DS for $35, and then 7-8 months later it debuts on iOS for a Hamilton. At that point, I don't think the DS game dropped price much, so you were looking at a situation where the DS game cost three times as much.Ickman3400 said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJv5qLsLYoo&t=0m57s
I love it that somebody told you he didn't like them yesterday and now your brain meltedfarnham said:
MidnightScott
Banned
Jeremiah Slaczka told me that Nintendo turned their nose up to him over Scribblenauts, and look at it, it sold millions without them. Then Konami turned around and made a Japanese version.
Proof that you don't need Nintendo to be able to sell your stuff!
Proof that you don't need Nintendo to be able to sell your stuff!
Mithos
Member
I'm not a fan of quantity over quality so, I might not be the best to ask about about this but.Lyphen said:
If Nintendo actually started allowing for middle-ground development, it should be as long as the apps are in a section of their own apart from everything else, and that Nintendo have a "VETO" to take great apps over to normal shop and demand a full dev-upgrade when they reach a certain level of success (just like the Unreal licensing over $50.000 earned).
Ok, szaromir, this is where we part ways. lol. I was referring to Nintendo's stance on third party games.
The fact is, you can release the shittiest game you want on a Nintendo platform. It could be absolute crap, but as long as you run a business who can afford to press the discs and pay the licensing fees, you'll get it through. I assume they treat downloads the same way.
This is about money. Nintendo needs to make sure that games are seen as worth $50, so they can continue to sell games for $50. Nintendo systems are profitable, but the real money is in software, and Nintendo has to protect that.
The fact is, you can release the shittiest game you want on a Nintendo platform. It could be absolute crap, but as long as you run a business who can afford to press the discs and pay the licensing fees, you'll get it through. I assume they treat downloads the same way.
This is about money. Nintendo needs to make sure that games are seen as worth $50, so they can continue to sell games for $50. Nintendo systems are profitable, but the real money is in software, and Nintendo has to protect that.