That's just not true. On PC you have free games and sixty dollar games, anything inbetween, freemium and subscription-based games and it's all doping fine as long as they manage it to market properly and has good quality. Artificially sticking to $50 is doing more harm than help.Alextended said:
-
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
Lord_Byron28
Member
Agreed. I'm not here to debate whether Iphone/iOS games are the future or not but I do understand Nintendo's line of thinking. They've been around since the 80's. They were one of the few developers still around that felt and saw the affect of the videogame market crash in the 80's. What's going on right now is strikingly similar to what caused the crash in the market. There's hundreds of games that are shameless clones of each other, just crappy apps or games in general and some are quite buggy and could crash the iPhone.radioheadrule83 said:
I don't think there'll be any crash and as long as there is still publishers and platform holders like Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo even if it did crash it wouldn't be nearly as substantial. However, I think Apple needs to do better quality control or the developers that can't make substantial money and the developers who make buggy, crappy, or shameless clones pull out of developing games. If not I could see consumers getting tired of the novelty and just giving up on the system all together once they purchase one too many crappy games that are a waste of time.
Not too discredit the entire iPhone/iOS market because there are a lot of great game and app ideas out there. I just think if someone doesn't fix the system it could crash or a better more competent puclisher/phone maker comes along and takes the basic idea but offers some serious quality control(kinda like how Nintendo with the NES revived the game market in the exact same manner) because the app/game cheap $1 game idea is great and has produced a lot of fun software but sifting through the legions of crappy games is a hassle and eventually something will give. Nintendo's method is a bit extreme but considering what they've been through I see their reasoning on the matter.
generaldane
Member
Where are you pulling those percentages from?farnham said:
Alextended said:
Your words lack both resonance and pertinence. Sooner or later the Nintendo you love will be dead. Will you still support their regime then? First they came for the gamers that liked big budget AAA games, and I said nothing. Then they came for the gamers that enjoyed substantive third party support, and, again, I said nothing. Then they came for the gamers who were willing to stick around for a Zelda game, even if it was Skyward Sword, and still I said nothing. Then they came...for me, and there was no one left to say anything except hordes of fat, casual fitness-gamers who couldn't hear my protests above the swelling, garbled sound emanating from the latest edition of Wii Music.
-Policecop
AceBandage
Banned
PoliceCop said:
You're silly.
Not amusing, but silly none the less.
Nekofrog said:
Same to you.
generaldane
Member
Hey i am the junior member i thought i was suppose to be the stupid one here!Nekofrog said:
charlequin
Banned
Alextended said:
No, they have small-company development. Which is good, but not really the same thing (or at least, not fully encompassing of the same thing.)
bon said:
Nintendo doesn't copy PS Home because it's idiotic and pointless and no one cares about it (and also because the only elements anyone likes are basically Animal Crossing with bro paint.) I think it's very likely that Nintendo will copy Kinect eventually (in terms of introducing camera-driven gameplay on their home console) although, again, Kinect is a result of Microsoft doing exactly what I suggest: seeing that there's a niche for something (motion control) and, rather than slavishly copying it, creating their own distinct spin on it.
rosjos44 said:
Price discrimination. At $50-$60, games are extremely expensive compared to other forms of media -- enough so that the majority of the market will only be willing to pay that much for the "best" games, either those that are so spectacular that they're worth the money or those that have so much replay value/multiplayer "stickiness"/etc. that they keep on delivering for months or years.
By artificially keeping all their games at $50, Nintendo prices out all the cost-sensitive gamers who bought Wiis -- these people have no good way to get new content for $20, and for many games they'll never consider spending $50 on them, which means they're now lost forever as customers for those games. Even worse, this means that people who want $20 games have only one option -- used copies of crappy third-party games. Now, instead of buying a discounted new game that literally sells zero copies a month now (Fire Emblem Wii, Twilight Princess, Metroid Prime 3) and giving part of the sale to Nintendo, they're buying a worse game and giving all the proceeds to Gamestop. These low-price sales are also one of the best ways to build a franchise -- Sony has quite a few series that sold poorly on release, went on to be very successful as Greatest Hits, and later did much better upfront on the sequel, God of War being the best example.
Nintendo's executives understand this very well, because they're the people who invented the discount line in the first place. They just became so filled with hubris that they believed (wrongly) they could make up the difference by never dropping prices and "forcing" all those price-sensitive gamers to buy at full price.
And the idea that people are going to wait around for things to price-drop only works when they crater right away (as happens with, say, many of EA's games.) People who want something right away aren't going to wait a year for a 50% discount. If you're putting out three-year-old games on Greatest Hits, you have little chance of cannibalizing your upfront sales. It's worth noting that this happens in other media industries -- movies go from $30 on release to $5 later on, books are first published as $35 hardcovers and rereleased as $10 paperbacks, etc.
(To be clear, I wouldn't price-drop games that continue to sell well -- NSMB, Mario Kart, Wii Sports Resort, etc. These games have heavy community elements and will continue to be "worth" $50 to people for years because of how much ongoing group enjoyment they can get out of them.)
Draft said:
That's kind of the other problem here. I've gone on record many times as saying that I believe, fully and unambiguously, that much of Nintendo's software will continue to be worth $40 to people even in the smartphone era. People will be making the comparison between systems even if the games aren't on the same device directly. Nintendo shouldn't make the same mistake third-parties make where they believe games are only competing with Nintendo's titles if they're on the same system.
Alextended said:
No, but you do see both recognizing that the Uncharteds and Angry Birds of the world can coexist side-by-side. I find the argument that everyone should abandon premium game development and race towards the $1 barrel-bottom insipid, but I do think a system that can deliver both levels of content is superior to one that's stuck in only one corner of the market. (*cough*PC*cough*)
How is this news? Nintendo have been on this path for years, It just wasn't a news story. They like having small "Indie" developers on their platform but do not want to completely open it up to everyone who has the capability of making a game. It limits the amount of creativity that could possibly be on the system but it is how they chose to do it.
I think people are reading this as "Nintendo hates all independent studios"
I think people are reading this as "Nintendo hates all independent studios"
Seraphinianus
Banned
Starwolf_UK said:
but i read the first two sentences of that article and knew their headline was terrible.
as for worrying about not being the first to submit a topic and losing all dat glory, that's just sad. i don't even know who started this topic...
charlequin
Banned
EmmanuelMunoz said:
Much like threads about Heavy Rain as a revolutionary work of game storytelling or GTA4 as a masterpiece deserving of perfect 10s, just because something is old doesn't mean people stopped disagreeing about it.
Tain said:
I think literally every GAF poster whose opinion I seriously trust had one or more self-proclaimed indie games in their Top 10 of 2010.
velvet_nitemare
Member
In a post app store world, games packing as little content as Pilotwings and Steel diver appear to be should not be sold for $40. Put it on 3DSware or something.
Saying no one cares about Home is like saying Kinect is a failure. Just because GAF doesn't talk about it doesn't mean it's not popular.
As for the indie developers, it's not really a surprise. Nintendo is the most traditional in terms of thinking out of the big three, and traditionally indie games haven't been notable or of quality. While that has definitely not been the case as of late, Nintendo's set in its old ways.
As for the indie developers, it's not really a surprise. Nintendo is the most traditional in terms of thinking out of the big three, and traditionally indie games haven't been notable or of quality. While that has definitely not been the case as of late, Nintendo's set in its old ways.
Pureauthor
Member
charlequin said:
Does Recettear count as indie? 'Cause I loved it.
m.i.s.
Banned
Draft said:
Excellent post. Rightly or wrongly when Nintendo decided to stick with carts over optical discs, it led Sony to overtake Nintendo and become the new console industry leader, consigning Nintendo to declining relevance for over a decade. Sony, used the more developer friendly CD format as well as making it more financially attractive to develop for the Playstation.
The danger for Nintendo is that Apple does to Nintendo in the handheld market what Sony did to Nintendo in the console market during the PS1 and PS2 era.
This has grown from a small concern in to a major weakness for Nintendo in rapid fashion. Ignoring independent developers was not only acceptable 6 years ago, but one might even argue it was a good idea for companies like MS, who clearly focused on getting the unwavering attention of the big four (Act, EA, Ubi, T2). Despite this, they fostered some semblance of relations with independent studios anyway.
But I don't think it was a good idea for Nintendo even then: they were disproportionately lacking support from the major publishers relative to their success, and it made sense to court up-and-comers to try to build, in effect, their own loyal third parties, the way Sony and MS have de-facto done for themselves, and Apple is now in the process of doing.
But Nintendo did not do that, and what was a significant problem 6 years ago has quickly evolved to the point where one might call it an Achilles Heel in the very near future. As in, a crippling weakness. Very much like their lack of network infrastructure was (and perhaps still is).
But I don't think it was a good idea for Nintendo even then: they were disproportionately lacking support from the major publishers relative to their success, and it made sense to court up-and-comers to try to build, in effect, their own loyal third parties, the way Sony and MS have de-facto done for themselves, and Apple is now in the process of doing.
But Nintendo did not do that, and what was a significant problem 6 years ago has quickly evolved to the point where one might call it an Achilles Heel in the very near future. As in, a crippling weakness. Very much like their lack of network infrastructure was (and perhaps still is).
AceBandage
Banned
M.I.S. said:
No... it really doesn't.
Sony offered a comparable service that was easier for developers that would have to shoose PS1 or N64.
Apple offers a completely different service for developers that would have to choose between indie PC and AppStore.
abstract alien
Member
This doesn't make any sense to me at all for the obvious reasons. Am I just being ignorant to other elements that are at play?M.I.S. said:
Pureauthor
Member
PoliceCop said:
They are due for a Gamecube generation one generation after coming out of the actual Gamecube generation? I'm not sure I get your logic, here.
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Nintendo aren't doing this, they just aren't reaching to the bottom of the barrel like Apple is. Sony isn't doing that either. Microsoft is sort of doing that but keep it wholly separate from XBLA for the same reason Nintendo isn't doing it at all.Opiate said:
AceBandage
Banned
Pureauthor said:
Don't bother.
He's a cheap gimmick account.
Htown said:
Appendum: When Nintendo spent all last decade warning about the incoming high costs of game development and made a system to combat this, everyone derided them about not being hardcore or some bullshit. Now they are warning about not cheapening video games as a whole with iOS/Android games and people deride them.
Charlequin brings up some real points of criticisms about aspects of their strategies but it gets old over the years to hear what new hot thing is Nintendo's doom. Hell even the NES got hated in the same way the Wii did back in the day (not joking there was a thread with really old newsgroup chats where the hardcore of those days would chide the antiquated hardware of the NES and its games in the exact same way people did about the Wii).
The DS got off to a really slow start. I'd be surprised if it didn't have a stronger launch coming off that brand's success. But stateside, there's virtually no hype for 3DS. It's launch seems like an afterthought, to Nintedno as well, because they couldn't be bothered to muster decent 1st party support.
boomerisgod
Member
Nintendo said NOTHING about ignoring or not working with independent developers. In fact, they specifically stated they were not referring to independent developers. They are referring to mostly people who are in it as a hobby.
Why can't people read the original article instead of just regurgitating the crap that Wired chooses to focus on?
Why can't people read the original article instead of just regurgitating the crap that Wired chooses to focus on?
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
He knows, that's why he said the system AFTER the 3DS, so the next-next-gen, lol. Yet stuck with next-gen for Wii successor. >_>BY2K said:
Lol? They've already said they held back unannounced titles for 3rd parties. Where's the sense in releasing a title like say, Super Mario, that can potentially do 10 million in sales, during the launch window when you can only provide a few hundred thousand systems that will most likely sellout by the built-in features and games alone? That's really the reason most console launches suck in terms of games with ports and other not so expensive productions...PoliceCop said:
rpmurphy said:
Without necessarily agreeing with Policecop, I think the idea would be that Nintendo has exposed several, core weaknesses that will contribute to a decline unless their next platform(s) are dramatically different. Those key weaknesses are:
1) An inability to garner third party support, particularly Western. This does not seem to be remedied at all by the 3DS, which continues to lack major support from the large Western publishers.
2) An an inability to provide a competitive network infrastructure. This appears to be at least somewhat alleviated by the 3DS: we'll have to wait and see how this evolves.
3) Add to this, now, an inability to perceive the value of low end development models as a supplement to higher end models. Sony and Microsoft understand this problem at least to some degree, as evidenced by projects like PS Suite and XBLIG: Nintendo not only does not get it, but is explicitly stating that they reject this hypothesis.
Based on these weaknesses, some people are constantly predicting Nintendo's downfall. However, I could point to weaknesses in Sony and Microsoft's strategies (Sony's apparent inability to strongly innovate with hardware, Microsoft's dearth of first party studios) that could also be huge weaknesses in the next generation, so Nintendo isn't alone here. I don't have any idea which of these weaknesses will prove the most disabling in the next generation: I'm just pointing out that there are at least some long term trends that people can project in to the next generation even before anything has been announced.
rpmurphy said:
Nintendo's model isn't sustainable. They read the market right and got lucky, partly out of desperation, but everything they've done for the past couple years indicates they've lost touch. They got new people interested in gaming, but they're incapable of sustaining that interest and think shitty, poorly functioning gimmicks (3DS 3D) are the way to keep people on board. Novelty wears off and Sony and Microsoft will likely do motion controls or whatever other schtick Nintendo tacks on better. The minimalist Mii aesthetic that worked for Wii will not work for its successor, but Nintendo has printed too much money to ditch it.