Support NeoGAF

[Opiate]

Do you think Microsoft and Sony would do anything in their power to stop Nintendo getting third party support then?

Let's just put it this way: Sony and Microsoft have weaker first parties, which means they're more reliant on external support. However, they also already have that external support, so it should -- in theory -- be easier to acquire in the future. It's not too difficult to persuade a company to continue supporting the platform they were already supporting anyway.

So Microsoft and Sony have more to gain from third party support, and need to do less to convince them. Nintendo would have to spend more to gain less.

 

[Fuzzy]

:lol Nice conspiracy theory. Again, there's a kernel of truth in your misconception: yes, Nintendo does like to be the top publisher. But Nintendo licenses other companies to make games for their systems. They have no control over whether the games that are made are big releases or not.

I point to the quote I posted about GTA on the previous page from Reggie. He says he wants it on the Wii but when asked if he has even talked to T2 about it he says no. Don't you think that if they wanted something like GTA on the Wii that they would at least talk to T2 before having the President of NoA go on record as saying they want it? If you want to counter my argument by saying that NoA is just a puppet of NCL and has no real power in the decision making process then I concede my point completely.

MS gave a $50 million loan for GTAIV DLC. I'm betting it would cost Nintendo a lot less than that to get a full GTA game on the Wii.

 

[Opiate]

I point to the quote I posted about GTA on the previous page from Reggie. He says he wants it on the Wii but when asked if he has even talked to T2 about it he says no. Don't you think that if they wanted something like GTA on the Wii that they would at least talk to T2 before having the President of NoA go on record as saying they want it? If you want to counter my argument by saying that NoA is just a puppet of NCL and has no real power in the decision making process then I concede my point completely.

It's actually a pretty poor example.

http://www.qj.net/qjnet/wii/reggie-fils-aime-still-pushing-for-gta-on-wii.html

It was widely reported that Reggie actively pursued GTA -- although it eventually landed on the DS.

Not saying that it worked, but we've got conflicting reports here. It was certainly my understanding that Nintendo had aggressively pursued GTA in particular, and that CW was what they got out of it.

 

[Version 3.0]

Interestingly that was the cause of bannings in a couple Wii game threads, most recently the NBA Jam one. Seems Wii only owners begging for certain 3rd party games seems to fly though.

The bannable offense is derailing game threads with complaints about which platform(s) the game has been announced for, not sales threads where the discussion is about why Nintendo is making all the money, or which publishers are leaving money on the table. There's a difference between "this should have been a PS3/360 game" and "publishers have missed the boat with the Wii". One is off-topic in a discussion about the game, not the console(s), the other is on topic in a discussion of videogame sales.

The fact that Wii game announcements have resulted in bannings rather than PS3/360 game announcements only underlines who's really insecure, though, doesn't it?

 

[freddy]

Let's just put it this way: Sony and Microsoft have weaker first parties, which means they're more reliant on external support. However, they also already have that external support, so it should -- in theory -- be easier to acquire in the future. It's not too difficult to persuade a company to continue supporting the platform they were already supporting anyway.

So Microsoft and Sony have more to gain from third party support, and need to do less to convince them. Nintendo would have to spend more to gain less.

...and to persuade them not to support another company.

 

[Fuzzy]

The bannable offense is derailing game threads with complaints about which platform(s) the game has been announced for, not sales threads where the discussion is about why Nintendo is making all the money, or which publishers are leaving money on the table. There's a difference between "this should have been a PS3/360 game" and "publishers have missed the boat with the Wii". One is off-topic in a discussion about the game, not the console(s), the other is on topic in a discussion of videogame sales.

The fact that Wii game announcements have resulted in bannings rather than PS3/360 game announcements only underlines who's really insecure, though, doesn't it?

It's okay, the PS360 fanboys will be happy soon with the up-ports of Wii software once Natal/Wand is released so we'll see less bannings on that side.

It's actually a pretty poor example.

http://www.qj.net/qjnet/wii/reggie-fils-aime-still-pushing-for-gta-on-wii.html

It was widely reported that Reggie actively pursued GTA -- although it eventually landed on the DS.

Not saying that it worked, but we've got conflicting reports here. It was certainly my understanding that Nintendo had aggressively pursued GTA in particular, and that CW was what they got out of it.

I thought it was strange also when he said he hadn't even talked to them two years after he said he had but then again you can't believe anything that comes out of a PR person's mouth.

 

[Son of Godzilla]

The fact that Wii game announcements have resulted in bannings rather than PS3/360 game announcements only underlines who's really insecure, though, doesn't it?

If you really must put any stock in it I think it speaks mainly to how interested each audience is. In third party games. Go figure.

No really, some people are arguing that it's some unmitigated fact that people are pitching hissy fits over Wii not getting games. Is that actually true? RE5, sure. And non-stupid versions of Madden and Call of Duty. Hasn't that pretty much been the extent of it? Dead Space gets brought up, but only in the context of how dumb an idea the rail game is. Unless I'm seriously off base here, I think that's a huge contrast with how pretty much *every* Wii exclusive gets people wishing it was on something else.

 

[onipex]

It's okay, the PS360 fanboys will be happy soon with the up-ports of Wii software once Natal/Wand is released so we'll see less bannings on that side.

Yeah there are so many great third party Wii games to look forward too.

 

[jay]

Yeah there are so many great third party Wii games to look forward too.

They were supposed to sell well so we can only assume they were great.

 

[Black-Wind]

It's okay, the PS360 fanboys will be happy soon with the up-ports of Wii software once Natal/Wand is released so we'll see less bannings on that side.

Yep, their gonna love their Petz and . . . Partyz and . . . PS2 games with Wiimote cash ins I bet!

 

[Fuzzy]

Yep, their gonna love their Petz and . . . Partyz and . . . PS2 games with Wiimote cash ins I bet!

Don't forget Rabbids and Monkey Balls!

 

[Yamauchi]

Sure is a lot of talk about what Nintendo needs to do coming shortly after their shattering of the record for the most consoles sold in a month. I love Gaf.

 

[Black-Wind]

Don't forget Rabbids and Monkey Balls!

Did not know people wanted Rabbids and Monkey balls on HD twins but so be it!

 

[Eteric Rice]

If I were Nintendo, I'd just say "fuck it" and buy Square-Enix. While they're not as powerful as they used to be, they have two of Japan's biggest franchises, which very few Japanese people would wanna pass up.

At very least maybe they could get rid of Wada.

 

[poppabk]

If you really must put any stock in it I think it speaks mainly to how interested each audience is. In third party games. Go figure.

No really, some people are arguing that it's some unmitigated fact that people are pitching hissy fits over Wii not getting games. Is that actually true? RE5, sure. And non-stupid versions of Madden and Call of Duty. Hasn't that pretty much been the extent of it? Dead Space gets brought up, but only in the context of how dumb an idea the rail game is. Unless I'm seriously off base here, I think that's a huge contrast with how pretty much *every* Wii exclusive gets people wishing it was on something else.

I think 90% of the Wii people wanting a new third party IP basically want RE4:Wiiart II. RE4:Wii was an amazing game - the controls were perfect, even the QTE's were tolerable, and it had high production values, a long single player campaign and tons of content.

 

[SlipperySlope]

If I were Nintendo, I'd just say "fuck it" and buy Square-Enix. While they're not as powerful as they used to be, they have two of Japan's biggest franchises, which very few Japanese people would wanna pass up.

At very least maybe they could get rid of Wada.

They'd have to cancel a lot of projects, and some people would leave.

 

[Eteric Rice]

They'd have to cancel a lot of projects, and some people would leave.

The only people I'd try to convince not to leave are the DQ guys. The rest can stay or go. Would probably put the guys that make the Mario & Luigi games on something non-Mario. Hell, they used to work for SE, they have experience.

 

[Deku]

The only people I'd try to convince not to leave are the DQ guys. The rest can stay or go. Would probably put the guys that make the Mario & Luigi games on something non-Mario. Hell, they used to work for SE, they have experience.

um no.

Edit: Marioi& Luigi team is already under Nintendo's thumb at Alpha Dream
This Garnett Lee fantasy will entail the shutting down of Final Fantasy XIV, which is probably going to be their best Final Fantasy of the HD era.

 

[EDarkness]

If you really must put any stock in it I think it speaks mainly to how interested each audience is. In third party games. Go figure.

No really, some people are arguing that it's some unmitigated fact that people are pitching hissy fits over Wii not getting games. Is that actually true? RE5, sure. And non-stupid versions of Madden and Call of Duty. Hasn't that pretty much been the extent of it? Dead Space gets brought up, but only in the context of how dumb an idea the rail game is. Unless I'm seriously off base here, I think that's a huge contrast with how pretty much *every* Wii exclusive gets people wishing it was on something else.

I have to admit that the drama that goes on when a Wii exclusive game gets announced is awesome. Hey, someone pass the popcorn!

It's actually a pretty poor example.

http://www.qj.net/qjnet/wii/reggie-fils-aime-still-pushing-for-gta-on-wii.html

It was widely reported that Reggie actively pursued GTA -- although it eventually landed on the DS.

Not saying that it worked, but we've got conflicting reports here. It was certainly my understanding that Nintendo had aggressively pursued GTA in particular, and that CW was what they got out of it.

Yeah. Reggie said at the very beginning of the Wii's life that they were trying to get games. My guess is the other companies told them to float on and talks stalled, though they were able to get a GTA on the DS. They probably haven't spoken to them sense at least not for making any games. Didn't Reggie say something recently at some conference about having no idea why developers won't make games for their systems? I'll have to look that up.

 

[heidern]

In reality, I think it's extremely like that the best scenario for Nintendo would be absolute and total third party support. Sony and Microsoft would basically collapse if this happened, as their first parties aren't even remotely close to strong enough to support expensive systems of their nature. This would certainly decrease the total sales of their first party software, but overall software sales (And hardware sales) would go up so dramatically as to make up for any first party software losses by a wide margin.

Nintendo don't actually have the production capacity to support increased hardware sales. We are in the situation of a rapidly growing western markets which Nintendo are able to wholly fuel by themselves. Total 3rd party support wouldn't help much for hardware sales, it probably would increase the tie ratio / overall software sales, but would decrease 1st party sales.

But in this formative market, Nintendo are in a brand building excercise, it is not just about current sales but also of sequels. The lack of competition now, is going to have an immensely positive effect on Nintendo software sales for the next 15 or 20 years. The brand building is securing the future and trumps any short term gains that extensive 3rd party support now would have. It also means that these new customers are loyal only to the Nintendo brand and means there can't be a repeat of the likes of Square Enix building up Final Fantasy on The Nes and Snes, and then jumping ship to Sony dragging a large part of the customer base with them.

I thought it was strange also when he said he hadn't even talked to them two years after he said he had but then again you can't believe anything that comes out of a PR person's mouth.

Two years ago they probably were talking since at that time Nintendo thought they needed all the support they can get. Now they know they can just do their own thing with the Wii so no need to talk with 3rd parties and no need to waste money and effort into getting 3rd party support.

 

[Fuzzy]

Two years ago they probably were talking since at that time Nintendo thought they needed all the support they can get. Now they know they can just do their own thing with the Wii so no need to talk with 3rd parties and no need to waste money and effort into getting 3rd party support.

I think you misunderstood what I said.
2006 - Reggie says he's been talking with R* and T2 about GTA Wii
2008 - Reggie says he's never talked to them about GTA Wii

 

[Opiate]

Nintendo don't actually have the production capacity to support increased hardware sales. We are in the situation of a rapidly growing western markets which Nintendo are able to wholly fuel by themselves. Total 3rd party support wouldn't help much for hardware sales, it probably would increase the tie ratio / overall software sales, but would decrease 1st party sales.

Nintendo actually just decreased Wii production, so that doesn't seem to be the case. And of course, even if it ever did reach capacity, they can just increase it.

But in this formative market, Nintendo are in a brand building excercise, it is not just about current sales but also of sequels. The lack of competition now, is going to have an immensely positive effect on Nintendo software sales for the next 15 or 20 years.

Now this is a compelling argument. Yes, it could certainly be argued that the inability of third parties to capitalize on the Wii has essentially given Nintendo license to mint millions of new Nintendo fans who are loyal to their brand.

 

[EDarkness]

Now this is a compelling argument. Yes, it could certainly be argued that the inability of third parties to capitalize on the Wii has essentially given Nintendo license to mint millions of new Nintendo fans who are loyal to their brand.

I don't know about that. Gamers are fickle. Sony figured they could rest on their brand and it would carry the day, but that didn't get them far. Nintendo tried the same thing with the SNES and that didn't work so well, either. Thinking long term is good, but building brand loyalty in the game business is really just pissing in the wind. Make compelling software and people will come. That's pretty much the bottom line, I think.

 

[clashfan]

MS gave a $50 million loan for GTAIV DLC. I'm betting it would cost Nintendo a lot less than that to get a full GTA game on the Wii.

But no one would buy it on the wii.

 

[Brofist]

The bannable offense is derailing game threads with complaints about which platform(s) the game has been announced for, not sales threads where the discussion is about why Nintendo is making all the money, or which publishers are leaving money on the table. There's a difference between "this should have been a PS3/360 game" and "publishers have missed the boat with the Wii". One is off-topic in a discussion about the game, not the console(s), the other is on topic in a discussion of videogame sales.

The fact that Wii game announcements have resulted in bannings rather than PS3/360 game announcements only underlines who's really insecure, though, doesn't it?

Well given that the Wii user base is the largest, and is the most commonly given reason for Wii fan's thinking that all games should be on Wii, I find that arguement to be typically a front for the people who simply want the game to be on Wii.

I've been reading a lot of "I'd buy ______ game if it was on Wii" posts even in the sales topics as well.

 

[Aaron Strife]

But no one would buy it on the wii.

Maybe if it were a spin-off about Niko Bellic going to the funfair.

 

[heidern]

I think you misunderstood what I said.
2006 - Reggie says he's been talking with R* and T2 about GTA Wii
2008 - Reggie says he's never talked to them about GTA Wii

Well, from the interview I take the context as not talked to them recently/since GTA:CW was arranged rather than ever. Either that or he's lying/forgotten.

Nintendo actually just decreased Wii production, so that doesn't seem to be the case. And of course, even if it ever did reach capacity, they can just increase it.

The 3rd year is historically the peak year, so it does kind of make sense. But I don't think the figures whether up or down are that huge, and of course Nintendo could release another megahit or two to spur sales again next year.

I don't know about that. Gamers are fickle. Sony figured they could rest on their brand and it would carry the day, but that didn't get them far. Nintendo tried the same thing with the SNES and that didn't work so well, either. Thinking long term is good, but building brand loyalty in the game business is really just pissing in the wind. Make compelling software and people will come. That's pretty much the bottom line, I think.

It's not just the Nintendo brand but also the software brands. They have the Wii Fit brand, Wii Sports brand, and there is a resurgence of their older brands like Mario and then anything else they can come up with. They've got millions of new gamers who have only really been exposed to Nintendos games and will likely be loyal to those games, games that are not going to jump ship to another console since they are made by Nintendo thenselves.

 

[AniHawk]

They'd have to cancel a lot of projects, and some people would leave.

Nintendo should just buy Enix. Square and Nomura would still be able to make embarrassing games for Rieko Kodama and the old Skies/VC guys to outclass whenever they feel like it.

 

[Opiate]

Huh. Those Mario RPG games are made by ex Square employees? When did that happen? I play very, very few RPGs, particularly Japanese ones, so I don't keep up with this stuff. How did they end up with Nintendo?

 

[Eteric Rice]

Huh. Those Mario RPG games are made by ex Square employees? When did that happen? I play very, very few RPGs, particularly Japanese ones, so I don't keep up with this stuff. How did they end up with Nintendo?

I believe so, yeah. The guys that did Super Mario RPG work for Nintendo now.

Nintendo should just buy Enix. Square and Nomura would still be able to make embarrassing games for Rieko Kodama and the old Skies/VC guys to outclass whenever they feel like it.

Can you even buy one half of a company?

 

[AniHawk]

Can you even buy one half of a company?

Microsoft did in 2002.

 

[Version 3.0]

I don't know about that. Gamers are fickle. Sony figured they could rest on their brand and it would carry the day, but that didn't get them far. Nintendo tried the same thing with the SNES and that didn't work so well, either. Thinking long term is good, but building brand loyalty in the game business is really just pissing in the wind. Make compelling software and people will come. That's pretty much the bottom line, I think.

I have to agree. Neither company brand loyalty nor game franchise/character brand loyalty helped any past market leader hold on to their position when a generational change occurred.

In fact, one could easily argue the opposite: that the system offering the new experience trumps the one offering more of the same. Consider the Genesis' success based on Sonic and some very anti-Nintendo ads vs. Nintendo offering more Mario & Co (which turned around quite late, based largely on Donkey Kong Country's technology), the Playstation's success with multiple new franchises like Wipeout, Tekken, Resident Evil, etc. (although, as noted, it was Final Fantasy that cemented the Japanese market), and now the Wii, which most certainly did not run away with the lead based on the Nintendo name, nor any of Nintendo's big franchises of the time (Mario, Zelda, Pokemon), but on Wii Sports' fresh approach.

The exception here would seem to be the PS2, which I would argue had two fairly me-too competitors which were too little, too late.

 

[neptunes]

The only time I remember Nintendo actively courting a 3rd party was with Crystal Chronicles and Twin Snakes for the GC. Even for Twin Snakes they still used their 2nd Party (Silicon Knights).

 

[Dalthien]

Neither company brand loyalty nor game franchise/character brand loyalty helped any past market leader hold on to their position when a generational change occurred.

You're looking at it backwards though. Heidern isn't talking about brand loyalty carrying Nintendo to market dominance for the next 20 years. He is talking about brand loyalty carrying these franchises and brands to strong success for the next 20 years.

The brand loyalty that Nintendo built up during the NES and SNES years is a big reason why the Marios and Zeldas and Luigi's Mansions continued to sell multiple millions of copies even during the Gamecube years. They built up a huge brand equity amongst consumers way back when. Some of those people drifted away from gaming or moved on to other platforms and publishers - but many of them still retained those positive associations with the Nintendo brands and characters through the years and continued buying the franchises right through into the Gamecube years - 20 years later. Or they left gaming themselves, but remembered the family-friendly associations with Nintendo and turned their children on to these brands.

I believe that is what Heidern is referring to. The brand equity that Nintendo is building with these tens of millions of new customers (that 3rd-parties are essentially giving Nintendo free reign to build unimpeded) will help Nintendo keep selling these franchises and brands to many of these new customers and their children for many years to come. It may not be enough to keep them on top of the industry, but it could very well allow them to keep selling many millions of copies of these brands for another 20 years to come.

 

[Nirolak]

Wait I thought Alpha Dream was independent?

 

[Opiate]

Wait I thought Alpha Dream was independent?

Thanks, this helped. Alpha Dream is an affiliated third party under long term contract. I also did some research and found something quite interesting. Here is a list of Nintendo's affiliated third parties:

AlphaDream • Ambrella • Ape • Camelot Software Planning • Game Freak • Genius Sonority • HAL Laboratory • Noise • skip Ltd.

Now, here is a list of parties who were once affiliated but no longer are:

Marigul Management • Rare • Silicon Knights • Factor 5 • Left Field Productions

Apparently, Marigul dissolved in to Ambrella and Noise, which are still active. Otherwise, it's interesting to note that every single Japanese affiliate that has ever been associated with Nintendo is still affiliated and functional, while every single Western third party affiliate has left.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

Rare • Silicon Knights • Factor 5 • Left Field Productions

Apparently, Marigul dissolved in to Ambrella and Noise, which are still active. Otherwise, it's interesting to note that every single Japanese affiliate that has ever been associated with Nintendo is still affiliated and functional, while every single Western third party affiliate has left.

Rare still exists at the grace of MS, Silicon Knights just had a high profile game that was poorly reviewed (did it sell well?), Factor 5 crashed and burned, and I know almost nothing about Left Field Productions.... Wiki says Excitebike 64 - was there anything else that they did of importance during their time there?

Interesting notes there.

 

[cw_sasuke]

If I were Nintendo, I'd just say "fuck it" and buy Square-Enix. While they're not as powerful as they used to be, they have two of Japan's biggest franchises, which very few Japanese people would wanna pass up.

At very least maybe they could get rid of Wada.

They should consider buying Level 5.

 

[Eteric Rice]

Rare still exists at the grace of MS, Silicon Knights just had a high profile game that was poorly reviewed (did it sell well?), Factor 5 crashed and burned, and I know almost nothing about Left Field Productions.... Wiki says Excitebike 64 - was there anything else that they did of importance during their time there?

Interesting notes there.

Christ, it's almost like a curse or something. :O

They should consider buying Level 5.

Fuck it, buy Japan. :lol

 

[Oxx]

I know almost nothing about Left Field Productions.... Wiki says Excitebike 64 - was there anything else that they did of importance during their time there?

Didn't they do the NBA Courtside games?

 

[Firestorm]

You're looking at it backwards though. Heidern isn't talking about brand loyalty carrying Nintendo to market dominance for the next 20 years. He is talking about brand loyalty carrying these franchises and brands to strong success for the next 20 years.

The brand loyalty that Nintendo built up during the NES and SNES years is a big reason why the Marios and Zeldas and Luigi's Mansions continued to sell multiple millions of copies even during the Gamecube years. They built up a huge brand equity amongst consumers way back when. Some of those people drifted away from gaming or moved on to other platforms and publishers - but many of them still retained those positive associations with the Nintendo brands and characters through the years and continued buying the franchises right through into the Gamecube years - 20 years later. Or they left gaming themselves, but remembered the family-friendly associations with Nintendo and turned their children on to these brands.

I believe that is what Heidern is referring to. The brand equity that Nintendo is building with these tens of millions of new customers (that 3rd-parties are essentially giving Nintendo free reign to build unimpeded) will help Nintendo keep selling these franchises and brands to many of these new customers and their children for many years to come. It may not be enough to keep them on top of the industry, but it could very well allow them to keep selling many millions of copies of these brands for another 20 years to come.

Yeah, but the NES and SNES had really strong third party support as well.

By the way, have you seen any Canadian NPD numbers recently?

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Didn't they do the NBA Courtside games?

yeah and also some Disney Princess game for Gameboy that was a part of the Disney/Nintendo deal. They also made an excitebike knockoff for PS2/Xbox after Nintendo cut them loose IIRC.

 

[Dalthien]

Yeah, but the NES and SNES had really strong third party support as well.

Yeah, I probably should have just limited it to the NES, because that is really the best comparison to what Nintendo has achieved with the Wii. With the NES, Nintendo brought millions of new people into gaming and really established many of their beloved brands with those customers. Much as they have done again now with the Wii. But even with the better 3rd-party support back then, it was Nintendo that carried those systems. Especially the NES. There wasn't another publisher that came anywhere close to touching Nintendo in sales or mindshare on the NES. Millions of people bought the NES for Mario, Zelda, etc. Just as now millions of people are buying Wiis for the Wii_line of games, Mario, etc.

In any case, I don't believe that Nintendo is actually discouraging 3rd-party support on the Wii. I just feel that they are indifferent to it for the most part. They would like to have it if 3rd-parties want to join the party. But they aren't willing to go out and spend all kinds of resources in order to procure 3rd-party support. And I tend to agree with that philosophy. The ROI on expending significant resources to attract 3rd-parties would be fairly minimal. But if they focus that time and money on building their own brands and software - the ROI on their 1st-party successes is far, far greater than any returns that they would see from costly moneyhats. And coming off of the Gamecube, I really do believe that costly moneyhats would have been the only way of getting 3rd-parties to bring any of their top franchises to the Wii at the start of this gen.

By the way, have you seen any Canadian NPD numbers recently?

Unfortunately not. The couple of sources I occasionally had dried up completely a while ago. I've been keeping an eye on Canadian news reports, media coverage, etc. for sales stuff, but even that has been mostly non-existent this past year. I'm assuming we'll at least get some kind of annual recap soon, but I'm not even holding my breath for that. It may turn out to be nothing more than industry-wide revenue numbers for the year. Keep your fingers crossed.

 

[Version 3.0]

You're looking at it backwards though. Heidern isn't talking about brand loyalty carrying Nintendo to market dominance for the next 20 years. He is talking about brand loyalty carrying these franchises and brands to strong success for the next 20 years.

The brand loyalty that Nintendo built up during the NES and SNES years is a big reason why the Marios and Zeldas and Luigi's Mansions continued to sell multiple millions of copies even during the Gamecube years. They built up a huge brand equity amongst consumers way back when. Some of those people drifted away from gaming or moved on to other platforms and publishers - but many of them still retained those positive associations with the Nintendo brands and characters through the years and continued buying the franchises right through into the Gamecube years - 20 years later. Or they left gaming themselves, but remembered the family-friendly associations with Nintendo and turned their children on to these brands.

I believe that is what Heidern is referring to. The brand equity that Nintendo is building with these tens of millions of new customers (that 3rd-parties are essentially giving Nintendo free reign to build unimpeded) will help Nintendo keep selling these franchises and brands to many of these new customers and their children for many years to come. It may not be enough to keep them on top of the industry, but it could very well allow them to keep selling many millions of copies of these brands for another 20 years to come.

I completely understand that; I'm one of those loyal customers. What I'm saying is that the history of this industry proves that brand loyalty is not a particularly strong factor. What Edarkness said, and I agree with, is that the main factor in keeping franchises--and Nintendo as a whole--alive is quality. It's not brand loyalty that kept me buying, and it's not brand loyalty that kept Nintendo alive in 2nd and then 3rd place. It's a nice plus, for sure, and Nintendo definitely knows how to work with it, but it's obviously not as big of one as you think.

 

[Nirolak]

They should consider buying Level 5.

Level 5 is a private company. They'd have to be willing to sell.

 

[Version 3.0]

In any case, I don't believe that Nintendo is actually discouraging 3rd-party support on the Wii. I just feel that they are indifferent to it for the most part. They would like to have it if 3rd-parties want to join the party. But they aren't willing to go out and spend all kinds of resources in order to procure 3rd-party support. And I tend to agree with that philosophy. The ROI on expending significant resources to attract 3rd-parties would be fairly minimal. But if they focus that time and money on building their own brands and software - the ROI on their 1st-party successes is far, far greater than any returns that they would see from costly moneyhats. And coming off of the Gamecube, I really do believe that costly moneyhats would have been the only way of getting 3rd-parties to bring any of their top franchises to the Wii at the start of this gen.

I completely agree with this. Nintendo put some effort into getting decent 3rd-party support on the N64 (the "Dream Team") and the Gamecube (the "Capcom 5", and things like MGS: Twin Snakes and letting Sega go online with Phantasy Star) and I'm sure they felt, in retrospect, that it wasn't worth the effort. With the Wii, they seem very reserved. It's not like they're doing nothing, but they're obviously not bending over backwards for anyone or seeking out games with cash in hand.

 

[Dalthien]

I completely understand that; I'm one of those loyal customers. What I'm saying is that the history of this industry proves that brand loyalty is not a particularly strong factor. What Edarkness said, and I agree with, is that the main factor in keeping franchises--and Nintendo as a whole--alive is quality. It's not brand loyalty that kept me buying, and it's not brand loyalty that kept Nintendo alive in 2nd and then 3rd place. It's a nice plus, for sure, and Nintendo definitely knows how to work with it, but it's obviously not as big of one as you think.

Well yeah - quality is certainly a huge factor. If the games went to shit, then you can just throw the brand loyalty right out the window.

But the brand loyalty counts for a lot. There are all kinds of really high-quality games that come all the time and fail to sell big numbers. There's a reason that is never a problem with Mario, Zelda, Mario Kart, Smash Bros., etc. Millions upon millions of people have fond associations with these brands. And now tens of millions of new people are developing positive associations with Nintendo again, on a level that far outclasses anything going on with any other publisher on any other system. Even if only a tenth of those new Wii owners develop a strong brand affinity with Nintendo for the future - that is a very big deal.

 

[Fafalada]

The PC is doing fine, of course. At last we heard, PC Gaming revenue was up in 2008 compared to 2007

Actual sales are dwindling though - revenue growth is from new business models that don't work by traditional sales model. This is further exemplified by US no longer being the biggest PC market.
Big players shifted focus to consoles because those still make money the "old"way, but that won't last forever either.

 

[Kilrogg]

I completely understand that; I'm one of those loyal customers. What I'm saying is that the history of this industry proves that brand loyalty is not a particularly strong factor. What Edarkness said, and I agree with, is that the main factor in keeping franchises--and Nintendo as a whole--alive is quality. It's not brand loyalty that kept me buying, and it's not brand loyalty that kept Nintendo alive in 2nd and then 3rd place. It's a nice plus, for sure, and Nintendo definitely knows how to work with it, but it's obviously not as big of one as you think.

Which is why I think it would be more accurate to say that companies are fickle, not gamers. When brand loyalty weakens, it's because the offerings start to fail to live up to the prior perception of the brand (which is that of a quality brand with compelling offerings). This is true for every company, but in Nintendo's case, one should only look at 3D Mario, for instance. Very good games with very good sales to be sure, but judging by NSMB DS and NSMB Wii's sales and "evergreen" quality, 3D Mario wasn't in tune with what people expected from mainline Mario titles (2D platforming, arcade gameplay, whatever). 3D Mario wasn't as compelling as 2D Mario. Gamers of all kinds know what they want when they see it. Companies just fail to understand what it is that people like about their games.

I suppose the same reasoning could be applied to SEGA's brand, most notably with Sonic.

 

[Castor Krieg]

I believe that is what Heidern is referring to. The brand equity that Nintendo is building with these tens of millions of new customers (that 3rd-parties are essentially giving Nintendo free reign to build unimpeded) will help Nintendo keep selling these franchises and brands to many of these new customers and their children for many years to come. It may not be enough to keep them on top of the industry, but it could very well allow them to keep selling many millions of copies of these brands for another 20 years to come.

Nada. Don't make the same mistake that some businesses are making with seeing China as "one billion people market". Casual gamers, and there are the majority for Wii, do not get attached the same way hardcore gamers do. Nintendo survived N64 and Gamecube because of the hardcore. Nowadays however you see sequels selling way below the original outing on the Wii. As somebody form this thread said before - casual gamers do not want incremental additions, they don't care for them. They will not run and buy Game X 2 simply because it has additional modes, characters, etc. since it still plays the same, and they already have the original game.