Dvader said:

Yodariquo said:

Soul Calibur II

Link power.

Well if the next TES had Link in it then yeah they should port it.

It's almost the only example I can think of where the port for the Nintendo system has a proper effort behind it.  Viewtiful Joe would be another, but I imagine you'd argue that doesn't count, and I'm not sure on the sales.  RE4 came out so late in the lifecycle that PS2 had an 80 million userbase advantage by that point.  Even if the GCN version didn't outsell the PS2 version, it still sold well.

There's limited basis to go on.  GCN was far behind the ball in terms of sales to actually expect port to outdo the PS2 version (as well as keep in mind most ports were made for PS2 then ported to GCN meaning it looked like crap compared to games made for the system).  For Wii third-parties gave it the treatment we're all used to by now with disastrously poor efforts that shouldn't sell.

If we're talking historical context, Nintendo burned bridges with the Seal of Approval, and once there was a competitor willing to take in all comers and have a larger userbase it was a hard sell to bring them back.  It was only relaxed once the GCN was struggling, and by that point there was little point in changing attitudes.  Nintendo put efforts towards fostering third-party relationships in the latter half of the GCN with partnerships with SEGA, Namco, Capcom and others.  Somewhere during the Wii lifecycle, I think they got fed up with the--for lack of a better word--disrespect the system got from third-parties.  Nintendo took Zelda from Flagship, F-Zero from SEGA, Mario Kart from Namco and said fine, if you want us to do it alone, we will because we have all the sales anyway.  That doesn't work so well on the U when they don't have Wii Sports to tell it to the masses.

The question becomes, though, should third-parties give a real effort?  I'd say so.  I'm not convinced it's the market that's the problem, or at least, hasn't been.  If a really good, quality third-party game for whatever market, provided it's not niche in target audience, I would expect it would do well.  Is there a game you can point to and say "this should have sold really well, but it didn't because it was on a Nintendo system"?

Archangel3371 said:

gamingeek said:

new ms ceo

born in india heads ms cloud dept

Jesus christ. The Mummy Returns, part deux.

Get well soon GG.

I'm pretty sure this is the asshole I talked to when I had to call customer service for my 4th Xbox 360.

Yodariquo said:

The question becomes, though, should third-parties give a real effort?  I'd say so.  I'm not convinced it's the market that's the problem, or at least, hasn't been.  If a really good, quality third-party game for whatever market, provided it's not niche in target audience, I would expect it would do well.  Is there a game you can point to and say "this should have sold really well, but it didn't because it was on a Nintendo system"?

One might argue Wonderful 101.  If they had went with the original plan of including Nintendo characters and Miis it might've taken off like a Smash Bros type game.

Link?

I see...nobody cares that I have a 3ds. Fuck you all!!!!

edgecrusher said:

I see...nobody cares that I have a 3ds. Fuck you all!!!!

Get animal crossing!

I have an idea and I need some help is there an easy way to get quotes into animated gifs.

Yodariquo said:

It's almost the only example I can think of where the port for the Nintendo system has a proper effort behind it.  Viewtiful Joe would be another, but I imagine you'd argue that doesn't count, and I'm not sure on the sales.  RE4 came out so late in the lifecycle that PS2 had an 80 million userbase advantage by that point.  Even if the GCN version didn't outsell the PS2 version, it still sold well.

There's limited basis to go on.  GCN was far behind the ball in terms of sales to actually expect port to outdo the PS2 version (as well as keep in mind most ports were made for PS2 then ported to GCN meaning it looked like crap compared to games made for the system).  For Wii third-parties gave it the treatment we're all used to by now with disastrously poor efforts that shouldn't sell.

If we're talking historical context, Nintendo burned bridges with the Seal of Approval, and once there was a competitor willing to take in all comers and have a larger userbase it was a hard sell to bring them back.  It was only relaxed once the GCN was struggling, and by that point there was little point in changing attitudes.  Nintendo put efforts towards fostering third-party relationships in the latter half of the GCN with partnerships with SEGA, Namco, Capcom and others.  Somewhere during the Wii lifecycle, I think they got fed up with the--for lack of a better word--disrespect the system got from third-parties.  Nintendo took Zelda from Flagship, F-Zero from SEGA, Mario Kart from Namco and said fine, if you want us to do it alone, we will because we have all the sales anyway.  That doesn't work so well on the U when they don't have Wii Sports to tell it to the masses.

The question becomes, though, should third-parties give a real effort?  I'd say so.  I'm not convinced it's the market that's the problem, or at least, hasn't been.  If a really good, quality third-party game for whatever market, provided it's not niche in target audience, I would expect it would do well.  Is there a game you can point to and say "this should have sold really well, but it didn't because it was on a Nintendo system"?

I think the third party disapproval began with N64 when their hardware started to deviate from what would become the industry standard. N64 had way less support than the NES and SNES. GC was their most traditional console of the last four gens and as you stated it had really poor sales so third party ports were going to sell less. Still I am pretty sure if you see Xbox sales which had the same user base as GC I bet Xbox versions sold more.  As for your last question I would say the exclusive RE games on GC were such examples, a RE game on any other console would sell tons, on GC it struggled to sell a million (not RE4 but that game was special). REmake on PS2 would have quadrupled the sales it had on GC. Xbox probably double them. Then in the Wii area the effect was the opposite, it had such a large install base that you would expect major sales and yet too many times sales were just ok or bad. The bad ports were going to be a given because of the hardware definciencies.

Look at your third paragraph and the company names you mentioned that Nintendo was partnering with, are any of those not from Japan? Nintendo completely missed the western game revolution, which would become the leaders of gaming. All their worst partnerships were with the companies that would take over the biggest sales.To this day they by far have the worst relationship with western devs of any console maker.

Iga_Bobovic said:

Dvader said:

Cause there was zero worry that the system would be just fine in the future.

False, there were ton of worries! PS3 was loosing exclusives hard

Dvader said:

Cause Sony cultimavates relationships with third parties.

By making a console that was hard to work with. Yeah 3rd parties really loved that!

Dvader said:

Cause the hardware was up to the standards of the gen.

Wii U upon release was the most powerful console yet it did not get many 360/PS3 ports. Gamecube got shafted even though it was more powerful than the PS2. Heck even Xbox got more 3rd party games, even though it only sold marginally better.

Dvader said:

The online infrastructure was there.

Wii U has no online?

Dvader said:

There a ton of reasons why the PS3 got support.

It does not matter what Nintendo does, it will never get 3rd party support as the other companies will. There is a perfectly good explanation for that. Can you guess it?

Sony lost exclusives when 360 sales were booming, thats buisness, companies go where money is. Now they didn't lose those games they just lost exclusivity, that was bound to end at some point anyway. That is not the same as Nintendo just not getting any of those games.

The PS3 was the height of Sony arrogance and it cost them but how fast did they turn the ship around. Within two years they rebranded the console, lowered the price, and started to go after western devs to make sure they have good relationships. The PS4 was a love letter to third party developers, Sony pretty much said we are making this console FOR YOU. Sony saw a problem, fired the head man, fixed the ship extremely fast. Nintendo should probably take a look at that. Sony lost last gen, they sure has hell weren't going to lose this upcoming one and I have seen enough to declare Sony the winner of this next gen.

LOL stop trying to pretend that Wii U is a last gen system, its a next gen system, its the least powerful one. It will not be competiting with PS3/360 anymore (well it sold so bad that maybe that is all it would actually compete with but a normal system would have been competing with the new ones). It was a new console with no install base asking for old gen ports, third parties knew they wouldnt be making much money. I would say the first year of Wii U got as good third party support as they could have hoped. Two GOTY winners (Batman and Mass Effect), full Ubisoft support, CoD, thats pretty damn good considering the Wii's track record. Sales were abysmal, what are those companies supposed to do?

Wii Us online is a joke when compared to the other two. Nintendo has finally addressed this it seemed so at least they will address one part of their failures.

I agree with the last point. It has reached a point where Nintendo is viewed as some strange different entity in this market. I don't know if they could ever be the number one primary console again in most countries. I would like your explaination for this.

Ahhhhhhhh so that's what happened....