Support NeoGAF

[JoeM86]

Pretty much.

It's sad though that people are somehow trying to argue that Nintendo's horrible 3rd party relations and lack of support has nothing to do with Nintendo themselves. Really?

There's only so much Nintendo can do in regards to this though. The vast majority of the issues are the publisher's fault.

People are severely overestimating what Nintendo could have done, so I ask you. What could they have done? Market? Nope, that's contracted to EA as publisher. Printed more? Nope. They only print as many as the publisher requests. They gave it decent showings in Nintendo Directs and on the eShop as well as bits on their social media. So do tell, what could they have done?

 

[AniHawk]

I thought that was just 3DS. If it's the Wii U ones too, though, it's still not really Nintendo's fault really as they print as many as the publisher requests.

there's usually a minimum order quantity. of course when launching something, that's not as important as reorders.

it's sometimes possible that the entirety of europe will see sales hit half of what they do in just north america. if ea only made 20 or 30 thousand copies of nfs for the wii u, it was probably not worth the headache to pay graphic designers and translators a month in pay to work with nintendo to get a game out that would only net 15 thousand in sales across several regions.

i'm not familiar with the wii u production line, but the queue is still a very real thing as of at least a couple months ago. ...again, with proper management, it's not a super big deal and really only affects reorders, but it still exists.

on the subject of nintendo marketing or not marketing games- it really depends what ward was expecting. i've never encountered a situation where a pitch was made to a first-party for a marketing budget and the first party let us make a commercial or a magazine ad on their dime. raising awareness through official videos or blog posts? maybe some promotions and sales through online stores? that's way more common. at least, i've seen it from more than one first-party developer. but that rests on the shoulders of the developer/publisher to devote time and resources to developing images and videos for the first-party to implement. it's still mostly on the third-party's dime.

 

[dosh]

The publisher, but the console vendor can gives financial breaks or add incentives (like marketing money) to print discs if the publisher thinks they will lose money by making the minimum print requirement (which can be anywhere from 5000-50,000 depending on who the console vendor is, usually at $10-$12 per disc printed as the licensing fee is up front).

Since EA and Nintendo couldn't come to an agreement and EA thought they would lose money, EA didn't print discs for the European release up front.

So this grabbed my attention. I knew that publishers had to pay a fee to release a game on any console, but I never really bothered to look at how that actually worked.

Is the fee always on a per disc basis? How does that work for digital releases, is it the same price as physical disc?

 

[Shiggy]

My fault; Ninja Gaiden was the main title in my mind. Interesting to learn they also published Lego City, and Rayman in Japan. Neither at launch, obviously. My mistake, and happy to learn from it.

They actually "bought" Lego City, so that's more comparable to Sing Party or Wonderful 101. I believe they had a lot more going on 3DS where they published some Japanese titles initially.

 

[Log4Girlz]

If the question of whether or not there would be a concrete benefit to marketing NFS in EA's stead is irrelevant and pointless, how could Nintendo be in the wrong for not doing it?

Trying to sway opinions often relies on tactics that may not present clear, quantifiable results. Its not like "Ok, if we spend 2 million dollars for this one title's advertising, then we will get 7.5 more support points from EA". That's not how these kind of businesses work, even though that is exactly what Nintendo need, EA's support and that's only going to happen if they have a good relationship.

Nintendo is having a huge problem with third party support in general. Showing support for a title based solely just on quality, is going to have a positive effect on third party relations. It is what is called a "gesture" of goodwill, which has been lacking. Nintendo is notorious for poor third party relations. Just look at what went down with EA. Now they have nothing to show from the largest third party. My opinion is that supporting NFS more aggressively, based on the fact that effort was put into the port to make it clearly superior to the legacy hardware it arrived on previously, effort no other developer was seeming to put into their titles save Ubisoft, would have gone a long way to start changing opinions. Ignoring a title that clearly had a lot of hard work put into it, above and beyond what others were doing, even if there were frosty relations with EA, was not wise.

How unwise is not quantifiable. Again, its not like we can point to an example where MS and Sony had to do something similar, and its not like we can make a guess of how many positive opinion points they get towards a publisher as such a thing doesn't exist. But opinions do exist, quantifiable or not.

Forming this opinion is not some huge leap in logic. Not everything in business boils down to a formula or precedent, especially when Nintendo is in a position no other major hardware provider has been in, perhaps with the exception of Sega and the Dreamcast if you still considered them major after the Saturn. Even if we cannot know what actually could have resulted from aggressive support, does not mean it was not a mistake to do so. These gestures are not meaningless or forgotten. Perhaps the benefit may not even materialize until their next platform. But Nintendo has to become more aggressive. There is a reason why EA has not abandoned MS or Sony but has shunned Nintendo.

I do not fault someone for disagreeing with the opinion, but you can't just say "well that opinion needs solid proof". This is the kind of opinion where solid proof is just not going to exist and is not necessary.

So when you ask "What was the last 5 month late port from Microsoft or Nintendo that Sony advertised? Honest question, while we're criticizing Nintendo for not advertising an EA (one of the biggest publishers in the industry) game when EA itself wouldn't advertise it."

Its an empty question. MS and Sony don't really advertise games that had little support from their publisher as they usually are getting all their biggest games anyway. MS and Sony do not have any issues with EA or any other major publisher. There is no need to make a big deal out of a port as the publisher is perfectly happy and willing to support anything they put out on those systems. So when Madden is ported over, often with less features, but perhaps shinier graphics onto Xbox One or PS4, there is no worry about EA's support.

But when Nintendo is a unique situation where one of the biggest publishers in the world is pulling the plug on support and you do not wish to support the one title a developer put time and effort into, one of the only ports to actually differentiate itself in quality from the other cross gen ports you are getting. Well In my opinion, that's a mistake.

 

[69wpm]

Man, Ward can be angry all he wants, but at this point his tweets are hilarious and unprofessional. He still didn't answer the question about games selling more on the eShop.

I understand why he is angry, but when your employer doesn't give a shit about your game, you clearly work for the wrong company. I don't even understand why EA greenlit the damn game if they didn't have any plan do promote it.

 

[JoeM86]

Trying to sway opinions often relies on tactics that may not present clear, quantifiable results. Its not like "Ok, if we spend 2 million dollars for this one title's advertising, then we will get 7.5 more support points from EA". That's not how these kind of businesses work, even though that is exactly what Nintendo need, EA's support and that's only going to happen if they have a good relationship.

Nintendo is having a huge problem with third party support in general. Showing support for a title based solely just on quality, is going to have a positive effect on third party relations. It is what is called a "gesture" of goodwill, which has been lacking. Nintendo is notorious for poor third party relations. Just look at what went down with EA. Now they have nothing to show from the largest third party. My opinion is that supporting NFS more aggressively, based on the fact that effort was put into the port to make it clearly superior to the legacy hardware it arrived on previously, effort no other developer was seeming to put into their titles save Ubisoft, would have gone a long way to start changing opinions. Ignoring a title that clearly had a lot of hard work put into it, above and beyond what others were doing, even if there were frosty relations with EA, was not wise.

How unwise is not quantifiable. Again, its not like we can point to an example where MS and Sony had to do something similar, and its not like we can make a guess of how many positive opinion points they get towards a publisher as such a thing doesn't exist. But opinions do exist, quantifiable or not.

Forming this opinion is not some huge leap in logic. Not everything in business boils down to a formula or precedent, especially when Nintendo is in a position no other major hardware provider has been in, perhaps with the exception of Sega and the Dreamcast if you still considered them major after the Saturn. Even if we cannot know what actually could have resulted from aggressive support, does not mean it was not a mistake to do so. These gestures are not meaningless or forgotten. Perhaps the benefit may not even materialize until their next platform. But Nintendo has to become more aggressive. There is a reason why EA has not abandoned MS or Sony but has shunned Nintendo.

I do not fault someone for disagreeing with the opinion, but you can't just say "well that opinion needs solid proof". This is the kind of opinion where solid proof is just not going to exist and is not necessary.

So when you ask "What was the last 5 month late port from Microsoft or Nintendo that Sony advertised? Honest question, while we're criticizing Nintendo for not advertising an EA (one of the biggest publishers in the industry) game when EA itself wouldn't advertise it."

Its an empty question. MS and Sony don't really advertise games that had little support from their publisher as they usually are getting all their biggest games anyway. MS and Sony do not have any issues with EA or any other major publisher. There is no need to make a big deal out of a port as the publisher is perfectly happy and willing to support anything they put out on those systems. So when Madden is ported over, often with less features, but perhaps shinier graphics onto Xbox One or PS4, there is no worry about EA's support.

But when Nintendo is a unique situation where one of the biggest publishers in the world is pulling the plug on support and you do not wish to support the one title a developer put time and effort into, one of the only ports to actually differentiate itself in quality from the other cross gen ports you are getting. Well In my opinion, that's a mistake.

The thing is, Nintendo are extremely limited in what they can do. Marketing is all on EA. They couldn't do that themselves. They gave it exposure where they could, but everything is on EA.

It's ridiculous to just trash Nintendo because they didn't do it all themselves just because EA didn't bother. They legally could not step in due to how publishing and marketing works.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Blame. Fault. Right. Wrong. Fair. Unfair.

So many emotive words, so little regard for realities and practicalities.

There's only so much Nintendo can do in regards to this though. The vast majority of the issues are the publisher's fault.

People are severely overestimating what Nintendo could have done, so I ask you. What could they have done? Market? Nope, that's contracted to EA as publisher. Printed more? Nope. They only print as many as the publisher requests. They gave it decent showings in Nintendo Directs and on the eShop as well as bits on their social media. So do tell, what could they have done?

Their hands are obviously tied. It's not like Sony pays large sums of money to co-market NBA2K, Assassin's Creed and Destiny. Or Microsoft pays for their association with Call of Duty. It's also impossible to incentivize printing runs. Such things never happen.

 

[Shiggy]

Man, Ward can be angry all he wants, but at this point his tweets are hilarious and unprofessional. He still didn't answer the question about games selling more on the eShop.

I understand why he is angry, but when your employer doesn't give a shit about your game, you clearly work for the wrong company. I don't even understand why EA greenlit the damn game if they didn't have any plan do promote it.

That's some great stuff. Are his other tweets just as hilarious heh?

 

[Pennywise]

So this grabbed my attention. I knew that publishers had to pay a fee to release a game on any console, but I never really bothered to look at how that actually worked.

Is the fee always on a per disc basis? How does that work for digital releases, is it the same price as physical disc?

I don't know about digital prices, but it was a disc basis for the 360 as far as I know.
Besides the security measures were alot bigger for 360 games than PC games.

 

[EDarkness]

Blame. Fault. Right. Wrong. Fair. Unfair.

So many emotive words, so little regard for realities and practicalities.

You're right. EA didn't market their own game. It didn't sell. Done and done.

 

[flatearthpandas]

They actually "bought" Lego City, so that's more comparable to Sing Party or Wonderful 101. I believe they had a lot more going on 3DS where they published some Japanese titles initially.

Inversion
Interesting, I didn't know about the 3DS stuff. For whatever reason, I thought they published several of the third party Wii U launch games. Must have just been a mix of Ninja Gaiden and 18 months time fogging things up.

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

There's only so much Nintendo can do in regards to this though. The vast majority of the issues are the publisher's fault.

People are severely overestimating what Nintendo could have done, so I ask you. What could they have done? Market? Nope, that's contracted to EA as publisher. Printed more? Nope. They only print as many as the publisher requests. They gave it decent showings in Nintendo Directs and on the eShop as well as bits on their social media. So do tell, what could they have done?

I already agreed that it was both companies' fault. I think people are just not talking about EA so much, because the general consensus is that, yes, they are a shitty, scummy company and this behavior not really surprising from them. And my comment is more directed at this back and forth, and this type of generality being pushed in this thread:

But Nintendo cannot be held accountable to any of that! If third parties by in large do not want to support Nintendo, that's on them! Its up to the publishers to ensure their product sells. Nintendo is just putting out hardware man, their job ends there :/

Honestly, it is. I'll save this quote for when my game comes and if it doesn't do well, I'll just blame it on Nintendo...and Steam...and Apple...and Amazon...and everyone except myself. Must be nice to simply not have to take responsibility for our own products!

I personally find this a ridiculous straw man. No one is saying that publishers are not also at fault, but when your 3rd party relations and support is non-existent on your home console, you are also to blame. People can argue all they want about how they think it should be, but Sony and Microsoft have already set a standard for going out of their way to support 3rd parties in this current industry (a standard that is beneficial to all parties involved).

Edit: Furthermore, looking at supporting 3rd parties as solely a publisher responsibility is incredibly short-sighted. It's exactly how you end up with situations like this one. A developer, who published under a major pub, but got mistreated by both EA and Nintendo. Now that dev no longer wishes to associate with Nintendo. Appeasing 3rd party devs isn't just about kissing the ass of publishers, it's about making your platform attractive to developers, whether they work under major publishers, or are indie. You want that developer, regardless of where he works to want to support your console, regardless of who he works for. And that is definitely out of the publisher's hand, and falls into the general perception of the console.

 

[cyberheater]

Nothing in the OP surprised me.

When the WiiU finally dies, the protracted post mortem is going to be a fascinating read.

 

[AniHawk]

(which can be anywhere from 5000-50,000 depending on who the console vendor is, usually at $10-$12 per disc printed as the licensing fee is up front).

50,000 for a minimum order quantity seems like one odd choice.

 

[crinale]

Since when was it the platform holder's job to market and print games they aren't publishing? It has always been the publisher's job.

IMO it's p platform holder's job to make device developer friendly and have SDK ready sooner so it won't get late ports or shabby ports.
Look what happened to early PS3... History has already proven it before Nintendo had to learn it in a hard way by their own.

 

[Log4Girlz]

The thing is, Nintendo are extremely limited in what they can do. Marketing is all on EA. They couldn't do that themselves. They gave it exposure where they could, but everything is on EA.

It's ridiculous to just trash Nintendo because they didn't do it all themselves just because EA didn't bother. They legally could not step in due to how publishing and marketing works.

EA is actively supporting MS and Sony and has pulled the plug on support for Nintendo very very early in the Wii U's life. Something is very wrong there. Nintendo as a platform holder must secure support or wither and die, as they are doing now. They are not a monopoly, they are failing to do what their competitors are. What Nintendo has or has not done behind the scenes is impossible to know, but considering comments from Nintendo and some developers, it appears Nintendo has little interest in spending money to secure support.

I do not know what it would cost them to get third party support. It is clearly too late now to salvage the Wii U, but its pretty clear the issues leading to its downfall existed well before release and unless Nintendo reevaluates how it does business, which is very well may be doing now, then third party support is not going to miraculously arrive on their platform, unless they get some huge hit like the Wii which did not really need a huge amount of third party support to take off, like consoles usually must have.

Nintendo is 100% responsible for the support they get on their platform and they are responsible for creating an appealing platform that can garner healthy sales and justify continued support from third parties. Its not just that they fucked up with the Wii U. They have a business model which cannot support a traditional console. The Wii U is selling in line with where you would expect a successor to gamecube to sell for a reason.

 

[JoeM86]

EA is actively supporting MS and Sony and has pulled the plug on support for Nintendo very very early in the Wii U's life. Something is very wrong there. Nintendo as a platform holder must secure support or wither and die, as they are doing now. They are not a monopoly, they are failing to do what their competitors are. What Nintendo has or has not done behind the scenes is impossible to know, but considering comments from Nintendo and some developers, it appears Nintendo has little interest in spending money to secure support.

I do not know what it would cost them to get third party support. It is clearly too late now to salvage the Wii U, but its pretty clear the issues leading to its downfall existed well before release and unless Nintendo reevaluates how it does business, which is very well may be doing now, then third party support is not going to miraculously arrive on their platform, unless they get some huge hit like the Wii which did not really need a huge amount of third party support to take off, like consoles usually must have.

Nintendo is 100% responsible for the support they get on their platform and they are responsible for creating an appealing platform that can garner healthy sales and justify continued support from third parties. Its not just that they fucked up with the Wii U. They have a business model which cannot support a traditional console. The Wii U is selling in line with where you would expect a successor to gamecube to sell for a reason.

Nintendo is responsible for support, yes. I'm not arguing against that.

What I'm saying is that Nintendo is not responsible for marketing a third party game which has a third party publisher. It's not their job, it's not their position and legally they can't do it outside of the stuff they actually did.

 

[AniHawk]

So many emotive words, so little regard for realities and practicalities.
Their hands are obviously tied. It's not like Sony pays large sums of money to co-market NBA2K, Assassin's Creed and Destiny. Or Microsoft pays for their association with Call of Duty. It's also impossible to incentivize printing runs. Such things never happen.

well nintendo bought lego, and got the exclusive goods on sonic. they clearly want games they want. unfortunately for ward, nfs wasn't one of them, as good as it was (i have the ps3 version, but i really like the game).

i hate to say it because while i do really like nfs, there wasn't much to gain from marketing it when it was five months old. it seems like an odd choice to single out when they actually do happen to collaborate with certain third-parties (namely bandai namco, sega, and koei tecmo). maybe ward was expecting a wii u nfs bundle? or something? i don't know.

i guess what i'm trying to get at is that nintendo shouldn't have pretended like they cared for the ea fanbase in the first place and spent their time cultivating better relationships with companies that would make the games they wanted their platform to have.

 

[EDarkness]

I personally find this a ridiculous straw man. No one is saying that publishers are not also at fault, but when your 3rd party relations and support is non-existent on your home console, you are also to blame. People can argue all they want about how they think it should be, but Sony and Microsoft have already set a standard for going out of their way to support 3rd parties in this current industry (a standard that is beneficial to all parties involved).

How so? All of that other stuff is irrelevant. Like I said, if it's as easy as passing the buck to whomever when my product fails, then that's great. If my game fails, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Nintendo unless they are actively trying to sabotage my product. Sony and Microsoft also don't support or throw money at every third party developer. They pick and choose just like everyone else, which means that it all falls down to the publisher to promote their own game.

 

[shinra-bansho]

You're right. EA didn't market their own game. It didn't sell. Done and done.

And the resultant outcome of EA's games not selling on the system? No future support. And the resultant outcome of no future support? A moribund system and a negative impact on support from other publishers.

One can ascribe blame until the proverbial cows come home for all the good it will do.
Or one can realise that regardless of whether EA gets the blame and the fault and was terribly unfair and so on and so forth, that the onus in this relationship is on Nintendo.

Because EA does not need Nintendo.

And the same essentially applies for any other third party you insert in place of EA.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Nintendo is responsible for support, yes. I'm not arguing against that.

What I'm saying is that Nintendo is not responsible for marketing a third party game which has a third party publisher. It's not their job, it's not their position and legally they can't do it outside of the stuff they actually did.

Well of course, and I'm not saying its their job, but not doing so is a mistake lol. They should have taken it upon themselves to do that gesture IMO.

 

[JoeM86]

Well of course, and I'm not saying its their job, but not doing so is a mistake lol. They should have taken it upon themselves to do that gesture IMO.

What could they have done? They couldn't have run adverts, as that's in EA's contract. They couldn't have published it themselves, as that's in EA's contract.

Seriously, all people moaning and trashing Nintendo for this, tell me. What could Nintendo have done?

 

[fastballspecial]

Dang. Very candid, indeed. Good for him not putting up with people's shit. Very excited to see what his new studio will develop and self-publish.

 

[EDarkness]

And the resultant outcome of EA's games not selling on the system? No future support. And the resultant outcome of no future support? A moribund system and a negative impact on support from other publishers.

One can ascribe blame until the proverbial cows come home for all the good it will do.
Or one can realise that regardless of whether EA gets the blame and the fault and was terribly unfair and so on and so forth, that the onus in this relationship is on Nintendo.

Because EA does not need Nintendo.

And the same essentially applies for any other third party you insert in place of EA.

You're right. EA doesn't need Nintendo. Sucks for Nintendo to be sure. However, we're not really talking about that, but about the game not getting promoted. It's EA's game, it's their job to do so...which is all I'm saying. If EA didn't give a damn, then that's where Ward should be directing his anger. Doesn't matter whether he (Ward) makes games for Nintendo in the future. I just think that his anger at Nintendo is misplaced. Just my opinion, but as I said before, I kinda have the same feeling about Sony, so I can understand his position in either case.

 

[Shiggy]

What could they have done? They couldn't have run adverts, as that's in EA's contract. They couldn't have published it themselves, as that's in EA's contract.

Seriously, all people moaning and trashing Nintendo for this, tell me. What could Nintendo have done?

You seriously believe that EA would have declined Nintendo's offer to provide marketing for the game?

 

[Log4Girlz]

What could they have done? They couldn't have run adverts, as that's in EA's contract. They couldn't have published it themselves, as that's in EA's contract.

Seriously, all people moaning and trashing Nintendo for this, tell me. What could Nintendo have done?

I think the token of goodwill could have been bundling the game. Have a special Wii U bundle, much like ZombiU had.

Please, if it did have an official bundle then someone correct me.

Anyway, since it showed off what the Wii U could do vs. the previous gen, it would make sense to show it off.

This wouldn't have made Wii U's fly off the shelf of course. But it would have shown some more willingness on Nintendo's part to secure support. They would probably need to follow that up with more gestures, what specifically I don't know, again perhaps discounts on royalties, offers to port games for free. At the very least it could have warmed things up.

Its too late now. And I worry about third party relations for any future platforms. Not so much that third parties will hold some huge grudge against Nintendo, but more that Nintendo is absolutely unwilling to go to any great lengths to gain support.

Considering how well Nintendo games sell on their platforms once they have a decent sell through, I mean they sold quite well even on the gamecube, I find it odd they do not put more money into securing exclusives or at least quality support for the sake of getting a large enough install base that they will naturally do amazingly well on. Oh well, the Wii's success in an odd way really sealed their fate.

As Bill Gates said "Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can't lose."

 

[charlequin]

charlequin, a tad OT, but I've been meaning to ask. Is there a particular reason why there are no unions in the gaming industry?

The history of American unionization originates out of manual labor and spread primarily into government work; basically all the professions involved in game development first arose when American unions were already in decline. Plus there are a lot of fairly extreme ideas about rugged individualism floating around in every part of the tech sector.

I'm confused, why should Nintendo market another publishers game?

Because both of their (now more successful) competitors do it, because a platform-holder co-marketing major titles is mutually beneficial to both parties? (More game sales equals more platform sales to play it on equals more sales of future games.)

It's not Nintendo's problem or our problem, really.

There is no reasonable English interpretation in which a situation where Nintendo's actions directly lead the biggest third-party publisher to abandon their platform is "not Nintendo's problem."

In general, there are a lot of efforts in this thread to go on about the fine details of this one very specific case as if what's really relevant is Nintendo's response in a vacuum to a port of a single mid-tier racing title, and not the fact that the story about this title is representative of how Nintendo treats every third-party title.

In your posts in particular, you also are being really insistent on assigning this divine judgment about who is morally to "blame" for the situation, while eliding the fact that whoever's at "fault," EA pulling back from Nintendo's systems has zero negative impact on EA's bottom line but an immense one on Nintendo's. Absent true ethical or major legal concerns (neither of which is present here), "fault" is entirely irrelevant in business compared to what actually builds success.

 

[JoeM86]

You seriously believe that EA would have declined Nintendo's offer to provide marketing for the game?

Yes, I do.

Besides, that would be unprecedented. That has never happened before.

Other platform holders secure things, sure, and promote on occasion, as Nintendo did on the Directs and social media. However, they don't take over the marketing.

 

[Codeblew]

Seriously. I challenge anyone in here to list one bad thing to come from unions.

The jobs will go away because the gaming companies will move their operations to another more business friendly country. Detroit is also a good example.

 

[cyberheater]

Alex said he will choose his platforms more carefully next time. How does a dev initially make the mistake to develop for a platform like the WiiU. Are they told lies by Nintendo relative to the projected sales performance on the WiiU?

 

[The Maverick]

Yes, I do.

Besides, that would be unprecedented. That has never happened before.

The failure of the Wii U is unprecedented. A smart Nintendo would be making unprecedented moves.

There's no way EA would say no to that. And it could have huge benefits for Nintendo, such as other third parties potentially deciding to release games on the system. (Until they go full next generation.)

 

[Steroyd]

But Nintendo cannot be held accountable to any of that! If third parties by in large do not want to support Nintendo, that's on them! Its up to the publishers to ensure their product sells. Nintendo is just putting out hardware man, their job ends there :/

I strongly disagree here, it's on Nintendo to promote their console and make it look enticing for consumers and developers alike, you really think during a games convention like E3 that the likes of Sony and Microsoft spout sales numbers for shits and giggles? Yes there's an element of puffing out their chest for bragging rights but it's also a statement sent out to would be developers that they can make their game to a potential 30 million gamers or can contribute to the 50 million software units sold or 15 million subscribers to their online infrastructure or this game in this genre sold 3 million and whatever other number both companies pull out of their ass.

It's also one of a few reasons why I thought Nintendo's Nintendo direct format for last years E3 was them waving the white flag.

 

[Shiggy]

Yes, I do.

Besides, that would be unprecedented. That has never happened before.

What? Other publishers have aired TV spots for 3rd party titles and there have been multiple cases in which only a specific system logo was shown at the end of a third party spot as a first party co-financed the marketing efforts.

I'm not quite sure whether you were just sarcastic or whether I just misunderstood what you wanted to say.

 

[shinra-bansho]

well nintendo bought lego, and got the exclusive goods on sonic. they clearly want games they want. unfortunately for ward, nfs wasn't one of them, as good as it was (i have the ps3 version, but i really like the game).

i hate to say it because while i do really like nfs, there wasn't much to gain from marketing it when it was five months old. it seems like an odd choice to single out when they actually do happen to collaborate with certain third-parties (namely bandai namco, sega, and koei tecmo). maybe ward was expecting a wii u nfs bundle? or something? i don't know.

i guess what i'm trying to get at is that nintendo shouldn't have pretended like they cared for the ea fanbase in the first place and spent their time cultivating better relationships with companies that would make the games they wanted their platform to have.

I'm on the fence as to whether co-marketing NFS or any of EA's titles would have been a good decision. On the one hand, I agree the title had limited market potential due to the nature of the platform, the audience on it, etc. I'm not sure whether it was just made to fulfill some sort of contractual obligation to put out X number of titles. On the other, it would have been a good gesture of willingness to play ball with (Western) publishers and developers to try and build an audience for games like NFS in the future.

I really didn't get the point of the Sonic deal where they were essentially paying for games that would have come to their platform regardless and would have likely sold better on their platform regardless. Lego was actually a good move, I think it's still one of the best selling titles on the system and probably engendered some level of goodwill from WB, although I don't know entirely what the arrangement was in terms of revenue sharing. Although, it again played more to an audience that they already have traditional strength with.

At the end of the day, the onus is on Nintendo to forge better relationships and to build more conducive audiences for third parties if they want those games. If they don't want them, then they can keep doing what they're doing I suppose. It really comes down again to what I was saying earlier about what Nintendo sees as its role and purpose as a platform holder, whereby they produce a platform to make and sell Nintendo games, and also allow other publishers to put games on it. And whether they're willing to compromise in that underlying philosophy at all.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Because both of their (now more successful) competitors do it, because a platform-holder co-marketing major titles is mutually beneficial to both parties? (More game sales equals more platform sales to play it on equals more sales of future games.)

Which oddly, if Nintendo played their cards right, such tactics to secure a large install base would benefit them the most. MS and Sony don't have anywhere near as many IP's as Nintendo, and they have serious sales potential, even if we exclude the success of Wii, Nintendo still did quite well on the N64 and Gamecube.

 

[LizardKing]

Not sure why Nintendo should have gave a shit about a late port from a publisher who not only didn't give a shit about the game themselves, but by this point was probably obviously not going to support their system in any meaningful way. This seems like it's on EA. And his responses regarding indie Wii U support is the same bullshit ignore button excuse all the devs who do this give. Hardly candid. I'm not saying Nintendo does a good job with 3rd parties though. They obviously do not.

 

[Shiggy]

Alex said he will choose his platforms more carefully next time. How does a dev initially make the mistake to develop for a platform like the WiiU. Are they told lies by Nintendo relative to the projected sales performance on the WiiU?

This title was greenlit before the system launched. If you look around nowadays, the big publishers avoid the platform when it comes to new announcements. You might have a chance with some small indie title which would go under completely on other platforms (Mutant Mudds) and if you don't need incredibly high sales to break even.

 

[KennyLinder]

Alex said he will choose his platforms more carefully next time. How does a dev initially make the mistake to develop for a platform like the WiiU. Are they told lies by Nintendo relative to the projected sales performance on the WiiU?

Well it's often the publisher who makes that decision, they say what platforms they want the game made for.

Since they are now going to self-publish, its now their decision to make.

 

[cyberheater]

Not sure why Nintendo should have gave a shit about a late port from a developer who not only didn't give a shit about the game themselves, but by this point was probably obviously not going to support their system in any meaningful way. This seems like it's on EA. And his responses regarding indie Wii U support is the same bullshit ignore button excuse all the devs who do this give. Hardly candid. I'm not saying Nintendo does a good job with 3rd parties though. They obviously do not.

Bullshit.

Which is why the devs worked their arses off and flew to NTDO to personally demo the game to get marketing support which fell on deaf ears.

Did you not read the OP at all?

 

[KingSnake]

I understand his frustration, but is there really a case when Sony or Microsoft step in to promote a game that the publisher refused to?

 

[EDarkness]

There is no reasonable English interpretation in which a situation where Nintendo's actions directly lead the biggest third-party publisher to abandon their platform is "not Nintendo's problem."

In general, there are a lot of efforts in this thread to go on about the fine details of this one very specific case as if what's really relevant is Nintendo's response in a vacuum to a port of a single mid-tier racing title, and not the fact that the story about this title is representative of how Nintendo treats every third-party title.

In your posts in particular, you also are being really insistent on assigning this divine judgment about who is morally to "blame" for the situation, while eliding the fact that whoever's at "fault," EA pulling back from Nintendo's systems has zero negative impact on EA's bottom line but an immense one on Nintendo's. Absent true ethical or major legal concerns (neither of which is present here), "fault" is entirely irrelevant in business compared to what actually builds success.

Well, as I said, if all it takes to get out of promoting our own products is to blame someone else, then I suppose I'll do so, too. You're right, though, Nintendo has some issues. Hell, we all do, to be honest. I'm not saying that they didn't screw up, but we're talking about Need for Speed, how it wasn't promoted, and how that falls into the lap of Nintendo. I simply don't agree with that. As someone who sells their own products, I would love to be able to pass that buck onto someone else if mine don't sell.

Nintendo did what they felt they had to do in this situation, but really, would it have done them any good? It's not like they haven't been promoting the game...which they have. So what could they have done? It's not their game, and saying that they should have bowed down to EA just to get some crumbs is just wrong in my opinion. Doesn't matter to EA and Nintendo is ultimately going to pay the price, but that's a different story.

 

[AniHawk]

In general, there are a lot of efforts in this thread to go on about the fine details of this one very specific case as if what's really relevant is Nintendo's response in a vacuum to a port of a single mid-tier racing title, and not the fact that the story about this title is representative of how Nintendo treats every third-party title.

eh, only sith deal in absolutes. it's probably true of every western third-party title though.

 

[OryoN]

So because Wii U is in such bad shape, let's set the precedent that says Nintendo should just market/publish games that already have publishers? Not to mention late overpriced games, that have no exclusivity to Wii U, and will do nothing to help sell consoles. Should they have made an exception out of 'goodwill'? Sure! But still, let's be realistic now.

Criterion, went on record stating that they received technical support in the form of tools/software that allowed them to make the definitive console version. It's unethical that Nintendo didn't do MORE than that?

So in the end, it makes a lot of sense to blame Nintendo(with EA) for how things went, punish the fans who went out and supported an over-priced late port(some even double-dipped), and stop short of pledging not to self-publish on the very console that makes the process an absolute breeze? I do hope he can put the grudge aside, and make wise decisions as an Indie.

I understand how upset he is, and he have every right to be, but there's no need to burn bridges or be reluctant to jump on board when presented with better opportunities on the Wii U. The indie support(from Nintendo) on the console is anything but lacking.

It's simply a different situation when you are already signed with your own publisher, especially one that could care less about Wii U(EA). I would be taking up issues with them for green-lighting the project, then backing out on support and marketing, while screwing up price, lack of physical copies in certain regions, etc. When this very same thing happens on other platforms, the console makers aren't the one under fire, nor should they be.

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

How so?

It's a ridiculous strawman, because Logz made a sarcastic comment about 100% of the blame being on EA and developers, and they you went on to defend your point by making the logical fallacy that if it's not 100% the fault of the publisher, it must be 100% the fault of the platform holder. It's really not that hard to see, why people are arguing with your flawed logic. This conversation is about shared responsibility and relationships. As I said before, EA has already failed their responsibility, but that also does not absolve Nintendo from failing to let that bridge with Alex burn. If you were in Alex's shoes, the failure of your game would be the responsibility of Nintendo and EA for not marketing, and your own (if it was discovered that your game was of poor quality, which is clearly not the case, since the Wii U version is supposed to be the best version).

This explanation should really not be necessary.

All of that other stuff is irrelevant. Like I said, if it's as easy as passing the buck to whomever when my product fails, then that's great. If my game fails, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Nintendo unless they are actively trying to sabotage my product.

That's a very virtuous outlook you hold, but if you, as a developer (not as a liaison of a publisher), went out of your way to ask Nintendo for support, and they refused, I don't think they are free from blame of the eco-system they are fostering on their own platform. Remember, this is about relations, not just sales. Even throwing the developers a bone, and ensuring there is no bad blood (which clearly they did not care to do) would have helped deter this current situation.

Sony and Microsoft also don't support or throw money at every third party developer. They pick and choose just like everyone else, which means that it all falls down to the publisher to promote their own game.

Support is not always throwing money (see Sony's promotion of nearly every single indie game released on their platform via their official Youtube channel). And as far as anyone knows Sony and Microsoft has never turned down a plea from developers, when they spent their own time and money to fly out and ask for support. This is a stark reality of the situation. Now if you have information to disprove this claim, PLEASE show me now, and I will admit that I was wrong about Sony and Microsoft's better positioning among developers.

 

[LizardKing]

Bullshit.

Which is why the devs worked their arses off and flew to NTDO to personally demo the game to get marketing support which fell on deaf ears.

Did you not read the OP at all?

I corrected my post. Should have said publisher. I meant EA not Criterion.

 

[cyberheater]

This title was greenlit before the system launched. If you look around nowadays, the big publishers avoid the platform when it comes to new announcements. You might have a chance with some small indie title which would go under completely on other platforms (Mutant Mudds) and if you don't need incredibly high sales to break even.

Well it's often the publisher who makes that decision, they say what platforms they want the game made for.

Since they are now going most probably self-publisb, its now their decision to make.

I still find it extremely odd that devs are still announcing that they will launch games on WiiU. When Slightly Mad Studios said that Project CARS was coming to WiiU I was surprised but I guess the development cost of the WiiU version was covered by the kickstarter. But for other devs. The return of investment case is simply not made.

 

[SporeCrawler]

Most wanted was one of the best ports i played on wiiu.

Yes it was late but it made the wait worth

 

[cyberheater]

I corrected my post. Should have said publisher. I meant EA not Criterion.

Fair enough. In that case I agree with you.

 

[TheFLYINGManga_Ka]

Sometimes I question what's going on with NoA and why they're so stingy.

Could be the same reason why Rayman Legends was delayed for other platforms.

They better not so this to Bayonetta 2! I'm sure they won't because they're publishing that one, but still!