Support NeoGAF

[LakeOf9]

I saw this on a different forum and while it was a Nintendo fan site, they raised a point that I thought was very interesting, which is that ten years ago Nintendo was failing so badly with the Wii U that their going third party wasn't just demanded from the rest of the industry but basically treated as a given. Ten years later we have ended up not only with Nintendo at the strongest it has ever been, but also the only true first party while both Xbox and PlayStation have gone third party to varying degrees (Xbox releases every game on PC, and some also on PlayStation and Switch, several major ones are even released on other platforms day one and often even before Xbox. PlayStation releases live service games on PC day one and also late ports of most of their major single player games and IP. They also release some games on rival consoles under contractual obligation, such as MLB, Lego Horizon, and Marathon with Bungie acquisition).

And in the funniest ironic twist, not only did Nintendo stay first party and exclusive while the others didn't, but games and IPs from both others have shown up on the Switch (Xbox: Minecraft, Pentiment, Grounded, Ori, Hellblade, Bethesda stuff post-acquisition; PlayStation: MLB, Lego Horizon).

How did we end up here? Nintendo managing comebacks isnt really a new thing, but how did the rest of the industry get to the point where even PlayStation and Xbox had to go third party to varying degrees, and how did Nintendo stay immune?

 

[feynoob]

OP is discovering that games cost alot of money to make. A single console isnt profitable at this stage. You cant sustain a large amount of studios with a single console.

If Sony had the studios that MS had, they would have gone 3rd party too. Look at the cost of Sony games. Now expand those cost to a large amount of studios. Its not going to be sustainable at all. Even with 120m console sales.

Its just the reality of operating a huge business like that.

Edit: AAA games for Sony and Xbox doesnt cost the same for Nintendo. That is their saving grace. Their low end devices allow them to reduce the cost, while raking profits from their extortion price tag.

 

[The Pleasure]

 

[Draugoth]

I saw this on a different forum and while it was a Nintendo fan site, they raised a point that I thought was very interesting, which is that ten years ago Nintendo was failing so badly with the Wii U that their going third party wasn't just demanded from the rest of the industry but basically treated as a given. Ten years later we have ended up not only with Nintendo at the strongest it has ever been, but also the only true first party while both Xbox and PlayStation have gone third party to varying degrees (Xbox releases every game on PC, and some also on PlayStation and Switch, several major ones are even released on other platforms day one and often even before Xbox. PlayStation releases live service games on PC day one and also late ports of most of their major single player games and IP. They also release some games on rival consoles under contractual obligation, such as MLB, Lego Horizon, and Marathon with Bungie acquisition).

Nintendo has executives that know what the fuck they are doing.

 

[lh032]

I saw this on a different forum and while it was a Nintendo fan site, they raised a point that I thought was very interesting, which is that ten years ago Nintendo was failing so badly with the Wii U that their going third party wasn't just demanded from the rest of the industry but basically treated as a given. Ten years later we have ended up not only with Nintendo at the strongest it has ever been, but also the only true first party while both Xbox and PlayStation have gone third party to varying degrees (Xbox releases every game on PC, and some also on PlayStation and Switch, several major ones are even released on other platforms day one and often even before Xbox. PlayStation releases live service games on PC day one and also late ports of most of their major single player games and IP. They also release some games on rival consoles under contractual obligation, such as MLB, Lego Horizon, and Marathon with Bungie acquisition).

And in the funniest ironic twist, not only did Nintendo stay first party and exclusive while the others didn't, but games and IPs from both others have shown up on the Switch (Xbox: Minecraft, Pentiment, Grounded, Ori, Hellblade, Bethesda stuff post-acquisition; PlayStation: MLB, Lego Horizon).

How did we end up here? Nintendo managing comebacks isnt really a new thing, but how did the rest of the industry get to the point where even PlayStation and Xbox had to go third party to varying degrees, and how did Nintendo stay immune?

Ballooning dev cost in exchange for high fidelity or high fps.

Nintendo games cost lest but in exchange for low fidelity and low fps.

 

[Loomy]

No one whose opinion matters ever thought Nintendo was going to go 3rd party during the WiiU days.

As for why their games have stayed largely on their platform, during the Wii and WiiU days, they had unique control schemes that made them better on Nintendo's hardware. By the time the Switch came around, they had no reason to.

 

[LakeOf9]

Ballooning dev cost

OP is discovering that games cost alot of money to make. A single console isnt profitable at this stage. You cant sustain a large amount of studios with a single console.

If Sony had the studios that MS had, they would have gone 3rd party too. Look at the cost of Sony games. Now expand those cost to a large amount of studios. Its not going to be sustainable at all. Even with 120m console sales.

Its just the reality of operating a huge business like that.

Edit: AAA games for Sony and Xbox doesnt cost the same for Nintendo. That is their saving grace. Their low end devices allow them to reduce the cost, while raking profits from their extortion price tag.

Yeah but that's the funny thing. it's not like the other companies didnt know development costs were going to rise (and apparently the older Nintendo president Iwata actually made a speech in 2006 about how this would happen), and its not like they didnt have access to numbers that would tell them their console base wasnt growing at the pace necessary to justify those cost jumps, they all still chose to do it. Its just mind blowing to me that NO ONE ELSE was able to insulate themselves against this.

 

[feynoob]

Nintendo has executives that know what the fuck they are doing.

They are yakuza. They know how to get their money

 

[feynoob]

Yeah but that's the funny thing. it's not like the other companies didnt know development costs were going to rise (and apparently the older Nintendo president Iwata actually made a speech in 2006 about how this would happen), and its not like they didnt have access to numbers that would tell them their console base wasnt growing at the pace necessary to justify those cost jumps, they all still chose to do it. Its just mind blowing to me that NO ONE ELSE was able to insulate themselves against this.

The rise of shareholders changed how companies operate.

MS can destroy gaming without anyone stopping them. Only ones that keeps them from doing that is the shareholders who wants to see a return of investment.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

Maybe making Mario games is cheaper than a new Horizon / The Last of Us game?
It's really not rocket science.

About Sony releasing Playstation games on Switch...MLB they were literally forced to do so, and the Lego game i'd bet it has more to do with it being a Lego game than anything else.

 

[radewagon]

Nintendo has executives that know what the fuck they are doing.

Until they don't.

And then they do.

And then they don't again.

And then they do.

And so it goes.

 

[Ozzie666]

Nintendo has issues with transitioning from successful consoles to the next. Hang on tight, the next Wii U could be around the corner, or do they break the curse?
In all seriousness, you need to applaud how Nintendo runs it's business, a true underdog story. I hope they can keep it up for several generations.
The Switch success caught everyone offguard, even Nintendo. No one saw something like Animal Crossing taking off.
Western companies like Electronic Arts are kicking themselves at missed opportunites on Switch and not taking it more seriously.
Nintendo's success is fickle and so is their third-party support.

 

[Deerock71]

I saw this on a different forum and while it was a Nintendo fan site, they raised a point that I thought was very interesting, which is that ten years ago Nintendo was failing so badly with the Wii U that their going third party wasn't just demanded from the rest of the industry but basically treated as a given. Ten years later we have ended up not only with Nintendo at the strongest it has ever been, but also the only true first party while both Xbox and PlayStation have gone third party to varying degrees (Xbox releases every game on PC, and some also on PlayStation and Switch, several major ones are even released on other platforms day one and often even before Xbox. PlayStation releases live service games on PC day one and also late ports of most of their major single player games and IP. They also release some games on rival consoles under contractual obligation, such as MLB, Lego Horizon, and Marathon with Bungie acquisition).

And in the funniest ironic twist, not only did Nintendo stay first party and exclusive while the others didn't, but games and IPs from both others have shown up on the Switch (Xbox: Minecraft, Pentiment, Grounded, Ori, Hellblade, Bethesda stuff post-acquisition; PlayStation: MLB, Lego Horizon).

How did we end up here? Nintendo managing comebacks isnt really a new thing, but how did the rest of the industry get to the point where even PlayStation and Xbox had to go third party to varying degrees, and how did Nintendo stay immune?

 

[jshackles]

 

[Trunx81]

Nintendo is tradition and ingenuity.

Although a new Mario may be less expensive than a PS AAA title doesn’t mean that it’s less fun. Money doesn’t buy gameplay.

Who knows how history would have played out if someone like Miyamoto would have gone the Kohima way? And how long he will stay with us to give us amazing games?

 

[DaGwaphics]

They really know their craft and their audience. They only seem to fail when they work really hard at it (storage issues on both the N64 and GC and then the bizarre launch of Wii U where even some Wii fans thought it was an accessory).

 

[semiconscious]

in sports, it's called 'playing within yourself'. knowing your limits, & excelling at those things you do within those limits...

 

[reinking]

Xbox chased Sony. Sony to a lesser degree chased Xbox. Nintendo stayed being the Nintendo that Nintendo gamers want.

 

[feynoob]

in sports, it's called 'playing within yourself'. knowing your limits, & excelling at those things you do within those limits...

tell that to Banjo64

 

[simpatico]

Developers aren't able to respond fast enough on the powerful consoles. Look at Concord. Mofo is about 5 years late. Nintendo makes timeless simple games, so they're not as effected by chasing the trends. Xbox got bumped by poor work by developers. Halo got laughed off in the reveal and never really recovered. Starfield was aggressively mid, Redfall was aggressively bad. Shit just hasn't rolled their way. The certainly put the money up. I mean they gave 343 developers enough money to make the best Halo game of all time, and handed in what they handed in. Todd spun them a yarn on Starfield that would make Sean Murray blush. Arkane was sadly lost in a boating accident and the squatters who took over the building made Redfall.

Publishers and platform holders need to shutdown their entire operations until we can figure out what is going on. Where is the money going? How effecient are these giant teams spread across several continents? Getting burnt on all these massive games lately, publishers are going to respond by being even more risk averse in what gets greenlit, and that just compounds things. They will only order flavor of the month shit that will be out of season by the time it drops.

 

[_Ex_]

It turns out catering to graphics whores begets diminishing returns.

 

[THE DUCK]

Some would say it's the quality of Nintendo exclusives, but that's not it. It's a combination of being the only hybrid console on the market, price point, and those games.
They may not have the market to themselves this time and you will see a lot less sales.
Even more so if Sony enters.

 

[nial]

Who knows how history would have played out if someone like Miyamoto would have gone the Kohima way? And how long he will stay with us to give us amazing games?

Lol, come on, Miyamoto hasn't directed any title since Super Mario 64 in 1996, with the only exception since then being Super Mario Run in 2016, a mobile game.

 

[Varteras]

Our parents boned. It probably wasn't that great. And here we are. Most likely the product of unsatisfying sex. Except for Banjo64 . He was clearly the exception.

 

[UltimaKilo]

Google it. There’s been 50,000 articles and threads on this topic.

 

[LectureMaster]

Nintendo is still the master that makes fun game with reasonable budget. Even if a game doesn't have most impressive technical aspects, I'd buy it as long as it is fun as hell, and this is pretty much the case for Nintendo's first party games.

Xbox and Playstation will still have great greats coming, but at cost they need to find more revenue than just platform exclusivity.

Why is Nintendo better at controlling budget? Because they don't have forced DEI craps that parasitizing your development resources.

 

[simpatico]

Nintendo is still the master that makes fun game with reasonable budget. Even if a game doesn't have most impressive technical aspects, I'd buy it as long as it is fun as hell, and this is pretty much the case for Nintendo's first party games.

Xbox and Playstation will still have great greats coming, but at cost they need to find more revenue than just platform exclusivity.

Why is Nintendo better at controlling budget? Because they don't have forced DEI craps that parasitizing your development resources.

Yeah but think about all the cool lunches the admin people get to do with the DEI people. Over the course of a 5 year development cycle, those HR people don't have much to do so they start inventing shit.

 

[adamsapple]

 

[nial]

Why is Nintendo better at controlling budget? Because they don't have forced DEI craps that parasitizing your development resources.

Is it really forced? I know that XGS as a whole works with SBI, but the only Sony studios I've seen there are Insomniac and Santa Monica.

 

[Skeptical]

Yeah but that's the funny thing. it's not like the other companies didnt know development costs were going to rise (and apparently the older Nintendo president Iwata actually made a speech in 2006 about how this would happen), and its not like they didnt have access to numbers that would tell them their console base wasnt growing at the pace necessary to justify those cost jumps, they all still chose to do it. Its just mind blowing to me that NO ONE ELSE was able to insulate themselves against this.

Well, what makes you think they didn't know it would happen? I think the Series S and Gamepass were serious attempts by Microsoft to break through the ~180 million cap install base that Sony+Microsoft have been stuck at since the PS2 days. Obviously it didn't work, but it was a legit attempt at doing something different. Sony's pivoting was less urgent given that they were the market leader. But they too made movements to try to expand their business. People may despise their GAAS push, but the numbers are there for all to see. The market for traditional consoles isn't growing, and while the switch to mostly digital distribution (+ paying for online access) gave Sony a huge influx of cash, it's going to plateau at some point. They too probably saw the writing on the wall a while ago, and GAAS looked like a reasonable bet for growth. And with it, logically, comes multiplatform focus.

Nintendo has their own thing, but they can't guarantee growth forever either. They've struck gold three times in their past, the latest of which is the first truly console experience in portable format. They have one big advantage with Switch 2 in that mobile chips have come a long way in 8 years, making the Switch to Switch 2 leap probably the last big leap in technical performance we will see in any console. But it's hard to imagine much growth beyond the ~150 million install base that they created. And now that they've demonstrated success, there are a gazillion competitors (small though they may be at the moment) looking to get in on that console experience in portable format pie. So they too are looking elsewhere. For them, it's about cashing in on their IPs in the mass market to try to drive more engagement. Their first attempt with the Mario movie was wildly successful. Is Mario 2 going to be as successful? Is the live action Zelda going to be successful? Do the theme parks drive people to want to buy a Switch 2?

They've positioned themselves very well with being extremely conservative with their money and maximizing the value of the Mario and Zelda brands. Well, and Pokemon, but they do that one in an entirely different way. So far, jealously guarding those brands have worked very well for them. But that doesn't guarantee that it will last forever.

 

[Toons]

Nintendo understands what sells their games, their demographics and how to competently control their IP better than anyone else. This is why they have the biggest roster of iconic characters, some of which who haven't even had a game in years.

 

[LectureMaster]

Is it really forced? I know that XGS as a whole works with SBI, but the only Sony studios I've seen there are Insomniac and Santa Monica.

By forced I mean driven by the culture, the system, ESG, etc. A corporation needs to have those crap to look good in the system even if that's not what their customers want.

Consulting company is just one facet, more of those DEI stuff could be implemented in the studios' operations, i.e., their hiring policy, working policy, etc. For instance Bungie was reported to have some soft of "Black only meditation room".

 

[coffinbirth]

Because people on the outside looking in are almost always wrong.

 

[Last Hearth]

Nintendo focused on the ever green children’s gaming market( because there are always new children being born as the older ones age out). Their costs don’t need to increase, and their old titles continue to be marketable to children.

Sony and XBox tried to grow up with their core market, and ended up in the gaming enthusiast market with escalating cost of development and turned their product into PC lite.

 

[Azelover]

I saw this on a different forum and while it was a Nintendo fan site, they raised a point that I thought was very interesting, which is that ten years ago Nintendo was failing so badly with the Wii U that their going third party wasn't just demanded from the rest of the industry but basically treated as a given. Ten years later we have ended up not only with Nintendo at the strongest it has ever been, but also the only true first party while both Xbox and PlayStation have gone third party to varying degrees (Xbox releases every game on PC, and some also on PlayStation and Switch, several major ones are even released on other platforms day one and often even before Xbox. PlayStation releases live service games on PC day one and also late ports of most of their major single player games and IP. They also release some games on rival consoles under contractual obligation, such as MLB, Lego Horizon, and Marathon with Bungie acquisition).

And in the funniest ironic twist, not only did Nintendo stay first party and exclusive while the others didn't, but games and IPs from both others have shown up on the Switch (Xbox: Minecraft, Pentiment, Grounded, Ori, Hellblade, Bethesda stuff post-acquisition; PlayStation: MLB, Lego Horizon).

How did we end up here? Nintendo managing comebacks isnt really a new thing, but how did the rest of the industry get to the point where even PlayStation and Xbox had to go third party to varying degrees, and how did Nintendo stay immune?

Back in the Gamecube era Perrin Kaplan once said "we(Nintendo) will be the last ones standing". And here we are.

I suspect we will get into crazy land even more in the future.. I wouldn't rule out a possible monopoly for a short period. Follow the money..

 

[ArtHands]

Thing about Nintendo being the market leader right now is because they are laser focused on themselves with high quality titles. Why Sony is busy chasing gaas titles because of Fortnite, Nintendo plays to their strength of crafting timeless classic masterpieces with focus on fun which appeals to everyone. Microsoft and Sony focuses on their core audience aka fanboys.

Of course the successful formula of the hybrid model helps a lot too. It fits well into the modern gamers’ play style of playing everywhere and not just in home TV. Younger players are playing more on mobiles. PC players gets to play outdoor with portable PC and laptops. Truth is most gamers care little on fidelity which Sony and their PS players are focusing on.

Nintendo is way ahead of this trend. In fact you can say their pioneered the trend.

 

[Deerock71]

Lol, come on, Miyamoto hasn't directed any title since Super Mario 64 in 1996, with the only exception since then being Super Mario Run in 2016, a mobile game.

Isn't this factually incorrect? Did he not direct Ocarina of Time?

 

[consoul]

We fuelled the fires of the graphics war between PlayStation and Xbox while Nintendo sat back and watched the AAA worlds burn.

 

[nial]

Isn't this factually incorrect? Did he not direct Ocarina of Time?

He only acted as a producer, that is due to him being the general manager of the previous Nintendo EAD division.

 

[Robb]

Nintendo struck gold with the Switch and have a lot of timeless IP to take advantage of the user base.

I don’t think neither Sony or MS would be pivoting if their systems sold +140M and every single first party game they put out sold +10 million units at $70 throughout the entire generation, and never had to drop in price. The demand has been absolutely insane for both Nintendo hardware and software.

I might be wrong on this, but I don’t think the “Switch 2” will get anywhere close to the current Switch’s success in terms of neither software or hardware numbers. And alongside that decline Nintendo will be facing the same issues as Sony/MS are now, as costs continue to increase.

 

[SHA]

1-Uniting the console and the handheld market for Nintendo was really a strong move.

2-They started in mid-gen in 2016, spec wise wasn't bad.

3-They targeted adult age for the first time.

4-They targeted iPad users which mostly are kids intentionally and willing to pay carelessly for expensive accessories and games, it worked cause Apple did it first and no one gives a shit.

 

[bender]

Being behind the technology curve for hardware has its' benefits when it comes to developing for said hardware, but just because they are behind the curve doesn't mean that they will not get to the same point as Sony/Microsoft. I do think we are a ways off from that as they've smartly used a pricing philopshy that doesn't devalue their gaming catalog and their legacy IPs tend to sell incredibly well. Not to mention the style of games that Nintendo makes probably aren't going to have the same asset pipeline demands as their competition.

 

[Fbh]

- While the WiiU was a complete failure, Nintendo still had a successful console at the time in the form of the 3DS and they came from a pair of very successful consoles in the form of the Wii and DS, they had enough money and goodwill to try again. And they hit gold with the Switch
- Nintendo doesn't chase super high production values which probably means most of their games are cheaper to make and more profitable too. They also haven't trained their audience to wait for sales, so they sell most of their Software at full price. Sony and MS have let their first party budgets get to the point where they need to sell several million units just to break even, making it more necessary than ever to find a larger audience. You can probably make like 3 gens of Pokemon games with what it cost to make Horizon Forbidden West or Starfield. And not only will they sell more units than Horizon but they'll sell at full price too while most Sony/MS games need like a year and multiple sales, bundles and promotions to get to those 15+ million sales (if they get there at all).
- Nintendo exclusives still have a bigger appeal than both Sony and MS exclusives, there's literally nothing MS and Sony own that could get the same excitement as the Switch launching with a new 3D Zelda, a new 3D Mario and an enhanced version of Mario Kart 8 on year 1 of the Switch

 

[Kumomeme]

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

Yeah but that's the funny thing. it's not like the other companies didnt know development costs were going to rise (and apparently the older Nintendo president Iwata actually made a speech in 2006 about how this would happen), and its not like they didnt have access to numbers that would tell them their console base wasnt growing at the pace necessary to justify those cost jumps, they all still chose to do it. Its just mind blowing to me that NO ONE ELSE was able to insulate themselves against this.

You are overestimating the intelligence and foresight of CEOs, shareholders and others. It's not like these guys are geniuses. And greed sometimes does play a role.

 

[SpiceRacz]

I saw this on a different forum and while it was a Nintendo fan site, they raised a point that I thought was very interesting, which is that ten years ago Nintendo was failing so badly with the Wii U that their going third party wasn't just demanded from the rest of the industry but basically treated as a given. Ten years later we have ended up not only with Nintendo at the strongest it has ever been, but also the only true first party while both Xbox and PlayStation have gone third party to varying degrees (Xbox releases every game on PC, and some also on PlayStation and Switch, several major ones are even released on other platforms day one and often even before Xbox. PlayStation releases live service games on PC day one and also late ports of most of their major single player games and IP. They also release some games on rival consoles under contractual obligation, such as MLB, Lego Horizon, and Marathon with Bungie acquisition).

And in the funniest ironic twist, not only did Nintendo stay first party and exclusive while the others didn't, but games and IPs from both others have shown up on the Switch (Xbox: Minecraft, Pentiment, Grounded, Ori, Hellblade, Bethesda stuff post-acquisition; PlayStation: MLB, Lego Horizon).

How did we end up here? Nintendo managing comebacks isnt really a new thing, but how did the rest of the industry get to the point where even PlayStation and Xbox had to go third party to varying degrees, and how did Nintendo stay immune?

Well, let's get one thing straight.

Nintendo was never in danger of going third party. I remember reading years ago that despite the disappointing sales of the Gamecube, they were still more profitable that gen than Sony and Microsoft. Nintendo consoles tend to have an insane attachment rate too. I think it was like 9 or 10 games per Gamecube sold. Not to mention the GBA sold really well. Their cash reserves were such that they could have kept pumping out consoles even if they sold poorly (by Nintendo standards). Wii U wasn't a success by any means, but it wasn't a complete and total failure either.

 

[Knightime_X]

I saw this on a different forum and while it was a Nintendo fan site, they raised a point that I thought was very interesting, which is that ten years ago Nintendo was failing so badly with the Wii U that their going third party wasn't just demanded from the rest of the industry but basically treated as a given. Ten years later we have ended up not only with Nintendo at the strongest it has ever been, but also the only true first party while both Xbox and PlayStation have gone third party to varying degrees (Xbox releases every game on PC, and some also on PlayStation and Switch, several major ones are even released on other platforms day one and often even before Xbox. PlayStation releases live service games on PC day one and also late ports of most of their major single player games and IP. They also release some games on rival consoles under contractual obligation, such as MLB, Lego Horizon, and Marathon with Bungie acquisition).

And in the funniest ironic twist, not only did Nintendo stay first party and exclusive while the others didn't, but games and IPs from both others have shown up on the Switch (Xbox: Minecraft, Pentiment, Grounded, Ori, Hellblade, Bethesda stuff post-acquisition; PlayStation: MLB, Lego Horizon).

How did we end up here? Nintendo managing comebacks isnt really a new thing, but how did the rest of the industry get to the point where even PlayStation and Xbox had to go third party to varying degrees, and how did Nintendo stay immune?

Games costing hundreds of millions of dollars to make now.

 

[mckmas8808]

No one whose opinion matters ever thought Nintendo was going to go 3rd party during the WiiU days.

As for why their games have stayed largely on their platform, during the Wii and WiiU days, they had unique control schemes that made them better on Nintendo's hardware. By the time the Switch came around, they had no reason to.

THIS! Only stupid people or trolls thought Nintendo was going 3rd party.

 

[Fabieter]

People who tell you it's only was too be profitable are completely wrong. All consoles still can be completely profitable with exclusives. But what's better than 10% profit margin? You are right 20% profit margin. The reason we are ended up here is capitalism and the wish for infinite grow.

 

[Banjo64]

Nintendo are guided by the Devine spirit. PlayStation and Xbox are guided by the California spirit.

Let us pray for Nintendo.