Nintendo Going Third Party Could Be a Good Thing?

[Hakudamashi]

Like, Nintendo is a video game company first and foremost right? Their strength is in software making.
This is a company who is known to make fun quality games regardless of storage format, hardware limitations, or input device.
So, hypothetically, if Nintendo were to go third party, like Crapcom and SEGA, so more people can get to enjoy their IPs, could that maybe turn out for the better?

Cause like, since they think video games first, they can also still think of new ways to play videogames. I mean, going third party doesn't stop them from making accessories and peripherals does it? Like, they could still make the Tablet controller, and the Wiiremotes and nunchucks, and sell them as additions for the other consoles like the PS Move or the Kinect... heck, maybe even make a few deals to sell them in bundles or something.

So they can still make their innovative hardware, they can get more powerful machines to work their magic on, and who knows, maybe they'll get rid of the "video games are all too violent" stigma since everyone gets to play the Mario n' the Donkey Kong n' the Kirby.

Going third party doesn't make them give up Retro or Monolith or Game Freak does it? Cause SEGA still has Sonic Team. And it's not like they can't still do their DLC practises with THEIR games, right?
And Miiverse, Club Nintendo, The Deluxe Digital Promotion? Those can still happen on their respective websites can't they?

This isn't a "Nintendo scrap the Wii U cause it's dead" post, I just think Nintendo should play to their greatest strength, which is making good video games, and hardware innovations where necessary, so they no longer need to make a whole entire console just cause they got ONE neat new idea.

What do you guys think?

[jkid101094]

Go away.

[Hakudamashi]

Go away.

Oh c'mon, don't be that way D:

[Elija2]

The only problem with them going third party is what happens to their hardware division.

And fuck peripherals. Nobody is gonna buy their accessories when the other consoles already have their own equivalents (Move, Smartglass).

[Hakudamashi]

And fuck peripherals. Nobody is gonna buy their accessories when the other consoles already have their own equivalents (Move, Smartglass).

Smartglass doesn't come with buttons >=U
And Wiiremote>Move always.

[Elija2]

Smartglass doesn't come with buttons >=U
And Wiiremote>Move always.

Smartglass doesn't need buttons. And outside of NintendoLand, has Nintendo even made a Wii U game that requires the GamePad for something that can't be done with a regular controller? Game & Wario maybe?

And Wiimote != compatible with other consoles.

[Hakudamashi]

Smartglass doesn't need buttons. And outside of NintendoLand, has Nintendo even made a Wii U game that requires the GamePad for something that can't be done with a regular controller? Game & Wario maybe?

Off TV play, put all the UI crap on the second screen for people who like that.
I also find it more convenient than having a tablet beside you/on your lap while trying to play.
There's also that scanning thing that Zomie U did which I found neat.
And that double screen stuff the Wonderful 101 did from time to time
And that neat inventory and extra commands that Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate did.

So yes, I find having a tablet with buttons to be very useful

Also Wiimote>controller for shooters, and PSMove doesn't feel as nice in my hand.

[shadowDOESrock]

No.

[Hakudamashi]

No.

Well don't leave me hanging man, tell me why =C

[shadowDOESrock]

Well don't leave me hanging man, tell me why =C

First of all, Nintendo isn't in THAT bad of shape.
Like, their console is performing badly, but its the first time they're making losses.

Going 3rd party right now, would be silly.
If the next successor to the Wii U fails as badly, then maybe.

And, as the Sony of UK boss said, it'd be really bad for competiton and whole gaming industry.
Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo live in this amazingly nice blob of competiton, that only strenghtens the goodness we get from them. Kinda like Coke and Pepsi. Kinda.

That was a really rough descrption, since I have to go out for a few min. Hope you get it

[Hakudamashi]

But I don't quite understand...
How is Nintendo not making a console, a sign of them doing badly?
It's not like they'll just disappear and fade into obscurity, their games will still exist...

[Hakudamashi]

Here is a comment I posted about this topic a few months back:
QUOTE
Now, I don't think that Nintendo needs to drop out of the console race. Far from it. They could certainly survive a few generations even with the Wii u failing and maybe even the next system failing. Considering they're still able to pull a profit during a time of their system failing? That's kind of crazy. However Nintendo makes most of their money off of their first party software. So why not release that strong first party software on more platforms? Because more platforms =/= more money and in Nintendo's situation it could actually mean more platforms == less money. How? A mixture of dev costs and royalty fees. Developing on multiple consoles takes more time and money. Time is money, so developing on multiple consoles takes more money and money. Of course, the amount of extra cash needed to port to multiple systems certainly isn't a deal breaker. And most 3rd party companies are able to make a larger profit off of selling on multiple consoles rather than a single console. The deal breaker for Nintendo is that they can develop on their system royalty free. They don't need to pay 10%, or whatever the cost is, to the manufacturer of the console. They also can get their dev kits and other tools at the cost of building them rather than increased price to give a profit to the manufacturer. So Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft have an advantage over 3rd parties where they can develop for less, sell less units, and make more money. So Nintendo going 3rd party could easily be less profitable for them in the long run in case their systems after the Wii U are very successful.

So I don't find the "going 3rd party" option to be very wise. Granted, the Wii U isn't doing too hot, so maybe they would make more money off of being 3rd party. My main problem with that argument is that it sounds too much like a short term solution with long term negatives. It would be easier to brace yourself through a bad gen than it would be to try to leave the race and re-enter later. While the do need a short term solution, I don't think it would be wise to choose a short term solution with drastic long term drawbacks.

source: http://z10.invisionfree.com/Smash_Bros_RPG...?showtopic=2423

Basically, I disagree that going 3rd party would benefit Nintendo. They've had two bad years in the last 30, resulting in a total profit loss of $500 million ish (haven't kept too up to date on the loss). That sounds like a lot, but consider that they're sitting at $10 billion liquidable funds and far more on other assets, the company is very healthy. In comparison, Sony this year reported a loss of $1.1 billion last year on top of being already in debt. If any of the big three are hurting, it's Sony. And it's too early to tell how the Xbox One will do compared to the Wii U. The xbox had a nice start, but it has come to a crawl since release. Titanfall and Halo will certainly help it out though.

Anyway, there is little benefit for Nintendo to go 3rd party. And what benefit there is, it's only a short term solution. It's better for them to stick around for another generation or two before deciding something like this. And by then the industry will be completely different.

Ok, this guy makes sense.

[jkid101094]

I think you see why I generally go to GoW with my logic questions rather than here.

[Elija2]

Ok, this guy makes sense.

Not really. They're forecasting a 25 billion yen loss for this fiscal year so even though the 3DS is supposed to be doing pretty good they're still losing a ton of money. Just because they have a huge war chest doesn't mean they can keep taking losses. That doesn't look good to investors.

And saying that Nintendo would lose money by going third-party because they'd have to pay for licenses is ridiculous. Obviously their games would sell much better on more popular systems than their own so they would easily make their money back, and they wouldn't have to spend a bunch of money on R&D to actually design a console. Sure it would be less profitable to put games on other systems if their own systems were successful, but that's the point. They aren't successful.

Check this out.

You can see the downward slope that both their console and handheld sales have been going through (obviously the Wii and DS are exceptions). Also notice that even though the 3DS sold more than the Gamecube and N64, more software was sold on those systems than on the 3DS. That means that even though more people own 3DS', they're buying less games. People keep saying the 3DS is selling well but it's selling less hardware and software than the GBA, a console that was replaced in just 3 years by the DS.

So yeah, you could easily say that there is little benefit for Nintendo staying first-party.

[shadowDOESrock]

So yeah, you could easily say that there is little benefit for Nintendo staying first-party.

But wouldn't the move to third-party hurt the industry as a whole?