Nintendo doesn't kill 3rd parties. Fucking shitty games kill 3rd party.
How hard is it to understand? Make a game worth fucking playing and people will buy it along with Nintendo games, which are pretty much always good.
while I don't think Nintendo is snubbing 3rd parties now, he is correct in that they have a history of doing so. Nintendo was ruthless during the NES days.
Although, to be sure, their practices HAVE changed.
You can't really hate a company for being dicks in the past or else you would hate every single company that has ever existed.
Well, maybe he does hate every single company that has ever existed. Did you think of that, Mr. Smarty Pants?
Dirtchamber on
0
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
edited September 2007
This is reason #1 why we'll never see Earthworm Jim in SSBB. stop asking. :-)
I was kind of surprised with this week, to be honest. Why? Because once the biggest 1st party title out there was released, a flood of announcements seemed to open about IP's. It is a pretty stupid conspiracy theory, to be sure, but I have to wonder if some of these companies were waiting for Microsoft's big gun to be deployed before they announced their development intentions.
... Or it could just be that we're 10 months out from the Wii launch, and that's about how long it takes to develop a game from scratch and have it be presentable (if the game isn't shovelware or a sequel using an existing engine, that is)
Nintendo doesn't kill 3rd parties. Fucking shitty games kill 3rd party.
How hard is it to understand? Make a game worth fucking playing and people will buy it along with Nintendo games, which are pretty much always good.
See RE4, Soul Calibur 2, Viewtiful Joe, Rogue Leader, Super Monkey Ball, Tales of Symphonia, Timesplitters
Nintendo doesn't kill 3rd parties. Fucking shitty games kill 3rd party.
How hard is it to understand? Make a game worth fucking playing and people will buy it along with Nintendo games, which are pretty much always good.
See RE4, Soul Calibur 2, Viewtiful Joe, Rogue Leader, Super Monkey Ball, Tales of Symphonia, Timesplitters
All games that sold well on Gamecube.
Exactly. That's my point. Make a good game, and it WILL sell, even if it's 3rd party.
Nintendo doesn't kill 3rd parties. Fucking shitty games kill 3rd party.
How hard is it to understand? Make a game worth fucking playing and people will buy it along with Nintendo games, which are pretty much always good.
See RE4, Soul Calibur 2, Viewtiful Joe, Rogue Leader, Super Monkey Ball, Tales of Symphonia, Timesplitters
All games that sold well on Gamecube.
Exactly. That's my point. Make a good game, and it WILL sell, even if it's 3rd party.
Nintendo doesn't kill 3rd parties. Fucking shitty games kill 3rd party.
How hard is it to understand? Make a game worth fucking playing and people will buy it along with Nintendo games, which are pretty much always good.
See RE4, Soul Calibur 2, Viewtiful Joe, Rogue Leader, Super Monkey Ball, Tales of Symphonia, Timesplitters
All games that sold well on Gamecube.
Exactly. That's my point. Make a good game, and it WILL sell, even if it's 3rd party.
(I was agreeing with you, just to clarify)
I know, or at least that's what I was thinking, but in these days and ages you can never be sure enough.
This dave perry might be an idiot but some how good ole' nintendo and their 3rd party exclusion seems about on par. I am not shocked at all. The lack of support to 3rd parties is appalling and very stupid. Nintendo will die a slow death if they think 1st party games will keep them indefinitely.
If anyone that works at nintendo reads this-- GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS AND HELP 3rd parties!
So, uh... What specifically is Nintendo doing to hinder third parties? I mean, besides Dave Perry's retarded example of $40 games which is not true.
I thought Dave Perry finally died and went away, or the press realised the dude got lucky and hit a sweet spot on like two games years ago, but has made nothing but overhyped shit since then. Jesus he's still here and in the news.
Is it just me, or are we getting more and more developers who are jerks? Dennis Dyack blaming Too Human sucking on everything except himself, the Lair guy criticizing the controls in Warhawk, which actually had tighter controls with more options, and now this guy and his wacky conspiracy theory.
Really, the Wii isn't immune to criticism, but claiming there's some wacky move to destroy publishers that has never happened this generation* isn't the way to go about it.
*Nintendo has done that in the past. Hooeee, they were major dicks in the NES/SNES era. Tightly controlling the number of games a publisher that could put out in a year, forbidding ports, etc. But that hasn't been the case in a looooooooong time.
God, it's really damn simple: make fun games and people will buy them. I'm not wasting my money on shit just because it's on Wii. I'm not spending money on lazy ass PS2 ports with shitty tacked on waggle controls. I will buy games where the developers have taken the time to craft the game for the Wii's strengths and are delivering a worthwhile playing experience. As for shovelware selling well on Wii, well no shit, dude. It's extremely popular with the Disney aged crowd and it's got enough mindshare their parents, the ones who will go out and buy something that looks familiar. Shovelware has always sold well and always will. That doesn't give a third party any excuse for why their game tanked.
TL;DR - 3rd parties should concentrate on making good games that take advantage of the Wii instead of making excuses. Nintendo has always been a superior producer of games, everyone knows this, and it's a really tired excuse to blame them because a 3rd party developer couldn't be bothered to put out a quality game.
Question: For game systems like the GameCube and the Wii, which have a pretty standard price point of $49.99, has Nintendo ever released a new game under $49.99? If so, have they done anything to prevent others from doing the same?
If the answer to both questions is "no", then Mr. Perry is obviously talking out of his ass.
If the answers are "yes" and "no", then it seems Dave Perry is essentially complaining about free enterprise, and in turn, capitalism. Boo market competition!
I suppose if both of these answers are "yes", Mr. Perry does indeed have a point, but somehow I suspect that isn't the case.
Even if competing on price points is really what ticks off Mr. Perry, he still has no argument when it comes to the Nintendo DS - with the exception of budget games, Nintendo's titles are a good $5-10 more than everyone else's.
CaspianX on
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
edited September 2007
First party Wii games are usually 50 dollars. If it's 40 dollars, it's probably a very simplistic title.
First party Wii games are usually 50 dollars. If it's 40 dollars, it's probably a very simplistic title.
Actually, there are a few $40 Wii games coming out this fall ... but the only two I know of are both third-party: Zack & Wiki and Geometry Wars: Galaxies. I think Kororinpa was also $40, and maybe the Mercury Meltdown port but that might have been $20, even.
Shiny is just one of those companies that didn't fare well in the jump from 2D to 3D.
Sacrifice? Seriously I can't be the only one who remembers and still loves that game.
I'm not saying that they never made a good game ever again ... I'm saying they aren't exactly on top of the world. I was trying to explain to some of the young'uns why we all know this guy and they might not.
Aren't the majority of first party titles on ALL systems cheaper? I know when I bought Halo 3 it was substantially cheaper than other 360 games.
Wait, what? It was $59.99 at both EBstops and Best Buys.
I've never noticed first party games going for less than third party.
Exactly - the only first party I've know to underprice the competition was Sony - they released Ratchet & Clank, Sly Cooper and one of the Jak and Daxter games within like a month of each other at 39.99 instead of $50.
If anything I think Nintendo has helped the 3rd parties a bunch this round. They are putting out the Zapper with really no 1st party support, it seems aimed pretty squarely at helping shooters sell on the Wii. You also can't help but wonder if there's a connection between the lack of news on Animal Crossing Wii and the release of MySims.
First party games usually stay at $50 for quite a while as well. I remember when Double Dash was brought to my attention (over a year after it came out) it was still $50. I kept waiting and waiting and then it was $40, now it's still $30.
Aren't the majority of first party titles on ALL systems cheaper? I know when I bought Halo 3 it was substantially cheaper than other 360 games.
Wait, what? It was $59.99 at both EBstops and Best Buys.
I've never noticed first party games going for less than third party.
Exactly - the only first party I've know to underprice the competition was Sony - they released Ratchet & Clank, Sly Cooper and one of the Jak and Daxter games within like a month of each other at 39.99 instead of $50.
If anything I think Nintendo has helped the 3rd parties a bunch this round. They are putting out the Zapper with really no 1st party support, it seems aimed pretty squarely at helping shooters sell on the Wii. You also can't help but wonder if there's a connection between the lack of news on Animal Crossing Wii and the release of MySims.
Also recall how Wario Ware was delayed at launch to accommodate Rayman Raving Rabbids. All of the rhetoric and actions on Nintendo's behalf at the start of the Wii's launch was "Sup third parties."
If anything I think Nintendo has helped the 3rd parties a bunch this round. They are putting out the Zapper with really no 1st party support, it seems aimed pretty squarely at helping shooters sell on the Wii. You also can't help but wonder if there's a connection between the lack of news on Animal Crossing Wii and the release of MySims.
Actually, I'm not sure that helps, in this specific situation. Developers generally don't like supporting hardware that isn't bundled with a system(varies widely on price and whether a game can be played well without that hardware), but without Nintendo releasing a first-party title, developers may feel that fewer people will be likely to buy the hardware.
Hah, just saw the wiki. Yeah, I was confusing this guy with the IGN editor.
Seriously. He's like Dr. Derek Smart minus the super-villain personality and fake PhD.
And the whole actually made some decent games once.
And not that I agree with him, but Nintendo IS guilty of some pretty hardcore anti-everyone behavior in the past. They aren't doing it now, but I'd imagine if you experienced the treatment first-hand you'd remember it. I can see how third-party developers who remember the old days would be wary of the new "Hey, look, I won't bite" Nintendo.
Aren't the majority of first party titles on ALL systems cheaper? I know when I bought Halo 3 it was substantially cheaper than other 360 games.
Wait, what? It was $59.99 at both EBstops and Best Buys.
I've never noticed first party games going for less than third party.
Hmm. It was $79.95 when I bought it (as apposed to the $115 price point most 360 games are at here) Guess it was just a retailer thing.
-SPI- on
0
Options
KorKnown to detonate from time to timeRegistered Userregular
edited September 2007
In regards to Nintendo being assholes in the past (NES days). Though I admit, some of their practices were god damn strict, I think its actually what the industry needed to survive.
Hasn't anyone else heard the horror stories of random people making Atari games, and selling them for like $5-$10?
Which, ended up with parents thinking "why buy one game for 40 bucks, when I can buy 7 games for the same price?"
Of course, parents were dumb at the time, and didn't understand how Quality worked, so whatever. :P
But I always thought Nintendo's strict asshole policy back in the day, was to combat that whole thing?
I also thought they were screwing their third party devs as recently as the N64, like with heavy, uh, "fees" or whatnot.
Yeah, but in that case, devs could tell Nintendo to go fuck themselves and make their game for the PSX instead. And a lot of them did exactly that.
Yeah, so maybe a little less kneejerk Dave Perry is a fuckwit responses might be in order.
Just a little bit.
The problem I have with his comments is that they don't describe what happened last gen in any way at all. Lazy devs weren't successful on the Gamecube, but devs that actually tried to make a good game were rewarded. Amazingly enough, the same fucking rules apply to Nintendo. Nintendo doesn't sell lots of software because they're undercutting other devs, they sell lots of software because they make good games. The same story will be told on the Wii, only this time there is serious potential for any developer to get in on the money printing if they will follow Nintendo's lead and put out quality titles that are worth buying.
Besides, suggesting that Nintendo doesn't want 3rd parties to be successful is retarded. The Gamecube proved conclusively that, while Nintendo can survive on their own titles, they can only really be successful with 3rd party support. They've gone out of their way to make it easy and cheaper for 3rd party devs to make games on the Wii.
If I remember right it was labled as quality control but was used in an attempt to monopolize. Basically you had to meet Nintendo standards on key points, which is acceptable to a point, and also pay large fees to Nintendo itself. Didn't want to pay the fees? Didn't want to make the game Nintendo told you to make?
Have fun in the cold.
I'll see if I can drum up some sources, its been awhile and I may have a rough handle on the facts.
EDIT:
Not exactly the greatest source, but it does summarize the general legend of Nintendo buisiness practices, barring recent events. Note that this link is being provided with the intent of explaining what people talk about when they say Nintendo of the early years, not to validate this view or not. The link doesn't have enough references to be used in that context, imho.
I also thought they were screwing their third party devs as recently as the N64, like with heavy, uh, "fees" or whatnot.
Yeah, but in that case, devs could tell Nintendo to go fuck themselves and make their game for the PSX instead. And a lot of them did exactly that.
Yeah, so maybe a little less kneejerk Dave Perry is a fuckwit responses might be in order.
Just a little bit.
The problem I have with his comments is that they don't describe what happened last gen in any way at all. Lazy devs weren't successful on the Gamecube, but devs that actually tried to make a good game were rewarded. Amazingly enough, the same fucking rules apply to Nintendo. Nintendo doesn't sell lots of software because they're undercutting other devs, they sell lots of software because they make good games. The same story will be told on the Wii, only this time there is serious potential for any developer to get in on the money printing if they will follow Nintendo's lead and put out quality titles that are worth buying.
Besides, suggesting that Nintendo doesn't want 3rd parties to be successful is retarded. The Gamecube proved conclusively that, while Nintendo can survive on their own titles, they can only really be successful with 3rd party support. They've gone out of their way to make it easy and cheaper for 3rd party devs to make games on the Wii.
Agreed on all points. The third-party exodus from the Gamecube was largely self-inflicted on the part of the developers. Large port delays and poor port quality sunk many titles financially.
All I'msaying is if you are a developer and experienced Nintendo's rough handling during your heyday, I don't see it as totally unreasonable to remember that and be wary of promies of better treatment now.
Did Shiny even have any Gamecube games? None come to mind. His comments become more reasonable, though not more educated as they would be based only on personal experience rather than researching facts, if the last interactions he and his company had with Nintendo were during the Stab-you-in-the-face-gaijin-dogs days.
But I always thought Nintendo's strict asshole policy back in the day, was to combat that whole thing?
It's not so much Nintendo's quality-control policies that were the problem: it was the obscene amount of money they'd demand from developers to make games for their (then) completely dominant platform. They also used the popularity of the NES to force retailers into abandoning non-Nintendo products, which ultimately led them to a conviction for stifling competition.
(snip)
Did Shiny even have any Gamecube games? None come to mind.
(snip)
Only "Enter the Matrix" ... but there's really no way of knowing whether that meant they ever had to deal with Nintendo or if Atari just got another group to port their existing game over.
They're apparently working on The Golden Compass for the Wii for Sega, so again its questionable how much Shiny's actually working with Nintendo.
No DS games or GBA games.
Considering that Shiny hasn't published a game on a Nintendo platform for at the very least 10 or 15 years, it's hard to tell how much they've actually dealt with Nintendo.
I think he's actually just railing against Nintendo not adopting the next-gen tax.
Posts
How hard is it to understand? Make a game worth fucking playing and people will buy it along with Nintendo games, which are pretty much always good.
Well, maybe he does hate every single company that has ever existed. Did you think of that, Mr. Smarty Pants?
I was kind of surprised with this week, to be honest. Why? Because once the biggest 1st party title out there was released, a flood of announcements seemed to open about IP's. It is a pretty stupid conspiracy theory, to be sure, but I have to wonder if some of these companies were waiting for Microsoft's big gun to be deployed before they announced their development intentions.
... Or it could just be that we're 10 months out from the Wii launch, and that's about how long it takes to develop a game from scratch and have it be presentable (if the game isn't shovelware or a sequel using an existing engine, that is)
See RE4, Soul Calibur 2, Viewtiful Joe, Rogue Leader, Super Monkey Ball, Tales of Symphonia, Timesplitters
All games that sold well on Gamecube.
Exactly. That's my point. Make a good game, and it WILL sell, even if it's 3rd party.
(I was agreeing with you, just to clarify)
I know, or at least that's what I was thinking, but in these days and ages you can never be sure enough.
Sacrifice? Seriously I can't be the only one who remembers and still loves that game.
So, uh... What specifically is Nintendo doing to hinder third parties? I mean, besides Dave Perry's retarded example of $40 games which is not true.
Really, the Wii isn't immune to criticism, but claiming there's some wacky move to destroy publishers that has never happened this generation* isn't the way to go about it.
*Nintendo has done that in the past. Hooeee, they were major dicks in the NES/SNES era. Tightly controlling the number of games a publisher that could put out in a year, forbidding ports, etc. But that hasn't been the case in a looooooooong time.
TL;DR - 3rd parties should concentrate on making good games that take advantage of the Wii instead of making excuses. Nintendo has always been a superior producer of games, everyone knows this, and it's a really tired excuse to blame them because a 3rd party developer couldn't be bothered to put out a quality game.
If the answer to both questions is "no", then Mr. Perry is obviously talking out of his ass.
If the answers are "yes" and "no", then it seems Dave Perry is essentially complaining about free enterprise, and in turn, capitalism. Boo market competition!
I suppose if both of these answers are "yes", Mr. Perry does indeed have a point, but somehow I suspect that isn't the case.
Even if competing on price points is really what ticks off Mr. Perry, he still has no argument when it comes to the Nintendo DS - with the exception of budget games, Nintendo's titles are a good $5-10 more than everyone else's.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Actually, there are a few $40 Wii games coming out this fall ... but the only two I know of are both third-party: Zack & Wiki and Geometry Wars: Galaxies. I think Kororinpa was also $40, and maybe the Mercury Meltdown port but that might have been $20, even.
Made some awesome games on megadrive and SNES, then got less awesome and is now stupidly full of himself.
Himself, Eggegebrechert, and Dyack should be locked in a room. That room should then be fired out of a canon into the sun.
I'm not saying that they never made a good game ever again ... I'm saying they aren't exactly on top of the world. I was trying to explain to some of the young'uns why we all know this guy and they might not.
What, Derek Smart isn't invited to the party? Why no Derek Smart. Come on, this would be a perfect fit for Der-
Wait, what? It was $59.99 at both EBstops and Best Buys.
I've never noticed first party games going for less than third party.
Exactly - the only first party I've know to underprice the competition was Sony - they released Ratchet & Clank, Sly Cooper and one of the Jak and Daxter games within like a month of each other at 39.99 instead of $50.
If anything I think Nintendo has helped the 3rd parties a bunch this round. They are putting out the Zapper with really no 1st party support, it seems aimed pretty squarely at helping shooters sell on the Wii. You also can't help but wonder if there's a connection between the lack of news on Animal Crossing Wii and the release of MySims.
Also recall how Wario Ware was delayed at launch to accommodate Rayman Raving Rabbids. All of the rhetoric and actions on Nintendo's behalf at the start of the Wii's launch was "Sup third parties."
I'm at work, otherwise I'd post his wikipedia picture.
Amazing.
edit: nevermind. I'm in now. Does this look like a smug blowhard? I thought not.
Actually, I'm not sure that helps, in this specific situation. Developers generally don't like supporting hardware that isn't bundled with a system(varies widely on price and whether a game can be played well without that hardware), but without Nintendo releasing a first-party title, developers may feel that fewer people will be likely to buy the hardware.
Hah, just saw the wiki. Yeah, I was confusing this guy with the IGN editor.
And the whole actually made some decent games once.
And not that I agree with him, but Nintendo IS guilty of some pretty hardcore anti-everyone behavior in the past. They aren't doing it now, but I'd imagine if you experienced the treatment first-hand you'd remember it. I can see how third-party developers who remember the old days would be wary of the new "Hey, look, I won't bite" Nintendo.
Yeah, but in that case, devs could tell Nintendo to go fuck themselves and make their game for the PSX instead. And a lot of them did exactly that.
Yeah, so maybe a little less kneejerk Dave Perry is a fuckwit responses might be in order.
Just a little bit.
Hasn't anyone else heard the horror stories of random people making Atari games, and selling them for like $5-$10?
Which, ended up with parents thinking "why buy one game for 40 bucks, when I can buy 7 games for the same price?"
Of course, parents were dumb at the time, and didn't understand how Quality worked, so whatever. :P
But I always thought Nintendo's strict asshole policy back in the day, was to combat that whole thing?
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????
The problem I have with his comments is that they don't describe what happened last gen in any way at all. Lazy devs weren't successful on the Gamecube, but devs that actually tried to make a good game were rewarded. Amazingly enough, the same fucking rules apply to Nintendo. Nintendo doesn't sell lots of software because they're undercutting other devs, they sell lots of software because they make good games. The same story will be told on the Wii, only this time there is serious potential for any developer to get in on the money printing if they will follow Nintendo's lead and put out quality titles that are worth buying.
Besides, suggesting that Nintendo doesn't want 3rd parties to be successful is retarded. The Gamecube proved conclusively that, while Nintendo can survive on their own titles, they can only really be successful with 3rd party support. They've gone out of their way to make it easy and cheaper for 3rd party devs to make games on the Wii.
Have fun in the cold.
I'll see if I can drum up some sources, its been awhile and I may have a rough handle on the facts.
EDIT:
Not exactly the greatest source, but it does summarize the general legend of Nintendo buisiness practices, barring recent events. Note that this link is being provided with the intent of explaining what people talk about when they say Nintendo of the early years, not to validate this view or not. The link doesn't have enough references to be used in that context, imho.
http://www.geekcomix.com/vgh/fourth/nesbad.shtml
Agreed on all points. The third-party exodus from the Gamecube was largely self-inflicted on the part of the developers. Large port delays and poor port quality sunk many titles financially.
All I'msaying is if you are a developer and experienced Nintendo's rough handling during your heyday, I don't see it as totally unreasonable to remember that and be wary of promies of better treatment now.
Did Shiny even have any Gamecube games? None come to mind. His comments become more reasonable, though not more educated as they would be based only on personal experience rather than researching facts, if the last interactions he and his company had with Nintendo were during the Stab-you-in-the-face-gaijin-dogs days.
It's not so much Nintendo's quality-control policies that were the problem: it was the obscene amount of money they'd demand from developers to make games for their (then) completely dominant platform. They also used the popularity of the NES to force retailers into abandoning non-Nintendo products, which ultimately led them to a conviction for stifling competition.
Only "Enter the Matrix" ... but there's really no way of knowing whether that meant they ever had to deal with Nintendo or if Atari just got another group to port their existing game over.
They're apparently working on The Golden Compass for the Wii for Sega, so again its questionable how much Shiny's actually working with Nintendo.
No DS games or GBA games.
Considering that Shiny hasn't published a game on a Nintendo platform for at the very least 10 or 15 years, it's hard to tell how much they've actually dealt with Nintendo.
I think he's actually just railing against Nintendo not adopting the next-gen tax.
Different Dave Perry. That's the British one, and he's a gigantic cunt.
[solid snake]Next-gen tax?[/solid snake]
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????
The seemingly pointless price hike all "next gen" games ahve gotten even though alot of them aren't really that impressive.