Should Nintendo change its business philosophy - Very Long (2 Viewers)

[Scott Walburn]

Let me just start by saying, I am definitely not trying to start a flame war here. And secondly, I don't really know how Nintendo conducts business first hand.

This brings me to the question though, why does Nintendo let less games end up on their system. I've heard people argue that Nintendo may not want alot of other people's software on their system because then Nintendo may not sell as many of their own titles. This may be true because it seems like at least half of the top 10 selling titles for any system are Nintendo's. I've also heard something about Nintendo charging much higher licensing fees than other console manufacturers

This brings me to my point. Of the three consoles currently available Gamecube would probably be my last choice at this moment. That is sad because I know Nintendo makes killer games, but I just don't want to pass up on the other games that Nintendo will never see.

I think Nintendo has a potential winner in Gamecube. A low price point, a DVD based medium that is much cheaper than a cartridge. We all know that them staying with cartridges last time around killed the N64. But this time they got it right, a really powerful system and a low price, and many of the developers are saying that the Gamecube is the easiest to develop for. In addition to all that, they have Zelda, Metroid, Perfect Dark, and everything associated with Mario.

I've heard several people on this forum lament that they've outgrown Nintendo, and I kind of have the same feeling even though I know down the line they will have 3 or 4 ground breaking titles that no one will be able to touch. Why doesn't Nintendo just let more games end up on their system. If I could get the same games that x-box or ps2 will have minus there exclusives such as Gran Turismo or Halo, I would sprint out the door and buy a gamecube this instant, and NEVER look back, plus I think alot of other people would too. I don't think it would cost them anything to allow a more wide range of titles on their system, if anything if would benefit them.

The point is that Nintendo will have the best first party stuff hands down. That should be the hard part. Now all they have to do is let the other developers put their stuff on gamecube. Can you imagine GTA3, Ace Combat, Silent Hill 2, Devil May Cry, all of Sega's Titles, on the cube. I have always had a strong loyalty to the big N, and I would love to see them reexamine some of their buisness philosophies. If they did, I think people would storm back to their system in groves. Alot of people say that it is the exclusive stuff that wins the videogame wars, well in Nintendo's case I think it comes down to them getting more generic 3rd party titles that every other system has.

Anyways this is just a rant, so if you have any opinions just post em here.

 

[Paul Richardson]

Nintendo lets as many 3rd party developers make games for their system as are willing to do it. In other words, the reason Nintendo doesn't get some of the 3rd party games coming to other systems is because the developers don't want to (or contractually cannot).

With the N64, development was very difficult and expensive compared to the PSX, plus the cartridges were very limiting. As such, Nintendo lost a lot of third party support that they had on the SNES (most tragically, Square). Five years later, a lot of those wounds haven't healed...but expect to see many more 3rd party games on Gamecube than on the N64.

For what it's worth, despite the lack of 3rd party support for N64, it had as many quality games as the PSX, even though the latter system had many more games over all.

As for "outgrowing" Nintendo, that's fine. Personally, I've outgrown the need to see excessive gore and T&A in every game I play.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

If a game isn't on a Nintendo console, its because the third party developer didn't make it. Nobody wanted to make cartridges anymore, which is why te N64 had so few.

 

[Brian-W]

The deal is this:

Nintendo allows each publisher to release a finite amount of titles on a yearly (12 month) basis. That was (and hasn't changed as far as I know) 6 titles per year. Each title when it arrived in for quality assurance testing (both bug testing and actual game quality) would be scored.

Now, aside from bug issues, a game needed to receive a minimum score to be approved for release. That score was pretty low, and very few titles were ever not released or had to go back and make significant changes in order to pass this score. However, titles that received an 'exceptional' score (I think the average game got 20-25 points, with great games receiving 30+, 40 points maximum) were not counted towards the maximum publishing amount per year.

In other words, if a publisher submitted a title that scored in the exceptional range, that title would not count towards the 'maximum' amount of titles that publisher could release in a given year. So, if that publisher had 6 titles for release that year, and one title received an exceptional score, the publisher would be allowed to release another title in addition to the one that was approved.

It was a way to reward publishers who produced high quality game titles, while preventing publishers from just pumping out any and every title possible.

While not a 'free market' system, it's one that rewards publishers for putting out high quality product.

-Brian

 

[Scott Walburn]

Hey, thanks for the info Brian. That is what I was kind of wondering. I mean I can easily think of more than six titles that Sega or EA could release in a year that I might be interested in.

 

[Scott Walburn]

Actually, Brian is that 6 titles a year rule still in effect. Just out of bordom, I went to Ign's gamecube site and looked at the release list for the year and was actually a little surprised, Although I'm sure not all of this games will come out this year.

EA has 5 games on the schdule for this year. Namco has 4, Midway has 12, Sega 11, Capcom 6 (all resident evil games), Nintendo has 24, Acclaim has 6.

Although I could definitely see Nintendo give Sega a little slack to produce more games based on their excellent track record.

 

[Brian-W]

I don't know if the 6 titles rule is still in effect (when I was at Sony, that's what the rules were).

However, big publishers that had a lot of clout (i.e. helping any manufacturer gain more market share) often times got to 'slide' by the title limitations.

Nintendo of course was always not subject to that rule. But companies like EA often times were allowed to negate the rule but quietly.

I think with the N64 and it's success (or lack thereof, pending who you ask), Nintendo may have changed its rules. Sega is often times in unique positions. While they may have 11 titles in development, often times those titles are actually 'published' by other third party publishers.

Disney Interactive is one example of a company that is a publisher, but publishes all it's console titles with 'co-publishers' (Sony, THQ, Ubisoft, etc.) and that's another way to get around the title limit rule.

But I don't know if the limit is still in effect. If I remember correctly, Sony also had a limit (but higher).

-Brian

 

[Morgan Jolley]

The Resident Evil titles aren't all coming out next year, so either Capcom has less for GameCube or there are ones we haven't thought about yet.

A rep from Nintendo once said that Nintendo would rather have only a few GREAT games than a bunch of only GOOD games.