TV Tropes Org

Forums

search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [99]  1  2  3
4

Should Nintendo develop for other platforms other than their own?:

 76 onyhow, Tue, 4th Dec '12 2:56:05 AM from Thaddis Sabbah, still fighting Vaygrs Relationship Status: Singularity
Mothership online...also adorable
^ I can DEFINITELY understand how you feel (because I have that problem too) its just that, well, it's business...Ninty want to protect their image and console power (plus they can't afford their gaming division losing out, because they ONLY have that division, MS and Sony have other business to help out)

edited 4th Dec '12 2:57:28 AM by onyhow

 77 Marioguy 128, Tue, 4th Dec '12 2:58:24 AM from various galaxies
Geomancer
I find the bias towards Nintendo here greatly disturbing. It's like there's an unwritten rule here that Nintendo shouldn't do anything unconservative. Do you know what trade conservatism is like? Just look at the global market tariffs and cross country transport taxes and embargoes.

I'm pretty sure you would get the same reaction if you were talking about Sony or Microsoft instead.

edited 4th Dec '12 2:59:18 AM by Marioguy128

You got some dirt on you. Here's some more!
 78 Recon 5, Tue, 4th Dec '12 3:02:58 AM from Southeast Asia
Avvie-free for life!
What I think would happen if Nintendo develops games from its main I Ps for other platforms is that those installments would simply founder and die because their existing fans would snub them. This would in turn give those games a massive stink of a reputation to the point that new players would be dissuaded from getting them too.

Das kann doch nicht sein!
Cassie, it seems to be that, despite all your hostility, you are the one who has a bias towards Nintendo. Either that, or you seem to have a very strange idea of corporations.

Nintendo is not a charitable organization, but a money-making business. As any good (as in, competent in what they are doing, not as in morally/ethically sound) money-making business, they make decision based purely on whether it brings them profit, not whether it's a nice thing to do. As any console-manufacturing company, they want to sell consoles. For that, they have to have exclusives. If they were to make games for other consoles than their own, they devalue their own consoles and discourage potential buyers from getting them. Consequence: They don't do it and make all their games Nintendo-consoles only.

Sure, it would be nice to have Nintendo games on other consoles. If they were to make a game for PS3, I may get it (if the game itself interests me). But they will never do that, because they would hurt the sales of their own consoles. Yes, it would be nice not to have to buy another console just for their games, but that's exactly the reason why they won't do it.

Actually, you could easily answer the question "why won't they make games for other consoles" with "they are a corporation, interested in making money and not much else". There is nothing else to say, it should be self-evident, really.

No, I don't actually expect to convince him. Attempting to make any sense out of what he's babbling is hard enough.

edited 4th Dec '12 4:15:33 AM by Nyarly

People aren't as awful as the internet makes them out to be.
 80 burnpsy, Tue, 4th Dec '12 4:16:28 AM from Ontario, Canada Relationship Status: Abstaining
The Eternal Fool
As a video gamer, I do not feel it fair to have any game being barred from reaching my hands just because I can't pay for the hardware.

So now, after claiming that people were making a strawman out of you by saying that your point boils down to not being able to afford the system, you fully admit that they had made the correct assumption.
 81 Cassie, Tue, 4th Dec '12 4:19:25 AM from Malaysia, but where?
The armored raven
Stop with the backhanded insults, please. If this thread is just an exercise to attack me, I'm going to leave this thread now
What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...
 82 burnpsy, Tue, 4th Dec '12 4:20:27 AM from Ontario, Canada Relationship Status: Abstaining
The Eternal Fool
I'm just saying, if you're gonna make an argument about something, you could have been clear from the get-go and been consistent. Yet you've contradicted yourself twice.
 83 Cassie, Tue, 4th Dec '12 4:21:17 AM from Malaysia, but where?
The armored raven
WHAT is so contradicting, about my posts?

(note: I'm sorry. This is the best thread for me to lose my temper in 5 seconds)

edited 4th Dec '12 4:24:03 AM by Cassie

What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...
 84 burnpsy, Tue, 4th Dec '12 4:23:34 AM from Ontario, Canada Relationship Status: Abstaining
The Eternal Fool
I don't think I could have been clearer in pointing the two contradictions out.

You complained about Nintendo not making their titles multi-platform, then state that you don't actually care.

You complained when people narrowed your argument down to the core point, that you can't afford the system, and then you admit they were right.
 85 Spooky Mask, Tue, 4th Dec '12 4:26:13 AM from Corner in round room Relationship Status: Non-Canon
Insert title
Anywaaaaaaaaaaaay, I also think that Nintendo shouldn't develop for other platforms.

Why? Brand value tongue Plus I have dislike for Sony and Microsoft as companies for unrational reasons caused by more idiotic gamers of "OMG graphics!" sort.
Time to change the style, for now
 86 Cassie, Tue, 4th Dec '12 4:34:02 AM from Malaysia, but where?
The armored raven
1) I was going to say that I don't care further if Nintendo continues to exclude their franchises from other consoles. It should be clear from the beginning that me wanting Nintendo games to BE on other systems is my primary reason for being in this thread. Do you believe there's someone who's never touched N64 before, let alone seen the games? That's me.

2) It's not about the price or the ability to afford for me. I already said that Nintendo's amount of platforms is a factor in this debacle, unless you don't find it valid to factor it in whatsoever. It's more about cannot able to get them. At least, over at where I am you can't get them unmodded. If I have to lay down Neptunia terms, I'm from a place where Arfoire reigns the strongest. But the crux of the problem is that everyone assumed that I automatically mean 'pricing' since I used to take similar stands. In THIS particular joint? It's not about the price. It's about the SPEED which Nintendo always take to toss out yet another new platform. The gall of it. You can see why I'm a long term PC and Sony gamer, because Sony existed first as a 3D gaming platform which was sold in Malaysia. Between PS1 and PS2 there's already been several Gameboy incarnations. Who in the right mind would pay for those if not for fanboyism?

The problem swings right back: you couldn't get SNES here. Only SFC. NES and N64 also never existed here. Also no Gamecube and 3DS. You can imagine my sheer disgust on how often Nintendo can crank the hardware like a cancer of the world's semiconductor supplies

edited 4th Dec '12 4:35:54 AM by Cassie

What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...
 87 burnpsy, Tue, 4th Dec '12 6:34:05 AM from Ontario, Canada Relationship Status: Abstaining
The Eternal Fool
...Wait, you're saying that 1989 → 1998 → 2001 → 2004 → 2011note  and 1985 → 1991 → 1996 → 2001 → 2006 → 2012note  are too fast? Sorry to completely disagree with you, but those gaps seem completely reasonable (and, in a few cases, too long).

edited 4th Dec '12 6:35:52 AM by burnpsy

 88 Swampertrox, Tue, 4th Dec '12 6:41:07 AM from Abandoned Ship Relationship Status: Drift compatible
Mage of Life
[up][up] You do realize the Wii has been out six years and the DS was out for seven when the 3DS was released, right? Nintendo doesn't release new systems very often; they release updated versions which play the exact same games as the previous versions. We just got Pokemon Black and White 2 for the DS family this year, and it runs on both the 3DS and every DS system including the original Phat. Nintendo doesn't release new consoles any more frequently than other console manufacturers.

edited 4th Dec '12 6:41:44 AM by Swampertrox

Modded minecraft server. PM me for info.
 89 Evi I Paladin, Tue, 4th Dec '12 6:41:20 AM from Burlington, ON Relationship Status: Shipping fictional characters
Some Guy Or Something
[up][up]I think Cassie means the Updated Re-release consoles, like 3DS -> 3DS XL and stuff like that.

Which doesn't make much more sense since the PS3 went through three different incarnations and, depending on whether Sony wants to stave off generation hopping, might go through more.

edited 4th Dec '12 6:41:38 AM by EviIPaladin

"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" -Enlong

"Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" -Enlong again.
 90 Swampertrox, Tue, 4th Dec '12 6:43:25 AM from Abandoned Ship Relationship Status: Drift compatible
Mage of Life
[up] I think Cassie is just confused about what actually counts as a new console and is making the assumption that every updated rerelease has games that won't work on older consoles.
Modded minecraft server. PM me for info.
II
The only updated system that has games that won't work on the previous one is the DSi. They're not very plentiful, although a fair amount of new games have features that need the camera, and they all work perfectly on 3DS anyway.

And to answer the original question, no of course not. That's like saying Uncharted should be on Nintendo's systems. It just doesn't make any business sense.

What I think people keep forgetting in here is that Nintendo is not the only company with exclusives. Their exclusives are just more visibly theirs. Hell, go watch Sony's "Michael" commercial. Most (though not all) of the characters in there are from Sony-exclusive games.
Little-known fact: the four gospels were known in their time as Wedge, Bobby Steve, Red, and Smackdaddy. — ABNDT
 92 Journeyman, Tue, 4th Dec '12 9:08:15 AM from Here and there.
It's the Over Lord!
Thinking back on it . . . this is an irrelevant discussion anyway. I keep mistaking the Big Three (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft) for the third party producers. Well, they're not. NONE of the big three are really multi-platform at all. They allow third party, multiplatform companies to produce games for them, but Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo don't actively produce any games at all for consoles that aren't their own. (Pcs are a different story.)

Nevermind. evil grin
When the hammer falls and your world shatters, I'll be there to cut the handle and pick up your pieces.
 93 onyhow, Tue, 4th Dec '12 9:29:34 AM from Thaddis Sabbah, still fighting Vaygrs Relationship Status: Singularity
Mothership online...also adorable
What about PC- oh wait ^ nevermind...

I wonder how is PC different though...

edited 4th Dec '12 9:29:53 AM by onyhow

II
It's...not, really. I don't know why people keep saying it is. The only company that has any reason to put their first-party titles on PC is Microsoft, and that's because they're primarily a computer company.
Little-known fact: the four gospels were known in their time as Wedge, Bobby Steve, Red, and Smackdaddy. — ABNDT
 95 Tracer Bullet, Wed, 5th Dec '12 1:06:29 PM from A Dark and Rainy Alley
Guess Who...?

Regarding Cassie's Last Post

That perspective actually has a bit of a point... Sony actually *does* do multiplatform development to an extent. PC (Sony Online Entertainment is a thing) and home console (though the latter overshadows the former in non-developing markets).

Furthermore, there's actually a point regarding the longevity of platform support. Sony platforms have a couple of traits that make them especially advantageous to gamers from developing nations:
  • They are made, and supported for effectively forever from generational standards.
- Both the PS1 and the PS2 had lifespans that lasted at least a decade, with continued software support throughout them. New PS2s finally stopped being made this year. The PSP doesn't seem too far off. 8 years old and still kicking in terms of software output (in Japan, anyways).
  • Games on Sony consoles, regardless of first or third party, tend to depreciate dramatically quicker than Nintendo first party games.
- It's a bit easier to justify getting a game when they are going for a song, regardless of context.
  • Sony consoles often have multiple justifications from a purchasing standpoint
- Sony as a hardware manufacturer has been pretty good at being able to sell their machines from more than solely the perspective of being a games machine. The PS1 was serviceable as a CD player (the original models coming with VERY good sound chips for their time), PS2 is a DVD player, PSP is a decent (if not iPod-level convenient) MP3 and video player, and the PS3 does Blu-Ray.
  • The choice of format makes playing legitimate games via emulation on non-dedicated hardware more viable
- If you have a computer that can run a PS1 or PS2 emulator, it is a perfectly viable (if clunky) solution to simply buy the games and load them through your computer's disc drive. The only Nintendo console ever where this is theoretically doable without special hardware is the Wii (though Gamecube is still doable if your drive can read MiniDVDs)

That's not to say that Nintendo as a gaming company is incapable of making good games, just that their priorities in terms of where they market and move hardware and software are less easily aligned with a consumer pool outside of developed nations. (Their habit of No Export for You doesn't really help matters for region-locked systems. And Nintendo's current business model of "using killer app software to move hardware designed for the express purpose of playing games sold above at a day-one profit" (which they've had to deviate from in more recent years thanks to the 3DS' rocky start as a platform) simply doesn't suit most developing markets well.

Could Nintendo develop for platforms other than their own? Sure, why not. Should they? While there's definitely some pros for them to consider the matter, doing so would majorly undermine their current business model. So from Nintendo's perspective, there's simply no incentive (for now) in disrupting a business model which has kept them in the black for most of the last quarter-century.

I understand that it's probably not what some of us would like to hear, but that's just how it is, and not really worth getting worked up about.

edited 5th Dec '12 1:07:06 PM by TracerBullet

Hard Boiled Detective Since 1985
 96 Devil Take Me, Wed, 5th Dec '12 2:14:34 PM from Wild Wasteland
Coin Operator
[up] AFAIK, the Playstation 2 hasn't been discontinued yet. The last (meaning latest) games for it were released just in October.
 97 burnpsy, Wed, 5th Dec '12 6:19:50 PM from Ontario, Canada Relationship Status: Abstaining
The Eternal Fool
[up]And the Dreamcast got games as recently as June, and will be recieving another, short-printed, game in December. I'm sure the Dreamcast has been discontinued, so what's your point?
Just to lighten up the tension a bit, what nintendo franchies/games would fit on the other systems?
I treat all living things equally. That is to say, I eat all living things
 99 Kostya, Wed, 5th Dec '12 7:30:47 PM from Everywhere
The Razruchityel
[up]Probably some of the ones that aren't as strongly associated with Nintendo. Something like Endless Ocean or Brain Age could work.

The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.
Total posts: 99
 1  2  3
4


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy