Why do devs treat Nintendo like the laughing stock of the industry?

#31UltimatesTruthPosted 9/2/2014 8:43:43 AM
Terotrous posted...
UltimatesTruth posted...
To be more accurate, what is your point exactly here?

The main problem is that game budgets have risen so impractically high that most developers can only put out 1 or 2 games a year. Since the success or failure of their companies depend so vitally on these mega-budget products, they can only focus on extremely safe properties and this lack of variety is generally resulting in stagnancy of the industry even for those who do manage to survive.


Or alternatively, just look at the roster for Marvel vs Capcom 3. How many of the characters on the Capcom side will ever be in another game?


Is having 1 to 2 games a year from a developer a bad thing? Time changes, gamers want better quality games every now and then.
Not sure about Marvel vs Capcom since I never played it, so I didn't understand what you just said, but I can already tell that this isn't in Monster Hunter, DMC, Resident Evil and Dragon's Dogma.
---
"You know better than to trust a strange computer." - Yoda.
#32TerotrousPosted 9/2/2014 9:15:05 AM
UltimatesTruth posted...
Is having 1 to 2 games a year from a developer a bad thing? Time changes, gamers want better quality games every now and then.

Yes, because it puts so much sales pressure on those games that devs can't afford to take risks. If you have 5 games a year, 1 or 2 can fail to meet expectations and you can survive. With only 1 or 2, even a single failure can take down your company.


Not sure about Marvel vs Capcom since I never played it, so I didn't understand what you just said, but I can already tell that this isn't in Monster Hunter, DMC, Resident Evil and Dragon's Dogma.

Marvel vs Capcom is a game that combines characters from throughout Capcom's history into a single fighting game. The appeal of the game is that Capcom has a rich history of properties to draw from, but in the last 5-10 years they've abandoned 95% of the franchises that originally made them successful and haven't really replaced them with anything.
---
http://whatliesbeyondnovel.blogspot.ca/
My novel, now fully published online!
#33EoinPosted 9/2/2014 9:25:31 AM
Terotrous posted...
A good example of a company that fits this model perfectly is Capcom. Thriving company for many years, but when PS3 came around they abandoned all of their properties in favour of just Rez Evil and Street Fighter and now their net worth is like a tenth of what it was.

Why do you make claims like this that are not true? What is the point of posting this sort of lie? Is it to try to sound knowledgeable? If so, why not actually check what you're posting before posting it?
#34DrumguyPosted 9/2/2014 9:29:23 AM
DeathSoul2000 posted...
They see N as a "kid's company" and Sony/MS as the MAAAN'S companies.


it's funny, but it's true. The public needs to stop generalizing video games and their audiences.
#35TerotrousPosted 9/2/2014 9:41:31 AM
Eoin posted...
Why do you make claims like this that are not true? What is the point of posting this sort of lie? Is it to try to sound knowledgeable? If so, why not actually check what you're posting before posting it?

The only part that's really incorrect is that I always forget that Monster Hunter exists because that's approximately how much I care about the franchise. It doesn't change the argument any, though.
---
http://whatliesbeyondnovel.blogspot.ca/
My novel, now fully published online!
#36EoinPosted 9/2/2014 9:47:42 AM(edited)
Terotrous posted...
The only part that's really incorrect is that I always forget that Monster Hunter exists because that's approximately how much I care about the franchise. It doesn't change the argument any, though.

You claimed that Capcom's net worth is now a tenth of what it was a decade ago.

This was a lie on your part. The claim is totally untrue.
#37TerotrousPosted 9/2/2014 9:53:01 AM
Eoin posted...
You claimed that Capcom's net worth is now a tenth of what it was a decade ago.

This was a lie on your part. The claim is totally untrue.

It's an exaggeration, but there's still truth to it. They're down to between 35-50% of where they were previously.

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/charts/charts.asp?ticker=9697:JP

(Set the range to Max. I'm sure you'll also complain that they fell off in 03 as well).
---
http://whatliesbeyondnovel.blogspot.ca/
My novel, now fully published online!
#38MeepleLardiclePosted 9/2/2014 9:59:59 AM
well, yamauchi seems very angered that squaresoft choose sony, he even said that no squaresoft games will be allowed in the nintendo platform again

i guess its not entirely nintendo fault


Which is exactly my point. People will jump down Iwata's throat anytime he so much as sneezes with "NINTENDOOMED! FIRE IWATA!" but a lot of the biggest damage done to Nintendo, in terms of 3rd party support and all that, was Yamauchi's fault.

(The rest of this is more me tangenting and not aimed at you.)

He's the one who went on record saying "oh, jRPGs are dumb, no one cares about them"; N64 had a grand total of what? Quest 64 and Ogre Battle 64 for jRPGs? Yamauchi was in control there.

Gamecube, which is after Iwata took over? Skies of Arcadia, Baten Kaitos, and Tales of Symphonia just to name a few. Gamecube had a more expansive Library and that's because Iwata was in control.

Gamecube failed though because of the N64 shenanigans more than anything else. A lot N64 sales were earlier on, I believe, when people stood by Nintendo expecting the same things as SNES. When it was clear all of the big games were on Playstation outside of the Nintendo exclusives, many jumped to Playstation, and many who didn't jumped ship during the PS2 which not only showed the same promise, but was also backwards compatible, so any games you missed on the PS1 were still playable.


Make no mistake, it's not a conspiracy (though some companies do make it very hard to view it that way. Yes, Ubisoft, I'm looking at you), more just the way things went. Companies are sticking with Sony because, well, "if it's not broke, don't fix it." Their games sell on Sony, and they're fine with it. Many have moved to "Microsoft Too" because last generation, PS3 vs. 360 wasn't so blatantly in Sony's favor the way it was for PS2 vs. Xbox, so it made sense, at least for western audiences, to branch out.

That's really all it is. The mistakes they made in the N64 era are really what hit Nintendo hard, and if they didn't have them, we may have a very different situation than what we have now.

SOMEHOW, though, it's all iwata's fault for doing this even though, as I said, he merely inherited the **** situation Yamauchi left him in.
---
www.rpgdl.com
The site Meeple argues at for too much of his life!
#39EoinPosted 9/2/2014 10:03:46 AM
Terotrous posted...
It's an exaggeration, but there's still truth to it.

No. It is a lie.

Terotrous posted...
They're down to between 35-50% of where they were previously.

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/charts/charts.asp?ticker=9697:JP

This is the value of their stocks. It is not their net worth. It is irrelevant to your claim, which remains a lie. If you think it is relevant, then you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

If you go to Capcom's own website, there are financial chart generators (http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/finance/generators.html). I made this graph to illustrate your lie:

http://i.imgur.com/GdfcIBo.jpg

The top line ("net assets") is the closest figure that corresponds to your claim ("net worth"). As you can see, the value is stable. Going back a few years doesn't result in that figure being ten times higher either (you can check that here): http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/data/result_2004.html

Please now retract your lie.
#40GodXIIPosted 9/2/2014 10:05:38 AM
The devs seeing that Wii U is Playstation 3,4 and they don't want to waste their time making for Wii U. They want to go next gen experience and they are targeting user bases on PS4 and X1.

Of course Wii U got enough negative comments from devs.