Your reaction if Nintendo went third party.

braamer said:
Wouldn't matter. I don't find Nintendo games anything to write home about.
Click to expand...

People say that, but it's personal preference. I have never played Skyrim and have no desire to play it but I don't deny that there are people that like it even if I would never play it.
 
kirbyrj said:
People say that, but it's personal preference. I have never played Skyrim and have no desire to play it but I don't deny that there are people that like it even if I would never play it.
Click to expand...
When it comes to Skyrim I do deny that everyone likes it. Game is trash. So is BoTW while we at it.
 
Why would they do this? Their hardware sells. They would then have to pay the 30%, not gunna happen
 
This thread is hilarious.

Basically it's Nintendo haters that think Nintendo should conform to what everyone else is doing. Which wouldn't even matter because they still wouldn't buy a Nintendo property anyway regardless of platform. (Cater to me, and I still won't buy your product! I'm your perfect customer! /s)

And current Nintendo users that don't really care if there was a change or not. Or in other words are more than happy to continue playing on Nintendo hardware. (Never change Nintendo, we <3 you. Your hardware and exclusivity doesn't matter to me!)

The question in the OP is silly - in the sense that the way all of this goes down is just through business necessity. Capitalism and Corporatism are both cold. They are indifferent. Whether you care or you don't about market realities doesn't really matter as it doesn't change them. So if you like things how they are and Nintendo is forced to be a third party dealer, what difference does it make how you feel? You either at that point play Nintendo games on other consoles or you don't. And the exact same can be said vice versa. But it won't matter how you feel about it in either case.
 
I would be ecstatic, only interested in 2 IP’s and im not willing to pay $350 for the system then 79.99 per game which never go on sale.
 
I've been calling for this for a long time - or at least, for Nintendo to open up their own platforms. Though not just Nintendo, I'm opposed to the idea of a "console" such that it is today as entirely outmoded. The last justification for a discrete console went out with the PS2/Gamecube/Xbox generation , or with serious debate the PS3/Wii/X360 at the latest. Consoles were once the only relatively affordable way to game and used limited purpose built hardware for that - where a $300 NES in late 80s' bucks was expensive, a gaming capable PC at the time was multiple thousands (and was likely to be completely outmoded in a year or two). Today, consoles use something very similar to, if not directly the same as, off the shelf PC (or in the case of Nintendo, mobile) hardware - not to mention that the software side of games and engine development has become more ubiquitous and able to run better on wider hardware. Thus, today's consoles are still limited compared to PCs but unlike the 80s, 90's, and circa 2000 ones its both a smaller distance from PCs and more restrictive by policy vs technology. Today's console is essentially a PC that is forced to be locked down, proprietary, runs a single custom OS, a single online service etc.. and despite the fact you own it, if you say... managed to jailbreak/custom ROM / mod it, the company behind will ban on the hardware level ensuring you cannot connect to the only official thing it is "allowed" to do! I'll not support the idea of paying for these restrictive platforms on principle and I'm more worried that certain mechanics tested there - such as the "hardware level ban" will attempt to come to PC if shifty publishers or platform owners get their way; it hasn't been possible but things like TPM 2.0 remote attestation w/ Windows 11 could make it so, in an expansion of hostility to user sovereignty over their own hardware! I should mention I'm also opposed to by-contract exclusivity timed or otherwise for game titles too, be it limited to a console on something like a PC storefront (see: Epic Games Store and their generally repugnant behavior).

So to Nintendo themselves, I've long said that I'd be more than happy to purchase the Nintendo first party titles and whatnot if it was available on PC and/or mobile, a quality port and priced fairly. Imagine all the people who enjoy Super Smash Bros Ultimate or Mario Kart 8 Deluxe were they available on Steam, for instance! I'd be more than happy if Nintendo brought their titles to PC and mobile properly, provided they ported things well, priced fairly, and didn't engage on shifty exclusivity or storefront only nonsense. This is not to say I'm opposed to the manufacture of Nintendo's own hardware or peripherals necessarily, either. When I first heard the Switch was essentially an Nvidia Shield tablet , I hoped that it would be powered by a Nintendo skinned Android version ; that users would be able to do the Nintendo gaming stuiff alongside general Android tablet tasks, but it was not to be. Nintendo decided that focus on a version of a proprietary OS similar to that of the Nintendo 3DS, annoyingly. Likewise despite great features like the JoyCons and Dock, Nintendo didn't even do as much as they did with previous generations like the Wii or 3DS to allow for utility use - Netflix, video/media playing, and other applications - it was all directly game related and nothing else. Eventually users could custom firmware and emummc their way to things like Kodi , Retroarch, and many other applications (as well as a number of game related utilities like porting saves and the like and of course to be fair, piracy ) but if you got "caught" with the logs on your Switch visible to Nintendo's servers a hardware ban was waiting!

I would not lament the loss of this sort of lockdown or Nintendo's hyper focus, but I would not object to Nintendo making their own open platform (ie PC or mobile) hardware and especially peripherals. The latter is an area where Nintendo has always thrived and if they made their peripherals such as the JoyCons, Switch Dock, ProController, and exceptional unique gameplay/control elements like the Ring Fit Adventure RingCon, with PC in mind, I'd greatly support this endeavor. Nintendo's peripherals are, thanks to a bit of reverse engineering, often able to be utilized on PC but it requires the kind of custom 3rd party driver projects that make things cumbersome currently (save for of course Valve, who goes out of their way to support Nintendo, Sony and other troublesome non-PC friendly controllers seamlessly, putting a lot of effort into getting them working and even making it easy to apply alternative in-game button prompts to to titles ). In a world where Nintendo released their games on PC via Steam , Itch, and others this wouldn't be as much of an issue as they'd want to make sure to craft modern drivers for their peripherals and support things like XInput natively if it was a commonality in cross-platform game release on PC .

So ultimately I'd be happy to see Nintendo give up on sole attachment to their own console systems and instead favor both making games for open PC / mobile platforms and if they make their own peripherals (which they should definitely keep doing as they're talented at doing so) and possibly a machine of their own, they do so with support for open common platforms in mind.
 
RanceJustice I don't necessarily agree with your assessment.
I think the biggest reason in favor of consoles is more or less to control the experience and therefore give the exact same experience to everyone who is playing your software. This basically leads to much better software optimization than will ever be found on PC, as well as less complications to be found in terms of programming for different configurations. In fact I'm sure most console devs would be even more happy if there weren't two versions of PS4's (as an example).
Consoles in that sense are a great equalizer. And are highly beneficial to devs that for sure prefer lowered hardware variation and therefore complexity.

I also think it's about cost. Even if accounting for the fact that no one can buy either a PS5 or a GPU, console gamers are still playing on PS4's and XBox One's happily since 2013 and are still relevant. Whereas there is no PC hardware configuration from 2013 that costed $600 or less that could hope to be relevant today. Console gamers benefit highly from console cycles, and regardless of how you see PC's, pay less to game for longer than PC counterparts. And they are able to do so with again with the exact same experience as every other person on the same console. Something that PC gamers can't hope for - short of essentially PC's becoming console-ified like the Steam Deck.

Nintendo also has the niche of being interested in novel input devices and ways of playing. Short of the new Steam Deck announcement, Nintendo has basically been the undisputed champion of the mobile gaming space since the original Gameboy in 1989 - a track record that is an incredible feat in the computing space. It's also yet to be seen whether or not the Steam Deck will have any of level of success on both a global level (versus just mostly western countries) and/or whether or not it will make gains with people that are not (or at least less) technically literate. Two areas where consoles in general dominate.

Also to reiterate on my first point, Nintendo has also been all about controlling the novel experience people have had. Regardless of if you like it or hate it, Without consoles, Nintendo would never have gotten people to adopt motion controls, balance boards, multi-screen gaming, or stylus gaming (and that's setting aside really specific input methods like bongo drums). You also briefly mentioned these, outside of Nintendo though, you'd have to admit that precisely none of this has shown up on PC and I think it's fairly unlikely that any of it would. I think there is incredible value in a company thinking of novel ways to play games outside of a keyboard and mouse or just another dual-thumb stick controller that people have been using since 2004 and I don't think any of those things would have happened or been adopted as widely or had nearly as many games created for, again without a console creating uniform hardware and a uniform player experience.

In other words, it's exactly because a console like the Wii forced parity through it's hardware that as many motion control games were created. It is in fact because of this "Wii specific limitation" that pushed games this unified direction. Without a console, there is nothing simply stopping from devs just making more of the same - twin stick games or KB/M games. Consoles then can create a novel experience for a generation that PC's can't because you can't force all PC devs to all march the same direction like you can on a console.

If you're PC centric and tech literate of course then there is a great bias against consoles. But as long as there are people that like (and even prefer) the simplicity of consoles then they'll always have a place. Lock-in or no.

----------

EDIT: I think in general that if you're a creator of your hardware you should have the say as to what happens with it. I realize that's a pretty unpopular opinion, but I think creators should be able to dictate how their creations are used. And that happens to either their benefit or detriment. Oftentimes both. End users are still of course free to hack or otherwise mod-chip whatever they want, but I see no reason why someone who has 100% stake in the game should be forced to open and therefore support anything they don't want to.

Open platforms have to prove itself in this space. I personally don't see how open platforms will ever be able to give the wide variation of play/interaction that Nintendo has done over the years. And I think even with the Steam Deck, that's showing that PC's need to be "console-ified" and not the other way around in order to reach parity for players in the gaming space.

A whole other can of worms is just the support necessary for open platforms and what that will mean for the player base. I won't dive deep in this rabbit hole, but suffice to say that the 'average user', isn't particularly tech literate.

----------

As an aside, I've mentioned this next anecdote multiple times, but my brother as an example has been a sys admin for close to 15 years, is a Linux/BSD guru, knows at least 10 programming languages and prefers to play all games on consoles. As frankly he manages computers all day and has zero interest in managing a Steam library - he literally has told me if feels like gaming on PC is an inferior experience. In fact he's commented multiple times that he'd rather just enjoy the time gaming and never ever having to think about drivers or re-installing Windows.

His personal computer for a long time was a Mac, again for similar reasons (although he's since moved on to using a Lenovo, but that has honestly been more about cost - he still would prefer to be on macOS if it costed less) and he uses iOS devices. Because in his free time he doesn't want his home life to be at all like his job. In other words he manages things for a living, he wants his personal hardware "to just work" and otherwise be "stress free". He may be an outlier, but he's definitely not alone. The point? Even amongst the (extreme) tech literate it isn't even a foregone conclusion that "PC Master Race" gaming is the way to go.
 
Last edited:
harvestor said:
I would be ecstatic, only interested in 2 IP’s and im not willing to pay $350 for the system then 79.99 per game which never go on sale.
Click to expand...
I assume you're in Canada. Lack of sales on Nintendo games have always been an issue, so I'm with you there. Going with a physical copy will usually find you better deals, which is why almost nothing I have on the Switch has been purchased through their online store.
 
Camberwell said:
I don't see it happening, Switch has already outsold the Wii in just 5 yrs

https://www.ign.com/articles/nintendo-switch-100-million-sales-outsells-wii
Click to expand...
And?

Remember, even Nintendo doesn't make money on the HW, it's the SW that sells. And what makes more sense: Selling to 100 Million, or selling to 500 Million?

Given HW has *always* been a money looser, and given that the differences in architectures these days is minimal, it really doesn't make any sense whatsoever to lock yourself to a single platform.
 
gamerk2 said:
And?

Remember, even Nintendo doesn't make money on the HW, it's the SW that sells. And what makes more sense: Selling to 100 Million, or selling to 500 Million?

Given HW has *always* been a money looser, and given that the differences in architectures these days is minimal, it really doesn't make any sense whatsoever to lock yourself to a single platform.
Click to expand...
You're falling into the myth of the untapped market. I hardly think Nintendo's audience for their games would grow by any significant margin by getting out of the hardware business. Nintendo's IP reaches sale numbers being locked to a single system that multiplatform developers like Ubisoft only dream of.
 
gamerk2 said:
And?

Remember, even Nintendo doesn't make money on the HW, it's the SW that sells. And what makes more sense: Selling to 100 Million, or selling to 500 Million?

Given HW has *always* been a money looser, and given that the differences in architectures these days is minimal, it really doesn't make any sense whatsoever to lock yourself to a single platform.
Click to expand...
Nintendo actually makes a lot of money from their hardware.
For their 2021 fiscal year, hardware was about half of their earnings.
https://www.hardwaretimes.com/ninte...rdware-was-2x-more-than-the-ps4-ps5-and-xbox/
 
I would prefer if they stick to making their hardware and releasing their games for it. For the most part, they're quality releases, from a technical standpoint. I don't know how the Switch is, but all of Nintendo's first party Wii-U/Wii games run fluidly, look good, and have no bugs to speak of. I fear that if Nintendo went the 3rd party route their release quality may suffer.
 
Axman said:
Yeah, they’ve always made money on their hardware, they don’t follow the standard console model.
Click to expand...

I think every console is sold at a profit by the end of the lifecycle even if it isn't at launch.
 
kirbyrj said:
I think every console is sold at a profit by the end of the lifecycle even if it isn't at launch.
Click to expand...

That would be typical; the long tail sales over 5+ years hopefully work out as a profit. Breaking even is assumed, but massive profits aren't. The real money is in accessories and licensing for Microsoft and Sony. And everyone else, back in the day. Just not Nintendo. They start out in the black, always do.

Some people are actually pretty worried that the PS5 and Xbox Series series might not see profits unless the companies drag them out like they did in the 360/PS3 era, due to increased memory costs. Both companies are eager to get onto newer, cheaper revisions as quickly as possible.

You can be damn sure that if they saw memory prices doubling in the first year, they wouldn't have targeted the $500 price point.
 
I think my 1st reaction would be based on what caused Nintendo to go 3rd party and stop making consoles altogether. Nintendo still to this moment has a ton of operating capitol available to them and the last time someone approached them to buy them off (Microsoft nearly 20 years)? Nintendo laughed them off of their premises back then. If Nintendo realized 1 day they couldn't compete with Microsoft or Sony anymore and made the decision without somebody bigger buying them off? I would be sad but at the same time I know I could still play their products on PC. If it were a buyout I'd be more stunned than sad really because I think it would take a whole lot more money than what Activision Blizzard was bought for to get Nintendo to agree to sell themselves. Just my thoughts on this and until next time I am out!
 
RareAir23 said:
I think my 1st reaction would be based on what caused Nintendo to go 3rd party and stop making consoles altogether. Nintendo still to this moment has a ton of operating capitol available to them and the last time someone approached them to buy them off (Microsoft nearly 20 years)? Nintendo laughed them off of their premises back then. If Nintendo realized 1 day they couldn't compete with Microsoft or Sony anymore and made the decision without somebody bigger buying them off? I would be sad but at the same time I know I could still play their products on PC. If it were a buyout I'd be more stunned than sad really because I think it would take a whole lot more money than what Activision Blizzard was bought for to get Nintendo to agree to sell themselves. Just my thoughts on this and until next time I am out!
Click to expand...
Nintendo doesn't compete with anything. They are in their own world.
 
vegeta535 said:
Nintendo doesn't compete with anything. They are in their own world.
Click to expand...


Right, they haven't been remotely competitive since the Gamecube. They also don't really prioritize consistent releases for major titles (outside categories that are easily copypasta, like SMB, kart, party and Smash - every other franchise, you're lucky if you get a new game once every five years!

I mean,when Nintendo is still riding an 8-year-old game with newmaps++ tells us all we need to know about how easy Nintendo's addicts are to keep distracted!
 
Last edited:
gamerk2 said:
And?

Remember, even Nintendo doesn't make money on the HW, it's the SW that sells. And what makes more sense: Selling to 100 Million, or selling to 500 Million?

Given HW has *always* been a money looser, and given that the differences in architectures these days is minimal, it really doesn't make any sense whatsoever to lock yourself to a single platform.
Click to expand...
Nintendo is notorious for never selling at a loss. They've always sold hardware with profit from day 1. Don't compare others strategies to Nintendo.
 
twonunpackmule said:
Nintendo is notorious for never selling at a loss. They've always sold hardware with profit from day 1. Don't compare others strategies to Nintendo.
Click to expand...


Other than the Wii-u for nearly its entire lifetime, and the emergency 3ds price-cut 3-months after us launch, I'll agree.

Or the necessary $99 Cube price-cut!

When they have a hit, it sells for a profit from the beginning...but otherwise, they can depend on selling millions of copies for every first-party title (even crap usually sells well)
 
In regards to the OP, I would be in the camp of really not caring, and also sad at the same time.

I can fully admit I view Nintendo with rose-tinted glasses. In my opinion, they aren't what I grew up with (SNES) any longer, and haven't been past the GameCube. I don't care for a lot of direction they took some of my favorite franchises on newer consoles, even on the GameCube for some of these (Zelda, Smash, Super Mario, StarFox, MegaMan (I know, but I loved X through X-3 on the SNES).

Back in the day, I was one who would beat Super Mario 64 for the hundredth time, then go over to the PC and fire up Max Payne, HL, CS and the likes. I really enjoyed it all, despite the glaring differences were between the 2.

Nintendo has always been like this, and I get some may not "get it", but then again you were never the target audience to begin with. Just like I am no longer the target audience for new Switch releases.

I fully accept this and am content with it. I'll continue to re-buy my old console titles off eBay and have a blast living in the past :D
 
Last edited:
whateverer said:
Right, they haven't been remotely competitive since the Gamecube. They also don't really prioritize consistent releases for major titles (outside categories that are easily copypasta, like SMB, kart, party and Smash - every other franchise, you're lucky if you get a new game once every five years!
Click to expand...

The Switch is poised to become the 3rd or 4th best selling console in history. I'd call that a success. I don't really mind not having their biggest games be annual releases. Sure, some of them could see more frequent sequels, but I don't think going the Ubisoft route is great.
 
I buy all the Nintendo stuff anyway, so i'd probably buy it no matter what system it ended up on. I'd prefer something stronger than a switch, but it honestly doesn't affect my enjoyment in the end and I find Nintendo games to be some of the best out there, no matter the strength of the hardware.
 
Nintendo should do precisely what they've always done. There is absolutely no shortage of people buying everything they put out, and no shortage of people enjoying it. If you don't like their stuff, don't buy it. If you hate all their games, what are you even doing posting in a thread about them? They aren't really in the market to please the Call of Madden players. They do what they do, and they do it well. Millions upon millions of people agree. If you don't, great, there are plenty of other ways to play games.
 
J3RK said:
Nintendo should do precisely what they've always done.
Click to expand...

They can't, Nvidia is forcing them to move to a new platform by discontinuing production of the Tegra X1. They actually stopped making them last year and sold Nintendo what they had left. All of the remaining SOCs are new old stock.
 
Axman said:
They can't, Nvidia is forcing them to move to a new platform by discontinuing production of the Tegra X1. They actually stopped making them last year and sold Nintendo what they had left. All of the remaining SOCs are new old stock.
Click to expand...

That's not what I meant. I meant since (NEAR) the beginning. Making their own consoles and games, doing their own thing, and not jumping on the clone-console bandwagon. I don't care what chips they use in their systems. Also, I'm a pretty big Nvidia fan hardware-wise, and loved what I've seen of their SoCs thusfar, but they're not the only game in town there these days. Current chip industry shortcomings aside, I'm not too worried about what they decide to put in their next systems. While it may break direct compatibility (depending on which route they take) at the very least, porting games back and forth should be easy enough for their devs.
 
Axman said:
They can't, Nvidia is forcing them to move to a new platform by discontinuing production of the Tegra X1. They actually stopped making them last year and sold Nintendo what they had left. All of the remaining SOCs are new old stock.
Click to expand...
Wasn't that just rumours that turned to be false ?

If we are talking about those one year's old by now rumours:
https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2..._of_switchs_most_important_hardware_this_year
While the Switch Pro is still yet to be officially confirmed and Nintendo has stated that it has no plans for new hardware in the near future, a report that it has placed a big order for Samsung-made OLED panels suggests that an updated hardware SKU is indeed on the way; an improved Nvidia-made SoC would be a fairly reasonable inclusion to expect if the console is to offer a performance boost over the original version.

That was people betting a new Switch was on the way.

Looking at the quarterly result, no indication that sales of SOC for consoles ever dropped and in the last earning quarter they were still mentionned in the call and still had nintendo SOC sales.
 
Last edited:
Nintendo has already gone third party so there's nothing to react to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top