Should Nintendo go Third-Party?

[bsoaieda]

I know this thread will be hated by everyone here, but it raises some excellent points.

Nintendo are not a hardware company. They don't have huge departments where they can build and refine their own tried and true hardware, work with powerful processing techniques, and the like. They rely on outsourcing all of this work to other companies, then building on this technology. With their stance on the console wars, they can make a profit, but unless they pull something with nothing they will never progress from being that company that never sells as much as the rest.

Two main things make Nintendo great. Their games, and innovation.

Why does this justify that they have their own console though? Nintendo focus mainly on their own games to drive a console, and force their 'innovative' hardware on others who may have no real interest, or, heaven forbid, better ideas for fun gaming. This is probably the main reason no one buys a Nintendo console apart from the usual die-hard and children (please don't drag up the argument about demographics unless you have solid proof). Surely by this logic, there is a clear direction for Nintendo to go in if they want the profit they use to back up their plans.

Go Third-Party!

Think about it. Many games (Eye-Toy Games, Guitar Hero, DDR, etc) have taken the approach to create their own hardware and make games to suit it. If the Wiimote was to feature on an Xbox 360, Nintendo would be able to drive their innovation onto a better console (hardware wise). Also, if Nintendo ever did go third-party, their games library would be ten times stronger than any other companies put together.

Whilst I don't necessarily believe in this approach, I'm hard-pressed to justify the other side apart from the simple argument...

Nintendo cares about games.

I'd love to hear your opinions, but please make them grounded. The last thing anyone wants is fanboy rants.

[Administrator]

So you believe Nintendo shouldn't make a console?

Your ideas are ok but you need to compromise with consoles, if they buy a 360 they want graphics not innovation, You speak about the companys that have created hardware and they aren't big companys, Nintendo is and at the end of the day you can't see a console market without a Nintendo. Whats the point in taking it to the competitors when you can put it on yours and make big money?

[bsoaieda]

So you believe Nintendo shouldn't make a console?

Your ideas are ok but you need to compromise with consoles, if they buy a 360 they want graphics not innovation, You speak about the companys that have created hardware and they aren't big companys, Nintendo is and at the end of the day you can't see a console market without a Nintendo. Whats the point in taking it to the competitors when you can put it on yours and make big money?

Wouldn't Nintendo make more money going third-party though? Let's say this for example.

Sony = 10,000,000
MS = 7,500,000
Nintendo = 6,000,000

In this scenario, Nintendo have 6 Million customers. Now, let's say we share Nintendo's numbers with Sony and MS.

Sony = 13,000,000
MS = 10,500,000

I'm pretty sure that at least 60% of the people who would have bought a Nintendo console will go for either, so let's roughly say that:

Nintendo = 3,600,000

Now, Nintendo are churning out Third-Party games for Sony and Microsoft. The quality of these games is top-notch, just like they would be on their own console, and let's say 20% of gamers buy them.

Nintendo = (3,600,000 + 4,700,000) = 8,300,000

Nintendo would clearly make more.

These numbers may be flawed however. The profit probably wouldn't be as much as a console sale, so it'd go down pretty much almost evenly again.

Here's the problem though. What if the Wii bombs? Developers will turn their backs on Nintendo (almost like they are already, as there aren't many third-party launch games again) next time around? Those numbers go down anyway, and they drop faster and faster. Nintendo keep making profit, but it gets lower and lower until it's at a point where they can't improve.

[Administrator]

My question question is if the Wii bombs and the Wii mote isn't a success as that is the main feature of the Wii, why would Sony and Microsoft want it? I'd also challenge you to say MS or Nintendo will come out on top this time so if Nintendo sells 15,000,000 then they make a huge profit, more then the Sony and MS thing.

Though I do agree, if the Wii is unsuccesful Nintendo should give up.

[bsoaieda]

Sony and Microsoft don't make their own games. They contract people out to do it for them. Sony and MS would kill puppies to have Nintendo make games for them. Now, let's say Nintendo wanted to create games to use a Wiimote, they'd just have to make the Wiimote, and have it as an additional controller for the console. Just like with Time Crisis, and the lightgun.

Nintendo probably wouldn't make as much profit, but the fact is that a console just can't survive on first-party games. The Wii from a marketing point of view seems like an attempt from Nintendo to throw themselves out to developers to create games for them. They use the Wiimote and the cheap price to make developers think they're worth creating games for. With the high budgets that developers need to create PS3 and Xbox 360 games, I'm sure the more price conscious will go for the Wii. If Nintendo loses anymore third-party support, they're on their own, and that means a certain loss.