Discussion Do you think that Nintendo's partners and subsidiaries have management issues?

[Hailinel]

Honestly you're just assuming the worst possible/made up intentions in all my posts for no justifiable reason, and you're not engaging in any good faith discussion in this thread. I'm putting you on ignore.

No, I'm pretty sure I'm right.

 

[meatbag]

Your numbers are biased towards the Switch side as you excluded first party games like Sing Party, Lego City Undercover, The Wonderful 101, and Fatal Frame V from all your calculations

Incorrect. Thunder's analysis also excluded games such as Flip Wars, Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3 and Daemon X Machina. Don't try to paint this as biased towards Switch.

You reach a (debatable) number where the Switch is slightly better than the Wii U

No less debatable than yours. Furthermore, those numbers posted are stripped down to the bare minimum, removed from the context of substantial DLC support, perceived quality, release cadence, and the jump in development resources. If we consider all of those, then the picture becomes much more favorable for Switch.

It's just a matter of fact that Nintendo relied on collaborations more during the Wii U era

So you do agree that context matters in these discussions.

 

[Thunder84]

Your numbers are biased towards the Switch side as you excluded first party games like Sing Party, Lego City Undercover, The Wonderful 101, and Fatal Frame V from all your calculations. Sorry but if you're counting Bayonetta 2 and 3 as first party game there's no excuse for discounting these games. They were Nintendo funded projects, published by them in all regions, they owned the IP rights to some, and even codevloped some of them. You excluded them because they didn't "feel" like first party games and didn't fit your data.

You're free to disagree with my methodology; I know it's far from perfect. I generally left the standardized 1st party content as games that are active IPs that will never leave the system, but that's fully up for debate and can be changed, as can other games like Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3, Daemon X Machina, Fitness Boxing, etc. But this is also completely and entirely ignoring my (and others) overall point.

You reach a (debatable) number where the Switch is slightly better than the Wii U. Slightly better at best ks a disappointment when the Switch is the successor to the resources of 2 entire systems.

Your argument here is effectively "if you ignore a significant portion of Nintendo's developmental resources for the Switch, Nintendo's developmental resources for the Switch has been a disappointment". That's not a thing. Especially not in the context of "content droughts". At it's best, the Wii U was averaging less than one "thing" per month, and 1-2 games receiving active post-launch support. At it's best, the Switch averages a full 5 more "things" and roughly 2 more active games.

I'm gonna put this in bold, and I'm not gonna respond to anything that isn't specifically addressing this point, and this point alone.

Nintendo has allocated significant resources into the development of remakes, remasters, ports, DLC, and post-launch support for the Nintendo Switch. These additional resources are a result of consolidating their development into one console. Disappointment in Nintendo's allocation of their resources and refusal to acknowledge their allocation of resources are different things. Nobody is arguing against the former. You are doing the latter.

 

[NBOctoling]

Again, I should reiterate that even if, even IF Nintendo worked its employees to death to produce double the output it does right now, a 2D Zelda STILL wouldn't be a guarantee because that's not how Nintendo works. There isn't a 2D Zelda team, it's ventured out to third parties. None of these utter insipid debate and number crunching multiple posters did don't even matter because there still wouldn't have been a 2D Zelda because game developers and companies don't determine success by "what games does a specific user want."

 

[Ricimer]

You're free to disagree with my methodology; I know it's far from perfect. I generally left the standardized 1st party content as games that are active IPs that will never leave the system, but that's fully up for debate and can be changed, as can other games like Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3, Daemon X Machina, Fitness Boxing, etc. But this is also completely and entirely ignoring my (and others) overall point.

I do disagree with you methodology. I think it's completely inaccurate to discount games like The Wonderful 101 for the Wii U while counting Astral Chain for the Switch, as a main example. They're literally the same type of collaboration from Platinum, with Nintendo even owning the IP to W101 at the time of release. Platinum buying back the rights to W101 nearly a decade after its Wii U release and porting it to other platforms doesn't negate the fact it was considered a first party title at the time. Nintendo even had Direct for it and trophies for it were in Smash 4.

I think that's pure cherry picking to support your conclusion. If Bayonetta 3 counts for the Switch, then similar collaborations where Nintendo funded and published the game in all regions (Nintendo Life and my criteria) should count. You excluded 5 entire Wii U first Party games, games which were considered first party at the time (W101, Lego City Fatal Frame V, Sing Party (co-developed by Nintendo!) Devil's Third, etc)

Your argument here is effectively "if you ignore a significant portion of Nintendo's developmental resources for the Switch, Nintendo's developmental resources for the Switch has been a disappointment". That's not a thing. Especially not in the context of "content droughts". At it's best, the Wii U was averaging less than one "thing" per month, and 1-2 games receiving active post-launch support. At it's best, the Switch averages a full 5 more "things" and roughly 2 more active games.

I'm gonna put this in bold, and I'm not gonna respond to anything that isn't specifically addressing this point, and this point alone.

Nintendo has allocated significant resources into the development of remakes, remasters, ports, DLC, and post-launch support for the Nintendo Switch. These additional resources are a result of consolidating their development into one console. There is a difference between being disappointed in Nintendo's allocation of their resources and refusing to acknowledge their allocation of resources. Nobody is arguing against the former; you are doing the latter.

My counterargument to this is it has mainly come in the form of straight ports, mainly Wii U ports. If you look at the numbers of original first party games (even counting remakes, just excluding the mostly straight ports like MK8) then the Wii U and Switch has demonstrably, mathematically proven similar output averages. It shows in my numbers, and it mostly shows in yours (even with you discounting a good chunk of the Wii U's library). I've outright said and showed in my numbers that if you include ports the Switch has a higher average output, that's not up for debate.

If the 3DS/entire handheld line died so the Switch could receive extra development support for ports, then that's just lame and hugely disappointing. We are ultimately getting less original, new first party games than ever before than when Nintendo had separate console/handheld lines. That's my sticking point. The Switch has less droughts as a result of the ports, that's inarguable, but ports do nothing for me as a longtime fan. It's a drought for me and it came at the expense of less new games being made. That's disappointing.

 

[SpaceGodzilla]

not my job but why hasn't Ricimer been thread-banned yet?

​

 

[Thunder84]

My counterargument to this is it has mainly come in the form of straight ports, mainly Wii U ports.

No it hasn't. Only 8-9% of their new content is ports, depending on whether you want to count post-launch support or not.

If the 3DS/entire handheld line died so the Switch could receive extra development support for ports, then that's just lame and hugely disappointing.

That is not what happened. You continue to ignore that the Switch has received significantly more remakes, remasters, DLC, and post-launch content. It was not all directed into ports.

We are ultimately getting less original, new first party games than ever before than when Nintendo had separate console/handheld lines.

And as others have pointed out, that's to be expected. We were never going to receive the same number of first party games again, because Switch games dwarf 3DS games in terms of production value and cost, and are more expensive to make than Wii U games too.

The Switch has less droughts as a result of the ports, that's inarguable, but ports do nothing for me as a longtime fan. It's a drought for me and it came at the expense of less new games being made. That's disappointing.

This is an opinion. That is fine. I will not dispute your disappointment. But that does not mean consolidation of development was a failure for Nintendo. Not when the results are very clear and obvious to see.

 

[NBOctoling]

My counterargument to this is it has mainly come in the form of straight ports, mainly Wii U ports. If you look at the numbers of original first party games (even counting remakes, just excluding the mostly straight ports like MK8) then the Wii U and Switch has demonstrably, mathematically proven similar output averages. It shows in my numbers, and it mostly shows in yours (even with you discounting a good chunk of the Wii U's library). I've outright said and showed in my numbers that if you include ports the Switch has a higher average output, that's not up for debate.

If the 3DS/entire handheld line died so the Switch could receive extra development support for ports, then that's just lame and hugely disappointing. We are ultimately getting less original, new first party games than ever before than when Nintendo had separate console/handheld lines. That's my sticking point. The Switch has less droughts as a result of the ports, that's inarguable, but ports do nothing for me as a longtime fan. It's a drought for me and it came at the expense of less new games being made. That's disappointing.

Because development time has increased, DLC output has increased, Add-On content has increased. Reality has changed in video game development. These are why games take longer to come out. Teams have doubled to tripled in size, multiple games have now 1-2 years of free downloadable content or paid content. Even IF accepted your premise that the Switch is dissapointing output wise compared to the Wii U (something I heavily disagree but since you are as stubborn as a mule I'll overlook this instance), you still are refusing another reality that Game Development has increased. Or are you still insisting that development time for a Wii U game is the exact same as development for a Switch game so Nintendo are clearly mismanged and need to work their employees to death like other companies?

 

[Ricimer]

No it hasn't. Only 8-9% of their new content is ports, depending on whether you want to count post-launch support or not.


That is not what happened. You continue to ignore that the Switch has received significantly more remakes, remasters, DLC, and post-launch content. It was not all directed into ports.

What's your definition of a remake vs remaster? I counted 11 vanilla Wii U ports in the Switch's first 50 months for my analysis, and a handful of remakes (like Link's Awakening 2019) which clearly require significantly more effort than just a simple port. That's my frame of reference. I'm discounting the straight Wii U ports which basically only exist to flesh out the Switch's lineup for people who didn't own a Wii U. I discounted the straight ports the Wii U got as well, it's just a matter of fact the Switch has way more ports.

Again, with my numbers (which don't discount 5 entire Wii U games), the output averages are similar between the Wii U and Switch when counting every release (new games + remakes) and excluding these straight ports.

And as others have pointed out, that's to be expected. We were never going to receive the same number of first party games again, because Switch games dwarf 3DS games in terms of production value and cost, and are more expensive to make than Wii U games too.

I know. I've said this repeatedly that I don't expect a pure doubling, time and time again I have said this. I just expect better than an output of new 1st party games on par with the Wii U. I don't think a handful of extra DLC expansions and ports make up the difference in getting an entire library and output shut down. I expected more.

Edit: I find it really hypocritical that I got thread banned for "moving goal posts" and "talking past others" considering the conduct and hostility of other users here. The amount of times I had to repeat a point I previously wrote in a post, indicating people were literally skimming what I wrote and just responding to talk past, is comical. I'll leave it at that, but this is a really disappointing.

 

[Thunder84]

What's your definition of a remake vs remaster?

All of my definitions for categories are in the post.

a handful of extra DLC expansions and ports

Total number of Wii U Remakes, Remasters, Ports, Expansions, and games that received post-launch content: 10
Total number of Switch Remakes, Remasters, Ports, Expansions, and games that received post-launch content: 62

 

[woodhead]

If the 3DS/entire handheld line died so the Switch could receive extra development support for ports, then that's just lame and hugely disappointing. We are ultimately getting less original, new first party games than ever before than when Nintendo had separate console/handheld lines. That's my sticking point. The Switch has less droughts as a result of the ports, that's inarguable, but ports do nothing for me as a longtime fan. It's a drought for me and it came at the expense of less new games being made. That's disappointing.

I think the sad reality is that traditional handheld consoles would have died either way. You can see from the sales decline of DS to 3DS. Smartphones just killed that whole traditional handheld business. So you have to ask yourself, would you prefer from Nintendo that they split up again to console and handheld which I don‘t think they would survive or if you take the hybrid approach instead even though it doesn’t suit your tastes 100%. The times of shorter development times won’t come back. Which is sad but there is nothing you can do against about it

 

[meatbag]

Again, with my numbers (which don't discount 5 entire Wii U games)

But your data does discount entire Switch games such as Snipperclips, Daemon X Machina, The Stretchers, Good Job!, Cadence of Hyrule, etc.

I don't think a handful of extra DLC expansions and ports make up the difference in getting an entire library and output shut down

A "handful of DLC expansions and ports" is severely underplaying the scope of these ventures, when quite a few (e.g Octo Expansion, Booster Course Pass, etc.) are as huge as standalone games.

The "difference" is also explainable by the sheer increase in development resources required to make games nowadays. Teams have quadrupled in size.

Context matters.

 

[Ricimer]

I think the sad reality is that traditional handheld consoles would have died either way. You can see from the sales decline of DS to 3DS. Smartphones just killed that whole traditional handheld business. So you have to ask yourself, would you prefer from Nintendo that they split up again to console and handheld which I don‘t think they would survive or if you take the hybrid approach instead even though it doesn’t suit your tastes 100%. The times of shorter development times won’t come back. Which is sad but there is nothing you can do against about it

I didn't expect Nintendo's to continue the handheld line, going hybrid was the right route and the Switch is an indisputable success. I just think they haven't managed their output the best possible way, mainly with not greenlighting smaller projects that were common on handhelds

 

[woodhead]

I didn't expect Nintendo's to continue the handheld line, going hybrid was the right route and the Switch is an indisputable success. I just think they haven't managed their output the best possible way, mainly with not greenlighting smaller projects that were common on handhelds

What defines for you as smaller projects? I think for example if you would develop the same game that was made for 3DS ground up for Switch it would take longer just for the assets. For example A Link between Worlds would take more time if it were planned for Switch instead of 3DS, IMO

 

[Ricimer]

What defines for you as smaller projects? I think for example if you would develop the same game that was made for 3DS ground up for Switch it would take longer just for the assets. For example A Link between Worlds would take more time if it were planned for Switch instead of 3DS, IMO

I would say games like ALBW. Sure a Switch version might take longer due to HD development, let's say an extra year. The problem is Nintendo hasn't prioritized smaller titles to the same degree, especially for big franchises. It hasn't been awful, small games like Another Code R and Endless Ocean are great, but it's a far cry from what they made on handhelds.

 

[Aether]

Engage was already in development when Three Houses was still being worked on. They also explicitly chose to push it in a different direction from Three Houses (in part because they were framing it as an anniversary celebration title, in part because they wanted to try expanding the audience). They didn't know at the time that Three Houses would become the best-selling entry in the series largely on the back of all of the things Engage was explicitly not doing, but they weren't going to just upend development of a game over TH's success. (Especially when dev had already been upended by COVID.)

I don't like the framing as "TH" being the radical outlier and "Engage" being the traditional one.

The characterdesign of engage for me was at least as far removed as TH from classic FE, in my book even further, and the rings with calling old heroes felt more FE heroes inspired then any of the old games and felt overly fan service focused. People never played FE JUST for the gameplay, and while the gameplay might have been closer to old FE (still haven't gotten to it...), the packaging was feeling alien to a part of the fan base.
TH had also the luck to come out into a market that was more inclined to political drama in their fantasy story thanks to GoT I guess.

 

[Hailinel]

I don't like the framing as "TH" being the radical outlier and "Engage" being the traditional one.

The characterdesign of engage for me was at least as far removed as TH from classic FE, in my book even further, and the rings with calling old heroes felt more FE heroes inspired then any of the old games and felt overly fan service focused. People never played FE JUST for the gameplay, and while the gameplay might have been closer to old FE (still haven't gotten to it...), the packaging was feeling alien to a part of the fan base.
TH had also the luck to come out into a market that was more inclined to political drama in their fantasy story thanks to GoT I guess.

I didn't say it was a radical outlier. TH and Engage were two different projects that attempted different things and resulted in different levels of success and difference audience reactions.

 

[woodhead]

I would say games like ALBW. Sure a Switch version might take longer due to HD development, let's say an extra year. The problem is Nintendo hasn't prioritized smaller titles to the same degree, especially for big franchises. It hasn't been awful, small games like Another Code R and Endless Ocean are great, but it's a far cry from what they made on handhelds.

Where do you take the one year number from? Only a game developer could tell us how much longer developing for Switch compared to 3DS takes.
Also the bitter reality is, when looking at sales again, Zelda games sell so much better since they started to introduce the new open world formula. I don’t think that means that there will never be a 2D Zelda game anymore, but the priority for Zelda is the new formula, I think.
I recently read an few years old interview between Shigesato Itoi and Shigeru Miyamoto for the Earthbound anniversary. Sadly I only could read it machine translated but Miyamoto talked about how Nintendo also thinks about game sales when coming up with new games and ideas. It is a business after all.

Edit: The interview was from this year. This is the part about making hit products at Nintendo: https://www.1101.com/n/s/miyamoto_shigeru2024/2024-01-11.html

 

[Aether]

I didn't say it was a radical outlier. TH and Engage were two different projects that attempted different things and resulted in different levels of success and difference audience reactions.

Yeah sorry, I just read the "engage was for traditional fans" take a lot and find it miss representing. Your's just added to that pile in some way. I didn't disagree with your post overall.

 

[Seven]

Fantastic and effortful post.

No, he's right; you don't get it at all. You're correct in that numbers don't lie, but that doesn't matter in your case since you are continually changing your numbers at a whim to fit your agenda. Not to mention that the numbers are just one part of the topic and you fail to comprehend all external circumstances that would affect Nintendo's development pipeline.

I would say games like ALBW. Sure a Switch version might take longer due to HD development, let's say an extra year. The problem is Nintendo hasn't prioritized smaller titles to the same degree, especially for big franchises. It hasn't been awful, small games like Another Code R and Endless Ocean are great, but it's a far cry from what they made on handhelds.

You want to know why Nintendo's output is a far cry from their previous handhelds? It's because their previous handhelds were not HD systems. In truth a lot of series where we would see handheld entries are on the Switch; we have Mario, Zelda, Pokémon, Fire Emblem, Animal Crossing, etc.

 

[PixelKnight]

Re: this topic in general and discussion of the wider state of support on video game platforms, there’s one thing I’ve really come to dislike when discussing the topic on Fami recently. It’s that we’ve gone from a ‘drought’ being a thing to describe where some consoles historically and literally had entire periods with comparatively few releases and little communication, back when there were zero digital releases and games were way less likely to get global simultaneous releases, to it now being used for ‘dozens of games released this year but not the particular one I want so it’s a drought’. It’s generalising from self and just derails discussion. I appreciate terms change over time but this is just daft. If I go to the shop and they don’t stock my favourite fizzy drink, it’s hyperbole to start talking like the whole town has an issue with it’s water supply.

 

[Undeniablybiased]

Late to the party, but I can’t believe there’s still a few people who believe we haven’t benefited from Nintendo merging their divisions and doubling down on one hardware.

You all know that if they were still supporting 2 separate platforms things would be significantly worse than they are now, right? The fact that they are managing to keep pace (and slightly exceed pace) with their past platforms, and we only have to buy one hardware to get all those games, is a really good thing. Based on the trajectory of their past hardware and the industry in general, we can confidently say the alternative to what they’re doing now would be way worse.

 

[MetalLord]

Even the premisse is false because nintendo is still supporting two consoles,with games that got constant development for 5-7 years now

 

[Abyss Master]

I can only speak to my subjective experience of the Wii U's lifecycle versus the Switch's, but the general feeling I had was that there was a far longer wait between worthwhile Wii U titles, and that very few of them received much if any post-release support that made them stick around for longer. Even in the few cases where a Wii U game received substantial post-release support, like Super Smash Bros. for Wii U, there's a comparable game on the Switch that completely blows it out of the water. Super Smash Bros. Ultimate released in December 2018 and kept receiving substantial DLC updates for almost 3 years. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe saw a revival with the Booster Course Pack. Even Pokémon got meaty expansion packs on the Switch. The expansions to both Xenoblade 2 and Xenoblade 3 were so packed with content that they could feasibly be counted as separate games in their own right, not to mention the remaster of the first game with the Future Connected expansion. The port of Super Mario 3D World came packed with a whole additional game attached to it in the form of Bowser's Fury.

I don't think you can make an accurate comparison of the Wii U's library of games versus the Switch's if you're not accounting for the fact that games are developed in a wholly different manner now compared to before. Many games on the Switch got substantial post-release support from the development team for like a whole year before they moved on to their next project. That's on top of the base game already having a greater scope and packing more content than comparable games on the Wii U.

 

[ngpdrew]

Thread closed per OP’s request.