• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Furukawa Speaks! We discuss the announcement of the Nintendo Switch Successor and our June Direct Predictions on the new episode of the Famiboards Discussion Club! Check it out here!

Discussion "Nintendo fans only buy Nintendo games on Nintendo systems" How true was this?

M

MagiCarbo

Bob-omb
Whenever a Nintendo system (usually a home console) suffers from lacking third party support, one of the big go-to explanations for gamers and publishing execs is that owners of Nintendo platforms don't buy third party games, and only buy games that are released by Nintendo themselves. You saw this a lot during the Nintendo GameCube, Wii (to a degree), and Wii U generations. Nintendo versions of games often sold poorly compared to their PlayStation and Xbox releases, and even exclusives often under-performed.

But how true is this narrative? I can easily understand the phenomena with the GameCube. That was a console that pretty much catered exclusively to hardcore Nintendo fans throughout most of its life, creating an unhealthy environment for third party games on the system. There were exceptions, namely games that incorporated Nintendo IP into the GameCube versions like with Soul Calibur II, or games that were akin to Nintendo games such as Sonic. But most GameCube owners, bought it for Nintendo games.

With Wii U, the console itself was just very unappealing. Third parties making boneheaded decisions with releases (Mass Effect 3 at full price with missing DLC, while a trilogy on other consoles was the same price. LOL) didn't help either.

The Wii was somewhat of a mixed bag. Games that played well to the newbie/non-gamer-heavy user-base of the system found success on the system such as Just Dance and Boom Blox. But games that tried to be a "core gamer" experience were often met with disappointing sales. The slew of shovelware that the system became known for was also an issue.

These three systems all had easily explainable scenarios for mediocre third party sales on them. But what about Nintendo's pre-N64 consoles, the NES and Super NES? Those systems launched many of the biggest third party IPs and games. Or how about Nintendo's various handhelds. Franchises such as Ace Attorney, Monster Hunter, TWEWY, Professor Layton, Scribblenauts, Shantae, and others are heavily associated with Nintendo because of them.

And then there's the Nintendo Switch. The Switch has not only seen the biggest third party sales on a Nintendo system to-date, but Switch versions of games often sell almost as good as, if not, better than the PS and Xbox releases. Obviously Nintendo's own games for these consoles are the highest selling, but that's largely due to how Nintendo has historically integrated its hardware and software together over the years.

So the whole "Nintendo systems are only for Nintendo games" mantra is only really true if the console itself isn't very appealing to a mass audience. The GCN was a hardcore Nintendo fanboy console, while the Wii U was kind of bootycheeks. If a Nintendo system has good sales with an appealing hook, then games will sell well on it. First or third party.
 
You can't explain away third party games not selling as 'well, it was a Nintendo fanboy console, so it doesn't count'.

Third parties did much better on other platforms across the N64, Gamecube, Wii and Wii U era. There can be reasons as to why in each instance, but it shouldn't be done in a 'it doesn't count...' kinda way.
 
Last edited:
I don't think my top 5 games are even Nintendo games, so maybe it's not for me to judge, but that doesn't apply to me.
Frankly, the idiotic situation Russia has decided to put itself means that I have to pick and choose between systems based on price. I think I'd use my Switch much more, but games on PS4 are usually a bit cheaper. I don't think I have many third-party games for my Switch because of that.

I don't usually play cutting-edge titles on my consoles so it's not like I would always pick a more powerful system.
 
0
No, it's just a large exaggeration of the truth which is actually that a great deal of the highest selling games on their systems are their own. With the other guys, it's usually more of a mix of first and third (though PS is probably somewhere in between the other 2 as far as the mix).
 
This statement goes back to the N64/GC days, and originates probably in the US market.

Back then, most games released on a Nintendo home console charting in NPD would either be Nintendo or Rare games, especially during the N64 era. So, that could be why the claim was made in the first place. But even that would be incorrect since wrestling games were huge on the N64 and were produced by third parties.

So while it might have had some weight at some point in some market, the argument is mostly an exxageration. In the French speaking market for instance, third-parties would always sell on Nintendo home consoles.
 
It was never true at all. I've owned Nintendo consoles all of gaming life, often exclusively, and have played plenty of third party games.

I do believe, however, that a turd is a turd and if the port was lazy and unoptimised, then your average Nintendo gamer was no fool either. I remember refusing to buy a good few games that I was looking forward to, yet got stiffed as a platform owner in terms of quality.
 
I don't think the problem is that Nintendo fans don't buy any third party games at all. It's that Nintendo platforms haven't been the best place for the biggest third party games in ages due to a variety of reasons, some self-inflicted due to insufficient hardware power or bad online system. Popular games either come late, compromised or not at all so there's mostly small and mid-sized releases from third parties competing with Nintendo's biggest releases. That is obviously going to reinforce the impression that people only buy Nintendo games.

People can either accept that or not but I always find it weird how defensive and bitter some Nintendo fans react when third parties decide not to bring their games to Nintendo platforms.
 
JorgenRaft said:
No, it's just a large exaggeration of the truth which is actually that a great deal of the highest selling games on their systems are their own. With the other guys, it's usually more of a mix of first and third (though PS is probably somewhere in between the other 2 as far as the mix).
Click to expand...
George-Costanza-420x215.jpg
 
Dardan Sandiego said:
I don't think the problem is that Nintendo fans don't buy any third party games at all. It's that Nintendo platforms haven't been the best place for the biggest third party games in ages due to a variety of reasons, some self-inflicted due to insufficient hardware power or bad online system. Popular games either come late, compromised or not at all so there's mostly small and mid-sized releases from third parties competing with Nintendo's biggest releases.
Click to expand...
I think the Switch doubling as a handheld really helped it in this regard. Compromised, but playable ports and AA and indie games have always felt more at home/more forgivable on a portable system to a lot of people. But if you only really use the Switch docked, then I can see why playing third party games on it wouldn't sound appealing.
 
This isn’t a Nintendo fans problem. It’s a Nintendo problem and what third party games they offer. They put their systems in a position to where they won’t get all the big third party games or get parity in third party games.
 
BowserIsMyFather said:
It was never true at all. I've owned Nintendo consoles all of gaming life, often exclusively, and have played plenty of third party games.

I do believe, however, that a turd is a turd and if the port was lazy and unoptimised, then your average Nintendo gamer was no fool either. I remember refusing to buy a good few games that I was looking forward to, yet got stiffed as a platform owner in terms of quality.
Click to expand...

It clearly was true and you can't base is only on your own personal purchases.

Most third party games with Playstation and N64 versions, sold much better on the former. Third party games of equal(ish) standing usually sold much better on Playstation, and even Xbox, when compared to the Gamecube versions. It got to the point where many third parties just gave up with Nintendo versions in the end.

It becomes more complicated after that because Nintendo's consoles were much less powerful than the competition and if games came across, they were usually late and/or compromised versions where the expectation shouldn't have been for them to sell as well as the originals.
 
I actualy was even worse than this and only played the Mario’s and donkey komgs Zelda’s etc etc

Only last year I played Pikmin and Metroid and even though they are Nintendo games they are not the typical popular ones. If that makes sense .

But I’m getting better. Haha on the switch I played Skyrim for the first time ever etc etc so im
Growing haha
 
I’ve played more third party games on any Nintendo console than Nintendo games and I only game on Nintendo consoles.
 
Nintendo games are the main reason I buy Nintendo consoles but I'm always looking for decent 3rd party games to add in my library.
 
I think this hasn't been true for a while now. My Switch barely has any Nintendo-published games installed lol. Yes, Nintendo is going to have a massive stake at their own console's software sales due to it being the "Nintendo package" (great game by Nintendo, made for the Nintendo systems, that sort of thing), but there has been space for third party support for a while now. Honestly, even back at the 3DS era, it already had an increasing third party support. And i think that's improving with their future consoles enabling them to have more parity with multiplatform releases.
 
Simbinha said:
Honestly, even back at the 3DS era, it already had an increasing third party support. And i think that's improving with their future consoles enabling them to have more parity with multiplatform releases.
Click to expand...
The 3DS actually has the weakest 3rd party support of Nintendo handhelds. It wasn't awful, but after the first couple years, the system basically became a Capcom, Square Enix and Atlus box. Western companies abandoned it, and the system struggled with ports of popular indie titles (something that even the PS Vita had over it).

A lot of people tend to forget how dire support was on 3DS in the back half of its life. It only seemed good at the time because it was a hell of a lot better than what the Wii U was getting. I think the number of games and the kinds of games the Switch has been getting kind of exposed how underwhelming the 3DS was in comparison.
 
My library on Switch is like 25-30% Nintendo games and 70-75% are third party games.

The whole “Nintendo owners don’t buy third party games” stems from the N64/GC days. What’s ironic is that despite lower third party games on N64/GC they sold good.

But they got steamrolled by Sony PS/PS2 and lost against Xbox. Today it’s totally different, third party games on Switch can sometimes sell more than more the PS4/PS5 version and vice versa
 
0
I think this was much more true during generations where the only good games you could get on a Nintendo home console were basically Nintendo games (or other exclusives by Rare and the likes).

Thankfully this has changed with the Switch. On the N64 or the WiiU you basically had no choice but to just buy Nintendo (exclusive) games.
I would say the Wii was the console where this argument held most true, as despite the massive sales of the Wii, third party games tended to underperform ont hat system.

May also have been true for the handheld consoles, but I feel this has significantly changed with the Switch truly grabbing the mass market.
 
TanookiTom said:
May also have been true for the handheld consoles, but I feel this has significantly changed with the Switch truly grabbing the mass market.
Click to expand...
I think the only system you could make that argument for, would be the Game Boy Advance, mainly because a lot of people started seeing Game Boy systems as just Pokemon machines by this point (even then, it still had its share of third party hits). The DS sold a lot of third party games (until piracy killed it). Even on 3DS, series like Monster Hunter and Yokai Watch were massive hits.
 
0
I think, at least as far as the portables are concerned, it’s just that Nintendo first party software invariably sells tons on Nintendo platforms, so it gives the impression people don’t buy much else when you look at the top 20 biggest sellers. Which is a flawed conclusion, it’s just that Nintendo evergreens shift a ton of copies over time, and often more than big third party games (not counting Monster Hunter). But the Switch shifts mountains of software as a whole, it’s just not stuff like the latest big Ubisoft game or whatever that shifts on PS/Xbox.

Indies shift on the eshop, but much of the games media only really cares about seeing where a handful of big third party series land up in comparison to Nintendo’s own stuff. A chart that shows that, yes, Nintendo first party stuff is the top selling items on it’s own platform is a handy stick to attack them with the ‘third party stuff doesn’t sell’ line, but isn’t the whole story by a long way when you look at total software units moved.
 
Right now, half of software sold on Switch is from third parties. And all of Nintendo's most successful systems have a large chunk of third party sales like that.

So its just people taking failed systems and trying to apply that to all Nintendo systems
 
If you look at percentages and top sellers, it is true that Nintendo dominates the best sellers list on their consoles and the top selling third multi platform titles have almost always done best on PlayStation and Xbox consoles. Nintendo does offer a lot of first party content, and ultimately third parties are competing with those games. Consumer dollars are not unlimited, so when a game like Zelda TotK is released and sells 20 million units quickly, that is a lot of consumer dollars no longer available to purchase third party games. There are exceptions such as the Sonic games, they almost always sell best on Nintendo platforms, even if the quality is far below what is offered on competing platforms. I wouldn't be surprised is Sonic Frontiers sold best on Switch despite it being a subpar experience, from the technical perspective anyway. Now we have Prince of Persia The Lost Crown, another game that I think has a good chance to sell best on Switch. The majority of AAA publishers cater to a certain audience, and that audience is found in higher numbers on PlayStation and Xbox.
 
0
Personally, if a multiplat game is available on a Nintendo console, it's usually where I'd prioritize purchasing it. Barring some glaring issues with a port (and I talking like.. actually unplayable stuff like Epic Mickey 2 on Wii U, and not the hyperbole that some people may refer to Switch ports), it's always like that.. Nintendo is my primary platform, so I rather play most of the games on their systems.

Lately, I've buying PS2 and GameCube games for my collection, makes me realize how little the PS2 offers if I stuck with just its exclusives that interests me, while getting all the 3rd Party multiplat games I want on the GC.
 
I just can't comprehend this statement. When I was little I don't know anything about first or third party. Game is game, no one gave any shit about who made it. Through trades and rentals, I beat more than 150 games within SNES lifetime and only 9 of them was first party. This number was even lower on Game Boy. Did I notice any difference of quality between Nintendo made and non Nintendo made software? Absolutely not. To me and my close gaming circle, Aladdin was good enough game as Mario World.

Interestingly, this is more true for Playstation. In my country the original Playstation marketed along with first party games, which were considerably cheaper than third party games. There's this first party superiority in consumer's subconscious. Kids always preferred games with SCE logo on them as it's always expected they'd be better than anything else. Crash, Spyro, Syphon Filter they all became synonymous with the brand Playstation. MGS? No one cared. Resident Evil? Who?

I own 145 PS2 games and 32 of them are first party.
I own ~40 Dreamcast games, 26 of them are first party.
I own ~60 N64 games, 11 of them are pure first party, 18 if Rare owned titles are counted
I own ~220 DS games 29 of them are first party. (forgot pokémon here)

Funniest one is Xbox og: I own 28 games, 20 of them are first party, only 8 of them is from third. And from third party, half is from sega: Otogi 1-2, Crazy Taxi 3, Jet Grind Radio. Others are: DoA3, Ninja Gaiden, KOTOR and Dreamfall.
 
Last edited:
It actually is true for me at the moment, there's little 3rd party stuff I can't get on PS5 or Series X and I'll always head for PS5 due to performance and controller.
Actual 3rd party Switch exclusives are few and far between with stuff like Bayonetta 3 with real performance issues.
 
0
It is mostly true for me, but I do try to buy most 3rd party games on any Nintendo console if the port/version is done well.
 
0
Its generally true for me, except for exclusive third parties.

I have a PC for a reason, and, in regards to the switch, I don't play portable.


When I was younger it was a different story, would buy/get third party titles on GC, Wii and Wii U and handheld consoles
 
0
I think it's a mix of a few things

1) Nintendo games dominate Nintendo sales charts.

2) There are absolutely people who only buy Nintendo systems for Nintendo games. Just look at people on this site who don't care about late ports to Switch nor care about when multiplat games are day 1 on Switch.

3) When publishers have put out their best selling games on Nintendo systems day 1, that version would often be the worst selling.

Of course the above isn't to say there aren't tons of examples of 3rd party games doing well or even selling best on Nintendo hardware. We've also seen a ton of studios jump onto the Switch with late ports or confirm they made a mistake not getting on the boat years ago. This wouldn't happen if 3rd parties weren't seeing big success on the Switch.
 
Speaking personally, my entire catalog of games on every Nintendo home console and handheld is probably like 98% Nintendo/Rareware games. The only reason I would even purchase a 3rd party game now on Switch is if it’s 100% exclusive. And honestly, the main reason for that is I love my achievements on Xbox. If Nintendo decides to finally enter that fray on their next hardware and it’s enticing enough, they’ll have my attention. Otherwise, it’s going to primarily be a Nintendo-only machine for me as it has been since the NES.
 
0
I’d be very surprised if my switch software library of 100+ physical titles had more than 10 first party games, and it’ll be almost none out of about 80+ digital titles.
 
0
I'd say it like this:

Looking at my console shelf, there's a reason why you can find a PS2, a PS3, a PSP, a Vita, a PS4, a PS5, a X360, a XOne and a Dreamcast on there.

If there wasn't a reason, i wouldn't have them. ;]
 
I think that phrase has always been a bit of a mixed bag. Some third party games don't sell as well on Nintendo systems as they do on others, but some do much better and can keep up with the sales on their other platforms. But Nintendo 1st party titles will always receive the most oxygen in the room just because they do.

And so long as better alternatives exist elsewhere, 3rd party games will always play second fiddle on NIntendo consoles, barring exceptions like Crash and Spyro selling best on Nintendo machines.
 
0
Not true for me. I buy plenty of third party games but I can’t buy games that don’t exist. For multiple reasons, third parties in the last few generations have put in less effort in their Nintendo offerings so you can’t expect people to gobble them up like the other big names games leading to less effort. It’s a vicious cycle. Even when Nintendo versions do the best, they still get shafted (Soul Caliber 2 for example)
 
0
This is becoming less and less true with the Switch being a genuinely appealing option to play third party games due to its flexibility.
 
I think this has always come largely from Western/US based AAA devs who generally aren't targeting their products at Nintendo's core demographic: families and pre-teens. They also tend to have higher system requirements which usually translates to their games not running well or in compromised states on Nintendo hardware.

I also don't think this statement applies to all of Nintendo's catalog. Nintendo has some of the biggest names in the business and franchises like Mario, Mario Kart, Pokemon, Animal Crossing are going to absolutely dominate software sales on the systems they release on. They are, as expected, games that work very well for their target demographic. But on the other end of the spectrum you have more niche properties like Fire Emblem and Metroid which are going to do about 1-3 million in sales globally and those can absolutely be outpaced by 3rd party titles that have stronger brand recognition.

Personally speaking, while I do play a lot of Nintendo titles (rough estimate would be 25-50% of my library) I play plenty of third party titles from Capcom, Konami, Sega, and Square-Enix. Always have, probably always will, and depending on how their relationships are with Nintendo they will be played either on a Nintendo or Sony console. Most of my Western published games are on PC though, although usually those are games that are better suited for mouse + keyboard controls or retro ones that aren't going to ever get ported to a modern system.
 
Definitely not true for NES and SNES. Lots of great Capcom, Konami, Ocean, Squaresoft games. Outside of Mario 3, I don't even think Nintendo's games were the best on the system.

Debatable for N64. It was mostly Nintendo and Rare, with just the occasional Konami, Arika and Acclaim. So it depends how you see Rare.

Probably true for GameCube, but it did have a very strong showing from Capcom (the Resis and Capcom 5) and decent output from Namco.

Definitely true for Wii and Wii U. Like you could buy some Ubisoft games for Wii, but why. Wii U was a Nintendo only console.

Definitely not true for Switch.

So I'm leaning slightly more no than yes. I don't blame third parties but at the same time it's undeniable that the systems that were Nintendo dominated, Nintendo's games were simply miles better.
 
It was definitely true for home consoles between the N64 and Wii U, but absolutely isn’t for Switch. While Nintendo games still dominate sales charts for the Switch, the flexibility of it has made it the de facto option for anime games and indie games across the last several years. Minecraft is one of the highest-selling games on the system, and many indie games and JRPGs have their best sales performances on the Switch.

Speaking for myself, I used to purchase basically only Nintendo games on their consoles, but have bought a wider variety of titles over the last several years, including many JRPGs (SMT V, Trails from Zero/to Azure, Atelier Rorona), visual novels (Witch on the Holy Night, 13 Sentinels), indie games (CrossCode, Hollow Knight, Celeste, Stardew Valley), and pretty much anything else that appeals to me or seems more fitting for playing handheld.
 
spekkeh said:
Definitely not true for NES and SNES. Lots of great Capcom, Konami, Ocean, Squaresoft games. Outside of Mario 3, I don't even think Nintendo's games were the best on the system.

Debatable for N64. It was mostly Nintendo and Rare, with just the occasional Konami, Arika and Acclaim. So it depends how you see Rare.

Probably true for GameCube, but it did have a very strong showing from Capcom (the Resis and Capcom 5) and decent output from Namco.

Definitely true for Wii and Wii U. Like you could buy some Ubisoft games for Wii, but why. Wii U was a Nintendo only console.

Definitely not true for Switch.

So I'm leaning slightly more no than yes. I don't blame third parties but at the same time it's undeniable that the systems that were Nintendo dominated, Nintendo's games were simply miles better.
Click to expand...
By the time you include all the portables it’s a hard no to be honest.
 
BassForever said:
I think it's a mix of a few things

1) Nintendo games dominate Nintendo sales charts.

2) There are absolutely people who only buy Nintendo systems for Nintendo games. Just look at people on this site who don't care about late ports to Switch nor care about when multiplat games are day 1 on Switch.

3) When publishers have put out their best selling games on Nintendo systems day 1, that version would often be the worst selling.

Of course the above isn't to say there aren't tons of examples of 3rd party games doing well or even selling best on Nintendo hardware. We've also seen a ton of studios jump onto the Switch with late ports or confirm they made a mistake not getting on the boat years ago. This wouldn't happen if 3rd parties weren't seeing big success on the Switch.
Click to expand...
Absoluely disagree all of this:

1- Not all of them. Only the big names dominate the charts. In fact, most expensive Nintendo productions, Xenoblade series barely pass 1m mark. The games do not rule the charts because they're Nintendo games, they do because they are Mario, Pokémon, Zelda and AC. It's a specific thing. Mario and Pikachu is literally biggest faces in the whole entertainment industry today, even bigger than Mickey Mouse and/or Batman.

And this is not a good thing, gives less incentives to Nintendo to invest in new IP's. Switch only had 4 of them :(

2- Wrong, especially wrong for Switch. Net bubble means nothing. For the first time in years, Switch is the sole dedicated handheld in the market (Deck is not in the market, sold only in one place). And thus, it inherited the whole other side of the handheld market: Sony's side. We're getting releases we hardly got on previous Nintendo handhelds: GTA/Rockstar, Rebellion releases, Falcom releases, musou, Compile, visual novels, 100% SE support, Persona... There's a mini PSP living in every Switch system! You have a big part of Switch base who are attracted to the system due to its portability and Japanese support.

3- This is pretty much wrong for older generations. Third party sales on SNES easily doubled MD versions, even inferior GB versions also sold better. Third party sales were not good on GCN and Xbox, because, well, PS2 just dominated that gen it wasn't their fault. Wii didn't have many 1:1 versions of the third party games on other platforms. And on Switch. Well, we are aware that it's not getting day and date versions of AAA games but we know that many indie games made the bank thanks to Switch. Maybe successor catches up with AAA releases and we'll return to SNES era for third party sales.
 
To be honest, even on Nintendo's lowest points for 3rd Party support (N64, GC and Wii U), I don't change much on my mindset on purchase habits. Obviously some games simply weren't available on them, but if say an Injustice situation where the game was multiplat, I'd still get it on Wii U (though it's a bad example since they didn't release all the DLC on Wii U lol; but I didn't know that at the time).

On the matter of lack of achievements, in fact, is a decisive matter for me to actually buy 3rd Party games on Nintendo consoles! I rather not have the pressure of a list of extra tasks that doesn't belong to the in-game challenges.
 
0
third party ports have largely run worse on nintendo consoles since the wii, so I tend to pick them up elsewhere. I do buy a lot of indies on there for trips and such
 
0
A little, the only other reason to go third party is because you want to play games on the go. Which is why Kingdom Hearts being cloud-based is such a huge middle finger to consumers and a prime example on how porting a game to a portable device defeats the purpose entirely.

But remember, a lot of parents purchase a Switch for their kids as their only console of choice. So having portable versions of kid / pre-teen games with the Switch is still a prime market.

So fans probably do only buy 1st party games on the Switch, but I'm sure there is a large market for playing other games and titles on a portable device. Which Steam Deck is now taking a lot of the market for.
 
0
When someone in a video game site says "Nintendo fans..." it is better assume that the predicate of that sentence is going to be dishonest af. The gaming community has a terrible understanding of Nintendo's customer base, which is not helped that many gamerz hold weird tribalistic stereotypes and beliefs about people who game on Nintendo's platforms and those tend to argue in bad faith.

Anyway, it's not true for the most part, even before the Switch. Resident Evil was pretty popular in the GCN and Wii days according to Reggie. Dragon Quest has prioritized Nintendo systems because that's where the series sells the best. Yokai Watch and Monster Hunter were huge on the 3DS. The DS and 3DS had a big 3rd party ecosystem from which publishers like Level 5 benefitted a lot. Star Wars games, Sonic, Guitar Hero, Rayman, Lego games... I could go on.

Here is a fun fact: It's pretty well known in the collecting scene that the Nintendo versions of 3rd party games go for considerably more than the other versions (look at Dokapon Kingdom Wii vs the PS2 version to give you an idea), and this even applies to recent games like Octopath Traveller II. so I don't think many of Nintendo's most dedicated fans are disgusted by the idea of playing 3rd party games on Nintendo's platforms like some here are suggesting.
EDIT: last sentence was an erroneous conclusion
 
Last edited:
It was very true, in large part due to what occurred with the N64. The system was not 3rd party friendly, nor was Nintendo really, and in turn it received limited 3rd party support, which started conditioning Nintendo owners to only buy Nintendo games. GC had better 3rd party support, but it was too late by then. That progressed and got worse over subsequent generations, outside of certain cases or exclusives. The Switch has turned that around to some degree to at least allow multiplat releases on a Nintendo platform to be a fairly viable prospect
 
It's pretty true. 3rd party sales on Nintendo systems are far lower as a percentage of overall sales than on similar platforms, in part because Nintendo produces far more first party content than other platform holders and partially because third party content has typically been less prominent and weaker overall than on other systems. Nintendo's systems being, on average, weaker than the other systems on the market results in worse ports on average and worse ports on average makes people less interested in buying third party games.

My library on Nintendo systems has never been more than 10% third party and usually much less.
 
0
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom