Analysis: Nintendo's 3rd Party Failure
It's something that nobody can dispute, not even fanboys. Nintendo's Gamecube just is sucking when it comes to 3rd party support. So how did this happen, and will it happen with the Revolution?
What started it all was the Nintendo 64. The reason the 64 was a failure in 3rd party support was actually a good thing (at least at the time) for end consumers: carts. Cartridges simply were great for players: no loading screens and (if the developer wasn't cheap) no need to worry about memory cards. But carts was costly for publishers and more work for developers (who had to compress all the information in the game).
So going in this generation, the PS2 had two advantages: it had a year ahead in launch and (more importantly) it was the king of the consoles during the 32/64 bit generation. Every developer knew that people would flock to the PS2 even if it started out as crap. Gamecube had the problem that it had to prove itself as a new start for Nintendo, with plenty of baggage.
So why is the X-Box more developed then Gamecube? Simple: the differences in their launch. The Gamecube had a pretty poor launch, especially for Nintendo. The killer-app that was Smash Bros. Melee barely made the X-mas season (Dec. 3 it was released). The actual launch titles were mediocre, with the rental-worthy Luigi's Mansion as the flagship title.
Microsoft could have had a complete failure with the X-Box if one thing didn't happen: Halo was their launch title. In terms of game per system penetration, Halo is the best selling game since Tetris, a game that was packed in with the original Gameboy. With the success of Halo, 3rd parties noticed the X-Box and knew they had to at least port games over to it.
From there, companies had a certain set up for multiplatform games: PS2 was the main version, X-Box secondary and Gamecube came last. If it wasn't a Gamecube original, 3rd parties just didn't give the system the attention it deserved. Plus, the Gamecube was wedged between the two systems; players either chose the populous PS2 version or the graphicly bettered X-Box version (later, it became the online system of choice).
Nintendo knew that there was only one way for their version of games to sell better: more features. With the GBA selling like hotcakes, they attempted something very unique: GC-GBA connectivity.
That failed. Developers either didn't know what to do with it or just didn't care to do much with it. In its entire lifespan, only two games used it to its fullest, both exclusives. Other titles used it to unlock features that really didn't need the connection in the first place (see Metroid Prime).
Then the fanboys started screwing things up. The Gamecube was becoming the system of Nintendo, you only really played it for Nintendo games. Even 2nd parties started to suffer because they just weren't Nintendo games. Eternal Darkness was the first to suffer that fate.The fanboys just started buying only Nintendo titles, screwing 2nd and 3rd party games. Only one didn't suffer that fate, because it became a Nintendo title.
Soul Calibur 2 did something that Nintendo failed at: making a compelling, exclusive feature. By including Link in the package, fanboys flocked to the game and because the version of choice for anyone who owned a Gamecube (mostly because Spawn and Heihachi sucked).
Nintendo attempted to duplicate this achievement (see: SSX4 and NBA Street 3). I haven't seen the numbers, but I doubt it succeeded.
Then online started to be important. Nintendo took a gamble that online wasn't going to be important enough to make a difference, and they lost. By having the Broadband Adapter cost $40 and only available at their online store, it was impossible to find games that used it, thus people didn't buy it, thus developers didn't make use of it...
Without sales and online functionality to back up the Cube, developers just took their games off the small, purple (luckily, Nintendo put out black by the time I bought the system) box. Game like Burnout 3, Mortal Kombat: Deception (later cracked and was released on the Gamecube, without online) and Starcraft Ghost had online gameplay that the developers just didn't want to remove.
So where does this leave the Revolution. First, the Revolution solves the online problem, making a service that rivals (in terms of total quality) to that of Microsoft's. But the main question is: will developers accept the new controller? Without any games to see, Nintendo put a huge question mark on whether this new system will succeed or not.
What Nintendo needs to do is put a huge launch. They need to show developers and publishers that not only their system is worthy of 3rd party games, but it is a must. If Nintendo can push as many Revolutions into houses as possible, then 3rd parties will have to make something on the system.
But one thing is out of Nintendo's direct control: the fanboys. Nintendo maybe aiming at casual or even non-gamers, but if they only buy Nintendo titles, then it would be all for nought. 3rd parties need their games to be sold. Even if their games are not up to the same quality as the average Nintendo title, they need to see that their efforts aren't in vein. If anything, fanboys need to realize that not prefering Nintendo titles over others is actually what is best for Nintendo.
Even with the revelation of the new controller, the Revolution remains a wild card in this next generation. It has all the potential to succeed, but also the potential to bring Nintendo down. Both Nintendo and its fanboys need to look into the past to make sure mistakes aren't repeated, and then succeed.
What started it all was the Nintendo 64. The reason the 64 was a failure in 3rd party support was actually a good thing (at least at the time) for end consumers: carts. Cartridges simply were great for players: no loading screens and (if the developer wasn't cheap) no need to worry about memory cards. But carts was costly for publishers and more work for developers (who had to compress all the information in the game).
So going in this generation, the PS2 had two advantages: it had a year ahead in launch and (more importantly) it was the king of the consoles during the 32/64 bit generation. Every developer knew that people would flock to the PS2 even if it started out as crap. Gamecube had the problem that it had to prove itself as a new start for Nintendo, with plenty of baggage.
So why is the X-Box more developed then Gamecube? Simple: the differences in their launch. The Gamecube had a pretty poor launch, especially for Nintendo. The killer-app that was Smash Bros. Melee barely made the X-mas season (Dec. 3 it was released). The actual launch titles were mediocre, with the rental-worthy Luigi's Mansion as the flagship title.
Microsoft could have had a complete failure with the X-Box if one thing didn't happen: Halo was their launch title. In terms of game per system penetration, Halo is the best selling game since Tetris, a game that was packed in with the original Gameboy. With the success of Halo, 3rd parties noticed the X-Box and knew they had to at least port games over to it.
From there, companies had a certain set up for multiplatform games: PS2 was the main version, X-Box secondary and Gamecube came last. If it wasn't a Gamecube original, 3rd parties just didn't give the system the attention it deserved. Plus, the Gamecube was wedged between the two systems; players either chose the populous PS2 version or the graphicly bettered X-Box version (later, it became the online system of choice).
Nintendo knew that there was only one way for their version of games to sell better: more features. With the GBA selling like hotcakes, they attempted something very unique: GC-GBA connectivity.
That failed. Developers either didn't know what to do with it or just didn't care to do much with it. In its entire lifespan, only two games used it to its fullest, both exclusives. Other titles used it to unlock features that really didn't need the connection in the first place (see Metroid Prime).
Then the fanboys started screwing things up. The Gamecube was becoming the system of Nintendo, you only really played it for Nintendo games. Even 2nd parties started to suffer because they just weren't Nintendo games. Eternal Darkness was the first to suffer that fate.The fanboys just started buying only Nintendo titles, screwing 2nd and 3rd party games. Only one didn't suffer that fate, because it became a Nintendo title.
Soul Calibur 2 did something that Nintendo failed at: making a compelling, exclusive feature. By including Link in the package, fanboys flocked to the game and because the version of choice for anyone who owned a Gamecube (mostly because Spawn and Heihachi sucked).
Nintendo attempted to duplicate this achievement (see: SSX4 and NBA Street 3). I haven't seen the numbers, but I doubt it succeeded.
Then online started to be important. Nintendo took a gamble that online wasn't going to be important enough to make a difference, and they lost. By having the Broadband Adapter cost $40 and only available at their online store, it was impossible to find games that used it, thus people didn't buy it, thus developers didn't make use of it...
Without sales and online functionality to back up the Cube, developers just took their games off the small, purple (luckily, Nintendo put out black by the time I bought the system) box. Game like Burnout 3, Mortal Kombat: Deception (later cracked and was released on the Gamecube, without online) and Starcraft Ghost had online gameplay that the developers just didn't want to remove.
So where does this leave the Revolution. First, the Revolution solves the online problem, making a service that rivals (in terms of total quality) to that of Microsoft's. But the main question is: will developers accept the new controller? Without any games to see, Nintendo put a huge question mark on whether this new system will succeed or not.
What Nintendo needs to do is put a huge launch. They need to show developers and publishers that not only their system is worthy of 3rd party games, but it is a must. If Nintendo can push as many Revolutions into houses as possible, then 3rd parties will have to make something on the system.
But one thing is out of Nintendo's direct control: the fanboys. Nintendo maybe aiming at casual or even non-gamers, but if they only buy Nintendo titles, then it would be all for nought. 3rd parties need their games to be sold. Even if their games are not up to the same quality as the average Nintendo title, they need to see that their efforts aren't in vein. If anything, fanboys need to realize that not prefering Nintendo titles over others is actually what is best for Nintendo.
Even with the revelation of the new controller, the Revolution remains a wild card in this next generation. It has all the potential to succeed, but also the potential to bring Nintendo down. Both Nintendo and its fanboys need to look into the past to make sure mistakes aren't repeated, and then succeed.
posted by SeanM at 8:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home