charlequin said:
Again, just because publishers are (quite unambiguously) shooting themselves in the foot, that doesn't absolve Nintendo of handing them the ammunition. The Japanese market is a huge clusterfuck and there's more than enough blame to go around.
There is absolutely enough blame to go around, but I do believe that the bulk of that blame lies on the shoulders of the 3rd-party publishers. It is their responsibility to continuously examine the marketplace and have a feel for which direction the industry is moving. The "$599" announcement should have been a clarion call to these publishers that the PS3 was not going to come anywhere close to replicating the PS2, but they just closed their ears and chose to pretend that this generation would follow a similar trajectory to the previous one.
And really, at the start of this gen, what could Nintendo realistically have accomplished with 3rd-parties who had their head so far in the sand? The big titles are the ones that really bring attention to a platform. When we look at the big titles that started development at the start of this gen (or even before), what do you think that Nintendo could have done to get those titles on the Wii? Metal Gear Solid 4, Yakuza, Resident Evil 5, Final Fantasy, Dynasty Warriors, Devil May Cry, Gundam Musou, Virtua Fighter, Soul Calibur, Ridge Racer. Unless Nintendo forked over insane buttloads of cash, Nintendo had absolutely no shot of getting these publishers to move these titles to the Wii at the start of this generation.
As for the B-level titles, Nintendo has actually done a fairly decent job of getting the 3rd-parties to bring those over to the Wii. They've had spinoffs for stuff like Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, Soul Calibur. And they've had other stuff like DragonBall Z, One Piece, Trauma Center, Gundam, Bleach, Harvest Moon, Tales of Symphonia, Victorious Boxers, MySims, Cooking Mama, Sonic, Nights, Naruto, Opoona, etc. Honestly, coming off the discrepancy that existed between the PS2 and the Gamecube, I think Nintendo did just about the best they could have in terms of getting 3rd-party support in the early stages of the Wii. Those publishers just were not going to bring their top titles to the Wii in those early days, and I really don't think there was much of anything that Nintendo could have done to change that. Unfortunately for Nintendo, the B-level stuff doesn't sell systems and give awareness to a system. The A-level franchises do that, and Nintendo just wasn't going to get those from 3rd-parties at the start of this gen.
What Nintendo could do was to try to replace those missing 3rd-party top titles with a strong slate of their own 1st-party heavy hitters. And they executed that plan masterfully, with their own 1st-party lineup propelling the Wii into a dominant position in the home console market.
At this point, maybe a year or so into the generation is where Nintendo could have probably been more aggressive with 3rd-parties. At this point, the writing should have been on the wall for 3rd-parties that the Wii was the home console winner this gen. But honestly, we don't know how much effort Nintnedo did or did not put into pursuing 3rd-parties at this point. We do know that they made some fairly considerable efforts - getting commitments for main titles from Monster Hunter, Dragon Quest and Tales. Clearly, Nintendo was pursuing 3rd-party commitments at this time. But I suspect that many publishers were still hesitant to make a wholesale switch over to the Wii. They have already invested a lot of time and money into the HD systems, along with just about all of their major brand equity. People can be very stubborn and refuse to want to admit that they were wrong and backed the wrong horse. Even highly paid execs.
donny2112 said:
Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me, either. Maybe he meant that he wasn't at liberty to say what third-parties have planned, but what was in the FY Q&A was that he didn't know what they had planned. :/ He was pretty clear in the Q&A that Nintendo can only count on what Nintendo has planned for their systems when doing projections, though.
I think Nintendo learned that they can't count on 3rd-parties back in the N64 days. Many 3rd-parties that had done very well on the NES and SNES moved their support and franchises to the Playstation and left Nintendo on thier own. That lesson was only reinforced in the Gamecube days with commitments falling apart like the fabled Capcom 5. One game was cancelled outright, Viewtiful Joe was ported to the PS2, Killer 7 was released simultaneously on the PS2, and the big gun Resident Evil 4 was announced for the PS2 before the Cube version even released, despite numerous protestations of exclusivity. Even fairly safe bets (essentially 2nd-party studios) such as Factor 5 and Silicon Knights ended up jumping ship for the competition.
I think Nintendo has come to learn that they can only rely on themselves. I'm sure Iwata and Co. have a pretty good idea of what is in the pipeline for the year ahead, but they don't want to lock themselves into anything where they are dependent upon other publishers. They will be realistic about forecasting their own titles, but they will be conservative when it comes to forecasting results from other publishers, because they just can't be completely confident that these publishers will follow through with their plans. They don't want to lock in a bullish forecast, only to have Capcom suddenly announce a PSP port of Monster Hunter 3 two weeks before the game releases. Then sales plummet on the Wii version of the game and Nintendo misses their forecasts and their stock gets hammered. (Just as a hypothetical example).