3rd party argument relevant still on Nintendo consoles?

>>383839045
I've always maintained that Nintendo should hire third party studios to make versions of their games with Nintendo IP in them, because third party games historically don't do well on Nintendo hardware, with a few exceptions. And it looks like that's what they're doing.

>Your fanbase won't buy Warriors games!
Slap a Zelda or Fire Emblem skin on it
>Your fanbase won't buy strategy games!
Slap Mario on it
>Your fanbase won't buy character action games!
Slap some Nintendo costumes on it

Etc.

It's good that, at least in the first 9 months, they're sticking to a game a month. But I don't know how long this will continue. As long as we don't see a repeat of the first year of the WiiU (the November-July gap between NSMBU and Pikmin 3 was insane and they should have never allowed that to happen) then I'm good

>>383839045
I don't think the Switch will have an issue with third-party support. Japanese third-parties have always been pretty supportive of Nintendo's handhelds, and that seems to be carrying over to the Switch. They even have some developers migrating from the Vita, and they've been reaching out for collaborative projects regularly. If it's lacking anything, it will be mainly western AAA, which I don't think will be missed much.

>>383839045
With the notable exception of the Wii which caught a wave of "casual" players and one-time buyers, Nintendo systems have sold less and less each generation.

The Nintendo 64 sold terribly compared to the PlayStation and had far less games. It was because of some fantastic first and second party titles and the fact that Sega shot themselves in the foot in terms of games and marketing. But as much as we may have fond memories of the N64, it wasn't a success in the market, because those third parties just weren't there.

The GameCube's format also limited multiplats and couldn't coax third parties back from Sony. Each generation has progressively gotten worse and worse (again, except for the Wii), and if Nintendo blows its load with the first year of the Nintendo Switch, then it will be DOA.

File: 1497995249619m.jpg (106KB, 1024x819px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1024x819px

That first point is something people say a whole lot, but it will never happen. Them going third party or dying. They have enough money to last for generations of poor selling consoles. They will never die no matter how much anyone with a nintendo hate-boner wants them to. Not in this lifetime.

The Wii U had a nice chunk of good nintendo titles. I think the switch is getting some good support from third parties too.

With all that said, it's all irrelevant console waring bullshit. The DS-3DS family of systems has a downright legendary library that ignores the garbage industry practices consoles are chained to. I'm a classic old school gaming kind of guy and everything DS-wise has just been a delightful continuation of the SNES, with the 3DS having lots of N64 and Gamecube-tier experiences on top of that. 3rd party support has always been healthy too. It's great.

>>383841002
Not too bothered about the Vita support not a fan of weebshit, and the less of that crap on the console the better but 3DS devs migrating over could be fantastic, especially Atlus.

I'm not a Nintendo fan, so to me, Nintendo has been dead for over a decade. Just because Nintendo has legions of braindead fanboys who eat up any pile of crap they shit out doesn't mean Nintendo has no need for 3rd party support.

>>383841076
>With the notable exception of the PS2 which caught the wave of dvd movie purchasers and one-time casual buyers, Sony systems have sold less and less each generation.
>The PS3 sold terribly compared to the Nintendo Wii...

See how easy that is? Equally true, and means Sonys last big success was even farther in the past than Nintendo's. And thats not even counting the even more tremendous success that was the contemporaneous NDS, meaning Nintendo has had two huge successes since that one time decades ago when Sony sold a bunch of DVD players that just happened to have the playstation logo on them. You want to know whats worse than casuals buying a console? Non-fucking-gamers buying a console.

>>383841570
Right, because Nintendo has more or less cornered the handheld (non-mobile) market more or less than 1989, so of course it would have better support. But the consoles are a different story. It was the DS pulling the train in 2005 and early 2006, not the GameCube, where as the Game Boy rode on the coattails of the SNES in the 1990s.

They have money, sure, but if market forces tell them to go third party (just like how they dipped their toe into mobile), they will kowtow to shareholders.

>>383839045
Nintendo doesn't need third party. We need third party. Or I won't speak for you and I'll change it a bit.

I want third party. Why wouldn't I ? Whey would an option to play a video game on a video game console be a bad thing?

/v/ is such defensive women about everything

>whatever Nintendo owners are REAL Gamers We don't need that *insert game that skipped Nintendo here * trash on our machine.

I want as many games as possible. Let me choose what I want. This post will be skipped over even though it's the best post in the thread.

File: 1491829339846.jpg (23KB, 280x373px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 280x373px

>>383842067
If you're going to play false equivalency bullshit make sure the proportions are right, like how PS3 vs. Wii (86 million vs. 101 million) wasn't anything like N64 losing to PS1 (32 million vs. 100 million). And the Sony-branded DVD player is largely bullshit. Maybe in Japan initially but the shortages of the PS2 in the United States wasn't for DVDs, besides, DVD players were half the cost of a PS2 even in January 2001 and continued to drop.

Nintendo systems have been more profitable than anything Sony has made and you could argue quality over quantity but the reality is Nintendo has been shedding sales since the mid-1990s while Sony's sales have remained healthy.