Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo Promises 3rd Party Support
Eurogamer reports on claims by George Harrison (NoA's Senior VP for Marketing) that the Revolution will feature extensive third-party support in the coming years. From the article: "'One of the lessons we tried to learn from GameCube was that we kept things too close. And so as we got ready to launch, we had some of our own great games but third parties were kind of behind the eight ball in terms of being able to have games ready,' Harrison stated. In terms of early support for the Revolution, which launches this year alongside Sony's PS3, third party software ought to be available in abundance, Harrison confirming 'We've got more than 1,000 developer kits including the controller kits, out, so there should be plenty there.'"
I'm really teeter-tottering on this. Nintendo has stated with EVERY console they've made in the last 10 years that it'll have extensive 3rd party support. I'm a raving Nintendo fanboy who believes everything Nintendo tells me, but I'm shaking my head reading this. "Prove it."
That said, there are some encouraging things in their favor:
1.) Development systems are very cheap.
2.) By most accounts, this hardware isn't all that different from the GC hardware, transitioning to it should be easy.
3.) We still do not have all of the details about the wi-fi service. Maybe they'll allow developers to release games exclusively for it?
4.) MS and Sony have standards in place about things such as HD support for their games. This means more asset creation which means more money to develop the game. The Rev, being somewhat inferior in terms of technology, has a much lower barrier to entry.
5.) The Nintendo DS is very popular, largely in part due to the attention paid to the interface and wifi connection. Perhaps more developers will see the Rev as less of a gamble.
So.. I'm undecided. Nintendo has promised this many before and hasn't delivered. Nintendo has also, however, changed their habits before. At least they recognize mistakes were made. So.. well I just don't know.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
When I was a lead tester at Atari, I became the Nintendo guru (did 9 titles out of 10 for GameCube or AGB). Third party support didn't exist back then, the documentation was seriously lacking, testing multiplayer over the link took twice as long as testing the single player, and we were forced to beta test wireless link hardware for the AGB because their APIs were so poorly documented that their own support programmers got confused. Nintendo didn't care about 3rd party support until the new product announcements started leaving GameCube and AGB off as supported platforms. By then, it was too late for this pain in the ass.
The fact is, since the NES, i have always been a once console person. Up until this generation with the GCN, I have been perfectly content with only having an nes, snes, n64, etc. and just missing all the Sony, Sega, and Microsoft exclusives, because i could always have a good library of fun interesting games for my system.
However I have to say that I finally cracked and bought a PS2. Don't get me wrong, there are some great GCN games out there that i absolutely love, it just really seems that for every great GCN game coming out, there are at least 5 coming out for the PS2, and when I hadn't had a decent game to play in a while, and guitar hero came out, it finally just pushed me over the edge.
As for the article, this isn't a new thing... nintendo promised more third party support on the GCN, and while it definitly seemed to have more than the N64, as i said earlier, compared to the PS2 it's lacking. Honestly, the only way i can think of to really get more third party support is to pick up a much bigger share of the console race, and the way nintendo operates (catering to niche markets, being happy with non-HD, etc.) It just doesn't seem like that's going to happen any time soon.
If there's anything more important than my ego around, i want it caught and shot now.
There's one way to explain why the NES didn't have 3rd party support in the beginning; because in the beginning, it wasn't a "console" as we know it. It was a $200 toy made by a very nimble and clever toy company. Donkey Kong, Super Mario Bros. and Zelda were all designed by a toy maker. The idea of a console as media conduit for 3rd party content makers didn't catch up to the NES for quite some time.
This probably explains why Nintendo kept its 3rd party releases restricted to Nintendo-approved developers as well.
In the end, even the GameCube was a toy; almost every huge game for the system was an accessory to that toy made by the toy manufacturer. Call me crazy, but I think this is probably why Nintendo always profits and Sony/Microsoft always run a deficit on their systems. Microsoft and Sony are making the hardware a tool for developers to get their games out; they rely on the creativity and ingenuity of those developers to drive sales of the system, and sales of each others' games. But Nintendo is relying on their own creativity because they don't just think of their product as a tool; they think of it as a toy, and so they see it as their responsibility to make their toy fun and desirable. Sony doesn't, unless you count making exclusive deals with RPG makers. Microsoft doesn't, unless you count buying up successful game companies and forcing them to make reptitive sequels.
There's one way to explain why the NES didn't have 3rd party support in the beginning; because in the beginning, it wasn't a "console" as we know it. It was a $200 toy made by a very nimble and clever toy company. Donkey Kong, Super Mario Bros. and Zelda were all designed by a toy maker. The idea of a console as media conduit for 3rd party content makers didn't catch up to the NES for quite some time.
The Japanese were linking their Famicoms up to satellites, to disk systems, and even trading stock on it. The idea of a multimedia console is not new and has been tried even before the Famicom (those consoles that tried to use the tape decks as well, haha). You do realize that Famicom meant 'Family Computer' right?
Nintendo has been a games maker, not a toy maker. Before the Famicon, Nintendo was one of the top arcade game makers (Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Jr.) and provided the killer app for the Colecovision (second in marketshare to the Atari 2600 thanks partly due to the Donkey Kong port). And before the Famicom, Nintendo had been making electronics including the Game and Watch (which has been reincarnated into the DS).
Nintendo spend R&D money to develop and ship out their console. It was their market. Back then, Nintendo had every right to define what rules any third party would play. Sega would do the same.
Third party content for consoles was not new. Nintendo was the third party content for the Colecovision and (if I recall correctly) PCs at the time. Third parties had a renaissance with Electronic Arts back in the early eighties. Third parties were nothing new.
If the NES was a 'toy', then your TV could also be labeled a 'toy'. You guys have to remember your history. Pong and Atari 2600 sold mostly to adults at first. Hell, the very first versions of Pong and Donkey Kong were market tested in bars! Don't give me this 'toy' garbage. These systems had millions of dollars invested in them and they were capable of generating billions of dollars of revenue. These game consoles are one of the fastest and most profit grossing business ever made. This is why it is so competitive. At the time, Atari was the fastest growing company ever in American history (if the Discovery Channel is accurate with their documentary).
In the end, even the GameCube was a toy; almost every huge game for the system was an accessory to that toy made by the toy manufacturer. Call me crazy, but I think this is probably why Nintendo always profits and Sony/Microsoft always run a deficit on their systems. Microsoft and Sony are making the hardware a tool for developers to get their games out; they rely on the creativity and ingenuity of those developers to drive sales of the system, and sales of each others' games. But Nintendo is relying on their own creativity because they don't just think of their product as a tool; they think of it as a toy, and so they see it as their responsibility to make their toy fun and desirable. Sony doesn't, unless you count making exclusive deals with RPG makers. Microsoft doesn't, unless you count buying up successful game companies and forcing them to make reptitive sequels.
Is this an attempt at trolling? You seriously don't believe this, do you?
Nintendo, Atari, and Sega are/were primarily SOFTWARE companies. They designed the hardware to match the software. Nintendo is only in the console business to have absolute control over the hardware the software appears on (*points to what happened to how Coleco threw Nintendo to the wolves back in the early 80s*). You could say that Miyamoto is the only game designer left on Earth now who can design the hardware to service his software.
Sony and Microsoft are in the hardware business of consoles (for Microsoft, perhaps more of the OSes of the consoles like Marketplace and Xbox Live). Sony does not design its hardware around its software which is its huge chief disadvantage (as we are fast seeing with the PSP and probably the PS3). If you've noticed, the Sony console and controller are exactly t