EA's Riccitiello: Nintendo 'learning' how to support third parties

@Jerry

Back in the good ol' days of gaming, that seal meant everything to an NES owner....or even an SNES owner.

Nowadays the seal has gotten smaller, less meaningful and kicked to the back of all "Nintendo compatible" software boxes.

@Jerry

Ya, it was meant to say "this game doesn't suck". Meaning wasn't ripe with bugs, didn't play like shit, etc.

Do you honestly think they'd have a hard time to look for people to employ into those testing positions? You could post that at minimum wage and still have people fighting over a position where all you do is test games for suckness all day.

Yeah, basically the seal means "this will run as it is intended to run/will not brick your system" sort of thing. It didn't entirely float up quality (the NES was plagued too, once)

^What any of this has to do with that chick being hot is anyone's guess

Maybe her hotness was double-checked by Nintendo!

I don't think it's the seal of quality that's missing but the fact that Nintendo made games are way better than crappy EA games. I think I may have one or two EA games in my house. Boom Boom Rocket (which wasn't made by EA) and some sort of Lord of the Rings game that was so awful that I didn't play it.

I mean let's face reality. The only reason 3rd party companies did well in the PS2 era is because the system was almost 100% 3rd party crap. Now that we've enter the Nintendo Wii era, 3rd parties are wishing that Nintendo didn't make masterpiece after masterpiece.

If they actually gave an attempt at making a decent game on a Nintendo console it would sell. I mean one of my favorite cube games is Viewtiful Joe. Zach and Wiki is also an awesome game. For the DS, I'm playing through Dragon Quest V. So if the 3rd parties would make games like that then it will sell.

Oh so now they call it the "Official Nintendo Seal?" Where's the word "Quality?"
Back in the Atari 2600 days almost everyone could make a game as shitty as they wanted and that's how the crash of 1983 occurred. That's when Nintendo released the NES and games on the system had the have the "Seal of Quality." Sure there still were tons of bad games for the NES, but they weren't shovelware like we have on the Wii right now. They really need the bring the "Seal of Quality" back.

"Sure there still were tons of bad games for the NES, but they weren't shovelware like we have on the Wii right now"

I must have had a different NES then you. And the Seal of quality only meant the game worked, didn't mean it was cool for "HARDCORE" consumption.

The Seal of Quality and Nintendo's associated draconian third party manipulations is a long and sordid history. Basically the Quality seal was not about pushing third party software as much as getting a foothold into the console market, after consumers and retailers had been so badly burned by the disastrous Atari crash. Back in the NES/SNES days, Nintendo showed little concern for helping publishers out, going so far as actively hampering when and how third party titles could be released. It's a big part of the reason publishers were so quick to jump on the Playstation bandwagon and its open policies.

Yes ignore the leading console, thats a really smart move Tmac.

...or just make Imagine: Shovelwarez

EA fucked up. They're in a Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't position now.

It's too late now to start working on marquee content for the Wii and they've ruined some of their key franchises with the Wii buying audience (Madden being the best example) by being inconsistent spazzes.
It's a shame, too, because they and every other third party had a huge opportunity to really make a killing on the Wii and they squandered it by releasing poorly made casual and family games, B-grade spin-offs and ports of old games

Imagine where they'd be now if they'd have put out marquee titles on the Wii back in 2008 instead of dithering around with their thumbs up their asses.

Lead console, yes... For Nintendo. 3rd party games released on N systems generally well under-perform anything released to Xbox/PS3/PC. Look at Suda51 and No More Heroes. Great game, but Suda51 got no push and flopped on the Wii (despite having the largest console install base in the US) - Reason being is people purchase the Wii as a conversation or party piece.

So "lead console" =/= best to develop for. People on 360 buy everything remotely solid though, if for nothing else but achievement points. But it's a business, so who cares why they buy it as long as they do.

No More Heroes sold about 500,000 copies, if I'm not mistaken. If it were a flop, it wouldn't be getting a sequel.

Ignore the leading console in this gen would be a damn smart move. 50 million wii's mean nothing, because more than half of them are people who only buy a game or two a year (usually wii fit and the like). In terms of people who actually buy more than a couple games a year, there's probably less wii's out there than 360s and ps3s.

It's a sign of trouble when people say 'oh, it sold well for a Wii game'.

From what i heard, Suda51 was positively overjoyed by NMH's performance, and there have been other companies that Wii has been very kind to. Sega, for one. The only reason Sonic Unleashed made any money was because of the Wii version (or so the legend goes), and Sega has found a usually profitable environment for their lower-tier products (like House of the Dead). Capcom's been inconsistent, giving us good content sometimes, and then lying through their teeth about the difficulties of Wii support other times, but Capcom has been generally pleased with their results (Okami outsold PS2 version, Zack and Wiki apparently profited). Smaller studios have found things to be even better, like 2DBoy, Nicalis, and Gaijin Games. Hudson's found their groove with WiiWare, most of Ubisoft's profit comes from their Wii division, and Wii has been the leading platform for Guitar Hero games for a while now.

So no, there is a lot going on that's good for third parties. The only issue is that despite all these good things, no-one (except Capcom, Sega, and recently Square Enix) has had the guts to put a proper, full-scale game there. Monster Hunter Tri should hit a million in Japan alone any time now, and hasn't even been released in the west yet. Sonic and the Secret Rings sold 2 million, and Dragon Quest X is going to be insanity incarnate

Basically, it's an issue of the third-parties putting out half-assed games, seeing those games get the result they generally deserve, then piss and moan and blame everyone ("casual" audience, pirates, Nintendo) but themselves for the results.

Sorry, not a flop. A failure.

500k copies vs 27 million consoles in the US would be considered a fail in my book. Attach rate of that game to system is flat out suck. 1 game for every 54 systems sold.

19 mil xbox... 660,000 copies of Dragon Age are sold to-date. Barely over a month old. 1 game per 28 systems for a niche genre for a game that is made for PC.

Sure, maybe it wasn't a flop. I sure as hell wouldn't chalk it up as a success on Suda51's behalf. In fact I thought I read on here that they were putting their next efforts on next-gen so they could make some money this time around?

Ubi just put out a statement not long ago that all their wii stuff was bombing (most of it deserved though) and most of their money's coming from assassin's creed 2. Suda's on record as saying how dissapointed he was at NMH's sales, marvelous is slowly porting all their games over to HD, EA's games are bombing, just about every core game that comes to Wii bombs.

It's getting far beyond ridiculous.

Thanks for the support, Tmac. Was starting to think I was the only one in here that actually read business news from gaming devs.

That Ubisoft statement was disproven. That was pure Kotaku yellow journalism, generated to get some hits.

By Luke Plunkett, too, if i'm not mistaken. A living symbol of the egregious things professional bloggers can do and not get fired for.

Yeah, Ubisoft actually said the OPPOSITE on an investors call. Kotaku just reported it wrong.
Also, Suda said he was disappointed specifically with the Japanese sales of NMH.
EA's games are bombing all over. They aren't bleeding money just because their budget Wii titles are "underperforming".

Also, I don't care what your definition of a bomb is-YOU aren't in any position to call something a bomb unless you have some sort of direct involvement...especially when the publisher and developer say otherwise. If NMH was a 'bomb' on the Wii, what does that make RE4 on the PS2? It sold 2 million copes on a system
with an install base of 100 million+.

Another insightful comment brought to you by tmac, the videogames expert.

What are you doing here Ashitaka, this article doesn't have a Sony tag on it. I also see you weren't there in the NPDs either, as you were too scared to show your face from the ass beating Sony took from everyone else, hardware and software.

It's easy to be a bitch and run your mouth when things are going well.

Nintendo: "Give me the wallet!"

Tmac's Dad: "Now take it easy..."

Nintendo: "Now!"

Tmac's Dad: "here you go"

Tmac's Mom: "No!"

Gun fires... pearls...

1. The article doesn't have a Sony tag on it, so? What has that got to do with me? On the other hand, the article doesn't have a fucktard tag on it, what are you doing here, fucktard?
2. I never post on NPD sales, never gave a crap about them, never will.
3. FU troll.

who's abusing who? Third parties are just mad that Nintendo made a platform that they can't easily port or multiplat stuff to, and have been consistently bitching about it ever since.

Granted, Nintendo hasn't been particularly helpful (though there are reports of it. High Voltage had access to Wii Speak before anyone else, Ubisoft gets a lot of ins for some reason, they let Sega use Mario for the M&S olympics, advertising and a whole new damn controller for Capcom for Monster Hunter, Red Steel 2 team is getting help from Retro), but Nintendo hasn't been especially predatory, either. It's more laissez-faire, which is how it should be, except that Sony and Microsoft are running around moneyhatting everything in sight, which makes Nintendo look bad.

No More Heroes
Guitar Hero / Rock Band
Resident Evil
Sonic
Call of Duty
Red Steel
Monster Hunter
Muramasa
Boom Blox
MadWorld
Okami

Plenty of 3rd Party. Just most serious gamers go elsewhere since they realize if you're playing a Nintendo System, you better be ready to see a lot of Mario titles.

And each one of those games has gotten the sales they deserved, did they not?

"most serious gamers" I'm really not sure what that is really.

Most "serious gamers" more than likely bought several of those titles listed.

"Serious gamers" = someone who turns on a console and plays at least a night a week, and not just during social gatherings.

And ya, those are good games. You were asking where the 3rd party titles were, gave you a good sizable list of the games actually worth bothering with on the Wii.

My "serious gamers" comment meant that people that want to immerse themselves in lots of gaming usually go to the other systems. More choices, more releases, more community. It's a lot more enjoyable having options and friends.

Sorry what I really meant was "Serious gamers" = NO SUCH THING!

Head of Nail, meet Head of Hammer. (Was that too much? Oh well)

At any rate, Yes. Yes. Annnnnd yes. The ONLY reason I bought my Wii was too play Nintendo's first-party games. Do I own third-party titles for it? Sure. Madworld and Super Monkey Ball to name the ONLY 2 (Though Nintendo may as well absorb Sega and call it a day).

You just can't beat the third party support for games on the Xbox and PS3...Brutal Legend and Infamous to name two of the better ones.

Exactly.

sam, I love that you're in the holiday spirit with your pic there, I really do.


But does she really need the beard?

YESSSSSSS!

Its called business though. Even if you don't think a game is worth the support, Nintendo needs to realize they need to highlight others games to keep getting devs interesting. Xbox throws their weight behind Epic, Infinite Ward, Ubisoft, and 2K games pretty openly. Would it really be that hard for Nintendo to have their logo behind a character that isn't Mario for once? Honestly, the only games I ever see get promoted for the Wii are like Wii Fit, Wii Sports 2, Mario Game of the Quarter, Metroid, etc. Variety keeps people interested.

Besides, Nintendo's games are wearing thin without third party. Rare got them through the N64 era (Conker, Banjo, GoldenEye, Perfect Dark, KI Gold, Blast Corps) - And SNES thrived because it pushed everyone. Capcom, Squaresoft, Acclaim, EA, Konami, Midway, Enix... All were featured on the SNES and is the reason it sold.

Big N is just arrogant and money hungry. I thought this was an accepted fact now-a-days?

"Xbox throws their weight behind Epic, Infinite Ward, Ubisoft, and 2K games pretty openly."

Because they know that any money and promotion and such that they give to those companies and their AAA content is going to warrant a good return on income for them.

Nintendo does not GET any of that AAA content. They haven't since the N64.
On the rare occasion that they DO get said content (Resident Evil 4, for example), they DO support them and put their weight behind them.
Why? Because the likely ROI warrants it.

"Big N is just arrogant and money hungry. I thought this was an accepted fact now-a-days?"

I don't see how applying common business sense makes them arrogant and money hungry.