Topic: Why should Nintendo go third party?

If that was to make sense then they'd have to get enough of a boost in sales to cover the money they'd lose selling it on another platforms. Then they'd also have to forgo the lost sales of their platform AND the lost sales of other titles on their platform. There's also an assumption here that going multiplatform automatically doubles your sales when it doesn't always work like that.

Take for example GTA. They were basically a Playstation exclusive but slowly moved over to XBox. So lets look at their sales:
GTA: 2.3mill
GTA 2: 3.4mill
GTA 3: 13.1mill
GTA Vice City: 16mill
GTA San Andreas: 21mill on PS2, launched later on XBox and sold an extra 2mill
GTA IV: 10mill PS3, 11mill 360
GTA V: 17mill PS3, 13mill 360

So basically the series grew at the same rate despite going multiplatform, the sales just split between the two platforms. And yes the PS2 was a juggernaut but end of life sales of PS2 were about the same as lifetime sales of 360 and PS3 thus far. So now imagine you are Nintendo and are looking at this. Imagine how much cash you would make if you struck gold on a game like Mario Kart AND had it on your platform.

THAT'S why this doesn't make sense.

Well, considering the probable income of the software covering the loss of selling it on other system would not be a problem in the slightest.

Console manufacturers don't make a lot, if any, revenue on hardware sales. Nintendo is an exception (but they're losing money with the WiiU), but the hardware sales are a small amount of the company's total revenue. Software is more profitable.

I agree that going 3rd party definitely does not equal getting more sales though. But that's what the investors that want Nintendo to go 3rd party expects, otherwise they wouldn't want them to do so.

But you'd get more if you struck gold on three platforms... Especially iOS.

EDIT:
Just look at Candy Crush, the amount money that game generates is crazy. 470 000€ each day.

Their hardware is terrible and they continue downplay online gaming for whatever reason.

Because annoying fanboys (from ALL 3 camps yes even Nintendo's own fans some on this very site....) would love to see Nintendo fail. I could list a 101 reasons why Nintendo going 3rd party would be the worst thing ever......BUT no one would bother listening to it (to the few open minded people still here give me some hope). But if Nintendo goes 3rd party I'll just say enjoy only playing Mario and say goodbye to just about every other Nintendo franchise. You shall all be your own doom

We have already said good bye to most of them anyway.

I would like Nintendo to return to making stuff that is not sequel after sequel especially so close together. (Yoshi's Island is a reasonable amount of time apart or Luigi's Mansion). Everything else is too close together. Make something new and make it great that is what I want.

I don't think they should go 3rd party but I have very little interest in what they are currently making.

@unrandomsam Nintendo making new stuff? You're crazy (sarcasm). Their whole history has been just using same franchises over and over. But maybe your wish will come true as Miyamoto is supposedly working on new IP.

For me it is that some people don't like Nintendo being Nintendo. They want them to either be Sony/MS or Sega.

Might want to recheck that history...

Really, asking Nintendo to go 3rd party just for basically the hell of it is borderline insanity.

So not a history of Mario, Zelda, Smash Bros, Metroid, repeat? For most part anyway? Look at how they churning out NSMB games. You can't deny Nintendo milking it's franchises and I can't blame them with a crop of IP's like that. Surely you can see my point.

In the context of your response to unrandom, it makes sense. Their IPs are too popular to simply ignore and uh...not milk. Just about every major publisher milks at least one franchise. I really don't think they will make something that will be as big as Mario or Link.

This is quoted from the "Nintendo needs new franchises" thread

Nintendo has created a lot of new IP. I am not saying they don't milk their franchises but they also do create new stuff.

Lets put this into prespective:
Call of Duty 1 was released October 29, 2003
the last one was release November 5, 2013
So in about 10 years there have been 20 games (including console and handheld games)
resource http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty

If we take the same time frame 2003-2013 for Mario (not counting remakes or re-releases)
We have about:
7 Mario Party games
4 Mario Kart games
6 Mario RPGs
4 Mario 3D Platformers
7 Mario 2D Platformers
with a ton of spin-offs and sports titles.
Not counting most of the spin-offs or sports titles that is about 28 games.
resource: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_featuring_Mario

So Nintendo does use Mario more than other companies use their big franchises but at the same time Nintendo has to support their system more than 3rd parties. Are we sick of Mario Platformers or just seeing the Red Hatted Plumber?

@DefHalan Yet again it makes sense for whom my post was directed. But...

Ok good for you. I was providing general information

@DefHalan Would like my post not to be misinterpreted by just taking a chunk and putting it here. So yeah good for me.

I am starting to think you are confused. I quoted you directly, I didn't edit anything. I was providing general information about both New Franchises Nintendo has made recently and their over use of Mario... Your post was commenting about Nintendo making new games, or lack there of, and I added some information... So I am confused on what you mean

Well firstly investors aren't asking them to go third party. Investors have been asking them to get into mobile stuffs, it's a very different thing. It's not necessarily all investors either it's just the ones that are saying things that the gaming media loves to report on. Because it makes a headline.

Now that's out of the way lets again consider what I actually said. It's not enough that they "sell the same number" going multi-platform because they're a first party developer already. So they're not only making money back for development but they're also making money on the licence. Again they'd have to not only make their first party games sell something like ~30% more to cover it but they'd also have to sell enough to cover the sales of third party content on their platform. It makes even less sense as they move to digital because then they're also taking the "retailers share" out of the RRP.

Of course the risk of being a first party dev is that your system doesn't sell and you get nothing. However Nintendo has a decent track record of having a hit every other generation of consoles. I can tell you now that the money they made on first party games, console sales and licences during the Wii/DS era would dwarf the amount of money they could have ever dreamed of making as a third party. That's what makes this a ridiculous idea.

The truth about iOS is that it's very, very rare for a game to make bucketloads of money. Also the assertion that you'd "make more on three platforms" doesn't necessarily hold. You already agreed that this is the case. Again I point to the bit just above where you agreed to that and the example of GTA which didn't magically double in sales when it was on multiple platforms.

Again, as a first party dev Nintendo makes money on the developer share, publishing, the licence, the console and the licence of other games people buy for that console. With digital they also make money on distribution. If they were third party they only make money on the game. So why would they give that up for a gamble at multiplatform? It doesn't make sense. They're ALREADY double dipping here.

Nintendo shouldn't go third party, until the day comes when they cannot sell hardware and do not have enough money to design and release another console/handheld. Anyone who wants Nintendo games on Xbox/PS/PC or iOS/Android will regret it if/when it finally does happen.

I can imagine threads being made in the future along the lines of the Sega Dreamcast, and how people enjoyed the console, except with Nintendo systems should they ever go third party.

I can't understand why Nintendo would ever want to go 3rd party, less control, potential making less money due to no hardware sales, games have more competition on the consoles and loads of other problems just look at Sega they are shell of their former self I don't want Nintendo to turning into that.

Or Atari, who pretty much ceased to exist.

Assuming Nintendo will be more successful as a 3rd party is basically delusional.