Wii U can succeed without muti-platform 3rd party support

Truth be told, Wii U doesn't need mainstream 3rd party games like Grand Theft Auto or the latest Need for Speed to be successful. The Wii U is getting its own exclusives, however they also need exclusive 3rd Party Franchises in which fans can become familiar with. Nintendo has the resources to establish 5 franchises if they were to choose to in my opinion. If I had control over Nintendo right now I would get the following games into development for the Wii U. These 3rd parties could solidify Wii U as a solid Next Gen Console with premier Exclusives.

1. F-Zero Universe

This first game to develop is a personal favorite and while not I would a third party franchise, I would licence it to a third party with full support to make it a AAA title. With Sony and Microsoft having established games in the Racing Genre, its time for Nintendo to revive its racing gem. I know people will say Mario Kart is the Nintendo racing gem and it's definitely a cash cow, but in the pure spirit of racing Mario Kart leaves much to be desired. Where you don't have to be the best driver in Mario Kart to win due to all the items that can a swing a race, F-Zero is strictly about driver skills and speed. F-Zero has no special items to swing the race in your favor. F-Zero is about speed and driving skills, period. I would like tho see Sega take the wheel and Revive this Franchise.

I would implement the following changes to the F-Zero franchise however. First I would make the game work primarily online with each cup in the F-Zero franchise as its own open world city. Throughout the city there would be destinations for each track in the cup. While cruising in the city, players would be able to communicate with other drivers, buy and sell parts to other drivers, and have underground races for currency and pink slips. In the underground races a player would actually be able to race for the other players hovercraft. For circuit racing in the cups I would aim for 16-24 player online races. In respects to Gamepad integration, of course all of your customization could happen here as well as a top view of the track and city. I would also add this function, when you align the Gamepad with the TV screen you would go into boost until you lowered the Gamepad. Last but not least, add car figurines with NFC and customization parts. Think of creating a model care then loading into the game and taking it for a test drive. Brilliant!!!!

2. Red Steel 3, Conduit 3 and No More Heroes 3

As it stands right now, Nintendo has already lined up its Big Guns for 2014 -2015 with Mario Kart, Mario World, Zelda U, Wii Fit U, Monoliths X, and Smash Bros respectively in the pipeline. No its time to show some fan loyalty to the Hardcore section of gamers that remain on Wii U. I would put development resources into these three 3rd party Franchises: Red Steel, Conduit, and No More Heroes. I think Ubisoft, GrassHopper and High Voltage have earned a little loyalty by going out of their way to put some core material on the predecessor Wii. Now with Wii U being a more capable machine, its time to show some love back to the developers and the fans of these franchises. I would announce these partnerships at E3 2015 and line up developer Directs for these games leading up to their respective releases.

Although these Franchises are not cash cows currently, they all have a chance to become huge this gen with the addition of online connectivity. Last Gen they were on a new system and everything about the games and console itself were skeptical to most in the gaming community. Due to the past Wii having a horrible online structure and no HD, these franchises could not be fully enjoyed. The Wii U is more than capable of expanding these franchises to full potential.

Red Steel for instance would surely benefit from an online multi-player on par with other match types found on popular FPS games. I believe the Fast paced action between sword and gun-play battles would be as new and refreshing as XBox's "TitanFall" to the FPS genre. Red Steel already has the art style and storytelling to appeal to many gamers at large, it just needs to be re-introduced with the new online multi-player.

No More Heroes should incorporate online battles into the story mode. Here me out, No More Heroes is based around an association of assassins competing with one another to be the number one assassin. Now insert online function, each assassin is another person on the internet. Lets make the association a living virtual environment. Take the game back to its roots and make it open world, add missions to assassinate targets and also have to assassinate other players or co-op to take out tougher targets in true bloodbath No More Heroes chaotic battling fashion.

Conduit was basically built for the Wii U, it just happened on the Wii. Now the Conduit can have a true online community in which to have large-scale Sci-Fi battles. Interestingly enough, online is not what I would adjust in The Conduit. I would invest in a better storytelling. They can build off what they have, but execute in a grittier fashion. I'm thinking something along the line of the movie Elysium. Of course you would use the Gamepad in much the same fashion as CoD on the Wii U, but also add the option to fully customize your character on the fly with the Gamepad.

3. Star Wars Attack Squadron

Disney recently announced that Star Wars Attack Squadron would be returning to gaming fans as an Online free to play game. I would be in talks with Disney to bring a console port version of this game to Wii U. The Wii U and 3DS ports would and they connect with their PC counterpart for cross platform play. Anything Disney is an easy sell on a Nintendo console as the two company's aim at the same target market, and have similar appeal to the families. Star Wars also has appeal to all sorts of gamers, old, young, core and casual just like Nintendo. This franchise would promote the Wii U to the point of it becoming a system seller easily moving 2 million units if bundled. Just to sweeten the deal, how about Nintendo let Disney make a Metriod movie, Zelda movie or a Star Fox TV show.

So whats your opinion on this 3rd party franchise strategy? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Thanks for reading.

[AKissFromDaddy]

"Truth be told, Wii U doesn't need mainstream 3rd party games like Grand Theft Auto or the latest Need for Speed to be successful. The Wii U is getting its own exclusives, however they also need exclusive 3rd Party Franchises in which fans can become familiar with."

I believe this section contradicts your initial point. In the end, they need 3rd parties in general. 3rd party publishers won't fund exclusive software unless they're paid to. I wouldn't produce exclusive software unless I was paid to or I could afford to. What do you think?

I skimmed through your suggested games because none of these titles interested me personally. I'm purchasing a WiiU in May to play Bayonetta 2. Then, I'll wait for Super Smash Bros U but then I'm done with the WiiU. Unless a sequel in Metroid Prime is announced, there's nothing else I personally want and then the WiiU will collect dust as does my Wii.

My counter proposal, to yours, is that Nintendo agree to and compel 3rd party developers/publishers to build their own versions of Nintendo's IP, exclusive to the WiiU.

For example, Platinum Games' version of Zelda or Starfox; Ubisoft's version of Mario or Kirby; Bungie's or Respawn's version of Metroid; or whatever IP you prefer. As different devs create different iterations of Call of Duty, such as: Modern Warfare, World at War, Black Ops, and Ghost, year after year, I propose Nintendo allowing different versions of their IP to be developed. Team Ninja produced a bad game, Other M, but they at least had the opportunity to try something new.

I chose these dev studios because I like their games.What do you think?

[Damd_Bowsr]

First I wanna say thanks for the comment.
I have to ask, have you played any of the titles I suggested and they are not your type of game, or you have you never played them and just don't care to?
I ask because Bayonetta and No More Heroes are the same genre of game, which is exactly my point. Nintendo is so known for its First party games and puts most of its resources into that it causes games like NMH not to get a fair chance to be successful.

As for the proposal of 3rd parties developing Nintendo IPs, that still bottlenecks Wii U into a first party only console with no room for 3rd party growth.

I stated that the Wii U does not need "MainStream" 3rd party games like Grand Theft, because if Nintendo were to put AAA resources into its own Exclusive 3rd party Franchises like a Red Steel who already have a fan-base with Nintendo gamers, it would give that 3rd party a chance to Blossom like a Bayonetta or Assassins Creed for instance. At one time they were new games on a new console, but received the proper support to make them relevant today.

Lastly, I stated that Nintendo should put money behind these games to take the pressure off of 3rd parties who took chances with them in the past. If Nintendo sets the bar and cost of the game, what would a 3rd party have to lose?

[AKissFromDaddy]

No biggie.

Question 1: Yes. I've played The Conduit. Potentially great story yet disappointing gameplay. Haven't played but I've watched a walkthrough of No More Heroes for the PS3. Personally, it lacks any imaginable depth in all categories that Bayonetta fulfills for me. Red Steel isn't for me because I must use the WiiMote. I hate using the WiiMote. For example, I purchased Twilight Princess for the GameCube to use a controller because it's not an option on the Wii. Nevertheless, The WiiMote is satisfactory for Metroid Prime 3.

"As for the proposal of 3rd parties developing Nintendo IPs, that still bottlenecks Wii U into a first party only console with no room for 3rd party growth."

Understood, but that's all Nintendo has. Without guaranteed ROI(Returns On Investments), 3rd party publishers won't fund WiiU exclusives. Nintendo's IPs are mostly the only games that offer mid-to-high ROIs on Nintendo's console. Of the top 30 best selling Wii games, Nintendo published games hold 24/30. 3rd party development of Nintendo's IPs greatly increases potentially high ROI for 3rd party publishers. Agreed?
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

"I stated that the Wii U does not need "MainStream" 3rd party games like Grand Theft" That's false

From your primary post, "Truth be told, Wii U "doesn't need mainstream 3rd party games" like Grand Theft Auto or the latest Need for Speed to be successful." I just copied what you wrote.

"3rd party a chance to Blossom like a Bayonetta or Assassins Creed for instance." Firstly, Bayonetta is only exclusive to the WiiU because Platinum Games was turned down by all potential publishers before finally dealing with Nintendo.

Secondly, during the Ubisoft's third quarter, which ended December 31, 2013, Ubisoft reported 10 million copies of Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag were sold into retailers. Yet according to VGChartz, roughly 150K were sold through to customers of WiiU. The WiiU version was released on October 29, 2013 in North America before the Playstation 4 and Xbox One were even released. Therefore, Ubisoft cancelled all DLC for the WiiU regarding AC4.

If Assassin's Creed 4 has a low ROI on the WiiU, Red Steel 3 will have an even lower ROI. Red Steel series isn't even in the Top 50 best selling Wii games. It's ranked 53rd with only 1 million sales to date. It was released in 2006. Red Steel 2 sold even less.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

What do you think now?

"If Nintendo sets the bar and cost of the game, what would a 3rd party have to lose?"

Time. 3rd party publishers would lose time that can be directed and focus towards making games with high ROIs. It's always about money and not what we like to see happen. If Nintendo foots the bill on high cost games with low ROIs everytime, they'll soon be bankrupt selling off their IPs.

What do you think?

[Damd_Bowsr]

Ok, I see where the slight confusion may be. I'm not stating that Wii U does not need any third party support, I'm stating Wii U does not need the same 3rd party titles as PS4, XBox or PC. Lets take Assassins Creed for instance, what if Assassins Creed 4 was exclusive to Wii U. According to recent history, it would have flopped because 3rd parties don't sell well on Nintendo Consoles. However if Nintendo backed it and pushed it like they would a Mario game, or Just Dance, its sales would sky rocket in my opinion.

The only way Nintendo can change that negative 3rd party perception is to invest in new Exclusive 3rd party Franchises that build up a brand like Assassins Creed on a the Wii U. This will prove that "Core" 3rd party games can be successful on a Nintendo Console as each game I choose is in a popular genre to appeal to current gamers as well as the nostalgic.

While the Franchises I used did not interest you, they have a following for those that played them as they were well received titles. I prefer using a Wii-Mote and PS move for FPS games and Red Steel is on par with Metroid Prime Series. Res Steels sword and gun mechanics work very well in 2 and would definitely change peoples perspective of the Wii-Mote, but it has to be presented correctly.

I'd like to hear your your thoughts on the changes I would make to each Franchise to accomplish things that the prior versions did not or could not do. With you not being interested in these games at all, I believe you'll give an honest opinion to the concepts presented.

[AKissFromDaddy]

“I'm stating Wii U does not need the same 3rd party titles as PS4, XBox or PC”

I disagree with your notion. When good-to-great games with high ROIs are not available on a platform, then there's even less incentive to purchase that very platform. For example, Evolve, Destiny, Dying Light, The Division, Batman Arkham Knight, Metal Gear Solid V, and Alien: Isolation are reason to not purchase a WiiU. If you'd want to play these games, purchasing a WiiU doesn't help that. Am I wrong?

“ if Assassins Creed 4 was exclusive to Wii U…..if Nintendo backed it and pushed it like they would a Mario game, or Just Dance, its sales would sky rocket in my opinion.” Agreed, however, this is only true because it's exclusive. Nevertheless, it's to Ubisoft's financial interest to have Assassins Creed 4 on as many platforms with good ROIs as possible. Having Assassin's Creed 4 be exclusive to WiiU is only beneficial to Nintendo. After reading this, I realized that Nintendo needs to built or acquire more development studios. They barely have any.

The more studios they own, the more exclusive games they can have in production, similar to Sony.

“While the Franchises I used did not interest you, they have a following for those that played them as they were well received titles.”

The may have a following but that didn't translate into their sales numbers. Sales are what determine sequels. Am I right?

“I'd like to hear your your thoughts on the changes I would make to each Franchise to accomplish things that the prior versions did not or could not do. With you not being interested in these games at all, I believe you'll give an honest opinion to the concepts presented.”

Understood. My answer is to have successful developers make their versions of the IPs you listed: Red Steel 3, No More Heroes, and Conduit 3. However, Nintendo doesn't own any of these intellectual properties. Ubisoft owns Red Steel, Sega owns The Conduit, and Grasshopper Manufacture owns No More Heroes. Even if Nintendo buys these games off, they'll need world class developers working on these games. Personally, Nintendo should offer to purchase Platinum Games entirely. They're games are great and they work really quickly. Nintendo should also attempt to acquire Capcom as well. All those ips would be very expensive yet confirm their longevity in the console space. Additionally, Nintendo should create a partnership program, similar to EA's partners and Activision, with 3rd party developers to fund exclusive games for Nintendo WiiU and 3DS.

What do you think?

[Damd_Bowsr]

"I disagree with your notion. When good-to-great games with high ROIs are not available on a platform, then there's even less incentive to purchase that very platform. For example, Evolve, Destiny, Dying Light, The Division, Batman Arkham Knight, Metal Gear Solid V, and Alien: Isolation are reason to not purchase a WiiU."

I disagree with this notion. First Party games are what move consoles. 3rd parties just add value to that console which goes back to my point that not all consoles need to have the same 3rd party titles to be successful. For instance your buying a Wii U for an exclusive 3rd party (Bayonetta 2) and strong first party (Super Smash Bros.)Despite the 3rd parties you named not being on the Wii U, which is still equating to success for Wii U.

"If Assassin's Creed 4 has a low ROI on the WiiU, Red Steel 3 will have an even lower ROI. Red Steel series isn't even in the Top 50 best selling Wii games. It's ranked 53rd with only 1 million sales to date. It was released in 2006. Red Steel 2 sold even less."

This statement strengthens my point as Red Steel out sold AC4 on a Nintendo console because it was an exclusive 3rd party game. AC4 sells less on Wii U because it is available on other platforms where the current fanbase is already comfortable. Nobody bought a Wii U to play AC4, but Nintendo gamers would buy a new Red Steel on Wii U. Also when dealing with success on Wii, the cost to develop was cheaper, so a game didn't need to sell 5 million copies to turn a profit like most AAA HD games needed to. The same will be true this Gen with Wii U as its development cost are smaller than PS4 or XB1, the difference is that now all the games will be much closer graphic wise.

"The may have a following but that didn't translate into their sales numbers. Sales are what determine sequels. Am I right?"

I don't think you are on this as in your own statement, you watched a friend play No More Heroes on PS3. That has to mean that there was some demand for it to be ported even tho it had low sales. Also with all three IPs having low sales, they all got sequels.

I think we do agree that Nintendo should partner with 3rd parties to help develop more IP's, we just disagree on what IP's they should develop.

[AKissFromDaddy]

"First Party games are what move consoles."
Agreed.

But for Nintendo, only 1st party games sell well. Example: COD: Ghosts Wii U accounts for less than 1% of the game’s total sales.

I understand you're focusing on exclusive games from 3rd parties for WiiU but that won't happen unless Nintendo funds half or all the expenses.

"For instance your buying a Wii U for an exclusive 3rd party (Bayonetta 2) and strong first party (Super Smash Bros.)"True.

But nothing else as far I can tell. Would I buy 3rd party exclusives that appeal to me? Yes, but most studios/publishers want games on as many platforms as possible w/ good to high ROIs.

Since making an exclusive is very expensive, Nintendo will have to cover at least 50% of the costs, every time, hoping it sells well on its platform.

Additionally, since there isn't 3rd multiplat games on WiiU, Nintendo loses console licensing fees, $10 a disc, which would help cover cost of developing exclusive IPs. For example, 2M copies of Assassin's Creed 5 on the WiiU guarantees Nintendo $20 Million. Nintendo's financial incentive is tied to 3rd parties selling well too.

"Red Steel out sold AC4 on a Nintendo console because it was an exclusive 3rd party game."

Red Steel was released in 2006, which is an 8 year lead on AC4. It sold 1 million copies within 8 years. AC4 has been out less than 6 months. That's an unfair comparison. Nevertheless, Red Steel 2 sold even less than the original, about 590K globally to date, according to VGChartz. Red Steel 2 is only on the Wii and it sold poorly.
Source: http://www.vgchartz.com/gam...

What do you think now?

"Nobody bought a Wii U to play AC4, but Nintendo gamers would buy a new Red Steel on Wii U."

I addressed this above. Red Steel could sell better if Ubisoft worked on it as hard as WATCHDOGS, but the ROIs would have to warrant the investment. Even Nintendo's 1st party exclusives aren't graphically impressive in comparison to 3rd party games because good graphics are very expensive. I mean, Nintendo doesn't even pay for voice acting, let alone graphics.

What do you think?

"The same will be true this Gen with Wii U as its development cost are smaller than PS4 or XB1, the difference is that now all the games will be much closer graphic wise." That's false.

Takes time to port a game from platform to platform. Takes time to test frame rate from beginning-to-end and fix any problems. Takes time to force, discover, & resolve glitches and bugs. Takes time to scale graphics on a locked console. Cost money to pay another set of console licensing fees.

Time & fees are expensive. What do you think?

"I think we do agree that Nintendo should partner with 3rd parties to help develop more IP's, we just disagree on what IP's they should develop." Agreed.

Nintendo should stick to what sells well & let other established developers have fun w/ their IPs. Personally, I'd buy a new Metroid, Zelda, and Starfox every year, if they're good, as I do Assassin's Creed. They have some great IPs that appeal to me, but they don't develop them as much as Mario.

I'd play a violent, bloody Zelda. I'd play a version of Metroid or Starfox developed by Platinum Games, Ubisoft, or Bungie. That's my opinion.

What do you think?

[Damd_Bowsr]

"But for Nintendo, only 1st party games sell well."

Lets correct this statement, "Nintendo first party games sell extremely well, so well that the need to sell major 3rd party games to be successful is much lesser than its competitors. When you look at a game like CoD, its purpose is on Nintendo is not the same as it is on XBox. For XBox CoD sells consoles, for Nintendo it adds to the catalog and gives its consumers variety. If you don't believe that, look at the success of the Wii. The GameCube was not a hit and had little 3rd party support but was still profitable for Nintendo based off first party and a few 3rd party exclusive tiles.

"Would I buy 3rd party exclusives that appeal to me? Yes,"

Agreed.

"Red Steel was released in 2006, which is an 8 year lead on AC4. It sold 1 million copies within 8 years. AC4 has been out less than 6 months."

I think that's a very fair comparison. Red Steel was an exclusive that released on Wii 8 years ago and continued to sell up to 1 million, as where The Multi-plat AC4 has sold 150k in 6 months. Now because AC4 is multi-plat, those sells more than likely are not going to reach 1 million on the Wii U in it's lifetime because you can buy the game on other platforms.

'Nevertheless, Red Steel 2 sold even less than the original, about 590K globally to date,"

This is true, but in my opinion this game was hurt by no online play, a choice made by Ubisoft. FPS must have online play to be taken seriously as most of it's replay value is in its multiplayer. This is a point I mentioned in my blog that I would correct this Gen with HD graphics.

"Nintendo's 1st party exclusives aren't graphically impressive in comparison to 3rd party games because good graphics are very expensive. I mean, Nintendo doesn't even pay for voice acting, let alone graphics." False

Nintendo First party games always have fantastic graphics. I think your comparing art style to graphics which are two different things, plus the Wii was not HD, Wii U games are and look damn good. Nintendo franchises often do not use realistic graphics because they prefer to lean more on art style than realism. This doesn't mean the console cant create realistic looking games, see any CoD, Splinter Cell, or AS4 for validation.

"Time & fees are expensive. What do you think?"

Absolutely, But its still less on Wii U to create ground up than on PS4 or XBox One. The difference is that Nintendo makes consoles for its games primarily, so they have to show 3rd parties how to best use the hardware. This is also why I believe Nintendo is responsible for some financial development cost where 3rd party exclusives are concerned.

"I'd play a violent, bloody Zelda. I'd play a version of Metroid or Starfox developed by Platinum Games, Ubisoft, or Bungie."

Nintendo isn't going to let another developer change the core franchises in any way they themselves wouldn't, but they will allow a 3rd party to create whatever kind of third party game they want. So Bungie or UbiSoft could develop a Dark toned game with Elves and Magic, blood and guts. Which brings us back to developing 3rd party Exclusives like no More Heroes, Red Steel, Bayonetta, established core games with a fanbase to build from. Or creating new IPs rather than trying to recycle Nintendo 1st parties or watered down ports.

[marloc_x]

Nintendo will do well with WiiU over the term of this cycle. The machine is built to serve their games and is what makes them a good margin overall I feel.. install base will continue growing. I enjoy mine and have a variety of games including big 3rd party ones but am fond of the indies, very good efforts on a shoestring like in early gaming! Will buy every exclusive ;)

[Damd_Bowsr]

Bayonetta is a perfect example to watch and see how it performs. It's success will test if the Wii U will be taken seriously as console for mature games.

[MEsoJD]

Given how much time they've had, sales, and lack of third party support, I'd say it's too late. Even with smash bros, Mario kart, and bayonetta.