jawa4 wrote:SerialCeler wrote:...Nintendo's problem isn't that they're not producing enough games, but that they're too reliant on themselves doing all the heavy lifting – which has been a problem since the N64, frankly.
The Switch has loads of games – I think there's more than 1,000 titles on the eShop – but hardly any from the major publishers. EA, Activision, Ubisoft are almost invisible (barring a few ports and the Rabbids game). These major publishers bring a huge marketing effort (hype train) along with their games, and without that, Nintendo has to pick up the slack all on its own.
Oh, definitely, Celer - support for the Switch from many of the bigger publishers has been lousy and, as you say, that has been a problem with a few Nintendo systems now. I'm really not sure why as you'd think that pulishers would been keen to get a piece of the Switch game sales action. I think one of the issues is when, as an example, EA puts out top-price ports of games that are older and cheaper on other formats and then, when they don't sell, kinda says "Nintendo games aren't financially beneficial for us". EA did do two decent ports for the Wii U - Need for Speed Most Wanted and Mass Effect 3 - but by pricing them at £50 each and when they had been out on older systems for ages, they didn't really sell. For the Switch, they've just pumped out a couple of half-hearted FIFAs based on older versions. It is a bit of a problem for Nintendo.
I know it's been said since that UbiSoft have actually been relatively decent in their approach to the Switch, but certainly with regards to the other 'big' publishers, you could argue that it isn't in their interests to support the Switch.
Sure, there's the ancient argument that people overwhelmingly buy Nintendo consoles for Nintendo games, and while I see the merits of this view, I think it's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy - if as a publisher, you believe this to be true, then it will become so, as the console has no other providers of major releases.
But I don't think EA, Activision, etc are skipping the Switch because they don't stand to profit from publishing to it. It wouldn't cost much to release some of their more popular multiformat franchises on one more format, and odds are it wouldn't cannibalise likely sales anyway - it would just result in additional sales overall.
I think the incentive is larger than this - the divergence within the market between Nintendo's offer, and that of the "mainstream" consoles, is tied in with the style of software that comes with it. Consumers (and I'm talking about the masses here, not the forum types!) purchase an Xbox or PlayStation not necessarily for first-party exclusives, but for those multiformat mass-appeal AAA IP releases. Treating Nintendo the same as Sony or Microsoft, rightly or wrongly, waters down the optics of these consoles as "mainstream" options for a "hardcore" demographic.
And it's in the best interests of these larger third parties to maintain the status quo, because it benefits them. Sony and MS fight to court second parties and indie darlings, but they allow the big hitters to do what they like across both consoles, because it results in the big bucks for everyone involved. Whereas back in the day when Nintendo led the industry, they weren't just the publishers, they were the moral arbiters; the sticklers. Creative freedom meant riffing on formulae they'd established, not seeking new audiences. Sony and Microsoft don't censor or sanction. And even if, as an industry leader, Nintendo applied the same approach, they don't invest in the same pizazz - they don't sponsor global sports competitions or spend billions on advertising. MS and Sony have put gaming front and centre of the worldwide entertainment economy; why wouldn't the major gaming studios want to keep that going for as long as possible?