God I love Dolphin. Totally worth the hassle of waiting for the Wii U to slowly rip the game discs.
God I love Dolphin. Totally worth the hassle of waiting for the Wii U to slowly rip the game discs.
Do you really want next question?
You could have said the same about Fire Emblem but it's also been a Nintendo legacy series since NES that's going nowhere else besides it's gotcha spin off.
It would sell more but like I said, Nintendo likes sales and all that but they want hardware sales. If 20% of people that didn't have a switch before bought it for metroid that would be a success and they are now in the nintendo ecosystem. If those 20% people bought it on xbox instead nintendo doesnt gain jack in the long run. This is common 1st party mentality and how Nintendo has operated since the NES. They had console exclusive deals in place as far back as then.I wouldn't know as I don't follow the series. But let me ask you something: ignoring Nintendo's attitude towards their IPs, do you think Metroid could gain from this hypothetical scenario? That is, it could move more units.
It would sell more but like I said, Nintendo likes sales and all that but they want hardware sales. If 20% of people that didn't have a switch before bought it for metroid that would be a success and they are now in the nintendo ecosystem. If those 20% people bought it on xbox instead nintendo doesnt gain jack in the long run
Those 50k switch consoles are potentially 50k more copies of zelda, animal crossing, pokemon, and mario in their eyes and future life long fans.I see. My reasoning rested in the idea that maybe there would be a value for that numbers that would make it work for Nintendo. Say, they sold 50k less Switch consoles but sold 2 mi more Metroid units. But from your previous posts I get the idea that Nintendo are not even interested in doing that math. Which is suprising to me I will admit.
Even if it were somehow possible it would begin an even bigger "nintendoomed" group than it would be worth as there would then be precedent. Halo will appear on PlayStation first.Wouldn't additional sales be something Nintendo has to gain? I'm not talking about Mario or Zelda here.
Nintendo blocked GoldenEye 64 from releasing on Xbox at the expense of effectively barring release on their own platform, because they consider it a "Nintendo game" that shouldn't be on non-Nintendo hardware. Metroid isn't happening.Which is why creating this thread asking about Mario or Zelda would be crazy, and even I could realize that. But is that true for Metroid as well? Or at least isn't it different enough that this discussion is actually reasonable?
those 50k switch consoles are potentially 50k more copies of zelda, animal crossing, pokemon, and mario as well
Nintendo blocked GoldenEye 64 from releasing on Xbox at the expense of effectively barring release on their own platform, because they consider it a "Nintendo game" that shouldn't be on non-Nintendo hardware. Metroid isn't happening.
Correct which is why shareholders were losing their shit when Nintendo wouldnt put stuff on cellphones. They pretty much just bended the knee on that due to Wii U flunking. They live and breathe on hardware sales and the long legs their games have (which is why price drops are rare)I understand that...
Let's make a extreme example. Let's say Nintendo knows everyone who would get a Switch for Metroid has already got it for something else. That is, a new Metroid will not move more hardware. And that's true for future consoles. Even in this scenario they wouldn't think about making it available elsewhere? Or in ther words, their philosophical approach to their IPs completely overules any financial gain.
Sorry to jump into this, but there's this on unseen64.
Although Microsoft, Activision (current owners of the game rights to the James Bond franchise)and Nintendo were said to have agreed upon a licensing deal for the title initially, Nintendo Japan allegedly refused to grant their permission at last minute. Therefore the remake had to be canned only months before completion.
I understand that...
Let's make a extreme example. Let's say Nintendo knows everyone who would get a Switch for Metroid has already got it for something else. That is, a new Metroid will not move more hardware. And that's true for future consoles. Even in this scenario they wouldn't think about making it available elsewhere? Or in ther words, their philosophical approach to their IPs completely overules any financial gain.
During the Wii/360 era MS developed an HD remaster of GoldenEye for Xbox, with the plan being for Nintendo to release the original version on the Wii VC the same day. Fully complete, ready to go, and Activision (who had franchise rights at the time) signed off on it. MS needed Nintendo approval though, since MS and Nintendo co-own the copyright on the original software. Nintendo shit it down for the aforementioned reason, but they can't release it themselves anyway since MS would need to approve, so the game remains in limbo to this day.
If it helps, think of Nintendo as videogame Disney.
Or in ther words, their philosophical approach to their IPs completely overules any financial gain.
Sorry to jump into this, but there's this on unseen64.
GoldenEye 007 Remake [Xbox 360 - Cancelled] - Unseen64
Preserving Details, Screenshots, Videos & more Lost Media for GoldenEye 007 Remake [Xbox 360 - Cancelled] Help us to remember cancelled video games!www.unseen64.net
During the Wii/360 era MS developed an HD remaster of GoldenEye for Xbox, with the plan being for Nintendo to release the original version on the Wii VC the same day. Fully complete, ready to go, and Activision (who had franchise rights at the time) signed off on it. MS needed Nintendo approval though, since MS and Nintendo co-own the copyright on the original software. Nintendo shit it down for the aforementioned reason, but they can't release it themselves anyway since MS would need to approve, so the game remains in limbo to this day.
Which is why creating this thread asking about Mario or Zelda would be crazy, and even I could realize that. But is that true for Metroid as well?
Or at least isn't it different enough that this discussion is actually reasonable?
Rare either always owned Perfect Dark outright, or Nintendo sold their stake in the IP when MS bought them out, so there weren't any lingering issues.Gratitude.
This is bizarre, and tragic? But slighly amazing as well. I'm assuming the corpright situation for Perfect Dark was very different?
/threadNintendo functions by moving hardware. It's first party games are trojan horses to make people want it.
Let's make a extreme example. Let's say Nintendo knows everyone who would get a Switch for Metroid has already got it for something else. That is, a new Metroid will not move more hardware. And that's true for future consoles. Even in this scenario they wouldn't think about making it available elsewhere?
Rare either always owned Perfect Dark outright, or Nintendo sold their stake in the IP when MS bought them out, so there weren't any lingering issues.
The Rare/Nintendo/MS triangle has a lot of oddities. Since Nintendo didn't own them outright, but they effectively operated as a 1st party studio, and they also existed for ages before partnering with Nintendo, the ownership for some things gets really weird. You have titles like Conker that Rare officially self-published, so Nintendo never owned any of it, some that were first party games from first party IPs like DK, so Nintendo owned them fully, and then weird in-betweens like GoldenEye. And even then it's still murky, since no one can really figure out all of the oddities surrounding re-releases of DKC and DK64 (like being extremely late to the VC, disappearing randomly for no discernable reason, all while Rare claims to know nothing).
it will sell well because of the massive install base
it wont sell many consoles itself. metroid, unfortunately, is not a system seller.
So, Nintendo is omniscient, and somehow knows that Metroid will not lead to one additional console sale, and your question is, in this case, what would they do? That's not an "extreme example," that's a cuckoo bananapants hypothetical that has no way of actually happening in the real world.
Nintendo doesn't just want to move hardware and that's it, they want to keep people engaged with their ecosystem. That's one reason why they release games like Pokémon Mystery Dungeon DX and Clubhouse Games that, realistically, they probably don't envision driving too many additional hardware sales. But those games keep people playing their Switch, which increases the likelihood that they'll interact with the eShop or see promotions for upcoming games, etc. Nintendo wants the Switch to be top of mind for players; they don't want it to be something that gets shoved in a drawer after people play Animal Crossing or whatever they actually bought the hardware for. That's why they regularly release software, and why even software that might not directly move hardware still has value in furthering a vibrant software ecosystem where there's always something new to play.
.