The first part I've been saying for a long time. It's why making a more powerful console wouldn't help Nintendo. Third party developers know their games don't sell on Nintendo platforms, not since N64 at least. The second part I disagree with. Completely.
I disagree. Third party games do sell on Nintendo systems, but crap doesn't. And by now, the reputation of third parties have left people suspicious whenever there actually is a third party game that comes out. It's not the gamers' fault that third parties ruined their image to the Nintendo fanbase. People say that Nintendo needs to fix their third party relations, and while in some cases that's quite true, those same third parties need to fix their relations with Nintendo gamers.
Everytime I hear about a third party game actually coming to the Wii U all I can think about is how are they going to screw this one up. It usually comes down to a few ways. The first is that it's a multiplat but there is content taken out or withheld for some strange reason. Is it the consumers' fault the game is like that? Of course not. Is it Nintendo's? No. And yet the developer/publisher expects that game to sell. Nintendo gamers aren't stupid. If they want that game, they're going to get the best version. Despite what most people think, people who do like Nintendo, and want to see third parties thrive on Nintendo systems, are not willing to buy an inferior version of a game. They want to see all versions treated equally.
Another way they often screw this up is by ensuring the Nintendo version runs like crap and/or releasing it after the others. Why should Nintendo fans have to wait? These publishers have no problem with simultaneous releases between the Xbox and Playstation, so why do we get left out in the cold? Once again, people who like Nintendo aren't going to put up with crap, and if they want the game they're going to pick it up on the system that gets it first. Once again, we want to see all versions treated equally.
But enough about multiplats, let's talk about those extremely rare Nintendo 'exclusive' third party titles. These come in two different variety of screw ups. The first is that the game is 'exclusive' only to be almost immediately ported to another system with more content, making that the better version. This usually happens in less than a year. Think about that, less than ONE year. That means at best, that game may get to spend 3-4 months of selling well before everyone learns that they should stay away from the Nintendo version in anticipation for the better deal. The other way it screws up is simply the devs releases a crappy game that at best is a bargain bin item and at worst is insulting to the fanbase. Oh, you're interested in 'X' franchise? Well then here, take an extremely old and cheaply thrown together port, or let's take a franchise and put it on a Nintendo console, but with a completely different genre.
Just to show I'm not pulling Rhetoric out of my ass, here are some real world examples:
-Games with content cut-
-Wii U Call of Duty titles (no dlc)
-Batman Arkham Origins (no online mode)
-Sniper Elite V2 (online, co-op and even more cut)
-I'm pretty sure the AC games had something cut but I'm not sure.
-A later release date-
-Watch Dogs is the most recent example I can think of. (Not only that, we now know that the main team isn't even working on the Wii U version. It's been outsourced to some b-rate developer. Obviously they're only meant to make the game run on the system)
-Exclusives that another system gets a better version-
-Resident Evil 4. The original was released in January of 2005. The PS2 version was announced either in that spring or summer and released in October of the same year. It was known from the beginning that this version had more content.
-Ninja Gaiden 3 Razor's Edge. Exact same situation. Updated PS3/360 versions were released in less than a year of the Wii U version. Not only that, the majority of fans were expecting and waiting for it.
-Metal Gear Solid 3D. This was a straight port with practically nothing added to it at full price while an HD collection was coming out around the same time.
-Mass Effect 3. Once again, collection releasing right after it.
-Complete half-assed efforts-
Resident Evil Umbrella/Darkside Chronicles. While the HD twins get full games, the Wii got on-rail shooters. (I personally like these games but, they could have simply remade the older games in their entirety ala RE1 and given us something truly awesome.)
-Dead Space (Wii) Once again, an on rails shooter. EA could have just made a non-HD Dead Space. Nope! Not cheap enough!
-Tales of Symphonia Dawn of a New World. Hey, remember that Tales game everyone loved on the Gamecube? Well let's make a sequel, but let's go really low brow and instead of making a cast of loveable characters, let's just use the enemy models like pokemon for the party. Story? Meh, just whatever.
-Zombi U. I put this on the list with restraint because at times it does look like the game had 'some' effort put in to it. But let's be honest, if this was a game for the Xbox/Playstation it would have had a MUCH higher level of polish. Oh, and an online mode.
So yeah, maybe you're right. Third parties don't sell on Nintendo consoles, but the problem doesn't lie with the gamers. Ironically when third parties actually do put forth an effort, or at the very least treat a multiplat equally, the results are strikingly different. Soul Calibur 2 sold best on the Gamecube, Tales of Symphonia was one of the most well received Tales games in the west, Monster Hunter Tri was the most well received MH game at the time (in fact the series as a whole has done better in the west on Nintendo systems), Professor Layton, Phoenix Wright, Atlus as a whole, and Bayonetta is getting FAR more publicity than it ever did before. Need I go on?
