Should Nintendo blame or thank Ubisoft?

[CaptainCruch]

Ubisoft always seem to support Nintendo when they release new hardware, but I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing. For the original Wii it was good, Rayman Raving Rabbids and Red Steel showed the potential of the new motion controls and were interesting new franchises, that gained a lot of audience and buzz. With the 3DS it was a mixed bag: the horrible Combat of Giants, the aged Rayman 3D, but the interesting Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Shadow Wars.

Ubisoft's line-up for the launch of the Wii U wasn't so exciting and with titles like Assassin's Creed III, Just Dance 4 and Rabbids Land it gave many gamers the feeling "already seen and done that, that's aged. Oh, and it's only aimed at casual gamers." On the other hand, ZombiU was an interesting title that tried to make real use of the new hardware.

Ubisoft launch line-up for the upcoming Nintendo Switch is even less exciting than that of the Wii U. Just Dance 2017 may sell well, but non-casual gamers won't be interested. Also, while Rayman Legends Definitive Edition may be an excellent game, it also makes the Switch seem old by launch - like a console that only gets ports of games that are a few years old.

So, what do you think? Should Nintendo thank Ubisoft for always supporting their new hardware at launch? Or should Nintendo blame Ubisoft for making their new hardware look old at launch, because they often do ports of old games or just another non-interesting casual title in the Just Dance series?

Nintendo Wii
Rayman Raving Rabbids
Red Steel

Nintendo 3DS
Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Shadow Wars
Combat of Giants: Dinosaurs 3D
Rayman 3D

Nintendo Wii U
Assassin's Creed III
Just Dance 4
Rabbids Land
ZomiU

Nintendo Switch
Just Dance 2017
Rayman Legends Definitive Edition

[Sut]

Great post. I think they can only thank them.
Any support is precious to Nintendo probably since the SNES era.
Ubisoft porting older games is limiting their risk whilst still appearing supportive (and presumably picking up some sales).

[Retro STrife]

I agree that it's a good thing, even if the games aren't stellar. A nice selection of games is key to every system launch. Even if there are mainly 1 or 2 marquee games that everyone is going to gravitate toward and buy (like Zelda for the Switch), you'd still love to have a ton of other launch titles, because: (1) it creates the perception of a great selection of games to play (even if it's a false perception) and a lot of genres being covered, and (2) it gives confidence to consumers that the system will be well supported with software, which makes them more comfortable with buying the system. Both of those lead to more system sales.

[BanjoPickles]

Personally, I think that it's a mixed blessing and indicative of a bigger problem concerning the relationship between third-parties and the Big N.

Developers have taken this weird approach with feeding Nintendo fans table scraps and then clearing the table when they realize that Nintendo fans aren't dumb enough to bite. Last generation, for example, you got gimped ports of Call of Duty and Arkham City. Those games arrived, as far as I know, without the DLC of the other versions. When they didn't sell, they blamed Nintendo and withdrew their support.

Not only have things not changed, they've gotten worse!

The Switch is getting a port of Skyrim, which I can only assume is a straight conversion of the PS3/360 game rather than the Special Edition. A six year old game, good as it may be, should not be a showcase title, especially when superior ports are already readily available.

I just want to know if there is a way to reverse the trend of developers dipping their toes in the Nintendo waters. This isn't just developers, though. I've had ridiculous conversations with new generation Nintendo fans who are convinced that third parties are unimportant ("I buy Nintendo systems for Nintendo games"). What's funny is that many of these same people are so excited about Skyrim! It's like they're stuck in this weird conundrum where they don't want Nintendo to be like PS and MS, but they do.

[Retro STrife]

Banjo, but a lot of what you mention is Nintendo's own fault. Since the Gamecube- and especially starting with the Wii- Nintendo has cut corners to save costs by creating underpowered systems. As a result, developers can't do easy ports to Nintendo's systems. So you either get a dumbed down port (like the Call of Duty ports) or you wait 6 years until Nintendo catches up with a new console (like is happening with Skyrim). It's simple economics- developers will release their games on the platform where it is most likely to sell. And if that system is PS or Xbox, then they'll also port it to the other one because the technology is similar and its an easy port. But Nintendo systems can't handle those ports.

And true hardcore gamers focus on PS or Xbox, so most of the top third party games are going there. Meanwhile, Nintendo gets the casual junk or old rehashes, which can be more easily sold to the casual Nintendo gamer. Nintendo's strategy is to be the "alternative" console that isn't like PS and Xbox- and that works well for their own games, but not third party games. And to me, that's their own fault, since it's not developers' job to make sure Nintendo succeeds.