The difference is that I, as an individual worker, understand the need for good teamwork (my employment troubles come from a lack of networking prowess, given that my credentials are quite strong), but this applies within singular companies and not necessarily amongst them. Certainly not if 90% of the companies have no idea of what they're doing.

3rd parties should be subordinate to the manufacturers. The PlayStation epoch gave third parties a falsely inflated sense of self-worth, one that needs to be (and, i believe, is in the process of being) torn down.

I find it interesting that when Company A says directly it has not decided what to do about Product 7, that everyone refuses to take Company A at its word.

Meanwhile, when Host Z says Company A won't develop for Product 7, everyone wants to rush in and believe and tell people who think otherwise that they are foolish.

Back to the subject, if UE4/Epic support was really important to Nintendo, it probably could buy the company -- literally -- with its cash reserves.

I think people forget that Nintendo made decisions on graphics based upon realities in the early to mid 2000s, not today. The HD TV penetration rate was much lower then, so it bet on a unique interface. And it won that bet, selling more than it had with any other home console and approaching its top two sellers combined (though it would need another 15M to reach the NES+SNES total -- but that puts Wii sales into context).

The movers and shakers don't always follow everyone else -- they lead. Nintendo's third-party problems go back to the way it used to treat people in the NES/SNES days and its staying with cartridges one generation longer than anyone else (after a messy business dealings on both sides with Sony). There were many reports they reached out to third parties with the Wii (though I cannot confirm nor deny claims made herein regarding to the tools provided for Wii development). However, audience confusion and lackluster efforts resulted in few "core" third party games and even fewer that were critically acclaimed and commercially successful. Instead, they used the Wii to keep their companies afloat (Take 2 and Carnival Games) or lost money developing for the HD consoles.

Just remember, if the technology overshoots what people have in their homes, they are probably not going to buy second generation HD TVs just to play Xbox720 or PS4 with UE4. So this may all be moot.

Mike from Morgantown

You have to remember the two cardinal rules that apply to Nintendo

1. If there are conflicting new always believe the negative over the positive no matter what. It doesn't matter that the positive is more believable

2. If there is only positive news there is always a way to make it negative

There is an important corollary -- use the truth to wrap up a big lie. (If you watch "Sherlock" -- you would understand this).

Mike from Morgantown

But whether via design decisions or via poor 3rd party talks and negociations, the only person to blame for this, in all reason, is Nintendo.

You claim bias, and I agree with you, but where did that bias stem from, propaganda? I have a hard time believing it. If Nintendo is on the bad side of 3rd party partners, it's up to Nintendo to fix it.

And no, 3rd parties should not be subordonate to the manufacturers, it is a partnership, and the platform needs to be attractive to partners. In a situation where Nintendo is really outperforming the competition (as in the NES days), this may be possible, but only until another competitor comes and steals the trusts that Nintendo takes for granted from right below their feet. Woops! It already happened...

The laws of competitions are proving you wrong on this one Khan. Also, is it really that difficult to be graphically relevant while having enough control over your 1st party direction and decisions. Come on, it's an easy yes. The cube was graphically relevant against its competitors (the ps2 and xbox), so it is always a possibility. If the competition goes too far (like Sony with the PS3), it doesn't excuse Nintendo for not going far enough!

Perhaps its merely a desire for better norms on my part, but ideally its the job of third parties, collectively, to gain an ounce of sense and at least treat Nintendo equitably. Third party parity with the occasional exclusivity bone, just what the other guys get.

And perhaps you may also be right! Maybe the 3rd parties are giving Nintendo an excessive amount of backlash for their past mistakes (this is indeed the flipside of the issue) and some neutral party should step in. But ultimately, if you are not getting along with someone and there is no arbiter to assist in the conflict, it really always is up to you (or me) to make things right. In best conditions, both parties do their effort, but right now it's in Nintendo's interest to have these people on board, so someone is holding the longer end of the stick, and sadly for us fans, this time around (and ever since the N64 days), it isn't Nintendo. Of course, this only revolves around the topic of the dedicated gamer market. For all other measures, Nintendo is in the leading position.

(just fyi, I added words to my last post)

Geoff Keighly i'm gonna see Spike.tv stream only to see his surprised face. XD