I couldn't read the whole thing because it was opinion disguised as fact.
Might want to look up Tengen as they released their own carts for Nes.
512MB vs 700mb isn't exactly far superior. especially considering the games

The only thing someone really needs to show to prove its not developers fault their inferior games don't match Nintendo sales is to just show 1 game that wasn't gimped or late in some way that got look over.
Why is it that if its not their own fault that not a single hater can post a single example of this?
Nintendos policy during the Nes are had to do with what happened when the market crashed. In hindsight it might not have been the best idea but it kept more ETs and Pacmans from killing the industry.
Nintendo was able to make some quality games on the N64 so I fail to see how that point is valid. Truth is developers saw a company that had no standards and allowed anything to be released. Of course they rushed to it.

The Wii problem isn't at all how its made out to be. In fact many multi platform games starting out selling really well until developers started their casual focus in games like madden and Tigerwoods.
Its a very narrowminded one sided opinion that skips over a lot of facts in order to make its claims

As I said above though all of this wasn't needed if it was really Nintendos fault. All you need to do is point out the 3rd party AAA must own title that got released on the console that nobody bought. Was it Skyrim that Nintendo gamers didn't buy? Bioshock? RE6? Nope all people can pull up are niche titles or ones missing major elements.

i wasnt calling nintendo's decisions stupid, i was calling EA's and Konami's choice to not release their sports games on the WiiU stupid.

@bolded: well thats really a concerning point, they keep making a lot of these mistakes, i wouldnt say its because they are "stupid". they do them because they are out of touch with the industry, and other than the Wii they seemed to show that with every home console since the N64

Er ... you might want to read that part again.

^ I think the notion of multiple discs for one game is much more palatable than multiple cartridges. Nevertheless, the advantages brought forward by the CD was said to be one of the major reasons third parties gravitated towards the Playstation. Nothing in that section is new, so I wouldn't doubt the other parts the author highlighted in that section. Plus, the author placed a range and 512 was only the upper limit.

Good analogy, lol.

the text implies that Psx andvanced gaming more than N64 did

Psx games were archaic in comparison to N64 games that set the basics for what games are today

crappy CGIs and 2d backgrounds advanced gaming? dont make me laugh

N64 was the game changer. SM64, Goldeney and Zelda changed the industry
you can take your cd up your ass buddy

Moderated - Kresnik.

didnt think i would have to use the report button until atleast 40+ replies in this thread, turns out i was wrong

It was 512 Mbit not MB. So the Maximum Size for N64 games was 64 MB. The PlayStation CDs also didn't hold 700 MB but 660 MB. So basically, ten times the storage of N64 cartridges. But that space could easily been bumped up by simply using multiple CDs at the fraction of the cost for a cartridge. And that's what was the main reason for the success of PlayStation: price. Most N64 games did cost double than PSX games.

He misunderstood the part about the size of the carts.  It's 512MBit, not 512MB.  That means that the largest a cart could be is 64MB.  Therefore, it's 64MB vs. 700MB, which is pretty damn substantial.  Developers were extremely limited by the cartridge design.

As far as multiple cartridges, that wasn't going to happen.  They were very expensive, which means multiple carts would have killed a studio's profit margin.  CDs, on the other hand, are very cheap in comparison, which third-parties really loved.

Edit:  wah, beaten by one minute.

are mods going to ban me cause i badmouthed the guy from gaf who wrote the text?
keep dreaming bAnana