Quantcast
Interesting Quote About the GameCube's Design

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Interesting Quote About the GameCube's Design

RolStoppable said:

After so many years it's still shocking how willfully people buy into third party excuses. Third party support isn't about horsepower, ease of programming or even sales. It's first and foremost driven by bias.


You really think hardware design decisions had nothing to do with this? It's the only thing that makes sense. It's a problem that began with the N64. The N64 had the specs, but cartridges hurt it. An N64 cartridge cost something like $10-15 to manufacture vs. only one or two bucks for a CD, yet could hold only a fraction of the data. The biggest N64 cartridges had a capacity of 64MB, while a CD can hold up to 700MB. Indeed, the average PS1 game was much larger than the largest N64 game; FFVII, the game that tipped the scales in Sony's favor, weighed in at over 1.3GB, so big it needed more than one CD. You try cramming that onto an N64 cartridge. The GC's format was less of an obstacle as the gap was reduced from a minimum 11 times difference to only a minimum 3 times difference, but that 3 times was still a probable obstacle, plus we have at least one dev on record saying that the GC having less main RAM than the PS2 and Xbox was an issue.

As for the Wii and Wii U, they have specs that make the one generation behind power-wise. The Wii wasn't much more powerful than the OXbox, and the Wii U isn't all that much more powerful than the 360 & PS3. That's a serious issue, hence why the Wii had few AAA third-party games and why the Wii U's third-party support was limited to some latter-day seventh-gen games and a few cross-gen games. CoD was the only major third-party AAA series that made it to the Wii (except MW2), and even though CoD was never a shining example of cutting-edge technology, even it experienced significant downgrades just to get those games to work on the Wii. But GTA 4 & 5? Oblivion & Skyrim? Battlefield 3? FFXIII? Far Cry 3? Red Dead Redemption? BioShock? Assassin's Creed? Batman: Arkham? Forget about it. Third parties were never going to bother putting their full support behind such underpowered hardware. They mostly saw it as a dumping ground for party games and shovelware. The Wii U is going through the same thing. It was the first eighth-gen console to market, so what little AAA third-party games it got was more of an instance of "Why not?" It was obvious from the get-go that third parties were going to drop most support for the Wii U once they started shifting away from the PS3 & 360 and focusing most of their efforts on the PS4 & XBO.

It's always been hardware. If it was bias then the third parties would have told Nintendo to piss off back in 1991 when they were free to develop for Sega. They didn't. The SNES had the full backing of the major third parties of the time. And Nintendo has always had at least a token degree of third-party support even after the SNES. Acclaim and Activision made games for the N64. The GC had a decent degree of third-party support, albeit far inferior to that received by the PS2 and even the Xbox. The Wii did get a handful of notable third-party titles that weren't party games or shovelware (Epic Mickey, Mad World, a few Sega games). The Wii U did get some seventh-gen games and a few cross-gen games. Third parties would put their full support behind Nintendo if the latter would just make a conventional, powerful console using a standard format for once, something they really haven't done since the SNES.

And as for your comment consoles vs. handhelds in regards to third-party games, well...



Around the Network
NoirSon said:
Ruler said:

Not true at all multiple CDs werent a big deal at the time, PC games like Doom 3 even launched with multiple installatio  Discs much more than any gamecube game had


Multiple discs were not that big of a deal, but when you are developing multiplatform games and in one environment, everything can fit on one disc, while in another you have to split the game across at least two, which also adds to cost because the multiple mini discs (which were specially designed so that they couldn't be copied by pirates as easily as PS1 and Dreamcast discs were in the past) and the packaging to contain them isn't exactly free, you have to ask which would you as a publisher that wants to get the most money back without spending a lot as possible work on.

The GC mini discs were the EXACT same problem the N64 had just with a different medium. By the time the Wii rolled around Nintendo had finally gotten to DVD type discs when everyone else went on to a higher standard with more room again. Combine that with lower specs, lack of online infrastructure and motion controls as the standard they burned a number of bridges, especially as PC style and Western developement started to come to the forefront.

The because the GC was more powerful then the PS2, perhaps if it had gotten off to a better lead it might have done better, but the rise and fall of the Wii and the middle tier of Japanese development in general shows that the industry was going one way and Nintendo was unlikely to make that change at a quick enough pace that they still wouldn't have seen the same problems we see them facing now. The problem isn't the GC design principal of trying to make it 3rd party friendly, ALL consoles should have such a design principal, the problem is that Nintendo went about it in one way design wise of the console and in another factor did something that made it harder for developers to make titles on multiple systems.

Heck one can say that SINCE the N64, Nintendo has always made home console devices where the storage medium and the main controller have made it more difficult for multiplatform games to be made.


What?  Seriously? Capitalizing exact. Really?



Shadow1980 said:
RolStoppable said:

After so many years it's still shocking how willfully people buy into third party excuses. Third party support isn't about horsepower, ease of programming or even sales. It's first and foremost driven by bias.


You really think hardware design decisions had nothing to do with this? It's the only thing that makes sense. It's a problem that began with the N64. The N64 had the specs, but cartridges hurt it. An N64 cartridge cost something like $10-15 to manufacture vs. only one or two bucks for a CD, yet could hold only a fraction of the data. The biggest N64 cartridges had a capacity of 64MB, while a CD can hold up to 700MB. Indeed, the average PS1 game was much larger than the largest N64 game; FFVII, the game that tipped the scales in Sony's favor, weighed in at over 1.3GB, so big it needed more than one CD. You try cramming that onto an N64 cartridge. The GC's format was less of an obstacle as the gap was reduced from a minimum 11 times difference to only a minimum 3 times difference, but that 3 times was still a probable obstacle, plus we have at least one dev on record saying that the GC having less main RAM than the PS2 and Xbox was an issue.

As for the Wii and Wii U, they have specs that make the one generation behind power-wise. The Wii wasn't much more powerful than the OXbox, and the Wii U isn't all that much more powerful than the 360 & PS3. That's a serious issue, hence why the Wii had few AAA third-party games and why the Wii U's third-party support was limited to some latter-day seventh-gen games and a few cross-gen games. CoD was the only major third-party AAA series that made it to the Wii (except MW2), and even though CoD was never a shining example of cutting-edge technology, even it experienced significant downgrades just to get those games to work on the Wii. But GTA 4 & 5? Oblivion & Skyrim? Battlefield 3? FFXIII? Far Cry 3? Red Dead Redemption? BioShock? Assassin's Creed? Batman: Arkham? Forget about it. Third parties were never going to bother putting their full support behind such underpowered hardware. They mostly saw it as a dumping ground for party games and shovelware. The Wii U is going through the same thing. It was the first eighth-gen console to market, so what little AAA third-party games it got was more of an instance of "Why not?" It was obvious from the get-go that third parties were going to drop most support for the Wii U once they started shifting away from the PS3 & 360 and focusing most of their efforts on the PS4 & XBO.

It's always been hardware. If it was bias then the third parties would have told Nintendo to piss off back in 1991 when they were free to develop for Sega. They didn't. The SNES had the full backing of the major third parties of the time. And Nintendo has always had at least a token degree of third-party support even after the SNES. Acclaim and Activision made games for the N64. The GC had a decent degree of third-party support, albeit far inferior to that received by the PS2 and even the Xbox. The Wii did get a handful of notable third-party titles that weren't party games or shovelware (Epic Mickey, Mad World, a few Sega games). The Wii U did get some seventh-gen games and a few cross-gen games. Third parties would put their full support behind Nintendo if the latter would just make a conventional, powerful console using a standard format for once, something they really haven't done since the SNES.

And as for your comment consoles vs. handhelds in regards to third-party games, well...

I partially agree with your top points, but as for home console vs handheld, I don't agree that it's apples to oranges.

Rol is absolutely right. If the PS brand is king in home consoles, Nintendo is king on handhelds right now. There is overwhelming support for the PS brand, as proven by Rol's point on the PS3 being supported by 3rd parties. That assumption is never possible on a Nintendo home console, 3rd parties will dump it immediately if it struggles.

The question is though, why is this bias a reality? If people are treating another person kindly and me unfairly, I need to ask myself the question: "are they being unfair really, or am I just hard to deal with?" I think the same should be asked about Nintendo. When they are winning, 3rd parties are reluctant to participate with them (high Vita support), when they are losing 3rd parties will not lift a finger (GC, WiiU). So the question is, what has Sony done to win the trust of 3rd parties to the point where they are willing to lose money for Soney to keep the PS brand alive, and what has Nintendo done to lose that trust.

I don't think it's a question we can answer in this thread, but I think it's the eventual progression of this train of thought.



Scoobes said:
RolStoppable said:

If you truly believe that 360+PS3+PC>Wii justified the decisions of third parties, then you must raise an eyebrow why 3DS>>>Vita didn't lead to a similar result. Not to mention that third parties at large have found much more success on the 3DS than on the Vita.

Well... Mobile>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>3DS>>>Vita

Why bother with either when you can churn out a cheap companion game/app?

That doesn't answer why the 3DS isn't getting more games than the Vita.

Shadow1980 said:

You really think hardware design decisions had nothing to do with this? It's the only thing that makes sense. It's a problem that began with the N64. The N64 had the specs, but cartridges hurt it. An N64 cartridge cost something like $10-15 to manufacture vs. only one or two bucks for a CD, yet could hold only a fraction of the data. The biggest N64 cartridges had a capacity of 64MB, while a CD can hold up to 700MB. Indeed, the average PS1 game was much larger than the largest N64 game; FFVII, the game that tipped the scales in Sony's favor, weighed in at over 1.3GB, so big it needed more than one CD. You try cramming that onto an N64 cartridge. The GC's format was less of an obstacle as the gap was reduced from a minimum 11 times difference to only a minimum 3 times difference, but that 3 times was still a probable obstacle, plus we have at least one dev on record saying that the GC having less main RAM than the PS2 and Xbox was an issue.

As for the Wii and Wii U, they have specs that make the one generation behind power-wise. The Wii wasn't much more powerful than the OXbox, and the Wii U isn't all that much more powerful than the 360 & PS3. That's a serious issue, hence why the Wii had few AAA third-party games and why the Wii U's third-party support was limited to some latter-day seventh-gen games and a few cross-gen games. CoD was the only major third-party AAA series that made it to the Wii (except MW2), and even though CoD was never a shining example of cutting-edge technology, even it experienced significant downgrades just to get those games to work on the Wii. But GTA 4 & 5? Oblivion & Skyrim? Battlefield 3? FFXIII? Far Cry 3? Red Dead Redemption? BioShock? Assassin's Creed? Batman: Arkham? Forget about it. Third parties were never going to bother putting their full support behind such underpowered hardware. They mostly saw it as a dumping ground for party games and shovelware. The Wii U is going through the same thing. It was the first eighth-gen console to market, so what little AAA third-party games it got was more of an instance of "Why not?" It was obvious from the get-go that third parties were going to drop most support for the Wii U once they started shifting away from the PS3 & 360 and focusing most of their efforts on the PS4 & XBO.

It's always been hardware. If it was bias then the third parties would have told Nintendo to piss off back in 1991 when they were free to develop for Sega. They didn't. The SNES had the full backing of the major third parties of the time. And Nintendo has always had at least a token degree of third-party support even after the SNES. Acclaim and Activision made games for the N64. The GC had a decent degree of third-party support, albeit far inferior to that received by the PS2 and even the Xbox. The Wii did get a handful of notable third-party titles that weren't party games or shovelware (Epic Mickey, Mad World, a few Sega games). The Wii U did get some seventh-gen games and a few cross-gen games. Third parties would put their full support behind Nintendo if the latter would just make a conventional, powerful console using a standard format for once, something they really haven't done since the SNES.

And as for your comment consoles vs. handhelds in regards to third-party games, well...

Hardware decisions had something to do with it, but more often than not they merely serve as a convenient excuse. CDs vs. cartridges is a significant difference, but the GC didn't suffer from that. When numerous third parties don't port their 1GB games to the GC, then that should raise some questions. Of course, if all hardware excuses fail (like 360+PS3 games not coming to the Wii U), then third parties simply pull the line "We do not believe that there is an audience for our games." which was the cited reason for Dark Souls 2. And because of that, it would be futile for Nintendo to meet all hardware "requirements". I put that word in quotations because there's more than enough historic evidence that third parties will put up with questionable hardware decisions if it concerns other console manufacturers. For example, the PS2 which was the most difficult machine to program for during its generation, and the PS3 which shouldn't need any further explanation.

Electronic Arts went to Sega to pledge serious support in exchange for benefits and Sega accepted. The consequence was that EA made sure that their sports games among others would be better on the Genesis/MD than on the SNES. You must know that EA held a grudge against Nintendo, because Nintendo changed the future of gaming. EA had bet on home computers, but Nintendo brought consoles back to life. Back then in the late '80s, EA was the last big third party that didn't develop for the NES. Ultimately, Trip Hawkins (the EA boss at the time) had to budge because otherwise shareholders would have removed him from the company. This served as the motivation to back up Sega in the following generation, and that's of course a decision that is driven by bias. Nowadays Trip Hawkins isn't with EA anymore, but he is still bitter about what Nintendo did, which a quote from one or two years ago proves.

Likewise, Codemasters was quick to side with Sega for similar reasons. As a British company, they were very involved with home computers as consoles never had a stronghold in Europe (the Atari 2600 and others didn't sell much). So when the era of home computers came to an end, they went with Sega because at least they weren't Nintendo (although Sega actually implemented most of Nintendo's business ideas, so they weren't really any different). Of course, you didn't see the same from Japanese third parties because Sega's console flopped over there (it sold about 3m units in its lifetime).

The notion that third parties would put their full support behind Nintendo if all hardware requirements were met is outright delusional for the previously mentioned reasoning that third parties "do not believe that there is an audience for their games". This reasoning by third parties is first and foremost driven by prejudice which is a form of bias; and it's something that kept feeding itself over time, because if they release no games for a Nintendo system, then there will obviously be no sales data that shows that their games can sell.

Consoles vs. handhelds isn't apples vs. oranges in regards to third party support. The same fundamental reasoning applies to both kinds of devices, because both are dedicated gaming machines. Of course, a lot of people tend to deny that both consoles and handhelds should be looked at to get the complete picture, because what happens in the handhelds space usually defies most, if not all, common preconceptions about Nintendo.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

RolStoppable said:

That doesn't answer why the 3DS isn't getting more games than the Vita.

Hardware decisions had something to do with it, but more often than not they merely serve as a convenient excuse. CDs vs. cartridges is a significant difference, but the GC didn't suffer from that. When numerous third parties don't port their 1GB games to the GC, then that should raise some questions. Of course, if all hardware excuses fail (like 360+PS3 games not coming to the Wii U), then third parties simply pull the line "We do not believe that there is an audience for our games." which was the cited reason for Dark Souls 2. And because of that, it would be futile for Nintendo to meet all hardware "requirements". I put that word in quotations because there's more than enough historic evidence that third parties will put up with questionable hardware decisions if it concerns other console manufacturers. For example, the PS2 which was the most difficult machine to program for during its generation, and the PS3 which shouldn't need any further explanation.

The PS2 and PS3 were difficult to develop for, but they used a standard-sized high-capacity optical disc format (DVD and then Blu-ray) and their overall specs met the requirements to develop pretty much any AAA game. There's a big gulf between "a bit more difficult to develop for" and "impossible or nearly impossible to develop for." Cartridges couldn't hold enough data and cost too much. MiniDVDs were impractically small for a number of sixth-gen games and would involve other complications (the Dreamcast's 1GB GD-ROM could also be an additional factor why it was ignored that gen as well, though the failure of the Saturn was likely the main reason). The Wii couldn't run seventh-gen AAA games without severe downgrades, and the Wii U is the same for eighth-gen games. Every PlayStation and Xbox system have all had the specs, format, and general hardware requirements needed for third-parties to develop the games they wanted to make.

Electronic Arts went to Sega to pledge serious support in exchange for benefits and Sega accepted. The consequence was that EA made sure that their sports games among others would be better on the Genesis/MD than on the SNES. You must know that EA held a grudge against Nintendo, because Nintendo changed the future of gaming. EA had bet on home computers, but Nintendo brought consoles back to life. Back then in the late '80s, EA was the last big third party that didn't develop for the NES. Ultimately, Trip Hawkins (the EA boss at the time) had to budge because otherwise shareholders would have removed him from the company. This served as the motivation to back up Sega in the following generation, and that's of course a decision that is driven by bias. Nowadays Trip Hawkins isn't with EA anymore, but he is still bitter about what Nintendo did, which a quote from one or two years ago proves.

EA was small beans back then. They were barely a blip on the radar. The biggest third parties of the day were Capcom, Konami, Square, and Enix. Acclaim and Midway were perhaps the biggest Western publishers of the time, and the Mortal Kombat and NBA Jam games were the biggest games published by American companies in the early 90s.

Likewise, Codemasters was quick to side with Sega for similar reasons. As a British company, they were very involved with home computers as consoles never had a stronghold in Europe (the Atari 2600 and others didn't sell much). So when the era of home computers came to an end, they went with Sega because at least they weren't Nintendo (although Sega actually implemented most of Nintendo's business ideas, so they weren't really any different). Of course, you didn't see the same from Japanese third parties because Sega's console flopped over there (it sold about 3m units in its lifetime).

Codemasters barely even had a precense on Sega systems, either. They never really became a notable console game developer until the latter half of the 90s.

The notion that third parties would put their full support behind Nintendo if all hardware requirements were met is outright delusional for the previously mentioned reasoning that third parties "do not believe that there is an audience for their games". This reasoning by third parties is first and foremost driven by prejudice which is a form of bias; and it's something that kept feeding itself over time, because if they release no games for a Nintendo system, then there will obviously be no sales data that shows that their games can sell.

There wasn't an audience for their games on Wii because "Why buy horribly downgraded ports of AAA games when you could get better versions of those games on 360 & PS3?" Not only do developers not want to develop for such underpowered hardware, but the gamer's weren't going to bite, either. The Wii U is in a very similar boat. There's no audience for third-party games on Wii U because people who play third party games already had the hardware needed to play seventh-gen games, and for cross-gen games they still had the last-gen hardware to play the last-gen version, or they could upgrade to new-gen systems to play a better version. People get Nintendo hardware mainly to play Nintendo games, because they know the third parties aren't going to support those systems. But if Nintendo did have the same level of third-party support as Sony & MS get, then I have no doubts that their system would have broad appeal to those outside of the core Nintendo fanbase.

Consoles vs. handhelds isn't apples vs. oranges in regards to third party support. The same fundamental reasoning applies to both kinds of devices, because both are dedicated gaming machines. Of course, a lot of people tend to deny that both consoles and handhelds should be looked at to get the complete picture, because what happens in the handhelds space usually defies most, if not all, common preconceptions about Nintendo.

Handheld gaming and Nintendo have been virtually synonymous over the past 26 years. Also, they have been more than capable of supporting their handhelds with their own output. The vast majority of the best-selling games for the GB/GBC, GBA, DS and 3DS have been Nintendo games. While third parties have developed plenty of games for Nintendo's handhelds, they were never a tremendously huge presence on said platforms. The PSP was the first non-Nintendo handheld to do well, and, yes, third parties did put a decent amount of support behind it, but it's clear now that the PSP was a fluke. The Vita was too powerful for its own good, making it very expensive, which in turn hurt its sales potential, which in turn drove away third parties who were facing lower software sales and increased development costs. The nature of the handheld market over these past four handheld generations shows that comparisons to the console market, at least as it relates to third parties, is indeed apples & oranges.

And with that, I think I've said that I can say about the subject of this thread.





Around the Network

The GameCube did have significant third party support though. It basically had all the Western developer support and some fairly large Japanese exclusives/premiere titles too. This is part of the reason why the GameCube has such a large hardware to software shipped ratio ... there were so many third party games for it.

The only Nintendo consoles that didn't have good third party support are the N64, Wii (relative to the others), and Wii U.

The N64 crippled itself with the cartridges and the Wii/Wii U are a full generation behind the systems they're competing against.



padib said:
Shadow1980 said:

 


I partially agree with your top points, but as for home console vs handheld, I don't agree that it's apples to oranges.

Rol is absolutely right. If the PS brand is king in home consoles, Nintendo is king on handhelds right now. There is overwhelming support for the PS brand, as proven by Rol's point on the PS3 being supported by 3rd parties. That assumption is never possible on a Nintendo home console, 3rd parties will dump it immediately if it struggles.

The question is though, why is this bias a reality? If people are treating another person kindly and me unfairly, I need to ask myself the question: "are they being unfair really, or am I just hard to deal with?" I think the same should be asked about Nintendo. When they are winning, 3rd parties are reluctant to participate with them (high Vita support), when they are losing 3rd parties will not lift a finger (GC, WiiU). So the question is, what has Sony done to win the trust of 3rd parties to the point where they are willing to lose money for Soney to keep the PS brand alive, and what has Nintendo done to lose that trust.

I don't think it's a question we can answer in this thread, but I think it's the eventual progression of this train of thought.

Sure we can, people just want to ignore it. From the jump Sony was a pleasure for 3rd parties to work with or at least MUCH easier to work with than Nintendo as evidenced by there treatment of 3rd parties in the NES/SNES era and to a lesser extent the N64 where they flat out refuse to listen to them. Sony listens, for the most part. 

Sony has proven themselves Ninty...meh. Even when SOny was floundering they opened to 3rd parties and asked how they could make it better, see they WORKED with those guys even sent some devs when a game wasnt working properly, something that Ninty wont do. So yes there is your answer its quite simple. Sony and MS are willing to put in the work where Nintendo isnt. But people will ignore that because it will put Ninty in a negative light



oniyide said:
padib said:

I partially agree with your top points, but as for home console vs handheld, I don't agree that it's apples to oranges.

Rol is absolutely right. If the PS brand is king in home consoles, Nintendo is king on handhelds right now. There is overwhelming support for the PS brand, as proven by Rol's point on the PS3 being supported by 3rd parties. That assumption is never possible on a Nintendo home console, 3rd parties will dump it immediately if it struggles.

The question is though, why is this bias a reality? If people are treating another person kindly and me unfairly, I need to ask myself the question: "are they being unfair really, or am I just hard to deal with?" I think the same should be asked about Nintendo. When they are winning, 3rd parties are reluctant to participate with them (high Vita support), when they are losing 3rd parties will not lift a finger (GC, WiiU). So the question is, what has Sony done to win the trust of 3rd parties to the point where they are willing to lose money for Soney to keep the PS brand alive, and what has Nintendo done to lose that trust.

I don't think it's a question we can answer in this thread, but I think it's the eventual progression of this train of thought.

Sure we can, people just want to ignore it. From the jump Sony was a pleasure for 3rd parties to work with or at least MUCH easier to work with than Nintendo as evidenced by there treatment of 3rd parties in the NES/SNES era and to a lesser extent the N64 where they flat out refuse to listen to them. Sony listens, for the most part. 

Sony has proven themselves Ninty...meh. Even when SOny was floundering they opened to 3rd parties and asked how they could make it better, see they WORKED with those guys even sent some devs when a game wasnt working properly, something that Ninty wont do. So yes there is your answer its quite simple. Sony and MS are willing to put in the work where Nintendo isnt. But people will ignore that because it will put Ninty in a negative light

Are you able to post without the bolds? They're not needed.

People can understand something if you express it reasonably. And I think that what you're saying it possible, I just think it sounds overly simplistic.

What do you do about the fact that, many times, there is a conflict of interest between Nintendo and 3rd parties? Examples such as the EA and Nintendo fallout on Origin. Though I agree that Nintendo can certainly improve their approach with 3rd parties, I think the issue is also much deeper than that. There is a lack of trust on all sides, not just something that is Nintendo's doing.



padib said:
oniyide said:

Sure we can, people just want to ignore it. From the jump Sony was a pleasure for 3rd parties to work with or at least MUCH easier to work with than Nintendo as evidenced by there treatment of 3rd parties in the NES/SNES era and to a lesser extent the N64 where they flat out refuse to listen to them. Sony listens, for the most part. 

Sony has proven themselves Ninty...meh. Even when SOny was floundering they opened to 3rd parties and asked how they could make it better, see they WORKED with those guys even sent some devs when a game wasnt working properly, something that Ninty wont do. So yes there is your answer its quite simple. Sony and MS are willing to put in the work where Nintendo isnt. But people will ignore that because it will put Ninty in a negative light

Are you able to post without the bolds? They're not needed.

People can understand something if you express it reasonably. And I think that what you're saying it possible, I just think it sounds overly simplistic.

What do you do about the fact that, many times, there is a conflict of interest between Nintendo and 3rd parties? Examples such as the EA and Nintendo fallout on Origin. Though I agree that Nintendo can certainly improve their approach with 3rd parties, I think the issue is also much deeper than that. There is a lack of trust on all sides, not just something that is Nintendo's doing.

its been expressed time and time again for years now. There is nothing possible about it. Sony has worked more closely with 3rd parties than Ninty has, these are facts. And the biggest factor in why one company's product is getting more support than another. IMHO thats more reasonble than some conspiracy against Nintendo.

As for Origin, IMHO thats heresay and ive yet to see concrete proof, it doesnt even make that much sense, its not like the other two use Origin and they still get support (if im wrong, correct me). Why would EA use that as an excuse to not support Ninty when they can just not support Ninty? And even if that were true thats only one company, hardly indication of a pattern. 



I hope the nx is like the gc to get thirdparty support again



REQUIESCAT IN PACE

I Hate REMASTERS

I Hate PLAYSTATION PLUS