Quantcast
Take a video game company you think is failing and steer them in the right direction.

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Take a video game company you think is failing and steer them in the right direction.

potato_hamster said:
curl-6 said:

Porting COD to Switch is much less investment than porting COD from PS3/360 to Wii, yet that was done several times and was profitable.

More demanding games than COD have been ported, so the failure squarely lies with Activision.

"Porting COD to Switch is much less investment than porting COD from PS3/360 to Wii, yet that was done several times and was profitable."

Source? Or is that just an assumption?

It's common knowledge. Switch is much closer in both power and architecture to PS4/Xbone than Wii was to PS3/360, this is why we see the kind of ports to Switch like Doom 2016, Hellblade, Wolfenstein II, etc while Wii never got those kind of conversions. As for them being profitable, they did it 5 times. Companies don't repeat unprofitable ventures.



Around the Network
curl-6 said:
potato_hamster said:

"Porting COD to Switch is much less investment than porting COD from PS3/360 to Wii, yet that was done several times and was profitable."

Source? Or is that just an assumption?

It's common knowledge. Switch is much closer in both power and architecture to PS4/Xbone than Wii was to PS3/360, this is why we see ports the kind of ports to Switch like Doom 2016, Hellblade, Wolfenstein II, etc while Wii never got those kind of conversions. As for them being profitable, they did it 5 times. Companies don't repeat unprofitable ventures.

For what it's worth, the Xbox 360 and Wii both had Power PC processors, and the PS3 used a Power PC-based processor. The Switch uses an ARM processor. Last I checked the Switch's ARM processor is nothing like the PS4 and Xbox One's x86 processor. Even if the Switch is "Closer to power and architecture" doesn't mean it's easier to port. And besides, even if it is easier, how much easier is it? Define "Much less investment".

Also, kinda curious how you appear to be pretending that two Call of Duty Wii U titles didn't exist. I wonder why... perhaps that has something to do the lack of an appearance of a Switch Call of Duty title? I bet it did.

But even assuming the Wii U had nothing to do with it, just because Activision invested in several Wii games doesn't mean they were happy with the sales of each of those titles, and we don't know whether the development of those titles was subsidized, or whether Activision was required to honor an agreement with Nintendo regardless of sales. There's a lot of politics involved in video games, and you're making several assumptions by just chalking that up to "companies don't make repeat unprofitable ventures".

Besides, didn't Nintendo just release another Labo kit? My local game store hilariously displayed them right next to the $9.99 clearance bin Labo 1 and 2 kits they had on display. Sony's still losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year churning out cell phones year after year too. Seems to me that companies repeat unprofitable ventures regularly.



potato_hamster said:
curl-6 said:

It's common knowledge. Switch is much closer in both power and architecture to PS4/Xbone than Wii was to PS3/360, this is why we see ports the kind of ports to Switch like Doom 2016, Hellblade, Wolfenstein II, etc while Wii never got those kind of conversions. As for them being profitable, they did it 5 times. Companies don't repeat unprofitable ventures.

For what it's worth, the Xbox 360 and Wii both had Power PC processors, and the PS3 used a Power PC-based processor. The Switch uses an ARM processor. Last I checked the Switch's ARM processor is nothing like the PS4 and Xbox One's x86 processor. Even if the Switch is "Closer to power and architecture" doesn't mean it's easier to port. And besides, even if it is easier, how much easier is it? Define "Much less investment".

Also, kinda curious how you appear to be pretending that two Call of Duty Wii U titles didn't exist. I wonder why... perhaps that has something to do the lack of an appearance of a Switch Call of Duty title? I bet it did.

But even assuming the Wii U had nothing to do with it, just because Activision invested in several Wii games doesn't mean they were happy with the sales of each of those titles, and we don't know whether the development of those titles was subsidized, or whether Activision was required to honor an agreement with Nintendo regardless of sales. There's a lot of politics involved in video games, and you're making several assumptions by just chalking that up to "companies don't make repeat unprofitable ventures".

Besides, didn't Nintendo just release another Labo kit? My local game store hilariously displayed them right next to the $9.99 clearance bin Labo 1 and 2 kits they had on display. Sony's still losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year churning out cell phones year after year too. Seems to me that companies repeat unprofitable ventures regularly.

PS3/360 had DX9 era GPUs and multi-core, multi-threaded 3GHz CPUs versus a DX7 era GPU and single core/single threaded 729MHz CPU on Wii, also 88MB of RAM vs just under 500MB. Switch's GPU is actually more modern than PS4/Xbone, it's CPU is also multicore just with less cores at not to dissimilar a speed, RAM is much closer at 3GB vs 5GB. The gap is objectively much smaller this time around.

Do you have any evidence that COD on Wii didn't make money? Cos the actual evidence, the fact they brought over 5 of them, 4 of which sold over a million, points to them being worthwhile.

For someone who claims to own a Switch you come across an awful lot like someone who hates Nintendo and wants to see them fail.



curl-6 said:
potato_hamster said:

For what it's worth, the Xbox 360 and Wii both had Power PC processors, and the PS3 used a Power PC-based processor. The Switch uses an ARM processor. Last I checked the Switch's ARM processor is nothing like the PS4 and Xbox One's x86 processor. Even if the Switch is "Closer to power and architecture" doesn't mean it's easier to port. And besides, even if it is easier, how much easier is it? Define "Much less investment".

Also, kinda curious how you appear to be pretending that two Call of Duty Wii U titles didn't exist. I wonder why... perhaps that has something to do the lack of an appearance of a Switch Call of Duty title? I bet it did.

But even assuming the Wii U had nothing to do with it, just because Activision invested in several Wii games doesn't mean they were happy with the sales of each of those titles, and we don't know whether the development of those titles was subsidized, or whether Activision was required to honor an agreement with Nintendo regardless of sales. There's a lot of politics involved in video games, and you're making several assumptions by just chalking that up to "companies don't make repeat unprofitable ventures".

Besides, didn't Nintendo just release another Labo kit? My local game store hilariously displayed them right next to the $9.99 clearance bin Labo 1 and 2 kits they had on display. Sony's still losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year churning out cell phones year after year too. Seems to me that companies repeat unprofitable ventures regularly.

PS3/360 had DX9 era GPUs and multi-core, multi-threaded 3GHz CPUs versus a DX7 era GPU and single core/single threaded 729MHz CPU on Wii, also 88MB of RAM vs just under 500MB. Switch's GPU is actually more modern than PS4/Xbone, it's CPU is also multicore just with less cores at not to dissimilar a speed, RAM is much closer at 3GB vs 5GB. The gap is objectively much smaller this time around.

Do you have any evidence that COD on Wii didn't make money? Cos the actual evidence, the fact they brought over 5 of them, 4 of which sold over a million, points to them being worthwhile.

For someone who claims to own a Switch you come across an awful lot like someone who hates Nintendo and wants to see them fail.

Again, just because two pieces of hardware are closer in performance doesn't mean it is easier to port a game between those two pieces of hardware. You're just assuming it's easier because you can't think of a reason why it wouldn't be. There are several factors you're completely ignoring or are unaware of.

No I don't have any evidence that COD made enough money for the decision makers at Activision were pleased with the sales and satisfied with the investment. Do you have any evidence they were besides "well they kept making them" as if its that simple? And again, you're pretending the Wii U didn't exist. How did the two COD Wii U games sell?

"I can't believe this guy owns a Switch and doesn't love it like I do! I bet he's lying and he's actually a hater!"

lol. You know your arguments don't have much value when you feel the need to resort to such bullshit as that.  But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.



potato_hamster said:
curl-6 said:

PS3/360 had DX9 era GPUs and multi-core, multi-threaded 3GHz CPUs versus a DX7 era GPU and single core/single threaded 729MHz CPU on Wii, also 88MB of RAM vs just under 500MB. Switch's GPU is actually more modern than PS4/Xbone, it's CPU is also multicore just with less cores at not to dissimilar a speed, RAM is much closer at 3GB vs 5GB. The gap is objectively much smaller this time around.

Do you have any evidence that COD on Wii didn't make money? Cos the actual evidence, the fact they brought over 5 of them, 4 of which sold over a million, points to them being worthwhile.

For someone who claims to own a Switch you come across an awful lot like someone who hates Nintendo and wants to see them fail.

Again, just because two pieces of hardware are closer in performance doesn't mean it is easier to port a game between those two pieces of hardware. You're just assuming it's easier because you can't think of a reason why it wouldn't be. There are several factors you're completely ignoring or are unaware of.

No I don't have any evidence that COD made enough money for the decision makers at Activision were pleased with the sales and satisfied with the investment. Do you have any evidence they were besides "well they kept making them" as if its that simple? And again, you're pretending the Wii U didn't exist. How did the two COD Wii U games sell?

"I can't believe this guy owns a Switch and doesn't love it like I do! I bet he's lying and he's actually a hater!"

lol. You know your arguments don't have much value when you feel the need to resort to such bullshit as that.  But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

If your arguments have value, why do you feel the need to be constantly disingenuous and hostile? Every discussion with you goes the same way. You constantly bash, downplay, and stir up trouble. There's no point even having a discussion with you if all it's going to be is a thinly veiled facade for your years-long crusade against all things Nintendo.



Around the Network
curl-6 said:
potato_hamster said:

Again, just because two pieces of hardware are closer in performance doesn't mean it is easier to port a game between those two pieces of hardware. You're just assuming it's easier because you can't think of a reason why it wouldn't be. There are several factors you're completely ignoring or are unaware of.

No I don't have any evidence that COD made enough money for the decision makers at Activision were pleased with the sales and satisfied with the investment. Do you have any evidence they were besides "well they kept making them" as if its that simple? And again, you're pretending the Wii U didn't exist. How did the two COD Wii U games sell?

"I can't believe this guy owns a Switch and doesn't love it like I do! I bet he's lying and he's actually a hater!"

lol. You know your arguments don't have much value when you feel the need to resort to such bullshit as that.  But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

If your arguments have value, why do you feel the need to be constantly disingenuous and hostile? Every discussion with you goes the same way. You constantly bash, downplay, and stir up trouble. There's no point even having a discussion with you if all it's going to be is a thinly veiled facade for your years-long crusade against all things Nintendo.

Now I quite firmly established that your perspective doesn't align very well with reality in that other thread, I'm going to chalk this as a matter of a quite biased opinion. Nintendo fans come in many forms. You're just going to have to accept that I am one of them.



potato_hamster said:
curl-6 said:

If your arguments have value, why do you feel the need to be constantly disingenuous and hostile? Every discussion with you goes the same way. You constantly bash, downplay, and stir up trouble. There's no point even having a discussion with you if all it's going to be is a thinly veiled facade for your years-long crusade against all things Nintendo.

Now I quite firmly established that your perspective doesn't align very well with reality in that other thread, I'm going to chalk this as a matter of a quite biased opinion. Nintendo fans come in many forms. You're just going to have to accept that I am one of them.

This what I'm talking about, always with the jibes. I don't have a problem with you being dissatisfied with your Switch; this time last year I was dissatisfied with mine. The issue is you come across not as someone who wants to have a discussion, but as someone whose just out to pick a fight.



curl-6 said:
potato_hamster said:

Now I quite firmly established that your perspective doesn't align very well with reality in that other thread, I'm going to chalk this as a matter of a quite biased opinion. Nintendo fans come in many forms. You're just going to have to accept that I am one of them.

This what I'm talking about, always with the jibes. I don't have a problem with you being dissatisfied with your Switch; this time last year I was dissatisfied with mine. The issue is you come across not as someone who wants to have a discussion, but as someone whose just out to pick a fight.

Says the guy who won't even believe I own a switch when I took a picture of it with a user name and a date stamp. Yep. It's me trying to pick a fight.

Remind me again who decided to derail this thread with personal attacks and accusations? And while you're at it, remind me why I should care what your opinion of me is when you literally give zero indication that you care about mine?



potato_hamster said:
curl-6 said:

This what I'm talking about, always with the jibes. I don't have a problem with you being dissatisfied with your Switch; this time last year I was dissatisfied with mine. The issue is you come across not as someone who wants to have a discussion, but as someone whose just out to pick a fight.

Says the guy who won't even believe I own a switch when I took a picture of it with a user name and a date stamp. Yep. It's me trying to pick a fight.

Remind me again who decided to derail this thread with personal attacks and accusations? And while you're at it, remind me why I should care what your opinion of me is when you literally give zero indication that you care about mine?

The thread was derailed by your apparent need to constantly bash Nintendo. You claim to be a Switch owner wanting better third party support, yet you refuse to hold the third parties in question to any degree of accountability, and in fact go to gymnastic lengths to absolve third parties of any responsibility at all.



curl-6 said:
potato_hamster said:

Says the guy who won't even believe I own a switch when I took a picture of it with a user name and a date stamp. Yep. It's me trying to pick a fight.

Remind me again who decided to derail this thread with personal attacks and accusations? And while you're at it, remind me why I should care what your opinion of me is when you literally give zero indication that you care about mine?

The thread was derailed by your apparent need to constantly bash Nintendo. You claim to be a Switch owner wanting better third party support, yet you refuse to hold the third parties in question to any degree of accountability, and in fact go to gymnastic lengths to absolve third parties of any responsibility at all.

I know how accountable third party developers are. I know how accountable Nintendo is. I've experienced it first hand. Several times. The difference that you appear to see anyone who doesn't give Nintendo the same leniency its fandom and many members of games media do as "trolls" or "haters" or "lying about owning a switch and take pictures of someone elses consoles in the middle of the night for credibility with an anonymous person on the internet".

I'm not derailing this thread by giving my honest opinion that's directly related to the subject at hand. You on the other hand, have now derailed two separate threads to tell everyone how you think I'm a fake Nintendo fan who is actually just a big hater.

It's clear you have no interest in having an honest conversation, so please stop detailing the thread. I've played along with your silly little witch hunt for long enough. It's time to move on.