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:

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.

I was having a discussion with another user, jigsaw, you were the one who quoted me and derailed everything into "it's all Nintendo's fault and third parties are blameless". If you don't want to hear my opinions, might I suggest in the future not talking to me.

Now, the topic is taking a company and steering them in the right direction, so I'll start; MS should dump the "Xbox One" name with Scarlet, do a Scarlet-exclusive N.Sane Trilogy/Reignited style remake of Banjo Kazooie, and make Halo Infinite a Scarlet exclusive.



Around the Network
curl-6 said:
potato_hamster said:

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.

I was having a discussion with another user, jigsaw, you were the one who quoted me and derailed everything into "it's all Nintendo's fault and third parties are blameless". If you don't want to hear my opinions, might I suggest in the future not talking to me.

Now, the topic is taking a company and steering them in the right direction, so I'll start; MS should dump the "Xbox One" name with Scarlet, do a Scarlet-exclusive N.Sane Trilogy/Reignited style remake of Banjo Kazooie, and make Halo Infinite a Scarlet exclusive.

Ahh, so now you're going to make frivolous accusations against me and then address the OP's subject to pretend that I'm derailing the thread further if I respond to your accusations.

Quote me where I said it was all Nintendo's fault. Quote me where I said third parties are blameless. I didn't say anything of the sort.

There's no reason at all to think Microsoft is going to have the word "One" in project Scarlett. They're using completely different terms when referring to Project Scarlett than they did with Project Scorpio. This is clearly a new platform, not the continuation of the previous one. Then again, Microsoft appears to be following the exact path I expected them to follow so we're in for interesting years ahead.



potato_hamster said:
curl-6 said:

I was having a discussion with another user, jigsaw, you were the one who quoted me and derailed everything into "it's all Nintendo's fault and third parties are blameless". If you don't want to hear my opinions, might I suggest in the future not talking to me.

Now, the topic is taking a company and steering them in the right direction, so I'll start; MS should dump the "Xbox One" name with Scarlet, do a Scarlet-exclusive N.Sane Trilogy/Reignited style remake of Banjo Kazooie, and make Halo Infinite a Scarlet exclusive.

Ahh, so now you're going to make frivolous accusations against me and then address the OP's subject to pretend that I'm derailing the thread further if I respond to your accusations.

Quote me where I said it was all Nintendo's fault. Quote me where I said third parties are blameless. I didn't say anything of the sort.

There's no reason at all to think Microsoft is going to have the word "One" in project Scarlett. They're using completely different terms when referring to Project Scarlett than they did with Project Scorpio. This is clearly a new platform, not the continuation of the previous one. Then again, Microsoft appears to be following the exact path I expected them to follow so we're in for interesting years ahead.

What path is that?

EDIT: Actually scratch that; given the thread warning, it's probably best if we simply refrain from discussion from here on out and leave each other alone.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 25 June 2019

Dudes.



Capcom, release physical versions in Europe as anywhere else.



Around the Network
curl-6 said:
Jigsawx1 said:

it doesnt have to be as  powerful as a ps or xbox but it should be strong enough to get a good 3rd party support. The Switch would not be a worse console if it would have Battlefield, The division and a cod . I mean some rounds battlefield on a couch with a handhelp switch  would be a reason to buy it for me.

Switch is powerful enough to get third party support,

Yeah indies and low-level enginges like doom or wolfenstein



curl-6 said:
potato_hamster said:

The DS could run COD if Activision was willing to put the time and effort into distilling that game down into something that can be played on a DS. The point is the amount of effort that takes, and it just not being worth that effort.

Let's put it this way. If it costs significantly more to port a PS4 game to Switch than it does to port it to Xbox one, while at the same time expecting significantly less sales, it becomes very difficult to justify that effort. If a port requires minimal effort than the sales that port needs to have to justify it is much smaller. This is where Nintendo missed the mark.

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.

source? i think you are very wrong in this, my opionion is that they need a hardware which is max -10% then the next lowest hardware to get the ports from technical stand of view and the next point would be that they need good hardware sales (which they have) to get out small sales from ported games like bf, cod or whatever.

if it would be profitable and possible every publisher would port every game to switch.



Just a thread warning.
We are all for a constructive discussion, but it seems things might be getting a little aggressive? Just cool it down a notch if you can, don't try and make anything personal.



Jigsawx1 said:
curl-6 said:

Switch is powerful enough to get third party support,

Yeah indies and low-level enginges like doom or wolfenstein

Id Tech 6 is not a low level engine, its a modern engine built for PS4/Xbone/modern PCs. Then there's Hellblade, a graphically intensive UE4 game that is 30fps even on PS4, and soon Witcher 3, a demanding open world PS4/Xbone game. 

Jigsawx1 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.

source? i think you are very wrong in this, my opionion is that they need a hardware which is max -10% then the next lowest hardware to get the ports from technical stand of view and the next point would be that they need good hardware sales (which they have) to get out small sales from ported games like bf, cod or whatever.

if it would be profitable and possible every publisher would port every game to switch.

Wii was more removed from PS3/360 than Switch is from PS4/Xbone in both power and technology, yet the Wii got 5 COD ports.

And a third party deciding not to try doesn't mean it wouldn't work. Sometimes third parties simply fail to grasp an opportunity.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 25 June 2019

Mnementh said:
sethnintendo said:
Atari - whatever company that controls you now just stop. Your system will sell less than the Ouya.

Current owner of the Atari trademark is actually a classic game company named Infogrames. I saw this logo in quite some games back in the day:

Yea I think I remember that logo or company.  Just kind of gets to me...  One would think it would be Infogames.  It is like whoever thought of name for company was suffering from dyslexia or infogames was already taken.