radishhead said:
Munkeh111 said:
miz1q2w3e said:
Munkeh111 said:
Demotruk said:
True, however there are two issues with that:
1) Nintendo have proven that their first parties can be far more successful than most of the rest of the industry, even if it is less games it is less but more appealing games.
2) Third parties percieve Nintendo as an enemy or too much competition, and thus Nintendo's efforts to court them are doomed from the start (unless they compromise their own games, which is shooting themselves in the foot though that seems to be exactly what they're doing on 3DS...)
|
1) I agree with that mostly EXCEPT, it is fewer games not less. And just because that is how it is now, doesn't mean it is going to stay like that. Somebody could come up with a CoD popular game for the Wii, Mario won't be king for ever
2) Well possibly, but I think the 3rd parties should have enough confidence in their own games to compete, they definitely can't JUST rely on themselves to make all the games for the Wii
|
If if someone happened to make a game/series that had CoD-like popularity for a Nintendo console, it wouldn't outsell a 2D mario game on it. Look at CoD's single platform sales VS mario's single platform sales (around 10mil VS over 20mil)
It would take something much much bigger than CoD for that
But I do agree that having 3rd party support is better than not having it (who in their right mind would argue otherwise??) and there are massively successful 3rd party games out there
|
No, why look at CoD's single platform sales? That makes no sense, and remember, CoD games have sold about 20m for the last 4 years
|
You don't think Mario would sell more if it was multiplatform?
|
Why? Because it would have a larger install base? But the Wii already has a larger install base
