Torillian said:
My thoughts: you're making the rules so that Nintendo has an obvious and unending advantage because they started in the industry back when there really weren't established teams out there to hire, and since they hired singular people instead of established teams they are creating something while Sony is just funding something that would have been with or without them. But who's to say that LittleBigPlanet or Wipeout would be what they are today without Sony's influence, or that Miyamoto never would have made Donkey Kong in his basement if he didn't work for Nintendo. Heck, even Nintendo does the team hiring thing nowadays because that's how it's done, I'm sure they would have done the same if they could have back when it all got started. |
My post was in response to what Xen said before that Nintendo barely make any new IPs (not counting those they bought exclusive rights for). Well buying new IPs is not making them yourself and that is my point which I point out for the second time now.
Of course there is a difference when you go out to hire teams to make a game that might already be in development but sought a publisher and Sony showed interest in the games or maybe they had the idea and paid a developer to make it.
Who said anything about Miyamoto being the head of Nintendo?
Yes companies hire people to build teams that make games :P
No I am not making rules to make Nintendo seem like the winner here. Buying new companies or exclusive rights to a game is different than making the game yourself. A company that buys other developers is either out of ideas themselves or really like what they see in a game owned by another developer.
Shadow of the colossus and Ico are great games made in house or that is what I think anyway.
Anywho
R.I.P Mr Iwata :'( | ||