So Pachter Says "Nintendo Is Too Late"....That's Great News For Nintendo !

[mrstickball]

LordTheNightKnight said:

mrstickball said:

LordTheNightKnight said:

"I would imagine that due to the release schedule, Sony and Microsoft can maneuver knowing the WiiU specs, resulting with more powerful consoles at a better price-performance ratio, therefore a better value proposition for consumers."

Specs are not value for most gamers. That is a delusion the enthusiasts keep telling themselves. They said it about the PSP versus the DS. Even when the Wii started to falter, it wasn't because people magically realized the specs were too low, it was the games.

I mean, how hard is it to understand that with video game systems, the games are the real value proposition?

Incidentally, the games so far look really uninteresting (I don't care if many are tech demos, they are really dumb ones), and that is the reason to doubt this system, not this stupid myth about console wars being decided by the most powerful system.

And the Wii proved that without similar power levels of the other comparable consoles, it won't get the same games. Therefore, system performance does play a part in the scheme of things - if you have a PS4/X720 at similar power levels, and the WiiU at 50 or 60%, I would imagine that developers may pidgeonhole it like they did the Wii. That is why power matters.

No, developers proved they didn't want to work on the Wii. Again, the specs matter to the enthusiasts (which includes people who make games), not to the mainstream gamers (which counts people that buy GTA and CoD).

Unless that is what you meant, but you implied that developers get to call the shots, and the will of the customers isn't to be taken into account.

The customers chose ever console generation winner, not the developers. And specs only mattered to them when Nintendo wasn't making more powerful systems, as the Playstation 1 and 2 weren't the leader in specs.

That is what I meant - not just developers, but publishers that analyze the benefits of the consoles to produce best practices for their titles. The developers will want develop for whatever is the easiest, best system to develop on. That includes horsepower (or ease of utilizing horsepower to achieve a specific development goal), SDKs, and ancillary features to the cosnole that may have an impact on the development cycle. You said developers didn't want to develop on the Wii - I have to ask 'why didn't they want to develop on the Wii?'. Was it due to the lack of technical specs which required significant retooling to make a game that ran on X360/PS3 to run on the Wii? Or was it something that had nothing to do with specs? That is what I am concerned about for the WiiU - especially in the hard drive department.

Developers do choose the console generation winners. We've seen time and time again that as major IPs are established, developed, promoted and so on, they establish winners and losers among the consoles - each generation, we see the winner based on the games that are produced for a console's library. In the case of the PS1/2 specifications, its important to note the PS1 had a distinct advantage over both other systems due to storage device and ease-of-development (N64 had the more costly and limited cartridge drive, while the Saturn required developer knowledge of Assemble and working with a very difficult processor). With the PS2, it was arguably the only console to win a generation which was inferior to the GC/XBX in most technical departments, but has been the only console to have that distinction out of the past few generations.