| oniyide said: |
| For Sony, i never patted them on the back, ever. I have said many times that they have done stupid crap this gen, no rumble in controllers, overpriced, PSN was lacking. But you know they difference?? Those things were addressed. All of them. Hell i didnt get PS3 until MGS4 came out thats when PS3 stopped sucking. Im not in love with any company to just toss them my money. If i think their product is good, ill support it, that simply. I think PS3 is the best on the market for me. IT got a plethora of games because 360 was getting them and its much easier to port a 360 game to PS3 than it is to WIi, you know that already, plus the moneyhattign and favors, something that Ninty wasnt doing, you know that too. |
True, Sony made a considerably important price cut in the fall 2007, (wikipedia:)
"On October 18, 2007, Sony announced a US$100 price drop for the 80 GB model and a new US$399 40 GB model to launch on November 2, 2007[87] with reduced features such as the removal of backward compatibility with PS2 games. Within weeks, Sony announced that sales of the 40 GB and 80 GB models by major retailers had increased 192%.[88]"
They did mitigate, it's true. They apparently moneyhatted, otherwise the exclusives they lost to MS, instead of going multi-plat, would have gone MS exclusives.
One thing we know is that many of the multiplats that migrated from Sony to MS (See 2nd paragraph of this PS3 section) initially began as PS3 development. This demonstrates the à priori of developers to work on Sony's console above all else (Wii and 360). However, when Sony faltered, rather than defaulting to the newly popular underdog (the Wii), they defaulted to the next HD system, the 360. Reason being, alot of the work done on the PS3 was high fidelity HD software, and the 360 being easy to develop for, was the logical step.
You are correct to say that Nintendo made a HUGE mistake not to allow for HD content on their machine, while focusing on less graphically intensive content (their strategy for the Wii U as it were...). Otherwise, the multi-plats would have defaulted to them as well...
You said Nintendo didn't moneyhat, but we don't know that! One thing we know for sure is that, even IF Nintendo had moneyhatted, devs would not have wanted to sacrifice all this time spent in HD land. HOWEVER, having said that, seeing the tip of the iceberg approaching (the PS3 failing compared to expectations, and low ROI on HD games), why did they not gradually migrate their efforts to the SD Wii? This ties into Rols point ;) That is their mistake. My understanding is that they lacked business vision. Take it or leave it.
| MS, was doing alright, especially compared to PS3 and I find the sales part a bit, funny, its too black and white. Fact is the 360 versions of games were outselling there Wii counterparts, its been like that from day one, so why would 3rd parties NOT continue to support it?? It doesnt matter how much better Wii sells, if third party games are not selling on it it means nothing, they dont see any money from hardware sales. As ive explained before 360 was the first out, that means they probably had dev kits available for it before the others, what were they supposed to do, throw all that work away and start fresh for Wii? That would have been more money and work wasted. For all intents purposes, the 360 was the lead design console. ANd they moneyhatted hard, since day1 and they are still doing it, thats how you get third party support, you dont sit on your ass and wait for them to come, not gonna happen |
@bold. I don't believe SW sales performance was the reason they continued on the 360 rather than the Wii as explained above. The Wii had a very different userbase. If you take a game targeting 1Mil on the 360, for its userbase, you will surely attain less on the Wii, with a different userbase. But what if, rather than making 360 content on the Wii, what if you made Wii content, on the Wii, and fetch 3Mil rather than 1Mil. True that 3rd parties get nothing from HW sales, but a game that caters to the Wii userbase can fetch more sales given the proportion of total users on the platform as compared to the 360 at the time (3 to 1). The Wii audience does not only enjoy Dance games per se. That's one demographic's preference. The Wii userbase is very varied. A game like Monster Hunter did not fail to please on the Wii. So true that Ubi made a good decision to release JD on the Wii, but what about other kinds of games that appeal to other demographics on the Wii, leading to greater ROI than on the HD consoles? Think about it.
| As for your last point refer to my last paragraph and you're right it wouldnt happen to Sony or MS because they wouldnt sit around and LET it happen, they would again moneyhat, do whatever they got to do to get that game. Something Ninty wasnt doing, maybe they thought it wasnt honorable, maybe they thought they were to "good" to resort to such tactics, for whatever reason. But im happy to say they learned their lesson now. Seeing the actual decent 3rd party content going to 3ds and Wii U |
There was no way in hell Nintendo could reverse its poor decision not to support HD, granted. Having said that, there was also no way Sony could reverse the decision to make a platform that lacked RAM and had a poor architecture from the get-go (the components were good, but did not work well as a whole). Yet devs still supported it. You cannot prove to me that Nintendo did not attempt to moneyhat devs, and I can't prove to you that they did. But one thing is certain, the anti-Nintendo sentiment and pro-Sony sentiment at the begining of this generation, as shown by the sheer number of games being made for the (in hindsight) weakest console this gen (see the 2nd para of this PS3 section ), it goes to show some of us Nintendo fans are not talking out of our hats. Odds are, Nintendo attempted to moneyhat, but fell on deaf ears. Their failure was likely a lack of business vision.
Other than that you make excellent points.
