DaRev said:
RolStoppable said:
Because depending on the bias, either the Sony or the Microsoft model is the golden standard for gaming and something that is different is automatically bad, whether it's reasonable or not. In the case of third party games, the standard is that they dwarf first party offerings, therefore a strong first party is bad.
What I like the most about the "Only Nintendo games sell on Nintendo systems." line is that you can throw it right back at the trolls whenever it comes to discussions regarding Nintendo's hardware business being threatened. If Nintendo software sells so well, then surely people will continue to buy Nintendo hardware, because that's the only place where you can play Nintendo games.
Smartphones are a threat to dedicated gaming handhelds? Not to Nintendo, because they have their IPs. On the other hand, on-third-parties-dependent-Sony gets gored. Why would people buy a Wii U when the Sony and Microsoft consoles offer similar capabilities? Nintendo games. |
...and that is why long after those third party companies have shut up shop and their IPs have become a distance memory only to be remembered by old school gamers, Nintendo will still be around.
...and if I might add, because Nintendo doesn't have to rely on third parties for its success, while Sony does, is one of the many reasons why the 3DS is whooping the Vita's behind. Nintendo can rely on its 1st part games without 3rd party support, but can Sony or MS do the same with their 1st party games? Again look at 3DS vs Vita!
|
A true statement and one that I haven't considered. Nintendo can just pump out a Mario, Mario Kart, Animal Crossing, or Advance Wars and KNOW that the audience will come. Meanwhile Sony is hoping that Activision will save them with a Vita version of one of their big franchises. When the first party is the "Hitmaker", life is a lot easier.
