By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Jazz2K on 21 November 2012
Edit Thread
Veknoid_Outcast said:
Jazz2K said:

 

It doesn't bother me if Sony and MS do this because their business covers more than gaming. They also push possibilities in gaming further (don't hate me for saying this, it's the truth) by making consoles that are cutting edge which allows developers to use impressive engines (I hear ya PC gamers but consoles are different) with physics, graphics, control schemes and all. Nintendo thinks different and makes consoles to fit their criteria but by doing this, third parties lose interrest in making games for them. Most of the time they get shoddy ports and/or don't get them at all. In a market that sees development costs rising but also sees an expansion of it's demographic, third parties will try to put their games in as many hands as possible and try as much as they can to lower development costs leaving exotic consoles in the dust. Nintendo makes exotic consoles with non conventional control schemes and power. Third parties rarely use these controls efficiently resulting in bad games most of the time. On Nintendo consoles, people buy Nintendo games for a reason. It's like they release a console only for them not caring much for third parties.

I appreciate your opinion on this matter, but I have to disagree. I think the paragraph I quoted above actually makes a more convincing case for Microsoft or Sony to exit the hardware business, not Nintendo.

Nintendo should stay in the game BECAUSE they make unorthodox systems. Because they give fans new ways to experience games. I play my Xbox because I want to play its exclusives, and I play PS3 because I want to play its exclusives. If I wanted cutting edge I would invest in a gaming computer.


MS could exit the hardware business it wouldn't change much for them because of how they view the markets. They could put XBL on any device (what they are doing right now), they could also license Kinect technology so other companies could sell them just like MS makes Windows and Sony makes computers with Windows installed.

What happens right now is that the gaming market is divided by console makers which I hope will dissapear all together someday. A lot of people do most of their gaming on one console but if they were to buy another it would be for console maker's exclusives as they almost have the same third party games. This model is outdated in my opinion. Expecialy when one console maker can't do third party games like the others. If Nintendo wanted to make games that are meant to be played with some kind of controller, nothing would stop them from releasing a tablet controller and advertize their games in such they need the controller to be played through their channel. People would still buy it, it's Nintendo. 

I understand that before, this model was working great. But as of todays, internet and streaming changed a lot. People have access to content more than ever. Music and Movies can be played on any device that can reads it and so should games. I'd rather pay for a Nintendo channel like I pay for XBL and still have the best in third party than buying more devices to play said game and another to play another game.

I said Nintendo should go this route yes, but in my mind MS will provide XBL to all first. I thought they would allow other consoles to buy arcade games and stream demos through XBL but would need an Xbox to play full version of said games. In the end people shouldn't buy an Xbox to play Halo, they should be able to play Halo on their device if it can support the game. Same thing for Nintendo and Sony... that was the initial idea.