| Mazty said: Word of the day: "concise". If you are just going to throw around ad hominems like "fanboy" or "anti-fanboy" then I can't be bothered with this debate. End of the day, you think you know better then developers and publishers who will have ran the figures (obviously) before coming to a conclusion. As I have said, why the hell bother developing for the Wii U when most owners will already have a PS3 or 360? |
I'd rather be correct than concise, and a detailed argument is better than a flawed but short one.
I didn't once use "fanboy" or "anti-fanboy" as an ad hominem. Please do not use terms if you don't actually understand them. My use of those terms was not as part of an argument against anything you said. "Ad hominem" means to attack the person instead of their argument, or to argue against them by attacking the person. My comments about fanboyism served the purpose of emphasising that your argument is the same one trotted out by many other people who have exactly the same mindset as you do, and that perhaps there would be value in trying to look at things from other perspectives.
I gave a detailed explanation of why you should develop for the Wii U. You ignored it. I gave a more detailed explanation, with examples of games demonstrating why developing core games for a console can pay off in the long term, even on consoles that are seen as "inferior" or "for teh casualz". You ignored it.
Consider this. The Wii was seen as not much more powerful than the PS2. The PS2 was still being sold. By your reasoning, a console with well over 100 million units sold is the competition for a new console... why bother supporting it? Well, it turned out that that new console was a megahit, and that large sales were seen for third parties when they actually put in serious effort. Resident Evil 4 sold well over 2 million copies on the Wii, despite being a port of a two and a half year old title that had already sold on both the immediate predecessor of the Wii and on the biggest-selling console of the previous generation, which was meant to be in competition with the Wii according to people like you.
By your reasoning, who did it sell Resident Evil 4 to? I mean, any core gamer who owned a Wii had to own a PS2 or a Gamecube already, right? So what was the value in releasing the game for the Wii? And yet, Resident Evil 4 laid the groundwork that allowed Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles to sell exceptionally well. And that game then also allowed games like House of the Dead to flourish. It laid the groundwork for Silent Hill: Shattered Memories. One could even argue that it laid the groundwork for MadWorld, a title that just about every anti-fanboy that hated Nintendo said wouldn't sell on the Wii, yet managed a rather noteworthy 700,000 copies.
Until you can reasonably explain why situations like that are different from the Wii U, your argument remains nothing but a fanboy argument.
