By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Cobretti2 on 19 December 2012
Edit Thread
zarx said:
Aielyn said:
zarx said:
Aielyn said:

1. Games sell consoles, not the other way around.

While it's true that software drives hardware, it is not 3rd party publishers job to drive hardware adoption for Nintendo.

I didn't say it was. The point, there, was that saying "the next Xbox and Playstation will be more powerful, so why support a weaker console" is idiotic. Games sell consoles. Consoles don't sell games.

On the other hand, it is 3rd party publishers' jobs to establish markets on consoles. Nintendo's job is to get the system out there, to create the initial seed. Third parties should then be leveraging that seed, the install base, to sell their games. And the number of people who own the platform and are currently interested in a game is irrelevant - people will buy the system for the game, if the game is good. The game sells the system. The market is created by the game, not the system.

It's a lot like cities and towns. If you don't see why, I'll explain, but it's a little long-winded, and apparently Matzy doesn't like it when you put multiple words together. :P


Did you even bother reading my post? 

People are not going to buy a new system to play games on systems they already own. And if they wanted that type of game enough to buy a platform to play it they would have already brought a platform that has that type of game. When a publisher brings a multiplatform game to a new system it is not to create a new market on that system, it is to access the market that exists on the system. And it's totally up to the platform holder to create and foster that market to create an installbase. It is not in publishers best interest to split the market up ether, they ideally want the market as consentrated as possible like it was on the PS2, they only support multiple platforms because they have to to address the audience on the multiple platforms, 3rd parties would be more than happy to see one of the big three drop out (2 can be good as they can get kickbacks and it keeps licensing costs down) if that means that they had to support less platforms. 

In simple terms, publishers support a platform for the audience it has (or at launch they expect to be) not to make the audience invest in the platform. And in publishers eyes the less platforms they need to support the better.

Also I am not Mazty 

Firstly, I  fully agree with Aeilyn comments so far.

 

I have a PS3 and 360 and guess what I baught these 3rd party games on Wii U instead. 

To put it simply, how well do you think the PS3 would have sold without 3rd party support? Like 25million tops?

3rd party games is what moved Sony's hardware. You here it everyday that VITA would be selling better if it had better games and support from developers. So what makes Nintendo's platform any different? why does Nintendo need to prove itself first? And when they do get good sales aka Wii, 3rd parties release shit games and expect them to sell.

The simple fact is if 3rd parties want their franchises to grow, they need to make the effort to connect with other audiences.