| Aielyn said:
Regarding PS2, you seem to have skipped the main point of what I said, and focused on the "also note that", which purely noted that you still saw multiplatform games despite the lopsided sales. If you want to respond to the actual argument, rather than the side note, I'll happily debate that with you. And it's up to third parties to build a fanbase on systems. And yes, to build a userbase, to some degree. If the only games you could get at all on a Nintendo system were Nintendo titles, it wouldn't sell anywhere near as well. Third party games build the userbase, by increasing the perceived value of the system (a person buys a system when its perceived value to them is greater than the cost of buying the system). As for the "Ecosystems" part, I'm sorry, but ecosystems are set up by the third parties just as much as the hardware maker. And by the way, the biggest argument developers and publishers have used in the past is "you can't compete with Nintendo on their console" - if Nintendo had focused on making more FPSes, third parties would have said "We can't compete with Nintendo in FPSes, so why bother making FPSes for the system?" Basically, Nintendo is damned if they do, and damned if they don't. THQ is not a small dev team. If 4A Games wasn't big enough to handle both development and porting, they wouldn't have initially claimed that the game was coming to the Wii U... but more importantly, THQ could easily arrange for another company to handle porting duties. It happens all the time, even with IPs that aren't owned by the publisher. THQ could easily have organised it. As for the "dev team thought it would be inferior", that was rumour (in the form of a non-quote attribution of an opinion as stated by some site, can't remember which one now), and has since been contradicted by people in both THQ and 4A Games. And again, you invoke the classic chicken-and-egg problem, in that the system has to magically prove that it has an audience for a game before having that game put on there, even though, to prove it, it has to have such a game on there. I'm really sick and tired of this circular argument being put forward, so I'll emphasise it yet again, by spelling it out in stages: 1. If Nintendo makes a strong enough game in the genre to prove the audience is there (or to create the audience), third parties go "Can't compete with Nintendo on their own hardware". So Nintendo doesn't expand into genres that they don't already dominate. In the rare cases that developers have actually put quality titles on Nintendo systems, either in genres where they compete with Nintendo or in uncontested genres, they've seen great results. But the same stages I just listed above happen over and over again, and I'm fed up with people like you playing along with it. It is the developers' and publishers' jobs to establish markets on the systems. Nintendo's (and MS's and Sony's) job is to build an install base that can act as the seed for such markets. As for the 360 and PS3 split point - again, my point is that, if it's already a multiplatform game, it should be on all suitable platforms. Otherwise, it should be exclusive. If you're already spending money to port the game to a second platform, the costs to port it to a third platform are relatively minimal. Especially when all information from developers to date have said that it's easy to port games to the Wii U, that in many cases it has taken no more than a couple of weeks to get it running properly. And again, the audience can only be there if the game is there FIRST. If you can't recognise this obvious fact - that the audience comes to the game, not the other way around, then there's no point continuing to debate the rest of it. It's such an elementary point that just about everything else rests on it. And you've even agreed with it in a previous post, just not in this context (in that post, it was "games sell systems, not the other way around"). |
I did respond to the arguement, if you actually read what I wrote you would know that. Again there were multiplatform games because there was an audience to support them. It was small so most didn't bother but it was large enough for some. Just like the Wii U has enough potential to convince a few 3rd parties.
Again you realise that THQ is broke right?
Third parties helping to build the ecosystem is a side effect not the desired resault in and of it's self. At the moment most publishers are not convinced that the Wii U will so they are not risking investing to many resources on it for the most part. Your arguement seems to be bassed on the falacy that publishers should want to build the Wii U ecosystem and userbase for the games that they make. Publishers go to where the market is, they are not in the business of esentially making charity games so that the Wii U can draw in an audience for their games, not when there are already markets out there. Nintendo understands this which is why they are paying 3rd party devs to develop for the system, games sell systems after all but it's still not 3rd parties job to do that for Nintendo out of the goodness of their hearts.
The game is multiplatform because there is an already established market for the game on multiple existing systems, how hard is that for you to grasp? Publishers go for multiple platforms because there is an audience on multiple platforms. The Wii U is an unproven platform so at this point it's a total gamble if it will be able to create a market eventually eventually. A few publishers are willing to hedge their bets and position titles on the system just in case it does take off, but don't expect every publisher to gamble enough to bring every title over before the market is proven.
And that few weeks was not for "running well" it was to get the engine running at all with no graphics or AI, it was 5 weeks to get a single level together for E 2011 but Nintendo didn't let them show that. Porting the full game took over 6 months and it still came out worse than the PS360 versions. I assume you are going off the Darksiders 2 comments.
@TheVoxelman on twitter
