| RolStoppable said: DanneSandin, you are still operating on the logical fallacy that proof for item A (your E3 predictions for Sony) equals proof for item B (Nintendo cancelling third party games and screwing over third parties). If that was how things work, then I have already proven in this thread that you have sex with sheep. Somebody posted a link to this webpage yesterday: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias It's an interesting read and ties in with how third parties treat Nintendo. The following excerpt is especially interesting: Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in military, political, and organizational contexts. If there is evidence of such poor decisions found at such high levels, then it's perfectly plausible that the same applies to people working in the video game industry. Anyone who paid attention has noticed that such events were occuring during the last years. Third parties had formed a certain conclusion and interpreted every piece of data to fit this conclusion. When a game like Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition tripled its sales expectations, it was written off as anomaly. Instead third parties pointed at poor efforts with poor sales to justify their stance on Wii development. One of your arguments is that Nintendo reserved system resources entirely to themselves in order to produce better looking games than third parties. This was actually true during the N64 days which is why third party games used extensive amounts of fog while first and second party games had enormous draw distances for their time. However, it doesn't seem to be true since the GC days. Here's the rundown: 1) GC: Criterion's Burnout games make it obvious that Nintendo didn't reserve superior tools for their own developers. Criterion's middleware Renderware also supported several hundred games during the sixth generation. 2) Wii: You claim that Nintendo made it hard for developers, so that's why they opted for shovelware and why even their better efforts didn't surpass average PS2 quality. However, the Wii is a GC on steroids at its core, meaning that all tools that worked on the GC work on the Wii as well. Since the Wii was more powerful than the GC, it's perfectly reasonable to expect the quality of Criterion's Burnout games as the standard, rather than a high end example. 3) Wii U: If you look at Nintendo's games, they aren't pushing any boundaries. What's the logic behind Nintendo holding back tools to make better looking games when they don't make better looking games? Your source told you that Nintendo tried to get an advantage over third parties only to not use this advantage at all. It doesn't make any sense, yet you are willing to believe it. That's something to think about. |
what happened was early on a very large publisher got their mitts on source code to a 1st party title accidentally (was meant to be sent a code segment on disk for assistance with a gpu addressing issue, but ended up with whole game source), and in the source for that, it became obvious that 3rd party sdks lacked vital and very helpful api's for graphics rendering, and the 'nintendo space' banned from use for 3rd party devs was being used without reservation - so basically 3rd party devs other than the one that found this got wind, and we've all basically said 'fix this shit or we go elsewhere', nintendo then issued an sdk update that added SOME of the api's for gpu processing but the memory restriction still in place - just with the commented code saying nintendo space changed to 'system reserved' - essentially nintendo got caught with its pants down blatently gimping 3rd party titles, then scrambled to fix it by letting some of the 1st part sdk features through a few months early, but all that did was piss devs off more, because it still shows that nintendo aren't playing fair and fucking 3rd party devs over.
developers through the entire wii cycle who were serious about developing games for it, not just shovelware, kept asking nintendo to give them more access to the hardware, to make things more open and ultimately, to make hardware improvements and changes that would allow developers to take the controls and truly run with them and make something incredible - devs were buzzed for the wiiu when nintendo handed out the initial specs, in the sdk given to third party devs it pretty much has COMMENTED sections basically saying 'dont use up x resources here' , 'while a workaround was possible here for the wii, we're not allowing it for the wiiu', basically gimping things for 3rd party to make an obvious and clear gap between first and third party titles. - Games HAVE to use the screen controller as much as possible to help ninty sell them, even if the game doesnt call for it, but the biggest and most glaring reason is that theres genuinely a section of code in the sdk that refers to a fairly large portion of the memory as 'nintendo space' - basically reserved space that can be accessed by devs, but theyre told not to address it and work around it, as games that are submitted for publication that address it 'will be turned away'
I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!
Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.
