S.T.A.G.E. said:
curl-6 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
curl-6 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
curl-6 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Which gen since the SNES has Nintendo ever followed suit with devs on specs?
N64 Era= Refused to make the jump to CD's and was overlooked by devs because competent competition arrived and they were free to expand their games.
Gamecube Era= Refused to make the jump to DVD's which could hold 8GB of information and stuck with minidisc that could hold a fraction of it. Technically the console was capable of better graphics but lacked the space needed to make the bigger and better games that devs pushing the console wanted to make. That and it was clear there was no love lost from how Nintendo dealt with third parties during the SNES and they realized Sony and now their new relationship with Nintendo was freer for them to create their own games.
Wii= Made a severely underpowered console that gave devs far less power and forced devs to use Nintendos short lived gimmick rather than making what they felt was right for the console. Some tried to make a good game and failed, few succeeded in trying to make a good game with the Wii and the rest played it smart and went for the cash grab once they realized it was gimmick.
Wii U= Nintendos first true attempt to win back the core gamers and they came a gen late in terms of tech. The media told Reggie about rumors of the other consoles having higher specs and what did Reggie say? "Lets wait and see" and game over again for Nintendo.
No one is to blame but Nintendo for the lack of third party interest of their console for nearly 20 years.
Nintendo gamers have to pay the piper if they refuse to pay for the COD game though. It was there and still sold dismally.
|
Third parties still supported the PS3 with its notoriously developer-unfriendly architecture,proving that with proper investment you can build an ecosystem in spite of hardware obstacles. Now if studios have put similar efforts into building an ecosystem on Wii, things would have been very different for both that console and Wii U. But no, they gave Wii gamers rail shooters instead of proper Resident Evil/Dead Space games.
People aren't just going to forget a whole generation of learned aversion; third parties have to show that they're not going to do the same thing this time.
|
Sony still had a wayyyyyy better relationship with third parties than Nintendo ever had with the PS3, which is why their longevity stayed on par with the Xbox even though they put out more first party than any of the competition. You did pay attention to the conference correct? Sony literally appologized and created the first ever western made Playstation not made by Ken Kutaragi. This Playstation will have a western twist while enjoying the best of the east and west in games. Thats like a match made in heaven...think about it. Why should developers go out of their way to make things for Nintendo when Nintendo should be preparing specs for their collective imaginations rather than just their own selfish family oriented desires? Why not something where everyone wins? Can you truly answer that? As for the PS3 getting dev support spite the issues, it basically sold on par with the Xbox throughout in multiplats especially as the years went by.
|
You could flip the question and ask why Nintendo should cater to those who want to push a bazillion polygons and shaders to selfishly satisfy their "imagination" instead of going with a more cost-effective solution that allows for backwards compatibility while providing enough power for both experiences proven in the PS360 field and new possibilities for their first party software. Can you imagine the price tag on the Wii U if it had PS4's specs AND the tablet controller?
|
Well I know the answer, Nintendo has NEVER truly catered themselves to devs. Devs always answered to them until the Playstation arrived.
|
The PS2 and PS3 weren't catered to devs either.
|
The PS2 catered to developers and expanded the disc space they could use. Kutaragi got cocky and used the cell (which also spiked up the PS3 price) which everyone expected to be awesome but turned out to be so wrong. Developers were psyched for it because on paper it was more powerful than the 360 if harnessed but actually it only helped exclusives and held back multiplats because games must be specifically made for the cell to work without a hitch. If you saw it as it was, it was misfire which was actually supposed to be a match made in heaven. They've finally succeeded and made all appologies in it with the PS4 by letting a western designer work out the specs. The PS4 will be the console that both Sony and third parties want it to be. Remember Microsoft and Sony were specifically asked by certain companies to use a specific amount of ram and other specs and Sony followed through. No one asked Nintendo because Nintendo never...ever...listens.
|
You are confusing the PS1 with the PS2. The PS1 was catered to devs. Sony was newcomer to the industry. So they bent over backwards to garner third party support with the PS1. Once they gained a dominant place in the market, they pulled several of the same draconian anti-third party tactics that NES/SNES era Nintendo pulled. Not only was the PS2 a complete nightmare to develop for, it's dev kits had horrible documentation. The PS3 continued the trend. Sony's philosophy after their success with the PS1 changed. They were number one, they built their hardware the way they wanted, and if you were a third party developer their response was "deal with it."
One of the biggest contrast with the PS2 and PS3 that the PS4 has is a obvious catering to third parties. Sony doesn't have the dominant marketshare anymore. They also don't have the biggest wallet. That being the case they seem to be going back the PS1 style philosphy that garnered them success in the first place.
