Kaizar said:
zorg1000 said:
Kaizar said:
|
If Nintendo was paying for 3rd parties to be on their system, then the Wii would have gotten a lot more 3rd party support, even if it was just multiplatform games that in real life only came to the PS3 & 360.
The way EA & the game reviewers & the media talk about Nintendo, well, clearly Nintendo has never paid 3rd Parties nor anyone else any money for any support.
Sony & Microsoft have clearly paid 3rd parties for games, but clearly Nintendo never gives money to pimps who try to whore out any titles.
If Nintendo has shown us anything, it's that they just make the most interactive video game system they can and hope 3rd parties like it. Also Nintendo has shown that they never go to 3rd parties, but 3rd parties do sometimes go to them, like The Wonderful 101 & Bayonetta 2. If you decide to co-op a game with Nintendo it will be exclusive. Lego City Undercover is only on Wii U because of its capability to be 100% open world with that particular world. Nintendo let Lego know that the 3DS is capable of the same open world, but with 240p graphics, and then Lego decided to make a prequel to show off the Lego City world in 3D, like you are there in person because it's a Lego game.
|
There is a big difference between paying 1 exclusive vs paying for multiple exclusives, reviewers, media.
Monster Hunter was hands down the biggest series on PSP in Japan, 25% of PSP owners own the most recent Monster Hunter. By stealing that series, Nintendo has greatly hurt Sony portables in Japan.
PS3 doesnt have any 1 series in Japan that clearly sold the system. In order for Wii to steal the PS3 audience, Nintendo would have had to buy Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, Metal Gear Solid exclusivity. And in the west would have to buy Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty exclusivity.
|
But wouldn't there be confirmation of such a thing.
Everyone knew Project Cafe was the New Home Console, and NOT a Nintendo Zone set-up.
|
No not at all, has Sony or Microsoft ever confirmed the only reason a 3rd party game was exclusive was becaus they paid for it? The only time a company announces something like that is if the game wouldnt have been made in the first place, an example is Bayonetta 2.
I have no idea what ur second sentence is talking about
|
I didn't meant Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft would ever confirm such a thing. I just meant that people around the industry would have leaked it, like how every single thing Nintendo does, gets leaked all the time.
Plus Capcom wouldn't release Monster Hunter 3 on the 3DS if Monster Hunter 4 being a 3DS exclusive was any of Nintendo's doing.
The only reason we are getting Godzilla (2014) & Jurassic Park 4 & Independence Day 2 & 3 is because of 3D.
With Godzilla & Jurassic Park 4 you get giant creatures in 3D, so clearly Capcom thinking was to make the next Monster Hunter game right away since there is a glasses-free 3D device, and to make it an exclusive to the 3DS because the purpose of Monster 4 is to have giant monsters in 3D !
Plus as I said, Capcom would never release Monster Hunter 3 for 3DS if Monster Hunter 4 was bought by Nintendo. So this shows that Capcom was interested in making Monster Hunter 4 a 3DS exclusive because of 3D.
You can't tell me that anyone is going to see Godzilla (2014) in 2D. So why would anyone from Japan want to play Monster Hunter 4 in 2D. (the Japanese really love 3D since 2006 or earlier)
|
