Zod95 said:
I've just answered your question (how has the Wii attracted shovelware). You say there's nothing wrong with that. That's fine by me, but I have a different perspective, that's all. Nintendo has screwed 3rd parties because of many many points I've mentioned on the entire section 2 of the OP...and only 1 of them is creating a significantly weaker console than competition, which neither Sony nor Microsoft have ever made. Wii is 1 gen behind X360 and PS3. WiiU is 1 gen behind XOne and PS4. PS1 was not 1 gen behind N64. PS2 was not 1 gen behind GC. Am I being biased for that? I think I'm not. And this is one tiny part of the whole section 2 (harming developers). Please read it and tell me if you don't perceive a difference between Nintendo and Sony/Microsoft.
Please show me evidence. Not that it erases Nintendo's bad practices, but it would be already a start.
Setting the example is just one of the several points I've made there. Why do you ignore most of what I say so that you won't get the right message? Are you willing to really debate the points I've made or you just want to break my arguments into small little pieces and spin-off whatever you get from there?
I will only say it again: a highly powerful hardware allows low powerful games, a low powerful hardware does not allow highly powerful games. Freedom means developers are free to do whatever they want. Furthermore, a more powerful console is more expensive to design and to produce. No only your argument is false (devs have indeed all the freedom to do whatever they want on the powerful PS4 and XOne) but also Nintendo is not opting by producing less powerful consoles to protect devs, it's just to protect their own pockets.
Just to keep themselves alive?? Please, look at reality: http://i.imgur.com/vXo7Z.png?1
Yes it can. Consoles could even be all the same. We only need diversification on software, and even that doesn't mean there must be poor games. I know it's hard to imagine, but it would be possible to make a AAA Mario game. Nintendo has the resources and the talent to do that. They just lack of willingness.
It's not the business that is greedy, it's a specific company in comparison to the others.
The arguments presented in there are laughable. I would be ashamed of posting such a link and say "educate yourself". Please, they even claim that squeezing a market is a good thing. Sony and Microsoft also work with 3rd parties and licensing rights and they don't need region lock. Why? Please tell me why. Those are only excuses and false arguments to stand for a shameful business practice. |
1. Yet you still haven't really proved why this is bad. It was just as easy to make good games on the Wii for less cost than on the HD twins. Making a weaker console wasn't an "anti-third party" move, it was a move done by a Nintendo who had been shown that third parties wouldn't support them no matter what and they realized they wouldn't be able to survive if they did the same thing everyone else did. yes it was significantly weaker but the possiblility to make great games on the hardware was still there. This goes two-fold for the Wii U which is much closer to PS4/XBO than the Wii was to PS3/360.
2. You want evidence that Nintendo has been good with indies? Look up the list of over 120 indie games in the Pipeline for wii u or the multitude of devs who have said they have had great experiences with Nintendo. Do your own research....they really aren't hard to find.
here are a few links from 2 seconds of searching:
http://www.edge-online.com/features/indies-on-wii-u-why-working-with-nintendo-is-easier-than-you-think/
http://www.destructoid.com/nintendo-truly-wants-to-be-indies-best-friend-252169.phtml
3. You say you said a lot but you really didn't. here is your quote:
"Easy, I can blame Nintendo because I can compare them with the other console makers and see that the same business, the same environment, the same 3rd parties don't do on PlayStation or Xbox what they do on Nintendo consoles. The console philosophy is defined by the console maker, the console architecture is designed by them too, the first games (that will show how to use the console) are created by them too. The entire console ecosystem is initiated by them. 3rd parties just add on top of that. Are them to blame too? Sure. But comparing what is comparable: console maker against console maker, then Nintendo is to blame simply because they do and create and promote what Sony and Microsoft don't."
Yes, MS/Sony/Nintendo are in the same business but they come from vastly different places. Not everybody is standing on equal ground here.
The next part is the part I responded to (which you chose to ignore)
They you agreed that third parties are to blame
Then you wrapped back around to the top point. You assume that if Nintendo did the exact same thing as everyone else, everything would be fine and dandy. Prove that to me please. Prove that the market can support three identical console or that third parties would put in the work to port games to Nintendo consoles. We haven't seen that in the past so why should I assume that it would be different now?
4. Funny you talk about me ignoring your points and then you straight up skip my 4th point xD
5. I will say it again. Both good and bad games can be created on strong and weak hardware.
Additionally, if you say that weak hardware "encourages" shovelware, you have to admit the inverse is also true, that strong hardware "encourages" the production of over budget games, leading to the homoginization of the industry and putting a lot of developers on the streets.
And you talk about creative freedom? Graphics aren't the only thing that enables creative freedom. You may have missed it but both the Wii and the Wii U provided a new control scheme that allowed a ton of creative freedom for developers to tap into.
Sony/MS create powerful hardware to "protect their own pockets" too. If they thought another model would be more sucessful, you can be damn sure they would jump in headfirst.
6. Once again, look back to the Gamecube era. Things weren't looking so good for Nintendo and while they made money off of the GC, they wouldn't have been able to do so if they made a console that caused them to lose money.
7. Nintendo has made AAA mario games multiple times...Look at Super mario galaxy or super mario 3D world. From what I see see, they were just as AAA as any CoD or BF game on the market...
8. I've already said that when you compare the Nintendo of today to Sony/MS, you can see that nintendo no longer uses questionable business practices where others (especially MS) do...
9. Region Lock is there for third parties...that is a fact. They aren't necessarily required but as you can see, they are generally more common than not. Both the PS1 and PS2 were region locked, XBox and 360 were both region locked...additionally, region locking only really effects a tiny tiny minority of people. Once again, you insult Nintendo for not having 3rd parties backs but when they do something for them, you attack them for that too. Here is a quote from Iwata:
"From some people’s perspective, it might seem like a kind of restriction. However, we hope people can appreciate the fact that we’re selling our products worldwide. There are many different regions around the world, and each region has its own cultural acceptance and legal restrictions, as well as different age ratings. There are always things that we’re required to do in each different region, which may go counter to the idea that players around the world want the freedom to play whatever they want.
...I hope that game fans can understand that the industry isn’t doing this solely out of business ego. There are some reasons behind it."
Here is another article discussion region lock: http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2013/07/soapbox_why_region_locking_is_a_total_non_issue
Its not hard to see that there are two sides to that story and your "objective" view isn't so objective...
