The truth about Nintendo

[Zod95]

sundin13 said:

2. Yeah, damn that Cell Processor that made the third party games generally worse than on the 360 and generally made developing for the PS3 more difficult. Wait...that was Sony :/ (the other parts of that argument are a bit outdated)

That's right, Cell was a bad move from Sony. It was a huge investment and there wasn't much of a return considering the small amount of titles that really took advantage of it. It was Sony being cocky and harming everybody (including themselves). If I was to write a "The truth about Sony", I would definitely include Cell in there.

However, there still is a huge difference between Sony's Cell and Nintendo's non-standard tech. Both tried to innovate on what wasn't their field of expertise, but while Sony was attempting to be cutting-edge making a huge investment in order to deliver a top-notch processor that would make the PS3 more powerful than any other console, Nintendo didn't try anything special at all, they just closed on themselves (like Apple always does).

 

sundin13 said:

3. If higher power is inherently better than why buy a console at all when PCs are so much stronger? There are so many other factors that you are ignoring (such as the section of the market that prefers lower priced consoles, thus bringing more people into video games which is inherently good for the industry). Good games can be made with high or low powered consoles. Additionally, as I previously stated, if you make the assumption that low powered consoles "encourage shovelware", you have to accept the inverse that high powered consoles "encourage over budget AAA games". I would personally argue that the latter is just as bad if not worse than the former. Lower power is not inherently bad and you have yet to prove to me that it is. You just state that it is "truth" and walk away.

I guess I don't need to tell you the differences between PC and consoles.

Gamers who prefer lower priced consoles can buy a PS3/X360 or even a PS2.

Wii has encouraged shovelware not only because it was less powerful. The way Nintendo has presented the console and the first games, with simpler mechanics, casual experiences, kindergarten environments, etc...that has positioned the console on a very fertile field for shovelware to flourish.

On the other hand, Sony/Microsoft have always positioned their consoles as for any experience, any environment, every gamer. They embrace both casual and hardcore, they provide means for both to thrive on their platforms (high specs for hardcore - PS Eye, Move, Kinect, Ilumni Room for casuals). They present AAA games, indie games, party games...anything. They do not encourage one specific segment over the others.

Shovelware is bad because not only their sales are "stolen" from the other games (people's money is limited) but also, in the long-term, people will not be convinced by the low quality delivered to them and will end up giving up from videogame consoles. Look at what happened to the Wii/WiiU.

 

sundin13 said:

4. Obviously you weren't around when that article came up and multiple non-anonymous developers said that while there were some problems at launch (as expected), it has all been ironed out a loooong time ago. Many devs stood behind Nintendo on that one...

Evidence, please?