sundin13 said:
Zod95 said:
| 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 Wait...that was Sony :/ (the other parts of that argument are a bit outdated)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?
|
2 : I have no idea how you are missing the fact that motion controls are innovative and provided a great deal of creative freedom to devs. "Nintendo didn't try anything special at all, they just closed on themselves" is some of the biggest bull**** I have heard in a while. The Wii was more innovative than the PS2, PS3 and PS4 combined! The Wii was a fairly big risk, tapping into a part of the market that was vastly unproven and many people expected it to fail. Additionally, as I have said before, Nintendo would have lost a large part of the market if they had made their console more expensive and they would have lost a large part of their profit if they had not made money off of console sales. How would Nintendo struggling be good for the industry? Especially when Sony staff has stated that the current decline of Nintendo is hurting the industry because it is not bringing in as many new gamers.
3. "Gamers who prefer lower priced consoles can buy a PS3/X360" Not at the start of the gen! PS3 was ridiculously priced and the 360 charged for an online connection which was an expense I wasn't willing to pay (I still hold that belief). If I wanted to go online, I would have had to pay an addition few hundred dollars throughout the generation. The Wii was the only cost effective "current gen" option at the beginning of last gen.
3b. "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."
Wii launched with Twilight princess and within a year had games such as Metroid Prime 3, Super mario Galaxy, Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn, Battalion Wars 2 etc.. Yes, they used the Wii line to help bring in "casuals" but they continued to release amazing AAA software like always.
Additionally, as I have already stated, any console that is cheap, easy to develop for and popular will attract shovelware, that is just how the market works. Nintendo made a fairly brillinat move with the Wii which had an unfortunate side effect.
Let me ask you this. You are Nintendo and you just released the Nintendo Wii. What do you do now? Do you tell 3rd parties that you refuse to release their games if they aren't up to a certain level of quality?
I think its undeniable that Nintendo made a great move that made them a lot of money and brough a lot of newcomers into gaming. How would they have been able to do this without the negative side effects?
3c. "Shovelware is bad because not only their sales are "stolen" from the other games " That is about as true as "piracy is a lost sale" (aka not true) and you have no way of proving this fact.
3d. "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." once again, there is no way to prove that. A lot of the people who picked up the Wii were likely one off buyers, however there were a lot of people who either had their Wii as their first console and branched out from there or who really became "gamers" after purchasing a Wii (like me).
Oh, and like I said above, Sony disagrees with you (this link shows that Sony believes Nintendo currently and in the past play an important role in bringing in new gamers): http://nintendoeverything.com/sony-uk-boss-nintendo-decline-could-be-detrimental-to-the-market/
4. Its funny that you cite a source but put no effort into actually validating it.
http://wiiudaily.com/2014/01/indie-developer-on-wii-u-development/
http://nintendoenthusiast.com/news/harder-develop-games-wii-u-case-says-renegade-kid/
|
