The truth about Nintendo

[Zod95]

DarkD said:

Look up the contract bit, its on wikipedia, I remember reading it ages ago.  Something about weird fine print being added that gave them power over Nintendo's licenses.

My question is general and to go to the root of the problem: Nintendo is not used to negotiate. See what they did in the 80s. They need a dominant position so they can "negotiate" properly.

 

DarkD said:

So what, they are just supposed to keep using the PC standard even when it will make a game console outrageously expensive?  Here's another standard which you may have forgotten.  200-300 dollars.  That is how much game consoles cost back in the N64 and earlier eras.  Why should they go higher when it will break the price point that's been maintained for so long.  It's Sony and Microsoft that went over. 

There are several PC standards. You have PCs for 300€ and for 3000€. The standard here doesn't have to do with low or high level but with type of architecture. 200$-300$? Put inflation on that: http://kotaku.com/36-years-of-console-prices-adjusted-for-inflation-1485353267

N64? You've just picked one of the cheapest consoles of all time. You call it the standard? The standard is around 400$. PS4 and even XOne are not expensive.

 

DarkD said:

Why do you need evidence that the gamepad is easy to program for.  Controls aren't exactly the hard part of designing a game.  Pretty much every third party that released on the Wii U added a few gamepad features then released it as a Wii U exclusive with a new subtitle.  Batman and Deus Ex being prime examples.  Developers couldn't ask for an easier method of making a game have exclusive content.

You seem to don't understand what a port to another console requires. You think it's just control reconfiguration. It's much more than that. Otherwise, GTA V woud have been already on WiiU along with many other X360/PS3 games that have been skipping the WiiU.

 

DarkD said:

If you want to define the norm, how about any game which does something risky that you might see in the indy market, but created as a core franchise.  Examples would be Boom Blox or Zack and Wiki: Quest for Barbados Treasure.

So, in your opinion, the norm is about risky concepts seen on the indie market but created as core franchises...what?

 

DarkD said:

Those would have never been core titles on the PS3, they were only made possible because of Nintendo's open minded audience.

And yes Sony audience is closed minded.  You've more than once categorized cartoony graphics as being less worthy than hyper realistic graphics.  You have spent an absurd amount of time trying to shoot down a console brand which is beloved by its players and for what reason?  Because they don't share your values?  Nintendo may be somewhat shitty to third parties, but to the consumers they are the most moral group in the entire gaming industry.

If Sony's audience is close-minded, how could a game like Flower be so much appreciated?

Cartoonish graphics are not less worthy than realistic graphics. You pulled that out of context. Read the 2nd reply of this post (http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=6108102) to understand that I don't necessarily consider realism a greater thing.