SubiyaCryolite said:
SpokenTruth said:
My point was way over there and you went way over that way. You didn't just dodge it, you took a different street.
My point (can't believe I even have to spell this out) is that hundreds of PS3 and Xbox 360 games had PC requirements far in excess of those consoles. Therefore under your premise the PS3 and X360 should never have received those games because they would not be capable of meeting the RAM requirements.
And I know you know this. Your entire purpose for this thread was to point and laugh at Nintendo. You didn't want an honest technical discussion. You didn't have some epiphany about Wii U, 3rd parties and RAM. You made this thread to make fun of Nintendo.
|
Id rather actual developers talk about these things, particularily devs of games that wont appear on the PS3 and 360. You cant honestly think that the difference between 1GB and 5GB of shared RAM or 3 cores vs 7 has nothing to do with several big games being ported . Someone pointed out the Wii earlier, despite its sales how many big games apart from Call of Duty and licensed titles were ported over? Despite the GameCubes poor sales how many games like Soul Calibur, Need for Speed and SSX were ported over? Games like The Witcher 3 and Arkham Knight could be scaled down to work on the Wii U, or PS3 or freaking iOS but at what cost. Better yet how could a company justify that over focussing on the new HD twins and PC? Same code, same assets, same GPU capabilities, everything just works.
And how is pointed out any of these things laughing at Nintendo?
|
you are making a shallow specs comparison. and it's not like the games should run the same.
