| Wyrdness said:
Capcom have been catering to the competitive side for much longer then Nintendo because they were making fighters long before the latter even looked at the genre, Capcom were equally as awkward when they first acknowledged the competitive scene and have since adjusted after gaining experience from it, Nintendo only acknowledge the scene from 2013 and are only learning the fundamentals of it. SF would obviously have a higher attendance then Smash they've been a community since the days of the SNES and were no longer an underground unit in the early 00s, Smash has been very elite and underground until around 2013 with competitive community only now being able to grow better, another factor is what I pointed out eariler in regional differences. In Smash tournaments it's practically all NA players with a handful of non NA players where as SF it's a lot more diverse in the attendance, this is because the is little unification in the Smash community among regions compared to that of the FGC and NA is practically the sole region for the game. To kick things off I said those EU players for the majority of their time probably stick to the NTSC version as this would be the version that pops up at most tournaments and big EU tournaments that are relevant have been far and few over the past years. If you want to compare SF's competitive scene the game has 3 major top tier regions in NA, Japan and EU, Smash is almost entirely carried by NA as a region, multiple regions brings different approaches to the game and tech being discovered and figured out much quicker regardless of taste in approach. Smash's community sadly also is a factor in it's wonky growth, I highlighted regional differences earlier because as the community grows this toxic infighting over approaches starts having less of an influence and the overall community becomes more accepting of new approaches. I have to rubbish your PC logic because if that were the case most games would be bought on PC, more people own a PC then any console but that doesn't bolster your point when PCs are devices that are circumstantial in someone's house, it could be a family PC, the PC itself maybe suited for particular tasks that aren't gaming specific, the maybe one or two bits of hardware in it that aren't up the job, it could just be for someones work etc... it's a very wonky point you're trying to push there. A decent gaming PC is different from a decent PC in general I know because I've been building them for 10 years, a 2007 PC would need to be around high end by the way to run GC emulation as emulation takes a lot of power even for more powerful hardware. You'd need a PC from around 2011/2012 which weighs in at the same price as the Wii U then you have to go into the whole downloading an ISO and such so it's not a solid point tbh. At this point we're pretty much going in circles. |
OK I'm done arguing about the growth part of this so I'm purely here to inform you of the facts. I don't even know why you are bringing up SF with regards to regional differences because my point was you said the best players in Europe play NTSC which I can tell you is false.
As for my PC logic, 1. I've been emulating gamecube games since 2008 without problems, so I was just going off that, my computer was pretty average in 2008. The point of my PC thing was you said SSB4 is much more accessible online than Melee and I said that was false for the following reasons, whether people will actually download/play Melee online is not relevant to the original debate, here are the facts.
1. Many more people own PC's capable of running Melee than WiiU's
2. Melee requires $15 to play on a PC
3. SSB4 requires a minimum of $60
