By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Locknuts on 30 March 2015
Edit Thread
RolStoppable said:
Locknuts said:

I think they could have turned it around enough to sell roughly 40mil lifetime. Also, how to you think Sony got the third party support? They made first party games in the genres they were chasing in order to prove that those types of games sold (action adventure, racing, FPS etc) and I'd bet they paid for the content.

Nintendo did neither of those things. They're too arrogant and tight-assed and it will be their downfall. They may make it big with the casuals once the crack the mobile market, but their 5 million or so core fans that are left are diminishing fast because we are losing faith in their ability to support their products.

So you are actually serious?

Yes, Sony got third party support by paying for selected content during the PS1 and PS2 days (we are talking about exclusivity here), but since we are talking about the PS3 specifically, they already had all third party support guaranteed due to the dominance of the PS2. Regarding first party content, it's actually the other way around: It was shaped based on the third party software that sold (Tomb Raider, Ridge Racer and Medal of Honor etc.). Because third parties had already all these PS3 games in development, Sony didn't have to pay for anything other than maintaining exclusivity; which they didn't, so a lot of games became multiplatform (Assassin's Creed, Devil May Cry 4, Final Fantasy XIII, just to name a few). Third parties had invested so much in the PS3 before launch that turning back wasn't even considered as an option, otherwise they would have started to put good games on the bestselling console; and we know they didn't.

The conditions were entirely different for the Wii U where third parties had already written off the system before it launched. 75+% of 360/PS3 multiplatform games scheduled for late 2012 or 2013 weren't even planned to come to the Wii U. Whereas for the PS3 Sony had to do nothing to get all the games, Nintendo would have had to pay hand over fist to get some ports. When you consider how insignificant multiplatform releases have been for Nintendo hardware sales historically, it's easy to understand why Nintendo wasn't willing to fork over cash. Sony and Microsoft don't pay either for games that they don't believe will move hardware.

 I am serious. Seriously disappointed in Nintendo for not doing what was necessary to keep their reputation intact among the core gamers for the last few generations. If they had, third parties would be lining up to develop for Nintendo's consoles like they were for Sony with the PS3.

And come on...really? Sony had Uncharted, Resistance, GT etc in development long before the launch of the PS3. They knew the market they were going after and they wanted to support the belief that those types of games would sell on their machine. They didn't know the PS3 was going to flounder like it did, but they had the good sense to prove that those types of games were viable regardless. And like I said, I'll bet that some money exchanged hands too. Of course it would cost Nintendo a lot more because of the situation they're in, but that's Nintendo's fault for not playing the game the last few generations.