By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Soundwave on 11 January 2016
Edit Thread
Thunderbird77 said:
Soundwave said:

 

I don't think system specific exclusives are feasible any longer for Nintendo. 

The portable is not some cute little kid brother, it's a full fledged console, I think people are going to have to understand that. Nintendo cannot make specific games for both without suffering massive delays. 

Even look at Sony, they just *now* are starting to rev up PS4 releases in-house and they have no Vita to support. If they had to support the Vita simulatenously there's no chance they could adequetly supply software for both. 

Having two platforms was feasible back when portable games had this scope:

 

But the next Nintendo portable will likely be able to run games like this:

And this:

And you want PS4 graphics level exclusives for the console too? Gooooooooooood luck. 

Segregated libraries aren't even a good thing really. If I have a hit game like Splatoon or the Zelda game above that I've spent a ton of money making, I want it available to ALL my consumers, not 20% of them. That's not good business. 

Are you seriously comparing sony first party devs with nintendo's? Look at the games nintendo made in the past years.

The next handheld won't have that level of graphical fidelity (although it will still surpass ps360).

I don't want ps4 level graphics exclusives in the next home console, I know it will be confortably above ps4 graphics at better framerates and possibly 1440p on 4k tvs. Making better looking games doesn't cost more, it's just what comes naturally with better hardware.

 

It doesn't even matter if the home console is a minor upgrade, if your portable is PS360 as you say in your post, that's pretty much the end for the old Nintendo hardware model. 

The costs/dev resources/project scope for portable games becomes much larger once you cross into the threshold of PS360 level visuals. 

That's effectively *two consoles* ... Nintendo can't even support the Wii U and 3DS as is without dissapointing people 1/2 the time, they simply cannot go any futher with natural hardware progression and be able to support it. 

It was stupid anyway ... imagine spending $200 million on a Star Wars movie and then forcing it into a type of theater where only 25% of the fans can watch it. Would you say that's a smart business model? 

This is basically what Nintendo does. 75% of their hardware base this generation will never play Splatoon or Zelda U or Xenoblade X or Bayonetta 2 or Pikmin 3 or Mario 3D World. Why? Because they didn't buy the Wii U. 

At some point I think it's smarter to stop lecturing people on what hardware they should be buying and just let them have access to the games, in other words enough with the hardware worship. All this was ever about was letting people have access to the games (where the real money is made). 

So why not have a rethink of what constitutes a hardware platform? Why are we stuck with rules that were invented for the 1980s gaming market? Which of these rules even benefits Nintendo any longer?