JEMC said:
Jumpin said:
Power doesn't equal support, and devs don't decide what games go on what platforms, publishers do.
GameCube was reportedly even more powerful than PS2, but it still got less than 1/6th the support, and the support it did get were largely inferior junior versions of their grownup PS2 counterparts. I.E. PS2 got Final Fantasy X, X2, 11, and 12. GameCube got Crystal Chronicles which is a beginner RPG with a very child oriented art style. Then there were ports of sports games that had less content and didn't look as good or play as well as the main versions on PS2. This has nothing to do with devs, but rather publishing not wishing to commit resources to the GameCube platform.
Power doesn't necessarily mean better software, but it certainly means more expensive hardware, and therefore less interesting to consumers. GameCube couldn't afford something as basic as a DVD player, which everyone wanted in their consoles at the time. Example 2: Xbox, a much more powerful console, was way to expensive for Microsoft in order to maintain a competitive pricepoint, and it lost them billions while flopping on the market. |
There's no need to twist reality to make your point: The GameCube didn't have a DVD unit because Nintendo didn't want to, not because they couldn't afford it.
|
EAD Tokyo, EAD Zelda, Monolith Soft and Retro would all use every inch of power given to them. Heck, even the MarioKart team would, and so would Smash. Nintendo teams not pushing power limits is a myth.
