| maxleresistant said: I don't think they could survive the competition of AAA development. |
This is silly because not every game on HD twins/PC is AAA realistic graphics.
Plenty of "big" games like Sea of Thieves, Rime, of course Sonic etc with similar graphics to Nintendo...
And the loads of ambitious indies which are based on old school gaming and simpler graphics.
onionberry said:
I want them free and crazy and not tied to others, for each "Arms" and each "1.2" switch we have a xenoblade and breath of the wild. Without their freedom we would have a bunch of new super mario bros wii and a bunch of twilight princess. well maybe we have different perspective, and I apologize. |
Oh come on... On HD twins we see all sorts of innovative neo-retro games, we see Sea of Thieves, Rime, Last Guardian.
There is a hell of alot of shovel ware crap on Nintendo now, but there is no reason to think it will increase as 3rd party.
I mean, people are arguing against 3rd party move exactly citing that only Nintendo's good stuff would sell / shovelware can't compete.
| onionberry said: without hardware revenue they can't afford to have those crazy ideas and longer development times, they will need a constant stream of game and the quality will be affected because of that. Maybe still polished, but I prefer a polished mario odyssey than a polished new super mario bros wii. It's a bigger picture than just "ok we will develop games for everyone" plus they have to share their revenue. |
Come on. If they are depending on hardware revenue they are doing it wrong, because that increases barrier to more customers.
Money is money. What difference does it make if they swap hardware profits for profits from selling big hits to 3x customer base?
Nintendo is sitting on cash, they don't have problem financing game development.
Plenty of console/PC devs manage crazy idea games and long development times for deep games all the time.
| Hapuc12 said: Yes i am saying when posts like this and comments come,that is doom and gloom in my book, |
This is incoherent.
People not definitively covering every possible nuance of a topic does not equate to a negative Doom and Gloom tone.
You are blaming people for stuff they are not doing, because of negative Doom and Gloom stuff you yourself think of.
| Acevil said: You mean 15% since Nintendo isn't selling it for $60 the retailer is, nintendo would be selling it for $45. Which is fair, I was more using the mobile percentage of apple, since I was saying ultamitely the argument being presented to me, is more for a mobile nintendo than nintendo that makes games on ps4/xboxone/pc. |
Well this underlines the pig-headedness of refusing to go 3rd party on consoles.
Nintendo *IS*going 3rd party on phones where the platform owner takes huge cut,
but refuses to do so on consoles where the cut is much less. How does that make sense?
| jonathanalis said: Id be ok with that. buuuuuuuuut we still need a dedicated handheld hardware. And seems only ninteno can handle that well. |
Why can't Nintendo just release their own standard phone-tablet controller attachments?
They will set the standard because of their popularity, and reach a much larger audience.
I'm sure Apple/Google would be accomodating to officially "bless" their standard,
given their currently isn't any, and if a big historic dev wanted to kick-start that niche, why not?
Likewise, if they want to innovate on console controller, nothing stops them from releasing unique controller on HD twins.
