RolStoppable said:
pokoko said:
That question is too simplistic to have much meaning. Can a console manufacturer make a big difference with regards to the success of a third-party game? Yes, of course. I can't imagine that anyone would argue differently. Is it always the case that the console manufacturer is a fault when a third-party game isn't successful? Of course not. Sometimes a product simply isn't appealing to consumers or the developers/publishers have themselves done a poor job.
You can't get a much more specific answer without a more specific question.
Now, if you want to compare console manufacturers, I think it's fair to say that Nintendo, from a historical perspective, hasn't been as good a business partner as Microsoft or Sony with regards to most third-party developers/publishers. Over time, that resulted in the audiences of certain types of games moving elsewhere. Of course, Nintendo has every right to run their business as they see fit and third-party companies have every right to do the same. Neither has a responsibility to the other beyond any contracts they may sign. However, any actions on that front can affect the future for many years, even many generations. |
There's a logical error here. For consumers, who ultimately determine the success or failure of games, the business relationships between console manufacturers and third parties are irrelevant. The evidence supports this, because during the time Nintendo's policies were at their strictest level, third parties found more success than later on.
What's relevant for consumers is the quality of any given name and the knowledge that a game exists (that's what marketing is for). Both of these are things that third parties are in control of. Once again, the evidence supports this and shows that less success for third parties on Nintendo home consoles strongly correlates with a dropoff in quality of third party games and reduced marketing efforts.
|
Alright, I'll bite. What is your evidence?
