| Wright said: I'm not sure if you're missing entirely the point what I'm saying or you're purposedly being obtuse to find a way to make cheap attacks at me while playing dumb. I'd argue it's the later, but let's give you the benefit of doubt. First of all...how does that counter what you said about straight talking? Because Pete Hines went in circles? I'll give you yet a different source that echoes what I'm saying: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/bethesda-considering-wii-u/1100-6336585/ He said: "It's definitely a possibility for the future," Hines told the Official Nintendo Magazine UK. "We'll look at any platform that will support that games we're trying to make, but that's the key thing - the console has to support the game as it is designed. [...] We'll see. It's definitely a possibility." Then he later said: "It's largely a hardware thing," Hines said, explaining that Bethesda's mantra is to "make the games that we want to make, on whatever platforms will support them as developed." Giving an example, he said that The Elder Scrolls Online "likely would have" been released on Xbox 360, but that it "just wasn't possible" due to hardware limitations. Specifically referencing future announcements for the Wii U, Hines said that "it remains to be seen what the future holds." So he went from "definitely a possibility" to "none at all because hardware". You realize WiiU is capable enough of running 360 and PS3 games, right? You realize the hardware excuse is completely bogus because Bethesda didn't really want to put any effort on WiiU at all, right? You realize I'm not talking about Doom for the WiiU, but Skyrim, a 2011 game for PS3, 360 and PC, right? The same game that's getting ported to Switch and has endured changes that are unlike "the game as it was designed" like Pete Hynes said, right? Heck, it even has joy-con support, which you can be sure it wasn't something that was designed at first, despite what Pete Hynes might say. And WiiU's architecture was more than capable of running Skyrim. Bringing up the WiiU's architecture does nothing in this case, really. We're talking about a 360/PS3 game, after all. WiiU got plenty of ports of those, including an EA game (Mass Effect 3). They got nothing from Bethesda, though.
Namco has promised commitment, sure. Maybe you're having trouble reading my posts, but I said this:
I just pointed out that we're talking about the same Namco that then required the Nintendo fanbase to beg for a game - Project Cars 2, which was said to release on Nintendo consoles - it on social media. Something I already posted but you glossed over entirely. Same Namco that, like you said, ported Xenoverse 2 and then told the Nintendo fanbase to focus on Xenoverse 2 for the time being, so that then they would start considering porting Dragon Ball FighterZ? Heck I'll even post the quote: On the subject of releasing the game on the Nintendo Switch, which already has seen some fighting game action in the forms of Ultra Street Fighter II: The Final Challengers, ARMS, and the upcoming Pokkén Tournament DX, Hiroki noted that they couldn’t really say anything about that situation. “However, we do know that we would like our Switch users to focus on our first Switch title: Dragon Ball Xenoverse 2. After the release of Dragon Ball Xenoverse 2 on the Switch, [which comes out on September 7th in Japan, before launching worldwide on the 22nd] then we will start considering whether we should have Dragon Ball FighterZ on the Switch.” It's a good thing you brought up Xenoverse 2, as I had forgotten Namco's lousy way of handling Dragon Ball FighterZ for Switch. What do you think about this? Under your logic, now Namco is at the same level as Capcom, no? Bunch of games announced for 2018, they both told the fanbase to buy a certain game in order to have access to others (and Namco outright denied Project Cars 2 unless fans begged), and they've both put games on the console. Namco put Xenoverse 2, Capcom is releasing Revelations 1 and 2. I'm not rattling about anything, don't worry. It seems you misunderstand (or willingly choose to undervalue) the effort I put into giving you actual sources, and explaining how I think situations are comparable and words being said from each party. It matters none; in light of the current situation, even if you choose to stick with Bethesda (why wouldn't anyone, I already said I enjoy their games too after all), this will totally change your mind with Namco. It's only fair, unless your priorities are elsewhere, of course. |
Here's a revelation for you when they took a look at the hardware perhaps they found that it wasn't suited to their games and to top it off you've taken a statement which he's saying it's possible but we're looking into it and later when they've looked into it they've found issues this hardly counters anything I've said at all as they've flat out told people straight what the situation, thanks for proving my point even further.
Here's the problem with you and your Namco argument by admitting they've committed to the platform your argument is debunked by default as you're acknowledging they've hand;ed things far better than Capcom which is the whole point and what you're trying to argue against to begin with essentially you've flat out conceded what I pointed out is correct.
Giving sources is null and void when they're not backing your argument you've given sources that either highlight what I'm saying or flat out do not really give your stance any concrete ground.
