LudicrousSpeed said:
Saying the Switch has great third party support compared to past Nintendo platforms is saying nothing at all, because past Nintendo platforms have had very very bad third party support. It would be like if I could somehow guarantee here that Microsoft first party next gen would be their best since the OG Xbox days. People would rightfully just reply that MS first party hasn't been all that good, so that's not really saying much. Nintendo does have better third party support on Switch than consoles like Wii or WiiU or even GCN. But it still pales in comparison to MicroSony consoles.
And by comparing them to a title like Witcher 3 you are by default comparing them to MicroSony titles because you're harping on the game going on sale, and literally every publisher not Nintendo does that. I made the point that you can make more money selling games to multiple platforms and you replied with Zelda, one of the best games of all time and one of the most beloved franchises of all time that also happens to benefit from the Nintendo pricing strategy. If you have to stack the deck that hard just to support your argument, maybe you don't have much of an argument? 99% of games are not Breath of the Wild.
uh... huh? You make money on software, not hardware. This is literally the exact opposite of how reality works. Once again you are making stuff up to support this crazy theory about games being better because they're "designed to sell consoles" lol.
That's awesome. Irrelevant to what I said. Do you want Witcher 3 to have been designed from the ground up to run on the WiiU? And be published by Nintendo? That's the only way it's getting a price strategy like Zelda. Who cares?
In other words you have literally nothing to support your argument.
There's no doubt the games were received worse than previous entries. What's up for debate is the reason. With each of these games you can point to a reason why it got the reviews it did, backed up with logic. For example, CD3 went through development hell. SoD2 was a $30 AA title marketed like a AAA exclusive and launched with some crippling bugs for some users and reviewers. OR, you can ignore that and maybe you're right, they just "weren't designed to sell consoles", whatever that means.
|
Saying the Switch has great third party support compared to past Nintendo platforms is saying nothing at all, because past Nintendo platforms have had very very bad third party support. It would be like if I could somehow guarantee here that Microsoft first party next gen would be their best since the OG Xbox days. People would rightfully just reply that MS first party hasn't been all that good, so that's not really saying much. Nintendo does have better third party support on Switch than consoles like Wii or WiiU or even GCN. But it still pales in comparison to MicroSony consoles.
And yet, Nintendo games still sold well on their handhelds, despite having 3rd party support just as strong as home console contemporaries.
And by comparing them to a title like Witcher 3 you are by default comparing them to MicroSony titles because you're harping on the game going on sale, and literally every publisher not Nintendo does that. I made the point that you can make more money selling games to multiple platforms and you replied with Zelda, one of the best games of all time and one of the most beloved franchises of all time that also happens to benefit from the Nintendo pricing strategy. If you have to stack the deck that hard just to support your argument, maybe you don't have much of an argument? 99% of games are not Breath of the Wild.
If Nintendo did a Sony/Microsoft pricing strategy of heavy sales BotW would have sold 40-50 million by now. BotW debuted on a dead system and a newly launched system. Witcher 3 launched on three platforms all with pre-established install bases. Witcher 3 has had nearly two more years on the market than BotW. And yet BotW absolutely crushes it in revenue. You claim that I'm stacking the deck, but are forgetting two severe handicapps that BotW had.
uh... huh? You make money on software, not hardware. This is literally the exact opposite of how reality works. Once again you are making stuff up to support this crazy theory about games being better because they're "designed to sell consoles" lol.
You literally have no clue how the console market works.
That's awesome. Irrelevant to what I said. Do you want Witcher 3 to have been designed from the ground up to run on the WiiU? And be published by Nintendo? That's the only way it's getting a price strategy like Zelda. Who cares?
Uh, you tried arguing that 1st party games can't get as much revenue as multiplat titles. It is relevant, because it shows that 1st party games can indeed get as much revenue. In fact they can crush multiplat games in sales revenue. Witcher 3 is an open world action adventure RPG. So is BotW. And yet despite launching on basically one system BotW has way more sales revenue. It isn't even a contest.
In other words you have literally nothing to support your argument.
Oh, I could go into that, but its' not the main argument. Our main disagreement is over whether or not 1st party games can get the budget of multiplat games. Obviously they can, and then some.
There's no doubt the games were received worse than previous entries. What's up for debate is the reason. With each of these games you can point to a reason why it got the reviews it did, backed up with logic. For example, CD3 went through development hell. SoD2 was a $30 AA title marketed like a AAA exclusive and launched with some crippling bugs for some users and reviewers. OR, you can ignore that and maybe you're right, they just "weren't designed to sell consoles", whatever that means.
CD3 went through develpment hell because MS didn't care about the game, because it was always intended to be gamepass fodder. SoD2 launched with crippling bugs for the same reason. Who was it that started the phrase "designed to sell consoles"? Scroll up. The answer may surprise you.
Yeah I'm sure there are user reviews like that for Day's Gone. That was my point. That's why it's pointless to even bring them up.
Yes, both games had their fair share of troll reviews. And yet Days Gone has a higher user score. Why? Because there were more people coming in to give it a high score of 8/9/10, than there were troll reviews. Where are the 8/9/10 reviews for SoD2? User scores tell me that it's universally hated.
