LudicrousSpeed said:
1. Nintendo handhelds haven't gotten third party support as strong as MicroSony home consoles. Not even close.
Oh man that's so good for BotW that it could have sold 40-50 million on a MicroSony strategy. Again, who cares? Irrelevant to anything I said. I brought up Witcher 3 having less of a return on investment could have resulted in a smaller, cheaper game. For some reason you replied with sales numbers for Zelda, as if they're related somehow.
I know how the console market has worked ever since Sony entered it. They and MS lose money on hardware with the intent on making up for it on software, both their own and licensing fees from third party software. Are you honestly not aware that this is how they operate or are you just faking ignorance?
lol I never said zero first party games ever could not possibly get as much revenue as multiplat games. There are literally hundreds of smaller titles released every gen and lots of super big first party titles that outsell them. It's adorable to see you go to freaking Zelda to try and disprove some point I never made.
No, there is no main disagreement there. Of course a first party game can get the budget of a multiplat. I'm playing through Outer Worlds right now. I doubt its budget was even 1/4 of Last of Us 2. See? Easy. The "main disagreement" was this idea you put forth that some games are designed to sell consoles and some aren't and they aren't as good because of that. An idea you've backed up with zero evidence or logic btw
Sure, if you want to be ignorant about CD3 development, sure. It's a waste of time to correct you. It was you who said "made to sell consoles". Not surprised.
Both games have their fair share of troll user reviews. That's all that needed to be said for you to prove my point for me, thanks. All the more reason to ignore something as stupid as user reviews. I'm just gonna bow out until you can actually provide some depth to that nonsense about games selling consoles. |
Go look at the DS library. While, it didn't have as many games as 360/PS3 it had a much more varied and original library. Gone was the yearly GuitarHero/SportsGames/Racing/FPS/Ubisoft bloat.
There was a vast sea of fantastic 3rd party games on DS, GBA, GB, etc. And yet Nintendo games still sold well on those systems. So again, your theory that Nintendo games only sell well because of a lack of 3rd party support is bunk.
Oh man that's so good for BotW that it could have sold 40-50 million on a MicroSony strategy. Again, who cares? Irrelevant to anything I said. I brought up Witcher 3 having less of a return on investment could have resulted in a smaller, cheaper game. For some reason you replied with sales numbers for Zelda, as if they're related somehow.
It is relevant. They are related.
Our main argument here has to do with budget for games. You said that Witcher 3 would have been a less ambitious game because of a lack of sales from being exclusive.
I countered with Zelda sales, which you continually attempt to brush off because "Nintendo games don't count."
Fine by me though. Playstation exclusives sell stupidly high amounts as well. Just look at God of War for example. It's passed 10 million sales in a little under a year. That's half of Witcher 3's lifetime sales in a fraction of the time.
Consider that God of War fueled the sales of more PS4s. Which in turn fueled platform royalty fees. Which means that the overall money made from a single copy of GoW is much higher than the overall money made from a single copy of Witcher 3.
But I'm sure that "doesn't count" either.
I know how the console market has worked ever since Sony entered it. They and MS lose money on hardware with the intent on making up for it on software, both their own and licensing fees from third party software. Are you honestly not aware that this is how they operate or are you just faking ignorance?
That is literally what I was arguing for. They lose money on hardware (and pump extra time/money into their exclusives) with the intent of pumping up their total number of platforms sold, and then making all that money back on licensing fees. What you said earlier made me think you were denying these basic facts about how the console market worked. Oh well, at least we agree on something.
The "main disagreement" was this idea you put forth that some games are designed to sell consoles and some aren't and they aren't as good because of that.
It was you who said "made to sell consoles". Not surprised.
Made to sell consoles =/= designed to sell consoles. You are the one that started saying "designed to sell consoles" in order to pose the question of "what would have been better about Witcher 3?"
Yes, some games are made to sell consoles, and because of that they get extra development time, and budget. This in turn makes those games far better than their 3rd party brethren.
But again, this is mostly a budgeting issue. And despite providing a game in the same genre, on a console that isn't even at the halfway point yet, you want to deny it. Funny.
