| LudicrousSpeed said: 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. This is revisionist history. There was stronger third party support on older Nintendo handhelds than more recent ones but lol, you're going all the way back to the Game Boy. My point is proven, especially considering that MicroSony consoles didn't even exist back then. Either way at the end of the day the home consoles still saw far superior third party support.
It is relevant. They are related. 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. No. Again, the main argument is the idea that some games are designed to sell consoles and thus are better than ones that aren't. You're spinning it off into this Witcher vs Zelda budget crap. Yes, Witcher 3 could have been a less ambitious game had CDPR knew their potential sales were one platform versus four. You don't need to "counter" that idea, it's common sense.
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.
lol are you really harping on "designed" vs "made"? In this context they are literally synonyms. Did Sony try less with a title like Concrete Genie or Medievil than they're trying with Last of Us 2? In all cases they're trying to make great games that will make you want to buy a PS4. No different than what MS does with their games. When they make CD3 or Horizon 4, they're trying to make great games that will pull you to Xbox. They just didn't have the stable of quality developers this gen that Sony had. That's why they went out and bought some. The idea that they don't care about moving hardware with the games is complete nonsense. |
There's no point in arguing, with you, that the Nintendo handheld line, even in modern times, had as good 3rd party support as MicroSony. You just want to count the number of 3rd games on MicroSony consoles, without bothering to account for all the bloat. The yearly FPS/Ubisoft/Sports/Racing bloat isn't something you want to account for.
If the Witcher 3 would have been a Sony exclusive it would have gotten a bigger budget, because Sony would have been more than happy to fund it even further in order to sell more PS4s. Again, this is a budget/time issue. Keep denying it I guess.
Design and Made are not synonyms. Leonardo da Vinci designed a ton of inventions. Many of them were never made.
But what about Concrete Genie, and MediEvil? On average Sony's games are better than Microsoft's and 3rd party developers overall. Same goes for Nintendo. There may be games in both Sony and Nintendo's libraries that are not even 8/10 material, but that doesn't take away from the fact that their overall average quality is higher than individual 3rd party developers, or MS. You may want to zero in on these two games, but statistically speaking a game being a first party Sony/Nintendo exclusive automatically increases its odds of coming out as a better game overall. But of course, instead of looking at the overall statistical big picture you are going to zone in on these two games.
P.S. I'm done with this thread now. Respond if you want or not.
Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 25 October 2019
