Xbox acquires Bethesda

[hunter_alien]

RolStoppable said:

hunter_alien said:

Who is perplexed, the GBA pretty much guaranteed that Nintendo will remain highly profitable as the only relevant handheld manufacturer on a global scale.

Also, I hate doing research for others, but just for the argument's sake here you go:

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27373587

Quote: "The idea is that the firm was obsessed by the quality of the titles released for its platform, leading it to impose restrictions on how many games other third-party publishers could release each year and reserving the right to reject their work if it felt it didn't meet Nintendo's standards. Sega deliberately took the opposite tack, resulting in it being able to boast a larger games library, even if it had more duds."

Nintendo almost literary severed its relationship with 3rd parties during that gen, hiding behind the "quality" mantra, yet notable real stinkers prove that it was mostly a tool to keep devs firmly in their ecosystem.

There is also a decent book about it, detailing how :

The Ultimate History of Video Games: The Story Behind the Craze that Touched our Lives and Changed the World

Most of the relevant parts are on the SNES wikipedia page, under the Console wars and Changes section, so feel free to check them out.

This is also a topic that was widely covered by several online personalities including the AVGN and even Digital Foundry, so it's pretty hard to imagine that you never came upon this info.

You keep dodging and changing points.

The PS2 sold more than 100m units of hardware and more than 1b units of software from 2000-2006 while the GBA sold 80m units of hardware and ~350m units of software in the corresponding timeframe. The point wasn't about Nintendo being profitable during that time, it was about Nintendo being more profitable than Sony during that time. Nintendo had notably lower unit sales of hardware and software, but made more money.

You were supposed to show something that supports your argument that Nintendo had exclusivity deals with third parties, but instead you picked a quote that says that Nintendo turned games down which is the opposite of making deals with third parties (i. e. not even allowing them to publish certain games). Nintendo limiting the amount of games that third parties could publish during the NES era and early SNES era is well-known, but that's something entirely different to what you claimed. Likewise, you've got nothing to support your statement that Sega got shitty versions of games (i. e. multiplats were worse on the Genesis/Mega Drive because Nintendo paid for that to be the case); what your quote states is that Sega didn't turn down games, so they had exclusives from third parties that were duds.

1. You barely scraped through what I sent you, but honestly, I don't care.

2. If you really are curious I guess making a simple google search will not be too hard for you.

Have a nice day!