Good question. From what I've observed, going back a gen to PS2/GC/XB1, devs/publishers got used to the "one coat of paint" method of putting games out - just make them for all 3 systems. Making an original Wii game that wouldn't port well to the other systems might not be financially sound.

Sometimes it IS a dev, like Rockstar, they refused to bring GTA to Nintendo during the GC, even though the system was capable of running it.

what games were made for WIi that couldnt be ported to PS360? Really show me a game that wouldnt really work. Once the HDs got there own motion controls, those Just Dances and what not was ported to the HDs. Fact of the matter is a LOT of original games were made for Wii, just because people didnt want to play them and thought they were shovelware doesnt mean they didnt exist. Wii has a larger library than either PS3 or 360 and im sure it wasnt Ninty making up the difference.

How does Nintendo cancel someone else's game?  It is not possible.  It does not make sense either.

If Manhunt for the Wii and Conker for the N64 (from a second party studio even!) made it to market, then Nintendo isn't going to stop anything.

Agreed, it was moreso, they were designed for standard def, maybe most wouldnt take the time and money needed to redo their art for HD use? I'm not them, I couldn't tell you their logic for sure.

From what i understand it isnt hard at all to take an SD game and just up res it in HD, which is probably why we've seen so many HD collections of PS2 era games, Spintler Cell, Sly, Metal Gear, Zone of Enders, God of War, Hitman, DMC, hell it goes on and on. Now trying to take an HD game and down port it to something like Wii? Harder.

But Nintendo fans don't buy Nintendo games for their graphics, Nintendo doesn't need any more of an edge to sell more than third parties because that happens anyway, and Nintendo benefits from third parties selling well on their system. Therefore, the alleged RAM crippling sounds more unlikely to me.

With third parties, they idn't see it as saying no to money because they weren't confident they would make money at all.

Having dabbled in indie game dev years ago, I do know that the entire texture library would have to be rebuilt, without making the textures look washed out, and to take advantage of the more powerful systems, a dev might want to add polys to their models, to polish them up a bit. I would doubt it's a short process. Of course, if they're looking for a quick buck to port out as is, then yeah, but you'll start dealing with "jaggies" and the sort.

I dont know, stuff like Just Dance seems to be have done quickly and they dont look that much different, but hell ill take your word for it.

So then why do many Handheld games by third parties look better then or at least as good as first party games? Why do Handheld consoles get 3rd party support, but not the home platform?

Is Nintendo holding back on consoles only? If so why only consoles? Is it because only Japanese developers support Nintendo, so Nintendo only gives true specs to the handhelds, which see a lot more Japanese support? Or is this just bs?

I think this is bs or at the very least over-exagerated. Maybe Nintendo released 730mb RAM Dev Kits when they first released Dev Kits for the Wii U, but there is a damn good reason for them to do this. If Nintendo gave Dev Kits with full Wii U specs before the PS4 and NextBox were finished being developed, then Sony and MS could and would purposely spec their platforms to make Wii U look weak, or like a last gen console.

By hiding it until now (if they did this), this would make Sony and MS spec their 8th gen consoles more closely to Wii U without realizing it, making Wii U more competetive, and this would encourage devs to make weaker games early on, which would cut development time, building up Wii U's library faster.

---

This strategy is similar to releasing the 3DS at an overpriced cost, only to slash it as soon as Sony released their Vita which was designed to compete against the more expensive 3DS. This strategy worked for the 3DS and now Vita sales are not only struggling, but Sony is being forced to slash their systems price in order to maintain a demand, which is really hurting them financially.

So IMO, whoever is in charge of Wii U marketing....he is pretty damn smart.

I'm quite confident that the 3DS price cut was never a strategy. The losses resulting from that made Nintendo go into the red for the 1st time in 30 years.

I'd say more of a panic response.