You're missing the point. The use of the terms "megatons" and "meltdowns" wasn't an issue due to English - you used the terms correctly in that regard. The problem is the CHOICE to use those terms. You could have said "major titles" instead of "megatons". You could have said "big surprises". Instead, you said "megatons" and "meltdowns".

If you had inside information, you wouldn't be making predictions. And none of your predictions are so far outside of the realm of likely events as to be proof of anything, while the fact that you expect only half of them being true being proof of something is an issue since if you had inside information, it would be 100% correct, not 50% correct.

If you can't provide solid proof that your information source is trustworthy, then providing vague and insubstantial claims isn't going to convince people. Solid proof can come in plenty of forms without exposing the person's identity. Kind of like how, in Groundhog Day, Bill Murray's character proves that he's not lying by mentioning things he knew were about to happen. None of them were major things, but it showed foreknowledge. But vague comments like "there'll be an old Sony franchise return from hiatus", which won't be confirmed for another 3-4 months at best, do not constitute solid proof.

And if your source was third-party, and their information was first-hand information, how could they possibly know what Sony's first-party lineup looks like, the system price (which almost certainly hasn't been set in stone yet), or about other third-party titles that weren't from that person's studio (if that person's studio was the one that is making that "meltdown" game, then it would risk their identity)?

And let's not forget the other issue - the claim that Nintendo is actively and visibly (to them) screwing over the third parties by telling them that they can't use a certain section of RAM because it's for Nintendo only. It's the only specific claim you made, and it doesn't make any sense. Even if Nintendo were locking off some of the RAM, there's no way they'd be telling third parties that it's for Nintendo titles only, after spending so much time and effort in wooing them. Meanwhile, I find it highly unlikely that, in intending to send a third party a small code fragment explaining how to use the graphics chip in a certain way, Nintendo screwed up and sent a GB-sized file instead of one measuring in the kB range. That takes a special kind of incompetence that doesn't occur in a company as secretive as Nintendo.

DanneSandin, you are still operating on the logical fallacy that proof for item A (your E3 predictions for Sony) equals proof for item B (Nintendo cancelling third party games and screwing over third parties). If that was how things work, then I have already proven in this thread that you have sex with sheep.

Somebody posted a link to this webpage yesterday:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

It's an interesting read and ties in with how third parties treat Nintendo. The following excerpt is especially interesting:

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in military, political, and organizational contexts.

If there is evidence of such poor decisions found at such high levels, then it's perfectly plausible that the same applies to people working in the video game industry. Anyone who paid attention has noticed that such events were occuring during the last years. Third parties had formed a certain conclusion and interpreted every piece of data to fit this conclusion. When a game like Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition tripled its sales expectations, it was written off as anomaly. Instead third parties pointed at poor efforts with poor sales to justify their stance on Wii development.

One of your arguments is that Nintendo reserved system resources entirely to themselves in order to produce better looking games than third parties. This was actually true during the N64 days which is why third party games used extensive amounts of fog while first and second party games had enormous draw distances for their time. However, it doesn't seem to be true since the GC days. Here's the rundown:

1) GC: Criterion's Burnout games make it obvious that Nintendo didn't reserve superior tools for their own developers. Criterion's middleware Renderware also supported several hundred games during the sixth generation.

2) Wii: You claim that Nintendo made it hard for developers, so that's why they opted for shovelware and why even their better efforts didn't surpass average PS2 quality. However, the Wii is a GC on steroids at its core, meaning that all tools that worked on the GC work on the Wii as well. Since the Wii was more powerful than the GC, it's perfectly reasonable to expect the quality of Criterion's Burnout games as the standard, rather than a high end example.

3) Wii U: If you look at Nintendo's games, they aren't pushing any boundaries. What's the logic behind Nintendo holding back tools to make better looking games when they don't make better looking games? Your source told you that Nintendo tried to get an advantage over third parties only to not use this advantage at all. It doesn't make any sense, yet you are willing to believe it.

That's something to think about.

You are just repeating your story without addressing anything of the post you quoted.

The part I bolded can be pretty much confirmed to be hogwash, because if there were developers who were serious about the Wii, then they would have managed to make something good within the supposed limitations they were being given. An experienced gamer can sense ambition in games. Now which third party titles on the Wii were ambitious? The reality is that Shin'en, a tiny development studio, produced better looking games within the 40 megabyte restrictions of WiiWare than the vast majority of big third party developers managed to accomplish without being held back by such severe space restrictions. If the bolded is true, then Shin'en needs to be given God status, because they owned the combined talent of all major third party publishers so hard that it is unbelievable.

It's because of the evidence we can see, the actual games, that I can only come to the conclusion that your source is biased against Nintendo and an apologist for third parties as a whole. He heard stories from other people within the industry, who are also biased against Nintendo, and added confirmation bias to fill in some blankets. That's why the result is a story that doesn't add up. Be my guest and name every Wii game you can think of that was held back by Nintendo. Keep in mind that Resident Evil 4 was released in mid-2007, so that's a good bar for what developers could achieve even before they went all out to make something truly incredible on the Wii.

Apparently, that's the real reason EA walked out on Nintendo... But I think that devs has more access to the RAM now, but how much more I cannot answer.

I used those terms because I was excited about what we will see! I never thought about how those choices could hurt my credibility :P And while not a single one is too far fetched, but together they add up to a pretty unlikely scenario. And since I only have my source to go by I can't say that 100% of these will come true, and I have since learned that some of these titles might be shown at tgs and not e3 as I first thought.

I'm really not all that good at giving hints and nods... When that Wii U exclusive title is announced I will say something; I think there should be enough hints in here to add up. And I don't know any dates or anything. I wish I could spell it out SOMEWHERE, but my source has said no. How do you suggest that I hint these things?

I don't know how he knows all of this, but I figure that they're working pretty closely with SOny and needs to co-ordinate the releases or something.

what happened was early on a very large publisher got their mitts on source code to a 1st party title accidentally (was meant to be sent a code segment on disk for assistance with a gpu addressing issue, but ended up with whole game source), and in the source for that, it became obvious that 3rd party sdks lacked vital and very helpful api's for graphics rendering, and the 'nintendo space' banned from use for 3rd party devs was being used without reservation - so basically 3rd party devs other than the one that found this got wind, and we've all basically said 'fix this shit or we go elsewhere', nintendo then issued an sdk update that added SOME of the api's for gpu processing but the memory restriction still in place - just with the commented code saying nintendo space changed to 'system reserved' - essentially nintendo got caught with its pants down blatently gimping 3rd party titles, then scrambled to fix it by letting some of the 1st part sdk features through a few months early, but all that did was piss devs off more, because it still shows that nintendo aren't playing fair and fucking 3rd party devs over.

I don't know how those things work... BUT the exclusive Wii U game is back ON! It's just postponed now to avoid competition.

Another troll thread or just another uninformed thread opener ...

Anyway: It is widely known that Nintendo changed the specifications during Wii U development. This is why the first dev kits only had 768MB RAM and later ones had 1 GB RAM for games. This had been in discussion already at the first month of 2012 ...

You really should do some little investigation before opening a thread.

The other things you wrote, about Nintendo hiding graphics api is purely nonsense.

That is kind of what I have been thinking this whole time.  This is widely known to happen for the dev kits of all hardware.

You are just repeating your story without addressing anything of the post you quoted.

The part I bolded can be pretty much confirmed to be hogwash, because if there were developers who were serious about the Wii, then they would have managed to make something good within the supposed limitations they were being given. An experienced gamer can sense ambition in games. Now which third party titles on the Wii were ambitious? The reality is that Shin'en, a tiny development studio, produced better looking games within the 40 megabyte restrictions of WiiWare than the vast majority of big third party developers managed to accomplish without being held back by such severe space restrictions. If the bolded is true, then Shin'en needs to be given God status, because they owned the combined talent of all major third party publishers so hard that it is unbelievable.