I think you're mistaken here, with all respect. In the link I provided in OP, Iwata mentions that he is ready to dish out resources for what he calls power games. Though Nintendo put the padlet as priority over graphics, it doesn't mean that graphics aren't a priority for them. Had the U not had a padlet, you can be sure the extra room for cost would have been put in processing power.

Also, though you're correc that Nintendo need to dish out more games, we know that they are making use of strategic partnerships to satisfy that objective (which they can't do all on their own). Also, they are a manufacturer and need to make sure there is a solid game engine on their platform if none is built by a partner, it's a no-brainer. Not only that, we know that resources at Retro are being employed for tooling Nintendo internally for game development of advanced games (such as Zelda). So it's only logical to expect Nintendo to extend that service to its partners (and in the process pull the finger to the competitors who say things like the U can't handle Frostbite).

Thanks for this. It adds weight to the hypothetical, which is always hard to support without some form of historical to base it off of.

@Oni. I'm not ready to discuss ZombiU's sales, I'll just tell you that it's the best-selling 3rd party U game atm, and that should be enough to highlight the viability of the market on the U.

Scientific breakthrough: there's a link in OP about new position-based fluid physics for future NVidia chips. I believe this is more scientific advancement than dependent technical advancement but like I said I could be wrong here.

well why not? that doesnt make any sense, you wanna say its the best selling one but dont want to bring up the sales, you are only telling half the story, if anything that game kind of hurts your argument. if thats the best those kinds of games can do then...oh boy.

The thing is that a good engine doesn't automatically generate good looking games. The most important factors are still development budget and time. Which brings us right back to the root of the issue and that is third parties' willingness to invest big time into a game for a Nintendo system.

If it's about exclusives, then Nintendo might as well make them themselves. Seems like a much better idea than chasing after third parties in hopes that they will create quality content. All these efforts could be directed at games where the development process is completely under Nintendo's control.

If a 3rd party company can't afford UE/top-tier engines, then chances are they can't afford the budget necessary to take advantage of them either which would make Unity a better choice for their needs.

And I don't think your scenario would help with multiplats since those are built on one engine anyways.

There are many steps Nintendo need to take to better their situation, but I don't think this is one of them.

Now you're just making me impatient. It's the top-selling 3rd party game, what more must be said?

I believe that with a better engine, the time required to create top-visual games is greatly reduced. I believe there are tools to furnish the games with terrains, landscapes, and to provide physics effects out of the box. So it saves time to dev, and makes the incentive greater. It also increases partner confidence when they know they can count on a top-notch engine to make their games on.

I agree that Nintendo should bolster its internal development capabilities and break off the dependency on 3rd party publishers. However, at the same time I firmly believe that Nintendo should also empower 3rd parties to flourish on their console, as such achieving full dominance if possible.

Keep in mind the engine would help achieve both objectives (internally because it would improve the quality of the engine and expedite 1st party games, and externally because it would increase the attraction of development on a Nintendo platform).

Similar to my answer to Rol, said engine would help speed up dev time, but wouldn't require investing in next-gen technology, and would also allow them to take advantage of Nintendo's platform while the rest of the competition fight for relevance on the next-gen platforms. Like we understood for Ubi, if EA leaves Nintendo's U, that leaves a larger piece of pie for Ubi to grab a hold of.

why dont you want to discuss the sales? Why duck my inquiries? you brought up ZOmbi U not I

Alright, so your argument is that it's bundled, right? I checked your posts and I couldn't find any other argument so, I'll go with this and correct me if I missed anything else.

1) Do you know how many ZombiU bundles were sold?

2) Even if say 50% of sales were bundled (being overly generous), it still is in 3rd place atm, after MH and Lego Undercover (not totally casual games either):

oniyide said:

Bundles is not my argument at all, your missing the point. My argument is if that is the best that an exclusive game can do, then i could see why i 3rd party wouldnt even bother trying to make an exclusive game of that kind at least. I just threw bundles in their because if you take away the sales of that it would make the numbers look even worst. It being the best seller of them all is not relevant not with those kinda numbers, that just makes the entire library look meh. It should have gone gold at the very least by now

Okay. Are casual 3rd party games more viable then on the U? If your argument is that 3rd party U sales are not strong, this is across the board and is known, hence why I mentioned it in terms of rank (1st among the 3rd party games).

And explain bold. Why that kind more than not that kind? Dev cost?