By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - Nintendo Talks Wii U Third-Party Support

Seece on 09 October 2013
impertinence said:
Seece said:
impertinence said:
I don't think any console has sold $2 billion games. Or do you mean what platforms have supported a game that brought in more than $2 billion in revenue? Or are you talking about $2 billion in total software revenue for the platform? I don't understand this question I guess. What is obvious to all (most?) is that no company can touch Nintendo when it comes to selling software.

Having an agenda does not mean being a fanboy. It means that facst are cherry picked and framed to support a specific conclusion, while not having an agenda means looking at the facts and then let that determin the conclusion.

Wrong. I am basing Nintendo's home console success on their entire history of making home consoles and relating that to the video game market as a whole. You are the one who wants to disregard this, and forget about that. As you will remember, you are the one who wanted to bring the artifical split of home consoles and everything else into the discussion. Why? Because it fits the narrative you are trying to build, also known as pushing an agenda. Anyway, no matter how you want to slice it, there is no rational way to deny the fact that Nintendo is the king of this industry.

edit: some spelling mistakes corrected

I'm not talking about Nintendo's overall place in the industry, I agree they are top dog. This thread is about WiiU, home console, and Bethesda talking to Nintendo about their home console, you said Nintendo shouldn't listen to Bethesda because they're amazing or w/e so I point out that when it comes to home consoles (which is what this is all about) they're not undisputed. Neither Sony or Nintendo is, but if you have to pick one it's Sony, they will have the top selling home consoles, and the PS2 which sold 2 billion games (more than double any Nintendo system ever).

It takes a whole load of factors to become undisputed, it's you who is in fact cherrypicking to get to that conclusion, not me.

Well, I was talking about Nintendo's overall place in the industry and how it makes Bethesda look when they venture to put forward advice to the undisputed King of Videogames. You felt it was prudent to prune down the point to only cover home consoles though, and also to prune it further to only cover the three generations where Sony has had a home console on the market. That is the very definition of cherry picking, but whatever. The point still stands.

You seem to put a lot of emphasis on how many units of Software was sold on the PS2, but a VAST majority of those 2 billion games were not made or published by Sony. A quick look at the list of top selling games ever should be enough to make it abundantly clear that your argument needs heavy cherrypicking to even be worth considering. And even then it's quite clear that Nintendo is the only reasonable pick for the crown, but the whole argument is artficial as Nintendo is undisputably the King of Videogames (note, not "the KIng of sixth Generation hardware sales")  and as such Bethesda (the knave of videogames) looks like tools when trying to tell Nintendo what they should be doing. 

Because Bethesda isn't advising Nintendo on handhelds are they??? So what has them being amazing in that field got to do with anything? Gees it's pretty straightforward. Bethesda are interested in home consoles only so this is what the focus should be on, and Nintendo are not undisputed kings in that regard.

I didn't narrow it down to 3 gens, like I said before Wii the previous high for Nintendo was 60m, whilst not bad that's hardly reaching mass market, that's 3 times less than Sony's most successful console, the software sales don't come close either. Across 5 gens Nintendo has sold NES (60m), SNES (49m), N64 (32m), GC (22m) and Wii (100m).

Sony have done on par with that, with PS1 (103m) and PS2 (158m) in just 2 gens. Like I said it takes a lot of factors to be "undisputed king of videogames" that includes third party  software, as much as you might like to dismiss that you'd be wrong, they're a huge part of this industry.



 

Around the Network
impertinence on 10 October 2013
Chrizum said:
Just looked at your profile and that explains a lot. We can't expect a 17-year old to know a thing about business. I was probably saying silly things like "King of Videogames" as well at that age.

Thankfully, kings and crowns and similar bullshit have no place in the billion dollar industry of videogames. They only have a place in fanboy quarrels.


I just looked at your profile and that explains a lot. We can't expect a pothead from the Netherlands to have the clarity of mind to focus on the argument and their merit rather than a percived personal flaw based on (in this case inaccurate) irrelevant information.

So, just to be clear, whatever my profile says about my age is completely random, I didn't give my real birthdate I just picked one at random. But hold on, let me change my birth year to lend more gravitas to my line of reasoning.



ryuzaki57 on 11 October 2013

Nintendo’s Scott Moffitt, EVP of Sales & Marketing for Nintendo of America, remains confident about the Wii U and its third-party support.

“We have strong relationships with third parties and have a strong lineup of upcoming games from key partners such as Ubisoft, Disney, SEGA and Warner Bros (1), among others,” Moffitt tells me, adding that “we realize that we need to continue to build the installed base to demonstrate that making games for Wii U is a good investment. We’re confident that we have the games necessary—both first- and third-party (2)—to have a strong holiday season and expand the audience for Wii U.”

Dat spin!

1/ Ubi is dropping support faster than light and pushes next-gen versions at every occasions. Sega has just given Sonic, all their other games are for Vita/PS3/PS4. Warner do multiplat.

2/ For example? I don't see any likely to counter PS4/X1 and PS360.



 

Blog -> https://ryuz4ki57inenglish.wordpress.com/

Chrizum on 11 October 2013
impertinence said:
Chrizum said:
Just looked at your profile and that explains a lot. We can't expect a 17-year old to know a thing about business. I was probably saying silly things like "King of Videogames" as well at that age.

Thankfully, kings and crowns and similar bullshit have no place in the billion dollar industry of videogames. They only have a place in fanboy quarrels.


I just looked at your profile and that explains a lot. We can't expect a pothead from the Netherlands to have the clarity of mind to focus on the argument and their merit rather than a percived personal flaw based on (in this case inaccurate) irrelevant information.

So, just to be clear, whatever my profile says about my age is completely random, I didn't give my real birthdate I just picked one at random. But hold on, let me change my birth year to lend more gravitas to my line of reasoning.

Har dee fucking har. I was being serious, it's not expected from a 17-year old to speak rationally about business. I sure as hell know I couldn't when I was 17. Do you see 17-year olds making business decisions at billion-dollar corporations?

My argument is that, when discussing business in depth, terms like "King of Videogames" -which has no meaning whatsoever- have no place. Although I could totally understand why a teenager would coin such a term.



impertinence on 11 October 2013

Chrizum said:

Har dee fucking har. I was being serious, it's not expected from a 17-year old to speak rationally about business. I sure as hell know I couldn't when I was 17. Do you see 17-year olds making business decisions at billion-dollar corporations?


My argument is that, when discussing business in depth, terms like "King of Videogames" -which has no meaning whatsoever- have no place. Although I could totally understand why a teenager would coin such a term.


For brevitiys sake, let me just list the weaknesses in this post in bullet list format:

  • You are implying that my points are not rational, but you have not given any reasoning for why that is the case, and none is forthcoming either since that implication is false.
  • I am not 17 years old, as I already stated. Your point is meaningless
  • I could speak rationally about business when I was 17, your personal experience is of little relevance here
  • Being able to hold a rational conversation about business does not require the ability to make business decisionsfor billion-dollar corporations
  • 'We' are not discussiong business in depth. At best that is something you seem to think has a place in this discussion
  • The term King of Videogames is derived from my assertion that Nintendo is the undisputed king of videogames, or in other words, the most important player in the videogame business when you consider the full history of the business.


Around the Network
EricFabian on 11 October 2013
ryuzaki57 said:

Dat spin!

1/ Ubi is dropping support faster than light and pushes next-gen versions at every occasions. Sega has just given Sonic, all their other games are for Vita/PS3/PS4. Warner do multiplat.

2/ For example? I don't see any likely to counter PS4/X1 and PS360.


1 - ok

2 - maybe Rockstar and Bethesda just for the meltdowns