Captain_Yuri said:
The console of choice is driven by the games... Which console has more games? The one with the most third party support... Gamers don't blindly choose a console, specially one like the Playstation which was a new console... They choose it because of the games and Playstation had most of the games due to its wide range of third party support Yes you are cause you are essentially saying that in order for Nintendo to succeed, they should do what they have always been doing, just more of it and also butcher their console market while doing so... Where as I am suggesting that they adapt to the market and actually embrace third parties which has never been done before and everyone but you knows that This won't help them even more because, as I have explained it before, those games will be seen as clones and the developers aren't experienced enough. And it will be full off bad press.. "And what concerns my personnel tastes, most 3rd parties don’t even interest me." And this is exactly why your arguements are invalid because you don't see why third parties are important You do realize that development of games from both first party and third party start long before the console is released right? They start a couple of years before they console gets released because the developers need to make new engines for the new console hardware and its OS... The third parties hesitated because they saw the difference in power in the devkits before the consoles even launched... RE4 sold 1 million+ units due to it being a better experience than the GC version and it was open to a much wider audience than what the GC had... And its not like the wii didn't have its own number of third party games, they were just all mini games... The issue with porting from different architectures is that you need to put in a lot of work. Specially with big open world games like GTA... You clearly don't know anything about game development or how it works. Do some research You never said that but you implied it with that 57 million number... And thats a huge decrease in revenue because they aren't gaining $300 per console and $60 per game... Instead, they will only be gaining <$200 for the handheld and $40 per game cause no one in their right mind would pay $60 for handheld games. And they won't have a bigger userbase due to the reasons I have explained earlier which you failed to provide any noticable evidence as to why it won't. Also, you continue to have a narrow minded way of thinking without any evidence supporting your claims... The 3ds has 50+ million sales... Yet no western third parties want to develop for it hence why the install base does not matter for them if the power isn't there. The same goes for the wii with its 100 million sales.. And its the worst solution to all of this which I have said plenty of times and you have failed to prove otherwise... No one would pay for another console if they can get all the games on the handheld... There is no reason to waste money when you can save it and spend it on the competition to get a different and better experience while getting the games on the handheld anyway You are using ur imagination because you think that for some reason, if Nintendo just did the samething that they have been doing in every generation, just more of it with some more varity, it will work while time and time again has proven that their strats since the n64 days will not work and that they need third parties to be successful because the only time they were successful was with third party support with the exception of the wii. Again, for the 6th time, the reason why third parties will develop on the Nintendo platform is because Nintendo will go up to them and ask them what they want in terms of hardware in order for them to develop on the Nintendo platform. And on top of that, Nintendo will pay some huge third parties in order to port games like GTA. "And the answer is, like history has shown: no." The history has shown that the answer is yes... On the times that they have had successful third party support like during the NES/SNES/GB/DS/3DS, they have all been a success. On the times they shown where they didn't have successful third party support like during n64/GC/wiiU, they have all been a failure... You have no proof to support your claims. Heck, you don't even know the basic history nor do you even know how/why third parties choose something over something else Nintendo games is not what the mass market wants... The mass market wants both Nintendo games and third party gams which has been shown by previous generations of handhelds and consoles... When there is third party support, people are willing to buy Nintendo handhelds/consoles but when there isn't, people aren't willing to buy them. And yes, Nintendo has to do more than just say "we got third party support"... They have to show it Your arguments are so laughly bad that you need to just stop. Its ironic that you have a "Nintendomination" sig cause thats the exact opposite of what Nintendo will do if they follow your ideas |
You are surprised that people choose blindly? They choose bindly, sometimes, the same way that people follow Apple even if there are just as good products around or even better products.
The mass market love the playstation brand because that was seen gaming to them.
It's not just the quantity that matters. It's about what games are there and the diversity.
I don't believe for one minute that if Rockstar thought that there was a market for them on Wii to also sell 1M copies of a PS2 GTA port, they would hold the game back because of different architecture. They looked at the mobile market, saw an enormous potential and just ported it because they felt that the market would buy it.
I never said or implied Nintendo should do the same and just a bit more. More than once i said that Nintendo needs to really change and offer 3rdparty likes games. I even used this example: a GT to MK, an Uncarhted to Zelda, a Halo/CoD/Destiny to Metroid. What i want is balance.
So to you when Nintendo does a shooter, for example, it will be seen as a clone and it will fail, but when EA does it with BF and succeeds? EA can do something different but Nintendo can't because they never did? They never did a 3rd person shooter and now they are doing Splatoon. I bet that they can do more if they try.
I don't know why think i don't care for 3rd parties... Why do you think i want Fusion to happen? Just so Nintendo can make more games? I always said i wanted it because it's a chance for Nintendo not to depend so much on 3rd parties since they will create those same type of games and because, by doing so, they will create a market for them to take risks when thsoe new Nintendo franchises start selling.
And no, i don't believe the trick is simply providing them the HW they like, paying for ports (which will never happen because that would automatically mean less games like W101, B2, HW, Project Treasure).
The reason NES and SNES were successful was not because of power or architecture, it was because Nintendo reignited the gaming market with games the market wanted. The the sames with the SNES.
But then when Sony came in, following the footsteps of Sega, the market went with their strategy, the type of games they wanted. and Nintendo failed because they stopped offering what the market wanted; they didn't change their overall strategy so they lost.
It got nothing to do with power or being easy to develop.
Again, if the market, during the N64 still wanted Nintendo's type of games, you can bet that it wouldn't be HW issues that would stop 3rd parties from keeping up with Nintendo's strategy.
GB and GBA never had competition. DS was basically a whole new market that didn't compete with PSP and Vita, well, people for some reason, just didn't want it.
Nintendo goes to 3rd parties with a strategy and a HW. 3rd parties look at both and they decide based on that. You just look at HW part.
3rd parties are not going to support a system that doesn't match their own strategy or games.
If gamers wanted Nintendo games that badly then GC would have sold better than XB, Wii U would be selling better than XB1 because XB1 has basically the same library as PS4.
But that doesn't happen, does it? Despite MS PR problems gamers still go with Xb1 rather than Wii U which is full of exclusives and basically the best Nintendo games.
If you were right, people would be buying Nintendo's console more than they buy MS or Sony's.
Now, if you have a Fusion home console that comes with the best Nintendo games and exclusive 3rd party like games, then you have a reason to sell it to those who would never consider playing games like CoD on a handheld, but would so on a TV.And now you have another home console that actually presents something relevant.
It's about appealing to a market of gamers that don't care for handhelds but don't choose Nintendo because they don't provide exclusive content to their liking but Sony and MS do, besides 3rd party support.
Again, offering a combo for a bit more that allows for all the extra content is a good reason to buy both instead of just one.
Fusion, with a combined library, 3rd party like games, cover more type of consumer than your strategy or Nintendo's strategy.
Not all devs want to develop for handhelds and not all actually have the resources to actually try it.
