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

Forums - Gaming - Sony and Microsoft are spoiling Third Parties to much.

 

Do you agree with me?

Nope. 65 28.14%
 
Yes. 134 58.01%
 
See results. 32 13.85%
 
Total:231
Mystro-Sama on 01 February 2015

Why not? They sell a lot of consoles while Ubisoft gets blamed for the shitty game.



Around the Network
oniyide on 01 February 2015
Game_God said:
oniyide said:


you mean like Metroid Other M, Mario Kart 7 and Smash Bros?


Nice try!

I know! considering those games had some big bugs and I forgot to add Skyward Sword



Game_God on 01 February 2015
oniyide said:
Game_God said:


Nice try!

I know! considering those games had some big bugs and I forgot to add Skyward Sword


Strrrrrike 2!!!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n29CicBxZuw

01001011 01101001 01110011 01110011 00100000 01101101 01111001 00100000 01110011 01101000 01101001 01101110 01111001 00100000 01101101 01100101 01110100 01100001 01101100 00100000 01100001 01110011 01110011 00100001

oniyide on 01 February 2015
bouzane said:
The_Sony_Girl1 said:


So? I don't remember Sonic Boom being a crucial part of any Nintendo Direct, unlike Sony and Microsoft who helped market Destiny and the like.


I don't know where I brought up Destiny in my comment. Additionally, Destiny may be terribly uninspired and light on content but it can hardly be called broken, it seems to work perfectly fine.

You stated, and I quote:

"I know they rely on third parties to sell consoles, but why did they approve of broken games like Assassins Creed Unity get released? Do they beta test the games before release, or do they just let games get released?"

They approve of "broken" games like Unity for the same reason Nintendo approved a disaster like Sonic Boom, because denying such high profle titles would prove disastrous from a business standpoint. It is not Sony's, Microsoft's or Nintendo's job to protect the consumer from low quality games, it is up to the individual.

Are the big 3 even aware of the brokeness of the games?



Cobretti2 on 02 February 2015
binary solo said:
Cobretti2 said:

yes and no.

most consumers don't read interviews they just go out and buy.

I do agree though and hope one day all game buyers become more proactive in finding out details before they purchase. These day I do not purchase Ibosift game as an example untill I know the extent of the damage.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. If you* buy one broken game on day 1 from a publisher and then buy another and another and another all on day 1 and expect the publisher to change, then you really are insane.

*Not you as in you specifically.

Yep got what you saying. The thing is most those gamers are casual and probably think its part of the game or are as picky with bugs.

Thn you got those people who jsut say meh update is coming I don't care it will be fixed.

Both those categories of gamer generally trade in the game once they done with it.

The real gamers who like to replay their games suffer as I don't want to be reinstalling a game again and downloading patches again once I ran out of space and wanted to play a new game wtf do I do when my hdd is full of broke patched games?



 

 

Around the Network
DonFerrari on 02 February 2015
Mr Puggsly said:
DonFerrari said:
Mr Puggsly said:


That's probably for the best.

What's the alternative? 1st parties having all the influence thus killing competition?


Like MS or Sony would try that alone. If they done that they would lose all 3rd to the other... and if both tried there is a chance they would either go PC or associate to make a new platform.

I think you misunderstood my response. He said 3rd parties have too much influence and I'm saying the alternative is worse because there would be less competition.

Anyhow, Sega is a company that had a history of pushing away 3rd parties. I think we all know how that turned out.

Owwwww I understood and agree with you. That neither would try that kind of dictatorship over 3rds because it would end up hurting them.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Blob on 02 February 2015

as someone who actually played sonic boom it wasnt nearly as glitchy as people are making it out to be. nor was it missing features at launch.
Nintendo certainly isnt excused from having bugs thpugh. skyward sword had a gamebreaking one



HollyGamer on 03 February 2015

Well the good thing is a lot of good third party games able to release freely without restriction like what Nintendo did on SNES era.



torok on 03 February 2015
Game_God said:
They were crying over Nintendo iron fist rules (Nintendo controlled the output of titles per year & their quality) back in the day, they left for Sony which let them do as they want, Nintendo had the "Seal of Quality" & it meant something when a game had that seal, now most games games deserve a "Seal of Crappy".
Fortunately when I see a game with Nintendo on it, I know it means quality!


Here are some games with the "Seal of Quality":

 



Bet with jetforcejiminy: PS4 will pass the Wii lifetime numbers.

torok on 03 February 2015

It's amazing that people here are trying to put Nintendo as some bastion of quality releases when their own eShop has The Letter.



Bet with jetforcejiminy: PS4 will pass the Wii lifetime numbers.