Go look at the DS library. While, it didn't have as many games as 360/PS3 it had a much more varied and original library. Gone was the yearly GuitarHero/SportsGames/Racing/FPS/Ubisoft bloat. 

There was a vast sea of fantastic 3rd party games on DS, GBA, GB, etc. And yet Nintendo games still sold well on those systems. So again, your theory that Nintendo games only sell well because of a lack of 3rd party support is bunk. 

Oh man that's so good for BotW that it could have sold 40-50 million on a MicroSony strategy. Again, who cares? Irrelevant to anything I said. I brought up Witcher 3 having less of a return on investment could have resulted in a smaller, cheaper game. For some reason you replied with sales numbers for Zelda, as if they're related somehow. 

It is relevant. They are related. 

Our main argument here has to do with budget for games. You said that Witcher 3 would have been a less ambitious game because of a lack of sales from being exclusive. 

I countered with Zelda sales, which you continually attempt to brush off because "Nintendo games don't count."

Fine by me though. Playstation exclusives sell stupidly high amounts as well. Just look at God of War for example. It's passed 10 million sales in a little under a year. That's half of Witcher 3's lifetime sales in a fraction of the time. 

Consider that God of War fueled the sales of more PS4s. Which in turn fueled platform royalty fees. Which means that the overall money made from a single copy of GoW is much higher than the overall money made from a single copy of Witcher 3. 

But I'm sure that "doesn't count" either. 

I know how the console market has worked ever since Sony entered it. They and MS lose money on hardware with the intent on making up for it on software, both their own and licensing fees from third party software. Are you honestly not aware that this is how they operate or are you just faking ignorance?

That is literally what I was arguing for. They lose money on hardware (and pump extra time/money into their exclusives) with the intent of pumping up their total number of platforms sold, and then making all that money back on licensing fees. What you said earlier made me think you were denying these basic facts about how the console market worked. Oh well, at least we agree on something. 

The "main disagreement" was this idea you put forth that some games are designed to sell consoles and some aren't and they aren't as good because of that.

It was you who said "made to sell consoles". Not surprised.

Made to sell consoles =/= designed to sell consoles. You are the one that started saying "designed to sell consoles" in order to pose the question of "what would have been better about Witcher 3?"

Yes, some games are made to sell consoles, and because of that they get extra development time, and budget. This in turn makes those games far better than their 3rd party brethren. 

But again, this is mostly a budgeting issue. And despite providing a game in the same genre, on a console that isn't even at the halfway point yet, you want to deny it. Funny. 

Go look at the DS library. While, it didn't have as many games as 360/PS3 it had a much more varied and original library. Gone was the yearly GuitarHero/SportsGames/Racing/FPS/Ubisoft bloat. 

There was a vast sea of fantastic 3rd party games on DS, GBA, GB, etc. And yet Nintendo games still sold well on those systems. So again, your theory that Nintendo games only sell well because of a lack of 3rd party support is bunk. 

This is revisionist history. There was stronger third party support on older Nintendo handhelds than more recent ones but lol, you're going all the way back to the Game Boy. My point is proven, especially considering that MicroSony consoles didn't even exist back then. Either way at the end of the day the home consoles still saw far superior third party support.

 It is relevant. They are related. 

Our main argument here has to do with budget for games. You said that Witcher 3 would have been a less ambitious game because of a lack of sales from being exclusive. 

I countered with Zelda sales, which you continually attempt to brush off because "Nintendo games don't count."

Fine by me though. Playstation exclusives sell stupidly high amounts as well. Just look at God of War for example. It's passed 10 million sales in a little under a year. That's half of Witcher 3's lifetime sales in a fraction of the time. 

Consider that God of War fueled the sales of more PS4s. Which in turn fueled platform royalty fees. Which means that the overall money made from a single copy of GoW is much higher than the overall money made from a single copy of Witcher 3. 

But I'm sure that "doesn't count" either. 

No. Again, the main argument is the idea that some games are designed to sell consoles and thus are better than ones that aren't. You're spinning it off into this Witcher vs Zelda budget crap. Yes, Witcher 3 could have been a less ambitious game had CDPR knew their potential sales were one platform versus four. You don't need to "counter" that idea, it's common sense.

Hold up, you're telling me Sony makes more money per copy of their own  title, of which they recoup 100% of the money a retailer spends to buy it, versus a third party title, where all Sony gets per copy sold is a licensing fee? Wow, my mind is blown. Please make some more irrelevant game comparisons, I love reading them.

Made to sell consoles =/= designed to sell consoles. You are the one that started saying "designed to sell consoles" in order to pose the question of "what would have been better about Witcher 3?"

Yes, some games are made to sell consoles, and because of that they get extra development time, and budget. This in turn makes those games far better than their 3rd party brethren. 

But again, this is mostly a budgeting issue. And despite providing a game in the same genre, on a console that isn't even at the halfway point yet, you want to deny it. Funny. 

lol are you really harping on "designed" vs "made"? In this context they are literally synonyms.

Congratulations on trying to provide substance to your silly theory about games made to sell consoles, but all you're describing there are big budget games vs smaller budget games. For every amazing first party title you list that got extra love and care and got great reviews, I can list at least one third party title that the developer made with zero intentions of selling consoles.

Did Sony try less with a title like Concrete Genie or Medievil than they're trying with Last of Us 2? In all cases they're trying to make great games that will make you want to buy a PS4. No different than what MS does with their games. When they make CD3 or Horizon 4, they're trying to make great games that will pull you to Xbox. They just didn't have the stable of quality developers this gen that Sony had. That's why they went out and bought some. The idea that they don't care about moving hardware with the games is complete nonsense.