Why do gamers want to see Nintendo go multi-platform?

Recommended Videos

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
It is true that the PS2 had different architecture than the Xbox, but they both had comparable power. As opposed to the gamecube, Wii, and soon to be added WiiU that are always lacking in every measurable spec for their perspective gen. You simply can not recode or reformat a game's system spec requirements away without changing the engine and reprograming the entire game from scratch. Where as you can EASILY reformat a low system spec requirement game to run on a higher spec system.
Um, what? This had nothing to do with power. This had everything to do with architecture. PS2 was very different in terms of Gamecube and original Xbox. Just like how the WiiU is different from the Xbone and PS4. By that logic every dev should be clamoring for the WiiU. Last time I checked it was stronger than the PS3 and Xbox 360, with none of the other consoles being released yet. So if any third party dev sans exclusives had the time to figure out the WiiU now would've been the time. But they didn't. Because they are lazy. You cannot tell me a multi billion dollar studio cannot put in the effort or time to make anything for the WiiU, and some shit shovelware company with a lot less money has more than enough willpower to supposedly code the rubix code of gaming systems.
On that note AC: Black Flag looks no different on the WiiU than on the PS3. So what are you talking about building the game from ground up? I never heard any developer either from Sega, or Ubisoft state that they had to remake their entire game to fit the WiiU. Not to mention the fact that every game is created on computers first. Which has more power than any of the three consoles by a long shot. So clearly right off the bat they have to lower the power of their games to accomodate consoles. I don't see how a few less polygons is more challenging to do for the WiiU. Especially seeing how once again THEY DON'T HAVE TO USE THE TABLET CONTROLLER.
But you know what? Fine. Let them be. For it seems that only those who truly want to try something new will go to Nintendo. If that just happens to be Ubisoft, Platnium, and EA(of all companies) then power to them.

Do you work for Nintendo? Can you honestly claim to know their level of satisfaction? They aren't greedy? Hasn't your entire argument been that they would lose console sales if they went multiplatform? Would a benevolent company not listen to the consumers who only want their software, while a greedy company would force you into their monopoly of buying peripherals in order to use any software?
Considering how a bazillion people are complaining about them going multi platform, then yes. I can assume they are perfectly happy with where they are. As someone said in this thread, Nintendo would lose big money going multiplatform and keeping their hardware decision. They will also lose big money dumping their hardware decision, and going only software so they can go multi platform. That's not being a nice company. That's being utterly stupid with your finances. Especially if they are a developer AND a hardware company. This only works if they were software only from the get go. Your entire argument can apply to every single game company, publisher, developer, and studio that ever made an exclusive for a console ever. I could say Sony and Squre Enix are greed for making their KH3 game exclusive for the PS3 when a lot of people on other platforms would love to have that game on there. I could say the people behind Metal Gear are greedy for making their newest installment to the franchise an exclusive for the Xbone when they could've just gone multi platform. But for whatever reason only Nintendo are the crooks here? After you just defended the other companies for not making games that people would love on the WiiU, your willing to say in that same post Nintendo as a good company should make their games for other systems? Why not everyone else?


Replacement consoles, double (triple, quadruple) gifting, and unsatisfied consumers. Those are the reason off the top of my head.
That's funny. Those stories usually belong to the almighty Xbox 360. Someone posted a chart earlier or in another thread that talked about the fail rate of each companies console. I believe Nintendo had a 10% fail rate while Xbox had around a 24% fail rate. Forgot the PS3 fail rate, but none were anywhere near as low as Nintendo. If one Nintendo product fails, chances are your next one will keep on working for years to come. My N64 still works. My Gamecube still works, My second hand Wii still works.
quadruple replacement? Your getting your Nintendo products from a cheap knock-off store. Or perhaps you are the King/Queen of shitty luck.


No, Nintendo is a monopoly because...

A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity. Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods. The verb "monopolize" refers to the process by which a company gains the ability to raise prices or exclude competitors. In economics, a monopoly is a single seller. In law, a monopoly is a business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power to charge high prices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

Now I never said they didn't have the right to only publish Nintendo games on Nintendo hardware... I simply called them a monopoly for doing so.
Nintendo is a monopoly of their own games. You don't see people calling Apple a monopoly for only for only putting Mac products on their own computers do you?
No, if a company makes a software product they have every right to put it on their own in house made hardware. That doesn't make them a monopoly. You cannot monopolize an IP. Mario is an IP. Metroid is an IP. Pikmin is an IP. THEY created these franchises therefore they have every right to keep it for themselves.
A PLATFORMER is not an IP. If Nintendo were to buy out every platformer franchise out here now whether it be an indie game, or a studio that makes said franchise, then yes you would have a case for Nintendo being a monopoly. However if you are trying to make the case that Nintendo keeping Nintendo property on Nintendo hardware is a monopoly, then I better see you on those KH3 threads complaining about Squre Enix being a monopoly for always keeping their much desired Kingdom Hearts franchise on Sony consoles. Guaranteed you'd be laughed out of those threads. In fact some would go as far as to say "If you want Kingdom Hearts get a fucking PS4 and quit whining."
Nintendo isn't stopping anyone from making platformers and adventure games. Which are what they are best known for. If a studio wants to make 20 shooter games that is their fault. Nintendo shouldn't have to accommodate every one else lack of any new genre.
You want to know why Microsoft got accused for being a monopoly? Because they ACTIVELY kept other companies from making other computers that could communicate with theirs. Therefore keeping them on top of their game.
 

Sarge034

New member
Feb 24, 2011
1,623
0
0
Dragonbums said:
Um, what? This had nothing to do with power. This had everything to do with architecture. PS2 was very different in terms of Gamecube and original Xbox. Just like how the WiiU is different from the Xbone and PS4. By that logic every dev should be clamoring for the WiiU. Last time I checked it was stronger than the PS3 and Xbox 360, with none of the other consoles being released yet. So if any third party dev sans exclusives had the time to figure out the WiiU now would've been the time. But they didn't. Because they are lazy. You cannot tell me a multi billion dollar studio cannot put in the effort or time to make anything for the WiiU, and some shit shovelware company with a lot less money has more than enough willpower to supposedly code the rubix code of gaming systems.
On that note AC: Black Flag looks no different on the WiiU than on the PS3. So what are you talking about building the game from ground up? I never heard any developer either from Sega, or Ubisoft state that they had to remake their entire game to fit the WiiU. Not to mention the fact that every game is created on computers first. Which has more power than any of the three consoles by a long shot. So clearly right off the bat they have to lower the power of their games to accomodate consoles. I don't see how a few less polygons is more challenging to do for the WiiU. Especially seeing how once again THEY DON'T HAVE TO USE THE TABLET CONTROLLER.
But you know what? Fine. Let them be. For it seems that only those who truly want to try something new will go to Nintendo. If that just happens to be Ubisoft, Platnium, and EA(of all companies) then power to them.
This has everything to do with power. The WiiU is Nintendo's next gen console so it must be compared to the PS4 and the Xbone. The Wii in the same gen as the PS3 and the 360, and is underpowered just as the WiiU is as compared to the PS4 and the Xbone. You are cherry picking Nintendo's next gen console and Sony's current gen console as a comparison. Nice try. -.- No dev is going to "clamor" to devote money and man hours to a console that is going to be outclassed within the year and has such relatively dismal sales.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/125073-EA-To-Nintendo-Wiill-Come-Back-If-U-Sell-More-Boxes

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PC TO CONSOLE AND CONSOLE TO PC PORTS! Notice how gamers say PC games get "dumbed down" for consoles? And how console games don't port very well to PC because they can't make use of the superior hardware specs?

And you keep putting words into my mouth to pad your argument, stop it. I never said anything about the tablet controller being a problem.

Considering how a bazillion people are complaining about them going multi platform, then yes. I can assume they are perfectly happy with where they are. As someone said in this thread, Nintendo would lose big money going multiplatform and keeping their hardware decision. They will also lose big money dumping their hardware decision, and going only software so they can go multi platform. That's not being a nice company. That's being utterly stupid with your finances. Especially if they are a developer AND a hardware company. This only works if they were software only from the get go. Your entire argument can apply to every single game company, publisher, developer, and studio that ever made an exclusive for a console ever. I could say Sony and Squre Enix are greed for making their KH3 game exclusive for the PS3 when a lot of people on other platforms would love to have that game on there. I could say the people behind Metal Gear are greedy for making their newest installment to the franchise an exclusive for the Xbone when they could've just gone multi platform. But for whatever reason only Nintendo are the crooks here? After you just defended the other companies for not making games that people would love on the WiiU, your willing to say in that same post Nintendo as a good company should make their games for other systems? Why not everyone else?
A bazillion. How many is that exactly? If you can't come up with a number then it is a logical fallacy and I would ask you to refrain from using them.

As someone said (it was me) read my proposal on how Nintendo could make money with a hardware department and a multiplatform software selection.

And you are correct, my argument could be used for any company that makes an exclusive IP, but last I checked we were in a NINTENDO THREAD. Stop trying to discredit me for not talking about something this thread is not about.


That's funny. Those stories usually belong to the almighty Xbox 360. Someone posted a chart earlier or in another thread that talked about the fail rate of each companies console. I believe Nintendo had a 10% fail rate while Xbox had around a 24% fail rate. Forgot the PS3 fail rate, but none were anywhere near as low as Nintendo. If one Nintendo product fails, chances are your next one will keep on working for years to come. My N64 still works. My Gamecube still works, My second hand Wii still works.
quadruple replacement? Your getting your Nintendo products from a cheap knock-off store. Or perhaps you are the King/Queen of shitty luck.
Again with this elusive "someone" and lack of evidence. Tisk tisk, the logical fallacies are strong with this one.

Anyway, everything you have said is irrelevant. You admit that Nintendo consoles CAN break and require someone to purchase another. I never said anything about quadruple replacements though. I said double, triple, and quadruple GIFTING. You know... Like birthday presents, Christmas presents, grandmother/grandfather presents. Again with the putting words in my mouth.


Nintendo is a monopoly of their own games.
In economics, a monopoly is a single seller. In law, a monopoly is a business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power to charge high prices.

So you concede Nintendo is a monopoly.

You don't see people calling Apple a monopoly for only for only putting Mac products on their own computers do you? No, if a company makes a software product they have every right to put it on their own in house made hardware. That doesn't make them a monopoly. You cannot monopolize an IP. Mario is an IP. Metroid is an IP. Pikmin is an IP. THEY created these franchises therefore they have every right to keep it for themselves. A PLATFORMER is not an IP. If Nintendo were to buy out every platformer franchise out here now whether it be an indie game, or a studio that makes said franchise, then yes you would have a case for Nintendo being a monopoly. However if you are trying to make the case that Nintendo keeping Nintendo property on Nintendo hardware is a monopoly, then I better see you on those KH3 threads complaining about Squre Enix being a monopoly for always keeping their much desired Kingdom Hearts franchise on Sony consoles. Guaranteed you'd be laughed out of those threads. In fact some would go as far as to say "If you want Kingdom Hearts get a fucking PS4 and quit whining."
Nintendo isn't stopping anyone from making platformers and adventure games. Which are what they are best known for. If a studio wants to make 20 shooter games that is their fault. Nintendo shouldn't have to accommodate every one else lack of any new genre.
You want to know why Microsoft got accused for being a monopoly? Because they ACTIVELY kept other companies from making other computers that could communicate with theirs. Therefore keeping them on top of their game.
Actually I regularly complain and hear complaints about Apple. MS got busted for only shipping their PCs with MS software and not allowing their software to run or interact with non-MS software on the same system. That sounds awfully familiar... but I'll come back to that in a sec. The only reason Apple has avoided legal trouble is that you can run non-Apple software on it, poorly. Unless you wipe it and put a different OS on it...

Anyway, you can indeed monopolize an IP. Gritty realistic FPS, GO! CoD, MoH, and Battlefield. For PC,PS3, and 360. There are many different games on many different consoles that fill that niche, so no monopoly. The problem is that there is no real equivalent to Mario, Link, and the other Nintendo games I care about. So you end up with Mario games, GO! game, game, game, and game. For Nintendo hardware only. And there is the rub. It is a naturally occurring monopoly as the products have no real equal competition for its' niche.

If I gave a shit about KH3 you better believe I would be over there speaking my mind, but again NINTENDO THREAD, NINTENDO CONVERSATION.

So on to that point I tabled earlier and the bolded parts of your text. So MS is a monopoly because it only allowed you to use MS software on MS hardware, but Nintendo is NOT a monopoly because it only allows you to use Nintendo software on Nintendo hardware... ? So are you advocating for monopolies, as you say, "No, if a company makes a software product they have every right to put it on their own in house made hardware." Why don't you look up the effects of a monopoly on the product, consumer, and economy as well as research past real life monopolies. It aint pretty.
 

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
Sarge034 said:
Dragonbums said:
Um, what? This had nothing to do with power. This had everything to do with architecture. PS2 was very different in terms of Gamecube and original Xbox. Just like how the WiiU is different from the Xbone and PS4. By that logic every dev should be clamoring for the WiiU. Last time I checked it was stronger than the PS3 and Xbox 360, with none of the other consoles being released yet. So if any third party dev sans exclusives had the time to figure out the WiiU now would've been the time. But they didn't. Because they are lazy. You cannot tell me a multi billion dollar studio cannot put in the effort or time to make anything for the WiiU, and some shit shovelware company with a lot less money has more than enough willpower to supposedly code the rubix code of gaming systems.
On that note AC: Black Flag looks no different on the WiiU than on the PS3. So what are you talking about building the game from ground up? I never heard any developer either from Sega, or Ubisoft state that they had to remake their entire game to fit the WiiU. Not to mention the fact that every game is created on computers first. Which has more power than any of the three consoles by a long shot. So clearly right off the bat they have to lower the power of their games to accomodate consoles. I don't see how a few less polygons is more challenging to do for the WiiU. Especially seeing how once again THEY DON'T HAVE TO USE THE TABLET CONTROLLER.
But you know what? Fine. Let them be. For it seems that only those who truly want to try something new will go to Nintendo. If that just happens to be Ubisoft, Platnium, and EA(of all companies) then power to them.
This has everything to do with power. The WiiU is Nintendo's next gen console so it must be compared to the PS4 and the Xbone. The Wii in the same gen as the PS3 and the 360, and is underpowered just as the WiiU is as compared to the PS4 and the Xbone. You are cherry picking Nintendo's next gen console and Sony's current gen console as a comparison. Nice try. -.- No dev is going to "clamor" to devote money and man hours to a console that is going to be outclassed within the year and has such relatively dismal sales.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/125073-EA-To-Nintendo-Wiill-Come-Back-If-U-Sell-More-Boxes

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PC TO CONSOLE AND CONSOLE TO PC PORTS! Notice how gamers say PC games get "dumbed down" for consoles? And how console games don't port very well to PC because they can't make use of the superior hardware specs?

And you keep putting words into my mouth to pad your argument, stop it. I never said anything about the tablet controller being a problem.

Considering how a bazillion people are complaining about them going multi platform, then yes. I can assume they are perfectly happy with where they are. As someone said in this thread, Nintendo would lose big money going multiplatform and keeping their hardware decision. They will also lose big money dumping their hardware decision, and going only software so they can go multi platform. That's not being a nice company. That's being utterly stupid with your finances. Especially if they are a developer AND a hardware company. This only works if they were software only from the get go. Your entire argument can apply to every single game company, publisher, developer, and studio that ever made an exclusive for a console ever. I could say Sony and Squre Enix are greed for making their KH3 game exclusive for the PS3 when a lot of people on other platforms would love to have that game on there. I could say the people behind Metal Gear are greedy for making their newest installment to the franchise an exclusive for the Xbone when they could've just gone multi platform. But for whatever reason only Nintendo are the crooks here? After you just defended the other companies for not making games that people would love on the WiiU, your willing to say in that same post Nintendo as a good company should make their games for other systems? Why not everyone else?
A bazillion. How many is that exactly? If you can't come up with a number then it is a logical fallacy and I would ask you to refrain from using them.

As someone said (it was me) read my proposal on how Nintendo could make money with a hardware department and a multiplatform software selection.

And you are correct, my argument could be used for any company that makes an exclusive IP, but last I checked we were in a NINTENDO THREAD. Stop trying to discredit me for not talking about something this thread is not about.


That's funny. Those stories usually belong to the almighty Xbox 360. Someone posted a chart earlier or in another thread that talked about the fail rate of each companies console. I believe Nintendo had a 10% fail rate while Xbox had around a 24% fail rate. Forgot the PS3 fail rate, but none were anywhere near as low as Nintendo. If one Nintendo product fails, chances are your next one will keep on working for years to come. My N64 still works. My Gamecube still works, My second hand Wii still works.
quadruple replacement? Your getting your Nintendo products from a cheap knock-off store. Or perhaps you are the King/Queen of shitty luck.
Again with this elusive "someone" and lack of evidence. Tisk tisk, the logical fallacies are strong with this one.

Anyway, everything you have said is irrelevant. You admit that Nintendo consoles CAN break and require someone to purchase another. I never said anything about quadruple replacements though. I said double, triple, and quadruple GIFTING. You know... Like birthday presents, Christmas presents, grandmother/grandfather presents. Again with the putting words in my mouth.


Nintendo is a monopoly of their own games.
In economics, a monopoly is a single seller. In law, a monopoly is a business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power to charge high prices.

So you concede Nintendo is a monopoly.

You don't see people calling Apple a monopoly for only for only putting Mac products on their own computers do you? No, if a company makes a software product they have every right to put it on their own in house made hardware. That doesn't make them a monopoly. You cannot monopolize an IP. Mario is an IP. Metroid is an IP. Pikmin is an IP. THEY created these franchises therefore they have every right to keep it for themselves. A PLATFORMER is not an IP. If Nintendo were to buy out every platformer franchise out here now whether it be an indie game, or a studio that makes said franchise, then yes you would have a case for Nintendo being a monopoly. However if you are trying to make the case that Nintendo keeping Nintendo property on Nintendo hardware is a monopoly, then I better see you on those KH3 threads complaining about Squre Enix being a monopoly for always keeping their much desired Kingdom Hearts franchise on Sony consoles. Guaranteed you'd be laughed out of those threads. In fact some would go as far as to say "If you want Kingdom Hearts get a fucking PS4 and quit whining."
Nintendo isn't stopping anyone from making platformers and adventure games. Which are what they are best known for. If a studio wants to make 20 shooter games that is their fault. Nintendo shouldn't have to accommodate every one else lack of any new genre.
You want to know why Microsoft got accused for being a monopoly? Because they ACTIVELY kept other companies from making other computers that could communicate with theirs. Therefore keeping them on top of their game.
Actually I regularly complain and hear complaints about Apple. MS got busted for only shipping their PCs with MS software and not allowing their software to run or interact with non-MS software on the same system. That sounds awfully familiar... but I'll come back to that in a sec. The only reason Apple has avoided legal trouble is that you can run non-Apple software on it, poorly. Unless you wipe it and put a different OS on it...

Anyway, you can indeed monopolize an IP. Gritty realistic FPS, GO! CoD, MoH, and Battlefield. For PC,PS3, and 360. There are many different games on many different consoles that fill that niche, so no monopoly. The problem is that there is no real equivalent to Mario, Link, and the other Nintendo games I care about. So you end up with Mario games, GO! game, game, game, and game. For Nintendo hardware only. And there is the rub. It is a naturally occurring monopoly as the products have no real equal competition for its' niche.

If I gave a shit about KH3 you better believe I would be over there speaking my mind, but again NINTENDO THREAD, NINTENDO CONVERSATION.

So on to that point I tabled earlier and the bolded parts of your text. So MS is a monopoly because it only allowed you to use MS software on MS hardware, but Nintendo is NOT a monopoly because it only allows you to use Nintendo software on Nintendo hardware... ? So are you advocating for monopolies, as you say, "No, if a company makes a software product they have every right to put it on their own in house made hardware." Why don't you look up the effects of a monopoly on the product, consumer, and economy as well as research past real life monopolies. It aint pretty.

So basically your entire thing boiled down to it's irrelevant, and logical fallacies?

This is a Nintendo thread however the hypocrisy in the Escapist over Nintendo is baffling. You cannot keep this as solely Nintendo because the things you complain that they are doing, everyone else does it to. Telling me that this is a Nintendo thread to defeat valid points is avoiding the issue that is rampant on the Escapist when it comes to criticizing Nintendo. I'm not allowed to point out the very thing the other big three do just as much as Nintendo does because its a "Nintendo thread?"

Sorry but plenty of people have defeated your business model before I even got started with this thread.

You claim that I'm putting things in your mouth when clearly- especially with the WiiU tablet WHEN I SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT THIRD PARTY DEVS CONTINUE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT CODING FOR THE WIIU WHEN THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE TO USE THE TABLET. Where the fuck, did I say Sarge said this? Never said it. However just like the last time I made a list of reasons why third party devs don't like coding for Nintendo you continue to say "I never said that" that's great. Because I never claimed you said that either.

Also the way you worded that phrase you basically said a good portion of those 94 million sales are from people having to buy a new one or the like. Which again is false because someone posted in another thread the fail rate of a Nintendo product. You also have to look no farther than basic forums about consoles breaking down to see that 8/10 someone will say their Xbox 360 broke. This doesn't include the fact that many of those people simply give it back to Nintendo. Thus never actually buying a completely different system.

At this point you are sticking up for third party developers that have become nothing but lazy asses that only want to play with the shiniest toys.
If the WiiU is "This gen" despite being more powerful than PS3 and Xbox 360(which makes me wonder if the Wii is in some sort of parallel dimension since it's clearly more powerful than Gamecube, and not as strong as the 360 and PS4) Then devs still shouldn't have any problem coding for it because all they've been coding "last gen" technology in games for 6 years now. They have the assets to code for "last gen" games, so what is the big problem here?
I chalk it up to pure laziness.

But keep dancing around the hypocrisy that is criticizing Nintendo on things every other company does.
Keep complaining about "anti-consumer rights!" while hoping that the one company that has NEVER strayed from the path of treating you like a valued company goes third party so you can play your games on the two consoles that can go "anti-consumer" on you.
When you tell me that I can't make valid points because "This is a Nintendo thread" you are acknowledging the hypocrisy in these common criticisms that happen towards Nintendo. You however just don't want to confront that.

Because at the end of the day Escapist just has a general hive mind of hatred of Nintendo in general.
They don't even throw them a bone when they actually do something right. They just say "It isn't enough"
Yet Sony can get lauded and called heroes for basically allowing the very practices that Nintendo never once hinted at we wouldn't be allowed to do.
We demand that they put more mature titles on their systems. They do just that, and everyone says "Well I don't like those games" Great. Fine. But you aren't going to at least acknowledge that they are listening to you?
It all boils down to not liking Nintendo. And because Escapist doesn't like Nintendo, Nintendo should be the one to have threads demanding it goes multi platform because despite the fact that Sony and Microsoft have either hinted at or have done worse things than Nintendo it seems that keeping Mario, Zelda, and Metroid all on their own consoles is the worst offense to "Anti-consumer rights!" Microsoft and "Maybe we'll change our minds later on DRM" Sony should keep their consoles, but "Nintendo games on Nintendo consoles" Nintendo should go multiplatform because it benefits me.
 

Sarge034

New member
Feb 24, 2011
1,623
0
0
Dragonbums said:
So basically your entire thing boiled down to it's irrelevant, and logical fallacies?
No, but if it seemed like it then it was just because you used so many.

This is a Nintendo thread however the hypocrisy in the Escapist over Nintendo is baffling. You cannot keep this as solely Nintendo because the things you complain that they are doing, everyone else does it to. Telling me that this is a Nintendo thread to defeat valid points is avoiding the issue that is rampant on the Escapist when it comes to criticizing Nintendo. I'm not allowed to point out the very thing the other big three do just as much as Nintendo does because its a "Nintendo thread?"
I have to talk about EVERYTHING when asked about Nintendo...? Ok, Anytime a game is restricted to a particular console it is a dick move. Using this logic Nintendo it leading the pack in exclusivity dick moves. Can we move on from this notion that I'm obviously a hypocrite because I don't try to derail a Nintendo thread by discussing the same practices other companies use to a lesser degree?

Sorry but plenty of people have defeated your business model before I even got started with this thread.
Incorrect. No one has actually replied to my plan. Everyone that has replied to me has assumed that I am talking about making all Nintendo software multiplatform instead of actually reading what I suggested. I even linked it to you in an earlier post.

You claim that I'm putting things in your mouth when clearly- especially with the WiiU tablet WHEN I SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT THIRD PARTY DEVS CONTINUE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT CODING FOR THE WIIU WHEN THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE TO USE THE TABLET. Where the fuck, did I say Sarge said this? Never said it. However just like the last time I made a list of reasons why third party devs don't like coding for Nintendo you continue to say "I never said that" that's great. Because I never claimed you said that either.
No, but your idea was so poorly conveyed that it seemed to be in response to my saying the console was underpowered and that it would get no dev love. However, I never said the devs would have a problem with the tablet in the first place so it is a non-issue. To that end you were, in fact, padding your argument.

Also the way you worded that phrase you basically said a good portion of those 94 million sales are from people having to buy a new one or the like. Which again is false because someone posted in another thread the fail rate of a Nintendo product. You also have to look no farther than basic forums about consoles breaking down to see that 8/10 someone will say their Xbox 360 broke. This doesn't include the fact that many of those people simply give it back to Nintendo. Thus never actually buying a completely different system.
I believe I provided a list of reasons why the console sales numbers would not equal individual consumers buying games. While the failure rate of Nintendo hardware is relevant you failed to provide either numbers or a source, and the failure rate of other consoles are irrelevant because there is no correlation or causation between the two sets of data. This is know as a "straw man" which is a logical fallacy. Stop it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

At this point you are sticking up for third party developers that have become nothing but lazy asses that only want to play with the shiniest toys.
I have? That's news to me. I thought I was explaining that if Nintendo wanted my money it would have to end the monopoly on its' games...

If the WiiU is "This gen" despite being more powerful than PS3 and Xbox 360(which makes me wonder if the Wii is in some sort of parallel dimension since it's clearly more powerful than Gamecube, and not as strong as the 360 and PS4) Then devs still shouldn't have any problem coding for it because all they've been coding "last gen" technology in games for 6 years now. They have the assets to code for "last gen" games, so what is the big problem here?
I chalk it up to pure laziness.
I never said the WiiU was this gen. I said the Wii was this gen, and the WiiU was next gen.

"The WiiU is Nintendo's next gen console so it must be compared to the PS4 and the Xbone. The Wii in the same gen as the PS3 and the 360, and is underpowered just as the WiiU is as compared to the PS4 and the Xbone."

Right there, word for word.

But keep dancing around the hypocrisy that is criticizing Nintendo on things every other company does.
Keep complaining about "anti-consumer rights!" while hoping that the one company that has NEVER strayed from the path of treating you like a valued company goes third party so you can play your games on the two consoles that can go "anti-consumer" on you.
Now hold on there. Nintendo has "NEVER strayed from the path of treating you like a valued company"? Did you mean consumer? Anyway, learn a little bout the company you are willing to give your life for.

>Nintendo was the father of modern DRM.
"Nintendo was determined not to make the same mistakes in the US that Atari had. Because of massive influxes of games that were regarded as some of the worst ever created, gaming had almost completely died out in America. Nintendo decided that to avoid facing the same problems, they would only allow games that received their "Seal of Quality" to be sold for the Famicom, using a chip called 10NES to "lockout" or prevent unlicensed games from working."

>Guess who started the trend of shitty video games adaptations into TV and movies.
"The last major blockbuster game for the NES, Super Mario Bros. 3, was released in early 1990. The game went on to sell over 18 million units and is widely considered by fans and critics alike to be perhaps the greatest 8-bit game ever made. It was followed by a licensed Television adaption named The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!, which was released by DIC Entertainment and Viacom Enterprises in that year to capitalize on the Game's immense popularity."

>Nintendo would NEVER use their considerable market influence provided by a monopoly to fix prices, right?
"As the SNES battled the Sega Genesis, Nintendo was running into problems on another front caused by their own aggressive marketing behavior. In 1991, Nintendo agreed to a settlement regarding price-fixing allegations brought by the Federal Trade Commission and attorneys general in New York and Maryland. Nintendo had been accused of threatening to cut off shipments of the NES to retailers who discounted the price of the system. The estimated cost of the settlement was just under $30 million."

>Surly Nintendo would support their hardware with adequate software...
"Many feel that the advertising onslaught by Sony at this time did not truly begin to take effect until many of the consumers who held out for the N64 became frustrated at the lack of software following the first few months after the system's release." (and Wii and WiiU)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nintendo

>And then there were the price hikes in the 90's. Chrono Trigger was $80 in 1995, that is $119.05 when inflation is taken into account.

When you tell me that I can't make valid points because "This is a Nintendo thread" you are acknowledging the hypocrisy in these common criticisms that happen towards Nintendo. You however just don't want to confront that.
Monopolies are a dick move regardless of the company. Confronted, dealt with, and moving back to the topic of the thread.

Because at the end of the day Escapist just has a general hive mind of hatred of Nintendo in general.
Logical fallacy -generalization. There appears to be several devout Nintendo followers on the Escapist as this thread has proven.

They don't even throw them a bone when they actually do something right. They just say "It isn't enough"
Yet Sony can get lauded and called heroes for basically allowing the very practices that Nintendo never once hinted at we wouldn't be allowed to do.
We demand that they put more mature titles on their systems. They do just that, and everyone says "Well I don't like those games" Great. Fine. But you aren't going to at least acknowledge that they are listening to you? It all boils down to not liking Nintendo. And because Escapist doesn't like Nintendo, Nintendo should be the one to have threads demanding it goes multi platform because despite the fact that Sony and Microsoft have either hinted at or have done worse things than Nintendo it seems that keeping Mario, Zelda, and Metroid all on their own consoles is the worst offense to "Anti-consumer rights!" Microsoft and "Maybe we'll change our minds later on DRM" Sony should keep their consoles, but "Nintendo games on Nintendo consoles" Nintendo should go multiplatform because it benefits me.
Microsoft DRM blows, will not be buying an Xbone.

Sony is capitalizing on MS' fuck ups, but have stated their plans. Will not be buying do to focus on social aspects.

Nintendo will not go multi-platform. Will not buy hardware because there is better hardware out there. Will not buy games because of games being tied to one console in a monopoly.

And as a consumer, I should be the one looking out for my interests because a company sure as hell aint going to.

I'm also gonna throw this gem in so you can create better, less fallacy filled, posts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
 

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
Sarge034 said:
Dragonbums said:
So basically your entire thing boiled down to it's irrelevant, and logical fallacies?
No, but if it seemed like it then it was just because you used so many.

This is a Nintendo thread however the hypocrisy in the Escapist over Nintendo is baffling. You cannot keep this as solely Nintendo because the things you complain that they are doing, everyone else does it to. Telling me that this is a Nintendo thread to defeat valid points is avoiding the issue that is rampant on the Escapist when it comes to criticizing Nintendo. I'm not allowed to point out the very thing the other big three do just as much as Nintendo does because its a "Nintendo thread?"
I have to talk about EVERYTHING when asked about Nintendo...? Ok, Anytime a game is restricted to a particular console it is a dick move. Using this logic Nintendo it leading the pack in exclusivity dick moves. Can we move on from this notion that I'm obviously a hypocrite because I don't try to derail a Nintendo thread by discussing the same practices other companies use to a lesser degree?

Sorry but plenty of people have defeated your business model before I even got started with this thread.
Incorrect. No one has actually replied to my plan. Everyone that has replied to me has assumed that I am talking about making all Nintendo software multiplatform instead of actually reading what I suggested. I even linked it to you in an earlier post.

You claim that I'm putting things in your mouth when clearly- especially with the WiiU tablet WHEN I SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT THIRD PARTY DEVS CONTINUE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT CODING FOR THE WIIU WHEN THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE TO USE THE TABLET. Where the fuck, did I say Sarge said this? Never said it. However just like the last time I made a list of reasons why third party devs don't like coding for Nintendo you continue to say "I never said that" that's great. Because I never claimed you said that either.
No, but your idea was so poorly conveyed that it seemed to be in response to my saying the console was underpowered and that it would get no dev love. However, I never said the devs would have a problem with the tablet in the first place so it is a non-issue. To that end you were, in fact, padding your argument.

Also the way you worded that phrase you basically said a good portion of those 94 million sales are from people having to buy a new one or the like. Which again is false because someone posted in another thread the fail rate of a Nintendo product. You also have to look no farther than basic forums about consoles breaking down to see that 8/10 someone will say their Xbox 360 broke. This doesn't include the fact that many of those people simply give it back to Nintendo. Thus never actually buying a completely different system.
I believe I provided a list of reasons why the console sales numbers would not equal individual consumers buying games. While the failure rate of Nintendo hardware is relevant you failed to provide either numbers or a source, and the failure rate of other consoles are irrelevant because there is no correlation or causation between the two sets of data. This is know as a "straw man" which is a logical fallacy. Stop it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

At this point you are sticking up for third party developers that have become nothing but lazy asses that only want to play with the shiniest toys.
I have? That's news to me. I thought I was explaining that if Nintendo wanted my money it would have to end the monopoly on its' games...

If the WiiU is "This gen" despite being more powerful than PS3 and Xbox 360(which makes me wonder if the Wii is in some sort of parallel dimension since it's clearly more powerful than Gamecube, and not as strong as the 360 and PS4) Then devs still shouldn't have any problem coding for it because all they've been coding "last gen" technology in games for 6 years now. They have the assets to code for "last gen" games, so what is the big problem here?
I chalk it up to pure laziness.
I never said the WiiU was this gen. I said the Wii was this gen, and the WiiU was next gen.

"The WiiU is Nintendo's next gen console so it must be compared to the PS4 and the Xbone. The Wii in the same gen as the PS3 and the 360, and is underpowered just as the WiiU is as compared to the PS4 and the Xbone."

Right there, word for word.

But keep dancing around the hypocrisy that is criticizing Nintendo on things every other company does.
Keep complaining about "anti-consumer rights!" while hoping that the one company that has NEVER strayed from the path of treating you like a valued company goes third party so you can play your games on the two consoles that can go "anti-consumer" on you.
Now hold on there. Nintendo has "NEVER strayed from the path of treating you like a valued company"? Did you mean consumer? Anyway, learn a little bout the company you are willing to give your life for.

>Nintendo was the father of modern DRM.
"Nintendo was determined not to make the same mistakes in the US that Atari had. Because of massive influxes of games that were regarded as some of the worst ever created, gaming had almost completely died out in America. Nintendo decided that to avoid facing the same problems, they would only allow games that received their "Seal of Quality" to be sold for the Famicom, using a chip called 10NES to "lockout" or prevent unlicensed games from working."

>Guess who started the trend of shitty video games adaptations into TV and movies.
"The last major blockbuster game for the NES, Super Mario Bros. 3, was released in early 1990. The game went on to sell over 18 million units and is widely considered by fans and critics alike to be perhaps the greatest 8-bit game ever made. It was followed by a licensed Television adaption named The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!, which was released by DIC Entertainment and Viacom Enterprises in that year to capitalize on the Game's immense popularity."

>Nintendo would NEVER use their considerable market influence provided by a monopoly to fix prices, right?
"As the SNES battled the Sega Genesis, Nintendo was running into problems on another front caused by their own aggressive marketing behavior. In 1991, Nintendo agreed to a settlement regarding price-fixing allegations brought by the Federal Trade Commission and attorneys general in New York and Maryland. Nintendo had been accused of threatening to cut off shipments of the NES to retailers who discounted the price of the system. The estimated cost of the settlement was just under $30 million."

>Surly Nintendo would support their hardware with adequate software...
"Many feel that the advertising onslaught by Sony at this time did not truly begin to take effect until many of the consumers who held out for the N64 became frustrated at the lack of software following the first few months after the system's release." (and Wii and WiiU)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nintendo

>And then there were the price hikes in the 90's. Chrono Trigger was $80 in 1995, that is $119.05 when inflation is taken into account.

When you tell me that I can't make valid points because "This is a Nintendo thread" you are acknowledging the hypocrisy in these common criticisms that happen towards Nintendo. You however just don't want to confront that.
Monopolies are a dick move regardless of the company. Confronted, dealt with, and moving back to the topic of the thread.

Because at the end of the day Escapist just has a general hive mind of hatred of Nintendo in general.
Logical fallacy -generalization. There appears to be several devout Nintendo followers on the Escapist as this thread has proven.

They don't even throw them a bone when they actually do something right. They just say "It isn't enough"
Yet Sony can get lauded and called heroes for basically allowing the very practices that Nintendo never once hinted at we wouldn't be allowed to do.
We demand that they put more mature titles on their systems. They do just that, and everyone says "Well I don't like those games" Great. Fine. But you aren't going to at least acknowledge that they are listening to you? It all boils down to not liking Nintendo. And because Escapist doesn't like Nintendo, Nintendo should be the one to have threads demanding it goes multi platform because despite the fact that Sony and Microsoft have either hinted at or have done worse things than Nintendo it seems that keeping Mario, Zelda, and Metroid all on their own consoles is the worst offense to "Anti-consumer rights!" Microsoft and "Maybe we'll change our minds later on DRM" Sony should keep their consoles, but "Nintendo games on Nintendo consoles" Nintendo should go multiplatform because it benefits me.
Microsoft DRM blows, will not be buying an Xbone.

Sony is capitalizing on MS' fuck ups, but have stated their plans. Will not be buying do to focus on social aspects.

Nintendo will not go multi-platform. Will not buy hardware because there is better hardware out there. Will not buy games because of games being tied to one console in a monopoly.

And as a consumer, I should be the one looking out for my interests because a company sure as hell aint going to.

I'm also gonna throw this gem in so you can create better, less fallacy filled, posts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Anything I bring up that actually goes against your points you either skirt around the issue or say it's a logical fallacy and dismiss it.
That's it. There is literally no point because you keep trying to justify why Nintendo should be the only ones to bend their backs backwards for you but the Super Star Shooters Club can do whatever the fuck they want and all you say is "well I won't buy their shit"
So do the same for Nintendo.
They won't miss you, because chances are you haven't done anything to give them financial gain in a long time.
However don't call them a monopoly for keeping their content on their own shit as exclusives because last time I checked that is literally what EVERY ONE ELSE DOES IN BUSINESS.
Oh, I'm sorry, this is a Nintendo thread. I'm not allowed to bring up the practices of other companies.
 

Sarge034

New member
Feb 24, 2011
1,623
0
0
Dragonbums said:
Anything I bring up that actually goes against your points you either skirt around the issue or say it's a logical fallacy and dismiss it.
I skirt around the issue? I thought I pointed out the logical fallacies and then proceeded to discuss the points... It seem you are the one failing to discuss, or even read, the majority of my points.

That's it. There is literally no point because you keep trying to justify why Nintendo should be the only ones to bend their backs backwards for you but the Super Star Shooters Club can do whatever the fuck they want and all you say is "well I won't buy their shit"
So do the same for Nintendo.
As I have said, all monopolies of IPs are a dick maneuver. All does not just apply to Nintendo. While I don't like, nor will buy, KH3 the fact it is an exclusive is a dick move and should stop being exclusive. Satisfied?

They won't miss you, because chances are you haven't done anything to give them financial gain in a long time.
logical fallacy.

>Appeal to probability - takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case)

However don't call them a monopoly for keeping their content on their own shit as exclusives
A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity.

I'm just calling Nintendo what it is. The fact that you can't accept the legal definition of a monopoly says volumes about your willingness to "discuss" anything.

because last time I checked that is literally what EVERY ONE ELSE DOES IN BUSINESS.
logical fallacies.

>Red herring - argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from the subject of argument.

>Wishful thinking - a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over all the devs that make multiplatform games. Remember Halo 1 and Halo 2 for the PC? Remember that list of "mature" games that were ported to Nintendo that you believed to be so important? So I guess "EVERY ONE ELSE DOES IN BUSINESS" is a false claim. Shocking... -.-

Oh, I'm sorry, this is a Nintendo thread. I'm not allowed to bring up the practices of other companies.
I put that issue to bed already. So...

Logical fallacy.

>Straw man - an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

Come back if you want to discuss the points. If you are going to continue the do or die crusade in Nintendo's name then what is the point?

Also, forgot to add Nintendo going after "lets play" revenue when you said Nintendo has never treated their consumers badly. Just for posterity's sake I put it here.
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
This has been said many times, but: because on the software realm, Nintendo is one of the best publishers around, with a steady stream of games of very good quality that people like. However, in the hardware realm, Nintendo plays catch on to other people, their consoles are bad, their online support is non-existent, their 3rd party support is pathetic and they live in their own bubble in which they don't want to compete with no one and, therefore, don't see the need to actually try harder.

Imagine a present where Steam only published Valve games. Would people buy a new PC just to play them? Its the same way most people feel about Nintendo. We just don't see the need to buy a new console to play a handful of games, regardless of their quality.
 

ThunderOne

New member
Jun 20, 2013
9
0
0
Worgen said:
Because my Nintendo stock would go through the roof. Really though, I would prefer them also making hardware since they are really the only console maker left who is really about the games. Both sony and ms seem to want to be huge multimedia devices.
I agree, they're focusing on too many different things and it's ruining the quality of other priorities.
I love Nintendo and I won't dare to give up on them :( Unless Sega comes back as first-party!..
 

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
hermes200 said:
This has been said many times, but: because on the software realm, Nintendo is one of the best publishers around, with a steady stream of games of very good quality that people like. However, in the hardware realm, Nintendo plays catch on to other people, their consoles are bad, their online support is non-existent, their 3rd party support is pathetic and they live in their own bubble in which they don't want to compete with no one and, therefore, don't see the need to actually try harder.

Imagine a present where Steam only published Valve games. Would people buy a new PC just to play them? Its the same way most people feel about Nintendo. We just don't see the need to buy a new console to play a handful of games, regardless of their quality.
But the thing is, this wouldn't affect PC sales because first and foremost a PC is used for a whole lot more than playing videogames.

Also this Steam wouldn't work at all because it would be in competition with other online store fronts at most, Steam would be simply a server host and hub website for fans of the series.

For this to work as an example with Nintendo that would have to mean that Nintendo consoles are an open platform sources like a PC; where anybody can make games for it whether Nintendo wants to or not. However, just like with PS3 and Xbox 360 that isn't how it works. All three companies make exclusives to entice consumers into buying their console. Because in the end exclusives are rights to software to put only on their hardware. Do Sony and Microsoft have more third party support than Nintendo? Yes. They do indeed. However that is just icing on the cake( a lot of icing on the cake)
However that is not to say Nintendo has NO third party support, and there is only so much a company like Nintendo can do to entice third party devs. At the end of the day, if all none but three of them want to make things for the WiiU than they are just going to work with what they got.

And this is where it leads to the issue. Sony and Microsoft have first party exclusives, however they don't really make games themselves. otherwise we would see games with labels like "Sony Entertainment" or "Microsoft Interactive" or whatever. They buy studios into their division and make them make first party titles for them. That's why Halo- an exclusive to Xbox says created by Bungie, published by Microsoft, and a Nintendo game simply says Nintendo on it. Because Nintendo itself has a videogame division that makes games for Nintendo specifically.

Add to the fact that they haven't gotten good third party support, Nintendo is the only company of the big three that relies and survives almost exclusively on their first party content. A large enough first party library that they can go through an entire consoles year by simply releasing games from their various IP's without having to retread.
For example, they only need to make ONE big Zelda game per console year, and they can focus on their smaller IPs.

Now to keep that up they have to make high quality games. For most people who don't give two shits about Nintendo at the very least they can admit it's well polished, and hardly any glitches are present in those games. Without that drive for quality than yes, Nintendo would fail.

Knowing all this, why is Nintendo obligated to go multi platform, yet the other two don't have to?
Yes, their consoles are basically a hub for their first party titles, however liked explained above, the lack of third party support results in them making more first party games to sustain themselves. So shouldn't we be advocating third party devs to make stuff for the wiiU? So they don't have to rely so much on themselves for games?
Or is it simply because it aggravates some people that Nintendo can survive on their own content?
Content that for the most part are an enjoyable experience.
Something that they can't attain unless they purchase their hardware?
 

EvilRoy

The face I make when I see unguarded pie.
Legacy
Jan 9, 2011
1,858
559
118
Forlong said:
EvilRoy said:
But isn't that an implicit admission that there is no reason to buy a nintendo console for any reason beyond the exclusives? While I remain unimpressed by my Wii and have no real interest in the Wii U I was under the impression that nintendo at least was proud of motion controls and the new tablet block controller.
Isn't that the only reason to buy a Sony or Microsoft console? I thought the reaction to the Xbox One announcement made it quite clear what people are looking for in a game console. The extra features were nice, but so many other devices already do that stuff.
You know I had half a response written, when I noticed it seemed rather familiar. This is because jeffers brought up the exact same thing to me in literally the next post, and I responded to him regarding it in the post immediately following that one. I know this thread is a rough read, but come on dude. Head in the game. Also that was like two weeks ago.
 

Loonyyy

New member
Jul 10, 2009
1,292
0
0
Negatempest said:
So from what I read correctly.
Incorrectly actually.
Your assumptions are more right than my assumptions.
Not what I said. If you want to say I've made an incorrect assumption, list it and correct it.

Even though my assumptions are that Microsoft (You wanna remember the anti-customer services?)
I do. There's no relevancy, but I remember it. I don't choose to use consoles often, or purchase them, so this bit of pointless evangelism is simply inane.

and Sony (Has Online passes in their games)
And I care not one jot.

would somehow allow Nintendo free reign in their consoles?
Free reign to sell their game. Yes. Exampe: CoD. Battlefield. Devil May Cry. Assassin's Creed. The game can be made, and sold, without fundamentally altering the game. There's no guarantee of an online pass or anything else, but even if there were, I still find that option PREFERABLE. Because that way if you don't own the Wii, you can play the game. For the sake of assauging the fanboyism: I feel exactly the same way about the exclusivity of Uncharted or Gears or War. The option to play the title without being chained to a specific console is what I'd like.

Like Nintendo wouldn't have to make even more money off of their games?
They wouldn't. You seem to be under the impression that Nintendo would be being hired by Sony or Microsoft. That's simply incorrect. Nintendo would still be their own publisher, and they'd simply be making a game for another console. But the real problem here is it's pointless fearmongering doomsaying silliness.
Since you have somehow forgotten
I haven't. You're being disingenuous, deliberately so.
that Nintendo would have to give Microsoft and Sony profit from their games.
Indeed. Which is based off the sales of the game, and licensing etc. If Nintendo's games tank on the new consoles, Microsoft and Sony don't lose out. Since you seem to be a Nintendo fan, might I remind you (Since you love that rhetorical device so much), of the mountains of third party shovelware on the Wii? Did that hurt Nintendo's bottom line? No? You mean it actually contributed to their profits, even though most of it barely sold? Because they didn't pay for it to be made, and simply authorised it for use on their consoles and essentially took a cut? *Gasp*, you mean that's exactly what MS or Sony would be doing?

More importantly, as a PC player, I'd rather they made it for PC, which involves none of that? *Gasp*, you mean all of your assumptions about me, as well as the situation, have now been shown to be irrational, fearmongering, and incorrect?
Exclusive to a console of their own means the games are to their own standard and not to others.
The same applies if they're the publisher on another console. EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc, are not beholded to the console manufacturer. That is simply not how it works.
This also means all profit made goes directly too them if it's one of their own IP.
First true, and vaguely relevant thing you've said. The question is, for Nintendo: Will they sell more multi-platform? (Probably). Will they lose sales in their shitty consoles? (Probably) Will they lose sales of their games for their console to other consoles? (Probably). Are the gains made in the first greater than the losses in the rest? (No idea).

That's important to their decision. But not to the question you asked. You asked why gamers want to see it. As a gamer, I'd like to see it, because I'd like to play Mario, and Legend of Zelda, on the platform of my choosing (PC, or failing that, my brother's console), and the question of whether it's financially viable for Nintendo is irrelevant to that.
There is no "sudden"
Quotation marks imply a quotation. No-one implied any sudden thing, and I didn't say sudden benefit. Don't do this.
benefit if the profits from the games they make in house has to be given to a different console maker.
Not for them. As I've already noted, whether it's financially viable is a combination of a few factors. But That's irrelevant to why I would WANT to see Nintendo go Multiplatform. Which is entirely about what I want. Your problem for asking that question.
 

BearShark

New member
Apr 5, 2013
61
0
0
The games they have are good, but not good enough to make me want to buy one of their consoles. However, if I could get one of those games for the PlayStation or Xbox, I would gladly go out and buy them. So, yes, I would like to see Nintendo go multi-platform.
 

FinalHeart95

New member
Jun 29, 2009
2,164
0
0
Regardless of what people want, Nintendo's swimming in a sea of money because of their hardware, so they will stay a first party developer.
 

Negatempest

New member
May 10, 2008
1,004
0
0
Loonyyy said:
Negatempest said:
So from what I read correctly.
Incorrectly actually.
Your assumptions are more right than my assumptions.
Not what I said. If you want to say I've made an incorrect assumption, list it and correct it.

Even though my assumptions are that Microsoft (You wanna remember the anti-customer services?)
I do. There's no relevancy, but I remember it. I don't choose to use consoles often, or purchase them, so this bit of pointless evangelism is simply inane.

and Sony (Has Online passes in their games)
And I care not one jot.

would somehow allow Nintendo free reign in their consoles?
Free reign to sell their game. Yes. Exampe: CoD. Battlefield. Devil May Cry. Assassin's Creed. The game can be made, and sold, without fundamentally altering the game. There's no guarantee of an online pass or anything else, but even if there were, I still find that option PREFERABLE. Because that way if you don't own the Wii, you can play the game. For the sake of assauging the fanboyism: I feel exactly the same way about the exclusivity of Uncharted or Gears or War. The option to play the title without being chained to a specific console is what I'd like.

Like Nintendo wouldn't have to make even more money off of their games?
They wouldn't. You seem to be under the impression that Nintendo would be being hired by Sony or Microsoft. That's simply incorrect. Nintendo would still be their own publisher, and they'd simply be making a game for another console. But the real problem here is it's pointless fearmongering doomsaying silliness.
Since you have somehow forgotten
I haven't. You're being disingenuous, deliberately so.
that Nintendo would have to give Microsoft and Sony profit from their games.
Indeed. Which is based off the sales of the game, and licensing etc. If Nintendo's games tank on the new consoles, Microsoft and Sony don't lose out. Since you seem to be a Nintendo fan, might I remind you (Since you love that rhetorical device so much), of the mountains of third party shovelware on the Wii? Did that hurt Nintendo's bottom line? No? You mean it actually contributed to their profits, even though most of it barely sold? Because they didn't pay for it to be made, and simply authorised it for use on their consoles and essentially took a cut? *Gasp*, you mean that's exactly what MS or Sony would be doing?

More importantly, as a PC player, I'd rather they made it for PC, which involves none of that? *Gasp*, you mean all of your assumptions about me, as well as the situation, have now been shown to be irrational, fearmongering, and incorrect?
Exclusive to a console of their own means the games are to their own standard and not to others.
The same applies if they're the publisher on another console. EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc, are not beholded to the console manufacturer. That is simply not how it works.
This also means all profit made goes directly too them if it's one of their own IP.
First true, and vaguely relevant thing you've said. The question is, for Nintendo: Will they sell more multi-platform? (Probably). Will they lose sales in their shitty consoles? (Probably) Will they lose sales of their games for their console to other consoles? (Probably). Are the gains made in the first greater than the losses in the rest? (No idea).

That's important to their decision. But not to the question you asked. You asked why gamers want to see it. As a gamer, I'd like to see it, because I'd like to play Mario, and Legend of Zelda, on the platform of my choosing (PC, or failing that, my brother's console), and the question of whether it's financially viable for Nintendo is irrelevant to that.
There is no "sudden"
Quotation marks imply a quotation. No-one implied any sudden thing, and I didn't say sudden benefit. Don't do this.
benefit if the profits from the games they make in house has to be given to a different console maker.
Not for them. As I've already noted, whether it's financially viable is a combination of a few factors. But That's irrelevant to why I would WANT to see Nintendo go Multiplatform. Which is entirely about what I want. Your problem for asking that question.
The least I can do is respond to a quote where the last post was two weeks ago, more or less.

I know better than to make assumptions that through some miracle, that every single Dev of Nintendo will stay on if they go multiplatform. We know better than that. Key developers will retire, end of story. Whether you want to admit it or not, that is what will happen. The quality of the games will not be the same. The reason I want Nintendo to stay the way it is, is because they try their best to actually make quality games that people want to keep. I would say the same for Microsoft and Sony, but they don't make anywhere near the same amount as Nintendo does. I don't count 3rd party anymore because most of them treat customers far worse than anything any 1st party has every done, but the flack they got for it is forgotten within a week. And you know that I know that you know about the many ways we have gotten screwed over. The only time we continue the flack is when they do something stupid again. But than we forget about how serious their insults are because...reasons?

Also, the Wii-U is my first Nintendo console since the NES, my ps2 library is enormous and can say the ps3 library is nowhere near as good. Also I got fed up with 3rd party business tactics during the 7th generation.